30 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd far too many humans will have died or will have been displaced from their homes, and for what? Nothing. Islands are already disappearing from the Virginia coastline.
Thing is, if sea levels ARE rising YOU will be the one with egg on your face. I will not be happy to have won that debate. I would MUCH rather you be right but I suspect you will be wrong.
30 Jun 17
Originally posted by SuzianneToo late for what? It is already too late to stop some of the harm already done. It is already too late to stop much of the harm of the next 50 years or so (unless we use other techniques to cause cooling).
The question is, by the time we pull our collective heads out of our asses and actually decide to DO something about it, will it be too late?
But I personally doubt that there is a tipping point beyond which irreversible constant warming would occur, but there is of course a possibility that such mechanisms exist.
Overall, its a question of what is easier (or cheaper if you want to look at it economically) and who is harmed. Right now, the poorest are being harmed while the richest benefit.
07 Jul 17
Originally posted by SuzianneEvidently new islands are popping up.
And far too many humans will have died or will have been displaced from their homes, and for what? Nothing. Islands are already disappearing from the Virginia coastline.
There is one way that we can help slow the rise of the sea, divert river water. We prevent water from spilling into the ocean, using it to green the earth.
More plants to clean the atmosphere while lowering the amount of water entering the oceans. It is a win-win.
07 Jul 17
Originally posted by Eladarerr, that wouldn't work because the water would keep evaporating from the land and plants and then fall as rain on the oceans;
There is one way that we can help slow the rise of the sea, divert river water. We prevent water from spilling into the ocean, using it to green the earth.
More plants to clean the atmosphere while lowering the amount of water entering the oceans. It is a win-win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
07 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyUsing that water to irrigate fields in dry regions would not work due to evaporation?
err, that wouldn't work because the water would keep evaporating from the land and plants and then fall as rain on the oceans;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarOn that level, the Chinese are building island by piling up sand too. That one may be gone with the next storm. Not exactly a good example. Most islands still come from volcano activity.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/06/28/new-island-north-carolina-jnd-orig-vstop.cnn
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonhouseI see you are unable to admit your ignorance.
On that level, the Chinese are building island by piling up sand too. That one may be gone with the next storm. Not exactly a good example. Most islands still come from volcano activity.
How about the idea of encouraging people to use river water to help with rising sea levels? Extra plants means less carbon in the atmosphere helping with global warming.
More plants could also mean more food to help feed the poor.
09 Jul 17
6 edits
Originally posted by Eladar"work" to do what? "work" to grow crops, yes, and "work" to act as a (limited) carbon sink, yes (so maybe reduce global warming but unfortunately that may be more than offset by the reduction in albedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo . and note from the tables how vegetation has a lower albedo than desert sand ), but certainly NOT the other thing you were suggesting which was to help reduce sea level rise! Evaporation would mean the river H2O would still be cycled around to the ocean via the atmosphere and clouds and rain thus wouldn't be prevented from going back into the oceans. When you water the land, the H2O put on the land generally doesn't permanently stay on the land but eventually all evaporates off and eventually by one route or another ends up back in the ocean where it originated so watering the land doesn't help much with sea level rise!
Using that water to irrigate fields in dry regions would not work due to evaporation?
If you don't believe me, see for yourself just by reading this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
If you read this, you see I am not just making this up!
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyWater that sinks into the ground will evaporate.
"work" to do what? "work" to grow crops, yes, and "work" to act as a (limited) carbon sink, yes (so maybe reduce global warming but unfortunately that may be more than offset by the reduction in albedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo . and note from the tables how vegetation has a lower albedo than desert sand ), but certainly NOT the other thing you were ...[text shortened]... tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
If you read this, you see I am not just making this up!
In any case, I am not saying that it will cure the problem, simply a helpful way to ease it. There are many areas that could use more water, so why not tap into rivers.
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou mean like people drinking the water? You mean like irrigation for farming? You mean like to drought thirsty land? Southern California would love to be able to use the water flowing into the ocean from the Columbia river as well as other rivers between. No need to suck the rivers dry but divert when possible using pipes to ship the water south.
A stupid idea.
Just think for a moment where exactly that water will go.
Then hang your head in shame.
I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world that could use extra water.
I'm sure there are plenty of farmers and ranchers in Washington that would love free river water to help with the problem.
We need to be consuming more water before it reaches the oceans.