The Other Big Drought Story You Need to Pay Attention To

By Tom Yulsman | March 18, 2015 8:59 pm
drought

Watch the water disappear from the northern reaches of Lake Powell in this animation consisting of natural-color images taken by the Landsat series of satellites in spring between 1999 and 2014. The first image, from March of 1999, is labeled. It pauses for an extra second, as does the final image in the series, from May 2014. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

With California’s scary, record-breaking drought capturing so much attention lately, an important bit of news about the dearth of water across a much larger region has gotten short shrift.

I’m talking about the Colorado River Basin, which supplies water to 40 million people in seven states — including Californians.

Over the long run, the Colorado has been providing less than it once did, even as demand for its water has risen. And this year, as in most years during the past 15, the water situation in the river basin is not looking good.

droughtClick on the map at right to see how rain and snow between October and the end of February shaped up. See all that red, orange and yellow. Not good…

Barring a miracle in March and April, meltwater cascading out of the snow-capped high country of the Colorado River Basin this spring will probably fall below average. According to the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, flows into Lake Powell, one of two giant reservoirs on the Colorado, are likely to be just 71 percent of the long term average.

The predicted lackluster flow of water into Lake Powell will, in turn, have a ripple effect downstream to Lake Mead, the second giant reservoir on the Colorado River.

In fact, barring intervention, by the end of the water year on September 30th, the reservoir’s surface elevation is projected to fall below 1,075 feet above sea level, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. And that would smash last year’s record low set in July.

To compensate, the USBR will probably release additional water from Lake Powell. But this is a zero sum game, because water releases from Powell will only reduce how much water it will hold in storage.

You can take resources out of one savings bank and deposit it in another. But that has no effect on how much money you have. At the end of the day, you’re just as poor.

And over time, our hydrological savings have been dwindling.

Lake Powell is now at just 45 percent of capacity. And Mead is at 41 percent. I suppose that’s better than the situation in California, which has just a year’s worth of water left in storage. But as a Westerner, I still find this pretty alarming.

drought

Las Vegas, to the left, and Lake Mead, to the right, as seen on July 21, 2014 by the Landsat 8 satellite. Lake Mead reached a record low water level that month. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: The Colorado’s flow once dazzled, like Old Faithful in Yellowstone. But today the geyser has become enfeebled.

Here are the sobering details from a report by the Bureau of Reclamation:

. . . unregulated inflow to Lake Powell, which is a good measure of hydrologic conditions in the Colorado River Basin, was above average in only 3 out of the past 15 years.  The period 2000-2014 is the lowest 15-year period since the closure of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, with an average unregulated inflow of 8.39 maf, or 78% of the 30-year average (1981-2010).

In the parlance of water managers, “maf” means “million acre-feet.” One acre-foot is about 325,000 gallons, or enough to supply the needs of roughly two households for a year.

Whatever the parlance, it’s clear that we’ve got a problem. And it is likely to get worse. Much worse.

drought

A representation of the summer moisture in the U.S. Central Plains and Southwest. The brown line represents the variation in dryness since the year 1000, based on data from the North American Drought Atlas; the lower the line on the graph, the drier the conditions. Colored lines to the right side of the graph represent what climate models see ahead: a trend toward dryness not seen in the previous millennium. (Source: Cook et al., Science Advances, 2005)

See those plunging trendlines? That’s the projection for soil moisture in the Central Plains and Southwest out to 2100.

It comes from a study that combined data from tree rings, which provide a glimpse at past climates, with projections from 17 different climate models to analyze the future impact of rising average temperatures. The results are sobering. During the second half of the 21st century, both the Southwest and Great Plains of the United States are likely to experience persistent drought worse than anything seen 1,000 years.

The cause: us.

As the authors of the study put it:

Our results point to a remarkably drier future that falls far outside the contemporary experience of natural and human systems in Western North America, conditions that may present a substantial challenge to adaptation.

Seen in this context, California’s plight is part of a much bigger picture.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • OWilson

    More doomsday hockey stick models, complete with the usual alarmist “scary” language.

    You don’t seem to understand the dynamics of dams. They are never expected to remain full, because there’s no net gain of water in the system. It is only about controlling the flow. A varying level indicates they are doing their job.

    California’s desert droughts are a natural phenomena and have always been there. Turning California into the biggest agricultural exporting state in the union, requires a lot of water management.

    They are producing and exporting more food than any other state.

    There’s human intervention in the system that your “models'” cannot contemplate. Will California have giant desalination plants in the next 100 years. Does anybody know?

    Anyway some recent news from that icon of Global Cooling, Global Warming, and more recently, Climate Change. I give you Nat Geo Mag:

    “”It is the first time in sixteen years that the Colorado River, which flows 1,450 miles (2,334 kilometers) from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado to the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California) in northwestern Mexico, will have reached its final, natural destination.

    This reunion between river and sea is due to an agreement between Mexico and the United States, known as Minute 319, to advance the restoration of the Colorado Delta by releasing a pulse flow and sustaining base flows in a five-year experiment.

    The pulse flow, which began on March 23, is now nearing its end. Scientists had not planned on the river reaching its estuary as part of this grand experiment. But that it has, is a wonderful bonus.””

    There’s also the scientifically accepted “greening effect” on deserts, due increased C02 in the system.

    So, stop screaming that our plane is going down. It is getting tiresome. It’s only a little turbulence. The cabin attendant will hold your hand until we land, OK? :)

    • http://www.amazon.com/Starvation-Ridge-Risa-Bear/dp/1304772683/ Risa Stephanie Bear

      Dates are good handles for discussion, that’s all. Ridicule does nothing to advance the discussion, as you, skilled in ridicule, already know. The 12,000 studies that have been coming from NASA, NOAA, the Royal Society, AAAS, etc. to tell us there is a problem suggest to me that there may be a problem and proper risk management will take that possibility into account.

      • OWilson

        If it takes 12,000 studies with ever more everyday piling up to prove something that was long ago “settled”, I would be just a little skeptical.

        Wouldn’t you? :)

        • Dlweld

          Not if they’re all getting the same result

          • OWilson

            Seems like a waste of money then.

            Stop it!

          • Angel

            Whether you acknowledge the truth of the situation or not is a moot point. You’ll still be just as affected by this slow moving catastrophe as everyone else.

          • OWilson

            Where did you get your crystal ball – EBay ?
            Did it come with a turban?

          • rrocklin

            The deniers necessitate more studies which justify inaction.

        • http://chrisrushdudley.com/ Chris Rush Dudley

          So you are saying that because so many scientists are authoring studies it is obvious that those studies are wrong? Priceless.

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, you can’t make this stuff up. Adding to the knowledge base supporting our understanding of global warming is apparently a negative. It reminds me of Ted Cruz’s comments about NASA last week. Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy Blog has been covering that, and it’s been fodder for some epic face palms. Cruz is arguing that NASA should quit studying global warming because it’s supposed to study space, and according to what he said on Seth Meyers’ show the other night, he’s a lot brighter than those scientists — he saw snow in New Hampshire last week, so no global warming! And the sad thing is, he heads the Senate subcommittee overseeing NASA.

    • Dlweld

      Not sure what your point is? Don’t get alarmed because we’ll do something? Or, do get alarmed so we actually will do something? Or just ignore it – it’ll all work out somehow?

    • wildisreal

      Southern-facing forest near my home in the Colorado Rockies is 90% dead from an unprecedented beetle explosion. It RAINED at 12,000 feet this January. Ancient bristlecone stands (1500 to 2500 year old trees) look sickly and are fading fast.

      It is happening in the coldest regions first. This is not about 2100. I see it in the present. Climate action is about the now.

  • zcar300

    lalala I don’t hear you. There’s no climate problem. lalala

    • Jack Wolf

      I think it will be hard to ignore once rationing starts.

      • http://batman-news.com Charles Busslinger

        Not unless someone starts putting water cops on the streets. This is going to be like the 55 MPH speed limit – ignored unless enforced.

        • Jack Wolf

          If the taps are dry, cops aren’t needed.

          • wildisreal

            Actually I think that will be when the cops are REALLY needed. But they will be nowhere to be found…only thirst.

          • Jack Wolf

            True.

    • The Old Gods

      You should run for Governor of Florida

      • Guest

        I quit work­ing at my office job and since then I am earning Eighty-Five Bucks per/hr. How i did it? I freelance online! My last work was making me unhappy ,so I chose to try something new for a change… 2 years have passed since And I can say in great confidence my life is changed completly for the better! Check it out, what i do…—>

    • Big Red

      He’s the guy who likes drinking his own water.

    • Dan Poisson

      Hey we’re drowning in the north east. In fact no problem in the entire eastern half of the country. Look at a climatology map . Somethings happening . Like the dust bowl years.

    • JenWest

      You use sarcasm to make jokes, but truth be told there isn’t a climate PROBLEM. Not as far as normal climate shifts are concerned.

      A sad fact that none of the tree hugging hippies of the world want to admit, is that RIGHT NOW we are in the middle of one of the most mild and stable climactic periods in the history of the planet.

      During the last interglacial period (130,000–114,000 years ago) the temperature around Greenland was more than 46°(F) WARMER than it is today, and the sea level was 29 feet higher.
      In other parts of the world temperatures varied from 34°(F) – 43°(F) WARMER than present day. You think 98°(F) with high humidity is bad? Try 141°(F) with like 85%-90% humidity… and that would be in what is now known as Washington DC.

      Those temperatures are actually the lowest highs were achieved within a 16,000 year time frame between two separate glacial periods. The temps got that high WITHOUT technology, WITHOUT society, WITHOUT the use of fossil fuels, WITHOUT industry, and WITHOUT any help my man… other than our simple day to day survival and evolution at that period in time.
      In fact, despite how hot it may have been compared to NOW… it was one of the milder interglacial periods up to that point in time.

      You and a lot of other people need to wake the f*ck up, pull your heads out of your a**es, and get some f*cking perspective.
      You see, what you have to realize is that EVENTUALLY everything must comes to an end. EVERYTHING!!! Nothing is forever. Not you, not me, not the cute little fuzzy animals you want to save, not the ecosystem, not the Earth, not the Sun or the stars in the sky… Not the galaxy, not the Universe… not even time itself can or will continue forever. There will come a point where all of those things will cease to be.
      That is what WILL HAPPEN. You have no choice in the matter, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. So you have two choices…
      Option 1: You take the limited time you have here (called your life) and you waste it trying to stop the universe and everything in it from slowly drifting towards it’s inevitable end, OR
      Option 2: You pull that stick out of your a** and try to enjoy yourself. After all, it’s not like all this STUFF is gonna be here forever!

      • wildisreal

        In a philosophical sense, your advice is quite sound.

        Unfortunately your message also expresses extreme ignorance and selfishness.

        • garedawg

          Although I might agree with you more than I would with JenWest, accusing Jen of “selfishness” does not add to the discussion.

        • Steve Hufferd

          I’ll chime in with Jen. The figures she throws out look good to me… so instead of calling someone extremely ignorant, how about engaging a bit, and challenge some of those figures? And you’ll have to explain how her position is selfish. It’s because of such vacuous criticisms that liberals are easily identified.

      • Jerry Sevigny

        we waste billions of gallons of water for fracking, wait till all those wells they pump the chemicals and polluted water back into start leaching up into the water we use to drink, think oil is expensive wait till you see what it will cost you for water then

      • Tom Yulsman

        Dear Ms. JenWest: If you’d like to keep offering your opinions here, please refrain from childish comments like the one in your ‘Option 2’ above.

        • Steve Hufferd

          Are these childish comments reserved by the liberals in their insults to those who doubt the impact of industry upon our climate? I agree with J. West. If her dialogue is a bit strong for you, well, too bad.

      • j2saret

        ah the old eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die trope of advertising. old, debunked, stupid.

        • Mike Richardson

          Yes, but these day’s it’s attached itself to the extremes of a particular political ideology that benefits from shortsightedness and selfishness, and their poster boy has just announced his candidacy for President.

          • Steve Hufferd

            And only you have the correct vision and generosity to light the way for the rest if us? Isn’t that a bit elitist and pompous? The present twice elected president is leading us down a path you”enlightened ones” are cheering on. He has shredded the Constitution, abrogated the powers of congress. And you trust him to make a deal behind closed doors with a terrorist state? Who is being blind here?

          • Mike Richardson

            So were you cool with the Patriot Act? Ari Fleischer telling people they needed to “watch what they say?” Yeah, I know, Democrats sold out and signed onto that too, at least some of them did. And I don’t agree with everything President Obama does, but as you pointed out, he was “twice elected.” The previous resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would have to qualify that statement. And do your really think Ted Cruze and Rick Perry enhance conservatism? You really can do better. The Republican party used to acknowledge science and present a legitimate argument to the excesses of the left. I’d be more than happy if their front runners would return to that, and refrain from telling three year olds and their gullible parents that the “world is on fire.” That’s not really helping the dialogue, and it’s just petty demagoguery. Conservatism has produced some good thinkers, as has liberalism, but both sides do need to balance out the excesses of the other. I’d just be happy to see them agree to a basic set of facts from which to debate policy, rather than have a few ideologues attack science in an attempt to cut off such debate.

          • Steve Hufferd

            You raise a host of issues. There’s not space to cover them all: yes I have many problems with a government that goes too far in claiming to “watch my back”. So I don’t have much confidence in the Patriot Act. The bureaucrats seem to believe we need to be constantly coddled, and that we are unable to deal with terrorism. Government interferes with science, stifling objective research and channeling grants for funds to only those who support their thesis. This is the damage of political correctness. The flood of pc reporting makes it extremely hard to find the truth of the results from monitors and sensors.

