The situation in Sao Paulo is that an unprecedented drought has been in place for approximately 9 months. There is no sign of that drought breaking. There is no reason to expect that the drought is limited to 12 months or even 18 months. There is no way to predict the long term out look. Why? Because it is unprecedented! There are no models to rely upon. Just faith and hope. There is also ongoing long running political leadership and fidelity issues. If we presume that the drought extends into 12 months and beyond, Sao Paulo as a major city is finished unless major and expensive infrastructure allows water to be channeled from long distances. Billy T has referred to a personal reserve of about 90 litres which at a stretch for two people is about 40 days if you are lucky. [drinking only] It is currently late October, total city reserves are at 3.5%, summer is on it's way. Sao Paulo is a warm city, it' summers are normally quite hot [regardless of global warming], with a similar climate to Brisbane QLD Australia, or Zimbabwe, Africa. Trucking in water is only a short term emergency provisioning. It is very expensive. Here, in Australia we have a few small mining towns* that rely exclusively on imported water via tanker and the significant increased cost of living associated per capita are available if research is warranted. Melbourne where I live went through similar but on a smaller scale, population only 2 million or so. We were lucky ! The drought broke when it did. Major infrastructure is still needed to further protect against further drought in the future or it too will eventually have to be abandoned. Being in a major city with out water are no better than standing in a desert waiting for an aid drop.
The points are that The predicted temperature rise for 2040 was already present and exceeded in the early 1980's [a temperature spike if you like] The Arctic Perma Frost already had demonstrated significant thawing and release of CH4 well before climate change models even existed to the extent they do today. In fact may have been the main lead to the world becoming seriously concerned about Climate change. The sudden thawing of the Artic Perma frost in the early 80's further supports the hypothesis that a major shift in "universal" structure (an anomaly) impacted locally during the the same time period causing a sudden upward shift in planetary internal temperatures. This "event" then in turn due to the significant release of CH4 from thawed Perma frost (of the 80's) precipitated and primarily caused the global warming and climate change that we have experienced since. Human CO2 outputs and environmental degradation only exasperating an already serious situation. (hence global confusion on the causation reality of climate change and global warming) Basically the contention is that the "horse had bolted" in the 80's and we have been playing "pin the tail on the donkey" ever since.
facinating! Hypothetically would you conclude that IF a person or population was suffering low levels of hyper thermia (as I have proposed in an earlier post), generally undetectable, that that person or population would be more sensitive to higher CO2 ratios? That that populations sensitivity may manifest in increased respiratory issues such as Asthma and other compulsive bronchial problems etc? ie. what was tolerable before becoming not so tolerable? Note : Western world hyper sensitivity to cigarette smoke (passive & non-passive) may have precipitated quit campaign from mid 80's
Yes Here are a few you might want to consider: Although this shift of earth's center of gravity is small compared to made by snow an ice's seasonal mass shift, it has made noticeable change in satellite orbits. It really is just a local "bump" probably not as large as decades of removal of iron ore by Brazil's Vale has made. and this 3+ minute video (how CA may be out of water in two years) the first of four at: http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/08/04/why-california-could-run-out-of-water-in-two-years where photo below comes from (so I assume it is of a CA reservoir.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Food prices are increasing faster than inflation, but that factor of 3 to 5, depending on the food item, can soon double if the central valley drought continues:
Normally presenters of a novel hypothesis have either some supporting evidence or theory to support it. You have none, and your claim conflicts with accepted evidence and theory. I assume your claim still relates to your "Shift of Earth's CoG" or your "gradational instability" which you still refuse to answer the questions I have twice asked you to. Thus you need "extraordinary evidence" for your "extraordinary claim," but seem to have none!
I don't know. But, I could guess. There should not be a significant reaction below 1000ppm CO2. People with hyperthermia and hypothermia both seem to have respiratory problems, and may notice discomfort at slightly lower concentrations. I suspect that it is the ratios of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, water vapor, CO2, etc... that is more important. Here's an old chart designed for greenhouse gardening. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It seems, that for most plants the benefits of enriched CO2 pretty much top out at 1,000 ppm. The Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) studies pretty much topped out at 600 ppm for plants who do not fix nitrogen. Below about 200ppm, plants suffer and die from starvation. "Pre-industrial" CO2 atmospheric content estimates would be close to the minimum needed for a healthy biom. The primary producers seem to be thriving and increasing productivity far faster than our meager inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere. If, at 400ppm, the plants, phytoplankton included, are producing at 50% more than they were at 300ppm, then they are consuming 50% more CO2 and releasing 50% more O. To my mind, this is an excellent symbiotic relationship in the making. Concerning our shared coevolutionary biom: Both ethically and morally, I think that we are fulfilling our symbiotic responsibilities quite by accident. As long as we claim to be the intelligent species on this planet, then we add the responsibility of awareness. And, viewing the entire interplays within and of the biom with the purpose of optimizing that biom becomes our next great challenge. More later: sun is shining, roof is drying, and calls me forth.
