... love the global warming.
(Via Instapundit.)
There's a reason why you don't hear much talk on this subject. I'm tempted to say the reason is people don't really believe global warming is happening. But leave that to the side.
The reason is that when [IF!] global warming sets in, there will be winners and losers, and those who predict that they will win understand the value of circumspection and restraint. It's best for the Russians and the Canadians to keep quiet about the coming riches and pleasures. Don't prematurely rouse the future's losers. Global warming is a growling lamb.
Go ahead. Argue with me. I'm ready for the malign blog war.
ADDED: For the purposes of this discussion, assume global warming will occur.
२४ डिसेंबर, २०१०
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२७ टिप्पण्या:
The reason is that when global warming sets it...
It's not going to happen, so if you want to argue with me, we can start right there.
The whole to-do is about disempowering the carboniferously well endowed.
End of argument.
Wait a minute:
You just did a post a few days ago about how it was all based on beliefs, because no matter what happens they claim it's AGW, and now you're coming with this? Sheesh.
I'm not going to argue with you because, based on how you change course and beliefs yourself, what in the world would be the point of it?
"You just did a post a few days ago about how it was all based on beliefs, because no matter what happens they claim it's AGW, and now you're coming with this?"
That's why I said "But leave that to the side" so we could focus on this other matter.
I originally had "when/if gw sets in" but thought that was distracting. I'll put that back because you were distracted by its absence.
I'm trying to set up a post that discusses another issue.
Please put the question whether there will be global warming to the side. Assume global warming... okay?
No need for maligning, unless it is to call you out on such arrogant hubris as to think that insignificant mankind can make the world do or not do anything.
Besides, any effect that humanity's activities have on the climate is entirely wiped out by nature itself. One or two vulcanos or a single period of changed sunspot activity will completely undo a hundred years of economy-destroying, poverty-inducing "green" regulations. And all that misery that the green fascists created, obstensibly in order to prevent harm to people, will have gone for nought.
The earth's temperatures rise and fall all of the time. The rise is very good for everyone, and always has been, because it means abundant food to increase an abundant population that can become an abundant base of customers raising kids. The mentality seeking to STOP warming is the old Malthusian error that only appeals to Nazis among us who want the surplus people killed so that they can steal their stuff. The now debunked Hoax science they based their right to stop all energy usages because they are "Dirty" would be funny if the people just woke up and asked questions rather than trusting "science" as if it has the answers to everything.But living in a delusion is what happens when Christian beliefs are aborted along with babies and the remains of free speech in the internet.
professor, if you assume the worst of AGW like say Al Gore, then low lying cities all get flooded, 50% of species die and we're all pretty much fucked.
"It's not going to happen, so if you want to argue with me, we can start right there."
No. This is exactly what I don't want to do with this post. We've done that already.
Rising temps would be tolerated well by humans, a most resilient species.
There'd be more places to farm, for one. Some places would become deserts, but replaced by unfrozen northern regions.
We'd get along fine, but the hysterics will gnash their teeth and wail for the need to be chastised.
I wish they'd just turn that urge into some private sexual kink, rather than foisting it on the rest of us.
From the best social commentary television show of the past 15 years, King of the Hill:
Dale Gribble: [regarding global warming] I say let the world warm up...we'll grow oranges in Alaska.
Hank Hill: Dale you giblet head, we live in Texas. It's already 110 in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter I'm gonna kick your ass!
That's the thing, nobody actually lives on "the whole globe" and therefore global warming can't possibly be bad or good for everyone. If we took a vote, I would expect that measures that would actually curb global warming would lose by 5,990,000,000 votes.
Let's assume an asteroid from space hits Paris while we are at the best fantasy creation games.
Imagine next year is exactly like this year, but 1 degree F warmer at all times. Would you notice? Would you care?
Of course, with global warming the extra heat occurs mostly at night and in winter, which makes it even less noticeable.
We don't deserve our climate.
It doesn't need to get much hotter for catastrophic results to occur. F.e., a little bit warmer and too many glaciers melt, thus freeing up fresh drinking water in places like the Himalayas.
Look, I've read through the entire lease. There is no mention of either the lessor or lessee being required to maintain the climate.
I think it's inevitable that our allies, enemies and everyone in between will benefit from our quiescence in the face of the AGW scam. The U.S. has systematically destroyed real science education in the schools. There is no way a teenager brought up on "An Inconvenient Truth" will ever understand his environment. That institutionalized ignorance will cripple us down the road.
If the GOP begins to recognize the fact that a scientist can have credible views, then it will have shot in 2012. The main scientist who started the global warming effort was a Republican. But, that was in the past. Today he would left the GOP.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html?
The GOP is finished. The party of living dead. No victory in 2012 for WH. Even knowing this in 2010, there is nothing the GOP can do. Not-A-Thing.
If there was global warming then clearly Russia and Canada are big winners. Denmark too, don't they still own Greenland?
In reality, global warming will have different effects depending on the cause of it: If it comes from solar activity, then heating is due to lack of clouds. This makes the arctic colder though since clouds insulate at night and reflect sunlight in the daytime. The arctic is already covered with snow, which is very reflective, so clouds cause the arctic to be warmer and lack of clouds, colder.
now if warming is due to CO2, then the arctic and everywhere else will be warmer on average.
Once you get a population inversion, it gets colder as you add heat.
