Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Climate Change Driving War?

Posted by Soulskill on from the driving-an-suv-is-now-an-act-of-war dept.

New submitter Stirling Newberry writes "You may have heard of The Great Moderation (PDF), which argues that business cycles have become less volatile over time, and the Green Revolution, a set of initiatives that led to increased global food production. These, it has been argued, have led to a marked decrease in war across the world. But not so fast, says a study in Science. It may well be that periods of war, past and present, can be linked to changes in climate: 'The most direct way in which extreme climate shifts influence human society is through agriculture, Zhang says; a falling supply of crops will drive up the price of gold and cause inflation. Similarly, epidemics can be exacerbated by famine. And when people are miserable, they are likely to become angry with their governments and each other, resulting in war. But golden ages rise out of these dark periods, the team argues. For instance, a 100-year cold period beginning in 1560 caused shortened crop growing seasons. The researchers found a causal linkage with a decline in average human height by nearly an inch during this period, and the century was rife with disease and conflict. But the world began to warm in 1650; when Charles II was crowned king of England in 1660, the coronation sparked the Enlightenment era in Europe.'"

122 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. bring back the kings by hguorbray · · Score: 1

    at least they were doing God's will and the Enlightenment was such a cool time

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:bring back the kings by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Well, hopefully we'll have backed up enough knowledge off of electronic media before the big war begins. It won't be hard for us to reproduce a human, but reproducing a combustion engine will be a bit more difficult one or two generations down the line.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:bring back the kings by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      at least they were doing God's will and the Enlightenment was such a cool time -I'm just sayin'

      The cool thing about the Enlightenment was that it prepared the way for the abolition of both God and Kings.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Random... by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

    This makes me want to go play a round of Civilization V lol.

    1. Re:Random... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It gives you a sudden urge to play broken games?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Random... by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      It gives you a sudden urge to play broken games?

      You have to admit, it's a pretty good analogy for the current political system.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  3. There is no relevance in between Charles II by unity100 · · Score: 5, Informative

    and age of enlightenment. First, age of enlightenment doesnt start well into 18th century.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

    second, precursors of age of enlightenment that are recounted in the above article were already there, starting with early pioneers like erasmus, and going into spinoza, long before charles ii and 1660.

    please dont make up ahistoric shit to back up loose arguments.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:There is no relevance in between Charles II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're off a bit when you say that the Enlightenment didn't start until the eighteenth century, but you're right to call out TFA on picking and choosing it's "golden ages." There are plenty of people who'd cite the Renaissance as a golden age, and the Humanist movements couldn't have come about without surplus wealth (keeping a pet Humanist Latin scholar on the payroll seems to be a hallmark of conspicuous consumption in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries). This hardly bears out the resource shortages of a global climate catastrophe.

      It would be interesting to unpack that statement, "The researchers found a causal linkage with a decline in average human height by nearly an inch during this period, and the century was rife with disease and conflict," to see if the prevalence of disease during childhood might detrimentally impact growth. Smallpox doesn't need global climate change to wreak havoc on a population, and it's notorious for striking the poor and the wealthy alike.

    2. Re:There is no relevance in between Charles II by unity100 · · Score: 1

      actually enlightenment didnt start until 18th century. back before, it was just sporadic pioneers publishing ideas in an isolated, underground fashion. spinoza had to basically work underground at a period, because of potential prosecution. the early 18th century is incomparable on the other hand - just 20 years of early 18th century has prominent pioneers that are almost equal in number to previous 200 years. and at this stage, these ideas were well circulated and openly discussed in bourgeoisie and noble circles. whereas thomas more was feeling the need to fit the king somewhere in his proposed pluralistic view of life, early 18th century pioneers were openly ridiculing and demeaning aristocracy for the most part.

      --
      Read radical news here
    3. Re:There is no relevance in between Charles II by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The terms "Enlightenment" and "Age of Reason" are not so precisely demarcated, many scholars use a long age of enlightenment to mean from the 1650s forward, and others divide into two. This is part of the "lumpers/splitters" problem, that some people like small units, others like large ones. The Wikipedia article takes the lumpers point of view, but that isn't universal. However, it is generally believed in history that the Peace of Westphalia and the coming of absolutism and the "age of Reason" are linked, and that while there were precursors to this, in the form of say King James I of England's The True Law of Free Monarchy and the policies in France, that the turbulence of the Thirty Years War was the trigger for a more general change. So why that war happened, as it did, is an important question, if climate was part of that answer –and more broadly, if climate fluctuations show a correlation to political events, then it changes the notion of what historians, economists, sociologists and political scientists need to study and include in their works. Never again will an author be able to wave their hand and dismiss as anecdotal accounts of climate, because now we have better ability to reconstruct. And if climate isn't a factor, then that too is something that needs to be shown, not just assumed.

      In terms of climate and history, for a long time there have been observations of linkage between historical periods and climatic events, one of the most famous of these is the period of reduced growing periods known as the "Little Ice Age" and the destabilization of the medieval order on Eurasia. Another more specific one is the relationship between the volcanic eruptions of the 1770's and 1780's and cold snaps that led to poor harvests as a contributing factor to the fall of the ancien regime. Franklin speculated at the time that the eruptions were leading to cold, and Talleyrand famously quipped that "we are all dancing on a volcano," in reference to the problems of the ancien regime in France and poor harvests which were driving inflation in food and social instability.

      However, until recently there were not good paleo-climate reconstructions. Paleo-climatology is a fundamentally computational discipline – it is computers and algorythms by which chronologies are constructed and pieced together: from dendrology, that is trees, ice cores, and other "proxies" for climate. The survey linked to is one of the first, but by no means the last. This is important because much of history has been outside of a real test of theories as to why what happened. As computational climatology matures, it provides a challenge to the dominant view in history, economics, and sociology, that internal factors drive history and events, and a way to apply scientific measurements. Since chronology, and dates, are often "floating" – that is, we don't really know what certain dates in the past were, only our best guesses, it means that instead of arguments over texts, we are getting measurements, and ultimately facts, to determine when events occured. If you see a date before about 1300 BC in a history text, assume it is approximate, simply because our understanding of what dates were is based on reconstructions. That is best guesses.

      One of the most important examples of how this matters is in the coming of what is now called the "Neo-lithic Revolution." For a long time it was seen as an internally driven event, however, recent discoveries show that "The Younger Dryas" coincided with the explosion of domestication of plants and animals, but also how many of the first domestication events: figs, rye, dogs, and perhaps goats, were not in the present warm and stable climate era, but in the colder but relatively stable Younger Dryas period. Perhaps, and one has to say perhaps, what later became agriculture started not because it was a good deal, but because times were harder, but more consistent, and the peoples around the world started domestication because it was a cushion when hunting and gathering were not e

      --
      Fugue for Aaron Swartz
    4. Re:There is no relevance in between Charles II by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Your heading/statement, I agree with.