Definitely. Farmers will be the hardest-hit by a water shortage. California's been struggling with this for thirty years now, but their land-use policies are still nuts (catfish farms in El Centro, almond trees in Bakersfield.) In a way I am glad we've had the problems here for as long as we have; it means that the solutions we discover will be available for places without as many resources.
Chart assumes that CO2 is the growth liming factor, but that is rarely if ever true. Worse, however, it neglects important side effects of more CO2 (in air outside of a green house). One of the most significant of 1000ppm* would be destruction (via ocean acidification) of the food supply for millions who depend on marine life. * In addition to many other adverse GW effects, 1000ppm would bring that trillion dollar loss 2.5 times faster. (2100 - 2015)/2.5 = 34 years from now, not in 2100.
Assuming the growing stresses in the San Andreas Fault caused subsiding land (up to a foot /year) and the rising deeper rocks, being "unloaded" by the lessening water mass above them do not trigger the long over due "California's Big One."
Are you sure you are comparing the temperatures of the same things? The IPCC is predicting surface air temperatures. The Arctic permafrost did not "suddenly thaw" in the 1980s. It's thawing now - just getting started. And it's thawing from the top down, not from underneath. Except that didn't happen - it's happening now, a problem for the near future. Your greenhouse chart does not apply even to wild plants, and is completely uninformative for phytoplankton. The most obvious factor overlooked is the competition for water and space and nutrients and sunlight between different plants - plants that can use the extra CO2 to ration their stomatal opening and conserve water, say, may gain. Plants that will have to keep their stomata open anyway to cool off are just wasting the extra CO2 and may lose - they are oversupplied with CO2 already, and the extra heat hurts them. One of the beneficiaries from CO2 in the wild seems to be, in preliminary studies, for example, poison ivy - an edge terrain broadleaved plant that loses too much water to compete with the grass it would like to invade, along sunny prairie and woodland openings. The extra CO2 allows it to keep its water losses down. With a little extra CO2, it doesn't need as much water to support woody vining and growth a bit farther into the drier northlands than before. But poison ivy's gain is some other plant's loss. And so it will be in every ecosystem - greenhouses are set up to avoid such competition, in the first place, and to supply whatever other else is needed in matching quantities, in the second.
the wiki quote again: "According to IPCC Fifth Assessment Report there is high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s. Observed warming was up to 3°C in parts of Northern Alaska (early 1980s to mid-2000s) and up to 2°C in parts of the Russian European North (1971–2010)." clearly states that warming of the permafrost has increased in most regions since the 1980's Observered warming was up to 3 degrees C in parts of Northern Alaska 1980's -2000 Place the above in context of later predictions and I see an incongruity in observation and prediction Besides which I recall news reports years ago that significant areas of the permafrost had thawed in many places. An early 90's documentary to support the notion of global warming. It had thawed, not that it was about to thaw and this is a very important distinction. We have learned a hell of lot more about GW and CC since that documentary years ago. But the fact was the documentary indicated that the perma frost had thawed in many critical areas. From what I understand Perma frost is not just 0 deg c it has to be a lot colder to be considered as perma frost, so evidence of any thaw is significant. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Perma Frost thaw ponds Canada Hudson Bay 2008. Actual thaw date ???
