Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made
Offline Have you seen this one? Interesting......
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now-says-global-warming-134617449.html
He finally came around to what other climate scientists have been spouting for years. Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California-Berkeley, announced over the weekend that his much-publicized investigation into climate data has found that humans' production of carbon dioxide is causing the world to slowly warm up. And this process could speed up dramatically in the coming years.Muller's conclusions attract special attention because of his vocal self-styling as a converted climate change skeptic. Muller criticized global warming studies for sloppy and self-serving data selection and a lack of transparency that obscured errors; he then lambasted fellow scientists for circling the wagons and calling any climate change deniers wrong. Muller says he's still upset that the American Physical Society declared the evidence for warming "incontrovertible" a few years ago in an official statement.
"We don't do things in science that are incontrovertible," Muller said in an interview with Yahoo News.
Muller took matters into his own hands and embarked on his own investigation into the data with his daughter Elizabeth and a team of scientists two years ago. His Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project attracted funding from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, the nonprofit outfit of a wealthy businessman who denies that global warming is happening. Three years later, Muller ended up surprising himself when his research confirmed everything those same studies that drew his skepticism concluded, and then some. Muller says his study's results are more reliable than many previous ones because he intentionally avoided the data pitfalls he objected to, such as only using a portion of the global temperatures available. (He expounds on his methods here.)
Muller's study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but he says he plans to do so at some point. One climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer, told the Los Angeles Times he thinks posting the study online and not in a journal is in "the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science" and may do more to hurt the global warming cause than help it. But Muller wants to get feedback on his methods and to share his results with everyone, avoiding what he sees as a secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounded earlier climate change studies.
Though Muller is now entirely convinced that the Earth is warming due to man-made causes, he still expresses disdain for people who try to raise passions around the issue by pointing to local weather events, such as the drought scorching up America's Midwest right now, as proof of the phenomenon. (He attributes the drought to La Niña, a temporary cooling of the ocean.) The effects of global warming on local weather patterns are unknown, and even as two-thirds of the world has heated up, another one-third has shown a gradual cooling over the past 250 years, he says. The overall effect is a troubling global warming, but Muller has no patience for simplifications that stray from the truth.
"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."
Muller is now wading into another controversy, by endorsing the process of natural gas extraction called fracking for developing countries, which tend to rely more on coal. Coal production creates more carbon dioxide, but fracking has also drawn its share of environmentalist critics.
"I believe the only kind of action that is sustainable is that which is profitable, and fortunately we can do that," he says. "We can become much more energy efficient."
I totally agree - only that which is profitable will be sustained. If we can not find a profitable solution, we will see the human population drastically reduced. I wouldn't hazard a guess how much of a reduction or if that would be good or bad.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
I read recently that the number of Americans who believe in global warming has skyrocketted to 70% thanks to the massive droughts and heat waves.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
As the article points out, many people mistake "weather" for "climate." We have a couple of wetter, cooler weather, and people will be back to not believing again. It isn't important - IMNSHO - what people believe as long as they have no real influence on policy decisions. This article is about a denier who is also a scientist who is also funded by the Kochs - and that makes him relevant to the deniers who have that influence on policy.
Maybe they will quit arguing and get on with making policies that will have a reasoned impact. Nah.....I'm hallucinating again.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
As I understand it climate change is seen by average temperature increase and weather instability. Temperature and precipitation extremes are symptoms that are overlooked by the average person. When it is cold they say "Hah. So much for Global Warming!". And when it is dry and hot they flip the other way.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Such as?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The US ratifying Kyoto?
Which do you think is more likely, that the US would take different steps to reduce GHG emissions or simply pay the money that the Kyoto Protocol would require? My money would be on the latter, or perhaps the US would do what Canada did and pull out right before having to pay the money after failing to get even close to the target. Given that Kyoto has failed to substantially reduce GHG emissions among the 191 countries that have ratified it, it is irrational to believe that the US ratifying it is going to somehow change anything. At best, it might make a few greenies feel better, as a practical solution to the stated problem it is useless.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So sit on your hands then, while the earth turns to shit for your children. Good job.
A reduction in respectability for climate change deniers means that those who use this as an excuse to keep driving their gas guzzlers and squirting aerosols into the air with gay abandon are more likely to consider that doing so will negatively affect the planet their children will have to live on. Acceptance of this at the grass roots level is of course the most important step.
Secondly, it removes barriers to passing internal legislation that prevents this from happening - Rich men with agendas sit at the top of the pole, telling everyone everything's going to be alright. When these are shown to be false idols, and people get better information and can arm themselves with this knowledge - that's when changes happen.
I agree it's probably too late for the US to do anything about Kyoto, but per capita the US is the worst country on the planet for CO2 emissions, and the rest of the world thinks that is unacceptable. Things have to change, and change as much and as quickly as possible. How? Good question, but sticking one thumb in your ass and sucking the other one doesn't help. Durban is something the US could attempt to take seriously perhaps..
No, I am simply asking for a plausible solution. As long as the green movement is awash with hyperbole and hysterical people declaring the end of the world while having no realistic solutions to offer, no effective changes are going to occur. So far, every solution I have heard proposed from the green movement has little to do with decreasing GHG emissions and even if they worked as advertised, would not reduce global emissions enough to change anything.
Acceptance is irrelevant if you don't have a viable solution.
What kind of internal legislation would you suggest?
Since we are the largest per capita emitter of GHG, why do we need to bother with any international treaty? You need 2/3rds of the Senate to agree to a treaty, a much larger hurdle than passing domestic legislation. When the green movement is sitting around suggesting ideas like Cap & Trade which have a great economic effect but little to no chance of reducing GHG emissions I am skeptical.
If GHG emissions are truly as dangerous as some say we need much more dramatic action. For starters, we need to significantly increase the number of nuclear power plants we have. Creating electric power is the largest contributor to GHG emissions, and replacing our fossil fuel power plants with nuclear is clearly the most efficient way to reduce emissions while still producing the electricity we need. It also makes the possibility of addressing our GHG emissions in transportation more effective. Replacing every car with a Volt doesn't do much good if you are plugging your car into an electric system fueled by burning fossil fuels. This could easily be achieved by comprehensive legislation that speeds up and consolidates the process of getting approval to build new power plants while limiting the number of and conditions in which legal challenges can be issued. The government can at least pass a law giving precedence to these cases so that they are resolved faster.
