patrick.net

At that point the Gulf of California will be approaching Phoenix and your RE will go up in price! ;-)

I heard Phoenix will be a paradise by then.

bubblesitter says

I heard Phoenix will be a paradise by then.

140 degrees in the shade instead of 115.

bubblesitter says

I heard Phoenix will be a paradise by then.

DO YOUR MATH

That place will never be a paradise.

freak80 says

At that point the Gulf of California will be approaching Phoenix and your RE will go up in price! ;-)

Nope, the Gulf just pushes further up into CA.
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

As the Colorado river basin drys Phoenix will become even more of a desert (yes, it can get less habitable).

This was discussed at length in this thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1213579

robertoaribas says

All it takes is an appreciation of beautiful stark desert climate, and brass cajones to love life here!

And sunscreen. Lot's and lots of sunscreen. At least if you're a pale white boy like me.

robertoaribas says

personally, I like watching the vultures circle over me while I ride!

Okay, dude, please tell me you're writing for our entertainment now. The whole of what you just wrote is really funny.

I agree, somewhat, through. I sometimes visit Tucson and really love it. I usually go in Winter. I grew up in a similar climate and have fond memories.

If I lived out there I would have every imaginable sand toy.
sand car
sand rail
dune buggy
25 dirt bikes
15 lifted rotting away trucks
RV/Trailer/Toy hauler

Its redneck paradise out there. Try owning all that shit in san franciso (im pretty sure they are all illegal there anyway)

and one boat (in case of flash flood when the once in a decade rain storm hits)

Hell, it is the ONLY thing the nitwits on this sight haven't used as a reason not to buy, so I'll do it for them!

By sight, you did mean website I assume? I wasn't sure, between the insulting the readers intelligence and then following it up with an immediate misspelling, I was laughing so hard, I thought maybe me eyez wuz playin trix on me!

Over time I've come to realize, I'm not as smart as I think I am

For all who currently live in coastal areas, it will be new meaning to "being underwater" on their mortgagues!

Sounds like you are a hoaxster, putting up all those comments in an effort to tarnish a community college teacher you have a grudge against.

robertoaribas says

the nitwits on this sight

Let's try your sentence again, "the nit-wits on this site..." JEEZ

robertoaribas says

errc says

By sight, you did mean website

Ingles is my second language... screw spelling!

Why do I feel Ingles is your first language and you are just a bad actor?

Global Warming is a hoax. But if carbon taxes become mandatory then the cost of energy sky rockets. That would push prices down on housing costs for bigger houses. Smaller less expensive housing units would be more in demand...

robertoaribas says

cdw7503 says

Global Warming is a hoax.

Only in the US do you see idiots saying these things...

The sun heats our planet and the sun heats the earth in cycles that go up and down. But we are lead to believe that CO2 causes global warming without taking into account sun cycles? This makes no sense to a reasonable person. BTW, you seemed to have missed the official hoax memo...its not global warming any more it is now "climate change." By using "climate change" the powers that be can claim any unusual weather condition is caused by humans and CO2. But feel free to turn your brain off and call me names to prove you are right. That's always effective...

Roberto....99.9% really?...read this and weep. James Lovelock started all this Global Warming nonsense...now read what he thinks...

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?fb_ref=.T5YUnODYffU.like&fb_source=profile_multiline

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

I graduated from UC Berkeley too genius. But it doesn't matter where you went to college if you can't think for yourself.

Pay any Scientist enough and they'll write whatever you want them to. Any Climate Scientist that wants Federal Govt funding must agree with Global Warming/Climate Change theories or they don't get funding. Just ask the scientists that have disagreed with the Global Warming hoax. They'll tell you they no longer work at the university they used to work at. That's not objective science, that is coercion.

cdw7503 says

But we are lead to believe that CO2 causes global warming without taking into account sun cycles?

*YAWN*

Solar scientist on the whole no longer believe that.

It is an old hypothesis that never gained much traction. The more evidence that comes in it appears that it is less and less likely to be true.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."

cdw7503 says

Pay any Scientist enough and they'll write whatever you want them to. Any Climate Scientist that wants Federal Govt funding must agree with Global Warming/Climate Change theories or they don't get funding. Just ask the scientists that have disagreed with the Global Warming hoax.

