February 22, 2007 11:39 AM PST

Global warming could make faucets run dry, expert says

Water could be the first casualty of global warming.

The rising temperature of Earth is causing water sources such as glaciers and lakes to rapidly retreat, according to, among others, Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and one of the leading scientific figures trying to get more research funding for alternative energy.

Steven Chu Steven Chu

The effects of declining water supplies will be noticeable and harsh, according to Chu, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. Some effects can already be seen, he said.

"The Yellow River is now running dry in summertime," Chu said during a speech at the Cleantech Forum in San Francisco this week.

The Yellow River is fed by glacier and snowmelt from the Himalayas, which is declining. A huge portion of the world's population gets water from the Himalayas, so this is not a good sign for other areas as well.

In the United States, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains in California and Nevada is expected to decline by 30 percent to 70 percent by 2100, he said.

If it declines by 20 percent, people will be told to stop watering their lawns or flushing toilets often. A decline of about 50 percent or greater could rewrite the demographics of California. And a massive decline in the snowpack could cause a collapse of the agriculture industry, prompting a migration out of the state, Chu said.

Snow may actually increase in some mountain ranges and parts of the world. Many expect that dry regions will become drier, while wet regions will become rainier. Warming, however, will prevent this extra rain and snow from getting stored in mountains, he said. Thus, a lot of it will run off before it can be used.

"(Water) is probably the first thing that will hit home," he said. "The water storage problem is becoming a mess."

Several start-ups and established companies like General Electric have begun to increase their investments in systems that can purify seawater or wastewater for human consumption.

"The water issue is going to get much more prominence," predicted Nicholas Parker, chairman of the Cleantech Venture Network.

See more CNET content tagged:
global warming, Himalaya, Nobel prize, California


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Anyone with half a brain...
knows that global warming is a hoax by current scientists in order
to get more funding from the government. I don't believe a word of
it. Please stop trying to scare us , will you? I know my plea will fall
on deaf ears...
Posted by Bosphorousman (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I totally agree with you...
Global warming is a scam. If you read the first part of the article "...and one of the leading scientific figures trying to get more research funding for alternative energy.". This is the tactic many in government and other organizations use to get more money.

I'm not disagreeing that the earth might be warming. It certainly may be, it has in the past, and it's also cooled in the past (to which the fear-mongers said we're in for another ice age as vehemently as they're doing about warming). It's a natural process, man has had very little to do with causing global warming.

I'm glad the first post on this issue had some sense to it, thanks Bosphorousman.
Posted by bighugedave (18 comments )
Link Flag
Must have left my brain at home this morning, then...
Using Bosphorousman's logic, let's see what other hoaxes the
scientific community has tried to con us into believing...

- the world is round
- the earth circles the sun
- millions of tiny "switches" can fit onto a piece of "silicon"
smaller than your thumbnail

Of course scientists want more money to do their science. Don't
we all want more money to do what we do for a living? (I know I

Still doesn't mean that they are completely brain dead. I'm more
inclined to believe the scientists who study these things for a
living than continue to rant on about how the world is actually
Posted by mmirage (2 comments )
Link Flag
Eco-Religion and Tax Dollars
People that believe in Global Warming are finally admitting what many have suspected all along- that its a religious movement.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070222.wxgoresb22/BNStory/ClimateChange/home" target="_newWindow">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070222.wxgoresb22/BNStory/ClimateChange/home</a>

"Like many a bygone leader who happened along at a key moment in history, Mr. Gore -- who has been sounding the environmental warning bell for years -- has suddenly inspired the kind of faith and fervour in others that he insists will be needed to overcome such a monumental problem.

"From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts, 69, as he held a banner aloft for the East Toronto Climate Action Group amid a lively prelecture crowd outside the old hall.
"The religion for this group is doing something for the environment."

And as a religion, the government should stop funnelling tax dollars to support it.
Posted by BelchSpeak (3 comments )
Link Flag
It's not a hoax
But humans are only a very tiny part of the problem. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down since creation. If we were the cause of global warming the ice age would have never ended.

