Planning for climate change - which communities will do the best

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
23,249
2,203
113
76
The book the Grapes of Wrath compared to the above map would indicate that we have made a lot of progress in Oklahoma. I have to hand it to President Roosevelt.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,170
625
113
la la land
several elements contribute to the earths climate. man, the earths natural maturation, the sun, axis tilt, spin, orbit, ... what percent does man play?
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Feb 25, 2002
8,758
2,614
113
Marthas Vineyard must be exceptionally prepared... otherwise the smartest man on earth wouldnt have bought a $15 million oceanside mansion that sits at essentially sea level
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
23,249
2,203
113
76
I don't think anyone denies climate change. Accepting climate change is the easy part.

It was 33 degrees in Kansas City this morning. This replaced the old record of 34. There has always been climate change. Many animals have been made extinct because the climate where they live has drastically changed. For a period of time Homo Sapiens coexisted with Neanderthals and Erectus.

Changes have always existed. We are arguing about the timing of change. Some people, example John Kerry, argue that it is dangerously near. They then get in their private jet and fly around. They are heroes of climate fanciers. Others go to Delaware every weekend.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,009
172
63
climate change is REAL.
The lefts perception of it is NOT.
Evidently you missed the years of posts on the board claiming it didn't exist or that NOAA and NASA were misreporting termperatures, etc. JIm Inhofe used a snowball as proof climate change was a myth. At least most of the US has moved from denying to accepting but will anyone do anything about it? A much bigger leap.

Spoiler alert. It's already here:

 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Spoiler alert. Water supply is about the same as it was from the 1930s thru the 1970s. Might want to look at usage before you lay the blame solely at climate change. A review of historical data would be nice as well. The sheep just read articles like this and never explore the accuracy of their statements.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,203
5,402
113
Spoiler alert. Water supply is about the same as it was from the 1930s thru the 1970s. Might want to look at usage before you lay the blame solely at climate change. A review of historical data would be nice as well. The sheep just read articles like this and never explore the accuracy of their statements.
I don’t believe that. The snowpack that we’re seeing in the rockies these days is vastly different than what I saw as a kid and what my parents and grandparents noted. We have lost or Are losing many many glaciers that were once prominent. And that snowpack is what feeds the rivers lakes and streams of much of the country.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
I don’t believe that. The snowpack that we’re seeing in the rockies these days is vastly different than what I saw as a kid and what my parents and grandparents noted. We have lost or Are losing many many glaciers that were once prominent.
Are you saying the graph of water supply versus water usage in the Colorado river basin over the past 100 years isn’t accurate ?
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,203
5,402
113
Th
Are you saying the graph of water supply versus water usage in the Colorado river basin over the past 100 years isn’t accurate ?
The graph ends in 2006. Lol

From an April 2022 NOAA document:

April-July water supply volume forecasts are near to much below average across the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin. Mid-April Upper Colorado River Basin water supply guidance generally ranges between 45-100% of the 1991-2020 historical average. Great Basin water supply volume guidance is 35-85% of average. Lower Colorado River Basin January-May water supply guidance has decreased during the first half of April with seasonal volumes across Arizona forecasted to trend drier than normal given the current La Niña conditions.

Now, obviously this is a short term observation with some cyclic variables and a 30 year average comparison. But it does illustrate that things aren’t as rosy as you paint them.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Th

The graph ends in 2006. Lol

From an April 2022 NOAA document:

April-July water supply volume forecasts are near to much below average across the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin. Mid-April Upper Colorado River Basin water supply guidance generally ranges between 45-100% of the 1991-2020 historical average. Great Basin water supply volume guidance is 35-85% of average. Lower Colorado River Basin January-May water supply guidance has decreased during the first half of April with seasonal volumes across Arizona forecasted to trend drier than normal given the current La Niña conditions.

Now, obviously this is a short term observation with some cyclic variables and a 30 year average comparison. But it does illustrate that things aren’t as rosy as you paint them.
I went back almost 100 years for historical purposes. No doubt water volume has decreased from the 1970-1990 figures but are much more inline with the 1930-1970 numbers. Now…what numbers have drastically changed over the past 60 years….usage. One look at that graph and you see the problem. At least one of the problems. The increase in usage simply isn’t sustainable.

Not my intent to paint a rosy picture here. In fact I would paint the opposite. Supply hasn’t and won’t keep up with demand. Not sure what the answer is out the desert southwest but the current conservation measures aren’t enough.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,203
5,402
113
I went back almost 100 years for historical purposes. No doubt water volume has decreased from the 1970-1990 figures but are much more inline with the 1930-1970 numbers. Now…what numbers have drastically changed over the past 60 years….usage. One look at that graph and you see the problem. At least one of the problems. The increase in usage simply isn’t sustainable.

Not my intent to paint a rosy picture here. In fact I would paint the opposite. Supply hasn’t and won’t keep up with demand. Not sure what the answer is out the desert southwest but the current conservation measures aren’t enough.
Demand is a problem… however supply is also a problem. Both are problems.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,323
8,256
113
I went back almost 100 years for historical purposes. No doubt water volume has decreased from the 1970-1990 figures but are much more inline with the 1930-1970 numbers. Now…what numbers have drastically changed over the past 60 years….usage. One look at that graph and you see the problem. At least one of the problems. The increase in usage simply isn’t sustainable.

Not my intent to paint a rosy picture here. In fact I would paint the opposite. Supply hasn’t and won’t keep up with demand. Not sure what the answer is out the desert southwest but the current conservation measures aren’t enough.
Converting the majority of our farms to vertical farms would help immensely
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,009
172
63
Water shortages are due both to climate change and unsustainable usage. Reaching this point has followed a path that has been identified and tracked for many decades. A sort slow rolling inevitability based on short term profits from irrigating low value crops (e.g.,. cotton), excessive urban development in arid areas, and over allocating water from dammed rivers. It's ironic that John Wesley Powell (namesake for Lake Powell) warned that the west was arid and not suitable for farming without irrigation. Expensive, uneconomic dams and irrigation proved to be a short term fix, but the bill is now due.


For those interested, the 1990's book Cadillac Dessert which outlines the history and predicts the future accurately or watch movie China Town as an example of how California fortunes were made by diverting water to formerly valueless dessert (at the expense of already productive agricultural areas). If you just want an airport novel to read, try The Water Knife.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
I’ve long wondered at what point will we mandate growers move their operations from the desert to areas where irrigation needs are less. Seems like a reasonable step when millions of people are in danger of running out of water for everyday purposes.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,009
172
63
The problem is worldwide and is still going on. Short term commercial interests have incredible power with governments that fund uneconomic dams and the like because for a short period of time it makes valueless property productive and valuable. Get the government to build a dam and supply irrigation water until it runs out. China Town is a slightly sanitized movie about the Imperial Valley and Mulholland who they named the drive after in LA. Same around the world.
When the farmers who bought the irrigated land and spent generations developing them run out of water, they exert powerful pressure on the government to bail them out.
A key role of government is to inject long term costs not captured by the market, but since politicians can be bought and voters have short time horizons, that mostly doesn't happen.
China Town is a great movie.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Let’s see how much power millions of voters have when they don’t have water for their homes and businesses.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,323
8,256
113
Let’s see how much power millions of voters have when they don’t have water for their homes and businesses.
Not disagreeing with your statement, this is just an aside on the same issue.

Millions of people in the US could figure out something to do with their lawn to make it less water intensive. The rest of the world doesn't have plush well watered lawns that they keep mowed every week. They grow ground cover that doesn't get as tall, doesn't take nearly as much if any water. It is considered a garden and left to grow au naturale. Doesn't look bad either. Keeping up with the Joneses on your lawn is taking a tremendous amount of water. That would cut our water use by at least 20%.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Not disagreeing with your statement, this is just an aside on the same issue.

Millions of people in the US could figure out something to do with their lawn to make it less water intensive the rest of the world doesn't have plush well watered lawns that they keep mowed every week. They grow ground cover that doesn't get as tall, doesn't take nearly as much if any water. It is considered a garden and left to grow au naturale. Doesn't look bad either. Keeping up with the Joneses on your lawn is taking a tremendous amount of water. That would cut our water use by at least 20%.
Agree. This is especially important in areas where water availability is an issue.
 