          • Steve Hufferd

            What are you talking about? Who is telling three-yr-olds and their gullible parents that “the world is on fire”? It’s not the “right” that is using scare tactics. The right is about preserving order governing according to the Constitution. It’s the left that guides “political correctness” and all the BS that it propagates. Give me a name of a liberal that was a good thinker. Lincoln doesn’t count. He was a liberal Republican. We might even discuss what comprises conservative as apposed to liberal thought.

          • Mike Richardson

            “The world is on fire,” was good ol’ Ted Cruz at a speaking event in New Hampshire, March 15, 2015. It was all over the news, so I’m surprised you didn’t know it was him. Anyway, that’s one example. I’d say telling people the President’s out to take away their guns or institute “death panels” would also count as scare tactics. As for thinkers on the left and right, you might need to clarify it a bit, as you said Lincoln didn’t count, then stated he was liberal himself. Both the left and right try to claim Jefferson, but his views don’t really correlate to one over the other. I’d say both the Roosevelts to some degree would count, Franklin more than Theodore, though TR’s trust busting, conservation, and other progressive initiatives were in some ways more daring given the political environment he operated in (yes, I know TR was a Republican, though he later broke with them to form the Bull Moose Party with other progressive Republicans). For liberal thinkers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills come to mind as founders of utilitarianism, from which much of modern progressivism arose. More recently, John Rawls. For conservatives, William F. Buckley and Robert Nozick were pretty decent. At least, those are the ones that I remember from my political philosophy courses in college, though that was nearly two decades ago.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Give an example of the “extremes” of Ted Cruz’ ideology, and why it is shortsighted and selfish. Just one or two. I’d be pleased to discuss your views that are so intolerant of conservative ideology.

          • Mike Richardson

            Well, being opposed to the Affordable Care Act, but not too opposed to sign up for it himself, for starters. Grandstanding and filibustering to the extent that he’s managed to earn the ire of a good bit of his own party. And, like Gulliani and others, questioning whether or not Obama “loves America,” is kind of shortsighted, in that it sets the stage for simply questioning the patriotism of the other party members, instead of just allowing a reasonable debate over points of contention. As for me being intolerant of conservative ideology, as a liberal living in the Deep South, I’ve little choice but to be tolerant of it, since many of its practitioners down here aren’t very tolerant of us and often demonstrate it by threats of violence or property damage. But I’d try to be tolerant regardless, at least towards the people expressing the ideas, if not the ideas themselves. I do respect some of the ideas of old style conservatives, but some of the more radical hotheads I see in Congress these days seem pretty far from Eisenhower and Goldwater.

          • Steve Hufferd

            The majority of people in this country is against the ACA, and the weak kneed RINOs that came out (like McCain) to bad mouth a solid conservative are going to find it hard going when their terms expire. Cruz signed up for Obamacare because it was required- it was not a case of hypocrisy. As for evidence as to whether Obama loves his country or not, there is no evidence of it. From the very beginning he was determined to “transform this country”, and his foreign policy is in absolute shambles. He’s been on the watch of the biggest nation debt, by far, in the history of our country. He has expended massive effort to redistribute wealth, and he was coached and tutored into the political world by socialist revolutionaries and communists, and he has surrounded himself with like-minded socialists. He has contempt for our oldest allies and is outraged at anyone who dares to call terrorists “Islamic” when the whole world knows who they are. If you think that stating that “the world is on fire” is nothing but a scare tactic, you’d best wake up, because in a figurative sense, it surely is.
            He was supported by conservatives who still have an abiding respect for the Constitution, and the old mainstream republicans have been corrupted by being in Washingtonr too long, and they will be replaced, Many already have been. Die hard liberals who still think hard left socialism is a safe political choice refuse to crack a history book and check out its bloody record. Lincoln said that if this country is to fall, that it would fall from within, and it is in the process of happening.
            If you are naive enough to believe that the ACA is going to magically produce more medical care for more people for less money, then go tell that nursery rhyme to somebody else. The VA is a big trial ballon of socialized medicine, and nobody is able to manage it–and you still believe ACA is a good deal..what can I say… You can’t fix _________.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I have real doubts that you could define what conservatism is. In the last half century the whole political spectrum has shifted left. Today, JFK would be Republican conservative, yet Goldwater was to the right of him. As for Eisenhower, he was a democrat until the Republicans tagged him to run in ’52, but he was still conservative. Big changes occurred under Lyndon Johnson… Both parties detested him. Nixon was no conservative as President, but was conservative when he ran against Kennedy. In ’48 he (Nixon) was the Fed Prosecutor of Alger Hiss, a state Dept official who gave top secret material to the Soviets. Hiss was also a prime mover in launching the UN. Things deteriorated farther under Jimmie Carter, although he had a couple of bright spots in foreign policy at Camp David. He was on watch when interest rates went through the roof, but the fault there went back to Johnson, not Carter, but Carter caught the blame because he couldn’t figure out what was going on with the economy. Reagan had a lot of things right. He was an old fashioned conservative of Goldwater vintage, and people loved his simple,’folksy’ style, but socialists detested him. He didn’t have kind words for socialists, and they couldn’t stand it. To the socialists, Reagan was a freak of nature, but he corrected the errors of the Carter years, and foreign diplomats respected his wit and intelligence. He and Thatcher made a pair. Those were great times, which I hope to see once again, but the odds are getting really slim. Bush Sr was a Skull &Bones One Worlder who could never fit into Reagan’s conservative shoes. A one-termer, like Carter. Clinton was a professional politician in all regards, being able to switch political paddles in midstream, throwing everybody off, but managing to do the right things at least half the time, which praise, coming from a conservative.

          • Mike Richardson

            Perhaps the Reagan years were great for you Steve, but not for my family or plenty of others in the working class that saw wages stagenate, then fall, as a result of “trickle down” economics and his weakening of unions. But, different life experiences and fields of study inevitably lead to different world views. Though we may interpret the significance of the events differently, I am pleased to see you’ve got a good grasp of history. Makes for interesting conversation, at the very least.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I have a view of “trickle down” economics that you will not like: In a capitalist economy, it is ALWAYS trickle down. Union advocates like to think that the wheels of industry turn on them. It does, but not without the flip-side; the engineers, investors, and scores of others, professionals and semiprofessionals. I was in the IBEW union at Rockwell Intl and as a broadcast engineer, so I’ve been on both sides of the fence, so-to-speak. I was an enlisted man in navy, so I was a ‘working man’ all my working life. But I earned a BA degree in ’77, and hold to the economics of Milton Friedman, and more currently to Thomas Sowell, Arthur Laffer, and other conservatives. The economic theories of the left work against natural market forces, and do not stand the test of time. In my experience union leaders have proven to be not very bright in economics. They play a power game.. That’s about all. In high school I worked for a worker-manager– he was a farmer.

          • Mike Richardson

            First, thanks for your service to our country. It also sounds like you accomplished quite a bit in the years since. As for not liking what you’ve said, no, it’s essentially true that trickle-down economics are the rule in a purely capitalistic society. Which is why some of us favor regulating the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism, and trying to remove the profit motive from some of the more essential needs in society. That’s relevant to the article in hand when discussing what’s the most equitable way to distribute and ration the dwindling supply of water in the west. I know you can’t guarantee equality of outcomes for people, but I don’t think it’s too much to suggest workers make a decent wage to support their families, the basic premise behind unions, or that it’s a terrible imposition to require industry to do a better job of protecting the environment. As I said though, different life experiences, different views.

          • Steve Hufferd

            We’ve fairly well defined our positions, and have arrival at a mutual standoff. In most–but not all instances–the most productive, skilled craftsmen are actually hindered by pay scales and brackets. What I’ve observed is that too many non producers suck up union benefits without earning them, and end up sapping 90% of the time of union reps due to absenteeism drug&alcohol abuse, and even theft. (This was a matter of discussion I had with a union rep at UAW, General Motors, Arlington, TX. I could write at great length as to the cons of unions being able to assure a “live able wage”, and you could write the “pros”. Maybe we should write that book together…we alternate chapters and let the reader decide…

        • Steve Hufferd

          And then there are the “chicken littles” spending their lives crying “wolf”. Yes, we will always be called upon to adapt. It’s always been that way. Things change–some of those changes happen more rapidly than we can make adjustments for.

          • j2saret

            and if those changes are caused/accelerated/can be mitigated by our actions we should not alter or attempt those actions because? your post kinda sounds like the whiny little kid saying “I don’t wanna clean my room I wanna play, besides it will just get messy again”. grow up!

          • Steve Hufferd

            And you want to be the authority figure to force others to do your bidding. I will take care of my own room and back yard, thank you. There needs to be some balance between the strong arm environmentalists that threaten freedom by raising needless fears. You offer no ideas as to whether it is possible to turn things around by changing our living habits.

          • j2saret

            I never suggested or attempted to compel you to any course of action. I merely expressed my contempt and loathing for you and all of your self centered parasitic ilk. I do not associate or empathize with your sort.

          • Steve Hufferd

            And I hope I’ve adequately expressed my contempt for you control freaks. You have this self-ordained elitist view that everybody except you is fouling up the earth. I just want you to get off the guilt trip. I’m 72 yrs old, retired navy technician, have worked all my life to the best of my ability, but there’s always somebody that wants to screw with the manner in which I live. Many of us are getting really tired of it.

      • Teresa Patterson

        So Jen, your only suggestion to the changes in the climate are to ignore them and lay down and die? Really? No matter WHY the climate is changing, there is no doubt it is changing and also no doubt we can do something to improve it. The 2 days the airlines left the sky around 911 proved that changing our behavior can have a massive impact on the climate–no matter why the current problem is happening! Stop playing the blame game or the stick your head in the sand game and start becoming part of the solution. A deadly climate shift caused by nature is just as deadly. I for one have no intention of giving up and dying just because there have been climate shifts in the past. There have also been mass extinctions–and I don’t plan on being part of one.

        • Steve Hufferd

          But there IS doubt that we can do anything to make any significant change in global warming, climate change, or whatever is politically correct these days. The save-the-earthers seem to believe that anyone who is not anxious to genuflect at the alter of Climate Change must be the vile beings that want to destroy the earth. Not so. There are reams of data that never enters the discussion. Carbon emissions from the belly of the earth is ongoing and natural–sometimes in violent eruptions called volcanoes. China and India will not or cannot change the habits of billions of people, so we are left to change the economic habits and economy of this country for a promised change of ???????in the climate? I’m all for better technology and power efficiency, and it doesn’t seem to be found in wind generators and solar farms. There are other means to be tried. DDT was banned because it killed birds– Wind generators chops them like a blender., and solar farms bake them. I have more confidence in the potential of tapping geothermal heat and power, or running generators from the natural ebb and flow of the tides. Water can be purified and even squeezed from the air with compressors. The land consumption of solar farms and wind generators have to be subsidized by government because investors will barely touch it, so gullible taxpayers are forced to pay for it.

          • T Goodwell

            Climate change is caused by humans. Changing human behavior will make it much less worse than it might otherwise be. Volcanoes contribute a tiny fraction of CO2 compared to humans. China is making huge strides in CO2 reduction, and has also recently surpassed the US in solar power production. The cost reduction and efficiency of alternative energy is already twenty years ahead of initial projections. Climate change is by far a bigger threat to birds and other animals. “Squeezing water from the air” is rediculously expensive, better gains are had by conservation of water and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Taxpayers will pay MUCH more the longer efforts are stalled by ignorance, fear and denial. Sorry dem is da cold hard facts.

          • Steve Hufferd

            The chances of forcing a change in human behavior on such a massive scale is more ridiculous than any plan to produce water. You have no conclusive data to back up your claims.
            I’m impressed by the amount of sheer BS you could pack into a paragraph. Even if we came up with the perfect plan to produce adequate energy without producing carbon pollutants, it’s effect on climate change would be minuscule. There are much more urgent matters facing our country than hyped up claims aboutclimate change. Climate has been changing for eons of time without being affected by man. “Climate change” is not even a point of argument. Of course it changes. The “greenies” can’t even generate a healthy level of concern. What ever happened to “global warming” as national concern?

          • T Goodwell

            Every single thing I mentioned comes straight from recent headlines. Your comment was the one composed of “sheer BS”, as is your subsequent comment. Apparently your ability to see the big picture is quite limited.

          • T Goodwell

            Spent a few minutes digging up recent headlines that support my earlier comment. This info probably won’t sway someone like Mr Hufferd, because he believes political dogma over science. But others might find it useful.

            China Surpasses US in Solar…
            http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/06/another-big-blow-big-coal-solar-ppa-coming-china/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

            China aggressively cutting emissions…
            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/01/3641084/china-doing-good-things/

            Volcanoes emit 1% of the CO2 that humans do…
            http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

            Alternative Energy adoption ahead of predictions…
            http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/16/just-eias-renewable-energy-outlook-20-years/

            Birds killed by different energy sources…
            http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

          • Jeffrey Bertch

            Just because you read something on the Internet does not make it true. When was the last time you were in Hong Kong ? It is so freaking polluted over there, there are not even birds flying about in the city. Not even pigeons. Do your own research.

          • T Goodwell

            Polluted in Hong Kong, yes. From burning of fossil fuels, obviously. Thanks for supporting my point.
            Also, when you look at a source on the internet it’s usually pretty easy to tell if the source is reputable. All of the links I supplied are based on reputable sources, such as the IEA, the USGS, etc.
            You needs to get yo self some critical thinking skills, bud.

