NationStates Jolt Archive

And if Everything Else Remains Unchanged

That is the unspoken condition we apply whenever we think of alternative possibilities. When we talk about hypotheticals, what-if's, we always implicitly include this position. When we say "what if Bush didn't invade Iraq", for example, we specifically exclude the possible alternative histories in which Saddam is killed in a palace coup in 2005, and in the struggle for power that follows, there is a rebellion by the Shi'ia, the whole nation falls apart into a civil war which ISN'T moderated by the US and UK, and there's far more extensive death and destruction than "our" timeline has experienced.

Little things too- "What if we had gotten that flu shot" assumes, specifically, that you do not miss a critical phone call during your visit to the doctor which has far reaching implications in your life, even though that is out there in the realm of potential alternate history.

The problem is, of course, the universe does not accomodate our desire to assume things stay unchanged. The universe deals us wild cards. Things change, often in directions we were unable to predict.

And so we have a Canadian scientist reporting that solar magnetic activity is lower than it should be, which raises the frightening possibility of a decrease in solar output, and a decrease in solar energy reaching the Earth.

Wouldn't it be ironic, though, if a century or five from now, historians look back at our time and conclude we saved civilization by blanketing the Earth with enough Greenhouse gasses to hold in sufficient heat to stave off the impending fifth Ice Age?

Inadvertently saved.

Therein lies the difference.

And if Everything Else Remains Unchanged

That is the unspoken condition we apply whenever we think of alternative possibilities. When we talk about hypotheticals, what-if's, we always implicitly include this position. When we say "what if Bush didn't invade Iraq", for example, we specifically exclude the possible alternative histories in which Saddam is killed in a palace coup in 2005, and in the struggle for power that follows, there is a rebellion by the Shi'ia, the whole nation falls apart into a civil war which ISN'T moderated by the US and UK, and there's far more extensive death and destruction than "our" timeline has experienced.

Little things too- "What if we had gotten that flu shot" assumes, specifically, that you do not miss a critical phone call during your visit to the doctor which has far reaching implications in your life, even though that is out there in the realm of potential alternate history.

The problem is, of course, the universe does not accomodate our desire to assume things stay unchanged. The universe deals us wild cards. Things change, often in directions we were unable to predict.

And so we have a Canadian scientist reporting that solar magnetic activity is lower than it should be, which raises the frightening possibility of a decrease in solar output, and a decrease in solar energy reaching the Earth.

Wouldn't it be ironic, though, if a century or five from now, historians look back at our time and conclude we saved civilization by blanketing the Earth with enough Greenhouse gasses to hold in sufficient heat to stave off the impending fifth Ice Age?


Interesting. So the Sun is not putting out as much energy as it used to? Well, here is my prediction for the upcoming years.

Look For:
Increased cloud cover as the lessening of Solar Radiation allows for more Cosmic Rays to reach the Earth, thus creating more clouds
The Thames River to freeze over completely fro the first time since Dickens was writing
The Delaware River to freeze over, just like it did when Washington crossed the Delaware
The Midwest to get to the point where the cold weather means that it isn't as productive as it is now
the wine country in France and California to be unusable
Lake Chad to continue shrinking, as the Sahara continues its current De-Desertification
Half the Polar Ice Caps will continue Melting, the Other Half will grow, just like today
The Antarctic shall continue to grow at about 28 Gigatons a year
The Arctic will stabilize, and the Polar Bear Population will shrink
and so on and so forth. Essentially, this will lead to a loss of economy, and will see the meaning of the Upper Class and Middle Class decrease as poverty levels rise.

If it doesn't, we will see the opposite
The Vine country shall extend up towards Scotland again
The Economy shall roar forward, decreasing poverty levels
The Sahara Desert will continue De-Desertification
The Arctic will shrink
The Antarctic will grow even more
The Forests of the Equator will continue to grow

The sun is not stable, it moves and shifts in sudden changes. Thus, any predictions we try to make in the long term are meaning less. The only thing we can do is watch the sun, and hope and pray that we do not have another Maunder Minimum.

You could have been more pretentious and just used the Latin phrase. Ceteris paribus. ;)

An incredibly unrealistic expectation, but useful for thinking about certain things.

Inadvertently saved.

Therein lies the difference.

