That would send the climate into a deep cold spell.
— frank

No sign of that actually occuring, though. It's a theoretical possibility, but the evidence doesn't support it. — Quixodian

It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak. So yes, it's a distinct possibility. The evidence supports it.

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits.

In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt.

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits.

In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt. — Agree to Disagree

All perfectly respectable viewpoints.

It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak. — frank

Let's hope.

It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak.
— frank

Let's hope. — Quixodian

What? It would be beyond catastrophic if it happened again.

Sure. Nobody is crying wolf, though. The oceanic heat conveyor is slowing down now because of ice entering the north Atlantic. Does that prospect frighten you? — frank

I am more worried about population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, and cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics.

It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak.
— frank

Let's hope.
— Quixodian

What? It would be beyond catastrophic if it happened again. — frank

Well, you seemed confident! And one would have thought a global cooling event could at least serve as a counterweight to catastropic heating.

I am more worried about population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, and cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics. — Agree to Disagree

Okey dokey.

Well, you seemed confident! And one would have thought a global cooling event could at least serve as a counterweight to catastropic heating. — Quixodian

Yea, no.

For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. — Agree to Disagree

scaremongering — Agree to Disagree

But which kills more, heat or cold? — Agree to Disagree

And the climate denial just keeps on coming.

shellacking next year — Quixodian

Let’s hope.

Since this thread has devolved into stupidity, let me try to bring it back to reality:

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.

Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

"The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since pre-Industrial times (starting in 1750).1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

— from the “alarmists” and “scaremongers” of NASA, who definitely don’t know as much as the climate deniers (oops, I mean “skeptics”) on this thread.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits — Agree to Disagree

This is not like some sort of balancing act though as if you win some and lose some.

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means.
— ChatteringMonkey

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits.

In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt. — Agree to Disagree

I agree it's going to be hard to stop global warming, and I agree there are some real tradeoffs (not necessarily between heating and cooling, but between climate change and the economy which is based on fossil fuels), but It's not an all or nothing deal, there are degrees of warming we could mitigate. At the very least we should try to avoid a good amount of the additional warming, as much as possible given other factors that we should take into account (like the economy).

And as I said it's not only about the problems and benefits of heat vs cold, it's also the rapid change of climate that causes problems in itself... The idea of an impoverished biosphere for the next couple of millennia at least is enough to give me pause.

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. — ScienceDaily

And the climate denial just keeps on coming. — Mikie

Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold?

I provided links to where I got the information from. Can you provide links to dispute the claim that cold kills more than heat?

Or could it be that you are in denial of the facts?

Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold? — Agree to Disagree

Is it a numbers game? A scorecard? Tens of thousands have died in European heatwaves the last few years. Find me a story on ‘increased deaths through global cooling’.

Since this thread has devolved into stupidity, let me try to bring it back to reality: — Mikie

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed.

Mikie, are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things? — Agree to Disagree

Yeah! I joined a forum, and there’s an anonymous poster who says they might be wrong. So they’re wrong! It’s obvious, really.

As far as I’m concerned, you’re trolling, and you can take that as a warning.

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means.
— ChatteringMonkey

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits. — Agree to Disagree

Here's another example of why it's not only about heat vs cold :

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/08/storm-hans-causes-havoc-in-norway-with-heaviest-rain-in-25-years-forecast

More heat causes the atmosphere to take up more humidity, which in turn causes more extreme weather like storms and floods. We used to have very few of these in Europe.

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits
— Agree to Disagree

This is not like some sort of balancing act though as if you win some and lose some. — Benkei

Surely it is a balancing act.

There are some countries which are better off because of the small amount of global warming that we have had. They have a nicer climate, less people die from cold, they have lower heating cost, they have a longer growing season, etc

You seem to want them and other countries to miss out on the benefits of present and any future warming. What gives you the right to deny them the benefits that they have gained.

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?
— Agree to Disagree

Yeah! I joined a forum, and there’s an anonymous poster who says they might be wrong. So they’re wrong! It’s obvious, really. — Quixodian

So how do we know that they are not wrong again?

Just because I am an anonymous poster doesn't make me wrong.

Hold on a minute. Aren't you an anonymous poster?

Hold on a minute. Aren't you an anonymous poster? — Agree to Disagree

No, I'm a moderator, and well known to all the staff and posters here. I notice that all of your comments, bar one, on this forum, have been on this topic, and that all of them are essentially calling climate change science into question. I will discuss this with the other moderators.

Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold?
— Agree to Disagree

Is it a numbers game? A scorecard? Tens of thousands have died in European heatwaves the last few years. — Quixodian

Are the people who die from cold less important than the people who die from heat? Did you read the information that I provided links to?

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather — ScienceDaily

deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells. — ScienceDaily

Heatwaves are not as deadly as has been assumed — TheGuardian

Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a reduction in cold deaths. — TheBreakThrough

Even isolating deaths associated with heat, in most locations, deaths have been decreasing over time despite warming. — TheBreakThrough

Hold on a minute. Aren't you an anonymous poster?
— Agree to Disagree

No, I'm a moderator, and well known to all the staff and posters here. I notice that all of your comments, bar one, on this forum, have been on this topic, and that all of them are essentially calling climate change science into question. I will discuss this with the other moderators. — Quixodian

Is it a crime to be very interested in a particular topic?

All of my posts are civil, I provide evidence, and I don't call people names.

Isn't this forum meant to be about the free exchange of ideas?

I have said that I believe that climate-change/global warming is happening. I am discussing the details. Challenging peoples beliefs in a civil way makes for a robust discussion.

I see your point, but at the same time, I am of the view that the facts that you are calling into question are beyond dispute. As I've said, I've put it to the other moderators, I'll leave it at that for now.

I see your point, but at the same time, I am of the view that the facts that you are calling into question are beyond dispute. As I've said, I've put it to the other moderators, I'll leave it at that for now. — Quixodian

Thank you for considering my point. For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute.

Are the people who die from cold less important than the people who die from heat? — Agree to Disagree

This is a spurious comparison, regardless of the statistics. It's a version of whataboutism - 'what about the cold?'

For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute. — Agree to Disagree

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Are you here pretending this hasn't been extensively dealt with in the IPCC? The limited local benefits are far outweighed by the negatives. It's not a balancing act at all. We overwhelmingly lose.

Are you here pretending this hasn't been extensively dealt with in the IPCC? The limited local benefits are far outweighed by the negatives. It's not a balancing act at all. We overwhelmingly lose. — Benkei

If you look at the 2022 IPCC impact report, you'll see that they examine adaptation prospects. In other words, even the IPCC has begun to be skeptical about avoiding climate change. It may be that we win by adapting.

How is it winning exactly if I must spend resources on adaptation when I'd rather spend time on leisure?

You have a right to think whatever you want. — frank

Says who? And with what authority? It has always been the case and will always be the case that one does not have the right to think what one likes. If one thinks that all Jews should be exterminated, or that children need introducing to sex by pedophiles. one ought to be locked up, and very likely will be sooner or later.

I have no doubt peddling lies about the climate will be similarly regarded once the effects of climate change begin to bite and the megadeath toll begins to mount.