NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8050094.stm

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that this fundamentally disproves climate change, amirite?

Yes, it does indeed fundamentally prove climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8050094.stm

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that this fundamentally disproves climate change, amirite?

how does it disprove climate change when all the article states that the projected rise of the ocean is not 6 meters but 3.3 meters?

how does it disprove climate change when all the article states that the projected rise of the ocean is not 6 meters but 3.3 meters?

Merely liberal propaganda.

how does it disprove climate change when all the article states that the projected rise of the ocean is not 6 meters but 3.3 meters?

Only commies believe in ice caps.

Only commies believe in ice caps.

Good thing it was talking about the West Antartic Ice Sheet and not the Ice Cap itself. :p

Good thing it was talking about the West Antartic Ice Sheet and not the Ice Cap itself. :p

Such a distinction is in fact make believe, it was made up in order to assist the global liberal effort to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor, unjustly.

Such a distinction is in fact make believe, it was made up in order to assist the global liberal effort to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor, unjustly.

hey... if a 3.3 meter rise in the sea level forces those who paid outragious sums for beachside properties to the slums? I'm for that kind of redistribution!

hey... if a 3.3 meter rise in the sea level forces those who paid outragious sums for beachside properties to the slums? I'm for that kind of redistribution!

I see, so you're for the hating of freedom. Fair enough, you godless Muslim.

Just because something is drastically overhyped doesn't mean that there isn't a kernel of rationality embedded within. Also, sometimes eye-bulging overreaction and rock-headed obliviousness can cancel out and produce a moderate and rational response.

The funny thing is that I don't think wackos and maniacs on either side plan for their extremism to cancel eachother out. It just does. :)

Just because something is drastically overhyped doesn't mean that there isn't a kernel of rationality embedded within. Also, sometimes eye-bulging overreaction and rock-headed obliviousness can cancel out and produce a moderate and rational response.

The funny thing is that I don't think wackos and maniacs on either side plan for their extremism to cancel eachother out. It just does. :)

It's God's karmic tug'o'war ;).

It's God's karmic tug'o'war ;).

I hope there's a mudpit in the center. :)

I hope there's a mudpit in the center. :)

Who do you think we're talking about here? There's ALWAYS a mudpit. Always.

This would be better news if it would stop:

The hurricanes from getting bigger.
The tornados from staying on the ground longer.
The forest fires becoming harder to combat.
The critters and disease from migrating farther north.
The world's mountian glaciers from receding.
Polar dwellers being forced to move or sink where they live.
Droughts from becoming more extreme.
Floods from becoming more common.
Hail from beating up more cars.
And a powerful El-Nino killing more people that all the wars and cancer of the 20th century.

But you take the good with the bad I suppose.

No! Seriously! 100 years from now a few battered, twisted, mildewed, dried up, mangled, burned down, disease ridden ghost towns will not be sunk by polar ice! I'm dancin' in the streets! :p

i think antarctica will look cooler without the ice anyways

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/AntarcticBedrock2.jpg/180px-AntarcticBedrock2.jpg

Who do you think we're talking about here? There's ALWAYS a mudpit. Always.

Yay! :D

Such a distinction is in fact make believe, it was made up in order to assist the global liberal effort to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor, unjustly.

Well you got part of this wrong. It is a ploy to transfer wealth from the rich Conservatives to the rich Liberals. The poor still stay poor. :tongue:

Just because something is drastically overhyped doesn't mean that there isn't a kernel of rationality embedded within. Also, sometimes eye-bulging overreaction and rock-headed obliviousness can cancel out and produce a moderate and rational response.

The funny thing is that I don't think wackos and maniacs on either side plan for their extremism to cancel eachother out. It just does. :)

Again we have more wise words from a clown.

Now someone tell the Inuits and Tuvaluans that they're full of shit.

Well you got part of this wrong. It is a ploy to transfer wealth from the rich Conservatives to the rich Liberals. The poor still stay poor. :tongue:

but the people who own all the land inland are the farmers.
Seems more like a ploy to transfer lanwealth from coastal city dwellers to red necks.

Now someone tell the Inuits and Tuvaluans that they're full of shit.

The last person that tried got a spear in the gut.

but the people who own all the land inland are the farmers.
Seems more like a ploy to transfer lanwealth from coastal city dwellers to red necks.

Well the multinational food corps will be laughing. I was in Michigan this last summer and found out central Michigan was basically owned by a Dutch food corp. Wait... Those damn Dutch plan on taking over Michigan! Well at least they can't do any more damage to the state that hasn't already been done.

