The Trump Presidency

▲
The definition of irony...?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not by itself.
It's just used by them, exactly in the manner you are using it - a misrepresentation of it employed as a meme.

Dunno - but it's right in front of you and you keep denying it, so it's important.

Yes, it does. You accepted the terms, and moved in.

Yet you chose Switzerland as your closest libertarian neighborhood. And when I pointed out that many regions with much weaker and less intrusive governments existed, you defended your choice.

No, you don't. You explicitly describe their reality base as bias and guesswork and unsupported opinions and dubious extrapolations, when you are even aware of it - which is seldom.

You have made some of your silliest claims about ecological issues, and dismissed information as propaganda. Remember your post about warmer temps being good for agriculture and other plant growth, using the lush plant growth of the tropical rain forests as your example? Comical, sure, but mainly just very, very, ignorant of the real world.

Lots of them. Choose - Africa provides some easy examples. Check out a few of the old time banana republics - small government heaven. In the US we had "company towns" (and these teach us something interesting: sometimes the companies fold, and when they do the societies left are often remarkably free even when miserably poor and in degraded circumstances. So that's what is possible for those able to firmly regulate and restrict and tax corporations, without turning the government on themselves and their neighbors: the freedom, without the poverty and degradation. )

Working government, under which great freedom and liberty is available. Doesn't have to be big - diminishing returns set in quickly, with government bureaucracies. But it has to be able to curb industrial corporations and tax the rich, to establish freedom and liberty for individuals.

It's either way, depending on whether the government is libertarian or authoritarian. There is no substitute for good governance, is the point.

Living and learning about the company town, the banana republic, the resource paradox.

So not nuclear war, then.
Meanwhile, you seem to have overlooked some stuff: asteroid impacts and climate change, the spread of authoritarian rule with industrial backing, surveillance State technology - there are a lot of threats not only bigger and worse but far more likely than US world rule. At "ruling", the US is one of least competent imperial powers ever seen - it can't even dominate Mexico, which is right next door and weakly governed. Armies all over the place, and nobody behaves.

A strong leader, strong like bull, can set out to remedy that.

What you get when hard power is used instead of soft is not conducive to liberty. Ask the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Cambodians, the Vietnamese.

As those who prefer Republican governance of the US are all too likely to discover.

Just different approaches. Fascism has spread farther and faster than communism, and appears to be more durable - it can rule the world, nation by nation, Unless you care how large your local strongman's territory is?

Leaving behind a bunch of armies with nothing to do, and problems with no diplomatic solutions.

Trump will think of something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Usual stupid accusations (as usual without evidence) disposed of. The discussion about "social contract" has now a nice end:

Fine. Once you decided to live in a region where robbers are known to make trouble, robbing you is ok because you accepted it.

Which countries are farther away from libertarian ideals in a world where they all are very far away is irrelevant.

I describe it as influenced by political pressure. This does not mean it has no connection with reality. It means some distortion, minimal in the article texts themselves. So, to find it out is hard work.

They are good for agriculture, together with more CO2 and more rain. Of course, you will find exceptions, as usual, if one talks about average trends.

And you think these examples have something to do with libertarian principles? In particular the Non-Aggression-Principle?

Thanks for this introduction into left-libertarianism, it appears to be a "tax (rob) the rich"-libertarianism.

In the most dangerous thing, MAD in a war with Russia, US is a necessary participant. And it is the US in its empire, globalist version. For a nationalist, fascist US it is simply some other state. Moreover, even with mostly white, Christian population, so there are much more evil countries to make war with if one cannot live without that.

For the globalist US, Russia is the key enemy. Taking Russia, they would have a chance to pressure China into submission and establish the world rule which was already so close around 2000.

You have forgotten alien invasion.

Indeed, they appeared incompetent. During the last years. In the past, they were competent. Germany and Japan, enemies during the war, are under control even now.

I asked, and it appeared that it failed even against militarily much weaker states. And today they know themselves that they are unable to control large territories with pure military power. They have bases almost everywhere, but these bases are not much if the government around is no longer under control. Trump is at least thinking about taking the troops home as from Syria, as from Korea. The deep state does not allow this, up to now. But the bases cost a lot of money, and don't give much from the point of view of a nationalist/fascist. Remember, classical fascism wanted territory, to colonize it with people from the own nation/race. Actually, the US does not have enough people for this, especially from the race preferred by the fascists. So, they have no point at all of occupying territories.