          • T Goodwell
          • JenWest

            Actually you have that reversed. Humans account for the smallest amount of “Greenhouse Gasses”, which by the way are like 99% water vapor, did you even know that? I’m pretty sure you didn’t. You heard me… WATER VAPOR is a GREENHOUSE GAS. The US Department of Energy actually likes to lump CO2 and Water Vapor together as one item on all their little charts and graphs.

            Do yourself a real favor. Actually research where your “cold hard facts” came from… Then find out where THEY got the data, and so on and so forth. Make sure the data is honest and accurate, and that it wasn’t cherry picked.

            I’ve seen the FBI and the CDC have opposing “cold hard facts” on firearm homicide data before. If two government run organizations can not even agree about their own statistics, what makes you think that you can trust a damn thing you find?

            I know what I do and hold the views and opinions I do because I put in the time and effort to actually do proper research on EVERYTHING. I’m talking Thesis level work. When I want to know about something I go all in, and I remove emotional sentiment from the equation. It becomes an issue of logic for me.

          • T Goodwell

            You are correct, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, BUT the amount of water vapor is relatively constant. You can only increase water vapor in the air by so much before it rains or snows. However, the amount of CO2 added by humans is increasing all the time. Which traps heat in the atmosphere, which ALSO allows the air to hold a bit more water vapor, so there’s that additional human caused effect. The rest of your comments are silly.

          • JenWest

            Tell me HOW my comments are silly (I’m serious, back up what you say). Are you aware that all plant life requires CO2 in order to photosynthesize, and the biproduct is O2? However at night those same plants use O2 and give off CO2. Decaying plant material also gives off a large portion of the CO2 it used in order to grow over it’s life time. This is actually part of the reason that plant and animal matter turns into hydrocarbons (oil), which when used also gives off CO2. It is ALL carbon.

            Fact is the carbon is there and it exists. It has existed for hundreds of millions of years. It simply gets moved around, naturally or otherwise.
            Beside that, “global warming” and global climate have more to do with the planets axis, rotation, and orbit than anything humans can do to the atmousphere.

            People have this knack for greatly overexagerating their effect on the world.

          • T Goodwell

            Again you are partly right, but miss most of it through your simple minded thinking.
            There is a balance of carbon that “gets moved around, naturally or otherwise”.
            We are the “otherwise” that’s disturbing the balance by releasing carbon that was meant to be left in the ground.

          • JenWest

            You it would appear, are the one with the “simple mind”… Believing to somehow know what is “meant to be”.
            When I read that I could not help but laugh. It is such a silly concept after all.
            Perhaps you believe yourself to be some sort of deity, or hold your own opinion in equity to that of a god? Either way I believe you mad, to be making such assertions as you are.

          • T Goodwell

            Thanks, more silly comments. “Meant to be” as in “should be”. You really are quite the dope, aren’t you? (That’s a rhetorical question… Look it up 😉
            Have a fine day.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Scientists are definitely not in agreement as to the impact of human vs. natural carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Research has shown that in geological ages in the past, carbon content was many times higher, yet we had the ice ages. And why is the air so much more polluted in china & India? The US has shown that smog can be cleaned up to a great extent. China will be forced to do something about it, and they have the political means to do it. But for anyone to say that there is a consensus among scientists about carbon and global warming have a problem in dealing with the truth, or have analytical minds of their own.

          • T Goodwell

            Atmospheric scientists the world over are certainly in agreement that human CO2 production is THE cause of global warming and climate change. If you deny that then you are fooling yourself. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. You can not deny this without resorting to some very shaky/shady sources. Also you are confusing about three or four different concepts. CO2 traps heat, 50,000 year orbital cycles determine ice ages — the two operate independently. Also, CO2 is not the same as smog, so your analogies are pointless. Thanks for playing. Have a great week!

          • Steve Hufferd

            They are not in agreement. For once, instead of appealing to a consensus, which has nothing to do with establishing scientific truth, I would like to see an honest debate about what the evidence really is, and let me make my own determination. Where and how is carbon emissions from natural vs human causes differentiated? The reports by scientists who are given grants in order to arrive at predetermined conclusions should be scrutinized very carefully as to scientific merits rather than the political body to which they are attached. As for credibility, I admit I lean toward the opinions of independent scientists. True science is about testing the validity of a thesis. The voices of independent researchers are being silenced by what politicians have determined to be true. So when you accuse me of following the views of politicians and not scientists, I accuse you of the same, but I can back up my assessment. Einstein would today applaud the doubting, and the testing of his theories. Climate change is so politicized that the hope for arriving at objective truth is made impossible. Even the term itself is politicized and is made into a politically correct term that means just about anything the speaker intends it to mean, being likened to the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland.
            People do not tend to trust politicians, and that is good, because they are mostly lawyers that are good at polishing rhetoric to pander to the emotions, but I also do not trust scientists who will sell their credibility for a $10m research grant to prove that man is the primary cause of climate change, when the sun in the sky is daily evidence to the contrary.

          • T Goodwell

            I doubt you have an understand of what real science is, and it’s not my job to educate you. I’m just defending the rest of the world from your nonsense. Further, the only people that politicize climate science are on the political right, which is where I can easily infer that you are from.

          • Steve Hufferd

            You’re just flat out wrong as to the amounts of natural compared to human emissions. The amounts of natural emissions can be checked for eons when humans were not even on the scene, and carbon levels were higher.

          • T Goodwell

            I did a point by point refute of the ridiculous comments you made before. Look below for the links. Read them and be educated… Or not.

          • JenWest

            Funny you should mention Geothermal. I think large scale geothermal plants can be a source of near unlimited power for at least a few million years (or until we come up with something far better).

            I’m currently working on the engineering for such a system, in which a large geothermal plant would be located in a relatively stable area (geologically speaking), then you would tunnel town several miles in order to reach a depth adequate to properly heat the medium you are using (let’s say 10 miles deep, as an example).

            Right now I have a few different ideas for how to generate power. One is a water based system in which a large reservoir is used (several meters or yards in diameter, 10 miles deep). The weight of the water would create extremely high pressures, there by raising the boiling point of the water significantly so that the high temperatures at the 10 mile depth will have no real effect on the water. However also located at the bottom of the reservoir is a valve which releases water flow at extremely high pressure. The instant drop in pressure on the water allows the heat to vaporize the water, expanding it. It’s this heated/expanded vapor which would drive a turbine, and return upwards towards the surface as steam, where it will slowly cool and condense into liquid to refill the reservoir.

            Idea number two is somewhat similar but uses smaller pipes instead of a large reservoir, and liquid metal instead of water. The idea is the same, to go down to a depth deep enough to heat a metal that is normally liquid at room temperature, allow it to be vaporized, and use the expanded metallic vapor to drive a turbine before condensing back into a liquid.

            A third idea, and this may be more conventional, though less efficient… Is to go to depth, use a large liquid metallic filled reservoir as a heat transfer conduit, in order to conduct the heat at depth to the surface (like a giant heat pipe). Then have on the surface run isolated lines (which carry water) through the surface end of the “heat pipe”, heating the water into steam and driving the turbines.
            This method works exactly like a nuclear turbine, only without the depleted rods or waste. This is also the least efficient transfer of energy, BUT the least expensive system to construct and maintain.

            The good news is you can generate power this way for as long as the Earth has a molten core, and you can construct such a plant in any location that is geologically sound (so not in Southern California).

            Another way to get near unlimited power is large scale orbital solar arrays.
            There is something called “power beaming” which uses a laser to transmit electricity from point to point. It can be used to send power from a large solar array in space that is capturing direct light from the sun 24/7, back to a ground station on Earth, to a satellite, space station, or space craft… Or directed from Earth into orbit to power something. All you need is line-of-sight.
            However it is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to get anything that weighs more than a couple pounds into orbit. For something that only weighs a couple pounds, a weather balloon or two and a small booster will do the job.

            The things I would do if I had the capital.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I am aware of the affects of pressure/boiling points, as I am trained in air conditioning, and I’m convinced that your ideas regarding geothermal development will be done in the near future. There are far too many problems with both wind and solar–one problem is that they must be backed up by the reliability of conventional power plants. The other, of course, is the amount of land required for wind generators and the maintenance in moving parts, and the pathetic amount of energy generated per generator. I definitely like your ideas, JenWest.

          • JenWest

            The initial cost for large scale geothermal would be high, but I think it would more than be worth it in the long term considering the advantages.
            Maybe one year I’ll write a proposal for one of the energy based research grants the government does. They just awarded 50 grants in the amounts of $100k-$12Mil each, in order to do research and development into alternative energy sources that would make the US less reliant on foreign fuel sources.

          • Steve Hufferd

            You’re not going to have to drill very deep to tap much higher heat levels. Look at Yellowstone–a cauldron that is being surveyed as a possible site of a super volcano. As for drilling to that depth, there’s the problem of melting the drilling materials, although there might be tech methods of cooling the drills. There are very deep chasms in the ocean at fault lines around the tectonic plates that are spewing forth gases and material that is still forming the Hawaiian Island chain. Geologically, that’s a very interesting study…yes.. Geothermal is the way to go–we have a nuclear power generator under our feet. Let’s find ways to use it and quit playing silly games with solar and wind generators.

          • JenWest

            EXACTLY!
            You even brought up something I forgot about, which were those thermal vents on the ocean floor.

        • Buddy

          What massive impact on the environment did this have and how do you know?

          “The 2 days the airlines left the sky around 911 proved that changing our behavior can have a massive impact on the climate”

        • JenWest

          Unfortunately there ISN’T anything you can do to “change it”.
          You see, there is a lot more going on with climate than simple “green house gasses”. To truly understand why it’s getting warmer, you need to learn (and understand) a LOT about science and history. Mainly that everything is cyclic, ie: it happens in cycles.
          You have short climate cycles of 11 years, 40 years, and 400 years… Then long climate cycles of 20,000-21,000 years, 40,000-41,000 years, and ~100,000 years.
          The cause of nearly all these climate cycles is astrological in origin. That is to say, they are a product of the Earths axis, orbit, and rotation… Hence the regularity and repeatability of the cycles over millions of years.
          It’s no more possible to prevent a climate shift than it is to change the orbit and/or rotation of the planet, but good luck trying!

          Also, just so you know… It would be easier to cause a massive cool down than anything else. Kicking debris into the upper atmosphere, blocking out the sun, and killing a lot of plant life (which BTW is the main producer of CO2 on the planet… decaying plant material), and leaving the surface shaded and cool for a nice long time.
          Eventually even that would correct itself though. The debris would settle, things would warm up again. Even if there was a snowball Earth (which is doubtful) it would also warm up due to tectonic and volcanic activity, algae and plankton would emerge as top CO2 and Oxygen producers… even if it took millions or a billion years, the sun would use up enough fuel and expand into a red giant, warming the Earth.
          The point is life will go on… At least until the outer layer of the sun grows large enough and the temperature on Earth gets so high that all flora and fauna are rendered extinct, all water is evaporated into the atmosphere, then the atmosphere itself is striped away. Then finally the planet is encompassed and consumed by the outer layer of the sun.

          I’m curious… How exactly do you plan on stopping the sun from turning into a Red Giant and pretty much destroying the planet?

          You should really just put all of this on the list of: “Sh*t That’s WAY The F*ck Over My Head”, and call it a day. Believe me, life is so much better when you stop stressing over the world coming to an end. Just accept that it’s going to, one way or another, and try not to be surprised if it happens tomorrow!

      • Lee Dwyer

        Rather long winded angry and nihilistic. Not a solution or even a good representation of the facts . Global warming is real. Our impact is real and measurable . We must be good stewards of the resources for ourselves and future generations . Long windedness and profanity do not make an arguement more compelling or convincing . A serious issue requires rational thought

        • Steve Hufferd

          No, I don’t believe that our impact is measurable. You can say what you want about computer models, but this is a truth when it comes to computers: garbage in, garbage out. The impact of what is spewed into the air is a pointless discussion, because the Chinese have starved their people for so long, that their savoring of some good things is not going to slow them down at all. Their promise to put a lid on things in 20 or 30 years is a real laugh. So no. We are not able to do this thing alone, and it is not advisable to even attempt it. You can denounce the burning of fossil fuels all you want. The the American people love their freedom, and that very freedom turns out to be very efficient, over time.

        • Bill

          Hi Lee,

          Here is a bit of news for you, but you’ll have to think to understand it so I’ll go slow.

          Greenhouse gases, are those gases that are opaque to infrared radiation from the sun. Meaning that rather than passing through these gases, the gas molecules absorb the infrared energy. Then they give it off. In a sense, trapping it.

          When the sun warms the earth, the earth gives off infrared radiation as according to the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW. This law controls the Greenhouse effect.

          You can see, and learn how to do the math for the Stefan-Boltzman Law here:

          https://www.easycalculation.com/physics/thermodynamics/learn-stefan-boltzmann.php

          Simply put, the law tells us that any change in the temperature of a radiating body, will produce a much larger change in the amount of infrared radiation it gives off, equal to the change in temperature taken to its FORTH POWER.

          A 2% change in the surface temperature of the earth will cause the infrared radiation it gives off to decrease by

          2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16%

          So a small 2% drop in temperature causes a 16% drop in infrared radiation.

          17% of the solar energy that reaches the earths surface is converted into infrared energy and sent back out into space. 12% makes it out but the remaining 5% is trapped by the greenhouse gases of the earth and radiated back down towards the earth along with the newly arrived heat from the sun. This ADDED warming is the greenhouse effect.

          This NASA web site explains it more fully

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

          As NASA points out, not only does the greenhouse gases trap 5% of the outgoing heat, (about 11.7 watts per square meter), it also traps 23% of the incoming heat too, and it send it back out into space cooling the earth.

