• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Tier 1 Water Shortage for SW appears inevitable

Treedbear said:
"Supertankers" are the largest tankers, and the largest man-made mobile structures. They include very large and ultra-large crude carriers (VLCCs and ULCCs – see above) with capacities over 250,000 DWT. These ships can transport 2,000,000 barrels (320,000 m3) of oil/318,000 metric tons.
Click to expand...

So that's about 17 supertankers of brine per week.
Click to expand...

Most of the ocean is a barren desert where hardly any biomass is produced/accumulated. Large stretches of water are too poor in micronutrients to allow most algae to grow. This implies no zooplankton and fish either. The fertile areas are concentrated along the shores, especially near river deltas, due to coastal wash down, and in certain spots where upwelling (cold) water carries dissolved nutrients and aerosols (can you say aerosols in water?) from the sea floor. These dead zones start a few kilometres from the coast in many places. Dumping 17 supertankers there isn't really going to kill anything, and by the time it reaches more fertile waters it has mixed will.

At the cost of a few kilometres of pipeline.
 
Treedbear said:
"Supertankers" are the largest tankers, and the largest man-made mobile structures. They include very large and ultra-large crude carriers (VLCCs and ULCCs – see above) with capacities over 250,000 DWT. These ships can transport 2,000,000 barrels (320,000 m3) of oil/318,000 metric tons.
Click to expand...

So that's about 17 supertankers of brine per week.
Click to expand...

Oops. I should have said per month.
 
steve_bank said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
steve_bank said:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/uae-millionaire-plans-tow-iceberg-17539102

The Arabs have been looking at towing icebergs.
Click to expand...
How's about something as a source that isn't The Mirror?

BBC

It sounds flatly impossible to do it for a cost that is feasible to recover. Could be cheaper to fly people to an iceberg and let them chip off ice.
Click to expand...

I believe the Saudis attempted to do it. Tat was mainstream news.
Click to expand...

The Oman and the Sea. The Arab version where by the time you get the iceberg to port there won't be anything left.
 
Regardless, desalination is a better alternative than pumping ground water for agriculture which is simply unsustainable at these rates.
 
steve_bank said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
steve_bank said:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/uae-millionaire-plans-tow-iceberg-17539102

The Arabs have been looking at towing icebergs.
Click to expand...
How's about something as a source that isn't The Mirror?

BBC

It sounds flatly impossible to do it for a cost that is feasible to recover. Could be cheaper to fly people to an iceberg and let them chip off ice.
Click to expand...

I believe the Saudis attempted to do it. Tat was mainstream news.
Click to expand...
People should not be living there, let alone procreate like they do over there. Sometimes I think the West should have simply taken over the oil there without paying arabs anything. It would have been better for the environment in the long run.
 
barbos said:
steve_bank said:
I believe the Saudis attempted to do it. Tat was mainstream news.
Click to expand...
People should not be living there, let alone procreate like they do over there.
Click to expand...

There comes a time when one has to acknowledge that one is old enough for what one learnt in school to be no longer true.

For you (and me) that time has long passed. Saudi Arabia has a total fertility rate (projected lifetime number of children per woman, based on summing current age-specific fertility rates) of 2.3, barely above replacement level. The other rich gulf countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar) are below 2.
 
Jokodo said:
barbos said:
steve_bank said:
I believe the Saudis attempted to do it. Tat was mainstream news.
Click to expand...
People should not be living there, let alone procreate like they do over there.
Click to expand...

There comes a time when one has to acknowledge that one is old enough for what one learnt in school to be no longer true.

For you (and me) that time has long passed. Saudi Arabia has a total fertility rate (projected lifetime number of children per woman, based on summing current age-specific fertility rates) of 2.3, barely above replacement level. The other rich gulf countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar) are below 2.
Click to expand...
That's still awfully high, stable population has 2.1 fertility rate.
SA is 35mil now, 20 years ago it was 20mil, 40 years ago -10mil. It's a fucking desert!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1067068/population-saudi-arabia-historical/

I don't really see any evidence of 2.3 on that graph. Could be some funky statistics with including foreign female workers.

Before oil finally crashes we will have 50-60 millions people in SA alone. This is insane.


While growth would slow somewhat from the 1980s to 1990s, partially due to the economic impact of the oil-price crash of 1986, the population would continue to increase well into the 21st century, and in 2020, just under 35 million people are estimated to live in the country.
Click to expand...
 
barbos said:
Jokodo said:
There comes a time when one has to acknowledge that one is old enough for what one learnt in school to be no longer true.

For you (and me) that time has long passed. Saudi Arabia has a total fertility rate (projected lifetime number of children per woman, based on summing current age-specific fertility rates) of 2.3, barely above replacement level. The other rich gulf countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar) are below 2.
Click to expand...
That's still awfully high, stable population has 2.1 fertility rate.
SA is 35mil now, 20 years ago it was 20mil, 40 years ago -10mil. It's a fucking desert!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1067068/population-saudi-arabia-historical/

I don't really see any evidence of 2.3 on that graph.
Click to expand...

That's because you aren't looking at a graph of TFR. Population growth lags TFR trends by 2-3 generations. If fertility was previously high, the population keeps growing with a replacement level fertility because there aren't enough old people around for their deaths to match even a moderate number of births. The number of old age deaths (the vast majority of deaths in peacetime and with anything resembling modern medicine) is roughly proportional to the number of people born 70-90 years ago, while the number of births is roughly proportional to the number of people born 20-40 years ago multiplied by fertility. So if fertility was high between 1940 and 1990, births will continue to outnumber deaths (albeit with decreasing margins) even with replacement level fertility until the people born in the 80s and 90s start to die in significant numbers, simply because more people were born in the 80s and 90s than in the 30s and 40s.

If you want to see a graph of TFR, that's what you should Google for.
 
Well, damage is done then? :) it will most likely balloon to 80mil before they ran out of oil and move to Siberia :)
 
barbos said:
Well, damage is done then? :) it will most likely balloon to 80mil before they ran out of oil and move to Europe :)
Click to expand...

That may or may not be so. It doesn't make your statement about "procreat[ing] like they do over there" any less outdated.
 
barbos said:
Jokodo said:
barbos said:
Well, damage is done then? :) it will most likely balloon to 80mil before they ran out of oil and move to Siberia :)
Click to expand...

That may or may not be so. It doesn't make your statement about "procreat[ing] like they do over there" any less outdated.
Click to expand...
2.3 is still more than 2.1.
Click to expand...

2.3 and consistently dropping. People who know more about demographics, and about disentangling drivers and effects, than the two of us combined project a peak population of 45-50M around the year 2060.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/saudi-arabia-population
 
Last edited:
barbos said:
Jokodo said:
barbos said:
2.3 is still more than 2.1.
Click to expand...

2.3 and consistently dropping. People who know more about demographics, and about disentangling drivers and effects, than the two of us combined project a peak population of 45-50M around the year 2060.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/saudi-arabia-population
Click to expand...
Regardless, these 50-80mil would have to stay in desert, no way they are coming here.
Click to expand...

It's hard to stay in the desert when you don't exist.
 
Jokodo said:
barbos said:
Well, damage is done then? :) it will most likely balloon to 80mil before they ran out of oil and move to Europe :)
Click to expand...

That may or may not be so. It doesn't make your statement about "procreat[ing] like they do over there" any less outdated.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
The total number of non-Saudis in the country is estimated to be 10,736,293 [and they ARE included in population figures].
Click to expand...

I award the round to Jokodo. And ask for a cite on the "like they do over there."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom