Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Is this seriously your understanding of what a 6ºC global average increase in temp. means?

Hopefully you are just being facetious and you actually understand that the difference between a snowball Earth and a desert planet is a range of only about 25ºC. Our planet is only ~5ºC warmer now than it was in the depths of the current ice age, and the PETM heat/anoxia extinction episode is only ~6ºC warmer than it is now.

It doesn't matter, either way humans are adapted to climate extremes. Land will be lost and land will the gained. There may be migration from the equatorial region, but there is plenty of land in the Northern hemisphere. I think you'd be surprised how big North Dakota and Manitoba actually are.

 

[Furcifer]

Eating meat has nothing to do with caring or not caring about the environment and biologic diversity. Eating cheap meat shipped across the planet while encouraging the unthinking destruction of diversity, is not about being a "top predator," nor does it capitalize on humanities supposed greatest strength, our intelligence, in fact, rather the opposite. Destroying that which you require for your own survival and the survival of your progeny is a dead-end path. And humanity continues to push its case for earning a Darwin award.

We don't have to give up meat, but it may be time to give up 99¢ take-out burgers imported from Chile

If you shop at a grocery store you're contributing to the loss of species and destruction of habitat. Or Wal-Mart. No meat, no furniture, no nothing if you want to claim you don't contribute to the loss of biodiversity on this planet.

We might be able to cut you some slack if you're a Mennonite

 

[CapelDodger]

The tropical temps and transitionally shifting rain belts are being pushed ahead of expanding desertification zones, we are not filling the world with tropical abundances, rather we are altering and changing the fundementals of what have traditionally been the definitions of these ecological/meteorological zones. The moisture and temperature is being pushed north. The main northern zone that is expanding is the lower sub-tropic, think cold, snowy, swamps that freeze in the winter and ooze bugs and methane in the short stormy, springs and summers.

The desert belts lie at the poleward edges of the tropics, where cold, dessicated air falls before flowing back towards the equator (as I understand it, according to a simle view of the Hadley Cells). This expansion is, for instance, bringing North Saharan conditions to Southern Europe and Mexican desert conditions to the Southern US. 3bodyproblem won't have so far to go to find a tropical holiday destination in future, which is splendid news. Sure, the food will be more expensive when he gets there, but it'll be more expensive at home anyway.

The Ferrell cell is also expanding, and more in latitude (I suspect there's a sine function involved . The area affected is a different question, one I won't attempt off the top of my head. The feedback impact on climate (rather than on food-supply or fresh water) will be greater, of course.

3bodyproblem can probably see the bright side of that as well. One has to admire his talents in that direction.

 

[Furcifer]

It is cheaper to act sooner rather than later.

I highly doubt this. I suspect disproportionate number of the climate change fanatics own betamax and HDVD players

From what I gather, no amount of money is going to reduce CO2 emissions over the next 30 years. If Canada, the US and the EU all buckled down and put everything they have into nuclear, alternatives and electric vehicles, nothing would happen to the global emission levels. The costs of coal and oil would plummet and they would be used in India, Indonesia and China.

As long as there is a market for fossil fuels they will be used. As long as we use fossil fuels CO2 emissions will continue to rise.

 

[Dancing David]

Wha? Even if the poles melted entirely there will be places for people to go. Water World was fiction, not fact.


That's not what the IPCC says.

yeah, I will rely on crop scientists for that not the IPCC.

Yes there will.

Excuse me, do even know what the growing season length is for maize? Three weeks of growing season is not going to allow people to crop maize in anything other than a very small area, where they do not crop maize already. Soybeans has a shorter growing season but the same applies.

If it even matters. The IPCC predictions don't account for changes to the way things are grown. Land can be put under glass, irrigation networks etc. etc.

Ever live near a farm?
There growth of the current crop of maize and soybeans is not going to be supported under glass, we are not talking about the tomatos in Leamington to make ketchup.
The fact that you mention irrigation shows you don't know much about water resources either.

This would all cost a significant amount, more than apparently you think. And it would not provide for the current level of crop production.

I get the distinct impression you imagine everything staying the same way it is right now, just warmer. I can't imagine what society will look like 200 years from now.

you imagine a lot about other peopel thoughts and motives, that way you can avoid the issues.
I am talking about climate change, you apprently think we will save money by switching the lives of billions of people and the whole infrastructure rather than changing a single portion of our infrastructure.

Fifty years until you will not be able to grow corn due to heat stress, by the way, no ground water to irrigate it in most of Illinois.
[/quote]
What I can tell you is people live quite comfortably right now in climates that differ by 10 degrees on average. So the climate in Chicago will be more like it is in Arizona today, big deal. This is the worst case scenario.
[/quote]
Yup, I doubt your sincerity even more, haow many dies in the last heat wave in Chicago?