          The Greenhosue gases casue the earth to be 23% cooler than the earth would be without it, while the greenhose gases add only 5% .

          Thus, according to NASA measurements (so don’t complain to me about them call and complain to NASA), The Net effect of Greenhosue gases in teh Earths atmosphere is that they Cool the earth by 18%!!!

          23% – 5% = 18% Cooler than with no greenhouse gasses.

          If mankind puts more greenhouse gas into the sky it will block out more heat than it traps further cooling the earth. The 23% will become 24%, then 25%, etc.

          That means, given the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the more greenhouse gas we put into the earth less the greenhouse effect will be due to the earths cooler temperature.

          So rather than keeping in 5%, the gases will only keep in 4%, then 3% then 2% etc, because the earth is giving off so much less infrared radiation due to its cooler temperature.

          I know that politicians and the free press are telling you different. and some scientists are in the business of selling man made greenhouse gas warming, but they are lying.

          Here’s a vid to watch

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ-1iL9g8nU

          The entire Man-Made Greenhouse argument was put out by the Nuclear Power Industry in the 70’s to counteract declining interests in nuclear power.

          They had to find something to use against coal and oil that helped nuclear power and they came up with an imaginary CO2 effect. The Pro-nuclear politicians took up the argument and that is how it got started.

          Just go to YOUTUBE.COM and enter Climate change deniers and you’ll get a lot of vids from private people, to documentaries to Senate and Congressional videos of scientists testifying before the Congress.

          You can learn the truth if you want to.

          Most climatologists deny man made global warming, they know about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and the effect of CO2 in blocking out sun heat.

      • biju

        Try to tell this to a religious fanatic Christian, Muslim…..etc..their Gods will come to save them from extinction

        • Steve Hufferd

          I am a Christian, and I suppose there are some who act on blind faith, saying, if not believing, that “God is in ultimate control”. I have no such illusions as to our responsibility, or lack of it. In my belief we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden long ago. My insights are far from perfect, but so are those of atheists and agnostics. The primary difference is that I have a rule book that provides direction for morality, and I have no doubt or fear of eternity. Good luck if you think you’ve got all the brilliant answers regarding eternity.

          • biju

            Nobody has the brilliant answers regarding eternity since nobody came back to testify about it. Religious people should behave with the understanding that they are temporary and can’t take anything with them when depart to eternity. It will be good if the religious people will follow their books. It will be no greed for wealth and power, no exploitation of other people, no wars….etc

          • Steve Hufferd

            There have been a few that came back to tell of some afterlife experiences that can’t easily be explained away. Then there is the Biblical Lazarus, the powers of the witch at Endor in bringing Samuel back to have a talk with King Saul– That it might be good if “religious people follow their books” needs to be qualified: Christians should follow their Book, but Islam is on a mission of death to Christians and Jews, so the Koran is currently threatening world peace.
            Greed is a pejorative that is highly subjective: Nobody I know considers themselves “greedy”. It is always and an adjective describing the other person. I have not personally witnessed much downside to this thing called “greed”, if acquisition stays within the law. Companies might rise and fall from motivations defined by greed, and as a result of shoddy manipulations people are thrown out of work, but it seems to be so ingrained in everyone–even in the sandbox, that I accept it as a human trait, like many other human vices. The so-called “non-religious” have their books, too, and they are based on atheism and humanism, and both have a difficult time in defining morality.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Of course you are right about everything being temporal. It would be good if everyone behaved as if they were to leave this earth very soon. Unfortunately youth is characterized by a view that they have an abundance of time, and it is too often squandered. But it’s encouraging to see some of them employ their energies wisely.

        • Steve Hufferd

          Before you criticize those “Christian fanatics”, just take a rough count of the deaths caused in the 20th century by atheists: does Joe Stalin, Mao Zetung, and Adolfo Hitler come to mind? Hope for peace, it seems cannot be found in Humanism and the atheism it endorses.

          • biju

            Stalin, Mao, and Hitler did not kill for their religious or non religious reasons. They killed for power and control. Christians, Muslims…and others killed/kill for their religious believes. At least this is what they claim. “They preserve the purity of their believes..and God told them to kill for them”

          • Steve Hufferd

            I think you missed my point. Atheists often blame religion as the cause of the major wars and the ensuing bloodshed. The big three mentioned were bloodthirsty atheists, so I’m contending that atheists have no claim to moral superiority and have no ground there for criticizing the history of those motivated by their religion. Of course they killed for power and control!! Stalin and Mao’s “god” was Marxism, and Hitler’s was forced evolution of the human race. So in that sense Hitler’s “god” was Charles Darwin.

          • biju

            This is the first time in my long life when I hear that there is connection between Hitler and the evolution of Charles Darwin. It isn’t. The Germans thought that they are “the chosen ones” and deserve all the power. The Jewish believed and still believe that they are the chosen ones. I see conflict when one group grabs the monopoly of God . In fact all our Gods are local, this is why there is so much violence. If you were to believe that your CREATOR, created everything is life on this planet: the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the Hindu….the homosexuals, the blacks, the yellow, the polka dot,…etc..and all the people who are different from you , you would love them all.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I’ll explain the connect between Hitler/Darwin. Hitler was determined to create the superior race. He believed the Jews contaminated the human species, and his actions of trying to wipe them out was an attempt to clean up the gene pool. Hitler believed that he could be a determining factor in directing the course of evolution. Surely you’re aware of his fanaticism for creating the master race… And yes, he was an avid believer in Darwin’s theory of evolution. I too have lived a long life, and the more I learn, the more that I come to realize how little we know. The most amazing thing of all is that there is an existence of anything. That is my starting point.
            As this is not likely enough to convince you, I hope to at least raise your curiosity enough to give it some study. There are all sorts of studies and documentaries that point to that connection. The Bible says that the Jews were the Chosen Ones– not Hitler and the Germans. Beyond all odds, the Jews have survived, even after having been dispersed throughout the world. Jesus was a Jew, and I am a Christian, and I believe that the Jews are indeed the Chosen. Beyond that, you get no further explanation, because I am unable to. The evidence is plentiful, if you look for it a bit.
            Considering the impact that Jews have made upon the world with just a small % of the population, there is Something in the Jews that defy the natural course of developing civilization, to such an extent that I call it supernatural. They have made the major inroads in medicine, law, economics and yes, nuclear physics, and almost any endeavor they set out to do. Their downside has been an inability to administer governments, as they have been surrounded by belligerents for over half a century. I believe they will survive through this political turmoil, even if it becomes nuclear. It is not advisable for this country to turn its back on Israel. Ever.

          • biju

            I do not believe in “the chosen one theory”. I’d like to believe the stories of the Bible, but my logic doesn’t allow me to. I do admire many of jewish people who contributed in many ways to the society. To my observation they provide the best community support to their kind. No other group of people does the same. Competition is the name of the game with the rest of us. The jewish people are/were in competition with the rest of the world, never among themselves. Most are smart, hard workers, and value high education. They are also very good with money. At this moment in history they gained too much control and power and they do not use them wisely. . People tend to hate power so the tide may work against them again.
            Regarding Hitler, he treated the same way the gipsies, the homosexuals, the communists , but nobody is mentioning them anymore. I think the Jewish media is overdoing this talk about holocaust, especially when Netanyahu is doing similar things to the Palestinians.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Israel is always on the defense. Their retaliation against the Palestinians is a result of random missiles being fired being fired from selected sites that result in maximum casualties of innocent victims. This generates fodder for propaganda against Israel. Hamas is major enemy from within regarding the Palestinians. Hamas could care less about the Palestinians–they only want to be able to be in strategic places to launch attacks against Israel.
            Think about it. What reason does Israel have to take aggressive acts against anyone? There is no equivalent “holocaust” being committed by Israel.
            We will apparently be finding out as to whether Israel has sufficient power to defend itself. It is not Israel who wishes to annihilate another nation. It is Iran that has declared their determination to remove Israelis from the earth. They also want to remove US from the earth. So it is wise to be entrenched in a position of strength than to cower and beg for mercy.
            As for believing in “the chosen one” theory, It does fly in the face of logic and reason. I am always astonished by evidence of supernatural forces at work, and the existence of the Jews today, out of all the tribes of ancient Israel, is evidence, to me, that God’s hand is upon that people. I know, that when we ‘go there’, we leave logic and reason. But it is not on faith alone that I believe what I believe. There is just too much evidence that cannot be explained away. This Hand upon history is a testament to the feeble faith that I have, but the wonder of the Jewish people enhances that faith.
            I am aware of the other ethnic groups Hitler tried to eliminate. But it was all done with a determination to purify the breeding stock of the “Superior race”.
            It is said that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Have you ever wondered why? They are killed, of course, just as anyone who does not believe in their Allah is fair game for execution. So radical Islam has a means of purifying their religion on earth–it’s by murdering the infidel. Hitler had a fond respect for the Muslim fighters–because they had little objection to becoming martyrs.
            Regarding the “holocaust being overdone,” there are too many witnesses who lived through it that brought the evidence forward for all to see. The horrors of the mass gassing and skeletal bodies being bulldozed into huge ditches–no one can force you to look at the evidence, but it’s a reality you shouldn’t miss.

      • ericlipps

        Even assuming your facts (minus the sarcasm and name-calling) are correct, you’re ignoring a important fact: back at the end of the last ice age, there were a lot fewer humans around to be affected by rising temperatures and sea levels, along with changes in precipitation, than there are now. I don’t know about 16,0000 years ago, but according to this article from NOAA, as recently as 10,000 years ago there may have been as few as five million humans alive–about one for every 14,000 alive today. And huge numbers of present-day humans live in places likely to be severely impaced by the climate changes being forecast.

        • Steve Hufferd

          I agree with you on one point: I don’t want the end to come any sooner than necessary–which is why I don’t trust the Iranians with a nuclear bomb and a delivery system. MAD seems to have worked pretty well: (Mutually Assured Destruction). At least the Soviets and the U.S. had a respectful fear of the damage that would be done– whereas the Iranians seem to be all too willing to die for Allah. That, on top of the fact that the President has no Constitutional authority to make a treaty—I’m proud of the Republicans who signed that open letter–at least the open letter wasn’t in secret.

          • ericlipps

            In the 1950s, it was alleged that the Soviets were willing to die for Marxism, as long as they could bring down capitalist America–and that anyway they believed they could win by striking first. In the 1960s it was said that the Chinese felt they could afford to lose a couple hundred million people in a nuclear exchange because they’d still have hundreds of millions of faceless anthill commudroids with which to invade a devastated United States. Yet neither actually attacked.

            The Iranians know their nation would disappear from the face of the earth if they used a nuclear weapon against Israel, let alone the U.S. Individual Iranians may be willing to die for Allah, but not if they know they’ll <em.all die and their enemies will still be there.

            And trhe president does have the authority to conclude what’s called an href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement”>executive agreement without Congress’s approval. Such agreements have a href=”http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/13/will-white-house-pursue-treaty-executive-agreement-iran-heres-need-know/”>long history in the U.S.; while they aren’t legally binding, they are considered politically binding.

          • Steve Hufferd

            you are right on all counts, including the history of executive agreements. But I hold that the exercise of executive power to negotiate treaties is not Constitutional, but is an abuse of power. I’m aware of many of the abuses of executive power, but in my opinion does not grant the executive powers which belong in Congress. Instead of “treaties” they call them “accords” or some other ridiculous piece of rhetorical hash. When the intent of the Founders regarding the powers delegated to each of the branches is abrogated, we get on the slippery slope of trying to govern without a Constitution. It becomes, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “whatever we say it is”. That is a position from which might never be able to retreat. But I can’t argue your points. And it is that abuse of power that I fear.

          • ericlipps

            You’re not alone. But too many people (not you, by the sound of it) only discovered the evil of such agreements when this president started making them, and too many of those are likely to have no problem with them once it’s a president of the opposite party who’s doing so.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Oh, I’ve known about lots of executive abuses–by presidents in both parties. It is strange, in a way, that the more power exercised by the the executive, the more he is lauded by the democrats. They seem to have a “thing” about dictatorial powers, as though taking anything through Congress is too troublesome. Too many of our representatives have never read much of Jefferson or Madison or the Federalist Papers. This is why, when Pelosi was asked about whether passing the Affordable Care Act was Constitutional, she was surprised and outraged.
            Our representatives are paid like royalty, and spend far too much time in Washington. We were warned about runaway government, long ago, and it has come to pass. Paul Simon, Sec. of Treasury wrote a book years ago confessing as to how far things had gotten out of control. With the dismissal any pretense of monetary standards, our dollar is subject to the whims of the FED and what the people can be led to believe its value is. There’s no responsibility in budgeting. None. The right hand does not know what the left is doing.
            As for what you describe as to the failings of our Congress, you are, again, right on. We read the same books.

          • ericlipps

            That failing belongs to both parties. Certainly Republicans had no trouble with the executive seizing power when George W. Bush was in the White House. Or when Ronald Reagan was, either. And the only soured on Nixon (somewhat) after he committed the political sacrilege (in their eyes) of imposing wage and price controls to combat inflation.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Well, yes, there were some, like me, who did object to G.W.’s abuses, but they were nothing of the degree to which Obama has stretched the envelope. The problem stems from the milder abuses, because the next abuse will be bigger and harder to stop. Reagan is my 20th century hero. He made me proud of my country, and he was a force for the good of the country. I was in the navy when Reagan was Commander and Chief of the armed forces, and you could practically feel the outpouring of pride and honor in the air and in the ranks. Not so under Bush Sr, and especially not so under Clinton. There was bitterness and contention under Clinton because of the strict enforcement of political correctness, which is a modern form of denying freedom of speech. I could point out a couple of Reagan’s mistakes, but his positives surely outweigh the negatives. We’ve only had 2 presidents in the last half of the 20th century to generate that kind of patriotism and love of country–Kennedy and Reagan. I have grave doubts that we will ever return to Constitutional rule. Nobody, it seems even knows how to get back to where the Founders intended for us to be. Even our Supreme Court is so divided that every decision turns out to be a coin toss as to how a single Supreme Court Justice woke up that day.

