The Urge to Explore

"Shawn Wilson" wrote in message
news:TbGse.938$gt5.627@fed1read02...

"meiza" wrote in message
...

The current climate change is so rapid compared to geological events
that species have little time to adapt. Sadly, the change will
mostly be in to one direction only.


Creatures react to, adapt to, and survive much greater temperature changes
every single day. There's also an annual variation that doesn't seem to
cause wholesale extinction every summer-winter cycle. There's no reason
to believe that global warming will produce problems.

..said the Stegosaurus to the Brontosaur.

"Suzanne A Blom" wrote in message
...

New Scientist has had a number of articles about this. What it comes down
to
is: The plants we mainly eat, grains, are generally adapted to a temperate
climate & will produce less nutrients as it gets warmer. Malaria
mosquitos,
on the other hand, will do fine.--Which may be good for the ecology, but
not
for us.


The US is not a malaria zone. This is not because we're too cold or we
don't have the potential to be. It's because we're a first world country
that can take malaria prevention measures- because we are already in the
malaria range. It was a significant cause of casualties to Washington's
troops. Malaria is yet another phantom menace...

In message TzGse.944$gt5.24@fed1read02, Shawn Wilson
writes

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...

Certainly the habitable area is greater without large parts of it covered
in
ice. The increased precipitation from higher temps also means that
deserts
will shrink, which is yet more area opened to life.

You also have to take into account the increased evaporation caused by
higher temperatures.


AND the reduced evaporation from higher humidity. The Sahara isn't going to
get any dryer. It really has no place to go but up.



The regions bordering the Sahara - the ones which will become desert if
the Sahara expands - can get dryer. It's the balance of precipitation
and evaporation in these areas that determines whether the Sahara
expands or contracts, not the balance in the heart of the Sahara.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:58:09 +0100, in a place far, far away, Stewart
Robert Hinsley made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Of course that raises another issue- the huge day to day variation in
sea level (called 'tides') dwarfs even the most hysterical of claims
about rising sea levels. Places that can survine existing conditions
wouldn't have any problem with it.

So if the highest tides now reach within 0.5 m of a the top of a Dutch
dyke, and sea level rise by 1 m, the dyke will not be overtopped?

Not if it's built up another half meter. They have plenty of time.

Yep - no need to panic for quite some time yet in Holland

But, Venice has a more immediate problem... However, it should be made
abundantly clear that their problem is due to the fact that the town is
actually SINKING! BAD URBAN PLANNING!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venice/

I feel the same way about those homes in Malibu and the outer islands
on the Eastern Seabord, which keep getting rebuilt by insurance
payments when they are destroyed by storm and/or erosion... insurance
that ALL OF US have to help subsidize with increased insurance costs -
it is a RICH-MAN'S SCAM, which John Stoseel uncovered years ago, but of
which little has been done to correct.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/printSN/11707.php

- Stewart

In message , Rand Simberg
writes
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:58:09 +0100, in a place far, far away, Stewart
Robert Hinsley made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Of course that raises another issue- the huge day to day variation in
sea level (called 'tides') dwarfs even the most hysterical of claims
about rising sea levels. Places that can survine existing conditions
wouldn't have any problem with it.

So if the highest tides now reach within 0.5 m of a the top of a Dutch
dyke, and sea level rise by 1 m, the dyke will not be overtopped?

Not if it's built up another half meter. They have plenty of time.

Yes, a 1 m rise is a fixable problem for many places. (In the UK, the
proposed fix, in some locations, is to abandon land to the sea.) That
doesn't alter the fact that the argument I was responding to was silly.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Shawn Wilson wrote:
"Frank Scrooby" wrote in message
are certain types (of people) who hold the opinion that (according
to the incomplete data we have of our current climatic 'age' and of
previous climatic 'age' of life on Earth) that bio-diversity is greatest
during periods of global warming.

I don't buy into it.

Certainly the habitable area is greater without large parts of it
covered in
ice. The increased precipitation from higher temps also means that
deserts
will shrink, which is yet more area opened to life.

Biodiversity *is* higher in the tropics than in temperate
zones. What that implies for a warmer world, I couldn't say.


Also, higher temps does not imply deserts will shrink, since temp's not the
problem is, but moisture is.

Besides, once the Gulf Stream current gets cut off, who know whats happens
up around here.

"trike" wrote in
oups.com:


Global Warming is a fact, one that's been measured. The only
controversy is whether it's natural or man-made.

Doug


A third possibility is that Global Warming is partially man-made and
partially natural. If that's the case, it will be fun to watch the
political spin-misters blame half of Global Warming on whoever.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:18:43 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Shawn Wilson wrote:

Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do know
about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.



Sure, the melting of the polar caps will have nothing but good effects-
but aren't Polar Bears going to look rather silly walking around in
coniferous forests?

Pat

They'll just move north, is all.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:45:22 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Suzanne
A Blom" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do
know
about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.

New Scientist has had a number of articles about this. What it comes down to
is: The plants we mainly eat, grains, are generally adapted to a temperate
climate & will produce less nutrients as it gets warmer. Malaria mosquitos,
on the other hand, will do fine.--Which may be good for the ecology, but not
for us.

What does it even mean to say that something is "good for the
ecology"?

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"meiza" wrote in message ...

The current climate change is so rapid compared to geological events
that species have little time to adapt. Sadly, the change will
mostly be in to one direction only.


Creatures react to, adapt to, and survive much greater temperature changes
every single day. There's also an annual variation that doesn't seem to
cause wholesale extinction every summer-winter cycle. There's no reason to
believe that global warming will produce problems.

Certain parts of animal life cycles, notably breeding, take place in
particular phases of the climate. Change that and animals and plants
breed at the wrong time in the season, and the offspring starve or are
caught out by the unexpected behaviour of weather as the seasons turn.
Some animals expend a huge effort to travel tremendous distances to
particular locations where they expect to find comfortable living
conditions. I forget where I heard this already happened. Probably
around the United Kingdom; and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/...watch/results/
is an exercise of phenology.