Write4U - Is that why our Idaho farmers have only two alfalfa crops every year, instead of three?
I am not an expert on Idaho agriculture, but Idaho is a Northern state with cold winters. The growing season is limited.
‘The water table is dropping all over the world’
Histrionics.
NASA warns we’re on the path to global drought
So, what, has evaporation ceased now? Is the water just going to keep building up in the atmosphere?
More hysterics.
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,
That is believable, but due more to population increase than loss of precipitation.
Global precipitation is flat over history. It may well increase with warmer temperatures because water evaporates faster when it is warmer and the absolute water content of air is higher at 100% relative humidity for warmer air.
Ground water is cheap to get and is generally good quality. With increasing populations more investments will be needed in surface water transportation and treatment, as well as groundwater recharge.
Glaciers are disappearing, lakes are drying up, the world’s water table is dropping,. So what do we do now? Enlighten me.
First thing to do is develop some healthy skepticism for scare headlines like that garbage article you linked.
We are not headed for "global drought" Global precipitation is flat. aquifers are indeed being over pumped in many places around the globe, but that is not a "global drought". This is a widespread result of taking the easy way out for getting good water for growing populations. In many regions that just is not a sustainable approach.
Fortunately, we know how to use surface water, but it will require some investment in water transportation and treatment infrastructure.
BTW, glaciers on inhabited continents are irrelevant to the very real problem of over pumping aquifers.
DougC - 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
It's all a conspiracy and I am on the dark payroll and the illuminati and trilateral commission and Jewish bankers and somebody call Glen Beck and Info Wars cause you have just outed another dirty Hasbra of the corporate murder for greed meisters.
Write4U - Is that why our Idaho farmers have only two alfalfa crops every year, instead of three?
I am not an expert on Idaho agriculture, but Idaho is a Northern state with cold winters. The growing season is limited.
Well I do live in NO Idaho and I used to grow Alfalfa, so I DO know.
‘The water table is dropping all over the world’
Histrionics.
Yes, they have no real data on which their conclusions are based. It's all fake and histrionics.
NASA warns we’re on the path to global drought
So, what, has evaporation ceased now? Is the water just going to keep building up in the atmosphere?
More hysterics.
NASA is hysterical? Could it be that as the atmosphere warms it tends to expand and can hold more water. I recall reading something about *dew-point* being related to temperature.
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,
That is believable, but due more to population increase than loss of precipitation.
So we are running out of water for human consumption? Remember I told you about California's efforts to lay pipelines from Idaho to California, which Idaho refused , because we have our own water problems here.
Global precipitation is flat over history. It may well increase with warmer temperatures because water evaporates faster when it is warmer and the absolute water content of air is higher at 100% relative humidity for warmer air.
Those guys at NASA just don't have clue about atmospheric conditions. Maybe they never thought about that revelation?
Ground water is cheap to get and is generally good quality. With increasing populations more investments will be needed in surface water transportation and treatment, as well as groundwater recharge.
Ah, we are now talking about ways to conserve or transport water? I agree.
Glaciers are disappearing, lakes are drying up, the world’s water table is dropping,. So what do we do now? Enlighten me.
First thing to do is develop some healthy skepticism for scare headlines like that garbage article you linked.
Yes, NASA is known for its nonsense that should be taken with some healthy skepticism.
We are not headed for "global drought" Global precipitation is flat. aquifers are indeed being over pumped in many places around the globe, but that is not a "global drought". This is a widespread result of taking the easy way out for getting good water for growing populations. In many regions that just is not a sustainable approach.
So the problem exists? I agree.
Fortunately, we know how to use surface water, but it will require some investment in water transportation and treatment infrastructure.
So we do have a problem? I agree.
BTW, glaciers on inhabited continents are irrelevant to the very real problem of over pumping aquifers.
I disagree but I am heartened by you admission that we do have a problem with water shortages. I agree.
