4 ms·

US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

13 points by newacc 17y ago

anon-e-moose 17y ago
On the other hand, a lot more people die from cold, so if you decrease that, it could be a net win... http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-grea... Let me be even more sarcastic and snide... maybe people who are afraid of global warming are close minded and afraid of change...
- jshen 17y ago
  Wanting to avoid death, disease, and destruction is not the same as a general fear of change.
  - anon-e-moose 17y ago
    And you could make a similar point about almost any other time someone is said to be afraid of change... that's why I'm making fun of it.
    - jshen 17y ago
      changing jobs or moving to a new city is not remotely the same as the consequences of global warming. Sorry, it just isn't.
  - pj 17y ago
    I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction. We could move the cities inland. We could optimize buildings to keep people cooler. We could find more efficient forms of energy to enable more indoor climate control. The current stress right now is to stop climate control. We humans believe we can stop climate control, but what if we can't? What if it actually is due to sun spots and beyond our control? It seems like it would make sense to adapt to the change rather than try to stop the change.
    - jshen 17y ago
      And if it is due primarily to carbon why not stop putting out so much carbon? I can't seem to find it right now, but I've seen a study that showed that the temperature changes we've seen do not coincide with sun activity. We can measure these things. Also, global warming will cause death, disease, and destruction. This is clear from only one of it's effects, sea level rise.
    - jshen 17y ago
      Sorry, had to reply again. "I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction." What I was saying is that global warming will lead to death and destruction. "We could move the cities inland. " I love how people say this like it's no biggie. Let's hire some contractors and bam, city moved. LOL. I'm guessing it's a lot easier to reduce are use of fossil fuels than it is to move a few major cities. what do you think?
      - pj 17y ago
        China moved hundreds of millions of people away from the lake formed behind the three gorges dam. That's ultimately what will happen. Either we'll build levies around the whole continent to protect coastal areas or the people will move. It'll probably be a combination of both.
        jshen 17y ago
        China doesn't have the same level of infrastructure as we do. Imagine trying to move large chunks of Los Angeles. That's a completely different animal isn't it? Doesn't it seem easier and cheaper to reduce our energy use than to move multiple cities like Los Angeles? I personally think it's a better idea to avoid serious problems than to accept the enormous pain that will come with ideas like "hey, change is normal".
        pj 17y ago
        I don't believe reducing our energy consumption is going to have much effect on global warming. I think the sun is way more powerful an influence on our climate than humans.
mildweed 17y ago
Ask YC: How will 'Unequivocal Warming' provide new opportunities? Technology is our hammer, so what can we start making now? A weather aggregator and tracker (and projector)? Information services that decrease carbon emissions? Ex: http://neighborhoodfruit.com http://neighborhoodfruit.com Let's brainstorm right here.
mynameishere 17y ago
Not sure why it would lower crop production. Also not sure why maple syrup is worth mentioning.
- pchristensen 17y ago
  Because the American syrup tappers will lose their jobs to Canadians. 80% of syrup already comes from Canada.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Wouldn't that easily be offset by gains in citrus production? After all, more people drink orange juice that consume syrup. Heck, most of the syrup you get doesn't come from trees anyway.
    - pchristensen 17y ago
      Sure. I believe that global warming has the potential to be a big net positive because it will shake things up and create new markets and opportunities. I think the syrup thing is just an example of the straws that the "no changes anywhere ever" people have to grasp at to show how bad global warming will be. Since artificial syrup > Canadian syrup > Vermont syrup, we're talking about economic damage to a small fraction of one product. But those workers have their very own senator or two.
- abrahamsen 17y ago
  The reason stated was pests. Most likely both crop production and pesticide use will increase in the north, mostly due to increased temperature allowing for both longer growing seasons and better conditions for pests. The CO2 effect will be dwarfed by the temperature effect in the north. The effect in the south will mostly be determined be access to water, either as rain or irrigation, and have huge local variations. Where there is good access to water, production will rise (due to increased CO2), where there isn't, it will drop. Overall, I'd expect a significant increase in crop production, but we may have to get used to new crops and varieties to get the full effect.
- 17y ago
pragmatic 17y ago
Just in time for one of the coldest summers on record. It's hard for people to fathom the thought of global warming while their local weather is in fact colder. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a good reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree and doom the island think as he used his stone axe? While I remain skeptical about global climate change, I can also appreciate the fact that polluting less and taking care of the environment is a good thing. The problem is that even as America becomes cleaner, China, India and the rest of the third world are burning trees and coal like crazy.
- jzachary 17y ago
  I don't about where you live, but along the Gulf Coast region, it is hotter and drier than normal.
- lilsis 17y ago
  I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to the theory of giant ball of nuclear fire leads to warmer temperatures -> increase in ocean temperatures -> release of dissolved CO2 & increase in water vapor -> greater greenhouse effect I don't hate the environment and obviously we should be reducing our impact, but cleaner air and water should be cause enough. If anyone can explain to me why my reasoning is flawed I'll be happy to champion the idea that global warming is primarily driven by man... it would actually make my life easier to embrace it as fact. However, as it stands now, it seems to me a rather arrogant proposition.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    "Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this?" Because the water vapor isn't what's increasing, except as an effect of the warming trend caused by higher CO2 concentration. "I subscribe to the theory of giant ball of nuclear fire leads to warmer temperatures -> increase in ocean temperatures -> release of dissolved CO2 & increase in water vapor -> greater greenhouse effect" Care to explain why the sun progressively got hotter in a way that strongly correlates with the release of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution?
swombat 17y ago
Please fix the URL to the NYTimes URL, since this is a NYTimes article...
TrevorJ 17y ago
I still haven't heard convincing arguments for global warming as fact. Climate change, yes, but warming as a result of human activity on a global scale no. Chief among my concerns is the fact that Mars seems to be warming as well. http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-resp...
gabeybaby 17y ago
Let Carl Zimmer sort it out for you: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/27/unchecked-ice-a-saga-in-five-chapters/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/27/unchecked-...
anamax 17y ago
I measure how serious someone is about CO2 and global warming by their enthusiasm for nuclear power. A govt that claims to be concerned about CO2 that isn't pouring concrete for dozens of reactors isn't worried about CO2, it's worried about something else. It's porkulus II, bigger and badder.