Very true, but I could have just as easily wrote "scientists concluded that we doomed the majority of our civilization by reducing our greenhouse emissions below the level that would have absorbed sufficient heat from the sun to stave off the Fifth Ice Age." We really have no idea which way things will go, do we?

From a certain perspective, what we do inadvertently is as important as what we do intentionally. And if we are talking about "saving" or "killing" then, at least to the person being killed or saved, inadvertently or not isn't nearly so important as whether the saving or killing actually happens.

Interesting. So the Sun is not putting out as much energy as it used to? Well, here is my prediction for the upcoming years.

Just one prediction, based on his (Ken Tapping's) observations and theories. Not a general consensus by any means. Yet. Just a possible alternate future we're not yet considering.



Look For:


If it doesn't, we will see the opposite
The Vine country shall extend up towards Scotland again
The Economy shall roar forward, decreasing poverty levels
.

Global warming is good for the economy? How so?

So that was just a long winded way of trying to say in a new and exciting manner that we shouldn't do anything about global warming? Does it ever bother you (global warming deniers in general here) that your justifications for denial or not caring constantly change, as if you don't actually care about the facts, just maintaining the same conclusion, no matter what the justification you have for it is?

Just one prediction, based on his (Ken Tapping's) observations and theories. Not a general consensus by any means. Yet. Just a possible alternate future we're not yet considering.




Global warming is good for the economy? How so?

Look at Europe, China, Japan, India, Turkey, etc. during the Medieval Climate Optimum. They where doing great, and their economies allowed them to create some of the greatest works known to man.

They also allowed the increase of arable land. As the climate warms, then more and more land can be farmed easier. As this happens, the yield and productivity of each acre of land increases.

Also, warmer waters allow for more oxygenization. Thus, the ocean is able to support more life. With more fish in the sea, then the Bio-Diversity will increase. This applies on land too.

With more arable land and increased Bio-Diversity, then African Nations will have more potential crop lands and fishing zones, allowing them to increase the self-sufficiency of the nation, and go toward the growth of the World Economy. With this, then many Third World Nations will be become First World Nations.

This would have the added benefit of allowing China and India to feed more of their people, and make them more productive toward the Global Economy.

So that was just a long winded way of trying to say in a new and exciting manner that we shouldn't do anything about global warming? Does it ever bother you (global warming deniers in general here) that your justifications for denial or not caring constantly change, as if you don't actually care about the facts, just maintaining the same conclusion, no matter what the justification you have for it is?

I have never changed my Justifications or my reasons.

1. There is nothing we can do about it, because it is all Solar in origin, and not terrestrial. Just look at the rest of the Solar System. Mars, the Gas Giants, Venus, Pluto, etc. are all heating up at the same rate.
2. Global Warming will actually have benefits to the Environment. Look at the Jungles. They have the Highest Bio-Diversity on the planet because they are hot climates.
3. A hotter planet means that we have more options for growing the economy.

Now, while our answer to Number one may have changed, so has our understanding of the history of the planet's history. And the more we have seen, the more we understand about the role of the sun, and the more we understand about the climate.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=118&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6818529054330982445&q=Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=118&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

These show all the science behind it.

Oh, and I am not a denier, I am a Heretic against the Church of Global Warming.

So that was just a long winded way of trying to say in a new and exciting manner that we shouldn't do anything about global warming? Does it ever bother you (global warming deniers in general here) that your justifications for denial or not caring constantly change, as if you don't actually care about the facts, just maintaining the same conclusion, no matter what the justification you have for it is?

This isn't where we are going at all, and I am not a global warming denier- I believe that it is *most likely* happening, and going to happen.

But, that is not a fact. That is a prediction. Predictions are not facts until it's too late.

What if it's wrong? A reading on a device measuring the sun's magnetic field, now THAT is a fact. Do you care about it? And what it's implications may be?

When you are so convinced of a prediction that you exclude from consideration any alternate possibilities, you have left the realm of science and embraced religion. If you prefer science, you should be very interested in what the alternate possibilties are, and not merely dismiss those who broach these possibilities as "deniers".

In fact, when you claim that "justifications for not caring or denying constantly change", you make two errors. First, justifications DO change. Reality changes on us all the time. The fact that you might plant a tree for the fruit does not mean that "shade" is not also a justification. Later, you might decide that the tree makes a good windblock. Or a large plaything for the kids. Justifications change. Second, you are most likely seeing more change in opinion than actually exists, because you are lumping a range of different views from different people and mistakenly thinking it is one big monolithic "denier" bloc. This isn't true at all. A person who has reasons to believe that warming is actually a positive thing (see above!) is not a denier at all, of course his thinking will be radically different from someone who says it won't happen.

