A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is coming true next week

The problem of food scarcity is one of distribution.

It's fine for Canada or Norway to produce more food. But, that doesn't mean that countries that can't are going to be able to buy it.

Countries that can't feed themselves are on the off ramp to collapse. See the horn of Africa. How many Somalia's do we need?

https://www.wfp.org/countries/somalia

Where do you propose that these 7 million people move?

Canada?? Norway??

 

Of course you won't read anything that challenges the global warming alarmist narrative. Sad.

US centric ?? How so ?? BTW what do the global warming alarmists say about India and Red China which emit ~ 40% of the world's man made CO2 emissions but are building approximately one fossil fueled power plant a day ?? Curiously ~ 20 years ago Chinese scientists were actually quite objective about the human contribution to global warming. Then they suddenly changed their tune realizing that the could sell solar and wind power equipment subsidized by the Chinese government to the western economies who have fully embraced global warming alarmism thus making a lot of money and, more importantly to them, weakening the western democracies which supports the Chinese Communist Party's 100 year plan for world domination.

 

Sure but in the developing countries who would achieve much higher standards of living with time and especially if aided by fossil fuel energy the prevalence of air conditioning would increase to the entire globe. China realizes this and as a political power tool they are building fossil fueled power plants in developing countries whilst the UN and other western economies build localized solar panel energy systems which provide lighting for ~ 45 minutes each night. Countries cannot develop at a reasonable rate without fossil fueled power plants providing useable energy 24/7/365.

 

If the only place you can find your argument is in one book, then you don't have an issue.

It's called China.

And, yes. the IPCC includes China and works toward reducing greenhouse gasses.

But, Republicans fight against doing anything here in the USA, so you can probably imagine that there are people in China who hold the same Republican style views.

 

And as usual, you entirely missed my point altogether. This is why discussions with you are almost useless. You only address what you want to talk about, ignoring anything said at all.

Oh, and there were restrictions on immigration long before 1917. Once again you show how shallow your understanding of history is. About as shallow as your understanding of science.

 

But guess what? Most of that has nothing to do with production or distribution.

Somalia is a perfect example of a "man made famine". The government there collapsed decades ago, and the various warlords that dominate it use famine as a weapon against the people.

That has not a damned thing at all to do with "global warming".

Largely does not matter, as once again the famine is not caused by climate. The famine is caused by people starving them.

You might have heard of this obscure little war movie a few decades ago, called "Blackhawk Down". Based on a true story, of a UN peacekeeping mission to distribute food to the people of Somalia. And the warlords attacking the UN forces because they were trying to starve them into submission. The exact same thing is going on today in the Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen, and dozens of other countries around the world.

Unless your claim is that global warming is causing fanatics to burn crops to starve people, it has nothing to do with global warming at all.

And where they move is not the issue. Once again, the issue is that you and so many others are trying to pretend that the planet is stable, unchanging, and any change at all is wrong. Where as I recognize it has never been stable, has always changed and will always change, and until very recently people changed to adapt to that. Primarily by moving.

Population density is yet another topic, and has not a damned thing directly to do with lobal warming. However, without the global warming of the last century or so our population numbers of today would have been impossible. It is only the warming since the latter stages of the LIA that has enabled the population to increase to what it is today.

 

Nonsense. You claimed people could move.

I pointed out that the "move" solution might have worked in antiquity, but it doesn't work (and isn't working) today.

Also, the 1917 restrictions were the first restrictions enacted by congress.

But, if you want to set an earlier date, it only helps support my point.

 

What is going on today is not what happened in the event you point to.

Today, they can not produce enough food to feed their people, because of climate issues.

Read the article I sent.

Where do you want those 7 million who are starving to go?

 

I have ~ 30 books I can reference.

The CCP is laughing at the stupidity of global warming alarmists. They appreciate the value of useful idiots.

Republicans are responsible for trying to bring business back into the US. And for the US becoming energy independent. Democrats give all that away.

 

Did I say that? Is that really what I said?

Once again, showing that you are not reading what people are actually saying, or responding to what you want them to say and not what they did say.

Once again, it is not like areas of the coast never became uninhabitable before. And every time that happened, the people moved.

And they did not move by miles, but generally by a few hundred yards. Over and over and over again. Actual large movements were done by those who were already nomadic, and actually had no "home" at all. Like the Plains Indians, or the Bedouin. No actual homes, other than where they were at the moment.

Want an idea what I mean? Well, we know that at least some of the first humans to settle in North America settled here:



And in case you do not recognize that, that is San Francisco Bay. But slowly, the oceans rose and the people moved inland. Until by the time Europeans arrived it resembled what we know today.

This does not require some massive migration of an entire nation hundreds or thousands of miles across borders! You are once again obsessing over and over about something unrelated. Large migrations like the barbarians come from an outside influence causing them to relocate. Not ecological changes. John is a bully, and pushed Peter. Peter then pushes Frank, who then pushes Charles. Those are the movements that cause what you are trying to describe. That has not a damned thing to do with climate, or ocean rise, or anything else.