I find it much more likely that within 100 years we'll have the technology to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

Yup. let your grand children fix the house's roof after you are dead.

...
These doomsday predictions never work out. They're just used to scare people into submission.

not what I said, what you are placing in my mouth.

While relying on future technology to solve future problems is foolish, so is completely ignoring the probability of their invention. If the Wright brothers could figure out flight 100 years ago, removing CO2 from the atmosphere shouldn't be that difficult. Nanotechnology is probably the the solution, but biotechnology looks promising as well.

how is that going to help the people in bangladesh thirty years from now?

 

[Furcifer]

Excuse me, do even know what the growing season length is for maize? Three weeks of growing season is not going to allow people to crop maize in anything other than a very small area, where they do not crop maize already. Soybeans has a shorter growing season but the same applies.

All too well. Most of the people I know spent time in the fields detassling or working at the cannery. That's basically all they grow around here is corn and soybeans alternating between the two as part of the crop rotation. Everything else is under glass, tomatoes, peppers and cukes.

Of course corn is grown from Mexico to Canada in wide range of growing conditions. The geometry of the NA means that as the temperature increases more land will be available for growing. It may require preparation in order to do so, but that's prohibitively complicated.

Ever live near a farm?
There growth of the current crop of maize and soybeans is not going to be supported under glass, we are not talking about the tomatos in Leamington to make ketchup.

Yes, I lived in the middle of farm country and owned a 5 acre hobby farm. No, corn and soybeans aren't currently under glass, but that's only because it isn't necessary.
Heinz doesn't buy hothouse tomatoes for ketchup. They use field tomatoes from contracted farmers. I've picked those tomatoes as a Summer job as well. Terrible back breaking work.

This would all cost a significant amount, more than apparently you think. And it would not provide for the current level of crop production.

Nothing usually gets "cheaper" to do. It does however get easier.

I am talking about climate change, you apprently think we will save money by switching the lives of billions of people and the whole infrastructure rather than changing a single portion of our infrastructure.

No I'm talking about solutions, you're talking about throwing good money after bad. What difference does it make if you trade in your clunker and buy a Prius if your neighbor buys your clunker because that's all he can afford?

Fifty years until you will not be able to grow corn due to heat stress, by the way, no ground water to irrigate it in most of Illinois.

It might require GMO's and some infrastructure but it's not impossible.

Yup, I doubt your sincerity even more, haow many dies in the last heat wave in Chicago?

How many froze to death? Oh that's right they're usually the homeless anyways so what does it matter.

how is that going to help the people in bangladesh thirty years from now?

How are we helping them today?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm assuming where it isn't wet.

Funny ha ha, so the people who already live there and use that land , what are they to do?

You could try addressing the issue, internally displaced peopel or refugees to another country, they will not have places to live of land to farm. So migration is an issue that you seem to ignore, I never mentioned water world. So can they come to your house?

 

[Warmer1]

3 Problem solving strategies in a nutshell.

1. Don't understand it

2. Don't believe it

3. Don't care anyway

 

[Furcifer]

Funny ha ha, so the people who already live there and use that land , what are they to do?

You could try addressing the issue, internally displaced peopel or refugees to another country, they will not have places to live of land to farm. So migration is an issue that you seem to ignore, I never mentioned water world. So can they come to your house?

Manitoba alone is almost 4.5x the size of Bangladesh, virtually uninhabited and has an almost unlimited supply of fresh water.

I can name several more places in different countries that are more than adequate for human life. People just need to get over their racism.

Mass migration is at the core of human existence, it's been done before and it will happen again. The imaginary lines on the map do less for culture and more for hatred between people anyways. I won't be sorry to see them go.

So yes, they can come to my house. I have no problem with that.

 

[Mikemcc]

Funny ha ha, so the people who already live there and use that land , what are they to do?

You could try addressing the issue, internally displaced peopel or refugees to another country, they will not have places to live of land to farm. So migration is an issue that you seem to ignore, I never mentioned water world. So can they come to your house?

Especially when those displaced are surrounded by folk that don't get on well with them. There was a reason behind the horrors of Partition.

 

[Dancing David]

It doesn't matter, either way humans are adapted to climate extremes. Land will be lost and land will the gained. There may be migration from the equatorial region, but there is plenty of land in the Northern hemisphere. I think you'd be surprised how big North Dakota and Manitoba actually are.

Hi, that does not mean there will be more land for cultivation, not does it mean that the people occupying the land will share it.

