possibilities of a megadrought (food, stations, rating)

[TristramShandy]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Solving the brine issue:


Tiny new solar power desalination plant solves gigantic salt problem.

That looks quite promising. Would be a nice business to get in with at the ground floor.

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by armourereric

And zero growthers and Sacramento liberal politicians claiming the a massive influx of illegals will have no environmental impact.

Um yes. That is totally germane to the conversation.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

But climate change is just as confusing to J6pack. Climate is always changing. With global warming, you're feared that when there's a cold spell, people might say, oh look, no more global warming, since it's getting colder. But with climate change, you're always right, because climate is always changing. No one can prove you wrong.

This is baloney. It's clear YOU don't understand it after reading this answer. By the way, climate is not always changing, weather is. Yes there is a difference.

[docmcstuffin]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

This is baloney. It's clear YOU don't understand it after reading this answer. By the way, climate is not always changing, weather is. Yes there is a difference.

This is baloney. Here's what climate is: Climate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Are you telling me measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time hasn't always been changing? Do you have data to back that up? Yes, climate is different than weather. But that doesn't change my point. I was referring to climate. Are you telling me that you have data to prove that before the industrial revolution, the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables wasn't changing? Was the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables the same before, during, and after the ice age?

BTW, please do tell me, why was there a change from "global warming" to "climate change" to describe the same thing?

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

This is baloney. It's clear YOU don't understand it after reading this answer. By the way, climate is not always changing, weather is. Yes there is a difference.

Well, climate does change over very, VERY VERY long periods of time, but yeah, technically the definition of climate is the average of meteorological variables over a long period of time, or to put it more simply, the prevailing conditions that don't change appreciably over measurable periods.. But essentially you're right. Which is why a changing climate is a big deal. That's why I said "climate change" is an accurate description, despite people's protestations otherwise.

So people who don't understand the idea being described like to complain that the terms used to describe it aren't accurate, and then try to use that as an argument against the idea.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Jenkay

Well, climate does change over very, VERY VERY long periods of time, but yeah, technically the definition of climate is the average of meteorological variables over a long period of time, or to put it more simply, the prevailing conditions that don't change appreciably over measurable periods.. But essentially you're right. Which is why a changing climate is a big deal. That's why I said "climate change" is an accurate description, despite people's protestations otherwise.

So people who don't understand the idea being described like to complain that the terms used to describe it aren't accurate, and then try to use that as an argument against the idea.

Excellent explanation Jenkay!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

This is baloney. Here's what climate is: Climate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Are you telling me measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time hasn't always been changing? Do you have data to back that up? Yes, climate is different than weather. But that doesn't change my point. I was referring to climate. Are you telling me that you have data to prove that before the industrial revolution, the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables wasn't changing? Was the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables the same before, during, and after the ice age?

BTW, please do tell me, why was there a change from "global warming" to "climate change" to describe the same thing?

Everything you're asking has already been explained. Why do you need to run in cirlces in order to understand something? You don't really want to know, you just want to argue with those, like myself, who don't agree with you and nothing more.

[docmcstuffin]

Back to the original topic. megadrought can be dealt with pretty easily with current technology if we really want it to. No big deal. If we can spend $757.8 billion on the Iraq war, I think $200B to build desalination plants is no big deal. Especially if it's necessary, since CA is the a huge exporter of agriculture.

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

BTW, please do tell me, why was there a change from "global warming" to "climate change" to describe the same thing?

I did. Concisely.

I also addressed your protestations about climate changing "all the time" in a post above. This is coming from a person who has actually studied meteorology and atmospheric dynamics and isn't just making things I read on Wikipedia mean what I want them to vs what they actually say. Because I actually know this stuff. So maybe, just maybe, you could concede that the person who knows what they are talking about might have a point, and that your idea of what climate means is erroneous, and therin lies the crux of why an observably changing climate is a big deal, and why climate change is actually a very accurate way to describe it.

[docmcstuffin]

Originally Posted by Jenkay

I did. Concisely.

Yep, you said this:

Originally Posted by Jenkay

Climate change is the preferred term because most people can't wrap their heads around the fact that a rise in the average global temperature would mean colder and more severe winters in some areas, and drought and heat in others, and more frequent ice storms in others, and more or less rain in others. People would hear "warming" and then stop listening, or not actually care enough to comprehend, then throw a fit when it's actually colder than normal where they live. Just like "El Niño". It turns into a buzzword that nobody understands but everyone's an expert on because some folks were yelling at each other on CNN about it.

But as I stated, J6pack can't wrap their head around the term "climate change" either. I've seen it on both sides confusing climate with weather. So, I agree with this statement from you:

Originally Posted by Jenkay

Atmospheric dynamics are complicated, VERY complicated, so trying to narrow the concept of a whole huge systemic shift down to a single easy-to-relate-to term for joe public is kind of hard.

except I would go farther and say it's very hard, not just kind of hard. Both "global warming" and "climate change" are correct and both terms are confusing to joe public. We'll just leave it there.

BTW, I don't deny that human makes an impact on climate change. How much and how catastrophic, I don't know, but I'm open to hear arguments on both sides. Just to get that clear, since you think I'm debating about the term because I'm a climate change denier. I am not.