Turn deserts green as alternative theory on stabilization of the climate?

Is turning deserts green a win, win, win way to address stabilization of the climate?

  • No

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Yes, at least this will produce more food which is a good thing for all of us.

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Other answer, please be specific in a reply

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • No, only the Carbon Tax Theory will really work to stabilize the climate

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
If California would permit some of those desalination plans to go ahead there are investors who might just want to make at least part of that desert area green for most of the year.

I think you're being a little unfair towards California policies ... simple thermodynamics, it takes huge amounts of electrical energy to run a desalination plant ... all to solve a problem that doesn't exist ...

Leave the sinking desert to be a stinking desert ... we certainly don't need the farmland, look at all the soybeans we're trying to sell to China ... we don't eat that stuff ... the epitome of food surplus is selling it overseas for profit ...

Deserts are dry ... then they are hot, and only during the day ... deserts are bitter cold at night ... but it starts with being dry ...
 
I think you're being a little unfair towards California policies ... simple thermodynamics, it takes huge amounts of electrical energy to run a desalination plant ... all to solve a problem that doesn't exist ...

Leave the sinking desert to be a stinking desert ... we certainly don't need the farmland, look at all the soybeans we're trying to sell to China ... we don't eat that stuff ... the epitome of food surplus is selling it overseas for profit ...

Deserts are dry ... then they are hot, and only during the day ... deserts are bitter cold at night ... but it starts with being dry ...
At the moment we are in a situation of food surplus but within a decade or two that may well no longer be the case.

For example Japan puts high tariffs on rice from foreign nations because Japan's culture makes them very aware that they could well be at war with a nation that is supplying them a high percentage of their rice, [and they do not want that to happen so they boost the local Japanese production of rice and other staple foods].
 
I think you're being a little unfair towards California policies ... simple thermodynamics, it takes huge amounts of electrical energy to run a desalination plant ... all to solve a problem that doesn't exist ...

Leave the sinking desert to be a stinking desert ... we certainly don't need the farmland, look at all the soybeans we're trying to sell to China ... we don't eat that stuff ... the epitome of food surplus is selling it overseas for profit ...

Deserts are dry ... then they are hot, and only during the day ... deserts are bitter cold at night ... but it starts with being dry ...
Not completely true.

They are dry because the soil is not deep enough to hold surface moisture.

Most of the deserts in the USA and Middle East all have either hardpan at 6 inches deep or a high salt content in the soil.

Israel has overcome some of this by breaking up its hardpan and treating it. Then careful and involved irrigation techniques that are expensive. But they and Egypt always have had the groceries for the neighborhood.
The Desert in those areas between Israel and Egypt have a lot of water if they dig wells. But between the huge amount of rock and hardpan....why bother?
It's not a question of water....it's soil...



Iran used to have the Tigris and Euphrates rivers....currently they are both dry due to being over used for population growth the river beds are currently filled with weeds and trash. The desert soil in that area is fine like powder....but the high salt content is what keeps it sterile. Iran actually has the world's finest saffron. We haven't seen any since the Obama Administration. The stuff coming out of Afghanistan is okayish but still not as good as Iran can produce.

India's Rivers are more garbage, toxic industrial and residential waste than water.

I'm unsure of the issues For Australia.

Water is not really the problem with Deserts.
 
I think you're being a little unfair towards California policies ... simple thermodynamics, it takes huge amounts of electrical energy to run a desalination plant ... all to solve a problem that doesn't exist ...

Leave the sinking desert to be a stinking desert ... we certainly don't need the farmland, look at all the soybeans we're trying to sell to China ... we don't eat that stuff ... the epitome of food surplus is selling it overseas for profit ...

Deserts are dry ... then they are hot, and only during the day ... deserts are bitter cold at night ... but it starts with being dry ...
California is one of the top rice producing States. Take a drive along I-5 and witness the thousands of acres of planted rice and all the grain silos.
 
Ridiculous thread. Man can't control the climate on something the size of the Earth. Outside - Inside forces control the weather (or the climate) as Board Stain like to use both terms//

P.S. you don't need to control it. Everything is as it should be.
 
No, for very real reasons.

For one, as others have pointed out the land simply does not support any kind of meaningful plants because of the ground.