But if things get too hot in your area you can always ask Al Gore to come visit. Some areas have set low temperature records when he flew to town in a private jet to tell folks they need to drive less to save the environment. :)
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
self-proclaimed expert knows everything
There is nothing like people who aren't experts in a field contradicting the experts. It is actually quite sickening. People seem to want to believe what they want, making no effort to do any research on the issue at hand, and/or ignoring any research that doesn't support their position.
Posted by db90h (2 comments )
Link Flag
You're asleep and the bed is burning...
Anyone who thinks like you do will exacerbate the problems humankind faces with the annual increase of global temperatures.

Its all in your head.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/opinion/meyer/main2503686.shtml" target="_newWindow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/opinion/meyer/main2503686.shtml</a>
Posted by crewfan69 (7 comments )
Link Flag
specking out bad for career
Speaking out can actually be detrimental for a scientist's career. The past chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Robert Watson of Harvard University, lost this position after holding it for several years. The White House and Exxon admit to lobbying for his removal.
Posted by oscarterra (8 comments )
Link Flag
Wake up
The mountain behind my grandma house was always white on top, and it was this way for all the time. We took it for granted.
In the last years, snow and ice are gone on that-and many other regions.
Can you tell me what the reason is?
You can just cover your eyes not to see it, or you can use your half a brain to see it.
It is your choice.
Posted by pietrodelai (7 comments )
Link Flag
Im listening.
I agree.
Posted by cobydark (2 comments )
Link Flag
Absolutely 100% Correct
I fully agree that the Human-Induced Global Warming issue is a total hoax...
And Al Gore is a stupid, self-important. opportunist.
Posted by gdmaclew (158 comments )
Link Flag
See more comment replies
Global Warming Could Make Kittens Explode, Expert Says
---&gt; Insert scare-mongering, pseudo-scientific, nonsensical article here. &lt;---
Posted by Neo Con (428 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well said! LOL!
Posted by bighugedave (18 comments )
Link Flag
Bury your head in the sand.
With a name like "Neo Con"...can we really expect much more from you?
Posted by Vectorman001 (27 comments )
Link Flag
Oh No!
*Gasp* No! Not the kittens! This is the last straw! We must destroy
civilization immedietly!
Posted by Dr. B (91 comments )
Link Flag
Global Warming Hysteria
This article is not a TECHNICAL subject but rather it is a POLITICAL subject and should not be covered by CNET. It is beyond me why so many technical media like to get into politics. Global Warming is not a scientific FACT but rather it is a THEORY; and a mighty weak one at that. There certainly is a lot at stake and I hope that factual science prevails on Global Warming.
Posted by H.Maier (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's everyones problem
Technical or not - it's still a problem we all face. Perhaps CNET has acknowledges that many of it's readers don't pay a whole lot of attention to the outside world.
Posted by ozidigga (77 comments )
Link Flag
Fact and theory
&gt; Global Warming is not a scientific FACT but rather
&gt; it is a THEORY

Ah, yes. Yet another person who doesn't have a clear grasp of what the word "theory" means. You're obviously using it as meaning the same as hypothesis or conjecture. It does not mean these things. A theory is an exposition of general or abstract principles of a science. It is an explanation of observed phenomena.

It is deeply important to understand that something can simultaneously be both fact AND theory. Global warming is observable fact. Theory attempts to describe the mechanisms involved.

We know for certain that global warming is real. We also know for certain that global dimming is real. What is less certain, however, are the mechanisms involved ... how complex are the systems and at what point will the processes become runaway and, therefore, unmanageable through external interaction?

It's folly for anybody to say we know all about global warming. It is also folly to say that global warming is a myth or some sort of bizarre conspiracy. The facts are rather obvious that we do not treat this planet with any respect and that if we push complex systems out of whack too far, the consequences will be grave.

