Why isn’t anyone talking about the coming ice age and all of the death and destruction that will bring…way worse than a LITTLE bit of warming.
Guess you haven’t heard sine dues, humanity has cancelled the next ice age.
As for your cold bones, why not move down to the tropics, or Australia, that should fix you up just fine.
Why isn't anyone talking about the coming ice age and all of the death and destruction that will bring....way worse than a LITTLE bit of warming.Ok, let's talk about it. You start. Lois
Humanity has not cancelled the coming ice age…we look into the past and try to predict the future. Short term linear things are resolved with amazing precision. Long term non-linear systems…not so good. That is the way of volcanoes, earthquakes and climate. Is it going to rain in San Diego on May 17, 2044 ? Can’t really say for sure but, we can easily estimate how much more likely it is to rain in Seattle on that same day. That does not give us magical power to control rain.
As far as me moving to escape cold…if your predictions are right I won’t have to …and all the people in the tropics will be burned and boiled alive !
Humanity has not cancelled the coming ice age.....we look into the past and try to predict the future. Short term linear things are resolved with amazing precision. Long term non-linear systems...not so good. That is the way of volcanoes, earthquakes and climate. Is it going to rain in San Diego on May 17, 2044 ? Can't really say for sure but, we can easily estimate how much more likely it is to rain in Seattle on that same day. That does not give us magical power to control rain. As far as me moving to escape cold.....if your predictions are right I won't have to ....and all the people in the tropics will be burned and boiled alive !Trouble is you won't live long enough to see it. You'll have to put up with the cold. Lois
Ya bummer ! I will put up with the cold…but it is a dry cold !
We could wait for a long time before ice sheets cover most of North America…or you could just visit Alberta in January if you are not sure what the ICE AGE really looks and feels like.
Why isn't anyone talking about the coming ice age and all of the death and destruction that will bring....way worse than a LITTLE bit of warming.Because we've pumped so many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that the climate is warming. There is no coming ice age to discuss.
I don’t understand…CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and yet glacial and inter-glacial periods have been stable- ( maybe not exactly the right word)… re-occurring regularly for eons…so why darrons do you think that this is not cyclic? Who pumped all of that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere before mankind was walking upright ? How can you be so sure that we have stopped the ice age ?
I don't understand....CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and yet glacial and inter-glacial periods have been stable- ( maybe not exactly the right word)... re-occurring regularly for eons...so why darrons do you think that this is not cyclic? Who pumped all of that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere before mankind was walking upright ? How can you be so sure that we have stopped the ice age ?I'd explain it to you if I thought you had an open mind, but I am far too busy to waste my time arguing with an ideologue.
I don't understand....CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and yet glacial and inter-glacial periods have been stable- ( maybe not exactly the right word)... re-occurring regularly for eons...so why darrons do you think that this is not cyclic? Who pumped all of that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere before mankind was walking upright ? How can you be so sure that we have stopped the ice age ?And you'll never understand it until to make a serious attempt to learn about it. As mentioned earlier here's a good start for getting yourself oriented to what scientists have learned about the temperature CO2 dance in deep time.
Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_gThen, when you're ready for the big time
CO2 and its effect on climate http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/ CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part One – introduces several very important concepts in climate. Blackbody radiation and how we can differentiate between energy from the sun and from the earth. What temperature the earth would be without any gases that absorb longwave radiation. And how we can separate out the effects of the different gases. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Two -looked at why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation, and what factors affect the relative importance of water vapor, CO2 and methane. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Three -introduced the Beer Lambert model of absorption. along with the very important concept of re-emission of radiation as the atmosphere warms up. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Four – explained band models and showed how transmittance (the opposite of absorptance) of CO2 changes as the amount of CO2 increases under “weak" and “strong" conditions. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five – two results from solving the 1-d equations – and how CO2 compares to water vapor. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Six – Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation look like at the earth’s surface. Is this the “greenhouse" effect? CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven – The Boring Numbers – the values of “radiative forcing" from CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2. What “radiative forcing" actually is. And where that log relationship comes from that the IPCC quotes. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Eight – Saturation – explaining “saturation" in more detail CO2 Can’t have that Effect Because.. – common “problems" or responses to the theory and evidence presented The Hoover Incident – what the earth’s climate might be like if all of the gases like CO2 and water vapor were “hoovered up" so that the atmosphere didn’t absorb or emit any radiation CO2 Lags Temperature in the Ice-Core Record. Doesn’t that prove the IPCC wrong? – a quick summary of a commonly misunderstood subject, especially as it had an important role in the John Coleman report.Sine, keep in mind, just because you don't understand something - doesn't mean that scientists don't understand it.