Fascism spread farther because the economic system was better. Not really good, far away from a free market, but not the catastrophe of communism. Fascism state by state is much more harmless than a world rule. Don't forget that nationalism started as a movement aimed to unify the whole nation, which was split in parts, into a single big state. Today in Europe nationalism is a separatist movement, they want to get rid of the EU. The direction became the other one. The strongest regimes in fascist tradition now in Europe (with democratic cover) are quite small states - Croatia, the three Baltic states. For Ukraine, it is not clear at all if it survives as a state at all the next years, because there are strong forces toward separation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It means you have no connection with the reality involved. You got the direction of any pressure (and any supposed bias) completely wrong, for example.

The standard research findings are that they are not, on average, for the near future (next century or so). The exceptions are where they are.
And your illustrations, accompanied with repeatedly posted mistakes (that the tropical rain forests are the hottest areas, that the tropical rain forest areas are the best for agriculture, that there is nowhere on the planet that is at risk of being made useless for agriculture by increasing temperatures, and so forth) are illustrations of your remarkable lack of awareness of just how much you don't know.

Yep. The alternative being loss of freedom and liberty.

For the US globalist, China is probably more important than Russia. Russia only matters because of its oil and gas - like Saudi Arabia. China, on the other hand, is looming large. Unless it falls apart - which it may - and perhaps even then, it is your next worry of world rule.

More than Switzerland.

Dude, it was your idea in the first place.

They are not.

So?
If it is only the success of the world rule ambition (neolib and neocon fantasy) that troubles you, note that its obvious failure has not required taking on the risks of putting a fascist in control of the US military. If you are worried about stuff like war, misery, tyrannical oppression, nuclear exchange, loss of freedom and liberty, etc, then whether or not it "fails" is a minor consideration.

Sure. Also, it was a simpler outgrowth of natural bigman governance - easier to scale up than tribal communism. No ideological sophistication required.

Not to the freedom and liberty of individuals. People live somewhere, not in "the world".

Thing is: fascism, like other mortal sins, induces fascism in others. It pressures its neighbors to militarize, to classify themselves and others by ethnicity and myth. It provides a source of support for the endemic bigman-inclined and the political ambitions of organized criminals. It's always ready to seize opportunity - plague, disaster, poorly chosen leadership - and offers a prepared solution for all troubles. Its betrayal of cooperation and mutual gain strategies induces betrayal in others. It spreads. And therein lies another threat, beyond the military one, from Republican dominance in the US. Canada may be immunized, but Trump might be able to remake Mexican politicians in his image, for example. The Philippines may suffer much more via Trump's influence than otherwise.

 

You claim I got it wrong. You claim a lot of things.

Feel free to provide particular papers. You know, open access papers, because to check the claims I would have to look inside the full text.

Don't tell me fairy tales about more warm, more rain, and more CO2 in the average will not be good for plant growth. A lot of exceptions are imaginable, too hot is easily imaginable. but in the average not. The deserts are usually regions where it is either too dry or too cold.

As usually, your fantasy heavily distorts what I write. The temperature peaks one usually gets where you have no clouds, while where it rains, you have clouds, moreover, if there is forest, the temperature on the ground is more moderate because of the forest. Nonetheless, the tropical forests are located in areas which get the most energy by radiation from the Sun - because this is a quite simple function of the latitude. The warming to become essentially stronger than the 1 degree per CO2 doubling needs a lot of more clouds, so in the average, you need more clouds, else there would be no reason to care. Here, of course, large local variants are imaginable. Of course, it is well-known that tropical rainforests have poor soil quality, which is something which can be easily changed using fertilizers - the reason for the poor quality is simply too much plant growth without fertilizers.

Of course, China is more important. But Russia matters because of MAD, and because you have no chance against China if it is unified with Russia because the main vulnerability is commodities, in particular, oil and gas.

It does not aim at world rule.

It remains an illustration for an important aspect of libertarianism - decentralization of power. Among the Europeans, they are quite exceptional for this, with France being the standard example of high centralization.

They are far too much. This is an aspect of Trump being popular among some Germans - the hope that Germany goes out of US control.

