This cite was posted on a US dominated gardening ng:
http://www.alternet.org/water/81301/

Exactly what is the situation with water supply in the US? I assume that
Larry wouldn't have any problems where he is.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:26:33 +1000, FarmI wrote:

> This cite was posted on a US dominated gardening ng:
> http://www.alternet.org/water/81301/
>
> Exactly what is the situation with water supply in the US?

Here is one website that gives drought situation and predictions.
http://tinyurl.com/2dtmgr

Note that these maps are of areas and don't necessarily reflect local
conditions.

> I assume that
> Larry wouldn't have any problems where he is.

In article <4809acbb$0$1365$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...
> This cite was posted on a US dominated gardening ng:
> http://www.alternet.org/water/81301/
>
> Exactly what is the situation with water supply in the US? I assume that
> Larry wouldn't have any problems where he is.

The article gave a pretty good overview of the various regions having
water problems. The part about global warming causing local droughts is
just superstition. Weather is a chaotic system that can't be predicted.

The drought in the SE has been particularly hard on people, because they
have little experience of droughts, and lack experience or
infrastructure to deal with one. Rainfall in that area is so regular
that you can normally raise crops without irrigation. Last fall, I was
asking Jim how his yields were. His soybeans dried out pretty severely,
but high crop prices helped him out. It looks like the drought in the
SE is breaking. One good tropical storm and they will be up to their
necks in water again.

The real critical area is the Desert Southwest. Las Vegas has a
problem. So does Los Angeles. Farmers are selling their water rights
for more than they could get for their crops. Southern California is
building ocean desalination plants, but it's a lot cheaper to just go
out and buy ag water. Recent tree ring paleontology indicates that the
SW has been in a wet phase, and may return to dry conditions with only
1/3 as much average precipitation. If that happens, a bunch of people
will have to move where the sun don't shine.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have lots of water this year.
However, we have a drought every summer, with no rain for at least 3
months. Some years the winter rains are pretty short, and the drought
gets pretty long. I think in 2003 we had 5+ months without rain. You
learn to live with it. Everybody in my neighborhood has water storage.
If you want water when you turn the tap, you have to plan ahead for it,
except when it rains. I don't even use my cistern in the winter.

I hear rumblings about some massive water projects to increase storage,
but nobody has actually done anything yet. The USA doesn't have
regional governments, and water projects are a regional issue. Stay
tuned. We will have a crisis one of these years, and everyone will
wonder how it happened.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:26:33 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:

>This cite was posted on a US dominated gardening ng:
>http://www.alternet.org/water/81301/
>
>Exactly what is the situation with water supply in the US? I assume that
>Larry wouldn't have any problems where he is.
>

The US is large enough to constitute several geographic regions/countries.
Some of us wish political boundaries followed....

In these parts, water is everywhere. Ground water is barely 30 ft below the
surface. Even in the "drought" that we had last year, that only meant that
some farmers had to irrigate.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
You can't turn [MS] shovelware into reliable software by patching it a whole lot. -Marcus Ranum

On Apr 19, 11:20=A0am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
wrote:
> In article <4809acbb$0$1365$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...
>
<snip>

> I hear rumblings about some massive water projects to increase storage,
> but nobody has actually done anything yet. =A0The USA doesn't have
> regional governments, and water projects are a regional issue. Stay
> tuned. =A0We will have a crisis one of these years, and everyone will
> wonder how it happened. =A0
>

Can't recall the name of it, involved building a huge, long dam to
block off a long, wide vallley (?canyon?). Last article on it was a
week or so ago that seemed pretty negative. Seems the economics
aren't there, it would never pay back the construction costs.

It was to be used for more irriation basically to grow crops in a semi
arid region (middle area of WA).

I am over in E Wa on the edge of the northern extension of the Great
American Desert. I only need to go about 30 miles to be in the middle
of sagebrush. Lots of wheat and other crops grown out there using dry
land farming techniques - farm to store the winter moisture enough to
carry crops through with out irrigation or huge irrigation circles.
As in the other areas of the country, the water table is dropping.

LA, Vegas and the like are constantly trying to steal water from other
states, LA, for example, has tried several times to bring water down
from WA. Vegas cries about water problems but is a profligate wastrel
with what they have.

Harry K

"Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Vegas cries about water problems but is a profligate wastrel
> with what they have.

