CB, I still don't understand your contention.
A Delta T of 6C would cause all plant life to die? Is this what you are saying?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: CB Sites
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
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
To: vortex-l
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
