Good luck growing crops there, Dusty.
DarronS - And just how many of the eight billion people alive right now will be able to live in these places?A very great many. Have you looked at the size of these places on a map? They are huge. I'm not sure you realize this but people in the North of the USA frequently cross their fingers and hope this global warming assertion is true and coming very very quickly, the sooner the better because it is damn cold up North! For people on the coast, which is a huge population, this is going to be an extremely difficult transition. Fortunately, sea level rise is slow relative to a single human lifetime.
DarronS - Good luck growing crops there, Dusty.Trees are a crop, that's why we call them tree farms.
You need to look up the meaning of the word "crop." Wait. I did it for you:DarronS - Good luck growing crops there, Dusty.Trees are a crop, that's why we call them tree farms.
crop (krp) n. 1. a. Cultivated plants or agricultural produce, such as grain, vegetables, or fruit, considered as a group: Wheat is a common crop. b. The total yield of such produce in a particular season or place: an orchard that produced a huge crop of apples last year.Do you plan on eating only fruit the rest of your life? How long can you hold out before the trees start producing?
Have you looked at the size of these places on a map? They are huge.Why must you be so silly? The map is not the territory. Not every piece of land offers equal potentials. Particularly after centuries and decades of breakneck consumption of resources and ecosystems just as fast as humanly possible. Oh and dusty, Fir trees establishing themselves on a mountainside do not equal wheat fields, or fruit orchards - but you pretend they do. And you're totally uninterested in a little self doubt and self examination, nothing you don't know, nothing for you to learn. Yeah, that does spell gloom and doom, more than anything we are or aren't doing these days. So sad. :down:
Ok, you win, glaciers sterilize the land forever. Glaciers are the deadliest thing on Earth. They are worse than nuclear bombs. Once a glacier lays waste to a land it is forever barren and sterile and devoid of life.Oh and this is how it goes - take off with made up total bullshit and pretend it's what I was trying to explain. Stupid is as stupid does. Guess the other part of learning is that you actually have listen to what others are trying to explain to you, rather than keeping all your thoughts confined within what's spinning around within that brainwashed mind of yours.
DougC - Cultivated plantsTrees can be cultivated plants. I never claimed present land covered by glaciers would become food growing regions. My claim is that when the ice moves out life moves in. This should be obvious. If it is not obvious to you then you do not know even the rudiments of how life spreads.
CC - Oh and dusty, Fir trees establishing themselves on a mountainside do not equal wheat fields, or fruit orchards - but you pretend they do.Falsehood. Find the statement where I pretended any such thing.
CC - Oh and this is how it goes - take off with made up total bullshit and pretend it’s what I was trying to explain.The "worse than nuclear bombs" bit was supposed to identify the sentence as sarcasm. Apparently you missed that construct. I never claimed land presently being smothered by mountain glaciers is going to become food growing land once the ice melts. I just said life will move in, which obviously it will. And yes, obviously a map is not the land itself, duh. What a ridiculous point to make. A map is a just an overview description of land. Global warming will open up presently uninhabitable lands for life, and will shift the agricultural zones of North America, for example, North. So, while the world loses coastal land to the sea we will gain land from the ice and cold. It should be obvious that this is by no means some kind of even tradeoff, but the balance sheet of warming effects does not have only negative entries. A great deal of good will also come from warming, or perhaps you would prefer to live in Canada during the last ice age or on top of one of your precious glaciers?
Alrightie then, do you now appreciate how absolutely irrelevant your argument is??? We aren't talking about the survival of "life" on Earth. We are talking about the destruction of our biosphere and its processes as we've known them and be sure we absolutely depend on them functioning as they have for millennia on end. Furthermore, we are talking about the fact that our modern society cannot survive within any other environmental frame work. Glaciers are an integral part of not just water supplies and their timing, but also weather patterns, local and regional. It is stuff farmers and other depend on. You dismiss it with the arguments of a kinder-gardern, and arrogant kinder-garden attitude that thinks it's smarter than professionals and experts who have dedicated life times to learning about and understanding these matters.DougC - Cultivated plantsTrees can be cultivated plants. I never claimed present land covered by glaciers would become food growing regions. My claim is that when the ice moves out life moves in. This should be obvious. If it is not obvious to you then you do not know even the rudiments of how life spreads.
