How about the article you just posted (humans the new dinosaurs) that states seventy five million new babies a year? Do you even read your own sources?You might want to reserve that link for the argument population growth is being addressed quite nicely, assuming anyone actually buys the figures, which I don’t.Articles to back your claim? I don't see any. Cap't Jack
We aren't really running out of water, there is just an ever ncreasing demand for it. The amount of water in a closed system remains the same. There is the same amount of water on the earth and its atmosphere as there ever has been since the earth was formed in its present state. LoisExactly, and the amount of it we need is a miniscule fraction of total reserves. Not to mention we don't burn it like fuel and then it's gone, instead it just keeps getting recycled.
We aren't really running out of water, there is just an ever ncreasing demand for it. The amount of water in a closed system remains the same. There is the same amount of water on the earth and its atmosphere as there ever has been since the earth was formed in its present state. Lois"WE" who's the we? the planet? individual continents? humanity?
We aren't really running out of water, there is just an ever ncreasing demand for it. The amount of water in a closed system remains the same. There is the same amount of water on the earth and its atmosphere as there ever has been since the earth was formed in its present state. LoisExactly, and the amount of it we need is a miniscule fraction of total reserves. Hmmm, I can think of many knowledgeable people who disagree. You're once again confusing water, with clean usable sweet water.
By Conor Shine (contact)  Published Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013 SNWA general manager casts wary but hopeful eye on Lake Mead http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/19/snwa-general-manager-casts-wary-hopeful-eye-lake-m/ Sun coverage Sun topic: For Want of Water ... In August, the Bureau of Reclamation announced a record-low discharge of water downstream from the Lake Powell reservoir. The 10 percent cut in water supply is expected to send surface levels at Lake Mead plunging by 21 feet over the next year, potentially threatening one of the two intakes currently providing water to valley residents and businesses. The oft-delayed third intake straw could avert the potential crisis, but the $817 million project likely won’t be finished until early 2015, leaving a narrow window and no room for delays before the dropping lake levels knock the first intake offline. …
Well darrons are you stating that increases in CO2 levels do not increase plant growth ?
Capt jack- I am an optimist too. Those entrepreneurs will get right on it and they will solve many problems. Not so much the big money men they represent the status quo usually. Fossil fuels are there to be gobbled up. If you leave them in the ground they will cause an environmental disaster. Fort McMurray Alberta is just such a moon scape…the petro saviours have arrived just in time to remove that horrible stuff . Once it is gone then the natives can get to work and clean up their land. Better living through chemistry…
As for extra property, you're just pulling that out of your ass. Sea level rise will force hundreds of millions of people to move inland. This is the type of thinking that prevents us from tackling the problems we face.Damn, I forgot to mention that. psik
Well darrons are you stating that increases in CO2 levels do not increase plant growth ?If you can concentrate it enough to measure the change in plant growth like in a green house. But what concentrations do they use for those experiments? 800 ppm or more?
For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm ROFLMAO We are just starting to go over 400 ppm in the atmosphere right now. It was 320 back in 1965. Maybe we can get it to 500 by 2050. Won't that be fun. :lol: psik
We aren't really running out of water, there is just an ever ncreasing demand for it. The amount of water in a closed system remains the same. There is the same amount of water on the earth and its atmosphere as there ever has been since the earth was formed in its present state. Lois"WE" who's the we? the planet? individual continents? humanity? You'll have to ask Thevillageatheist, the OP. I assumed he meant everyone on earth. Does it matter?
We aren't really running out of water, there is just an ever ncreasing demand for it. The amount of water in a closed system remains the same. There is the same amount of water on the earth and its atmosphere as there ever has been since the earth was formed in its present state. LoisExactly, and the amount of it we need is a miniscule fraction of total reserves. Not to mention we don't burn it like fuel and then it's gone, instead it just keeps getting recycled. It's really a distribution problem. But more and more humans using a limited resource is also a problem. Unless we can figure out how to access those reserves, humans will feel the effect of not enough water for their needs, many dying in the process. Lois
You’ll have to ask Thevillageatheist, the OP. I assumed he meant everyone on earth.That's exactly what I meant Lois. Everyone is affected by these conditions to some degree. Even those of us with a seemingly endless supply of water are affected by negligent polluters who find ways to wiggle out of EPA regulations, or states like WVa. That refuse to comply. Now their Governor is being plagued by every law firm in the State seeking a settlement with 300,000 potential clients. This could have been prevented, and now another spill has been found. Of course it's being spun as another Obama "war on coal" liberal socialist Communist attack on an American institution. Cap't Jack
Does it matter?Well yea. It's the difference between a cartoon discussion and a constructive rational discussion. Distribution, storage and water treatment facilities (and dealing with those wastes) are not trivial aspects of this problem/challenge. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ And no one has brought up the scary issue of the water that's stored in solid form. That stuff is disappearing scary fast, and just because there's a whole bunch of it on Antarctica, that's not going to help the folks who are dependent on the snow packs in the Sierra's or the Andes' or the Himalayas.
