In Norfolk, evidence of climate change is in the streets at high tide

e.

of scale working, we can either buy from them or seeing that that actually works, we can invest in renewable after they pay for the development.

now, and we've got to get the trend line pointed well down within the the n ext decade or so.

It is only wrong in your mind. You offer no reason that it is wrong.

e global temperature keeps on rising, the inconvenient consequences of clim ate change keep on getting more obvious and more expensive and the amount o f disposable economic activity which we are going to have left over to devo te to moving over to getting our energy from renewable sources is going to shrink.

e going to have saved a bunch of money by using the cheaper fossil fuel. S o we should have loads of cash.

ces are going to go up. That brings political instability, so we are going to be fighting - hopefully small - wars all over the place. The weather is going to get more energetic, so there are going to be more floods, droughts , fires and storm damage. We are going to have quite a bit of extra stuff g oing on that we will have to worry about and pay for.

Agriculture will be different. Canada may become a major wine producer. B ut with more CO2 in the atmosphere food should more plentiful and therefore cheaper. So fewer wars to worry about.

re time in which to drain the swamp.

and West Antarctic ice sheets are going to start sliding off into the ocean at some point. We don't know when, and we don't know how fast - though we do know that at the end of the last ice age, the Laurentian ice sheet slid off as huge ice-bergs, and the embedded boulders (accidentals) show up acro ss a broad swathe of the bottom of the North Atlantic.

fe could get a bit hectic if they start moving fast. Reconstructing all our coast cities and going over to renewable energy sources at the same time m ight not be all that practical.

to Detroit. And build more nuclear power plants. The research for reliab le fusion power should be complete by then.

there, and lots of goods move around the world in boats, and get shifted o nto road and rail at ports (which do have to be right on the coast, whereve r it is).

There will still be coastal areas. Just not the same areas as now. But co ntainer ships have taken the labor out of shipping by boats. And the new c ontainer ports do not require lots of people.

now. There's a working fusion reactor some 93 million miles away, and while we can tap into only a small proportion of the power it puts out, that's q uite enough to sustain our current economy.

Yes I remember Katrina. People from New Orleans were welcomed in other states.

Sandy did not affect New York very much, One reason is it made land fall in New Jersey. But only the people and businesses within about half a mile of the coast were affected.

Dan

ale.

es of scale working, we can either buy from them or seeing that that actual ly works, we can invest in renewable after they pay for the development.

s now, and we've got to get the trend line pointed well down within the the next decade or so.

I don't have to. The IPCC has been spelling out the detail for years, based on the peer-reviewed science. As the Proceedings of the (US) National Acad emy of Science pointed out a few years ago, 97% of the top 300 climate expe rts are persuaded by the case for anthropogenic global warming.

If you think that the case is in any way controversial, you've been suckere d by an expensive propaganda campaign funded by the fossil carbon extractio n industry. You shouldn't have been - it's pretty transparent nonsense - bu t it's good enough to have fooled a lot of people who don't know much about the science.

the global temperature keeps on rising, the inconvenient consequences of cl imate change keep on getting more obvious and more expensive and the amount of disposable economic activity which we are going to have left over to de vote to moving over to getting our energy from renewable sources is going t o shrink.

are going to have saved a bunch of money by using the cheaper fossil fuel. So we should have loads of cash.

rices are going to go up. That brings political instability, so we are goin g to be fighting - hopefully small - wars all over the place. The weather i s going to get more energetic, so there are going to be more floods, drough ts, fires and storm damage. We are going to have quite a bit of extra stuff going on that we will have to worry about and pay for.

But with more CO2 in the atmosphere food should more plentiful and therefo re cheaper. So fewer wars to worry about.

Wrong. Give plants more CO2 and their leaves grow fewer stomata - so they c an get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water - and our plants are well adapted to 270pmm in the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere is goi ng to favour different - non-food - plants (also known as weeds) which are better suited to high CO23 levels.

And if Canada wants to become a major wine producer at some time in the fut ure, it has to plant vines where they've never grown before. This is a capi tal investment which won't pay off for a few years - until the wines have g otten mature enough to yield commercial quantities of grapes.