      Sorry, I'm not going to get all academic here, and start searching for references - but I can't see that any royalty ever had much to do with "enlightenment". Royalty was always conservative in the true sense of the word, rather than the common political sense that we see today. Royalty didn't voluntarily decide that it would be nice to free the serfs. Instead, the serfs held royalty at sword point, and demanded freedom.

      Ehh. Enlightenment. Whatever.

      However, I do belong to the school of thought that most upheavals in history were caused by climate change. The authors are on the right track, but their biases seem to be pushing them askew.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:There is no relevance in between Charles II by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Also the fact that Charles II decided to end the Dutch's golden age when he came into power.

    6. Re:There is no relevance in between Charles II by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Great post. I've often wondered if climate changes had anything to do with the near east "Dark Ages" blamed on the Sea Peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  4. Carbon Credit Schemes Are by Kohath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NY Times:

    KICUCULA, Uganda — According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.

    People here remember it quite differently.

    “I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

    Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.

    . . .

    But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.

    If not war, at least oppression.

    1. Re:Carbon Credit Schemes Are by kanto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well obviously this is cause enough to destroy the environment. I really find it disgusting how much human suffering is ok to secure oil production and rights, but if you can link how ever strenuously an incident to environmental protection it's suddenly a policy changer. Surely it's not like the people in 3rd world countries don't get fucked ever which way by corporations legislated to be sociopaths?

    2. Re:Carbon Credit Schemes Are by kanto · · Score: 2

      Spare me the rhetorical propaganda why don't you, Implicit support of fascist dictators?!? when many of them have been put in power by the West and receive military aid? It also just warms the cockles of my hart when some well off Libyan associate parrots stuff most likely learned in a western university, will make a good public official worth bribing to get the ever important permanent temporary troops installed.

      I think the idea that DDT in constant use would have worked indefinitely against malaria is a false premise, it's why we keep having to invent new pesticides in the first place. But otoh law of unintended consequences is not something that the people producing mass quantities of pesticides shine in either, well, just look at DDT.

    3. Re:Carbon Credit Schemes Are by Politburo · · Score: 1

      DDT was never banned for disease vector control and is still used today. Its use has declined because mosquitoes have become resistant.

    4. Re:Carbon Credit Schemes Are by kanto · · Score: 1

      Implicit support of fascist dictators by giving them military aid, as compared to implicit support of them on the Left by being against their forced removal. Such hypocrisy from you.

      Okay, I guess military aid to dictators is good use of your tax dollars. Most people on the Left are more interested in stopping genocides etc. and not so much running up the costs of the military industrial complex rackets.

      And as for DDT, what are you arguing here? "there's no point in using anti-biotics because microbes evolve to tolerate them"? Is that your idea of a useful debating point?

      You throw a number for death toll, I respond. I'm against blanket use of anti-biotics for sure, it's counterproductive exactly because it creates resistant strains of bacteria. That's what's happened to DDT with it's prolific use in agriculture because that's where the money and the problems were (malaria is just a soft target right wingers keep hitting on since they read about it in an Ann Coulter -book). Oh, and did you hear; DDT causes health and environmental issues too.

  5. Climate Wars by ElrondHubbard · · Score: 1

    Gwynne Dyer has written a book that is an excellent starting point for this issue: Climate Wars. He is a journalist and military historian who spent a year or two interviewing military planners who see exactly this issue on the horizon. Check out his website for a three-part radio series based on the book, for those who might not want to invest the time to read the entire book.

    --
    "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
    1. Re:Climate Wars by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      I think the idea that climate changes in general, and food issues specifically, will lead to war is pretty well accepted. Almost every war ever was started over natural resources (WW 1 being a fairly large exception), and quite a few were started over food resources (part of Hitler's goal in WW2 was to get access to more arable land in Eastern Europe).

      What I do find a bit surprising is that strong correlation between variables is deemed a causal link. It's not. A causal link is a mechanism that ties two events together. These are variables that are tied together by some fairly fluffy socioeconomic theories. To some extent, they're not wrong - it's pretty easy to see that if someone's hungry, they're more likely to club their neighbor over the head for some food than if they're not. But I think they're trying a bit hard with their paper.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Climate Wars by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      FWIW, both the US military and the US intelligence community have, in official reports, identified climate change as one of the biggest threats to national security that the US will have to deal with this century.

      What is going to be bad, IMO, is that the shift in temperature zones is gong to turn some of the agricultural "haves" into "have nots", and vice versa. Some people are going to fight that change - with guns.

      On a side note, the latest Scientific American has an article about the discovery of large deposits of rare elements in Afghanistan. My first thought was, "Oh, boy! That's really going to help stop all the fighting."

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Climate Wars by catchblue22 · · Score: 2

      I think the idea that climate changes in general, and food issues specifically, will lead to war is pretty well accepted.

      When I see people talking about climate and its relationship with incidents such as the rise and fall of civilizations or wars specifically, I somewhat agree. However, I believe it is more complicated than this. My problem with such ideas is that they seem to minimize such things as the role of culture in the prosperity of a society. As an analogue, consider the debate about the role of "nature versus nurture" in the lives of children growing to adults. In the past it was argued that parenting was the most important factor in determining a child's success in life, and that children were like blank slates. Others argued that genetics were far more important. I think those who study such things today say that both nature and nurture play a role. A great example I heard was that the genetics are analogous to the "quality of the musical instrument", but that nurture and free will still have an influence in the types of music that can be played.

      I think the problem I have with saying that climate controls the fate of civilizations is that it removes our ability to choose, to influence our fate. I refuse to accept that we as humans are simply debris floating helplessly down the river of fate. We have the ability to change things.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    4. Re:Climate Wars by Layzej · · Score: 1

      The Washington post gives some recent examples where spikes in global food prices, driven mainly by recent droughts and floods, are leading to violence: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2011/01/spike_in_global_food_prices_tr.html

      The state of emergency in Tunisia has economists worried that we may be seeing the beginnings of a second wave of global food riots. Battered by bad weather and increasing demand from the developing world, the global food supply system is buckling under the strain.

      This month, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that its food price index jumped 32 percent in the second half of 2010 — surpassing the previous record, set in the early summer of 2008, when deadly clashes over food broke out around the world, from Haiti to Somalia

      The price of grains began to rise last fall after fires in Russia wiped out hundreds of thousands of acres of grains and heavy rain destroyed much of Canada’s wheat crop. The problems were followed by hot, dry weather in Argentina that devastated the soybean crop of the key exporter. This month, floods in Australia destroyed much of the country’s wheat crop.

      Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali on Thursday vowed to reduce the price of staples such as sugar, milk and bread ,but the pledge wasn’t enough to placate the thousands of protesters who mobbed the capital, Tunis, on Friday to demand his ouster. The country’s prime minister, Mohammed Ghannouchi, has appeared on state TV to announce he is assuming power.

    5. Re:Climate Wars by khallow · · Score: 1

      FWIW, both the US military and the US intelligence community have, in official reports, identified climate change as one of the biggest threats to national security that the US will have to deal with this century.