Rapidly melting glaciers give Utah expert new view on climate change By John Hollenhorst http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27440688 Say what you will about the causes of climate change; according to Burgess, the meltdown is for real in Alaska. It's rapid and it's getting faster. Burgess recently finished his Ph.D. in geography at the University of Utah, specializing in glaciology. He has also studied glaciers in Greenland; and earlier this year he moved to Alaska to work for the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "Each year Alaska is losing about 50 cubic kilometers of ice," Burgess said, as he paddled a kayak toward the shrinking Portage Glacier near Anchorage in a recent trip with KSL News. (http://glaciers.gi.alaska.edu/people/burgess)
Climate change: Melting glaciers bring energy uncertainty Javaid Laghari 30 October 2013 Corrected: 15 November 2013 Countries should work together to understand how the Himalayan thaw will affect hydroelectric energy, says Javaid R. Laghari. http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-melting-glaciers-bring-energy-uncertainty-1.14031 Ice cover is decreasing in this region, as for most glaciers in the world, as a result of global warming. Between 2003 and 2009, Himalayan glaciers lost an estimated 174 gigatonnes of water1, and contributed to catastrophic floods of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. Pollution is accelerating the melt. An 'Asian brown cloud', formed from the 2 million tonnes of soot and dark particles released into the atmosphere every year, mostly from India and China, warms the air and surface ice2. Seasonal meltwater serves as the main source of power for an increasing number of hydroelectric dams on the rivers served by the glaciers. But hydropower faces a difficult future in south Asia because of climatic, environmental and politico-economic factors.
Andes’ Tropical Glaciers Going Fast, May Soon Be Gone Published: April 14th, 2013 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/andes-tropical-glaciers-are-going-fast-may-soon-be-gone-15844 The glaciers of the tropical Andes have shrunk by between 30 and 50 percent in 30 years and many will soon disappear altogether, cutting off the summer water supply for millions of people, according to scientists studying the region’s climate. Their findings are particularly significant because glaciers in the tropics, 99 percent of which are in the Andes, are regarded as among the most sensitive indicators of climate change on the planet, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Snow and ice – a barometer of Earth’s climate http://blog.ucsusa.org/disappearing-glaciers-melting-ice-sheets-and-rising-seas-to-be-highlighted-in-forthcoming-ipcc-report-232 ...Over the last century, in the Sierra Nevada the surface area of glaciers has been decreasing and spring river runoff is lower. In Montana’s Glacier National Park over the same period the number of sizable glaciers has dropped from 150 to less than 25. In Wyoming, the 44 extant glaciers in the Wind River Range have decreased in area by almost half in the last four decades. And it’s not just confined to North America. Glaciers are in retreat worldwide – in Switzerland, in Peru, in New Zealand. If snow doesn’t endure through the summer, glaciers simply cannot grow. Snow needs to remain for multiple seasons for it to form into ice and become a moving glacier.
It's really a distribution problem. But more and more humans using a limited resource is also a problem. Unless we can figure out how to access those reserves, humans will feel the effect of not enough water for their needs, many dying in the process. LoisI don't deny it's a big problem and will take a lot of work. The real issue boils (no pun intended) down to humans realizing we need to start putting more effort and energy into purifying and distributing our own water. The days of us just sitting back and nature providing all the purified water we need are over.
ditto
And that starts with realistically understanding what is happening upon our planet.
ditto And that starts with realistically understanding what is happening upon our planet.Which I assume is you referring to climate change deniers, which I agree is problem.