That's probably what's happening now.
The Polynesians, in the meantime, can get back in their canoes and move someplace else.
Where would you guys like to retire?
Or just during the winter season?
My parents have opted for Arizona and have a great group of friends down there.
I am thinking of Bali in the winters in Montreal in the summers, trekking around the coast of Maine with a small cottage in Bar Harbor.
I really want to go Global during my sunset years and for a fag those years are 40-50, than you disappear.
When you consider the terrifying consequences of an ice-free polar cap, shouldn't we err on the side of extremism to save the planet? I don't think we can wait even a minute. Start powering down your PCs NOW.
Also, if you all could be doves and make sure you EAT before attending any Holiday Food Fests. Eat healthy, think smoothies, fresh vegies and fruit.
Don't go to the fest famished. You will pig out and gain some added extra weight that you will regret.
Thanks dolls.
A 3-4F rise in average temperatures would barely be noticeable, much less catastrophic. And even by the NOAA's admittedly questionable "adjusted" temperature records, US temperatures have risen an average of .12F per decade since 1895 so there's really not a damn thing to worry about. If this keeps up, Madison will have Springfield, IL's climate in a few hundred years. That's about it.
As a Canadian citizen, and resident of North America's most northern million-person-plus city, this is pretty common attitude here.
I don't know anyone who believes that global warming is a threat to us. A common neighborly greeting over snow shovels after a fresh dump of snow often is often:
"Nice global warming we're having here, huh?", to which the counter party will snicker, and lament the lack thereof.
I'd be delighted to see a milder climate here. I love to grow fruit trees, and while there are some hardy varieties that do well in this area (horticultural climate zones 2-3 if anyone cares), it's a risky endeavor.
Canada and Siberia have monstrous swathes of land that currently are not arable due to the harsh climate. To move the line even a little bit north would open up hundreds of thousands of farmable acres.
IF global warming is occurring, then there really isn't a whole lot we can do about it. It's one of those "tragedy of the commons" situations. Even if we cut our carbon emissions to zero and went back to feudal, pre-industrial lifestyle (with the accompanying famine killing of most of the population), it still wouldn't affect the changing climate by more than a miniscule amount. China and India wouldn't even be affected by Kyoto-style reductions, and they are far worse polluters than we are -- and there are far more of them than there are of us.
In any case, the climate is always in a state of flux. It has been both much warmer and much colder in the past than it is now. Sea levels have been much higher and much lower than they are now. The notion that we can control the clmate is laughable hubris, akin to King Canute trying to fight the tides.
If and when the climate changes, then we'll adapt as we always have down. Humans are amazingly adaptable.
Clyde - this is more about turning America into Romania then saving the environment.
One good thing about the AGW hoax is that it illustrates that when one gives an inch to an extremist, they always take a mile.
Think about the last decade or two. We've seen entire industries spring up, massive crackdowns on personal behavior and even spent billions of taxpayer dollars (while the taxpayers themselves were being foreclosed on and their businesses shuttered) on media/education blitzes to appease the Greenies, and what do they always say? That we've done NOTHING!
They'll always say we've done nothing, so the faster we start ignoring them and begin undoing the damage they've done (both economically and intellectually) the better.
Bigger harvests in Wisconsin and Minnesota. No more oranges damaged in Florida. Four harvests a year in tropical zones
Better health. People is getting older in Europe and the non hispanic USA and warm is good for health. Thats why people rush to Arizona and Florida in their old age.
Less incidence of flu and medication for tropical diseases will be finally discovered and developed. Tropical countries only whine but invest nothing in tropical diseases research. They pretend developed countries aka the USA have the duty to make research almost useless for them. Whit a bigger tropical zone , the USA will do the research neglected by the corrupts governments of the South.
peta will be pleased because fur will be a real useless luxury.
The nature of mankind is to constantly move - we forget that those lines on a map and "heat maps" of population density are far from stable.
GW is a good thing for our planet and our species - and it won't happen over night. People will migrate, new weather patterns will emerge, and we'll adapt.
What's up with the mentality that if the status quo isn't maintained, all hell will break loose. How progressive is that?
What we should be learning is climate mastery - how will we manage to keep our species alive if we can't control the climate? Why not learn how to prevent tornadoes and hurricanes through macro-weather management? Wouldn't that allow for us to feed 10-20 billion people by benefitting crops?
Further, how are we going to populate new worlds if we can't even learn how to control and protect our own?
The short-sightedness of the entire debate is painful to watch.
The strange part of this discussion is that we already know what happens by contrasting New York state and Georgia. The better life is now here in the south that averages 95f in summer months while it is 75 in the north. The folks are moving this way. There is joy and satisfaction as the crops flourish and the folks are air conditioned with cheap power. Why do we want to fix what isn't broken, ASSUMING global warming is happening, as it snows for the first Christmas in Atlanta since 1886.
Global warming we can handle; global cooling now, that would be a disaster, even a slight one like "The Little Ice Age" of the 1600's.
And no one knows which it is going to be in our lifetimes, since no one yet has any general explanation(s) for the climate swings of the past.
It goes to motive.
This Romania?
http://www.news1130.com/news/world/article/161024--romanian-man-flings-himself-from-parliament-balcony-in-apparent-anti-austerity-protest
Incidentally, our 95f summer is where the sale of ice cold Coca-cola began, so Global warming should make Coca-cola stock into a big winner.