Just ran across this little post which quotes Stephen Hawking
In a recent interview, Stephen Hawking said the following (source);
“An asteroid collision would be something against which we have no defense. But the last asteroid collision was 70 million years ago, and killed the dinosaurs.
A more immediate danger is runaway climate change. A rise in ocean temperature would melt the ice caps, and cause the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”
Hawking may not be an expert in climatology, but he does know something about physics.
Maybe Hawking does know something about climatology.
Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought
Rising temperatures make carbon dioxide leak from the oceans for two main reasons. First, melting sea ice increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters. Second, “when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out," says van Ommen.
DougC - 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
It's all a conspiracy and I am on the dark payroll and the illuminati and trilateral commission and Jewish bankers and somebody call Glen Beck and Info Wars cause you have just outed another dirty Hasbra of the corporate murder for greed meisters.
Or just outrageously susceptible to brainwashing.
And too lazy to exercise critical thinking skills.
You're a drone is what you are. :cheese:
After careful consideration I have changed my mind. Stardust is right. Glaciers are just ice sheets covering land we could put to better use. I’m taking it further, though. Hear me out.
Salt water is toxic to humans and our crops, so it is logically obvious that getting rid of the world’s oceans will uncover much-needed crop lands. There are other benefits too. No more shark attacks. No more people drowning in undertows. No airplanes mysteriously lost at sea. New tourist areas open for business. Who wouldn’t want to take a train ride to the bottom of the Marianas Trench? And just think of how many people we can feed with the easily caught fish when we boils off the oceans.
I’m sure our collective hive mind can think of many other benefits of losing the Earth’s oceans.
After careful consideration I have changed my mind. Stardust is right. Glaciers are just ice sheets covering land we could put to better use. I'm taking it further, though. Hear me out.
Salt water is toxic to humans and our crops, so it is logically obvious that getting rid of the world's oceans will uncover much-needed crop lands. There are other benefits too. No more shark attacks. No more people drowning in undertows. No airplanes mysteriously lost at sea. New tourist areas open for business. Who wouldn't want to take a train ride to the bottom of the Marianas Trench? And just think of how many people we can feed with the easily caught fish when we boils off the oceans.
I'm sure our collective hive mind can think of many other benefits of losing the Earth's oceans.
Genius, the tourist possibilities alone should be immense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVJNLSwCGHc&list=PL0CCB07C980A015CB ;-P Smileys
No, but articles quoting them frequently are, as is the one that was linked to me above. The headline is histrionics and unsupported by the actual quotes from NASA personnel in the article.
That goes both ways, BTW. There is some preliminary evidence that ice is increasing in Antarctica. Researchers are quick to point out that this new data is within the margin of error, and it could be due to increased precipitation at warmer temperatures, and is not an indication that global warming and melting of ice is not occurring.
Despite these qualifiers climate change deniers have engaged in some hysterics of their own on this subject.
Yes, NASA is known for its nonsense that should be taken with some healthy skepticism.
NASA did not write the headline and their quoted information does not support it.
I am heartened by you admission that we do have a problem with water shortages
I never said otherwise. Dropping water tables due to over pumping is a measurable fact in many places.
Overall there is vastly more precipitation than we need for human consumption. But getting it where we want it when we want requires work.
Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees."
Sounds like Hawking was having a bad day. No, it has been much warmer in the past, CO2 was much higher, we did not have glaciers, and life did just fine. We did not rise above the boiling point of water. That is ridiculous.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
DarronS - Salt water is toxic to humans and our crops, so it is logically obvious that getting rid of the world’s oceans will uncover much-needed crop lands
Indeed, building projects are sometimes done by piling material out into the ocean, which is known as reclaimed land.
I’m sure our collective hive mind can think of many other benefits of losing the Earth’s oceans
You raise some valid advantages but I do have a few questions. Where do you plan to put all that water? Won't the oceans fill up again from rain? If not, what will drive the water cycle? If there is no water cycle how will we get our water? Where will I get my Atlantic salmon and cod from?