          • Steve Hufferd

            But the ACA was NOT Constitutional, and the question deserved an answer. It is not Constitutional according to the 10th Amendment. The government was never given the power to interfere in medical care, but neither was it given the power to interfere in education–and the quality of education has deteriorated ever since that breach was made with creation of the Dept of Education. This is what happens when we get on that slippery slope of extending the powers of the federal government beyond the intent of the Framers.
            The Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA was also a strange decision, basing the decision on changing the meaning of the the penalty of noncompliance to that of a “tax”. It had repeatedly been claimed by ACA advocates that the penalty was NOT a tax— so where did THAT come from in the decision?
            The bill was passed secretly. The democrats who voted it in even admitted they hadn’t read it. And they STILL haven’t read it! The American public has been horribly duped into having this albatross slung around its neck.

          • ericlipps

            You can declare all you like that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, but that doesn’t make it so.

            The Tenth Amendment has come to be used as a grab-bag by states’-righters, but unless one treats the text of the Constitution the way Christian fundamentalists treat Scripture–as something to be read literally word by word, its reach in fact is a lot more limited.

            By strict Tenth Amendment reasoning, for example, the federal government should be forbidden to regulate broadcast radio and TV technical standards, which is what the FCC was originally established to do because the market had produced a mess of overlapping signals and incompatible systems. It shouldn’t be allowed to regulate drugs, or food. It shouldn’t even be permitted to print paper money, since the Constitution only gives it the authority to “coin” money. And that’s just for starters.

            What most “tenthers” I’ve known seem to want isn’t just a limited government but one modeled on that of the Confederacy–or perhaps run via the Articles of Confederation. Either alternative is a nonstarter. The Confederacy’s “states’ rights” were a sham, a fig leaf covering its member states’ desire to preserve slavery above all else. And the Articles nearly ripped the country apart at the start, which is why at the Constitutional Convention the Framers tossed them altogether rather than simply “revising” them as they’d been chartered to do.

          • Steve Hufferd

            If it is “not so”, that the ACA is unconstitutional, then can you point out the basis for which you say it IS Constitutional? The Supreme Court declared its Constitutionality by playing a shoddy word game with “penalty” and “taxes”. There are many, like me, who believe that while limits had been placed on each of the other branches of government, they were also limited for the Supreme Court. They were never intended to legislate, but to decide cases on existing law. Roe vs. Wade is a prime example of that breach. But or representatives did not have the spine, nor the knowledge of how to stand up to breaches of power by the Supreme Court. Our government is suffering gravely from gross ignorance of history and the philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

          • ericlipps

            And of course the “philosophy of the Founding Fathers” was to create a government that didn’t actually govern and a Union not actually united. But never mind.

            The Court’s ‘shoddy word game” is nothing of the sort. A tax is a distinct levy imposed upon a service or upon income–on something actually received, that is, or actually done. A penalty is imposed for something not received when the recipient was obligated to do so, or not done though it was required.

            If I don’t pay my taxes and the IRS imposes a penalty, that’s not a brand-new tax: it’s punishment for failing to follow the law, in the same way that, say, a money judgment against someone who has failed to pay court-ordered child support would be.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Thank you. You make my case: the Supreme Court itself based their decision on their declaration that the “penalty” in the ACA WAS a TAX! That is what I call a rhetorical slight-of-hand.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Instead of saying that Founders “created a government that could no govern, I would rather state it as “the government that is best is the one that governs least”. Keep in mind that governing involves force, and force is a reduction of freedom. So as a conservative I will always strive to reduce the power and restraints imposed by a government out of control. The best, and maybe the only way to preserve our Constitution is education in the principles of freedom.

      • Lee Dwyer

        I always love when responses de-evolve into ad homonym attacks. Does it signify she end of intellect or a insecurity ?
        My entire point was simply snow melt is finite in a region. We produce approximately x water in any aquifer over a period of time. The water tables are a perfect measure of this. We are clearly altering out planet through consumption and deforestation etc. We can not expect continued urban sprawl and golf courses to consume our resources without consequence. Most civilizations have encountered this and most serious scientist have made numerous references and analysis to the problem. We need to shrieked our resources so they can be shared in the future .

      • J_R_K

        You ever get the feeling that trying to teach monkeys how to type is about as effective as just waiting for them to type the complete works of Shakespeare on their own? All you’re gonna get for all your trouble is personal frustration and a lot of irritated monkey. LOL

      • franc182

        Way to go Jen !

    • Abdullah Sani

      Lalala, I read you. I think you are a stupid fool since you know nothing beyond your own perimeter.

  • Jack Wolf

    Warmer temperatures are only going to make things worse. Scientists have given us fair warning.

    • Gordo

      The warmer temps you mention are myths.

      • Angel

        You’re joking, right?

      • The Old Gods

        You should also run for Governor of Florida

      • rrocklin

        I smell a denier.

      • wildisreal

        Your opinion is minority, untenable, and increasingly immoral.

        • Steve Hufferd

          Most of the advances in science and industry were made by a minority. I’ll stick with them..They seem to have a better handle as to what is going on.

      • Steve Hufferd

        I agree. The “scientists” have declared the demise of this planet is inevitable, due to burning fossil fuels. The only “scientific” evidence of this is from computer models– the same computers that determined that bumble bees aren’t supposed to fly. I’m far from convinced that the so-called “greenhouse affect” is caused by us.

  • http://www.paulglover.org/ metroeco

    Severe Extended Drought (SED) plan for Los Angeles: http;//www.paulglover.org/1410.html

  • Gordo

    The root of the problem is that planning for growth and sufficient storage has been left on the back burner. Just because we choose to expand population in an area does not mean nature is going to see our growth and provide more.

  • D. Dalton

    For those of us who live and farm in the southwest, the changes have been remarkable. We have seen our springs dry up, the water level of our precious N Aquifer drop, the farming affected by drought, the farming season shortened. The change has accelerated during the past 3 decades. Make no mistake, we are headed in a direction no one wants to go.

    Denying the truth, instead of taking action to alleviate to address the situation, will be the end of life as most of you now enjoy it. For those of us who have always conserved, grown our own food to the extent possible, and lived modestly, we will also be affected. No one will be spared the hardships.

    We are in this together — I see it akin to “group punishment” – those who conserve and try to address the issue will suffer and pay the price alongside the deniers who are at the root of inaction to address and fix the problem — in the end our children and grandchildren will suffer the most.

    • Angel

      What will happen is people will be forced to move. This has all happened before in the Southwest. The Anasazi were a thriving culture that mysteriously disappeared & the general consensus these days is that the people dispersed, due to lingering drought.

      • D. Dalton

        We did not disappear, and we did not move due to drought – those were the speculations of archaeologists.
        They are not Anasazi, but Hisatsinom – they are our ancestors. As descendants of the Hisatsinom, we are still alive and trying to survive the attacks on the land and environment around us. Many of our people, and those of the Navajo are ill or have died from the pollution from the coal fired power plants, from the uranium tailings, from the methane released from the open pit mining of coal. Due to the pumping of our N-Aquifer, for the sake of supplying electricity to southern AZ and California, our water as been depleted to the point that our water contains excessive amounts of arsenic and is unsafe to drink. Most people here do not have ready access to clean water, they drink, cook, and clean with what is available.
        We cannot move, nor do we want to. We do, however, wish people would stop wasting and excessively consuming precious resources.
        Many of you have access to electricity, some villages (including mine) and large portions of Navajo do not. You have taken our water irresponsibly, now many of our people drink water laced with arsenic. May we all come to our senses before we are forced to.

        • david

          Nice FYI , Dalton . Thanks .

        • Maia

          “May we all come to our senses before we are forced to.” There is so much to say in response to what you’ve written, but mainly I want to thank you for the strength and honesty of your words. There is so much violence in the way water is stolen, polluted and utterly disrespected. They way we treat water is the way we treat life. Thank you.

      • Steve Hufferd

        Yes. Right on, Angel.

    • kmtominey44

      Start to switch to drought tolerant crops that are actually better nutritionally than GMO corn. Native Seed Search can provide such seeds – change and move on.

      If you cannot let go of USDA welfare via gross revenue guarantee insurance get drought tolerant crops covered and seek more govt welfare for soil moisture monitoring systems.

      Diversify crops and add poultry & live stock with non standard markets like White Oaks Farm in Georgia.

      • D. Dalton

        We do not get federal assistance, we dry farm and use our native seeds. We do diversify our crops. No irrigation, no power sources. We hunt elk, deer, rabbits and raise minimal sheep and cows. No economy in our area to speak of. Jobs base is local government, schools, and health care. Nearest towns for groceries 60 to 90 miles one-way.

        • kmtominey44

          At least dryland wheat in Washington, and other states, can and do participate in the gross revenue guarantee insurance program. Don’t know your crops but farms like White Oaks have figured out a way to farm responsibly and prosper.

        • Steve Hufferd

          If there is no economy in your area, and groceries are so far away, and with no electricity no water, what, in heavens name, is keeping you there? This is a free country, no? I know it comes across as harsh, but it does not sound to me like “the good life” there. People and conditions change. People move. It’s the American way.

          • Maia

            You missed D. Dalton’s point entirely. The land that gave you life, that you deeply cherish, that is your true home,, is not something you change like clothes. The “American Way” is the problem, not the solution.

          • Steve Hufferd

            You’re right. I’m missing something. I’m missing what it is in that desert that Dalton is so attached to. There is no land on earth that gave me life. One of my freedoms in this country is to choice of where I live limited by my spouse and passport, of course. People will adjust–it takes time, and it might be expensive, but dry farming does not sound practical to me.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I might add that I’m rather fond of this “American Way” that you seem so quick to denounce. It’s still, by far, the best country on earth.

          • Maia

            I am fond of this planet, including the land of the Americas. What I think you mean is the USA, the political entity, not the land. But this is no competition in the way you are meaning it, to be “best”. What matters is how we take care of the land (and all that includes) and the people, too. Is the USA number one Caretaker? I won’t argue the point. Just pointing out that you are considering something very different than what D. Dalton was talking about, and wish that you might be interested enough to try to imagine feeling that way about a beloved place on earth.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I don’t think Mr. Dalton and I are so far apart, as you suggest. It was a dialogue between adult men. Perhaps it is you who didn’t understand. Men are often able to discuss different viewpoints without getting all bent out of shape. As a mature American man, I am ready to defend my outlook until another outlook is more reasonable and just. So far, I’ve held my views pretty well intact for a several years. You will not likely change my views about basic human nature, if one can say there is such a thing, because that view is simply this–that man has a sin nature, as described in the Bible, and that nature is recorded throughout history, which is why our founding fathers split the powers of our government, because no man could be trusted alone with that much power.

          • Steve Hufferd

            When I refer to “our country”, I’m referring to both the land and the political entity, since they are surely intertwined. We have laws that protect property rights. So the political necessarily involves the land.

          • Maia

            Yes, it’s hard for most non-Native people to understand such a strong relationship to the land itself, to the soil/stone, waters, animals, plants, of a particular place. You were no doubt raised to consider land as “property”. That is what I was referring to re: The American Way. It is a disposable way, a profit-based way, a way, dissociated-from-the true, precious sources of our life. I am not going to try to convince you of anything, just hope you can understand that there are many human beings who do not share your “let’s move on” attitude toward the earth-places where they were born, where their ancestors were born and died, and which nourishes them in ways that are not entered into any account books.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Most of the tribes were nomadic, and were most often warring against other tribes over hunting lands. Theirs was not the pristine love of peace and nature which you try to depict. If they had not been warring amongst themselves so much, Europeans would not have made it beyond 2 or 300 miles of the east coast. We brought them out of the Stone Age. If you think that was cruel and heartless and materialistic, then we have a stark disagreement.

          • Steve Hufferd

            The Mayans and Aztecs are of a different story–different from the plains and SW, and they were different, as well, from the Iroquois nations. Our Constitution brought the Europeans out Europeans out of the Renaissance–land changes, and people change. There’s nothing wrong with comfort. People have strived for it from the beginning, when they built shelters and moved into caves.

          • Maia

            War and plunder was the bread and butter of Europeans at the time of the invasion of the Americas. Who is idealizing here?

            But what I actually said was that there are human beings (native and non-native)
            who DO have very strong bonds with particular places on the earth. I am one of them. And I see treating land as “mere property” is a damaging mistake. Ownership is the only relationship you can have to “property”, which encourages selfishness and waste. . If the earth and beings where you live are precious to you, in and for themselves, your whole life is profoundly enriched AND you will do what you can to protect and conserve them for all.

          • Steve Hufferd

            We disagree about the damages of property ownership. It establishes limits to what a non owner can use or take. Without a contractual agreement the ‘takers’ were whoever was the most powerful. The meek did not inherit the earth, so-to-speak.

          • Maia

            Yes, we disagree, but we’ve gotten closer to a respectful dialogue, which is a good thing.