Edit: I should be the first to open a wooden shoe factory in Kalamazoo!

Well the multinational food corps will be laughing. I was in Michigan this last summer and found out central Michigan was basically owned by a Dutch food corp. Wait... Those damn Dutch plan on taking over Michigan! Well at least they can't do any more damage to the state that hasn't already been done.

Edit: I should be the first to open a wooden shoe factory in Kalamazoo!

yeah. got to love multinational corps. No one knows which language the boss speaks.

Every time another stupid article that "disproves" climate change is posted, I imagine all the conspiracy theorists on the board springing boners as they race to be the first to post it. Which then of course leads to thoughts of Rule 34...

"OH YEAH, GIVE ME THOSE FIGURES ON THE ICE CAP! YOU'VE BEEN A BAD CLIMATOLOGIST! NO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR YOU!"

Every time another stupid article that "disproves" climate change is posted, I imagine all the conspiracy theorists on the board springing boners as they race to be the first to post it. Which then of course leads to thoughts of Rule 34...

"OH YEAH, GIVE ME THOSE FIGURES ON THE ICE CAP! YOU'VE BEEN A BAD CLIMATOLOGIST! NO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR YOU!"

Don't forget the Al Gore snuff porn too.

Don't forget the Al Gore snuff porn too.

You know, it probably would be forgettable... I bet he'd manage to make even his own death boring.

i think antarctica will look cooler without the ice anyways

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/AntarcticBedrock2.jpg/180px-AntarcticBedrock2.jpg

Isn't there supposed to be some crazy old rubics cube type pyramid there, below some old whaling station? One that we might want to keep frozen...

Isn't there supposed to be some crazy old rubics cube type pyramid there, below some old whaling station? One that we might want to keep frozen...

Nothing a few new Predators introduced to Antartica can't handle. In fact it's probably aliens that are responsible for global warming/climate change/Liberals/Al Gore.

And a powerful El-Nino killing more people that all the wars and cancer of the 20th century.

Bullshit.

If the "experts" got this wrong, what else might they be mistaken about?

If the "experts" got this wrong, what else might they be mistaken about?

Earth could actually be at the center of the universe.

When the idea first emerged in the late 1970s, it was estimated that global sea level would rise by five metres if the WAIS collapsed.

Current projections suggest that a complete collapse of WAIS would result in an increase of up to six metres.

But Professor Bamber said that no-one had revisited the calculation, despite new data sets becoming available, and scientists developing a better understanding of the dynamics in the vast ice sheets.

That's why I don't listen to environmental anything.

but the people who own all the land inland are the farmers.
Seems more like a ploy to transfer lanwealth from coastal city dwellers to red necks.

that's what I said... and the reply I get?

I see, so you're for the hating of freedom. Fair enough, you godless Muslim.

hey Hydesland. At least that 'beach side property' in Nevada I bought for a song has a chance for a rise in property value! :D

Bullshit.

I second this. WW1 and WW2 alone probably have killed more than Climate Change ever will.

Bullshit.

If a powerful El-Nino happened in the next couple of years (and I really wish it would) then it would not be so bad. But when one happens after the world temp goes up another degree or two, it will be the most devistating event in the history of mankind. (if we all dont get nuke happy and the comets & asteroids leave us alone)

But then we could get lucky and have only weak El-Ninos for the next 75-100 years. Let's hope!

But when one happens after the world temp goes up another degree or two, it will be the most devistating event in the history of mankind.

Bullshit again.

Bullshit again.

Fire fighting technology gets better every year....but fires get harder to combat every year due to the climate shift.

Sea creature and birds have migrated farther north due to the climate shift. Disease can to you know.

El-Nino amplifies this.

A powerful El-Nino amplifies the shit out of this.

Fire fighting technology gets better every year....but fires get harder to combat every year due to the climate shift.

So forest fires will kill hundreds of millions of people, more than all of the wars and diseases in the 20th century, just like you said? I think not.


Sea creature and birds have migrated farther north due to the climate shift. Disease can to you know.

Diseases like malaria. Oh wait, malaria ravaged northern Russia all through the 20s and early 30s.

So forest fires will kill hundreds of millions of people, more than all of the wars and diseases in the 20th century, just like you said? I think not.

Diseases like malaria. Oh wait, malaria ravaged northern Russia all through the 20s and early 30s.

