or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Yet another climate change thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet another climate change thread - Page 3

post #81 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

Prove It - Feel free to put a bag over you mouth and breathe in all that good life giving carbon dioxide.

Such hysteria over nothing. A little more warmth will likely be of benefit to nortern latitudes, increase agriculture production, etc.
post #82 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Such hysteria over nothing. A little more warmth will likely be of benefit to nortern latitudes, increase agriculture production, etc.

Oh my sweet lord. Where do you start.
post #83 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Oh my sweet lord. Where do you start.

Careful now lad, you are backing into a swamp. Start with the admission of your manifest ignorance, beg for your betters forbearance, and plead for their forgiveness.

In anticipation, I forgive you.
post #84 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Just found this.

Right up your street, ENumbers: "We may not hve the power to stop global warming. But together, we have the power to enjoy it."

Stephen Colbert rules.

So you think that we have the power to stop it? I don't. I also think that we will survive the transition (at least most of us will), and it will be a good thing in the end. IMHO, it is a good thing that we have excreted ourselves out of the ice age cycle, and a warm wet world with a low temparature differential from equator to pole is ideal for human life.

A large number of species will die out, and others will gradually spread north. Low lying areas will be flooded and no longer be useable, but the northern areas that open up will more then compensate. The main thing that we have to worry about is the release of methane from the oceans, which is a long time off (~1500 ppm CO2), and we can harvest and burn the methane, or else switch to fusion before then.

Really, it is a much smaller risk for us than an asteroid impact, but we spend 1000x as much time, money and energy on global warming than on asteroid deflection.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #85 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

So you think that we have the power to stop it? I don't. I also think that we will survive the transition (at least most of us will), and it will be a good thing in the end. IMHO, it is a good thing that we have excreted ourselves out of the ice age cycle, and a warm wet world with a low temparature differential from equator to pole is ideal for human life.

A large number of species will die out, and others will gradually spread north. Low lying areas will be flooded and no longer be useable, but the northern areas that open up will more then compensate. The main thing that we have to worry about is the release of methane from the oceans, which is a long time off (~1500 ppm CO2), and we can harvest and burn the methane, or else switch to fusion before then.

Really, it is a much smaller risk for us than an asteroid impact, but we spend 1000x as much time, money and energy on global warming than on asteroid deflection.

It's not even that significant. Assuming the dectection and attribution models are correct (and given the amount of con artistry in the discipline that itself is in question) in 100 years sea levels will rise 15 to 18 inchs and global temperature 3 degrees C - mainly in the norhtern latitudes.

Natually different areas will benefit, others will be harmed. England will become a major producer of quality wine and France will turn out nothing but cheapo jug wines- so what, I don't like the French anyway.
post #86 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

S The main thing that we have to worry about is the release of methane from the oceans, which is a long time off (~1500 ppm CO2), and we can harvest and burn the methane, or else switch to fusion before then.

Read the latest results from a thirty year study in the rapidly thawing permafrost?

Methane is bubbling out now.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #87 of 145
Hispanics have too many babies and become American in their GHG footprint in a generation. Guys just vote Buchanan '08. Odd thought, I know...but facts are facts. We need a fence.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #88 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Read the latest results from a thirty year study in the rapidly thawing permafrost?

Methane is bubbling out now.

Given that we have had increasing temperatures since the end of the little Ice age I am not surprized - but it's effects are accounted for in D and A models...hardly worth a piffel of worry.
post #89 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Read the latest results from a thirty year study in the rapidly thawing permafrost?

Methane is bubbling out now.

But that methane is relatively insignificant, as are cow farts. The under the sea methane is the danger.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #90 of 145
not such a pleasant world if it keeps heating up - take note e Numbers

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-done-for.html
post #91 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

But that methane is relatively insignificant, as are cow farts. The under the sea methane is the danger.

The hysteria over global warming is just hobgoblins - the attempt to create a "public danger" that the politicians can pretend to save us from. Political power brokers love crisis; but rather than selling us a product they use it to mine votes for power, and puff up their petty egos. My old saying has been, those that can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't do or teach, run for office so as to supervise the doings of the others.