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
23,249
2,203
113
76
The availability of water wasn't much of an issue locally this past week.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,170
625
113
la la land
there are many factors involved with cc and its very presumptious that we can, stop or control it. cc is natural as witnessed by our seasons and millions of years of changes on the earths surface. Contenental drift, volcanos. sunspots, polar inversion, ...

things like the new green deal, and the infrastructure package just throw money at something we cannot control. like putting a bandaid on a headache.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,009
172
63
there are many factors involved with cc and its very presumptious that we can, stop or control it. cc is natural as witnessed by our seasons and millions of years of changes on the earths surface. Contenental drift, volcanos. sunspots, polar inversion, ...

things like the new green deal, and the infrastructure package just throw money at something we cannot control. like putting a bandaid on a headache.
Famous last words of a toad sitting in warm water that’s going on to boil.

It’s amazing how quickly some posters here have gone from denial to some version of ‘it’s too expensive to do anything about it!’
When an existential threat becomes undeniable all cost considerations will go out the door. We are not there yet but our kids will be.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Unfortunately, their is nothing the US can do to prevent that water from boiling. Others control the dial and have shown no desire to turn the same down. Those of us who follow science and understand basic mathematics believe we better start working on a way to cool that water amd stop fantasizing those at the controls will turn the knob. They don’t appear to be concerned about the frog
 
Last edited:

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,009
172
63
The jump from denial to giving up is just more toad talk. Giving up is easy, important things are hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU 1978

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Those of us who understand mathematics and the science aren’t advocating giving up. We’re suggesting an alternative approach than the one you support. An approach which is certain to fail. This issue is far too important than the be a sheep and follow a certain political crowd. We all should research the topic and think for ourselves.

Why do you continue to support a path which has no possibility of keeping us under the stated point of no return? Why not look at alternatives which might have success? Quit being sheep.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,203
5,402
113
Those of us who understand mathematics and the science aren’t advocating giving up. We’re suggesting an alternative approach than the one you support. An approach which is certain to fail. This issue is far too important than the be a sheep and follow a certain political crowd. We all should research the topic and think for ourselves.

Why do you continue to support a path which has no possibility of keeping us under the stated point of no return? Why not look at alternatives which might have success? Quit being sheep.
This is exactly what we're saying to you. Also, you're not approaching this from a standpoint of science or mathematics, you're approaching it from a standpoint of economics.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
This is exactly what we're saying to you. Also, you're not approaching this from a standpoint of science or mathematics, you're approaching it from a standpoint of economics.
False. Science and mathematics is exactly my approach. Look at future emissions from Asia. There is zero chance we stay under the previous total emission number which has been set regardless of what the US implements. I welcome an explanation on how I’m wrong here. Please be detailed and use future emission numbers included the drop dead number. You both are living in a fantasy world where China isn’t building more coal fire plants (or talking about economic priorities) and India isn’t expanding their fossil fuel energy capacity.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,323
8,256
113
This is exactly what we're saying to you. Also, you're not approaching this from a standpoint of science or mathematics, you're approaching it from a standpoint of economics.
Science, mathematics, economics, and governments will to act on an issue all have to be considered. You cannot ignore what other governments are not doing and their refusal to change. It would not matter that we bankrupt ourselves, when China and India would kill the success of the effort. You cannot ignore that scientific methods to resolve the problem would put every nation in an economic tailspin for a decade or two, and bankrupt the world economy. You just want to throw it all to the wind & ignore 2 of the 4 major factors in the fight against global warming.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Just for reference…UN Report says global emissions must peak no later than 2024 to avoid the all too familiar point of no return. Again…show us how this is going to be accomplished ?
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,256
5,622
113
Just for reference…UN Report says global emissions must peak no later than 2024 to avoid the all too familiar point of no return. Again…show us how this is going to be accomplished ?
Bumping my question for the climate sheep.
 

Latest posts