Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 The Hottest Year on Record...


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#51 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:11 PM

Any shift in climate though would be slow enough that the food supply could readjust. I'm not saying food shortages wont happen, but the global trend will be for more precipitation, which is the limiting factor in modern food production.

Now places like Africa, which already cant produce enough to feed its population, could have some big problems, especially if they dont get their population under control. If a big drought caused food shortages elsewhere and other countries refuse to export, there could be serious consequences. But on a world wide scale, I dont see widespread starvation or anything like that


i haven't seen any science backing up a global trend in more precipitation... localized perhaps, but I don't think we have much of a clue about what this is going to do globally... If you have, link them cause i'd be interested to read...

We have less flexibility than ever with our food production... it's all well and good to say that everything's going to equal out globally but I haven't seen any evidence of that... if the proper growing climates/rainfall are stripped from areas with the requisite top-soil... we are going to have serious problems. Simply put, a second dustbowl ALONE would be catastrophic... If water supplies further diminish in SoCal and it becomes unliveable... even over a 50 year period THAT would be catastrophic... and that's just the first world... I'm not saying that everyone's going to die or anything but realistically, in terms of potential damage... this situation dwarfs any ecological disaster that we've faced down in recorded history... one does not simply relocate half the world's population while simultaneously changing its weather patterns... (and that's keeping our fingers crossed that we don't kill the oceans between now and then.)

#52 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:27 PM

i haven't seen any science backing up a global trend in more precipitation... localized perhaps, but I don't think we have much of a clue about what this is going to do globally... If you have, link them cause i'd be interested to read...

We have less flexibility than ever with our food production... it's all well and good to say that everything's going to equal out globally but I haven't seen any evidence of that... if the proper growing climates/rainfall are stripped from areas with the requisite top-soil... we are going to have serious problems. Simply put, a second dustbowl ALONE would be catastrophic... If water supplies further diminish in SoCal and it becomes unliveable... even over a 50 year period THAT would be catastrophic... and that's just the first world... I'm not saying that everyone's going to die or anything but realistically, in terms of potential damage... this situation dwarfs any ecological disaster that we've faced down in recorded history... one does not simply relocate half the world's population while simultaneously changing its weather patterns... (and that's keeping our fingers crossed that we don't kill the oceans between now and then.)


Most of the global studies on climate induced precipitation focus on local changes (and have been quite unsuccessful up to this point).

But globally speaking- evaporation is higher when the temperature increases. Evaporation is also greater over water than over land, and in terms of surface area the oceans will be getting bigger. Plus less sea ice and snow cover mean less radiation will be reflected away, and that radiation is the driving force behind evaporation. More evaporation means more precipitation

What it basically comes down to is the less frozen water at the poles, the more water everywhere else (oceans and atmosphere)

#53 davos

davos

    €∞€∞€∞€

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,494
  • Reputation: 1,930
  • LocationCO
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:00 PM

warmer?

Its obviously because of all the marijuana smokers breathing that crud into the air

#54 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,113
  • Reputation: 2,944
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

climate change is like bottled water. somebody took something that already existed. packaged and marketed it and convinced people it was a good thing.
then after millions start using bottled water, landfills began to pile up with, you guessed it. plastic water bottles.

same with climate change. to think the climate hasn't been changing all the time since there was even a climate is crazy.

now whether or not it's getting worse or man made or not i don't think should be the focus. the focus should be, to be on the safe side, let me do all i can to reduce my own personal footprint.

#55 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,523
  • Reputation: 1,262
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:44 PM

same with climate change. to think the climate hasn't been changing all the time since there was even a climate is crazy.


who thinks this?

now whether or not it's getting worse or man made or not i don't think should be the focus.


why not?

the focus should be, to be on the safe side, let me do all i can to reduce my own personal footprint.


if we're not to focus on whether or not it's "man made," then why should one "do all that they can to reduce their own personal footprint" since whether or not i am making an impact shouldn't actually be the focus at all

#56 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,113
  • Reputation: 2,944
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:52 PM

its both. my point is its much easier to do your specific part as opposed to a mega macro way.

#57 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,523
  • Reputation: 1,262
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:53 PM

it's also entirely ineffective

#58 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,113
  • Reputation: 2,944
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 10:42 PM

thanks for your always keen and uncanny insights. i feel as if i reached the top of Mt. Ararat.

#59 Wolf Stansson

Wolf Stansson

    The Dentist

  • Joined: 11-March 10
  • posts: 40
  • Reputation: 1
ROOKIE

Posted 09 January 2013 - 11:12 PM

the focus should be controlling all stargates on the planet not this global wamring mumbo jumbo

#60 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,523
  • Reputation: 1,262
HUDDLER

Posted 09 January 2013 - 11:30 PM

thanks for your always keen and uncanny insights. i feel as if i reached the top of Mt. Ararat.


this coming from mr. "don't worry about what causes climate change! just reduce your 'footprint' for some reason idk really but only if you want to"

the weird idea that not doing anything beyond nicely asking people to "reduce their footprint" could somehow be more effective than a "mega macro way" (i presume you're referring to legislation limiting CO2 emissions or something) is bewildering


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users