            You describe “takers” as whoever is the most powerful. Europeans came to the Americas and “took” in many different ways, and kept on taking, even later when native tribes legally owned their land according to US law! That ownership was ignored and they were pushed off their lands to wherever was most convenient at the time. In some cases, the land they were forced to move to (usually poorer in resources) was AGAIN taken by those same or other powerful entities, whether the US government or private forces. Read up on Andrew Jackson and what happened during his administration. Takers can and do over-ride legal ownership.
            Believe it or not, power and being selfish are not the same thing, though they do often go together. What I am suggesting is that we humans develop and support other kinds of power, ways of more generously living and flourishing together on this earth. One of those would be respecting and being interested in each others’ differences.

          • Steve Hufferd

            You’re right about Europeans pushing westward beyond the Mississippi following Louisiana Purchase. The Comanches and Apaches stood their ground well until the invention of the hand revolver and the mass killing of buffalo. In the way of treaties, U.S. officials took the word of about anyone who would agree to our terms and have them ‘sign’ on the bottom line.

          • Maia

            Yes, there are so many examples of illegal seizure of native people’s lands and/or resources, more than I could list here. But selfishness and disregard for the living world continues to this very day…and it appears to be a widely distributed human characteristic that we have to help each other grow out of. We could try thinking of ourselves less as members of competing nations and more as members of a human family on planet earth. That doesn’t mean ignoring reality, it means deciding to be guided by fairness and respect and cooperation, beyond mere economic opportunity.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Thinking of ourselves as members of a human family on planet earth suggests a one-world government that is all powerful; one that is so powerful that no one, and no remaining “nation” could resist. It would have the power to grant full rights and privileges, but would also have the power to take them away for any offense. The belief in God-given rights is essential to the preservation of our freedom, since it is those rights and freedoms that are “unalienable”. God-given rights existed before governments, so no government can take them away without due process, and the government is criminal if it attempts to take those rights away. Our government was created by the consent of the governed, and the governed has the right to dissolve the allegiance to it and form another, if the need is sufficient.
            While it is quaint to hope for the change of human hearts that might facilitate peace for this world, the history of mankind stands against such vain hope. There is no chance of world peace unless the world leader is angelic in which case it would be a benevolent dictatorship. Otherwise, forget it. I wouldn’t trust any man or tribunal with the power to take away my freedom at the stroke of a pen.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I’ve read everything James Alexander Thom has written, and several other historical novels, and Some by McMurtry, as well as Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and Crazy Horse, and 9 college courses in history. So yes, the Native Americans were screwed, and the worst thing to put upon them was the reservation system and the massive killing of the buffalo. That was their undoing. It was wrong. Very wrong.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Yes, I know. But acknowledging the wrongs there doesn’t correct anything, but hopefully we can learn from our mistakes and move on, and helping some where we can, but NOT to be their nanny. They have contempt for things given to them and not earned, and rightfully so. There’s a world of difference between property that has been earned and property that has been given to them as welfare. The difference, of course, is that earned property has dignity attached. I’m sure Mr. Dalton is well aware of this. It was the utter failure of the reservation system, in that the damage was done to the heart rather than physical well-being. It sounded good on paper, but it had a very high price.
            One can spend years writing of the damage done to innocent victims of war throughout the world. The world is at the same time beautiful and bloody. Justice is beyond hope in most places in the world. While Americans have been criminal in some of their behavior, and will continue to make policy mistakes, they have also rendered hope for many that risked their lives to come here. And yes, we make some mistakes in foreign policy, but it is no simple matter to try to convince some tyrants trying to test their mettle to behave themselves. I am extremely reluctant to tell any parents of fallen young soldiers that their son/daughter has died in vain. The fighting man has to believe in what he is fighting for, or he will surely lose, or surrender prematurely. Germans fighting for “the Feuhrer” in WWII didn’t cut it. Hitler demanded that the people salute HIM, rather than the country. He cost countless lives all over Europe. We must not, however, have “peace at any price” There are times when we are morally obligated to fight against those who threaten us or the innocent. Why liberals are so silent when heads are being cut off, prisoners burned alive, and when Islamic leaders threaten our nation and that of Israel with death– It is time to employ the force necessary to stop that idiocy. They will not win. A god who advocates murder of women and children and Christians is not a god from from above but is a god from below. I deem it a crime by our country to stand by and remain silent in the face of this.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I am well aware of the warring activities of the Europeans prior to the 16th century. War, in fact, is a part of every culture, in every land. Even isolated Hawaiians could not manage to get along without bloodshed. This thing about “being wedded to the land” and that there was such an idyllic reverence for “the land” might have stirred in the hearts of some, but it was rare. The Spanish had a 200 year head start in establishing a civilization, and they did well in some areas, ‘not so well in others it appears that we picked a fight with Spain in order to take over some disputed lands. As for Texas, the Mexicans let the settlers in to act as a buffer against the raiding, hell-raising Comanches in west Texas and regions north to Colorado. They were finally beaten by Colt revolver and the buffalo gun that wiped out their food stock. Cynthia Ann Parker was about 9 when she was captured by Comanches, and became the wife of a Comanche chief. Although she was of European descent, she was unable or refused to readapt to the white culture when she was “rescued” at the age of 33. Her son was Quanah Parker, a notorious and likely most successful Comanche chief. So there is clearly an imprinting that occurs in what is determined to be “family”, and it has nothing to do with either land or blood. The same imprinting occurs with any child with any adopting family. It is for us to raise our children in an upright, responsible way, and to be respectful of others. It is success in that endeavor that is worthy of some pride, but little else.

          • Steve Hufferd

            This “imprinting” has ramifications in biological vs. adoptive parents in child settlement cases. The rights of adoptive parents, I believe, should prevail against any late claims by biological parents.

          • Steve Hufferd

            The the native Americans in this country all came from somewhere else in the world–there is a very wide range of cultures among the native Americans– most of them nomadic and not attached to a region. Dalton stayed in place–but he is no hermit–he’s obviously well educated, from somewhere, and that is a survival trait of its own. But you can’t paint the Native American culture with a very wide brush.

          • Steve Hufferd

            So what sort of economy do you suggest is better? An open range where the buffalo are free to roam? We can discuss this “Utopia” if you wish, although it might be a bit abrupt. The communes that the Hippies tried to sell didn’t work, and Stalin, Mao, and Hitler had to kill about 100 million people to sell their method of “wealth distribution”. I prefer, by far, to live in what I’d like to still call the “land of the free” and take responsibility of my choices rather than have a government determine my vocation. I’m fully prepared to defend the strengths of our country, and I will bow in respect for those we have wronged along the way, just as I will salute the graves of the men and women who gave everything so that others might be free. I am well aware of the atrocities committed in our movement West, and ‘m also aware of the great accomplishments that were made to make our lives more prosperous and comfortable.

          • Richard Shanteau

            Mr Hufferd, you are a very short sighted and intolerant fellow. Native American people have lived in the same location for centuries, and survived without the “benefits” of Western civilization. They have suffered much because of our “more advanced” developments, and are again being victimized. Most of them do not have the resources to pick up and move to more humid environment, even if they wanted to. At least grant them the dignity to continue to survive as they choose, and avoid scornful comments.

          • Steve Hufferd

            There are other species that have failed to move or adapt, and they are now extinct. This is harsh reality. Mr. Daltonism well educated, and makes his choices with eyes wide open. Can that same be said for others in his community? I’m not so sure. It has to be a crude form of surviving, but to each his own. I do wish him well, and to any youngsters there that can’t get teeth repaired, or other maladies beyond a professional hand. I’m guessing, of course, but I’d guess the average mortality rate there would be about 50?

          • Steve Hufferd

            While you and I might differ as to what we see through this prism of life, I am not the shortsighted one here, and I am much more tolerant than you, who stand forever on a soapbox proclaiming the end of the earth. Well, I know there will be an end, just as there was a beginning. But I am not a pantheist, and do not hyperventilate when I see a coke can in a stream. I will retrieve it, if I can, but am not going lose sleep over it if I can’t.

          • Steve Hufferd

            And other Native Americans have NOT lived in the same location for centuries. Most of them traveled with the seasons and with the buffalo herds. I’m convinced that we don’t have the whole story as to where the occupants of North, Central, and South America came from. Native American connecting languages need to be researched and compared to Mediterranean and Asian languages. Please, Mr. Shanteau, don’t insult me with such trite, unwarranted accusations. When you give the appearance that you know what you’re talking about, I might consider your criticism.

          • Steve Hufferd

            There are several million who have been able to move across our southern border. It doesn’t take that many resources to move. Staying in place is a decision. Moving is always an option. I wish them well whatever their decision.

      • Steve Hufferd

        Do you have a source reference as to comparing drought tolerant and GMO crops? I do not have the fear of GMO grains that others seem to have. I believe there is a big load of misinformation that is begging to be backed up by some evidence, one way or the other. It would be nice if some Ph.d in ag engineering would state some hard facts.

        • kmtominey44

          Palmer Amaranth is definitely superior to GMO corn and soy. GMO’s have different genetic instructions from original. Doubling up or tripling an existing gene changes how it interacts with other genes. Epigenetics is revealing that gene A may alter the expression of one or more other genes. That is turn them on or off, or ramp up or down their expression.

          Results are not always desirable.

          Other drought tolerant plants include quinoa, millet, teparay beans, etc. More protein, more range of types.

          Even selective breeding alters the nutrient make up of say apples. Actual testing of old fashioned heritage apples vs red delicious revealed that over 23+ nutrients the old ones exceeded red felicious from 3x to 10x. When you breed selectively to bloom at same time, ripen at same time and be big – wrll the roots and leaves can provide only so much nutrients ÷ all those apples means less substance per apple.

          Working on herbicides that will kill the evolved amaranth by engineering a soy or corn that can resist it is not in my opinion a good approach since the change in climate will render the soy and corn uneconomic to grow given water shortage.

          Of course, as a retired research scientist specializing in identifying uncertainties and their impacts I tend to sceptic turn of mind.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Thank you for that. Finally, a scientist that has worked in the field of which he speaks. I applaud you, sir.

        • kmtominey44

          Actually the K is for Kathryn – not that it changes my experience. Also, I grew up on a small family dairy farm – in the era before dairy factories became the norm.

          • Steve Hufferd

            From age 10 to 17 I grew up in a rural community in SE Iowa. I was farm help for several farmers, but lived in town. Thanks again for comments on little known ag development.

    • Steve Hufferd

      The ‘deniers’ to which you refer, do not deny that changes in climate and water supplies occur. A college freshman with a geology book can get a fair picture as to what is going on. But since we are reluctant to ‘buy into’ the idea that we are able to turn things around by eating more veggies and that we fail to trust in the cooperation of India and China– As for me, no one has demonstrated a viable plan to save the earth. People survive in the desert when there are known water supplies. When the water dries up, isn’t it more practical to move, rather than pound a dead rock, like Moses in the desert?

  • kmtominey44

    Allow agriculture irrigation ONLY if farmer has soil moisture monitoring system 8n place and waters only as needed for soil moisture maintenance. Shutoff all residential landscape water – Tucson, AZ did this decades ago. No water for fracking. Live stock operations can water cows but find another way to settle dust.

    • rrocklin

      Thats great but they are adding 1000s of new homes to the tucson area every year. Nothing will happen until its an unsolvable crisis.

      • kmtominey44

        And they still cannot water lawns.

  • rgspol

    We need to start investing in de-salivation. We are NOT doing pipelines from the Great Lakes!!

    • rrocklin

      I will stop salivating.

      • Brian Kern

        Teach me your ways and I’ll stop too. It’s such an ingenious idea, imagine how much water we will save!

      • Ina Mitchell

        I find that idea hard to swallow.

  • Brian Agar

    Much cheaper property in the Southwest US is coming as people figure out the truth. Of course, people will be killing each other over water, but that’s progress from the Fossil Fuel investing climate change deniars. Cheaper & faster methods of desalination must be developed pronto, or you’ll have a group of 75 million refugees fleeing the region for better water access.

  • mjarvis

    Just rain please, we need a deluge over Lake Mead, geographically specific, six-million acre feet. But like winning the lottery, that much rain comming soon seems unreal. It is not going to happen.

    “Just walk away ” , Omg, everybody at once ? If you have not sold by now, it is an all or nothing bet you have made.

    Keep an eye on São Paolo, Brazil, which is comming closer to a no water situation than the southwest.

    Renew friendships with family in water rich states ?

    I am freaking out. This is without recent presidente. People cannot live for more than three days without water, no matter how large the mansion.

    Enuf ranting…..prey for rain on your knees, I will too.

    • wildisreal

      Great advice on Sao Paulo. This is a story any good climate-minded internet surfer should be googling. Slow motion drought disaster well ahead of the SW USA’s pace.

      • Steve Hufferd

        Good. I’ll check it out. Maybe there are some facts about their situation– facts are very difficult to come by up here–Even National Geographic, Discover, and Scientific American are long on opinions and short on evidence–in the way of CAUSES.

  • WesleyV

    Cut back on fracking and cattle. That will save lots of water.

    • henry_twentytwo

      And growing crops in a desert.

      • JenWest

        Tell me about it!

    • Larry Smith

      Water used for fraking is non-potable water. You don’t want to use that for drinking or agriculture.

      • pixbing

        Larry Smith, but if you don’t “use” it for fracking you can use it for other purposes. You’re right, after it’s been used for fracking it’s forever contaminated. But if we don’t use it for fracking then we’d be able to have it for other things, like, you know, our own survival.

        • JenWest

          There is no such thing as “forever”. So nothing is forever contaminated. Even Nuclear waste can be made edible. You just need to wait a REALLY LONG TIME (due to the half life of the isotopes involved).
          In fact, now that I’m thinking about it… I see no reason why you can’t simply reclaim nuclear waste material, distill it down to a highly concentrated form, and reuse it again.
          Maybe I should look into that.

