"A Global Water Emergency Is Right Around the Corner" Topic

…—Unless We Stop It.

"When Chennai, India's main reservoir disappeared earlier this summer, the world was rightfully shocked. A city of more than 4.6 million people had lost its main sources of drinking water, forcing authorities to rely on water shipped in by train.

But Chennai's plight is part of a much bigger issue: The world is increasingly water-stressed as water demand outstrips supply and groundwater is disappearing at an alarming rate. Nearly 1.8 billion people, almost a quarter of the global population, live in countries that are extremely water-stressed, according to a new report by World Resources Institute ranking the world's most water-stressed countries and regions. The results are a warning, but the report authors also note that the solutions to our broken-ass water system are right in front of us. We just need to implement them before we drain our reservoirs and suck aquifers dry…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

This is a much more immediate threat to the world than Global Warming. This issue should be at the top of the world's list of concerns.

So you don't think global warming is a contributing factor?
You think one day in the future some 70 or a 100 years from now. Suddenly global warming officially starts?
We are in the middle of it, and overpopulation/overuse of resources go hand in hand with a warming earth.

Humans can adapt to climate change. Global climate is not static and mankind is extremely adaptable.

Humans cannot live without water.

Pretty easy to prioritize what is important.

Humans can adapt to global warming
Humans can not live without water.

In other words humans can't adapt to global warming.

The warmer the earth gets, theoretically, the more ice will melt providing more (liquid) water on the surface of the planet.

Indeed, warmer air will hold more moisture, melting ice caps will provide more liquid water for evaporation, and rising sea levels will increase surface area for evaporation.

More moisture available for precipitation.

Amusingly came across these graphs a little while ago -

Apparently during all of those years covered in that first graph the Greenland icecap didn't disappear and the sea levels were not significantly higher.

And in looking at that second, current temperatures have a ways to go to equal even the Medieval let alone Roman or Minoan Optimums.

And I have never seen anything that reported those periods as being times of widespread droughts – quite the contrary.

Does Martin know you're eating out of his rice bowl. You know, charts and all.

Gunfreak

Humans can not live without water.

This is a very true statement and there will come a time when there will not be enough water for everyone.

Before that times comes there will be wars fighting over it.

The warmer the earth gets, theoretically, the more ice will melt providing more (liquid) water on the surface of the planet.

There are trillions of liters of water on the planet, but it's not drinkable.
The ice melting into none drinkable water is of no help. Which is what it does.

Goragrad has just shown us the solution to global warming! We just need to have a major volcanic eruption.

Although didn't both the Roman and Minoan Optimums coincide with major population movements (i.e. Sea Peoples in the Med and various Slavic invasions into northern Europe/Germany)?

"The ice melting into none drinkable water is of no help."

I guess is never rains where you live.

How is ice melting into salt water have anything to do with rain?

You may want to google – "Where does rain come from?"

How does more water in the ocean, lead to more rain? Do you believe the oceans go dry when water evaporates from it. And that is the problem?

the amount of water in the ocean is not what dedicates how much it rains.

Walking away, shaking my head.

You may want to google – "Where does rain come from?"

Increased rain does not come from higher ocean levels, so Gunfreak is correct. Precipitation will increase or decrease due to warming depending on location.

From NASA:

link

So

scijinks.gov/rain

But true if all of the Oceans dry up humans and everything else on this planet will die.

But the Oceans will not dry up.

The problem with water is not Global Warming but that there are too many individuals on this planet.

Now I live in the Pacific NW and the one thing we are not short on is Fresh water but I do not trust our current government not to give it to California.

There are parts of this world that within 25 years that water will be a major problem.

But the Oceans will not dry up.

Straw Man. No one said that.

The problem with water is not Global Warming……

Wrong. Global warming has been affecting the global water cycle.

…….there are too many individuals on this planet.

Correct.

Now I live in the Pacific NW and the one thing we are not short on is Fresh water but I do not trust our current government not to give it to California.

You are probably correct to have concerns, but that is a totally different issue.

Actually jdpintex, it was the cooling at the end of the Minoan and Roman Optimums that led to the migrations.

As regions cooled peoples migrated to the regions that had better climates.

Higher sea levels will also mean increased surface areas. More surface area equates to increased evaporation…

Particularly in conjunction with higher temperatures.

Sorry, overpopulation is not the problem – proper distribution of resources is the problem.

Which is the situation in California with respect to water. Although the failure to provide adequate storage facilities is also a major factor there.

Higher sea levels will also mean increased surface areas. More surface area equates to increased evaporation…

Particularly in conjunction with higher temperatures.

What a gross over simplification. To imply greater ocean levels equal greater precipitation everywhere is just plain wrong. Here is a terse (3 sentence) explanation to help you out:

link

It's not the increase in ocean levels and the increase in surface area, it is the increased moisture carrying capacity of warm air. Wet places tend to get wetter and dry places tend to get drier.

link

link

Overall Canada, being a cooler northern clime, will get wetter, with a decrease in summer precipitation.

link

Sorry, overpopulation is not the problem – proper distribution of resources is the problem.