      Perhaps you should look at the timing of the reports in question. As I recall, the US now has a government which both takes AGW seriously and can compel the military to take it seriously as well. In a couple of years, we might have a new administration which doesn't take these issues as seriously. That's the problem with using official interest as an indication of the truth of an assertion.

      In the story I linked above, notice that they talk about worst case scenarios, not just stuff that we think we know is going to happen. So I imagine they're considering things like the Gulfstream shutting down or a runaway greenhouse effect, not just the usual predicted slight increases in sea level and global temperature.

    6. Re:Climate Wars by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Whether or not war actually occurs, there is insufficient evidence that man they are man-made. It is hubris to think that man has such great impact on the world, that he can unleash war and destruction around the world.

      There are many possible explanations for war that we tend to overlook. Volcanoes, sun activity, and natural cycles. We just don't have enough historical evidence to support they are man made.

      Besides, even if we accept the questionable hypothesis that war is man-made, do we know for sure that it's really such a bad thing? There have been peaceful trends in recent years, which might have detrimental effects for some industries. An increase in war might help keep things from keep things in balance.

    7. Re:Climate Wars by radtea · · Score: 1

      Almost every war ever was started over natural resources (WW 1 being a fairly large exception), and quite a few were started over food resources (part of Hitler's goal in WW2 was to get access to more arable land in Eastern Europe).

      Actually, no war has ever been started over access to food resources, although I agree that is the claim that people--including Hitler--frequently use to justify war.

      No individual of any species anywhere ever kills another member of the same species over food resource competition, because it never under any circumstances makes evolutionary sense to do so. There are two reasons for this: the first is that when facing a shortage of food resources the optimal use of scare capability is to do things that will increase an individual's access to food. The second is that when faced with an individual of the same species an individual is always facing a relative--and in most species over most of their evolutionary history, a close relative at that. So in a fight to the death the individual is risking their own destruction for the sake of reducing their own fitness by killing a relative.

      The only resource that any individual of any species ever fights to the death over is a mating opportunity. It is worth risking death for a mating opportunity because the payoff is a very high probability of the brass ring of evolutionary competition: offspring. We see this in the most extreme case amongst purely vegetarian species like elk and cariboo, where males will risk death in mate competition. In species were mate competition is low, such as bonobo, murder is rare--even though both male and female bonobos hunt and kill other animals.

      Murder has nothing at all to do with hunting behaviour because the fundamental nature of any individual's relationship with members of its own species is completely different from its relationship with individuals of other species. Individuals of other species are resources or nuisances. Individuals of the same species are primarily mating opportunities or competitors, and only secondarily resources or nuisances. "Society" is a mechanism for making the resource/nuisance axis dominant over the opportunity/competitor axis--and this is generally not a bad thing.

      "War" is nothing but the continuation of mate competition by other means, as Clauswitz might have said had he known about evolution instead of being stuck analyzing human behaviour in pre-scientific terms. This does not mean that war is all about opportunities to rape the other side's women, although a great deal of that goes on. It is also about disrupting domestic society to create opportunities that would not otherwise exist at home.

      As such, all other "reasons" given for war are confabulations. In this post-Freudian age it should come as no surprise that actual motivations for human behaviour are obscure even to the actors. In the case of the Germans in WWII, for example, food security was the purported excuse for war, but war was by no means the most obvious or rational approach to the problem, which could equally well have been solved by scientific agriculture and free trade. It's not like the Germans didn't have any experts in the chemistry of nitrogen-rich compounds, as the inhabitants of London learned too well. The difference is that war had a very small chance of actually solving the "problem" while scientific agriculture had a very low risk of leaving Germany without one brick sitting on top of another. I know what choice a rational animal would make, every single time.

      Unfortunately the world is still full of stupid, irrational, unreflective people to whom war "just makes sense" as an approach to perceived problems of scarcity. Because of course the best way to deal with any perceived scarcity is to systematically engage in wide-spread and mutually destructive conflict, which will inevitably create... more scarcity.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    8. Re:Climate Wars by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I'd disagree that WWI was an exception: one of the big causes of the war was tension between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire over control of the Balkans (and the resources therein).

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    9. Re:Climate Wars by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Since you are bringing up monkey research, there's quite a body of work in the area of studying chimps (yes, yes, great Apes vs monkeys) and how they will actually wage war against other troops. The fight there is not over mates, but over territory, which is heavily tied to food.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  6. Yes, of course by Hatta · · Score: 2

    As the Earth heats, we can expect to find less arable land. At the same time we're running out of fossil fuels which are required for the haber process to fix nitrogen for fertilizer. With nearly 7 billion people on the planet, something is going to give. There's going to be a great deal of conflict over the few resources we haven't squandered yet.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Yes, of course by maxume · · Score: 2

      You don't need fossil fuels to make ammonia, you can just get some hydrogen out of some water.

      Methane is a cheap convenient source for hydrogen, so it is a popular feedstock.

      So the problem is still just energy, fossil fuels aren't particularly crucial.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Yes, of course by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      As the Earth heats, we can expect to find less arable land.

      Care to explain this one? More heat = more precipitation, longer growing seasons, and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes. That should mean more arable land, right?

    3. Re:Yes, of course by a_nonamiss · · Score: 2

      GP might mean that there will be less arable land in the United States. That's probably true. Guess we'd all better start learning to speak Canadian, Eh?

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    4. Re:Yes, of course by KeensMustard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh bull poop. Ever looked at a map? Noticed how much land mass is currently useless for growing in Russia, Canada, etc? Warm things up a bit and we will lose some land and gain some.

      Maybe you should try looking at a globe rather than a map imaged from a Mercator projection. Then you will see that areas in the high (and low) latitudes are far smaller than you believe.

      Secondly you might want to think about how fertile the soil in siberia would be - currently this soil is frozen in permafrost, and covered in pine forest. Neither condition is conducive to soil fertility. If the permafrost melts (releasing it's methane) then Siberia will be an infertile, poisonous swamp.

      Anyway, this is the second Warmer story today, this is getting silly. This isn't dkos... or it least it wasn't.

      Does this topic make you uncomfortable?

    5. Re:Yes, of course by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The soil on much of that northern land is not really suitable for growing crops and it will take at least decades if not centuries to make it suitable. Good soil is a living thing that takes time to develop.

    6. Re:Yes, of course by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      Ask the farmers in the Midwest how all that precipitation last winter/spring helped their crop yields this year.

    7. Re:Yes, of course by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Russian drought last year, which triggered them to ban grain exports, lead to higher food prices, especially in importer nations such as the middle east. High food prices in large part triggered the Arab Spring, in which a handful of governments were overturned. So, it is arguable whether this premise is even a prediction, or simply a predicted continuation of recent events.

    8. Re:Yes, of course by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Noticed how much land mass is currently useless for growing in Russia, Canada, etc?

      That's good if you're Canadian or Russian, but if you're, for instance, African, that doesn't help you too much. Much of the population lives much closer to the equator than Canada and Siberia, and a warming earth is not going to be good for them. And I don't think Canada and Russia are going to open their borders for anyone to move there who wants to.

