NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel that there is nothing to worry about when it comes to global warming. Personally when I think of global warming I imagine a world where cold nagging winters are no more! Comfortable summer weather would be year-round! Personally I am person that enjoys summertime and the thought of the earth gradually getting warmer just warms me! No more seasonal depression! No more stuck in the house with your in laws during the holidays! No more cabin fever! No more itchy sweaters! I believe that global warming might do humanity some good.

With a warmer world I believe the world would benefit. Warm weather would lengthen the growing season for crops hence more food, Eventually the climate patterns would be rather chaotic for a couple years but things would eventually settle and find equilibrium. Some country can finally lay claim to Antarctica. Once fossil fuels run dry mankind's carbon footprint would diminish and solar power would be feasible!

Yet there are some problems caused by global warming that could be solved in the near future. Such as the melting of the polar icecaps. Scientists have stated that melting polar icecaps could inundate populous coastal cities and countries like the Netherlands. But I have a solution! I have thought up some sort of polar meltwater transportation system. If mankind could find a way to transport huge quantities of fresh polar/glacial meltwater via massive tanker ships or some effective near future method to arid places such as regions around the diminishing Caspian and Aral Seas, Dead Sea, Salton Sea or Lake Chad. The polar meltwater could be used to refill those diminishing bodies of water.

Sounds far fetched today but a couple decades from now it could be fact. Hell we could make deserts, livable. Hell we could sell the meltwater by the barrel or tank for irrigation, by the bottle for personal drinking, or for fuel!
I imagined that the meltwater could be used for electrolysis to capture hydrogen and provide fuel of fusion powerplants.

Damn regular liberals and limousine liberals just terrorizing the populace. Global warming doesn't seem that bad. Beats an ice age any day.

Indeed. I'd happily participate in global warming in order to stave off an ice age, although I am unconvinced that the process is being sped up by man; temperature and weather anomalies are more likely to be normal fluctuations that cyclically occur. And, anyway, if we turn out to be wrong, I'm sure that in 100 years we'll have the technologically necessary to completely reverse global warming, so we have nothing to worry about even if we're wrong.

this has to be satire.

Indeed. I'd happily participate in global warming in order to stave off an ice age, although I am unconvinced that the process is being sped up by man; temperature and weather anomalies are more likely to be normal fluctuations that cyclically occur. And, anyway, if we turn out to be wrong, I'm sure that in 100 years we'll have the technologically necessary to completely reverse global warming, so we have nothing to worry about even if we're wrong.

Eheh....er...riight.

As a little experiment, I would recommend that you travel out into the depths of a great desert, with all your technologies. Then, try and survive out there for at least a month. I know we don't have the 100 years of technology yet, but if that can save the world, our current technology should be able to keep you alive for at least a month. Oh.. and you cannot bring any food or water. Since there won't be much left if we keep polluting at this rate, global warming or no.

The OP isn't the sharpest tool in the box..
Think of all the repercussions aside from "Oh I long warm winters and hot summers"

As a little experiment, I would recommend that you travel out into the depths of a great desert, with all your technologies.

At this very moment, we possess the technology to extract moisture from (desert) air and convert it into potable water. I'm sure that in 100 years it will be possible to extract carbon dioxide from the air in a similar fashion and manage it effectively.

Oh.. and you cannot bring any food or water. Since there won't be much left if we keep polluting at this rate, global warming or no.

Actually, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plants; as such, pollution contributes to the growth and general health of plants by keeping them better-nourished. Also, global warming will melt the polar ice caps, giving us access to much more fresh-water than we currently have.

Gentlemen we have the technology to rebuild our planet "Six million dollar man theme plays":p

At this very moment, we possess the technology to extract moisture from (desert) air and convert it into potable water. I'm sure that in 100 years it will be possible to extract carbon dioxide from the air in a similar fashion and manage it effectively.

Actually, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plants; as such, pollution contributes to the growth and general health of plants by keeping them better-nourished. Also, global warming will melt the polar ice caps, giving us access to much more fresh-water than we currently have.

Point taken, and since the water cycle is fairly reliable, I assume the moisture would return to the air nicely. However, what fuel are you using to run these machines? What technology do we have that can suck pollutants right out of the air, and pump pure fresh atmosphere into our lungs?

uhm... You do know that when the ice caps melt, they will most likely/most of them will melt into the ocean? Which is heavily saline in nature... we have plenty of that already.

"Actually, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plants; as such, pollution contributes to the growth and general health of plants by keeping them better-nourished." Not sure I understand.. yes, carbon dioxide aids plant growth, good as well as bad ones. But... how does pollution contribute to the growth and general health of plants, and how does it keep them nourished? Last I checked, acid rain was a bad thing for everyone. So is smog and ash blotting out the sun... And who gives a damn about plants when you can't breathe without getting lung cancer.

What I want to ask is... Do you want it to come to this? Would you enjoy a world in which the crutch of technology keeps us hobbling along, until we totter into extinction? Would you be able to look upon the ruins of the Earth, with pride, knowing that despite the fact that we have destroyed it, we persevere due to human ingeniuity... That we were able to 'save' ourselves, but not prevent the collapse of the natural cycles of the world.

I for one, do not want to look upon such a planet.

Fossil fuels will not be around long... so i'm guess these global warming machines will be powered on something cleaner. But CO2 aids plants, Nitrogen based pollutants are also beneficial for plants and mammals. Lets not forget the Nitrogen cycle and CO2 cycle.

Freedom and Glory is correct.

Troll sub-1 plust Troll sub-2 equals thread unworthy of further attention.

Hopefully my children will have to deal with this and not me.

Wow.


How could you stand to live in a world where the environment is gone. All the plants and animals extinct, save man and what few species of crops and food animals? With no natural beauty? A desert planet? I couldn't, and I really don't think you want to live in one like it either.


Also, I hate the summer. I'll take an ice age, please.

Wow.


How could you stand to live in a world where the environment is gone. All the plants and animals extinct, save man and what few species of crops and food animals? With no natural beauty? A desert planet? I couldn't, and I really don't think you want to live in one like it either.


See!
*points emphatically*
Someone agrees with me.
I was beginning to doubt my insanity.

I don't think I would be as dry and desolate as many imagine. It might be a lush temperate/tropical environment like the warm spells throughout Earth's climate history.

Wow.


How could you stand to live in a world where the environment is gone. All the plants and animals extinct, save man and what few species of crops and food animals? With no natural beauty? A desert planet? I couldn't, and I really don't think you want to live in one like it either.


Also, I hate the summer. I'll take an ice age, please.

Well aren't you a smelly hippy?:rolleyes:

Don't you know natural beauty is just an inconveniance that stops people working properly?:rolleyes:

I'd take an ice age as well. Screw this sunbathing shit, I prefer skiing.

yes, carbon dioxide aids plant growth, good as well as bad ones. But... how does pollution contribute to the growth and general health of plants, and how does it keep them nourished? Last I checked, acid rain was a bad thing for everyone. So is smog and ash blotting out the sun... And who gives a damn about plants when you can't breathe without getting lung cancer.


Understandable point, but the primary "greenhouse gas" that is being regulated in an attempt to curb global warming is carbon dioxide, which does not contribute to acid rain, smog, or ash. In this case, global warming "pollutants" and conventionally recognized pollutants should not be so lightly equated with one another.

There's geologic proof that life flourished during these warming trends than the cooling trends. Take the Ordovician period. Life in the ocean was as more diverse than today.

I'd take an ice age as well. Screw this sunbathing shit, I prefer skiing.

Hey, I saw "Day After Tomorrow"... and according to that global warming will cause an instant ice age that kills the dogs of homeless men and causes people to burn books and makes Mexico into a superpower and releases poorly computer-animated wolves onto a hapless group of young adults aboard an oil tanker in New York City. SCIENCE!

Warm weather would lengthen the growing season for crops hence more food,
As a man who grew up on a grain farm, I can honestly say that the warmer weather would destory crops.

I imagine a world where cold nagging winters are no more!
But I love the wintertime and outdoor ice hockey. :(

That's all I care to comment.

There's geologic proof that life flourished during these warming trends than the cooling trends. Take the Ordovician period. Life in the ocean was as more diverse than today.

Ah, however the increase in CO2 going into the ocean's is making it rather... unsuitable for life. It's kind of turning it into seltzer.

There is a difference between previous warming trends and now. CO2 is not exactly good for ocean life.

I don't think I would be as dry and desolate as many imagine. It might be a lush temperate/tropical environment like the warm spells throughout Earth's climate history.

Just dandy. More mosquitoes..mosquitii. More bloodsucking fiends that can carry deadly disease.

Understandable point, but the primary "greenhouse gas" that is being regulated in an attempt to curb global warming is carbon dioxide, which does not contribute to acid rain, smog, or ash. In this case, global warming "pollutants" and conventionally recognized pollutants should not be so lightly equated with one another.

I wasn't equating them with one another, sorry for the mixup. I am not even sure global warming is all that relevant an issue. It doesn't matter how warm or cold it is if you can't breathe the air or drink the water.

Ah, however the increase in CO2 going into the ocean's is making it rather... unsuitable for life. It's kind of turning it into seltzer.

I was under the impression that the gradual disappearance of CO2 was attributed to the ocean's absorption of it on theory, not on observation. I have heard at least one source claim that the heating of the earth (and, by extension, the oceans) is releasing absorbed CO2 into the atmosphere (with rising global temperatures contributing to CO2 levels rather than the other way around) but I'm not really qualified to judge the merits of these theorists.

Compared to Earth's natural pollution mostly volcanic activity which can last millions of years has caused previous warming trends. Man made pollution has only been around for 300 years of industrialized existence. Quite pale in comparison to volcanoes which can dump a year's worth of CO2 emissions from Los Angeles into the atmosphere. However man made pollution could not possibly create a global warming trend. Humans would has to been in industrialized extsistence for millions of years before we could create a warming trend.

Compared to Earth's natural pollution mostly volcanic activity which can last millions of years has caused previous warming trends. Man made pollution has only been around for 300 years of industrialized existence. Quite pale in comparison to volcanoes which can dump a year's worth of CO2 emissions from Los Angeles into the atmosphere. However man made pollution could not possibly create a global warming trend. Humans would has to been in industrialized extsistence for millions of years before we could create a warming trend.

I was under the impression that there is now more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than any other time in history as a direct result of man.

Yes, warming and cooling trends are natural, but dumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can't be good, and it is wrecking hte environment.

In addition excess CO2 would be gobbled up by photosynthesizing organisms. These organisms mainly algae can absorb massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Go back billions of years when the Earth's atmosphere was dominanted by CO2 these organisms can drastically alter the atmospheric composition of gases mainly CO2 and oxygen.

I suppose it's worth noting that temperatures are increasing on other planets within our solar system at roughly the same rate as they are on Earth, based on our observations, and that these temperature increases correlate rather nicely with solar activity.

That's not to say that the scientific principles behind global warming are false, but that perhaps the global temperature effects of human carbon dioxide emissions are exaggerated. I believe that the amount of money and effort being diverted to reducing global warming would, in general, be better spent elsewhere.