I would do the weather man Reynolds Wolf from CNN. He is hot. Global Warming HOT.
Ann,
Please put the question whether there will be global warming to the side. Assume global warming... okay?
Okay, but, next, can we play the game where we frame NewAge Naziism as a real phenomenon?
There are Santa Sightings in Europe right now.
How exciting!!!!!
I have a feeling Nebraska may become the new Gotham. The Canadians will always find a way to let the Yanks grab all the goodies.
Ann Althouse said...
Global warming is a growling lamb.
Is that anything like Bernard Montgomery's savage rabbit?
WV "vomet" Astral projectile
Winter is here, which means we are about to be inundated with global warming stories. This one not from a British tabloid though, which is odd.
I don't really think serious global warming, AGW or just plain GW is really happening, but for the sake of argument I don't think it would be that bad.
There was that period during the middle ages where the temperature was much hotter than today and crops did much better. There were vineyards up into Scotland, and life seems to have done quite well. So as far as medieval cultures go, a hotter climate was very positive. I'm not sure how it would translate to today's cultures, but most people seem to gravitate to warmer climates, so probably would do okay.
from Wikipedia, entry Hyperborea:
Amber arrived in Greek hands from some place known to be far to the north. Avram Davidson[9] proposed the theory that Hyperborea was derived from a logical (though erroneous) explanation by the Greeks for the fact that embedded inside the amber arriving in their cities by trade with northern, cold countries were insects which obviously originated in a warm climate.
Not aware of the explanation offered by modern science (i.e. that these insects had lived in times when the climate of northern Europe was much warmer, their bodies preserved unchanged in the amber) the Greeks came up with the idea that north countries being cold was due to the cold breath of Boreas, the North Wind. Therefore, should one be able to get "beyond Boreas" one would find a warm and sunny land.
Give us global warming and the obvious beneficiaries will be the people between the 45th parallel and the Arctic Circle. Not too hot in the summer, not so damn cold in the winter. Lower heating costs in the winter, but probably not insane cooling costs in the summer. Good for tourism, good for farming, good for spirits. On the other hand, (pre?)history tells us there'll be more bugs.
Once, Hyperborea was thought to be a Greek myth. Now we know it was actually a reality, but of a distant past, even to them. It can be a reality again.
Obvious winners are Scandinavia, Northern Europe and Canada. The most interesting consequence, though, might be Russia becoming a maritime power. Look at all that coastline along the Arctic Sea.
Althouse:
"Please put the question whether there will be global warming to the side. Assume global warming... okay?"
And that right there is the entire foundation of global warming "science."
For the purposes of this discussion assume that vanished ice sheets are not a sign of warming.
I think that science is arrogant for presuming that ignorance need not be the natural state of affairs.
Funny how "Global Warming" is the first scientific discovery that needs billions of dollars worth of public relations campaigns and thousands of celebrity endorsements to "prove" it.
In the olden days, we just used more science.
"...assume global warming will occur. "
Well, we could assume being struck by an asteroid. That would be more interesting and more likely. But OK, lets assume. Now, how much warming do we assume? That is key to the discussion. Assume enough, and you get "Al Gore" effects. Assume a reasonable amount and there are minimal noticeable effects. (Indistinguishable from the routine variations caused by solar variability.)
We should then look to prior warm periods for guidance. We can state that the area of agricultural abundance will extend to the north in our hemisphere. Will Greenland return to being an agricultural paradise? Probably not, unless things get really warm. But for our local areas, figure on the "corn line" moving north in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Meade might be able to grow peaches in Madison.
Yeah, gotta learn to compose my comments someplace besides the effed up blogger comments form. Had a nice one done up, and again, it was eaten. But then, it pretty much agreed with the Proffesor. . . shorter version
"The planet is warming, oh noes!"
"yeah, and? Burp and deal with it, cause it's something you can't 'fix', Paco. So calm down and stop asking me to give you money to try"
Everyone knows that heavier snowfalls are a sign of colder weather! How else do you think more water evaporates into the air so as to fall as snow? Colder temperatures, that's how!
It's as simple as 1 + 3 = 2.5.
Assume that increased droughts, desertification and floods are a good thing. Assume that Siberia and Canada are ours for the taking.
For purposes of this discussion, assume a monkey will fly out of your butt.
The entire argument that global warming would be devastating always rested on Prof. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph. But the hockey stick was discrediting long ago, when McKitrick and McIntyre shredded the statistical methods used by Mann. (Elsewhere it's been demonstrated that Mann's software produces a "hockey stick" even when fed uncorrelated data.)
I don't know what will happen when -- if! -- Montana and North Dakota get two growing seasons. But I don't think it will be bad.
I will continue this debate when the Keeling curve hits 400 parts per million, which is projected to be around 2014 and the results of climate change will be more noticeable. This year the climate change scientist have been accurate with predictions of below normal temps in Europe and Siberia, and I suspect further changes will get more folks attention. Our problem is that our short life spans prevent us from seeing very far into the future.
Montana and North Dakota...
Maybe we can revive the cotton industry and import displaced Polynesians up there to do the slave-wage labor it requires. Kind of like in the old days but less plantation-y.
