Yes, we are much too patient with such closed minds. Most likely he has another agenda.
I spoke once with a logger about cutting down old growth forests. His reply was; "Didn't you know trees are a a renewable resource?" A completely meaningless statement, even if its true.
Of course my reply was; "yes, but a 1000 year old tree is not a renewable resource for another 1000 years."
Yes, we are much too patient with such closed minds. Most likely he has another agenda.
I spoke once with a logger about cutting down old growth forests. His reply was; "Didn't you know trees are a a renewable resource?" A completely meaningless statement, even if its true.
Of course my reply was; "yes, but a 1000 year old tree is not a renewable resource for another 1000 years."
That's exactly the mentality we're dealing with here.
That logger is ignoring the fact that there is a whole biological community in the forest being clear cut, it's not just the trees being removed. And the "standard" forests that are replanted to replace the cut trees have just a fraction of the former biodiversity. Do that over a wide enough area and they've just driven many species extinct.
It's the kind of mentality that drove once plentiful species like the Passenger Pigeon into extinction.
http://www.audubon.org/magazine/may-june-2014/why-passenger-pigeon-went-extinct
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the passenger pigeon’s extinction. In the intervening years, researchers have agreed that the bird was hunted out of existence, victimized by the fallacy that no amount of exploitation could endanger a creature so abundant. Between now and the end of the year, bird groups and museums will commemorate the centenary in a series of conferences, lectures, and exhibits. Most prominent among them is Project Passenger Pigeon, a wide-ranging effort by a group of scientists, artists, museum curators, and other bird lovers. While their focus is on public education, an unrelated organization called Revive & Restore is attempting something far more ambitious and controversial: using genetics to bring the bird back.
Ice and snow are not the same thing as glaciers.
Irrelevant to my point, that glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential for human water supplies.
Next...
That is your delusion, whether you stick to it or not, it remains your delusion and not the real world.
You refuse to imagine that there's more to "human water supply" than what comes out of a tap.
Rain and snow are "human water supply" too, what leeching into aquifers is "human water supply", guess what, glacier play a key role with those processes.
One of many things dusty refuses to think about . . .
Glaciers create an ice box environment.
One which collects and stores more snow because it get chilled and stabilized meaning longer melt period, stretched out down stream water availability, but dusty doesn't seem to think the end of the summer matters if there was rain in spring and early summer.
I got a real world experiment for you dusty. Next winter if you happen to live where they get some snow storms you can try an experiment.
Take a well frozen ice cube tray from your freezer and place it outside where it can collect snow.
Then a few inches away from your ice tray place a flat stone that's been stored in your heated home,
(to simulate a granite valley that has been collecting and storing solar energy, since the glacier is no longer sitting between it and the incoming rays).
Pay attention to the difference of snow accumulation. Then you could take it one step further and bring the two inside, then you could track which snow pile melts first.
Perhaps then you will start to grasp but one of many vitally important concepts regarding the importance of glaciers.
Also you remain willfully oblivious to the fact that those huge mountain ice masses also influence the atmosphere and regional weather patterns.
The fact that most drinking water doesn't come from a glacier - doesn't detract from the fundamental fact that glaciers are still vitally important to the biosphere as we know and depend on it!
The fact that most drinking water doesn't come from a glacier - doesn't detract from the fundamental fact that glaciers are still vitally important to the biosphere as we know and depend on it!
And the fact that their disappearance is just one small factor in the overall reordering the of the entire globe for narrow human interests that are rapidly making overall ecological stability more and more precarious.
If this was the only effect of climate change it would be serious enough, but it's not. Taken in total and in combination with everything else we're doing then the fact of a global ecosystem crash becomes inevitable. One that could very well take us with it, we're already in the middle of a mass extinction event]. Pretending that this isn't serious, and that we're not responsible is criminal. when we have so much evidence to back it up. Something you comment on so well.
So don't let the trolls under the bridge discourage you...
In the last half-billion years, life on Earth has been nearly wiped out five times—by such things as climate change, an intense ice age, volcanoes, and that space rock that smashed into the Gulf of Mexico 65 million years ago, obliterating the dinosaurs and a bunch of other species. These events are known as the Big Five mass extinctions, and all signs suggest we are now on the precipice of a sixth.
