Well, I was talking about buying his fashion, not his politics. However his style seems more fake, more calculated to make a specific phony impression than simply wearing his suits correctly would. You see, a true shlub wears off the rack suits, because he has to wear one, because that's the most he can be bothered with. That's authentic. So is the guy who wears a ridiculous ascot because dressing that way makes him happy.
Trump manages to be both fussy and frumpy at the same time, and clearly that's a choice he's made to convey a specific impression.
It reminds me of people who write their own wedding vows. I'm not against that in principle, but the gist of those vows too often turns out to be how much more special they are than ordinary people. That's not only in very poor taste, it's naÃve and paintings embarrassing to watch. You're expected to feel that way on your wedding day, but it's a lot classier to show it by doing things the usual way, only better.
You have to scale that by how bad the cars coming out of Detroit were at the time. Rust proofing back in the 70s was universally bad, I say this as someone who has been driving since the early 80s. Back then a five year-old car was old, and a car that lasted past 100,000 miles was a rarity. Today it's common to see cars that are almost twenty years old that have less rust than a five year-old car would have back then.
As American cars got better in response to Japanese competition, the Japanese cars got better too, to the point where by the 00s, Japanese sedans were almost uniform in the bland near-perfection, but as a frequent renter it was still quite common to encounter brand new American cars with basic body problems like squeaks and rattles, doors that didn't fit quite right or finicky hood latches.
I think Trump's a dangerous, psychologically disturbed demagogue. But I have no problem with him selling suits.
It's ironic though; Trump himself is a terrible advertisement for his clothing line. He wears superb $10,000 suits, but he wears them wrong. Ever notice how in a Bond movie whenever 007 gets out of a car he buttons his suit? That's because Bond is a snob about doing things right: when you sit you unbutton the jacket; when you rise you button it except for the bottom button (and the top in a two-and-a-half button suit).
Trump walks around with his jacket unbuttoned -- like a guy who's gained weight and hasn't got around to getting a new suit yet. That reveals that he likes to wear ties that are waaay too long, it makes him look like a middle-school kid who's raided dad's closet. I like his bold color choices, but it's too much. If you want to show off a long tie, you wear a two button suit and give people a flash of the tip now and then, although I don't care for that myself.
If you want to model your wardrobe on a Republican politician, Rubio's your man. Yes, he's a fatuous ass, but he doesn't dress like one.
So the Trump phenomenon represents a loss in faith in the Republican party's leadership, and a test of that leadership's ability to convince the base it knows what it's doing.
On the Democratic side you have a mirror phenomenon with Bernie Sanders. Although Sanders does not display the personal self-aggrandizement you'd expect from a narcissist, his single-minded fixation on the billionaire class provides a similar focus for loyalists who feel the party has lost its way. That's infuriating to Democrats who are basically happy with the pragmatic center-left orientation of the party.
I suspect this is what you get in a two-party system where the parties have fought themselves to a stalemate. When neither party can deliver much to it's most ardent supporters, they start casting around for drastic medicine.
Historically "bimbo" meant a thuggish male criminal. "Silly" meant "blessed". "Egregious" meant distinguished. That's because words shift meaning over time. The process of "man" coming to refer exclusively to male persons started in the 1300s (before that a male person was a "wer" and a female person was a "wif"), and for whatever reason it continues to this day. If I told you a group of "men" were protesting in the park, you'd be surprised if you went there and saw they were all female. That's neither good nor bad, it just is the what the word means in everyday usage.
The phrase "Steely-eyed missile men" is a historical one, like "all men are created equal," so you just have to picture a mixed gender group "people" when you hear it. In point of fact the project manager and a number of senior personnel on Kepler are women. They no doubt have more important things to worry about than people referring to the team as "men", but you should use common sense in referring to the team as "men". "Steely-eyed missile men" is probably OK, but in other instances it might come off as a bit dick-ish.
In the case of the Kepler project the PIs are male, but the project manager is female and a
People like things simple, but as Albert Einstein observed:
... the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.
This is often rendered more pithily as "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
It makes things simpler if you pick just one type of person to represent, say all 1.6 billion Muslims, but that's too simple because it makes it impossible to do basic things like tell friendly from unfriendly. Or if you really have no friends in some group pretending that group is a bunch of ideological robots makes it impossible to identify divisions that you can exploit to your advantage.