Second, doing so would be incredibly destructive to the ecology that lives there now. Desert wildlife (plants and animals) are among the most endangered on the planet, and it always makes me shake my head when people casually discuss completely destroying their habitat in the belief that doing so will improve things. And among those animals are the Saharan Cheetah, the Dama Gazelle, the Ostrich, the Egyptian tortoise, and others.

And finally, not only is doing so extremely expensive in power demands, doing so also generally causes large damage to the oceans near where it does because of the huge amounts of brine pumped back into the ocean. Desalinization is not very efficient, processing around five gallons of sea water to produce one gallon of drinkable water. And that four gallons of highly concentrated brine that is pumped back into the ocean as a waste product devastates the local marine ecology.

So in reality, people that want to do things like this really wants to destroy two ecosystems, in order to create a fantasy ecosystem that will fail the moment that somebody stops maintaining the system.
 
Most of the deserts in the USA and Middle East all have either hardpan at 6 inches deep or a high salt content in the soil.

And yes, I have seen this first hand. This is absolutely true.

Most of that area gets some absolutely torrential downpours. However, the ground is so hard and devoid of soil that it simply can not hold any water so it all just runs off back into the oceans and seas. And unlike say the US South West, it's also very humid there. Yet with all that rain and humidity, almost nothing grows because the ground is simply too pour in nutrients.
 
Ridiculous thread. Man can't control the climate on something the size of the Earth. Outside - Inside forces control the weather (or the climate) as Board Stain like to use both terms//

P.S. you don't need to control it. Everything is as it should be.
Actually, you might even be correct, but at minimum this is a more constructive idea than any variation of a Carbon Tax!
 
on stabilization of the climate


There is absolutely nothing "unstable" about the Earth's climate now.



We know that astonishingly good technology now exists to desalinate sea water on a massive scale



We've known that for 50 years. When you try to push for desalination, as I did in California 25 years ago, you get hit with opposition from CO2 FRAUD and "Alliance for Treason Against America." They don't want solutions like desalination. They want the fires and they blame the fires on "warming" that does not exist, and IQ<5 science invalids believe them.


In reality, if Earth was warming, which it is not, there would be LESS FIRES not more, because when oceans do warm, which they are not now, they emit more H2O into atmosphere causing vastly MORE RAIN...


 
There is absolutely nothing "unstable" about the Earth's climate now.







We've known that for 50 years. When you try to push for desalination, as I did in California 25 years ago, you get hit with opposition from CO2 FRAUD and "Alliance for Treason Against America." They don't want solutions like desalination. They want the fires and they blame the fires on "warming" that does not exist, and IQ<5 science invalids believe them.


In reality, if Earth was warming, which it is not, there would be LESS FIRES not more, because when oceans do warm, which they are not now, they emit more H2O into atmosphere causing vastly MORE RAIN...


I am truly encouraged to meet somebody else who also has promoted desalination for its benefits and like you I totally agree that the extreme political left, extreme environmentalists, receive so much funding from "Neo-Malthusians" who only want a Carbon Tax because of how they know that they can benefit from that type of massive bureaucracy. The Carbon Tax supporters are not intellectually honest and they simply want to win, win, win by any means necessary.

I would love to think that you are correct that there is nothing really unstable about the earth's environment but several theorists do have me somewhat worried. Immanuel Velikovsky, wrote "World's in Collision" and he even convinced his friend Dr. Albert Einstein to agree with his general thesis for a number of years.

Here is another way of looking at HAB Theory which is pretty close to what Immanuel Velikovsky discussed:

Expanded Discussion of The HAB Theory
Gershom Gale gershon1
@netvision.net.il


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geophysical science offers rather thin explanations for the periods of history during which great glaciers advanced and retreated from the polar regions, leaving a great deal of physical evidence.

The more one delves into the actual evidence, the more skeptical one becomes of the existing theories. The truth, according to the HAB Theory, is that periodically - at intervals ranging from 3,000 to 7000 years but averaging around 5,500 years apart - great global cataclysms have occurred which destroyed virtually all of whatever life forms or civilizations had developed on the Earth to that point.