Except this time, we have no one but ourselves to blame. According to a study published last week in Science Advances, the current extinction rate could be more than 100 times higher than normal—and that’s only taking into account the kinds of animals we know the most about. Earth’s oceans and forests host an untold number of species, many of which will probably disappear before we even get to know them. (See pictures of 10 of the earth's rarest animals.)
I don’t want to claim that we can’t survive the loss of many, many species. We’ve already proved that we actually can. We’re very adaptable. But I think the bottom line is, you wouldn’t want to find out.
Just a few people in a position of incredible power are right now making this choice for the rest of us while lying on a massive level as to the real risks.
cc - So are you ready to retract since you don’t seem to have anything substantive to complain about?
That link is just a base URL, no mention of glaciers on the inhabited continents in connection with human water supply.
Therefore, irrelevant to my assertion.
My assertion stands.
Of course, you don’t have the integrity to come out and say which links you mean.
Every link you guys have posted that address glaciers on the inhabited continents in conjunction with human water supplies.
They have all been idiotic scare pages.
Wake up, that URL is what this thread is about.
But you don't have the intellectual substance or integrity to come out and explain specifically what those supposedly "idiotic scare pages" are.
Which brings us back on topic for this thread - your inability to define what you find unacceptable.
dusty, you hear the story about the mother at the parade watching the marching band go by.
"Why is everyone out of step except for my son?"
dusty, will you ever offer more than irrelevant knit-picking and arm-waving?
Write4U - snowmelts, which may last a few weeks at most
Snow lasts days, weeks, months, years, centuries...
Just depends on depth, temperature, and exposure to sunlight. Once snow lasts a year it may become a glacier, although it might just be considered perennial snow, because a glacier is generally considered to have to move.
Snow might finish melting 1 day before the next snow, having lasted all summer. Just depends on conditions.
Write4U - Your point is false, irrelevant and meaningless to begin with . I say fresh water, including Alpine and Polar glacial water is essential to human and other animal consumption.
Do you see the meaninglessness in that statement?
Dunno if you know that CC started a couple of threads now because I made that simple factual statement, that glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies, on yet another thread.
It is relevant to the false claims of those who are wringing their hands about disappearing glaciers and the supposed terrible effects that will have on water supply.
Polar glacial water is essential to human and other animal consumption
Whatttt???
Polar ice melts into the ocean or falls into the ocean after which it melts into the ocean. Nobody is drinking polar ice melt except as a novelty or on expedition. There are no human populations dependent on polar ice as a source of their human water consumption supplies.
Write4U - I spoke once with a logger about cutting down old growth forests. His reply was; “Didn’t you know trees are a a renewable resource?" A completely meaningless statement, even if its true.
Of course my reply was; “yes, but a 1000 year old tree is not a renewable resource for another 1000 years."
]DougC - That’s exactly the mentality we’re dealing with here.
Water is a renewable resource that falls out of the sky for free every day.
100,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water falls out of the sky each year on land.
250,000,000,000 cubic meters of water falls out of the sky each day on land.
It does not take 1000 years to renew water.
In the intervening years, researchers have agreed that the bird was hunted out of existence, victimized by the fallacy that no amount of exploitation could endanger a creature so abundant.
Who'll stop the rain?
Nobody. Human beings cannot put an end to precipitation.
You cannot shoot at a cloud to stop the rain. What kind of disjointed mind fears hunting rain and snow out of existence?
CC - Rain and snow are “human water supply" too, what leeching into aquifers is “human water supply", guess what, glacier play a key role with those processes.
Guess what, glaciers on the inhabited continents are virtually irrelevant to the water cycle.
Glaciers create an ice box environment.
Right, because rocks have no specific heat and cannot get cold, and snow is not exposed to the atmosphere, and glaciers are just, like man, a refrigerator out there man, donchyaknow?
One which collects and stores more snow because it get chilled and stabilized meaning longer melt period, stretched out down stream water availability, but dusty doesn’t seem to think the end of the summer matters if there was rain in spring and early summer.