I have bitched on here before about the number of power projects here in Ohio that the so called environmental groups are trying to stop. Near me, environmentalists have tied up the planned construction of a wind farm in court for four years because they are concerned that bats will get chopped up by the turbines. They have successfully blocked the construction of a hydro electric plant because they think the already existing dam has destroyed the natural habitat and want it torn down. The dam has been there for 100 years. They have done everything they can to prevent the construction of new coal plants forcing power companies to keep old plants running much longer than planned- do you think that a new power plant built today emits more or less GHG than one built 60 years ago?
So yeah, I am extremely skeptical of the environmental movement. They offer suggestions that are ineffective, inefficient and impractical while doing everything they can to block ideas that would help.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
As in the article - fracking. Or hot rock geothermal - particularly places like under the Rocky Mountains. Or deliberately growing algae (which are many times more efficient than corn or sugar cane), converting the algae to natural gas via natural decomposition. Solar, wind, nuclear.....
It probably will not be one solution but many. What works in one area will not work in another. We need to determine what will produce energy for a reasonable cost in that region.
Fuel production from crude oil has many hidden costs. There are subsidies and artificial price supports. If those were removed, I would bet "alternative" energy would become mainstream energy very quickly. As for Kyoto and carbon taxes and so on - I believe these will not be adequate impetus as they do not address the profit motive. Remove the subsidies and price supports and the switch to non-carbon based fuels will happen very quickly.
Yes, our life styles will change. They will change, like or not, no matter what we do or don't do. Yes, energy will cost more. We will start conserving from economic pressure - no legislative pressure required.
And, we will have to find ways to reduce the carbon dioxide levels in the oceans - perhaps combing that with algae production. Deliberately produce over growths that are then harvested and decomposed to natural gas. This will reduce the CO2 loading in the oceans and create fuel. For the ultimate in sequestering CO2, covert to plastics. A good 1000 or more years in a landfill might be one way of getting CO2 out of the oceans and out of the atmosphere.
(I am not in line with those who think the amount of plastic in landfills should be reduced because it takes so long to decompose. I think that is great - seal the landfill really well, and you will have more crude in a few million years.)
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
That all sounds rather sensible to me, probably too sensible to ever gain support among politicians.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Ok, apologies for my terse response. I agree that there are different 'greenies' - and some of them are really not being helpful. Actually a large percentage now advocate nuclear as a viable energy option.. so there is a move to focus on what really matters and realise that not every bat can be saved.
a few thoughts - Bear in mind I'm not American so have a limited knowledge of the eccentricities of your legislation etc..
To lead by example - If the US doesn't sign up, other countries will wonder why they are bothering - The US / China / Russia need to lead this process.
All indicators suggest the heat and drought currently will only get worse as time goes on, and that by the turn of the century the southern US will be nearly uninhabitable. I doubt there's going to be a swing back into disbelief any time soon.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Uh huh.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
1. Why exempt rural areas? The majority of trucks are in rural areas and the average person in a rural area drives further than the average person living in an urban area. Although, to have any significant effect I suspect that any such tax would have to be extremely high. Gas prices essentially already work as a financial incentive to reduce fuel consumption, while it has had an effect, it is certainly nowhere near enough of one to make a real difference in GHG emissions. It might help, but I'm not convinced it would be worth the effects that it would have on our economy. If the tax was high enough it would probably reduce GHG emissions. It would also probably be political suicide since Americans get especially bitchy over gas prices, they will pay $5 for a 24 oz caffeinated beverage or $2 on a 16 oz bottle of water, but freak out over $4/gallon gas. No one ever accused Americans of being rational :P
2. We already have. Pretty much every major city has decent public transportation available. The problem is that we have a lot of our population that doesn't live in major cities and given the size of our country it is impractical to have any significant public transportation between cities.
3. Already have tolls in many major cities, but again, the average rural person drives significantly further than the average urban person. For most urban areas the average driver drives less than 25 miles a day and the really large cities are often under 20 miles average. The nationwide average for everyone is 34 miles per day. While urban vehicles tend to have better average gas mileage.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm
I think the only practical way to reduce GHG in transportation by any significant amount is to radically change our technology for vehicles and fix our economy so people go back to buying new cars every couple of years instead of holding on to older higher polluting models.
4. Not a big fan of subsidizing because we are broke and personally I consider that problem more immediate than GW and private installation of solar panels is a booming business right now and I think will be so with or without subsidies. The number of private solar power capacity has quintupled from 2005-2008 and has shown no signs of doing anything but speeding up. In fact, certain states are approaching the legal caps of how much power can be generated by residences. For example, California has a cap at 2.5% at which point residences cannot legally connect to the power grid with negative net power consumption. Those kinds of stupid laws should be repealed, as well as removing the local barriers that prevent people from being able to get permits to install solar panels or wind turbines. Just keep the government out of the way and evil capitalists will install alternative power wherever it is economically viable.
http://irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/IREC-2009-Annual-ReportFinal.pdf
5. See 4. I agree it is a good thing, however, I view government investment as inefficient and ineffective. Rather than giving billions to power companies that go bankrupt before the install even a single solar plant, just get out of the way and let private businesses build them on their own. Based on what I have read, the idea of large scale solar plants is not going to be profitable anytime soon. Solar power is different from fossil fuels in that there is no reason to have it produced in a centralized location, and it is far less efficient to do so because you lose a little electricity while it is being distributed. Since solar power can be created very close to where it is used, it is more efficient to have a small scale approach than a massive solar farm. Most private money has been going towards small scale projects, while our government has wasted billions on large projects that have been one failure after another, sometimes outright scams as in Solyndra, sometimes they have been bogged down in court challenges like Brightsource and some have simply ended up costing astronomically more than planned through good old fashioned government efficiency.
