Now the Southeast is drying up

[tvashtarkatena]

Another example of fragile infrastructure in the face of climate change

[cj001f]

Jesus doesn't love them

[Jim]

Another example of lack of planning because they don't like the idea of government intrusion. Well except for when the hole they dug for themselves gets too deep. The "Develop now, as questions later" mentaility is catching up to a number of jurisdictions.

 

Great article in the NYT magazine section on the drought in the SW. Which is really a misnomer. One hydrologist pointed out that it appears we are in a very long term cycle of arid climate, and that added to climate change - "Well it's a long term change. It's not a drought. It would be like saying the Sahara Desert is in a drought" Las Vegas is in a race with the declining level of Lake Powell. They are building a new, lower intake and hope to complete it before the receeding lake level drops below the current intakes - fast track construction estimated completion in 2009. Could be close.

 

The reservoir has a 100 ft high bathtub ring in places. It would take 20 years of avg annual flow to fill it up - and that is an avg that was calculated on extremely wet year data. Never going to happen again - predictions are that it may just dry up. Amazing. Yet lots of green lawns in the desert still.

[tvashtarkatena]

Another example of lack of planning because they don't like the idea of government intrusion. Well except for when the hole they dug for themselves gets too deep. The "Develop now, as questions later" mentaility is catching up to a number of jurisdictions.

 

Great article in the NYT magazine section on the drought in the SW. Which is really a misnomer. One hydrologist pointed out that it appears we are in a very long term cycle of arid climate, and that added to climate change - "Well it's a long term change. It's not a drought. It would be like saying the Sahara Desert is in a drought" Las Vegas is in a race with the declining level of Lake Powell. They are building a new, lower intake and hope to complete it before the receeding lake level drops below the current intakes - fast track construction estimated completion in 2009. Could be close.

 

The reservoir has a 100 ft high bathtub ring in places. It would take 20 years of avg annual flow to fill it up - and that is an avg that was calculated on extremely wet year data. Never going to happen again - predictions are that it may just dry up. Amazing. Yet lots of green lawns in the desert still.

 

Dang. All those golf courses, gettin deep fried. sniff.

[ivan]

who needs water when you can drink coke?!?

[G-spotter]

Don't forget that the lower your reservoir gets the faster it silts up from the bottom too!

[XXX]

I am suprised Pat Robertson has not come out and blamed the fires in California on Porn and Liberals.

[G-spotter]

Burn Hollywood Burn

[archenemy]

Global warming? Or a result of this shit?

 

"All summer, more than a year after the drought began, fountains sprayed and football fields were watered, prisoners got two showers a day and Coca-Cola’s bottling plants chugged along at full strength. On an 81-degree day this month, an outdoor theme park began to manufacture what was intended to be a 1.2-million-gallon mountain of snow."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Global warming? Or a result of this shit?

 

"All summer, more than a year after the drought began, fountains sprayed and football fields were watered, prisoners got two showers a day and Coca-Cola’s bottling plants chugged along at full strength. On an 81-degree day this month, an outdoor theme park began to manufacture what was intended to be a 1.2-million-gallon mountain of snow."

 

It's all Bush's fault.

[ivan]

Global warming? Or a result of this shit?

 

"All summer, more than a year after the drought began, fountains sprayed and football fields were watered, prisoners got two showers a day and Coca-Colas bottling plants chugged along at full strength. On an 81-degree day this month, an outdoor theme park began to manufacture what was intended to be a 1.2-million-gallon mountain of snow."

 

It's all Bush's fault.

naw, bush is georgia's fault!

 

and ohio's, come to think of it...

[JayB]

Yes, I'm sure the Northwest would waltz through an equally severe deviation from historical precipitation levels completely unscathed...

 

 

 

"Although rain is due today across parts of the region, it will barely dampen the 16-month drought. Through September, it is the region's driest year in 113 years of record-keeping. In five of the six worst-hit states, rain totals this year are close to a foot below normal.

 

It is the driest year on record for North Carolina and Tennessee, second-driest in Alabama and third-driest in Kentucky. A tree-ring study this summer of Tennessee's rainfall history shows this is the third-driest year for the state in at least 350 years, behind only 1839 and 1708."

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Thank you for driving my main point home. Our entire infrastructure is designed for a very specific climate, and that infrastructure is not at all robust. One slight change in that climate, particularly a dryer one, spells society wide disaster. As this and many other examples (Southern California, anyone? Insurance for you Florida home, sir?) illustrate, the human and financial costs of climate change, which we are just now beginning to enjoy, far outweigh even the most draconian regulation we puny humans could ever dream up. To compare our power to inflict widespread misery by even the most misguided democratic policy making to Mother Nature's is as conceited as it is ridiculous.