DougC - Salt water is toxic to humans and our crops, so it is logically obvious that getting rid of the world’s oceans will uncover much-needed crop lands
Indeed, building projects are sometimes done by piling material out into the ocean, which is known as reclaimed land.
Yes, a big portion of of Holland is reclaimed from the North Sea. We build big dams and closed the area, then we pumped out the salt water and the rivers flowing into the new basin slowly desalinated the soil and it is now grassland (below sea level). I believe the project started in 1920 and took some 40 years and is ongoing..
I’m sure our collective hive mind can think of many other benefits of losing the Earth’s oceans
You raise some valid advantages but I do have a few questions. Where do you plan to put all that water? Won't the oceans fill up again from rain? If not, what will drive the water cycle? If there is no water cycle how will we get our water? Where will I get my Atlantic salmon and cod from?
Now you are asking the right questions. And we are beginning to get some answers. Unfortunately those answers are not encouraging.
DougC - climate change denial of the kind being shown by this poster
Lie, I never denied climate change.
Like hell you haven't, climate change denial is denial it's happening or denial that humans are responsible or that it's serious.
You've been playing sadistic games over terms while millions of people are already being deeply affected by this and hundreds of thousands die each year.
You're the definition of a climate change denier as your posts are all about doubt on the matter.
DougC - climate change denial of the kind being shown by this poster
Lie, I never denied climate change.
Like hell you haven't, climate change denial is denial it's happening or denial that humans are responsible or that it's serious.
You've been playing sadistic games over terms while millions of people are already being deeply affected by this and hundreds of thousands die each year.
You're the definition of a climate change denier as your posts are all about doubt on the matter.Yup ain't it the truth.
But dusty is so trapped within his hermetically sealed echo-chamber, he's as oblivious to that as he is to our planet's complex processes.
DougC - Like hell you haven’t, climate change denial is denial it’s happening or denial that humans are responsible or that it’s serious.
It is happening.
Humans are at least largely responsible.
Certain aspects are very serious, others have virtually no impact, some are beneficial.
You’ve been playing sadistic games over terms
I insist on speaking accurately. Complexity does not overwhelm me such that I feel compelled to oversimplify. If you find that painful I am not happy about it but that is your problem.
You’re the definition of a climate change denier as your posts are all about doubt on the matter.
So you equate denial and skepticism. Sorry, I do not simply accept the party line.
I am a skeptic, of the left, the right, the religious, the scientific and on and on and on.
My home state is Missoura (JK, but you get my drift)
CC - You’re the definition of a climate change denier as your posts are all about doubt on the matter.
Yup ain’t it the truth.
You are also confused about denial as opposed to skepticism.
Glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water supplies.
That was my original claim that set you off on these threads, and that remains my claim because every link you have sent me on the subject confirms that assertion or fails to discredit it or is simply irrelevant, and every piece of research I have done on the subject confirms that assertion.
Somehow you have expanded my position to a general denial of all climate change effects, which is extremely poor reasoning on your part.
DougC - Like hell you haven’t, climate change denial is denial it’s happening or denial that humans are responsible or that it’s serious.
It is happening.
Humans are at least largely responsible.
Certain aspects are very serious, others have virtually no impact, some are beneficial.
You’ve been playing sadistic games over terms
I insist on speaking accurately. Complexity does not overwhelm me such that I feel compelled to oversimplify. If you find that painful I am not happy about it but that is your problem.
You’re the definition of a climate change denier as your posts are all about doubt on the matter.
So you equate denial and skepticism. Sorry, I do not simply accept the party line.
I am a skeptic, of the left, the right, the religious, the scientific and on and on and on.
My home state is Missoura (JK, but you get my drift)
You insist on being an utter prick trying to deny things that are already killing people on a vast level and are making all our lives more precarious.