If you live on 20 acres of land and the creek by your house rises, are you going to say "Screw it" and move hundreds of miles away? No, you are going to rebuild your house farther from the creek.

Now in my example, I was describing past migrations. But big difference, those were already nomadic tribes who always moved and were never stationary for long. However, look to the Egyptians, or the Greeks, or any of the other coastal civilizations. They did not migrate, they simply moved a short distance in their own territory.

Hell, just look at Pavlopetri. A Mycenaean city dating from at least 2800 BCE to around 1100 BCE. And as it slowly over the centuries sank under the water, the people just moved inland. The town of Vigklafia is where their descendants now live, just a few hundred yards from where the ancient city now rests under the water. And that is hardly the only example in Greece alone. Dozens of "sunken cities" surround more modern ones.

If a ,massive earthquake was to strike Venice tomorrow and cause the city to sink through liquifaction, do you think the survivors will move to Spain? Or simply move farther inland to near the new coastline and build again? Well, you may think they will move to Spain, but I bet they will just move a bit inland.

 

I like that you are at least owning up to your suggestion that people move.

So, where should Somalis move?

Also, the cost of moving inland is gigantic. Check out the Chesapeake Bay plan. Check out the cost of flooding at NOLA. And, that is what we can do, because we are a wealthy country.

Haiti migration is interesting in that even though the land is still there, there are millions who have or are working on leaving. The USA is fighting to stop them from coming here.

Our DoD sees climate change as a serious national security issue - mostly not related to protecting our own borders.

 

Why should the Somali’s move?

Flooding always occurs. The IPCC has indicated that global warming at the consensus rate of 0.03 degrees C per year will not result in an increase in flooding. Economic growth maximized by the reducing the government imposed costs on fossil fuels provides the means to implement extensive flood control measures. A great example is Holland which consists of a high percentage of land below sea level.

Our DoD is politicized to take a position based on the alarmist narrative.

 

Somalis are starving due to lack of water.

What the Netherlands has done is based on sea level and subsurface features. Suggesting others could do that is not supportable. We're trying with NOLA, as that includes large areas that are shallow, but what's been done is not going to save NOLA.

The DoD is a LOT more intelligent than that.

 

What’s the source for that?? If true what is the reason? And how is the ~ 1 degree of warming in the last 250 years to blame?

Other nations could certainly do the same thing. In fact they do it every day.

The political appointees who are in charge of the DoD control the narratives embraced by the DoD.

 

Yes, it's hard to believe, but those in charge of the DoD control more than just narratives!!

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/...LIMATE-ADAPTATION-PLAN.PDF?source=GovDelivery

 

I will never fall into the category that believes humans can control the climate. There is no way we will ever drop the global temperature by our actions. It’s totally against our natural makeup

 

Science is NOT suggesting we can do that.

The best we can do is slow the temperature rise, so that we can maintain our standard of living while building mitigations.

 

What does our "natural makeup" have to do with the obvious effects of our industry on the climate?

It seems you're confessing that you have no intention of even trying to understand the facts, for whatever bizarre reason.

 

Meaningless document. BTW - notice the key word adaptation.

What are the actions from this document.

 

Yes. The DoD only gets to modify its own actions.

They don't get to make policy on the US as a whole, and certainly not on the policies of other nations.

 

That has nothing to do with moving, once again they are starving because they have no government and the warlords are purposefully starving them. Not relevant to this thread.

Which once again is not of importance to the thread. The cost does not matter, sea levels will continue to rise and humans will have to move. That is a scientific fact.

Why are you so obsessed over money? That has not a damned thing to do with science. It seems to me that your gods are junk science and money.

 

For some that have been asking where I get my information, it is largely from legitimate science sources. However, as I have no agenda I take the data and strip away any political nonsense if they added it in and look at simply the facts.

This in particular hits on a lot of things I have been talking about. And while I rarely ever use YouTube as a reference, this one is really good, and is less than 11 minutes long. But warning, it is still high in science content and talks about the PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) when temperatures were so much higher than they are today that there were no ice caps at all, and tropical rainforests existed in the land surrounding the Arctic.



I am not making things up when I say that there were tropical rainforests in northern Canada, including crocodiles. That is an area so cold today that little more then moss, lichens, seals, and polar bears can survive today. And they also talk about the differences between C12 and C13. And even today, most of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is C12 (natural byproduct of decomposition, respiration and organic material burning), and not C13 (byproduct of fossil fuels). In other words, far more "Carbon Dioxide" in the atmosphere today comes from natural organic processes than from our industry.

Once again, simple facts and science. But notice, this is a period of almost 200,000 years. And is when primates first evolved in North America. And in examining the life during that, we see that a great many life forms thrived and evolved drastically while others died off.

And notice, during most of the video the narrator says over and over again that they have absolutely no idea why things changed so radically, then back again. They do not know why things warmed up for 200 ky, then cooled off once again.

 

And politically impossible.

 

The DoD is part of the executive branch. They do what the President demands. Obama ordered this plan. And the DoD complied.

 

You are really struggling. The DoD has long expressed serious concerns. All Obama did was to given them the direction that allows them to take action.