6. I think it would be enough to remove the tax incentives and subsidies that we currently give to fossil fuel power companies as CJ suggested. In my dream world, the government wouldn't attempt to use the tax code to modify behavior. I don't think it is necessary and it is often abused. The bottom line is that green energy technology is getting cheaper, and in many situations it is already cheap enough that converting to it is the economically smart thing. As the initial installation costs continue to drop, more people and businesses will take advantage of it and use it. No government coercion necessary, no need for government to waste a ton of money.
My main pick with the GW crowd is like Vastet's post above that somehow it is this huge problem and the end of the world is coming in the next 50-100 years (the exact year is always conveniently a decade or two after the expected life expectancy of the person making the bold prediction) unless everything is done tomorrow so we have to throw trillions of dollars at the problem and everything has to be done yesterday. I don't see a problem with allowing the technology to develop naturally and perfected. It is foolish for example to spend significant resources on building a bunch of Chevy Volts when the technology is riddled with practical flaws. And I don't buy that the problem requires us to be in that big of a hurry. Polluting less is always a good thing, GW or no, and it can be done in a controlled rational way rather than simply throwing money around and screaming about the end of the world.
Alternative energy technology is improving. The solar panels and wind turbines today are far more efficient than those we were making in the 90's. How much of a waste would it have been to blow trillions on building them back then, only today to find out that we could do so with far less material? Just like computers, HD tv, Blu Ray discs, cell phones etc. it can be expected that early models are expensive and as a small group of people purchase the new technology and use it, certain aspects of the technology will be improved, the manufacturing methods will improve and the product will become cheaper and more available as these things happen.
And if you want to sell people on solar panels, telling them it is going to save them $50/month or whatever on their power bill is probably a far more effective sales pitch than "it will save the environment". Americans might like feeling good about the environment, but they love saving money.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Your suggestions are very reasonable examples of possible legislation. Being an American, I just don't see them happening in the present political climate. There are people who insist on business at any environmental cost, because, isn't it obvious?, business has no effect on the environment. My personal opinion about that attitude is horse pucky.
1. I would not exempt farm equipment or trucking businesses. I have seen - and heard - first hand the results of our anti-lead-in-gasoline laws. Farm equipment was specifically excluded from that law with the result that farm equipment continues to add lead to our farmlands. We have no data on this as no one wants to measure the amount of lead in our agricultural lands. No duh. What we don't know can't possibly hurt us. </sarcasm>
a. There are viable, economic alternatives to gasoline powered engines for vehicles that are used in the sun for hours. Flexible solar panels for one. Used by the US Army for tents. Why couldn't the panels be put on the top of combines and truck trailers? Diesel electric engines - don't get huffy about this one - what the heck are locomotive engines? Diesel electric. We have the technology. I'm sure there are other alternatives. What is stopping us is shear inertia - "this is how we have always done it."
2. This one is being done here in Portland but even here it is far from perfect. The problem is the shear size of the city sprawl in the western cities and in rural areas. I once commuted 50 miles from my home to my place of business. One way. I was talking to a recruiter in Minnesota about a possible commute for a job they were looking to fill here in Portland. I said - it may be anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour, depending on the exact location and traffic conditions that day, not a big deal. She said - no one here in Minnesota would do an hour commute. The same commute by train/bus would always be well over an hour and I am not sure the bus goes anywhere near the location of this particular business. If I was working downtown, not a problem, plenty of public transportation options from my house.
3. I can see how this would work - somewhat - but I can not see getting anyone to seriously support it at any level of government. The screaming could probably be heard from hell to breakfast.
4. A wonderful idea. There is a solar company trying to get started here in Portland. We called them. They looked up our house on google and said it was too small. My house is small - about 22x18 feet. (roughly 7x6 meters?) But I have not only an unshaded roof, but also the entire south side is unshaded and could have solar panels. Subsidizing might make houses like mine more appealing to the companies. But people are not happy with the idea after the Solyndra hoo-hah.
5. You should see the wind turbines along the Columbia Gorge - pictures can not convey the same sense of awe as when you drive past -
6. See Solyndra for why that isn't very popular at the moment.
I agree, even if Kyoto is not my ideal, it should be ratified for the sake of presenting a strong leadership example.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I've heard this as well Beyond, is there any scientific consensus on how bad climate change will or will not be?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
I am not taking sides here as I am not as informed as I would like to be and as informed as others. I will point out that when I was in junior high ( now called middle school in today's world) back in the mid-eighties, I remember very distinctly talk of the environment and how bad things were going to be before the year 2000.
I even remember around 1989 when groups like Greenpeace, got a HUGE boost of membership from alot of the young kids I was in school with at the time.
Now I am not really sure what the stats are and exactly what direction we are headed in. I would actually like to know more about it.
But I also remember my late father telling me that back in the early seventies, there were several predictions of a coming ice age. (Where he got that from I don't remember, but I remember him talking about it).
I am not exactly sure how accurately we can predict the future of climate change. I am sure that there are qualified people that can make very good speculations based upon our current conditions and what might happen if those conditions continue.
I admit that I have not tried to research this as much as possible. It seems that the few times that I have tried, I either run into extremist eco-websites or their polar counterparts. There's probably some good sources, out there. I just have never tried to find them.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
The article I posted has links to this guy's data. If you search for him, he is one of the big anthropocentric (human caused) global warming skeptics. That he has changed his mind is huge.
Doing a quick search, there are a ton of books about global warming and most of them are diametrically opposed to each other. I found this one interesting and informative. It is out of date a little now:
http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate-Means/dp/B001PO66MG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281231112&sr=1-1
Tim Flannery is a paleontologist, not a climate scientist, so he doesn't have a dog in the fight. He went and looked at the data from his field - how has climate changed in the past and how fast? He started out without an opinion, figuring he didn't have enough information. He wound up convinced the climate is becoming warmer globally and humans have a large impact. His book is written for the non-scientist and has some suggestions for things we could do - if we just commit to it.