For a tiny number of people who live between the glacier and where the river meets its firs tributaries, or dam, there is some amount of regulation performed by the glacier. Without the glacier there will be upland ground water recharge (often leading to springs or the ability to drill artesian wells), and retreating glaciers typically leave behind lakes and ponds and kettles for water to collect the rain and snowmelt.
Further downstream the glacier water isn't even a large percentage of mass flow and the watershed is typically filled with summer rains, especially on the most of the Asian rivers you guys are prattling on about.
Then a few inches away from your ice tray place a flat stone that’s been stored in your heated home,
That isn't even a high school science fair level "experiment". Ridiculous.
Have you ever touched a rock outside in the winter? It is not warm, duh. By your "reasoning" snow does not collect on rocks. How absurd.
The fact that most drinking water doesn’t come from a glacier - doesn’t detract from the fundamental fact that glaciers are still vitally important to the biosphere as we know and depend on it!
At least you got the first few words correct, for once.
The rest of the sentence is idiotic drivel.
CC - Wake up, that URL is what this thread is about.
Huh? It was just a base URL that no longer has any specific mention of glaciers as a source of water for human beings.
The rest of you links that specifically address the supposed importance of glacier to human water supply are filled with nonsense.
“Why is everyone out of step except for my son?"
"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away"
"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away"
Quite the romantic take on profoundly sociopathic behavior.
As has already been posted on clearly, climate change denial of the kind being shown by this poster has nothing at all to do with scientific skepticism and everything to do with the fossil fuel and tobacco lobbies creating false "data" to conceal the actual risk. As has also already been posted on at length this is already resulting in deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year which will accelerate as the impacts become more and more catastrophic.
So the drummer being described here is pounding out the beats for genocide at an unimaginable level.
Which is why this poster fits entirely the definition of a psychopath...
CC - Wake up, that URL is what this thread is about.
My assertion was and remains, glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies.
Every link you guys have posted either supports my assertion without you realizing it, is irrelevant to my assertion, or is a mass of confused drivel on some stupid little scare site.
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo_ice/PDF/GEO_C2_LowRes.pdf
An estimated 1.5 to 2 billion
people in Asia (Himalayan region) and in Europe (The
Alps) and the Americas (Andes and Rocky Mountains)
depend on river systems with glaciers inside their catch
-
ment areas.
Deceptive drivel, virtually zero water goes to those billions of people from a glacier.
Proves my point. The icebergs float out to sea and melt into the ocean, providing no water for human consumption. What is supposedly so great about pure water? Ever heard of mineral water?
And on and on and on. Going back to all the links in all the threads will show the same thing. You can't come up with a single link that stands up to any kind of analysis on this subject, that glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies.
stardusty said,
Water is a renewable resource that falls out of the sky for free every day.
Where does it rain everyday? Why do many alfalfa farms next door to me use rolling sprinklers, EVERY YEAR when there is little snow on the mountain glaciers surrounding the north Idaho valleys?
Why do many alfalfa farms next door to me use rolling sprinklers, EVERY YEAR?
Because groundwater is a huge natural water transportation and storage system. The underground aquifer is recharged by precipitation so people tap that stored precipitation for agriculture. If humans continue to pump it out faster than precipitation restores it then that agriculture is not sustainable.
Could it be that the rain does not “fall from the sky" every day and is not sufficient to produce viable crops?
No, the underground water is rain water or snow melt water. If the water table drops to a lower but stable level the agriculture is sustainable. If the water table continues to drop without stabilizing the agriculture is not sustainable.
DougC - climate change denial of the kind being shown by this poster
Lie, I never denied climate change.
Your entire approach to this subject is to throw as much doubt out as possible while ignoring the vast amount of evidence.
So either you're a committed denier quite likely under employ by those corporations that are making available huge amounts of money to do so. Or you're some complete A-hole who gets a kick out of messing with people's heads over issues they find very important because of the impacts on their and other people's lives.
Either way it makes you a psychopath in my opinion as you're obviously very committed to do as much damage on this issue as has been the case for decades.
