Besides we know how to repair farm territory. Cereals moved rather successfully thousands of years ago we are better now. I can't demonstrate what people 300 years from now will be able to do.
So you don't know if it is possible to do, but merely assume it is by projection? Great plan.
Tell me, how does a cattle herder in Botswana shift his operation to Canada or Siberia? Will his intergenerational knowledge of herding on the edges of the Kalahari suffice to farm cows in lower Siberia? And if he can't make a go of it, who will farm cows in his place? How will we ensure that that beef gets back to Botswana at a price the people of Botswana can afford?
But more pertinently you haven't demonstrated how this plan could possibly be cheaper than replacing the remnant fossil fuel generation equipment, and adopting cleaner technologies for transport. Especially given that we would likely adopt them anyway.
That isn't a point of dispute. I don't disagree with you.
Then I have to ask - why? If it is easier and cheaper to adapt our technology now and reduce the impacts to come later, rather than wait and clean up the mess by mass emigration?
I don't think that's true. Take the current USA standard of living.
Don't be ridiculous. Food security is not based on the standard of living in the West, where few people live.
f. In a world where everyone's income is 380x higher than today (i.e. even 2% growth) food prices wouldn't matter much. The raw price of growing food even for very poor people would be a minor expense.
You are assuming that in the future, income will grow uniformly without inflation,even though this does not happen now. In short, you imagine that the world will be a utopia, so utopian we can just fudge everything. What a vivid imagination.
This is the key, and the point. Detroit did not adapt. Houston, on the other had, did. Houston had an oil based economy, until the 80's/90s oil glut when the bottom fell out. This is when Houston (and to a lessor extent, Texas at large) started to adopt a pro business and pro trade atmosphere to attract non-oil related business. The Port of Houston was vastly expanded, and rail was expanded... Now Houston has a large and diversified global economy, and hence it did well during the rescission, and came out of the mild housing collapse quickly. Adapt or die... How the planet works.
Exactly. And I daresay, then, as now, there was a group who claimed that everything would be okay and we merely needed to carry on as if nothing was happening and let someone else sort it out later, or that something magical would happen to prevent Houston from having to make a (relatively minor) adaptation. If the Texans had listened to those people who were in denial about the situation, they would not have mitigated the pending disaster and the situation would now be much worse for them.
If you try to disprove something with premises that are asserted but not true, it's impossible to derive a true conclusion.
And if you want to dispute the observations of Arrhenius et al, and claim that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2), then it's up to YOU to provide the proof -with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and then your frustrations will be over. Simply saying " climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2)" does not shift the burden of proof onto someone else, anymore than saying "There are fairies in my garden" is proof that there are, in fact, fairies in your garden.
Dyson, et al have pointed out the IPCC model fudged the cloud terms in their model.
Well - You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, .
CERN had it's cloud nucleation data gagged. Have you looked at this or are you one of those that only looks at one side?
Well - You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, .
Thanks for referencing a conspiracy theory. Maybe you can quote Dan Brown next time? Should I read "Angels and Demons" to see your proof?
You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, none of which have ever come true and having your only model fly off the rails with 75% error - look at the error bars.
Oh the irony. Are you referring to Roy Spencer's model?
I'm guessing that I didn't, since that theory belongs to the OP, and it's up to him (or her) to clearly articulate where we are going to grow our crops, demonstrate that the required soil fertility exists in said areas, model the rainfall and the economic implications, etc.
The OP said that this magical fairyland of future farming lies in Canada and Russia.
And of course, it's not like everybody will know that the land is losing value and then not want to buy it, and the banks will happily lend you money not realising that your land is depreciating. And of course the farmer can be satisfied with year on year diminishing returns.
And unicorns exist and will save us all from the demonic Al Gore.
Unlike in Detroit where everything lost all value and it had noting to do with global warming.
Detroit didn't adapt. They could see what was coming but refused to make what in the scale of adaption, was a miniscule change, so their city died. You are comfortable with predicting that a sudden, previously undemonstrated ability to adapt will suddenly arise in humans, and that the obvious economic issues with "adaption" can safely be hand waved away.
If anything, the IPCC errs on the conservative side.
Like hell they [sic] are.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
".. the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted. It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious."
"The international scientific community’s new assessment of the estimated sea level rise caused by global warming is a significant development, but experts say the projections for higher sea levels in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) assessment report (AR5) are still on the low side. The projections are of immediate concern to low-lying countries and small island states."
"This is where the “conservative” estimates of IPCC, seen by some as a virtue, have lulled policy makers into a false sense of security, with the price having to be paid later by those living in vulnerable coastal areas."
What is done in these highly politicized reports, is take the 5% extreme case, say in California and report that. Then take the 5% most extreme case in NY and report that.. So on and so forth. Now even if these "confidence" things could be interpreted as probability of the event occurring, which they can't. They present all of these 5% things all over the world as if that is what could happen, while even with this poor interpretation of data, its a million to one that even a dozen of these predictions to come true. Its total misrepresentation of the model/data at best and scientifically dishonest.
Yes, yes. And at the bottom of your garden there are fairies as well! It must be true, because you said it was. No need to provide evidence or anything boring like that.
But that's a very different question then whether if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place.
It's the same question. For a start, you haven't demonstrated that it is even possible to shift the bulk of the worlds cereal crop production from the temperate zones to the polar zones. You assume that crops grow anywhere where the temperature is roughly right. This is manifestly incorrect, you haven't accounted for the fact that plants actually need soil - and on and on it goes. But more pertinently you haven't demonstrated how this plan could possibly be cheaper than replacing the remnant fossil fuel generation equipment, and adopting cleaner technologies for transport. Especially given that we would likely adopt them anyway. This notion is dumb, it's counterintuitive, it lacks any real economic model to explain how it could possibly work.
The UN's argument's that assume no adaption are stupid.
Now you are engaged in strawman, or you are profoundly ignorant.
People are going to move farms rather than starve billions.
People are going to farm if it makes economic sense to do so. Farms aren't charities. If it becomes, on average, more difficult to farm, prices for food will go up -> more people starve. It's a simple but brutal model.
Effectively we have no idea what anything will cost 3 centuries from now. We don't understand their economy well enough to do the math.
Which is to say, you don't understand the economics, you don't speak for the rest of us. The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.
My logical fallacy is expecting you to understand climate science.
I don't think you even know what a logical fallacy is.
If you want me to respond directly to your claim
And you can't read. YOU made the claim. YOU said that the IPCC is just trying to scare people. YOU didn't provide any logic or observation that might compel us to believe that claim.
Indeed we do.
Included in the infrastructure we replace is (a) Power generation facilities and (b) cars, both of which are routinely replaced with better, more efficent technologies.
Which is why I find this whole line of argument rather curious.
You (and you cohorts) apparently think that moving a whole country including ALL the infrastrucure that supports that country, and, explicitly including the transport and opower generation infrastructure, is going to be cheaper than replacing a small portion of that infrastructure and leaving our farms where they are. How much do you think the power generation infrastructure is as a percentage of the whole? 5%? 7%?
What a nonsense argument. I suggest if you guys can't do basic maths you aren't in a position to dictate to us how we ought to handle this situation.
n the past medieval warming period, there were a lot more fertile areas around Europe than we have today. So how can you reasonably claim that a warmer climate leads to food shortages when we have direct evidence showing we can grow more overall in a warmer climate?
It's your assertion - you prove it.
1. What is Europe's total tonnage of export agricultural commodity as a percentage of world output?
2. What is Europe's total tonnage post us exceeding the MWP temperature a few years ago compared, say, to the 1950's and how much of that increase is attributable to a warmer climate?
Warming should lead to more, and cheaper, food for all nations (well all nations that treat farmers well anyway).
Well, the farmers tend to own land where there is soil and good rain in the temperate zones. The other land is owned by other people. Should I go on?
It also makes more sense if you think about it logically, food grows slower and not as plentifully in colder climates. Food, like anything, requires energy to grow and warmer means more available energy for the system as a whole to make use of.
Maybe learn some crop science before launching into describing fantasy, and come back when you are done.
My main problem is the "adjustment" of older data to make it appear that the earth was cooler in far pre-industrial times than unmodified raw data actually suggests. With adjustments being progressively toward cooler temperatures the further back in time one goes. I would find studies that disallow any adjustment to raw data far more credible.
As we all do - because previous temperature variations are used to calculate climate feedbacks - the more variance, the more feedback which indicates greater sensitivity. If in fact, the sum of feedbacks was negative so as to negate climate sensitivity then previous temperature variations would be considerably smaller than the ice core records indicate.
Suffice to say, climate denialists ought to be alleging that in the past there was no temperature variance (to justify their argument of zero climate sensitivity, or failing that, negative feedback), but instead they contradict their central argument by constantly referring to a central observation which disproves it. Ironic really.
If the IPCC said, "here is our worst case scenario, but we have low confidence in our predictions," that would be accurate. That's not what they said though, is it? Are you unable to see the propaganda in their announcement?
Not really. If anything, the IPCC errs on the conservative side.
So when it rains in the Central Valley of California, it's evidence against AGW?
Are you struggling to find evidence against AGW? To determine what would be evidence against AGW?
Let me tell you.
Demonstrate that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2), with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and then your frustrations will be over.
And presumably, at each point, you simply abandoned the house that you were living in, and then bought a new one at inflated prices at the next place?
Plus, presumably, the government in fact, abandoned the the infrastructure that supported each house (you know: highways, railways, power lines and power stations, sewage treatment plants, government buildinggs and services). And your new government (you immigrated each time - right?) was quite happy to build new infrastructure from the ground up - at no cost to yourself and millions of other immigrants?
We'd have to assume that's what happened, because otherwise your anecdote would not be analogous, and you would not have posted it, would you?
Is this an obtuse reference to "Lord" Christopher Monkton, who makes money by travelling the world in luxury, sucking money from his gullible audiences like a gargantuan leech draining a docile cow at the waterhole?
Or are you referring to Anthony Watts - self proclaimed "most read denialist" who gets stipend to preach the word from the Heartland Institute?
"food shortages" yeah right, because we all know food doesn't grow when the climate is warmer.
Well, yes. Yes - we DO all know that, unless we are in denial.
Scare tactics by intellectually challenged pseudo scientists.
Scare tractics? Try looking reflectively for a while at the guy who is alleging that AGW is a massive, 150 year old conspiracy established to further - what cause exactly was that again?
As a general observation "massive, time travelling conspiracy" is the preserve of pulp fiction, not the intellectually superior, as you allege.
You mean, obviously fiction in the sense that when your are reading this you feel scared, rather than the sense that the IPCC's predictions are non-factual, otherwise you would have given us some solid detailed facts to word upon, with citations to back them up, as opposed to what appears to be (on the face of it) raw allegation.
Assuming the former - don't be scared. It's not that difficult. Former generations have faced far greater challenges.
So what, they get their passports stamped when they pile on to leaky old fishing boats and then head for ashmore reef?
Your question doesn't make a lot of sense.
Of course the vast majority of departures go through customs. Australians who leave Bali, for example, would go through customs (hopefully, remembering to check their boogey board bag for anything that might cause trouble at that juncture).
However, Refugees who are seeking asylum pursuant to their human rights (UNCHR) and under the UN Convention of Refugees (UNCR) often arrive in Indonesia, a country which is not a signatory to the UNCR, and are thus stuck in a form of legal limbo. They are not processed by Indonesian Immigration per se, and either find themselves in a form of detention, or under the care of the UN or an aid organisation. It is not illegal for these people to leave because from the Indonesian perspective these people don't have a legal status.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for goodness sake. Read up on ad hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c.... You embarrass yourself and others.
Under those fields up north there is soil.
Incorrect.
Besides we know how to repair farm territory. Cereals moved rather successfully thousands of years ago we are better now. I can't demonstrate what people 300 years from now will be able to do.
So you don't know if it is possible to do, but merely assume it is by projection? Great plan. Tell me, how does a cattle herder in Botswana shift his operation to Canada or Siberia? Will his intergenerational knowledge of herding on the edges of the Kalahari suffice to farm cows in lower Siberia? And if he can't make a go of it, who will farm cows in his place? How will we ensure that that beef gets back to Botswana at a price the people of Botswana can afford?
But more pertinently you haven't demonstrated how this plan could possibly be cheaper than replacing the remnant fossil fuel generation equipment, and adopting cleaner technologies for transport. Especially given that we would likely adopt them anyway.
That isn't a point of dispute. I don't disagree with you.
Then I have to ask - why? If it is easier and cheaper to adapt our technology now and reduce the impacts to come later, rather than wait and clean up the mess by mass emigration?
I don't think that's true. Take the current USA standard of living.
Don't be ridiculous. Food security is not based on the standard of living in the West, where few people live.
f. In a world where everyone's income is 380x higher than today (i.e. even 2% growth) food prices wouldn't matter much. The raw price of growing food even for very poor people would be a minor expense.
You are assuming that in the future, income will grow uniformly without inflation,even though this does not happen now. In short, you imagine that the world will be a utopia, so utopian we can just fudge everything. What a vivid imagination.
Its not a plan and not remotely likely.
This is the key, and the point. Detroit did not adapt. Houston, on the other had, did. Houston had an oil based economy, until the 80's/90s oil glut when the bottom fell out. This is when Houston (and to a lessor extent, Texas at large) started to adopt a pro business and pro trade atmosphere to attract non-oil related business. The Port of Houston was vastly expanded, and rail was expanded... Now Houston has a large and diversified global economy, and hence it did well during the rescission, and came out of the mild housing collapse quickly. Adapt or die... How the planet works.
Exactly. And I daresay, then, as now, there was a group who claimed that everything would be okay and we merely needed to carry on as if nothing was happening and let someone else sort it out later, or that something magical would happen to prevent Houston from having to make a (relatively minor) adaptation. If the Texans had listened to those people who were in denial about the situation, they would not have mitigated the pending disaster and the situation would now be much worse for them.
If you try to disprove something with premises that are asserted but not true, it's impossible to derive a true conclusion.
And if you want to dispute the observations of Arrhenius et al, and claim that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2), then it's up to YOU to provide the proof -with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and then your frustrations will be over. Simply saying " climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2)" does not shift the burden of proof onto someone else, anymore than saying "There are fairies in my garden" is proof that there are, in fact, fairies in your garden.
Dyson, et al have pointed out the IPCC model fudged the cloud terms in their model.
Well - You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, .
CERN had it's cloud nucleation data gagged. Have you looked at this or are you one of those that only looks at one side?
Well - You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, .
Thanks for referencing a conspiracy theory. Maybe you can quote Dan Brown next time? Should I read "Angels and Demons" to see your proof?
You don't get to prove something true by making absurd claims, none of which have ever come true and having your only model fly off the rails with 75% error - look at the error bars.
Oh the irony. Are you referring to Roy Spencer's model?
False
Burden of proof fallacy
Texas Sharpshooter
The Anecdote
Personal Incredulity
You can't disprove a negative.
False
First it has to be proved true, and it never has been. Check for yourself.
Your logical fallacy is burden of proof.
Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is the anecdote.
The OP said that this magical fairyland of future farming lies in Canada and Russia.
And unicorns exist and will save us all from the demonic Al Gore.
Unlike in Detroit where everything lost all value and it had noting to do with global warming.
Detroit didn't adapt. They could see what was coming but refused to make what in the scale of adaption, was a miniscule change, so their city died. You are comfortable with predicting that a sudden, previously undemonstrated ability to adapt will suddenly arise in humans, and that the obvious economic issues with "adaption" can safely be hand waved away.
If anything, the IPCC errs on the conservative side.
Like hell they [sic] are.
https://www.skepticalscience.c... ".. the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted. It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious."
http://www.irinnews.org/report...
"The international scientific community’s new assessment of the estimated sea level rise caused by global warming is a significant development, but experts say the projections for higher sea levels in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) assessment report (AR5) are still on the low side. The projections are of immediate concern to low-lying countries and small island states."
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
"This is where the “conservative” estimates of IPCC, seen by some as a virtue, have lulled policy makers into a false sense of security, with the price having to be paid later by those living in vulnerable coastal areas."
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo...
What is done in these highly politicized reports, is take the 5% extreme case, say in California and report that. Then take the 5% most extreme case in NY and report that.. So on and so forth. Now even if these "confidence" things could be interpreted as probability of the event occurring, which they can't. They present all of these 5% things all over the world as if that is what could happen, while even with this poor interpretation of data, its a million to one that even a dozen of these predictions to come true. Its total misrepresentation of the model/data at best and scientifically dishonest.
Yes, yes. And at the bottom of your garden there are fairies as well! It must be true, because you said it was. No need to provide evidence or anything boring like that.
But that's a very different question then whether if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place.
It's the same question. For a start, you haven't demonstrated that it is even possible to shift the bulk of the worlds cereal crop production from the temperate zones to the polar zones. You assume that crops grow anywhere where the temperature is roughly right. This is manifestly incorrect, you haven't accounted for the fact that plants actually need soil - and on and on it goes. But more pertinently you haven't demonstrated how this plan could possibly be cheaper than replacing the remnant fossil fuel generation equipment, and adopting cleaner technologies for transport. Especially given that we would likely adopt them anyway. This notion is dumb, it's counterintuitive, it lacks any real economic model to explain how it could possibly work.
The UN's argument's that assume no adaption are stupid.
Now you are engaged in strawman, or you are profoundly ignorant.
People are going to move farms rather than starve billions.
People are going to farm if it makes economic sense to do so. Farms aren't charities. If it becomes, on average, more difficult to farm, prices for food will go up -> more people starve. It's a simple but brutal model.
Effectively we have no idea what anything will cost 3 centuries from now. We don't understand their economy well enough to do the math.
Which is to say, you don't understand the economics, you don't speak for the rest of us. The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.
My logical fallacy is expecting you to understand climate science.
I don't think you even know what a logical fallacy is.
If you want me to respond directly to your claim
And you can't read. YOU made the claim. YOU said that the IPCC is just trying to scare people. YOU didn't provide any logic or observation that might compel us to believe that claim.
I daresay I'll get to reference each if I hang around here long enough!
we move / replace infrastructure all the time.
Indeed we do. Included in the infrastructure we replace is (a) Power generation facilities and (b) cars, both of which are routinely replaced with better, more efficent technologies.
Which is why I find this whole line of argument rather curious.
You (and you cohorts) apparently think that moving a whole country including ALL the infrastrucure that supports that country, and, explicitly including the transport and opower generation infrastructure, is going to be cheaper than replacing a small portion of that infrastructure and leaving our farms where they are. How much do you think the power generation infrastructure is as a percentage of the whole? 5%? 7%?
What a nonsense argument. I suggest if you guys can't do basic maths you aren't in a position to dictate to us how we ought to handle this situation.
Congratulations: Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity.
n the past medieval warming period, there were a lot more fertile areas around Europe than we have today. So how can you reasonably claim that a warmer climate leads to food shortages when we have direct evidence showing we can grow more overall in a warmer climate?
It's your assertion - you prove it.
1. What is Europe's total tonnage of export agricultural commodity as a percentage of world output?
2. What is Europe's total tonnage post us exceeding the MWP temperature a few years ago compared, say, to the 1950's and how much of that increase is attributable to a warmer climate?
Warming should lead to more, and cheaper, food for all nations (well all nations that treat farmers well anyway).
Well, the farmers tend to own land where there is soil and good rain in the temperate zones. The other land is owned by other people. Should I go on?
It also makes more sense if you think about it logically, food grows slower and not as plentifully in colder climates. Food, like anything, requires energy to grow and warmer means more available energy for the system as a whole to make use of.
Maybe learn some crop science before launching into describing fantasy, and come back when you are done.
My main problem is the "adjustment" of older data to make it appear that the earth was cooler in far pre-industrial times than unmodified raw data actually suggests. With adjustments being progressively toward cooler temperatures the further back in time one goes. I would find studies that disallow any adjustment to raw data far more credible.
As we all do - because previous temperature variations are used to calculate climate feedbacks - the more variance, the more feedback which indicates greater sensitivity. If in fact, the sum of feedbacks was negative so as to negate climate sensitivity then previous temperature variations would be considerably smaller than the ice core records indicate.
Suffice to say, climate denialists ought to be alleging that in the past there was no temperature variance (to justify their argument of zero climate sensitivity, or failing that, negative feedback), but instead they contradict their central argument by constantly referring to a central observation which disproves it. Ironic really.
If the IPCC said, "here is our worst case scenario, but we have low confidence in our predictions," that would be accurate. That's not what they said though, is it? Are you unable to see the propaganda in their announcement?
Not really. If anything, the IPCC errs on the conservative side.
So when it rains in the Central Valley of California, it's evidence against AGW?
Are you struggling to find evidence against AGW? To determine what would be evidence against AGW?
Let me tell you.
Demonstrate that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is 0 C/(W/m2), with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and then your frustrations will be over.
Plus, presumably, the government in fact, abandoned the the infrastructure that supported each house (you know: highways, railways, power lines and power stations, sewage treatment plants, government buildinggs and services). And your new government (you immigrated each time - right?) was quite happy to build new infrastructure from the ground up - at no cost to yourself and millions of other immigrants?
We'd have to assume that's what happened, because otherwise your anecdote would not be analogous, and you would not have posted it, would you?
Someone is getting their pockets lined.
Is this an obtuse reference to "Lord" Christopher Monkton, who makes money by travelling the world in luxury, sucking money from his gullible audiences like a gargantuan leech draining a docile cow at the waterhole?
Or are you referring to Anthony Watts - self proclaimed "most read denialist" who gets stipend to preach the word from the Heartland Institute?
"food shortages" yeah right, because we all know food doesn't grow when the climate is warmer.
Well, yes. Yes - we DO all know that, unless we are in denial.
Scare tactics by intellectually challenged pseudo scientists.
Scare tractics? Try looking reflectively for a while at the guy who is alleging that AGW is a massive, 150 year old conspiracy established to further - what cause exactly was that again?
As a general observation "massive, time travelling conspiracy" is the preserve of pulp fiction, not the intellectually superior, as you allege.
Assuming the former - don't be scared. It's not that difficult. Former generations have faced far greater challenges.
Have fun being reliant on Russia as your food source, buying off them in competition with the rest of the world.
So what, they get their passports stamped when they pile on to leaky old fishing boats and then head for ashmore reef?
Your question doesn't make a lot of sense.
Of course the vast majority of departures go through customs. Australians who leave Bali, for example, would go through customs (hopefully, remembering to check their boogey board bag for anything that might cause trouble at that juncture).
However, Refugees who are seeking asylum pursuant to their human rights (UNCHR) and under the UN Convention of Refugees (UNCR) often arrive in Indonesia, a country which is not a signatory to the UNCR, and are thus stuck in a form of legal limbo. They are not processed by Indonesian Immigration per se, and either find themselves in a form of detention, or under the care of the UN or an aid organisation. It is not illegal for these people to leave because from the Indonesian perspective these people don't have a legal status.