Like playing games about whether or not the American infrastructure is crumbling when bridges are failing and professionals across the spectrum are sounding alarms. You've also gone to a great deal of effort to make it seem like the rapidly disappearing glaciers are not important. I've lived in cities of a million or more people that are highly dependent on glacier runoff in dry seasons for water, there are millions of people worldwide who are in the same boat. But you play sick games with semantics and focus down to meaningless details with the end result of derailing a very important discussion that is already a matter of life and death. And you often do it in abusive terms.
I don’t know whether to characterize you as a frightened child, paranoid delusional, or a person panicked into acceptance of authoritarian nightmare political imprisonments.
You want to imprison people for their opinionated speech. Are you an American citizen? If so, I must say, not much of one. No, not in this greatest of all nations, I won’t have it, and nor will the majority of my fellow Americans. So you can take your dreams of rescinding our great 1st amendment and put is where the sun don’t shine.
“our species itself may go extinct."
What the fuck are you even going into hysterics about? We are the most adaptable large species in the entire history of life on Earth. The planet is on course to warm a few degrees and the sea is likely to rise a couple hundred feet. How does that even remotely suggest all human beings will perish?
Get a grip on your histrionics. You might die of a self inflicted heat failure but our species will not end because temperatures rise a few degrees and the sea rises a couple hundred feet. Get a grip man, you are wailing like a stupid little bitch.
First off, I'm not a frightened child, I'm in my mid 50s. Second the information I'm basing my concerns on are coming from people like James Hansen who is the protege of James Van Allen who was one of the founders of planetary science and is also a contemporary of Carl Sagan, they both did their doctoral thesis on why Venus was so hot. To say that James Hansen knows his stuff on human forced climate change is an understatement, and he's not talking about it in casual terms. Which has made him a target of anti-science contrarians just like you.
I also understand that we are already in the opening stages of a human caused mass extinction and I don't need some psychopathic contrarian to tell me to shut the hell up when not only is human created climate change highly destructive, but it's in combination with industrial fishing, industrial farming, industrial forestry, urbanization and more that is all calling into question just how much longer there will be anything approaching a coherent biosphere that whether you understand it or not all of us humans are dependent on for our survival.
So it's not histrionics, it's an understanding of the crossroads we're all standing on and a determination that the kind of people who did everything they could to keep killing people with tobacco don't do the same with fossil fuels.
I have no idea of what your motivation is to be a complete merchant of doubt, but I and some others here are going to keep kicking you ass with facts until you fade off like the offensive vapourous pollutant you and your fossil fuel generated CO2 truly are.
This is why I asked earlier if stardusty had thought this through fully, instead of focusing on one indicator which he believes is not relevant to the much greater problem of global climate functions and the adaption of species to these functions.
Take sickle cell anemia, which is considered a serious disease in moderately cool climates, but actually is an evolved defense against malaria in the tropics where mosquitos thrive.
Now visualize the moderate zones changing to tropical zones and an increase of malaria carrying mosquitos moving farther north, infecting people who do NOT have sickle cell anemia.
stardusty psyche is thinking this issue through very well and is being very successful. The problem for most of the rest of us is that his success is coming at the expense of us talking about the real issues. The entire discussion ends up being tied up in things like whether or not glaciers are an important source of water and are they important to the ecology. Or whether or not America’s infrastructure is crumbling. This entire thread is turned into “he said, she said”, as long as the deniers do this they win as the whole point is to delay any real discussions and policies based on them.
I look at the really hostile response I got from him earlier right after I made comments in this] thread that professional climate change deniers should be sued or even jailed. He obviously took that personally and came back at me hard the next opportunity he had. To me that speaks to someone who feels personally threatened, like a professional denier who will likely at some point face some sort of consequences for the lies they’re telling which are already killing many people.
There’s no question in my mind that this is a professional contrarian probably working for one of the industry created and funded “think” tanks. There’s been an information war going on for decades, this is just another front.
In the end it simply doesn’t matter what information you present to people like this, their whole agenda is to twist the evidence as has been documented here extensively.