    9. Re:Yes, of course by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Canada wants a giant influx of American refugees? A warming Earth will be good for Canada (and Russia, and other northern countries), and it'll also work out OK for those who are allowed to emigrate to those countries, but it won't be good for everyone else.

    10. Re:Yes, of course by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Actually, it does seem like global warming will be good for some people, such as the Canadians, who will get more arable land, as well as a northwest passage for shipping, which is currently covered in ice. The Russians might do well with it too, plus the Scandinavians.

      Most everyone else is going to be screwed, though. Canada is fairly welcoming to some immigrants (if you score enough points on their qualification system, or have a big bundle of cash ($300k)), but they're not going to just open their borders for all the climate refugees of the world. Moreover, a giant portion of the population lives in cities at sea level. A warming earth will cause ice to melt and sea levels to rise, flooding these cities and forcing a mass relocation. Some island countries are even in danger of disappearing from the map.

    11. Re:Yes, of course by Telvin_3d · · Score: 2

      Actually, as far as Canada in concerned at least, we are already farming about as much as can be farmed. There is farming and ranching at least up to 60* latitude, probably further in some places. Gets nice and warm in the summer too. Axial tilt means looooooong summer days. Lots of light, very good growing season. Get far enough north and the sun doesn't set. My uncle has a ranching operation and the long days mean that he can grow as much hay in three months of almost continuous sunshine as some places can grow in five at lower latitudes.

      Land not being farmed now is not being farmed because of other reasons. Middle of no-where and can't get to market. Bad geography. Bad soil. Lot of things that global warming won't change.

    12. Re:Yes, of course by tbird20d · · Score: 1

      I remember reading an article (sorry, can't find the reference) about how a Russian experiment to determine how to make tundra into farmland was ruined by warm summers during the experiment. Basically stuff started growing on it's own without the measures they expected to perform. The article moaned about how global warming was ruining this important research. I was confused, as it seemed like global warming was making the research unnecessary.

    13. Re:Yes, of course by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even if the reservoirs had been empty there would have still been flooding. It may not have been quite as bad but it would have happened.

      Regarding crop yields:
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-farming-floods-arkansas-idUSTRE77T02P20110830
      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0511/Mississippi-flooding-drowns-crops-and-casinos-What-s-the-economic-toll
      http://www.estormwater.com/Flooding-on-the-Farm-article9528

      It may not have been as bad as first feared but lots of farmers took it in the shorts this year because of the flooding.

    14. Re:Yes, of course by dbet · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, as you increase atmospheric CO2, plants need less water and can grow in areas they couldn't before.

    15. Re:Yes, of course by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      How cute, linking to a 2008 (ethanol) crop report in a discussion about the flooding and/or drought in 2011.

      $2 billion in cattle lost, $2 billion in cotton lost, $1 billion in corn/wheat/others lost, with the wheat production estimated to be 35% of normal while prices are 139% normal. And that's just Texas, and only "so far this year" (it's expected to stay drier than normal until next year, with La Nina in effect this winter). .

      NASS's nationwide crop estimate report for September (summary of the executive summary: corn estimate had to be reduced 3% since August but is still just barely above last year's crop, soybeans are down 7% from last year, cotton is down 9%, oranges are down 8%). If I'm reading the rest right, the rice production estimate is down 20% from last year's production, sugarcane +5%, tobacco -12%, barley -7%, oats -29%, wheat -6%, peanuts -17%, spring and summer potato production were up (+3% and +15% respectively) but the larger fall crop hasn't begun yet (2010 spring summer and fall crops were roughly 2.4M, 1.1M and 36M lbs respectively).

      BTW What good is a longer (summer) growing season when it delays fall planting? What good is a hotter summer growing season when July kills your crop?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    16. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, as the earth heats, we can expect to find more arable land. Global average temperature rise has been driven by higher lows, not lower highs (that is, the difference between the low temperature and high temperature has begun to shrink, with the lows coming up, driving up the overall average). At the most extreme scenario, if the earth became much like the Late Eocene, Antarctica would become a veritable temperate paradise viable for much more biodiversity, and the tropics (with all the plant growth that comes with it) would extend into the upper and lower latitudes.

      Fun fact - the referenced article tends to tie periods of strife with global *cooling* periods.

      "Results show that cooling from A.D. 1560–1660 caused successive agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century"

    17. Re:Yes, of course by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Actually, as the earth heats, we can expect to find more arable land.

      Yup. Great news for those parts of Canada that are currently uninhabited. Bad for the USA and South America. See figure 3 in the following link for a projection of where we can expect increased drought this century: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110928_Butterfly.pdf

      Here is a wry post on the current drought conditions in Texas. This may be a hint of what is to come: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/09/texas-drought-good-news-and-bad-news/

      First the really good news: according to the latest US Drought Monitor, only 0.83% of Texas is in moderate drought.

      Next the moderately good news: only 2.42% of Texas is in severe drought.

      Not so good news: 8.88% of Texas is in extreme drought.

      Bad news: that leaves fully 87.83% of Texas in exceptional drought, the worst drought category.

    18. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      See figure 3 in the following link for a projection of where we can expect increased drought this century

      You forgot, we also get increased precipitation from global warming! It'll be warmcool and drywet everywhere! :)

      Here is a wry post on the current drought conditions in Texas.

      Funny, Texas never had droughts before we started releasing CO2...

      http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/09/chatting_with_a_noaa_meteorolo.php

      "The good news, Hoerling says, is that this isn't global warming. "This is not the new normal in terms of drought. Texas knows drought. Texas has been toughened on the anvil of droughts that have come and gone. This is not a climate change drought."

    19. Re:Yes, of course by khallow · · Score: 1

      As I recall, forests have 90% of the carbon in the ecosystem in the trees. Grasslands have 90% or so in the soil. I think this was in some discussion of the relative productivity of forest soil versus plains soil. And yes, carbon is an important soil component (particularly, of humus) even though it can be obtained from the atmosphere.

    20. Re:Yes, of course by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      What would help African farmers more than anything else would be for the EU to dismantle it's Common Agricultural Policy. Although the word "common" is something of a misnomer here as it's a policy to bribe the 4% of the population in France who are farmers. Lack of investment in African agricultural development is the price of it.

    21. Re:Yes, of course by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because we all know that pine forests are the ideal fertile land.
      Oh wait no, they are the exact opposite.

      If trees are growing abundantly on the land, it's a good indication that the land is fertile. They aren't "ideal" because most of the carbon in the ecosystem is in the trees not in the soil. Funny how I already knew that.

    22. Re:Yes, of course by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Funny, Texas never had droughts before we started releasing CO2...

      Not like this. Check out the second graph after this link to see just how far outside the bounds of normal this current drought is. It's off the chart. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/texas-drought-spot-the-outlier/

    23. Re:Yes, of course by Layzej · · Score: 1

      See figure 3 in the following link for a projection of where we can expect increased drought this century

      You forgot, we also get increased precipitation from global warming! It'll be warmcool and drywet everywhere! :)

      Well, where do you think the water from the areas experiencing drought will end up? Droughts often coincide with increased precipitation elsewhere.

