Windpower dying

[MSimon]

The science is settled but the identity of the colonists remains somewhat vague.

[IntLibber]

With the exception of IntLibber, it seems you are all complaining about unfounded and exaggerated statements sometimes made by one person or another. I hope that you keep in mind the difference between such statements and serious scientific research on global warming.

Ah, sorry Art, but I dont take seriously ANYTHING published by the Hockey Team. Except as a threat to my wallet and property rights.

BTW: Current expectations are that this coming winter is going to be very very bad for almost everyone. I am sure that some idiots will try to blame it on global warming. Note that the alarmists already have that base covered with the plot to the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow", where AGW causes an ice age to grip the US in the span of a few hours.

You are right to say that global warming alarmists are embarassing themselves. We skeptics dont really need to put in any effort at all in this, those guys keep shooting themselves in both feet regularly, and blame us skeptics for doing it.

[TallDave]

With the exception of IntLibber, it seems you are all complaining about unfounded and exaggerated statements sometimes made by one person or another. I hope that you keep in mind the difference between such statements and serious scientific research on global warming.

The problem is there is so much junk being produced by environmentalists pretending to be scientists that it becomes very difficult to sort through the whole morass and figure out what's serious and what isn't, especially with proponents loudly declaring every byte of it to be gospel and demanding we burn the heretics who dare question any of it (this is only slightly hyperbolic; James Hansen has suggested war crimes trials).

And there's a huge selection bias problem even with serious studies. Are you more likely to see an impact study on flooding deaths in Bangladesh or freezing deaths in Siberia? Desertification in China or expanded agriculture in Greenland?

When you look at the raw data, anthropogenic global warming as a theory rests on very shaky evidence. The proxies are spaghetti, the GISS is horrifyingly corrupted, the satellite trend is short and relatively flat, and CO2 generally trails warming historically so the cause-effect there is pretty dubious.

I don't think we can rule some level of AGW out, but the certainty being attached to forecasts based on the theory is completely unwarranted.

[pfrit]

Let me start by stating that I do not hold with the current AGW crowd. I do, however, think that humans have had profound effects on the climate. No one will seriously argue that micro climate changes from roads and cities have great effect on the local climate and no one will seriously argue that these effects are growing. Will these effects radically change global climate? I don't know, but I tend to doubt it. The huge climate change that I believe that humans had a major hand in is the Sahara and desertification in general. The evidence for humans changing the climate of the Middle East to a desert is, to me, overwhelming. I also believe that Humans are mostly responsible for the birth and growth of the Sahara. Between overgrazing and deforestation it is easy to create and grow a desert in human time. The Sahara has grown ridiculously fast and far. If we really want to moderate our climate effect, we should start with reclaiming the Sahara.

As an aside, I describe the players in climate change thusly. The Sun is the 800-pound gorilla in this situation. Desertification is his 200-pound girlfriend. CO2 production is a really annoying capuchin that keeps fling poo around.

[MSimon]

Let me start by stating that I do not hold with the current AGW crowd. I do, however, think that humans have had profound effects on the climate. No one will seriously argue that micro climate changes from roads and cities have great effect on the local climate and no one will seriously argue that these effects are growing. Will these effects radically change global climate? I don't know, but I tend to doubt it. The huge climate change that I believe that humans had a major hand in is the Sahara and desertification in general. The evidence for humans changing the climate of the Middle East to a desert is, to me, overwhelming. I also believe that Humans are mostly responsible for the birth and growth of the Sahara. Between overgrazing and deforestation it is easy to create and grow a desert in human time. The Sahara has grown ridiculously fast and far. If we really want to moderate our climate effect, we should start with reclaiming the Sahara.

As an aside, I describe the players in climate change thusly. The Sun is the 800-pound gorilla in this situation. Desertification is his 200-pound girlfriend. CO2 production is a really annoying capuchin that keeps fling poo around.

Is it possible that desertification has more to do with climate (rainfall patterns) than man? i.e. man merely accelerates any change nature provides. Or to put it differently: no amount of tree planting is going to bring the desert back to lush green without sufficient rainfall.

[pfrit]

Is it possible that desertification has more to do with climate (rainfall patterns) than man? i.e. man merely accelerates any change nature provides. Or to put it differently: no amount of tree planting is going to bring the desert back to lush green without sufficient rainfall.

Rainfall is a classic feedback mechanism. The desert creates a stationary high pressure mass. This pushes the wet air to the east and forms hurricanes. I will grant you that the Sahara mayhave formed and grown without man's help. The case for the Sahara's existence as an artifact of man is less then that of other modern deserts. I profoundly doubt that its current size is the effect of nature alone in as the majority partner in the deal. Since we know that man was largely responsible for the other modern deserts and man was doing the same things in North Africa as he was doing elsewhere, I do not think that it is a stretch to give man some of the blame.

As to removing the desert, that is a fairly straight forward engineering project. Granted it is bigger by several orders of magnitude than other projects we have successfully completed. A simple plan would be to cover as much of the western Sahara as possible with black, water permiable, weather resistant fabric and build multiple watersheds with desalinated sea water and bioengineered fast growing plants that build soil, have deep roots and concentrate salt in a removable way (edible fruits, maybe). The farther you can move East, the easier the project becomes. Instead of hurricanes in North america, you would have wet air masses dropping their water ever eastward. I would expected every mile eastward would be cheaper.

The political reality of this is, of course, ain't gonna happen. Even with cheap/free power we won't have the political will to do it. Israel may bloom, but not the rest of the middle east and certainly not Mogodor. Too many competeing nations that hate the outside world.

[D Tibbets]

Greening of the Sahara might be doable as described and lead to less huricanes. But, aren't hurricaines and tropical storms a majer source of rainfall in Florada and southern Georga? (hearsay, I can't defend this if challenged). Helping Northern Africa may hurt the SouthEast US agriculture, ie- making local improvements (of whatever kind) may hurt elsewhere.


Dan Tibbets

[KitemanSA]

The Sahara is Earth's way of keeping itself cool. Stop trying to screw with it!