Seriously, we're better off putting a real workforce for manual labor into the things that matter, such as manufacturing. But that might require us to take our energy crisis seriously and to invest in researching and developing it as heavily as we do curing a smoker's cancer or an obese couch potato's heart disease.
The question is, why do we consider the current climate to be optimum?
There is an equal chance that warming will provide greater abundance, and a more giving planet than the current state.
rhhardin said:
"Once you get a population inversion, it gets colder as you add heat. That's probably what's happening now.'
Really? Did you even read the Wikipedia article you linked? It's about how lasers work, you chucklehead. Do you really think the Earth is lasing and no one but you has noticed?
Our problem is that our short life spans prevent us from seeing very far into the future.
rv - you are as afflicted by short lifespan as the rest of us. You do not have some special powers to divine the future better then the rest of us. I will err on the side of prosperity rather then self-imposed poverty.
J.R.'s here to ask why 10,000 years of an agricultural equilibrium shouldn't be f%$^ed with.
I'm interested in going further. Why should water, light and soil be necessary for life in the first place? And, why even use DNA as the code of life?
I ask the Intelligent Designer: Why must these things be so?
"For purposes of tyranny and control over you puny monkey-like creatures," he thunderously bellowed back at me! "That's why!"
There is a huge amount of global warming "science" that is about forecasting dire consequences due to global warming. Many of the forecast consequences are laughably lame. One example is food shortages and famine. Assume traditional crops fail due to global warming. Genetically modified crops will be developed that work in the warmer climate. People will eat them rather than starve.
Apparently Alex is rebelling against that horrid little thing you call reason, Roesch. He sees it as a tool to impede prosperity.
wv: binsfavo
AGW was put to rest when someone asked the President of The Maldives how much property values in his country have dropped.
Answer: They haven't. They're still rising.
Imagine next year is exactly like this year, but 1 degree F warmer at all times. Would you notice?
I would notice. I garden.
I think Europe is the loser with Global Warming -- Europe and Bangladesh. Bangladesh is inundated by stronger cyclones, and Europe is colder as the Gulf Stream shift south.
Greenland is turning green again for the first time in 1100 years. They didn't have to import grain this year to feed local sheep. If Greenland had never been green this might be something to be concerned about, but it seems like some kind of normal distribution. Why do we want Greenland to be piled up with ice? Obama is always screaming about how green he is, but if he is, why doesn't he want Greenland to be green?
Perhaps the Maldives never heard of a real estate bubble.
Everyone knows that free markets are bubble-proof. It's only governments that remove our natural immunity to bubbles.
It's pretty remarkable that people who still haven't figured out Erik the Red's marketing ploy 1,000 years ago are prone to buying the crap fed to them by sharks similarly interested in selling them every variation/equivalent of the proverbial Brooklyn Bridge.
On malibu Canyon Road (the road closest to the ocean), there has low turnover of houses. No one in Malibu is running from the rising waters;
No one has moved out of the Manhattan Island ahead of the rising waters;
Both areas vote for democrats since 1972 or longer.
However, if AGW is real, won't humans adapt to the change in temps?
It seems to be, that to believe in AGW, you have to disbelieve in evolution.
And that the Democrats don't practice what they preach.
No one in the red states are running from their local meth labs, either.
To move the line even a little bit north would open up hundreds of thousands of farmable acres.
I think that you are underestimating this by a bit. My back of the envelope calculation a year or so ago showed maybe a billion acres for 200 miles, which is a bit.
Keep in mind that there are 640 acres to the square mile, and so just figure out the length around the globe of the snow/frozen line across Canada and Russia/Siberia in miles, and multiply by the 640.
In any case, it is a surprisingly big number. The big issue here is that the land masses on this planet are shaped so that the maximum amount of land covered by a latitude line is in the north. The Arctic Circle, at 66 1/3 degrees north is almost 10,000 miles long, and it looks to cover mostly land. I would guess, maybe 8,000 miles or so of land at that latitude. Which means approximately 5 million acres per mile.
This may be a bit optimistic, since the Arctic Circle is really (right now) a fair distance beyond the point where we can farm. But down around 60 degrees north, there is still a lot of the land on latitude line. This is approximately the latitude of Anchorage and Oslo.
Even if I assume Global Warming, I would not support measures being put forward. They are extremely damaging to mankind, very expensive, virtually impossible to make work due to our limited ability to actually do them and force others to follow.
The recently passed California cap and trade law is a perfect example. It will cost the state's citizens enormous amounts of money, probably over 1 million jobs,
And to accomplish what? The effected businesses will simply move to neighboring states, or import from China where the production will be much more polluting before it blows right back across the Pacific to California.
So we vote to make enormous sacrifices, with the end result being more pollution and poverty. What effect on global temperature will the California sacrifice produce? Less 1 degree?, less 0.00001 degree, or plus some amount. If you know these things, which we all do, then pushing the sacrifices is not merely a stupid religion, it's an evil one.
It's evil to shoot your self in the foot, and your neighbors too, in an attempt to prevent global walking.
"I would notice. I garden."
I also garden, and more to the point I work with construction materials that depend entirely on temperature, humidity, etc. to work properly. If the average temperature one year (literally averaging the 365 calendar days by their noon-time temp.) rose one degree it would be absolutely meaningless.
