.



Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: So your way to benefit from climate change is based on migration as happened during previous climate change periods. ?

The lesson learned from history methinks is, Warmer = Good, Colder = Bad



Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: Except this one is about 10,000x more rapid, most of the world is already heavily populated, and people now days dont take too kindly to un-invited migration. See any thread on boat people.

"10,000x more rapid" .. :-?





.

.


Quote:

via Doctor Jolly: there are literally hundreds of topics on hundreds of forums about that.  Cant we just have a conversation about "what to do given the science is right" ?  without having it hijacked ?

What "science is right" Doctor Jolly ?.. :-?  

Doctor Jolly, the thread title is "Climate Change.  How to benefit from it ?"  It is well accepted that the climate is always changing, always has, always will. In the last two thousand years there have been periods where the climate were warmer then today, and there have been periods when the climate were cooler then today.

So, Doctor Jolly, is the thread about "climate change" or your interpretation of just what 'climate change' is ?.. :-?





.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

. "10,000x more rapid" .. :-?

Yes. Around 10,000 times more rapid.

.


Yep, as usual the climate hysteric types just caint handle any debate.. :)


FIN




.

muso wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 2:32pm: . "10,000x more rapid" .. :-? Yes. Around 10,000 times more rapid.

Really??..
So the rate of increase at the end of the last Glaciation was 0.000015 degrees C per decade???..
That would mean that the 8.8C temperature rise since the last Glaciation would have taken about 586,666 decades, or 5,866,667 years...

Interesting, since the last Glacial Maximum only ended 10,000 yrs ago...

muso wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 1:37pm: muso wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 11:24am: The 10 + billion people might be a bit off the mark, but he's accurate enough in stating that higher latitude soils are thin, infertile and unsuited to large scale crops. To take an example, you couldn't grow mass cultures of crops in the soils of Hudson Bay even if the temperature was higher, and it's simplistic to think that you can just displace the crops 100 kilometres or so closer to the poles for every degree of temperature rise. Other climatic effects also come into play. True, but you seem to be ignoring technologies like hydroponics and yeast culturing.....It IS possible to grow food supplies without using 'natural' stick the seed in the ground methods..So soil quality isn't a factor.. Do you realise the vast scale of the land area under cultivation when we talk about the various wheat belts, corn belts etc? If the yield of any of these commercial crops were to drop by a significant factor, the results could be devastating, especially if it's a worldwide effect. OK, crops fail nowadays, but usually only on a regional basis. Hydroponics and yeast culturing have an application, but not when it comes to large scale agriculture.

True, but NOT all of the 'current' wheat and corn belts will be 'erased' by climate change..Russian wheat, for example, will increase when the region 'warms'..yes?..many northern hemisphere production levels will increase, even under the worst case scenarios..

Brilliant. Vast tracts of Greenland, Canada and Siberia will be agriculturally productive.
The more I read about climate change the more I like it.

... wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

But seriously though, can anyone qualify what 'climate change' means, as a starting point to discussing how to adapt to it?

No takers?  Ahh well in that case, I'll posit that climate change means that the whole world will become one great big tropical paradise.  Cold areas will warm, warmer climes mean greater evaporation = greater cloud formation = greater rainfall = wetter conditions bringing life to once-lifeless deserts.  

Ever notice how plants germinate faster in a greenhouse?  Well the whole world will be that greenhouse, meaning bountiful harvests for all!  

Hooray for climate change!!!!

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

Brilliant. Vast tracts of Greenland, Canada and Siberia will be agriculturally productive. The more I read about climate change the more I like it.

Yup..that's the thing..isn't it...

Ok, since I Started this thread. I will defined the scope of the warming that the thread must address.

2 degrees of warming by 2060
4 degrees of warming by 2120

Now, the world may be tropical, but I doubt it will be a paradise. Permanent "cyclone" season might be more like it. The ability to grow crops in that weather will be dicey.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 4:26pm:

Ok, since I Started this thread. I will defined the scope of the warming that the thread must address. 2 degrees of warming by 2060 4 degrees of warming by 2120 Now, the world may be tropical, but I doubt it will be a paradise. Permanent "cyclone" season might be more like it. The ability to grow crops in that weather will be dicey.

But that doesn't tell us where the rises and falls in temperature are located.  It matters little if the temperature in Antarctica is -48 instead of -50.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 4:26pm:

Ok, since I Started this thread. I will defined the scope of the warming that the thread must address. 2 degrees of warming by 2060 4 degrees of warming by 2120 Now, the world may be tropical, but I doubt it will be a paradise. Permanent "cyclone" season might be more like it. The ability to grow crops in that weather will be dicey.

OH NO...and is that at ALL different to what has happened in the past??

"2 degrees of warming by 2060"..seriously...is that unusual  from any time in the past???

... wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 4:26pm: Ok, since I Started this thread. I will defined the scope of the warming that the thread must address. 2 degrees of warming by 2060 4 degrees of warming by 2120 Now, the world may be tropical, but I doubt it will be a paradise. Permanent "cyclone" season might be more like it. The ability to grow crops in that weather will be dicey. But that doesn't tell us where the rises and falls in temperature are located.  It matters little if the temperature in Antarctica is -48 instead of -50.

If I knew that I wouldnt be sitting here speculating about it.... I'd be out there buying up land where the temperature is favourable!

Get a grip man.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 4:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 4:26pm: Ok, since I Started this thread. I will defined the scope of the warming that the thread must address. 2 degrees of warming by 2060 4 degrees of warming by 2120 Now, the world may be tropical, but I doubt it will be a paradise. Permanent "cyclone" season might be more like it. The ability to grow crops in that weather will be dicey. OH NO...and is that at ALL different to what has happened in the past?? "2 degrees of warming by 2060"..seriously...is that unusual  from any time in the past???

Yup, but that question is totally irrelavant to this thread. Cant you deniers stay on topic for once. ?

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.