The new normal. Pull meaningless numbers out of your ass, and draw completely asinine conclusions based on them.
The earth’s average temperature is set to increase 9°F (5°C) by 2100.
And if we get to that point — not the point where the 9°F (5°C) increase has arrived, but the point where that increase is inevitable, in the pipeline — it’s truly over. As I’ve been detailing, we’re looking at population and social collapse. By that I mean, human population count will collapse, and human society will collapse.
World temp set to increase 9°F (5°C) by 2100, catastrophic results
I personally can’t wait for +9F. Most of America will be (sub)tropical climate, the increased heat will cause more humidity which will cause more rain. In fact, I believe we know a lot about the earth at +9F from now, it was the jurassic/triassic/cretaceous if I recall correctly and plants and animals grew huge due to the increased CO2 causing much more rapid plant growth.
I love the way they claim that increased warmth will cause desertification of the global when the only references we have of increased warmth say we will have nothing but lush vegetation – citrus and other subtropical fruit in canada for example.
I too would love to see the forests in their full glory. Right now they are starved and but a shadow of their potential, as this video illustrates…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded
I performed this same experiment back in the 1970’s, and always got the same result.
Yep. Stronger plant life means stronger ALL life.
well, i personnally look forward to -5C instead of -10C…
If it gets too hot to grow staples like wheat and corn we just switch to growing prickly pear cactus.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=prickley+pear+cactus+recepies&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=fau_UO_7BMTlrQHznIDQBg&biw=1230&bih=670&sei=Ray_UNLcBuyDyAG8nYCQDg
mmmmm……mmmmm…….goooooood..!!
The Cacti doesn’t grow there because it is hot, it grows there because it is dry and few other things can!
Sorry squid, cacti will grow just about anywhere:
The reduced leaf surface, the enlarged fleshy stem, which is well fitted to store water and to retain it, and the ramified and extensive root system (much reduced in cultivated cacti) make the plant particularly adapted to regions of high temperature and long dry periods. Cacti are not restricted to desert regions, however, for in America they range from the tropics into Canada.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Cactus
When the sun expands and heats the earth, future living creatures will learn to love to eat cacti.
We’ve been past the tipping point so many times I’ve lost count. Alarmists take people in general for complete morons; oh, the irony. Even more ironic is that they’re unable to see the irony.
And since we are already past “the tipping point”, everything else has lost its point, hasn’t it? … time to move on …
Tom Fuller blogged today about the fact that CIDAC has published data showing that 1/3 of all man made CO2 was generated in the last 14 years. He included the graph below as well and wonders why no one seems to notice a problem with 1/3 of total man made emissions during the time frame of the graph and the temperature sabatical indicated by the graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998
By that I mean, human population count will collapse,
If it were all the alarmists that were dropping dead from panic attacks – wouldn’t that be a good thing?
It’s not as if any of this is going to be a problem to “sceptics”, is it?
and human society will collapse.
False. If all the alarmists dropped dead – society would improve – hugely.
For a start, there would be a lot more money for all the fun things.
Since the temperature isn’t rising, the only solution is to kill all the sceptics.
Eureka!
We’re DOOMED I tell you! DOOMED!
BTW, I have recently started up a new organisation called the Global Carbon Institute. It requires me to fight global warming by travelling around the world attending conferences, many in places already devastated by excess heat, such as French Polynesia. I am seeking donations from concerned individuals and government. Please email me privately. I assure you all financial transactions will be kept strictly confidential. Thank you.
Cherry pick much?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/trend
The point was that “based on current trends” warming was spiralling out of control. So it was therefore appropriate to look at global temperature “current trends”.
If you don’t want to cherry pick then go back 300 years when the current warming trend started.
Then try 2007:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/trend
Play around with the numbers. You’ll see what I’m talking about.
First you complained that ten years was too short. Now you try to prove your point by showing 5 years. Aren’t you contradicting yourself?
Why didn’t you respond to my criticism of your argument, which was that it was not unreasonable to compare recent CO2 trends against recent temperature trends?
Perhaps it is silly to consider recent trends at all but if so, shouldn’t you criticise both arguments, not just the argument you don’t like?
Wallace:
For a true trend go back 8000 years. The rest is just natural weather patterns. Better yet go back 800,000 years to really see what the climate has been.
Gaius Publius is a freelance writer.