2013 Marks The 17th Year Without Global Warming.

Also, 2 is the only scenario with a definite disastrous outcome in that argument.

The argument that 3 would be disastrous is predicated on the assumption that spending money on the problem can only end in economic ruin. That isn't the case.

Btw, I do realize that the argument doesn't say that 3 absolutely ends in economic ruin, but the lack of a cost outcome is a big weakness

 

It would have the largest effect on those in extreme poverty in third world countries. The higher energy cost here would hinder our lives, but higher energy cost their has deadly implications.

 

The Northwest Passage becoming a reality isn't dramatic for you. I get it. I'm not sure that anything would be dramatic enough at this point.

 

I think this is an excellent line of thought, and recommend you take a look at this book: http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Worst-That-Could-Happen/dp/0399535012

 

It's no where close to a reality. I tell you what. I'll bet you $5k it doesn't happen in the next 10 years. I mean it's becoming a reality right? Should be easy money

 

Just send a check to hat's charity, because it has already happened in 2007 and 2012 and new shipping routes are being drawn up throughout the Arctic:


http://www.livescience.com/1884-arctic-meltdown-opens-fabled-northwest-passage.html

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/07/northwest-passage-as-good-as-open.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/chin...t-could-change-the-face-of-world-trade-2013-8



You're right, that was easy. Though you setting an arbitrary time window of 5 years is either a sign of an expert gambler or a sign that you do not consider the effect of regular solar cycles and ENSO, which both last longer than 5 years and could have helped you "win" without the basis for your statement being valid (you know, had you not already lost before offering the bet).

 

That's like arguing flying cars for everyone are close to reality

 

You seem to be ignoring the actual passage portion of the northwest passage. You know the ice field animals and humans walked across which is no were close to existing in my lifetime. This is why global warming people get a bad name. Instead of simply saying there is more ice than normal and that could be a sign of global warming they take it 50 times further and start talking about the northwest passage reappearing. Stay away from the hyperbole and maybe Americans will come around to your way of thinking .

 

Whut?

 

This is me.

So China isn't using the Arctic Passageway to ship goods???

 

Are you thinking of the bridge from Russia to Alaska?

 

And that was also thought to have been a land bridge while the water level was low from the glaciation in the northern hemisphere. And the Northwest Passage was the sea passage that was sought for by many a sailor to take you from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which until recently was not possible. But with the massive ice melts, there have been years where that passage was open, as IP gave links to showing.

 

You are assuming that energy research can only yield oppressively expensive energy sources.

 

I'm not assuming anything, as I can't foresee the future. However if we restrict and drive up the current energy sources, people that depend on them the most for a substance level existence are going to suffer the most from that policy.


I can handle the absorption of higher fuel cost easier than a poor village in Africa that needs gas to run their water pump for clean drinking water.

 

It had been navigated prior to recent years.

 

The bering sea has been open for like 6000 years. Not sure what that has to do with the nw passage or how it hurts my credibility. I think you are confused on the geography and facts.

 

It is cheaper to run pumps by wind. You know, like still do here in the west.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15-lower-than-previous-record/

Comments are a good time.

 

Pretty sure I lost a few IQ points reading the first dozen or so. Thanks.

 

Any time!

:hi: