OT: Global Warming? Record temps today in CA, USA

[Angstrom]

whatever is causing or not causing global warming or climate changing - I wish someone would simply say "So it looks like this spot here on the side of mount everest will be both sunny and fertile while maintaining a steady 30 degees C all year round" . Then I could actually formulate a plan for moving there!

Sadly, what we actually get is "we are all doomed!!! DOOOMED I TELL YE!! " mixed with
"no no, everything is fine, keep consuming at a rate of 17%"

Meanwhile I need some info on future climate suitable for human male survival, because If it rains I can put up an umbrella, If it's sunny I can wear a hat.

With that in mind I want to know where to go when the sea level rises, yet no-one seems able to tell be the best place to be .

Yet, I can find maps galore which illustrate the zones of death ... there are coloured maps of 'too hot' , 'too cold' , 'too wet' or 'too dry' scenarios for the whole globe. Yet no-one is able to point to where the new temperate zones will be.
It seems we will ONLY have extremes of climate in this future?

Now that seems unlikely.

Arrarat again?

[dj superflat]

i'm safe -- leadville's at over 10,000 feet, record high is 86, so there's some room. for those on the coasts, if the hurricanes don't get you, the rising tide will.

[muscleandhate]

you all wouldn't have anything to respond to if someone like me didn't raising points with which you disagree (the thread would be -- global warming is bad; yes it is!; yes it is!; etc.). so i like to think i provide a valuable public service. don't worry, if there were any completely crackpot right wing stuff being espoused, i'd question that, too.

and you all ignored the key point:

can you establish that the harm from global warming is greater than the harm from whatever actions we might take to stop or retard global warming? anyone read lomborg? anyone aware of the conclusions of economists and UN ambassadors that global warming is very low priority compared to (e.g.) AIDS and other issues on which we can get more bang for our buck?

even if you're concerned about global warming, the question is whether it has higher priority than other problems afflicting the globe, whether given limited resources, it makes sense to focus on combatting global warming rather than other problems.

don't worry, i don't expect any reasoned response. you'll likely just assume (erroneously) that i'm a fascist bush supporter smoking the party line. enjoy.

The planet is always in phases of cooling and warming, but these phases tend to take thousands and thousands of years to occur. The problem is that currently the earth is warming up much faster than ever before. From a logical point of view, I'd presume that this is to do with human activity.

Seeing as it is likely I won't bother having children, then this problem is nothing for me to worry about. The earth is just a insignifcant rock floating in space so vast it is beyond imagination. However, it still pains me to imagine that life as we know it, which has taken millions of years to reach this point, will be wiped out. This will surely be a tragedy.

Whilst you mention that changing our lifestyles is going to be uncomfortable to say the least, your point is somewhat moot. This is largely to do with the impending energy crisis, which along with global warming, will be the defining problem of not only the 21st century, but possibly the most demanding problem of mankind itself.

The problems of global warming and the energy crisis are both consequences of one another, but also solutions. Once fossil fuels are depleated, global warming will slow (although judging by current research, global warming is exponential hence by the time of the energy crisis it will be too late). Once oil begins to run dry, expect the world economy to crash. This is because demand will outsrip supply, hence driving the price of crude oil upwards. Think of Katrina, which knocked out under 1% of the world total oil output and drove prices through the roof. This leads to inflation, which is heavily problematic in itself etc etc.

Basically you might complain that it will be difficult to change our lifestlye, but it's inevitable anyway. We need international and unilaterial effort now to take our economies from oil economies to something more renewable, or face the consequences later. Mark my words, unless a miracle fuel is invented, these consequences will be severe and will change your lifestyle absolutely regardless of your political ideology.

[dj superflat]

i stand corrected -- very thoughtful response. i actually come out somewhat along the same lines, but am not sure i really believe in peak oil (because of the oil shale, etc., which will devastate the local environment to get at, may ultimately be impracticable, etc.). to me, the real issue that, with china and india coming online, the pressure on the existing system will be extraordinary. and china and india seem even less likely than the US to go along with some kind of kyoto protocol (seems hard to figure out why their half of the world's population shouldn't be entitled to half of the emissions).

anyways, thx. interesting.

[dj superflat]

one other thing: i'm not a pessimist. so, just as the US and most industrialized nations mostly learned not to litter, pollute the environment, slaughter all the wildlife, etc., i expect us to realize what's in our best interest and fix any problems from emissions, warming, etc.

but i also view these as the equivalent of luxury goods. only rich countries throw trash in the garbage -- go to nepal, other poor but beautiful countries, trash just thrown out the window. cause when you're struggling to eat, you dont worry too much about aesthetics. similarly, if life expectency is short regardless, you don't worry too much about toxic chemicals.

so -- and here's the real heresy -- i think the best thing we can do is to help poor countries get rich enough they care about the same things "we" do (treating women and minorities well, political liberties, the environment, emissions, etc.). because, until we do, my saving gas by riding my bike around just keeps gas cheaper for factories in china, taxis spewing filth in katmandu, soccer moms in guzzling SUVs in boise, etc.

[subterFUSE]

Think of Katrina, which knocked out under 1% of the world total oil output and drove prices through the roof.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the reason gas prices spiked after Katrina was because we lost much of our refining capacity.... not so much because of our own oil production losses??

[subterFUSE]

so -- and here's the real heresy -- i think the best thing we can do is to help poor countries get rich enough they care about the same things "we" do (treating women and minorities well, political liberties, the environment, emissions, etc.). because, until we do, my saving gas by riding my bike around just keeps gas cheaper for factories in china, taxis spewing filth in katmandu, soccer moms in guzzling SUVs in boise, etc.

You can add me to the list of culprits.


I've been planning my next car purchase since just a few days after buying my current car. While my current car gets almost 30 miles per gallon, my next car is only going to get about 9 miles.

But I'm doing it because I think this is basically my last chance to own such a beast before the fuel crisis gets completely out-of-hand. If I don't do it soon, I don't think I'll ever have the chance again.

[glu]

So you are getting a hummer then?

[subterFUSE]

No. An M5.

[forge]

-- go to nepal, other poor but beautiful countries, trash just thrown out the window. cause when you're struggling to eat, you dont worry too much about aesthetics. .

interesting point, but wouldnt that be more to do with not having a council that comes around collecting it for you?

[forge]

But I'm doing it because I think this is basically my last chance to own such a beast before the fuel crisis gets completely out-of-hand. If I don't do it soon, I don't think I'll ever have the chance again.

or you could look at it the other way round WHEN it does happen you'll be stuck with a big useless car that you cant fuel

havent we already reached peak?

[dj superflat]

ummmm, there's no council coming around and collecting because neither the gov't nor the people can afford it. counterintuitive, but it turns out almost everything is like bottled water or cable (you may think water was free at some point, but it never was; just as tap water is a luxury many places can't afford, so is bottled water, etc.),

[forge]

that was my point - I dont think the Nepalese or whoever litter because of lack of aesthetics - rather, who would take it away?

[glu]

and if it's not just thrown on the ground, its taken to a heaping pile and burnt, which is reeeaally bad. When I was in the Phillippinnes I used to see hundreds of these burning trash mounds.

[subterFUSE]

or you could look at it the other way round WHEN it does happen you'll be stuck with a big useless car that you cant fuel

I suppose that is possible, but not likely.


Bottom line.... I just want to enjoy a 507 horsepower V-10 while it is still possible.