Attila the Bum wrote:
Wasn't 'til after WWII or so that
the human population curve
started to "J"

#1 The human population curve has been exponential since at least the
1300's.
#2 It is NOT expoential, and not even concave up. It's curving down,
it has been since 1989. In fact, it's an S curve, with an exact 180
degree symmetry about 1989 satisfying the equation
P(1989-t)+P(1989+t)=10.39 billion within +/- 5 million; and an upper
limit of 7.8 billion.
#3

So ...? Global warming as a
function of human activity
has affected climate change?

It doesn't matter. The only relevant fact is that it exists, and the
predicted consequences of it are already past tense.

If ice is melting at the poles,
then there's more water vapor
in the air, and potentially more
rainfall, or at the least, higher
humidity.

Simplistic reasoning of a mere human is no substitute for detailed
climatological models. Leave the extrapolation to the professionals.

The net effects that are known a increased severity and frequency of
storms (particularly with the greater heat in the oceans as a driving
force). That's present, with 2004 and 2005 each being record years for
hurricanes. It's probably also the case for tornadoes.

In fact, just a month ago, the entire Milwaukee metro area barely
missed being completely trashed by the simultaneous occurrence of 28
tornadoes. The devastation looked like a war zone, as bad as New
Orleans; debris and other remains of personal belongings, property
being found as far as 70 miles away. Had the storm kept on the ground
for another 20 miles further to the East, instead of the destruction
being of the sparsely distributed and populated rural regions, it would
have been of the metro area and what happened in New Orleans wouldn't
even be a blip on the radar. In recent times, there has even been
tornadoes in the winter.

The summertime Arctic ice cover has broken up for the first time in
recorded history; and is no, for the first time, no longer traversible.
A new Northwest passage has started opening up. Major chunks of the
Antarctic ice sheet have split off (including one recent occurrence of
a breakoff the size of Rhode Island). The continential glaciers on
Greenland are in severe decline, to the point where this too has made
the news in recent days; the glaciers in Alaska, likewise, are in
severe decline. The snow cover on Mount Kilomonjaro is nearly gone for
the first time.

Is the Gobi or Sahara growing or
shrinking?

The Gobi and Sahara are growing, and have been for a very long time.
I'm not aware of this having any connection with global warming as
being a consequence of it -- though obviously, it has a connection in
the other direction of being an exacerbation of it. The dust storms in
the Gobi now reach all the way to Beijing, which is probably direct in
the path of the growing desert. In some cases, the dust storms of both
deserts are now reaching as far as North America: the Gobi had one in
2001 that got all the way to the Great Lakes in the midwest, the Sahara
had one a few weeks ago that got to Florida (and has ones, now more
frequently occurring, going across the Mediterranean into Europe).

Solar intensity has been continually monitored at various stations
throughout the planet. In recent years, the level of solar radiation
has spiked at various points throughout the world. This is called the
"solar brightening" problem and is also a predicted consequence of the
whole global warming phenomenon.

The continential glaciers (particularly those of Greenland), after
being lost, will raise the ocean levels; the ocean levels are already
known to be rising. But even without the glaciers, the ocean levels
will rise simply due to thermal expansion, which is not insignificant
either.

And understand, when stuff goes under, it's not some kind of gradual
thing of a few inches of lost land per year. Things tend to happen at
once -- e.g. a bad storm hits, flooding an entire area, breaking
levees, and the flood never fully goes away and the ongoing and
increasingly futile effort of damming the water away is just abandoned,
after the 20th breach or so. When a place goes under, it will tend to
go under overnight and stay that way; nobody will go back to re-dam the
water after event #20.

New Orleans is just the beginning. Given what's to come, by the time
even THIS year is over, it's quite possible nobody will even remember
New Orleans, compared to what they will remember next. Maybe you'll
luck out in 2005, and not have a repeat of the 1-2-3-4 punch of 2004,
but then there's 2006... But 2005 is only 1/2 way through.