From: "Robert Comer" 

> What we could survive is only part of the question.  We are at the head of
> a
> number of food chains, and the whole chain (including ruminant gut
> bacteria
> and other prosaic things) has to survive for us to survive.  A chain is
> only
> as strong as its weakest link.

Exactly my point.  That's what I meant by moving inland isn't going to save us.

> IMO all extinction analyses I've so far seen have been simplistic in the
> extreme.  Only the availability of a primary food source has been
> considered.

It's a pretty complex subject...

--
Bob Comer


"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news:4461dafa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> More research needs to be done, but that is not outside the realm of
>> possibility.  We've had 95% mass extinctions just because the temperature
>> went up 10F.  It may not be the most likely scenario, but ignoring it
> would
>> kill it if it happens that way.  Moving inland wouldn't save us in that
>> case.
>
> What we could survive is only part of the question.  We are at the head of
> a
> number of food chains, and the whole chain (including ruminant gut
> bacteria
> and other prosaic things) has to survive for us to survive.  A chain is
> only
> as strong as its weakest link.
>
> IMO all extinction analyses I've so far seen have been simplistic in the
> extreme.  Only the availability of a primary food source has been
> considered.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5