Being more worried about something else doesn't stop one being worried about the original thing, right? The earth may have been warmer before but humans weren't around, so earlier warmth was obviously not catastrophic to humans but perhaps now it would be?
The earth has been just as warm if not warmer only ~600 years ago. We were fine. Of course you could argue the medieval warming period was not as warm as it is now, but I take the middle ground, which is to say the medieval warming period was just as warm as it is now (the more controversial positions are that the medieval warming period was warmer than it is now, or that the medieval warming period was less warm than it is now). Anyways, the earth has DEFINITELY been warmer than it was now ~12 thousand years ago. Humans have been around for ~50 thousand years. Cool periods have been associated with scarcity and death and warming periods have been associated with plenty and wealth in history. I am glad we are living in a warm period as opposed to a mini ice age, but according to the solar activity, we could be very well headed into an ice age and like the geologists say "let's pray it is a dalton minimum and not a maunder minimum".
Do the models look at yearly fluctuations or at longer term trends? Do errors in predicting yearly fluctuations indicate that there will be errors predicting longer trends?
If they are unable to model climate on a small scale, I have doubts they can model the climate on a large scale. They have been talking about 'trends' as of late, but their predictions are failing as of now. Also 100 years isn't really that much of a trend, especially if you're a geologist, that's like less time than a blink of an eye.
But that 1% could be the difference between good and bad consequences, right? It doesn't take a large change to trigger an avalanche.
A very large number of things can cause avalanches and if there is 'less snow' in general, then there would be less avalanches. From my understanding, extreme rainfall, earthquakes, and human disturbances can trigger an avalanche. Although I have to admit, avalanches are quite complex:
Avalanches can only occur in a standing snow pack. Typically winter seasons and high altitudes have weather that is sufficiently unsettled and cold enough for precipitated snow to accumulate into a snow pack. The evolution of the snow pack is critically sensitive to small variations within the narrow range of meteorological conditions that allow for the accumulation of snow into a snow pack. Among the critical factors controlling snow pack evolution are: heating by the sun, radiational cooling, vertical temperature gradients in standing snow, snowfall amounts, and snow types. Generally, mild winter weather will promote the settlement and stabilization of the snow pack; and conversely very cold, windy, or hot weather will weaken the snow pack.
At temperatures close to the freezing point of water, or during times of moderate solar radiation, a gentle freeze-thaw cycle will take place. The melting and refreezing of water in the snow strengthens the snow pack during the freezing phase and weakens it during the thawing phase. A rapid rise in temperature, to a point significantly above the freezing point of water, may cause a slope to avalanche, especially in the spring.
Persistent cold temperatures can either prevent the snow from stabilizing or destabilize a snow pack. Cold air temperatures on the snow surface produce a temperature gradient in the snow, because the ground temperature at the base of the snow pack is close to freezing; unless the snow pack is standing on glaciated terrain, in which case the temperature at the base of the snow pack can be significantly below freezing. When a temperature gradient greater than 10oC change per vertical meter of snow is sustained for more than a day depth hoar will form in the snow pack, through the thermal transport of moisture away from the depth hoar along the temperature gradient, from bottom to top. This layer of depth hoar becomes a persistent weakness in the snow pack, characterized by faceted grains forming either above or below crusts and slabs. When a slab lying on top of this persistent weakness is loaded by a force above the tensile and ductile strength of the slab and the shear strength of the persistent weak layer, the persistent weak layer will fail and generate an avalanche.
I remember my classmates doing a project on it. But the thing is, too warm or too cold climate can cause avalanches.
Being more worried about something else doesn't stop one being worried about the original thing, right? The earth may have been warmer before but humans weren't around, so earlier warmth was obviously not catastrophic to humans but perhaps now it would be?
Catastrophic? I suppose port cities are worried about it, but global warming is hardly catastrophic, and that BS about GW being related to a higher number of hurricanes is just bunk. Also there are ways of holding back water, japan has been doing this successfully for many years.
Also, I repeat:
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings where and when are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." - top NASA official, Michael Griffin