In addition excess CO2 would be gobbled up by photosynthesizing organisms. These organisms mainly algae can absorb massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Go back billions of years when the Earth's atmosphere was dominanted by CO2 these organisms can drastically alter the atmospheric composition of gases mainly CO2 and oxygen.

I suppose it's worth noting that temperatures are increasing on other planets within our solar system at roughly the same rate as they are on Earth, based on our observations, and that these temperature increases correlate rather nicely with solar activity.

That's not to say that the scientific principles behind global warming are false, but that perhaps the global temperature effects of human carbon dioxide emissions are exaggerated. I believe that the amount of money and effort being diverted to reducing global warming would, in general, be better spent elsewhere.

Interesting. I had no idea about other planets heating up in addition to earth. Even if human contributions are exaggerated, it would still be in the planet's best interests for humans to limit pollution and environmental damage.

In addition excess CO2 would be gobbled up by photosynthesizing organisms. These organisms mainly algae can absorb massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Go back billions of years when the Earth's atmosphere was dominanted by CO2 these organisms can drastically alter the atmospheric composition of gases mainly CO2 and oxygen.

Too a point. Excess CO2 is helpful for growing forests, but after the forests mature I believe it is harmful, or neutral, I don't remember.

Billions of years ago when the atmosphere was completely different bacteria were the only things that existed and yes, of millions, if not billions, of years the bacteria created oxygen, but that environment is gone. The environment of today is not coping well with mankind's pollutants and disregard for all life other than mankind.

I was under the impression that the gradual disappearance of CO2 was attributed to the ocean's absorption of it on theory, not on observation. I have heard at least one source claim that the heating of the earth (and, by extension, the oceans) is releasing absorbed CO2 into the atmosphere (with rising global temperatures contributing to CO2 levels rather than the other way around) but I'm not really qualified to judge the merits of these theorists.

Never said otherwise. However, CO2 does infact "settle" into the ocean's, in a sense. Just not very quickly, or quickly enough to make much of a difference when compared to how much we put out.

Interesting. I had no idea about other planets heating up in addition to earth. Even if human contributions are exaggerated, it would still be in the planet's best interests for humans to limit pollution and environmental damage.

I certainly agree with you. However, some of the regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions might be more harmful to human life than beneficial to the planet. For example, if global warming will cause a rise in sea levels that endangers coastal nations and communities, it might be better to promote the economy of these nations such that they have the wealth and resources to accomodate the eventual changes in the environment, rather than imposing harmful regulations that leave the nations impoverished without greatly affecting the rising sea levels.

Again, conventional pollution should of course be curtailed. The conflict about global warming, I think, is primarily concerned with carbon dioxide, which heretofore has not been considered a harmful pollutant.

As has already been noted, rising CO2 levels have been linked to increasing plant growth--and while we may doubt the ultimate benefits of CO2 to these plants, we should not ignore the fact that it is encouraging plant growth, and the plant growth itself will help reduce the increases in CO2 we're so worried about. The earth (to me anyway) has the look of a self-regulating system, rather than a precariously balanced ecological disaster waiting to happen.

Anyone who says "lets have global warming so we can have warmer days" REALLY needs to stop hanging around in the snow. Global warming (or more accuratly, climate change) will result in some parts of the earth getting warmer but other parts getting cooler. Some parts of the world have ecosystems that are very delicate, on the edge of the desert in South Australia years of drought has meant that the desert is actually moving south and in some places land that was productive only a few decades ago is now useless.

Many people, it seems, have very selfish attitudes. I'll agree that there are a few environemtal wacko types out there, but do you honestly believe that us humans are having no impact on the earth? The world's population has tripled since 1950 and we are using more electricity per person then we were then.

PS If you want it warm, go to Marble Bar in Western Australia. In one year they once had 160 consecutive days over 100 farenheit.

As a man who grew up on a grain farm, I can honestly say that the warmer weather would destory crops.


Indeed. Farmers rely on one thing more than any other: Consistency. Too much rain, your crops are drowned out. Too hot, they will die before harvest. Sudden freeze? Well, there goes your entire crop. Consistency is key with crops.

What's more is that most crops are specifically bred to grow in a certain climate, and cannot grow as well in others. Some need a more a humid, wet, and hot climate, others need a more temperate climate(And infact, apparently there are some crops which require the winter months to be somewhat cold or whatnot-I'm not agriculturist, so I don't know which ones, but I do seem to remember there are some).

I was under the impression that the gradual disappearance of CO2 was attributed to the ocean's absorption of it on theory, not on observation.It's both. The oceans are the Earth's primary carbon sink. Try looking up "carbon sink" on wikipedia.I have heard at least one source claim that the heating of the earth (and, by extension, the oceans) is releasing absorbed CO2 into the atmosphere (with rising global temperatures contributing to CO2 levels rather than the other way around) but I'm not really qualified to judge the merits of these theorists.It's probably easiest to think of it like this: as ocean temperatures increase, their capacity to store CO2 decrease. Thankfully not proportionally, or we'd be massively screwed.Compared to Earth's natural pollution mostly volcanic activity which can last millions of years has caused previous warming trends. Man made pollution has only been around for 300 years of industrialized existence. Quite pale in comparison to volcanoes which can dump a year's worth of CO2 emissions from Los Angeles into the atmosphere. However man made pollution could not possibly create a global warming trend. Humans would has to been in industrialized extsistence for millions of years before we could create a warming trend.Assuming the most well-founded theories of climatology are wrong, it is theoretically possible some of what you said might be true. It's a bit like ID in that way.When carbon sinks become sated, their efficiency not only decreases, the leftover CO2 lingers. There's a lot of nifty explanations for why this is and how the different parts interact, but since you're one of the "could not possibly" crowd, I'll spare myself the explaining.I was under the impression that there is now more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than any other time in history as a direct result of man.Nobody knows that. The CO2 concentration is higher now than at any other point in the history of our species. Short of a new time machine, there's limits to how far back we can go.In addition excess CO2 would be gobbled up by photosynthesizing organisms. These organisms mainly algae can absorb massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Go back billions of years when the Earth's atmosphere was dominanted by CO2 these organisms can drastically alter the atmospheric composition of gases mainly CO2 and oxygen.Unless you suggest the consensus on how evolution works is wrong, what you're proposing takes hundreds or thousands of years. The climatic changes we're trying to cause, unfortunately happen much faster. Fast enough, for example, for the saline level in the Earth's oceans to drop to the point that the algae you need won't be able to survive.

A more immediate concern, however, is environmental changes on land, causing mass death and immigration, which itself may cause mass death and immigration, which again may cause... And... This planet's only so big. At some point, there's not gonna be any wealthy, well-supplied country with functioning infrastructure to overrun.I suppose it's worth noting that temperatures are increasing on other planets within our solar system at roughly the same rate as they are on Earth, based on our observations, and that these temperature increases correlate rather nicely with solar activity.They don't correlate all that nicely, and short of magic, there's no common cause. There are however, perfectly obvious explanations for why most of it is happening.I believe that the amount of money and effort being diverted to reducing global warming would, in general, be better spent elsewhere.And I believe the amount of money and effort being spend on propagandizing against physical reality, would be better spend on modernising the public sector and providing subsidies for modernising the private sector. After all, initiatives to offset AGW helps combat more immediate problems as well, like your daughter growing a dick and a beard because the plant you work at feels it can't afford not to shit in the playground.

(Similization, one of your quotes is wrongly attributed to me there: the "I was under the impression that there is now more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than any other time in history as a direct result of man" quote was someone else)

And I believe the amount of money and effort being spend on propagandizing against physical reality, would be better spend on modernising the public sector and providing subsidies for modernising the private sector.

With all due respect, I'm not aware of any tax-funded government initiatives 'propagandizing' against global warming hysteria. In contrast, the entire movement to combat global warming is thus far either dependent on or seeking government funding.

initiatives to offset AGW helps combat more immediate problems as well, like your daughter growing a dick and a beard because the plant you work at feels it can't afford not to shit in the playground.

See, that's conventional pollution, which I don't hear anybody defending. It's CO2 that's at issue.

I think I've come to terms with global warming. I think it will be horrible for millions of people, but not for me or the people I know and care about. In the rich parts of the world, we have the capabilities to deal with changing climates and natural catastrophes. It's those poor suckers starving in Bangladesh right now who're going to pay for it.

I don't think though that we'll be able to stop it. Our political processes aren't good enough to make a difference. They get distracted by chasing after scapegoats (like cars) or have serious incentive and myopia issues (like the whole debate about Kyoto). And even if there were a meaningful agreement, China wouldn't sign it.

Personally, my tactic will be to weather the storm (metaphorically and literally), do my best to keep people from going insane about it all (eg Greenpeace) and advocate that rich countries open their borders to environmental refugees. The latter is probably just as idealistic as hoping for politicians to come up with a good CO2 policy (though no doubt there will be no shortage of bad ones), but it would be a pretty sad world without idealism, wouldn't it.

(Similization, one of your quotes is wrongly attributed to me there: the "I was under the impression that there is now more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than any other time in history as a direct result of man" quote was someone else)Sorry about that. Should be fixed now, I hope.With all due respect, I'm not aware of any tax-funded government initiatives 'propagandizing' against global warming hysteria. In contrast, the entire movement to combat global warming is thus far either dependent on or seeking government funding.Government employees seemingly hired specifically to prune research findings for anything that might support AGW. Internationally discredited denialists hired to head and formulate national and coordinate international environmental efforts, who, by the way, have no formal education in any related sciences... Government subsidies of private 'research' efforts which were/are basically anti-AGW propaganda departments, and have (I'm 99.9% sure) produced no research to date. Any of them. And that's just a fraction of the completely moronic shite we're throwing money at.
And of course, the effect of throwing money at this, is that initiatives aimed at dealing with the problems (like research into increasing the energy efficiency of private housing, for example) has to privatise or die. Mostly it's the latter, but even when it's the former, it's a shitty idea, because everything they come up with ends up owned by a transnational somewhere, and becomes and may actually become an obstacle, rather than a means, to more energy efficiency, because a state has to legislate things like building odes based on the lowest common denominator, or get hauled to court and overruled for undermining competition on the unfree market.See, that's conventional pollution, which I don't hear anybody defending. It's CO2 that's at issue.Reducing CO2 emissions can't avoid reducing many other types of pollution as well. If you increase energy efficiency of households, you massively decrease particle emissions and waste production as well. In some countries, that area alone accounts for more than 30% of civil emissions.

Fuck it. I hate this topic. Just.. If you like making informed decisions rather than cheering blindly for the guys you typically vote for, please go visit your local library and read up on it. The basics are not very complicated and it doesn't have to take very long to be able to understand what the various people are saying, so you can filter out the bullshit. And really, more than 50% of the information available to you in the massmedia is bullshit. It's misdirection, smoke and fucking mirrors, nothing more.

Troll sub-1 plust Troll sub-2 equals thread unworthy of further attention.

The mods don't seem to mind. :)

Global Warming is an issue that is often debated. Thus the information is often distorted.

We need to be more environmental in our lifestyles.

Well, if we hurry and burn up all of our oil supplies, global warming will stop. Do your part, buy a Hummer!

the OP reminded me of this article in Newsweek:
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/)

Well, if we hurry and burn up all of our oil supplies, global warming will stop. Do your part, buy a Hummer!

