Is there an upside to global warming?

[Trakar]

No.



I've already answered your question, repeatedly. My answer won't change, no matter how many times you ask. Now go away and keep listening to those little voices in your head, and leave me alone.

There is no call for being personally insulting, this is twice, I'll not ignore it again.

Your expressed opinions and considerations are at odds with the statements of the sources you claim represent the scientific basis of your understanding, please explain the contradiction, or source the basis of your actual positions.

You have answered nothing, except to (seemingly) repeatedly contradict the references you yourself cite. Your statements are not reflecting or in accord with the accepted mainstream scientific perspective on the issue climate change. This is fine, but it is disingenuous to assert that you are, and then make assertions and claims that are not.

I am simply trying to understand this apparent contradiction.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Meh

 

[Trakar]

Meh

If that's the best response you have, it will have to suffice, at the least, it is not contradictory nor out of character.

 

[CapelDodger]

There are a range of perspectives within both the field specfic climatology concensus, and within the broader more generally relevent scientific fields with regards to the climate changes currently being experienced.

That's as horrible as the first thing I picked up on. But let's move on from there afresh.

Your use of perspective varies with how high up the hill you live. But as I say, let that past.

What actually matters in human terms is what's likely to happen. That's mostly about what people will do in response to AGW, not what they do to mitigate it. The science and physical evidence is pretty clear, in terms of rainfall and perennial ice, but just how people react is not something science can address.

Sea-levels will rise, that's a given, and many people live in deltas. Small islands are more photogenic but not so significant. Deltas tend to support people in the tens of millions and they're not so isolated.

Himalayan and Tibetan perennial ice isn't long for this world, and that's going to make a big difference where most of the world's population currently lives. There's a similar problem in the Andes and Rockies chain, but less significant. Fewer people affected.

The shifting rain-belts have already brought droughts, and there's only so long the "this has happened before" argument can survive. It's pretty strained already. It's having a big impact in the commercial grain-belts (in Argentina, Australia, the US). That will affect a lot of people.

 

[DogB]

It's having a big impact in the commercial grain-belts (in Argentina, Australia, the US).

You say this yet I’m taking a bath on wheat futures!

Damn pathetic El Nino!

 

[macdoc]

Try gold and Apple

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=AApl


Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...

 

[CapelDodger]

You say this yet I’m taking a bath on wheat futures!

Damn pathetic El Nino!

Analogous to the difference between weather and climate. Short-term market-movements are a bitch. And they didn't make Warren Buffet rich.

A long position on food strikes me as sensible. There is no more primary market, nor such an urgent one. In the sense of "can't be put off", as a new car or bigger TV can. Siberian wheatlands my arse, if you want to cash in before you're long dead a 20-30 year long position is my "buy" of the epoch.

If you're into short-term for the ride, there's nothing wrong with that . Just don't bitch when it goes awry.

 

[CapelDodger]

Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...

The high price of scarcity more than outwheighs the low-price of abundance. People have to eat. Cities are full of people who will soon go berserk if they're not fed. In times of food scarcity the terms-of-trade between city and country shift in favour of the country.

 

[CapelDodger]

Try gold and Apple

Apples are good. There's no limit to the demand for cider. As or gold, I see no discernable trend.

 

[DogB]

Try gold and Apple

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=AApl

Apple yes, everything they touch turns to gold at the moment. Gold itself I would be wary of - I think it's overdue a big correction.

Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...

Mostly true but there's still money to be made. You just need to be in the right place at the right time. I think sugar is going to come back big time.

Analogous to the difference between weather and climate.

Actually specifically associated with the weather in this case. I made judgement call based on a fast moving SOI. I got it wrong. Stuff happens.

Short-term market-movements are a bitch. And they didn't make Warren Buffet rich.

A long position on food strikes me as sensible. There is no more primary market, nor such an urgent one. In the sense of "can't be put off", as a new car or bigger TV can. Siberian wheatlands my arse, if you want to cash in before you're long dead a 20-30 year long position is my "buy" of the epoch.

Yeah food is safe in the long term but the margins are so small you might as well use an IBD. That said there are occasional possibilities – sugar for ethanol shows some promise and diesel from algae is a big risk with potentially astronomical rewards.

If you're into short-term for the ride, there's nothing wrong with that . Just don't bitch when it goes awry.

It’s my party and I”ll bitch if I want to.

Futures are fun and in the last few months the smart money has been making money. But ultimately they’re no different than rolling on black.

 

[lomiller]

I think there is too much uncertainty now to accurately predict what will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years in the future if AGW is unchecked.

An understanding of what they mean by long term predictions would be of value, because you mention periods that are not considered long term, and in fact are considered to short term to predict accurately.

In the short term natural variability is the largest source of error in climate predictions, but this declines over time. In the long term model error, unknowns about ocean CO2 uptake and unknowns about human CO2 emissions begin to dominate and these increase over time. This means there is a sweet spot 30-50 years out where these predictions for what will occur with given atmospheric CO2 levels are expected to be quite good while longer and shorter periods have greater uncertainty.

 

[CapelDodger]

Mostly true but there's still money to be made. You just need to be in the right place at the right time. I think sugar is going to come back big time.

Double-up on your grain-losses and you're smiling.

If not, double-up again on apples. If that screws up we're all screwed anyway.

