DougC - as water security significantly decreases as the effects of climate change and rapid depletion of water resources continue
"rapid depletion"? Where do you suppose all our water is going? Space?
Warmer temperatures means more evaporation which means more precipitation which means more water for human use and an increase in biomass.
Why would warmer temperatures cause a reduction in global life when so much of our planet is locked in the grip of deadly ice or temperatures so low that the landscape is nearly barren?
Tropical jungles are very hot, very wet, and teaming with dense life.
All of which is transitory and highly problematic
Snow falls, it stays for a while in spring, it melts, summer rains come, then the snow falls, etc. etc. etc. Yes, everything is transitory, life is like that, learn to deal.
people who are far more focused on denying reality
Reality is multifaceted. Running around shouting that the sky is falling does not make you a realist.
I have made it very clear that my position on Climate Change and Global Warming is to support and follow the IPCC. You guys that think you are so much smarter than the scientists working with the IPCC. You are doing nothing more that causing harm to the world and making their jobs harder.
No, you've left a very clear pattern of climate change denial that is completely at odds with the IPCC.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18593/
You're a climate change denier, probably some jerk at the Marshall, Heartland or Cato institute who gets paid to lie about the very serious risk we all face from continued fossil fuel use.
And if not that, he's certainly got their script in hand.
At the very least.
DougC - Which is effectively a bunch of BS handwaving, let’s look at the actual data.
Your link does zero to change the fact that posters here are committing a fallacy of equivocation when using the word "source"
Most of the available fresh water on the planet is in fact stored in glaciers, and ice sheets almost 70%
Rigggght, please cite how water in Antarctica and Greenland is "available". There is a little thing called the ocean that kind of gets in the way.
We lose that and already critical water security becomes a growing disaster.
So the shortsighted tunnel vision you attribute to others is in fact the result of your own ignorance…
That's hilarious from a guy who thinks Antarctic ice is "available" fresh water.
DarronS - No dumbass. I’m talking about the drought Texas experienced from 2009-2013. Hurricane Sandy. Ethiopia. Flooding in Texas last year. The extreme weather events that are increasing worldwide.
Yet we still have plants and water in Texas, hurricane ally, and Ethiopia.
You sound like the Plain Truth magazine. Chasing a few storms and floods droughts and predicting the end is nigh. Storms and floods and droughts are a part of nature, always have been.
Why would warmer temperatures lead to less precipitation?
Obviously, as sea levels rise coastal areas will be flooded. It is also obvious that as temperatures rise previously uninhabitable lands will be opened up to agriculture.
Change happens, that's life.
DougC - as water security significantly decreases as the effects of climate change and rapid depletion of water resources continue
"rapid depletion"? Where do you suppose all our water is going? Space?
Into the oceans as it's pumped out of the ground to be used for industrial, agricultural and domestic needs far faster than the aquifers are being replenished.
Warmer temperatures means more evaporation which means more precipitation which means more water for human use and an increase in biomass.
Using the kind of simplistic thinking you obviously apply it does. A warmer global average temperature results in a very complex transition of the entire system which can result in mega droughts as DarronS states above. It also causes in more flash flooding which doesn't result in precipitation that replenishes the water table as most of it quickly runs off into rivers and back into the oceans and isn't usable.
Why would warmer temperatures cause a reduction in global life when so much of our planet is locked in the grip of deadly ice or temperatures so low that the landscape is nearly barren?
Because all the species currently on the planet are evolved to live under the current conditions. And if the habitats they are part of move too quickly pole-wards due to climate change or simply disappear then millions of species are going to go extinct. Many already are, research shows that on average the isotherms have been moving pole-wards at about three times faster than their associated biotas.
And it's not a simple process as deniers like you try and make it seem, it take places in chaotic changes that result in extreme weather events that can wipe out huge amounts of life like in extreme drought conditions.
Tropical jungles are very hot, very wet, and teaming with dense life.
So?
Tropical deserts are very hot, dry and have little life. With climate change many places that currently are tropical forest may very well turn into desert.
http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml
All of which is transitory and highly problematic
Snow falls, it stays for a while in spring, it melts, summer rains come, then the snow falls, etc. etc. etc. Yes, everything is transitory, life is like that, learn to deal.
It's a highly variable product of the local climate which is currently undergoing fundamental change right now, there is little snow pack and rain in areas that are experiencing drought. And due to climate change driven mostly by burning fossil fuels, when it does rain it's often in such amounts to cause flash flooding where most of the water runs off back into the oceans before it can be stored in long term aquifers. It's certainly not going to rebuild the glaciers which are rapidly melting.
Reality is multifaceted. Running around shouting that the sky is falling does not make you a realist.
Your posts on this don't reflect that complexity, they're simplistic to the point of being meaningless.
And the people who are the most concerned about what's happening are those who have spent their lives understanding the issue. Like James Hansen who is the protege of James Van Allen who played a central role in creating the field of planetary study, Hansen has dedicated his career of decades to understanding the role things like carbon dioxide take in moderating a global climate. And he's just one of thousands working in this field who are very concerned about what's being done.
You on the other hand are parroting the intellectual fraud created by the professional liars in the climate change denial movement who come directly from the campaign to deny the reality of health risk from tobacco products.
People should be very concerned about the risks of using any tobacco products and we should all be very concerned about the fundamental risks associated with continuing to burn billions of tons of fossil fuel a year which adds billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
And we should certainly stop listening to the imbeciles who think selling oil, coal and gas is more important than having a planet we can actually live on.
DarronS - No dumbass. I’m talking about the drought Texas experienced from 2009-2013. Hurricane Sandy. Ethiopia. Flooding in Texas last year. The extreme weather events that are increasing worldwide.
Yet we still have plants and water in Texas, hurricane ally, and Ethiopia.
You sound like the Plain Truth magazine. Chasing a few storms and floods droughts and predicting the end is nigh. Storms and floods and droughts are a part of nature, always have been.
Why would warmer temperatures lead to less precipitation?
Obviously, as sea levels rise coastal areas will be flooded. It is also obvious that as temperatures rise previously uninhabitable lands will be opened up to agriculture.
Change happens, that's life.
No, he sounds like someone who has studied the science...something you obviously haven't.
Here's a place you might want to spend more than a few hours on, you're lack of understanding on this issue is profound.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
DougC - research shows that on average the isotherms have been moving pole-wards at about three times faster than their associated biotas.
Well good then, that should make it easier to plant whatever we want on land newly opened by global warming.
It also causes in more flash flooding which doesn’t result in precipitation that replenishes the water table as most of it quickly runs off into rivers and back into the oceans and isn’t usable.
Right, I see, so we will get too much rain too fast, or not enough. Either the rain will not fall at all, or it will all run away before we can use it because we do not have any dams or reservoirs to capture runoff and heavy rains on the plains do not soak in and the water all moves a couple thousand miles to the ocean right away before anybody can use it.
Water sure is a lot more slippery stuff than I realized, thanks for enlightening me.
Your posts on this don’t reflect that complexity, they’re simplistic to the point of being meaningless.
That's hilarious coming from a guy who seems to equate change with only disaster.
Deserts will only increase, rain will run away before it can be used even though there is more of it, and the vast lands that will be opened up will somehow be no good because life is too slow to move in.
Gosh, please do forgive me for not wringing my hands in anguish over this horrid future we are sure to face.
DougC - Which is effectively a bunch of BS handwaving, let’s look at the actual data.
Your link does zero to change the fact that posters here are committing a fallacy of equivocation when using the word "source"
Most of the available fresh water on the planet is in fact stored in glaciers, and ice sheets almost 70%
Rigggght, please cite how water in Antarctica and Greenland is "available". There is a little thing called the ocean that kind of gets in the way.
You just answered your own question. As the globe dramatically warms due to our activities all the fresh water currently stored in ice will end up in the oceans...which you apparently are unaware aren't fresh water. It far simpler to melt ice than to desalinate ocean water.
That's hilarious from a guy who thinks Antarctic ice is "available" fresh water.
Which pretty much sums up the level of understanding you and other deniers show on this issue. You either think that selling oil, coal and gas Trumps everything including the survival of millions of species which likely includes our own. Or are unable to grasp what really happening, people who do don't tend to find it funny in the slightest.
How about spending some time learning the actual science, your ignorance based arguments add absolutely nothing to the discussion...which is probably your whole point.
We get that you don't care and likely never will...
DougC - research shows that on average the isotherms have been moving pole-wards at about three times faster than their associated biotas.
Well good then, that should make it easier to plant whatever we want on land newly opened by global warming.
It also causes in more flash flooding which doesn’t result in precipitation that replenishes the water table as most of it quickly runs off into rivers and back into the oceans and isn’t usable.
Right, I see, so we will get too much rain too fast, or not enough. Either the rain will not fall at all, or it will all run away before we can use it because we do not have any dams or reservoirs to capture runoff and heavy rains on the plains do not soak in and the water all moves a couple thousand miles to the ocean right away before anybody can use it.
