Re: OT: Cap and Trade and The Cooling Earth


"John Vamp" <jvampatella@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f50b636e-b2d6-46a0-9e75-d7d4f8ea8c37@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 13, 1:03 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"John Vamp" <jvampate...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:e99a147b-1b6d-4118-ab66-e0c026681dd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 12, 8:55 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"John Vamp" <jvampate...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I've seen lots of scenarios about what would happen if AGW was true.
Many things would change for the better. Bummer if you have a house
right on the coast, of course. But a real agricultural boon to the
northern US, Canada, Siberia....you know, HUGE tracts of land suddenly
open up to agricultural use. It's not at all certain that the earth
warming a few degrees would be devastating.

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

change for the better?
depend on where you live.
th deserts are growing at an alarming pace and the best farmlands will
become arid wastelands.

And some places that now are not usable for agriculture will become
the breadbaskets of humanity. If this dramatic climate change were to
occur, humans and animals would migrate and adapt. Isn't that pretty
much the lesson of evolutionary biology?

John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

will they? willGreenland and the tundra prove fertile?
warmer temps won't make such places bread baskets.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

Opening of that story: "Known for its massive ice sheets, Greenland
is feeling the effects of global warming as rising temperatures have
expanded the island's growing season and crops are flourishing. For
the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise
cattle and start dairy farms."

So yes, global warming would greatly increase Greenland's ability to
produce crops.

and the amount of land lost to production won't be replaced by an equal
amount of new land.

Cite? Seems like a HUGE part of the earth - like northern Canada,
Greenland, and northern Russia (including Siberia) would be positively
impacted. Fact is, you have no idea about this, Ray.

and what about the population? are we all to move to Canada?

Uh, Ray, seriously. Have you taken just a second or two to think
about the incredibly diverse environments humans currently live in?
Deserts, mountains, tropical islands, rain forests, frozen north of
Sweden, Canada, and Russia.... Many would still probably live in the
warmer climates (warmer by a couple of degrees on average) and do what
they do now: import food. Others might move north (or south, if
they're in the southern hemisphere). We might see some sort of human
migration, but - and here's what you might have a hard time believing
in your own little bizarro world - this has always been going on in
the entire history of civilization. People migrate where opportunity
to live is better - whether that opportunity is based on food,
climate, jobs, security....you name it. So maybe places like South
Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Minnesota, Michigan,
and Maine will see a big increase in population - that's ok, they're
huge states and could handle it no problem. Maybe places like the
coasts of Florida will see people move north. But that would be a
problem.........why?

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and look how many people are starving in the equatorial regions. a billion
people are not getting enough and you think rendering where they live
uninhabital is a good thing?

amazing john.

it gets 130 degrees in Africa and the middle east.


.

Loading