Actually specifically associated with the weather in this case. I made judgement call based on a fast moving SOI. I got it wrong. Stuff happens.

I got that impression from your post. A reasonable bet IMO.

Yeah food is safe in the long term but the margins are so small you might as well use an IBD.

The margins aren't set in stone as they are now. This is the late-WalMart era. In times of scarcity the producer has a greater say.

It’s my party and I”ll bitch if I want to.

I'll defend to the death your right to do so.

Futures are fun and in the last few months the smart money has been making money. But ultimately they’re no different than rolling on black.

I think if you do have some smarts, and keep track of the world and the way thing are going instead of just going with the maket flow, you can come out ahead. You just have to spread your risk across enough terrain to make your smarts show, eschew leverage, and stick at it.

 

[Puppycow]

Open shipping lanes to the north of Canada could increase trade between Japan and Norway.

 

[DogB]

In the short term natural variability is the largest source of error in climate predictions, but this declines over time.

So over time the signal appears from the noise. That makes sense.

That said, what about medium term variability like the PDO ( assuming it's a real effect)?

 

[Highly Selassie]

Maybe you skipped fluid dynamics. There are equations of state and equations of motion describing dynamical systems driven by state function gradients, like pressure, temperature and so. Some knowledge of mathematical physics would be helpful for comprehension, though.

Please, explain to me, what principles of fluid dynamics necessarily lead to the following:

The opposite is correct. Since GW favors
- winter over summer
- nighttime over daytime
- polar regions over tropical ones
it tends to flattern variations and, hence, decrease temperature gradients leading to a more stable climate.

decreasing temperature gradients lead to less extreme weather events

These statements are at odds with the understanding of past and present global warming. I am also curious as to what you mean by "favor" in the context of global warming. To me, it sounds like a personification of a scientific concept, fit more for a philosophy essay than a scientific discussion.

 

[DogB]

The margins aren't set in stone as they are now. This is the late-WalMart era. In times of scarcity the producer has a greater say.

You're right. The current situation is only meta-stable. A double figure percentage drop would change everything. Worth keeping in mind.

I think if you do have some smarts, and keep track of the world and the way thing are going instead of just going with the maket flow, you can come out ahead. You just have to spread your risk across enough terrain to make your smarts show, eschew leverage, and stick at it.

Oh sure. You can skew the odds in your favour and make a living out of futures. A lot of people do. Me, it's just a hobby. I can't put enough funds into it to get a wide enough spread to be sure of a clear margin. So I occassional gamble and I win a little more than more than I loose so that's OK.

 

[macdoc]

Farmers viewpoint - not a lot - feelthy capitlist specualtors maybe.

Gold - consider the US dollar..goin' down down down

•••

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[Poptech]

Farmers are screwed every which way..bumper crop - lower price...scarce crop - higher price...

Basic economics supply and demand.

Farmers viewpoint - not a lot - feelthy capitlist specualtors maybe.

More like government intervention in the economy.

Gold - consider the US dollar..goin' down down down

Yes Gold because the U.S. government mandated fiat currency is being destroyed by Ben Bernanke's inflationary policies of holding interest rates below market levels and Obama's economic insanity of spend and "stimulus". Get ready for energy and food prices to shoot through the roof. Government fails again.

 

[Trakar]

That's as horrible as the first thing I picked up on. But let's move on from there afresh.

Your use of perspective varies with how high up the hill you live. But as I say, let that past.

What actually matters in human terms is what's likely to happen. That's mostly about what people will do in response to AGW, not what they do to mitigate it. The science and physical evidence is pretty clear, in terms of rainfall and perennial ice, but just how people react is not something science can address.

I'm not speaking to or about any differences due to changes in the human forcing factors, primarily because I've yet to see that there is or will be significant changes in human actions, at least within the next few decades. I'm not looking for opinions considering all the potential variations of human action over the next few decades or even centuries. What I was more interested in was the seeming contradiction between the perspective that predictions of effects are so uncertain as to be considered poor science and yet the various science organizations most directly oriented to studying climate change all devote a considerable effort toward providing (and explaining) predictions. But as you say that seems to be an issue that is being left without resolution, so I shall let it lay.

Sea-levels will rise, that's a given, and many people live in deltas. Small islands are more photogenic but not so significant. Deltas tend to support people in the tens of millions and they're not so isolated.

Himalayan and Tibetan perennial ice isn't long for this world, and that's going to make a big difference where most of the world's population currently lives. There's a similar problem in the Andes and Rockies chain, but less significant. Fewer people affected.

The shifting rain-belts have already brought droughts, and there's only so long the "this has happened before" argument can survive. It's pretty strained already. It's having a big impact in the commercial grain-belts (in Argentina, Australia, the US). That will affect a lot of people.

Personally, my primary concerns are a bit closer to home. Expanding desertification in the US southwest, storm force increases both coastal and inland, floods in the heartlands, long-term drought in the west. The migration of disease, decrease in viable croplands...the list is actually quite long, and this only goes to the natural impacts that will be being increasingly felt and amplified over the coming decades. Include in the economic and social impacts, and our children's children are inheriting a completely different (and molten) ball of wax.

 

[Trakar]

Open shipping lanes to the north of Canada could increase trade between Japan and Norway.

More importantly, any increases in overall shipping, in the near term, is something that could add to our problems as cargo ships are a form of transport that already are a major contributor to anthropogenic carbon emissions.