OT: AGW - to what depths will those crooks sink?

Cold kills.

John

Mike Terrell thinks that the forgery was obvious, but the forger managed to catch Mike's tone - and his cheese-pairing stupidity - pretty well.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

So does heat.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Are you suggesting that we are at some optimum parabolic peak point of welfare versus temperature, so that a change in either direction is bad? I suspect we, and most of the other plants and animals on the planet, are on an up-slope, so that mild warming is beneficial and mild cooling is bad.

CO2 is probably good, too.

(A mature Aspen is likely the most massive organism on the planet.)

I suspect we'll see a lot more of this effect in the future. I'd hate to be a plant straining to get my carbon from the air. The entire food chain of the planet is built on that very thin

The peak is somewhere between 20-25 C for the elderly population, based on the observations of death rates in France during a heat wave.

In Finland extreme out door temperature over +25 C ("helle") are considered more or less unproductive.

Yikes!

egregious:

--
No, I meant that if you felt strongly enough about it, you\'d off
yourself.

I grew up in New Orleans, where 32C is considered mild. That part of the USA is incredibly productive in growing crops, seafood, weeds, trees, mosquitoes, and alligators.

John

I was referring to human productivity in non-airconditioned areas.

No doubt it is possible to live in an air-conditioned apartment, drive in an air-conditioned car into your air-conditioned office. After spending two weeks in a city with day time temperatures in the 45-50 C range, the everywhere present air conditioning noise made nearly mad.

The mortality versus temperature statistics are compatible with that simple model.

A standard denialist claim. Unfortunately, increased global warming seems likely to change the weather - including rainfall paterns - so the farmers are going to have to move their farms, and their choice of crops - to keep on growing our food. The costs of the disruption are likely to overwhelm any hypothetical advantage.

For just as long as CO2 is the limiting nutrient - as the article says, any decline in rainfall could wipe out the benefit of extra CO2. The paleobotanical record shows that plants generally react to higher CO2 levels by reducing the density of the stomata on the undersides of their leaves to allow them to get most or less the same amount of CO2 while losing less water to evaoration through the stomata - so water is more often the limiting nutrient.

SNIP

Here's a report, reputedly by the CIA, planning for climate change based on a climate science consensus:

That's normal in much of the US south. Houston would be an obscure village except for air conditioning.

John

Why is it that virtually every predicted consequence of a warmer climate is bad? And how can peple who clearly can't predict the weather three weeks ahead confidemtly predict the (universally bad) weather fifty years from now? They have quit making dire hurricane projections, after a string of memorable blunders.

Actually, I know why all the weather predictions are dire.

1) The predictors are sour bummed-out gloomy anti-social people like you 2) All the better to wrench control of trillions of dollars worth of the world's economy.

Food crops, assisted by active breeding and genetic engineering, are less able to adapt to take advantage to increased CO2 than weeds? Can you explain why? Ever heard of the "green revolution"? I suppose not.

Well, my new Audi (3.2l, roof rack, snow tires) gets terrible gas mileage, unless I switch it into "sport shift" mode, when it gets considerably worse. Still better than a limo in Copenhagen.

John

"But doctor, chemotherapy isn't indicated at all. The patient doesn't even have cancer."

"But he will, nurse, start the chemo NOW!"

--
??

[snip]

On the contrary, the weeds will have to adapt through natural selection. ADM will have new strains of food crops ready for planting as needed.

--
Paul Hovnanian  paul@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

The Rapture has already happened. The rest of us are all going to Hell.

For all the "Good Christians" who claim that they'd know and they would have been taken, all I can say is: You suffer from the Sin of Pride. Your thinking that you deserve salvation is why you didn't get it.

--
Paul Hovnanian  paul@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

My point was that lots of plants, including ones we depend on, will grow better with more CO2. More CO2 and a warmer climate (which may even be related!) is probably good for mankind and for the planet. The warmingists predict only fire, drought, flooding, storms, pestilence, disease, and famine. What a gloomy crew.

Yes.

One thing that is a real problem, and that we could fix fairly easy, is particulates. They cause all sorts of health problems and contribute to snow melting. This isn't on the warmingists radar precisely because it's something that could be fixed without seizing control of the world's economy.

John

LOL! Thanks!

And what's wrong with warmer temperatures, more lush plant growth, longer growing seasons, and less bitter winters? Bring on the warming, I say!

The warmingists just want money, power, and control, even if they have to bomb us back to the stone age to get it!

Cheers! Rich

Or a particularly productive growing season or two. ;-)

Cheers! Rich