The cooling theory from the 70s - I remember very clearly discussions at the University of Arizona Tree Ring Research lab as late as 1985-86. Some of the scientists there were still thinking that an ice age was possible. Their theory was that if the poles become warmer, then there will be more snow. I think you used to live further north, so you may remember that if it is cold enough, it doesn't snow. The poles are usually deserts, with very low precipitation. If warmed, there may be more snow - enough more to start an ice age. It doesn't seem likely this summer, does it?
What is more important to me is that I haven't heard any climatologists endorsing this theory recently. The only people who have said anything about it are global warming deniers. People who are not climatologists. I will take the word of someone who has created the models, studied the climate and the changes, and has done so for 20-30 years over somebody who only thinks they know about climate.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Predictions range anywhere from 2 degree to 11.5 degree farenheit increase in the average mean temperature by 2100. I am extremely skeptical given that over the last 20 years warming has not occurred anywhere near enough to even put us on track to hit the 2 degree mark, let alone the double digits. But even if it did warm 10 degrees, we are not all going to die and people in the southern US will still live there (humans live in Iraq which is routinely more than 10 degrees hotter than the southern US and they don't have AC like we have), albeit less comfortably. Running around hysterically declaring that we are all going to die does nothing useful and makes the doomsayers look like dumb asses. Humans are capable in surviving a large range of temperatures. We can grow crops in the desert and we can grow them in the arctic. Whether the world heats up or goes into another ice age, we will survive.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yeah, when it gets cold enough in New Jersey, it doesn't snow.
Ironically enough that reminds me of reading an article about their being little to no snowfall per year in Antartica. Like you stated above, Antartica is more of a frozen desert than anything else.
Is the ice age theory still around ? I haven't heard anyone mention it that I am aware of.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
This article is a little out of date. As of 2006, there was no significant increase in snow in the interior of Antarctica. This is due (according to the article) to the ozone anomalies. I don't know enough about it to have any opinion on it. It sounds plausible and more than one scientist agrees - always a significant indicator of the reliability of the data and conclusions of the study.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060811-south-pole.html
They believe that snowfall will increase when/if the ozone layer recovers over the south pole. There were no predictions in the article that I noticed and instead, there was a definite "we don't know enough to predict anything" flavor to the comments. So I would say we now know enough to not know enough to determine if the additional snowfall will be enough to even offset the current melting trend let alone increase the overall amount of snow to the point of another ice age.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I've also heard that something like 4 degrees increase would cause a runaway feedback loop that would cause a lot more damage. This issue is interesting, thanks for the link.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
^ Typical asshat who can never provide evidence to back up his stupidity.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
He posted a link in response to myself, so indirectly he did.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
I will assume you are talking about yourself since you are the one who has made a positive claim. Have you ever provided evidence to support any claim you have ever made on any subject? If you have, you certainly don't do so regularly.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/user/vastet/track
Maybe we should have a treasure hunt where the first person that finds you providing evidence gets some kind of prize.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
There are still some people out there who subscribe to the theory that global warming will lead to an ice age in part of or maybe all of the world. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research
I haven't heard much about it recently so I don't know if a lot of scientists still find this theory plausible or not. I have also read recent reports that man caused warming is delaying the next ice age.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html
In which case, I say its a damn good thing because living in a warmer world is much easier than living through a serious ice age. I always thought that the most rational response to GW was to focus on managing the potential negative side effects, because the reality is that humanity is not going to reduce GHG emissions enough to make a serious difference. Especially if the most hysterical GW crowd is right, we either passed the point of no return or will be there in a few years. Although I find this whole claim absurd, we have pretty solid evidence that GHG levels in history have been as much as 10 times higher than they are now and temperature has been higher, obviously, the Earth made it through just fine and maintained life. The idea that GW is necessarily bad is not a given. Some species may go extinct, but some will and always have, how much is attributable to our GHG emissions is probably impossible to definitively determine. If anything with our technology we have the ability to attempt to preserve endangered species that a million years ago would have gone extinct due to natural climate changes.
Short of literally killing a significant portion of the human population and living like the amish, GHG emissions are not going to be lowered substantially in the next few decades. Even getting back to 1990 levels would be a daunting and likely impossible task and if the chicken littles are right it wouldn't make a difference anyway because it wouldn't be nearly enough. I'm not saying that reducing emissions isn't a good goal. Just the problem has to be approached realistically, and the reality is that just by existing in modern society, we will produce a certain amount of GHG emissions and the climate is going to warm or cool regardless of what we do. The best we can do is attempt to predict what the climate will do, something that we have not been terribly accurate at predicting so far. Reduce emissions in a way that makes practical sense and make sure we are able to manage surviving in warmer or colder temps. There is no reason to go back to living like primitives.
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/comment-reply/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-e4.pdf
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
No, he didn't. Much of the southern US is nearly uninhibitable NOW, since it was settled even. Water is dragged from incredible distances to keep most of California alive. That water won't be there in 80 years if trends continue.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
My claim is backed by ten+ years of science, and I was talking about you. You never have evidence. Your links are at best suggestive, at worst irrelevant, & never proof. Whereas pretty well the entire scientific community agrees with what I said.
I've also backed up my statements a lot more often than yourself.
"In which case, I say its a damn good thing because living in a warmer world is much easier than living through a serious ice age."
Absolutely ridiculous. People die en masse in heat waves.
We conquered winter generations ago.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't really have any stats about the southern United States ( I live down here, just not from here) but our summers are quite unbearable and have been since I have been here. However, the elderly locals tell me that it was extremely bad in the old days but I have no way of comparing. I know there are always heat advisories and local government aid to provide air conditioning for the less fortunate and schools here will close when the air conditoning breaks.
It would be interesting to take a look at an Almanac or something from this area and compare summers from say, 100 years ago and today to see if their has been a radical change in the summers.
Now, I know that California has some very strict environmental laws ( my girlfriend is from San Francisco, but says it is much tougher in Southern California). They have actual regulations about running water at certain times of the day, and her sister in the southern California area had talked about heavy restrictions on people watering lawns, running washing machines and such.
Again I don't have any stats about the changing climate in California so I don't know.