Water sure is a lot more slippery stuff than I realized, thanks for enlightening me.
Your posts on this don’t reflect that complexity, they’re simplistic to the point of being meaningless.
That's hilarious coming from a guy who seems to equate change with only disaster.
Deserts will only increase, rain will run away before it can be used even though there is more of it, and the vast lands that will be opened up will somehow be no good because life is too slow to move in.
Gosh, please do forgive me for not wringing my hands in anguish over this horrid future we are sure to face.
Stupidity either feigned or not is still stupidity, I've given you a link to find all the answers to your idiotic comments.
DougC - No, he sounds like someone who has studied the science…something you obviously haven’t.
Here’s a place you might want to spend more than a few hours on, you’re lack of understanding on this issue is profound.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
"There will be some positive results of this continued warming. For example, an open Northwest Passage, enhanced growth for some plants and improved agriculture at high latitudes "
So, your site agrees with me that global warming will improve agriculture at high latitudes.
But it is kind of down hill from there. Your site lists no benefits for melting glaciers, so that site obviously is highly biased.
Melting glaciers will open up new land for life. Life is virtually absent under, in, or on top of a glacier. When the glacier is gone life inevitably moves in.
So, if warming leads to greater evaporation, and yet there is only more drought and desertification, then where is all that water going to go? Oh, that's right, great big huge storms that will cause the water to rush out to sea before we can nab it and oh my the sky is indeed falling.
So thanks for the link that confirms some of the things I have been saying all along but it is still just a somewhat toned down scare site
DougC - You just answered your own question. As the globe dramatically warms due to our activities all the fresh water currently stored in ice will end up in the oceans…which you apparently are unaware aren’t fresh water. It far simpler to melt ice than to desalinate ocean water.
That's funny, are you practicing for a comedy routine? Antarctic ice is "available" fresh water because it can be melted.
Sure, like we are melting Antarctic ice all the time for human consumption...hoky doky then.
Which pretty much sums up the level of understanding you and other deniers show on this issue. You either think that selling oil, coal and gas Trumps everything including the survival of millions of species which likely includes our own. Or are unable to grasp what really happening, people who do don’t tend to find it funny in the slightest.
How about spending some time learning the actual science, your ignorance based arguments add absolutely nothing to the discussion…which is probably your whole point.
We get that you don’t care and likely never will…
And all of that blather somehow makes Antarctic ice "available"?
Ok, here is some science for you. The "source" of a river in terms of its headwaters is typically a lake or a spring but for a small percentage of rivers the headwaters are a glacier. However, the bulk of the flow of a river comes not from its "source" in terms of its headwaters, but from the precipitation across its whole drainage basin.
So the "source" of the water in terms of where the bulk of water mass flow comes from is precipitation over the river's drainage basin, not outflow from its headwaters "source".
To conveniently interchange these 2 meanings for "source" is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.
DougC - You just answered your own question. As the globe dramatically warms due to our activities all the fresh water currently stored in ice will end up in the oceans…which you apparently are unaware aren’t fresh water. It far simpler to melt ice than to desalinate ocean water.
That's funny, are you practicing for a comedy routine? Antarctic ice is "available" fresh water because it can be melted.
Sure, like we are melting Antarctic ice all the time for human consumption...hoky doky then.
Which pretty much sums up the level of understanding you and other deniers show on this issue. You either think that selling oil, coal and gas Trumps everything including the survival of millions of species which likely includes our own. Or are unable to grasp what really happening, people who do don’t tend to find it funny in the slightest.
How about spending some time learning the actual science, your ignorance based arguments add absolutely nothing to the discussion…which is probably your whole point.
We get that you don’t care and likely never will…
And all of that blather somehow makes Antarctic ice "available"?
Ok, here is some science for you. The "source" of a river in terms of its headwaters is typically a lake or a spring but for a small percentage of rivers the headwaters are a glacier. However, the bulk of the flow of a river comes not from its "source" in terms of its headwaters, but from the precipitation across its whole drainage basin.
So the "source" of the water in terms of where the bulk of water mass flow comes from is precipitation over the river's drainage basin, not outflow from its headwaters "source".
To conveniently interchange these 2 meanings for "source" is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.
Sorry, go learn the science and come back and ask relevant questions, I'm done with your idiocy on this topic.
