Berzerker
Deity
Yes, gravity, and not much
Global warming debate continued
- Thread starter Mik1984
- Start date
Yes, gravity, and not much
There are quite a few rivers that ARE fed by snow melt, and so a warming climate means that the mountains won't be releasing their water in the summer but early in the spring. It would drastically change the water situation for huge amounts of farmland.
And what do you mean by 'not much'? The snowmelt is gone partway through the spring?
And what do you mean by 'not much'? The snowmelt is gone partway through the spring?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I only have to defend them if I say they're true.
That theory about humans reducing their CO2 output which results in plants causing a CO2 crash? I don't know if it's true, therefore I don't have to defend a goddamn thing.
You, on the other hand--if you say global warming is "definitely" happening, then you must prove it beyond any reasonable doubt (or present a huge volume of ironclad and irrefutable evidence from somebody else). Burden of proof is on you.
And having seen your past performace in global warming threads, I'm not worried at all.
Berzerker
Deity
We're part of the drainage system for the east Rockies, "not much" refers to the amount of snowmelt we get here. We get most of our water from rain. Whats yer point? You didn't wanna talk about our local river so just make yer point. Global warming = increased evaporation = more snowpack = more spring run off. Global warming puts more water into play...
It can also put much less water into play. Many rivers are sustained in the late summer by snowmelt. If the snows melt too early, then there won't be water in the late summers. The snow acts as a natural delayed-release system. All of the precipatation during the winter makes it (eventually) to the plains, but in a time released manner.
We don't want all the snowmelt in the early spring, because it just wastes water (and risks flooding). Most importantly, it disrupts infrastructure, which is an expensive investment.
We don't want all the snowmelt in the early spring, because it just wastes water (and risks flooding). Most importantly, it disrupts infrastructure, which is an expensive investment.
Masquerouge
Deity
So because on a subject in which I am not an expert, I read what was available and chose to listen to the experts, you're saying I've decided to stay ignorant?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Well, here's an interesting surprise that popped up in the news:
City dwellers produce less carbon, report suggests
City dwellers produce less carbon, report suggests
Kinda bucks the conventional wisdom.
What was the conventional wisdom?
Well, considering we're on the cusp of having more urban than rural dwellers, and that we're still overpolluting carbon dioxide ... I don't know what to say.
Metal Alloy Man
Back in Black
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 761
Global warming is real, so stop procrastinating and do somehing about it!
Berzerker
Deity
How does that put much less water into play? There's MORE water in play, your objection is the timing of the melting. So what if the snows are melting a few days before they "normally" start melting? There's more snowpack. This is why sea levels can actually lower during a warm period, evaporation and precipitation increase even faster than land based ice melt.
This happened from 1900-1940 (most of our temp records here are from this period) as we entered another warming period and then sea levels rose during the following cooling period from 1940-1970 as evaporation decreased. Again, consider that % 70 of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice. That is not good. I dont see why that is preferable to say, % 35 or less locked up in ice.
Damn the rivers and produce electricity. I dont know where you're getting this idea that all mountain snow is gonna melt in early spring, there will be more melt but that doesn't mean it'll be gone faster.
Berzerker
Deity
You told someone in this thread that all opinion other than "the scientific consensus" doesn't matter, thats choosing to remain ignorant. I dont even know why yer here, you aint even posting what you claim is the scientific consensus so we can debate it...with you.
It can cause droughts
I have no problem with local communities figuring out ways of melting the snow from their mountains, truly
But there are many other countries that are quite dependent upon their snowmelt cycles. I think the Ganges River is one. If we cause their snows to melt too early, we're exposing hundreds of millions of people to drought.
Here's the problem: it's not fair to force far away people to suffer changes in the climate due to our activities. It's no more fair to disrupt their climate than it would be for me to poop on your lawn. Foisting pollution onto others is fundamentally unjust.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
If I were to guess, i'd say it was that city dwellers will have less need for heating, because cities are generally warmer than surrounding areas, and that city dwellers tend to have to travel less, being closer to distribution points for all their needs. So city dwellers would have a smaller carbon footprint than rural folks.
Masquerouge
Deity
You mean like this post I made on the first page?
Al Gore is not a scientist, last time I checked.
And last time I checked scientific sites on the internet, they convinced me that:
a. global warming was happening
b. a non-negligible part of it was due to human-induced changes
c. solar forcing alone was not enough to explain the more recent temperature changes
d. most critics were not scientists (but journalists, or economists, etc.)
a nice place to find a lot of links is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
and one thing is certain: a post like the one Gothmog made (link provided in my first post) with data, explanations and links to back it up, will do a lot better job at convincing me that someone who's too busy to provide any links, sprouts random theories without any sort of evidence, and who thinks Al Gore is a scientist
And I did not say that "all opinion other than "the scientific consensus" doesn't matter", I said that in my opinion, when you are not an expert on a given subject, it's wise to trust the experts.
Masquerouge
Deity
I see. It couldn't possibly be because I had no pre-conceived opinions, and decided to read about it and what I read convinced me it's real, right? And if I find the arguments in favor of global warming more convincing that those against, it's because I'm ignorant, right?
How does one go about wisely selecting an expert? We use experts in nearly every aspect of our lives (from our cars to our health to our legal matters) because they've devoted years and years of specialised training to their field. So how does one choose an expert or group of experts within a field?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
That big cities are the problem rather than the solution. It would appear greenifying a society isn't so simple.
But it was only one study, so probably too soon to draw a hard conclusion.
Berzerker
Deity
Climate change causes droughts. Water and atmospheric cycles cause droughts. More water in the system does not cause droughts.
I think yer confusing drought with run off. Drought is lack of rain and the Ganges is fed by snowmelt from mountains over 20 k high. Mountains that remain covered in ice and snow all thru summer because there is far too much of it to melt and/or its too cold up there. So if temps went up 2-3 degrees, more ice and snow melts. But then the increased evaporation will produced more snow for the mountains in the winter. Furthermore, we can reduce the effects of drought by pumping ocean water into the Sahara and other deserts and basins to regulate sea levels and provide for irrigation etc. That would transform huge drought regions into viable ecosystems. Terra-forming, Baby!
You are now, according to you anyway... Yer making assumptions, climate changes can hurt and can help. More water in the system should mean more growth and more rain and snow.