One really odd law that California has for truck drivers is that trucks can not enter the state without having dirt washed off of them. One of my biker bros is an over the road truck driver and says there are hordes of illegal immigrants that make a living by washing trucks before they enter the state. Seems kinda odd with water conservation and all.
I don't really have the time to get an Almanac or research when some of these environmental laws were enacted, but it would be interesting to see what an average July would have looked like in 1912 v. 2012 in some of these states.
It would be even more interesting to see if temperature change has occurred in the much colder states. All my family and friends in my home state of New Jersey still complain about the cold and ice, but I wonder if the winters have gotten any milder ?
Anyone know where we could find some quick stats on this ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Lol, to which I submit the large number of people living there NOW. And the large numbers of people who continue to move down there. We have several people on this site that live in the southern US.
Water has always been an issue in western states because that area of the country has always been extremely dry and lacks the wealth of local fresh water that the country east of the rockies enjoys. It is a highly contentious issue in the west and certainly has a number of economic issues tied to it, however it is hardly going to lead to widespread deaths of Californians. Water will be, and has been, an issue regardless of GW- simply the population growing puts a greater strain on the water supply and requires improvement of water infrastructure. It is hardly an unsolvable problem, though it may be an expensive one.
Science you are unable to link to? Guess your scientists haven't discovered the internet yet. I can't recall you ever linking to anything of importance. I've never claimed to link to solid proof, most issues I discuss on here are not things that can be objectively proved since I tend to stick to politics. I link to evidence that supports my conclusion and when possible provide the raw data, more than you ever do with your baseless assertions.
Lol. prove it.
http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Fulltext/2004/11000/The_Impact_of_Global_Warming_on_Health_and.16.aspx
Of course, I wasn't thinking mostly of things like illness and heat stroke. I was thinking more along the lines of food production in extreme scenarios ie massive GW or a massive ice age (like the US being under glaciers again). It is much easier to grow crops in high heat than it is to grow crops on a glacier. Neither is impossible, but there is a reason why the bulk of global farming takes place in the spring and summer and most crops are harvested in the fall before the first frost. There is a reason why more crops are produced in warmer climates than colder climates. Of course, this reality varies by crops as some crops deal with heat better than others, while some like winter wheat deal with cold just fine. It is plausible to argue that extreme GW could force us to change our diets.
Increased CO2 levels also have a variety of effects on agricultural crops, including using less water. It has also been suggested that high CO2 levels could increase crop production, however, the increases seen in small scale experiments have translated to much smaller increases in large scale experiments.
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2859.full
Corn for example grows optimally at temps between 77-91F, it can survive just fine up to 112 for short periods. Prolonged periods of 95+ temps lead to a decrease in production. Although, new genetically enhanced varietals of corn have proven hardier at high temps. The effects of high temps can also be controlled quite reliably by increasing moisture content in the soil. So if GW gets as bad as they say and droughts like we have this year become more common, farmers might have to consider installing irrigation systems where they don't have them now. Conversely, any temp below 41 degrees is a problem.
http://www.clemson.edu/extension/rowcrops/corn/guide/environmental_conditions.html
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I guess that would depend on how cold it got in a hypothetical ice age. I have never been to Canada, but I went on a motorcycle run to Wisconsin one time and that was COLD to me.
If our "ice age" was say Antartica-like weather or even colder, I would guess that we would probably have to make some radical changes to things. (i.e. pipes bursting and such).
Of course, an ice age would probably be a gradual set in and hopefully we would have time to prepare for it.
I do remember reading somewhere that the ice age in prehistoric times, set in all at once, but I do not know where they were basing that fact off of, or if that were even a true statement.
On a side note, I am glad that I had a vacation day today and did not have to get out in that heat. I would almost welcome an Ice Age at this point
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I remember this video made an extremely good point about the whole thing.. definitely worth a watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
All he did was recreate Pascal's Wager replacing god with global warming. It would be rather irrational to live your life in a manner where you never took risks because an imaginable result is horrible. The odds of that horrible result happening always matter.
It makes far more sense to approach a problem by keeping it in perspective as far as your actual ability to control it, the most probable results and the likely consequences of action or inaction. And my big beef with the GW hysterical crowd is that they create these grandiose worst case scenarios that have little scientific support and use it as an excuse to justify great amounts of action while ignoring whether the action proposed would actually have an effect in relieving the effects of the worst case scenario.
It is like the whole Y2k freak out. Is there a problem that we should address? Probably. Is it a reason to buy a bunker and live in a space suit? No. Don't panic! Grab your towel, and take reasonable steps to reduce the problem to manageable levels. If the GW crowd took a more rational, cool headed approach they would probably have more political success too. Those that buy into the end of the world hysteria tend to overreact and cause more harm than benefit. Panic never solves anything, recognizing a problem, putting it in perspective and choosing an effective course of action does. Unfortunately, politicians seem to care very little about actually solving problems and enjoy sensationalizing them whether the problem is GW, the budget, war or healthcare.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I have watched it before, he makes a very good argument.
I have also made this argument before concerning how increased temperatures are more problematic than most people realize.
1. Water - many places in the world - including the western US - rely on snow melt for replenishing ground water and for surface water and for irrigation. Snow melt supplies fresh water all summer long. Without it, there would not be enough water to last all summer for people to drink, let alone irrigate crops. In Oregon, snow melt also supplies a steady flow for hydroelectric power which almost all of Washington and Oregon rely on. Yes, we also have coal and gas plants, but the hydroelectric is what keeps energy costs low. Which powers the pumps that supply irrigation water to crop lands as well. Reduced snow melt - that long, steady supply of running water - would make much of the western US unable to produce crops or to supply power to the towns and cities.
The western US is not the only place in the world with this issue. I believe I read something recently about one of the large rivers in India or China relying on glacier melt and that glacier is almost completely gone.
2. Temperature/sun light - most plants rely on temperature or sun light to determine their normal cycle. Watch in the spring or fall. Some plants are triggered by a change in the amount of sunlight to either drop leaves or put on new growth. Other plants are triggered by a change in temperature. It is very clear here where there are native species and many non-native ornamental species.