          • wildisreal

            Yeah, get right to work on that thanks. Easy solutions everywhere! No worries! All is well!

          • Mike Richardson

            Haven’t heard of breeder reactors, have you? They can use fissile material broken down from first generation use in conventional reactors. They’re in use in France, but have the side effect of producing weapons grade plutonium, thus adding to the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation.

          • okiejoe

            If you want safe nuclear power we should dump Uranium and develop Thorium reactors, they have almost none of the problems of Uranium based reactors. The biggest reason Thorium has been ignored is that you can’t make weapons from it.

          • Wullum

            “The biggest reason Thorium has been ignored is that you can’t make weapons from it.”

            Just curious, since I have never seen or heard this mentioned before…is this based on facts that you can substantiate, or just your opinion?

            My understanding is that we currently have a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons. If this is the case, then the Thorium argument doesn’t sound credible.

          • Steve Hufferd

            Don’t take this wrong…but you’re talking about a means for resolving the so-called “population problem”. This is a great dialogue, you guys. Makes me want to go buy a physics book. Really.

          • Mike Richardson

            By what? Nuclear war? I think I’d rather see the problem solved more humanely, by, I don’t know, raising the standard of living in the developing world, increasing literacy and equality for women, and ensuring cheap access to birth control, things that have dropped birth rates in the developed world already. That seems a little better than a nuclear Hobbesian solution to overpopulation, but that’s just my opinion.

          • Steve Hufferd

            I was being facetious when I spoke about resolving the “population problem”. In written dialogue, it maybe didn’t come across that way.

        • Steve Hufferd

          Isn’t that what is being discussed here, as to whether the water used for fracking would be usable for drinking or ag? I don’t really know. I also don’t know why fracking water could never be conditioned for consumption–since sewer water can be purified for consumption. Condensation is a wonderful thing, whether it is from rain or mechanical means.

          • Mike Richardson

            Wouldn’t it just be easier not to contaminate it in the first place? Then expend more energy to clean it back up to make it safe for consumption. That would seem to be a more sensible, “conservative” solution, right?

          • Steve Hufferd

            I’m not so sure it would be all that much easier. Engineers in this country have accomplished some really amazing things, and without the force of government. There’s much to be said for preparation and adapting. Private generators is a start. Then using those generators for a wide range of uses- like compressors that squeeze water from the air.

    • okiejoe

      What we are really going to have to cut back on is — people. There are just too dam many of us and getting worse every day.

      • Steve Hufferd

        The only reason there is an increase in our population here is because of immigration–legal and illegal. The reproduction rate here is now insufficient to sustain itself. The population fear is pretty well worn out. China, Russia, and Europe are headed for problems with declining populations–but there’s a population segment that is growing all over–I’ll let you guess which one it is.

        • biju

          The name of population that is growing all over is RELIGIOUS FANATICS. WE have plenty of them here too

          • Steve Hufferd

            On that point, we agree. But many of those same fanatics are bent on annihilating a couple of countries, one of them being ours. So I guess it balances out the population “problem”.

      • Max

        Ok, do your part and set an example. No? Oh, I see- you meant ‘cut back on’ OTHER people.

  • Odd1

    Water shortage swometimes caused by people full of hot air.

  • henry_twentytwo

    If you look at how much water going to southern California goes to agriculture versus human consumption you’d be shocked. The VAST majority of Colorado river water goes to the Imperial Valley. When push finally comes to shove, who will get priority?? People in LA, or people like me who want avocados in NYC in winter??

    • Steve Hufferd

      Good point. But I thought there were many parched grounds in wide regions of Northern California–vegetable-growing areas.

  • Chalene Mueller
  • Dan Poisson

    How much to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the upper reaches of Lake Powell ? Paid for by a users tax over 20 years. Or pray for rain .

    • okiejoe

      You need a lot of power to pump that much water over the Rocky Mountains.

      • Steve Hufferd

        Who says you have to go OVER the Rocky Mts.? Drilling engineering has come a long way in a hundred years. What’s wrong with piping water down from lower elevations in Alaska? The runoff from glaciers is fresh water… just say’in.

  • Wullum

    Our dynamic climatology is primarily the result of ongoing and natural-occurring geological cycles of which we have no control. We should, as a people, consider the long-term implications of this actuality by conserving and protecting our limited natural resources. Fresh water will eventually become the “new oil” in the near future. We should take forward-thinking steps now to mitigate this issue that will eventually change the geological dynamics of America as we know it.

    • Steve Hufferd

      It strikes me that there seems to be evidence of an imbalance of precipitation. I understand that it’s too wet in the east, and too dry in the west. Ice cover is shrinking in the arctic, and expanding in the antarctic. The Earth has undergone magnetic reversals in the distant past, along with seismic climate changes. Does anybody have any ideas as to why we should be seeing such reversals? Please… If anybody says “global warming”, I’m going to gag.

      • Wullum

        Hey, Steve. The simple answer is that the earth’s geology is dynamic, under constant change of natural forces.

        I suspect that this constant climatological flux has, as a consequence, resulted in an undetermined amount of (sorry) global warming. I further surmise that the effect of man-made, carbon-induced global warming also contributes to the changes you mentioned, but arguably to a lesser degree of magnitude. We can attempt to control the latter, but Mother Nature will always have her way with us.

    • Steve Hufferd

      Mr. Wullum– it’s refreshing to read such an intelligent, simple, objective, realistic comment. Thank you. And I mean that. You are right about dynamic processes evidenced through a variety of age dating methods, along with plate tectonics. Yes. There’s a multitude of climate changing variables, the least of which is the sun.

  • Steve Gresham

    Look at all the new homes being built..all with new grass and also all the parks all with grass. Also all the water trucks used at all construction sites. And to top it all off..all the extra people here in California. Rediculus!!!

    • Steve Hufferd

      Well, hey.. You’ve got the balmy weather. ‘can’t have everything..isn’t there always a downside, no matter where you live? I asked real estate agent why properties are so much higher in Iowa than in Texas, and all I got was a blank stare. It could be because they are building more houses there (in Texas) than in Iowa—but what do I know. I just sold a 12- yr old property in TX for a pittance. The real estate agent walked away with more than I did.

  • Douglas Hotchkiss

    If they can build a pipeline for oil they can for water, sounds like the east has too much , i think its already been discussed eh

  • Aria Theiro

    That last graph is incredibly misleading. The scale at the bottom went from 100 years to 10 year.

  • beleive

    What Happen to the NAWAPA plan that was done in the 60’s?
    It would give us all the water we need not only in southwest,but
    also to the Great lakes, and, the mississippi, and, would give us millions of jobs and more recreation areas.

  • beleive

    What hapen to the WANAPA plan thats was done in the60’s?
    That would have gave us water not only to the southwest,but also
    to the greatlakes and the mississippi. And would giive us millions of
    of needed jobs & recreation areas.

    • RET

      NAWAPA plan

  • Ian Kerr

    Good thing your first out of teh gate candidate is a climate change denier, he didn’t need votes from the west anyway, they won’t be around in a few years.

  • jhosmer

    Funny that I never hear this scenario discussed. Canada actually has ample supplies of fresh water. Sufficient, in fact, to deal with the entire North American population. There will be several stages. Commercial beverage companies are already there, causing a fair amount of angst among the Canadians. Eventually, we’ll be clamoring for Canada-U.S. water pipelines (which the GOP will stonewall to get even for Keystone XL). Ultimately, though, the pipelines will be put in. We’ll also make significant progress with desalinization powered by solar or fusion power. Then, as climate change really takes hold, we’ll start a mass migration to the North and overwhelm the Canadians with illegal immigration.

  • susan shelby

    I am so tired of the blame game. It is what it is. Nature has been in force since the beginning of planet earth and blaming “us” is simply ridiculous.
    Blame is blah blah blah, BS so just adjust, like we all have to to the insane daylight saving time—-now THAT is manmade.

  • Bill

    The scientists have been warning of this for over 30 years. Yet the Democrats continued to not listen and they brought in more and more people. Now we use up so much water per day that we are in this position. And don’t forget the Agallalla Water shed is below 40% as well. 67% of all water used in America’s agriculture today comes from the Agallalla aquifer.

    So what is the Democrat’s solution to the problem of so little water?

    They want to give citizenship to the 12 million illegals already here rather than deport them, so that they can then sponsor in all their kids and family, and estimated total of 85 million more people.

    Quite a solution to a water shortage problem isn’t it? Bring in 97 million more people.

    In the 2030s it all boils over kids, the Agallalla goes dry and America dies. Let’s all say thank you Mexico, thank you Democrats.

  • James c> Hughes

    We need to move water not oil. We have not lost that much in millions of years. We need to move it to the northwest. The economics makes more since than a pipeline from the Artic Circle moving oil.

  • boonteetan

    Fresh, clean and drinkable water is no longer freely available or free. Save water, save earth and save our descendants.

  • beleive

    What you forgot to mention jen,yes it was hotter and the poles were green
    long ago, but, the carbon dioxide was higher also thats why it was hotter.
    and thats why we are getting hotter. They got the readings from ice core.
    from both poles. So the solution is in front of our face.

  • Lee Dwyer

    The Colorado river and the snow runoff is a finite resource and yet we use it as it is endless . Our increasing demand and limited resources are a recipe for disaster . We waste more water than most European countries use. The endless flow for golf courses and lawns combined with inefficient industrial and commercial use are creating an unsustainable demand . Our limited water and farmable land should be a tight guarded and protected resource. However our republican representatives want no regulation and feel that market economies will solve the supply and demand issues. What happens when we have a resource meltdown? Will there be some sort of bailout ? And as usual who do you think will pay the price.

    • OWilson

      Nonsense.

      Grade school children know that the water cycle, – heat, evaporation, water vapor, rainfall, collection, and we start it all over again.

      Nothing “finite” about it!

      • Mike Richardson

        Wilson, it is finite from year to year, and depending on the amount of snowfall in any given year, that finite amount can be significantly less than the amount of water that was planned for by the consumers of said resource. It really does need to be addressed in a thoughtful manner, rather than letting market forces work, unless you want to see a lot of small family-owned farms go under while government subsidized mega farms weather the storm and buy up those failed family farms. I think that’s something that people from all sides of the political spectrum can agree upon. For now, the west is in a severe drought situation, with no end in sight, and those who’ve used resources in a wise, conservative manner, should not be the first punished as a result of forces beyond their control.

        • Steve Hufferd

          Market forces have a much better record of ‘managing the economy’ than a group of bureaucratic managers. The market forces work to automatically adjust to changes in supply and demand. Bureaucrats have not been able to manage a bucket of sand. Even this fracking process was invented to alleviate the high demand for oil, and prices dropped, as did the price of Russian and Saudi oil. This sudden windfall in oil even surprised the oil suppliers, who are now in some financial straits. But Russia is desperate to complete their invasion of the Ukraine before they run out of money. Hey… I made that last bit up, but it’s probably close to being true.

        • OWilson

          The “Mega” farms are producing food for a hungry world at a rate than has never been seen.

          Your “family farm” can produce local produce, but we, in the third world, need “Mega” supplies to feed the world’s population.

    • Steve Hufferd

      I’m a lot more concerned about irresponsible nations acquiring the nuclear bomb and a delivery system. I’m concerned about a fanatical theocracy that has no particular reservations regarding a death wish, and who are driven by the desire to annihilate us. We’ll have an awful time in trying to adjust to the devastation of a nuclear holocaust.

  • MaryOlancho

    It is true that there have been drastic climate changes in the past. What makes this climate change dangerous is the speed of the change. Normally, it would take hundreds or thousands of years for change. The current change started with the industrial age and the burning of coal within the last 200 years. Life and nature usually have time to adjust. Not this time! What is scary is that billions of people live very close to sea level. Where are they going to go? That includes most of Florida, New Orleans, New York, Washington, DC, etc. A lot of the population on the west coast is basically living in a desert. Yet they try to live like there is not a water shortage. Back in the 1990’s, National Geographic wrote that every drop of the Colorado River was used 7 times. Now, I am sure it is more.

  • Perry

    There’s something really wrong with the scary graph in the article. It’s another deviation *away* from the mean, just like all of the failed climate models that didn’t predict The Pause of the last 15-20 years.

    There is a 65-year drought cycle in the Southwest. Apparently, nobody here is old enough to remember the Dust Bowl.

  • Lee Dwyer

    It is a simple equation. The river produces “x” gallons if water , we are constantly increasing consumption ( golf courses in Nevada) . Eventually we will tax the resource . We are changing habitats regularly which further impact the ecosystem. Nitrates in water . Australia chopping down of forest and impactin there water tables etc. We can all have out opinions but not chose the facts . There is overwhelming data , but more importantly why not be aware and ask the questions and take measures to ensure we have a sustainable future and a healthy planet .

  • pablocruize

    I have this theory that the weather changes from year to year and century to century.
    I know this is crazy, since obviously people like the Anazazi and Mayan’s must of had a way to warm the entire planet and cause their own ecosystem to change for the worse.
    We of course have a choice, we can spend trillions of dollars and rob this generation and the next and the next after that of prosperity for a chance to lower our carbon out-put and have a global impact of a couple percent!
    This of course shows how much smarter we are than the ancients.

  • Ray Franklin

    Perihelion and apihelion each occur once per year. What meaning are you using? 2.3 million miles closer out of a 93 million mile radius is about 2%. What is the scientific point of your statement?

    • Bill

      Hi Ray,

      Actually when I speak of the Earth’s Aphelion and Perihelion with regards to temperature changes, I’m speaking about Milankovic Cycles

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQSHxY5ZR6w

      You can learn a bit about them at this vid on YOUTUBE.

      The earth has inter-glacial Ages (retreating of the glaciers toward the poles), every 100,000 years due to the earth’s orbit becoming more elliptical over the 100,000 years. At 2.3 million miles further way the earth gets less heat and the glaciers advance towards the equator. When the earth moves back to a near circular orbit, the earth gets more sunlight and the glaciers retreat.

      You NEVER hear Man-Made-Global Warming frauds talk about the SCIENCE of global warming because it is totally natural and predates Human-kind, thus it isn’t us.

      Thanks the deep ice core, and ocean sediment drilling, we have a very accurate picture of temperature change over the last 600 million years. What these samples tell us, is there sin NO DIFFERENCE in the current warming trend than that which occurred during the past inter-glacial ages at the same point in the Milankovic Cycle.

      Which is why you NEVER hear the Man-Made-Global Warming frauds talk about the past Ice Ages and the past Inter-glacial Ages, they prove that man hasn’t changed anything.

      What is happening now is the same thing that happened in the past. Well within normal historic ranges.

      The last Ice Age didn’t end 12,500 years ago because mankind was polluting the air, the Earth had moved close enough to the sun to melt all that ice and snow, and the earth has continued to get closer. Current estimates are that the earth will reach its Perihelion orbit in 15,000 years from now. Which means 15,000 more years of warming. In the past cycles, the ocean was on average 18 to 26 feet higher.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5jfHzKDDJ8

      Here’s another vid its an hour long but it gives a lot more info about the Ice Ages and the Sea height and temperature changes in earth history. It is a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), documentary. Unlike in the US, The Europeans ahve FREE education even in College and Universities, so many more Europeans have advanced degrees and college educations, and so are much more anti-man made global warming. As such documentaries can be made there telling the truth

      AT 17 minutes in, they talk about the ice cores and explains what the tell us.

      Most important is that the cores tell us the Ice Ages are getting longer and colder as the earth’s orbit around the sun decays. In 5.1 billion years from now, the earth will leave the sun behind and go ff into space.

      At 26 minutes in it talks about the ancient coral reefs that shows where the sea levels were in North America.

      Corals are found 400 feet below the sea, 2 miles from the current coast of Florida, and 15 feet above sea levels miles in from the coast in Florida. These show how dramatically temperature, sea height and ice buildup has changed the shape of America. Importantly it shows that the Corals DIDN’T DIE BECAUSE TEMPERATURES CHANGED. They moved to new homes. Moving as temperatures changed from warmer to colder.

      • Ray Franklin

        Hi Bill, that’s a good explanation of the glaciation cycles, thanks. You might be interested in this study noted by Science News about the impact of CO2 on incident radiation levels over a much shorter time period (10 years). https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-confirm-amassing-co2-heats-earth%E2%80%99s-surface A 5% increase in CO2 increases incident radiation by 10% through absorption and re-radiation back toward Earth. The measurements agree with current theory for the amount of warming due to human added CO2.

        • Bill

          Hi Ray,

          Thanks for the heads up on the https://www.sciencenews.org/ar… article.

          The study doesn’t however support the conclusion they drew. This is what it says:

          “To uncover how large an effect recent CO2 increases have had on Earth’s energy balance, climate scientist Daniel Feldman of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and colleagues monitored the amount of thermal radiation hitting two sites in Alaska and Oklahoma on cloudless days. Because CO2 emits light within a signature range of wavelengths, the researchers could differentiate between energy balance changes caused by CO2 and those caused by other factors, such as water vapor.

          Over 10 years of near-daily observations, the team found that a rise in CO2 concentrations of 22 parts per million boosted the amount of incoming thermal radiation by 0.2 watts per square meter, an increase of about 10 percent. The researchers say their results agree with the theoretical predictions of CO2-driven warming used in simulations of future climate.”

          It is already well established that GHG in the atmosphere at the current levels, absorbs 5% of the outgoing thermal energy given off by the earth’s surface, and sends it back to the earth. This is the Greenhouse warming effect. The heat coming into the earth’s atmosphere from the sun and hitting the earth has this 5% added to it raising ambient air and surface temperatures. If you increase the number of molecules of GHGs in the atmosphere, the added molecules will absorb more thermal energy and send it back towards the earth.

          What these guys are not admitting to is all the heat energy that the GHG block out from entering the earths atmosphere.

          NASA reports that their satilite and ground based data tells us that 23% of the sun’s energy is blocked out by the GHGs in the atmosphere.

          Here’s a NASA web page that explains.

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

          Thus even before the sun can warm the earth, the GHG has cut the amount of heat reaching the earth by 23%.

          The GHG does trap some heat but only 5% of the heat given off by the earth’s surface, which isn’t much when you consider we’ve lost 23% of the sun’s heat to start.

          In order for GHGs to warm the planet, they have to trap in more heat than they keep out.
          But that is impossible. The earth simply can’t radiate as much heat as the sun. The sun is a big ball of burning gas, the earth is just a water covered rock floating in space. To get heat you have to burn a fuel, the earth doesn’t do that. It just radiates some of the heat it gets from the sun, not all of it, just some of it, very little of it in fact.

          • Ray Franklin

            Well, without the original data sets, I doubt either of us can draw any conclusions. However, as I read the report, the effects were measured directly. In light of that, I don’t see how you can discount the results from some other effect without discussing it directly with the researchers. In other words, we don’t have enough information to argue the validity of a study neither of us conducted.

          • Bill

            Hi Ray,

            Ray I don’t doubt their results, I agree with the result. I’ve argued all my life that increasing GHGs in the atmosphere will increase the amount of heat the GHGs can absorb and so increase their insulation capacity. It is their conclusion that I disagree with because it is impossible and unscientific.

            They are NOT saying GHG insulate and more GHG will insulate more, which is what I say. They are claiming, falsely, that GHG ONLY insulate heat leaving the earth’s atmosphere. While not hindering heat from the sun from entering the atmosphere thus, creating a heat gain for the earth. That is a lie. GHGs insulate all heat regardless of its direction.

            Incoming heat, outgoing heat, sideways coming heat, it makes no difference what the direction the heat has.

            When a photon of infrared energy strikes a GHG, it is absorbed and remitted by that molecule of GHG! That is the law that governs the universe. It can’t change.

            As NASA says, 23% of the incoming heat from the sun is blocked out by the earth’s GHG. If you increase the number of molecules of GHGs in the air, then more molecules will be able to trap more heat and so block out more heat from the sun, cooling the earth.

            The small amount of heat that the GHG will trap (5%) is not going to offset the much greater amount of heat the GHG block out (23%), so the NET effect is that GHG in the atmosphere cools the earth, and adding more GHG to the atmosphere will cool the earth even more.

            To warm the earth the GHG MUST absorb more exiting heat than it blocks from entering.

            If it captured as much heat as it blocked out, the Net effect would be zero, no change.
            If it captured more heat than it blocked out, THEN there would be NET warming. That however is impossible. The earth will never give off as much heat as it gets from the sun. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn’t work that way.

            What the Man Made Global Warmers are talking about is impossible, natural law makes it impossible. God would have to change the way the universe works first.

          • Ray Franklin

            Seems like a lot of holes in your logic. The experiment was only linking CO2 increases, not all GHG’s, to the increase in insolation at the surface. Whatever insulating effect occurs in the atmosphere above the surface is irrelevant. All such effects are already included in the measurements because they were taken at the surface.

            And if you think Milankovitch cycles can explain the recent and rapid increase in temperature, take a look at this article about our massive departure from the natural Milankovitch cycles. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

          • Bill

            How you doing Ray?

            Thanks for the OSS Foundation site.

            Well since you don’t say what experiment you are referring too, I’m in the dark. The article above doesn’t talk about an experiment, and I didn’t talk about one.

            …………………………………………………………………..

            “Whatever insulating effect occurs in the atmosphere above the surface is irrelevant.”

            Well I’d like to return you to the web site you cited to me.

            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atmospheric-aerosols

            “There are natural aerosols and aerosol pollutants. Combined, the total amount, and type, of aerosols affect the amount of atmospheric forcing imposed inside the climate system. This is because some aerosols help reflect sunlight back out into space. This reduces the amount of solar energy reaching the earth’s surface.”

            In the aerosol section they state clearly, that aerosols in the air reflect heat from the sun, back out into space, cooling the earth by reducing “the amount of solar energy reaching the earth’s surface.”

            The surface warming is totally dependent upon the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface, ergo all surface heating is dependent upon the sun heat getting to the surface, ro through the atmosphere.

            If mankind put a perfect insulator GHG into the air, then, being a perfect thermal insulator, all sun heat would be blocked out.

            Would the surface be warm with NO sun heat reaching the surface Ray? NO it would be ice cold with no heat from the sun.

            The difference between No heat reaching the earth and the 77% that does now, is only a matter of degree Ray. If we put more GHGs, more aerosols, more particulate matter, those molecules floating in the air will absorb incoming solar radiation and reflect it back out into space. Anthropogenic warming via GHG is IMPOSSIBLE. More GHG will block out more heat from the sun. There is no way around this point Ray.

            With out the sun’s heat the earth has no heat. If we block out that sun heat the earth gets less heat and is colder. A colder earth puts out less infrared radiation, reducing the Greenhouse Effect.

            ………………………………………………………………

            “And if you think Milankovitch cycles can explain the recent and rapid increase in temperature, take a look at this article about our massive departure from the natural Milankovitch cycles.”

            Ray, when did I say that?
            I said the earth has been warming up for the last 45,000 years BECAUSE of the Milankovic cycle. Which you, lacking a science education, had never heard of.
            As to the cause of the current warming trend, or any warming trend not caused by a Solar Maxim, cannot be explained. There are numerous factors. One big one are the CONVEYOR CURRENTS.
            Unlike surface currents like the GULF STREAM that carries warm Caribbean waters to northern Europe, conveyor currents take warm surface waters down into the deep ocean, while bringing up cold deep ocean waters in other areas. This process removes, and also adds heat to the atmosphere
            During the Ice Ages, the surface ocean waters give heat to the atmosphere at a rate greater than they absorb heat out of it, and so, slow the rate of cooling.
            During Inter-glacial ages, these colder oceans absorb heat out of the air and slow the rate of warming. However, the ability of the ocean to absorb and warm the air is dependent upon how much heat it has itself.
            Eventually, if an Ice Ages lasts long enough, the ocean will have no more heat to give.
            Likewise in Inter-glacial ages, eventually the ocean will warm up and not absorb so much heat.
            In 1972 NOAA announced that for the first time in the history that man-kind has been keeping records of the North Atlantic Ocean’s surface temperatures, the N. Atlantic had seen a RISE in its surface water temperature.
            The Little Ice Age had ended 177 years before, but it took this long for the North Atlantic (the smallest of the earth’s oceans), to warm up.
            The fact that temperatures rose means that the CONVEYOR CURRENTS were no longer bringing up deep ocean water cold enough to absorb all the heat, as such, the heat won, it raised the ocean’s surface waters.
            Over the 177 years of the CONVEYOR CURRENTS taking warm surface waters down into the deep, all that warm water had warmed the deep waters enough that their cooling effect was starting to disparate.
            In the 1980’s, as Al Gore noted, we started to get warmer.
            Eventually all the oceans will warm up enough that their surface waters will stop absorbing all the sun heat we are getting as we move closer to the sun, and so, the rate of warming will continue to increase. However, climatologists have knows of this for decades and have been expecting it.
            As the oceans warm they absorb less heat.
            BUT, all things warming on the earth depend on the sun’s heat reaching the surface.
            Clouds insulate so well that on overcast days temperatures drop a lot. If we put so much GHG into the atmosphere that they have the same insulating effect as an overcast sky, then every day will be cooler, not warmer.
            It makes no difference what insulator blocks out the sun, Clouds, aerosols, soot, or GHGs. The end is the same, a much cooler earth.
            Remember 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were killed off by an massive asteroid impact?
            The fires and ejecta from that put so much soot, and sulfur into the sky that it blocked out much of the sun’s heat and changed earth’s temperature. The cold blooded dinosaurs all froze to death!
            That is what happens when you block out the sun’s heat. The earth gets colder. GHGs, which include the sulfur -dioxide that that asteroid impact put up, will cool the earth as we put more into the air, they won’t warm the earth.
            The earth gets its heat from the sun Ray, you can’t get around that fact. Block out the sun it gets cold and you kill dinosaurs, block out enough you’ll kill everything.

          • Bill

            Hi Ray,

            As I was looking over more of that cite you quoted I found this bull big lie:

            “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

            NASA’s reports that only 5% of the infrared energy emitted by the earth is absorbed by the atmosphere. Remember, they said, 17% of the solar energy reaching the earth is converted into infrared energy and radiated out. 12% makes it out and the remaining 5% is absorbed by the atmosphere.

            They go on to lie some more:

            “In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable.”
            REally the sun seind in all that heat isn’t responsible for keeping uot earth wwarm and generally comfortable? That’s new.
            Of course they also tell the BIG LIE
            “Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change.”
            As you already know, because NASA told you so, GHG’s block out way more heat than they trap and the amount of heat that the earth gives off is directly related to how hot the surface gets.
            The WARMERS always talk about the secondary effect of the GHG in the air, they NEVER talk about the PRIMARY effect of the GHGs, they block out sun heat cooling the earth and reducing the amount of infrared energy it gives off.
            GHG warming is impossible!

  • franc182

    ..they are already planing to dig deeper intake ducts for Boulder Dam. Las Vegas……another western ghost town in the making ?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+