Adapting to a different - on average warmer - climate is going to take a lo t of this kind of capital intensive activity, and at least some of that cap ital is going to turn out to have been invested in building the wrong infra structure for the wrong crops. Climate change is happening, but the precise details of the changes are not easily predictable.

pare time in which to drain the swamp.

d and West Antarctic ice sheets are going to start sliding off into the oce an at some point. We don't know when, and we don't know how fast - though w e do know that at the end of the last ice age, the Laurentian ice sheet sli d off as huge ice-bergs, and the embedded boulders (accidentals) show up ac ross a broad swathe of the bottom of the North Atlantic.

life could get a bit hectic if they start moving fast. Reconstructing all o ur coast cities and going over to renewable energy sources at the same time might not be all that practical.

es to Detroit. And build more nuclear power plants. The research for reli able fusion power should be complete by then.

ve there, and lots of goods move around the world in boats, and get shifted onto road and rail at ports (which do have to be right on the coast, where ver it is).

container ships have taken the labor out of shipping by boats. And the new container ports do not require lots of people.

None of which subtracts from the capital investment required to build new c ontainer terminals, nor reduces the size of the work force needed to build those container terminals. Australia has spent the last decade ramping up i t's mineral extraction industries - which are highly automated - but buildi ng the mines, railways and ports to get the minerals out of the ground and across the country to load them onto boats has kept a lot of people very bu sy.

Any significant sea level rise, and they will have to get busy again.

as if they will be a large portion of the population.

s many people.

tates.

The white middle-class ones who could make it out before the roads got hope lessly clogged.

l in New Jersey. But only the people and businesses within about half a m ile of the coast were affected.

One of the side-effects of global warming is that hurricanes will have larg er areas of ocean over which they can form and grow.

The modelling suggests that this isn't going to produce more hurricanes, bu t rather bigger hurricanes, some of which will make landfall further away f rom the equator than they have done before.

A hurricane needs a extended ocean area at or above 26.5C down to a depth o f at least 50 metres to develop and grow. Once a hurricane has developed ov er such an area, the water gets stirred up enough to be too cool to sustain another hurricane for quite a while, which is why there aren't going to be more hurricanes as the oceans get warmer. Those that do form are going to get more intense, and generate bigger storm surges.

ed on the peer-reviewed science. As the Proceedings of the (US) National Ac ademy of Science pointed out a few years ago, 97% of the top 300 climate ex perts are persuaded by the case for anthropogenic global warming.

Then I do not need to post any reason for stating that you are a naive pers on that believes what ever the majority says.

red by an expensive propaganda campaign funded by the fossil carbon extract ion industry. You shouldn't have been - it's pretty transparent nonsense - but it's good enough to have fooled a lot of people who don't know much abo ut the science.

You assume(and make an ass out yourself) that my lack of wholesale acceptan ce of everything the IPCC reports is based on a propaganda campaign. I believe that greenhouse gases increase the worlds temperature. We would be freezing to death if they did not. However I am much more optimistic th an you and believe global warming will have both positive and negative bene fits. I think that a 3 or 4 degree F. increase in the temperature will no t cause any severe affects to me.

, the global temperature keeps on rising, the inconvenient consequences of climate change keep on getting more obvious and more expensive and the amou nt of disposable economic activity which we are going to have left over to devote to moving over to getting our energy from renewable sources is going to shrink.

e are going to have saved a bunch of money by using the cheaper fossil fuel . So we should have loads of cash.

prices are going to go up. That brings political instability, so we are go ing to be fighting - hopefully small - wars all over the place. The weather is going to get more energetic, so there are going to be more floods, drou ghts, fires and storm damage. We are going to have quite a bit of extra stu ff going on that we will have to worry about and pay for.

. But with more CO2 in the atmosphere food should more plentiful and there fore cheaper. So fewer wars to worry about.

can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water - and our plants ar e well adapted to 270pmm in the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere is g oing to favour different - non-food - plants (also known as weeds) which ar e better suited to high CO23 levels.

Then why do greenhouse add CO2 to the air inside the greenhouse? You think they spend money on adding CO2 so they can grow less?

uture, it has to plant vines where they've never grown before. This is a ca pital investment which won't pay off for a few years - until the wines have gotten mature enough to yield commercial quantities of grapes.