DougC - You just answered your own question. As the globe dramatically warms due to our activities all the fresh water currently stored in ice will end up in the oceans…which you apparently are unaware aren’t fresh water. It far simpler to melt ice than to desalinate ocean water.
That's funny, are you practicing for a comedy routine? Antarctic ice is "available" fresh water because it can be melted.
Sure, like we are melting Antarctic ice all the time for human consumption...hoky doky then.
Which pretty much sums up the level of understanding you and other deniers show on this issue. You either think that selling oil, coal and gas Trumps everything including the survival of millions of species which likely includes our own. Or are unable to grasp what really happening, people who do don’t tend to find it funny in the slightest.
How about spending some time learning the actual science, your ignorance based arguments add absolutely nothing to the discussion…which is probably your whole point.
We get that you don’t care and likely never will…
And all of that blather somehow makes Antarctic ice "available"?
Ok, here is some science for you. The "source" of a river in terms of its headwaters is typically a lake or a spring but for a small percentage of rivers the headwaters are a glacier. However, the bulk of the flow of a river comes not from its "source" in terms of its headwaters, but from the precipitation across its whole drainage basin.
So the "source" of the water in terms of where the bulk of water mass flow comes from is precipitation over the river's drainage basin, not outflow from its headwaters "source".
To conveniently interchange these 2 meanings for "source" is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.
Sorry, go learn the science and come back and ask relevant questions, I'm done with your idiocy on this topic.
Me too. In fact, I'm done with your idiocy on every topic. I have no time for people who revel in deliberate ignorance.
Me too. In fact, I'm done with your idiocy on every topic. I have no time for people who revel in deliberate ignorance.
I just picture some idiot chain smoking and saying, "I'm going to blow my tobacco smoke in your face whether you like it or not."
My response is, "Like hell you will."
DougC - Sorry, go learn the science and come back and ask relevant questions, I’m done with your idiocy on this topic.
Translation, you cannot state how Antarctic ice is "available" fresh water, nor can you counter my explanation for the fallacy of equivocation in the use of the word "source" so you have lowered yourself to vacuous name calling.
Oh, but by all means, please do educate me on the science of Antarctic ice as freshwater "available" for human consumption. In truth, getting fresh water from arctic or antarctic ice is an old idea that turns out to be impractical, which is why the Saudis and the State of California build desalinization plants instead of towing icebergs to the gulf or the coast of California.
Including Antarctic and Greenland and polar ice as water storage for human consumption is at best erroneous and at worst deceitful, I called you out on it, you failed, now you do not have the integrity to own up to your error.
DougC - Sorry, go learn the science and come back and ask relevant questions, I’m done with your idiocy on this topic.
Translation, you cannot state how Antarctic ice is "available" fresh water, nor can you counter my explanation for the fallacy of equivocation in the use of the word "source" so you have lowered yourself to vacuous name calling.
Oh, but by all means, please do educate me on the science of Antarctic ice as freshwater "available" for human consumption. In truth, getting fresh water from arctic or antarctic ice is an old idea that turns out to be impractical, which is why the Saudis and the State of California build desalinization plants instead of towing icebergs to the gulf or the coast of California.
Including Antarctic and Greenland and polar ice as water storage for human consumption is at best erroneous and at worst deceitful, I called you out on it, you failed, now you do not have the integrity to own up to your error.
No, I'm not interested in playing idiotic semantic games that are intended to avoid addressing the real issue here which is human forced global warming and how it relates to the disappearing cryosphere.
If you'd like to discuss that based on the science then by all means let's do that.
But considering you've already more than communicated your extreme political ideology in other threads then I have no interest at all in going around in meaningless little circles trying to pin down a constantly moving and changing target.
It's not hard to identify your intent here and it's not to engage in honest discussion, we've already seen evidence of that with your basic denial of infrastructure conditions in the US.
Endlessly debating the meaning of meaning is a great way to continue the campaign of denial.
We have much better things to discuss than that.
As I doubt you have any serious intention to discuss topics based on the best evidence, I'm just going to ignore your posts for the empty content they really are.
DougC - No, I’m not interested in playing idiotic semantic games that are intended to avoid addressing the real issue here which is human forced global warming and how it relates to the disappearing cryosphere.
Translation, I am correct about the misuse of the term "source". Glaciers are not the primary "source" of the mass flow of water of a river even if they are the "source" in terms of the headwaters.
