|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 30, 2009 22:42:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alayna on Oct 6, 2009 4:47:06 GMT
The only prediction I have is China and India will go to war over water. This will happen with our without AGW.
If i'm alive in 2100 I will be too senile to give a crap about anything else going on ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 6, 2009 6:05:14 GMT
[Snip] If i'm alive in 2100 I will be too senile to give a crap about anything else going on ;D If I'm alive in 2100, there will have been a huge medical breakthrough ....
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 6, 2009 7:26:56 GMT
The only prediction I have is China and India will go to war over water. This will happen with our without AGW. If i'm alive in 2100 I will be too senile to give a crap about anything else going on ;D If they go to war over water it will be ENTIRELY because of actual use, not climate. I mean honestly, we're essentially talking about a return to the holocene optimum range of temperatures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#Global_effectsIt seems more like global warming is the SOLUTION for the developing world and overpopulation in general, not the kind of thing that would aggravate the conditions. There would be substantial rainfall increases in most desert regions. The arctic and antarctic regions would become FAR more productive with higher temperatures and lower ice coverage (or do you think plants grow best on solid sheets of ice or in dark/cold oceans?). When there was a drought plants would be more resistant since they wouldn't need to keep their pores as open to get much needed CO2. There would only be a small increase in sea level...offset by the fact that much of northern Europe/America would become FAR more hospitable. But yeah yeah...droughts in a hot/wet world and more starvation caused by the earth becoming more like a commercial greenhouse than the cold, CO2 impoverished world it used to be. I think we should probably give up our fixation on CO2 and leave it to the plants since CO2 fixation really is more their thing.
|
|
|
Post by alayna on Oct 6, 2009 18:24:57 GMT
If they go to war over water it will be ENTIRELY because of actual use, not climate. I mean honestly, we're essentially talking about a return to the holocene optimum range of temperatures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#Global_effectsIt seems more like global warming is the SOLUTION for the developing world and overpopulation in general, not the kind of thing that would aggravate the conditions. There would be substantial rainfall increases in most desert regions. The arctic and antarctic regions would become FAR more productive with higher temperatures and lower ice coverage (or do you think plants grow best on solid sheets of ice or in dark/cold oceans?). When there was a drought plants would be more resistant since they wouldn't need to keep their pores as open to get much needed CO2. There would only be a small increase in sea level...offset by the fact that much of northern Europe/America would become FAR more hospitable. But yeah yeah...droughts in a hot/wet world and more starvation caused by the earth becoming more like a commercial greenhouse than the cold, CO2 impoverished world it used to be. I think we should probably give up our fixation on CO2 and leave it to the plants since CO2 fixation really is more their thing. The problem is most of the crops that are irrigated use aquifers that are being depleted much faster than they are recharged, and as India & China's economies grow, so does the demand for water which depletes these aquifers even faster. And then we have the whole issue of polluted rivers that are needed for drinking water. I do agree with much of the rest of your post. AGW, if true, is supposed to provide my state with a lot more rainfall and extend our growing season. AGW might be a problem for some temperature zones, but global cooling will be far more dire.
|
|