The Urge to Explore

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.

On 17-Jun-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

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

There are more fish in colder climates, where cold water rises, bringing
nutrients up from the ocean floor.

In sci.space.policy Paul F. Dietz wrote:
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.

Is it also higher in locations where rainforest or jungle has been
removed? Warming is rather unlikely to spread jungle and rainforest
toareas where these didn't exist before.



Paul

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...

No parts of Antarctica are "developed, productive land". There may be
some trivial such land in Greenland, in a very minor sense. Since
Antarctica isn't going to melt under ANY model, and the Arctic is
floating, there isn't going to BE sea level rise.

Since Greenland and West Antarctica are expected to melt under some
models, this conclusion doesn't seem very safe.


Predicted, not expected. And that "some models" predict it is meaningless.
Until they all do it isn't worth worrying about.




Furthermore you have
neglected an additional contribution to sea level rise - the thermal
expansion of the oceans.


Trivial compared to tidal fluctuatuions. We don't even know what the 'sea
level' is NOW thanks to tidal and seismic influences. It turns out that's a
hard thing to pin down with accuracy. With all that sloshing back and
forth, what does 'sea level' even mean?


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?



Well, if the change happened overnight it would be. I think the Dutch can
manage heightening their dykes half a centimeter a year. They could
probably for it with those walls they use to keep out the water too.

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


This isn't the first climate change, only the most recent. We already KNOW
that existing creatures can survive higher temperatures than we have now,
since they didn't go extinct before the last ice age. They've done it
before, they can easily do it again. Nature is pretty tough, not the
fragile half dead thing greenies are always claiming it is.

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
[...]
Besides, once the Gulf Stream current gets cut off, who know whats happens
up around here.

What do you mean, "once"?

It's been headed Spainward for the last few months, in the
intermediate shutdown pattern hypothesized but not seen in
practice to date.

Little Ice Age II, anyone? If you live in northern Europe,
buy more cold weather gear this summer and fall...


-george william herbert

George William Herbert wrote:

Little Ice Age II, anyone?


Nope, that's impossible. The mythical time known as "The Little Ice Age"
came before SUV's and even George Bush; so clearly it could not have
happened. Until evil Americans started to burn gasoline, the climate was
in a perpetual state of thermal bliss.

"Shawn Wilson" wrote:

This isn't the first climate change, only the most recent. We already KNOW
that existing creatures can survive higher temperatures than we have now,
since they didn't go extinct before the last ice age. They've done it
before, they can easily do it again. Nature is pretty tough, not the
fragile half dead thing greenies are always claiming it is.

It's not other species I worry about so much in global warming, though some
will suffer. It's us. Our agriculture is adapted to the conditions of an
unusually stable 10,000 period. Start messing around with the rainfall
patterns and a lot of hell will break loose. Or shut off the North Atlantic
Current (what really warms most of Europe), though you probably think it'd be
fun if Europe got ruined.

How come conservatives are so reckless about changing the climate randomly?
I'd think there'd be a link between "don't mess with social traditions" and
"don't mess with your life support system".

-xx- Damien X-)

: (Damien R. Sullivan)
: How come conservatives are so reckless about changing the climate
: randomly? I'd think there'd be a link between "don't mess with social
: traditions" and "don't mess with your life support system".

Unfortunately, the social traditions were formed when human actions
were much smaller in scope, and had smaller consequences to the
life support system.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Just to diversify a little from the global consensus
There is a now school of thought that says " Yes there is some global
warming- it is partly human in origin, since the advent of agriculture, and
that is actually a GOOD thing since without it we would be now be well into
an Ice Age( cores from Lake Vostok) . A new Ice Age would arguably generate
far more human suffering than even the more garish predictions of global
warming . So, maybe, we should not worry too much - especially as there are
many variables apart from CO2 in this equation- not least the Sun, and the
vagaries of plate tectonics- which not even our most avid totalitarians can
regulate!
Mind you, Egyptian Nationalist journalists and Internet based antisemites
have blamed recent plate tectonic slippages ( Asian tsunami) on a malign
US-Israeli conspiracy- but that is quite another story...
Michael Martin-Smith
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
horseshoe7 wrote:

But this does not mean
it is negligible.

350 ppm is NEGLIGIBLE.

Repeating idiocy doesn't make it any less idiotic,
'horseshoe7'.

You simply don't have a ****ing clue about how
thermal radiation transport in the atmosphere works.
I suggest you go and actually try to learn how
it works before you embarrass yourself with opinions
you have no ability to intelligently hold.

Say, did you ever notice how idiots like to hide
behind pseudonyms?


Yes - the fact is, when it comes to the impact of "greenhouse gases"
CO2 doesn't mean diddly-squat compared to the much more abundant
METHANE... which is mostly put out by decaying leaves... so -
destroying the rain forests actually HELPS prevent global warming.

BWHAHAHA!!!!

Atmospheric concentration is methane is 1.75 ppm, about
TWO HUNDRED TIMES smaller than CO2.

Jeez, you are HILARIOUS!

Are you next goint to tell me that global warming is bunk
because the Earth is actually flat?


THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

Well, we better start cutting down MORE trees, and quick - then convert
the pulp to paper and cardboard, and then start burying the carbon!
But noooooo... you want to preserve all trees... you want to recycle
all the paper products - but you worry about global warming due to
excess CO2.... make up your minds, please!

You enviroMENTALISTS are like a dog chasing its tail... it is HIGH
COMEDY!

Assinine misattribution of opinions noted. But then, you didn't
really have any way to defend the indefensible, so I'm not surprised.

Look, do yourself a favor and stop trying to appear to be an intelligent
being. You're just not cut out for it.

Paul