The cataclysms occur when the Earth is thrown off balance due to a massive, unbalanced accumulation of ice at the polar regions. As these polar ice caps grow, their enormous weight, accumulating unevenly as it does, creates an imbalance, and a wobble begins to develop in the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Year by year, as the ice caps grow, this eccentricity increases until, with devastating suddenness, the polar masses are thrown toward the point of greatest spin, which is the equator. Quite abruptly, the areas which were polar now become equatorial, and vice versa.

The resultant cataclysm is, of course monumental across the entire face of the Earth, except at the two points which become pivotal when the capsizing effect occurs.


An Analogy:

Picture the Earth as a round ball spinning in place on a glass table top. Imagine then, that on the uppermost part of this spinning ball, you drop a tiny glob of molten metal, just slightly off center. The ball immediately begins to wobble...

Add more weight and that wobble becomes more pronounced. Add still more and the eccentricity becomes so great the centrifugal force of the spinning ball grips the weight and turns the entire ball so that the weighted portion is thrown to the imaginary line encircling the ball where the speed is greatest - which is coincident with the imaginary line on Earth known to us as the equator.

That is precisely what happens periodically to the Earth. The buildup of ice at the poles increases until its weight is suddenly thrown some 90 degrees from pole to equator. Yes, the Earth is 26 miles greater in diameter when measured around the equator than when measured around the poles, and one might argue that this bulge provides a stability that would make such a sudden tipping unlikely. But consider: such a variance, considering the size of the planet, is far less than the manufacturing tolerances of an ivory billiard ball.

As the sun evaporates the oceans, the moisture thus released precipitates as rain or snow all over the Earth. But the snows that fall on the polar caps do not melt or flow off at anything like the rate at which they evaporate elsewhere. Snow at the poles piles up and gradually turns into glacial ice. As this process continues, the ice caps increase in size.

At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie! That's enough= ice to form a layer one mile wide and two miles high from New York to Chicago. And this is the buildup of only one year!

These figures were confirmed by Franz Loewe of France and Malcolm Mellors of Australia. There is no mistake.

The present ice mass is considerably over 5.5 million square miles. If the South Pole were over Chicago, that would make a two-mile thick slab of ice extending from Hudson's Bay to Key West, Florida.

Even this wouldn't be a threat if the ice were perfectly centered over the Earth's axis of spin, but it is not. The wobble was discovered by astronomers in 1885. It amounted to only a fraction over an inch. By the mid 1930s, this had increased to just over six feet. In 1970, the radial movement was close to 80 yards. And right now (197, the wobble is approaching a half-mile in radius.

There is no known means of calculating the point at which rollover will occur, though the summer equinox is the most dangerous time each year. It could conceivably happen with another fraction of an inch of added eccentricity. Or the system may remain more or less stable even if the wobble worsened by another mile or more.

Eventually, though, it'll reach the point of no return and the capsizing effect will occur, with essentially no warning. Overcoming the gyroscopic stabilizing effect of the Earth's equatorial bulge, and in obedience to the laws of centrifugal force, the weight of the ice will be thrown toward the equator. The Earth will continue spinning on it's axis as before, but with some dramatic differences: The ice caps will be riding on the equator, and practically all life - Man included - will have been extinguished.

This is not just a one-time occurrence; it has happened over and over again=! There have been thousands of such rollovers, perhaps even millions, during the 4.5-billion year history of the Earth.

How much time have we got before the next capsizing occurs?

The interval between each occurrence in the past has ranged between 3,000 and 7,000 years. The longest period between tilts was just about 7,000 years, give or take 50. The physical evidence indicates that our present epoch has lasted approximately 7,500 years; we've been living on borrowed time for quite a while." [Gershom Gale, Expanded Discussion of the HAB Theory].

Graham Hancock felt that the weight of the ice on Antarctica is getting close to that critical number where a polar wobble or shift is set in motion. Over the next decades to a century the amount of cracking and sliding of ice off the land based Greenland Ice Sheet could imbalance the poles toward the south pole in an even more extreme manner.

I am sixty six and it seems like these last fifty years have flown by so I feel a responsibility to put this general idea out there partly because this is so much more practical than any variation of a Carbon Tax.

"Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess
of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19
quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the
theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is
remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic
miles of ice each year--almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen
solidly annually and added to it.(Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of
the Gods, page 480).
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: EMH
Yeah, and Newsom is also dumb as a box of rocks.
I make an effort to concentrate on positive things to say about somebody but I have to admit that I have not read or heard hardly anything good about Newsom.
California is one of the top rice producing States. Take a drive along I-5 and witness the thousands of acres of planted rice and all the grain silos.
And California could produce even more food if the extreme environmentalists there did not shoot down every well planned and financed proposal for large scale desalination plus pipelines.
 
No, for very real reasons.

For one, as others have pointed out the land simply does not support any kind of meaningful plants because of the ground.

Second, doing so would be incredibly destructive to the ecology that lives there now. Desert wildlife (plants and animals) are among the most endangered on the planet, and it always makes me shake my head when people casually discuss completely destroying their habitat in the belief that doing so will improve things. And among those animals are the Saharan Cheetah, the Dama Gazelle, the Ostrich, the Egyptian tortoise, and others.

And finally, not only is doing so extremely expensive in power demands, doing so also generally causes large damage to the oceans near where it does because of the huge amounts of brine pumped back into the ocean. Desalinization is not very efficient, processing around five gallons of sea water to produce one gallon of drinkable water. And that four gallons of highly concentrated brine that is pumped back into the ocean as a waste product devastates the local marine ecology.

So in reality, people that want to do things like this really wants to destroy two ecosystems, in order to create a fantasy ecosystem that will fail the moment that somebody stops maintaining the system.
Back around 2005 or 2006 I got a CD of "An Inconvenient Truth" and watched it several times. Maybe four times?

Then I started thinking and thinking and thinking and thinking and I came to the conclusion that Mr. Al Gore's Carbon Tax thesis was one sided and would not actually do a single thing to prevent ocean levels from rising.

At that time I lived only five kilo-meters from the Atlantic Ocean and the lake that our house was on was classified as tidal water due to the fact that once or twice each year there would be a super high tide and ocean water would go into the very lake that our house was on.

Later on I figured out that the real estate along the Bay of Fundy between Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick would almost certainly be hit by rising ocean levels first due to the fact that the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world.


I came up with a specific question that was meant to get people rethinking this whole topic.

"Physics question related to the geography of the Bay of Fundy?"

"If average ocean levels were to rise by ten centimeters.... .would
the multiplier effect of the geography of the Bay of Fundy continue?

The fact that the Bay of Fundy funnels tidal waters plus......
it is over 170 miles long, (274 kms), it produces high tide level that are tenX to fifteenX over the difference in tidal waters where I live.

So... could high tide levels near TRuro, N. S. to Moncton, N. B. be up by a meter or more if average ocean levels were to rise by ten centimeters?" [Dennis Tate, March 7, 2021]



World's Highest Tides (Time-Lapse) - Bay of Fundy​

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: EMH
several theorists do have me somewhat worried.


That's their job, to make you scared, so you WILL PART WITH YOUR MONEY because you are scared.

They have NO TRUTH AT ALL.


"which great glaciers advanced and retreated "

all of that is "McBullshit" trying to con you and the rest of the world into believing in "rapid abrupt climate change" and there is precisely ZERO EVIDENCE of it.

The ice cores prove what? That ice age glacier grows at the top one year at a time, straight through all the glacial/interglacial bullshit.

Before 2012, the ONLY explanation for the ice age that dug out the Great Lakes was North American Ice Age, that the ice covering Canada down to the top of America was 50 million years in duration. THAT PROVED that

GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED

which was a big part of FBI's CO2 FRAUD prosecution buried by homO here...





alas, homO hid the case IN THE CLOSET and gave it to CO2 FRAUD, which THEN came out with Milankovich aka McBullshit, what you are parroting now...

has already been destroyed on both poles here...





 
"at intervals ranging from 3,000 to 7000 years but averaging around 5,500 years apart - great global cataclysms have occurred which destroyed virtually all of whatever life forms or civilizations had developed on the Earth to that point."

Absolute bullshit with no evidence at all


"As these polar ice caps grow, their enormous weight, accumulating unevenly as it does, creates an imbalance, and a wobble begins to develop in the rotation of the Earth on its axis."


