2. The scientific revolution happened and the industrial revolution began during the Little Ice Age, not during the Medieval Warm Period.
This reminds me of an old statement by Senator Pat Moynihan, Based on the evidence the best way to improve schools is to move them towards Canada.
What we have is a cultural benefit that goes back thousands of years. Capitalism, democracy, liberty all values that spread throughout Europe and especially England. Britain prospered because of its geography that put coal close to iron close to the sea. Later Japan's seafaring offered it similar benefits. Meanwhile, African geography is such that it has a shorter coastline than Europe, and the harbors and internal waterways are not conducive to commerce. Britain also benefited from its legal system, which then got passed on to Canada and America. Even in Africa, former British colonies do much better than(not as bad as) former French ones.
Zimbabwe used to be a major food exporter, but after they threw off the shackles of colonialism and installed a despot, they have become a welfare case of famine. Ivory Coast was the same way.
Now it may be that the colder countries are benefiting from less war as no one wants to invade there.
Chem Flunky,
It proves that necessity is the mother of invention. Man defines themselves based upon their challenges. Go over to Jamaica and you find a bunch of what we would call lazy people. Its not that they are lazy. Every man and animal does what it needs to live. To survive in the colder climates, you have to learn quite a bit and you have to work extremely hard. Farming is almost a must. Gathering up for the winter and learning how to store away for the future. Creating shelters that can survive harsh winters.
You want to know why the warmers climates have not thrived in comparison with the colder??? It was because it is harder to live in the colder climates. You have seen pictures of the literal squalor that some live in, in the warmer locations. IF you transported that crap-excuse for shelter to the north, you wouldn't survive a winter in them.
Now as for the "southern" states, you libs seem to always get this wrong. It is not the southern states, its the middle states. The middle states were and still are agriculturally based. At the same time, the coastal states are commerce based. It has always been that the commerce based locations thrive... SORT OF. Tragedy strikes you first. The agricultural-basedd communities survive tragedy better, because of having food and being able to survive in relative isolation.
That being said, I seriously doubt you want to make the argument that we need to avoid warming to make our lives harder.
Hey Dook,
I have been through the desert on a horse with no name. I have also been to Hawaii. The entirety of your claim for runaway AGW is based upon adding water into the atmosphere. Water in the atmosphere decreases variability of temps. It does not increase it.
Also, I don't know why you even ask questions if you block everyone but the warmers who mindlessly agree with you. How pathetic.
Jeff M,
Good point about Japan. It seems to be an exception to the rule, but it actually is not. As seen by their history, they have a long history of battling the environment and staving off attacks from Korea, and China. The earthquake and tsunami that took out Fukishima, is part of that struggle. It is through that struggle that they are able to thrive.
I think some of that may be due to a more pronounced growing season and seasonal variations in temperature. Look at the temperature variations between Tokyo and Jakarta:
http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Tokyo-...
http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Jakart...
I have a feeling that, as the planet warms, the lower trend of this variation, that during winter months, will increase. The result being less agricultural productivity.
Kano: Yeah man. Because Japan is near the equator. That must be why parts of Europe and the USA are so poor as they are at a similar latitude to Japan. It all makes sense now.
http://www.wallpaperfunda.com/wp-content...
"First World" and "Third World" countries DO seem to distribute in the way you say. In the old days it was called the 33rd parallel.
Here is the truth: (and I suspect we will find out who can handle the truth around here after I answer this)
The truth is that it is the distribution of White People that determines whether a region is economically successful or not.
IMO, the US wealth is largely tied to our navigable rivers and good farmland for grains such as wheat and corn. Europe and Southern Canada share many of those characteristics. Equatorial climates aren't conducive to most grains such as wheat, barley and corn so it is difficult for them to grow food in excess as we do. The lack of good deposits of iron ore and coal near navigable rivers is also important for establishing an industrial base. Europe and North America have both. I think minor warming in NA and Europe would likely benefit the production of grains and would have almost no effect on warmer countries. IMO, it would take pretty significant warming to cause reduction in agriculture in NA and Europe unless of course it is associated with drought. Obviously, there are very wet warm places in your examples that aren't wealthy. The book Guns Germs and Steel by Jerrod Diamond is a must read, IMO, regarding this subject.
Your talking economics.
Well humans came from the tropics, and they became overpopulated with limited resources.
That does not suggest in any way that warmer is not better, look at Japan
Svante Arrhenuis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrh... also thought, roughly speaking, and all else equal, that "warmer is better" http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...
1) What Arrhenius did not well appreciate is that global warming means much more than just a slow increase in average global temperature, it also means
a) an increase much faster than that of past interglacial epochs
b) increased variation in temperature, climate and weather
The flaw in your thinking is a narrow minded view of how things work and why things are the way they are.
The hotter it is, the more population there is. The more population there is, the less coordination in society.
It seems to be a mantra for Certain Parties that "warmer is better". Most of the individuals of that mindset seem to treat it as absolute hard fact--as though there is no possibility that warmer could ever be worse for life or for humanity.
But, consider the global distribution of "first world" vs "third world" countries.
As far as I am aware, the closer to the equator you get, the poorer countries tend to be (at least, until you start nearing the actual Arctic). Africa is very, very poor--except perhaps South Africa, which is the part of Africa furthest from the equator. South America is also pretty poor. Southeast Asia isn't doing quite as badly, but it's nowhere near as rich as the US or Europe. Even within Europe, the northern countries are doing pretty well while the southern countries are plagued with financial crisis; you'll see a similar division among most US states (the northeast is very prosperous, the south is pretty poor). There are exceptions, of course, but the general pattern holds.
If warm conditions were so beneficial to humanity, you'd think that warmer countries would tend to be wealthier ones, and colder countries would be poorer. This suggests to me that warmer conditions are not necessarily inherently better for humanity than colder ones, and may even be worse.
Do you see any flaws in my reasoning here? What does this suggest about the benefits or harms of a warmer world overall? Any other thoughts?