Have they won the Vietnam war or lost? (Ok, the other world power of that time gave a lot of support to Vietnam.) Is Iraq now ruled by pro-American democracy-loving guys or by pro-Iranians?
And, no, the question is important, and the most important one, because if there would be a success, they would continue to do such things. I start not from my dreams, but from reality. And in reality, the first question which matters is if the military actions have given the US what they wanted. Once they haven't, one has some hope that the US may stop this.

Of course, fascism can close the borders and imprison his citizens. But this will be done only in some extremal cases. Without this, there remains the freedom to emigrate if the suppression becomes too strong. Given a world government, you cannot emigrate.

Fascism is a nationwide problem, and if not supported from outside (as, because of the anti-Russian elements of the local fascisms, by the US in the Balticum and Ukraine) not that strong. In Europe, they may play a role as anti-EU movements, but the anti-EU movements may as well appear on the left or in left-right cooperations (Greece, Italy). As long as it leads to decentralization, it has even some positive consequences. The Philippines elected their leader in Obama time, no reason to blame Trump here, blame Obama if you think you have to blame somebody.

Of course, fascism will always remain an important danger in every democracy. Fascism is something very natural in connection with majority rule. In some sense, democracy is fascism in disguise. There is not much one can do against this, except more decentralization. The smaller the state, the lower the possibility to create a really dangerous fascist state, which would require autarky and closed borders, it would make emigration out of the fascist state much easier (you would not have to learn a different language and live in a foreign culture after emigration if the fascist state does not cover the whole nation). If the size of the state goes down to a small town or a quarter of a big one, emigration would become a triviality, simply what many people do anyway.

 

China aims at world-scale influence and economic domination. And it is in conflict with the US. Its head of State recently got term limits removed, so he is likely in power for life.

Over the near term, next fifty-hundred years, in the context of human agriculture, those are not fairy tales. They are the expected, likely realities.

Your imagination is not informed. It is misleading you about likely averages - remember your claim that the warmest regions and most fertile agricultural areas were in the rainforest tropics?

The deserts are always where it is too dry, by definition. The highest risk areas for increasing temperatures are places of fairly high humidity, including where millions of people live and agriculture currently flourishes - the lower Yangtze river valley, southern delta rice region, and "Ovens" of China, the most fertile regions in Pakistan and India, etc. Since heat waves increase by multiples of the average temperature rise, and people, animals, and crops, must handle the heat waves rather than the average temperatures, these areas are dangerously close to being rendered very difficult or useless for agriculture. A drop in productivity is all but guaranteed in the near future - outright disaster is easily possible, the odds are not long.

And corrected you, with explanations and examples and names of the officials involved and so forth. From which you learned nothing. You still think the US State influence on climate researchers favors exaggeration of climate change and bias toward publicizing the dire possibilities. You still think the IPCC is pushing fear, rather than downplaying the worst risks and trends. That's silly, but you don't know what the physical reality is so you can't see it.

Either way, the countries were ruined and their populations badly harmed. And those promoting and organizing the wars made out like bandits - huge profits, consolidated power within the US. Why would they care who "won"?

A fascistic ruling cadre will continue to do such things regardless of technical "success", if they gain power and money domestically. The authoritarian corporate capitalist backers of Vietnam and Iraq invasion - the fascistic influence on US foreign policy - made a lot of money and gained a lot of power domestically from the apparent military failures in those two wars, for example. They are currently pushing for war with Iran - which they know the US will likely bog, as in Iraq, but so what?

Fascistic governments frequently make emigration difficult. If there is nowhere to easily emigrate to that is not likewise fascist, that hardly matters.

Corporate capitalism, first. Then the democracy becomes vulnerable.

It is quite strong in the US, without external support (barring Putin's recent contributions). It is also strong in Russia, without outside support, but the thread topic would be the Republican Trump's presidency.

 

That reads like a clear admission of defeat to me Schmelzer. Thanks for owning up to it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fairy tail eh?

https://www.southernstates.com/Blog/index.aspx?topic=How-Can-Heavy-Rainfall-Impact-Crop-Production?