    24. Re:Yes, of course by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Maybe they can start growing rice or some kind of seaweed, or put up a chicken-wire fence and call it a fish farm!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    25. Re:Yes, of course by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Same info from a less laughable, one-sided source:

      http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-co2-atmosphere.html

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Yes, of course by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      What he is referring to is that Pine forest soil is acidic. Furthermore, pine trees prefer sandy soil - which also doesn't work for growing food stuff.

      One species of tree or bush growing in a specific area is often an indication that it will be very difficult to grow anything else in there.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    27. Re:Yes, of course by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      As the Earth heats, we can expect to find less arable land.

      Oh, really? I just see an assertion here that's contrary to reality in many ways, and thus invalid. You basically seem to be basing your opinion (as many people do) on "deserts are hot!"

      So are rain forests. Believe it or not, crops like a lot of heat, which is why the non-arid parts of California tend to have a lot of them and in colder regions, people depend on at least a couple weeks of good heat every summer to make their crops flourish. In the higher latitudes, people will use cold frames and greenhouses to try to get an extra crop out of their gardens: all they do is increase the ambient temperature so plants will continue to grow.

      Increased heat causes more rapid evaporation, both from land and sea. This causes rain to fall. It's fairly simple. (Go read a book.) Oddly in contrast to your theory, hot arid deserts are, while fragile, teeming with wildlife. Arctic deserts have somewhat less (though it's still there).

      In contrast, the little ice age around 1200AD did the opposite. It got colder. This roughly coincides with when the Black Death came about, the Nordic powers fell into decline, and for several+ hundred years, most of Europe and the East were fairly stagnant.

      Now, you may be inadvertently correct in your conclusion, but not because of your premise. We are deforesting land. Population centers are full of (generally useless) people, and there are a lot of them. While Western pollution levels and rates decrease, China is kicking out more than the West ever has (both in China and Africa, where they are now colonizing). These things very likely will result in war.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    28. Re:Yes, of course by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Well, where do you think the water from the areas experiencing drought will end up? Droughts often coincide with increased precipitation elsewhere.

      That's not too helpful if the increased precipitation comes in the form of named storms dropping rain by the foot.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    29. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      http://www.real-science.com/time-hockey-team-timeout

      "They need to discuss strategy. NASA says that sea level is falling due to too much rain. Hansen says that sea level is rising at a record rate and will drown Manhattan by 2008. Hadley says that we are headed for a permanent drought. These clowns need a huddle to get their story straight, because they sound like a bunch of total buffoons right now."

      Well, where do you think the water from the areas experiencing drought will end up? Droughts often coincide with increased precipitation elsewhere.

      Show me a single GCM that has made any sort of reliable predictions on the regional distribution of precipitation. Take your time :)

    30. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/23/the-texas-centered-drought-versus-1918-1956-and-1934/

      Take a closer look at the regional nature of 2011 and the much larger nature of the 1930s, and then spot the outlier :)

    31. Re:Yes, of course by Layzej · · Score: 1

      "Skeptics" tend to have difficulty with nuance. (He said it would go up but they say it went down last year... I just don't know WHO to believe!). They also tend not to read original sources but rather like to read spin from sites with unintentionally ironic names.

      You have referenced a NASA post that confirm exactly what I noted above (that droughts come with floods), and is exactly consistent with everything Hanson has ever published (regardless of what someone may recall from a conversation that he may have had 20 years ago). Here is what NASA really said: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

      Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world's ocean in response to global warming.

      While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.

      So what's up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.

      Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.

      Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. "By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet," says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

      So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. "This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.

      But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.

    32. Re:Yes, of course by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Of course there is no way to spot an outlier when comparing two years. Obviously they are equally different from each other.

    33. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So a small regional drought seems like just as likely an "outlier" than a large regional drought?

      Sure, I'm willing to entertain that idea - got data?

    34. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/

      "The sea level was going up at about 3 mm per year. In the last year it fell about 6 mm. So that’s a change of about a centimetre of water that NASA says has fallen on land and been absorbed rather than returned to the ocean. But of course, the land is much smaller than the ocean so for the ocean to change by a centimetre, the land has to change about 2.3 cm.

      To do that, the above map would have to average a medium blue well up the scale and it’s obvious from the map that there’s no way that’s happening. So I hate to say this, but their explanation doesn’t hold water "

      Continuous ad hoc special pleadings when observations don't match predictions is the sign of cargo cult science :)

    35. Re:Yes, of course by Layzej · · Score: 1

      So that’s a change of about a centimetre of water that NASA says has fallen on land and been absorbed rather than returned to the ocean.

      Well, if you read Watts then you will end up very very confused. The site is run by a bunch of armchair armatures trying to second guess NASA. It's laughable. Here is what NASA said:

      Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. "By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet, ...Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.

      Silly NASA with their data and measurements. Clearly they are no match for some guy named "Willis" and his superior scientific technique of "eyeballing a graphic". Why bother looking at the data (which is available) when you have such advanced analytic prowess. He should really publish his findings - except that those nasty scientists keep blocking the brilliant 'skeptics' from publication!

    36. Re:Yes, of course by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Err, you were the one who thought that one or the other was clearly an outlier wrt to area. You have shown no evidence. I know that this type of data free analysis will convince the converted on Watts and other 'skeptic' sites. Here on Slashdot you will need to provide some kind of proof.

    37. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So global warming is supposed to make the sea level rise, except when it doesn't? :)

      When water flows downhill, the extra rain will be replaced with more extra rain since global warming was what caused the increased precipitation in the first place, right? :)

      When your theory isn't matching observations, and you keep having to make up ad hoc special pleadings to preserve it, maybe you've got to start questioning your theory :)

    38. Re:Yes, of course by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Here on Slashdot you will need to provide some kind of proof.

      Ha! That made me snort milk out of my nose!

      How about I just show you a model, and say you need to show me a better model to disprove mine :)

  7. Er, what? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    I haven't read TFA yet, but what's with the "but not so fast, says a study in Science" bit?

    There's a theory that economic stability combined with a surplus of food production leads to less war and conflict. Science's study claims (according to the summary) that changes in climate in the past have disrupted crops, leading to food deficits, and that has resulted in more war and conflict. When the climate changed again and food surpluses increased, less war and conflict.

    It seems like the theory and the study by Science are in violent agreement rather than one refuting the other?

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  8. Not convincing by erick99 · · Score: 1

    It's not that hard to find a relationship between any two large-scale variables but it still doesn't allow for a causative statement. I teach statistics to freshman and sophomores and spend a lot of time on trying to explain to them how to critically examine articles such as this. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I don't see the scientific legwork that would make it a more substantial statement.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Not convincing by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      One possible explanation: Population dieoffs are followed by labor shortages and hence, more egalitarian societies. e.g. Black Death and Renaissance

  9. Does this mean we get to shoot polluters? by blair1q · · Score: 2

    And then blame the smog of war?

    1. Re:Does this mean we get to shoot polluters? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No, my electricity comes from a perfectly clean nuke plant. No pollution at all, as long as Yucca Mountain opens up before we have an earthquake.