Coal.

Coal.
Better yet: A coal-powered Hummer!

Better yet: A coal-powered Hummer!

Dear god, that's brilliant!

Sometimes I come to read something on Nationstates and my eyeballs get cut and then I can't see because I'm bleeding profusely from my eyeballs.

Better yet: A coal-powered Hummer!

No real reason why not - 100 years ago the land speed record was held by a steam car. The only major problems are the extra weight from all that water, and the time you have to spend heating the water before the car will start moving.

Still, if we're looking for ways to waste all the fossil fuels, I'm sure we can come up with better ones.
I suggest Reverse Wind Turbines. They look exactly like wind tubines, but are powered by a petrol engine.

I think I've come to terms with global warming. I think it will be horrible for millions of people, but not for me or the people I know and care about. In the rich parts of the world, we have the capabilities to deal with changing climates and natural catastrophes. It's those poor suckers starving in Bangladesh right now who're going to pay for it.

I don't think though that we'll be able to stop it. Our political processes aren't good enough to make a difference. They get distracted by chasing after scapegoats (like cars) or have serious incentive and myopia issues (like the whole debate about Kyoto). And even if there were a meaningful agreement, China wouldn't sign it.

Personally, my tactic will be to weather the storm (metaphorically and literally), do my best to keep people from going insane about it all (eg Greenpeace) and advocate that rich countries open their borders to environmental refugees. The latter is probably just as idealistic as hoping for politicians to come up with a good CO2 policy (though no doubt there will be no shortage of bad ones), but it would be a pretty sad world without idealism, wouldn't it.
:(

Well said.

Though I'd like to see the OP enjoy the "summer" when 200 million refugees comes his way...

:(

Well said.

Though I'd like to see the OP enjoy the "summer" when 200 million refugees comes his way...

Or when the price of food sky rockets due to shifting climates.

Or when the price of food sky rockets due to shifting climates.

Not to mention when drinking water becomes scarce...

Blah, blah, blah, I know nothing about global warming. Blah, blah, blah.

Global Warming will not just make hotter summers, but it will also cause colder, more violent winters in many parts of the world, and far more "freak" natural disasters. Last winter for example, I recall hearing all manner of weather reports on how cities were being snowed under, while I hardly had enough snow to shovel out of the driveway.

Your idea on shipping water around might work, if we could figure out how to capture such massive quantities of water, and what we would run the ships on. Essentially, saying "Oh, I don't care about this, because by the time it occurs, science will have saved us in some way," is a failure of the mind. Goodness knows we see enough of those these days.

Essentially, saying "Oh, I don't care about this, because by the time it occurs, science will have saved us in some way," is a failure of the mind. No. The failure in this case is that people say "Science will save us", which is perfectly alright, but then proceed to say "Science says we should do what?! Well science can fuck off!" while maintaining science will save them. The stupidity of that attitude is so fucking intense it offends me to the bone.Goodness knows we see enough of those these days.Truer words were never spoken, unfortunately.

No. The failure in this case is that people say "Science will save us", which is perfectly alright, but then proceed to say "Science says we should do what?! Well science can fuck off!" while maintaining science will save them. The stupidity of that attitude is so fucking intense it offends me to the bone.

That too, but blindly putting faith in something to save you is a silly thing to do. We have no guarantees science can avert this in time, so sitting back in your easy chair and waving it off, assured that science will gallop in on its white horse and save the day, is stupidity as well.

Anyone who says "lets have global warming so we can have warmer days" REALLY needs to stop hanging around in the snow.

Agreed. If you guys hate cold so much, move yourselves somewhere warmer. Global Warming is a serious issue.

As a "weather-freak" I can tell you how badly our weather patterns will be screwed over by the warming of the oceans. The currents of the oceans control the intensity and the frequency of our weather on this earth. If the ocean proceeds to warm, the currents change drastically, and so will our weather. Not only will the weather warm, there will be more intense thunderstorms, most hurricanes, more drought where its not needed, and more rain in the similar way. We would be creating a disaster. One of that we have no control over (yet).

Not only with Global Warming are we destroying our environment, we're destroying our heathly weather patterns. If some of you don't believe me, take a look at Katrina. I've been down to Louisiana and seen the damage. Take a look at these raging wildfires out west in the USA that they're claiming have "been the worst ever". Why do you think this is? It is seriously all on our own heads.

And you may even begin to wonder why I care so much. I don't know how old most of you are, but I, for one, don't want to have to deal with these problems. Because if things go the way they're supposed to, I shouldn't be dying for another 80-90 years. You need to fix this problem NOW. So your kids and/or my generation or even my children won't have to deal with a steaming, deadly planet.

I feel that there is nothing to worry about when it comes to global warming. Personally when I think of global warming I imagine a world where cold nagging winters are no more! Comfortable summer weather would be year-round! Personally I am person that enjoys summertime and the thought of the earth gradually getting warmer just warms me! No more seasonal depression! No more stuck in the house with your in laws during the holidays! No more cabin fever! No more itchy sweaters! I believe that global warming might do humanity some good.

With a warmer world I believe the world would benefit. Warm weather would lengthen the growing season for crops hence more food, Eventually the climate patterns would be rather chaotic for a couple years but things would eventually settle and find equilibrium. Some country can finally lay claim to Antarctica. Once fossil fuels run dry mankind's carbon footprint would diminish and solar power would be feasible!

Yet there are some problems caused by global warming that could be solved in the near future. Such as the melting of the polar icecaps. Scientists have stated that melting polar icecaps could inundate populous coastal cities and countries like the Netherlands. But I have a solution! I have thought up some sort of polar meltwater transportation system. If mankind could find a way to transport huge quantities of fresh polar/glacial meltwater via massive tanker ships or some effective near future method to arid places such as regions around the diminishing Caspian and Aral Seas, Dead Sea, Salton Sea or Lake Chad. The polar meltwater could be used to refill those diminishing bodies of water.

Sounds far fetched today but a couple decades from now it could be fact. Hell we could make deserts, livable. Hell we could sell the meltwater by the barrel or tank for irrigation, by the bottle for personal drinking, or for fuel!
I imagined that the meltwater could be used for electrolysis to capture hydrogen and provide fuel of fusion powerplants.

Damn regular liberals and limousine liberals just terrorizing the populace. Global warming doesn't seem that bad. Beats an ice age any day.

Hear! Hear! I would not have to put up with the shitty weather that we get in this neck of the woods. It is too cold to be bearable in winter, but not cold enough to get snow. At least summer will be decent, and no more will I need to go to Fiji to get a decent summer.

Also, the rich idiots that bought coastal property will realise the folly of their decision - even more Hear! Hear!

I don't think I would be as dry and desolate as many imagine. It might be a lush temperate/tropical environment like the warm spells throughout Earth's climate history.

Which is why most of said warm spells consisted of mass desertification.

Hear! Hear! I would not have to put up with the shitty weather that we get in this neck of the woods. It is too cold to be bearable in winter, but not cold enough to get snow. At least summer will be decent, and no more will I need to go to Fiji to get a decent summer.

Also, the rich idiots that bought coastal property will realise the folly of their decision - even more Hear! Hear!


How well is your "Hearing"? Honestly, if you don't get the weather you want, MOVE. Geez, guys. Being happy for this is pointless. More people will be destroyed; starving, crammed into livable areas etc; than people who will actually benefit. The Cons outweigh the Pros you, think-for-yourself-ers.

At this very moment, we possess the technology to extract moisture from (desert) air and convert it into potable water.

How could you stand to live in a world where the environment is gone. All the plants and animals extinct, save man and what few species of crops and food animals? With no natural beauty? A desert planet? I couldn't, and I really don't think you want to live in one like it either.

But will there be Jawas?

There's geologic proof that life flourished during these warming trends than the cooling trends. Take the Ordovician period. Life in the ocean was as more diverse than today.

I'm sure that'll be a great comfort for us all as we starve in the sweltering heat: "At least the fish are having a good time!"

I'm sure that'll be a great comfort for us all as we starve in the sweltering heat: "At least the fish are having a good time!"

Wouldn't it make sense to...eat the fish?

Some people seem to forget that they depend on agriculture for food, and that agriculture is very vulnerable to climate changes...

I'm sure that'll be a great comfort for us all as we starve in the sweltering heat: "At least the fish are having a good time!"

Brilliant reply. Simply brilliant

I'm sure that'll be a great comfort for us all as we starve in the sweltering heat: "At least the fish are having a good time!"

If we ignore overfishing...

Wouldn't it make sense to...eat the fish?

Well, sure. If you want to die of malnutrition.

Well, sure. If you want to die of malnutrition.

Or become ill from large amounts of mercury in your system.

That too, but blindly putting faith in something to save you is a silly thing to do. We have no guarantees science can avert this in time, so sitting back in your easy chair and waving it off, assured that science will gallop in on its white horse and save the day, is stupidity as well.Science is human tool, not a god that'll descend from the skies to save the day. As tools go, it's rather trustworthy, but for anything to come of it, we'll have to act in accordance with the conclusions the tool lets us draw.

I disagree that it's silly to have faith in our ability to help ourselves. I agree it's folly to have faith in our desire to help ourselves. Self-evidently we, on the whole, have nothing of the sort. But I don't think our ability can be disputed. We've known about the possibility of a problem for almost exactly a century. We've had evidence of a problem for 60 years. We've understood the connection between our major activities and this problem for almost 40 years. Running parallel, we've developed the know-how to curtail the biggest problems, and there is no evidence to suggest we can't completely solve the problems caused by our activities. We have not, however, acted on that knowledge.

So saying science can save us, seems perfectly reasonable - if it's said by someone willing to be saved.

EDITOr become ill from large amounts of mercury in your system.Ironically, at this rate, we'll outlast the little fishies. So much of the ice on this planet is freshwater that when it melts, the saline levels in the world's oceans will drop below what something like 95% of all ocean life can tolerate.

At this very moment, we possess the technology to extract moisture from (desert) air and convert it into potable water. I'm sure that in 100 years it will be possible to extract carbon dioxide from the air in a similar fashion and manage it effectively.


Actually, I believe it was PBS, where I saw this experiment. This guy was making a sort of filter which could take out excess carbon dioxide from the air. They would be made(set up like)wind farms(wind power plants). However no amount of technology would be able to reverse global warming. Last I checked laptops don't stop hurricanes.And my TV never ended a blizzard either.

So saying science can save us, seems perfectly reasonable - if it's said by someone willing to be saved.

Ironically, at this rate, we'll outlast the little fishies. So much of the ice on this planet is freshwater that when it melts, the saline levels in the world's oceans will drop below what something like 95% of all ocean life can tolerate.

I agree on how we cannot rely on faith, even though I do believe in God. Science is one of the things we should rely on harder, although I do believe we can have stations in both sections.

As for the thing with the fish goes, putting it like that gives us even a less chance of surviving, yes? If the fish go, then so does a major food group for most island countries, and most last cultural groups in the world. Not only that, with the agriculture gone from the heat, we will have nothing to feed on. Except maybe dirt...or each other. Either still won't give us the nutrients to survive however.