If you are that convinced of Global Warming, ask yourself: What level of evidence would it take to UN-convince you? If the answer is "None, any contrary evidence is clearly the work of frauds and deniers, and it always will be", then, you have effectively removed yourself from discussion, and your conviction has become your religion. Not to say that it is a WRONG conviction- it may well be right. But, if you have made this transition, you are no longer emotionally qualifed to discuss it. On the other hand, if you can say "Well, if scientific observations actually point to a potential reduction in solar energy, I will have to rethink my position", welcome to the club of rational skepticism.

Look at Europe, China, Japan, India, Turkey, etc. during the Medieval Climate Optimum. They where doing great, and their economies allowed them to create some of the greatest works known to man.

They also allowed the increase of arable land. As the climate warms, then more and more land can be farmed easier. As this happens, the yield and productivity of each acre of land increases.

Also, warmer waters allow for more oxygenization. Thus, the ocean is able to support more life. With more fish in the sea, then the Bio-Diversity will increase. This applies on land too.

With more arable land and increased Bio-Diversity, then African Nations will have more potential crop lands and fishing zones, allowing them to increase the self-sufficiency of the nation, and go toward the growth of the World Economy. With this, then many Third World Nations will be become First World Nations.

This would have the added benefit of allowing China and India to feed more of their people, and make them more productive toward the Global Economy.

Global temperature averages have already reached, if not passed the medieval climate optimum. And the earth is continuing to warm at an accelerating rate. A small amount of climate change can be beneficial, but anytime there is a lot, you have dramatic consequences.

When the Greenland glacier and the Antarctic Ice Shelf melt into the see, global sea levels will rise about 14 meters. The entire country of Bangladesh will be wiped from the face of the earth, creating almost a 100 million refugees.

Similar problems will occur all over the world. And these are just the problems we know will occur. The fact that there are a huge number of unpredictable outcomes is what is scary. The shift of global prevailing winds and thus rain fall patterns could turn the American Midwest or the Ukrainian Steppes into deserts within half a century. The resulting famine conservatively could kill a billion people.

Global temperature averages have already reached, if not passed the medieval climate optimum. And the earth is continuing to warm at an accelerating rate. A small amount of climate change can be beneficial, but anytime there is a lot, you have dramatic consequences.

When the Greenland glacier and the Antarctic Ice Shelf melt into the see, global sea levels will rise about 14 meters. The entire country of Bangladesh will be wiped from the face of the earth, creating almost a 100 million refugees.

Similar problems will occur all over the world. And these are just the problems we know will occur. The fact that there are a huge number of unpredictable outcomes is what is scary. The shift of global prevailing winds and thus rain fall patterns could turn the American Midwest or the Ukrainian Steppes into deserts within half a century. The resulting famine conservatively could kill a billion people.

Actually, during the Medival Climate Optimum, there where Grape Vines in Scotland, Greenland was actually green, and was known as Vinland, because of the wild vines there.

As for the Antarctic Melting, what was shown in An Inconvenient Truth was yearly Summer Breakup. Go to Google Earth and look up Patagonia. And shocker of shockers, the Patagonia Ice Shelf is actually wider. In fact, Antarctica is thickening at a rate of 28 Gigatons a year. That is about 20 billion tons of ice. This is supported by Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., in their paper "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica." It was published in 2002.

Also, the Antarctic Continent has cooled over the last twenty years according to Comiso, J. C., in his paper "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements."

And, according to Petit, J. R., et al. the Earth was warmer in the last four Interglacials over the past 420,000 years than it was today. "Climate and Atmospheric history of th past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica."

Also, NASA has shown that the only places where Warming is really Dangerous is in the big cities. In upstate New York, the temperature is decreasing, along with most of the rest of the country.

Alternatively, the Solar System is warming significantly. Around the same as the total average warming being measured on Earth. Now, how can we blame ourselves, when we have no presence on Venus, the Jovian Moons, the Gas Giants, Pluto, etc.?

And so we have a Canadian scientist reporting that solar magnetic activity is lower than it should be, which raises the frightening possibility of a decrease in solar output, and a decrease in solar energy reaching the Earth.