I'm a mathematician, but because I work as an associate dean in the college office, I work with a bunch of geologists. One of them, when I asked him about this, pointed to a map of the world and said something like this. "Note the configuration of the continents as they are now -- all that land mass in northern latitudes. We'll be fine with a little warming. It's global cooling that we couldn't handle."
Minnesotans for Global Warming.
I think their first song was the best.
Set the flamingo free!
Bruce Hayden: I agree about your math on the number of potential additional arable acres (the numbers I did in my head were similar, but I thought it seemed too large so I rounded way down :). Part of the reason most people won't care is we don't use all of the current arable land for farming, due to increased agricultural efficiency over the last century.
I don't know why a few people here are so hostile to the idea that global warming may not be completely evil. Many people in marginal climates would live more comfortable lives.
In my area (53rd parallel), a retired provincial plant pathologist teaches horticultural classes at the local botanical gardens. He showed me the data on local Corn Heat Units for the last 30 years. In the 90's it ranged from 2200 to 2400 and he got spectacular fruit to grow. Lovely cherries and plums, even apricots many years.
In the 2000's we've had much colder summers, with heat units in the 1800 range. There is a substantial reduction in what plants succeed between these ranges.
We're not seeing much in the way of additional warmth here, so it's annoying to hear people talk about how we need to further reduce our standard of living and self determination to maintain the status quo. What if they're successful and it stays like this? More warm please.
Also: I'd take the global warming crowd more seriously if they considered multiple solutions to their perceived problems. If it cools down instead of warming up, will be able to virtuously drive SUV's again? I didn't think so.
Global warming effects.
If it cools down instead of warming up, will be able to virtuously drive SUV's again?
No. The latest scientific consensus is that global warming causes unpleasantly cold weather as well as unpleasantly warm weather, so sorry, no SUVs for you no matter what the weather does.
So, could global warming result in a return of rainfall to the Sahara? Now that could cause some good results for Africa.
The bad results will come to those who cripple their economies under the misguided notion that they can stop climate change. Better to concentrate on stopping asteroids. That will be a lot easier, and has a lot more upside.
Humans will adapt to warming. A new ice age--not so much.
In the end though, this is nothing new at all. People have been talking about the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland being Green, and the fact that most of us remember learning about glacial "ice age" periods, and also Lake Agassiz.
I wonder if children are taught about glaciers pushing down through the midwest so much anymore. Or maybe it was just a little hard to miss when it was so much fun to pick boulders out of the fields every spring.
In any case, can you imagine if during the ice age scare of not so long ago someone actually managed to do something that would have warmed us up?
It's ridiculous to think that humans can do something to affect the climate of the entire world, and terrifying to think that they could.
Because no one knows or *can* know if preventing an ice age is more important than preventing warming or if our "help" would be our doom.
But it's politically useful to have that very big stick.
In the mean time, from History, we *know* that warmer is better. Warmer tends to be wetter. We can't know that it would be, but claims of expanded deserts are just as spurious.
Since you haven't noticed half the fun, I'm going to ride my big grown llama down to the Bag Woman Grill and get drunk on Lib Lawman grog.
Just to be helpful and a No Label politician, I will be willing to have control over all oil, gas and coal rationing. And I can then guarantee you that the globe will cool. If not then we can just pretend that there is no warming in Baghdad. And no complaints will be tolerated or your heat rations during the coldest winters in recorded history will be cut in half, suckers.
Right now people live where they live, work at what they do, and have built what they have built based on what the climate has been like over the last hundred years or so.
Because of this, I think there is a rebuttable presumption that, on average, global warming would be negative for people.
Wonderful opportunities would be opened up for some people, but others would be SOL. A lot of Bangldeshi peasants are going to find their land underwater. Of course, humans are adaptable, and a lot of them lead physically unpleasant lives. Most Bangladeshi peasants would probably rather have a city job; as they used to say around here: "indoor work, no heavy lifting."
Really? Did you even read the Wikipedia article you linked? It's about how lasers work, you chucklehead. Do you really think the Earth is lasing and no one but you has noticed?
It's not about lasers but about population inversion and negative temperatures. See?
By injecting energy into these systems in the right fashion, it is possible to create a system in which there are more particles in the higher energy states than in the lower ones. The system can then be characterised as having a negative temperature
More energy, lower temperature.
That explains why CO2 is making it colder by trapping heat.
Everybody's right.
Could you please repeat that Professor. Is that code or are you merrily drunk to mourn the passing of Jimmy Dean into sausage heaven?
We'll be over run with brown polar bears
I'm too afraid of desertification, massive pollution of the water, mammalian extinction, and a dearth of bees.
wv: ankleg -- the [man] who checked your socks for money and credit cards
@Conservatives_4_Better..., when were the Polynesian islands settled? Because it's a matter of both historical record and archeological evidence that from prior to 1000 AD (when Greenland was discovered by Europeans) until some time circa 1400 Greenland was capable of supporting European colonists using nothing more than normal European medieval farming technology. Even today that can't be done on Greenland.
So, bottom line, if the Polynesian islands will be submerged in the near future, then they were submerged at the same time they were settled.
traditionalguy said...
Drunkenness is the only acceptable excuse for presenting such a crap-tastic "let's pretend we're not pretending about pretend stuff" post on Christmas Eve.
More power to her.
Family business(myself and two brothers) recently purchased a large tract of land in Elk Valley, BC. It will be our retirement escape and our children's inheritance. The summers will be warm and the winters mild.