:-)) I'd wondered about that. Never been to Vegas (or even had any desire
to go there) and all I know about it is basically that it was a city built
in almost a desert. One of my favourite US TV shows is the CSI that is set
in Vegas.

Sometimes the crime scene people turn up to a house in the burbs at a house
where the lawn looks like something from the lushest most verdant English
gardening magazine.

Here anyone with a lawn like that would be strongly and publicly criticised.

I've often wondered why/how anyone in a city could have a lawn like that.
Don't they have water restrictions and if not, why not? (BTW, those are
rhetorical questions as I'm not really looking for an answer as I don't
really care but it really does underscore the differing attitudes our two
nations have to water use).

"Ann" <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote in message
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:26:33 +1000, FarmI wrote:
>
>> This cite was posted on a US dominated gardening ng:
>> http://www.alternet.org/water/81301/
>>
>> Exactly what is the situation with water supply in the US?
>
> Here is one website that gives drought situation and predictions.
> http://tinyurl.com/2dtmgr

Thanks Ann - an interesting site.

"Larry Caldwell" <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> wrote in message
> 01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...

>> This cite was posted on a US dominated gardening ng:
>> http://www.alternet.org/water/81301/
>>
>> Exactly what is the situation with water supply in the US? I assume that
>> Larry wouldn't have any problems where he is.
>
> The article gave a pretty good overview of the various regions having
> water problems. The part about global warming causing local droughts is
> just superstition. Weather is a chaotic system that can't be predicted.

:-)) I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat rare
on US dominated ngs. Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't
believe in Climate Change. No doubt that reflects our differing national
experiences.

> The drought in the SE has been particularly hard on people, because they
> have little experience of droughts, and lack experience or
> infrastructure to deal with one. Rainfall in that area is so regular
> that you can normally raise crops without irrigation. Last fall, I was
> asking Jim how his yields were. His soybeans dried out pretty severely,
> but high crop prices helped him out. It looks like the drought in the
> SE is breaking. One good tropical storm and they will be up to their
> necks in water again.
>
> The real critical area is the Desert Southwest. Las Vegas has a
> problem. So does Los Angeles. Farmers are selling their water rights
> for more than they could get for their crops. Southern California is
> building ocean desalination plants, but it's a lot cheaper to just go
> out and buy ag water. Recent tree ring paleontology indicates that the
> SW has been in a wet phase, and may return to dry conditions with only
> 1/3 as much average precipitation. If that happens, a bunch of people
> will have to move where the sun don't shine.
>
> Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have lots of water this year.
> However, we have a drought every summer, with no rain for at least 3
> months. Some years the winter rains are pretty short, and the drought
> gets pretty long. I think in 2003 we had 5+ months without rain. You
> learn to live with it. Everybody in my neighborhood has water storage.

Snap. We use tanks (cisterns) and dams and although we also have a bore
(well), we don't use it now.

> If you want water when you turn the tap, you have to plan ahead for it,
> except when it rains. I don't even use my cistern in the winter.

?? What do you mean by not using your cistern in winter? Do you have mains
water or a well for winter use?

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:07:16 +1000, FarmI wrote:

> :-)) I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat rare
> on US dominated ngs. Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't
> believe in Climate Change. No doubt that reflects our differing national
> experiences.

I think the ngs you frequent don't reflect the majority opinion. Even
G.W. now acknowledges that there may be something to climate change. The
sticking point now seems to be whether/not it's man-made. You even have
some non-believers.

"Climate change natural, not man-made, say NSW farmers"
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22673316-29277,00.html

Then, there are those who say yes it's happening and is man-made, but the
more cost effective solution is to adapt to it rather that attempt to
prevent it.

In article <480ac176$0$29988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...

> :-)) I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat rare
> on US dominated ngs. Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't
> believe in Climate Change. No doubt that reflects our differing national
> experiences.

Where I draw the line is people who think they can predict climate
change, or how it will affect the weather. As I mentioned, tree ring
paleontology shows that the American desert SW has been much drier in
past eras. The last couple hundred wet years have apparently been a
fluke. If the weather returns to a dry pattern, there is no reason to
think that has anything to do with global warming. Nobody knows if that
will happen. Higher precipitation was associated with the end of the
Little Ice Age and substantial non-anthropogenic global warming, so more
global warming may improve the water situation. Nobody knows.

