underworld Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 It means we won't have glaciers to... irrigate WA state crops during the summer & fall, provide continuous water for an ever-growing population, etc. The ramifications of losing our glaciers really suck any way you look at it. More huge reservoirs/dams will be needed, and that will only help if the precipitation keeps up the pace. conservation of mass... the world will always have the same amount of water. whether it is stored as ice or stored as water or stored as gas - we'll find a way to use it. humans have always found a way. And that's why there are no water shortages anywhere in the world, right. Because we are so good at making do well the 'making do' might not be representative of some of the shortages, but is does indicate the overall trend. else we would be dead, but instead i keep hearing that we are overpopulated. Quote
G-spotter Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Actually, the number of people in the world without access to clean or safe drinking water is at an all-time high, as is the number of people dying of dehydration (thirst). Quote
underworld Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 is the the number of people or the percentage of people...(see overpopulation argument) Quote
G-spotter Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 It is both, because the quality and supply of water suitable for drinking are both decreasing. Recently, pilgrims were warned that they should not even bathe in the Ganges. That's a billion people right there. Quote
underworld Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 well, at least they are doing their part by not bathing. Quote
Couloir Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 The level to which human behavior is impacting seems to be the real question in the argument right now compared with what is happening naturally. Let's say for the sake of argument we all make whatever changes needed to be made so that we cut our level of impact in half. What measureable changes if any would this have? I want clean air and fresh water to drink, for myself and the whole world. We should do prudent things to try and ensure that. But at any cost, is there really anything that can change this trend? Human's existence on this earth is tiny compared to the age of this earth. It seems almost arrogant that in that little time we have the ability to contribute in such a large way to the changes that have been occuring naturally long before we were ever here. As a side note, I believe there is a debate tonight at OMSI here in Portland between the state climatologist for Oregon and the state climatologist of Washington. Needless to say, they have differing views on the subject. Quote
G-spotter Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) But at any cost, is there really anything that can change this trend? Yes! The following article lists 15 things we can do. We only have to do 7 of them to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gasses and hence the warming occurring. If we did more than 7 of the 15, we could begin to reduce atmospheric greenhouse levels. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968 Edited January 30, 2007 by G-spotter Quote
Winter Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 If you sampled 1,000 Canuckians at random, it would be a reliable indication of the obesity problem. Who is going to invent a biodiesel engine that burns human fat? Think of the possibilities. Free lyposuction!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.