The tone of your post makes it very clear that you don't have any intention of hoping that "factual science prevails". Your mind is set already and no amount of evidence contrary to your beliefs will sway you. All that would interest you would be statements and statistics that do not challenge the conclusions to which you've already committed.
Posted by Trane Francks (936 comments )
Link Flag
Ice is bigger than water
So when icebergs melt the sea level will fall.
Posted by t8 (3716 comments )
Reply Link Flag
heavy water
yep, water is densest at 4 degrees (centigrade/Celcius). At lower teps as well as higher the density will decrease.
But you'll have an added effect if you melt all the ice, especially on land e.g. Greenland and Antartica.
Whether global warming is a fact can be debated. But one thing is quite sure, the moral of burning fossile fuel is like stealing from coming generations. Are we, who drive our cars, the biggest thieves in history?
I'd say cut down a tree and plant a new one - you should sleep well. Stripmine coal, pump oil and burn it - how can we compensate for that - a planet out of balance.
Posted by mikeTheBike (7 comments )
Link Flag
Ha ha ha ha . . . . Great point!
That is true . . . try freezing some bottled water.
If the bottle was totally filled the bottle expands.
If there is some space in the bottle the water just freezes.
(my guess - it presses the access air through the threads of the
closed top - I'm talking plastic bottles)
But when you let the ice melt in the bottle (with the cap tightly
closed) - the bottle collapses into itself - like someone sucked
the air out of it.

Basic physics ;-)
Posted by K.P.C. (227 comments )
Link Flag
It's the ice on land that raises sea level when it melts.
Once its floating, you are 100% correct. Or 2% or whatever the density of ice.
Posted by disco-legend-zeke (448 comments )
Link Flag
It's all just Cow gas..
C'mon, folks! Everybody knows that Global Warming is real, and is caused by cow farts....
Posted by LarryFugate (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
New Zealand knows it
They tried to implement fart tax but the farmers blew off the handle and now the government is farting around with other ideas to keep greenhouse gases down. The current government is so full of wind and hot air and should tackle the problem in better ways.

One thing in New Zealand's favour however is that they will be able to export water to the rest of the world. Being an island means that they will be spared the drying out that continents will experience.
Posted by t8 (3716 comments )
Link Flag
Actually.. that is partically correct: "According to a new report
published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse
gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent ? 18 percent ?
than transport. It is also a major source of land and water
(<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/" target="_newWindow">http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/</a>

We kill billions and billions of animals every year at much cost,
to the health of our planet, and our own bodies. The biggest
killer in America for example is not guns, car accidents, or
terrorist attacks--it's heart disease, a by-product of eating fatty
diet of animals.

Relative to this article, meat production is by far the biggest
consumer of water supplies. Just one pound of beef can require
up to 6,000 gallons of fresh water (earthsave.org). On top of
that, much more water is polluted form the run-off from
intensive factory farming--thousands of animals crowed
together to produce cheap meat.

Yet now only do we deplete our water sources (ie to grow
massive crow supplies to feed livestock), we also destory surface
water sources, such as streams and rivers due to massive
livestock grazing, most of it on public lands. Ie <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://" target="_newWindow">http://</a>

There is no other way around it. The single most effective thing
you can do for the environment is to drastically cut back or stop
eating meat and animal products. And it's not hard to do. There
is a surging industry of vegan products that taste great: veggie
burgers, soy milk, ice cream, cheese.. you name. Some of the
greatest thinkers/creators throughout history have been
vegetarian (Einstein, Gandhi, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison,
Van Gogh...Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, Prince... and a slew of
world record athletes: Carl Lewis, Stan Price, Tony LaRussa,
Dave Scott...
Posted by nebby74 (14 comments )
Link Flag
Insignificant contribution
In point of fact we contribute so little to greenhouse gas as to be
insignificant. The data shows that our contribution to GHG is