Nobody thinks humans had anything to do with the global warming at the
end of the Little Ice Age. Since that was so recent, only 150 years
ago, it may still be going on. Nobody has the foggiest idea how that
affects the weather, which may still be changing in response to climate
changes over a century ago.

The computer models are all garbage. They can't even predict the
weather a week in advance, much less predict what will happen a decade
from now. If people in Australia think the drought is caused by climate
change, they are superstitious fools. Drought is caused by lack of
rain, and nothing else. They have no idea what the weather will be like
10 years from now. I'm willing to bet that Australia had extended
droughts in the 18th and 19th centuries, which eventually ended. What
ended the droughts? Rain. Nothing else.

> ?? What do you mean by not using your cistern in winter? Do you have mains
> water or a well for winter use?

Yes, I just pump directly out of the well. I only have to start using
the cistern when the well output will not meet domestic requirements.
As you know, half a gallon a minute is a huge amount of water over a 24
hour period, but it won't flush a toilet or do a load of laundry.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

In article <c42c82b4-8824-4dc2-8180-6af59816947a@
1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4099@hotmail.com (Harry K) says...

> I am over in E Wa on the edge of the northern extension of the Great
> American Desert. I only need to go about 30 miles to be in the middle
> of sagebrush. Lots of wheat and other crops grown out there using dry
> land farming techniques - farm to store the winter moisture enough to
> carry crops through with out irrigation or huge irrigation circles.
> As in the other areas of the country, the water table is dropping.

One of the proposals is for the farmers around Hermiston to pump water
out of the Columbia in the winter and store it in the water table. Then
they would pump it out for irrigation in the summer. When the Columbia
is in winter flood, it could irrigate half of North America. It's only
in the summer that water gets tight.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

The message <MPG.22748c3bcd31aee2989e1a@news.peaksky.com>
from Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> contains these words:

> In article <480ac176$0$29988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...

> > :-)) I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be
> > somewhat rare
> > on US dominated ngs. Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't
> > believe in Climate Change. No doubt that reflects our differing national
> > experiences.

> Where I draw the line is people who think they can predict climate
> change, or how it will affect the weather.

Just to restore your faith, in the last 10 years , Britain has
experienced exactly what was predicted in climate change. The physical
and economic impact is absolutely unmissable here. (England has the
world's longest formal weather record dating from 1659)

> The computer models are all garbage. They can't even predict the
> weather a week in advance, much less predict what will happen a decade
> from now.

You're confusing weather with climate. Local weather, is a tiny
variant compared with the scale of oceanic or continental climates. We
still get mistakes in local weather predictions; but the predicted
changes in all-year climate are depressingly accurate.

> If people in Australia think the drought is caused by climate
> change, they are superstitious fools. Drought is caused by lack of
> rain, and nothing else.

and rainfall is driven by ocean temperature.

Drought is also connected to issues such as land use affecting water
run-off

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/26b.html

> They have no idea what the weather will be like
> 10 years from now.

The current prediction here is that there will be a temperature plateau
until 2010, followed by a further steady rise.

Janet.

On Apr 19, 10:14=A0pm, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:07:16 +1000, FarmI wrote:
> > :-)) =A0I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat =
rare
> > on US dominated ngs. =A0Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't=

> > believe in Climate Change. =A0No doubt that reflects our differing natio=
nal
> > experiences.
>
> I think the ngs you frequent don't reflect the majority opinion. =A0Even
> G.W. now acknowledges that there may be something to climate change. The
> sticking point now seems to be whether/not it's man-made. You even have
> some non-believers.
>
> "Climate change natural, not man-made, say NSW farmers"http://www.news.com=
..au/story/0,23599,22673316-29277,00.html
>
> Then, there are those who say yes it's happening and is man-made, but the
> more cost effective solution is to adapt to it rather that attempt to
> prevent it. =A0

I infest a forum that discusses it. I have to admit that 75% of the
posters are idiots. There are only two sides. GW is manmade. No it
isn't. The reality is that GW is a natural phenomena and we were due
for another one per the past history of the planet. Additionally, man
is adding to it and not just a little.

I really can't understand the ones who are admant that it isn't
happening when all one needs is to look at the loss of ice in the
glaciers,- some have totally disappeared or nearly so (Peru IIANM).
In the Arctic the NW Passage was clear of ice last summer. That
hasn't happened since record began up there and those records include
the great exploratory voyages that tried to make it through.