13 points by newacc 17y ago

On the other hand, a lot more people die from cold, so if you decrease that, it could be a net win... http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-grea... Let me be even more sarcastic and snide... maybe people who are afraid of global warming are close minded and afraid of change...

jshen 17y ago
Wanting to avoid death, disease, and destruction is not the same as a general fear of change.
- anon-e-moose 17y ago
  And you could make a similar point about almost any other time someone is said to be afraid of change... that's why I'm making fun of it.
  - jshen 17y ago
    changing jobs or moving to a new city is not remotely the same as the consequences of global warming. Sorry, it just isn't.
- pj 17y ago
  I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction. We could move the cities inland. We could optimize buildings to keep people cooler. We could find more efficient forms of energy to enable more indoor climate control. The current stress right now is to stop climate control. We humans believe we can stop climate control, but what if we can't? What if it actually is due to sun spots and beyond our control? It seems like it would make sense to adapt to the change rather than try to stop the change.
  - jshen 17y ago
    And if it is due primarily to carbon why not stop putting out so much carbon? I can't seem to find it right now, but I've seen a study that showed that the temperature changes we've seen do not coincide with sun activity. We can measure these things. Also, global warming will cause death, disease, and destruction. This is clear from only one of it's effects, sea level rise.
  - jshen 17y ago
    Sorry, had to reply again. "I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction." What I was saying is that global warming will lead to death and destruction. "We could move the cities inland. " I love how people say this like it's no biggie. Let's hire some contractors and bam, city moved. LOL. I'm guessing it's a lot easier to reduce are use of fossil fuels than it is to move a few major cities. what do you think?
    - pj 17y ago
      China moved hundreds of millions of people away from the lake formed behind the three gorges dam. That's ultimately what will happen. Either we'll build levies around the whole continent to protect coastal areas or the people will move. It'll probably be a combination of both.
      - jshen 17y ago
        China doesn't have the same level of infrastructure as we do. Imagine trying to move large chunks of Los Angeles. That's a completely different animal isn't it? Doesn't it seem easier and cheaper to reduce our energy use than to move multiple cities like Los Angeles? I personally think it's a better idea to avoid serious problems than to accept the enormous pain that will come with ideas like "hey, change is normal".
        pj 17y ago
        I don't believe reducing our energy consumption is going to have much effect on global warming. I think the sun is way more powerful an influence on our climate than humans.

