Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

"George" wrote in message

He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

800 ppm?

800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 08:50:26 -0800, in a place far, far away, "bill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"George" wrote in message

He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

800 ppm?

800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

Not to mention the fact that it would probably accelerate plant growth
rates (and in fact such acceleration would prevent the levels from
ever getting that high).

Valid point. I read somewhere that the equalization point is
around 600 ppm. Still not a good number though.
Another interesting poing is that I keep seeing people whine about
methane. They say that it is something stupid like 40x as potent a
ghg. Methane in the atmosphere has a 5 year half-life. so in order to
keep the levels high, you have to continually release.

"Joe Jared" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:38:56 +0000, George wrote:

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
natures way of fixing man's mistakes.

Until the CO2 raises the temperature high enough to kill the plants off,
then what? I don't know about you, but I'd prefer for the Sahara desert
to
remain where it is.

To date, that's not happening. In the same light that few could deny
that global warming is accelerating, nothing suggests that plant
life is doing anything other than accelerating. Granted, NASA has had a
few minor errors to contend with, such as confusion between inches and
millimeters, but the report seems to have merit.

Hi Joe. Umm, something like that is, in fact, happening. The Sahara is
growing at a rate of 30 miles per year. It is encroaching on the Sahel to
the south, and appears poised to cross the Mediterranean into southern
Europe.

http://www.virtualglobe.org/en/info/.../desert02.html

George

"bill" wrote in message
ups.com...
"George" wrote in message

He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
assumption.

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

800 ppm?

800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

It isn't that simple. Increased CO2 increases the temperature, which
increases the evaporation rate, which increases precipitation - in areas
where there is precipitation. Deserts (the Sahara, for instance), by and
large, aren't benefiting from such a scenario, and in fact, are growing as
we speak.

George

He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
assumption.

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

800 ppm?

800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

It isn't that simple. Increased CO2 increases the temperature, which
increases the evaporation rate, which increases precipitation - in areas
where there is precipitation. Deserts (the Sahara, for instance), by and
large, aren't benefiting from such a scenario, and in fact, are growing as
we speak.

Granted, however, as the climate regime changes, the weather
patterns will change with them and places which have traditionally not
gotten rain will begin to. in the case of the sahara, the southerly
shifting of the gulfstream will start to drop rain there instead of
europe.
In addition, the melting of the polar caps, and the attendant rise
in sea levels will further increase the global precipitation since
evaporation is a surface phenomenon.
Note: Silver linings sometimes com with pretty freaking huge
thunderstorms. I never said this would be fun, just survivable for
technological society.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:38:17 GMT, in a place far, far away, "El Guapo"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

"Scott Nudds" wrote in message
...

"El Guapo" wrote
Yeah... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

Ya, we saw a lot of that during the Bush's Katrina Fiasco.

Good point, Scott. "Katrina" was a classic case of mass hysteria.

Actually, it was a classic case of press hysteria. Most of the
reporting turned out to be wrong.

bill wrote:
"George" wrote in message
He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
I don't think plants will complain.
How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
800 ppm?
800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

Sure, 55 million years ago when mankind wasn't on the scene,
that might be plausible, but we live on a desertifying planet,
in which are are destroying the forests globally, and turning the
plains into agricultural areas in a widespread global manner.

800 ppm will destroy civilization, if we don't do it first.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

bill wrote:

Methane in the atmosphere has a 5 year half-life.

Don't listen to the borg, get the facts :

"Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 62
over 20 years, 23 over 100 years and 7 over 500 years. The decrease in
GWP associated with longer times is associated with the fact that the
methane is degraded to water and CO2 by chemical reactions in the
atmosphere."

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

raylopez99 wrote:
rick++--there's one word in this sentence that gives me and most other
anti-AGW'ers pause, can you guess what it is? "The much higher amounts
in the past probably didnt happen that fast. "

I'll tell you: PROBABLY.

That's why I say, before we stop the world, denying future generations
beneficial growth that will allow them to reach the "singularity"
faster (Google this term), and create an economic Ice Age that will
result in World War 3, I think it's reasonable to conclude that as far
as taking drastic actions on AGW...

All the research that really needs to be done has been done on
this issue. There is no question that the co2 release into the
atmosphere is a 'real bad thing (tm)'

Why?

That doesn't change the fact that society doesn't run without
fossil fuels. killing the patient to cure the disease doesn't help
anything.
What needs to be done is to deploy green tech as quickly as is
economically feasible. (even if it is a little more expensive).
Windmills work (when they are not blocked by environmentalists),
nuclear works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), hydro
works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), waste-energy works
(when it is not blocked by environmentalists), there are even solar
systems that work (direct pv isn't one of them) (when it is not blocked
by environmentalists).
None of this would delay the singularity, it might even accelerate
it by stimulating research. It also will not slow global warming, we
are just going to have to live with that, but we don't need to
exacerbate it more than necessary.

Agree with all the above.


Now my own personal soap-box.
I live in the US. I see the roads around me, and I see the effect
of cars on the road. I attribute ALL of that not to the car, but to
the white pickett fence. If you want a Hummer, fine, go buy one, but
DON'T DRIVE IT 50 ^$%^&* MILES A DAY. If more people were content to
live in apartments, there would be fewer roads, commutes would be
shorter, public transport would be viable, and the impact of the
automobile would be lessened greatly. Not to mention the energy
efficiency of having 1 exterior wall instead of 5.

Why live in an apartment when you can own your own home. It's the American
dream!
Besides, only welfare/socialist people live in apartments.
Public transportation is for people that can't afford a car! Why go
backwards and sit on a puke smelling bus?
Count me out of your utopia!

Clifford

Methane in the atmosphere has a 5 year half-life.

Don't listen to the borg, get the facts :

"Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 62
over 20 years, 23 over 100 years and 7 over 500 years. The decrease in
GWP associated with longer times is associated with the fact that the
methane is degraded to water and CO2 by chemical reactions in the
atmosphere."

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Okay, I was wrong by a small amount in my half-life statement, I
read it last year.
However, Your citation is also wrong. the proportion of the
methane which degrades to co2 remains in the atmosphere for milennia,
correct, but the water vapor precipitates out.