The winters in ND and manitoba in the winter will be the same. Why does 85% of the Canadian population not live in the higher lattitudes? If teh growing season is extended by three weeks, what new crops will they be able to grow in the higher lattitudes? Even the area for winter wheat cultivation would not be etended by that large an amount.

The issue of migration is more than 'there is a place they could go', can they come to your house?

 

[Dancing David]

All too well. Most of the people I know spent time in the fields detassling or working at the cannery. That's basically all they grow around here is corn and soybeans alternating between the two as part of the crop rotation. Everything else is under glass, tomatoes, peppers and cukes.

And if the growing season extended by three weeks, who much more land can grow corn and beans?

You did not answer that did you.

the answer is , not much.

Of course corn is grown from Mexico to Canada in wide range of growing conditions. The geometry of the NA means that as the temperature increases more land will be available for growing. It may require preparation in order to do so, but that's prohibitively complicated.

Excuse me, which part of the growing season will extnd by three weeks, and that is the upper ends of teh models don't you understand. How far north of you do they grow maize?

Would a one week extension of the growing season let them grow maize?

Yes, I lived in the middle of farm country and owned a 5 acre hobby farm. No, corn and soybeans aren't currently under glass, but that's only because it isn't necessary.

What would the cost of a ten thousand acre farm be?

Heinz doesn't buy hothouse tomatoes for ketchup. They use field tomatoes from contracted farmers. I've picked those tomatoes as a Summer job as well. Terrible back breaking work.

I know, but again which part of canada is that. If you extended teh growing season by three weeks how much farther north in Ontario could yu grow field tomatoes?

Nothing usually gets "cheaper" to do. It does however get easier.



No I'm talking about solutions, you're talking about throwing good money after bad. What difference does it make if you trade in your clunker and buy a Prius if your neighbor buys your clunker because that's all he can afford?

Straw man, and not anything i would suggest, want to try actually discussing something?

Switching over thirty years to various ways of releasing less carbon in electricity production would be a better strategy.

I agree the implementation of policy is going to be an issue. AGW seems to exist.

It might require GMO's and some infrastructure but it's not impossible.




How many froze to death? Oh that's right they're usually the homeless anyways so what does it matter.

Move the goals posts and not answer my question?

How are we helping them today?

Can they come to your house?

 

[Furcifer]

And if the growing season extended by three weeks, who much more land can grow corn and beans?

More than will be lost.

You did not answer that did you.

I yes did.

the answer is , not much.

More is more, and no it's a lot.

Excuse me, which part of the growing season will extnd by three weeks, and that is the upper ends of teh models don't you understand. How far north of you do they grow maize?

The compass direction is irrelevant. Everything is North of here.

Would a one week extension of the growing season let them grow maize?

Much of the land isn't even being utilized for much more than feed corn. You have no idea how much land is available for edible varieties. At worst the cost of beef and pork would increase.

What would the cost of a ten thousand acre farm be?

$50 Million here in Ontario. $8 Million in Manitoba.

I know, but again which part of canada is that. If you extended teh growing season by three weeks how much farther north in Ontario could yu grow field tomatoes?

Depends, it looks like most of Northern Ontario would become 2a or 2b, essentially 100 000 km^2 in Ontario alone. It would require clearing the land, but with modern machinery it would take very little time.

Switching over thirty years to various ways of releasing less carbon in electricity production would be a better strategy.

It doesn't matter because that carbon will be picked up in regions that currently don't have electricity.

Can they come to your house?

Like I said before, I'm not a racist so I don't see any issue with people coming to Canada. That's how we operate, we take in people from all over the World and make them Canadians.

Americans might have more of an issue, they seem to be more inclined to think the country is full.

 

[Furcifer]

The issue of migration is more than 'there is a place they could go', can they come to your house?

This seems to be rather overtly racist ie; "Would you want one of them in your house?". I don't see any issue with the migration of people displaced by rising ocean levels over 100 years. Countries aren't "full".

 

[DC]

More than will be lost.



I yes did.




More is more, and no it's a lot.




The compass direction is irrelevant. Everything is North of here.



Much of the land isn't even being utilized for much more than feed corn. You have no idea how much land is available for edible varieties. At worst the cost of beef and pork would increase.



$50 Million here in Ontario. $8 Million in Manitoba.



Depends, it looks like most of Northern Ontario would become 2a or 2b, essentially 100 000 km^2 in Ontario alone. It would require clearing the land, but with modern machinery it would take very little time.



It doesn't matter because that carbon will be picked up in regions that currently don't have electricity.



Like I said before, I'm not a racist so I don't see any issue with people coming to Canada. That's how we operate, we take in people from all over the World and make them Canadians.

Americans might have more of an issue, they seem to be more inclined to think the country is full.

So you want others to pay the ultimate price for OUR lifestyle.How nice of you.

 

[Mikemcc]

...
Depends, it looks like most of Northern Ontario would become 2a or 2b, essentially 100 000 km^2 in Ontario alone. It would require clearing the land, but with modern machinery it would take very little time.
...

And how much nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer is available to make this land viable?

 

[Malerin]

Despite the alarmism climate change isn't happening that fast.

It is. The tropics are expanding, sea-levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, deluges and droughts are reaching epidemic proportions. It's already having an effect on global agriculture. How fast does it need to be to present a problem in your eyes?

It has all the momentum of a runaway sloth.

AGW has enormous momentum, of course, and there's nothing much pushing back. Expect more of the same.

Going back 80 years, it has all the momentum of a sloth:

From 2000-2010, there's been 1/10 of a degree of warming.
1990-2010, there's been 1/10 of a degree of warming.
1980-2010, 3/10 of a degree
1970-2010, 4/10 of a degree
1960-2010, 4/10 of a degree
1950-2010, 8/10 of a degree
1940-2010, 4/10 of a degree
1930-2010, 6/10 of a degree
http://www.woodfortrees.org (Hadcrut3 variance adjusted global mean).

What is everyone freaking out about? ONE degree of warming in the next hundred years?

 

[Dancing David]

Manitoba alone is almost 4.5x the size of Bangladesh, virtually uninhabited and has an almost unlimited supply of fresh water.

I can name several more places in different countries that are more than adequate for human life. People just need to get over their racism.

Mass migration is at the core of human existence, it's been done before and it will happen again. The imaginary lines on the map do less for culture and more for hatred between people anyways. I won't be sorry to see them go.

So yes, they can come to my house. I have no problem with that.

Great, but what will they farm in Manitoba and who will pay for it? It would be less costly to reduce the amount of CO-2 emitted. Your solution is more expensive. It also only addresses one of the impacts of the AGW. There are plenty more.

I am putting your name on the list.

Mass migration is part of human existance, and usually it occurs at much slower scales.

 

[Dancing David]

More than will be lost.

gheat stress will effect most crops gown in most of teh agricultural areas of teh world and you think that a marginal increase in wheat production is going to compensate for that?

50%>5%

I think you are just arguing.

I yes did.




More is more, and no it's a lot.

Really, so more land will be available for wheat production about 5%, but in nontropical areas the heat stress will increase and the potential for dry spells will devistate crops. The main increase in growing would be of winter wheat.

The compass direction is irrelevant. Everything is North of here.

This makes me feel you are just here to score points not actually discuss.

Much of the land isn't even being utilized for much more than feed corn. You have no idea how much land is available for edible varieties. At worst the cost of beef and pork would increase.

Now that is true (feed crops), however the fact that most of the temperate zone farming would suffer heat stress and catastrophic damage from dry spells is a real issue. Especially in teh Midwest of teh US, rain fall decreases or stays the same in most models. So no more maize, which is a great crop in terms of production. More heat tolerant crops that are less productive. And teh rain fall here in Illinois, one inch less a month would kill the crops with higher temps.

$50 Million here in Ontario. $8 Million in Manitoba.

So lets see, putting glass over a ten thousand acre farm costs relatively about the same as retrofitting clean capture technology on a single coal plant. Now production stations have multiple plants. But again it is more cost effective to implement a capture technology than to compensate for it.

Depends, it looks like most of Northern Ontario would become 2a or 2b, essentially 100 000 km^2 in Ontario alone. It would require clearing the land, but with modern machinery it would take very little time.

You just don't care about cost do you, that was just a false pretense on your part. So what can you grow on that new land?

It doesn't matter because that carbon will be picked up in regions that currently don't have electricity.



Like I said before, I'm not a racist so I don't see any issue with people coming to Canada. That's how we operate, we take in people from all over the World and make them Canadians.

Americans might have more of an issue, they seem to be more inclined to think the country is full.

Agreed and definitely more xenophobic as a melting pot. Me son is a Newfie.

 

[Dancing David]

This seems to be rather overtly racist ie; "Would you want one of them in your house?". I don't see any issue with the migration of people displaced by rising ocean levels over 100 years. Countries aren't "full".

It is called hyperbole to exagerate the issue of migration and currently 'displaced' people are a real issue, always those that suffer the most in wars, other than the direct casualties. It was not meant to be racism, just an exageration to make the point.

They are not wanted by the 'host' countries and reluctant to return home. A real human rights issue. Under housed, under fed and prone to commuicable diseases.