Harry K

On Apr 20, 12:10=A0am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
wrote:
> In article <480ac176$0$29988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...
>
> > :-)) =A0I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat =
rare
> > on US dominated ngs. =A0Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't=

> > believe in Climate Change. =A0No doubt that reflects our differing natio=
nal
> > experiences.
>
> Where I draw the line is people who think they can predict climate
> change, or how it will affect the weather. =A0As I mentioned, tree ring
> paleontology shows that the American desert SW has been much drier in
> past eras. =A0The last couple hundred wet years have apparently been a
> fluke. =A0If the weather returns to a dry pattern, there is no reason to
> think that has anything to do with global warming. =A0Nobody knows if that=

> will happen. =A0Higher precipitation was associated with the end of the
> Little Ice Age and substantial non-anthropogenic global warming, so more
> global warming may improve the water situation. =A0Nobody knows. =A0
>
> Nobody thinks humans had anything to do with the global warming at the
> end of the Little Ice Age. =A0Since that was so recent, only 150 years
> ago, it may still be going on. =A0Nobody has the foggiest idea how that
> affects the weather, which may still be changing in response to climate
> changes over a century ago. =A0
>
> The computer models are all garbage. =A0They can't even predict the
> weather a week in advance, much less predict what will happen a decade
> from now. =A0If people in Australia think the drought is caused by climate=

> change, they are superstitious fools. =A0Drought is caused by lack of
> rain, and nothing else. =A0They have no idea what the weather will be like=

> 10 years from now. =A0I'm willing to bet that Australia had extended
> droughts in the 18th and 19th centuries, which eventually ended. =A0What
> ended the droughts? =A0Rain. =A0Nothing else. =A0
>
> > ?? =A0What do you mean by not using your cistern in winter? =A0Do you ha=
ve mains
> > water or a well for winter use?
>
> Yes, I just pump directly out of the well. =A0I only have to start using
> the cistern when the well output will not meet domestic requirements. =A0
> As you know, half a gallon a minute is a huge amount of water over a 24
> hour period, but it won't flush a toilet or do a load of laundry. =A0
>
> --
> For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
> with my first name and last initial.

There is a difference between predicting trends and predicting what
the weather will be in a week. Overall predictions of climate for a
given region for a coming season are accurate enough for planning.
Pedicting that it will rain next Wednesday here is much of a guess.

Another point of confusion are those who think "The temp is way below
normal today so GW isn't happening" - that is weather not climate and
even GW doesn't say that _all_ areas will have above normal (for that
area) temps. Same for rainfall. There will be more some places, less
others. Not sure of this but GW should result in more rain (total
world wide) than norma but _where_ that will land will probably in
other than the normal areas as climate zones move northward.

Interestingly, I saw reports last year that there are already singns
in the states at least that both plant species and animals are being
seen and thriving far north of their normal range.

Harry K

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:35:27 -0700, Harry K wrote:

> On Apr 19, 10:14?pm, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:07:16 +1000, FarmI wrote:
>> > :-)) ?I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat
>> > :rare
>> > on US dominated ngs. ?Here it would be rare to find anyone who
>> > doesn't believe in Climate Change. ?No doubt that reflects our
>> > differing national experiences.
>>
>> I think the ngs you frequent don't reflect the majority opinion. ?Even
>> G.W. now acknowledges that there may be something to climate change. The
>> sticking point now seems to be whether/not it's man-made. You even have
>> some non-believers.
>>
>> "Climate change natural, not man-made, say NSW
>> farmers"http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22673316-29277,00.html
>>
>> Then, there are those who say yes it's happening and is man-made, but
>> the more cost effective solution is to adapt to it rather that attempt
>> to prevent it. ?
>
> I infest a forum that discusses it. I have to admit that 75% of the
> posters are idiots. There are only two sides. GW is manmade. No it
> isn't. The reality is that GW is a natural phenomena and we were due for
> another one per the past history of the planet. Additionally, man is
> adding to it and not just a little.
>
> I really can't understand the ones who are admant that it isn't happening
> when all one needs is to look at the loss of ice in the glaciers,- some
> have totally disappeared or nearly so (Peru IIANM). In the Arctic the NW
> Passage was clear of ice last summer. That hasn't happened since record
> began up there and those records include the great exploratory voyages
> that tried to make it through.
>
> Harry K

At first, it really wasn't made clear what the signs of "global warming"
would be. The emphasis was on "warming" rather than the prediction that
the initial impact would be erratic weather. So, a cooler than normal
Spring cast doubt. Not that many people have lived in one place long
enough to see subtle changes of climate change in terms of what species of
plants grow well (or poorly), when the migrating birds arrive/depart, etc.
Otoh, extreme weather is obvious.