    2. Re:Does this mean we get to shoot polluters? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Well, for one, I don't live in a glass house. Glass has a high carbon footprint.

      For another, I drive a hybrid. I'm far less of a polluter than you are. My next car will likely be all-electric, and my electricity is nuclear, which only pollutes if you let it, and I don't.

      I also tend to hold in my farts, while you post yours to the net.

    3. Re:Does this mean we get to shoot polluters? by sanzibar · · Score: 1

      Gee. Your right. Radioactive waste is not pollution. What was i thinking.

      still want to call that hypocritical airstrike in on yourself?

    4. Re:Does this mean we get to shoot polluters? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Uranium ore comes out of the ground, where it has spent millennia leaching randomly into the water table. When it's spent, it goes back into the ground, vitrified so it can't leach into the surrounding ground.

      Nuclear power is un-pollution.

  10. Poor hippies by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Now that global warming is causing world peace, how will they know what to think?

  11. Re:You keep using that term... by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Wrong.

    Inflation is an increase in prices. It can be caused by an unnatural increase in the supply of currency, but it can also be caused by an overall decrease in supply or by an overall increase in demand.

    The price of gold, however, is not related to anything other than the demand for gold (there's way more supply than anyone can use for anything other than swimming in). Gold is no longer a monetary standard. Anyone telling you that it is is a liar. Anyone telling you that Gold retains its value during economic troubles is completely full of shit (see any graph of gold and/or silver prices during the 2007 crash and beyond; it was a less-worse investment than the average equity, but it still declined in value, which means CASH was your best investment during that period). Gold is the classic overspeculated commodity. Its real value is a small fraction of the greed value generated by hucksters. Invest in it at your peril.

  12. This subject is far by geekoid · · Score: 1

    to subtle for /.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. The great moderation = great recession by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Debt made the great moderation as the normal economic cycles were not following the laws of economics due to the inflated money supply. When the bills were due we ended up where we are at today with the fed printing more money and inflating the money supply yet again to pay the debt. Sigh

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  14. Re:You keep using that term... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Um... so obviously you haven't seen the graph of gold prices. From 2007 to present gold has gone from $640 an ounce to the present $1600+ an ounce (though the real price of physical gold is /much/ higher, it is only paper gold being sold, don't believe me? try buying physical bullion, you will find that the premiums are much higher now than it was back when silver was $40 and gold was $1850). At the same time, the US dollar is being debased at an alarming rate (see http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BASE_Max_630_378.png ) the only reason it is becoming "stronger" is because China keeps its currency devalued and the Euro is on brink of collapsing. If there was "way too much gold supply" on the market surely someone would be selling massive amounts of it to take advantage of it being overpriced. But instead, no one is doing it. Why? Because gold is still undervalued (and the dollar is overvalued). Silver is even more convincing of a case.

    Physical commodities are the only thing that won't be fully affected by the impending collapse of fiat currency. Historically every single fiat currency has failed. Historically, people owning precious metals or non-debased coins have been much better off than those storing their wealth in fiat currency or debased coins. I tend to side with history.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  15. Not exactly a new theory ... by jc42 · · Score: 2

    For example, the past couple decades of local wars in the Sahel are conventionally attributed to the spreading of the desert. People there have faced the choice of staying home and starving, or moving south, where the land is already at carrying capacity and the people are prepared to defend their barely-livable land from the armed refugees from up north.

    Similarly, the Viking excursions are typically explained by the increasing population in Scandinavia (and the first significant adoption of agriculture there) in the 8th and 9th centuries, followed by decades in which the crops mostly failed. Again, the Norse had the choice of staying home and starving, or sailing away and looking for better places to live. But all those places were already inhabited, so it was really a choice of starve at home or fight abroad.

    So what's new about this story? Isn't it just a repeat of much of our history? Or at least, it's a repeat of our explanations for much of our history.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:Not exactly a new theory ... by jc42 · · Score: 2

      Well, I often find it interesting and useful when people point out that the topic being discussed isn't actually new, and other useful discussions can be found if you look for them. I wasn't trying to stop the discussion; I was mostly just reacting to the claim that this is some sort of new thought. Maybe it was new for the writer, but it's hardly new for anyone who's read much history.

      This is much of the reason that some people worry so much about climate change. As the "deniers" like to point out, there have been lots of climate changes in the past, and we're still here. Yeah, but when you can find information about the times of change, you also find lots of wars, famines, deaths, etc.

      So reading a claim that this is some sort of new correlation that has just been discovered is yet another indication that someone hasn't learned from history, probably from not being aware of the history.

      Anyway, go continue the discussion ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  16. It's true, so much as war has changed society by ALeader71 · · Score: 1

    Climate change linked changes to agriculture has greatly influenced society. The Medieval Warm Period led to an explosion of population, which led to Viking Raids for lands and plunder. The ending of Viking Raids and the glut of soldiers led to the Crusades - remember, the Moors conquered the Holy Land well before the first Crusade. The mini-Ice Age has been linked to everything from literature to the American Revolution. Likewise, periods of population growth led to plague outbreaks which curtailed populations prior to the 1960s and mass vaccinations. Now most civilians believe the flu is a nuisance disease. No one remembers the pandemic of the 60s or the quarantines of the early United States.

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
  17. Re:You keep using that term... by Vaphell · · Score: 1

    1. at least the definition used by Austrians (quantification of money pool) is precise while the common definition is a watered down crap full of substitutions and holistics that doesn't pass the smell test at the gas pump and grocery store.

    2. on the other hand when you measure performance from 2000 you get +400% return on gold and bullshit on inflated dollar (check out dollar index graph going down from 120 to 80)

    3. 1 month ago swiss franc lost 10% in a blink of an eye just because the swiss central bank said so (peg to euro 1.2:1). Safety my ass. Besides during the meltdown all currencies went down against the dollar (big selloffs of non-US stuff) so it's not that cash is a magical protection in hard times. Monies I use every day dropped like a stone then.

  18. Anything else by amightywind · · Score: 2

    Is there anything that the shameless left claims is not effected by climate change? What a racket!

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Anything else by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Is there anything that the shameless left claims is not effected by climate change? What a racket!

      I claim that a lot of people's minds aren't affected by climate change.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  19. Try again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From the Wikipedia article you linked:

    Originating about 1650–1700, [the Age of Enlightenment] was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), John Locke (1632–1704), Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), mathematician Isaac Newton (1643–1727), and Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790).

    1. Re:Try again. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      read again. what you have responded to. this time, comprehend.

      --
      Read radical news here
  20. Re:You keep using that term... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Except, historically there are none that really are "still around" the US has only had fiat currency since Nixon decided to take us off the gold standard (and by extension most of the world) so most currencies have only been fiat since about 40 years ago. And let's see a list of currencies that aren't around in their original form thanks to fiat currencies.

    Most notably, the Zimbabwean Dollar and the German Mark but many other countries too, the Mexican Peso, Hungarian Krona, Greek Drachma, Chinese Yuan, Yugoslavian Dinar, Russian/Soviet Ruble, etc. the list goes on and on.