ditto And that starts with realistically understanding what is happening upon our planet.Which I assume is you referring to climate change deniers, which I agree is problem. Climate Change Deniers are a particularly brainwashed subset, but it applies to all of us, even me. That's why I following up on many denier claims, and in the process learn new things I wasn't aware of before. But, the thing with honest curiosity is that one's ego plays second fiddle to one's rationality - If new (to me) evidence indicates that my understanding is way off base - I don't scream and shout at the messenger, I digest the new information, learn and grow from it. That's part of the scientific process, I believe.
cc.pm- You really are a good guy…you even say so…please help me to understand how the CO2 levels were higher on the earth before mankind started liberating those hydrocarbons…
cc.pm- You really are a good guy....you even say so.....please help me to understand how the CO2 levels were higher on the earth before mankind started liberating those hydrocarbons......Which period are you referring to, in recent times CO2 levels have been fluxuating between 180 and 280 ppm depending on what point the Earth is at in the glacial cycles. The long term trend on Earth has been a gradual decrease in atmospheric CO2 as the earth cools resulting in a cooling trend. Until about 35 million years ago the Earth was too warm for the formation of polar ice caps due to the effect of CO2 when the level was at about 450 ppm. We're now approaching 400 ppm and the polar ice sheets are already showing signs of instability which will eventually mean an increase in sea level of several hundred feet. That just one of the significant changes that we face from increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another important factor is how quickly the concentration is changed, if it's a slow process then the biosphere has a chance to adapt, if it's too quick then many species go extinct because the habitats they depend on for survival move polewards faster than they can follow. Some species like coral live in a very tightly defined temperature range and there is already a die-off of coral underway, by mid century it could include 90% of the world's coral reefs. Alpine biotas are also temperature dependent and as average temperatures increase many alpine habitats will also disappear as the temperature ranges they evolved with rise into the sky. CO2 is a critical component in the atmosphere as it's the most important persistent greenhouse gas.
cc.pm- You really are a good guy....you even say so.....please help me to understand how the CO2 levels were higher on the earth before mankind started liberating those hydrocarbons......Which period are you referring to, in recent times CO2 levels have been fluxuating between 180 and 280 ppm depending on what point the Earth is at in the glacial cycles. The long term trend on Earth has been a gradual decrease in atmospheric CO2 as the earth cools resulting in a cooling trend. Until about 35 million years ago the Earth was too warm for the formation of polar ice caps due to the effect of CO2 when the level was at about 450 ppm. We're now approaching 400 ppm and the polar ice sheets are already showing signs of instability which will eventually mean an increase in sea level of several hundred feet. That just one of the significant changes that we face from increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another important factor is how quickly the concentration is changed, if it's a slow process then the biosphere has a chance to adapt, if it's too quick then many species go extinct because the habitats they depend on for survival move polewards faster than they can follow. Some species like coral live in a very tightly defined temperature range and there is already a die-off of coral underway, by mid century it could include 90% of the world's coral reefs. Alpine biotas are also temperature dependent and as average temperatures increase many alpine habitats will also disappear as the temperature ranges they evolved with rise into the sky. CO2 is a critical component in the atmosphere as it's the most important persistent greenhouse gas. Thanks Fuzzy Logic excellent summation, I'd add that by "recent" we're talking like 800,000 years worth of recent. The long term CO2 fluctuations, in our planet's early history has a lot to do with the lithosphere, volcanoes, and rock weathering, cool stuff like that. If you want to learn more about that, Professor Richard Alley gave an excellent introductory talk explaining these things in a way that only an actual expert can do: Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g ~ ~ ~ And of course there is that bottom-line, CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas and we are definitely pumping massive amounts into our atmosphere, and it is guaranteed to disrupt all "established" climate cycles.
cc.pm- You really are a good guy....you even say so.....please help me to understand how the CO2 levels were higher on the earth before mankind started liberating those hydrocarbons......Which period are you referring to, in recent times CO2 levels have been fluxuating between 180 and 280 ppm depending on what point the Earth is at in the glacial cycles. The long term trend on Earth has been a gradual decrease in atmospheric CO2 as the earth cools resulting in a cooling trend. Until about 35 million years ago the Earth was too warm for the formation of polar ice caps due to the effect of CO2 when the level was at about 450 ppm. WAIT!!! Does that mean we can't go to 1,000 ppm where we can get a 50% increase in plant growth? DAMN! psik
I am all for the melting of the ice caps…a tropical climate would make my bones ache a little less.