The issue of pressure on water supplies as a result of increased energy demand is becoming clearer. This is particularly the case with coal fired power stations (or solar thermal) . Clearlty far less of an issue with Solar PV or wind power.
Just another reason to reconsider the use of fossil fuels for supplyimg baseload power.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...global-thirst-energy-threatens-water-supplies
HADERA, Israel ”” Israel has gone through one of the driest winters in its history, but despite the lean rainy season, the government has suspended a longstanding campaign to conserve water.
The familiar public messages during recent years of drought, often showing images of parched earth, have disappeared from television despite weeks of balmy weather with record low rainfalls in some areas.
The level of the Sea of Galilee, the country’s natural water reservoir, is no longer closely tracked in news reports or the subject of anxious national discussion.
The reason: Israel has in recent years achieved a quiet water revolution through desalination.
With four plants currently in operation, all built since 2005, and a fifth slated to go into service this year, Israel is meeting much of its water needs by purifying seawater from the Mediterranean. Some 80 percent of domestic water use in Israeli cities comes from desalinated water, according to Israeli officials.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/20/4903352/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html#storylink=cpy
Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel.
Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel.
Also means if Greenland and the North and South Poles melt and that the ocean levels rise means more water to be had to be desalinated thusly decreasing the ocean levels ... win bloody win for everyone I reckon
Warmer climate, plenty of water, ocean levels steady ... where's the downside?
Some of the warming is induced by the burning of fossil fuels.
Most of it is produced by the Sun.
Leastways, that's the way I understand it.
... No diesel = no trucks, no tractors and very few freight trains = we're in deep **** real quick.
TS is this for real ??? Really ? Truly ?
Do you want to tell us just how high sea levels will rise if even a part of Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt? And like, where that water will end up ?
You arn't a fool TS are you ?
Struggling to keep a discredited global warming crisis afloat, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chair Raj Pachauri this week denied the well-documented plateau in temperatures during the past 15-plus years. Pachauri’s denialism contradicted his own admission earlier this year that there has been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures.
The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.
In other words, global warming is a lot more complicated than we’ve been led to believe – and possibly a lot less catastrophic. There is growing evidence that the climate simply isn’t as sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions as we thought it was.As for those much-hyped climate models – they’re worthless, at least in the short term. They couldn’t predict what’s just happened. A recent study by Francis Zwiers and other scientists at the University of Victoria, published in this month’s Nature Climate Change, examined more than a hundred climate-model simulations and found that almost all of them had “significantly” overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.When it comes to the intricacies of climate change, the science is notoriously unsettled.
Yes basilio it is real. Israel is using desalination to turn saltwater to freshwater. As Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt it is unlikely that they will ALL melt at the same time so therefore as they are melting the desalination plants would pump the water out of the ocean at approx the same time. The desalination plants would use less electricity to turn saltwater to freshwater as the oceans would now be a lot less salty !! Just a theory of mine. T.S
This theory is not going to fly TS. Why ?
1) Unfortunately if/when Global Warming continues it's path all the ice is up for grabs. Obviously it won't all melt at once but be assured that whether it be glaciers, Greenland, Arctic ice or Antarctic ice the ice melt will be considerable. They won't be waiting in turn...
2) The oceans are at their current level as a result of the current amount of water tied up with ice around the world. The amount of water on Earth stays the same . So when we have glaciation sea levels fall as water is held in expanding ice packs. And conversely sea levels rise when the ice melts
3) Yes you can turn sea water into fresh water and pump it on land. But ultimately that water ends up as part of the water cycle and goes back into the ocean (unless it freezes..) We have a closed system
4) Sea water becoming less saline as ice melts ? Hmm. Yes possibly - when the whole ice pack melts and sea levels are 80 metres higher. Interested in finding out ?
Second thoughts ?
Cheers
We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).
Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).
"Global warming" is a political/economical propaganda term havnt bothered reading books on it because i dont really care, in one of the finance lectures i was watching online the guy mentioned carbon credits were conceived at.... enron lmao. Gore must of thought it was a profitable business idea too. This is a Phd astrophysicist whos book i have read (on astronomy not on global warming) he gives a good run down on global warming i was hooked within listening to him within a few minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HAGBC2Pdw
We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).
Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).
I am sure we can protect Melbourne through this method though it will be expensive.
Not sure about Sydney though. In Hobart you can live on the hill
So you haven't read any books on it but are convinced it's BS? You sound very well informed.
he doesn't care
I don't care
'Events, dear boy, events' have put climate change back on the agenda
The decline of climate change on leaders' agendas has been reversed – not by new analysis, but two years of extreme weather
British prime minister, Harold Macmillan, was once asked what was the most difficult thing about his job. ‘Events, dear boy, events’ was his now famous reply.
Put more colloquially, and much less elegantly, stuff happens and politicians have to deal with it. Things that happen can transform the political landscape, for better or worse, in a flash as Margaret Thatcher discovered in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. Her successful response to this event transformed a looming electoral defeat into victory.
Analysis is a far less insistent driver of politics. Governments can, and often do, ignore analysis, even to the point of disaster. Successive US governments were warned time and again by intelligence analysts that they were losing the war in Vietnam. But this was never enough to stop the war. One unmanned Sputnik briefly circulating the planet was, however, enough to release billions of dollars into the successful American effort to put a man on the moon.
Until the unfortunate climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009 the politics of climate change was primarily driven by analysis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by governments in 1988. Its job is to advice the 120 participating governments on the science of climate change. In the subsequent 26 years it has published five assessment reports based on the published scientific literature on climate change.
Its summary for policy makers is agreed line-by-line by governments and has so far led to climate legislation in 66 countries. Each report has increased confidence in the science of climate change and alerted politicians to the magnitude and urgency of the issue. Copenhagen, however, revealed the depth of the political difficulty of taking their advice. Combined with the aftermath of the banking crisis, this led to a significant lowering of climate change on the agenda of global leaders.
This decline has now been reversed. Among the global leaders who have already put their mark on the issue in the run up to the climate summit in Paris in 2015 are President Obama, President Xi, Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. It is not new analysis that has led to the restoration of climate change to the leaders agenda. This has simply reinforced what we already know. It is events, in particular two successive years of extreme weather events all over the world, that are now drawing political leaders back to the issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?