Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

"richard schumacher" wrote
if us ingenious Yankees exert our brains and moral authority we can keep a
lot of it in the ground.

Why change now? It's much easier to lie to yourself that there is no
problem...

The intelligent American will be both pleased and saddened by the burrial
of the AmeriKKKan state.


"richard schumacher" wrote
Burning stuff is for cavemen.

I concurr.

"bill" wrote
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.

Warm moist air must still flow over the rockies to get to the U.S.
midwest, and in so doing lose it's water vapour content.



Bill wrote:
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.

While there will be a significant reduction in coastal areas the ocean
surface area will not change substantively. Neither will the continental
landmass significantly be reduced. However since most major cities are
located on the coasts, most will suffer great destruction.

"richard schumacher" wrote
For a snapshot of the desertification of the central U.S. now in
progress, see for example
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...g_ou.html#more

Exceptional drout in the Texas Panhandle.

Why is GOD punishing Texas?

I liked this part best....

"There is a silver lining in today's announcement. NOAA's National
Hydrologica Assessment does not indicate a dramatic flooding potential this
spring for the continental U.S."

No doubt the residents of the Sahara are equally optimistic.

"Rand Simberg" wrote:
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).

But don't confuse Elifritz with reality.

Interesting, you are saying that a feedback mechanism exists that can equal
or exceed the purturbation that stimulates it.

More generally you are saying that a push to the left can cause an even
greater push to the right.

Please explain this to us Simberg.

Stupid... Stupid.. Simberg...

"Clifford" wrote
LLLLLLoyd, Read and be enlightened!
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...arthgreen.html

Clifford, you might have noticed that CO2 levels are continuing to increase
even though there is an apparent increase in plant growth.

You might have noticed that this is not what Simberg suggested, which was a
zeroing of effective CO2 growth as a result of adding CO2.

You know, kinda like the reducing taxes increases tax revenue bull****.

"bill" wrote
Additionally, atmospheric lifetime is wildly different from
half-life.

ah... No... The rate of destruction is proportional to the concentration.
Hence half life applies.

"Scott Nudds" wrote in message
...
"bill" wrote
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.

Warm moist air must still flow over the rockies to get to the U.S.
midwest, and in so doing lose it's water vapour content.



Bill wrote:
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.

While there will be a significant reduction in coastal areas the ocean
surface area will not change substantively. Neither will the continental
landmass significantly be reduced. However since most major cities are
located on the coasts, most will suffer great destruction.


Until the sea level rises due to polar melting, sudden tsunami, devastating
hurricanes, etc, etc, etc. I don't know why you think the coasts are
immune from anything (either through ignorance, or denial), because they
most certainly are not immune, and in fact, are extremely vulnerable, as
the debacle in New Orleans amply demonstrates. The fact is that the ocean
surface area is already increasing, as coastal erosion is a huge issue here
in the states.

George

"Scott Nudds" wrote in message
...

"Rand Simberg" wrote:
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).

But don't confuse Elifritz with reality.

Interesting, you are saying that a feedback mechanism exists that can
equal
or exceed the purturbation that stimulates it.

Buy an electric guitar and a loud amplifier. Plug the guitar into the
amplifier, then turn it on. Crank the volume up to high. While facing the
speaker, play the chord "E" and sustain it until you start getting
feedback. Then tell me if the feeback level exceeds the purturbation
(striking the chord) that stimulats it.

George

On Fri, 17 Mar 06 13:30:51 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I didn't say it was all wrong. Go get a dictionary, and look up the
words "most" and "all."

So what parts were right, in your view?

That there was a hurricane, with a lot of destruction, and that some
people died and many were left homeless.

So in other words, kind of like, oh, maybe, a minor little thing like a house
falling down.

No. You're as terrible at paraphrasing as you are at English
comprehension.

And of course, Bush responded admirably to it, right?

It wasn't Bush's job to respond to it. The federal government didn't
do that great a job, but it rarely does, federal government being what
it always is. It certainly didn't anticipate how completely
incompetent the local government would be, though perhaps it should
have.

And of course, Bush responded admirably to it, right?

It wasn't Bush's job to respond to it.

Sure it was. It was a national disaster, and he's the president.

No. Just because presidents have gotten photo ops in the past by
going to national disaster sites doesn't mean that it's their job. It
certainly says nothing about it in the Constitution.

The federal government didn't
do that great a job, but it rarely does, federal government being what
it always is. It certainly didn't anticipate how completely
incompetent the local government would be, though perhaps it should
have.
FEMA was supposed to manage emergencies. That's its name.

It has never been chartered to be a first responder. That has always
been understood to be a local responsibility. FEMA's position has
always been that locals are on their own for the first few days.

EXACTLY.
I myself have worked for FEMA On several disasters. the way it
works is this.
1) Disaster hits.
2) The local dept of public works yahoos go out with their
chainsaws and bulldozers, and get everything working again,
3) Then the cities hire contractors to do the mass cleanup,
4) FEMA finally arrives on scene.
5) FEMA tells them they also have to pay for lawyers to watch all
the cleanup work going at the expense of the municipality.
6) the work gets done.
7) Fema picks up 80% of the Bill.

Fema doesn't respond to disasters, or provide aid for starving
children, or fix roads, or clean up debris, they MANAGE disasters, now,
what does MANAGEMENT do at your company?