Pretty clear chart for showing the positives and negatives of warming. The greater positive is pushed principally in order by 1. CO2, 2. Methane,3. CFC, 4. Ozone, 5. NO2. It would be nice if they could include the principally negative aerosols by volcanoes along with the aerosols coming from mainly fossil fuel burning, particularly coal. As one can see from the bottom, the positive forcing is dramatically increasing over the years, no doubt somewhat inhibited by the increased tendency to radiate outward due to increased temperature. I'm not sure why they chose 1750 as a baseline, maybe to make sure it was pre-fossil fuel. http://realclimate.com/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
Although volcanic gases contribute natural forcing they are not included due to their sporadic nature. Humans obviously contribute greenhouse gases, nature contributes greenhouse gases, we know the average global temperature is rising, we know humans are partially to blame, we know we cannot stop nature from doing it's thing, we know we can alter the effects caused by humans. It seems very simple to me; either greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans or prepare humans and society and the economy how to deal with the negative effects of global temperature increases and weather changes. It's probably unclear whether or not we have reached a point of no return in which no matter what actions humans take we have already set the wheels in motion for the next 50-100 years? I'm guessing we are not going to change human behavior to any significant degree, therefore, we definitely are going to feel the negative effects of climate change. If I managed a nation like the USA, I think I would start programs to double-triple potable water supplies and create a distribution system to allow potable water in most areas of the nation. I would also think about greatly increasing farming of food products at the local levels. Both potable water and food will be critical to sustain...
After crossing critical climate tipping points it probably wouldn't be possible to sustain a nation as we presently know it with cities and all. Yes food and water are the critical concerns along with appropriate shelter but an additional concern is to develop the idea of sustainable communities, able to maintain themselves using local resources. Locating yourself near a body of fresh water would be one obvious choice. One wonders how people would evolve to meet the challenge. Probably they would become smaller and more efficient and prolific sweaters to deal with the heat. On the eating end they would probably be selected to be able to consume a wider variety of vegetation. My favorite all time juice is made from manzanita berries. Chilled it is heavenly.
Don't know which part of CA you are located, but I'm about 60 miles north of San Francisco, and this year is about to be called the driest on record, Lake Mendocino is apparently nearly dry, we can't take any more water from the rivers for farming, no rain in the forecast until late Nov, seems like we have constant fire danger, and in parallel with this the North Bay continues significant population growth and business development. No where has anyone ever mentioned adding a couple more reservoirs, or better distribution of water, etc.? People and government seem to believe if they just ignore everything that somehow things will simply get better. So down this merry path we go and some day out of the blue it will be too late...the problems will become critical and there will be little recourse, the economy will decline, and there goes the neighborhood! This is actually doom & gloom but it's precisely what can happen as we ignore the climate writing on the wall...
Droughts are cyclical in NoCa. Environmentalist groups have succeeded in stopping not only logging but forest clean up in favor of 'natural' wild fires. Building more reservoirs would upset animal habitats as well which would also be opposed by environmental groups.
Climate warming would likely produce a bounty of food as conditions would be excellent for plants. Water never really goes away it exists in a cycle. I think locating oneself near a body of water is an excellent idea in most any climate. Depends on the heat factor. Right now we can exist in temperatures approaching 120 degrees F. It's over 100 every year where I am. I would think that a constant ambient temperature of say 110 degrees F all year long would force folks to build their homes underground. Many such homes exist right now. http://io9.com/look-beneath-the-surface-of-these-incredible-undergroun-1269686668 Didn't know you could make juice from them. They say eating them protects one from poison oak though.
Makes no difference to me why' the collective we are incapable of proactive actions...bottom line is we are incapable of analyzing our issues and finding any form of consensus in which to mitigate the outcomes of our critical problems. Blame everyone is the bottom line...
Considering the wine grape varieties of chardonnay, sauvignon blanc, zinfandel, and cabernet, in the area in which I live, which creates a multi-billion$ economy for northern CA, just a 2 degree F. increase in average temperature can reduce the yields on these grapes by 50%. This means the wine industry in this area dies, the land values plummet, tens of thousands are unemployed, the tourism stops, cities will be bankrupt, as well as the economic impact outside of this area. The same scenario applies to other crops and animals. You really have no idea what you are talking about...
In Napa, the minimum temperature has gone up nearly 5 degrees over the past 75 years, while the growing season has increased by more than 50 days You guys are just in a zone that has naturally increased in minimum temperature. No one can do anything about that. All the whining in the world is not going to save you. Look to the future, invest in vineyards in Washington State, Oregon etc. In the meantime, make $$$$ while you can. You know, in far No. Ca. they had to completely change their way of life as the enviro-frauds shut down the timber industry. There are already vineyards there in the higher elevations. Pay back is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). You are clueless....
Lester Brown a renown agricultural expert calls top soil "A threatened natural resource" and considers the negative effects of global warming on grain production to be considerable. Good map on areas of soil degradation around the world. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/04/12/why-soil-matters/ As one can see here Calif. is suffering mainly severe to extreme drought conditions. A dry condition has gripped most of the Southwest and from what I have read from the experts this condition is now becoming a long term proposition. A growing population with increased extraction, water pollution and a rising ocean taking land and intruding into our coastal water table, a loss of mountain ice-snow pack to feed the rivers doesn't help. I'm guessing not too far in the future the politics around water is going to shoot to our number one concern. http://www.drought.gov/drought/cont...itoring-drought-indicators/us-drought-monitor Edit. I thought I would include this interactive map showing state by state what the projected population gains are, accompanying our past and continuing practice of appropriating agricultural land for urban expansion. http://www.npg.org/library/population-data.html
The climate warming warnings include Napa. The average temperature in Napa has not increased by 5 degrees. It's easy to invest in other locations...but what you ignore is the horrific economic disaster that will take place when this happens. Sustained warming absolutely does come at a cost!
That's odd, here in the Temecula valley, they are increasing the land dedicated to vineyards Napa Valley runs between 59F and 83F http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA0750 Temecula runs between 39F and 99F http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA1136
Napa temperatures are more like this; http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USCA0750 from below freezing to over 100 degrees. UC Davis just completed a study of the warming issue about 4-6 months ago and the summary was for those common varietals increased warming will decrease the yields by 50% and the recommendation was for wine grape producers to start thinking about other more drought-tolerant wine grape varieties. Of course few will heed this warning because it's not easy to market and sell the more obscure grape varieties. I'm just quoting the information from UC Davis...
Using this: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USCA1136 This is the difference: Temecula - Napa, record high first column, record low second column Jan.....6.....-4 Feb.....8.....-4 Mar.....8.....1 Apr.....8......-3 May......6.....2 Jun.....-1.....5 Jul.....3.....-3 Aug.....9.....3 Sep.....5.....-1 Oct.....4.....-3 Nov....7....-3 Dec.....9....-4
Again, I'm just quoting UC Davis on their research on the effects of climate warming regarding wine grapes in Northern California...