    The only fiat currencies that haven't failed have been very recent inventions, history has shown that every fiat currency fails.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  21. Re:You keep using that term... by blair1q · · Score: 1

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=GLD&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=&c=^GSPC&c=^IXIC&c=^DJI

    Gold was overbought at the start of the 07-08 crash, and then overbought at the end.

    In between, it crashed along with stocks.

    You were better off being in cash.

    Since then, it's risen slightly better than stocks, but not enough to make up for the fact that it's a bloated commodity with no real value of its own except for electronic contacts and bling. If there's anything on this earth whose value is phony, it's gold's.

  22. Darfur by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    The situation in Darfur is an example of conflict caused by climate change. As the traditional areas the nomadic people used dried out they were forced to move south into areas where farmers were. We can expect more of it in the future.

    1. Re:Darfur by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but you could make the same case for the fall of the Thracians, or the Inca or the Maya or any number of conflicts before the industrial age.

      Yes, climate change can cause conflict (and Jared Diamond does a great job showing examples in his book "Collapse"). Yes, we can expect more of it in the future, because just as climate changed 1000 years ago, it will continue to change for the next 1000 years.

      Jumping from that to "climate is going to change more/worse because of human activity" is a stretch.

  23. Hydrogen is not the issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's the nitrogen, stupid.

    1. Re:Hydrogen is not the issue. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      that comes from the air you moron.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  24. Re:You keep using that term... by blair1q · · Score: 2

    Why are you measuring from 2000? Why not measure from 1980 to 2000? Oh that's right, because you're cherrypicking your data to suit your conclusion.

    http://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd.png

    See any similarities there between the 76-80 period and the 00-11 period?

    Gold is down 15% in the past month, btw.

    If you want to know what's causing the markets to roil, it's the hedgies unwinding their equities to pay margin calls on their gold futures.

  25. Re:You keep using that term... by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Most failed currencies are worth more than face value now.

  26. Driving and War by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

    Driving and War seem to actually be the causes of climate change. So by climate change now driving countries to war, we have entered a stage not unlike a panic disorder, where everything circles back around to cause itself, perpetually. Like panic disorder, I fear we may not notice this til we're too late.

  27. War is eternal by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    There has always been war and I really doubt there will come a time when there is no war. Ever.

    That said, I think we're going to enter a more violent stage of human history as power is distributed and the various economies equalize. The third world is rising... and with that the third world will demand an equal share of power. Old or irrelevant hatreds will boil to the surface after hundreds of years of being suppressed.

    If America is wise it will choose its battles and let some of these wars spend themselves on other targets rather then trying to absorb everything personally.

    War will continue... the only thing you can really do is stay out of the wars that don't concern you and make a point of winning the wars that do concern you. Beyond that... war will come.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  28. Re:You keep using that term... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    First off, you are comparing two different things, real gold (as in, physical, have it in your hand metal) and paper gold (as in, you don't really own it). Go to a few bullion dealers, places like pawn shops, coin shops, jewelry shops, etc. and you will find that the paper price isn't the real price of gold. It is even more so in silver, and we aren't talking about things like pre-1933 US gold and US silver dollars which have a high premium due to their collectability but the cheapest things they have, silver rounds, 'junk silver' (worn silver coins previously in everyday circulation but have no collector value beyond bullion) gold bars, etc. and you will find that especially now the paper price and the real price are vastly different.

    And it hasn't "crashed" it had a temporary decrease in prices and quickly recovered. On the other hand, barring a massive burning of money or a massive, massive, massive, population increase cash will crash and will crash quickly. If you want to talk about a bloated commodity, talk about cash. It is worthless, being debased at an alarming rate and you are taking a guaranteed loss.

    Spend as much fiat currency for commodities while it is still spendable, a time is coming where people will reject fiat currency because it is worthless, unlike commodities. Copper, gold, silver, nickel, oil, etc. are all solid investments when compared to taking a guaranteed loss.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  29. It's the economy stupid. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    All led by the US run-away fiat currency (inflation), housing bubbles, wars and the European style of socialism. Of course we have no money left to give away. The middle east was always sucking of the financial tit of the west (investments and donations). Only when the nipples started producing less milk did they start to cry. So ya, Arab Spring was bound to happen in such a global financial environment.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  30. Re:You keep using that term... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Right... Because you don't see that in corn at all. The price that paper corn says is the /exact/ same price you see at the supermarket on the side of the road right? No, of course not. Physical and imaginary commodities trade at different prices. When the price of paper corn goes up, you can expect the price of physical corn to go up, but it might not go up by the same amount or percentage. "We Buy Gold" places also do not use the paper price, they trade on what the uninformed public views their scrap gold as worth. Heck, most of the public doesn't even know how much gold is in their gold jewellery. There are multiple markets each with their own price. And when they move around physical gold (which happens rarely) it still trades at a different price. No one is ripping anyone off, there are multiple markets each with different prices. Currently, the price for real, physical gold is much higher than the price in commodity or paper gold. It is even more evident in the silver market, for example a "junk" silver Peace Dollar has a melt value of about $23 and little to no collector value. Today they are selling for around $27 from nearly every single coin dealer, both online and offline, about a $4 premium at $30/troy ounce silver. On the other hand, when silver was near $40 and the melt value of a junk Peace Dollar was at $31, coin dealers were selling them at $32.50 or $33 a coin, much less of a premium. It is then safe to say that the real market price of silver is much higher than the paper price of $30.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  31. Oh? by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As the Earth heats, we can expect to find less arable land.

    That's news to Africans seeing the desert go green around them as it becomes more moist, not less.

    Throughout Earth's history, hot = wet, most of the time.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Oh? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Denialists parading around anecdotes as if they were the norm? No, that's not news.

  32. Re:Nope... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with turning food into fuel on a large scale but the spike in food prices has more to do with the Russian's stopping all wheat exports due to drought last year, also drought here in Oz has seen our harvests down by 50% for all but a couple of seasons since 1998. Russia and Australia are the 1st and 4th largest exporters of wheat respectively and together they have far more influence on the price of bread than US ethanol lobbyists.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  33. Oh thank goodness by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Because I was sure it was the shitty job our crooked politicians are doing that is the reason citizens are becoming increasingly unhappy with the US government, when all along it was just "climate change".

  34. Climate change responsible for all the ills of man by Chas · · Score: 1

    I guess Eve, Lillith and all the other woman-spawns out there are off the hook.

    At least for now...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  35. The Enlightenment was down to Charles II? by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

    "when Charles II was crowned king of England in 1660, the coronation sparked the Enlightenment era in Europe"

    Talk about Anglocentrism! Are they sure it was not the fact that he was crowned king of Scotland and Wales at the same time that caused the Enlightenment?

  36. tl;dr version - people like to eat and drink by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Will shank anyone who might prevent them. Also, fire bad, tree pretty.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  37. Global warming problem is solvable by Max_W · · Score: 2

    Changing physical state of matter requires a lot of energy. When we dry linen or clothes in an electrical drier, the liquid, water, changes into the gas, steam. Then the steam has to be evacuated from fabric by a fan, then condensed by a freezer again into water.