Earth is "unbalanced" now by that BS. 8 million cubic miles of ice on one pole, under 1 million on the other...



"the polar masses are thrown toward the point of greatest spin"

Would make a great episode of "SuperFriends" if nothing else.


"Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually"
That's actually about right, proving Earth is experiencing precisely ZERO net ice melt.




"Even this wouldn't be a threat if the ice were perfectly centered over the Earth's axis of spin, but it is not. The wobble was discovered by astronomers in 1885. It amounted to only a fraction over an inch. By the mid 1930s, this had increased to just over six feet. In 1970, the radial movement was close to 80 yards. And right now (197, the wobble is approaching a half-mile in radius."

That is complete BS.



"it'll reach the point of no return and the capsizing effect will occur"


It has NEVER HAPPENED and NEVER WILL, this is all "McBullshit." Earth will continue to orbit Sun and will not "flip" at all, has done that for 4.5 billion years and counting.
 
15th post
Not completely true.

They are dry because the soil is not deep enough to hold surface moisture.

Most of the deserts in the USA and Middle East all have either hardpan at 6 inches deep or a high salt content in the soil.

Israel has overcome some of this by breaking up its hardpan and treating it. Then careful and involved irrigation techniques that are expensive. But they and Egypt always have had the groceries for the neighborhood.
The Desert in those areas between Israel and Egypt have a lot of water if they dig wells. But between the huge amount of rock and hardpan....why bother?
It's not a question of water....it's soil...



Iran used to have the Tigris and Euphrates rivers....currently they are both dry due to being over used for population growth the river beds are currently filled with weeds and trash. The desert soil in that area is fine like powder....but the high salt content is what keeps it sterile. Iran actually has the world's finest saffron. We haven't seen any since the Obama Administration. The stuff coming out of Afghanistan is okayish but still not as good as Iran can produce.

India's Rivers are more garbage, toxic industrial and residential waste than water.

I'm unsure of the issues For Australia.

Water is not really the problem with Deserts.

Soil certainly isn't a problem in the southern San Joaquin Valley ... Bakersfield gets 5 inches of rain per year ... and Antarctica soil is under 2 miles of solid ice ... both are deserts ...

I didn't want to get too technical ... but I guess I'll have to ... in order to form rain, we must have uplift in the atmospheric column ... no uplift, no rain ... now most sunlight hits the equator, which warms the air above it, and warm air rises ... lots and lots of rain at the equator ... but what goes up must come down ... this happens at 30º latitude both hemispheres ... see Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia for a good diagram ...

So this is where we find the desert belts on Earth ... where the air is descending in the atmospheric column ... 30º is where we find the Sonora/Mojave deserts, the Sahara, Arabia, Atacama, The Kalahari ... and yes, Australia ... 90º is where we find the Arctic and Antarctic deserts ... all of which are very specific atmospheric condition, what climatology is concerned with ...

The desert climate has nothing to do with soils ... as demonstrated by the Imperial Valley ... 3 inches rain annually and no hardpan ... this massive agricultural area grows everything in abundance ... but it takes all the Colorado River water, little is left over for Arizona, Utah or Nevada ... and none at all for the Sea of Cortez ... AND there's hardpan where it does rain 20 inches a year up by Stockton ... our neighbor couldn't grow trees, only grains, hardpan was at the surface in some places ... our orchard was only 1/4 mile away where the hard pan dipped down enough to get almonds and walnuts to grow (yeah, it was a nut farm) ...

Soil has nothing to do with the weather, so it has nothing to do with climate ...
 
Last edited:
Soil certainly isn't a problem in the southern San Joaquin Valley ... Bakersfield gets 5 inches of rain per year ... and Antarctica soil is under 2 miles of solid ice ... both are deserts ...

I didn't want to get too technical ... but I guess I'll have to ... in order to form rain, we must have uplift in the atmospheric column ... no uplift, no rain ... now most sunlight hits the equator, which warms the air above it, and warm air rises ... lots and lots of rain at the equator ... but what goes up must come down ... this happens at 30º latitude both hemispheres ... see Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia for a good diagram ...