I know a scientist who claims to have invented anti-gravity. This opens up the intriguing possibility of a whole new method of transportation!

Wouldn't it be ironic, though, if a century or five from now, historians look back at our time and conclude we saved civilization by blanketing the Earth with enough Greenhouse gasses to hold in sufficient heat to stave off the impending fifth Ice Age?

Yes, that would be irony, since it's really not the expected outcome.

The trend of an allegedly thickening Antarctic ice shelf is unlikely to continue with increased global temperature averages. Even so, that paper is six years old now, and this is the first I've heard of it. I'm not an expert, but I would expect that more recent papers have called into question their findings.

It does not matter if the Earth was warmer in previous interglacials. What matters is that the climate is changing more rapidly than humans have ever experienced. As global CO2 emissions continue to climb, it is unlikely that this trend will stop. Within fifty years, the Greenland glaciers will be gone, and the arctic ice pack will appear only in winter. Such a massive temperature change is going to have changes far more profound then a simple widening of the temperate zone.

My bet is that a person could already grow grapes in England. It's not a good commerical opportunity, though, because there is very little land left to be used. Much of it has been developed. But that is all irrelevant. Your scenario is deliberately ignoring that climate change constitutes more than just a change in temperatures. It also ignores the tremendous effect that it will have on the biosphere, which will ultimately effect human civilization as well.

The trend of an allegedly thickening Antarctic ice shelf is unlikely to continue with increased global temperature averages. Even so, that paper is six years old now, and this is the first I've heard of it. I'm not an expert, but I would expect that more recent papers have called into question their findings.

It does not matter if the Earth was warmer in previous interglacials. What matters is that the climate is changing more rapidly than humans have ever experienced. As global CO2 emissions continue to climb, it is unlikely that this trend will stop. Within fifty years, the Greenland glaciers will be gone, and the arctic ice pack will appear only in winter. Such a massive temperature change is going to have changes far more profound then a simple widening of the temperate zone.

My bet is that a person could already grow grapes in England. It's not a good commerical opportunity, though, because there is very little land left to be used. Much of it has been developed. But that is all irrelevant. Your scenario is deliberately ignoring that climate change constitutes more than just a change in temperatures. It also ignores the tremendous effect that it will have on the biosphere, which will ultimately effect human civilization as well.

On your first Argument, two papers
1. Liu, J., Curry, J. A., and Martinson, D. G., "Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability." This was published in 2004 and has shown that Sea Ice increased since 1979

2. Vyas, N. K., Dash M. K., et. al. "On the secular trends in sea ice extent over the antarctic region based on COEANSAT-1 MAMR observations." This was published in 2003, and shows that the trend toward more sea ice may be accelerating.

3. As for why it has not been well known, I doubt you read Science Journals for fun.

As for the Temperature Changes.
1. I proved you wrong.

2. Sudden climate changes are the norm, not the exception. Nature lives on the Edge of Chaos. It is not some sturdy axiomatic background that changes gradually. It is a chaotic environment that is constantly and radically shifting. Every day, biological arms races continue unabatted, often times seeing radical jumps.

3. The history of the Interglacials actually supports a history of random sudden changes.

And as for changes to the Biosphere
WARMER CLIMATES MEANS MORE BIO-DIVERSITY. How many times do I have to say t before people actually hear it.

Look at Europe, China, Japan, India, Turkey, etc. during the Medieval Climate Optimum. They where doing great, and their economies allowed them to create some of the greatest works known to man.


Are you seriously suggesting a correlation between "greatest works known to man" and the climate?

Or the medieval economy? Yeah - feudalism and serfdom and illiteracy. Beautiful stuff.

They also allowed the increase of arable land. As the climate warms, then more and more land can be farmed easier. As this happens, the yield and productivity of each acre of land increases.

Also, warmer waters allow for more oxygenization. Thus, the ocean is able to support more life. With more fish in the sea, then the Bio-Diversity will increase. This applies on land too.

With more arable land and increased Bio-Diversity, then African Nations will have more potential crop lands and fishing zones, allowing them to increase the self-sufficiency of the nation, and go toward the growth of the World Economy. With this, then many Third World Nations will be become First World Nations.

This would have the added benefit of allowing China and India to feed more of their people, and make them more productive toward the Global Economy.

