[Al_U_Card]

 mike777, on 2013-March-12, 14:30, said:

Ok AL, if I follow you, your main point is availability of reasonably-priced energy. You are against govt policies that punish most and reward a few.


The side discussion of man made climate change, melting ice caps and rising seas is not really your main discussion point. Again your main point is you advocate govt policies that encourage the availability of reasonably priced energy.

Please suggest a few that you advocate.

Au contraire, Mike. The only issue of relevance, to this thread, is climate change and what to do about it. The current policies, based upon agendized alarmism, are wrong-headed as well as punitive.

Will the third world also be subject to low energy-density, inconstant windfarms and solar power? How will they prosper and grow (as we did) without abundant, reliable, low-cost energy? This is the dilemma concerning energy sufficiency and it has little or nothing to do with changing climate.
AGCC is an excuse for the policies proposed, not the cause nor the eventual goal of its control and mastery. It is not even remotely possible, based on the proposed calculations of the alarmists themselves.
Big lies told often and stridently enough...

[dwar0123]

They really need to enable down voting in this thread. I feel so much frustration, having learned that its better to not respond directly but still wanting badly to show my disproval.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-March-12, 15:22, said:

Please provide your reference that polar bear numbers are increasing

global populations of polar bears has been difficult to obtain. However, the general understanding among scientits is that thier numbers decreased to less than 10,000 (although some content that these numbers were politically deflated to push action), prior to the international hunting ban in 1973, and have increased to between 25 and 30,000 today.

http://polarbearscie...ut-polar-bears/

http://scienceandpub...polar_bears.pdf

http://env.gov.nu.ca..._bears_2012.pdf

In fact, even environmental sites admits that only a few subpopulations have seen any decline in numbers (particularly Western Hudson Bay), but those are the ones in greatest contact with humans.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/...En&n=A997D1CC-1
http://wwf.panda.org...ear/population/

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-March-12, 14:47, said:

Just to be clear, you are asserting that the effects of global climate change are uniform across the globe.

If average temperatures go up in one place, during one season of the year, it holds true that the average temperatures will increase uniformly across the entire world, across all seasons?

No, I am not asserting that temperatures (or changes) will increase uniformly. I am simply challenging the assumption that climate is (has been) stable, and that any changes must be caused by man. By all estimates, current temperatures are similar to those from a millenium ago, and higher than at any time in between. While the decrease was considered to be entirely natural, why are some contending that the incrase since has been entirely manmade? I am not willing to concede to those who think the increase has been entirely natural, either. Two major climatic effects from this would be increased atmospheric water vapor, and decreased pole-to-equator gradients (polar amplification). The first would lead to an overall increase in precipitation, but rainfall only, as snowfall would be diminished due to higher temperatures. This serves to increase the occurrance of floods, but decrease droughts. Indeed, cooler periods have been tied to longer term droughts. The second would lead to a decrease in storm intensity as pressure gradients decrease. Temperature plays a smaller role in storminess compared to the temperature and pressure gradient. The observed larger increse in winter temperatures and decreased diurnal range also supports this premise.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-March-13, 07:54, said:

No, I am not asserting that temperatures (or changes) will increase uniformly.

You specifically raised the following critique of climate change advocates:

Quote

They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc.

If the impacts of climate change are non-uniform, its entirely reasonable to have a range different impacts across different areas.

Simply put, you're complaining that folks are being honest in recognizing complexity...

[billw55]

Indeed, effects of climate change are complex.

Nevertheless, it just sounds like nonsense when pretty much anything that happens it attributed to warming, and judged as bad.

There seems to be a popular body of thought that I find silly, which consists of the following:

- there is one true, correct, and best climate
- said correct and best climate is the one of about 100-200 years ago (i.e. right before the observable effects of man-made warming began)
- any weather events which are unusual in comparison to the correct and best climate are consequences of man-made warming,
- this includes any change in precipitation, whether more or less; any change in temperature, whether higher or lower; and many other events, in either direction from the "norm"
- any such deviation is judged as (a) bad (b) unnatural and c) preventable
- we are morally obligated to permanently fix the climate at the correct and best climate of 100-200 years ago, and capable of doing so.