Fires will wipe out our food supply. Disease mutates when it migrates. Then of course the world's freshwater supply will be all but gone. (all the mountian glaciers are dissapearing.....even Glacier National Park will soon be glacier free even with No-Ninos)

Fires will wipe out our food supply. Disease mutates when it migrates. Then of course the world's freshwater supply will be all but gone. (all the mountian glaciers are dissapearing.....even Glacier National Park will soon be glacier free even with No-Ninos)

This is what we in the business call: Paranoid.

Fires will wipe out our food supply. Disease mutates when it migrates. Then of course the world's freshwater supply will be all but gone. (all the mountian glaciers are dissapearing.....even Glacier National Park will soon be glacier free even with No-Ninos)

It's the aliens that are doing it. They're gradually modifying the climate to wipe us out without our knowledge, then they'll take over the planet and use it as a forward military base in their intergalactic war.

All the evidence is there.

This is what we in the business call: Paranoid.

Till you do the math.

i think antarctica will look cooler without the ice anyways

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/AntarcticBedrock2.jpg/180px-AntarcticBedrock2.jpg

And here is where we can relocate all the displaced costal dwellers: to all the newly exposed antarctic land. Problem solved.

Earth could actually be at the center of the universe.

The earth IS actually at the center of our observable universe: We can see the same distance, no matter which way we look.

Till you do the math.
Burden of proof is on you, friend.

The El-Nino and severe drought of 2006. Add 2 degrees (F) to the world's ocean and land surface temps and make the El-Nino even stronger than 2006.
Bullshit becomes "OH SHIT!" dosn't it?

The El-Nino and severe drought of 2006. Add 2 degrees (F) to the world's ocean and land surface temps and make the El-Nino even stronger than 2006.
Bullshit becomes "OH SHIT!" dosn't it?

PROOF. Did you not hear me? Proof. Not idle guesses on what temperature it would take to evaporate all fresh water and keep it in the air somehow, proof. As in, link, source. So, uh, right now, it's still pretty much Bullshit.

PROOF. Did you not hear me? Proof. Not idle guesses on what temperature it would take to evaporate all fresh water and keep it in the air somehow, proof. As in, link, source. So, uh, right now, it's still pretty much Bullshit.

Many people of the world get their freshwater from ice in the mountians. No ice = no freshwater.

Here is a basic explination:

Less than 2C
Arctic sea icecap disappears, leaving polar bears homeless and changing the Earth's energy balance dramatically as reflective ice is replaced during summer months by darker sea surface. Now expected by 2030 or even earlier.

Tropical coral reefs suffer severe and repeated bleaching episodes due to hotter ocean waters, killing off most coral and delivering a hammer blow to marine biodiversity.

Droughts spread through the sub-tropics, accompanied by heatwaves and intense wildfires. Worst-hit are the Mediterranean, the south-west United States, southern Africa and Australia.

2C-3C
Summer heatwaves such as that in Europe in 2003, which killed 30,000 people, become annual events. Extreme heat sees temperatures reaching the low 40s Celsius in southern England.

Amazon rainforest crosses a "tipping point" where extreme heat and lower rainfall makes the forest unviable - much of it burns and is replaced by desert and savannah.

Dissolved CO2 turns the oceans increasingly acidic, destroying remaining coral reefs and wiping out many species of plankton which are the basis of the marine food chain. Several metres of sea level rise is now inevitable as the Greenland ice sheet disappears.

3C-4C
Glacier and snow-melt in the world's mountain chains depletes freshwater flows to downstream cities and agricultural land. Most affected are California, Peru, Pakistan and China. Global food production is under threat as key breadbaskets in Europe, Asia and the United States suffer drought, and heatwaves outstrip the tolerance of crops.

The Gulf Stream current declines significantly. Cooling in Europe is unlikely due to global warming, but oceanic changes alter weather patterns and lead to higher than average sea level rise in the eastern US and UK.

4C-5C
Another tipping point sees massive amounts of methane - a potent greenhouse gas - released by melting Siberian permafrost, further boosting global warming. Much human habitation in southern Europe, north Africa, the Middle East and other sub-tropical areas is rendered unviable due to excessive heat and drought. The focus of civilisation moves towards the poles, where temperatures remain cool enough for crops, and rainfall - albeit with severe floods - persists. All sea ice is gone from both poles; mountain glaciers are gone from the Andes, Alps and Rockies.

5C-6C
Global average temperatures are now hotter than for 50m years. The Arctic region sees temperatures rise much higher than average - up to 20C - meaning the entire Arctic is now ice-free all year round. Most of the topics, sub-tropics and even lower mid-latitudes are too hot to be inhabitable. Sea level rise is now sufficiently rapid that coastal cities across the world are largely abandoned.