Edited October 24, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

There will never be enough money to prepare for every conceivable contingency, so people will always elect to allocate finite resources in a manner that favors the most probable. There's a reason that the per-capita dollars allocated to snow-removal in Portland Maine are greater than those in Portland Oregon.

 

Are you electing to fund your IRA/401(K), or retrofitting your home to withstand a magnitude 10.0 or higher quake?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

There will never be enough money to prepare for every conceivable contingency, so people will always elect to allocate finite resources in a manner that favors the most probable.

 

 

This is one of your most ridiculous proclaimations to date. Electing to blow our national wad on Iraq constitutes 'allocating resources in a manner than favors the most probable'.

 

People will more often blow their finite resources on shit they don't need; individually and nationally. How about my new Esplanade? 194 billion more for Iraq? No problem! That is why both individuals and this country as a whole face an increasingly worrisome financial future.

 

If your statement was true; if we were truly 'rational actors', we'd be sinking as much money as we could into stopping climate change, and the associated consequences we are now experiencing. Clearly, we are not.

[foraker]

Of course we're not rational actors. Look at the shit we buy and vote for and the fact that we don't save for the future.

[tvashtarkatena]

Of course we're not rational actors. Look at the shit we buy and vote for and the fact that we don't save for the future.

 

"But, but...JayB's text books say...."

[JayB]

"People will more often blow their finite resources on shit they don't need; individually and nationally. How about my new Esplanade? 194 billion more for Iraq? No problem! That is why both individuals and this country as a whole face an increasingly worrisome financial future."

 

Clearly what we need then, is for a body of technocrats with the means and the authority to review everyone's personal expenditures to insure that they aren't exercising their freedom to spend their income inappropriately.

 

What's the maximum predicted delta in global temperatures that full-implementation of Kyoto would generate? What's the probability associated with the delta? Clamor for top-down globo-mandates enforced by some kind of Uber-bureau-mechanism with infinite budgets and enforcement powers all you want - it's not going to happen. The most likely outcome will consist of voluntary efforts on levels ranging from the individual to the national - that make a dent in trend increases in CO2 emissions, but do not curtail them in time to prevent any additional warming from occuring.

 

No matter whether it's a cooperative mechanism or coercive mechanism that materializes to reduce C02 emissions, unless you assume that such a mechanism will be completely effective in preventing any additional rise in global temperatures, part of the response to global warming will consist in adapting to it. That means the Southeast will adjust water-consumption, infrastructure, etc to changes in precipitation as they happen - rather than imposing draconian water restrictions and constructing a new reservoir the size of Lake Ontario to see them through years where trend precipitation is several standard deviations below the moving average.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"People will more often blow their finite resources on shit they don't need; individually and nationally. How about my new Esplanade? 194 billion more for Iraq? No problem! That is why both individuals and this country as a whole face an increasingly worrisome financial future."

 

Clearly what we need then, is for a body of technocrats with the means and the authority to review everyone's personal expenditures to insure that they aren't exercising their freedom to spend their income inappropriately.

 

What's the maximum predicted delta in global temperatures that full-implementation of Kyoto would generate? What's the probability associated with the delta? Clamor for top-down globo-mandates enforced by some kind of Uber-bureau-mechanism with infinite budgets and enforcement powers all you want - it's not going to happen. The most likely outcome will consist of voluntary efforts on levels ranging from the individual to the national - that make a dent in trend increases in CO2 emissions, but do not curtail them in time to prevent any additional warming from occuring.

 

No matter whether it's a cooperative mechanism or coercive mechanism that materializes to reduce C02 emissions, unless you assume that such a mechanism will be completely effective in preventing any additional rise in global temperatures, part of the response to global warming will consist in adapting to it. That means the Southeast will adjust water-consumption, infrastructure, etc to changes in precipitation as they happen - rather than imposing draconian water restrictions and constructing a new reservoir the size of Lake Ontario to see them through years where trend precipitation is several standard deviations below the moving average.

 

TRASHTALKINGTINA KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL OF US AND HOW WE MUST LEAD OUR LIVES FULFILLING OUR MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE PLANET AND OUR FELLOW MAN BEFORE WE DIE AND CEASE TO EXIST. HE KNOWS THE PERFECT MIX OF CONSUMPTION AND LIFESTYLE THAT WORKS FOR EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET AND THIS KNOWLEDGE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT SO DON'T EVEN TRY TO ARGUE WITH HIM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

No matter whether it's a cooperative mechanism or coercive mechanism that materializes to reduce C02 emissions, unless you assume that such a mechanism will be completely effective in preventing any additional rise in global temperatures, part of the response to global warming will consist in adapting to it. That means the Southeast will adjust water-consumption, infrastructure, etc to changes in precipitation as they happen - rather than imposing draconian water restrictions and constructing a new reservoir the size of Lake Ontario to see them through years where trend precipitation is several standard deviations below the moving average.

