re: #205 Spare O’Lake

Who’s laughing? I asked a few questions, and I found your tone rather defensive and insulting.

Wouldn’t you think that these folks would have proofread the paper? Pretty pathetic, wouldn’t you say?

I certainly agree that a 25 year average is more reliable than a 2 year average. But the 2 years just happen to be the last 2 years, so how can that be so easily dismissed?
Also, I would have thought that 1000 year or at least 500 year averages would be better than 25 years. 25 years seems like a drop in the bucket to me, especially considering what is at stake. What do the longer averages show? Do folks cherry-pick their time frames to suit their agendas?

As far as the sea-level rise goes, I think we better get to work on storing a whole lot of fresh water from the melting ice in inland reservoirs. For starters, let’s capture the fresh water from the melting icebergs. Maybe that can help to slow down the sea-level problem and green some deserts too.

The longer the time interval the better you screen out accidental blips. A running 50-year average would be more robust. But it would also lag farther behind what is now happening. 25 years is a compromise. A running 25-year average is something that cannot be cherry-picked, and so is a running 50 year average.

As to capturing fresh water and using it to irrigate deserts, once that water has passed through the growing plants and into the air, will it rain out again over the desert? Or will the still-relatively dry air above the farm blow away, later to mingle with wetter air and deposit rain into —- the ocean!?

There is no practical way to sequester the gigatons of water coming off Greenland. It goes into the ocean, like it or not.