Re: OT:Thanksgiving

Mr. Miller,

Your response is exactly what I expected. You don't care to think about the
factual part of the discussion and resort instead to nitpicking, to
obfuscating about the meaning of words. I don't know what you would
consider "gigantic" or "global" (since users of your style of argument are
careful to refrain from committing themselves to any definable stand which
could be rebutted) but an event which would have effects from Iceland east
to Mesopotamia, and from Iceland south to North Africa - qualifies as
gigantic so far as I'm concerned. I haven't got the energy just now to
calculate just what percentage of the earth's surface that comes out to: but
I'll hazard 5%. My mistake in this is trying to find ONE cause which would
be big enough to impress you: I should have stuck to the obvious: that while
any given human activity affects perhaps only a tiny portion of the global
environment, adding them all up affects most of the world.

How do you feel about nuclear winter?

PL



Doug Miller <spambait@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aaPdj.59561$eY.26205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <gKEdj.9352$E01.1837@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

A couple of consequences ought to be obvious:

1) the circulation patterns of water in the Atlantic would be changed.
It's
possible that the Gulf Stream would be shifted north a bit.

Previously, you said "that will have >>gigantic<< effects on global
conditions." Now, you say "possible" in reference to one part of one
ocean.

This would
affect the climates of England and northern Europe. In any case there
would
be changes.

Previously, you said "that will have >>gigantic<< effects on global
conditions." Now, you say it would affect the climate in a very small part
of
the globe.

2) The Mediterranean, over a long period of time, would become shallower
due
to the excess of evaporation over input (from the Nile, the Black Sea and
other sources). It would become saltier and a large area of sea-bottom
would become dry. This in turn would change the flow of the lower
reaches
of all the rivers that empty into the Med.

Previously, you said "that will have >>gigantic<< effects on global
conditions." Now, you're talking about changes only in the Mediterranean
drainage basin.

I doubt that you'll find many discussions of this anywhere. You might
find
the reverse, because there was a time when the Med. was in fact not
connected to the Atlantic. Whatever: I offer it as an example of how
human
activities could change the climate in a global context.

You've offered *no* evidence that it would produce the ">>gigantic<<" and
"global" effects that you claimed.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.


.