Broadly you should be able to tell the difference between the radicals, the pragmatists, and people just trying to get on with their lives who have no reason to even consider the issues that divide radicals and pragmatists until someone makes those things an issue for them.
What's more, she posed as a energy consultant when she traveled abroad. In other words Plame was what in the spy trade is called a "knock" -- No Official Cover. This means that unlike agents who pose as diplomats she was not covered by diplomatic immunity and was potentially liable to legal and other actions taken by target countries. The identities of NOC agents is one of the most sensitive pieces of information there is.
Robert Novak, the columnist who outed Plame, later started the meme that she was a mere analyst. This is a self-serving claim; had he believed that then he wouldn't be guilty of a felony under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Movak was in effect pleading stupidity because the biographic references he admitted using listed a front company as her employer rather than the CIA. In fact in the column in question he correctly identifies her as an "operative", not an "analyst" -- a distinction which he was well aware meant that her job was clandestine.
I have no way of telling whether he's intelligent or not; what I do think is that he's insecure and defensive. It's often the case that people perform below their intellectual capacity simply because they're immature.
Yes, it makes sense to choose platform with better security, but that doesn't make security easy, any more than <car_analogy>buying a Volvo makes you a safer driver:</car_analogy>
Here's the reason so many systems are insecure: confirmation bias. It works like this.
Q: How much will it cost to do the system?
A: X + Y dollars if we want do a good job with security.
Q: Well, in that case we're not doing it, because we only have X dollars. If we spent X dollars would that be secure enough?
This is a very good point; however by "area" they don't necessarily mean "geographic area". Let's say you cut off Syria and northern Iraq from the Internet; that doesn't stop ISIS operatives in Europe from using the Internet. It doesn't even really stop Syrians from getting data from to those sites using some kind of gateway (e.g. POTS or packet radio). It just means they won't be streaming Netflix.
Boston won't be a tech leader again. They're not culturally diverse enough to attract top talent and top companies. Silicon Valley is very welcoming to Asians, Hispanics, homosexuals
You mean Boston, in the first state that legalized gay marriage isn't welcoming to homosexuals? Massachusetts is in the top quintile of states for proportion of Asians too.
The main reason the Boston area is a better incubator of tech is the same reason it lost the pre-eminence it enjoyed among American cities in the colonial era: it's too cramped and expensive for industry to grow. So it usually makes sense once your company is a going concern to move it elsewhere.
But the people are the same. Go to the sporting goods store and look at the fishing lures. I guarantee you the lures are designed first to catch fishermen, secondarily to catch fish.
The idea doesn't have to be ready for prime time, because of the tech adoption curve.
When a new technology comes out -- say videocassette recorders or personal computers, very few people are willing to spend the money for something that, after all, they've been happy living without all their life. But a certain small fraction of the population will be attracted to something because it's novel. They're the early adopters, and they end up buying lots of useless shit. A small fraction of the stuff they buy, however, will turn out to be quite useful, and that will attract the attention of the next market segment, the pragmatists. When you attract their attention you've really got something, because now you've got a trend, and you attract the attention of the trend buyers. Now you're approaching the peak of the adoption curve, when you start roping in the people who don't want to be left behind. Eventually you work your way down to the people on the other end of the novelty-attraction distribution from the early-adopters -- the people who would prefer to be left behind.
Assuming that e-bikes are still in the early adopter phase, where you really need to attract early adopters, hooking it up with other early-adopter bait is s smart move, even though it's meaningless to pragmatists.
Actually, it does. At least legally, and for once the legal way of doing thing makes sense.
You will not be embarrassed by things that come out after your death. You cannot be hurt, for the simple reason there is no you to hurt. There is no rational reason to deny any living person anything based on what it will do to the feelings of a dead person.
This goes to show the importance of special cases to software quality.
A good designer generalizes requirements; tries to get the software to do the right thing because of broadly rules rather than large collections of special cases. When Apple started pushing Siri on iOS devices a lot of copycat apps appeared on Android; the thing that the copycat app designers didn't seem to realize is that what made Siri impressive wasn't getting a device to respond to voice commands; it was an improvement in grammar processing that allowed Siri to figure out in most cases which topic a pronoun like "it" refers back to.
But ultimately these algorithms don't understand what's going on. A human being's life experience should enable him to recognize that "I've been raped" calls for a different kind of response than "I've been sunburned". In effect we spend our whole lives building up massive databases of special cases; in a sense the problem of practical AI isn't just artificial intelligence, in part it's artificial experience.
