From: Damien Raphael (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 14:21:19 MST
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:56:38PM -0800, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Just because you put more CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't mean you
> will get warmer automatically. You could (a) have a bloom in the
> biosphere that can suck that CO2 right back down; (b) increased
> temperature, increases evaporation, increases cloud cover, reflects
> more sunlight back into space. This is different from Venus where
Sure, there are many effects, some countering. But why believe that
they'll all balance out nicely once equilibrium is reached? The very
variability of climatic history argues against that.
And having a bunch of weird shit happen while waiting for things to
settle down isn't particularly attractive to me either. (Or to the
insurance companies. Aren't they getting more interested in climate
change, since they're the ones who pay for it upfront?)
> People tend to look at the down side of global warming -- the
> up side is that there is a *lot* of land in Northern Russia
> that suddenly becomes available for cultivation.
Is it fertile land for our crops? Does it get good rainfall and
sunlight? Would it make up for extended droughts in the traditional
breadbaskets?
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:11 MST