Jojo said: "Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the northern American Continent for agriculture. There is little agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a "megadrought" would be minimal to the US food security picture.
Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for humanity." Unlikely this will be a plus for Humanity. More like a tragedy as nothing will grow, and place that do get rain will get too much of it. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the > northern American Continent for agriculture. There is little agriculture > in the Southwest so impact of a "megadrought" would be minimal to the US > food security picture. > > Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for > humanity. > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:global warming? > > http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html > > No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to > adapt. > > Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern > United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and > the chances of a "megadrought" – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges > from 20 to 50 percent over the next century. > > The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey > researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American > Meteorological Society's *Journal of Climate*. > > "For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real > megadroughts," said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and > atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. "As we add greenhouse > gases into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping > this – we are weighting the dice for megadrought." > > > Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation > strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. "This will be worse > than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented > challenges to water resources in the region," he said. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an >> overall warming cycle. We can be fairly confident that one day it will >> reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over >> and over again according to the best historical measurements. No doubt >> that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other >> natural and man made phenomena. >> >> When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have >> many years before that devastating event comes upon us. So far I have not >> heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that >> the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so >> dangerous to our existence. It is only a matter of time before this >> becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists. They will get my >> attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate >> predictions without needing serious corrections every few years. >> >> We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands >> of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be >> trustworthy. It may well turn out that what they are attempting is >> intractable and not subject to accurate modeling. What they contend to be >> caused by man might merely be a natural consequence of the earths response >> to solar and cosmic driving forces. Sometimes it is very difficult to >> separate cause and effect. >> >> The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will >> rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas >> releases needed to supply our energy future demands. Lets reserve our >> concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current >> conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the >> past and will find a solution to any problems that arise. The scientific >> understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to >> us. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? >> >> Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few >> decades to cool off the coasts. >> >> Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster. >> Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that >> is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans >> controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the >> factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate. >> >> If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at >> freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will >> begin to heat on its way to boiling. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Please note that I pointed out that* I *have not seen one graph >>> predicting the long term pause. Of course I have not reviewed every >>> single model output since that would be a useless exercise. >>> >>> Which predictions should we depend upon? Those of the IPCC likely carry >>> the most weight and they show no pause. I assume that the next versions of >>> their models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit >>> that this is hindsight and not prediction as such. When will the next >>> major error be uncovered? Are you 100% confident that we will not be >>> entering into a cooling period during the next 20 years? >>> >>> I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor >>> performance of a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage >>> to our standard of living. They are merely high priests of a new religion >>> that is dangerous and destructive. Everyone has the ability to evaluate >>> their model's output and should realize that it is inaccurate. Why should >>> we not use the good senses that God gave us? >>> >>> Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not >>> come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us. Everyone is >>> entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run. >>> >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from >>>> several different models and they all show a rapid increase during the >>>> questionable period. Not one of them indicate that a pause was >>>> conceivable. >>> >>> >>> The second statement -- "Not one of them indicate that a pause was >>> conceivable" -- this is a hard proposition to evaluate. There are no doubt >>> many hundreds or thousands of climate models that have been proposed over >>> the years. To evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a >>> rapid increase, ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of >>> statements made in the following publications (and probably others) over a >>> period of decades: >>> >>> http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html >>> >>> You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than >>> ones in other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the >>> relevant physics, chemistry and biology. If you have not personally made >>> the effort to keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals >>> and the highly technical statements that have been made and debated ad >>> infinitum, you will need to place trust in someone else to do this homework >>> for you. You will be a babe in the woods and will need to call upon >>> someone to get you out of the bind of knowing little about climate science, >>> like all of the rest of us non-specialists. >>> >>> To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening >>> news, or infographics published on a Web site. Some will choose to put >>> their trust in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and >>> agenda unclear (this is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for >>> information about LENR). Back of the envelope arguments about the inherent >>> difficulty of predicting things with such a chaotic system are helpful for >>> getting a zeroth order approximation, but they take us little further than >>> that. >>> >>> You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric. >>> >>> >>> It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in >>> experts at times. I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you >>> or others here in this particular instance. I do not trust the BBC or the >>> New York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things >>> are. Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time >>> and effort to really understand everything that is being said and >>> demonstrated a clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate >>> scientists or investigative journalists. I am grateful that my position >>> could not be easier to defend in this instance. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