I agree on how we cannot rely on faith, even though I do believe in God. Science is one of the things we should rely on harder, although I do believe we can have stations in both sections.Agreed.As for the thing with the fish goes, putting it like that gives us even a less chance of surviving, yes?Yes. It would actually destroy every last ecosystem on the planet in a matter of decades, but don't get hysterical. It won't happen if we start to limit our emissions, and even if we don't, we'll need at least several generations to exacerbate the problems to the point that we can't do anything to avoid it. The issue at hand isn't the total devastation of life on Earth, it is how much devastation we think is a good idea. Fortunately (in my opinion) a very large chunk of the global population is highly vulnerable to even subtle climatic changes, so I think it's likely we'll have had our fill quite soon. If nothing else, the refugees will probably be more than we'll want to deal with.

Of course, we ought to have been dealing with this since the early 1970s, but... Oh well... Rational behaviour has always been a problem for our species.

I agree on how we cannot rely on faith, even though I do believe in God. Science is one of the things we should rely on harder, although I do believe we can have stations in both sections.


Science won't save squat if humanity keeps on going the way it does.

Science says how. It doesn't DO the how. That's humanities job. And so far, they're lazy ass bums who aren't willing to do it.

I am really amazed at the amount of mis-information from both sides of the global warming debate that endlessly crops up on this site. Come on people, do a little research into what is really going on before you post. I can understand the naysayers because "thats what they do" but the pro global warming people are just as incorrect while blindly following the cataclysmic prediction for the future of the week. This whole issue has been turned into a media fiasco and quasi-religious conviction. Both sides tout their "research" yet neither side does a very good job of translating (and sometimes intentionally misrepresenting) the actual research from a scientific audience to a lay audience.

If you really want to know whats going on I highly suggest you look outside TV, newsprint, blogs, and most internet sites out there.

:eek: I am going to go run and hide now...

Agreed.Yes. It would actually destroy every last ecosystem on the planet in a matter of decades, but don't get hysterical. It won't happen if we start to limit our emissions, and even if we don't, we'll need at least several generations to exacerbate the problems to the point that we can't do anything to avoid it. The issue at hand isn't the total devastation of life on Earth, it is how much devastation we think is a good idea. Fortunately (in my opinion) a very large chunk of the global population is highly vulnerable to even subtle climatic changes, so I think it's likely we'll have had our fill quite soon. If nothing else, the refugees will probably be more than we'll want to deal with.

Of course, we ought to have been dealing with this since the early 1970s, but... Oh well... Rational behaviour has always been a problem for our species.

Interesting...

Does this mean that Peak Oil will be a godsend, climatologically speaking?

Interesting...

Does this mean that Peak Oil will be a godsend, climatologically speaking?

Until we start burning wood/coal instead... bad in a variety of ways.
Internal combustion engine.

:(

Until we start burning wood/coal instead... bad in a variety of ways.
Internal combustion engine.

:(

Presume that we have wasted too much time ignoring the problem and now do not have enough time to implement those solutions on a much wider scale, then answer my question again. (Not trying to be a smartass here, but simply trying to gain a wide variety of answers depending on the possible situations.

the OP reminded me of this article in Newsweek:
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/)

Yeppers. 8.12.07:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12958774&postcount=84

Yeppers. 8.12.07:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12958774&postcount=84

Oi.

You're an expert on this stuff. Can Peak Oil save us from the worst of the climatological effects by virtue of stopping our CO2 production?

Oi.

You're an expert on this stuff. Can Peak Oil save us from the worst of the climatological effects by virtue of stopping our CO2 production?

There's also Coal.

There's also Coal.

Argh. Once again: presuming a situation where we have wasted too much time and do not have enough to implement such technologies across the world in time.

Argh. Once again: presuming a situation where we have wasted too much time and do not have enough to implement such technologies across the world in time.
I think you misunderstand. He's saying that even if we had no more oil to use, we'd still be emitting huge amounts of CO2 by burning coal.

I think you misunderstand. He's saying that even if we had no more oil to use, we'd still be emitting huge amounts of CO2 by burning coal.

Bingo.

Can Peak Oil save us from the worst of the climatological effects by virtue of stopping our CO2 production?No, because less oil doesn't necessarily mean less impact. For example, even though our CO2 emissions will likely decrease somewhat as oil grows scarcer, we can more than make up the difference with particle emissions. The sot we produce when we use coal, for example, is very effective. It not only increases atmosphere temperature, it decreases surface temperatures, messes with cloud coverage, and as an added bonus, it's poisonous to pretty much everything we're likely to give a shit about.

So there's no simple answer to your question. It depends entirely on how we make up for the resource we're exhausting.

I think you misunderstand. He's saying that even if we had no more oil to use, we'd still be emitting huge amounts of CO2 by burning coal.

...

I think you are misunderstanding. We can't exactly burn much in the way of coal if we can't use it for what we'd need to use it, such as transporting that coal to where it needs to go, and so on and so forth.

Unless you're hiding a coal-powered car in your back pocket and know how to produce a car without using oil(or create petrochemical fertilizers without oil, fuel farm machines without oil, ect ect) my scenario is possible. That's what I'm asking. I am asking about a scenario where Peak Oil devastates the economy and prevents us from being able to bounce back because we will lack the necessary resources.

In such a scenario, is Peak Oil actually beenficial in the long run due to the stopping of what we're doing to accelerate the change of climate?

The sot we produce when we use coal, for example, is very effective. It not only increases atmosphere temperature, it decreases surface temperatures, messes with cloud coverage, and as an added bonus, it's poisonous to pretty much everything we're likely to give a shit about.

also, it never dulls and can cut through anything. but wait, there's more!

...

I think you are misunderstanding. We can't exactly burn much in the way of coal if we can't use it for what we'd need to use it, such as transporting that coal to where it needs to go, and so on and so forth.

Unless you're hiding a coal-powered car in your back pocket and know how to produce a car without using oil(or create petrochemical fertilizers without oil, fuel farm machines without oil, ect ect) my scenario is possible. That's what I'm asking. I am asking about a scenario where Peak Oil devastates the economy and prevents us from being able to bounce back because we will lack the necessary resources.

In such a scenario, is Peak Oil actually beenficial in the long run due to the stopping of what we're doing to accelerate the change of climate?

Coal powered trains.

No, because less oil doesn't necessarily mean less impact. For example, even though our CO2 emissions will likely decrease somewhat as oil grows scarcer, we can more than make up the difference with particle emissions. The sot we produce when we use coal, for example, is very effective. It not only increases atmosphere temperature, it decreases surface temperatures, messes with cloud coverage, and as an added bonus, it's poisonous to pretty much everything we're likely to give a shit about.

So there's no simple answer to your question. It depends entirely on how we make up for the resource we're exhausting.

Yay! My ignorance is building up yet again!

Thank you.

I think you are misunderstanding. We can't exactly burn much in the way of coal if we can't use it for what we'd need to use it, such as transporting that coal to where it needs to go, and so on and so forth.In that case, the failure is yours, not his. Peak oil isn't something that'll happen tomorrow. It has already happened. Likewise, it's not like sipping your coke thru a straw. It won't go from max utilization to no oil at all in the blink of an eye. It's difficult to say how soon we'll be forced to abandon various oil dependent technologies, but it won't happen the handful of decades. Possibly not in my lifetime.

The big problem with peak oil is that scaling back on oil dependency is bitch-slapping our economies, especially for developing countries and de-developing countries like the US who haven't in any way tried to limit their oil dependency since it became known it was a finite resource. And of course, the global economy revolves around the petrodollar... Leo might have something to say about that. My opinion in that department can be summed up as this: :headbang:

also, it never dulls and can cut through anything. but wait, there's more!Better than Kinder Eier ;)

In that case, the failure is yours, not his. Peak oil isn't something that'll happen tomorrow. It has already happened. Likewise, it's not like sipping your coke thru a straw. It won't go from max utilization to no oil at all in the blink of an eye. It's difficult to say how soon we'll be forced to abandon various oil dependent technologies, but it won't happen the handful of decades. Possibly not in my lifetime.

The big problem with peak oil is that scaling back on oil dependency is bitch-slapping our economies, especially for developing countries and de-developing countries like the US who haven't in any way tried to limit their oil dependency since it became known it was a finite resource. And of course, the global economy revolves around the petrodollar... Leo might have something to say about that. My opinion in that department can be summed up as this: :headbang:
It's complicated. I wish I truly understood this sort of stuff instead of having to be told again and again how stupid I am and why my ignorance on this particular subject means I'm drawing the wrong conclusions.

It's complicated. I wish I truly understood this sort of stuff instead of having to be told again and again how stupid I am and why my ignorance on this particular subject means I'm drawing the wrong conclusions.I did not mean to imply you're stupid or anything else of the sort. Ignorance is easily dispelled with information and can hardly be considered a failing in anyone. The human knowledge base is far too expansive for a single human being to absorb it all, given a thousand lifetimes.

There's two ways of dealing with it: if the subject doesn't interest you, just trust the scientific consensus to tell you what to do, and do it. If it does interest you, start by visiting the library and borrow a or two book on meteorology. Once you understand the basics, you'll be able to understand most of the things that are being debated and you'll find appropriate text books and the like are freely available online.

How well is your "Hearing"? Honestly, if you don't get the weather you want, MOVE. Geez, guys. Being happy for this is pointless. More people will be destroyed; starving, crammed into livable areas etc; than people who will actually benefit. The Cons outweigh the Pros you, think-for-yourself-ers.

Alright, give me an option. However, here are my criteria. Said nation needs to have

- No snakes
- Weather warmer than that experienced in Auckland
- Be relatively safe from the threat of terrorism
- Has reasonably decent internet access
- Have a reasonably low crime rate
- Have decent access to public transportation

The list can go on, but I will limit myself. Any bids?

I did not mean to imply you're stupid or anything else of the sort. Ignorance is easily dispelled with information and can hardly be considered a failing in anyone. The human knowledge base is far too expansive for a single human being to absorb it all, given a thousand lifetimes.

There's two ways of dealing with it: if the subject doesn't interest you, just trust the scientific consensus to tell you what to do, and do it. If it does interest you, start by visiting the library and borrow a or two book on meteorology. Once you understand the basics, you'll be able to understand most of the things that are being debated and you'll find appropriate text books and the like are freely available online.

Trust scientific consensus? That I can certainly do.

I'll just try to stay silent from now on in these debates so the people who have enough interest in the subject to learn the details can correct the ignorant.

The problem is that if global warming results in greenland's ice sheets melting, it would throw the oceans delivering warm water to northern Europe out of whack. Thus, quite possibly making London colder than Moscow. This can problably apply to many other parts of the world, too.

The problem is that if global warming results in greenland's ice sheets melting, it would throw the oceans delivering warm water to northern Europe out of whack. Thus, quite possibly making London colder than Moscow. This can problably apply to many other parts of the world, too.

Sim? Is this true, or is this misinformation that was then put into that Day After Tomorrow movie and kept on rolling?