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</a>
Posted by nouser (191 comments )
Reply Link Flag
time is not on our side, so...
...how long until you understand that the current consensus is
that there is a 90% probability that we are driving a rise in
temperatures? You can quote figures all day and it would still
not outweigh the research that says you are on shaky ground
with your 'fact'...
I read all that on the link with interest, but it doesn't stand up
to comparison with most research in the journals, and I get the
distinct impression from it's tone and wording that it might have
a wee bit of an agenda going on there...just a tinge of a 'kill the
liberal lefties by skewering them on their atmospheric sampling
apparatus' kind of bias? That passed you by did it? You thought
that resource was a reasoned and balanced scientific analysis
did you.....?? Smell the coffee...

.Farewell, nouser, and have a happy life.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Have you heard the one about the earth shrinking...
This is all Bull***t..
Anything to advance the fud.
Posted by solarflair (35 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Now that's funny...
The snowpacks in Utah's Wasatch, Oquirrh, and other intra-Rockies ranges (otherwise known as the Great Basin) have been averaging 150% + of normal over the past two-three years... sometime up to and exceeding 170% of normal.

...does someone up at Scaremonger Central care to explain that one?

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Read it again
If you care to actually read the article you might note that it
explains that.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Read it again
that is explained in the article itself
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
what about all the ice on land
Ie. the south pole! that is alot of ice down there. then you have greenland. Antarctica is the fifth-largest of the earth's seven continents. It also contains about 90% of the world's fresh water! and you think we would not be effected.
Posted by oscarterra (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Now that you mention it...
... what about all that ice on the south pole?

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://*******.com/3xsgpx" target="_newWindow">http://*******.com/3xsgpx</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/527313" target="_newWindow">http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/527313</a>
Posted by Sparky672 (244 comments )
Link Flag
Please stop repeating this propapganda!
Man-made global warming is a fraud!
The models used to support it are nothing more than academic toys.
The data used to support it is riddled with assumptions making it meaningless and heavily slanted to prop up the theories.
It is mathematically impossible to predict the climate with any meaningful margin of error.
They can't even predict the behavior of the primary input; THE SUN.
They simply refuse to admit that solar variability
is an utterly unpredictable variable.
This is the only fact needed to blow all their models out of the water.
Posted by CapoNumen (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Oil companiesare the propagandists
Solar variations are unpredictable but relatively minor compared
to the proven contribution of greenhouse gases to the current
alarming rise in temperatures we are experiencing. The
propagandists are the oil companies and other vested interests
in government and society who cannot adjust to the realities of
an environment that is not impervious to their damaging
Nobody is claiming to know exactly what climate change will
bring. But it is already responsible for substantial and
undeniable damage to ecosystems across the planet. Didn't you
notice that there is now an international consensus?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Perhaps you would like to cite your qualifications
and research that contradicts theories of global warming?
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
Why do PhD's refuse to THINK?
Another PhD who can't think logically. More warming means fewer glaciers (less ice). Less ice means MORE not less water. More water plus higher temperatures equal greater evaporation leading to more clouds and more rain. Final result, more water everywhere, fewer desert areas, more plant growth, larger food supply, improved living conditions for everyone. GLOBAL WARMING IS GOOD!!! Quit lying about it.
Posted by DeltaBravo (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
3rd grade science
It's called ecology... Google it.
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Link Flag
And where do you suppose that water will end up?
Think about it.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
takes the biscuit
I take it you have never travelled beyond the borders of the USA to
experience the wonderful effect that global warming is having? Is
that why you can be so flippant about it or are you just deliberately
acting the fool to get a reaction?
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Global Warming
Honestly, I don't know who is at fault anymore. I've read here at cnet that global warming was a natural part of the planet's lifecycle. Then, I read that it was being cause by higher levels of solar radiation, now it's polution.

Personally, I think it's all three.
Posted by thedreaming (573 comments )
Reply Link Flag
As Colbert said...
... the last 30% is usually backwash.
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just my "uneducated" opinion . . .
An earlier poster - pietrodelai - said. . .
Quote: "The mountain behind my grandma house was always
white on top, and it was this way for all the time."