It is just all very strange.

[Cyberyeti]

 hrothgar, on 2013-March-13, 08:05, said:

If the impacts of climate change are non-uniform, its entirely reasonable to have a range different impacts across different areas.

Simply put, you're complaining that folks are being honest in recognizing complexity...

Indeed one of the fears of the UK is that global warming will screw up the Gulf stream/North Atlantic drift and thus make us much colder.

[mike777]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-13, 09:03, said:

Indeed one of the fears of the UK is that global warming will screw up the Gulf stream/North Atlantic drift and thus make us much colder.

the good news is you would have all of the very cheap unused coal to burn and keep you warm at low prices. consumer spending will increase and help the UK economy for all those warm clothes now newly in demand, crime tends to go down on cold compared to warm days

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-March-13, 08:05, said:

You specifically raised the following critique of climate change advocates:



If the impacts of climate change are non-uniform, its entirely reasonable to have a range different impacts across different areas.

Simply put, you're complaining that folks are being honest in recognizing complexity...

Not at all. It is rather, the lack of complexity with these folks which I am criticizing. They make a simply assumption that a temperature increase will have a specified output. The climate is much more complex than that, and cannot be diagrammed in such simplistic terms.

As another poster puts it, my complaint is that everything that occurs in the climate is being blamed on global warming. This planet has experienced hurricanes, blizzard, floods and droughts, before we ever heard the term global warming. Several folks blamed global warming for hurricane Sandy, even though this area has a history of these types of storms.

[dwar0123]

 billw55, on 2013-March-13, 08:48, said:

Indeed, effects of climate change are complex.

Nevertheless, it just sounds like nonsense when pretty much anything that happens it attributed to warming, and judged as bad.

There seems to be a popular body of thought that I find silly, which consists of the following:

- there is one true, correct, and best climate
- said correct and best climate is the one of about 100-200 years ago (i.e. right before the observable effects of man-made warming began)
- any weather events which are unusual in comparison to the correct and best climate are consequences of man-made warming,
- this includes any change in precipitation, whether more or less; any change in temperature, whether higher or lower; and many other events, in either direction from the "norm"
- any such deviation is judged as (a) bad (b) unnatural and c) preventable
- we are morally obligated to permanently fix the climate at the correct and best climate of 100-200 years ago, and capable of doing so.

It is just all very strange.

With regards to judging climate change as bad. We humans are adapted to the climate as it was. In the sense that we populate areas based on their present fertility and access to water. Change is very bad for those area's that will be negatively effected by climate change. Of course other areas will benefit, perhaps Canada and Siberia will become the new bread baskets of the world, but not many are living there and while it might bring great fortunes to those that do eventually live there, the people that are stuck across the border are going to be in some deep trouble, Humans are not good at just up and moving people from one location to another across political borders without there being a whole lot of pain and suffering involved. Heck even if it is within the same border, Cities and infrastructure are not easily mobile.

[Daniel1960]

 dwar0123, on 2013-March-13, 10:54, said:

With regards to judging climate change as bad. We humans are adapted to the climate as it was. In the sense that we populate areas based on their present fertility and access to water. Change is very bad for those area's that will be negatively effected by climate change. Of course other areas will benefit, perhaps Canada and Siberia will become the new bread baskets of the world, but not many are living there and while it might bring great fortunes to those that do eventually live there, the people that are stuck across the border are going to be in some deep trouble, Humans are not good at just up and moving people from one location to another across political borders without there being a whole lot of pain and suffering involved. Heck even if it is within the same border, Cities and infrastructure are not easily mobile.

Winners and losers would accompany any major climatic change. Even warming from the last ice age produced losers (mammoths and mastodons, among others), although most would say that life as a whole benefited from this change. While the net effect from a warming climate could be a plus or a minus (Canada and Siberia constituted a large percentage of the Earth's landmass), the politics will always be a negative. Controlling the environmental climate in order to preserve the political climate seems rather short-sighted and egotistical to me.

