On Microclimates

Page 2 of 4  


Somebody call?
It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims certainty. We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and atheism are both a matter of faith.
As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in Greenland, but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then?
--
And then there is living(?) with Global Warming.
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what people do.

And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't. As if all other religions oppose science - They don't. As if all other religions make the errors of biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism - They don't. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the existance of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region with no visible mountains. Or to conclude the world is flat because you've never been high enough to see its curvature youreself.

Going on the objective only, the agnostic approach is the best supported. Until you consider my "They don't" points above. I personally accept, for myself, subjective evidence, knowing full well that by definition subjective evidence is only available to myself and does not apply to others. So I'm not an atheist. Nonetheless I decided to join a religion that does not care if its members are atheists or not.

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

Whew it would take a lot of sea level elevation to fill the San Joacin valley!
A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change? Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt build up in the soil?
The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect reference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Freyburger wrote: ...

a large portion of desertification is from human activities like overgrazing cows/sheep/goats and removing covering forests for crops and firewood. some areas the moisture in the forrests is part of the local weather cycle. remove the forrest, change the weather...
some desertland can be reclaimed by doing simple things like lining up rocks on the ground (which stops water from flowing away quickly). soon these lines trap seeds and the plants sprout and that sets up a small windbreak which further protects tree seedlings and gives them a chance to grow.
as long as these are not grazed by goats it can go a long ways towards getting some growth going even in very harsh climates.
in China they are trying to reforrest some areas, but i'm not sure how much success they've had. i don't think they have enough moisture or organic stuff planted along with the saplings so they bake before they can grow. instead they probably need an approach like the one above that starts small and works up to supporting trees one step at a time.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
songbird wrote:

Humans have done a large but unknown about of that over the millennia. The Sahara used to be grassland, as was most of central Asia. How much was human grazing and farming and how much was natural climate change? Very hard to tell after the fact.

It would need to be done a step at a time. Getting grasses and shrub bushes then building generation to generation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is "natural climate change"?
The graph on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Recent_past> indicates that the planet was "naturally" getting cooler.

--
---------
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

Change that is not caused by humans. There's been a lot of it in geological time. Enough to ask if the human contribution in the current trend is large or small. And that's independent of the real issue that you point out in the graph - If global warming isn't really a good thing.

The graph also shows that life in general has done very well during the warmer geological periods. We're all doomed - The history of life thriving during warm periods proves it! We're all doomed - Humanity evolved during the recent swings and highs. Our prehistoric ancestors have already been through several ice ages and warming periods. The "we" part is specific parts of human culture not humanity in general and not life in general.
Independent of the size of human contribution to global warming that's the interesting point - Earth's life thrived under warming conditions. Ancient humanity thrived under warming conditions. Therefore global warming *must* be *entirely* human caused and we're all going to die as a result of it! It's political BS at its finest. It ignores what has actually happened during prior warm eras.
Even glancing at the graphs tells a different story. Life and humanity have thrived under warmer conditions across geological time. Except for folks living in Florida which will eventually be innundated, exactly how again is life and humanity thriving a disaster? Last time I checked there are planes, trains and automolbiles capable of evacuating Florida in a lot less than the several centuries it will take for it to flood. We'll need to replant the citrus groves elsewhere, completely disasterous.
The degree of human contribution just doesn't matter in real terms - Life in general and humanity in specific has thrived on Earth during eras of warmer climate.
Is it bad just because it's different? Really? I look at those graphs and I don't buy it. I look at those graphs and I wonder why I support green energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear. Because fossil fuels are limited resources, that's why.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I realize that this is sarcasm, but let me point out the home, for Homo sapiens is the Olduvai Gorge [Latitude: 2?59S], which is very near the equator.

Possibly.
--
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D
-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the world?
Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything.

Faith isn't proof. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not Christian, but spiritual none the less.

Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion?
Spirituality and religiosity aren't exactly the same thing. The former would be constrained by natural laws, the later wouldn't.

It's done it before, but it won't be done quickly, if at all.

The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the world.

High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming could be more than just inconvenient.
--
---------
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

In this case we have a person who was exposed to toxic religion when young who has rejected religion based on that. Rather like hating all fruit because of being forced to eat brussel sprouts as a child.

Buddhism at least. Number three in the list of the big 4 based on worldwide population.
There are also plenty of religions where the individual's belief in deity is irrelevant even though the written scripture describes deity as existing. Judaism for exmple. Also Hindu, number four in the list of the big 4 based on worldwide population.

Among other aspects. Note that science is a spiritual method in that meaning so the spiritual means more than the religious.

Correct. Reading a map and seeing Greenland and thinking that Greenland exists is an act of faith. Reading reports of deity written by others and thinking that deity exists is an act of faith. The difference is in how to convert that faith into conviction. Anyone can take someone else to Greenland. No one can take anyone else to an experience of deity. It's always only real to the individual - Subjective.

There are metrics which disprove the existance of specific gods, none that prove the existance of them. That part of religion is always subjective. There are necessary and sufficient aspects to religion. Belief in deity is sufficient without being necessary.

Buddhism is an entire faith which does not require any address to deity. There are Buddhist sects that do address deity but it is always optional. There are also religions that are theistic in their writings that do not require it of their members. Once you're past Christianity and Islam, numbers one and two in world population, few of the remaining religions make such a requirement even in theory.

Only if the world population does not migrate to reflect the changing location of arable land. Static humanity has never been true and can not be expected to be true now. As the arable land shifts away from the equator so does the human population. Such migrations across history have triggered sigificant social change.

Could. Agreed. Human hunting has already triggered a mass extinction. We do need the environmentalist movement. We do need to continue solar cells on their exponential growth until they replace much of the fossil fuel use. We do need to build soil as a part of our farming methods. We do need to plant more trees and slow/stop the net cutting of trees.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism> The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. Hence, Buddhism is often aptly described as a
"spiritual philosophy" [Which would be my view, not a religion.-Billy]
whose sole aim is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[2][3] called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,[4] denies endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.[6][7] Some theists beginning Buddhist meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism,[8] but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana,[9] the highest goal of Buddhist practice.[10]
If you like weekends (40 hr/5 day weeks), thank a union.
Bush's 3rd term: OBAMA
=
--
- Billy
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

When has global warming happened in the past?
The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts. When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal temperature..
Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not there. Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life :)
--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nad R wrote:

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements. Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the Soviets we should try it again now.

I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity.
Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections remain tentative not certain. To someone 20 the projections have not changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to me.
In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure.
Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA.
A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If it is a "week" assertion, then you also cannot state that this is century is not the warmest. This century could be the warmest in a million years. I doubt cattle grazing has been going on for more that a millennia or a good measure of past temperature recordings.

I also object that Ultra Right Wing Capitalist claiming the global warming is not man made. That political view is a two way street. Let face it, your belief is on a God, not science.
If your wrong and the human race continues on it's reckless path the earth will be very uncomfortable place to live for short term gains. If global warming is not man made what harm is implementing a policy of reducing CO2 and the human population. I think there should be a balance between humans and nature vs destroying nature at a breakneck pace to support a growing population that will consume more and more resources.

I disagree with your presuppositions that global cooling is preceded by a global warming. Their are cooling temperatures in the past followed by normal temperatures. NOT above normal temperatures like today's time.

Yes! "And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity". Thank for confirming that global warming ( Greenhouse Gasses ) from human activities.