6C and above
Danger of "runaway warming", perhaps spurred by release of oceanic methane hydrates. Could the surface of the Earth become like Venus, entirely uninhabitable? Most sea life is dead. Human refuges now confined entirely to highland areas and the polar regions. Human population is drastically reduced. Perhaps 90% of species become extinct, rivalling the worst mass extinctions in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history.


LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/climate-change-environment-temperature)

The "Powerful El-Nino theory" is mine alone as far as I know. I don't think anyone but me has even thought that far ahead. They are just now figuring out that the Earth is warming faster than all the computer models and experts predicted.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/02/15/Expert-Planet-warming-faster-than-thought/UPI-35001234749841/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3344830/Top-of-sea-warming-50-faster-than-thought.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144049.htm

Many people of the world get their freshwater from ice in the mountians. No ice = no freshwater.

Here is a basic explination:

LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/climate-change-environment-temperature)

The "Powerful El-Nino theory" is mine alone as far as I know. I don't think anyone but me has even thought that far ahead. They are just now figuring out that the Earth is warming faster than all the computer models and experts predicted.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/02/15/Expert-Planet-warming-faster-than-thought/UPI-35001234749841/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3344830/Top-of-sea-warming-50-faster-than-thought.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144049.htm
While scientists agree that sea levels rose by six inches over the course of the 20th century and are currently rising at the upper end of the IPCC projections, estimates of future rises remain alarmingly hazy.

There are still major outstanding questions about how ice sheets will behave in a warmer world. "Unfortunately, our work does not resolve the major questions about future ice sheet contributions."
"Simple explanations don't capture the complexity of climate," Steig said. "The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling and that's not the case. If anything it's the reverse, but it's more complex than that. Antarctica isn't warming at the same rate everywhere, and while some areas have been cooling for a long time the evidence shows the continent as a whole is getting warmer."
The first link you gave was unrealistic, and quite a crazy. If they'd take the time to *ahem* do the math, they'd realize that even if both caps melt completely (A catastrophic event in itself... But I digress), it would hardly flood coastal cities around the World. A few lower-level islands, quite possibly. Not only that, but as described in your own articles, they have doubts of how much the average temperature will rise. Add that to the fact that even the vast majority of Climatologists are not sure on the matter of what will happen, I must say you are spouting bullshit.

And I doubt your idea is credible. With thousands of Climatologists suddenly finding a semi-practical use for their degree (No offense meant to them, merely a jest :p), do you really think that this would not be floating around and being discussed in a scientific journal or government report somewhere? Or that they've already thrown it away by now.

The first link you gave was unrealistic, and quite a crazy. If they'd take the time to *ahem* do the math, they'd realize that even if both caps melt completely (A catastrophic event in itself... But I digress), it would hardly flood coastal cities around the World. A few lower-level islands, quite possibly. Not only that, but as described in your own articles, they have doubts of how much the average temperature will rise. Add that to the fact that even the vast majority of Climatologists are not sure on the matter of what will happen, I must say you are spouting bullshit.

And I doubt your idea is credible. With thousands of Climatologists suddenly finding a semi-practical use for their degree (No offense meant to them, merely a jest :p), do you really think that this would not be floating around and being discussed in a scientific journal or government report somewhere? Or that they've already thrown it away by now.

You are talking about "Polar Ice Caps" Screw the polar ice caps. Sea ice and mountian glaciers are much more important. (sea ice to protect against storm surge for dwellers to the north and mountian glaciers for freshwater.

The next El-Nino should turn a few heads since AGW continues. The ENSO is almost at neutral. At least a weak El-Nino might be in the near future.

You are talking about "Polar Ice Caps" Screw the polar ice caps. Sea ice and mountian glaciers are much more important. (sea ice to protect against storm surge for dwellers to the north and mountian glaciers for freshwater.

The next El-Nino should turn a few heads since AGW continues.
Problem #1: There isn't enough Mountain Glaciers to move the sea level up so that coastal cities are abandoned.

Problem #2: What goes up... Must come down. The water cycle. Hello? Higher temperatures = Higher rate of Evaporation. Water shortages will not be a problem.

Problem #3: Desalinization. It exists.

Problem #4: You have no proof for your little El Nino World disaster theory.

Problem #5: Levees and Dams. They also exist.

Problem #6: Firefighters. They exist as well. As well as running water and advanced fire-fighting techniques.

Problem #1: There isn't enough Mountain Glaciers to move the sea level up so that coastal cities are abandoned.


So what? The problem is we are heading to a point where not enough mountian glaciers to melt off and feed the rivers.

Problem #2: What goes up... Must come down. The water cycle. Hello? Higher temperatures = Higher rate of Evaporation. Water shortages will not be a problem.
So all the recent water wars are a figment of our imigagination?


Problem #3: Desalinization. It exists.

But awful hard to get all that water to Nebraska, Kansas Montana (on & on) for livestock to drink and watering the crops.

Problem #4: You have no proof for your little El Nino World disaster theory.

As far as I know, it's only my theory.

Problem #5: Levees and Dams. They also exist.

Till there is no water to dam.

Problem #6: Firefighters. They exist as well. As well as running water and advanced fire-fighting techniques.

I mentioned this earlier. Fire fighting gets better but fires get get harder to combat. RED FLAG!!! HELLO!!!

So what? The problem is we are heading to a point where not enough mountian glaciers to melt off and feed the rivers.

...

And the places where mountain Glaciers do not form a large part, or even a small part of the river flow? And that a very large amount of our water is actually groundwater, and not from the local stream or river?

So all the recent water wars are a figment of our imigagination?

Water wars? Other than mismanagement in desert areas... I can't think of any water wars.

But awful hard to get all that water to Nebraska, Kansas Montana (on & on) for livestock to drink and watering the crops.

The majority of those states also rely on Aquifers for their water.

As far as I know, it's only my theory.

As far as you know.

Till there is no water to dam.

In which case there will be no problem of flooding, which I doubt. Like I said, water cycle.


I mentioned this earlier. Fire fighting gets better but fires get get harder to combat. RED FLAG!!! HELLO!!!
Fire fighting is getting better much faster than fires are getting worse. It's not like fires are adopting water-resistant flames, or functioning better with less oxygen. They aren't living or sentient. They're becoming more common, yes, but the more frequent rains should help offset that, no?

...

And the places where mountain Glaciers do not form a large part, or even a small part of the river flow? And that a very large amount of our water is actually groundwater, and not from the local stream or river?
What do you think feeds underground streams? It's not the same as oil that can sit there year after year and remain fresh for use.

Water wars? Other than mismanagement in desert areas... I can't think of any water wars.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=water+wars&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

The majority of those states also rely on Aquifers for their water.

You first have to have dirty or salty water to purify. Not much ocean water in the middle of land masses to be purified.

In which case there will be no problem of flooding, which I doubt. Like I said, water cycle.

Just thirst and starvation. Let the good times roll! :rolleyes:

Fire fighting is getting better much faster than fires are getting worse. It's not like fires are adopting water-resistant flames, or functioning better with less oxygen. They aren't living or sentient. They're becoming more common, yes, but the more frequent rains should help offset that, no?

Not much rain in a severe drought. How much rain in a severe drought, amplified by a powerful El-Nino? More or less? And fires thrive off dry climate that has dried up foilage.

What do you think feeds underground streams? It's not the same as oil that can sit there year after year and remain fresh for use.

*cough* Water cycle, Glacial ice doesn't just disappear and never come back, it comes back through the power of condensation and evaporation *COUGH COUGH HACK!*
URL="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=water+wars&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq="]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=water+wars&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=[/URL]

Water Wars is a game or competition--here is how you play: Opponents go to opposing battle stations with buckets of water balloons. Each battle station has a water balloon launcher. Place a balloon in the launcher, pull down on the handle, aim, and fire! Your balloon soars high through the air and comes crashing down on your opponent's battle station. There are strategically placed slots and holes in the structure that allows the water to come through. You might get sprinkled, sprayed, or saturated, but watch out, retaliation comes quickly....!
Interesting, but hardly relevent.

You first have to have dirty or salty water to purify. Not much ocean water in the middle of land masses to be purified.

*cough* Aquifers, widespread reliance, water cycle, why am I repeating myself? *cough*

Just thirst and starvation. Let the good times roll! :rolleyes:

Stop contradicting yourself. Tell me, oh great one, will the water level get higher, or will the water cycle magically stop working?


Not much rain in a severe drought. How much rain in a severe drought, amplified by a powerful El-Nino?More or less? And fires thrive off dry climate that has dried up foilage.
Hmm, let's see... I argue that if the Earth is getting warmer and we're going to have worse hurricanes and storms, that it will make the landscape wet... You're arguing that... It will make the foliage dry? And that these severe storms will lead to a drought? And that El Nino doesn't cause monsoons? Well I'll be!

