On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>> erected
>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>
>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>
>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>
>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>
>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>> you, Chris?
>>
>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>
> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
> because of its unfavourable conditions.

Its uninhabited for a reason. Do you really think that if it was +10F
warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?

> The climate _might_ be warming
> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?

Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at
a positive feedback loop. The observation on infrastructure is that it
is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo
without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.

> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
> at life.

Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new
lands were to magically be opened up.

> Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
> have not yet been exploited.

"Suddenly"? Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you
were born. And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).

> And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.

Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...

....and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing: the
trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows
that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030. Note too
that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:

<https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>

> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
> back then.

Which are waterfront on an *ocean*? Likewise, eliminate from
consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised
seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...

> Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
> purchased tell you.

One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo
essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock: it used to stand clear &
dry at high tide, but its now awash. Convince me on what's changed that
wasn't sea level rise.

> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the
rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical. For Valenia City, Spain,
the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's
over 7 inches. Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).

-hh