Money from the Koch Brothers, speaking engagements at the Heartland institute and being a "scientific" commentator for Newscorp are probably far more lucrative than a "normal" climate science career. But, then again I suppose that depends on how much ones self-respect, integrity, and dignity are worth.

cdw7503 says

They'll tell you they no longer work at the university they used to work at. That's not objective science, that is coercion.

Well...objective science has already amassed a mountain of data showing that global warming deniers are most likely wrong.

What should a University do about a biology professor who insists that evolution is wrong and that intelligent design should be the basis of his/her research and lectures? Or a geography professor that insists the earth is flat?

Yes, they should be fired because they are doing a disservice to their students and the university.

cdw7503 says

Roberto....99.9% really?...read this and weep.

Hahahaha, you funny!

Yes, sorry to disappoint you but James Lovelock is still with the, "99.9% of all climate scientists accept this theory of climate change." as Rob put it.

Did you even read the article? Or were you just hoping that no one else would read it and see how horribly out of context you took the quotes?

Here are some more quotes (emphasis mine):
"Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared."

"Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: 'It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.'"

"He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature..."

"'We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,' Lovelock said."

"...humanity should still 'do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning' and try to adapt to the coming changes."

Just one more question cdw...

...did you weep when you read this?

cdw7503 says

...it doesn't matter where you went to college if you can't think for yourself.

Well, put cdw7503 something that we can agree on...

If global warming makes everything like Phoenix then I would agree. The suicide rate would go up, hence less buyers. And we all know that only renters commit suicide. Owners have so much more enjoyment out of life. What, with all them additional expenses to make them feel important. HOA, Taxes, PMI, insurance, closing/opening/middle/sub-open/documentation/setup/origination/title/just because/go screw yourself fee/etc./etc. Really important.

There's a lot of debate in the scientific community about *how much* warming will occur. But the basic theory of AGW is pretty much settled science.

As with most things in life, the devil is in the details. Will there be a lot of warming or just a little? What will that mean for agriculture and water supplies? That's where the debate has shifted.

leo707 says

Solar scientist on the whole no longer believe that.

It is an old hypothesis that never gained much traction. The more evidence that comes in it appears that it is less and less likely to be true.

Who funds his research? Can he really publish the opposite of what he did publish or is his job dependent on taking the position he has? This is critical.

freak80 says

There's a lot of debate in the scientific community about *how much* warming will occur. But the basic theory of AGW is pretty much settled science.

As with most things in life, the devil is in the details. Will there be a lot of warming or just a little? What will that mean for agriculture and water supplies? That's where the debate has shifted.

The "settled science people" claim that if we don't take draconian measures to stop warming then we all die. Lovelock says: "we don't know what the climate is doing." This is not settled science...far from it. That means it is all open to debate. Humans have lived on earth for what 10,000 or 20,000 years or so. We only have 120 years of reliable recorded data on temperatures. We can't even predict the weather accurately a month out, and yet we want to call claims that temps will dramatically increase over the next 10-20 years as accurate? Really? Who benefits financially if we cause major human suffering by doubling or tripling energy costs through "carbon taxes?" Al Gore and other people like him benefit massively correct?

cdw7503 says

Who funds his research?

Not the Koch Brothers or the Heartland institute I can tell you that.

Although the Koch Brothers did accidentally fund a study that found global warming to be real.

Oops...I guess it is getting harder and harder to find a climate scientist who lacks any and all professional ethics or self dignity.

Don't worry their is plenty of funding for a climate scientist who wants to run studies with the attempt to deny global warming.

cdw7503 says

Can he really publish the opposite of what he did publish or is his job dependent on taking the position he has? This is critical.

Agreed, this is critical and I already answered it here (if you need more clarification on my position on this topic, please let me know):
leo707 says

Well...objective science has already amassed a mountain of data showing that global warming deniers are most likely wrong.

What should a University do about a biology professor who insists that evolution is wrong and that intelligent design should be the basis of his/her research and lectures? Or a geography professor that insists the earth is flat?

Yes, they should be fired because they are doing a disservice to their students and the university.

Cdw7503, why did you not answer this question of mine?
leo707 says

Did you even read the article? Or were you just hoping that no one else would read it and see how horribly out of context you took the quotes?

It boils down to this...

Why lie? Why would you lie about Lovelock's position on global warming? Why take his quotes out of context? Did you lie out of ignorance (not actually having read the article), or was it a calculated attempt at deception?

cdw7503 says

The "settled science people" claim that if we don't take draconian measures to stop warming then we all die. Lovelock says: "we don't know what the climate is doing." This is not settled science...far from it. That means it is all open to debate.

No, "all" is not open for debate at this point.

The fact that global warming is happening has been settled, Lovelock agrees with this.

The current debate -- outside the crackpot circles -- is how severe the consequences of GW will be. Lovelock has recently shifted his opinion on this.

You know this, why would you misrepresent Lovelock's comments?

@cdw7503, well based on your additional posing out-of-context Lovelock quotes I am starting to assume that you are intentionally trying to deceive forum readers.

Here is a little tip for you buddy.

As tempting as it may be for someone who has very little to no legitimate data backing their argument, telling lies does not strengthen your point. In fact it makes you seem like an untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives, and others are much less likely to believe anything you have to say.

I hope this helps!

leo707 says

It boils down to this...

Why lie? Why would you lie about Lovelock's position on global warming? Why take his quotes out of context? Did you lie out of ignorance (not actually having read the article), or was it a calculated attempt at deception?

Is this out of context? Does this sound like settled science that we are all going to die if we don't dramatically reduce CO2 emissions? Quotes don't lie...is English difficult for you?

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

cdw7503 says

Quotes don't lie

Ah, haha, good one! Why yes they can if taken out of context by a liar!

cdw7503 says

Is this out of context?

Yes, when you conveniently ignore the fact that Lovelock still thinks GW is happening, that it is caused by CO2, but it has been "deferred a bit" com paired to his original estimations.

That my friend is a deception!

The question is, why do you feel that you must deceive and lie in order to support your view that global warming is not happening?

cdw7503 says

The "settled science people" claim that if we don't take draconian measures to stop warming then we all die.

I don't believe that.

Fail.

leo707 says

As tempting as it may be for someone who has very little to no legitimate data backing their argument, telling lies does not strengthen your point. In fact it makes you seem like an untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives, and others are much less likely to believe anything you have to say.

So if I don't agree with you then I am an "untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives." Logical fallacies will NOT help you win any debates, but it does indicate that you believe you can not win the debate by supporting what you claim by quoting what Lovelock actually says.leo707 says

The current debate -- outside the crackpot circles -- is how severe the consequences of GW will be. Lovelock has recently shifted his opinion on this.

I agree with you on this. This is not "settled science." He is saying that there is still a lot about the climate that we don't know about...how the oceans effect the climate etc. And what he and Al Gore have said in the past is NOT accurate. This is a MAJOR shift in thinking about the climate on the part of Lovelock. Surely you can agree about this. right?

freak80 says

cdw7503 says

The "settled science people" claim that if we don't take draconian measures to stop warming then we all die.

I don't believe that.

Fail.

Yes, this thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1216530 is appropriate here I think.

Yes, everybody already knows Al Gore is a crank.

Realistically, the only way to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions is with nuclear power. People aren't going to give up their cars, especially in the USA. Our whole development pattern in the USA assumes $1 gasoline.

cdw7503 says

So if I don't agree with you then I am an "untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives."

No, you can be free to disagree with me on anything. No harm no foul. Reasonable people can disagree, that is part of life.

When someone who begins to use deception and lies in order to support their argument (regardless of if they are right or wrong), then they start entering into the territory of an "untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives."

cdw7503 says

quoting what Lovelock actually says

But I did (see my posts above), and from his quotes it is clear that he believes GW is real, it is caused by CO2 and the effects are further into the future than he originally thought.

cdw7503 says

And what he and Al Gore have said in the past is NOT accurate. This is a MAJOR shift in thinking about the climate on the part of Lovelock. Surely you can agree about this. right?