There comes a point in the development of a system where you've got the basic design worked out, and you can do a walk through of that design on real problems. But ultimately how people feel about a system requires more than it simply function; they want to feel that the design understands them. That's often a matter of being able to get the system to do the right thing in unexpected situations.
I like the Roman/Greek and large medieval/renaissance buildings - golden ratio, "perfect" aesthetics.
And other people like other things. I'm with you on practical issues like leaks -- a building really ought to work before it does anything else. But you really can't scale up those old Medieval buildings before you end up with a dull ungainly monstrosities like those horrible baroque palaces in central Europe. They make Soviet Brutalist architecture look playful.
And as for classical architecture -- how do you apply that to a skyscraper or office block? Consider that many of this woman's buildings would drawf the Parthenon in terms of working footage.
Seriously, if you need medical attention you're not going to Florida. And if you go to Florida you aren't going to go to Miami, you'd go to Florida Hospital in Orlando.
That's true for most of Russia, but it's offset by rainfall. The bottom line is that the World Bank is predicting a net gain in agricultural productivity in most of Russia except for the far north.
They don't have to be precise to give you a general picture.
Think of the troposphere as a shell of gas 6400 km in diameter and about 17km thick. That shell is rotating at 1700 km/hr at the equator, is being differentially heated by the Sun on its day side, tidally affected by the moon, interacting with landforms and the ocean etc. What you get is an immensely complex pattern of swirls and currents which transport water from and two various places in characteristic patterns we call local climate.
Now a 4C rise in average temperature doesn't sound like much, but don't think of it as a few ticks on the thermometer. Thinking of it as injecting an additional 10^21 joules of kinetic energy into that shell of gas we call the troposphere. What are the chances that those swirls and currents will transport water vapor from and to the exact same places as before? Almost nil.
So a lot of places that depend on rain now won't get it; and other places will get more rain than they can use. We don't need to know exactly what those places will be to know that it'll pose a huge challenge to the people living there.
World bank projections in agricultural productivity in 2050 show reductions in productivity across the Middle East, Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Australia and large swaths of North America. This takes into account longer growing seasons and places where rainfall increases. Russia, for example, does extremely well under the warming scenario with longer growing seasons and increased rainfall in currently arid areas.
The US and Australia being rich countries with relatively low birth rates will be able to import food from places like Russia. But Africa, which current sports a population of 1.1 billion, will have a population of two billion and less food production to feed them. Large areas of India are expected to receive much less rainfall and to be less productive. India currently has a population of 1.2 billion, expected to grow to 1.5 billion.
Now everyone in these places won't be suffering. India currently boasts a middle class larger than the US middle class. They'll continue to be able to buy food. But they have an enormous underclass who are already living in conditions that are very precarious.
This is not an alarmist picture. Simple math gets us to the 10^9 benchmark in South Asia alone. That's should be alarming. But it's not hopeless. Even if we can't reduce the rate of the climate change we expect to take place, there are other things we can do, like develop drought-resistant crops, better agricultural technology, etc. The "billions suffering" isn't much of a stretch provided we assume we do nothing to avoid that happening.
Sea ice forms at -1.8C, and winter air temperatures in the Southern Ocean range from -15C to -20C. That's plenty cold enough to freeze a much higher area of the ocean than actually it does. The problem is that the sub-freezing air can't instantaneously absorb the heat of the surface water. It takes time. And therein lies a story.
Sea ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic both represent an equilibrium between ice formation areas and ice destruction areas. Your hypothesis is that if rising air temperatures in the Arctic mean decreased Arctic sea ice, then increased Antarctic sea ice has to mean increased air temperatures in the Antarctic. However if that were true we'd have measured those increased temperatures. But we haven't. Air and sea temperatures have actually increased in the Southern Ocean at the same time as ice extent increased. That's because air temperature is only one factor in the ice extent equilibrium.
The differential sensitivity of the Arctic and Southern Ocean ice extent to air temperature changes reflect differences in those oceans' structures. The Southern Ocean is deeper and better mixed than the Arctic Ocean, which means it's much harder to budge that enormous thermal mass with a small shift in air temperature. Instead the Antarctic sea ice is more sensitive to wind interactions, which blow ice from areas of rapid formation to areas which are warmer. The net effect of a slightly warmer but windier winter is to increase the rate of ice formation in cold areas cleared of ice.