For example the Mekong river, since you seem to be so worried about the loss of glaciers in the Himalayas. This page lists many features and problems facing this river, but not even a mention of glaciers. Why? They are almost insignificant to the mass flow of the river, as you can see by looking at the map of the huge drainage basin.
http://www.greatriverspartnership.org/en-us/asiapacific/mekong/pages/default.aspx
There are also dams on the river, so even if the glacier disappears and there is variability in flow the dams will serve to mitigate that variability.
Another fun fact about Southeast Asia, it rains in summer. That rain flows into the river. Glaciers don't matter for human water consumption in the Mekong.
your basic denial of infrastructure conditions in the US
Oh here we go again, the devastation that is the epidemic of potholes on the interstate highway system
It’s not hard to identify your intent here
Indeed, I intend to oppose bad ideas, alarmism, and panic driven nonsense wherever I encounter it.
Glaciers are not even remotely essential to human water consumption needs.
Overall global warming is almost certain to raise sea levels, but at the moment we are seeing some interesting effects in Antarctica with observations of increases in both land ice and sea ice. The increase in land ice could be due to increases in precipitation, but it is too early to tell if this is a major long term effect or just a blip within the margin of error.
Global warming will bring a mix of benefits and problems. Obviously, flooded coastal cities and loss of coastal lands is a problem. Gains made by exposure of land formerly locked in a lifeless state by the deadly ice and cold will be benefits. We could also see increases in biomass and oxygen output. Changing weather patterns could bring more precipitation to some areas and less to other areas. Weather models just are not accurate enough to predict such things in any great detail with any great reliability, as they failed to predict the increases in sea and land ice being observed in Antarctica right now.
The loss of glaciers on the inhabited continents is about the least of all concerns for human populations and will actually open up land for life to enter.
DougC - No, I’m not interested in playing idiotic semantic games that are intended to avoid addressing the real issue here which is human forced global warming and how it relates to the disappearing cryosphere.
Translation, I am correct about the misuse of the term "source". Glaciers are not the primary "source" of the mass flow of water of a river even if they are the "source" in terms of the headwaters.
For example the Mekong river, since you seem to be so worried about the loss of glaciers in the Himalayas. This page lists many features and problems facing this river, but not even a mention of glaciers. Why? They are almost insignificant to the mass flow of the river, as you can see by looking at the map of the huge drainage basin.
http://www.greatriverspartnership.org/en-us/asiapacific/mekong/pages/default.aspx
There are also dams on the river, so even if the glacier disappears and there is variability in flow the dams will serve to mitigate that variability.
Another fun fact about Southeast Asia, it rains in summer. That rain flows into the river. Glaciers don't matter for human water consumption in the Mekong.
your basic denial of infrastructure conditions in the US
Oh here we go again, the devastation that is the epidemic of potholes on the interstate highway system
It’s not hard to identify your intent here
Indeed, I intend to oppose bad ideas, alarmism, and panic driven nonsense wherever I encounter it.
Glaciers are not even remotely essential to human water consumption needs.
Overall global warming is almost certain to raise sea levels, but at the moment we are seeing some interesting effects in Antarctica with observations of increases in both land ice and sea ice. The increase in land ice could be due to increases in precipitation, but it is too early to tell if this is a major long term effect or just a blip within the margin of error.
Global warming will bring a mix of benefits and problems. Obviously, flooded coastal cities and loss of coastal lands is a problem. Gains made by exposure of land formerly locked in a lifeless state by the deadly ice and cold will be benefits. We could also see increases in biomass and oxygen output. Changing weather patterns could bring more precipitation to some areas and less to other areas. Weather models just are not accurate enough to predict such things in any great detail with any great reliability, as they failed to predict the increases in sea and land ice being observed in Antarctica right now.
The loss of glaciers on the inhabited continents is about the least of all concerns for human populations and will actually open up land for life to enter.
No, I'm saying there's no doubt that climate change denial exists and why it exists, the only variable is how someone engages in it.
So you're basically lying in the most cynical disinformation campaign in history....so who cares what you post. It's all a psychopathic game with the goal of providing short term benefit to an elite few while destroying any real future for everybody.
It's why I refer to what you're doing as idiotic, it makes no sense beyond the single-minded pursuit of wealth and power for people who already have too much. Which will end in their or their descendants destruction as well.
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18686/
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
http://www.desmogblog.com/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
So when you see someone consistently attacking the science behind global warming, it's not because they're privy to some information that none of the rest of us have. It's because they couldn't care less about the welfare of anyone else.
Whenever you see a global warming denier at work just insert: "I'm a psychopath and I mean you the maximum amount of harm possible."
It's far more accurate than the toxic sludge they try to peddle.