Global warming is good - stop opposing it

[kanicbird]

I don't know if the title is accurate or not, I'm not even sold on AGW (the 'A' part, that man is causing it). By hey that's what they say is happening, so lets go with that. So now we get to the point is it 'bad' or is it perhaps 'good'.

It is certainly change, and people have a natural resistance and fear of change, but change is offen good and necessary and offen fears are unfounded. Transitions are also seen as harsh, especially on a global scale, but perhaps on the other side there is a much greater world for humanity.

Just one aspect land that is frozen, too cold to produce much food may become a better place to grow food then the current locations, perhaps Siberia will become the world's bread basket - maybe far outstripping the loss and desertification of the US breadbasket that we hear rumored about occasionally.

There are many more such possibilities that may turn out to be a greater good.

Just some ponderings.

[Yorikke]

Is there much insanity in your family?

Joe

[Sailboat]

Another way to increase the availability of resources is to kill individual humans -- then there's more for the rest of us.

It appears you're volunteering everyone else on earth to experience the benefits of global warming, but I don't see you signing up to be killed to increase the availability of resources.

That's not because you don't care about the greater good. It's because you don't want something bad to happen to you personally, even if the result would be hypothetical improvement in the lives of others.

Well, global warming is going to suck for (either "lots of people" or "absolutely everyone," depending on which estimates you believe), and none of those people particularly want to suffer for some hypothetical benefit to strangers, either.

[Greg Charles]

That's number 3 on the Skeptical Science list of common climate change arguments made by the ignorant: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-negatives.htm

[srzss05]

It's one thing to wring your hands and say how terrible it is, and another actually do something about it. If it is going to happen, then perhaps the best thing is to accept it and stop worrying about it, because the last time I checked worrying hasn't solved anything.

[Thudlow Boink]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming

We're both being facetious, but nuclear bombs are a bit more under control than the climate is.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Another way to increase the availability of resources is to kill individual humans -- then there's more for the rest of us.

It appears you're volunteering everyone else on earth to experience the benefits of global warming, but I don't see you signing up to be killed to increase the availability of resources.

See I don't accept that. Killing people is killing solutions for humanity. Ways to get at resources are gone if you get rid of the person who will create them.

Well, global warming is going to suck for (either "lots of people" or "absolutely everyone," depending on which estimates you believe), and none of those people particularly want to suffer for some hypothetical benefit to strangers, either.

I don't accept that necessarily either. We already know that 'solutions' to stop GW will hurt the poorest people, people who will not be able to afford fuel to better themselves.

If GW is actually 'bad' the question then is is it worse then trying to stop it?

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Greg Charles

That's number 3 on the Skeptical Science list of common climate change arguments made by the ignorant: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-negatives.htm

This is what they say about that:
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

And they don't use the word ignorant so please be careful when you cite something in this context, we don't want to take it the wrong way

But the negative effects should be more commonly known then the positive, because what GW will take away are things we are used to having, the things GW will give are unknown because we don't have them yet. So at least on a common sense level we should know more what GW will take away then what it will give, that does not equate to GW will take more then it gives.

[thelurkinghorror]

You want most of the world to have the weather of the South? No thanks.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

You want most of the world to have the weather of the South? No thanks.

Finally an intelligent reply, well almost

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Greg Charles

That's number 3 on the Skeptical Science list of common climate change arguments made by the ignorant: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-negatives.htm

Looking more at your cite it states:

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

You've got to be kidding, the dominant forcing is by humans? they claim is 'what the science says' Humans is at best a small but persistant nudging force, no way a dominate force. Seasonal climate variation far outweigh human induced variation, night and day variation far outweight human induced variation. Your cite is discredited as far as I'm concerned.

[snowthx]

Here is some addition food for thought, if we are being serious here. The current agricultural infrastructure is not set up for the way things may be in a short amount of time. For example, grains grown in one location today may not be able to grow in that same location in the future due to temperature and rainfall patterns being altered. I could see wheat moving into new territory, as postulated, but it may not be able to grow where it is today, where the towns with the machinery, knowhow, and storage facilities currently exist. It's not like the entire "wheat factory" can just up and move to another, more favorable location every few years. Nevermind crops that require extensive irrigation systems, as well as years to become productive, such as nuts and citrus.

We have a lot invested in producing food in a climate like it is today. I suppose it is possible to move into new territory gradually over a number of decades, but if climate change is occuring too rapidly, it will throw things for a loop as with the dust bowl, IMHO.

[Omar Little]

Does anyone have a table of the averge temperature changes in specific regions of the world over the last 1,000 years? If not that period, how far back can we reliably document these variances?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

See I don't accept that. Killing people is killing solutions for humanity. Ways to get at resources are gone if you get rid of the person who will create them.

I agree. Take a look at how far much of Bangladesh is above sea level. Then consider how much sea level is expected to rise.
I hope you have room for about a million Bangladeshis in your basement, because they are going to need someplace else to live. And someplace else to grow food.

As for fuel, we can be far more efficient than we are, given the right financial incentives. Don't count engineering out.

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by Omar Little

Does anyone have a table of the averge temperature changes in specific regions of the world over the last 1,000 years? If not that period, how far back can we reliably document these variances?

Tree rings and ice cores tell us quite a bit of information about the climate in the past, but at the rate we are going there is no going much ice to core

[Omar Little]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

Tree rings and ice cores tell us quite a bit of information about the climate in the past, but at the rate we are going there is no going much ice to core

Since most studies I have read, discuss variations of 1/4 to 1/2 degree changes as being significant, can tree ring and ice core analysis really provide that level of granularity without accounting for other variables such as the planet's orbital position in relation to the sun at a specific time in the past to match up precisely with that particular spot on the tree ring? Seems like there's a LOT of assumptions being made in this historical analysis to have results as precise as they claim.

