|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2009 2:00:19 GMT
To my way of thinking, the economic disruption of cooling far outweighs the economic disruption of warming.
Failed crops because of a shorter growing season, reduced yields etc, will cause widespread hunger because no one will have the resources to buy food.
The resulting imbalance of income spent on food will bring growth to a screeching halt.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 23, 2009 2:38:36 GMT
David Archibald has been following the line of cooling for several years. He has been right where others have missed the cooling trend. He has stated that we should be planning for the reduction in crops. His thoughts on the current minimum are here wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/08/more-maunder-than-dalton/Very smart guy although Leif Svalgaard is often at odds with Archibalds predictions, but David has been calling correctly no matter what the methods. All this foolishness about AGW has been in my estimation just a grab for power and money. Global cooling will be harmful to all.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 23, 2009 3:07:00 GMT
Here's a question that I'm not certain has been pondered on this board:
What would be more damaging to economics and thus the human race?
A. Cooling that affects agriculture growing seasons and zones, or
B. Wasting trillions of dollars trying to prevent global warming that can't be stopped or doesn't materialize at all.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 23, 2009 3:37:01 GMT
Obama and our congress want to do both. No energy policy other than tax everyone into oblivion. Very creative from the community organizer who continues to blame job losses on Bush. The Aristocracy does not care a hoot about lowly citizens only about what is in it for them. Harry Reid, Pelosi and Rangle come to mind a den of thieves avoiding taxes at every turn while lining their pockets with favors. Cooling will not bother the rich Aristocrats as much as it will bother the poor. Warming is way preferable to cooling, witness the MWP. Maunder type event not good, not good at all.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 23, 2009 4:40:16 GMT
Also, prevailing winds will likely change as the earth returns to its prior configuration with the polar vortex and jet streams pushing in the general direction of the equator...greatly affecting wind power.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Oct 23, 2009 21:20:00 GMT
As far as the context of the survey goes, a change in 5% of the global economy is freakin HUGE. I voted for no change, because in 5% increments, you're looking at a disaster of .... well... Words fail me. You'd have to account for 5% of the economic activity somehow, I'm guessing through a combination of higher fuel costs and higher food costs.
I don't think that's going to happen. And I think the poll should be changed to reflect that 5% is a huge amount.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by lyrch75 on Oct 23, 2009 21:29:50 GMT
Also, prevailing winds will likely change as the earth returns to its prior configuration with the polar vortex and jet streams pushing in the general direction of the equator...greatly affecting wind power. Where would I find something to read on this?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 23, 2009 22:02:31 GMT
Also, prevailing winds will likely change as the earth returns to its prior configuration with the polar vortex and jet streams pushing in the general direction of the equator...greatly affecting wind power. Where would I find something to read on this? no clue but when the temperature gradients change over a large area...prevailing winds are bound to change as well. Actually wikipedia mentions the climate cycles in the jet stream article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Changes_due_to_climate_cycles
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2009 23:45:58 GMT
As far as the context of the survey goes, a change in 5% of the global economy is freakin HUGE. I voted for no change, because in 5% increments, you're looking at a disaster of .... well... Words fail me. You'd have to account for 5% of the economic activity somehow, I'm guessing through a combination of higher fuel costs and higher food costs. I don't think that's going to happen. And I think the poll should be changed to reflect that 5% is a huge amount. Belushi TD I don't know how to change the poll being it is up now. However, in my choices, I was reflecting my thoughts. Yes 5% is huge, but during the early 2000's, the global economy was growing at 4.5 to 5%. So, cooling would amount to one year of no growth, which on a historical basis really isn't that severe. That is also why I added the 10% number. Long periods of cold weather will really screw things up.
|
|
sagi
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by sagi on Oct 24, 2009 0:33:57 GMT
Agree that prolonged and substantial global cooling would indeed screw things up, and that 10% or worse is on target.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Oct 27, 2009 19:53:02 GMT
A 5% contraction would not be a year of no growth, it would be a year of NEGATIVE growth...
HUGE difference. If you're expecting the economy to grow 5%, and it shrinks 5%, that's a 10% change from your expectations.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 27, 2009 22:22:45 GMT
A 5% contraction would not be a year of no growth, it would be a year of NEGATIVE growth... HUGE difference. If you're expecting the economy to grow 5%, and it shrinks 5%, that's a 10% change from your expectations. Belushi TD If the economy is growing at 5%, and as a result of cooling it doesn't grow, that is a 5% reduction. Note I indicated contraction, not negative growth.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Oct 28, 2009 21:16:53 GMT
No, its not...
(gotta retype becaues the cybergnomes ate the damn post...)
If you start at 100, and you expect it to be 105, and you end up at 105, then that's 5% growth.
If you start at 100 and you expect it to be 105, and it ends up at 100, thats NO growth. NOT contraction.
If you start at 100 and you expect it to be 105, and it ends up at 95, that's 5% contraction.
You have to end up with less than you started for it to be contraction. Just not meeting a preset goal doesn't mean that its getting smaller.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Oct 28, 2009 22:10:20 GMT
AHEM! Numerology aside, it might be well worth your while to stick your heads up and look around a little. Many of those pushing AGW, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, want to either remove man from the scene entirely, or reduce the total human population to a level that will make any sort of technological society impossible.
That is, anything from zero for the Gaeists to a half billion for some of the other cultists. Others are willing to go to a billion - and at least one would be satisfied at two billion. Or about the total population of the Earth when I was born.
To that end, mass starvation would be desirable. Sigurdur at least will be quite aware of the sources of fertilizers - and quite possibly the difference between yields with animal and mechanized cultivation.
One need only think about the desire to depopulate the Earth, along with the ramifications of a 3.5 to 4.0 trillion dollar tax on fossil fuels, Obama's EPA's flat refusal to grant new coal mining permits, and a few other minor items to see that it's going to be a very cold and a very hungry minimum.
And deliberately so, if those who consider themselves our masters have their way.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Oct 29, 2009 19:50:23 GMT
Oh, I'm well aware of the nutjobs out there (and those who are not considered nutjobs, but still want to kill 3/4 to 5/6ths of our population) and have decided that the next time I get into a discussion with one, I'll say one thing....
"You go first."
I'm guessing that that would shut them up, allowing me to get on with some bits of drinking that I've been putting off.
Belushi TD
|
|