Your actions are entirely consistent with creating as much doubt by focusing on the small points of uncertainty while completely denying the overall issue. Which of course includes the massive denial program which you and few others here tellingly act as if it doesn't even exist.
So in the end everything you do here is a lie as has also been pointed out repeatedly. Whether it's your claims that America's infrastructure is in fine shape, that rapidly disappearing glaciers have no importance or whatever else you decide to bring up. It's clear this is a game for you whatever you post.
As will be apparent when you take another tangential approach to this or any post that directly challenges what you post or will just ignore it. You're probably the most disingenuous poster I've come across certainly on this site. There's definitely skill in what you're doing here, so in my estimation you're a professional psychopath for hire in the long tradition of corporations twisting the facts for profit. Such as the tobacco lobby killing millions of people for billions in profit. In this case it's the fossil fuel lobby probably going to kill billions of people for trillions in short term profit.
It also makes you probably the biggest idiot here as you're spending your efforts on something that ultimately has no value at all.
True, somewhere on earth it will rain. But as usual that is a meaningless statement.
Why do many alfalfa farms next door to me use rolling sprinklers, EVERY YEAR?
Because groundwater is a huge natural water transportation and storage system. The underground aquifer is recharged by precipitation so people tap that stored precipitation for agriculture. If humans continue to pump it out faster than precipitation restores it then that agriculture is not sustainable.
Is that why our Idaho farmers have only two alfalfa crops every year, instead of three?
Could it be that the rain does not “fall from the sky" every day and is not sufficient to produce viable crops?
No, the underground water is rain water or snow melt water. If the water table drops to a lower but stable level the agriculture is sustainable. If the water table continues to drop without stabilizing the agriculture is not sustainable.
And therein lies the crux of the problem [quote]‘The water table is dropping all over the world’: NASA warns we’re on the path to global drought.
WASHINGTON — Drought-stricken California is not the only place draining underground aquifers in the hunt for fresh water.
It’s happening across the world, according to two new studies by U.S. researchers released Tuesday.
Twenty-one of the world’s 37 largest aquifers — in locations from India and China to the United States and France — have passed their sustainability tipping points, meaning more water is being removed than replaced from these vital underground reservoirs. Thirteen of 37 aquifers fell at rates that put them into the most troubled category.
“The situation is quite critical," said Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the studies’ principal investigator.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/the-water-table-is-dropping-all-over-the-world-new-nasa-study-reveals-global-drought
Glaciers are disappearing, lakes are drying up, the world's water table is dropping,. So what do we do now? Enlighten me.
It also makes you probably the biggest idiot here as you're spending your efforts on something that ultimately has no value at all.
That's what idiots do. They waste their time and other people's time arguing irrelevant and useless points instead of looking at the overall picture. I spent far too much time in meetings with these people when I worked in the corporate world.
That's what idiots do. They waste their time and other people's time arguing irrelevant and useless points instead of looking at the overall picture. I spent far too much time in meetings with these people when I worked in the corporate world.
The point for them is to create as much cognitive dissonance as possible on any issue they don't wish to have addressed for whatever reason. You just have to read stardusty psyche's and Mike Yohe's posts to see that is exactly what they're doing.
And why isn't hard to understand, an entire industry has been created to do exactly that, create as much systemic cognitive dissonance as possible on the issue of human created global warming and climate change. With incredible amounts of money made available to those willing to engage in such destructive behavior often in the same underhanded and devious manner in which these "people" communicate.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
So when posters like stardusty and Mike Yohe post it's not someone's genuine opinion, it's a carefully crafted effort to cancel out the very valid information we should all be basing our lives on if we want them to continue in any real state of value. So think of the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil when these guys post and the other corporate created "institutes" that only represent the interests of the people behind those corporations.
Also think companies like Philip Morris and others which perfected this technique decades ago so they could keep selling products that we now know with a high degree of certainty are very dangerous to human health. Global warming is no different, stardusty and Mike Yohe are the equivalent of the pricks who spent years and millions of dollars to convince the public there was doubt on how addictive cigarettes were and links to terminal illness like cancer, heart disease and stroke. Climate change denial is doing this on a systemic level so we're all in the cross hairs of this deeply sociopathic campaign.