And the effect doesn't end at crops, either, as we saw in 2014:
https://southsaskfarmer.com/2014/08/27/a-slow-frustrating-start-to-the-2014-harvest/

and

Two to Four inches of additional rain made harvest time a nightmare for these folks. And that's not the worst of it:

https://southsaskfarmer.com/2014/09/04/why-is-rain-such-a-problem-at-harvest/

Continued:

 

Or:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...burdened-by-catastrophic-rainfall-crop-losses

A boat... they had to use a fucking BOAT to check on their fields!

Let me emphasize that some more - the rainfall was so severe that NOAA actually thought they were faked reports. Nope, it was real!

Guess what Schmelzer - no farmers, no food. Lemme know how well you do feeding your family on right-wing propaganda!

http://www.southwestfarmpress.com/insurance/failed-cotton-claims-growers-encouraged-make-plan

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.co...elihood-of-massive-us-crop-failure-74355.aspx

Guess what, as they just said - it's happened before, and is liable to happen again. I know these facts are inconvenient for you Schmelzer, but you can't change facts, no matter how much your orange overlord wishes he cold.

http://www.richmond.com/business/lo...cle_c05c40db-c864-5dd0-beb8-128f06f78dc5.html

80% loss... not an insignificant number. How would you fare, Schmelzer, if you lost 80% of your income?

[/quote]“Everything was kind of at a standstill for a number of weeks,” said Rodes, whose farm also grows soybeans, wheat, alfalfa and barley. “The main issue is getting into the field. We can’t get the equipment into the field.”[/quote]
And again, that much water makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, to even get the equipment into the fields to plant at all.

 

As you can see, Schmelzer, the only "fairy tale" here is yours... I hope having that little dream-bubble popped doesn't damage you too much.

 

Like most climate change deniers he might accept that the oceans (70+% of Earths surface) are a couple of degrees hotter but not consider what that means in evaporation/precipitation/humidity. He probably doesn't know that it is not so much the heat that kills people but the humidity when combined with heat.
it is pretty simple really ....
hotter oceans = greater evaporation
hotter oceans = greater evaporation = greater atmospheric mass = bigger storm/weather dynamics. ( drier /wetter/ windier)
hotter oceans = higher wet bulb temps (humidity+heat)
hotter oceans = higher precipitation ( rain/snow/hail etc)
hotter oceans = rising sea levels (Expansion due to heat/ Ice cap melt)
and so on....

Just have to research ocean temp increases to work it out...apply a little logic and go figure...

 

all of them. at best libertarianism leads to oligarghy and worst fascism. the lumanaries of libertarianism are closely linked to autocracy and fascism. von mises wanted to restore the austrian hungarian monarchy. the founders of the chicago school were allmost to a man in bed with pinochet. libertarianism is an antifreedom ideology incapable of dealing with the real world consequenses of it beliefs.

 

LOL. I'm simply bored to write all the time the same straightforward response. It's boring for the readers too to read all the time "This is a defamation/fantasy/lie, without any proof, without any quote, quote something supporting your claim or you are a liar/slanderer."

What's your point of mentioning some too heavy rainfalls which cause losses? I can tell you about a region which is not endangered by such heavy rainfalls. It is known as Sahara. I have never heard about crop losses there. More seriously, of course, if the rainfall changes, the farmers have to change too. If there will be regularly such heavy rainfalls that you need a boat to check their fields, they may try this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There are cultures who love such conditions.

It has created a good base for the future and the main problem is to secure what has been reached. This is all the Silk road about - transport in both directions - for commodities as well as products - which cannot be easily broken with a few ships by the US.

Over five hundred years ... You don't know anything about the technology in 100 years but speculate about man-made warming in 500 years.

No, I don't, because I know that rainforest usually has poor soil, and would not use "fertility" to describe it. The production of biomass is a different question.

Means more rains - less deserts, not? Of course, not, the rain will be somehow concentrated in small areas where we have only floods, far to much for any agriculture, and the deserts become even greater. But I see, you already have the catastrophic scenarios:

In this case, I even believe you, without a link, that you have a reference to this catastrophic scenario.

As usual, you lie. It was simple to search "IPCC" with "Schmelzer" as the author, two of five hits were simply quotes of your bs, the remaining three were:

Such evidence would be what you would have to provide, every time you post fantasies about what I think or write.

Do you really think it makes sense to follow Iceaura and speculate freely about what I might think? Do I have to ask you to link evidence, every time you speculate without sources about what I think, too? Reading what I wrote in this thread would help you to understand that I do not doubt at all that AGW leads to more precipitation, more rain and so on.