In kind you do! Of course you and your type never actually say anything concrete that you can be held to. Experts at retaining 'deniability' Confusion and contempt for experts is all you are interested in peddling. But, you're not kidding anyone that is the essences of your argument - even if you are too brainwashed and lacking introspection to recognize it. Hopefully, your time at CFI will help you a little with that problem.CC - Oh and dusty, Fir trees establishing themselves on a mountainside do not equal wheat fields, or fruit orchards - but you pretend they do.Falsehood. Find the statement where I pretended any such thing.
CC - Of course you and your type never actually say anything concrete that you can be held to. Experts at retaining ‘deniability’In other words I said exactly what I meant because what I said is a factually true statement and I prefer to speak in factually true statements (although sometimes I speak in sarcastic remarks or make logical arguments). You made some exaggerated assumptions about what I "really" meant and proceeded to attack those (false) assumptions. Classic straw man argumentation from you.
CC - We are talking about the destruction of our biosphere and its processes as we’ve known them and be sure we absolutely depend on them functioning as they have for millennia on end.You can talk about that if you wish, I think it is hysterical screaming hyper-conservative alarmism. (Conservative as in staying the same, not politically conservative) Just as one small example of how silly your doomsday shrieking is 65F Average temperature in Alabama 39F Average temperature in Alberta 26F (14C) Difference in average temperature between Alabama and Alberta Yet, somehow human beings live in both places, grow food in both places, and generally get on quite nicely thank you very much. Somehow, in your panic stricken brain, raising the temperature a few degrees is going to cause "the destruction of our biosphere and its processes as we’ve known them and "the fact that our modern society cannot survive". In truth it is a heck of a lot easier to grow all kinds of food in hot and steamy Alabama than cold and snowy Alberta. No shit Sherlock, warmth is more conducive to life than cold as long as there is water. Considering that precipitation comes from evaporation, and evaporation increases with temperature, then it stands to reason that global precipitation will increase with global warming. Hotter and wetter means a whole lot more agricultural productivity. How this situation looks like doomsday to you is truly baffling to me.
Just ignore this troll, we’ve pointed out where he’s wrong so many times on so many subjects that it’s pointless and actually counter-productive to try and have a rational discussion with him.
Just ignore this troll, we've pointed out where he's wrong so many times on so many subjects that it's pointless and actually counter-productive to try and have a rational discussion with him.Yeah, he's off the deep end. Anyone with rational thinking skills could figure out that if we can grow crops in Alberta Alabama will be too fracking hot for crops, but then anyone with more than a double-digit IQ would not mistake evergreen trees for crops.
Just ignore this troll, we've pointed out where he's wrong so many times on so many subjects that it's pointless and actually counter-productive to try and have a rational discussion with him.Yeah, he's off the deep end. Anyone with rational thinking skills could figure out that if we can grow crops in Alberta Alabama will be too fracking hot for crops, but then anyone with more than a double-digit IQ would not mistake evergreen trees for crops. It's the kind of "reasoning" we get from the far right that wants to deny reality for political reasons at huge risk. Even if some plants do grow quicker in warmer temperature, crop yields on very important food staples often drop. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/agriculture.html Food production could drop by as much as 40% in the coming decades in North America.
Food production could drop by as much as 40% in the coming decades in North America.You know that. I know that. CC knows that. Dusty has already demonstrated that when facts contradict his beliefs he dismisses the facts.
Yeah and this is the sort of pure nonsense you insist on:CC - Of course you and your type never actually say anything concrete that you can be held to. Experts at retaining ‘deniability’In other words I said exactly what I meant because what I said is a factually true statement and I prefer to speak in factually true statements (although sometimes I speak in sarcastic remarks or make logical arguments). You made some exaggerated assumptions about what I "really" meant and proceeded to attack those (false) assumptions. Classic straw man argumentation from you.