[DrDeth]

Actually, Global warming should be a little better than another Little Ice age.

BUT, the huge issue here is rate of change. The climate normally goes thru changes, but that takes hundreds if not thousands of years. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on, but if the worse models are true, then the climate is changing hwaaaay too fast for the good to outweigh the bad. So, it's not 'warming" per se that's so bad- it's rapid climate change.

[Omar Little]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Actually, Global warming should be a little better than another Little Ice age.

BUT, the huge issue here is rate of change. The climate normally goes thru changes, but that takes hundreds if not thousands of years. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on, but if the worse models are true, then the climate is changing hwaaaay too fast for the good to outweigh the bad. So, it's not 'warming" per se that's so bad- it's rapid climate change.

My point is that we don't know with a lot of confidence that this sort of climate change that has occurred in the last 70 years, hasn't regularly occurred over the last 2,000 years at different points. The ice core and tree ring studies can't provide that level of accuracy. Again a LOT of assumptions. I'm not saying it isn't happening, I'm just not convinced that it hasn't happened in the past for whatever reasons.

And we definitely shouldn't be making public policy decisions based upon this level of study. 70-100 years of accurate readings is miniscule sample of the current age of the earth to make such claims.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Omar Little

My point is that we don't know with a lot of confidence that this sort of climate change that has occurred in the last 70 years, hasn't regularly occurred over the last 2,000 years at different points. The ice core and tree ring studies can't provide that level of accuracy. Again a LOT of assumptions. I'm not saying it isn't happening, I'm just not convinced that it hasn't happened in the past for whatever reasons.

And suppose it did happen in the past? The question is, what would the effects of it be now, with 7 billion people in the world?

And we definitely shouldn't be making public policy decisions based upon this level of study. 70-100 years of accurate readings is miniscule sample of the current age of the earth to make such claims.

Even if we assume there's, say, only a 20% chance that the AGW alarmists are right, have you heard of the concept of insurance?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Looking more at your cite it states:


You've got to be kidding, the dominant forcing is by humans? they claim is 'what the science says' Humans is at best a small but persistant nudging force, no way a dominate force. Seasonal climate variation far outweigh human induced variation, night and day variation far outweight human induced variation. Your cite is discredited as far as I'm concerned.

Ever since the 70's the evidence shows that natural forces are no longer the dominant force.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

And here is a tip: Skeptical science links to the science itself, as far as I can see you only demonstrate unwillingness to check the evidence.

[Omar Little]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

And suppose it did happen in the past? The question is, what would the effects of it be now, with 7 billion people in the world?

Even if we assume there's, say, only a 20% chance that the AGW alarmists are right, have you heard of the concept of insurance?

The problem with that theory, is that if the alarmists are correct, the type of insurance you really need to correct the problem is WAY more costly than anyone wants to really face. Better gas mileage in cars, lower polluting energy plants, etc. will be a drop in the bucket to counteract the impact of the doubled population.

The biggest contributor of greenhouse gases is the production of all of the food needed to feed all of the people on the planet. Mass genocide is really the only sure form to reduce the increase greenhouse gases that the doubling of the population has created in an appreciable way.

The current policies that are being proposed are lip service to the problem if the climate scientists are truly correct.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Omar Little

My point is that we don't know with a lot of confidence that this sort of climate change that has occurred in the last 70 years, hasn't regularly occurred over the last 2,000 years at different points. The ice core and tree ring studies can't provide that level of accuracy. Again a LOT of assumptions. I'm not saying it isn't happening, I'm just not convinced that it hasn't happened in the past for whatever reasons.

And we definitely shouldn't be making public policy decisions based upon this level of study. 70-100 years of accurate readings is miniscule sample of the current age of the earth to make such claims.

Number 1 in the skeptical science list of myths.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

The quick reply was there for years already:

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

As for the "70-100 years" point it is really ridiculous as it is the same argument used by creationists when they deny evolution, they point at "no one has observed macro-evolution in the previous centuries", therefore it is not happening. What is clear to me is that there is really a lot of unfounded assumptions behind the idea that we should dismiss paleoclimate evidence.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Omar Little

The problem with that theory, is that if the alarmists are correct, the type of insurance you really need to correct the problem is WAY more costly than anyone wants to really face. Better gas mileage in cars, lower polluting energy plants, etc. will be a drop in the bucket to counteract the impact of the doubled population.

What is important is to know what is your definition of an alarmist, clearly it is not the IPCC. I have to say here that recent discussions have show me that many are not even aware of what is the difference and apply terms like "Alarmist" to conservative outfits (on the matter of predictions) like the IPCC.

Originally Posted by Omar Little

The biggest contributor of greenhouse gases is the production of all of the food needed to feed all of the people on the planet. Mass genocide is really the only sure form to reduce the increase greenhouse gases that the doubling of the population has created in an appreciable way.

The current policies that are being proposed are lip service to the problem if the climate scientists are truly correct.

Remember, policy positions are the result of what is possible in an environment where a good number of politicians even deny that there is a problem to begin with.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

I don't accept that necessarily either. We already know that 'solutions' to stop GW will hurt the poorest people, people who will not be able to afford fuel to better themselves.

We know nothing of the kind. Someone who has money at stake as claimed that solutions will hurt the poor, sure. In other news, mafia bosses routinely plead innocent.

At least one study has shown, for example, that investment in specific green technologies has returned more cash than it cost, once one factors in long-term benefits including sale of the valuable tech itself. Perhaps that will be the case here. Since the alternative is wide-scale destruction and massive reinvestment in rebuilding, it seems certain that green tech will cost less (quick -- how much to rebuild every coastal city on Earth?), but I'm only using logic, not actual cost estimating.