Learn a survival trade, like horse shoeing, or hide tanning---just in case.
Should global warming occur, the Canucks should be very afraid. We'll kick their asses and take all their stuff--Manifest Destiny.
And the Ruskies, likewise, should be on high alert. The Chicoms would take all of the prime steppe land, and Siberia, mile by mile as it thaws out.
We're sitting pretty.
There's overall warming and there's OMG GLOBAL WARMENING EEK!
The effects of a warming trend are not that hard to predict because the world has been warmer during human history, so we have written records from parts of the world, and also it's been quite a bit warmer during various periods for which we have fossil records. The temperate zones get warmer, the tree line moves up, the glacier line moves north, total arable land increases, et cetera. In considerably warmer times (that is, interglacials), the ice caps disappear in local summer, the tropical zones get wetter, the underground rivers in the Sahara come to the surface as the water table rises and it becomes savannah instead of desert, et cetera.
However, the OMG-GWE thesis is that at a certain point of CO2 concentration - which is lower than it's been historically, but higher than it's been recently - there will be a tipping point, a sudden unstoppable catastrophe, and instead of gradual weather changes such as are normal, we will see a sudden unprecedented change in temperatures. The ice caps will melt all at once, low-lying countries will be inundated, plant species will die out because their seeds can't move fast enough to accommodate changing conditions, and so on.
Obviously these are two different situations. Ordinary climatological warming is beneficial in most ways. In general a warmer earth is more hospitable to life: the frozen wastes are smaller, there's more arable land, more moisture in tropical land, and the higher CO2 levels that are caused by increase in temperature feed plant life.
The OMG-GWE scenario, on the other hand, is horrific pretty much by definition.
So you have to ask what kind of global warming you mean.
It's all made up.
If you really want to know about (not "heal", for crying out loud) the Earth, the natural sciences, the environment, the Universe, etc., then first you must jettison everything you've ever heard about AGW.
After that, it's all about the science.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume global warming will occur.
Ok. I can play along. Let us assume that the climate will get warmer and that as a result CO2 levels will also rise. (Although there is no direct evidence that there is a one to one or positive correlation between rising temps and CO2...but let's assume)
This HAS happened many times in the past and in those times several things happen.
Plant life explodes and expands because the conditions are ideal for them. CO2 is what plants feed upon. As a result we will have more food available just from the exponential growth of plants for us to eat and for us to feed to our livestock.
People will need LESS energy to keep warm as a result, less intrusive mining and oil production is needed. Homes will not need to be weatherproofed against extreme cold. Again less materials and energy used. Less clothing will be needed to cover our bodies and to keep warm.....should make all the guys happy.
As people have more leisure time because less time and energy is spent on keepng warm, people will be able to expand their horizions.
The Medieval Warming period is a prime example of all of the above. Times were good and Europe came out of the Dark Ages.
Will some places be harmed. High water levels, desertification. Sure. SO WHAT. Things change all the time and have done so for millenium. MOVE. People will need to move from their geographic locations.
One downside that I can envision is the explosion in insect life and the need to deal with more tropical and subtropical insect born diseases. I see a resurgence in DDT.
To the citizens of the future who may come across this post, I apologize on behalf of all my early 21st century cohorts for not having done more (or anything, if the cromagnon conservatives have their way) to avert the disaster that has affected you so greatly. As you can see from the comments here, there were just too many anti-science fanatics, unknowingly doing the bidding of corporate fat cats, for the reasonable among us to prevail. To spout ignorance and brag about it. Unbelievable.
I'm still waiting for an AGW zealot leftard to tell me what the optimum surface temperature of the planet should be. Not to mention why they never factor in water vapor as the primary culprit for any sort of green house effect, but that is natural isn't it. No, can't have that, but instead they want us to look at co2 as the evil, abhorrent substance that it is because it has carbon in it and they've created a war on carbon afterall.
jimspice said...
To the citizens of the future who may come across this post, I apologize on behalf of all my early 21st century cohorts for not having done more (or anything, if the cromagnon conservatives have their way) to avert the disaster that has affected you so greatly. As you can see from the comments here, there were just too many anti-science fanatics, unknowingly doing the bidding of corporate fat cats, for the reasonable among us to prevail. To spout ignorance and brag about it. Unbelievable.
Anti-science fanatics? Really, that's the best you can do is throw the anti-science, ignoramus card? Really? So the people in science, engineering, and physics that don't subscribe to your fallacies are in that lot as well?
Assuming a big warm climate shift happens, what happens to the losers is perhaps more imprtant than the prospect of more fruit trees in Patagonia and higher yield Albertan wheat.
What do you do with a billion "noble 3rd World refugees" from places like the Sahel and an immersed Haiti?
My thoughts are rather than let a billion displaced into N America and Scanadanavia and Russia and transform them into 3rd World hellholes by force of demographics = natural survival would mean letting those "Noble 3rd Worlders die" and the planet naturally correct for todays overpopulation to get back down to the 1.2 billion of 1900.
Of course, many Americans are convinced that Jesus meant that we engage in unlimited reproduction on lands that can go away with the slightest climate shift and compassion requires we become majority 3rd World immigrant in population.
What would Jesus do?
And Democrats would see 10 million AGW refugees from Somalia sent to warmer Maine as a way to make Maine Democratic forever.
