So wouldn’t it be great to grow crops all year in the north and have less people freeze to death, die in highway accidents, thousands of cancelled flights. Damage to the economy and greatly reduced heating oil and natural gas costs. The planet is doing us a favor and everyone seems pissed. I see it as a gift. So bring on global warming so more people won’t die in snow storms.
(no message)
Unfortunately I might have to wait 5,000 years or just a few months. Can’t remember which one.
(no message)
We would lose a place crops now grow due to desertification and rising oceans, right?
If you have data showing that the earth's carrying capacity will increase with increasing climates (and less land overall) please share.
But, perhaps more importantly, you need to consider yields. Arable land will be increasing in countries that have many orders of magnitude of yields greater than the countries that are losing arable land. Agricultural yields are skyrocketing. Of course, we need to stop anti-science environmentalists who are fight increasing yields through modern techniques.
Very misleading graph...why else would they show time frames from before we even started farming (when by definition there was no arable land only b/c we didn't farm)?
What is your source for this nonsense?
Graph goes back to 10000BC, which is when farming started. Source is on the graph...some UK organization...had a lot of data. I thought this was pretty self evident, and not a controversial graph. If you can succeed in nitpicking their data (I will be impressed with your dedication), you can't deny the trend indicated on that graph.
Saying that the natural (non-man-caused) warming temperatures and the resulting retreat of glaciers didn't open up a lot of farm land is like arguing that the sky is not blue.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Probably because when she was a bartender she didn't share tips.
Luckily, as a legislator, she now has tips for all of us...
(no message)
I'll remember this post when you guys get federal aid due to the next hurricane that has been intensified due to global warming.
(no message)
Without global warming, Notre Dame would be under a mile of ice.
Glaciers = death; receding glaciers = new life. The sorrow that people feel for retreating glaciers is perplexing.
Civilization could not have developed without global warming.
(no message)
...and if you would like to see the human species return to a hunter-gathering existence instead of one based on permanent civilizations then GW could be good again.
You think too much of a good thing is bad? I don't see how we revert to hunting and gathering, even with more GW.
Let's face it: Change is normal when it comes to climate. We are at a peak now, so we can expect a downturn. But, it may get warmer. Highly unlikely it will remain steady. If we humans are to succeed as a species, we have to learn how to deal with this change until we gain the ability to absolutely control the environment.
Rapid global warming would require rapid and continual migrations, which was totally doable when all of humanity was nomadic. The permanent civilizations were only formed after the climate stabilized. A stable climate and human civilization are synonymous throughout human history and pre-history.
If there were some large period of global warming, which had to be the case if the climate stabilized as you stated... what caused the "original" global warming? It couldn't have possibly been humans. The climate is cyclical and always changing... people are pretty gullible and arrogant to think that we are having a major impact on the climate of the earth.
We just entered a goldilocks climate zone, where change was occurring, but humans started thriving...we are still in that zone, but things never stopped changing.
Regarding the world's population centers...that is a problem even if humans stop breathing. As I said, 99% (underestimate) of GW was pre-human industrialization. Building on land that will be underwater is a big problem, as the cities in the Caspian Sea floor show.
Did you know that Great Britain and Ireland used to be joined to the European continent just thousands of years ago? The oceans started rising 20,000 years ago, many thousands of years before humans were first smelting metal.
You don't seem to understand rates of change. The rate of change was drastic when the ice age ended (which corresponds with your Doggerland example). Changes since then have been very slow. That period of slow rate of change corresponded with the beginnings of human civilization. Rates of change are once again picking up very fast.
You are correct that climate change can happen naturally (although that's not what is happening now). Tsunami's can also happen naturally...doesn't mean we should cause one by dropping a nuke in the ocean. Lightning can cause huge forest fires naturally...doesn't mean PG&E shouldn't have have maintained its powerlines better. Just b/c something terrible has the chance of eventually happening naturally doesn't mean we should allow it to happen artificially.
The sea level chart I provided earlier (from a global warmist organization) indicates that the sea level rise has slowed, which you would expect since we are approaching a cyclical maximum.
Note that there are cycles upon cycles cycles, all with different periods, superimposed upon each other. In the 1970's scientists were worried about the coming ice age. Now they are worried about the opposite. Who is to say what they will be worried about 50 years from now. The cycles they are looking at are short term, "small" magnitude shifts. I'm talking about a long term, large magnitude, maximum point clearly shown in the graph I posted earlier. We don't know if we are at the natural maximum or not, so they can dismiss that unknown, and lobby for money.
But, as I say, if the global warmists were really serious, they would stop borrowing one trillion per year, start paying down the debt, in preparation to handle an issue that they say is our next WWII. But, they don't. They keep trying to destroy the country by increasing benefits and opening borders. When they get fiscally serious, I will be convinced that they think this risk is real.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm sure when Jesus returns his first edict will be for a climate-caused genocide of slackers.
When he’s not putting a pedofile Cardinal in a Italian villa or ignoring the suffering of millions of Catholics in Venezuela.
(no message)
a few feet above current mean high-tide. So, you can say, "Hey, we can survive another degree or two, it might even result in fewer net deaths from cold" ... while dangling your feet in the azure waters from the twelfth floor of the Freedom Tower. Geddit?
This is happening with or without human behavior. Our contributions to this process are miniscule. How could we possibly stop it? Even if we removed humans from the Earth, the oceans would be rising. So, we have to do some serious terraforming to our own planet to stop it, and no one has even come close to suggesting that man can do that with the technologies of now and the next 200 years. Maybe we should stop building close to the ocean for a few hundred years until we figure this out...and maybe we shouldn't be borrowing a trillion dollars a year if we are going to have to spend a lot to change the climate. No one really cares about this...no one really thinks this is an emergency. If they did, they would halt deficit spending in 2019 and start paying down the national debt right now. But, they won't.
And, note, we appear to be at or near a peak temperature based on the historical temperature records. If the temperature starts to swing back down now, humanity will suffer greatly. We will need to figure out how to heat things back up.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)