Thread: End of the Line for any effort to be put in place for Global Warming?

australia lies on a world wide desert belt---both north and south latitudes of roughly 25-33 degrees latitude----

Otherwise known as Hadley cell affected rainfall patterns. The big issue for Australia is that we have no equivalent to the northern hemisphere's "move north" option. If we tried to move south, we'd be in the drink. Adelaide is at the equivalent latitude to Los Angeles. I've heard some people suggest that their option is to move to San Francisco. To move 615 kms due south of Adelaide is not an option, there's no there there.

Plant trees? There are places where trees have never grown more than a few feet high. The Nullarbor Plain may be the world's largest single stretch of limestone - 200000 sq km. More importantly, its name is not an indigenous word as many people think - it's Latin for no tree. (null arbor) No point trying to grow trees where they've never grown before.

As long as climate change/global warming/agw (or any of several other synonyms) is associated with the National Academy of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA, The Royal Society, Hadley-CRU, CSIRO, etc, etc, (every peak science body and every institution that studies climate and weather) denial of it's reality and seriousness won't be a joke, it will be part of the prevention of timely and effective action to prevent dangerous to catastrophic damage to our world.

why always negative?

part of the process seems to be moving the crop lines farther north here in the midwest of usa/canada

maybe-----giving the high dry south western plains a break and ease up on the use of the ogallala aquifer into the bargain

the boreal treeline is moving north and consuming carbon at an accellerated rate
(the real lungs of the planet is now and seems to have almost always been the boreal forests, and not the equitorial rain forests)

aside from the obvious larger oceans and seas---which i see as an inconvenience
I really don't see too much of a problem for the long term health of the planet from warming

I see chemical farming as a far worse threat to the biom

so
I don't use chemicals in the garden, and I plant trees
better me than get the crazies in government involved
----
(better the devil you know than the devil you don't know)
and the climate makes more sense than the pseudo-legislators
..................
look on the bright side,
and, personally, do what you can to make of your world a better place

why always negative?
part of the process seems to be moving the crop lines farther north here in the midwest of usa/canada

I'm not always negative. But I'm realistic about the placement of Australia on the globe. In South Australia the Goyder line is moving steadily southwards - it was mapped by a surveyor (named Goyder) in the 19th century to distinguish land that could support crops from land that could only support grazing. The distinction was quite obvious then, saltbush one side, mallee scrub the other. Observations have since determined that it's the difference between a long-term average of 10 inches rainfall on the 'good', croppable side, less than that on the saltbush side. Goyder's Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our southernmost mainland capital, Melbourne, is at latitude 37, the same as San Francisco. Americans might be able to move themselves and their crops into lands northwards or inland from places like San Francisco or Syracuse, there are no equivalent options for Australia. Tasmania could support a few million, but it's already losing rainfall - Hobart had the least rainfall of any capital city a few years ago. When the competitors for this ugly crown are places like Adelaide you're in real trouble.

I suppose we could, all of us, move to New Zealand. They'll be thrilled.

skeptic has a guest cottage?

Originally Posted by adelady

As long as people keep calling it 'global warming' it will probably be considered a joke.

I take it you're not in the southeast of Australia at the moment. No?

And you weren't on Greenland while it was melting over the whole of the island a few months ago. No?

Presumably you're not a US corn (brown stalks) farmer or a Mississippi barge operator. Thought not.

Just because global warming - and the entirely predictable polar amplification of warming - has weird effects on the movement (or staying in place) of both warm and cold weather systems in the northern hemisphere, doesn't mean that it's not warming. It just means that climate changes in unexpected ways (well, unexpected by non-experts) to enhance, disrupt or delay/ hasten/ stall/ override all kinds of normal seasonal changes.

Unless. You're not one of those who think that warming means that every year/ season should be warmer every year/ season, are you? That probably doesn't apply to you, but I can get quite irritated with people who say that "it's not warming" by that 'reasoning'. It seems it's not enough for them that we've had 334 consecutive months of global average temperature exceeding the 20th century average temperature.

Oh no no, that's not how I meant for it to come off.

I'm a hydrologist from Indiana. I completely understand what's happening. What I MEANT to convey is that the problem is multifaceted and the media has blurred the 'global warming' term. You hear nonsense all the time like, "Why is the temperature for the month of May below average if global warming is happening" or "Why is it snowing so much if global warming is true". The term has been dumbed down and perverted and lost its meaning.

Personally, I'm not a fan of blanket terms anyways. Global warming, as it's called, is so complex in both the causes and effects that I get tired of it being written off because a simple term doesn't completely define it.

I completely agree with what you said and I hope I cleared up what I meant.