------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[screener]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Gore faces a little heat as he testifies on the Hill

World must learn to share water to avoid war - FAO

We've got to address the issue of overpopulation. Actually, climate change may just do the trick. When do we hit a critical mass according to the pros? 10 Billion? 12 Billion? When we get there what do we do?

I think we're already well past capacity, look at all the poverty.

I was particularily interested in the water sharing issue, being a Canadian, I expect that when our oil and gas run out the US will be demanding that we send our water south in the pipelines. I was very glad to see the article end on a positive note with the countries of the nile watershed attempting to reach an agreement on sharing the river.

I expect that there will be proper consideration of natural use of water as well.

Quite an astounding figure the UN puts forward that our daily water usage is about a thousand times our drinking needs. 70% of our usage is in agriculture.... I wonder how much of that is irrigation beyond the self refilling capacity of our lakes, rivers, and aquifers. It is unfortunate that the UN would not emphasize conservation of water, and accepting local limitations on water use as an alternative to war.

Hopefully that kind of understanding can come before too long.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by screener

Hopefully that kind of understanding can come before too long.

Hi Screener,

I recommend reading 'When the Rivers Run Dry' by Fred Pearce. Actually, it should be required reading for anyone interested in our survival as a civilization. How's that for a plug!

They are referring to what is called 'virtual water'. There is definitely need to educate the public and policy makers on the importance of responsible water policies.

[Paradox]

New evidence puts 'Snowball Earth' theory out in the cold:

Changing ocean conditions led to decline in Alaska's sea lion population

[Twig6]

Gristmill Guide: How to Talk to A Climate Skeptic

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

[Skeptic]

Twig,
As a good sceptic, I had a quick look at your reference. It was not how to talk to a sceptic. Mis-named. It was, in fact, how to talk to a global warming denier.

You need to be aware of the difference between a sceptic and a denier.

[Twig6]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Twig,
As a good sceptic, I had a quick look at your reference. It was not how to talk to a sceptic. Mis-named. It was, in fact, how to talk to a global warming denier. You need to be aware of the difference between a sceptic and a denier.

Actually, I don't think so. Most of the topics are ones that I've seen argued by skeptics on this site. I think I'm aware of the difference between a skeptic and a denier. But what is the difference as you see it?

[Skeptic]

To Twig.

A denier denies data. A sceptic challenges interpretation of data.

In the global warming context, a denier may say that the fact of warming is an illusion. Or the fact of greenhouse gas increase. A sceptic like myself may challenge the predictions of climate models, since these do not represent data.

If there is good scientific data available, I will not try to deny it. If that data proves me wrong, I will accept it. However, lots of ideas are a result of differing interpretations of data, and the role of a sceptic is to point out that there may be more than one conclusion to draw, and thus more work to do to determine the best conclusion.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Twig6

Gristmill Guide: How to Talk to A Climate Skeptic

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Same old outdated material Twig6. The research is moving us beyond the boring rhetoric of old. I am impressed by the site...very comprehensive and informative. I cut to some of the deal-breaker arguments and noticed the same old side-stepping nonsense. I will elaborate and illustrate when I have time. Nothing new, but thank you for stepping in to balance the ongoing debate.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Antarctic melting may be speeding up

In due time what is causing this phenomenon will be of little importance.

[imported_topaz1968]

Also there is an article entitled Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets from the 16 March 2007 issue of Science (to which I am now subscribed, however you may only be able to read the abstract if you are not probably):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;315/5818/1529

In the above article they present that they have found the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting much faster than they can explain. The models do not use dynamics for these sheets that would allow them to melt as quickly as they are, and they are starting research to really understand the dynamics of what is happening. Here is the conclusion at the end of the article:

Implications for the Future

It is reasonable to conclude that, today, the EAIS is gaining some 25 Gt year–1, the WAIS is losing about 50 Gt year–1, and the GIS is losing about 100 Gt year–1. These trends provide a sea-level contribution of about 0.35 mm year–1, a modest component of the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 mm year–1. Because 50 Gt year–1 is a very recent contribution, the ice sheets made little contribution to 20th-century sea-level rise. However, what has also emerged is that the losses are dominated by ice dynamics. Whereas past assessments (47 ) considered the balance between accumulation and ablation, the satellite observations reveal that glacier accelerations of 20 to 100% have occurred over the past decade. The key question today is whether these accelerations may be sustained, or even increase, in the future.

The question is difficult because the causes of the instabilities have yet to be established. The geological record (48 ) suggests that some 10,000 years ago, the Amundsen sector of the WAIS extended only 100 km farther than today, confining the present rate of retreat to more recent times, and the drawdown of the Amundsen sector ice streams has been linked (49) to a recent trigger in the ocean. A comparable argument may be extended to the thinning glaciers in East Antarctica and Greenland, which are also marine terminated. Equally, there is no direct evidence of a warming of the Amundsen Sea, and it has long been held possible that the marine-terminated WAIS, and the Amundsen sector in particular, may be geometrically unstable (50), and the retreating East Antarctica streams have a similar geometry (Fig. 2A). In Greenland, where summer melting is widespread and increasing, Global Positioning System measurements have shown the melting to affect flow velocity in the ice sheet interior (26), introducing the possibility that increased surface meltwater is reaching the bed and accelerating the ice flow to the ocean.

The discovery that particular ice streams and glaciers are dominating ice sheet mass losses means that today our ability to predict future changes is limited. Present numerical models capture neither the details of actual ice streams nor, in Greenland, those of hydraulic connections between the surface and the bed. In addition, the detailed mechanics at the grounding line still remain to be fully worked out. In consequence, the view that the changing sea-level contribution of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the 21st century will be both small and negative as a result of accumulating snow in Antarctica [e.g., –0.05 mm year–1 in (1)] is now uncertain. Because our predictive ability is limited, continued observation is essential. The satellite record clearly identifies the particular ice streams and glaciers whose evolution is of greatest concern. The causes of their instability need to be identified. Their detailed basal topography, their basal hydrology, and the details of the interaction with their surrounding shelf seas need to be established. Numerical models that capture the detailed dynamics of these glaciers and their hydrology are required. Of equal importance are meteorological and ice core measurements that will increase confidence in forecast models of accumulation and ablation fluctuations, because to a considerable extent these limit interpretations of the short satellite records. There is a great deal that the International Polar Year may achieve.