Many global warming deniers have moved on from denying the existence or human causes of global warming to denying it's worthwhile to do anything to mitigate it. "Burn all the fossil fuels you want", they suggest, "and adapt to the changes. Doing anything to reduce global warming is too expensive."
In a spirit of reconciliation, I thought I'd put forward some specific proposals to implement their approach.
On a planet with unchecked greenhouse warming, we would have a less predictable climate, warmer on average, but with unpredictable frosts and snowstorms -- some of them in places we currently don't get snow. Drought would alternate with floods. Insects would flourish on a warmer planet, and pests of all types would migrate. And of course storms would be worse than at present, as the average wind speed increased.
Finding crops that are simultaneously drought- and flood-resistant, adapted to high temperatures but able to survive low temperatures, and usable by humans as sources of complete protein and moderately concentrated carbohydrates (comparable to grain or roots), makes for a fascinating challenge.
One possibility is to learn how to grow most of our crops indoors. Some parts of Scandinavia grow a large portion of their fruits and vegetables in glass houses, but I don't know if any nation has ever tried to raise a significant amount of its grain and animals that way. For at least half a century, there have been proposals for geodesic and inflatable domes miles in diameter, but no one could ever come up with a good enough reason to build one; ignore global warming long enough and we may get one. At any rate, if we intend to do nothing toward prevention, we need to investigate more seriously how to dome over a quarter of the worlds land area.
In case this fails, an alternative possibility is leaf protein. With a centrifuge you can extract protein from just about any kind of leaf on any kind of plant. So we could simply plant "farms" with whatever kind of biomass we can get to grow, and use centrifuges to extract the protein, which we would then treat and store. Currently leaf protein is extremely expensive compared to meat; we need a way to bring the price down.
Also, leaf protein is currently extracted from crops planted for just this purpose. An outdoor "farm" adapted to a greenhouse climate would consist of mixed plants. These would not be separate rows or beds or even the more complex arrangements we find in biointensive gardening. We would mix a variety of species, suitable for differing climates, completely. Some varieties would flourish and others fail depending on what the weather that year was suited to grow. Any wild volunteers would be welcomed; in a planet greenhouse farm, there would be no such thing as a weed.
Leaf protein is already expensive compared to animal protein, since it requires more extensive processing than normal vegetable protein. Extracting the protein from mixed leaves of a semi-random variety will require much additional research.
Another alternative is blue-green algae -- both a source of complete protein and of carbohydrates.
There is one possible protein source that will actually increase on planet greenhouse -- insects. We even know how to prepare them; there are organizations devoted to insect eating that have developed extensive recipes; some are reputed to be quite tasty. The tricky part here is harvesting. Most technology we have for dealing with insects involves killing or discouraging them. We need to learn to capture them unpoisoned in large lots. So if we don't want to live on leaves and pond scum, we can skip the vegetarian option and eat bugs.
Ah, but there is one other thing we should consider. What if the same people who oppose doing anything to prevent global warming don't want to spend the money to learn to live with it either? What a surprise that would be! Well there is still one area they would desperately need to research.
If nothing mitigates global warming, and no serious research is done to adapt to it, world food supply will drop by least one half, probably a great deal more -- at time when population will be much higher than at present. Of course water and industrial infrastructure will also be seriously impacted. The remaining people will be pretty busy improvising adaptations without a lot of preparation via prior research. So you will not have a lot of people available to dispose of the dead.
This will be a serious health hazard to the living (presumably those who favor doing nothing to mitigate climate chaos). At minimum this requires techniques whereby a few people may permanently dispose of hundreds or thousands of widely scattered corpses per day, unassisted. I should warn here that Soylent-Green-type solutions will be ineffective. Exo-cannibalism of corpses who have died of natural causes is highly dangerous to consumers, exposing them to all sorts of exotic diseases. It is important to point this out; I've seen no evidence in global warming deniers of scruples that would prevent their eating human flesh.
What to make of the new climate poll
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Threaded
Zarkov Posted 9:25 am
01 Apr 2007
>> On a planet with unchecked greenhouse warming >>
Life world be WET, life would be WARM, it would be all GOOD
BUT we are not living on a planet that has a greenhouse effect.
