The Urge to Explore

Bingo! You've hit on the biggest hidden assumption built into this
"debate".

It is simply hubris to place a certain, godlike, value judgement on one
state of the climate vs. a different state of the climate; this is
particularly true when we are talking +- a couple of degrees.

"meiza" wrote in message ...
In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:06:58 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Frank
Scrooby" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

There 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.

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.

of the earth's average temperature. The main increase in biodiversity
in the near term will be at a much smaller scale, where creatures have
a much shorter generation time.

It's absurd to talk about this when we're living in the middle of a mass
extinction phase (the sixth one).



And the fact is that the mass extinction is the direct result of humans
through direct killing and habitat destruction.

--
www.DeanWhite.net

horseshoe7 ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:
: horseshoe7 ) wrote:
:
:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : horseshoe7 ) wrote:
: :
: : : The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
: : : GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
: : : off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
: : : update/retrofit old inefficient designs.
: :
: : Right, which makes the rightests correct about the environment in every
: : regard...
:
: : Hey, think about it - EVERYBODY cares about the environment... the
: : trick is not to over do it with hysteria.
:
: Agreed, but who is doing something and who is complaining? You might not
: like what they do, but they are doing something. If you don't like it,
: then create your own plan rather than criticize theirs.
:
: : Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.
:
: So we should simply stop monitoring the earth since you have the answer?

: Can't you READ? I said it was UNDERSCIENCED - it needs MORE STUDY...
: not MORE HYSTERIA.

Okay, so stop being hysterical! It is getting to the point that you
anti-GB types trump the worst of the pro-GB types as some twisted form of
backlash. Sort of like shooting abortion doctors for killing fetuses.

: Hell, why do any science given that the Bible has all the answers?

: The Bible has ZERO answers in regards to this issue, so I have no idea
: why you would bring up such nonsense.

Many of your anti-GB bretheran like the Bible. Do you denounce them or
simply ignore them? I denounce the wacky lefties if that helps you.

: There is NO REASON to literally run around shouting that THE SKY IS
: FALLING in regards to Global Warming... do more research.

No, YOU do the research! Why do you want to put it on me and still have
your ill-informed opinion?

: THAT is
: what you are saying WRT Global Warming, or more correctly termed Global
: Climate Change. You know so why bother.

: Bull****. You are simply assuming I have the same position as some
: over-the-hill Right Wing Radio Host Parrot's stance on the issue.

GCC has replaced GW WRT earth science. You sure as hell sound like the
over-the-hill parrot on this issue. I guess you hate him due to his $$$.
True hateful conservative, you.

: I say do more research... don't ASSUME it is true based on a few
: SLANTED STUDIES.

You do the research and keep your opinion to yourself!

: Have you read STATE OF FEAR?

By whom?

Eric

: - Stewart

In message GCwse.746$gt5.415@fed1read02, Shawn Wilson
writes

"Frank Scrooby" wrote in message
...

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.


There 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.

You also have to take into account the increased evaporation caused by
higher temperatures.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"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.

wrote in message
...

Certainly the habitable area is greater without large parts of it covered
in
ice.

Not at all. What you gain near the poles you lose elsewhere.
Particularly as much of Greenland and parts of Antarctica are
in fact below sea level, the loss (of productive, developed,
land) is far greater than the gain (of bare rock).


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.

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.





The increased precipitation from higher temps also means that deserts
will shrink, which is yet more area opened to life.

That does not follow. The Sahara was suitable for agriculture
(if we had it) during the last ice age. It became a desert
as the planet warmed up.


Temperatures don't drive deserts- precipitation does. The Sahara isn't a
desert because it's hot. If it were the equatorial regions would be deserts
and they are quite the oppposite.




There is no simple relation between planetary temperature and
desert fraction. Precipitation may (or may not) go up at a
given site, but evaporation will as well. P - E is the relevant
quantity.


Higher humidity from more water vapor in the air means less evaporation.








--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

"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.

Shawn Wilson wrote in message
news:gaqse.540$gt5.95@fed1read02...

"horseshoe7" wrote in message
ups.com...

And the Earth's atmosphere is undeniably warming.

There is no certain proof.

Actually, that there IS warming is one of the few things everyone actually
agrees on.

Even if it is warming, there is no certain
proof it is being caused by increases in "Greenhouse gases". There
have been many periods in Earth's history where the Earth was much
warmer than right now, and everything has turned out just fine...


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.

Eric Chomko wrote:
horseshoe7 ) wrote:

: Have you read STATE OF FEAR?

By whom?

Michael Crichton (ANDROMEDA STRAIN, JURASSIC PARK, et al.).

- Stewart

"trike" wrote in message
oups.com...

NO models of global warming predict the melting of the polar caps. In
fact,
actual observation and measurement indicates the polar caps are growing.
(higher temps more evaporation more precip).

The scientists who measure this -- and issued another statement last
winter that the ice caps are shrinking -- are all wrong? Sounds like
you have a little Orwellian doublethink going on.


Did they say that the net mass of the ice caps was shriniking? Or did they
actually mention only a few specifics and only IMPLY that everything was
melting? There is no shortage of decpetion in this debate.





But hey, don't take anyone else's word for it, go to the NASA site and
look at the photos yourself. And don't be talking about a Photoshop
conspiracy until _after_ you look at them, please.


How do you take a photo of the total mass of Earth's icecaps?





Global Warming is a fact, one that's been measured.



Yes, it is. No one is questioning THAT. Whether human contribiutions are
significantly driving it is NOT a fact, it's a hypothesis. Whether global
warming is bad isn't even a hypothesis- it's an assumption.




The only
controversy is whether it's natural or man-made. That's something I
don't know, but Global Warming itself -- that's real. I'm not exactly
worried about it, but dude, you really have to not spout nonsense.


And there's that other thing that gets begged but is actually central to the
discussion- is it a good thing or a bad thing? No law says change MUST be
bad.





"The researchers found that in areas where the ice melts very little,
there was slight thickening of some ice caps, which could be due to
accumulation from increased snowfall; however, overall they found that
the ice caps and glaciers were thinning at the lower elevations where
melt occurs. In some locations, where the changes were most
substantial, this thinning appears to be a continuation of the retreat
or melting of glaciers that followed the end of the Little Ice Age -- a
period 150 years ago when the Earth was cooler and glaciers were more
prevalent. However, the researchers also attributed the melting of the
ice caps to the short-term warming trend of the late 1990s, which
appears to have been amplified in the Arctic. They determined that the
ice loss associated with these combined effects contributed to 0.065
millimeters (0.002 inches) per year to sea level rise during the
1995-2000 time period."


As I was saying previously about deceptive and misleading statements by
scientists...