What’s Left After The Hyperbole Is Discounted?

While editing my book it struck me that I need to take an inventory of what I think the effects of global warming will be after I have discounted the hyperbole put forth by the Konsensus.

I have no problems with the IPCC projections of sea level rise–between 26cm and 98cm.

I have no problems with global average temperature rise this century of up to 2C.

keep-calm-and-muddle-through-1

So, exaggeration from the K Kids aside, what can we reasonably expect to see?

I think the IPCC is largely correct in saying that impacts in the form of extreme weather events, storm surge and increased precipitation in the form of intense rainfall will begin to show up some time between 2030 and 2040.

I think Bangladeshis and Floridians alike will have to make other plans. From Manila and Singapore to Thailand and even Vietnam, low lying areas will either get protected or submerged. It may well amount to only 0.25% of total land area affected, but that’s no consolation to those living there.

I don’t really know what to say about droughts. They are infrequent enough in specific locations to require a very long time series to understand if there’s a trend. If I understand the IPCC, that’s pretty much what they say too.

Seasons will start and end at different times. Mobile species are already changing migratory patterns and that may increase. They don’t seem particularly upset about it, however. Less mobile species will need to add climate change to the list of human caused problems they have to cope with, and for some that may be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

There are positives associated with this change, primarily in increased vegetation, fewer human deaths from cold, longer growing seasons in that part of the planet that serves as breadbasket to the world.

And that seems to be about it. What have I missed? (I want your answers, but please–no hyperbole…)

One response to “What’s Left After The Hyperbole Is Discounted?

  1. Tom,
    “Muddle through” is the exact term I used when I was interviewed in 2005 or 2006 by a BBC reporter passing through Houston on his way to some climate conference in Mexico City.
    Think of what ~100 cms actually represents: the high side of a dubious projection.
    There is no evidence based reason to assume that we are going to see a significant departure from ~3mms per year: the low side of the range. Just like temperature.
    All low lying areas world wide have always had to be raised or defeneded against sea level rise and erosion and subsidence. The difference between now and then is an apparent refusal by many world governments to use well known engineering solutions to these historic well described problems. The excuse they give is CO2.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s