We are living on a planet that has a layer of UNATURAL OIL on its skin and that is preventing water evaporation.
Totally different... the double speak propaganda warming is just fine if it were true
but the oiled skin is FATAL:.
One is total BS the other is TRUTH
Which do you chose?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:48 am
01 Apr 2007
Even the most arguementative scientific skeptics agree to this.
_
But in general the real contentions are issues like.
1. It was warmer than now in the medieval warm period, infact it was fantastic and they had uber grapes and vikings. It was so awesome, warming rocks!
FALSE
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temp ...
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-07-10-global ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/eng ...
2. If there was any warming, ever, that wasn't caused by CO2. Then it's impossible to CO2 to ever have any effect, ever. Since there's only room enough for one variable in my understanding of climate! Anymore, and my mind will asplode!
FALSE
http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png
3. It's increased solar radiation from the Sun. It's so obvious!
FALSE
http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png
4. The Troposphere is cooling, therefore greenhouse gases aren't warming the planet.
FALSE
http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:58 am
01 Apr 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:02 am
01 Apr 2007
Well I didn't just whip all that stuff up for Zarkov.
I'm gearing up to make a Youtube reply to Swindle.
Well, atleast one thats a bit more scientific than my last one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0qlXDkRKxE
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:45 am
01 Apr 2007
How about Fiji? Or Brazil. Everyone there is really healthy looking, and doesn't need much energy because of all the heat.
What's wrong with being like Brazil? Don't you like Brazilian people?
For me, the whole world will be Brazil as nature continues to heat our planet with beneficent global warming -- fun loving, healthy, at the beach, and looking good!
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 11:10 am
01 Apr 2007
LOL, well what a fool you will look like by passing on corporate propaganda.
The truth about global climate change, corporate deception and the REAL possibility for the extinction of life on Earth, is about to hit the streets, so you had better get well acquainted with the facts if you wish to be taken seriously.
The consequences of Global Climate Change are far far far worse than you media guys could ever imagine.
omegafour.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:09 pm
01 Apr 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0T7Fi5l_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxjnH-UfZKI
http://www.greyfalcon.net/swindle.png
Speaking of Corporate Propaganda ;D
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:37 pm
01 Apr 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52278449904586781 ...
Permalink
Solution King Posted 3:47 pm
01 Apr 2007
Not so I have 2 methods one to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% in a residential home and save up to 50% of electricity/gas use for heating and cooling this method pays for itself after several years and then goes on to save for many years to come, the second method can capture greenhouse gas emissions and other emissions as well store them for ever and not under ground this method also pays for itself, the big problem is getting the powers that be to contact me, I offered the first method to Wal-Mart for free this corporation would get the word out much quicker than I could so we around the world Wal-Marts customers could save our planet and save money for energy costs, I got the run around after trying for 3 months.
If there is no such thing as Global Warming then how about acid rain and smog I can solve this huge problem for any city in the world, imagine Los Angeles with no smog, I have an innovation for vehicles to reduce consumption of fossil fuels as well.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:55 pm
01 Apr 2007
Well, you've certainly got my rapt attention.
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 116';l[26]=' 101';l[27]=' 110';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 110';l[30]=' 111';l[31]=' 99';l[32]=' 108';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 102';l[35]=' 121';l[36]=' 101';l[37]=' 114';l[38]=' 103';l[39]=' 64';l[40]=' 101';l[41]=' 118';l[42]=' 97';l[43]=' 100';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:58 pm
01 Apr 2007
Man, that's a 21st Century version of Dr. Strangelove!
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 8:15 pm
01 Apr 2007
Global warming is like cancer: the patient will not die in denial. Soon the pain will cut through the denial, and an accurate diagnosis will be sought.
On the other hand, delaying an accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment could cause the disease to go from serious to fatal.
What isn't popularly known is the main danger is "runaway global warming." As the earth warms, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters. Particularly, methane hydrate (ice that contains more carbon than all other fossil fuel on earth) will soon start to melt.
I urge you to look at how rapidly the CO2 level in the air has risen in the past few years. Scientists can't explain the rapid rise, and in my opinion is evidence that runaway global warming has already started.