Those wind/ice interactions are presumably present in the Arctic as well, but they're swamped by local thermodynamic effects. The the air over the Arctic Ocean is interacting with a much shallower layer of water.
So there's no actual paradox here. Just polar oceanography that's been known since the 1980s at least.
Yeah, it's that scientific conspiracy to suppress ideas not supported by evidence.
It's worth noting that none of the lead authors of the NIPCC reports are climate scientists, except possibly Singer who has a background in remote sensing at least. He's also behind so-called "Leipzig Declaration", which is notorious for (a) misrepresenting the qualifications of many of its signatories (e.g. TV weather presenters) and (b) faking the signatures of actual climate scientists.
"Billions who will suffer"? This sort of histrionic exaggeration is why no one takes you seriously.
It seems odd to me that anyone could believe that nobody would suffer if climate changes.
You can argue that climate isn't changing, although you'd be holding the short end of the evidence stick in that one. You could argue that some people will also benefit from climate change, and that'd even be unquestionably true. But you can't argue that rainfall can shift as much as climate models are predicting without billions of people suffering, both directly from bad harvests and indirectly from the destabilization of the countries they live in.
If you want to see what that hypothetical situation would look like, look at Syria. The Assads have been ruthlessly but effectively putting down Islamist uprisings for decades, so what was different in 2011 that allowed Al Qaeda in Iraq to metastasize into ISIL? An internal climate refugee crisis touched off by four years of drought-ravaged harvests and a spike in international commodity prices. Across Syria 160 agricultural villages were depopulated, and in some provinces 85% of the livestock perished. This provided ISIL with an army of angry, hungry, unemployed young men ripe for radicalization.
So really your strongest argument here would be that climate is not changing at all -- that the Syrian was an anomalous weather event and that there won't be more of them in the future (as the models are predicting).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I was talking about buying his fashion, not his politics. However his style seems more fake, more calculated to make a specific phony impression than simply wearing his suits correctly would. You see, a true shlub wears off the rack suits, because he has to wear one, because that's the most he can be bothered with. That's authentic. So is the guy who wears a ridiculous ascot because dressing that way makes him happy.
Trump manages to be both fussy and frumpy at the same time, and clearly that's a choice he's made to convey a specific impression.
It reminds me of people who write their own wedding vows. I'm not against that in principle, but the gist of those vows too often turns out to be how much more special they are than ordinary people. That's not only in very poor taste, it's naÃve and paintings embarrassing to watch. You're expected to feel that way on your wedding day, but it's a lot classier to show it by doing things the usual way, only better.
You have to scale that by how bad the cars coming out of Detroit were at the time. Rust proofing back in the 70s was universally bad, I say this as someone who has been driving since the early 80s. Back then a five year-old car was old, and a car that lasted past 100,000 miles was a rarity. Today it's common to see cars that are almost twenty years old that have less rust than a five year-old car would have back then.
As American cars got better in response to Japanese competition, the Japanese cars got better too, to the point where by the 00s, Japanese sedans were almost uniform in the bland near-perfection, but as a frequent renter it was still quite common to encounter brand new American cars with basic body problems like squeaks and rattles, doors that didn't fit quite right or finicky hood latches.
I think Trump's a dangerous, psychologically disturbed demagogue. But I have no problem with him selling suits.
It's ironic though; Trump himself is a terrible advertisement for his clothing line. He wears superb $10,000 suits, but he wears them wrong. Ever notice how in a Bond movie whenever 007 gets out of a car he buttons his suit? That's because Bond is a snob about doing things right: when you sit you unbutton the jacket; when you rise you button it except for the bottom button (and the top in a two-and-a-half button suit).
Trump walks around with his jacket unbuttoned -- like a guy who's gained weight and hasn't got around to getting a new suit yet. That reveals that he likes to wear ties that are waaay too long, it makes him look like a middle-school kid who's raided dad's closet. I like his bold color choices, but it's too much. If you want to show off a long tie, you wear a two button suit and give people a flash of the tip now and then, although I don't care for that myself.
If you want to model your wardrobe on a Republican politician, Rubio's your man. Yes, he's a fatuous ass, but he doesn't dress like one.
Actually in the case of Trump, research offers some insights. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...">Narcissists often take over leaderless/rudderless groups. Their relentless self-absorption provides a focus to a group that has lost its way. However people tend to become disenchanted with narcissists once they get to know them.
So the Trump phenomenon represents a loss in faith in the Republican party's leadership, and a test of that leadership's ability to convince the base it knows what it's doing.
On the Democratic side you have a mirror phenomenon with Bernie Sanders. Although Sanders does not display the personal self-aggrandizement you'd expect from a narcissist, his single-minded fixation on the billionaire class provides a similar focus for loyalists who feel the party has lost its way. That's infuriating to Democrats who are basically happy with the pragmatic center-left orientation of the party.
I suspect this is what you get in a two-party system where the parties have fought themselves to a stalemate. When neither party can deliver much to it's most ardent supporters, they start casting around for drastic medicine.
Historically "bimbo" meant a thuggish male criminal. "Silly" meant "blessed". "Egregious" meant distinguished. That's because words shift meaning over time. The process of "man" coming to refer exclusively to male persons started in the 1300s (before that a male person was a "wer" and a female person was a "wif"), and for whatever reason it continues to this day. If I told you a group of "men" were protesting in the park, you'd be surprised if you went there and saw they were all female. That's neither good nor bad, it just is the what the word means in everyday usage.
The phrase "Steely-eyed missile men" is a historical one, like "all men are created equal," so you just have to picture a mixed gender group "people" when you hear it. In point of fact the project manager and a number of senior personnel on Kepler are women. They no doubt have more important things to worry about than people referring to the team as "men", but you should use common sense in referring to the team as "men". "Steely-eyed missile men" is probably OK, but in other instances it might come off as a bit dick-ish.
In the case of the Kepler project the PIs are male, but the project manager is female and a
People like things simple, but as Albert Einstein observed:
... the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.
This is often rendered more pithily as "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
It makes things simpler if you pick just one type of person to represent, say all 1.6 billion Muslims, but that's too simple because it makes it impossible to do basic things like tell friendly from unfriendly. Or if you really have no friends in some group pretending that group is a bunch of ideological robots makes it impossible to identify divisions that you can exploit to your advantage.
Broadly you should be able to tell the difference between the radicals, the pragmatists, and people just trying to get on with their lives who have no reason to even consider the issues that divide radicals and pragmatists until someone makes those things an issue for them.
You're the one who brought up the whole thing, so pardon me if I draw my own conclusions about who has an axe to grind with obnoxious intrusiveness...
Plame's official CIA job title was "operations officer":
OOs clandestinely [emphasis mine] spot, assess, develop, recruit and handle human sources with access to vital intelligence.
[source].
What's more, she posed as a energy consultant when she traveled abroad. In other words Plame was what in the spy trade is called a "knock" -- No Official Cover. This means that unlike agents who pose as diplomats she was not covered by diplomatic immunity and was potentially liable to legal and other actions taken by target countries. The identities of NOC agents is one of the most sensitive pieces of information there is.
Robert Novak, the columnist who outed Plame, later started the meme that she was a mere analyst. This is a self-serving claim; had he believed that then he wouldn't be guilty of a felony under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Movak was in effect pleading stupidity because the biographic references he admitted using listed a front company as her employer rather than the CIA. In fact in the column in question he correctly identifies her as an "operative", not an "analyst" -- a distinction which he was well aware meant that her job was clandestine.
I have no way of telling whether he's intelligent or not; what I do think is that he's insecure and defensive. It's often the case that people perform below their intellectual capacity simply because they're immature.
There's a piece of wishful thinking.
Yes, it makes sense to choose platform with better security, but that doesn't make security easy, any more than <car_analogy>buying a Volvo makes you a safer driver:</car_analogy>
Here's the reason so many systems are insecure: confirmation bias. It works like this.
Q: How much will it cost to do the system?
A: X + Y dollars if we want do a good job with security.
Q: Well, in that case we're not doing it, because we only have X dollars. If we spent X dollars would that be secure enough?
A: Wishful thinking and confirmation bias kick in
This is a very good point; however by "area" they don't necessarily mean "geographic area". Let's say you cut off Syria and northern Iraq from the Internet; that doesn't stop ISIS operatives in Europe from using the Internet. It doesn't even really stop Syrians from getting data from to those sites using some kind of gateway (e.g. POTS or packet radio). It just means they won't be streaming Netflix.