On one hand you romanticize the medieval economy, now you apparently do the same for the global economy. So which is it you want exactly?

Are you seriously suggesting a correlation between "greatest works known to man" and the climate?

Or the medieval economy? Yeah - feudalism and serfdom and illiteracy. Beautiful stuff.



On one hand you romanticize the medieval economy, now you apparently do the same for the global economy. So which is it you want exactly?

Think about it like this. The better off an agrarian economy is, the more people you have that can dedicate themselves to works of the mind. While the system may have sucked, it did allow for greater literacy.

As for the modern economy, much of the third world can be considered in a similar world to the one in Medieval Europe. If you increase the amount of Arabel Land, then they will have less Subsistence farming and more Large Scale Farming, similar to that in the First World, and thus allowing them to lift themselves out of poverty. Why? Because then they can focus less on survival and more on the long range planning.

My bet is that a person could already grow grapes in England. It's not a good commerical opportunity, though, because there is very little land left to be used.
Yes, there are a number of commerical vinyards in England already, although as far as I know only small ones. Their products tend to be very good... :)

Sure. "All else being equal" is a common caveat. The question then is to determine whether all else is equal.

Yes, there are a number of commerical vinyards in England already, although as far as I know only small ones. Their products tend to be very good... :)

And the available land is increasing because of the warming temperatures.

When the Greenland glacier and the Antarctic Ice Shelf melt into the see, global sea levels will rise about 14 meters. The entire country of Bangladesh will be wiped from the face of the earth, creating almost a 100 million refugees.

And you presume this to happen overnight? Because apparently they wouldn't have time to resettle at all, thus becoming refugees.

Similar problems will occur all over the world. And these are just the problems we know will occur. The fact that there are a huge number of unpredictable outcomes is what is scary. The shift of global prevailing winds and thus rain fall patterns could turn the American Midwest or the Ukrainian Steppes into deserts within half a century. The resulting famine conservatively could kill a billion people.

Yeah maybe. On the other hand a shift in rain fall patterns could mean that otherwise un-arable land becomes arable, there is nothing to suggest that rain fall patterns changes would only hurt, assumably there would be a mix of good with the bad.

But you can't see that possibility it seems.

And if Everything Else Remains Unchanged

That is the unspoken condition we apply whenever we think of alternative possibilities. When we talk about hypotheticals, what-if's, we always implicitly include this position. When we say "what if Bush didn't invade Iraq", for example, we specifically exclude the possible alternative histories in which Saddam is killed in a palace coup in 2005, and in the struggle for power that follows, there is a rebellion by the Shi'ia, the whole nation falls apart into a civil war which ISN'T moderated by the US and UK, and there's far more extensive death and destruction than "our" timeline has experienced.

Little things too- "What if we had gotten that flu shot" assumes, specifically, that you do not miss a critical phone call during your visit to the doctor which has far reaching implications in your life, even though that is out there in the realm of potential alternate history.

The problem is, of course, the universe does not accomodate our desire to assume things stay unchanged. The universe deals us wild cards. Things change, often in directions we were unable to predict.

And so we have a Canadian scientist reporting that solar magnetic activity is lower than it should be, which raises the frightening possibility of a decrease in solar output, and a decrease in solar energy reaching the Earth.

Wouldn't it be ironic, though, if a century or five from now, historians look back at our time and conclude we saved civilization by blanketing the Earth with enough Greenhouse gasses to hold in sufficient heat to stave off the impending fifth Ice Age?

So are you trying to argue that we should continue to spew out greenhouse gases because it MIGHT save the earth? These "what if" scenarios are silly because they could go any way you want. Actually basing policies or actions on just one "what if" scenario is sillier still.

Are you seriously suggesting a correlation between "greatest works known to man" and the climate?

Or the medieval economy? Yeah - feudalism and serfdom and illiteracy. Beautiful stuff.

Actually serfdom (in medieval Europe) was not 'worse' than many other cultural practices, same with feudalism.

Also note that they did not rant about the greatness of medieval Europe, but rather India, China, and Arabia, all of which had extensive learning, high literacy, and incredible scientific advancements and economies.

Way to try to derail a good point with seomthing entirely unrelated though... it didn't work for you, but nice try.

So are you trying to argue that we should continue to spew out greenhouse gases because it MIGHT save the earth? These "what if" scenarios are silly because they could go any way you want. Actually basing policies or actions on just one "what if" scenario is sillier still.