Permalink
dannychivers Posted 9:25 pm
01 Apr 2007
I put together a cheerfully ranty response to the programme here, which includes various links that might be of use to anyone who's been exposed to the thing:
http://adaisythroughconcrete.blogspot.com/2007/03/ok-now- ...
Good luck!
Danny
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:15 pm
01 Apr 2007
Yes. This is called selective pressure. Students of evolution-by-selection consider it potentially healthy. A similarly-themed Gristmill comment was posted a few days ago (28 Mar 2007):
gristmill.grist.org/comments/2007/3/26/152849/926/34#34
A selectionist is dynamic and believes that evolution (which is good) happens faster in times of stress and changing 'environments'.
We propose to increase the speed at which Man changes the environment in order to speed evolution and create new and better species..
Gar Lipow wrote: At any rate, if we intend to do nothing toward prevention, we need to investigate more seriously how to dome over a quarter of the worlds land area.
Done.
google.com/search?q=crenosphere
By the way, the real-estate potential of the oceans lies virtually untapped.
Regarding other comments in your post:
Why would nutrition-factories have windows?
Why would nutrition production have any more reason than automobile or computer production to take place outside or to depend upon weather conditions?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:24 am
02 Apr 2007
Henrik Svensmark AFF1, Jens Olaf P. Pedersen AFF1, Nigel D. Marsh AFF1, Martin B. Enghoff AFF1, Ulrik I. Uggerhøj AFF1 AFF2
AFF1 Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Centre, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
AFF2 Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark
Abstract:
Experimental studies of aerosol nucleation in air, containing trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide and water vapour at concentrations relevant for the Earth's atmosphere, are reported. The production of new aerosol particles is found to be proportional to the negative ion density and yields nucleation rates of the order of 0.1-1cm−3s−1. This suggests that the ions are active in generating an atmospheric reservoir of small thermodynamically stable clusters, which are important for nucleation processes in the atmosphere and ultimately for cloud formation.
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=3163g81716 ...
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:39 am
02 Apr 2007
What's your opinion regarding the latest suggestion that the warmest and wettest region on Earth will -- because of climate change -- be both warmer and wetter than any environment ever encountered by human beings in the past or present?
There is no ecosystem on Earth currently adapted to such connditions. There might be mass extinctions without any existing organisms -- plant, fungus, animal -- to fill the newly open niches on half the continent of South America. We have no crops growing under such conditions. Furthermore, it will alter the soil chemistry of the region in novel ways.
There might be no organism we can hunt, gather, or grow for food in the region... until evolution has a few hundred thousand years to work on the problem.
Your warm and wet world brimming with life might not emerge as quickly as you hope. Are you prepared to write off half of a continent?
Forward!
Permalink
Solution King Posted 5:16 am
02 Apr 2007
The people I have contacted to tell the methods and innovations I have are Sen J Rockefeller, His brother in law-Dr. Wade Davis (a freind), President Bill Clinton, and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I gave up on the Governor of California after months of trying, I tried HRH Prince Charles right a the time he went to the US to get the award hoping to help him out of all the flack he was getting his secretary said he could not do as I ask and this was to tell his government what I have so as the government and I could talk (I don't think he even got the letter as it had other innovations in it that save lives imagine not caring about a ship located in the Thames estuary (SS Richard Montgomery) she has the equivilent of an atomic bomb in here 60 year old corroding hull 27 miles from London located one mile off of Sherrness England in 50 feet of water, one of my innovations van stop the ship from corroding furthur another can solidify the ship so as to pick her up and drop her off in the dark zone, another can seal her forever there are thousands of ship wrecks from the second wolrd war and know one cares about their dangerous cargoes there are 140 oil tankers off of the east coast of the US, there are two camps one says she won't blow up the other says she will and point to the shipwreck in Folkstone England with a huge bomb 4.2 on the rickter scale when she went up since then the British has forbid going anwhere near this ship they just look at it from time to time, one can only try.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:15 am
02 Apr 2007
The first one is installing underground heatpumps in new buildings :O
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:18 am
02 Apr 2007
Cosmic Ray theory has never survived peer review.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Pap ...
The trend data keeps getting disproven.
Permalink