That's the problem not only with fascists, its a problem with democratic politicians too. Even a greater one, given that they always, because of elections, have a serious risk to lose their power if they don't get support from the people, and unfortunately war delivers such support.

And, following your argument in defense of social contract, once you don't emigrate, you support fascism.

Only in the sense that corporatism is the economic system of fascism. If you reduce fascism to the non-economic elements, then other forms of an economy like socialism with democracy can be even more vulnerable.

The Chicago school guys were economists, who have not cared about anti-fascist ideology. Pinochet was in power, the economy a disaster, and, by the way, some of their former students from Chile played a role in this. The consequence was an improvement of the economic situation. I would guess, that improvement was only rightwing propagandists playing me, and in reality it was an economic disaster, not? But at least in their own propaganda, they cared about the real world consequences and were quite satisfied with them. Do you have a problem if fascist or communist regimes, following recommendations of free market proponents, improve the economy of their countries and make their own people richer?

 

yes i know the chicago school were economists funnily enough most libertarian lumanaries are economists and not political scientists. thats the point they felt a fascist dictator was the perfect place to implement libertarian ideas.

could you please parse this better. it reads as you saying they made things worse and better.

i cant tell if you being willfully ignorant or if your just that obtuse. you really dont care despite your constant whining about fascism your chosen economic and political ideology is so closely asscoiatiated with creating and propping up fascists and autocrats. its like you read something completely different from what was written. i have a problem with a pro fascist ideologies like libertarianism.

 

Of course Schmelzer - because the sand of the Sahara is so nutrient rich as to be able to support ample crop growth simply by adding water.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thank you for demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance when it comes to such things as farming.

As for "farmers changing" - let me ask you - if all the farmers that currently grow corn, wheat, soybeans, strawberries, orchards, etc all changed over to rice paddies... what do you think would happen to the price of rice? Or, for that matter, to the availability of produce in your average supermarket?

Honestly, do you even think at all before you speak?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As Bells mentioned -
http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/d...r/rice-doctor-fact-sheets/item/heavy-rainfall

But, sure, tell us how more rain is "a good thing" Schmelzer. Should be good for a laugh.

 

Fifty to one hundred years, as any reader in good faith would know from my description of it as "near term". (And if you honestly read it as fifty hundred, that's five thousand - you couldn't type that, because your "misread" would have been too obvious).
And technology has nothing to do with it.
And the "speculation" was not about future AGW, but the effects of current AGW on agriculture.
You don't read in good faith.

The production of food, not biomass, was the question at hand at the time. That, and your claim that the tropical rain forests were the hottest places on the planet outside of some deserts. You were arguing that increasing warmth would be good for agriculture, because rain forests were the warmest plant-growing regions on earth - which proved to you, because you are some kind of idiot, that no place on the planet with enough water would be harmed for agriculture by becoming hotter.

That's you dissembling, after being called on your posted presumptions of bias in the standard AGW research, after being called on your description of IPCC compiled research as questionable and mere opinion and speculation and so forth (you regarded as established reality only the direct CO2 temperature boost as established by physics, remember? ).
In other words, you are on record as claiming that the political pressure on the IPCC and the research it compiles is exactly as I described you claiming. You claim vaguely to accept the IPCC reports when directly braced, but you specifically deny them in all your other posting, and dismiss them whenever they appear in the media. You claim to correct for their "bias", explicitly, in your arguments, and you get that bias exactly backwards.

Not my argument. My argument was that once you do emigrate, and agree to reside somewhere by choice, you accept the local social contract.

If you leave out the corporate capitalism, you don't have fascism any more. Other forms of economic organization can be co-opted in oppression and authoritarian government, but these governments are not fascist.

The Republican Party in the US, with or without Trump, is fascist. That means corporate capitalist, not socialist.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Like I implied, you maybe quite capable of accepting Climate change as being real but as a part of denial fail to attempt to appreciate just what that climate change means... Don't worry, you are not alone in this. The vast majority of the worlds population fails to understand what hotter oceans means. Oceans that are gaining heat as you read this post.

Your posts indicate that while you may be a reasonable thinker you fail to delve far enough or deep enough into the issues, thus rendering your posts vulnerable to being labeled naive and ignorant.

