60 Leading Scientists: Kyoto is Pointless, human impact impossible to distinguish

[TCO]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, I can see how you might wind up with a greater/lesser amount of useful land thanks to global warming, but, uh....YOU'D HAVE TO DRASTICALLY RELOCATE THE WHOLE WORLD'S POPULATION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT!!! WTF?

I mean, if you're going to think on that scale, it's easy to achieve peace in the Middle East--just carpet the entire area with nukes. No humans will be fighting over that land for centuries, that's pretty much guaranteed. It might not actually be land anymore, if we were thorough enough about bombardment. Let's think workable solutions here, people.

Maybe, maybe not. The total warming that has happened to date has been basically impercepible to people. For those in temperate climates, to keep the same temps, they would need to move about 100 miles north (once during their lifetime!) The larger concern would be sea-level rise, but even here we are not talking DAY AFTER TOMORROW. We're talking about decadal changes.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by TCO
is not proven or "well understood".

Hmm, that could apply to most of the posters in this forum.

[Elok]

Yes, but quite frankly that's a whoooole lot of people to move. Just accomodating the evacuees from Katrina has been a bear. Then there are questions of remuneration for lost properties, destruction of historical landmarks, the disintegration of old neighborhoods and the accompanying economic networks, a massive bureaucracy to coordinate all of this...this isn't Civ2, we can't just tell our cities to build lots of settlers. The consequences of such a move would be mind-blowing.

The emigration to America is a rather faulty analogy too. IIRC, most of the people who came here were already displaced or disgruntled by preexisting troubles back home (religious persecution, criminal convictions, overcrowding, potato famine, etc.). Plus the land they were moving to was essentially "free" because about half of its former inhabitants had been wiped out by smallpox and the remainder were being brutally oppressed.

Climate change also entails changing weather systems--unpredicable hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods for several years. I don't doubt that the human race could survive and adapt in time, but we could also adapt to another ice age or a severe nuclear accident. I wouldn't be so nonchalant about the kind of massive upheaval we're discussing here.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Elok
.this isn't Civ2, we can't just tell our cities to build lots of settlers.

I believe by now most civilizations have discovered explosives.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Elok
this isn't Civ2, we can't just tell our cities to build lots of settlers.

The Israelis did.

[Qilue]

I'm an uneducated peon in the grand scheme of things. But I've noticed global weather reports the last few years have had two words spoken quite a lot of times - "on record". Highest recorded snow falls in north america, lowest temperatures in eastern europe, hottest temperatures here (Australia) etc etc.

While there are a lot of stupid people in the world, even they are starting to notice changes to global climate. Isn't it about time everybody stopped arguing about what might happen and try to find out what is happening?

[Sandman]

Elok's talking sense here. To pretend that 100 million Bangladeshis could be easily resettled in Siberia is just nonsense.

[GhengisFarb™]

Where's Stalin when you need him?

[Elok]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

The Israelis did.

Yeah, and fifty years and more later, their neighbors are still trying to kill them. People don't adjust to change so easily when they're not digital.

Actually, speaking of the Israelis, when Greenland hypothetically becomes viable, do you think the three or so people who live there at the moment will be willing to share, free of charge, their suddenly pleasant homeland where they've been enduring rugged conditions for centuries? And how big of a vote would Greenlanders and such get in a debate over when and how to restructure the earth's climate? If it's proportional to population, we shouldn't be looking forward to this; the Chinese and Indians will just grab all the good spots while we get hosed and have to keep Utah even after it goes from "almost unlivable" to "completely unliveable." First they take our jobs, now this. Haven't conservatives done enough harm already?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Elok


Yeah, and fifty years and more later, their neighbors are still trying to kill them.

That's cause they havn't colonized Alpha Centauri yet. The game's still being played as noone's won yet.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Qilue
I'm an uneducated peon in the grand scheme of things. But I've noticed global weather reports the last few years have had two words spoken quite a lot of times - "on record". Highest recorded snow falls in north america, lowest temperatures in eastern europe, hottest temperatures here (Australia) etc etc.

To be fair, that could be explained by a couple of things:

The records aren't that old and so to be the 'most rainfall on record' etc may not be that amazing if the records go back less than 50 years. Assuming a normal distribution you'd expect that records will be broken every few years if the records aren't old enough.

The media will want to sensationalise things to sell their stories. They will want to sell the fact that it's broken records and almost over-emphasise the point to the dereliction of the facts and caveats around the particular story.


When a summer isn't the hottest on record you won't be told it isn't the hottest on record and it will blythely pass you by. If one obscure weather/climate phenomena is a record that year then it will be honed in on. So you also have selective bias in that regard.

As I say above, that could be an explanation for the phenomena of record breaking weather - or it could be a genuine shift in climate. You'd need to know a bit more than what the journalist is soundbiting before you can hope to make that decision.

[Solly]

Interestingly, London saw the fewest winter days with 10c+ maxima since 1923.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Interestingly, London saw the fewest winter days with 10c+ maxima since 1923.

When. this year?

All I can say is that this year has been a long old winter. Not much sign of warming here. :shiver:

[Solly]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


When. this year?

All I can say is that this year has been a long old winter. Not much sign of warming here. :shiver:

Yeah, this year. Some people seem to have the conception that it has been a mild, or at least a not cold winter, due to the little amounts of snow we saw.

It can be snowier in the milder winters.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, but quite frankly that's a whoooole lot of people to move. Just accomodating the evacuees from Katrina has been a bear.

Just one city, Houston, did nearly all of it though. They've also taken in the Rita evacuees.