There are many countries having water problem because of global warming and many countries having melted ice cap threat.I think global warming is a disease and human have done it.Are you serious when you are telling us global warming can be good for us?Read some articles about global warming and realize the extent of the damage.:mad:

global warming is really important cos if it happens things will go terribly wrong. the ice caps will melt and then the oceans will rise. With the oceans risen then land will go underwater and alot of people will lose there homes and lives and family. Personally i blame science. if science did not invent things we dont need like hairsprays and aerosols and other things. now the are trying to fix it and so they should because its 50% sciences fault. and also alot is oil companys fault. So anyone who doesnt think global warming is bad and thinks it good cos they will have good summers, thats just a tad stupid! Thats just my opinion personally. Anyone else agree with me??????????:mad:

global warming is really important cos if it happens things will go terribly wrong. the ice caps will melt and then the oceans will rise. With the oceans risen then land will go underwater and alot of people will lose there homes and lives and family. Personally i blame science. if science did not invent things we dont need like hairsprays and aerosols and other things. now the are trying to fix it and so they should because its 50% sciences fault. and also alot is oil companys fault. So anyone who doesnt think global warming is bad and thinks it good cos they will have good summers, thats just a tad stupid! Thats just my opinion personally. Anyone else agree with me??????????:mad:

Well, I'm convinced. It was the size of your text that knocked me off the fence. Thanks and happy day. :)

global warming is really important cos if it happens things will go terribly wrong. the ice caps will melt and then the oceans will rise. With the oceans risen then land will go underwater and alot of people will lose there homes and lives and family. Personally i blame science. if science did not invent things we dont need like hairsprays and aerosols and other things. now the are trying to fix it and so they should because its 50% sciences fault. and also alot is oil companys fault. So anyone who doesnt think global warming is bad and thinks it good cos they will have good summers, thats just a tad stupid! Thats just my opinion personally. Anyone else agree with me??????????:mad:
I can (almost) read it without my glasses, so it must be true!

This would NOT work out cause taking that water to parts of the world that doesnt have water would hurt or destroy the climate around that area and would evuntally hurt the Earth we live on. Maybe taking that water to the men ,women, and children around the earth that dont have any would be a better idea i think.

And of course, the global economy revolves around the petrodollar... Leo might have something to say about that. My opinion in that department can be summed up as this: :headbang:
:D

Suffice to say that I think any positive impact on the climate a catastrophic peak oil scenario might have is likely to be outweighed by it just being a crappy thing to happen. Sorta like a massive pandemic wiping out most of humanity - good for the climate perhaps, but still not something to look forward to.

That being said, I don't see a catastrophic peak oil thing actually happening. We're not at that stage yet where people end up being better off researching and using alternatives to oil, but before it runs out we will be. As long as governments don't start fiddling about with subsidies and the like to make the remaining oil look more attractive than it is, even people hostile to the idea of the market can see that in this case (one globally traded uniform commodity) it's got a self-adjusting mechanism built in.

...

I think you are misunderstanding. We can't exactly burn much in the way of coal if we can't use it for what we'd need to use it, such as transporting that coal to where it needs to go, and so on and so forth.

Unless you're hiding a coal-powered car in your back pocket and know how to produce a car without using oil(or create petrochemical fertilizers without oil, fuel farm machines without oil, ect ect) my scenario is possible. That's what I'm asking. I am asking about a scenario where Peak Oil devastates the economy and prevents us from being able to bounce back because we will lack the necessary resources.

In such a scenario, is Peak Oil actually beenficial in the long run due to the stopping of what we're doing to accelerate the change of climate?

Coal gasification can easily be implemented to turn coal into a liquid fuel and is how the US airforce is planning on running much of its planes by 2012. The technology is old (see Nazi Germany and South Africa as they probably used gasification more than anyone) but it is dirty, and mining anything generally has large environmental strings attached.

Peak Oil will make global warming worse before it makes things better. As we run out of oil and gas we will switch to coal. Coal emits more CO2 per energy equivalent than both natural gas and oil so emissions will most certainly rise (well unless people actually attempt to sequester CO2). Peak fossil fuels will ultimately reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Peak oil will probably make things worse.

The problem is that if global warming results in greenland's ice sheets melting, it would throw the oceans delivering warm water to northern Europe out of whack. Thus, quite possibly making London colder than Moscow. This can problably apply to many other parts of the world, too.

This is probably 100% not true.

Alright, give me an option. However, here are my criteria. Said nation needs to have

- No snakes
- Weather warmer than that experienced in Auckland
- Be relatively safe from the threat of terrorism
- Has reasonably decent internet access
- Have a reasonably low crime rate
- Have decent access to public transportation

The list can go on, but I will limit myself. Any bids?

You obviously can't get that anywhere. So it sounds like you're screwed. Maybe you should move to....Mars or something. You won't have any air but you won't have snakes, terrorism, crime, and there'd be no need for public transportation cause you could work at home.

How's that sound? Since Earth apparently isn't good enough for you.

Sim? Is this true, or is this misinformation that was then put into that Day After Tomorrow movie and kept on rolling?It's both.

Basically: If the ice stores of Greenland starts melting past a certain rate, the melting will accelerate uncontrollably because the melting water itself will melt the ice stores, regardless of other factors. If that happens, the melting waters would flood a critical part of the great ocean conveyor, and since that melting water isn't saltwater, the great ocean conveyor would shut down, because haline forcing (that is; saltier waters sinking and pushing the lower waters south) would be reduced to insignificance.

So.. In principle that claim isn't total nonsense, but that's in principle only. In practice, the conveyor cycles most of the ocean waters on the planet, over a period of more than 1,000 years, so the force you'd need to shift this is a few days, or even a few years, is something only a god would possess. Given time, however, the shift would happen by itself, as the force that keeps it going now would have been removed. It's also worth noting that because the great ocean conveyor is the single biggest climate regulating force on this planet, the effect of significantly changing it is not entirely predictable. It might cause an ice age. Then again, it might not.

All that aside, I think it's completely unrealistic to think any of it will happen. Melting ice stores will cause a rapid eustatic increase, and that will equally rapidly become an insanely huge economic (and humanitarian) problem for pretty much everyone living here on Earth. I can't see how it could be economically viable to keep melting the ice stores to the point it would threaten the great ocean conveyor. Even 18-50cm is a not insifnificant economic problem for a great many nations and peoples. Just imagine how expensive it would be to cope with 20-30 feet (that's roughly the scale we're talking about for it to happen).

The OP isn't the sharpest tool in the box..
Think of all the repercussions aside from "Oh I long warm winters and hot summers"

Wow, did you see that the two biggest idiots on the forum are the first two posters?

Sim? Is this true, or is this misinformation that was then put into that Day After Tomorrow movie and kept on rolling?

It's true, actually. I'm not sure where the confusion is. The Gulf Stream warms Europe and makes Northern Europe habitable. It basically consists of the western boundary current of the Atlantic Ocean. Warm water with high salinity goes up north and then east.

The idea that Greenland dumping a whole bunch of frigid freshwater into the system would fuck it up seems pretty simple to me.

Plus then there's the whole deep ocean current that would also get fucked up because it depends largely on the cooling of the high-salinity gulf water as it reaches the north Atlantic in order for it to be dense enough to sink to the bottom. Without this system, the mixing of ocean nutrients could well stop, making everything lower than a few hundred meters down a dead zone.

Presume that we have wasted too much time ignoring the problem and now do not have enough time to implement those solutions on a much wider scale, then answer my question again. (Not trying to be a smartass here, but simply trying to gain a wide variety of answers depending on the possible situations.

No, peak oil will not be good, climatologically(word?) speaking, unless it forces us to realize that we need to use "green" energy, such as solar, wind, and such, exclusively.

We may learn nothing and just go back to using coal and wood, after a 5 year panic as the oil eventually gets used up.

*flips coin*

I'm not sure where the confusion is.Me neither, but I'm guessing the confusion is about whether or not this could happen in a few days/years and spark an ice age. In which case the answers are a resounding "No" and a somewhat more feeble "perhaps", respectively. We may learn nothing and just go back to using coal and wood, after a 5 year panic as the oil eventually gets used up.Peak oil is, as I've already said, a reality right now. Production can only decrease from this point onwards.

But as I've also already said, peak oil isn't the same as us having used up all the available resource. It only means production can't increase any more. A couple of years from now, total production will gradually fall, though how much and how fast is difficult to say. A lot of the information regarding capacities and oil wells is not disclosed by the oil industry, and it's somewhat difficult to say how much new production methods will offset the problem of scarcity. But a greater than 0-2% decrease per year seems unrealistic.

Similarly, IEA (and others) predict demand will increase by something like 1.8% annually the next 5 years, so while there's definitely a supply problem around next year's corner, it's not exactly a global energy crisis. And it may never be.

Peak oil is, as I've already said, a reality right now. Production can only decrease from this point onwards.

I wouldn't say we're there yet, mainly because OPEC still has a significant quota cut in place muddying the production waters and there are a lot of projects coming on line in the next several years that are enough to more than make up for the declines in existing fields. I think we are at the start of the plateau, where supply growth will be increasingly minimal, but we're not quite at peak yet.

We probably have another 5-6 years before production truly peaks. And there are a lot of what-ifs along the way that may push it one way or another.

It's both.

Basically: If the ice stores of Greenland starts melting past a certain rate, the melting will accelerate uncontrollably because the melting water itself will melt the ice stores, regardless of other factors. If that happens, the melting waters would flood a critical part of the great ocean conveyor, and since that melting water isn't saltwater, the great ocean conveyor would shut down, because haline forcing (that is; saltier waters sinking and pushing the lower waters south) would be reduced to insignificance.

So.. In principle that claim isn't total nonsense, but that's in principle only. In practice, the conveyor cycles most of the ocean waters on the planet, over a period of more than 1,000 years, so the force you'd need to shift this is a few days, or even a few years, is something only a god would possess. Given time, however, the shift would happen by itself, as the force that keeps it going now would have been removed. It's also worth noting that because the great ocean conveyor is the single biggest climate regulating force on this planet, the effect of significantly changing it is not entirely predictable. It might cause an ice age. Then again, it might not.

All that aside, I think it's completely unrealistic to think any of it will happen. Melting ice stores will cause a rapid eustatic increase, and that will equally rapidly become an insanely huge economic (and humanitarian) problem for pretty much everyone living here on Earth. I can't see how it could be economically viable to keep melting the ice stores to the point it would threaten the great ocean conveyor. Even 18-50cm is a not insifnificant economic problem for a great many nations and peoples. Just imagine how expensive it would be to cope with 20-30 feet (that's roughly the scale we're talking about for it to happen).
Ah, okay! That makes a lot more sense. So basically people took what is something that works in principle and intentionally ignored the parts that would keep them from using it dramatically. Typical movies.

Makes me wish there were more hard science fiction movies and books. Far too few exist.

It's both.

Basically: If the ice stores of Greenland starts melting past a certain rate, the melting will accelerate uncontrollably because the melting water itself will melt the ice stores, regardless of other factors. If that happens, the melting waters would flood a critical part of the great ocean conveyor, and since that melting water isn't saltwater, the great ocean conveyor would shut down, because haline forcing (that is; saltier waters sinking and pushing the lower waters south) would be reduced to insignificance.

So.. In principle that claim isn't total nonsense, but that's in principle only. In practice, the conveyor cycles most of the ocean waters on the planet, over a period of more than 1,000 years, so the force you'd need to shift this is a few days, or even a few years, is something only a god would possess. Given time, however, the shift would happen by itself, as the force that keeps it going now would have been removed. It's also worth noting that because the great ocean conveyor is the single biggest climate regulating force on this planet, the effect of significantly changing it is not entirely predictable. It might cause an ice age. Then again, it might not.