In article <b906c3c1-99bc-4d12-9cd7-ec37cec4f852
@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, turnkey4099@hotmail.com (Harry K) says...

> There is a difference between predicting trends and predicting what
> the weather will be in a week. Overall predictions of climate for a
> given region for a coming season are accurate enough for planning.
> Pedicting that it will rain next Wednesday here is much of a guess.

The big difference between predicting the weather and predicting the
climate is how soon people find out you were wrong.

> Another point of confusion are those who think "The temp is way below
> normal today so GW isn't happening" - that is weather not climate and
> even GW doesn't say that _all_ areas will have above normal (for that
> area) temps. Same for rainfall. There will be more some places, less
> others. Not sure of this but GW should result in more rain (total
> world wide) than norma but _where_ that will land will probably in
> other than the normal areas as climate zones move northward.

The question is quite a bit more open than that. Global warming doesn't
even mean the climate will change. Temperature is only one factor in
climate. Your climate depends on where you live.

We have enough satellites up to measure the average albedo of the Earth.
So far, the satellite data does not support the measured surface
temperatures. It is also impossible to predict what effect a change in
surface temperatures will have on the climate.

It is true that there have been dramatic climate shifts in the past.
This has been particularly true since the start of the Pleistocene era,
with several episodes of northern hemisphere glaciation followed by
brief interglacial periods. Warmer and cooler periods are just
something we have had to live with for the last million years or so.

Historically, changes in climate have had a profound effect on
civilization. A big chill in the 5th and 6th century drove Germanic
peoples south and resulted in the fall of the western Roman Empire. The
onset of the Little Ice Age in the 13th century caused widespread
famines in Europe and may have contributed to the spread of the Black
Death as people huddled together to keep warm.

Periods of warmth have been more beneficent. The 10th through 12th
centuries produced the High Middle Ages, with a period of steady growth
and prosperity in Europe. The warmest period since the last ice age,
when temperatures were several degrees warmer than today, was known as
the Holocene Climatic Optimum. It produced the beginnings of
agriculture and human civilization. You might want to Google "Holocene
climatic optimum" and do some reading.

It seems likely that GW is beneficial. Certainly any downturn in
temperature in the next couple of centuries would be a global disaster
that would kill billions of people.

> Interestingly, I saw reports last year that there are already singns
> in the states at least that both plant species and animals are being
> seen and thriving far north of their normal range.

You mean the armadillos in Tennessee? "Already" is a pretty broad term.
Do you mean just since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1850s?
Armadillos were farther north in the 12th century. They are not
migratory, so it takes them a while to move into new territory after the
weather warms.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

In article <3130303039303239480B3DAC72@zetnet.co.uk>,
janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk (Janet Baraclough) says...

> Just to restore your faith, in the last 10 years , Britain has
> experienced exactly what was predicted in climate change. The physical
> and economic impact is absolutely unmissable here. (England has the
> world's longest formal weather record dating from 1659)

Be sure to let us all know when they go back to farming wheat in the
Hebrides. The climate downturn that started about 2500 bce really
ruined British weather.


--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

"Ann" <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:07:16 +1000, FarmI wrote:
>
>> :-)) I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat
>> rare
>> on US dominated ngs. Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't
>> believe in Climate Change. No doubt that reflects our differing national
>> experiences.
>
> I think the ngs you frequent don't reflect the majority opinion.

That's good to hear. I'll tell one of the Americans I know that he's not
really in a minority, he just thinks he is.

Even
> G.W. now acknowledges that there may be something to climate change.

Yes he does, but that acknowledgement has been so timid as to appear to be a
very reluctant acknowledgement. Maybe your next Pres will not be so timid.

> The
> sticking point now seems to be whether/not it's man-made. You even have
> some non-believers.
>
> "Climate change natural, not man-made, say NSW farmers"
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22673316-29277,00.html

Snort! I knew even before I opened that site which organisation it would be
and was not the least surprised to see who would be quoted!