[mike777]

Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry

America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

“People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”
http://bostonglobe.c...ZcHL/story.html

[dwar0123]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-March-13, 11:43, said:

Winners and losers would accompany any major climatic change. Even warming from the last ice age produced losers (mammoths and mastodons, among others), although most would say that life as a whole benefited from this change. While the net effect from a warming climate could be a plus or a minus (Canada and Siberia constituted a large percentage of the Earth's landmass), the politics will always be a negative. Controlling the environmental climate in order to preserve the political climate seems rather short-sighted and egotistical to me.

I talk about 100's of millions, perhaps billions being displaced/starving and you call it preserving the political climate?

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.

[Daniel1960]

 mike777, on 2013-March-13, 11:50, said:

Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry

America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

“People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”
http://bostonglobe.c...ZcHL/story.html

Individual years can certainly experience a wide range in tropical activity. Recently, economic damage from this activity has increased significantly. However, the increase has been the result of increased wealth in corresponding locations, rather than an increase in storminess.

http://journals.amet...LI-D-11-00719.1

[mike777]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-March-13, 12:18, said:

Individual years can certainly experience a wide range in tropical activity. Recently, economic damage from this activity has increased significantly. However, the increase has been the result of increased wealth in corresponding locations, rather than an increase in storminess.

http://journals.amet...LI-D-11-00719.1

OK so our chief Military guy does not know what is talking about or what his biggest worry is.

Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry

America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change

[mike777]

dup post

[mike777]

 dwar0123, on 2013-March-13, 12:05, said:

I talk about 100's of millions, perhaps billions being displaced/starving and you call it preserving the political climate?

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.

Billions starving from climate change, now that does sound alarming!

[Daniel1960]

 mike777, on 2013-March-13, 12:30, said:

Billions starving from climate change, now that does sound alarming!

If billions were starving from climate change, then that would be alarming. The cries of mass starvation have echoed throughout empty halls ever since the Population Bomb was published in 1968, detailing how population growth would outstrip food production. Since then, population growth has exceeded that decried in the book, but food production increased at an even faster rate. All this during the largest rate of temperature rise witnessed. With forcasts of a population plateau sometime later this century, what reason do you have to suspect that food production would taper off faster than population growth?

[mike777]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-March-13, 12:38, said:

If billions were starving from climate change, then that would be alarming. The cries of mass starvation have echoed throughout empty halls ever since the Population Bomb was published in 1968, detailing how population growth would outstrip food production. Since then, population growth has exceeded that decried in the book, but food production increased at an even faster rate. All this during the largest rate of temperature rise witnessed. With forcasts of a population plateau sometime later this century, what reason do you have to suspect that food production would taper off faster than population growth?

The problem with agriculture is water, in the southwest the water table is drying up. It limits the amount of land we can bring into production. Water is a problem worldwide.

Because of this I expect agriculture will be a lucrative sector of the world economy for the next two or three decades. Expect the price of food and farm land to skyrocket. You can see this in rising prices today.

--------------


American farmers may have suffered an historic drought last year, but the price of their land is skyrocketing.

In Iowa, the US's biggest producer of corn, the land prices jumped 24 percent in 2012 and and have gained 63 percent over the last three years, according to a study by Iowa State University.

The drought and heat wave last year may have severely damaged crops, but ironically it has made crop land ever more valuable.

The higher prices for crops helped compensate for lower yields, for one thing.

Farmers also recovered some $14.7 billion in insurance payments for crop damage, a record sum.

It left farm incomes on average just three percent lower from 2011, and so lingering near their highest level in 30 years. US government forecasters expect overall farming income to gain 14 percent this year.

http://au.finance.ya...-081139438.html

[Cyberyeti]

 mike777, on 2013-March-13, 09:06, said:

the good news is you would have all of the very cheap unused coal to burn and keep you warm at low prices. consumer spending will increase and help the UK economy for all those warm clothes now newly in demand, crime tends to go down on cold compared to warm days

We'd rather not go back to the years of the London smog thanks and anyway most of our coal is very deep underground and uneconomic to mine.

Well there's always shale gas - bringing earthquakes to the Blackpool area for the first time.