All that aside, I think it's completely unrealistic to think any of it will happen. Melting ice stores will cause a rapid eustatic increase, and that will equally rapidly become an insanely huge economic (and humanitarian) problem for pretty much everyone living here on Earth. I can't see how it could be economically viable to keep melting the ice stores to the point it would threaten the great ocean conveyor. Even 18-50cm is a not insifnificant economic problem for a great many nations and peoples. Just imagine how expensive it would be to cope with 20-30 feet (that's roughly the scale we're talking about for it to happen).

I agree with most of your post but would add a couple of comments.

Yes it is possible that if all the ice from Greenland were to fall into the ocean today it could slow down the conveyor. I also agree that is quite unlikely that this will happen at a flux necessary to alter the convener. In support I would use the 8200 year event. Climate was temporarily altered and large volumes of fresh water exited Canada into the North Atlantic, however there is zero evidence that I have come across suggesting that deep water formation and therefore ocean circulation was altered in any significant fashion.

I would argue that slowing ocean circulation will never create an ice age. It may cause parts of the Northern Hemisphere to get cooler but this may be accounted for by warming in the Southern Hemisphere creating no global net change.

Also the oceans alter regional climates, I think that waxing and waning of ice sheets is the largest climatic forcer on this planet and controls global climate more than ocean circulation because these ice sheets directly influence albedo while oceans generally move heat around. However these arguments are quite silly because when it comes down to it everything is important and no one really understands the feedbacks between the atmosphere, cryosphere and ocean.

It's true, actually. I'm not sure where the confusion is. The Gulf Stream warms Europe and makes Northern Europe habitable. It basically consists of the western boundary current of the Atlantic Ocean. Warm water with high salinity goes up north and then east.

The idea that Greenland dumping a whole bunch of frigid freshwater into the system would fuck it up seems pretty simple to me.

Plus then there's the whole deep ocean current that would also get fucked up because it depends largely on the cooling of the high-salinity gulf water as it reaches the north Atlantic in order for it to be dense enough to sink to the bottom. Without this system, the mixing of ocean nutrients could well stop, making everything lower than a few hundred meters down a dead zone.

For clarity, the principle is correct however...

If ocean circulation and climate interactions were a simple thing to understand then I would be out of a job.

Its the North Atlantic Current, not the Gulf Stream that moves the salty warmer waters from the gulf stream to the North Atlantic and this is the thing that can get disrupted and alter circulation.

Glacial Lake Agassiz dumped the equivalent of the modern Caspian Sea of freshwater into the North Atlantic 8200 years ago. During this time there is about an 80 year span in the Greenland Ice that shows a relative cooling and it was attributed to an alteration of the ocean conveyor and potentially analogous to melt water pulse 1A and the youger dryas. HOWEVER, unlike meltwater pulse 1A or the younger dryas there is no evidence of deep water formation being altered during the 8200 year event suggesting the conveyor is more robust than previously thought.

The 8200 is probably a better comparison in terms of volume and flux of freshwater off of Greenland than the other two... I won't go as far not to say that the melting of Greenland ice may cause significant alteration or shutdown of the conveyor however there is ample evidence to suggest otherwise. You could look up Weaver and Hillaire-Marcell 2004 in Science where they respond to the Day after Tomorrow. its a short three page read.

Also if north atlantic deep water production (NADW) stopped there would not be a dead zone in the ocean. There is evidance that circulation was temporary suspended during meltwater pulse 1A and no mass ocean extinction occurs. The southern ocean also sinks bottom water to the ocean floor and this bottom water (antartic bottom water or AABW) extends all the way up into the north atlantic. If NADW stops, AABW increases it presence in the north atlantic and circulation keeps going.....

You obviously can't get that anywhere. So it sounds like you're screwed. Maybe you should move to....Mars or something. You won't have any air but you won't have snakes, terrorism, crime, and there'd be no need for public transportation cause you could work at home.

How's that sound? Since Earth apparently isn't good enough for you.

New Zealand has got all those qualities aside from the warmer weather (and arguably the decent internet access, although I am happy with what I have). Therefore, since you did not suggest a suitable location, I will happily burn fossil fuels so that in the event that global warming is happening, I would be able to enjoy strawberries and swim in the sea in June (southern Winter) while still remaining in a lovely country.

New Zealand has got all those qualities aside from the warmer weather (and arguably the decent internet access, although I am happy with what I have). Therefore, since you did not suggest a suitable location, I will happily burn fossil fuels so that in the event that global warming is happening, I would be able to enjoy strawberries and swim in the sea in June (southern Winter) while still remaining in a lovely country.

I've been to Auckland. During your winter and I couldn't complain. I don't get what the big deal is. Try living in Connecticut, USA and you'll want warmer weather. Believe me.

And...the burning of fossil fuels could just end up with burying more than half your coastline in water, you understand this, yes?

Global what?

At this very moment, we possess the technology to extract moisture from (desert) air and convert it into potable water. I'm sure that in 100 years it will be possible to extract carbon dioxide from the air in a similar fashion and manage it effectively.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the residents of the Lost Continent of Atlanta.

I've been to Auckland. During your winter and I couldn't complain. I don't get what the big deal is. Try living in Connecticut, USA and you'll want warmer weather. Believe me.

And...the burning of fossil fuels could just end up with burying more than half your coastline in water, you understand this, yes?

Was that the winter of 2005 by any chance? The winter of 2005 was unusually mild and I still remember that one fondly. Here is a morning in my life, in winter.

I wake up in the morning in a nice warm bed at seven in the morning. The minute I get out of bed, my core body temperature nose dives. Because our large jug is too tall for our microwave, I have to have cold milk with my cereal, and to avoid chattering, I have to have a cup of tea to keep my core body temperature up. I leave home, my hands and feet are frozen solid, and get into the car to be dropped off at the train station near where I live. Just as my hands and feet start warming up, I have to get off and start chattering again at the platform.

The train arrives and I get on board, at least it is reasonably warm. I get off at Britomart, and bam, it is cold again and I start to chatter. I chatter my way up Queen Street, while talking with a friend. My hands start freezing up again, and that does not help when I try to take notes in my Accounting 102 lecture, although things are warming up. Needless to say, I spend the day switching from reasonable to very cold.

In terms of drowning the coastline, the only people that would be effected are the idiots that have spent millions on purchasing coastal property - given that New Zealand's coastline is largely cliff like, I would not envisage any significant negative effects.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the residents of the Lost Continent of Atlanta.

You win.

Was that the winter of 2005 by any chance? The winter of 2005 was unusually mild and I still remember that one fondly. Here is a morning in my life, in winter.

I wake up in the morning in a nice warm bed at seven in the morning. The minute I get out of bed, my core body temperature nose dives. Because our large jug is too tall for our microwave, I have to have cold milk with my cereal, and to avoid chattering, I have to have a cup of tea to keep my core body temperature up. I leave home, my hands and feet are frozen solid, and get into the car to be dropped off at the train station near where I live. Just as my hands and feet start warming up, I have to get off and start chattering again at the platform.

The train arrives and I get on board, at least it is reasonably warm. I get off at Britomart, and bam, it is cold again and I start to chatter. I chatter my way up Queen Street, while talking with a friend. My hands start freezing up again, and that does not help when I try to take notes in my Accounting 102 lecture, although things are warming up. Needless to say, I spend the day switching from reasonable to very cold.

In terms of drowning the coastline, the only people that would be effected are the idiots that have spent millions on purchasing coastal property - given that New Zealand's coastline is largely cliff like, I would not envisage any significant negative effects.

Forgive me for not crying for you. Winter is cold, and I revel in it! Going outside when the wind chill is at or below 0 degeress fahrenheit is so invigorating! Hell, I walk around with jeans and t-shirts when its snowing, its great!


Aside from that, don't you think you are being a bit selfish hoping for global warming when it could displace millions around the world, create mass extinctions of animal and plant species, and starve millions of people as a result of a loss of agricultural lands?

snip

Let the good times roll ...

No, peak oil will not be good, climatologically(word?) speaking, unless it forces us to realize that we need to use "green" energy, such as solar, wind, and such, exclusively.

We may learn nothing and just go back to using coal and wood, after a 5 year panic as the oil eventually gets used up.

*flips coin*

I'm betting on wood. I'm buying up all the forest I can.

You win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmeoPZf1cFo

Fry: Are you crazy? I can't swallow that.
Professor Farnsworth: Well, then good news! It's a suppository.

New Zealand has got all those qualities aside from the warmer weather (and arguably the decent internet access, although I am happy with what I have). Therefore, since you did not suggest a suitable location, I will happily burn fossil fuels so that in the event that global warming is happening, I would be able to enjoy strawberries and swim in the sea in June (southern Winter) while still remaining in a lovely country.

Or you could go through droughts, you could go through an even worse and more extreme winter than before, or any other things. Just because the Earth is getting warmer, on average, doesn't mean that everywhere is going to get warmer/better.

As well, how much of your food is imported? I'm guessing a bit. With a decrease in crop production(Which will happen if climates shift-Farmers rely on one thing more than anything else, and that is consistency), food prices will go up, there will be shortages, and you may very well be screwed. Warmer weather, even if it does occur in farming areas, does not necessarily mean better growing conditions. Usually it ends up in droughts and other such nasty conditions.

Something to chew over.

This is probably 100% not true.

Probably?
So you have an absolute in your probability set?

Maybe some stats, eh?

Anywho ...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/17/america/NA-GEN-US-Low-Ice.php
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/08/18/polar_ice_melting_rapidly/8873/
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1309632007
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1658214220070816

More bloodsucking fiends that can carry deadly disease.

You mean more Republicans? :D

Or you could go through droughts, you could go through an even worse and more extreme winter than before, or any other things. Just because the Earth is getting warmer, on average, doesn't mean that everywhere is going to get warmer/better.

That's not what the IPCC had to say. They had to say the following

For example, while warming is expected everywhere on Earth, the amount of projected warming generally increases from the tropics to the poles in the Northern Hemisphere.

It is FAQ 11.1 - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html this is the contents page

Therefore, New Zealand will get warmer, and therefore will get better.

As well, how much of your food is imported? I'm guessing a bit. With a decrease in crop production(Which will happen if climates shift-Farmers rely on one thing more than anything else, and that is consistency), food prices will go up, there will be shortages, and you may very well be screwed. Warmer weather, even if it does occur in farming areas, does not necessarily mean better growing conditions. Usually it ends up in droughts and other such nasty conditions.

Something to chew over.

While some of our food in New Zealand is imported, we are predominately food exporting nation. If food prices go up, we have a national party - indeed, Alan Bollard has raised interest rates recently because the price of milk has gone through the roof and dairy farmers are literally becoming overnight millionaires. Given that much of our farming sector (aside from dairy) has gone through a major hammering in the last twenty five years, any increase in the price of food, particularly meat, is beneficial. Thus, our economy will start picking up from the doldrums and perhaps we would finally revive the old glory days of having the largest GDP per capita in the world, and when you could buy US$1.40 with a Kiwi Dollar. I still see only benefits.