*cough* Water cycle, Glacial ice doesn't just disappear
That is EXACTLY what is happening now.LINK (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:pMW53HyGwU0J:assets.panda.org/downloads/glacierspaper.pdf+mountain+glacier+freshwater&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)


Stop contradicting yourself. Tell me, oh great one, will the water level get higher, or will the water cycle magically stop working?
An underwater Miami (for example) is NOT a source for fresh water.

Hmm, let's see... I argue that if the Earth is getting warmer and we're going to have worse hurricanes and storms, that it will make the landscape wet... You're arguing that... It will make the foliage dry? And that these severe storms will lead to a drought? And that El Nino doesn't cause monsoons? Well I'll be!

La-Nina tradionaly bring a few extra hurricanes. El-Nino brings less. What global warming does is makes little hurricane into big ones. But waiting for "Katrinas" and "Ikes" is not how I would want to run a farm.

That is EXACTLY what is happening now.

Know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)
Your (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics) Physics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) It's being placed back into the water cycle, not destroyed.An underwater Miami (for example) is NOT a source for fresh water.

How is an 'Underwater Miami' Relevant?
Stop contradicting yourself. Tell me, oh great one, will the water level get higher, or will the water cycle magically stop working?
La-Nina tradionaly bring a few extra hurricanes. El-Nino brings less. What global warming does is makes little hurricane into big ones. But waiting for "Katrinas" and "Ikes" is not how I would want to run a farm.
Your point being? You think that marshland near the coasts is good farmland at the moment? Or that already existing farming communities won't find a way to deal with the extra water? And know, once more, you spread your paranoia about flooding and about thirst in the same post. Interesting.

Know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)
Your (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics) Physics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) It's being placed back into the water cycle, not destroyed.
How is an 'Underwater Miami' Relevant?

Your point being? You think that marshland near the coasts is good farmland at the moment? Or that already existing farming communities won't find a way to deal with the extra water? And know, once more, you spread your paranoia about flooding and about thirst in the same post. Interesting.

How is anything in that post relevant? (including you ignoring all the water wars)

You really should Learn what the situation is (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml) before you debate it.

How is anything in that post relevant? (including you ignoring all the water wars)

I'm still unfamiliar with your 'water wars', other than in a rare few Desert Areas and third-world countries.

Also, everything in that post is relevant. Glacial Ice is not 'Disappearing', it's being put back INTO THE WATER CYCLE. It's not causing drought, it's causing MORE RAIN.

And Hurricanes will still be blowing themselves out before they hit the mid-west. Texas is the only place I can think of that would truly be put under serious pressure. Louisiana is largely swampland right now, Florida has been gang-raped by Hurricanes for it's entire existence, Georgia shouldn't be hit too much harder, the Carolinas are mostly safe, and the Mid-West will remain untouched. The Philippines will undoubtedly be hit hard, though. But they aren't exactly known for their farmland.

You really should Learn what the situation is (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml) before you debate it.

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything new there, except 'Damn Climatologists need to get together and figure out a more consistent figure of how much the freaking sea will rise!'

In fact, maybe you should... READ YOUR SOURCES BEFORE YOU POST THEM, SHOCK GASP HORROR!

*cough* Water cycle, Glacial ice doesn't just disappear and never come back, it comes back through the power of condensation and evaporation *COUGH COUGH HACK!*

not when the glaciers are retreating. like, by definition. if glaciers are retreating, that means more water is being lost than is being deposited each year.

not when the glaciers are retreating. like, by definition. if glaciers are retreating, that means more water is being lost than is being deposited each year.

Lost? How so? As I have said, it's being put into the water cycle. Not necessarily a good thing (Ex. Flooding), but not something that's going to lead to widespread thirst and drought. I'm not denying Global Warming, nor am I trying to say it's a good thing. I'm merely defending my opinion that it isn't going to lead to the sort of Apocalypse that Dragontide seems to be suggesting.

Fires will wipe out our food supply. Disease mutates when it migrates. Then of course the world's freshwater supply will be all but gone. (all the mountian glaciers are dissapearing.....even Glacier National Park will soon be glacier free even with No-Ninos)

Don't worry Dt, the aliens will come save you.