So big deal. The same thing applies to wherever grapes are grown.

lot of this kind of capital intensive activity, and at least some of that c apital is going to turn out to have been invested in building the wrong inf rastructure for the wrong crops. Climate change is happening, but the preci se details of the changes are not easily predictable.

And yet you predict bad things are going to happen, even though you have n o idea of what actually will happen.

spare time in which to drain the swamp.

and and West Antarctic ice sheets are going to start sliding off into the o cean at some point. We don't know when, and we don't know how fast - though we do know that at the end of the last ice age, the Laurentian ice sheet s lid off as huge ice-bergs, and the embedded boulders (accidentals) show up across a broad swathe of the bottom of the North Atlantic.

d life could get a bit hectic if they start moving fast. Reconstructing all our coast cities and going over to renewable energy sources at the same ti me might not be all that practical.

ties to Detroit. And build more nuclear power plants. The research for re liable fusion power should be complete by then.

live there, and lots of goods move around the world in boats, and get shift ed onto road and rail at ports (which do have to be right on the coast, whe rever it is).

t container ships have taken the labor out of shipping by boats. And the n ew container ports do not require lots of people.

container terminals, nor reduces the size of the work force needed to buil d those container terminals. Australia has spent the last decade ramping up it's mineral extraction industries - which are highly automated - but buil ding the mines, railways and ports to get the minerals out of the ground an d across the country to load them onto boats has kept a lot of people very busy.

Absolutely. Australia ships a lot of coal to China.

Might be a solution to the unemployment caused by increases in productivity .

Dan

Along with the upper middle class and lower middle class. The roads were not hopelessly clogged. They were overloaded for about a day and the news media made a much bigger deal out of it than it really was. -You have been snookered by the new media.

The modeling suggests. Well we shall see. Because I do not think you are going to get world wide reduction of the use of fossil fuels. If we cut our use by a lot, fossil fuels will be cheaper and other nations will use more.

ased on the peer-reviewed science. As the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science pointed out a few years ago, 97% of the top 300 climate experts are persuaded by the case for anthropogenic global warming.

rson that believes what ever the majority says.

An entertaining conjecture, but rather at variance with my actual behaviour . Around here there certainly are a majority of right-wing nitwits who beli eve every last bit of denialist propaganda that's posted in the Murdoch pre ss. I don't share their delusions, and take base my opinion on the stuff I learnt when I was getting my Ph.D. in physical chemistry, back up by a vari ety of stuff that I've read, which paints a remarkably plausible and consis tent picture.

kered by an expensive propaganda campaign funded by the fossil carbon extra ction industry. You shouldn't have been - it's pretty transparent nonsense

- but it's good enough to have fooled a lot of people who don't know much a bout the science.

ance of everything the IPCC reports is based on a propaganda campaign.

Not exactly. I'm more inclined to think that you suffer from the usual dise ase of the half-baked, which inclines you to thing that you can make yourse lf look superior by adhering to the sillier conspiracy theories that are do ing the rounds. You are probably also a "birther".

d be freezing to death if they did not. However I am much more optimistic than you and believe global warming will have both positive and negative be nefits. I think that a 3 or 4 degree F. increase in the temperature will not cause any severe affects to me.

They won't, because you will be dead by then.

ng, the global temperature keeps on rising, the inconvenient consequences o f climate change keep on getting more obvious and more expensive and the am ount of disposable economic activity which we are going to have left over t o devote to moving over to getting our energy from renewable sources is goi ng to shrink.

We are going to have saved a bunch of money by using the cheaper fossil fu el. So we should have loads of cash.

od prices are going to go up. That brings political instability, so we are going to be fighting - hopefully small - wars all over the place. The weath er is going to get more energetic, so there are going to be more floods, dr oughts, fires and storm damage. We are going to have quite a bit of extra s tuff going on that we will have to worry about and pay for.

er. But with more CO2 in the atmosphere food should more plentiful and the refore cheaper. So fewer wars to worry about.

ey can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water - and our plants are well adapted to 270pmm in the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere is going to favour different - non-food - plants (also known as weeds) which are better suited to high CO2 levels.

nk they spend money on adding CO2 so they can grow less?

