And that will become less and less, as the climate dries.

Roughly, I'm talking about the Great Plains. And yes, it can get drier the far west as well. The west coast, west of the mountains will not get drier, but east of the mountains, a rise in temperature will cause serious droughts. If you live on the coast, it's likely the only real concern is more severe storms, bigger El Ninos, etc.

Incidentally, I live in Dallas, which might get wetter as the climate warms. If prevailing winds in late summer move to the east, we'll get wind from the Gulf instead of from Northern Mexico. And more rain would be the result.

Is there a difference between warmer and drier? If so, what is it?

It seems to me that a warmer climate would cause greater evaporation of water, which would then lead to greater precipitation.

Perhaps here's another way to ask the question. Does an analogy exist with the law of conservation of mass and energy (not total analogy, but similar)? In other words, is there a certain amount of H2O in the world, with it simply changing geographical location or physical form (ice, liquid, vapor) it takes?

Or can the total amount of water in the world rise or fall -- and if so, how would this occur?

Storms would mean more precipitation, would they not?

I understand about the Great Plains; the southwest already doesn't have climate conducive to growing crops.

The exception is right on the coast, which is its own climate. But the square mileage is small, and much of it is covered with surfers!

Which means Texas would become the breadbasket of America?

Would this be a bad thing?

So it seems like you're saying that some places in America will become less conducive to farming, while other places will become more conducive. This has happened in the past (e.g., Dust Bowl) and America has adapted and continued to thrive.

Why should we think anything different will occur?

But is global warming avoidable?

If things are truly as horrible as the town-criers make it sound, do we really believe we're going to pull ourselves back from the precipice, especially with China and India constructing more and more factories?

I have no idea if global warming is real. I barely understand the concept, let alone the specifics! But I do believe that mankind has shown itself to be fairly incompetent at controlling nature intentionally. Thus, if global warming is real, I have little faith that it will be prevented. Thus, it seems to me that we should spend our time preparing for what will occur, rather than bailing water out of the bottom of our boat with a thimble.

In other words ... start buying up future prime farmland in Texas! Or just invest in a good air conditioning unit for my home.

You planning on powering it with a windmill?

C02 levels in the atmosphere are an effect of global warming and not a cause, is this correct?

If so, then why would reducing the co2 levels in the atmosphere have any effect on global warming?

High C02 levels is generally a good thing for human civs because high c02 allows plants to grow faster and more productively.

Co2 levels have been rising for the last 40,000 years, and so has human population. There is no good reason to believe that lowering c02 levels will be good for humanity.

No, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The more of it in the atmosphere, the more thermal energy is trapped in it, because it is not transparent to infrared. And historically, warming has followed rises in CO2.

Important Fact: Oceans overwhelm all other influences on climate. Oceans, being 70% of the earth's surface, are the climate regulators influencing air temperature, humidity and precipitation. Yet the IPCC did not account for the effects of oceans, because they had no data or theory to go by, and they couldn't handle that much complexity. The total fraud of the IPCC is demonstrated by this fact.

When an El Nino shows up in the Pacific Ocean as a hot water mass, Central and South America get flooded due to increased evaporation from the ocean. Now (some time back), an El Nina is in the Pacific as a cold water mass, and it is creating cold weather and droughts. Scientists don't know what creates El Ninos and El Ninas. So they don't have a clue as to what's controlling the climate.

The air does not heat the oceans; the oceans heat the air; because the oceans have a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere. And the claimed 0.6°C increase in atmospheric temperature is not much heat to be adding to anything, while satellites show less temperature increase, unless Hansen is screwing around with the numbers as usual.

Temperature Measurements are Manipulated


Satellites are much more reliable in measuring temperatures than thermometers, because they can cover large areas, while thermometers are located in few areas and are much influenced by their environment. Then maintenance of land based weather stations is a mess.

Thermometer measurements would be a scientific fraud for the study of climate even if they were totally accurate. First, they do not exist over the 70% of the earth covered by oceans. Then there are very few in the impoverished countries. So something like 10% of the earth's surface is actually measured. Then localized effects are highly variable for unknown reasons. Why was there a severe drought in the US state of Georgia for several years while nearby states were flooding? No one knows. Much of the variation is obvious due to changing environments which human activity creates.

A few years ago, satellite measurements were showing no significant increase in global temperatures, while thermometers showed a small increase. So satellite data was adjusted to conform to thermometer measurements.

One of the explanations given for altering the satellite measurements was that near-earth satellites gradually slow down over time due to thin atmosphere which they pass through. Slowing down would move them closer to the earth and create a higher read. So the satellite data would have needed to be lowered; but it was increased. The adjustment was in the opposite direction of the explanation. The frauds obviously did no analysis of satellite motion; they just faked the data and lied about it.

The net result of the fake temperature measurements was to show a 0.6°C average, global temperature increase over the past 150 years, of which 0.2°C was attributed to the primary effect by CO2 and 0.4°C was attributed to a multiplier effect from water vapor. Notice that the claimed 0.2°C effect by CO2 over 150 years is equal to 0.0013°C per year or 0.00011°C per month. Such miniscule "climate change" could not cause anything noticeable to happen on a yearly or monthly basis.