Global agriculture requires above most things, a degree of certainty regarding water. If there is no certainty there is no investment in crops.
No crops = no food = global famine. Famine leads to mass migration of persons looking for food. Food wars further forcing people to leave their homes in search of a solution.
Borders go up and are reinforced with guards and walls. People die en masse.
It's all happening now and will only get worse as time progresses and rather quickly. Why? Because the oceans are getting hotter and the evaporation rate is increasing all the time.

And while Putin and you may predict a better agri future for Russia due to the thawing of much of the Siberian region he fails to understand that by the time the Siberian region has reached a position of agriculture feasibility, the state of the global climate will render any agriculture, any where virtually impossible ( except under reinforced domes/structures)

=====
Trump administrations reluctance to accept the reality of hotter oceans ( global warming) is a significant part of the problem. Certainly not part of the solution.

 

Snow in the Sahara Jan 2018

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The technology has to do a lot with AGW. If technology becomes able to control thermonuclear synthesis, there will be no energy problem in the near future at all. This is something which can be expected for the next 100 years. Add electro-cars, and there is no longer any straightforward need to burn much coal or gas or so. So, the anthropogenic part of AGW can easily vanish, within a time region much less than your 500 years.

No. If you thought so, this can count as a simple misunderstanding.

A lot of lies and invectives. I claim that in the average, the predicted increase in temperature and precipitation will be good for agriculture, on the average. "No place would be harmed" is something I would not say, first of all because I'm not so stupid to think so, then also because I already know that you like to find some minor and unimportant exceptions to reject claims about averages. There are, obviously, large regions where we have essentially no agriculture because it is either too cold or precipitation is missed. There are even larger regions where climate allows only one harvest per year, while in other regions you have two of them. Try to find out where we have regions with two harvests (in the average, of course).

Not exactly. The direct CO2 effect is much easier to compute and to predict its consequences. The question if something beyond this is established or not is much harder to find out if you don't simply trust IPCC. Once I have not made the necessary research, I have neither a reason to doubt nor to support the IPCC claims.

The usual lies. Even after presented with explicit evidence, you continue your lies. And you get it all completely wrong because I do not care much about IPCC claims. What I object to in the media are not particular IPCC claims, but that they present only negative predictions. Even if the IPCC claims would be ideal scientific truths, the media could choose to take only the negative news out of it, and I would object - but not against using some IPCC claims. I also don't dismiss particular claims in the media. What I dismiss is the 100% negative, in a situation where it is straightforward that there will be positive things. The bias toward the presentation of negative results of warming is sufficiently obvious, and I do not correct it but add what is missed - the positive news.

Ok, in this case, it is worthless for the justification of the social contract theory. Because most people do not emigrate.

I'm horrified. Really???

Why you cannot do without such personal attacks?

There are well-known old technologies to handle a lot of the uncertainty regarding water. The most problematic thing is no water at all. But if there is some water, there are a lot of techniques to transform an irregular input of water into a regular, usable amount of water. For example, these:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't forget wells - if there is a lot of irregular precipitation, there will be usually normal groundwater levels, so that one can get water using them. Or those used by some quite old civilization faced with a big flood once a year, which made the whole territory useful for agriculture completely unusable some time, and with no rain at all. Nonetheless, they were not only able to survive, they had even time enough to build some pyramids impressive enough even today.

So, I think you make a catastrophic problem out of nothing.

Ok, not completely out of nothing - a climate change, positive or negative, requires certainly some serious investments for adaptation to the new circumstances, and make old investments useless, even negative. So, Germany has invested a lot in making rivers usable for ships, and increasing agricultural areas near the rivers. The consequence is that heavy rain a few days has today more serious consequences than in the past. All the water goes down the river very fast and without losing power on the way. So. adaptation to a new climate is certainly not for free. In case of a really serious climate change, there will be certainly also some, maybe even large, regions where will be serious losses, even regions where the most reasonable reaction would be emigration. This is not because warming is bad, but because change, in general, is costly.

But if the snow in the Sahara would be not an exception, strange enough for people to go out and wonder, and make photos immediately because tomorrow all this will already be gone away, then there would be a good future for agriculture there. A small local dam in such a mountainous area would be not a big investment, and if there would be enough precipitation to fill it, it could easily give profit.