Ya, that's like saying. "Sorry, it's not heart disease, it's coronary disease". They are part and parcel of the same thing. Overpopulation produces difficulty in providing enough food, enough water, enough medical care, enough social services, and enough infrastructure to take care of the individuals.

Boy, Tango sure knows how to poke the bee hive.

I'm not sure if it was poking a beehive or "triggering" …

;)

Type something that does not agree with the "official" set of beliefs (ala George Orwell) and watch the snowflakes melt.

@ wmyers

Yawn…

Snowflake. Hmmm. When you start calling people names, it's pretty clear you've lost the argument.

Gorgorad-

What are your sources?

Where did those charts come from?

Do you have links to a respectable scientific source for any of these claims?

ctually jdpintex, it was the cooling at the end of the Minoan and Roman Optimums that led to the migrations.

As regions cooled peoples migrated to the regions that had better climates.

Higher sea levels will also mean increased surface areas. More surface area equates to increased evaporation…

Particularly in conjunction with higher temperatures.

Sorry, overpopulation is not the problem – proper distribution of resources is the problem.

Which is the situation in California with respect to water. Although the failure to provide adequate storage facilities is also a major factor there.

jdpintex said:

Humans can adapt to climate change. Global climate is not static and mankind is extremely adaptable.

It's not just that the climate is changing, it's that it is changing faster than humans have been able to adapt. So when do we start adapting? We have to do it now, and we have to do it fast.

Mandt2,

Oh, you mean respectable sources like the "hockey stick" charts.

it's that it is changing faster than humans have been able to adapt.

I'm not having any trouble adapting, because nothing is changing, so that must mean I'm a superior human being, And I hope the oceans start rising pretty soon so I can own beachfront property.

Hi Stone-

Ya mean THIS hockey stick?

Yes. It's real and based on solid data and research. Read about it here…

link

I'm not having any trouble adapting, because nothing is changing,

This is a joke, right? Read more about how climate change is having a direct impact on property values along the east coast. Billions of dollars in wealth have been lost to climate change driven flooding and the growing threat of flooding already.

link

link

link

…and from the Pentagon,

link

Please Stone. Check out the links. Get the facts. Be on the right side of science and history.

Check out the links. Get the facts. Be on the right side of science and history.

I would just give up mandt2.

As the saying goes, "You cannot use evidence and reason to argue with someone who didn't use evidence and reason to arrive at his conclusions in the first place".

Reaffirming their confirmation bias is what is important to them, everything else is just hand waved away.

Some more DOD disclosures to hand wave away:

"Since January 2017, twenty-one senior officials at the U.S. Defense Department (DoD) have publicly raised concerns about, and recommended actions to address, the security implications of climate change, both due to its effect on military infrastructure, readiness and operations, and its broader geostrategic implications for the United States."

link

I guess we can add the US Military to the worldwide conspiracy.

Mandt2, that chart does not state WHERE in the world the information was taken from (if it was taken from various locals as opposed to a consistent location that would invalidate it), who took the information, what methodology used, etc.

Regardless, if it shows the temperature only changed by 1 degree, that's absolutely ridiculous.

If you check the NASA website, you will find the temperature has increased an incredible 0.82 degrees since 1880. Yes, 1880.

climate.nasa.gov

Not only that, the water level is apparently rising an incredible 3.3 millimeters per YEAR.

If you check the NASA website, you will find the temperature has increased an incredible 0.82 degrees since 1880. Yes, 1880.

So no need to worry?

From the link you provided:

"The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months."

You do know that there is a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average surface temperature. How will that change as we hit 410.38 ppm just today?

co2.earth/daily-co2

Not only that, the water level is apparently rising an incredible 3.3 millimeters per YEAR.

So how much increase is worrying then, to you? That is the global average and is different for other localities.

Let's stay with the US military for an example. Norfolk Station is the HQ of the US Atlantic Fleet.

"Ten times a year, the Naval Station at Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the world's largest naval base. All it takes to cause such disarray these days is a full moon, which triggers exceptionally high tides…………Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built………But it is Norfolk and Virginia's Tidewater region that is uniquely vulnerable. Sea-level rise is occurring at twice the global average, and at the highest rate along the Atlantic coast, according to the U.S. Geological Survey."

link

So someone has to worry about this at the DOD as it affects military readiness. Here is the "Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense" for your perusal. It was released earlier this year.

PDF link

…….that chart does not state WHERE in the world the information was taken from (if it was taken from various locals as opposed to a consistent location that would invalidate it), who took the information, what methodology used, etc.

Here you go:

PDF link

This was reported in 1998. A lot of improvements in temperature proxies have been done since then. They all basically corroborate the findings. In 2007 Wahl et al re-examined the original findings and came up with similar results.

PDF link

.that chart does not state WHERE in the world the information was taken from (if it was taken from various locals as opposed to a consistent location that would invalidate it), who took the information, what methodology used, etc.

Why would GLOBAL MEAN temperature recorded at one location be more valid that one's that's measured at many points, and signal processed to remove changes caused by site movement, changes in methodology. This is especially important since the vast majority of these weather stations are set up for short-term aviation weather forecasting rather than creating a long-term meteorological record.

Here's a short (4min) video where Prof. Kevin Cowtan explaining how and why this is done. YouTube link

Regardless, if it shows the temperature only changed by 1 degree, that's absolutely ridiculous.

If you check the NASA website, you will find the temperature has increased an incredible 0.82 degrees since 1880. Yes, 1880.

And -4C compared to pre-industrial temperatures gave us a mile of ice covering all of modern Saskatchewan ―\_(ツ)_/―

wmyers said:

Mandt2, that chart does not state WHERE in the world the information was taken from (if it was taken from various locals as opposed to a consistent location that would invalidate it), who took the information, what methodology used, etc.

wymers-

Please look at the chart again. In the lower right hand corner you will see the citation. Bowman saw it and was kind enough to provide a link to a pdf of the very report.

I would just give up mandt2.

No you wouldn't. ;)

I don't spend as much time here as in the past. Now it feels like the Climate discussions are actually less confrontational than they were 4-5 years ago, and I think that's a good thing.

Now it feels like the Climate discussions are actually less confrontational than they were 4-5 years ago, and I think that's a good thing.

What's frustrating is that it is a revolving door of newly minted deniers with the same stupid arguments and non sequiturs.

1) The Earth was always hotter/colder…….
2) Climate scientists are protecting their careers/tenure/research funding yadda yadda
3) The science is faked/wrong/inconclusive/proxied….yadda yadda
4) Proxy science isn't real science
5) Global warming is now called Climate Change because ………yadda yadda
6) A world wide conspiracy………yadda yadda
7) Social engineering……….yadda yadda
8) Al Gore……….yadda yadda
9) Leonardo Dicaprio…….yadda yadda
10) I read on Watts Up/ Breitbart/Climate Depot/Heartland Institute/Cato Institute……..yadda yadda

See what I mean?

For instance, the same people who claim proxy science is not real are the ones saying the Earth was warmer 100 million years ago. Irony impairment is strong in these folks.

It's like the Flat Earthers refuting the globe shape of the Earth by making videos using their cell phones with GPS abilities. Hilarious.

11) The argument and people involved are not worth the effort.

If you have something novel that hasn't been refuted thousands of times, by all means give it a go. I would absolutely welcome not having to worry about this issue.

Wow. A discussion about an actual and significant ecological problem that man has some power over and we lurch down the AGW rabbithole.
In the US we have cities built in the desert that are blowing through ground water and plains states farmers that are draining the Ogallala aquifer so we can export food. I expect this will hit hard in the next 50 years.

+1 VC Carter…..though I think we'd disagree as to what "argument" & what people aren't worth the effort.

Wow. A discussion about an actual and significant ecological problem that man has some power over and we lurch down the AGW rabbithole.

Jon, there is some overlap in the two issues.

PDF link

link

PDF link

I'm getting tired of Climate Change Quackery. First we have this: link

new evidence that water levels in the Great Lakes, which are near record low levels, may be shrinking due to global warming

Then we have this: link

Climate Change to blame for high Lake Michigan water levels
Posted-

So which is it? Is climate change causing low or high water levels?

You are aware that the first article is from 2008 and the second one is from 2019, that is to say 11 years later?

The concluding paragraph of the second source

On June 10, Gronewold published an article in Earth & Space Science News, titled "Climate change is driving rapid shifts between high and low water levels on the Great Lakes." In it, he and co-author, hydrology and climate science researcher Richard Rood, state, "[W]e believe rapid transitions between extreme high and low water levels in the Great Lakes represent the ‘new normal … Increasing precipitation, the threat of recurring periods of high evaporation, and a combination of both routine and unusual climate events — such as extreme cold air outbursts — are putting the region in uncharted territory."

I don't see the supposed contradiction you're driving at.

"I don't see the supposed contradiction you're driving at."

… and that is a great part of the problem …

"I don't see the supposed contradiction you're driving at."

… and that is a great part of the problem …

This is related to (but not exactly the same) as the supposed contradiction of warmer antarctic temperatures leading to more antarctic winter sea ice. How can you have more sea ice when the temperature is warmer? Simple, warmer temperatures means more icecap melting, melt water will flow to the ocean, but since melt water is freshwater, it will lower the salt content of the surface layer of the antarctic ocean, which will make it easier to freeze in the winter.

In this case, changing climatic conditions will increase the variation in precipitation. This will have the likely effect of increasing evaporation (thus lowering the great lakes water level) during the dry years, and the increased rain/snow will raise the water levels during the wet and cloudy years.

I don't see that as being too contradictory. Annoyingly counter-intuitive with surface level knowledge – sure.

Cheers
Martin from Canada