Boston won't be a tech leader again. They're not culturally diverse enough to attract top talent and top companies. Silicon Valley is very welcoming to Asians, Hispanics, homosexuals
You mean Boston, in the first state that legalized gay marriage isn't welcoming to homosexuals? Massachusetts is in the top quintile of states for proportion of Asians too.
The main reason the Boston area is a better incubator of tech is the same reason it lost the pre-eminence it enjoyed among American cities in the colonial era: it's too cramped and expensive for industry to grow. So it usually makes sense once your company is a going concern to move it elsewhere.
Because if it exceeds my attention span, it can't be Truth.
But the people are the same. Go to the sporting goods store and look at the fishing lures. I guarantee you the lures are designed first to catch fishermen, secondarily to catch fish.
The idea doesn't have to be ready for prime time, because of the tech adoption curve.
When a new technology comes out -- say videocassette recorders or personal computers, very few people are willing to spend the money for something that, after all, they've been happy living without all their life. But a certain small fraction of the population will be attracted to something because it's novel. They're the early adopters, and they end up buying lots of useless shit. A small fraction of the stuff they buy, however, will turn out to be quite useful, and that will attract the attention of the next market segment, the pragmatists. When you attract their attention you've really got something, because now you've got a trend, and you attract the attention of the trend buyers. Now you're approaching the peak of the adoption curve, when you start roping in the people who don't want to be left behind. Eventually you work your way down to the people on the other end of the novelty-attraction distribution from the early-adopters -- the people who would prefer to be left behind.
Assuming that e-bikes are still in the early adopter phase, where you really need to attract early adopters, hooking it up with other early-adopter bait is s smart move, even though it's meaningless to pragmatists.
Actually, it does. At least legally, and for once the legal way of doing thing makes sense.
You will not be embarrassed by things that come out after your death. You cannot be hurt, for the simple reason there is no you to hurt. There is no rational reason to deny any living person anything based on what it will do to the feelings of a dead person.
This goes to show the importance of special cases to software quality.
A good designer generalizes requirements; tries to get the software to do the right thing because of broadly rules rather than large collections of special cases. When Apple started pushing Siri on iOS devices a lot of copycat apps appeared on Android; the thing that the copycat app designers didn't seem to realize is that what made Siri impressive wasn't getting a device to respond to voice commands; it was an improvement in grammar processing that allowed Siri to figure out in most cases which topic a pronoun like "it" refers back to.
But ultimately these algorithms don't understand what's going on. A human being's life experience should enable him to recognize that "I've been raped" calls for a different kind of response than "I've been sunburned". In effect we spend our whole lives building up massive databases of special cases; in a sense the problem of practical AI isn't just artificial intelligence, in part it's artificial experience.
There comes a point in the development of a system where you've got the basic design worked out, and you can do a walk through of that design on real problems. But ultimately how people feel about a system requires more than it simply function; they want to feel that the design understands them. That's often a matter of being able to get the system to do the right thing in unexpected situations.
I like the Roman/Greek and large medieval/renaissance buildings - golden ratio, "perfect" aesthetics.
And other people like other things. I'm with you on practical issues like leaks -- a building really ought to work before it does anything else. But you really can't scale up those old Medieval buildings before you end up with a dull ungainly monstrosities like those horrible baroque palaces in central Europe. They make Soviet Brutalist architecture look playful.
And as for classical architecture -- how do you apply that to a skyscraper or office block? Consider that many of this woman's buildings would drawf the Parthenon in terms of working footage.
Because she got sick in Miami?
Seriously, if you need medical attention you're not going to Florida. And if you go to Florida you aren't going to go to Miami, you'd go to Florida Hospital in Orlando.
That's true for most of Russia, but it's offset by rainfall. The bottom line is that the World Bank is predicting a net gain in agricultural productivity in most of Russia except for the far north.
They don't have to be precise to give you a general picture.
Think of the troposphere as a shell of gas 6400 km in diameter and about 17km thick. That shell is rotating at 1700 km/hr at the equator, is being differentially heated by the Sun on its day side, tidally affected by the moon, interacting with landforms and the ocean etc. What you get is an immensely complex pattern of swirls and currents which transport water from and two various places in characteristic patterns we call local climate.
Now a 4C rise in average temperature doesn't sound like much, but don't think of it as a few ticks on the thermometer. Thinking of it as injecting an additional 10^21 joules of kinetic energy into that shell of gas we call the troposphere. What are the chances that those swirls and currents will transport water vapor from and to the exact same places as before? Almost nil.
So a lot of places that depend on rain now won't get it; and other places will get more rain than they can use. We don't need to know exactly what those places will be to know that it'll pose a huge challenge to the people living there.
World bank projections in agricultural productivity in 2050 show reductions in productivity across the Middle East, Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Australia and large swaths of North America. This takes into account longer growing seasons and places where rainfall increases. Russia, for example, does extremely well under the warming scenario with longer growing seasons and increased rainfall in currently arid areas.
The US and Australia being rich countries with relatively low birth rates will be able to import food from places like Russia. But Africa, which current sports a population of 1.1 billion, will have a population of two billion and less food production to feed them. Large areas of India are expected to receive much less rainfall and to be less productive. India currently has a population of 1.2 billion, expected to grow to 1.5 billion.
Now everyone in these places won't be suffering. India currently boasts a middle class larger than the US middle class. They'll continue to be able to buy food. But they have an enormous underclass who are already living in conditions that are very precarious.
This is not an alarmist picture. Simple math gets us to the 10^9 benchmark in South Asia alone. That's should be alarming. But it's not hopeless. Even if we can't reduce the rate of the climate change we expect to take place, there are other things we can do, like develop drought-resistant crops, better agricultural technology, etc. The "billions suffering" isn't much of a stretch provided we assume we do nothing to avoid that happening.
Sea ice forms at -1.8C, and winter air temperatures in the Southern Ocean range from -15C to -20C. That's plenty cold enough to freeze a much higher area of the ocean than actually it does. The problem is that the sub-freezing air can't instantaneously absorb the heat of the surface water. It takes time. And therein lies a story.
Sea ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic both represent an equilibrium between ice formation areas and ice destruction areas. Your hypothesis is that if rising air temperatures in the Arctic mean decreased Arctic sea ice, then increased Antarctic sea ice has to mean increased air temperatures in the Antarctic. However if that were true we'd have measured those increased temperatures. But we haven't. Air and sea temperatures have actually increased in the Southern Ocean at the same time as ice extent increased. That's because air temperature is only one factor in the ice extent equilibrium.
The differential sensitivity of the Arctic and Southern Ocean ice extent to air temperature changes reflect differences in those oceans' structures. The Southern Ocean is deeper and better mixed than the Arctic Ocean, which means it's much harder to budge that enormous thermal mass with a small shift in air temperature. Instead the Antarctic sea ice is more sensitive to wind interactions, which blow ice from areas of rapid formation to areas which are warmer. The net effect of a slightly warmer but windier winter is to increase the rate of ice formation in cold areas cleared of ice.
Those wind/ice interactions are presumably present in the Arctic as well, but they're swamped by local thermodynamic effects. The the air over the Arctic Ocean is interacting with a much shallower layer of water.
So there's no actual paradox here. Just polar oceanography that's been known since the 1980s at least.
Yeah, it's that scientific conspiracy to suppress ideas not supported by evidence.
It's worth noting that none of the lead authors of the NIPCC reports are climate scientists, except possibly Singer who has a background in remote sensing at least. He's also behind so-called "Leipzig Declaration", which is notorious for (a) misrepresenting the qualifications of many of its signatories (e.g. TV weather presenters) and (b) faking the signatures of actual climate scientists.
"Billions who will suffer"? This sort of histrionic exaggeration is why no one takes you seriously.
It seems odd to me that anyone could believe that nobody would suffer if climate changes.
You can argue that climate isn't changing, although you'd be holding the short end of the evidence stick in that one. You could argue that some people will also benefit from climate change, and that'd even be unquestionably true. But you can't argue that rainfall can shift as much as climate models are predicting without billions of people suffering, both directly from bad harvests and indirectly from the destabilization of the countries they live in.
If you want to see what that hypothetical situation would look like, look at Syria. The Assads have been ruthlessly but effectively putting down Islamist uprisings for decades, so what was different in 2011 that allowed Al Qaeda in Iraq to metastasize into ISIL? An internal climate refugee crisis touched off by four years of drought-ravaged harvests and a spike in international commodity prices. Across Syria 160 agricultural villages were depopulated, and in some provinces 85% of the livestock perished. This provided ISIL with an army of angry, hungry, unemployed young men ripe for radicalization.
So really your strongest argument here would be that climate is not changing at all -- that the Syrian was an anomalous weather event and that there won't be more of them in the future (as the models are predicting).