Okay, so it seems like sneaking up behind an old man and squeezing him would cause him pain but think about it - couldn't it be that at that precise moment he was choking on a sandwhich and that you would actually be saving his life?

You go with the best information you have. 'Nonsense' doesn't even come close to describing the OP.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/martin_scientific_method.wav

:)

AHA! You've used that one before (i know this because i am a sad person who looks at all the links instead of making a valuable contribution to most threads) i can't remember where though.
God get some new sound clip thingymyjiggers *gives condescending look*........................*then looks up what condescending means*.:)


EDIT: Timewarp!?

And if Everything Else Remains Unchanged

That is the unspoken condition we apply whenever we think of alternative possibilities. When we talk about hypotheticals, what-if's, we always implicitly include this position. When we say "what if Bush didn't invade Iraq", for example, we specifically exclude the possible alternative histories in which Saddam is killed in a palace coup in 2005, and in the struggle for power that follows, there is a rebellion by the Shi'ia, the whole nation falls apart into a civil war which ISN'T moderated by the US and UK, and there's far more extensive death and destruction than "our" timeline has experienced.

Little things too- "What if we had gotten that flu shot" assumes, specifically, that you do not miss a critical phone call during your visit to the doctor which has far reaching implications in your life, even though that is out there in the realm of potential alternate history.

The problem is, of course, the universe does not accomodate our desire to assume things stay unchanged. The universe deals us wild cards. Things change, often in directions we were unable to predict.

And so we have a Canadian scientist reporting that solar magnetic activity is lower than it should be, which raises the frightening possibility of a decrease in solar output, and a decrease in solar energy reaching the Earth.

Wouldn't it be ironic, though, if a century or five from now, historians look back at our time and conclude we saved civilization by blanketing the Earth with enough Greenhouse gasses to hold in sufficient heat to stave off the impending fifth Ice Age?

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/martin_scientific_method.wav

:)

Actually serfdom (in medieval Europe) was not 'worse' than many other cultural practices, same with feudalism.

Also note that they did not rant about the greatness of medieval Europe, but rather India, China, and Arabia, all of which had extensive learning, high literacy, and incredible scientific advancements and economies.

Way to try to derail a good point with seomthing entirely unrelated though... it didn't work for you, but nice try.

Thank you very much on that, and your bringing it back to Arabia allows me to make this point.

The Arabs and the Persians where the centers of learning in the ancient world, because they where the first to discover Irrigation. Thus, they where able to increase their agricultural productivity and spend more time looking into the future than into the next day. As Europe and the Far East developed them, they too began to create great works. Why? Because they had more time to do so. If you have land that is able to yield more food per acre, than you have even more people who can work at the economy in other areas.

That is why Climate Change toward the warmer is actually better. It presents more arable land with greater productivity per acre, thus more food is available, and the people can spend more time bettering themselves. Especially in the Third World, where there are minimal amounts of arable land.

Yeah maybe. On the other hand a shift in rain fall patterns could mean that otherwise un-arable land becomes arable, there is nothing to suggest that rain fall patterns changes would only hurt, assumably there would be a mix of good with the bad.

But you can't see that possibility it seems.

Think for a moment about this unarable land. These are in the most undeveloped parts of the world. The infrastructure does not exist to support modern industrial agriculture. It would take several years just to build the necessary infrastructure just to take advantage of the increased rainfall. Not to mention this unarable land is not just dry. The soil is extremely poor. It would take massive quantities of chemical fertilizer to make any agricultural schema work, unless you want to wait a century for the ecology of the region to catch up with the climate.

Meanwhile, billions of people are starving. Not a pretty picture.

Think for a moment about this unarable land. These are in the most undeveloped parts of the world. The infrastructure does not exist to support modern industrial agriculture. It would take several years just to build the necessary infrastructure just to take advantage of the increased rainfall. Not to mention this unarable land is not just dry. The soil is extremely poor. It would take massive quantities of chemical fertilizer to make any agricultural schema work, unless you want to wait a century for the ecology of the region to catch up with the climate.

Meanwhile, billions of people are starving. Not a pretty picture.

Question for you

Billions are starving right now correct?