I'm currently living in northern Japan.
This year has been a very mild winter.
Last year though . . .
Akita City had the most snow fall ever recorded in a single

Those are weather patterns - they change yearly.

Regarding climate . . .
Climate change ALWAYS happens.
Climate is not a constant or yearly thing.
The changes take many decades, even centuries.
The fact that things look different from "pietrodelai's"
grandma's time?
Well, how did they look in HER grandma's time?
Or the grandma before HER?

Can all these changes be attributed to the automobile?
The human use of fossil fuels?
Over thousands and millions of years?
Do you know how the Great Lakes bordering Canada &#38; the U.S.
were formed?
They used to be glaciers!
Huge chunks of ice that dug huge gaping holes onto the earth -
then they melted because of "Global Warming".
Did humans cause the Great Lakes by emiting green house

In the main article this guy - Steven Chu - said . . .
Quote: "In the United States, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada
mountains in California and Nevada is expected to decline by 30
percent to 70 percent by 2100, he said."

Does he have any actual scientific data to back up that
30 to 70 percent is a pretty wide margin, so, if he did have any
data, it can't be very acurate.

I don't think this guy can "accurately" predict what the "climate"
will be like 100 years from now any better than the weather
experts can "accurately" tell me what the weather will be like -
anywhere in the world - next weekend (It's Saturday here now) -
let alone 3 days from now.
Or when or where exactly the next tornado will hit.
Or where a hurricane will hit just a couple of hours before it
makes landfall - even though they've been tracking it for days.
Or even what will be a good or bad hurricane season . . . every
prediction I have ever heard about a hurricane season has been

As has been mentioned by other posters . . .
* 30 years ago it was the "Coming Ice Age" . . .
(We should all be living in igloos right this moment)
Not mentioned by other posters . . .
* Almost 40 years ago (1968) it was "The Population Bomb" . . .
(100,000,000 starving to death yearly starting in the mid 70's)
* About 20 years ago (mid 1980's) "The Hole In the Ozone". . .
(Right now &lt;2007&gt; it should be impossible for anyone to go
outside without a protective suit)
* 1990's to now and then on to the future "Global Warming". . .

Does anyone else see a pattern here?
And people ask - "How can you doubt the (so called) experts?"
(or the media)
I ask - "How can you not?"
Posted by K.P.C. (227 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well said!
Very well stated KPC, bravo!
Posted by bighugedave (18 comments )
Link Flag
Plan B - 2.0, by Lester Brown
&gt;&gt; (from earlier post)* Almost 40 years ago (1968) it was "The Population Bomb" . . .
(100,000,000 starving to death yearly starting in the mid 70's)

Fortunately that hasn't come to pass to that extreme, but the fact is that thousands of children are starving to death every day throughout the world, while we have the means to help them.

In 1950 there were 2.5 billion people. Today, there are 6.5 billion. Within a few decades we could have 9 billion. The environmental challenges related to this fact are not limited to climate change. If you have an interest in these global and generational issues, check out the book listed in the title of this reply.
Posted by stv57 (3 comments )
Link Flag
The last line of the first paragraph says it all
"director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and one of the leading scientific figures trying to get more research funding for alternative energy."

Go figure hes trying to get more research dollars.........
Posted by daver208 (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Gee, there's absolutely *no* incentive to hype a "crisis" when it brings in more money for your research program. None whatsoever. Completely unbiased science here.
Posted by solrosenberg (124 comments )
Link Flag
The last line of the first paragraph says it all
"director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and one of the leading scientific figures trying to get more research funding for alternative energy."

Go figure hes trying to get more research dollars.........
Posted by daver208 (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What are your sources? Tell me.
Is it published, peer-reviewed data?

Is it the policy statements of the world's scientific bodies?

I know it's not. So those are rhetorical questions.