Lost? How so? As I have said, it's being put into the water cycle.

fucking christ, slow down and think about this.

you have a glacier, right? and it is retreating. this means less precipitation is falling on it each year than is being lost downstream and, eventually, to the ocean due to melting. the water is going elsewhere.

it also means that you have less of the slow and steady-ish release of water over the course of an entire year (which is what provides the bulk of water in many important river systems like those originating in the himalayas), and more unreliable water supplies and sporadic flooding.

at this point, the continued loss of glaciers will cause rivers like the indus to be dry part of the year in a few decades - if not sooner.

Don't worry Dt, the aliens will come save you.

No, we won't.;)

fucking christ, slow down and think about this.

you have a glacier, right? and it is retreating. this means less precipitation is falling on it each year than is being lost downstream and, eventually, to the ocean due to melting. the water is going elsewhere.

it also means that you have less of the slow and steady-ish release of water over the course of an entire year (which is what provides the bulk of water in many important river systems like those originating in the himalayas), and more unreliable water supplies and sporadic flooding.

at this point, the continued loss of glaciers will cause rivers like the indus to be dry part of the year in a few decades - if not sooner.
And the imbalance will be presumably offset by the heightened temperature levels, causing larger and more frequent storms and hurricanes. Not offset in a good way, but it's still having the water return in one way or another. Drought will not be a problem, most likely, flooding will most likely be.

And unclean water supplies.

Well, that's good. Sometimes I think people are hoping for climate change to cause disasters...

Well, that's good. Sometimes I think people are hoping for climate change to cause disasters...

Whatever it takes to then the herd.

Whatever it takes to then the herd.

And, of course, they would never, ever be the victims...it's always convenient that they're part of the ubermensch elite that will always survive once the proles have been swept away.

And, of course, they would never, ever be the victims...it's always convenient that they're part of the ubermensch elite that will always survive once the proles have been swept away.

Got it in one.;)

it's still having the water return in one way or another.

no, it isn't. it is shifting the distribution of water. and that shift looks rather likely to partially dry out a whole bunch of rivers in asia that provide water to billions, for example. you see similar worries in the USian west (http://www.ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/impact.php) already, too.

Got it in one.;)

Sort of like how the people who advocate total anarchy would be the first ones to die...

no, it isn't. it is shifting the distribution of water. and that shift looks rather likely to partially dry out a whole bunch of rivers in asia that provide water to billions, for example. you see similar worries in the US west already, too.

95% of the USA is supplied it's water through aquifers (Ground Water). Very little of it is reliant on rivers or mountain glaciers. In Asia, they already have a god-awful system of monsoons and droughts. I really do pity them, but they already have the droughts and floods occurring. All this is going to do is to exacerbate things. Also, thank you for focusing on one point of my post and ignoring the rest.

Sort of like how the people who advocate total anarchy would be the first ones to die...

Falls under the "Careful what you wish for" clause.

Don't worry Dt, the aliens will come save you.

It's the aliens that are doing it. They're gradually modifying the climate to wipe us out without our knowledge, then they'll take over the planet and use it as a forward military base in their intergalactic war.

All the evidence is there.

The aliens are against us, man.

95% of the USA is supplied it's water through aquifers (Ground Water). Very little of it is reliant on rivers or mountain glaciers. In Asia

Source?

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything new there, except 'Damn Climatologists need to get together and figure out a more consistent figure of how much the freaking sea will rise!'

In fact, maybe you should... READ YOUR SOURCES BEFORE YOU POST THEM, SHOCK GASP HORROR!

Yes I read it. What part of:

"In Iceland, he showed 60 Minutes glaciers that were growing until the 1990s and are now melting. In fact, 98 percent of the world's mountain glaciers are melting."

do you not understand?

WATER WARS:
http://www.mideastnews.com/WaterWars.htm

http://www.worldwaterwars.com/

http://waterwars.pulitzergateway.org/

Source?


Damn, that book was out of it.
For 2000, most of the fresh ground-water withdrawals, 68 percent, were for irrigation, while another 19 percent was used for public-supply purposes, mainly to supply drinking water to much of the Nation's population. Ground water is also crucial for those people who supply their own water (domestic use),as over 98 percent of self-supplied domestic water withdrawals came from ground water.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/piesgw.gif
Still quite a bit, although I will concede defeat there.
Source (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wugw.html)


Yes I read it. What part of:

"In Iceland, he showed 60 Minutes glaciers that were growing until the 1990s and are now melting. In fact, 98 percent of the world's mountain glaciers are melting."

do you not understand?
I understand perfectly.

WATER WARS:
http://www.mideastnews.com/WaterWars.htm

http://www.worldwaterwars.com/

http://waterwars.pulitzergateway.org/

I see exactly what I said, third-world countries and desert areas.