Forgive me for not crying for you. Winter is cold, and I revel in it! Going outside when the wind chill is at or below 0 degeress fahrenheit is so invigorating! Hell, I walk around with jeans and t-shirts when its snowing, its great!

We don't even get snow in Auckland - we get the worst of both worlds, we get the extremely low temperatures, but we do not get snow; the last time it snowed in Auckland was July 27th 1939. I completely and utterly despise waking up in the morning and getting out of bed and seeing my core body temperature lose a degree.

Aside from that, don't you think you are being a bit selfish hoping for global warming when it could displace millions around the world, create mass extinctions of animal and plant species, and starve millions of people as a result of a loss of agricultural lands?

First of all, while some agricultural lands may be lost, certainly growing opportunities in Canada and Siberia will result. Like I said before, any increase in the price of food is a good thing for the New Zealand economy and perhaps we would finally restore ourselves to the old position of greatness that we occupied a mere fifty years ago. In terms of starving millions of people, one would find that the citizens of Third World nations reproducing like rabbits has more of an impact on starvation than global warming ever would. In terms of displacing people; well, aside from the Third World countries around the Sahara Desert which I am concerned about, the only nation that I could seriously see having displacement issues is Australia.

Of course that would mean that Little New Zealand (a.k.a. Brisbane, Brisvegas, South East Queensland, et cetera) would be liquidated and the brain drain would become a brain gain. Yep, no longer losing our skilled people overseas. In fact, global warming would probably destroy virtually all the negatives about New Zealand. No more brain drain, no more being the arse end of the economic statistics, no more horrid winter, no more idiots spending millions on Atlantean properties (formerly known as coastal property). Also, bear in mind that the world can be considered selfish in their treatment of New Zealand. In the mid 1980s, the United States and France threatened to put tariffs on our goods if we did not drop our subsidies. While we have dropped our subsidies, they have not dropped theirs and we are at the arse end of the economic statistics, so the selfishness argument cannot exactly work.

I need some good reasons why, in the event that global warming is happening, that I should say that it is a bad thing. I still see only benefits at the moment.

Was that the winter of 2005 by any chance? The winter of 2005 was unusually mild and I still remember that one fondly. Here is a morning in my life, in winter.

I wake up in the morning in a nice warm bed at seven in the morning. The minute I get out of bed, my core body temperature nose dives. Because our large jug is too tall for our microwave, I have to have cold milk with my cereal, and to avoid chattering, I have to have a cup of tea to keep my core body temperature up. I leave home, my hands and feet are frozen solid, and get into the car to be dropped off at the train station near where I live. Just as my hands and feet start warming up, I have to get off and start chattering again at the platform.

The train arrives and I get on board, at least it is reasonably warm. I get off at Britomart, and bam, it is cold again and I start to chatter. I chatter my way up Queen Street, while talking with a friend. My hands start freezing up again, and that does not help when I try to take notes in my Accounting 102 lecture, although things are warming up. Needless to say, I spend the day switching from reasonable to very cold.

In terms of drowning the coastline, the only people that would be effected are the idiots that have spent millions on purchasing coastal property - given that New Zealand's coastline is largely cliff like, I would not envisage any significant negative effects.


Maybe you need to wear warmer clothes?
And yes, when I was visiting it was the Winter of 2005. And I must say, your country is quite gorgeous.
Anyways, Global Warming won't solve your "cold" problem. If anything, it could worsen your climate since you lot are farther south. Or, even if it does get warmer, you could be getting hit by freak hurricanes every other day because of the screwed up currents.
But as I see it, you do not live in the Northern Mountains. You live in Auckland...what's to say the waters won't stop at the beaches?

Maybe you need to wear warmer clothes?
And yes, when I was visiting it was the Winter of 2005. And I must say, your country is quite gorgeous.
Anyways, Global Warming won't solve your "cold" problem. If anything, it could worsen your climate since you lot are farther south. Or, even if it does get warmer, you could be getting hit by freak hurricanes every other day because of the screwed up currents.
But as I see it, you do not live in the Northern Mountains. You live in Auckland...what's to say the waters won't stop at the beaches?

I do wear sufficiently warm clothes, any more and I would start looking like an Antarctic Explorer - I generally wear three layers.

Why wouldn't global warming solve our cold problem? The IPCC have said that all areas in the world will get warmer as a result of global warming, so the cold problem would be solved or at the very least become more bearable. 2005 was about two degrees warmer than normal, that is the difference between comfort and shivering - two degrees.

In terms of freak cyclones (we don't get em urricanes down ere), while we have had them before, they are quite rare and would remain so, even if global warming meant the number increased by 500% (we get a cyclone around these parts about once every decade or so, the last one I can recall was Cyclone Drena in 1997 and that was unusual in that it came soon after Cyclone Fergus). Also, we get plenty of wind here in winter, so that is something we can cope with.

You are also mistaken about Auckland's topography. While we are a coastal city, the coast line largely consists of cliffs, and we are quite hilly (thanks to sitting on a massive volcanic field). An increase in sea level of five metres will have a very minor impact on Auckland, sure Northland/Auckland will become an island, however, the impact would be otherwise minor.

You mean more Republicans? :D

+1

+1
Oh, come on...you could at least show Alexander here how wrong he is rather than spamming!

...please? I like watching you in action.

While some of our food in New Zealand is imported, we are predominately food exporting nation. If food prices go up, we have a national party - indeed, Alan Bollard has raised interest rates recently because the price of milk has gone through the roof and dairy farmers are literally becoming overnight millionaires. Given that much of our farming sector (aside from dairy) has gone through a major hammering in the last twenty five years, any increase in the price of food, particularly meat, is beneficial. Thus, our economy will start picking up from the doldrums and perhaps we would finally revive the old glory days of having the largest GDP per capita in the world, and when you could buy US$1.40 with a Kiwi Dollar. I still see only benefits.


Unless New Zealand's agriculture is non-industrialized, I don't see how the overall weather instability and inevitable rising energy costs are going to benefit it.

I wouldn't say we're there yet, mainly because OPEC still has a significant quota cut in place muddying the production waters and there are a lot of projects coming on line in the next several years that are enough to more than make up for the declines in existing fields. I think we are at the start of the plateau, where supply growth will be increasingly minimal, but we're not quite at peak yet.

We probably have another 5-6 years before production truly peaks. And there are a lot of what-ifs along the way that may push it one way or another.But I would say so, and I'm pretty confident time will prove me right. The various independents I've seen speculating on peak oil pretty much unanimously conclude that the reason for all the secrecy and messed up quota negotiations, is maxed out production capacity.

I think a much better question is how long peak production can be maintained. 5 years? 10? I doubt the latter is realistic, but it's impossible to gauge when so much of the critical information is kept secret.I would argue that slowing ocean circulation will never create an ice age. It may cause parts of the Northern Hemisphere to get cooler but this may be accounted for by warming in the Southern Hemisphere creating no global net change.I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss the possibility. When it comes to provoking ice ages, slowing the great ocean conveyor seems fairly decent candidate. I agree that it's probably not likely though, and in any case, highly speculative. And just so we're clear, I'm not an expert.Also the oceans alter regional climates, I think that waxing and waning of ice sheets is the largest climatic forcer on this planet [...]Oh, the interconnectedness of it all :p Thing is, ocean circulation and temperatures play a very, very large part in controlling the advance/decrease of ice stores. But yes, I probably shouldn't have singled it out like I did. No part or parts operate in isolation.Why wouldn't global warming solve our cold problem? The IPCC have said that all areas in the world will get warmer as a result of global warming, so the cold problem would be solved or at the very least become more bearable. 2005 was about two degrees warmer than normal, that is the difference between comfort and shivering - two degrees.Now go read the rest of it. Warming won't be all-inclusive, because some areas will cool when terrain and weather patterns change. Not as much as they otherwise might, perhaps, and probably not with any long-term stability, but it will, and indeed is, happening. The arctic circle is a fine example. Roughly 3/4th are warming, while 1/4th is cooling. It's that interconnectedness thingy at work again.

But hey, enjoy the weather. How many million refugees would you like? Because trust me, if you have your way, there'll be plenty for you.

But hey, enjoy the weather. How many million refugees would you like? Because trust me, if you have your way, there'll be plenty for you.
Which is, of course, the great irony. At least in the UK, most of the politicians and tabloids that rail against climate change as some sort of liberal lie are more often than not those who won't feel secure without a 'perfect' homogeneous society and an electric fence through the English Channel.

I do wear sufficiently warm clothes, any more and I would start looking like an Antarctic Explorer - I generally wear three layers.
Then you've got some serious biological problems there which you should seek help on. I was in NZ 2 weeks ago and the temperature in Auckland allowed me to wander around in shorts, T-shirt and jacket. Considering I came from a place which was 35+C 24/7 I was surprised how easy I could cope with NZ winter.
Auckland in Winter has a mean minimum temperature of 9C (48F) and mean maximum of 15C (61F).
Really, as I said before, if you are needing to dress up like 'an arctic explorer' because it's 12C outside you should go see a doctor.

Why wouldn't global warming solve our cold problem? The IPCC have said that all areas in the world will get warmer as a result of global warming, so the cold problem would be solved or at the very least become more bearable.
Because if you bothered checking out any of the reports you claim to have read, you'd see that Global Climate Change could quite easily disrupt the ocean flows which would lead, in the Northern Hemisphere, to large parts of Europe suffering extreme colds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6946735.stm

Same could happen to NZ, but no-one could say either way because no-one has done any study.

As for the, 'warm weather means I can eat fresh strawberries' - nice to see you caring about the rest of the world. Also interesting to see just how little you know about horticulture and farming. Farming needs consistent weather. Wrong temperature at the wrong times and you lose a whole years worth of work.
Notice that avocados (in NZ at least) were cheap recently? That's because the last storm stripped the avocado orchards just before they were about to harvest. They had to dump them on the market or leave them rotting on the ground. It also meant they couldn't export much because their quality wasn't good enough for export. It was good thing that at least the storm hit then. If it had hit a week or two earlier, the avocado orchardists would have lost pretty much the entire year's produce.
Global Climate Change is going to do lots of things but bring consistent weather ain't one of them.

Then you've got some serious biological problems there which you should seek help on. I was in NZ 2 weeks ago and the temperature in Auckland allowed me to wander around in shorts, T-shirt and jacket. Considering I came from a place which was 35+C 24/7 I was surprised how easy I could cope with NZ winter.
Auckland in Winter has a mean minimum temperature of 9C (48F) and mean maximum of 15C (61F).
Really, as I said before, if you are needing to dress up like 'an arctic explorer' because it's 12C outside you should go see a doctor.

I think there is something wrong with you. I have not seen a person walking around in shorts since about March, and unless the weather starts picking up (which it will not), you will not be seeing shorts again until about late October/early November.

Also, the temperature statistics are all to do with still, non rain conditions. Bring in some wind, and that temperature dives. I have certainly seen some fives and sixes this year, and that is with my computer temperature thing, and this is not accounting for wind or rain. Also, it only gets to twelve once we approach lunchtime - I usually do not shiver then.