Spruce trees tell gardeners when to plant tomatoes - spruce does not put on new growth until the soil temperature is just right. When they start putting on growth, the ground is warm enough to plant tomatoes. Also, tomatoes MUST have cool enough night time temperatures to set fruit. If the night is too warm, they will blossom, but no fruit will happen. We lived in Tucson and tried to grow tomatoes. We had to cover them for shade during the day, and spray a special hormone to get them to set fruit. In Tucson, if the nights are cool enough to set fruit, the days are too cool for the plant to blossom.
There are other plants that require a certain number of frost days to set fruit in the spring. Apples are one. If you want to plant apple trees, you purchase the variety of apple based on the number of frost days in your area. No frost, no apples. There are no apple trees in Tucson, even though there are usually a few frost days during the winter. The number of days are not adequate, and the frost days are often not contiguous and apples will not bloom reliably in Tucson. Yuma - apple trees can not take the heat of the summers at all. They can not push enough water through to counteract the heat. There is a reason most cacti do not have leaves.
So warmer weather will not cause a huge explosion of edible plants. Tropical plants will not survive the dry air. If you are interested, the technical term is evapotranspiration - the rate at which water moves through the leaves given the rate of evaporation which depends on atmospheric temperature and humidity. Plants are evolved to exist within a range of temperature/humidity. Too far out, and they can not survive.
3. We may not all of us starve, we may not all of us die of tropical diseases that move north in response to increased temperatures, but we will certainly be much reduced in total population. Which may be a good thing - but I am reasonably certain most of us would prefer that it happen to someone else somewhere else. And since the changes are going to be random to some extent - or least not predictable with any certainty - attempting to save other people will help ensure our own survival.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
1. The glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, we may be speeding the process up but these water problems are going to come to a head sooner or later regardless of climate change. Best to address them now, even if we did magically stop emitting all GHG. Fortunately, we have a variety of technologies at our disposal to transport water, desalinize water and recycle water. It may be a labor intensive and expensive process to build that infrastructure, but it isn't any more daunting that what generations before us produced. Besides, we have a ton of unemployed people right now so we don't have a shortage of labor.
2. If the climate changes significantly, farming practices will have to change. Another problem that is not insurmountable. Tomatoes can be grown in all 50 states, 20 states currently grow at a commercial level, California being far and away the largest. If the temperature changes radically enough the USDA might have to redraw the Hardiness Zone map, but there is no reason to believe that growing tomatoes anywhere will become impossible. Worst case scenario, we have to eat Canadian tomatoes, which might turn all of us into hockey fans. Or, tomatoes thrive in hydroponics where the outside weather doesn't matter a hill of beans.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1210
Apples. Again, I doubt that apple trees are going to stop producing in any of their usual areas during our lifetimes. According to a recent study, apple production has remained consistent even as the number of apple orchards and acres farmed has dropped. Interestingly enough it says
http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ITS_4.pdf
But let us pretend the fear mongers are right for the sake of discussion. Washington becomes a completely hostile climate for apple orchards, what is to stop a movement north for apple production?
Even if apples were to completely disappear as a commercial crop, it isn't going to lead to starvation. Most of the world doesn't live on fruit, most of the world doesn't have the luxury of fruit on demand 365 days a year we have in the developed world. I might wish I was dead if I didn't get apple pie, but I'll survive in the highly unlikely event that apples cease to exist.
3. Who is going to die and how? Are we going to starve to death? Unlikely given that we don't use all of our tillable land today and with modern farming techniques can grow grains anywhere, even in the midst of droughts, windstorms, hurricanes, tumult, chaos and even the good times too. Even if crop yields dropped dramatically, we have enough available land to make up the difference. Most starvation in the world today has nothing to do with lack of supply and everything to do with distribution. FFS, humans have been figuring out how to grow crops since 10,000 BC with our modern technology and understanding we can figure out how to grow it no matter what the climate does. Most importantly, we have the ability to transport crops from anywhere in the world, so if some particular area becomes too difficult to farm we can grow them elsewhere. Worst case scenario- we have to give up or pay more for our luxury foods like apples and wine.
Going to die from tropical diseases? C'mon, the people who die from those die because they don't get medical attention in third world countries, modern medicine can greatly reduce the death rates of such diseases (see the medical journal I linked to above). Oh, wait, we have Bamacare so we probably won't have medical care either. Yep, we gonna die but that is another issue.
If our population drops at all it will be because people stop having so many kids. However, current projections don't have that happening at any serious level for quite some time. In 100 years, there will be substantially more people on the world than there are today, even if we have a nuclear war or holocaust that wipes out say 100 million.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
" to which I submit the large number of people living there NOW"
There are people living in Zimbabwe too. That doesn't mean it's not nearly uninhabitable. Try again.
"t is much easier to grow crops in high heat than it is to grow crops on a glacier."
Wrong. A glacier provides endless water for food to be grown indoors. Extreme heat kills crops directly, not even counting the drought side effects that exacerbate the problem.
" I guess that would depend on how cold it got in a hypothetical ice age. I have never been to Canada, but I went on a motorcycle run to Wisconsin one time and that was COLD to me."
Almost every, if not every, home in North America has a hot water heater. Most also have heating systems. The same is not true for air conditioning.
It's also easier to protect against the cold: put on more clothing. But there's a limit to how much you can take off.
If a sudden reversal of climate change occured, you'd find Texas could adapt to -20c winters with ease, in a generation at most.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The technology to provide heat and insulation against the cold is extensive and cheap.
But the North West Territories will not fare so well as their climate gets significantly warmer. Air conditioning is expensive technology and noone there has had a need for it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Grow all crops inside? An extremely difficult task that would require massive construction. Building large irrigation would be much easier, although admittedly no small task itself. All you have done is demonstrate your ignorance on farming.