"To the citizens of the future who may come across this post...."
Oh, quit emoting. You sound like a weenie.
To Citizens of the Future:
We once (and always will) have dumb shits like jimspice who write stupid shit like the following:
"To the citizens of the future who may come across this post, I apologize on behalf of all my early 21st century cohorts for not having done more (or anything, if the cromagnon conservatives have their way) to avert the disaster that has affected you so greatly. As you can see from the comments here, there were just too many anti-science fanatics, unknowingly doing the bidding of corporate fat cats, for the reasonable among us to prevail. To spout ignorance and brag about it. Unbelievable."
Let's start with the stupidest. If the bad shit he predicts happens, you won't be reading this. Sorry dudes.
If the bad shit he wants to happen doesn't, then he's shown up to be the scientifically illiterate ass kisser that he most certainly is.
Totally believable. By the way, his avatar looks like Che--puke city.
Plitdown warming. It is amazing what people can find when there are ideological and financial benefits. The Russians and the Canadians are going to wait a long time.
jimspice,
Are you one of those weenies who put up an "I'm sorry everybody" photo after the 2004 election?
The AGW folks will be looked back on like all the other millennium and Armageddon-world-ending fanatics that came before them. The curly bulbs are the bomb shelters of our day. There have been over 200 major predictions of Armageddon in the last 2000 years all with thousands and sometimes millions of believers. Some like the 2000 technology breakdown were predicted on the basis of "science" by noted "scientists". All bullshit. As long as science is done by men, it will be corrupted by men, and used to lie by con men and bought by their marks. This time it's record breaking in it's reach, as was the 2000 scare in it's day. The smarter we think we are, the stupider we act.
This year the climate change scientist have been accurate with predictions of below normal temps in Europe and Siberia,
Like the Farmer's Almanac which actually a reliable weather prognositacting tool with just about the same accruacy of the National Weather Agency. And....the Farmer's Almanac is a lot less political that most scientits.....cheaper too.
I survived the great famine in the 70's caused by the population bomb.
I made it thru the great nuclear winter,mostly intact except for that pesky glowing in the dark.
The Ozone hole skinned me like a banana and the acid rains left me with a permanent bald spot.
America came together in the 80's for a massive handholding to save me from something dire, but I dont recall what it was.
Thank you American handholders.
I survived the predicted 90's New Madrid earthquake and the rise of Lake Michigan that threatened to sink Chicago like a modern day Atlantis.
Anyone want to buy an Ark?
Unfortunately I didn't survive Y2K,having been flattened by a KLM super-constellation that fell from the sky
So like Marley's ghost I am here to pass this Christmas eve warning.
Get your priorities in order, Global warming ,like second hand smoke may kill you eventually,but THE MAYAN CALENDAR RUNS OUT SOON!
You best be digging up some Mayan calendar makers and get them crackin.
Hopefully the 2013 one will have some kittens on it.
and remember Huitzilopochtli HEARTS you.
Wv: rophi, he'll shoot his eye out.
Late to the thread, so forgive me, I don't know who's flaming who at this point.
Just wanted to say that my choice will be Sitka, Alaska. It already has one of the mildest climates of anywhere in Alaska. The scenery is spectacular. There is a quite beautiful suspension bridge, and Fuji-style Mount Edgecumbe has to be seen to be believed. This will be the vacation spot of the world.
"The reason is that when [IF!] global warming sets......"
I think you just got to the theater in time for the second act.....
Garage Mahal said;
Wonder why only 6% of scientists self identify as Republicans.
Wonder why 0% of the Duke 88 self-identify as having been wrong.
In the 90's it ranged from 2200 to 2400 and he got spectacular fruit to grow. Lovely cherries and plums, even apricots many years.
In the 2000's we've had much colder summers, with heat units in the 1800 range. There is a substantial reduction in what plants succeed between these ranges.
Not surprisingly, this was the decline that they were trying to hide with Mann's hockey stick and, I think, some tree rings.
The thing that I find esp. humorous are all the theories about why global cooling is really a symptom of global warming, and these scientists predicted this all along.
Of course, the more logical answer to this is reduced solar energy. It is, maybe just a coincidence, but there is a pretty good correlation between the level of energy that we are receiving from the Sun, and global temperatures.
It somewhat reminds me of the last legs of a belief in an Earth centric solar system. The models for the heavens, and, esp. the planets kept getting more and more complicated, as more data was obtained. The planets pretty much all had retrograde orbits by then.
Sometimes the easiest, cleanest, answer is actually correct. All of a sudden, everything got a lot, lot simpler when scientists put the sun at the center, and the Earth and the other planets orbiting around it.
Son, the center of the universe?
HA!
Black sheathed goddess warriors stand at the ready!
We are secure in our arsenal of SHOES! Heck, we got five inch spike heels, and the like. Amassed over our lifetime.
And son? You got what?
That four inch "weapon" 'tween your legs and a pair of sneakers?
Sorry, that was missing a coma between "your legs" and "a pair". :)
The average temperature dropping four degrees would be a catastrophe. Rising four degrees, not so much. A warmer world would also be wetter. A colder world would have more droughts and famine. Anyone who is worried about AGW needs to sit quietly and think for himself awhile.
Thread winner: ampersand
Thread loser: jimspice
That is all.
wv: static. What the climate is not.
