2 ms·
Yes, they are and they have been doing that before. But that was not the claim you made. You said it affect our ability to get water.
by ThomPete 8y ago
Yes, they are and they have been doing that before. But that was not the claim you made. You said it affect our ability to get water.
- saagarjha 8y agoMillions of people around the world use glaciers to get their drinking water. It's pretty easy to see that those disappearing would affect their ability to get water.
- ThomPete 8y agoWe can deal with that so while it might effect it that doesn't mean they won't be able to get access to water. That's one thing we've become better and better at making drinkable.
- saagarjha 8y agoMaking it harder to get water that we previously got for free is not a great solution. Making drinkable water or moving it fundamentally requires time, energy, and money.
- ThomPete 8y agoWe've never gotten water for free. All resources come at a cost. The water in your tap is not free. Again. Please try and stop just for a minute and rethink your position.
- saagarjha 8y ago> The water in your tap is not free. But it sure is a lot cheaper than trying to desalinate the ocean water next to me. > Please try and stop just for a minute and rethink your position. On what? I am struggling to see your argument here. We have an issue that you are claiming doesn't need to be solved, and are trying to convince people to ignore, and I am repeatedly providing you with evidence that there is this is a real issue that at the very least would have some impact on us. Trying to "fix" the issues we cause 50 years in the future is going to be much, much more difficult than trying to improve today.
- ThomPete 8y agoMy point is that you arent actually making an argument here, just saying things that doesent support your claim.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agohttps://www.21stcentech.com/climate-change-impact-worlds-major-rivers-part-3a-rivers-north-america/ https://www.21stcentech.com/climate-change-impact-worlds-maj... The North Saskatchewan has lost 40% of its volume and continues to decrease.
- ThomPete 8y agoAnd it started in the 50'es long before humans had any impact.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoThe 50's are not when anthropogenic warming began. It's just accelerated since the 50's. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-clarify-starting-point-for-human-caused-climate-change https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-clarify-starting-poin... https://climateatlas.ca/climate-change-basics https://climateatlas.ca/climate-change-basics
- ThomPete 8y agoAgain yes and so what? What are the scientifically demonstrated consequences of that acceleration that we can't deal with? Why is it so hard for you or any other to answer that simply question? I of course know the answer but it's quite astounding that you don't stop just for a second to reflect on whether you position is as grounded in science and how much of it is based on speculating on top of that science.
- BLKNSLVR 8y agoI of course know the answer You will then, of course, share that answer with us, in detail, with the same kind of scientific proof that you are asking for.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago> What are the scientifically demonstrated consequences of that acceleration that we can't deal with? Why is it so hard for you or any other to answer that simply question? If it's happening in the future and a novel event it's going to be speculation. > I of course know the answer but it's quite astounding that you don't stop just for a second to reflect on whether you position is as grounded in science and how much of it is based on speculating on top of that science. Please explain then, with links to all the relevant scientific information required to demonstrate that your understanding of the issue is the correct one.