Bloody Howard! Howard and I have had disagreements in the press. I know him
well. Charming man but....... And it's inaccurate. He isn't a broadacre
farmer - he used to have a lot of sheep but realised that subdivision was a
'good thing'. He was due to give a talk at an organisation I generally go
to but I didn't on that occasion as I knew we'd end up in verbal fisticuffs.

That whole organisation is a VERY conservative one.

> Then, there are those who say yes it's happening and is man-made, but the
> more cost effective solution is to adapt to it rather that attempt to
> prevent it.

I suspect we (as a worldwide entity) may not have that luxury.

"Larry Caldwell" <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> wrote in message
> 01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...
>
>> :-)) I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat
>> rare
>> on US dominated ngs. Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't
>> believe in Climate Change. No doubt that reflects our differing national
>> experiences.
>
> Where I draw the line is people who think they can predict climate
> change, or how it will affect the weather. As I mentioned, tree ring
> paleontology shows that the American desert SW has been much drier in
> past eras. The last couple hundred wet years have apparently been a
> fluke. If the weather returns to a dry pattern, there is no reason to
> think that has anything to do with global warming. Nobody knows if that
> will happen. Higher precipitation was associated with the end of the
> Little Ice Age and substantial non-anthropogenic global warming, so more
> global warming may improve the water situation. Nobody knows.

No, but what they do know is that both the methane and carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere are now far exceed the natural range for the past 650,000 years.
There have been a few Ice Ages within that time span.

> Nobody thinks humans had anything to do with the global warming at the
> end of the Little Ice Age.

True, but that was before the Industrial Revolution when we as a race
started pumping out huge quantities of carbon dioxide and methane.

Since that was so recent, only 150 years
> ago, it may still be going on. Nobody has the foggiest idea how that
> affects the weather, which may still be changing in response to climate
> changes over a century ago.
>
> The computer models are all garbage. They can't even predict the
> weather a week in advance, much less predict what will happen a decade
> from now. If people in Australia think the drought is caused by climate
> change, they are superstitious fools. Drought is caused by lack of
> rain, and nothing else. They have no idea what the weather will be like
> 10 years from now. I'm willing to bet that Australia had extended
> droughts in the 18th and 19th centuries, which eventually ended. What
> ended the droughts? Rain. Nothing else.

Well all I can say is that I am very grateful that our previously very
conservative government and current less conservative one is full of
superstitious fools and has seen fit to employ a lot of superstitious fools
and to take the subject seriously. Hopefully they won't be subject to the
frequent brain drain to the US if the US ever changes its mindset:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:32:27 +1000, FarmI wrote:

> "Ann" <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote in message
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:07:16 +1000, FarmI wrote:
>>
>>> :-)) I've noticed that belief in climate change seems to be somewhat
>>> rare
>>> on US dominated ngs. Here it would be rare to find anyone who doesn't
>>> believe in Climate Change. No doubt that reflects our differing
>>> national experiences.
>>
>> I think the ngs you frequent don't reflect the majority opinion.
>
> That's good to hear. I'll tell one of the Americans I know that he's not
> really in a minority, he just thinks he is.
>
> Even
>> G.W. now acknowledges that there may be something to climate change.
>
> Yes he does, but that acknowledgement has been so timid as to appear to be
> a very reluctant acknowledgement. Maybe your next Pres will not be so
> timid.
>
>> The
>> sticking point now seems to be whether/not it's man-made. You even have
>> some non-believers.
>>
>> "Climate change natural, not man-made, say NSW farmers"
>> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22673316-29277,00.html
>
> Snort! I knew even before I opened that site which organisation it would
> be and was not the least surprised to see who would be quoted!
>
> Bloody Howard! Howard and I have had disagreements in the press. I know
> him well. Charming man but....... And it's inaccurate. He isn't a
> broadacre farmer - he used to have a lot of sheep but realised that
> subdivision was a 'good thing'. He was due to give a talk at an
> organisation I generally go to but I didn't on that occasion as I knew
> we'd end up in verbal fisticuffs.
>
> That whole organisation is a VERY conservative one.

I thought you might find it "interesting". <g> I was Googling on farmers
and "climate change" and it popped up.

>> Then, there are those who say yes it's happening and is man-made, but
>> the more cost effective solution is to adapt to it rather that attempt
>> to prevent it.
>
> I suspect we (as a worldwide entity) may not have that luxury.