    This process requires a lot of energy. As people on earth become richer, they buy and use electrical driers more an more. We speak about billions usages daily, a geological scale.

    In some districts, even entire cities drying clothes or linen outdoors is forbidden. All we need to do is forbid to forbid the outdoor drying to home owners associations, municipal councils, etc.

    Outdoor driers may be re-designed to look better esthetically. It is not that difficult especially if they are used and bought more.

    Outdoor drying in hot sunny weather is the most efficient solar and wind device. Not possible to make anything more efficient. Besides it not only saves energy, it also actually cools the atmosphere.

    So the problem is quite solvable from an engineering point of view, but there is the most difficult obstacle, - the social one.

    1. Re:Global warming problem is solvable by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So the problem is quite solvable from an engineering point of view, but there is the most difficult obstacle, - the social one.

      Not a problem in free societies.

      An Englishman's back garden is his back garden.

      America - the country where you can have a car up on blocks, but not a washing line.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:Global warming problem is solvable by Layzej · · Score: 1

      If every man woman and child (assuming a global populations of 7 billion) turned off 10 industrial strength 5600 watt dryers that they had been running 24 hours a day 365 days a year, then yes, this would be a good strategy for ending global warming. This would be the equivalent of the current energy imbalance. That is, this would prevent the warming not yet realized from the CO2 already emitted. It would not address the already realized warming, We would also have to stop emitting CO2 (or find more dryers to turn off).

      www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110327_Perceptions.pdf

      One sure bet is that this decade will be the warmest in history. Yes, some scientists assert that there is decadal variability and the next decade or two could be cooler. How do we know they are wrong? Because, as we show in reference 4, the planet is now out of balance by about ¾ of a watt per square meter of Earth’s surface averaged over the solar cycle. It may not sound like much, but that is a lot of energy (in an interesting unit suggested in a colleague’s paper, Sarah Purkey and Greg Johnson?), the ¾ W/m2 corresponds, assuming a global populations of 7 billion, to every man, woman, and child on the planet running simultaneously 40 industrial strength 1400 watt hair dryers 24 hours a day 365 days a year). This energy is enough to cause the ocean to slowly warm and ice to melt all over the planet.

  38. Re:You keep using that term... by Vaphell · · Score: 1

    i cherry pick? you did it first by choosing 2007. Yes, there is nothing better to show the overall performance than to pick data from the short distortion period where stuff goes up and down wildly. 10 years is a reasonably long period that smooths bumps out, 30 years is ancient history. What about 2digit inflation in the seventies that was smacked down with 20% interest rate just at the beginning of the period you suggest? Is there a double digit inflation now that will cause brutal intervention that will cause massive selloffs? I don't think so.
    Last 10 years was the time when everybody was supposed to get rich with stocks and real estate, yet those barbaric relics nobody takes seriously came on top (just look at the sad performance of djia and s&p - they pretty much flatlined near 2000).

    15% down is a lot but still it's 1600+ (from approx 300 near 2000)

  39. Inflation from Increase in Money Supply by BunkAsInBed · · Score: 1

    falling supply of crops will drive up the price of gold and cause inflation.

    This is false as the printing of money out of thin air causes inflation. It would be more accurate to look at the price of food compared to gold or oil or better yet a basket of commodities. The reason these LDC countries get hit with price inflation the hardest is the inflation(currency creation) is done by the first world and the newly created dollars take a while to circulate out to LDCs. Think of the reverse, the people who get this money first benefit from higher then average salaries and company valuations (government contractors, banks, etc.)

  40. Violent Agreement by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    You missed the part where the economic theories screwed Science's girlfriend, so Science hit the economic theories over the head with a folding chair, but then Slashdot ran into the ring and broke everything up. Then Science challenged the theories to settle it once and for all, in the cage at this weekend's Pay Per View event. Agreement, my ass! This is serious conflict.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  41. The enlightenment by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    is just a code word for the Illuminati, who everyone knows are promoting the myth of global warming in an attempt to destroy our freedom to drive enorumous gasoline-powered vehicles, and to instill a New World Order led by Nazis, black homosexuals and, er , Jews. Or something.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  42. Nuke the alarmists from orbit by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    Its the only way to be sure.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  43. Re:Who decided it wasn't sufficient? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    wooosh....

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  44. The end of history? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    "Business cycles less volatile over time"? So, we're not in the middle of a Depression (self-proclaimed and degreed economists can visit the lake, head first)? Sorry, that's only true when there's serious social control over economies. The US massively deregulated... and they're back, in spades. Deregulation can directly be related to the S&L debacle of the late eighties, and again with the tech bubble, and again with the current collapse. There is not one single economic hypothesis (theories are repeatably testable) that takes the fact that at least 15% of upper management of corporations are thieves and scam artists.

    Oh, and the green revolution? That got replaced with GM crops, which require buying new seed, and you're not *allowed* to save seed, even if it would germinate (many are mules).

    Plus, of course, massive overpopulation. The world now has over twice as many people as it did when I was 16.

    Question for the student: if you say you'll cut back the water hyacinths in your pond when they cover half the pond, and it takes 30 days for them to cover the pond, what day do you have to cut them back? What day are *we* in, now?

                      mark

  45. Not really by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    Actually, as the earth heats, the vast majority of it is water which will evaporate from the oceans. That moisture is going to result in not only more rain over land, but also more snow, causing more reflection and colder winters on land. That's a very simple model and not every place is going to have the same results from the earth heating up. As has been said, there will be some winner and some losers. If the amount of land that is becoming desert is less than that receiving more rain than usual or is more than the lands in siberia and Canada that will become workable due to hotter summers, is still far from being decided yet.

  46. Weather to war connection by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

    Since WW II the west has lived in a remarkable era.

    The history of humans, most of it in the stone age, has been one of nearly continuous war. What shut it off for us?

    I have run a rough model of how the psychological mechanisms that turn bad economic prospects into wars. It turns out that the advantage for genes is around 37% for attempting to kill neighboring tribes compared to starving as the result of population growth followed by a weather glitch. (For the genes, the downside of going to war is limited because the young women--who also carried the genes--were normally considered booty and incorporated as wives into the winning tribe.)

    It also turned out that there was an even larger disadvantage for the genes if the prospects were for good times. So genes built highly sensitive "behavior switches" in the stone age.

    I.e., bad economic prospects switch on the mechanisms that eventually lead to wars.

    As long as the economic growth is higher than the population growth, the psychological mechanisms for wars stay off.

    More if you Google for "Evolutionary psychology, memes, and the origin of war."

    --
    End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
  47. We Agree! by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWkuuoK9lYA

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  48. Re:You keep using that term... by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Choosing 2007 wasn't cherrypicking. It was showing that during a time when the economy was tanking, so was Gold. It was refuting a basic claim of the gold hawkers. Cash was a better investment than gold when the economy was declining.