Wonder why only 6% of scientists self identify as Republicans.
Because scientists know when to expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Hint: It often happens around tenure time.)
I'm pretty skeptical of the whole ZOMG-Thermageddon!!!1! thing.
However, it's undeniable that historically, warmer weather has been a mixed blessing. The "Medieval Climate Optimum" (typically called the "Medieval Warm Period") was undeniably A Good Thing for Europe, which saw rapid economic and population growth from ~ 900 Ad to 1300 AD. This was the age of the Cathedrals.
But the same time period saw droughts all over North America, and finished off the Maya and the Anasazi. Not a "optimum" for them at all.
Of course, the idea that we can somehow halt Climate Change - whether via Cap-And-Trade or by screwball Eco Engineering schemes seems like madness.
An excellent overview of why is found here.
"Wonder why only 6% of scientists self identify as Republicans."
Most of the right-leaning scientifically-oriented go into engineering. There are legions of us. You know, the field where one applies real, tested science in order to make things that work with precision, predictability, and reliability. Not obsess over elaborate models proven to have 0% predictive power.
Any bozo withh a PC and the right software can concoct a curve fit over historical data. Tell me what's going to happen next, and why, and be right on the mark a few times, and you'll start to get our attention. Until then, realize that you look like a bunch of credentialed clowns, and little more.
So, archeologists are uncovering the remnants of vineyards on Greenland. That happened when the main means of naval propulsion was sweaty Swedes.
If the temp rises, some will get the smelly end of the stick, others will win. Funny, that sounds a lot like today.
I would care more about glow-ball warming if if Algore hadn't have flunked out of law school and then left divinity school just before they threw him out of that, too. How about the next few times you lefties want to destroy our lives and livelihoods, you get a crowd that acts like it's a crisis, instead of just talking about it's a crisis as they flit from continent to continent on private jets.
If global warming sets in, we are told the coasts will all be flooded. Yet the price of real estate on the coast has held its value the most through all of the housing bubble collapse. One would expect exactly the opposite to happen if people believed that global warming was imminent.
So just who keeps driving up or holding up the prices of coastal real estate? Certainly not us knuckle-dragging schlubs, we're to stupid to make that kind of dough. Seems to me it's a lot of people like Al Gore, Barbra Streisand, Laurie David, etc. They're so smart you think they would know better.
Would anyone entrust their safety to a high-speed train that had been designed with the degree of rigor that climate scientists have been shown to employ?
What Iftheshoefits said.
Looking at the geopolitical consequences of Global Warming - Russia will have a cold weather port and, thus, may be less aggressive. But at the same time all Siberia will open up for development. Will that make Russia more powerful? What resources will we find in areas covered now with ice and snow? Have the secret 400 who run the world been shifting their assets to take advantage of the new order?
So - this is like a Debate! The debaters are assigned what topic to debate - eventually, they will debate both sides. Yep, I can do this.
Global warming will melt the ice near the poles - both poles. This will free up natural resources like crude oil. It will also change how we harvest fish, etc. Maybe 'Deadly Catch' won't be so deadly -- not so cold. Also, all those Ice Truckers will have to get a new job.
If global warming brings higher sea levels, much of the beach/resort 'playgrounds' will disappear. As temperatures increase, people will head to cooler areas, i.e., mountains and higher latitudes. New resort areas will be built.
Can we farm on the tundra?? Will we need to develop new technology.
Snowmobile manufactures will become scarce -- snow making for ski resorts will become more efficient. New technology will develop snow that doesn't melt, allowing us to ski all year long.
In general, northern latitudes will gain economically and southern latitudes and coastlines will lose economically.
If it doesn't get too hot - we'll have another Renaissance.
New technology will develop snow that doesn't melt...
Uh oh! Now, Ice 9 is REALLY something to worry about!
I think we could handle global warming just fine. When Jim Hansen retires or dies off, we hire someone to run GISS who will reverse all the adjustments that Hansen has made to the temperature database. This will greatly reduce the extent of global warming and solve any potential problems.
Ha! Crooks and liars refers to Ann as a "half-thinker." http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/deniers-want-pretend-global-warming-
I was raised to respect intelligence, so I find it rather depressing when I encounter so many people that take such a gleeful satisfaction from deliberate ignorance.
I'm from Canada and I can assure you, the government hasn't taken such a regressive position because they think our farmers will benefit from prolonged droughts, or our forestry from increased forest fires, or our coastal cities from flooding. The reason they have such a regressive policy is because the economy is tied to some of the world's dirtiest oil production.
This whole "winners and loser" argument is pretty repugnant. Like it would be great if people elsewhere are forced from their homes by the millions or starve in drought conditions because then we can grow pomegranates in Canada. Its like being happy about the prospect of your neighbour's house burning down and his family living on the street because then your view won't be so obstructed.
@linusburn, I like to use the term "regressive" synonymously with "things I don't agree with" too. I don't run the term into the ground in the same way you do, however.
Holmes. I actually use it to mean backward and antiscience, but it is good of you to admit that you use words so disingenuously.
It explains why you say "run the term into the ground" when what you mean is "twice".
We should be loyal to nature & try to protect it; ultimately we have to face consequences. We ought to protect nature. For that I joined gabriel of urantia . We run many programs for it. Make people aware about it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा