You must have suffered some kind of head injury. I related his entire point that you claim not to understand and then you respond with off topic. Put your helmet back on and go sit in the corner.
At Invisible Fan and Major: If it is unpredictable then how do we know it will happen? With regards to famine, I think famine is by-and-large a man-made phenomena: see Soviet Union and the Sahel. Whether certainly plays a role in scarcity on a local scale. Has there been a recorded world-wide famine? That's how it currently is in the southwestern US, see Colorado River. Again, I do not see how famine becomes an effect of man-made climate change. Again, if the acceleration of climate change due to man-made factors causes unpredictability, then how can we say anything of the effects? If it is unpredictable, we can say there may be volatility; but I do not think we can say that things will be severe, mild or depressed. We could speculate on the effects of cooling and heating, but the Earth either gets hotter or colder (I do not think things stay the same). We live in the present, so I suppose our societies are dictated by mother nature's current conditions (see my signature). But there is evidence that as the last glacial cycle ended, human innovation began to take-off. So climate change may have played a significant role in human evolution, for the positive. --- Here is what NASA says about the consensus: And here is what NASA says of the effects:
lol now you're just being defensive your vigilante internet justice is misplaced and you're just flailing at this point.
...does it amuse anyone else that a lot of people that tend to believe there is a Zeus-looking mofo in the skies dictating everything also tend to not believe in scientific evidence? take it as matter of faith, gentlemen, and suddenly there is no debate
Not sure where you get that correlation from, or if it's just you trying to passively-aggressively highlight that you don't believe in religion. meh Science is merely believing the best scientific ideas of the time. If Northside Storm were a scientist only a thousand years ago, he may have been preaching the world was flat and arguing how infallible science is...
well, you're an illustration of said correlation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/evangelicals-evolution-climate-change-poll_n_975699.html so, science changes. Does religion based on faith? naaaaaah. not that it needs to change, all you need is faith. What is the point of evidence. seriously, scientists need to take a page from religion. "WELL, you can't PROVE that what I'm saying is 100% false---so---nananananana".
Perhaps unpredictability wasn't the right word - it's more about variation and inconsistency. Part of what has been projected is that there will be more "extreme" weather - and that means more inconsistency and chaos to food supplies/etc. If you have more droughts and storms and freezes and hot spells, it makes it more difficult to grow crops even if the overall change in temperature or rain is small. That's all very true and very possible - but it doesn't help the current people or their kids or their grandkids, etc. Again, the Earth will survive, and new species will replace old species, etc. But that doesn't necessarily help our current societies.
Wrong. I have been directly answering your comments. Meanwhile, you've been trying to move the goal posts. It is a lot like I mention where you are wrong and you respond by pointing to the distance yelling "look...it's Elvis" and running away. It amuses me.
It might not happen in our lifetimes. These models predict how, but shouldn't be held for certainty on when or where (others might, but I don't). If for instance, the polar caps do melt away, there's a feedback loop which makes average temperatures even hotter because of lost albedo. Another consequence from the melted caps is possibly the Atlantic Conveyor Belt ceasing to exist and making Western Europe colder while other places get even more hotter As to 'how' we know, like the study from the op, scientists have been gathering proxies over time to measure how conditions were during those times. The popular ones include tree ring sampling and digging up ice cores. This study drew in sampling from digging up ocean beds and performing radioactive-dating analysis on dead organic materials such as bone and sea shells. So like carbon-dating gives hints on how old fossils once were, they can mesure certain isotopes like Nitrogen and Oxygen to determine atmospheric composition. They also use other hints to show what that part of soil/ground was like based on growing conditions. One proxy by itself is only a chapter. Putting all of them together makes a compelling book. It's really interesting and ingenious on how they do it to get high degrees of accuracy, CSI-ish to another level. We have strips of land feeding 7.5 billion people set to double within 45 years given the status quo. Nations like China and Saudi Arabia are buying land from other countries with the purpose of exporting crops back to their nation. If that dries up, you're banking on new areas to show up. Plus it disrupts freshwater supplies where fresh water is either scarce or contentious. We fight wars for oil. People will definitely fight over limited water. LA gets some of their water from the Colorado as well. They want a giant pipeline connecting to Canada to get even more. But if for instance Canada becomes a more attractive place to grow plants and live, there'll be no water in it for us. The US is lucky in terms of water rights. We're using the Colorado to the extent that Mexico isn't getting as much for their growing needs. Everywhere else where nations share borders, rivers cross several of them. Whoever owns the source is on them to be a good neighbor or a good bully. One commonly cited scenario is where Bangladesh becomes overflooded from weather extremes and causes a mass exodus by its people. Where would they go and who would let them in as the climate makes places uninhabitable? Tough questions to consider...
Change in weather patterns is generally not a good thing. If you make Canada more farmable it takes a long time to develop that. But the lost of the U.S. bread basket would be a devastating blow to the global food supply. Just imagine that turning into dessert and you can see the danger climate change can do. Don't think whole swaths of land can convert to desert. It happened in the middle east. It once was called the fertile crescent not so long ago.
Is anybody saying that the US bread basket will not be able to be farmed? ...and was this fertile crescent conversion due to man-made global warming?
Like I told Refman in a private message, you're just trolling in Lake Deckard, trying to get a rise out of me. I appreciate that he responded to your lure, but you're a fish I'm tossing back, texxx. There are times I wonder if you and basso ever post an honest thought in D&D. It wouldn't surprise me if you haven't, at least not in this forum.
Drought in 2011 reduced the yield for farming throughout the south and Midwest. Water supplies were dangerously low and some livestock died of starvation. Explain to us, in great detail, how it is unthinkable that this could happen for a significant period of time should weather patterns shift.
well at least you de-facto admitted I was correct in the sense that you were just waxing nostalgic rather than actually presenting specific facts
In the meantime, paternalistic leftists can use real or feigned ecological concerns to interfere with civil liberties, in the name of being better human beings.