So what if the ocean rises a couple of feet, so what if the northern latitudes warm up enough to extend the growing seasons, so what if the earth has more precipitation?

Yet we have the incredible stupidity of the State of California racing to clamp down on its citizens and economy to "save" something that is not in trouble...

Fools and naives...
post #92 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

So what if the ocean rises a couple of feet, so what if the northern latitudes warm up enough to extend the growing seasons, so what if the earth has more precipitation?.

Millions of people will die and there will be mass migration and war.
post #93 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Political power brokers love crisis; but rather than selling us a product they use it to mine votes for power, and puff up their petty egos.

Such as the War on Terror, for example?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #94 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Millions of people will die and there will be mass migration and war.

Unsupported Assertion.
post #95 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Such as the War on Terror, for example?

Actually there is a strong element of hobgoblinization i the War on Terror - but that would be another thread...
post #96 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Unsupported Assertion.

Either acquaint yourself with the facts or don't post at all.
post #97 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Either acquaint yourself with the facts or don't post at all.

Either stop pulling claims from the philosgen and support them with factual evidence or expert opinion, or face the damning conclusion : unsupported assertion.

Just where are these "facts" of yours to be found...?
post #98 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978




Please provide reference or link to source document.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #99 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978




Please provide reference or link to source document.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #100 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978




Please provide reference or link to source document.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #101 of 145
Just so you know frank, in the last century (which would be less than a pixel width on that graph) the temperature has increased 0,5 celcius...

The scale makes our current heating invisible.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #102 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Just so you know frank, in the last century (which would be less than a pixel width on that graph) the temperature has increased 0,5 celcius...

The scale makes our current heating invisible.



Understood.

But I just don't want to "jump in" without further information WRT those graphs.

Basically, where they came from, from whom, etcetera.

For example, are those figures from peer reviewed professional journals (i. e. is it good science or is it bad science)?

I don't like cherry pickers, and I don't like things that are taken out of context.

I would like to read the report or journal article those figures came from, to gain a better understanding of their context, and to more fully understand their meaning.

AFAIK, several important points of the global warming debate have not been mentioned (at least not in this thread).

What is encouraging in reading through this thread, is that no one is arguing IF there is global warming, and their not even arguing WHAT is causing global warming.

But, what I find rather mindboggling, is this new attitude (to me anyway) of, so what, who cares, big deal.

IMHO, really, Really, REALLY strange.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #103 of 145


Humankind is definitely DOOMED

"Global surface temperature has increased ~0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes."

So of course, that means that by the year 6000AD, Earth will reach the boiling point! But, I must think positive, about all the good things that humankind will have, for one a GLOBAL steam room!


PS - Found all graphs at wikipedia. Please remember, it's the rate of change that is most important, not that the Earth has been much hotter/colder historically then now. So for example, sea level rates have recently been ~2mm/yr over the last few millennia, ~20mm/yr prior to that, but could exceed ~200mm/yr (linear sea level change of 60 meters over a time span of 300 years) in the future!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #104 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

Basically, where they came from, from whom, etcetera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:6...ate_Change.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P..._Sea_Level.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

So of course, that means that by the year 6000AD, Earth will reach the boiling point! But, I must think positive, about all the good things that humankind will have, for one a GLOBAL steam room!

I hope that was sarcasm, because otherwise I don't hold much hope of an enlightened talk. There is only so much greenhouse gas to go around, and the absolute maximum temparature is 12 degrees warmer than now.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #105 of 145
"absolute maximum is" anything is bullshit.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #106 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

"absolute maximum is" anything is bullshit.

To get CO2, you need carbon. If all available carbon is in the atmosphere and biosphere, where do you get more from? Some magic carbon drifting down from space or something?

But - you are right if you want to think really long term. The sun is gradually getting hotter, and the temperature will rise a little bit every million years or so (peaking out when the sun expands into a red giant a few billion years from now).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #107 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

To get CO2, you need carbon. If all available carbon is in the atmosphere and biosphere, where do you get more from? Some magic carbon drifting down from space or something?

But - you are right if you want to think really long term. The sun is gradually getting hotter, and the temperature will rise a little bit every million years or so (peaking out when the sun expands into a red giant a few billion years from now).

Are you serious? We're practically made of carbon. Every living thing is. Supposing all the carbon was in the atmosphere would be assuming we all burned to crisps long before.
post #108 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Are you serious? We're practically made of carbon. Every living thing is. Supposing all the carbon was in the atmosphere would be assuming we all burned to crisps long before.

re-read my post - you are part of the "biosphere". God, this thread is quickly degrading below the level where it is worth paying attention to.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #109 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:6...ate_Change.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P..._Sea_Level.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png



I hope that was sarcasm, because otherwise I don't hold much hope of an enlightened talk. There is only so much greenhouse gas to go around, and the absolute maximum temparature is 12 degrees warmer than now.



Found them (see previous post, I didn't think anyone would respond to my request, so "Seek and ye shall find."). IMHO, pretty good science, all from peer reviewed professional literature, etcetera. However, as most of those researchers themselves point out, proxy data becomes more difficult to interpret the further back in time you go. Read up on a whole bunch of stuff while there, WRT climate change, climate modeling, supervolcanoes (more on that in a later post), evolution, atmosphere, WTC, etcetera, in the last day or so. IMHO, wiki is pretty cool!

WRT the steam room comment, mostly sarcasm, I'll use my sardonic wit WRT supervolcanoes and global warming depending on what you mean by "enlightened talk." BTW, I am mainly a coastal and port engineer (although I have/am worn/wearing several other engineering hats), so the potental sea level rise and potential for increased severe coastal weather (and inland flooding) causes me the greatest concern. OTOH, global warming would be a very good thing for coastal engineers, potential growth industry, read about it in my soon to be released book, "Earth 2222: Planet of the 300 Foot Dykes."

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #110 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

global warming would be a very good thing for coastal engineers, potental growth industry, read about it in my soon to be released book, "Earth 2222: Planet of the 300 Foot Dykes."

Even with exponential CO2 rise, significant dike structure will not be needed until your children or grandchildren become coastal engineers (hardeeharr - still waiting for the reference about how 1 inch would flood your town). Total sea level rise with all ice melted would be a lot less than 300 feet, but I guess that you need to account for storm surge with the 1000-mile wide 200 mph hurricanes that we will have.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #111 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Even with exponential CO2 rise, significant dike structure will not be needed until your children or grandchildren become coastal engineers (hardeeharr - still waiting for the reference about how 1 inch would flood your town). Total sea level rise with all ice melted would be a lot less than 300 feet, but I guess that you need to account for storm surge with the 1000-mile wide 200 mph hurricanes that we will have.



Another sarcastic comment on my part, but remember I did say Earth 2222, so that would be at least grand*8 children! But you do realize what would happen in the short term, engineers would try to hold off the inevitable by building coastal structures (e. g. dikes, like the dutch). And in principle, I for one am not a proponent for building in the coastal zone, except for commerse (e. g. shipping) reasons, and even that should be mitigated (i. e. wetland restoration). In fact, I am extremely conservative on that one, no federal flood insurance in the coastal zone, if you can afford to live in the coastal zone, you can afford to pay your own insurance premiums, and let nature take its course. Of course, certain industries (i. e. fishing) would need protections, but IMHO tourism isn't one of them. I've never been a flatlander, you know.

And consider that Louisiana is seriously seeking federal funding to restore their entire coast line, 200 miles of coast line, which IMHO would cost tens of billions of dollars.

One inch of sea level rise, in and of itself, would not be a problem. However, 1 in/yr over 12 years (i. e. 1 ft sea level rise), would be a problem in many areas of the world with coastal plains (e. g. the US east and gulf coasts). It has everything to do with rate and duration. And if the rate approaches 1 ft/yr (not totally unreasonable as I suggested in a previous post), then it would be time to "cut and run" albeit rather slowly.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #112 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

God, this thread is quickly degrading below the level where it is worth paying attention to.