I see exactly what I said, third-world countries and desert areas.

Where does the water come from to feed the Tennessee River? The Colorado River? The Mighty Mississip? (quite a few more but let's start with these)

Where does the water come from to feed the Tennessee River? The Colorado River? The Mighty Mississip? (quite a few more but let's start with these)

Mississippi River: Main source is Lake Itasca, if I'm correct, with plenty of tributaries running into it.

The Tennessee River is fed by two other rivers, names of which I do not recall, flows into the Ohio river, which flows into the Mississippi.

The Colorado River: The Colorado River is formed mostly by melting snow and ice.

So you were right with one out of the three.

Mississippi River: Main source is Lake Itasca, if I'm correct, with plenty of tributaries running into it.

The Tennessee River is fed by two other rivers, names of which I do not recall, flows into the Ohio river, which flows into the Mississippi.

The Colorado River: The Colorado River is formed mostly by melting snow and ice.

So you were right with one out of the three.

Ok what feeds Lake Itasca and the Holston and French Broad Rivers? They all come to a point up north on a mountian with ice. Dont they?

And the imbalance will be presumably offset by the heightened temperature levels, causing larger and more frequent storms and hurricanes. Not offset in a good way, but it's still having the water return in one way or another. Drought will not be a problem, most likely, flooding will most likely be.

And unclean water supplies.

Heightened temperatures actually means the air can hold more water, in vapor form, which means the potential for greater rainfall from oceanic water. 'Potential' is an important word there - because increased rainfall potential doesn't mean increased rainfall. And, unless that warmer air comes over land, even if it DID make rain, it would be cycling straight back into the oceans.

It's also worth pointing out that increasede temperatures also directly impacts the water supply - increasing the water vapor capcity of air over rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, and pulling water OUT of the local water cycle.

Perhaps most important - the water cycle will balance itself out somehow. That could mean rain over cooler streams offshore. That could mean torrential rain. Neither of those helps domestic/commercial/industrial water supply - because both cases mean water that can't be directly accessed by the water industry.


So - drought will be a problem. Have you not been paying attention to the conflicts over water recently? In Colorado? In Atlanta, Georgia?

Did you not hear about municipal water supplies in the Carolinas literally having days where they 'ran dry' in the last two years? And the Carolinas are usually considered rain-rich.

95% of the USA is supplied it's water through aquifers (Ground Water). Very little of it is reliant on rivers or mountain glaciers. In Asia, they already have a god-awful system of monsoons and droughts. I really do pity them, but they already have the droughts and floods occurring. All this is going to do is to exacerbate things. Also, thank you for focusing on one point of my post and ignoring the rest.

It's amazing how much you don't know.

About 25% of Americas water usage is based on 'groundwater'. That makes 3/4 of all our use 'surface water'... rivers, lakes, etc.

More importantly:

Aquifers don't make water. They 'recharge' - by very slowly accepting water FROM the surface - which is why polluting rivers or lakes eventually impacts groundwater. It's also why Florida has problems with groundwater use - their groundwater is contaminated by oceanic water (what is called 'salt intrusion'), and requires desalination.

Which means - if surface water dries up, groundwater will deplete, and will either not recharge (in places far from oceanic water) or will recharge with salt water.

So - drought will be a problem. Have you not been paying attention to the conflicts over water recently? In Colorado? In Atlanta, Georgia?


I sure have been keeping up with the conflicts of the Tennessee River. A bunch of pipelines to move a lot of water around, compounded with possible future droughts, makes me wonder why they want to build more nuke plants along the Tennessee River.

I should be the first to open a wooden shoe factory in Kalamazoo!
The market is already saturated thanks to Holland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland,_Michigan), Michigan.
*grumbles about not being able to post links*

If the "experts" got this wrong, what else might they be mistaken about?
Gravity. I hear its just a theory.
That's why I don't listen to environmental anything.

I don't go to Germany. They used to have Nazis there.

If the "experts" got this wrong, what else might they be mistaken about?
'If differing sets of experts examine emergent data when it comes to light, what other scientific findings might be made more accurate?'

Would be a less disingenuous statement.

Gravity. I hear its just a theory.

Actually, it's a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation).

I don't go to Germany. They used to have Nazis there.

So...you're calling me a Nazi? Or a German.

Actually, it's a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation).


The Special Theory of Relativity. It's just a theory.

http://blog.theavclub.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/atomic-bomb.jpg