water shortages

Redworm-

Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and since it has a flammable range that goes from 4% to 74%, it has no problem combining with oxygen to form water. Ask the pilot of the Hindenburg. Ask the drivers of fuel cell cars. Perhaps you could tell me where all of this free hydrogen is going, now that it is no longer tied to oxygen?

Whether water is drinkable has more to do with what is dissolved/swimming in it than anything else. Undrinkable water has salts, metals, biologicals, and other unwanted items dissolved in it, which makes it unhealthy to drink. All of this has little to do with global warming.

BTW- that the Earth is running out of water is EXACTLY what those papers and you are trying to hyperbole people into believing.

Or, you can just call names and attack people. That is easier, I guess. That's it, let's call everyone who disagrees with us stupid, and that way we will look smarter. Is it my turn yet?
 
Redworm, Fremmer is proving that the prophet of supposed global warming is a complete hypocrite.
Click to expand...
He's proving nothing. You, Fremmer and everyone else that has this fantasy that Al Gore somehow represents the scientific community are deluding yourselves.

Yes, Al Gore's a hypocrite. A huge one. But I don't give a damn because I don't give a damn about him. Nor does the rest of the scientific community. Those of us that are actually trying to solve the world's problems in a variety of different ways don't care what you think about Al Gore, we care that you're ignoring the science being thrown in your face.
What does that say for their credibility?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should concern yourself less with the credibility of talking heads and more with science.
 
Well let's see... fresh water is scarce and a very large amount of that fresh water is stored at the north and south poles. Maybe we can start harvesting glaciers. Oops, that might be too much to ask.

Ironically fresh water in the form of glacial ice used to be harvested and brought to southern regions before we had refrigerators. That used to be how we kept consumables cold and fresh. No use of electricity and the ice box did so well. Sounds like an eco friendly "ancient cooling device".

Heck, I can build a solar still in my back yard that can make 10 gallons of fresh water per day. All I need is river water and the energy to carry 5 or six buckets to of brackish water to feed it. The sun is my power source for making this fresh water. No reason for a person to not have water to consume. If a person lacks the know how and will to do such a thing, who's fault would that be?

Government just likes to make excuses for there lack of effort in regards to making fresh water. God forbid they actually do something that doesn't create a dependent of some sort.

It makes me wonder if government would make it illegal to have a solar still if many people began to use them. Since it would make people less dependent upon government for their life it must be a terrible and sinful thing, which should be taxed heavily or made illegal for the good of the Union. :rolleyes:
 
Redworm-

Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and since it has a flammable range that goes from 4% to 74%, it has no problem combining with oxygen to form water. Ask the pilot of the Hindenburg. Ask the drivers of fuel cell cars. Perhaps you could tell me where all of this free hydrogen is going, now that it is no longer tied to oxygen?
Click to expand...
And this has what to do with the price of rice in China? That comment was to inform you that the amount of water on earth is not a constant, not that we're drying up today.
Whether water is drinkable has more to do with what is dissolved/swimming in it than anything else. Undrinkable water has salts, metals, biologicals, and other unwanted items dissolved in it, which makes it unhealthy to drink. All of this has little to do with global warming.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Climate change can drastically affect how much water will be in a given area. A stream dries up and leaves a tribe of thousands in Africa without water because the shift in the climate has altered weather patterns. One of many scenarios in which climate change has a direct impact on the availability of potable water.

That's not even taking into account the effects of those changes on the rest of the food chain. Consider that many plants rely on a pretty standard schedule of rainfall to thrive. Drastically alter that schedule and many plants can die. The animals that feed off those plants could die. The animals that feed off those herbivores could die. More and more species at risk of overpopulation or extinction.

So yes, climate change has an effect on water supplies. Not just for us but for all living things.

BTW- that the Earth is running out of water is EXACTLY what those papers and you are trying to hyperbole people into believing.
Click to expand...
No. Read them again.
Or, you can just call names and attack people. That is easier, I guess. That's it, let's call everyone who disagrees with us stupid, and that way we will look smarter. Is it my turn yet?
Click to expand...
If I've actually called someone a name, I apologize. And while I don't call people that disagree with my opinions stupid I do question the intelligence of anyone that ignores science.
 