Look, just cause your life sucks and you hate yourself, don't take it out on me.
post #113 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Look, just cause your life sucks and you hate yourself, don't take it out on me.

It only sucks when my threads get polluted by poorly thought out opinions from people who can't read a single posting, much less the whole thread. You would also be offended if I jumped into one of your threads and started spouting random garbage.

Admittedly, it wasn't just your post, the last couple pages were pretty useless. But it doesn't help when I start trying to get things going in a higher brow direction and you jump in with nothing.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #114 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Either stop pulling claims from the philosgen and support them with factual evidence or expert opinion, or face the damning conclusion : unsupported assertion.

Just where are these "facts" of yours to be found...?

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I have a life. (Even so, I still find myself arguing on the internet with climate change deniers, young-earth Christians and people who say the holocaust never happened, so maybe I should temper that claim.)

OK. Firstly, it's 'phlogiston', not 'philosgen'. Small thing: it's just if you're going to try and be clever it... sort of behooves you to be, you know, clever.

Secondly, I'm not going to post links for projected sea level rises and the consequences or the consequences of a 1º C rise in global temperature. If you're not familiar with this research and this debate then you truly have no place engaging in the discussion of it; you're just trolling and I haven't got time for it.

As for the debate over climate change leading to mass migration and wars over water, here are some links if you're interested. I don't at all expect you to read them since the facts and the discussion clearly don't interest you, but I'll post these for form's sake nonetheless.

Pentagon says climate change a bigger threat than terrorism

African mass migration

Wars over water

Climate change and war

I spend a lot of time in Africa, or I have done, for my research. This is why I bang on about mass migration and war because of climate change. It's been happening for thousands of years already, so I don't see why it shouldn't happen when the rate of climate change is faster than its ever been in the sum total of human history and the population of the world is so vast.

Keep breathing out that lovely carbon dioxide and good luck with your battle against reality, evidence and facts, Max.
post #115 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:

From your pentagon report "As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.". This report was from 2.5 years ago, and I doubt that we will see the kind of sea level rise that they mention. As soon as they started talking about European cities sunk under water in the near future, the report lost all credibility for me.

Also, anything talking about world-wide drought seems like BS to me. It is pretty clear to me that there will be more rain, not less.

http://www.terranature.org/globalWarmingArctic.htm

"Global warming trends

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5 to 1.0 deg.F since the late 19th century.

The 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the 20th century.

1998 was the hottest year since records have been kept.

Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches during the last century.

Worldwide rainfall over land has increased by about one percent.

The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased."
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #116 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

From your pentagon report "As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.". This report was from 2.5 years ago, and I doubt that we will see the kind of sea level rise that they mention. As soon as they started talking about European cities sunk under water in the near future, the report lost all credibility for me.

Also, anything talking about world-wide drought seems like BS to me. It is pretty clear to me that there will be more rain, not less.

http://www.terranature.org/globalWarmingArctic.htm

"Global warming trends

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5 to 1.0 deg.F since the late 19th century.

The 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the 20th century.

1998 was the hottest year since records have been kept.

Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches during the last century.

Worldwide rainfall over land has increased by about one percent.

The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased."



I'll buy the more rain argument.

But when does this occur, during the 3 month growth season (northern hemisphere), or otherwise?

More rain means, more flooding? Economic losses, loss of life?

In the flood plains, where a lot of crops are grown?

More rain, means more potential crop damage?

More rain, means more disease?

Sea level rise > 40mm/yr (see Meltwater Pulse 1A)?

CO2 increasing at a rate of 2.6 ppmv/yr (2005), currently 380 ppmv, projected to be as high as 1000 ppmv by 2100AD?

Sweet!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #117 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent



I'll buy the more rain argument.

But when does this occur, during the 3 month growth season (northern hemisphere), or otherwise?

More rain means, more flooding? Economic losses, loss of life?