Heck, even current administration policy isn't your source.
(They've recently claimed to agree that CO2 is a significant
factor in warming the earth.)

Is it James Inhofe?

Maybe. That guy's a die-hard fanatic.

But I don't get it. You're so adamant, but unwilling to REALLY
educate yourself by actually using refereed sources.
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Stupid People...
Obviously the brainwashing from Big Oil Lobbyists is working. Where is your common sense people?!

Lock yourself in your garage and run your car - That is the equivalent of what we're doing to ourselves!


Absolute Morons!
Posted by LT73 (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Straw man
Drink three or four gallons of pure, unpolluted water and you die. Too little and you die. Same with salt. Comparing running your car in a garage to what happens on a global scale is just silly. You'd have to have a car the size of Canada.

Place a plastic bag over your head. That the same thing as what we're doing to the planet every time we breathe. Same argument.
Posted by Vince66 (27 comments )
Link Flag
I have to agree
In a country with recent majorities believing:

Saddam was involved with 9/11

and God created people out of clay

I'm not surprised to see people having trouble identifying and
evaluating information.
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Link Flag
Win another arguement.
Whenever people can't argue with facts they resort to name calling.
Here again is another example. Whenever this happens you know
you have won the argument. :) :) :)
Posted by nouser (191 comments )
Link Flag
Big oil has been funding bogus climate studies for years
Just like big tobacco used to fund health studies that never found a link between smoking and cancer.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
Your right LT73 !
A thousand doctors could tell most of these deniers that they had malignant cancer and they needed chemotherapy but they would instead go and visit a doctor in a remote Mexican village and use a herbal remedy instead.

It's called denial which is the first phase of the death and dying syndrome. The smart people are not going to lay around and bake.

The smart people are listening to the massive list of climate experts and are ignoring the shrinking list of retired PhDs that are on the oil company payrolls.

Just like many plants and animals, the smart people are already picking up and are moving North.
Posted by Ray Boggs (6 comments )
Link Flag
Four things
1. You can't get "proof." That would imply you could run a
controlled experiment with atmosphere, and that's impossible.

2. Obsevations don't happen in a vaccuum, true. But you greatly
underestimate how transparent the process of inference is. Data
ARE published. That lets everyone evaluate whether the
speculative conclusions in the paper actually fall out from the
data. Agendas become immediately obvious. Replication,
converging evidence, independence, and redundancy prevent
poorly supported conclusions from gaining traction.

3. The notion that the multitudes of researchers around the
globe regularly pumping out data consistent with global
warming via CO2 are simply seeking funding is...

illogical, insulting, and baseless.

You apparently don't understand that funding is allocated not
based on the character of the expected results but on the import
of the results, regardless of the outcome. People woud never be
funded to try to demonstrate global warming; they would be
funded to examine to what degree certain factors do or do not
change the climate.

4. No one is running from the solar radiation data. Instead,
they're being responsible adults and carefully evaluating it. The
recent IPCC statement, among others, suggests that radiation is
a factor but not as impactful as CO2.
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Now I'm an idiot -- above for Vince66
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Link Flag
Picking one that jumped out at me...
"You apparently don't understand that funding is allocated not
based on the character of the expected results but on the import
of the results, regardless of the outcome."

Exactly! You can't tell me that the doomsday "we're all gonna die" cries don't garner more funding attention than "it's warming up and we want to understand why".

And if you can't run a controlled experiment with atmosphere, how can they suggest radiation is less impactful than the cosmic radiation? They need to compare what's happening on earth to other planetary bodies, such as Mars. Maybe they are, but I haven't seen anything suggesting this. With the limited atmosphere on Mars, that would seem ideal.

I noticed they are going to run some experiments with a partical accelerator to try to measure cosmic radiation's effect on water molecules. That story struck me as odd. It took a few moments for me to realize this was the first article I've read on any of this that actually talked about running experiments to help support or disprove their theories.