And for those wondering, the amount of water on the planet does not stay constant. This planet has gone through billions of years of changes and much of that time was spent bone dry. Once you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen you no longer have water. Granted, that doesn't relate to the "global warming" issue but to think that the amount of water on earth is a constant is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, current planetary evolution theories suggest that the planet has had substantial liquid water on it`s surface for at least 2-3 billion years. The evidence can be found in Archean deposits.

When oxygen and hydrogen gases are produced in appreciable quantities, they frequently combine to form H2O since the temperatures and pressures found at the Earth`s surface are very favorable (~25 degrees Celsius @ 1000 millibars). Because of these chemical conditions, the hydrologic cycle persists and will probably continue to persist for the next couple billion years.

However, what I find disturbing about this discussion is how so many on this forum can still support the notion that mankind is simply incapable of significantly influencing the world`s climate. If we truly value the research and findings of the scientific community, then we must be prepared to entertain conclusions from all sources...until they are unsubstantiated.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
However, what I find disturbing about this discussion is how so many on this forum can still support the notion that mankind is simply incapable of significantly influencing the world`s climate
Click to expand...

+1 great comment.
 
However, what I find disturbing about this discussion is how so many on this forum can still support the notion that mankind is simply incapable of significantly influencing the world`s climate.
Click to expand...

-1 What I find disturbing is the hubris that man COULD influence the worlds climate.
 
If mankind can influence the Earth`s surface (ie: cities, dams, mining, roads, nuclear explosions, etc...), why is it so hard to conceive that mankind can influence the air above our heads???



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
Actually, current planetary evolution theories suggest that the planet has had substantial liquid water on it`s surface for at least 2-3 billion years. The evidence can be found in Archean deposits.
Click to expand...
Indeed but the amount is not constant. :o That's mah point, good sir.
However, what I find disturbing about this discussion is how so many on this forum can still support the notion that mankind is simply incapable of significantly influencing the world`s climate. If we truly value the research and findings of the scientific community, then we must be prepared to entertain conclusions from all sources...until they are unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...
My biggest beef is that instead of arguing the science behind the issue - which is all that matters - people pick on the spokesman, a guy that isn't a scientist and doesn't speak for the people that are actually trying to solve the problem.

We should certainly entertain conclusions from all sources and continue to research the issue before drastic measures are taken. That we have an effect on the environment is not in question by any reasonable conclusion. It's the severity of our influence that's up for debate. But until people realize that the only way to know the truth is through science then we're going to accomplish nothing.
 
-1 What I find disturbing is the hubris that man COULD influence the worlds climate.
Click to expand...
What makes you think we can't? Remember the "hole in the ozone layer"? As much as I dislike that oversimplification the point remains that we had an impact on that situation and when we took steps to decrease our impact the planet was able to recover.

Of course we can influence the world's climate. We send machines to other planets and to the other side of the solar system, we can clone living creatures, we can alter genetic coding and we can build a computer that can beat the best chess player humanity has to offer. The only difference between that and affecting the climate is that we're not intent on changing the climate.
 
We send machines to other planets and to the other side of the solar system, we can clone living creatures, we can alter genetic coding and we can build a computer that can beat the best chess player humanity has to offer. The only difference between that and affecting the climate is that we're not intent on changing the climate.
Click to expand...

And the ship was unsinkable. Then there was that iceberg.

Planet + natural forces = REALLY BIG

Humanity = really small

Basically, enviro-nuts have no sense of scale and are very bad at math. Try looking at the scale of the planet itself to the crust we live on, and then the scale of the atmosphere to our grandest structures.

We're ants pushing around a few tiny grains of sand on a beach, and thinking we're bigger than we are.

Natural disasters show just how little we are.
 