More shit you just make up. 86% of American homes have some sort of air conditioning, 65% of all homes have central air, almost 90% of new homes being built have central air, so as old homes are torn down that number will continue to increase. Obviously, in the south and midwest where it is generally hotter the percentages are higher. In the east and west they are lower, probably mostly due to areas along the ocean where it doesn't get that hot.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-138
At least try googling before you spew shit pretending you know what you are talking about.
http://www.qualitysmith.com/request/articles/articles-cooling/central-air-conditioning-prices/
For $10,000 you can get top of the line air conditioning installed. For those with a lower budget or smaller homes you are looking at around $5,000- cheaper if you are able/willing to install it yourself, which is easy if you already have the ducts for say a forced air furnace. Central air is more expensive if you currently use baseboard heating because you will have to install the ducts, which isn't expensive but an existing home can be very time consuming leading to high labor costs. In which case you may be best off with window units which range from $80-$800
Hardly "expensive" technology. Actually, very similar pricing to heating. And insulation is the same, it doesn't matter whether it is insulating against heat or cold, it is the same fucking stuff doing the same fucking thing.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
"All you have done is demonstrate your ignorance on farming"
Right back at you. Massive construction can be completed exceptionally quickly and efficiently. There is NOTHING to prevent indoor growing of crops.
Also, you can't irrigate crops without water.
"More shit you just make up."
Again, right back at you. Nowhere near 80% of Americans have air conditioning. Your link is as irrelevant as always. Surveys? I'll just laugh at your complete stupidity now. Rofl.
"For $10,000 you can get top of the line air conditioning installed. "
Funny how the average person doesn't even have $1000 of disposable income, let alone 10k. Not to mention the significant impact on power bills.
Once again, all you've done is prove your ignorance and stupidity. Congrats. Looking forward to your next display.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I agree it would be possible, but it would be extraordinarily difficult. Just in the US we have 4.8 million acres of farmland. Covering all of that and heating it would be extremely difficult, require a massive amount of resources. Possible? Perhaps. Far more difficult than keeping crops well watered and humid in a drought where building misters and keeping the soil cool will do the trick. Although, if we were to build those massive greenhouses, we could just as easily build them for hot weather as for cold.
Do you have information that says otherwise? I own a company that appraises houses, one of the things we look for is air conditioning as it effects the value of a house. The stats are accurate in how the relate to my state. If you have any evidence for your claim whatsoever please show it.
It is cheaper than a new roof, about the same price as siding and about the same price as heating. All expenses that current homeowners and landlords deal with on a regular basis.
We deal with that impact in the winter with heating, there is no reason we can't deal with it in warmer weather for cooling the same way. After all, winter will be warmer too in theory so we are spending less on heating. We have programs to help the destitute keep their heating going even when they don't pay their bills, there is no reason why we wouldn't have similar programs to keep the AC on. In fact, we already have such assistance programs available in many states http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2012/cooling.htm if GW happened on the scale that you claim I am sure that such programs would be expanded. They will probably be expanded anyway because that is what government does.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Massive reasources my left testicle. A few properly placed and constructed windows would cover more than half the energy cost, and heat is dirt cheap compared to cold in production.
Far easier than transporting water over hundreds of kilometres and providing maintenance on said pipeline.
"Do you have information that says otherwise?"
You made the claim, defend it or concede. You can anecdote all you like, but so can I. Out of all the Americans I know well enough to comment on, 99% cannot afford air conditioning. The two who can are a glassblower and a guy who runs a number of small business ventures, mostly online.
A new roof is hardly a common issue. Typically a roof can last for 10+ years, which is about as long as people stay in one home on average, according to people I know in real estate and construction. Then it becomes a purchaser expense and can be rolled into the loans that pay for the house in the process.
It's a bit harder to get a loan just for an air conditioner.
Finally, heat doesn't cost
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
half as much to produce as cold. Every appliance, including air conditioners, produce heat. Cold is far more energy consuming to produce, and it still produces heat as a by product.
That hole you're digging looks awfully deep.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
We already have massive infrastructure designed to transport water. A few windows? To cover over 4 million acres? That is more than a few.
I provided the most accurate data available on the subject, unless you can explain why the survey data is wrong or how the governments methodology in collecting the information somehow leads to extreme inaccuracy I see no reason to doubt it. Especially since I live here and can look at my neighbors houses and see that most have air conditioning and prior to this year I spent two years driving around every day looking at houses and looking for things like AC. Even in the slummy side of town most units have at least window AC. When you get out into deliveranceville you will find places without AC but you also find people living without plumbing, without electricity, without teeth, with confederate flags and a tendency to approach you at the end of their driveway with an old shotgun in hand and I wouldn't be all that surprised if their mother was their sister and their wife.
And what prevents AC from being installed? Most houses that don't have central air are houses well older than 10 years and probably have much more significant work that needs to be completed on them. Adding AC is a small cost in comparison, especially since many buyers won't even consider a house without AC. If you are rehabbing a house to be sold you are probably already replacing the carpet, re-roofing, re-siding, replacing the windows, re painting, replacing the furnace and a variety of other small tasks to update it. Adding a few thousand for an AC unit is hardly going to break the camels back, especially considering the psychological effect on the purchasers when walking through and sweating in a house without AC compared to walking through a similar house with AC. Anyone in real estate who wouldn't sink the money into an AC unit is an idiot. Hell, paying for AC in every house that doesn't have it would be a lot cheaper than trying to grow every crop in doors. A move you claim would be easy.
And the loan is the same. The bank doesn't care if your home improvement loan is going to siding, roofing, remodeling the bathroom or the AC. Most home equity lines of credit do not even require you to state a reason which is why many people use them to pay off credit cards or pay for vacations- a very bad financial decision but not one the banks will stop you from and many even encourage it.
Any more random bullshit you care to spew? I know this field pretty well, I can do this all day.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I can't help but think that a discussion about the cost of air conditioning massively misses the point about the impacts of global climate change.
With only a 20cm rise in sea levels, current estimates are that over 700,000 people in Nigeria alone would be displaced. many Displacement of populations leads to famine, disease, etc etc. Asian areas such as Bangladesh will also suffer hugely with a similar increase in sea levels
With a very small change in the temperature levels, a lot of african agriculture would be devastated - They don't have the luxury of putting everything in big greenhouses.