Yes, he had a shift in thinking, but it was not as significant as you are making it out to be. "NOT accurate" is different from totally wrong, or doing an 180 on his position.

All he did was shift his time table further into the future, he did not say that that consequences were no longer an issue and we should no longer concern ourselves with GW.

Saying so is a disingenuous lie.

freak80 says

Realistically, the only way to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions is with nuclear power.

Yes, and for a long time Lovelock has advocated this.

Something that has gotten him in trouble with "green" groups.

leo707 says

Yes, and for a long time Lovelock has advocated this.
Something that has gotten him in trouble with "green" groups.

That's the thing. There's no other zero-CO2 energy source that's economical and available on a large enough scale to matter. At least not yet. If there is, I am not aware of it.

When compared to coal, I can't help but have the opinion that nuclear power is the lesser of the two evils. Nuclear power could at least slow the rate of CO2 buildup and warming, giving humans and ecosystems more time to adapt.

There is one word that explains everything you should know about global warming (yes, warming...which just might lead to a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario of a new ice age, but only if all of the factors line up).

Food.

The civilization story as we know it depends on vast quantities of food: grown, harvested, transported and processed with vast quantities of energy. Every step of the way is dependent upon the STABILITY and PREDICTABILITY of the weather.
In other words, the arguments that say "we don't know what the climate is doing" actually prove the point that we have a major problem on our hands right now: not in the future centuries. Money won't buy more food if the farmers can't grow it, and the farmers can't grow it if the weather isn't at least reasonably similar to what it has been for the last 100 years (the cycle of developing new species that can handle a large change in climate). So, the statement that "weather is not climate" is bullshit. Stability of weather is FOOD, and climate is the stability of the weather (as compared to the weather when the food species were adapted to that weather pattern).
The "hockey stick" graph of temperature is not significant in whether it is man-made or not: it is significant in its exponential representation of the change in temperature over the last 100 years. It does not show a 'peak' or any sign of slowing down. The thermal inertia of the oceans and the ice packs have moderated the change for one or maybe two of the most recent generations.

Then that's it. The fruit trees bloom too early, then freeze, then have no fruit. The corn grows, but sees a drought during pollination and grows no seed (this year, not "by 20XX"). The farmers with cattle get rid of their cattle and don't buy more because there won't be corn to feed them. The semi-arid grasslands dry up and fires cover more acreage each year (now..not in "20XX").

Look around. Agriculture is a system that predicts the future from average weather by its very existence. It is now failing to predict 2 years (insect and bird patters alone will show this), let alone the decades necessary for government planning.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/16/855861/warmer-temperatures-make-new-usda-plant-zone-map-obsolete/

You can't just drill for more food. Someone has to grow it, and they can't grow it under unstable conditions.

freak80 says

leo707 says

Yes, and for a long time Lovelock has advocated this.

Something that has gotten him in trouble with "green" groups.

That's the thing. There's no other zero-CO2 energy source that's economical and available on a large enough scale to matter. At least not yet. If there is, I am not aware of it.

When compared to coal, I can't help but have the opinion that nuclear power is the lesser of the two evils. Nuclear power could at least slow the rate of CO2 buildup and warming, giving humans and ecosystems more time to adapt.

Most of the things people are using energy for (some 15% of the grid is now for internet porn (video.whether people are naked or not, is porn)) don't need to be done. A car weighs 2000 lbs. A person weighs 200: ergo, we are burning up 10 times as much to get people to work as is necessary.
The suggestion that we have a crisis because we can't meet energy "demand" is simply a misdirection: the demand has nothing to do with Malthusian needs, and thus, the arguments over energy 'solutions' and the 'cost' of a carbon tax are simply entertainment (Giant stone heads on Easter Island) while we ignore the resulting destruction going on around us. Everyone can argue, but few can build an electric car or grow their own food without doing some actual learning and work.

Airplanes use a crapload of energy.