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.When I wrote, "Does it matter?" I was referring to your question "Who is we?" not the issue of a water shortage. I agree with the scientists about the existence and dangers of global climate change. My point about the amount of water not changing in a closed system was a criricism of the subject title, "We're running out of water." Technically, we are not. I agree, we are running out of clean, usable fresh water and something should be done about it. Lois
I agree with the scientists about the existence and dangers of global climate change. My point about the amount of water not changing in a closed system was a criricism of the subject title, "We're running out of water." Technically, we are not. I agree, we are running out of clean, usable fresh water and something should be done about it. LoisThe OP already stated he should have used "potable water" in the thread title. That is what we have been discussing anyway, except for a couple of people who keep attempting to derail the thread by arguing we have plenty of undrinkable water. As for Robert Walper's "logistics" argument I'd like to see how he proposes to solve this major dilemma. California water deliveries drop to zero.] There is no water south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. That means no crops in half of the area that grows most of the fruit and produce we consume in the United Staes. This is a clear and present problem DM, not an abstract future concern. And yes, climate change is causing this. Anyone who argues mankind is not driving climate change is remaining deliberately ignorant. We are far past the time when arguing is reasonable. We should have started fighting climate change 30 years ago. We have a moral obligation to leave our progeny a habitable planet. Remaining ignorant and apathetic is morally indefensible.
When I wrote, “Does it matter?" I was referring to your question “Who is we?" not the issue of a water shortage. I agree with the scientists about the existence and dangers of global climate change. My point about the amount of water not changing in a closed system was a criricism of the subject title, “We’re running out of water." Technically, we are not. I agree, we are running out of clean, usable fresh water and something should be done about it.Actually Lois I used the title as a tag line to generate interest in the topic. When you read my OP you'll notice that I mentioned that the water cycle is a Closed system,. My actual purpose was to draw attention to the continuing pollution of potable water, e.g. The Charleston spill which is still being cleaned up. Also, as Darron pointed out conditions in the U.S. Southwest are becoming critical as clean water sources are actually drying up. what scientists are now confirming is that the water is being redistributed over the globe as some areas are becoming increasingly arid while others are experiencing disastrous floods and there's really no difference in plants drying up or drowning. Both conditions will cause food shortages. And to the naysayers, even if AGW isn't the initial cause it's certainly exacerbating the changes in climate that allow for this global distribution. People forgot that the dustbowl in the Ameican Midwest in the 3o's was partially caused by farming practices that led to soil depletion. Couple that with a drought and tens of thousands of people were displaced. They fled to California. But where do we go now? Cap't Jack
I agree with what you say. My point only had to do with the subject line that that we are running out of water. And, yes, you did mention that the water cycle is a closed system. But the subject line could have been misinterpreted. "Where do we go now?" is an excellent question. We have to start doing something productive instead of trying to escape to greener pastures. There is nowhere to go. LoisWhen I wrote, “Does it matter?" I was referring to your question “Who is we?" not the issue of a water shortage. I agree with the scientists about the existence and dangers of global climate change. My point about the amount of water not changing in a closed system was a criricism of the subject title, “We’re running out of water." Technically, we are not. I agree, we are running out of clean, usable fresh water and something should be done about it.Actually Lois I used the title as a tag line to generate interest in the topic. When you read my OP you'll notice that I mentioned that the water cycle is a Closed system,. My actual purpose was to draw attention to the continuing pollution of potable water, e.g. The Charleston spill which is still being cleaned up. Also, as Darron pointed out conditions in the U.S. Southwest are becoming critical as clean water sources are actually drying up. what scientists are now confirming is that the water is being redistributed over the globe as some areas are becoming increasingly arid while others are experiencing disastrous floods and there's really no difference in plants drying up or drowning. Both conditions will cause food shortages. And to the naysayers, even if AGW isn't the initial cause it's certainly exacerbating the changes in climate that allow for this global distribution. People forgot that the dustbowl in the Ameican Midwest in the 3o's was partially caused by farming practices that led to soil depletion. Couple that with a drought and tens of thousands of people were displaced. They fled to California. But where do we go now? Cap't Jack
My point only had to do with the subject line that that we are running out of water. LoisIsn't the title fair game? Plant an interesting little hook, encourage a few extra views. But, in the end we still need to read the content for what it is.
I think what Lois was referring to was that as the title stands it allowed some to go off the topic that was meant and argue about the total quantity of water on earth. And that happened.
It’s probably better to be precise than try to play games to get people to participate.
Occam
I think what Lois was referring to was that as the title stands it allowed some to go off the topic that was meant and argue about the total quantity of water on earth. And that happened. It's probably better to be precise than try to play games to get people to participate. OccamI doubt TVA was trying to play game: he just omitted the word "potable." As for people going off topic and arguing semantics, that is a common tactic among those who know they can't win on the merits of their argument.
True, but why make it easier for them? 
Occam
I think what Lois was referring to was that as the title stands it allowed some to go off the topic that was meant and argue about the total quantity of water on earth. And that happened. It’s probably better to be precise than try to play games to get people to participate. OccamNot playing a game Occam, just generating interest. And it seems that I accomplished my goal. You are after all post #135. Cap't Jack
That wasn’t really the point, TVA. Do you think there would have been fewer meaningful posts if “potable” had been added to the title?
Occam