Posted: 12 May 2016 06:42 AM #46 Glaciers are not “essential". Oh yes, the end is nigh. No, our global ecosystem is not going to collapse because some smelt died in the delta of California, or some species in a rainforest went extinct.
Posted: 12 May 2016 06:49 AM #47 Oh yes, the end is nigh. No, our global ecosystem is not going to collapse because some smelt died in the delta of California, or some species in a rainforest went extinct.
Posted: 15 May 2016 07:34 AM #60 If the glaciers disappear from Glacier then we can change the name, so what? We change the names of places frequently. How is this some kind of disaster? Melting glaciers will lead to more growth, not less, at least in the region of the glacier. Not much grows on or under a glacier. The glacier kills everything in its path. When it melts a whole new ecosystem will spring up, it always does, else Wisconsin would be a wasteland instead of the water soaked lush and beautiful place it became after the ice melted.
Posted: 15 May 2016 07:46 AM #61 So where is counter evidence and reasoning to my “bullshit"? Lot’s of pretty pictures of glaciers. No pictures of the wildlife that will be able to grow once the deadly ice melts. Mountain ice does not produce water, but ice stores water. So do underground aquifers and reservoirs. When a glacier melts land is recovered for growth. We do not get a barren landscape after the glacier melts. Glaciers are not only not essential, they are deadly to all life in their path. Please provide a link to all the lush life living under, in, or on top of our glaciers.
Classic straw man, interesting. Then you follow up withCC - Of course you and your type never actually say anything concrete that you can be held to. Experts at retaining ‘deniability’In other words I said exactly what I meant because what I said is a factually true statement and I prefer to speak in factually true statements (although sometimes I speak in sarcastic remarks or make logical arguments). You made some exaggerated assumptions about what I "really" meant and proceeded to attack those (false) assumptions. Classic straw man argumentation from you.
CC - We are talking about the destruction of our biosphere and its processes as we’ve known them and be sure we absolutely depend on them functioning as they have for millennia on end.You can talk about that if you wish, I think it is hysterical screaming hyper-conservative alarmism. (Conservative as in staying the same, not politically conservative) Just as one small example of how silly your doomsday shrieking is 65F Average temperature in Alabama 39F Average temperature in Alberta 26F (14C) Difference in average temperature between Alabama and Alberta Yet, somehow human beings live in both places, grow food in both places, and generally get on quite nicely thank you very much. {mocking the dangers increasing global with such a kindergarden argument underscores your complete disconnect from what our biosphere is all about. } Somehow, in your panic stricken brain, raising the temperature a few degrees is going to cause "the destruction of our biosphere and its processes as we’ve known them and "the fact that our modern society cannot survive". <span style="color:purple]http"> In truth it is a heck of a lot easier to grow all kinds of food in hot and steamy Alabama than cold and snowy Alberta. No shit Sherlock, warmth is more conducive to life than cold as long as there is water. {what you don't think there's range, too much heat is every bit as destructive as too much cold} :smirk: Considering that precipitation comes from evaporation, and evaporation increases with temperature, then it stands to reason that global precipitation will increase with global warming. {I may sound hysterical to you, but that is because you refuse to look at the available evidence. Now we are back to that constructive learning issuehttp://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/agriculture Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/ClimateChange-Ag} Hotter and wetter means a whole lot more agricultural productivity. {I wonder have you ever grown crops for a living?}How this situation looks like doomsday to you is truly baffling to me. {It has to do with appreciating this planet we depend on.}
DarronS - Yeah, he’s off the deep end. Anyone with rational thinking skills could figure out that if we can grow crops in Alberta Alabama will be too fracking hot for crops,First, crops are already grown in Alberta with an average temperature of just 39F So, Alabama will be too hot to grow crops? That's funny! You mean like Thailand that has an average temperature of 82F. Right, because it is impossible to grow food in Thailand, uh huh. 82F Average temperature in Thailand 65F Average temperature in Alabama 39F Average temperature in Alberta Yet, somehow, plants will be unable to grow if average temperatures go a few degrees hotter. Agriculture will collapse. Doomsday for sure alright.