| Author |
Message
|
| Carthagenian |
 Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: Global warming causes water shortages? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7
|
I've heard that some UN group has determined that global warming will cause water shortages world wide.
Now, when I thought about this, three things came to mind.
Doesn't warmer temperatures mean water evaporates faster?
Doesn't warmer air hold more suspended moisture? and therefor rainfall would increase?
And if the polar ice caps and glaciers are melting, doesn't that mean there is more free (as in available) water in the overall ecosystem?
oh, and I thought of a fourth, if the water rises and floods low level land area, doesn't that mean more surface area for water to evaporate from?
So if there is more total water, evaporating over a larger area, at a faster rate, and the air is more saturated due to higher heat, doesn't that mean more rainfall? and isn't rainfall the major source of all human water supplies?
I'm not a scientist, so could someone point out my errors? Because unless I'm wrong somewhere, the problem is going to be what to do with excess water, not what to do about a lack of water. Maybe I heard the news report wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Nevyn |
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 827
Location: UK
|
hehe, that's funny, the UN doesn't know anything, they probably havent even got to the part where more rain is produced yet. It would help if they didn't cause half the 'global warming' with all that hot air they produce
_________________
Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The amount of water on the earth is near enough constant, we get a few extra gallons each year from space. The question is more about freshwater. In any model of global warming some parts gain and some lose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jellyologist |
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 330
|
This is the type of pseudo-science that drives scientists batty. There are so many variables at play that any definitive statements about the effects of global warming on freshwater are just thrown out and lapped up by thr press.
I don't have an opinion of the whole global warming issue. I'm not a climatologist. I am, however, a scientist and can judge the quality of science that is dredged up 'to prove' whatever. I'd give the science (or lack of it) in the debate a D minus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jellyologist wrote: |
This is the type of pseudo-science that drives scientists batty. There are so many variables at play that any definitive statements about the effects of global warming on freshwater are just thrown out and lapped up by thr press.
I don't have an opinion of the whole global warming issue. I'm not a climatologist. I am, however, a scientist and can judge the quality of science that is dredged up 'to prove' whatever. I'd give the science (or lack of it) in the debate a D minus. |
So er what was it I said that you despair of? - pointing out that the amount of water on the earth is more or less constant, or that GLobal warming will have different effects in different places? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jellyologist |
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 330
|
| Megabrain wrote: |
| Jellyologist wrote: |
This is the type of pseudo-science that drives scientists batty. There are so many variables at play that any definitive statements about the effects of global warming on freshwater are just thrown out and lapped up by thr press.
I don't have an opinion of the whole global warming issue. I'm not a climatologist. I am, however, a scientist and can judge the quality of science that is dredged up 'to prove' whatever. I'd give the science (or lack of it) in the debate a D minus. |
So er what was it I said that you despair of? - pointing out that the amount of water on the earth is more or less constant, or that GLobal warming will have different effects in different places? |
Please excuse my lack of directing the reply. I meant it in responseto the opening premise by the UN study and not your posting. I intutitively agree with your response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mark717 |
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 14
|
yes we all will need boats...all we will have to call on the navy to save us....i suggest get your own boat...
_________________
dloigh
its not that i suck at spelling...its that i just don't care |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Terrapin |
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 79
Location: W. coast, N.A., Third Stone
|
Based on peer review studies and climate models the IPCC predicts that geographic changes in rainfall distribution will occur. Some areas are predicted to get wetter, some drier. They also admit that the science in this area is less mature than it is in the area climate temperature predictions; in other words their predictions are less certain.
What is more certain and significant for people who derive their water from mountain snows is that more precipitation is expected to fall in the form of rain and less as snow in the mountains. This is significantly expected to increase spring floods and decrease summer runoff. This will make it harder for reservoirs to capture as much water as they currently do and they will dry out sooner. The science behind this is much more solid.
_________________
Terrapin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| scpg02 |
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Location: Sacramento
|
| Terrapin wrote: |
| What is more certain and significant for people who derive their water from mountain snows is that more precipitation is expected to fall in the form of rain and less as snow in the mountains. This is significantly expected to increase spring floods and decrease summer runoff. This will make it harder for reservoirs to capture as much water as they currently do and they will dry out sooner. The science behind this is much more solid. |
Runoff and storage is not the only problem. Case in point, California gets 60% of its water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Logging in those mountains has been cut drastically. We had 20 trees/acre in the late 1800s now we have 300+ trees/acre. There has already been a 12 -17% drop in runoff because the extra trees are using more water.
_________________
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
 Corner Cafe
for relaxing adult conversation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Terrapin |
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 79
Location: W. coast, N.A., Third Stone
|
| scpg02 wrote: |
| Terrapin wrote: |
| What is more certain and significant for people who derive their water from mountain snows is that more precipitation is expected to fall in the form of rain and less as snow in the mountains. This is significantly expected to increase spring floods and decrease summer runoff. This will make it harder for reservoirs to capture as much water as they currently do and they will dry out sooner. The science behind this is much more solid. |
Runoff and storage is not the only problem. Case in point, California gets 60% of its water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Logging in those mountains has been cut drastically. We had 20 trees/acre in the late 1800s now we have 300+ trees/acre. There has already been a 12 -17% drop in runoff because the extra trees are using more water. |
Good, we can agree on something. Sort of. I would like to see your data source so I can use it with the confidence you have in it.
Here in California, this year’s problems are not likely caused by either global warming or too many trees.
_________________
Terrapin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| scpg02 |
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Location: Sacramento
|
| Terrapin wrote: |
Good, we can agree on something. Sort of. I would like to see your data source so I can use it with the confidence you have in it.
Here in California, this year’s problems are not likely caused by either global warming or too many trees. |
I'll look for links but not sure I'll be able to find them.
The information on the trees came from more than one source but the best one is a biologist out of Auburn who did a photo study of the Sierras. Very interesting. He also put forth information about how aboriginal people burned the forest regularly to keep it open and park like.
That reminds me I have some good pictures to show you about what can happen to a forest that is managed well as opposed to one managed poorly.
The information about the run-off came from a Sacramento Bee article. They were blaming global warming for the decline though there is no evidence for that. I find a lot of scientific articles, and studies for that matter, do that. They will find evidence of something like run-off decline then blame global warming without evidence of a link.
I think it is more likely do to the increase in trees, they do drink a lot of water. I don't have a study to back that up any more than they did so I guess you can decide for yourself which is more likely.
And yeah I track CA legislation and we are in it deep, that is for sure. This governor has been absolutely horrible for this state.
_________________
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
Corner Cafe
for relaxing adult conversation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