So yes, the US may be fine, with an infrastructure that can handle technological changes to meet the new demand, but most of the world isn't so lucky. So even if you consider it too late to do much about, it's barbarous to say it'll all be fine merely because you and your friends can sit in an artificially created cool breeze while millions around you die.
And this isn't scaremongering - these figures are conservative estimates.
Yet all of our data shows that the ocean is only rising at 3.3 mm a year to reach that by 2050, which is only 38 years away requires a much faster pace. Show me where any of these predictions actually start matching the real measurements and I will be concerned. We are 17 years into the prediction made by Titus, 22 years from the first predictions made by the IPCC and the only thing that is clear is that by 2012 the dire predictions are nowhere near being on track. I thought when real data conflicts with predictions that scientists are supposed to revise their models?
http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Update_Pretoria_South%20Africa%20-%20Republic%20of_7-27-2011.pdf
Imagine that, you plant less you get less. Chalking it up to the weather simply because it fits an agenda is absurd. The harvest for 2012 in South Africa is increased 5% from 2011 despite having a dry year.
http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Update_Pretoria_South%20Africa%20-%20Republic%20of_7-26-2012.pdf
And is expected to increase as much as 10% next year because high corn prices due to the drought in the US is expected to cause more acres to be planted.
If that trend continues by 2030, South Africans will be unable to walk the streets because they will be overflowing with maize.
And that is an example of why all these climate doomsayers are bullshit. They say "if trends continue" while ignoring the myriad of factors that go into it and that trends are not going to continue indefinitely. Nor do they look to see why corn production in South Africa dropped, they just assume it is the weather because it supports their hypothesis which is lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Firstly, I said Southern Africa, not South Africa - South Africa is a relatively wealthy country whose population does not survive on subsistence farming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions.png
^Here's a neat graph showing several projections for Global warming based on the SRES (Special report on Emissions Scenarios) Report. Even if you don't believe it, scientists and clever people are able to make projections on this stuff.
You will note that the increase in temperatures is expected to be very small initially, but it gets faster with time, and even the most optimistic model has more than a 2 degree temperature increase by 2100. No-one is saying it is a linear increase, so your 'ocean rising too slowly' point is perfectly within expectations of the modelling.
Post SRES Projections largely agree with the modelling - and the baselining in the intervening years between reports.
The increase in emissions globally has been shown to have a measurable effect on temperature increase - I don't have that evidence in front of me at the moment, but I can dig it out if you wish - Practically all climate scientists accept this though.
This report was done in 2000, checked and adjusted based on population growth data and other factors in 2007 - the intervening years showed that the models broadly agreed with the projections.
Are you concerned? As for the Southern african crops - There's a difference between choosing not to grow crops one year, and not being able to because the earth is too dry and the sun is too hot over many years. You're cherry-picking data here. It doesn't take a genius to see that if temperature rises, more of the earth in some of the poorest places on earth will become desert, and unable to sustain agriculture.Fixed.
They make pretty big windows these days.
"I provided the most accurate data available on the subject,"
So in other words, you can't prove your claims and I'm fully justified in ignoring them as the lies they are.
"And what prevents AC from being installed?"
$.
Waiting for the next episode of Beyond is a dumb ass who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I feel like icing on my cake.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis. I don't dispute that GW is happening, it is. And there isn't much we can do to stop it, at best slow it down a few years. The ocean will rise, it has been rising for hundreds (thousands?) of years, no reason to expect that trend to stop. But there is a big practical difference between Nigeria being under water within a few years and being under water a century or more in the future.
I have no reason to dispute that.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32663
I, for one, am NOT advocating going back to pre-industrial technology, but instead, moving ahead.This article Vastet posted is a possibility for yet another alternative to fossil fuels. Waste-to-energy might also work - the plant near Spokane, WA has been up and running for years and adds very little pollutants to the air.
You are still no farmer.
Why don't we grow apples in Florida? Can we grow oranges in Maine? Will we be able to grow oranges in Maine if the weather warms enough? Don't know.
Many tropical plants require not only warmer temperatures, but also a certain number of daylight hours. Warmer temperatures in Maine will not come with more sunlight. I grow a few orchids in the house here in Portland, OR. And this far north, they have to have supplemental light even in the summer. It is not just the number of daylight hours, but also the angle of sunlight that makes a difference.
Can we gengineer plants that can grow in reduced light and warm temperatures - or that can grow above the arctic/antarctic circles? Don't know. Can we do it fast enough to feed the world? Don't know. Can we gengineer shellfish that can develop in water too acidic to form shells? I would think that would be really tough given calcium chemistry. Would shellfish that develop shells based on silicon or something else be edible? Can we determine that and develop it in less than a century? I just don't know.
Yes, most industrialized nations will manage to cope - somehow. Yes, the current situation for many non-industrialized nations, and those without massive natural resources, and those with marginal agricultural lands, is not a pretty sight now - and will only get worse. When I mentioned massive die offs, it was with the thought of those countries being in the worse trouble. And that means migrations - I don't see anything short of a force field keeping many of those people from the worst hit countries moving into countries with better climate or better technologies. No, I don't believe fences, guard dogs (even dragons if we had them), or gun emplacements will prevent all immigration. Seriously, people. And I am not thinking of just the US and our long borders, I am also thinking of Europe, South Africa, Australia, and anywhere else there is the technology and resources to cope.
There is also the disease issue. West Nile virus is here in the northwest US - we have the anopheles mosquitoes here, too. You know, the ones that carry malaria in other parts of the world. It is only a question of it being warm enough here for the parasite to survive, the host already does just fine. Read any book you like on the epidemiology of the spread of disease - http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X - and you may gain some insight of what people are talking about when they mention the spread of tropical diseases when the temperature warms.
(If you can not browse to Amazon, the book is:
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles Mann. It was available in my local public library, so you can get a copy for free. Equally interesting is his follow on book, 1493:Uncovering the New World Columbus Created. The books are based on recent archaeological and historical research.)
Am I being pessimistic, or a realist? Don't know. Not sure I want to know - I hope I am being overly pessimistic.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.