But if they where to be able to even subsistence farm in land previously un-farmable, would that not put them on the road to modern industrial agriculture? Don't you need to start off with some basic farming before you can make it up to the hyper-modern methods used in the United States. And, can't you grow hardy plants, basic corn and winter wheat comes to mind, to feed yourself as you work your way up to more than subsistence farming? And besides, aren't their organizations out there who can teach them how to farm this land? Organizations like Catholic Charities, Rotary Club, Peace Corps, etc.?

So if you were to do this, would it not prevent billions of deaths in the future?

Oh, wait. In a court of law we would call that a Leading Question, sorry.

So yeah, basically what I have been saying is that we can't do anything about warming (Its all Solar), and we need to instead focus on how to capitalize on this major shift in climate for the benefit of humanity.

Think about it like this. The better off an agrarian economy is, the more people you have that can dedicate themselves to works of the mind. While the system may have sucked, it did allow for greater literacy.

We don't HAVE an agrarian economy. This is why modern times in comparison to medieval times do not suck, because 90% of us don't have to be laboring on the land.

And... "greater" literacy than what? Hunting and gathering?

As for the modern economy, much of the third world can be considered in a similar world to the one in Medieval Europe. If you increase the amount of Arabel Land, then they will have less Subsistence farming and more Large Scale Farming, similar to that in the First World, and thus allowing them to lift themselves out of poverty. Why? Because then they can focus less on survival and more on the long range planning.

Yes, increasing arable land is good, but not because of how bloody fantastic primitive states' economies were. The question of an increase in arable land is also offset by massive death and destruction even if it is a guarantee as you seem to think.

Actually serfdom (in medieval Europe) was not 'worse' than many other cultural practices, same with feudalism.

Erm. I never said it was the absolute worst system or practice ever. But it doesn't have to be, to be something we here in the modern world try to avoid because of human rights and that sort of thing. Really, the "but there are worst things" defense never works to convince towards the goodness of something.

Also note that they did not rant about the greatness of medieval Europe, but rather India, China, and Arabia, all of which had extensive learning, high literacy, and incredible scientific advancements and economies.

...Nor is the "and they produced great works" argument. Often, art and "works" flourish during times of war, oppression and strife. This doesn't mean such times are desirable in any way.

Way to try to derail a good point with seomthing entirely unrelated though... it didn't work for you, but nice try.

I didn't derail a good point; I ate up a bad point.

Your alternative interpretation is noted however!

<snip>So yeah, basically what I have been saying is that we can't do anything about warming (Its all Solar), and we need to instead focus on how to capitalize on this major shift in climate for the benefit of humanity.
(emphasis mine)

I take issue with this. There are possibly solar aspects to it, I really do not know. I am not a climate scientist, after all. However, it seems fairly undeniable that we are having a major effect, as you yourself seemed to admit in your first post in this thread. I quote:

<snip>
Wouldn't it be ironic, though, if a century or five from now, historians look back at our time and conclude we saved civilization by blanketing the Earth with enough Greenhouse gasses to hold in sufficient heat to stave off the impending fifth Ice Age?
(emphasis mine)

Seems to me that you're saying we're causing the warming there. Care to explain the inconsistency?

Now, there is a minor possibility that things are suddenly changing, and unless we buckle up and pollute like mad we'll all freeze to death. However, we really cannot know. We must plan for the future on what we do know, and if the universe throws us a curveball, we'll deal with it as best we can. What we know at the moment is pointing to climate change being a significant issue, and therefore we must do something about it, acting to the best of our knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

We don't HAVE an agrarian economy. This is why modern times in comparison to medieval times do not suck, because 90% of us don't have to be laboring on the land.

And... "greater" literacy than what? Hunting and gathering?



Yes, increasing arable land is good, but not because of how bloody fantastic primitive states' economies were. The question of an increase in arable land is also offset by massive death and destruction even if it is a guarantee as you seem to think.



Erm. I never said it was the absolute worst system or practice ever. But it doesn't have to be, to be something we here in the modern world try to avoid because of human rights and that sort of thing. Really, the "but there are worst things" defense never works to convince towards the goodness of something.



...Nor is the "and they produced great works" argument. Often, art and "works" flourish during times of war, oppression and strife. This doesn't mean such times are desirable in any way.



I didn't derail a good point; I ate up a bad point.

Your alternative interpretation is noted however!

We don't, but others are struggling to set up an economy at all, and an Agrarian one is a good stating point. If you would pay attention to what I was saying on this, you would know that I am talking about the Third World in that instance.

