This probably a stupid question

[hunter260859]

Global warming to suppose to increase the tempreatue of the world right causing floods and hunger due to less land.

But wont it also increase the rate of evaparation of the water so wouldn't both things cancel it out.

stupid question?

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

hmm, thats an interesting idea... i wonder if it would work

Shouldnt this be in the Atheneneneneneamu?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Hmm.. but I guess the rate of evaporation will be larger in a place that is further away from the poles, i.e. the equator, and so no it won't cancel it out. Anyway, in the case of Britain, the North Pole will wash away the Gulf Stream and so could negate global warming...

[Mathius]

Without going into massive detail, yes, the rate of evaporation would increase, but the earths atmosphere is a closed system and this would effectively result in increased precipitation - the water wouldn't stay evaporated for ever. So it will rain even more in Britain than it does now. Further any effect this would have on sea level would be more than negated by the extra water being unlocked by melting glaciers and the arctic/antarctic ice shelves, as well as the overlooked effect that at a higher temperature any given mass of water will occupy a greater volume.

[LoZz]

Without going into massive detail, yes, the rate of evaporation would increase, but the earths atmosphere is a closed system and this would effectively result in increased precipitation - the water wouldn't stay evaporated for ever. So it will rain even more in Britain than it does now. Further any effect this would have on sea level would be more than negated by the extra water being unlocked by melting glaciers and the arctic/antarctic ice shelves, as well as the overlooked effect that at a higher temperature any given mass of water will occupy a greater volume.

but more rain for the uk would be good wouldn't it? we have had loads of droughts recently.


hahah wouldnt it be funny if this post is going around the climate community like wildfire and their just going "****, didnt think of that"

[hellheaven1987]

Actually, the recent climate change may be good for Russia, since the frozen land in Siberia would be free to use for anything.

It is true, I saw it from Discovery.

[joerd9]

Actually, the recent climate change may be good for Russia, since the frozen land in Siberia would be free to use for anything.

It is true, I saw it from Discovery.

Well ... as far as I have heard, if the permafrost ground in siberia is ever going to melt, it would make things even worse, since there is a significant amount of methane now in the soil (from fossile organic matter probably), enclosed by the ice. The melting ground would set the methane free, and that will do further harm to the ozone layer. Anyone got more precise info on that?

[Mathius]

but more rain for the uk would be good wouldn't it? we have had loads of droughts recently.


hahah wouldnt it be funny if this post is going around the climate community like wildfire and their just going "****, didnt think of that"

LOL. I'm amazed Dubya hasn't latched on to it already

[Khozemnian]

This is a theory I devised a couple of months ago, and seriously, its so good, I think I should be referred to some geolical institue for my findings! Its not that good but no one seems to have come up with it before.

Anyway, the way it works is: One of the geologists main concerns is melting of teh polar ice caps and huge icebergs that would cause a rise in sea levels. BUT, what happens to ice water when it freezes? It expands. Right, so based on that, if all the frozen ice in the water right now were to melt, wouldnt see levels go down? One of my mates sort of took this theory apart when he said that its mainly the ice above sea level that theyre worried about but still, interesting idea. I was proud of that one, I managed to stump a few of my mates with that one.

[chris_uk_83]

and your mate would be correct. Not to mention the amount of freshwater that would be released from the melting polar ice. Fish would die, poor fish, why do fish deserve to die?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

and your mate would be correct. Not to mention the amount of freshwater that would be released from the melting polar ice. Fish would die, poor fish, why do fish deserve to die?

He said, eating battered cod and chips.

[mocker]

This thread is in need of a real scientist.

I'm not going to go into details:
greater water evaporation --> drought --> deserts --> more water to oceans, since deserts can't hold onto the water.

The oceans won't evaporate en masse unless global warming becomes extremely extreme. What goes up comes down.

@ hellheaven:
Siberia would just become a mudhole, not arable land.

[chris_uk_83]

He said, eating battered cod and chips.

Yep , but there would be fewer cods for me to batter and eat with chips. Poor me!

[Francisco Montana]

Thread moved to the Athenaeum. ~ Lord Gruffles

[TheKwas]

Global warming would result in increased water evaporation, but that would just mean that there would be more water vapour, which is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, and thus would heat up the planet even further. This is called a positive feedback mechanism, and it creates a heating cycle. Water vapour alone is a 3.5 multiplier of any initial temperature increase.

[Hells Bells]

Global warming to suppose to increase the tempreatue of the world right causing floods and hunger due to less land.

But wont it also increase the rate of evaparation of the water so wouldn't both things cancel it out.

stupid question?

the water would flood quickly causing much devastation, then dry quickly causing drought. double whammy