I'm not poo-pooing the idea that we may have something to do with global warming. I am pretty adamant that I'd like to see some hard evidence before we demolish our way of life.
Posted by Vince66 (27 comments )
Link Flag
explain how thats
With glaciers melting it means more water not less water. Glaciers are made up of what? Water, whos with me. I think we have more chance of water poisoning,(aka:Drowning), then running out.
Anyone who has actouly read a book would Know that the world is just covered in water. Unless we are sending the water to outerspace. You think We would of got the memo. Last time the glaicers melted. We where just swimming in water. What people fail to relize is that, the earth has been destroying things for ever so long. Brobably has expierened I dont know one or 2 ice age's and global warming. Actouly if it haddnt been for the global warming we would be.......Not around to think about.
Posted by cobydark (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Where do you suppose that water will end up?
Irrigating crops in America's heartlands? Flowing into swimming pools in California? Or will it end up in the oceans, where it will need to be desalinated and pumped thousands of miles to be of any use?
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
Do you drink SALTWATER?
Where do you think most of this water that you're talking about is going to end up ? Most of the planet is covered with water, make that saltwater. The water that you speak of might as well be in outer space. Do you drink salt water ? I don't.
Posted by Ray Boggs (6 comments )
Link Flag
wherein the Chinese build hundreds of coal fired generators so they can manufacture compact flouresent lights. We ( you know who you are in California) buy the bulbs from them to save energy. We pay then carbon credits so we dont feel guilty. We stop all manufacturing activity here so that we no longer have the capability to make our own light bulbs. All I see is boatloads of cash going to China. China pumping out emmissions like there is no tomorrow ( pun ) Our own workers unemployed because we have built these costs into anything we do here. When we run out of cash, we get HSBC foreclosing on over our mortgages. And Al Gore thinks this is a good idea how? And you people ( you know who you are ) believe in this and endorse it? ROTFLMAO
Posted by gggg sssss (2285 comments )
Reply Link Flag
and your answer is..?
Obviously you are so clever as to know the answers to it all?

I would suggest that globally we spend a bit less on killing
people with hi-tech weaponry and a bit more on housekeeping
before there's nothing left to fight for.

If you don't want to buy flourescent bulbs from China, buy
them from the USA and pay the extra labour costs. I buy mine
from Holland.

You do come across as a bit of a light-headed individual, if
you'll excuse the pun.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Who needs light bulbs?
Who cares about light bulbs if there's no drinking water?
Posted by Ray Boggs (6 comments )
Link Flag
Climate Change Deniers Unite !
Let gather all of the climate change deniers with little or no education and show the world just how much smarter we are than the top climatologists in the world. Lets spread propaganda that accuses all of the most aclaimed scientists in the world of spreading lies for the sake of grant money. Lets even take it a step futher and accuse all the the U.S.'s top government scientific agencies including NOAA, NASA, the EPA and even our own President of being in on this conspiracy. Lets bring up again and again how a couple of scientists way back in the 70's predicted global cooling so that we can disprove the claims of thousands of modern scientists using super computers today. Lets bring up the claims of obscure rogue scientists (many of which are retired with no expertise in climate science) that are on the oil company payrolls to disprove climate change. Oh yea, we're REAL smart people and we're going to prove ourselves right even if we run out of water trying.
Posted by Ray Boggs (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thank-you for such a thoughtful and well researched reply! We
already know that smart people are never ever wrong but
sometimes we just need to be reminded. Throughout human
history we've never heard such dire predictions of the
apocalypse so now is the real time to listen.

What I like the best is that one doesn't even need to know how
to read a scientific journal to believe in global warming. You can
just get simple and easy answers from the following people who
carefully reviewed all the latest scientific research.

- retired politicians
- active politicians
- judges &#38; lawyers
- talking heads &#38; commentators
- famous musicians
- comedians
- movie stars

Look at that list!! I mean that's like 99.99% of the population!
They're the most intelligent members of our society, they always
speak the truth, and there is absolutely no propaganda in what
they say... why not listen?