Greenhouse cultivation also gives plants all the water they can use, and al l the other nutrients that botany has demonstrated that the plant can use.

There's also remarkably rigorous weed-control. Because greenhouses are encl osed you don't get many weed seeds blowing in, but you've still got pay clo se attention to getting rid of those weed seedlings that have sneaked in.

We don't grow the bulk of our food in greenhouses - it's too expensive for stuff that you can't sell at a premium. I lived in the Netherlands for 19 y ears, where it's a very substantial business - but still a luxury trade.

future, it has to plant vines where they've never grown before. This is a capital investment which won't pay off for a few years - until the wines ha ve gotten mature enough to yield commercial quantities of grapes.

The point is that growing new plants in a new place takes time and capital investment - both of which won't be available for setting up renewable ener gy generators when we find out that we have to have them.

a lot of this kind of capital intensive activity, and at least some of that capital is going to turn out to have been invested in building the wrong i nfrastructure for the wrong crops. Climate change is happening, but the pre cise details of the changes are not easily predictable.

no idea of what actually will happen.

The quality of prediction required to support the proposition that bad thin gs are going to happen is a good lower than the quality required to predict exactly which bad things are going to happen where, and when. It's the dif ference between climate prediction (which we've been doing since we invente d agriculture) and weather prediction (which works for up to about ten days in advance).

I did go on to mention sea level rise, which illustrates the point pretty w ell. You lack the self-discipline required to read a complete exposition be fore starting in on posting your objections.

of spare time in which to drain the swamp.

nland and West Antarctic ice sheets are going to start sliding off into the ocean at some point. We don't know when, and we don't know how fast - thou gh we do know that at the end of the last ice age, the Laurentian ice sheet slid off as huge ice-bergs, and the embedded boulders (accidentals) show u p across a broad swathe of the bottom of the North Atlantic.

and life could get a bit hectic if they start moving fast. Reconstructing a ll our coast cities and going over to renewable energy sources at the same time might not be all that practical.

vities to Detroit. And build more nuclear power plants. The research for reliable fusion power should be complete by then.

e live there, and lots of goods move around the world in boats, and get shi fted onto road and rail at ports (which do have to be right on the coast, w herever it is).

But container ships have taken the labor out of shipping by boats. And the new container ports do not require lots of people.

ew container terminals, nor reduces the size of the work force needed to bu ild those container terminals. Australia has spent the last decade ramping up it's mineral extraction industries - which are highly automated - but bu ilding the mines, railways and ports to get the minerals out of the ground and across the country to load them onto boats has kept a lot of people ver y busy.

If we hadn't, the US would probably have fomented a regime change which wou ld have installed a government that was more susceptible to the business in terests of the fossil carbon extraction companies who are making loads of m oney out of the process. As it happens, they didn't have to - the current A ustralian government is intent on making Australia as much like the US as t hey can manage.

ty.

Not a good solution. There are plenty of better ones.

er states.

hopelessly clogged.

not hopelessly clogged. They were overloaded for about a day and the news media made a much bigger deal out of it than it really was. -You have bee n snookered by the new media.

I concentrate on what I'm told by the old media. Try reading Naomi Klein's book

It's not about Katrina, but she and her husband were reporting in New Orlea ns when it hit.

, but rather bigger hurricanes, some of which will make landfall further aw ay from the equator than they have done before.

e going to get world wide reduction of the use of fossil fuels. If we cut our use by a lot, fossil fuels will be cheaper and other nations will use m ore.

Eventually we will. The interesting question is whether we collectively hav e enough sense to leave enough fossil carbon in the ground to avoid run-awa y global warming and a human population crash, or whether we will end up st opping digging up fossil carbon because we'd degraded our civilisation to the point where it wouldn't have access to that kind of technology any more .

I'm mildly optimistic until I have to pay attention to what twits like you believe.

How can I possibly reply to such a mature , thoughtful , factual post.

Dan

That's why you snipped the more mature and thoughtful content - which you can't be bothered thinking about - and concentrated on the exasperated part.

If you want mature and thoughtful, it's out there

but it's a bit beyond your attention span.