No, desertification is well understood as it's happening rapidly across the world despite growing insatiable demand for arable land. Repairing deserts without taking several lifetimes is not understood. Pretty ****ty gotcha... you're better off asking more questions in the guise of genuine curiosity. That last part doesn't make sense. Clumsy shot in the dark.
Greenland and Antarctica are dry, not wet. They are best described as cold deserts. Am I missing something? Melting of Arctic ice-water may lead toward an increase sequestration of carbon dioxide by the oceans which could reduce man-made climate change.
Parts of Greenland and Antarctica are dry. Other parts have a lot of precipitation. Some parts have little precipitation but still have giant glaciers on top of them. I am not sure how much the melting of Arctic ice water will lead to more CO2 sequestration in the ocean since that process isn't fully understood and dependent upon a lot of factors. That said it is already known that thawing of arctic areas that had been under permafrost and arctic oceans is releasing a lot of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than C02.
Precipitation can be both liquid and solid, and its only one factor of determining a desert. The amount of a gas dissolved into a liquid is proportional to the pressure of the gas above the surface of the liquid. At the moment, there is a giant piece of ice sitting on the surface of the Arctic Ocean. When the ice melts, it forces the surface of the water into contact with gases, like CO2 and methane. We should then go from a warm period to a cool period; but what if ocean circulation shuts down?
I am not sure what the relevance of this is as it doesn't contradict or add to my statement. Yes that is true but other factors affect C02 absorption such as salinity and PH. Further carbon sequestration isn't just a function of dissolving gas in liquid since that pressure equation goes the other way and lower pressure on the liquid surface is more likely to cause in release of dissolved gas, like when you open a soda can. Removing the ice cap might cause a greater release. Also you have to consider that part of carbon sequestration is the action of biological systems to capture that carbon. Some of the latest research is showing that as the PH of the oceans rise from increased dissolved CO2 it is harder for organisms to incorporate that carbon in a form that cannot be readily returned to the atmosphere.
Wetness is based on amounts of water, not ice. Polar regions, like Greenland, have no real rain, but do have melts. Sequestration of CO2 by the ocean means that there will be more CO2 in the ocean - that will affect pH. In fact, melting of the Arctic Ice sheet will change the ocean water mass, which I believe will also affect ocean pH. Most carbon capture, that I know, is done through photosynthetic processes, which also create oxygen. Melting of the ice-sheets introduces a photic zone in the Arctic, in which bacteria can thrive. Being the base of the food chain, this could increase fish stocks.
put this into context, otherwise it's just mindless boogeyman screaming how many models were run? How much ice was there previously? The whole "climate change screamers crowd" has lost a huge amount of momentum of late. Obama hasn't done a damn thing about it despite his grand promises, and the shale revolution has stymied many of these screamers since it's made renewable generation even more uneconomic in the US due to very cheap natural gas (which lowers the price of electricity since the marginal, price setting units are natural gas fired power plants).
Coming back late to this. Yes wetness does but precipitation is both solid and liquid. I am not sure what your argument is? If you are claiming that global warming is reducing desertification as parts of Greenland and Antarctica are melting so more of the H2O is in liquid form now yes that is technically true but desertification the term isn't generally applied to areas with lots of ice but to areas with little H2O solid or liquid. As I said before oceanic carbon sequestration isn't well understood but studies are showing oceans are getting more acidic even as more sea ice is melting. This is known to make it difficult on many organisms who are responsible for carbon sequestration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification As the basis of food chains problems with those organisms affect fish stocks down the line. While it is possible melting sea ice could create a bigger photic zone in the arctic it could also disrupt food chains as arctic / antarctic waters are particular rich due to cold water that helps recycle nutrients. In contrast clear tropical waters are actually nutrient poor. THis is why species like whales will migrate from tropical to arctic waters to feed. Anyway even if the melting of the ice caps creates a rich photic zone once those ice caps melt that will raise sea levels causing greater problems to coastal areas. Like many other things involving global warming there are benefits but also some big drawbacks.
We are indeed doomed, and the human race and civilizations will suffer tremendously in the years to come, but we deserve it, so it's okay....
Don't worry - we've made sure to protect all the rich people. They'll bravely go on without us, socking away vast sums of cash and living in protected areas, as the rest of the world turns into a swamp. That's why I'm so happy that proud and staunch free-marketeers put so much effort into protecting our hero John Galt wealth job creator free market angels of Jesus.
I'm not saying that humans don't change their environment, but I think some perspective is good. ...Spoiler for size... Spoiler I believe this data is accurate. Please let me know if I am wrong. Here is the link describing the guy's website who I got this chart from. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_About.htm He seems like he might have some bias, but he also seems to have a lot of data too.
