What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

Fizz wrote:

fulltimedaniel wrote:


And keep in mind that just because it's raining in Bangkok and they are having one heck of a monsoon that rain does NOTHING for the drought in Rajasthan...or California Or Sub Saharan Africa.

Yes it is raining somewhere but not where it is needed most. But that certainly does not negate the FACT that there is a drought in another part of the world.

So?
What do you want to do about it?

This is the cycle of life on the planet.
Nothing new, it's been going on since the dawn of mankind.
The Sahara use to be green. Nature take from one and gives to the other, over and over again.

P.S.
Not taking a shot at you here.
Just getting tired of all these experts preaching doom and gloom. It's life, it happens.

Well for starters there are two different discussions going on here. one is about climate change the other about drought vs rain and those that don't beleive in the concept of "drought".

Climate change is a FACT. Our climate has been in change in cycles for millions of years.

What causes Climate Change is still being understood. Some of it is well known other parts are still being learned.

It is clear our climate is in rapid change at the moment. However since our global weather data only goes back a little over a hundred years on any kind of systematic, cooperative and regulated basis, it is unclear to me that what we are seeing is SOLELY man-made.

It does stand to reason and I think any thinking individual must admit that mans increased industrial activity over the past 150 years and the effluent that has put into our atmosphere must surely have consequences. Who could realistically argue otherwise?

I have seen the effects of climate change with my own eyes and in my lifetime. It is a fact. But too often the term Climate Change is often interpreted as being solely man-made. This is where the discussion goes off the rails.

Drought has not been proven to necessarily be related to Mans activity but surely we have our affect.

The earth is an integrated system. Our climate, the flora and fauna, man, all are like an intricate web. Affecting one part of the system will have effects on the others.

But there is also this. We tend to view problems like these in the moment, with no acknowledgement of the possible effects of future inventions, increased knowledge, or the effects of changed behaviour. We see these as linear issues with no bends in the road. And that is never the case.

spoon059 wrote:

westend wrote:
I don't have a lot of respect for climate science deniers. It is all too easy to make fun of it or say that the temperature and climate were hotter 5,000,000 years ago when man wasn't around. It is not about shirking blame for the situation, it's about taking responsibility for a better tomorrow. Do any of you deniers have a clue as to what will happen when the temperature of the seas goes up another 1.5C?

With whatever respect is due...

There are obviously 2 schools of thought on this matter. YOUR view appears to be that no matter what happened in the past, man is completely responsible for what is happening right now and can therefore change the path of the world. That doesn't seem to explain how the Earth has had such wild fluctuations in temperature in the past.

The OTHER view is that the world is constantly changing, with or without man doing anything. Regardless of what man does, the world is going to keep changing... getting hot and flooding the world, getting cold and water receding. This seems to explain how the Earth has had such wild fluctuations in the past.

I think everyone can grasp what will happen when the temperature of the sea rises. The argument is about HOW and WHY the temperature is changing.

Neither of the above are my view on climate change. I tend to believe the burning of fossil fuels are additive to the problem. Of course, one must believe a few things to parallel my view--the Earth is in a climate warming cycle, burning fossil fuels creates a rise in global temperatures, and that the current situation is problematic.
I also believe that, as an individual, I can take certain measures to slow the trend, albeit incrementally. BTW, I don't think science-deniers do have a grasp of what increased seawater temperature can bring. It is not just about melting ice caps and sea level rise.

I'm hopeful, though, that as time goes on and climate science is accepted, with education becoming mainstream, we will not be deniers but implementers.

dodge guy wrote:

rjxj wrote:
I always laugh when I see global warming on an RV site. You know, RV's that get 8 mpg. LOL. BAAAWWAAAAAAAAA

I always laugh when I see people blaming cars for global warming, when the globe has been warming since before cars or people for that matter!

It's not just about internal combustion engines. I'm saying that anyone who is concerned about the environment sure wouldn't be driving an 8 mpg vehicle. We wouldn't be riding all over the country at all. It actually goes far beyond that and includes a lifestyle with a house that is far far larger than any of us need to survive. It even gets into the oil war issue while we ride around in circles in pleasure boats, motorcycles, side by sides. I have talked to people who rv and live in a 2800 sq ft house, believe in GW and tell me that people who would live in a tiny house are nuts. It's insanity and they are just about enraged if you try to tell them anything else. Regardless of their actions they believe in something so it's gospel.

On top of all that you have government mandates pertaining to environmental issues yet you have government setting minimum building sq footage far beyond what a person needs. A person can easily live in an 400 sq ft dwelling yet they are forced to build 1200 sq ft. Then when the energy demand is too high to cool all those houses they'll throttle your energy use or up the rate??????????? Please.

rjxj wrote:
I always laugh when I see global warming on an RV site. You know, RV's that get 8 mpg. LOL. BAAAWWAAAAAAAAA

I always laugh when I see people blaming cars for global warming, when the globe has been warming since before cars or people for that matter!

westend wrote:
I don't have a lot of respect for climate science deniers. It is all too easy to make fun of it or say that the temperature and climate were hotter 5,000,000 years ago when man wasn't around. It is not about shirking blame for the situation, it's about taking responsibility for a better tomorrow. Do any of you deniers have a clue as to what will happen when the temperature of the seas goes up another 1.5C?

With whatever respect is due...

There are obviously 2 schools of thought on this matter. YOUR view appears to be that no matter what happened in the past, man is completely responsible for what is happening right now and can therefore change the path of the world. That doesn't seem to explain how the Earth has had such wild fluctuations in temperature in the past.

The OTHER view is that the world is constantly changing, with or without man doing anything. Regardless of what man does, the world is going to keep changing... getting hot and flooding the world, getting cold and water receding. This seems to explain how the Earth has had such wild fluctuations in the past.

I think everyone can grasp what will happen when the temperature of the sea rises. The argument is about HOW and WHY the temperature is changing.

I don't have a lot of respect for climate science deniers. It is all too easy to make fun of it or say that the temperature and climate were hotter 5,000,000 years ago when man wasn't around. It is not about shirking blame for the situation, it's about taking responsibility for a better tomorrow. Do any of you deniers have a clue as to what will happen when the temperature of the seas goes up another 1.5C?

I always laugh when I see global warming on an RV site. You know, RV's that get 8 mpg. LOL. BAAAWWAAAAAAAAA

rjxj wrote:

06Fargo wrote:
CO2 ( a gas ) is now "carbon". It is uberpoweful because 50/1,000,000 th of an increase of it can change Earth's climate. It also changes mass when emitted in exhaust gases. It goes in as pounds of fuel and comes out as tons.

In as pounds of fuel and it turns into TONS? Really.

Ya somehow in climate change math that's how it works....:h

If I did my math right 10T gal is 10cu mi of water which would cover the state of Ct. 9.5' deep. 1 cu mi of water would cover 530 sq mi 1 ft deep.

Larry

06Fargo wrote:
CO2 ( a gas ) is now "carbon". It is uberpoweful because 50/1,000,000 th of an increase of it can change Earth's climate. It also changes mass when emitted in exhaust gases. It goes in as pounds of fuel and comes out as tons.

In as pounds of fuel and it turns into TONS? Really.