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a socialist plot to be used for political power? If so you have have really really gone off the deep end of the Glen Beck World of grand delusions.
Yea I half read "Collapse", some of which has interesting theories. But I do not buy it completely. This video may be of some interest here.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html
--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nad R wrote:

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.
Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use exactly that strategem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Take a look at your last posting. Forty three words in one super long disjointed sentence. Your postings are difficult to read and rather cryptic. I wonder how you ever graduated from any school writing the way you do.
I will not respond to your rantings until you learn to write.
--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nad R wrote:

I will use smaller sentences.
Sequence one.
1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates.
2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates.
3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points.
4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about?
Sequence two.
1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons.
2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic.
3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists.
4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists.
5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign.
Sequence three.
1) Global warming is real.
2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus.
3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong.
4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial?
Sequence four.
1) Fossil fuel is limited.
2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear.
3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price.
4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve.
5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today.
6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum.
7) Hydroelectric damages cute fishees.
8) Nuclear is politically unpopular.
9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their goals.
10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is limited.
Conclusion.
It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about what my stance is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This fit of pique is unworthy of you.

You know that the above are easily picked apart.

Citation please.

Qualified sentence. Doesn't show relationship.

I agree, but not in environmentalism. Follow the money.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid00208360&sr=1-1>
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang <(Amazon.com product link shortened) OMQY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid01174163&sr=1-1>
"A well-researched and readable case against free-trade orthodoxy." --Business Week
"A lively addition to the protectionist side of the debate...well written and far more serious than most anti-globalization gibberish." -- New York Sun
"Bookstore shelves are loaded with offerings by economists and commentators seeking to explain, in accessible prose, why free-trade-style globalization is desirable and even indispensable for countries the world over. Now comes the best riposte from the critics that I have seen. Readers who are leery of open-market orthodoxy will rejoice at the cogency of Bad Samaritans. Ha-Joon Chang has the credentials -- he's on the economics faculty at Cambridge University -- and the storytelling skill to make a well-informed, engaging case against the dogma propagated by globalization's cheerleaders. Believers in free trade will find that the book forces them to recalibrate and maybe even backpedal a bit....Chang's book deserves a wide readership for illuminating the need for humility about the virtues of private markets and free trade, especially in the developing world." --Paul Blustein, Washington Post
"Lucid, deeply informed, and enlivened with striking illustrations, this penetrating study could be entitled "economics in the real world." Chang reveals the yawning gap between standard doctrines concerning economic development and what really has taken place from the origins of the industrial revolution until today. His incisive analysis shows how, and why, prescriptions based on reigning doctrines have caused severe harm, particularly to the most vulnerable and defenseless, and are likely to continue to do so. He goes on to provide sensible and constructive proposals, solidly based on economic theory and historical evidence, as to how the global economy could be redesigned to proceed on a far more humane and civilized course. And his warnings of what might happen if corrective action is not taken are grim and apt." - Noam Chomsky
"A smart, lively, and provocative book that offers us compelling new ways of looking at globalization." --Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics
(Available at better libraries near you.)

What do you call recent? What do you call concensus? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling>

Across history, recent concensus in science has often offended dogma.

The truth, or its best estimate, is always important.

nuclear. Make an argument. What we've had so (nuclear ) far isn't "Green".

Ask the Japanese about how expensive nuclear is.

Planting a garden is good. It just won't feed you on the day that you plant it.

Happily, tidal action can be harnessed without harm to fishees.

edible
You mean that those who may be affected by it, don't want it.

Spell it out, would you, please.

Developing green (sustainable) sources is good in any event.

We have a problem, let's just address the problem and not go psychoanalytical on it.
--
---------
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What are you referring to here?

Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address Climate Change.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could clarify, and refrain from attacks.
--
---------
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Billy, are you changing your opinion about Doug being a good guy?
From his postings, he sounds just like my family members. One has to dig a little deeper to reveal his true intentions on the environment of the planet earth.
If Doug had anything to with the construction or inspections of California's Nuclear Power Plants, I would be moving out of that state :)
--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even "good guys" can have bad days. I've too much history with Doug to write him off easily. He can be a very thoughtful person.

--
---------
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.