 

Yes, I agree that we should react to disasters rather than plan for their prevention. This is obviously the more prudent and less expensive course of action.

 

I also agree that it's all or nothing. Unless the solution is GUARANTEED TO BE 100% EFFECTIVE, not 99%, not 98%, IT IS NOT WORTH ATTEMPTING. MITIGATION IS NOT AN OPTION!

 

As I said, we're not rational actors. Thanks for proving yet another of my points.

[tvashtarkatena]

"People will more often blow their finite resources on shit they don't need; individually and nationally. How about my new Esplanade? 194 billion more for Iraq? No problem! That is why both individuals and this country as a whole face an increasingly worrisome financial future."

 

Clearly what we need then, is for a body of technocrats with the means and the authority to review everyone's personal expenditures to insure that they aren't exercising their freedom to spend their income inappropriately.

 

What's the maximum predicted delta in global temperatures that full-implementation of Kyoto would generate? What's the probability associated with the delta? Clamor for top-down globo-mandates enforced by some kind of Uber-bureau-mechanism with infinite budgets and enforcement powers all you want - it's not going to happen. The most likely outcome will consist of voluntary efforts on levels ranging from the individual to the national - that make a dent in trend increases in CO2 emissions, but do not curtail them in time to prevent any additional warming from occuring.

 

No matter whether it's a cooperative mechanism or coercive mechanism that materializes to reduce C02 emissions, unless you assume that such a mechanism will be completely effective in preventing any additional rise in global temperatures, part of the response to global warming will consist in adapting to it. That means the Southeast will adjust water-consumption, infrastructure, etc to changes in precipitation as they happen - rather than imposing draconian water restrictions and constructing a new reservoir the size of Lake Ontario to see them through years where trend precipitation is several standard deviations below the moving average.

 

TRASHTALKINGTINA KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL OF US AND HOW WE MUST LEAD OUR LIVES FULFILLING OUR MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE PLANET AND OUR FELLOW MAN BEFORE WE DIE AND CEASE TO EXIST. HE KNOWS THE PERFECT MIX OF CONSUMPTION AND LIFESTYLE THAT WORKS FOR EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET AND THIS KNOWLEDGE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT SO DON'T EVEN TRY TO ARGUE WITH HIM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

 

Stop ignoring me.

[JayB]

I love the auto-congratulatory flourishes that are appended to all of your posts. Do you often find yourself winking slyly at your right hand and saying "It was good for you, too - wasn't it?"

 

People are not rational actors and...the optimal response to this is to allow a centralized authority control over what they are allowed to chose?

 

"unless you assume that such a mechanism will be completely effective in preventing any additional rise in global temperatures, part of the response to global warming will consist in adapting to it."

 

Even if your fantasy of a centralized authority given carte blanche, the odds are high that adapting to changes in global climate would constitute a substantial part of the human response to it. Sorry.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I love the auto-congratulatory flourishes that are appended to all of your posts. Do you often find yourself winking slyly at your right hand and saying "It was good for you, too - wasn't it?"

 

People are not rational actors and...the optimal response to this is to allow a centralized authority control over what they are allowed to chose?

 

"unless you assume that such a mechanism will be completely effective in preventing any additional rise in global temperatures, part of the response to global warming will consist in adapting to it."

 

Even if your fantasy of a centralized authority given carte blanche, the odds are high that adapting to changes in global climate would constitute a substantial part of the human response to it. Sorry.

 

 

moreover a central authority is run by ... people.... and people are not rational actors... so the outcome will be better how? you've replaced one set of "irrational actors" with another.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I love the auto-congratulatory flourishes that are appended to all of your posts. Do you often find yourself winking slyly at your right hand and saying "It was good for you, too - wasn't it?"

 

People are not rational actors and...the optimal response to this is to allow a centralized authority control over what they are allowed to chose?

 

"unless you assume that such a mechanism will be completely effective in preventing any additional rise in global temperatures, part of the response to global warming will consist in adapting to it."

 

Even if your fantasy of a centralized authority given carte blanche, the odds are high that adapting to changes in global climate would constitute a substantial part of the human response to it. Sorry.

 

 

You've already posted the "self congratulatory flourish" line. Hint: it doesn't get more clever with repetition. Furthermore, I have no "centralize authority given carte blanche" fantasy. You seem to be having trouble coming up with your own cogent arguments today; perhaps you shouldn't divert so much of your limited resources in formulating mine.

[archenemy]

Hey, wasn't Reagan an actor?