Excuse me, I have to go organize a meeting with my "Save the
Rainforest" coalition. Britney Spears is coming to discuss
practical ways of feeding the struggling plants with CO2 to
accelerate reforestation.
Posted by Sparky672 (244 comments )
Link Flag
There is a huge piece missing in the global warming debate, and it?s about responsibility. Usually when environmentalists talk about ?responsibility? they mean responsibility for reducing emissions. But there is also the question about the responsibility for the actual emissions: do we, when we release greenhouse gases, fully aware of the possible effects, have a moral duty to compensate those who might eventually suffer from them?

I think so. I would like to see a ?Climate Change Responsibility Act?, where the US and other developed countries clearly state that they are going to compensate victims, both within and outside their own countries.

For example, if 80 million people become displaced by rising sea levels, the US should provide sanctuary for 20 million of them, since it has caused 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and Europe should take something like 16 million.

Some cause-and-effect relationships will be hard to determine, but it?s just a matter of creating rules for acceptable variation. A single hurricane is a chance event, but if a certain region experiences 50 hurricanes over a 10 year period, when 10 hurricanes per decade was the 20th-century average, the polluters should pay for the damage caused by the other 40. There are pretty good statistics over the average frequency of storms, floods, droughts, the sea levels, etc from the time before global warming.

Of course, some people will, until the very end, blame ?natural variations?. But hopefully, most people are decent enough to take responsibility for something even if there is no more than 90% probability that they caused it.

Once the responsibility is assumed at the national level, the next question is how it should be shared among individuals. First, high-income people who pay a lot of taxes but cause little emissions (many New Yorkers, for example) will not be happy about their share of the burden. Second, young people will resent having to pay the consequences of the emissions of older people. Then the case for a gasoline tax becomes more evident, although for political reasons it should not be called a tax, when it is really liability insurance.

Genuine, established liability is necessary to make governments and individuals take steps to reduce emissions in the first place. Personal morals are not enough.

Global warming is not a man-vs-environment issue of morals. It is also a human-to-human issue of justice and decency.

The best part of this proposal is that you don?t have to believe in global warming to agree with it. Obviously, global warming sceptics shouldn?t have any problem accepting responsibility for something that they don?t think will happen, right? The message is: pollute as much as you want, as long as you take the responsibility.
Posted by karlengblom (22 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I'm in
Ultimately it's the potential harm we're creating for our kids and
their offspring that sould be steering our actions.

If there's is even a possibility for preventable tragedy, I'd like to
think we won't look the other way is it unfolds.
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Link Flag
has 38 out of 194 posts on this topic. Tht's about 20 percent. What is his agenda here? Part of a viral marketing program? On Al Gore's payroll? Inquiring minds are looking for clues
Posted by gggg sssss (2285 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well, as you hadn't worked it out, apart from asking some
questions about the environment which you have chosen not to
answer, my agenda is to force you into showing your true colours
as an unreasonable hot-head with an inability to answer straight
Which, as we can all now read in your posts, has worked
comprehensively well. Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by Speiler9 (279 comments )
Link Flag
Gore and Chu should get their lies straight
The Fear-Mongering crowd such as this Berkeley clown and the
private-jet lover Al Gore should get their lies straight.

The Berkeley clown says our faucets won't have water, but the
private-jet lover Gore says that our major cities will be buried
under water. So how can we have too much water and not
enough water at the same time?

Gore should spend less time eating and flying around in his
private jet and try to get his lies to coincide with the lies of Chu
a bit better.

One thing that Gore and Chu agree on is that they want to make
money off their fear and lies; Gore is making movies and cashing
in and this story says that Chu "is trying to get more research
Posted by RandyLado (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So how can we have too much water?
So how can we have too much water and not
enough water at the same time? DUH! because humans don't drink saltwater!
Posted by Ray Boggs (6 comments )
Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.