An interesting short article: "Climate change will affect water supplies in complicated ways."
http://www.slate.com/id/2279975/?gt1=38001
Printable View
An interesting short article: "Climate change will affect water supplies in complicated ways."
http://www.slate.com/id/2279975/?gt1=38001
I watched a special on Antarctica last week and they were looking at the ice shelf. They didn't get into the whole climate change debate they just talked about what temperatures were in the past vs. what they are today and where they expect them to go based on the current data. The short or it is that the ice shelf is melting, which it has done in the past. They are projecting a 60 foot increase in ocean levels by the end of the century. 60 feet! That's what it increased when the shelf last melted and they think it will do the same thing again. Florida, gone. Both coasts, gone. The Midwest, replaced by a shallow sea. Crap, I might have ocean front property right here in Indiana.
Me thinks they need to be testing that "shelf",to see what kind of little viruses and other parasites managed to get themselves frozen in there,all that melting water is moving "down stream" from its current location,and bringing all that crap down with it.
People are swimming/fishing in the water that is surely mixed with some of that formerly frozen brew,and that can't be good.
If you check any of the flood projection maps, even with 1000" (83.3') of rise, water won't even cover all of Cape Cod. And since Cape Cod is experiencing post-glacial rebound, it won't be as bad as flat land projections make it seem. On the other hand New Orleans or places in the Netherlands that are below sea level now and are sinking further, have a lot to worry about.
It certainly won't flood up into the central US. You'd have to go all out deluge for that and a looong time back in history. According to Wiki (not my favorite source but expedient), the last interglacial melt rose the sea levels only 6 meters (<20 feet). Most of the current reports are saying a 30" to 54" rise in sea levels by the end of the century. Not 60'. The only mention of the number 60 I keep seeing during a quick surf is the number of METERS the sea level could rise if Antarctica completely melted, and I'm not sure that isn't just a regurgitation of the Wiki numbers. It' amazing how quickly some things disseminate around the web, like a vast game of telephone.
I'm not putting down the seriousness of rising water levels and the displacement of populations that would cause. Just wondering at the source of some figures and the inches/feet/meters/millimeters confusion that seems to abound in the talk of this phenom.
But as Ken's article points out, even a 2 or 3 foot rise could affect groundwater farther in. Could. Depending on the source of the ground water and what filtering mechanism is in place.
In the show they were looking at a specific sea organism that only lives at specific depths and in specific temperatures. They have found fossilized remains 80 feet higher on land at the same time frame that the shelf melted. That's all I know.
How much has the land mass risen over time in the area though?
It can sometimes get annoying when 'scientific' TV shows only focus on what makes their arguments work and forget all the other land dynamics that go along with it.
And we know where he lives.
[QUOTE=Rick;272114]And we know where he lives.
Is this supposed to be a riddle?
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...1t:429,r:0,s:0
It was supposed to be this.....get it? Worms....where he lives?
http://i348.photobucket.com/albums/q...cratherdog.gif
OMG! I love it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Blue Gold: World Water Wars is a great documentary about water. There appears to be several threats to the water supply, including salinization by relocation of ground water into the ocean. The greatest threat (according to the film) is privatization, however.
Here's what I got from the article.
..and the only argument that I have with this unfounded sentence is the word "centuries".Quote:
Humans have been distilling freshwater from the ocean for centuries, although early desalinators were looking for salt, with freshwater being just a byproduct. Most technological advancement, however, has happened in the last couple of decades.
I would argue that human beings have been doing it MUCH LONGER than that.
I don't see what everyone is freaking out about.. water is water, salty or not. If you can make fire, you can purify water.
Seems to me, the ones who would go to war about the most abundant resource on the face of the planet, are the ones who've run out of things to fight about.
I remember seeing Mr. Wizard as a kid, making a solar water purifier.. Just thought I'd toss that in there since the article mentions carbon emissions from using heat.
obtaining water is not a new technology.
Be that as it may YCC, countries that are land bound have much more to worry about than those that aren't, especially if their fresh water resources are dwindling or compromised.Quote:
Originally Posted by your_comforting_company
The "Golden Rule" will always hold--those who have the gold, make the rules.
You should watch the documentary. It's VERY interesting. I thought it would bore me to death, but not so. Privatization was the most interesting part to me. If you don't know what that is you must see this film. Netflix.Quote:
Originally Posted by your_comforting_company
I did some reading and it looks like desalinating costs more than 3x as much as routine cleaning of groundwater. Desalinating water for for just 1 home for one year would cost over $300. And the current capacity to desalinate water is at 0.1% of the worlds required drinking water. It requires alot of energy and returns brine to the ocean which is harmful to ecosystems.
We had an awesome desaliniztion plant at one of my past jobs. It ran 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All it took was a nuclear power plant, surrounded by several billion dollars of Submarine to run it.:innocent:
Hey, Crash - Did the desalinization plant make distilled water? The reason I ask is a friend of mine bought one that had been decommissioned (not the sub, the plant) and was going to make distilled water with it for batteries. that thing was about the size of a pickup truck. Maybe a tad smaller.
I was just wondering if anything was added back in the water or if you folks drank the distilled water. Just curious.
He must of gotten a real old one. Modern subs us a 12,000 gallon per day evaporator and a smaller unit as a back-up. Distilled water is the result. the 12k unit is kind of big. Chems added of drinking water. DI water for the reactor and for oxygen creation.
That was probably 20 years ago and it came off of some type of surface ship. I have no idea what.