What about nations that benefit from AGW?

[Bryan_Ekers]

The U.S. could benefit if Florida disappears.

[UDS]

@Stoneburg

The politicians are elected to represent the interest of their population, are they not?

Not to the exclusion of all else, no. Plus, you can’t assume that “interests” means “maximising material well-being”; the people may have an interest in behaving ethically.

[wolfpup]

I believe Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina are all states that prohibit state public servants from using “liberal code words” like “climate change” and “sea level rise”. I suppose there’s a certain justice to all three of them eventually being under water.

[GIGObuster]

It is really bad when Lysenkoism * is preferred rather than science to set policy. A lot of harm only comes from that.

• Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of the hybridization theories of Russian horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich, it lead to the loss of many crops and even caused thousands to die IIRC. Not as deadly I think, but very harmful results can be expected when the state governors are following the dictates of the new Lysenkos.

[Claverhouse]

@foolsguinea

This. Canada has about 10% the population of the USA. If climate change somehow leads to enough of a permanent loss of agricultural productivity in the southwestern quarter, we eventually will come north, and neither Christian charity nor Mother England will stop us. :mad:

The Fires of Hell shall not stop them !
However as Alaska’s been on fire this summer ( minus 2 million acres… ), followed by Washington & Oregon, which not even the 15’ waves can quench, I imagine these northern promised lands might not be that hospitable in 200 odd years…
Thanks to AGW…

Half a Million Acres Burned in Just One Day — Alaska Shatters Record For Worst June Wildfire Outbreak Ever
US Experiencing Worst Fire Season on Record as Blazes in Washington and Oregon Explode Twelvefold to Over 1 Million Acres
10-15 Foot Waves Break Seawall at Barrow, Alaska
All robertscribbler.com

[Bridget_Burke]

So, Sweden achieves The Perfect Climate, thanks to Climate Change. (Although reviewing the actual science makes this seem a bit doubtful.)

No doubt, the Swedes will gladly open their borders to all the folks fleeing the countries that get the short end of the stick. All that formerly chilly, sparsely populated land can be filled by the teeming masses. They may be impoverished & in need of assistance in making the former tundra bloom–but the Swedes will open their hearts & their pocket books. How inspiring…

[MrQwertyasd]

@Stoneburg

Easy solution, we just close our borders. Which is pretty easy considering our geography. Then we are basically sitting pretty with nicer weather, better crops and lower utility bills.

Maybe, but that costs money, so you already have an expense.

[MrQwertyasd]

@ralph124c

Global warming will benefit Russia, Scandinavia, Canada, Alaska. It will enable cheap shipping routes from Asia to Europe, and open up the Northwest Passage. Some areas in the temperate zone will become drier, some wetter. But the main effect will be to enhance agricultural productivity.

Hmm, Russia keeps having bad problems with forest fires and heat waves. 2012 was hottest for 170 years in Russia. Crop failure doubled the price of wheat if I remember right.
2010 was bad too “A heat wave that fanned wildfires and blanketed Moscow with acrid smoke pushed up the number of deaths in Russia by nearly a fifth in July and August this year, according to a government report issued Monday.
Nearly 56,000 more people died nationwide this summer than in the same period last year, said a monthly Economic Development Ministry report on Russia’s economy”
**
**

[MrQwertyasd]

@LinusK

Climate has changed throughout the world’s history.

We’re currently living in an interglacial period of an ice age. What that means is we’re currently in a window of warmer temperatures during an epoch when temperatures are usually much colder. The good news is (or bad news, I guess, depending on your philosophy - or where you live) normally the interglacial periods last about 10,000 years, and the current one started about 10,000 years ago.

So in a short time (geologically speaking) we should expect Sweden - as well as Canada, and parts of the northern US - to be buried under ice once again.

Nope, CO2 levels mean the glaciation has been postponed possibly for 500,000 years.

[watchwolf49]

@MrQwertyasd

Nope, CO2 levels mean the glaciation has been postponed possibly for 500,000 years.

Do you honestly think the fossil fuel supply will last that long?

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Do you honestly think the fossil fuel supply will last that long?

He is talking about research that points to how long CO2 does last in the atmosphere. And it all depends on how much humans will release.

Carbon cycle models indicate that 25% of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and 7% will remain beyond one hundred thousand years (Archer, 2005). We predict that a carbon release from fossil fuels or methane hydrate deposits of 5000 Gton C could prevent glaciation for the next 500,000 years, until after not one but two 400 kyr cycle eccentricity minima. The duration and intensity of the projected interglacial period are longer than have been seen in the last 2.6 million years.

The paper shows a graph that shows the differences between 3 scenarios of the values of how much humans can release before each scenario is more probable:

Blue line for 300 Gigatons, orange is 1000 Gton and red is 5000 Gton.

We have already passed the blue mark [300] Gigatons.

The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely

Release of 1000 gigatonnes of carbon (orange line) would prevent an ice age for 130,000 years. If anthropogenic carbon release were 5000 gigatonnes or more, glaciation will be avoided for at least half a million years. As things stand now, the combination of relatively weak orbital forcing and the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is likely to generate a longer interglacial period than has been seen in the last 2.6 million years.

When experts talk about humans treating the atmosphere like a sewer that is what they mean. How much we dump not only leads to preventing a probable ice age that natural forces could had send us in 10,000 years but to higher temperatures than the ones seen in the previous 10,000 the most likely effects of that on sea level rise and loss of crops in dry areas is enough reason to stop doing that.

http://www.climateconsent.org/pages/carbonmaths.html

Since 1751, approximately 356 billion metric tonnes (gigatons) of carbon has been released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels (and cement production, which accounts for about 5% of global CO2 emissions because CO2 is a by-product of converting calcium carbonate into lime). Half of all fossil fuel emissions have occurred since 1980. (Biogeosciences, 9, 1845-1871, 2012)

In 2010, at UN climate talks in Mexico, 167 countries, together responsible for more than 87% of global carbon emissions, committed to prevent average temperatures rising more than 2˙C above pre-industrial levels. “Two degrees” has been adopted as the threshold which we must not pass.

To keep temperature rise within 2˙C, climate scientists calculate that human activity can add no more than another 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 2050. At present rates, (31 gigatons globally during 2011 and rising) this figure will be reached by 2028.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@wolfpup

I believe Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina are all states that prohibit state public servants from using “liberal code words” like “climate change” and “sea level rise”. I suppose there’s a certain justice to all three of them eventually being under water.

hangs head We tried.

[GIGObuster]

I forgot the link to the paper for the first quote in my last post (PDF):

http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/archer.2005.trigger.pdf

[Lumpy]

The answer of course is a world government, that allocates economic resources and burdens from each country according to its ability and to each according to its need. The reactionaries will be reeducated, and an environmental vanguard will lead us into a future where selfish consumerism and exploitation of the ecology will be no more.

[Stoneburg]

@Lumpy

The answer of course is a world government, that allocates economic resources and burdens from each country according to its ability and to each according to its need. The reactionaries will be reeducated, and an environmental vanguard will lead us into a future where selfish consumerism and exploitation of the ecology will be no more.

I’d vote for that.