mildweed 17y ago

Ask YC: How will 'Unequivocal Warming' provide new opportunities? Technology is our hammer, so what can we start making now? A weather aggregator and tracker (and projector)? Information services that decrease carbon emissions? Ex: http://neighborhoodfruit.com http://neighborhoodfruit.com Let's brainstorm right here.

mynameishere 17y ago

Not sure why it would lower crop production. Also not sure why maple syrup is worth mentioning.

pchristensen 17y ago
Because the American syrup tappers will lose their jobs to Canadians. 80% of syrup already comes from Canada.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Wouldn't that easily be offset by gains in citrus production? After all, more people drink orange juice that consume syrup. Heck, most of the syrup you get doesn't come from trees anyway.
  - pchristensen 17y ago
    Sure. I believe that global warming has the potential to be a big net positive because it will shake things up and create new markets and opportunities. I think the syrup thing is just an example of the straws that the "no changes anywhere ever" people have to grasp at to show how bad global warming will be. Since artificial syrup > Canadian syrup > Vermont syrup, we're talking about economic damage to a small fraction of one product. But those workers have their very own senator or two.
abrahamsen 17y ago
The reason stated was pests. Most likely both crop production and pesticide use will increase in the north, mostly due to increased temperature allowing for both longer growing seasons and better conditions for pests. The CO2 effect will be dwarfed by the temperature effect in the north. The effect in the south will mostly be determined be access to water, either as rain or irrigation, and have huge local variations. Where there is good access to water, production will rise (due to increased CO2), where there isn't, it will drop. Overall, I'd expect a significant increase in crop production, but we may have to get used to new crops and varieties to get the full effect.
17y ago

pragmatic 17y ago

Just in time for one of the coldest summers on record. It's hard for people to fathom the thought of global warming while their local weather is in fact colder. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a good reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree and doom the island think as he used his stone axe? While I remain skeptical about global climate change, I can also appreciate the fact that polluting less and taking care of the environment is a good thing. The problem is that even as America becomes cleaner, China, India and the rest of the third world are burning trees and coal like crazy.

jzachary 17y ago
I don't about where you live, but along the Gulf Coast region, it is hotter and drier than normal.
lilsis 17y ago
I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to the theory of giant ball of nuclear fire leads to warmer temperatures -> increase in ocean temperatures -> release of dissolved CO2 & increase in water vapor -> greater greenhouse effect I don't hate the environment and obviously we should be reducing our impact, but cleaner air and water should be cause enough. If anyone can explain to me why my reasoning is flawed I'll be happy to champion the idea that global warming is primarily driven by man... it would actually make my life easier to embrace it as fact. However, as it stands now, it seems to me a rather arrogant proposition.
- philwelch 17y ago
  "Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this?" Because the water vapor isn't what's increasing, except as an effect of the warming trend caused by higher CO2 concentration. "I subscribe to the theory of giant ball of nuclear fire leads to warmer temperatures -> increase in ocean temperatures -> release of dissolved CO2 & increase in water vapor -> greater greenhouse effect" Care to explain why the sun progressively got hotter in a way that strongly correlates with the release of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution?

swombat 17y ago

Please fix the URL to the NYTimes URL, since this is a NYTimes article...

TrevorJ 17y ago

I still haven't heard convincing arguments for global warming as fact. Climate change, yes, but warming as a result of human activity on a global scale no. Chief among my concerns is the fact that Mars seems to be warming as well. http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-resp...

gabeybaby 17y ago

Let Carl Zimmer sort it out for you: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/27/unchecked-ice-a-saga-in-five-chapters/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/27/unchecked-...

anamax 17y ago

I measure how serious someone is about CO2 and global warming by their enthusiasm for nuclear power. A govt that claims to be concerned about CO2 that isn't pouring concrete for dozens of reactors isn't worried about CO2, it's worried about something else. It's porkulus II, bigger and badder.