And now that same iceberg against the side of a Nimitz-class carrier would probably scratch the paint.

Yes, the planet is very large but I think you're making the same mistake in considering the scale. The ratio of crust to mantel, the ratio of atmosphere to skyscraper has jack to do with our ability to affect the environment around us. If you think scale is the only determining factor in all this I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you're quite mistaken.

Science shows just how big we can be. ;)
 
Chaos theory explains why tiny causes can have enormous effects. Weather is a classic example. Tiny changes in climate can have huge impacts on weather. Man is capable of causing those tiny changes, maybe not individually, but collectively.

Even hundreds of years ago man was poweful enough to cause horrible damage to local environments. In the 1600s there was hardly a drinkable water supply in all of europe.
 
Humanity can change the environment. The elimination of megafauna is one example.

However, the earth has gone through massive temperature swings throughout history. Most of those swings occurred before humanity had reached the level where its technology and population were sufficient to affect the global climate. When the Vikings were growing crops in Greenland, I'm pretty sure they weren't using greenhouse gas emitting technology to harvest said crops.

The question is whether we are the cause of the current cycle. And that, notwithstanding the propaganda and dogma, is the subject of quite a bit of debate.
 
They were maladapted for the changing climate at that time. Please see "evolution".
Click to expand...

Part of the maladapatation was dealing with two-legged critters that liked to use fire as a means of driving whole herds over cliffs and/or into ravines as a mechanism for hunting.
 
The question is whether we are the cause of the current cycle. And that, notwithstanding the propaganda and dogma, is the subject of quite a bit of debate.
Click to expand...
Actually the more accurate question is "how much are we affecting the current cycle". Yes, the planet goes through climate changes. We all know that. We also know, from those same records, that the current climate change is outside the norm. The problem is not that the climate is changing, it's that it's not changing how we've expected it to change given the massive amounts of data that we have. Also, it's changing suspiciously in tune with the amount of extra CO2 we're producing.

How much it's changing and how we're impacting that change is what needs to be researched. But the fact that we do have an immediate impact on the climate and can wreck it is not. And by "wreck" I don't mean to suggest we're going to irreversibly destroy to the planet and life will never exist again. :rolleyes: I'm saying we can alter the climate to the point that it affects thousands if not millions of people across the globe.
 
Redworm, it's only outside the norm for as long as we've been keeping records, which isn't very long. Can you look at one single curve, all you can see of a chart that extends back hundreds of sheets of paper, and draw a conclusion from that? Nope. And in fact, the ice-core samples are not supporting the theories of the global warming alarmists.

BTW, the hottest year on record in the United States? It was 1934.
 
Redworm, it's only outside the norm for as long as we've been keeping records, which isn't very long. Can you look at one single curve, all you can see of a chart that extends back hundreds of sheets of paper, and draw a conclusion from that? Nope. And in fact, the ice-core samples are not supporting the theories of the global warming alarmists.
Click to expand...

Data from ice cores is used to ratio isotopic O18/O16 and compare those values to current levels. Ice cores also contain CO2 concentrations which are also compared to today`s values. Based on this data, the ice cores indicate, (according to many who specialize in paleoclimatology, geology, and ecology), that O18/O16 ratios have decreased towards the present to the point that they are statistically significant. Also, CO2 has increased significantly towards the present to the point that becomes statistically significant.

Now what does all this mean for the global warming debate: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHEN IT COMES TO FUTURE PREDICTIONS
These studies are just studies. They can only be used to analyze past and present conditions...nothing more.

However, just because a study can be precise about the past and the present does not justify close-minded views on possible dire predictions. Humanity must act accordingly and intrepret the warning signs appropriately, regardless of their outcomes.

Just because a vegetable like Al Gore can stand on a soap box and cite a handful of studies that he probably does not understand DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD COMPLETELY IGNORE THE SCIENCE THAT HE SUPPORTS. In many ways, this is a real tragedy for the scientific community and those who have poured decades of research into a subject matter that represents the dissertations of thousands of PhD candidates.





Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top