And as for the "Massive Death and Destruction" not even the IPCC agrees with that, and they are the only body within the Global Warming camp that has any credibility. Most of that crap comes from the alarmists who made "The Day After Tomorrow" and "The Eleventh Hour."

And again, while I doubt that such a society would be reproduced in the Third World, it is a good example of what happens when you have more Arable Land. You have people who would all be stuck doing subsistence work, who are now able to look beyond the next week or month, and into the far future, and help to set up if not first world than at least second world economies.

And yes, you did derail my good point. I was noting that as arable land increased, the number of people needed to grow food decreased, freeing up more people for other tasks. You then went and launched into a debate on Feudalism, which totally derailed the point I was trying to make.

(emphasis mine)

I take issue with this. There are possibly solar aspects to it, I really do not know. I am not a climate scientist, after all. However, it seems fairly undeniable that we are having a major effect, as you yourself seemed to admit in your first post in this thread. I quote:


(emphasis mine)

Seems to me that you're saying we're causing the warming there. Care to explain the inconsistency?

Now, there is a minor possibility that things are suddenly changing, and unless we buckle up and pollute like mad we'll all freeze to death. However, we really cannot know. We must plan for the future on what we do know, and if the universe throws us a curveball, we'll deal with it as best we can. What we know at the moment is pointing to climate change being a significant issue, and therefore we must do something about it, acting to the best of our knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

Umm one, I am not the OP, Nova Corp is a Puppet of mine, but I have no connection to the OP. Second, every planet in the solar system is heating up at the same rate as the Earth. Mar's Ice Caps are melting, the Gas Giants are thickening, Europa has a thin film of water on top of the ice, Pluto's atmo is thickening. None of that can be contributed to human actions, as we are not producing CO2 on those planets.

Actually, during the Medival Climate Optimum, there where Grape Vines in Scotland, Greenland was actually green, and was known as Vinland, because of the wild vines there.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/

In fact, Antarctica is thickening at a rate of 28 Gigatons a year. That is about 20 billion tons of ice. This is supported by Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., in their paper "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica." It was published in 2002.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754
Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr

Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year

Also, the Antarctic Continent has cooled over the last twenty years according to Comiso, J. C., in his paper "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/

And, according to Petit, J. R., et al. the Earth was warmer in the last four Interglacials over the past 420,000 years than it was today. "Climate and Atmospheric history of th past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica."

paper from 1999
1) is from 1999, and
2) does not say what you say it does.

for those wondering, this is the paper which contained the rather famous up-down spikes of temp and co2 over the past 420,000 years. al gore made use of it in the movie, and the ipcc has reproduced it as well.

Also, NASA has shown that the only places where Warming is really Dangerous is in the big cities. In upstate New York, the temperature is decreasing, along with most of the rest of the country.

source?

We don't, but others are struggling to set up an economy at all, and an Agrarian one is a good stating point.

Everyone has "an economy." Agrarian societies caused by global flooding is not a good starting point for anything.

If you would pay attention to what I was saying on this, you would know that I am talking about the Third World in that instance.

Global warming - good for the third world!

And as for the "Massive Death and Destruction" not even the IPCC agrees with that

Oh? And it needs to? The IPCC doesn't agree with you either, so I don't see how this helps. The IPCC isn't having this conversation.

And again, while I doubt that such a society would be reproduced in the Third World, it is a good example of what happens when you have more Arable Land.

Yes. You've gone over the fact that more arable land is a good thing.
If everything else remains unchanged.

But the latter is not true and therefore the benefits of your claimed increase in arable land are not absolute.

And yes, you did derail my good point. I was noting that as arable land increased, the number of people needed to grow food decreased, freeing up more people for other tasks. You then went and launched into a debate on Feudalism, which totally derailed the point I was trying to make.

You referred specifically to "great works" and practically wrote love sonnets dedicated to medieval agrarianism. That was more than simply showing that arable land is good.

And try to stick with one puppet if you expect me to treat you like one individual.

every planet in the solar system is heating up at the same rate as the Earth.

don't lie

Thanks, Free Soviets. I haven't been keeping up with the Climate Change "debate" as I should.

Every time I see people denying climate change's relevance, I am reminded of a snippet from the Anthrax song "One World": "Just what kind of sentence would you serve for killing the Earth?"