Because if you bothered checking out any of the reports you claim to have read, you'd see that Global Climate Change could quite easily disrupt the ocean flows which would lead, in the Northern Hemisphere, to large parts of Europe suffering extreme colds.

Same could happen to NZ, but no-one could say either way because no-one has done any study.

Assume means make an arse of you and me. They are assuming that it could happen because everyone was scared after watching the Day After Tomorrow. In terms of New Zealand, I highly doubt that would happen and I would rather lean on what the IPCC said about the whole world having increased temperatures, and of course get ready for longer summers and shorter winters.

As for the, 'warm weather means I can eat fresh strawberries' - nice to see you caring about the rest of the world. Also interesting to see just how little you know about horticulture and farming. Farming needs consistent weather. Wrong temperature at the wrong times and you lose a whole years worth of work.

Don't you worry, just returning the favour - you Europeans and Americans still haven't got rid of your subsidies, eh? While certain types of farming may need consistent weather, primarily crop farming, sheep and dairy farming is not too negatively effected unless you have a dive in temperatures during spring (which of course will disappear with global warming) or have increased drought (which may happen with global warming, although the general forecast for the dairying regions is for more rain). We of course rely on sheep and dairy farming more than crop farming.

Notice that avocados (in NZ at least) were cheap recently? That's because the last storm stripped the avocado orchards just before they were about to harvest. They had to dump them on the market or leave them rotting on the ground. It also meant they couldn't export much because their quality wasn't good enough for export. It was good thing that at least the storm hit then. If it had hit a week or two earlier, the avocado orchardists would have lost pretty much the entire year's produce.

I did not notice, even though I work in a supermarket. I would have noticed if avocados are cheap because more people would be buying them. What I have noticed is that for the first time, tomatoes are still in stock, and some of them are even New Zealand Truss Tomatoes, increase the temperature, and I'll enjoy tomatoes with breakfast in winter too.

Global Climate Change is going to do lots of things but bring consistent weather ain't one of them.

The weather has never been consistent, so I did not expect that. What I do expect though is higher temperatures, so I can therefore expect to live like a Queenslander without the Australians, Cane Toads or Snakes, or a Fijian without the Coups.

Now go read the rest of it. Warming won't be all-inclusive, because some areas will cool when terrain and weather patterns change. Not as much as they otherwise might, perhaps, and probably not with any long-term stability, but it will, and indeed is, happening. The arctic circle is a fine example. Roughly 3/4th are warming, while 1/4th is cooling. It's that interconnectedness thingy at work again.

But hey, enjoy the weather. How many million refugees would you like? Because trust me, if you have your way, there'll be plenty for you.

We would like all the skilled refugees that can fill the following positions

Plumbers; Builders; Electricians; Nurses; Doctors; Teachers and there is more, I just cannot think of them. No more brain drain has got to be a good thing, at least it will no longer cost an utter fortune to have a house built or my toilet fixed.

Thanks, I'll enjoy the better weather, and the benefits that come along with it.

Unless New Zealand's agriculture is non-industrialized, I don't see how the overall weather instability and inevitable rising energy costs are going to benefit it.

I will start off with energy costs, since it is already having a positive impact on the New Zealand agriculture sector. I will do it in list form to make it simple

- Increase in oil price
- Increase in uses of alternatives, e.g. ethanol
- Increase in price of products that make alternatives
- Increase in the price of feed for American and European cows
- Increase in the demand for land to grow products that make alternatives
- Increase in the price of dairy products
- Fonterra makes an absolute fortune, in spite of every single indicator being against it
- New Zealand farmer becomes an overnight millionaire

We don't use that much carbon based energy in terms of our agriculture. A British person buying New Zealand made products has a smaller carbon footprint than the same person buying British made products, in spite of the distance involved.

In terms of loss of food production (if that happens)

- Decrease in the supply of food
- Increase in the price of food
- Fonterra, Lamb Board, et cetera makes an absolute fortune
- New Zealand farmer becomes an overnight millionaire
- Our economy slowly climbs its way from being compared with Third World countries to being compared with Spain and Italy

I still fail to see any negatives for New Zealand. Unless my head is seriously in the sand, then there are none.

Oh my fuck.

"Because they say there will be higher temperatures they must mean that all temperatures will increase and that they MUST increase, despite my complete lack of understanding of climatology whatsoever!"

Please, Alexander...listen to your more educated peers.

I think there is something wrong with you. I have not seen a person walking around in shorts since about March, and unless the weather starts picking up (which it will not), you will not be seeing shorts again until about late October/early November.
nothing wrong with me. I went swimming three times while I was there. And I did in fact notice many ppl walking around in not what anyone would consider winter wear. Lots were in shorts, especially in the Far North. But as it was 16C there most days, it was easy to see why.

Assume means make an arse of you and me. They are assuming that it could happen because everyone was scared after watching the Day After Tomorrow. In terms of New Zealand, I highly doubt that would happen and I would rather lean on what the IPCC said about the whole world having increased temperatures, and of course get ready for longer summers and shorter winters.
Oh, right then. Some scientists are doing a study which is showing a possible slowdown in the ocean's heat flow but - hey! You highly doubt it would happen. So that means it won't. 'Cause you know, you're a top-notch climatologist who just happens to work in a supermarket stacking shelves.

Top marks on failing to comprehend - yet again. They not assuming it could happen because they watched a movie. They theorising about what could happen based on the data they've got and are investigating further to compile more data before making any predictions. Because that's what quality scientists do.
What they're looking at is how Global Climate Change is affecting the Gulf Stream and possibly slowing or even stopping it. The Gulf Stream is what keeps Europe several degrees warmer than it should be. If that stops, Europe will be in for freezing winters.
And that is due to Global warming.
Because, you know, it's Global. So it affects everywhere and everything. Warming one place could cause another to freeze due to how ocean and air currents move.
It's not that hard to understand.


Don't you worry, just returning the favour - you Europeans and Americans still haven't got rid of your subsidies, eh? While certain types of farming may need consistent weather, primarily crop farming, sheep and dairy farming is not too negatively effected unless you have a dive in temperatures during spring (which of course will disappear with global warming) or have increased drought (which may happen with global warming, although the general forecast for the dairying regions is for more rain). We of course rely on sheep and dairy farming more than crop farming.
which means that without imports for crops, NZ is reduced to eating meat and drinking milk. Doesn't sound that appealing.


I did not notice, even though I work in a supermarket. I would have noticed if avocados are cheap because more people would be buying them. What I have noticed is that for the first time, tomatoes are still in stock, and some of them are even New Zealand Truss Tomatoes, increase the temperature, and I'll enjoy tomatoes with breakfast in winter too.
You don't eat too many avocados then. You should, they're very good for you: More potassium than bananas, rich in vitamins B and E and rich in monounsaturated fat which has been shown to lower LDL cholesterol.
But I digress
Nor, apparently do you know any avocado orchardists either. I know one, who I popped in to say hi to when I was in Kaitaia a fortnight ago. That's why I know about what the last storm did - and how lucky they were (relatively speaking).

way to go to ignore the whole point, so I guess I need to reiterate using smaller words:
Farmers and their crops need consistent weather.
Having 1 in 100 year storms twice in a year is not something they can plan for, especially in horticulture.
These weather extremes can - and do - destroy crops, wiping out the whole year's harvest.
If these continue - and Global Climate Change modelling shows they will - we will face the possibility nearly each and every year of seeing that annual crop being wiped out by yet another '1 in 100' year storm.
Hardly a good thing.

btw, the tomatoes you're enjoying are hot-housed grown. Hothouse is a big indoor glassy thing in which the farmer can regulate and maintain consistent temperatures with away from the extremes of the global climate.


- Increase in the price of dairy products
- Fonterra makes an absolute fortune, in spite of every single indicator being against it
- New Zealand farmer becomes an overnight millionaire
no they don't. Dairy payouts are high this year but that means an average payout of $430000 per farm. Sounds a lot?
Minus tax, minus wages, minus equipment, minus stock, minus farm improvement, minus utility charges, minus contractors pay...etc etc.
That payout equates to prob around $50-60k for the farmer. If you actually considered the hours involved in dairy farming (up at 5am every day of the year) it still wouldn't be much above minimum wage.

I will start off with energy costs, since it is already having a positive impact on the New Zealand agriculture sector. I will do it in list form to make it simple

- Increase in oil price
- Increase in uses of alternatives, e.g. ethanol
- Increase in price of products that make alternatives


Overall net loss. Alternatives at the moment require greater input than oil to produce, much less their energy output when considering the entire supply chain.


- Increase in the price of feed for American and European cows


New Zealand as well. Remember, overall price increase in energy costs doesn't mean the US alone.


- Increase in the demand for land to grow products that make alternatives


Versus land available for agriculture...definitely not enough to balance current energy needs vs food needs. Massive starve offs needed.


- Increase in the price of dairy products
- Fonterra makes an absolute fortune, in spite of every single indicator being against it
- New Zealand farmer becomes an overnight millionaire


Not really. Insufficient affordable energy for mass farming. Pasture lands might survive, but not in the long term as increased demand leads to overgrazing.


In terms of loss of food production (if that happens)


It will. Current agricultural practices are dependent on predictable weather and affordable energy.


- Decrease in the supply of food
- Increase in the price of food


= Food riots.


- Fonterra, Lamb Board, et cetera makes an absolute fortune
- New Zealand farmer becomes an overnight millionaire
- Our economy slowly climbs its way from being compared with Third World countries to being compared with Spain and Italy


Until demand far outstrips supply. People riot then.


I still fail to see any negatives for New Zealand. Unless my head is seriously in the sand, then there are none.

If the shortages are bad enough, Australia may 'reappropriate' New Zealand.

It may not look it, due to the commonality of feed in first world countries. But when starvation looms large for everyone there, prepare for possibility of hostilities.

Oh, come on...you could at least show Alexander here how wrong he is rather than spamming!

...please? I like watching you in action.
Luv ya man, but i really don't feel it's necessary. I'm not the only one who knows a little bit about this particular issue. Alex'll get schooled in one fashion or another.
:)
Besides, i'm watching Indiana Jones right now. I'll pop in later.

I do wear sufficiently warm clothes, any more and I would start looking like an Antarctic Explorer - I generally wear three layers.

Why wouldn't global warming solve our cold problem? The IPCC have said that all areas in the world will get warmer as a result of global warming, so the cold problem would be solved or at the very least become more bearable. 2005 was about two degrees warmer than normal, that is the difference between comfort and shivering - two degrees.

In terms of freak cyclones (we don't get em urricanes down ere), while we have had them before, they are quite rare and would remain so, even if global warming meant the number increased by 500% (we get a cyclone around these parts about once every decade or so, the last one I can recall was Cyclone Drena in 1997 and that was unusual in that it came soon after Cyclone Fergus). Also, we get plenty of wind here in winter, so that is something we can cope with.

You are also mistaken about Auckland's topography. While we are a coastal city, the coast line largely consists of cliffs, and we are quite hilly (thanks to sitting on a massive volcanic field). An increase in sea level of five metres will have a very minor impact on Auckland, sure Northland/Auckland will become an island, however, the impact would be otherwise minor.

Fine. You win. But that still doesn't make Global Warming good.
Like I said before, there are more Cons than Pros.
Progress is the opposite of Congress ;)