So this is where we find the desert belts on Earth ... where the air is descending in the atmospheric column ... 30º is where we find the Sonora/Mojave deserts, the Sahara, Arabia, Atacama, The Kalahari ... and yes, Australia ... 90º is where we find the Arctic and Antarctic deserts ... all of which are very specific atmospheric condition, what climatology is concerned with ...

The desert climate has nothing to do with soils ... as demonstrated by the Imperial Valley ... 3 inches rain annually and no hardpan ... this massive agricultural area grows everything in abundance ... but it takes all the Colorado River water, little is left over for Arizona, Utah or Nevada ... and none at all for the Sea of Cortez ... AND there's hardpan where it does rain 20 inches a year up by Stockton ... our neighbor couldn't grow trees, only grains ... our orchard was only 1/4 mile away ...

Soil has nothing to do with the weather, so it has nothing to do with climate ...
My guess is that this is the perfect location for a mega-project of sea water desalination plus a pipeline.

I would suggest something along the line of "Sorek 2" due to how much natural gas the USA has in reserves.


About​

The Sorek desalination plant is one of a kind and the largest seawater desalination plant operating with 16’’ elements in a unique vertical arrangement.

It provides potable water for millions of people, comprising 20% of the municipal water demand in Israel, thus greatly contributing to the country’s water system resilience (while minimizing the environmental impact).

In 2018 IDE sold Sorek 1 desalination plant to Dan Capital. The sale was required under a deal agreed by IDE with antitrust (competition) authorities allowing IDE to bid on a BOT tender for a second SWRO desalination plant at Soreq.

  • Capacity: 640,000 m³/day
  • Technology: Reverse Osmosis (RO)
  • Water Source: Seawater
  • Contract type: BOT For 25 years
  • Usage: Potable Water
  • Location: Rishon Le Zion, Israel
  • Customer: Israel Water Authority
  • Commissioning date: 2013


 
"at intervals ranging from 3,000 to 7000 years but averaging around 5,500 years apart - great global cataclysms have occurred which destroyed virtually all of whatever life forms or civilizations had developed on the Earth to that point."

Absolute bullshit with no evidence at all


"As these polar ice caps grow, their enormous weight, accumulating unevenly as it does, creates an imbalance, and a wobble begins to develop in the rotation of the Earth on its axis."


Earth is "unbalanced" now by that BS. 8 million cubic miles of ice on one pole, under 1 million on the other...



"the polar masses are thrown toward the point of greatest spin"

Would make a great episode of "SuperFriends" if nothing else.


"Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually"
That's actually about right, proving Earth is experiencing precisely ZERO net ice melt.




"Even this wouldn't be a threat if the ice were perfectly centered over the Earth's axis of spin, but it is not. The wobble was discovered by astronomers in 1885. It amounted to only a fraction over an inch. By the mid 1930s, this had increased to just over six feet. In 1970, the radial movement was close to 80 yards. And right now (197, the wobble is approaching a half-mile in radius."

That is complete BS.



"it'll reach the point of no return and the capsizing effect will occur"


It has NEVER HAPPENED and NEVER WILL, this is all "McBullshit." Earth will continue to orbit Sun and will not "flip" at all, has done that for 4.5 billion years and counting.
OK, so what about what seems to be a very different situation UNDER the massive land based Greenland Ice Sheet in comparison to what is happening under Antarctica.

Greenland ice seems to have a lot of liquid water lakes and rivers under it but such is not the case for the vast majority of Antarctica, [with the possible exception of the West Antarctic ice Sheet].

Over the next decades and centuries if the land based Greenland Ice Sheet calves vastly more ice bergs than happens in Antarctica, would not this decrease of the weight of ice near the North Pole, mean that the massive weight of the Antarctica ice sheet puts our planet closer to an imbalance toward the south pole?



What a Glacial River Reveals About the Greenland Ice Sheet​

 
My guess is that this is the perfect location for a mega-project of sea water desalination plus a pipeline.

I would suggest something along the line of "Sorek 2" due to how much natural gas the USA has in reserves.


WE need desalination now for already "green" areas that are drying out because we have


TOO MANY HUMANS CONSUMING TOO MUCH FINITE LAND BASED FRESH WATER

and CO2 FRAUD blocks that truth because CO2 FRAUD loves the fires...
 
Back
Top Bottom