Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

[Berzerker]

The risk of global warming is desertification of arable land

But global warming = more rainfall. How did the arable land do during the mini ice age? Massive crop failures. If we had a repeat of that we'd be glad we have the ability to pump gas into the atmosphere to help moderate the climate change. Might be too late by then though, environmentalists talk about tipping points as if ice ages dont have them.

sea level rise flooding most of the worlds major cities, and the displacement of some 2 billion people.

Use more ocean water, pump it into inland basins that are currently deserts. Terraform - turn the Sahara into an oasis by creating a large inland sea. Hell, the Australians could use some water down under, the Nevada basin too. More than 2/3rds of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice and this is good for arable land? If that ice melts it becomes part of the cycle of life again, thats good. Most of the land is in the north, and much of it aint usable because it aint warm enough. Thats bad...

When risks are that high, rational and responsible people act to minimize the risks.

What are they waiting for?

 

[Berzerker]

We're not overdue for an ice-age. And even if we were, it's far easier warming the planet by mass emiting CO2 than it is cooling the planet reducing CO2 levels. The worst that can happen in the overdue-iceage scenario is that we'll have a global Drive Your Suv All Day day.

We wouldn't reduce temps by reducing CO2, we'd add other gases/particles to block sunlight. And the mini ice age shows that ice age conditions can resume for a while even within interglacial periods. The ice cores show even wilder swings during ice ages. There is a theory that solar output declined during the mini ice age, astronomers have been charting sunspots since the 1600s. According to the theory the sun's magnetic field weakens as output declines so we're not only getting less radiation, we're getting hit with more cosmic rays from the Milky Way and that produces more cloud cover.

Its pretty clear the ice ages are tied in with Milankovich Cycles and we're headed for our more upright limit. Today the tilt is about 23.4 degrees and the limit (varies) is around 22 with the max being around 24.5. Thats almost half way, put in terms of our annual climate change, its August in our ice age cycle. In a few months (a few thousand years) the sun will be below the equator and we'll be freezing (the Earth will be approaching its minimum tilt). To help fend off the worst, the Earth needs to be absorbing radiation long before we see advancing ice sheets. Think of how warm or cold it is at N 40 latitude on the equinoxes, Sept 21st is warmer than Apr 21st, the Earth had all summer to warm while April is coming out of winter.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The cloud cover theory is contested and considered far-fetched by many scientists.

There is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major factor determining cloud cover. The ionising of air by cosmic rays will impart an electric charge to aerosols, which in theory could encourage them to clump together to form particles large enough for cloud droplets to form around, called "cloud condensation nuclei".

But cloud physicists say it has yet to be shown that such clumping occurs. And even if it does, it seems far-fetched to expect any great effect on the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Most of the atmosphere, even relatively clean marine air, has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei already.

A series of attempts by Svensmark to show an effect have come unstuck. Initially, Svensmark claimed there was a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and satellite measurements of total cloud cover since the 1980s – yet a correlation does not prove cause and effect. It could equally well reflect changes in solar irradiance, which inversely correlate with cosmic ray intensity.

Furthermore, this apparent correlation depended on adjustments to the data, and it does not hold up when more recent cloud measurements from 1996 onwards are included.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

I don't know anything about tilts, so I can't comment on that.

But that's not related to the argument I was addressing: Increased CO2 is saving is from an ice-age right now, so if we stop emitting so much CO2, we're going to get screwed because we're going to freeze.



I don't know about you, but reducing temperatures by trying to block sunlight by polluting really doesn't seem like the best solution to me.

 

[fugazi]

I just have to say that this discussion is hilarious for an European reader. The biggest scientific institutions in the world on this matter seem to agree that we're part of what's going on, but how big a part we play is still a question mark. How can you rebuke AGW as an outsider on those scientific projects - because of conflicting financial/capitalistic interests?

You can disagree with certain estimates of how big a part we play in what's going on but guess what, they are just estimates. There are no hard numbers yet that say x% is our fault so get off your high horse and walk in line with reality.

 

[BasketCase]

The planet's food supply may be screwed, but we have enough good land here that we can overcome.

The key word there is "have". Present tense. Now, the following is a statistical prediction, and not 100% assured, but if the Earth cools by a few degrees, the amount of good, farmable land you have over there will almost certainly go way down.

If your coastline gets flooded, you can move. That can be dealt with, though you may end up considerably more crowded and God Forbid, you might get ME as a roommate.....

Starvation? Not so easy. X amount of food will only feed so many people. That's something you can't run away from.

 

[SweetEmotion]

I don't believe in "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" or whatever its called now and I think that the left did make it up (partly, we still need to protect the environment) but its not a super secret evil "plot" as some FAR right wingers think. So basically we should protect the environment, but not to the extent of which the environmentalists want.