> Because, if we wait, like we always do with this stuff, its going to 
> bankrupt people and destroy entire industries to fix it."?

You never really responded to my reasoning...

A "warmer sun" creates more dampness from the oceans,
dampness that would result in rain in arid regions.
We currently are in one of the longest solar minimums
since the Maunder minimum.* So of course it's dry.
It's just not something humanity caused.

It's also a bunch of political BS that there is
any global warming going on. If anything it's
cooling more than usual.**

While increased CO2 is something to pay
attention to, after all we need air to breath,
the current CO2 levels are still low on a
geologic timeframe, and simply planting
more trees and irrigating more would have
dramatic impacts in livability in much of the
world. *** If we aren't going to do the things
that have big impacts, then why bankrupt
America for things that are picayune?

* http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

** http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

*** 
http://greenprophet.com/2008/12/03/4692/ben-gurion-university-desertification-conference/

Post a reply to this message

> Ah, right.. That is why deserts are so "wet". Its a bit more fracking 
> complicated than that. And, no, cooler temperatures do not "necessarily" 
> mean drier weather. The reason its dry here is "due to" the heat. The lake 
> isn't large enough for the huge desert around it to be positively effected 
> with rain, so the problem is that the rain either hardly ever falls, 
> and/or evaporates again before it hits. Most of the rain falls farther 
> inland, because it usually never gets "cold enough" for it to condense and 
> fall to the ground, until it gets farther north, and out of the desert 
> areas (or it runs into mountains, which.. tend to be high, so kind of 
> "collect" anything that hits them before it can evaporate again...)

Global, global, global! *

Yeah, of course it's dry and hot in the desert. I wonder why
people live there.

* 
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/wild-turkey.jpg

Post a reply to this message

> While increased CO2 is something to pay
> attention to, after all we need air to breath,
> the current CO2 levels are still low on a
> geologic timeframe,

It looks quite high to me:

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg

Around 375 ppmv today compared to the usual cycle of 200-300 ppmv over the 
last half a million years.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> Yeah, of course it's dry and hot in the desert. I wonder why
> people live there.

"""
The poor people there don't need foreign aid! They live in a dessert! They 
need luggage! Send them all a plane ticket!
"""

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

>> While increased CO2 is something to pay
>> attention to, after all we need air to breath,
>> the current CO2 levels are still low on a
>> geologic timeframe,
>
> It looks quite high to me:
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg
>
> Around 375 ppmv today compared to the usual cycle of 200-300 ppmv over the 
> last half a million years.

By some estimates mamals have existed at times when it was over 2000 ppm.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/11/06/science/earth/20061107_CO2_GRAPHIC.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html

Post a reply to this message

>> Around 375 ppmv today compared to the usual cycle of 200-300 ppmv over 
>> the last half a million years.
>
> By some estimates mamals have existed at times when it was over 2000 ppm.

Sure, but the question is if 6 billion humans covering the Earth could 
survive such a change.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> There is a general consensus that there is anthropogenic global warming, 

A general consensus means that everyone, or nearly everyone, agrees.

In the case of AGW, the agreement level simply does not reach this 
level.  There are literally *thousands* of scientists, in fields which 
qualify them to hold meaningful opinions, who do not agree that mankind 
is causing a long-term increase in global temperatures.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> Also my personal feeling is that almost any change in any direction is 
> bad, at least in the short run (upto my grandchildren's grandchildren at 
> least).

This is mostly because any change will affect some people negatively.

However, any geologists can confirm that over its history, the 
temperatures of the earth have varied far beyond the levels that AGW 
proponents are warning.  The history of the earth is dotted not only 
with periods that are significantly warmer or colder than the planet is 
now, but also rapid shifts in temperatures as well.

This was not good for all of the animals; but others survived and 
flourished.

I'm not worried.  The existence of reality TV notwithstanding, the human 
race is smart enough to cope.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> However, any geologists can confirm that over its history, the 
> temperatures of the earth have varied far beyond the levels that AGW 
> proponents are warning. 

I heave read that the middle ages were basically caused to a large extent by 
a cooling of several degrees, making crops grow more poorly, reducing the 
amount of time people had to be intellectual. Whether the temperature trends 
are true or propaganda from the opposing team, or whether even if true it 
was a causal relationship, are left as exercises for the reader.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On 3-7-2009 14:35, John VanSickle wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> Also my personal feeling is that almost any change in any direction is 
>> bad, at least in the short run (upto my grandchildren's grandchildren 
>> at least).
> 
> This is mostly because any change will affect some people negatively.

If it leads to large scale crop failures some people may be negatively 
affected by dying. It is up to everybody themselves to decide how many 
is still acceptable. Whether a few hundred million is too much or if the 
human race can easily cope with 5, 10, or even 50% reduction. You might 
even argue that 90% would be advantageous for humanity as a race, as 
there are now more people than the earth can easily handle. Note that 
being one of the probable survivors or being one that is likely to 
perish might influence an otherwise objective reasoning.

> However, any geologists can confirm that over its history, the 
> temperatures of the earth have varied far beyond the levels that AGW 
> proponents are warning.  The history of the earth is dotted not only 
> with periods that are significantly warmer or colder than the planet is 
> now, but also rapid shifts in temperatures as well.
> 
> This was not good for all of the animals; but others survived and 
> flourished.

I am not worried that life will be able to cope with any change in 
climate, but most people are concerned about humanity, or more precise 
with humanity being able to continue their way of living. One of the key 
differences with earlier climate changes during human's history might be 
that the ecosystems are already very much stressed.

> 
> I'm not worried.  The existence of reality TV notwithstanding, the human 
> race is smart enough to cope.

Some people will find solutions and be able to afford them. If it is not 
too severe you and me and everybody else in Europe and the USA are 
probably safe. Regions probably at risk are Africa and parts of Asia. 
(At least as long as the economic situation remains approximately the 
same.) So if we decide that these people are not really relevant we can 
decide that we agree on most things and wrap up this discussion.

Post a reply to this message