In the flood plains, where a lot of crops are grown?

More rain, means more potential crop damage?

More rain, means more disease?

Sea level rise > 40mm/yr (see Meltwater Pulse 1A)?

CO2 increasing at a rate of 2.6 ppmv/yr (2005), currently 380 ppmv, projected to be as high as 1000 ppmv by 2100AD?

Sweet!


Well, of course. Flood control is a solved problem for the most part, though - it is just a matter of money (and if there is not enough money, moving people out of the danger areas). People have survived much worse flood conditions - before we started putting dams on rivers we had much worse flood problems than now.

Crops can be (and have been) engineered to survive more severe conditions, also. I just finished reading "Merchants of Grain", and it isn't the main topic, but it mentions that wheat has been engineered to have shorter stronger stalks to better survive wind and rain.

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Grai.../dp/0595142109
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #118 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Well, of course. Flood control is a solved problem for the most part, though - it is just a matter of money (and if there is not enough money, moving people out of the danger areas). People have survived much worse flood conditions - before we started putting dams on rivers we had much worse flood problems than now.

Crops can be (and have been) engineered to survive more severe conditions, also. I just finished reading "Merchants of Grain", and it isn't the main topic, but it mentions that wheat has been engineered to have shorter stronger stalks to better survive wind and rain.

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Grai.../dp/0595142109



Flood control, something I know just a LITTLE bit about since I'm a research hydraulic engineer (my official job title). So you see most flood designs are usually based on a 100-year recurrence interval (except for some things such as the dutch dikes). So what was once a 500 yr recurrence becomes a 100 recurrence, what was once a 1000 yr recurrence becomes a 100 recurrence. Get the picture. Look at what happened on the upper Missippippi a few years ago, look at what happened in western Europe a few years ago. The vast majority of existing infrastructure has BEEN designed based on an assumption, of what has happened, historically! That assumption is not a good one going forward, mark my words, the economic costs alone will be in the trillions of US dollars.

And how do you engineer a crop when it is literally drowned intermittently (from too much rainfall), that is starved for water intermittently (from too little rainfall, irrigation, mo' money).

IMHO, your thinking is really, Really, REALLY starting to scare me!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #119 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

:And how do you engineer a crop when it is literally drowned intermittently (from too much rainfall), that is starved for water intermittently (from too little rainfall, irrigation, mo' money).

Pecans can handle both those conditions - you can flood past the tops of the trees and they survive, and you can have drought and they go dormant. I get my income from a pecan farm, and I was hoping that the competing Georgia trees would get wiped out by flooding 8 years ago or so, but the damn things survived.

Given that a single crop can handle problems like these (with low yields on the problem years, admittedly), I'd say that we can produce more.

Also, the flooding will not occur on all farmland, and as the temperate belt moves further north, there will be new (more hospitable) agricultural areas opening up.

I don't see why my thinking scares you - we absolutely have no control over global warming. Any conservation effort we make will reduce the price of fuels for other countries, and the CO2 will continue to rise when they take advantage of the lower prices and burn more. More people better start thinking like me, because the way forward is through accommodation of global warming, not through denial and attempts at conservation.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #120 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Pecans can handle both those conditions - you can flood past the tops of the trees and they survive, and you can have drought and they go dormant. I get my income from a pecan farm, and I was hoping that the competing Georgia trees would get wiped out by flooding 8 years ago or so, but the damn things survived.

Given that a single crop can handle problems like these (with low yields on the problem years, admittedly), I'd say that we can produce more.

Also, the flooding will not occur on all farmland, and as the temperate belt moves further north, there will be new (more hospitable) agricultural areas opening up.

I don't see why my thinking scares you - we absolutely have no control over global warming. Any conservation effort we make will reduce the price of fuels for other countries, and the CO2 will continue to rise. More people better start thinking like me, because the way forward is through accommodation of global warming, not through denial and attempts at conservation.



Oh great, our offspring can look forward to a diet consisting of 100% pecans!

I guess we needn't worry about global warming then!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Yet another climate change thread