...Limiting factor" ---kinda why I mentioned the face studies. What do you think is the likelihood that sapiens sapiens could ever achieve 1000 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 concentration? I'd guess that the best that we could do would be about 600ppm. Currently, only about 46% of the CO2 we produce remains in the atmosphere. If we do not cool in the next few years and keep a longer growing season, then the Primary producers will continue to flourish and continue consuming more and more CO2. If, however, we are indeed heading into a grand solar minimum, and that means colder temperatures and a shorter growing season then the primary producers will fall behind as colder temps mean a longer heating season and increased CO2 emissions . As/re the Ocean ecosystem: I had previously mentioned reef the studies along the line islands wherein, the entire ecosystem wherein, they report that the reefs are healthy and attribute the cause to top predators. To quote: and: more at "acidification": You might consider:
In researching Hyperthermia there is reference to what is referred to as our bodies temperature set point. Generally from what I can gather the distinction that allows the term hyperthermia to be relevant is that the bodies temp set point remains unchanged [no fever] yet over heating exists. I am getting the sneeky impression that CO2 production, as part of a natural balancing act, is critical in maintaining that set point. Hypothesis: In a self justifying system that is enduring hyperthermatic conditions production of CO2 is essential in maintaining the systems set point. CO2 is not the enemy we think it is... hmmmm.... which then supports the notion that the planet is in the process of adapting and restoring balance to a self justifying system that was rudely disrupted in the early 80's
uhm are phenomena such as Dark flow, CBR cold spot (Eridanas Void) extraordinary enough for you? To me Dark Flow indicates a "secondary and anomalous COG is evident. The flowing of thousands of galaxies to an invisible attraction out there not far from the Great attractor is quite dramatic support for my hypothesis when you think about it. It also says volumes about the associated physics we believe to be valid. [like GR for example] The existence of currently held physics defying CBR cold spot is also as a symptom of what happens when a universe develops at least two COG's The correlation from the macro to the micro is demonstrated by seeing the associations between: Dark Flow <=> Multiple COG leading to increased Fusion reaction with in all masses <=> planetary eco system over heating [ hyper thermia. ] <=> massive essentially inexplicable oceanic marine animal die off, respiratory issues etc CBR Cold spot <=> oceanic dead spots <=> no life, no living energy, hypoxia reminds me of "When God catches a cold the universe sneezes"
Are we being pulled toward the great attractor? If so, then do planets leading the sun have extended orbits(conflicting gravitational forces) at that point of leading? Are we just passengers in/on a cosmic river flowing toward the great attractor?
I'll attempt to be as candid as I can and see what happens: In my understanding, and remember my understanding is in direct conflict in many ways with conventional understanding, the Great Attractor is a "culminate" Center of Gravity for the observable universe. In other words it exist as a result of the culmination of all gravitational attractions universally. (the sum of all reflected) Theoretically there should only be one universal Culminate COG, a significant zero point, that provides the fundamental order this universe displays. [macro scale] We are falling as a galaxy towards it no more than a moon does towards a planet. Given the huge scale of things, it would only be able to be evidenced by using macro scales and not micro scales such as our immediate solar systems behavior. [being more impacted by our own galactic COG than that of the universal COG] To discover the Dark Flow phenomena provides a in-congruency in what would intuitively be expected and to me at least indicates further evidence of an anomaly I am aware of for other reasons. In fact being aware of that undisclosed anomaly causation would lead me to predict the existence of Dark flow and CBR cold spots. It was this knowledge [ experience ] that forced me to seek out an understanding years ago and generated the Zero Point Theory I have been referring to in the past. That theory would predict only the Great attractor and not the Dark flow pheno on the presumption of a "healthy " universe. Yet Dark Flow exists, defying both conventional science and my own less conventional science. As does accel. cosmic metric expansion. My theorising allows for an understanding of Dark flow where as conventional understanding doesn't. Especially in light of what I have been experiencing for nearly 30 years now and still do on a daily basis. To address Billy T's questions about the anomaly: I can not disclose the actual anomaly causation and other detail because the truth of it is just way too distressing for most humans to endure or accept The effects being greatly amplified by intense fear and paranoia. A hint though can be found if one knew the truth behind the tragic SIDS [Sudden infant death syndrome] I might add in an ironic optimistic note that the advent of increased Childhood asthma cases IMO is a result in the reduction of SID incidences since 1988. The problem of SIDS appears to have been "naturally" addressed by children developing asthma instead [ as the universal situation improves ]. If you relate both graphs you can see a co-relationship between declining SIDS and increases in Childhood asthma cases. The two childhood issues are directly related IMO. ( as are other chronic problems such as ADHD etc...) "lucky to be alive at all" comes to mind... Suffice to say we humans are more "universal" in our physical, emotional and intellectual make up than most would seriously consider and experience in a cognizant fashion. [ most of such is deep subconscious experience and not supposed to be cognizant in or to the untrained and inexperienced conscious world. I am currently searching and researching for other signs for hyperthermia astronomically and what signs would be needed to be seen in extraterrestrial forms. Other planets should show signs of hyperthermia with the pivotal date being Earth 1985/86. The CBR should show signs of temp gain as well [Global warming should read Universal warming]
But you seem to think that contradicts the standard IPCC prognostications for atmosphere temps, and is new information different from what the regular view is. Why?
You only need to ask the following: What are the predicted temperatures for 2040? What were the temperatures 1980-2000? I think you will find that the actual thawing long term temps recorded prior t0 2000 were higher than those predicted for 2040 Either way the sheer fact that there has been a significant permafrost thawing recorded from 1980's with out global warming history prior to it thawing in it self says something IMO. Suddenly the thaw has occurred with temp of 3 deg c. History of prior warming is not mentioned. Perhaps you are not considering the fact we are discussing the thawing of ground that is typically holding a temperature considerably less than 0 deg c. recorded as doing so with a air surface temp of 3 deg c from as early as the 1980's. The permafrost is not thawed that easily I would think.
