Quote:

---

BERKELEY, Calif. --

Government forecasters predicted Thursday that the weather system known as El Nino could return this year. It could bring much-needed rain to the West. Ninety-five percent of California is in drought, and some scientists are now warning of a megadrought.

Scientist Lynn Ingram, author of "The West without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climatic Clues Tell Us about Tomorrow," uses sediment cores inside tubes to study the history of drought in the West.

"We've taken this record back about 3,000 years," Ingram says.

That record shows California is in one of its driest periods since 1580. While a three-to-five-year drought is often thought of as being a long drought, Ingram says history shows they can be much longer.

"If we go back several thousand years, we've seen that droughts can last over a decade, and in some cases, they can last over a century," she says.

The evidence of these so-called "megadroughts" is found in San Francisco Bay. Ingram and her team at the University of California Berkeley remove the sediment from the bay and nearby marshes.

"What you notice is that the vegetation shifts to more salt-tolerant type vegetation," she says. That's because during drought, there is less fresh water runoff into the bay. Tree rings on ancient tree stumps tell the same story: narrow or non-existent rings during decades of drought.

"These patterns tend to repeat themselves," Ingram says. "I mean, we can expect that this will happen again."

Scientists say their research shows the 20th century was one of the wettest centuries in the past 1,300 years. During that time, we built massive dams and rerouted rivers. We used abundant water to build major cities and create a $45 billion agriculture industry in a place that used to be a desert.

---

Quote:

---

I think it's every citizen's responsibility to question the messenger, don't you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I feel badly for dead mammal flesh-addicts.

---

Quote:

---

Virtually every city in the region experienced unprecedented temperatures, with Phoenix, Arizona, as usual, leading the march towards unliveable conditions. This past summer, the so-called Valley of the Sun set a new record of 33 days when the mercury reached a shoe-melting 110 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. (The previous record of 32 days was set in 2007.)

And here's the bad news in a nutshell: If you live in the Southwest or just about anywhere in the American West, you or your children and grandchildren could soon enough be facing the "Age of Thirst", which may also prove to be the greatest water crisis in the history of civilisation. No kidding.

If that gets you down, here's a little cheer-up note: The end is not yet nigh.

In fact, this year the weather elsewhere rode to the rescue, and the news for the Southwest was good where it really mattered. Since January, the biggest reservoir in the United States, Lake Mead, backed up by the Hoover Dam and just 30 miles southwest of Las Vegas, has risen almost 40 feet. That lake is crucial when it comes to watering lawns or taking showers from Arizona to California. And the near 40-foot surge of extra water offered a significant upward nudge to the Southwest's water reserves.

The Colorado River, which the reservoir impounds, supplies all or part of the water on which nearly 30 million people depend, most of them living downstream of Lake Mead in Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson, Tijuana, and scores of smaller communities in the US and Mexico.

Back in 1999, the lake was full. Patricia Mulroy, who heads the water utility serving Las Vegas, rues the optimism of those bygone days. "We had a fifty-year, reliable water supply", she says. "By 2002, we had no water supply. We were out. We were done. I swore to myself we'd never do that again."

In 2000, the lake began to fall - like a boulder off a cliff, bouncing a couple of times on the way down. Its water level dropped a staggering 130 feet, stopping less than seven feet above the stage that would have triggered reductions in downstream deliveries. Then - and here's the good news - last winter, it snowed prodigiously up north in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The spring and summer run-off from those snowpacks brought enormous relief. It renewed what we in the Southwest like to call the "Hydro-Illogic" cycle: when drought comes, everybody wrings their hands and promises to institute needed reform, if only it would rain a little. Then the drought breaks or eases and we all return to business as usual, until the cycle comes around to drought again.

So don't be fooled. One day, perhaps soon, Lake Mead will renew its downward plunge. That's a given, the experts tell us. And here's the thing: the next time, a sudden rescue by heavy snows in the northern Rockies might not come. If the snowpacks of the future are merely ordinary, let alone puny, then you'll know that we really are entering a new age.

And climate change will be a major reason, but we'll have done a good job of aiding and abetting it. The states of the so-called Lower Basin of the Colorado River - California, Arizona and Nevada - have been living beyond their water means for years. Any departure from recent decades of hydrological abundance, even a return to long-term average flows in the Colorado River, would produce a painful reckoning for the Lower Basin states. And even worse is surely on the way.

Just think of the coming Age of Thirst in the American Southwest and West as a three-act tragedy of Shakespearean dimensions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, what should we DO?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey rappy, thanks for bumping the thread.

The question still stands: What do we DO?

---

Quote:

---

BTW I just saw an interesting program indicating beavers make good water reservoir builders in areas where snow is no longer a viable water storage means due to high temperatures and melting.

---

Quote:

---

I am not avoiding the message UNLESS I think the messenger has a bias or an agenda for slanting the facts.

---

Quote:

---

Do you trust FOX?

---

Quote:

---

That's why it's important to know who you are reading, do they have a conclusion they are back filling to support? I don't know you and I am skeptical of your motives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
C

Small fry in the long run when its business and agriculture which consume far and away the greatest amounts of water.

---

Quote:

---

No - I even stated very simply so there would be no question, that I QUESTION every messenger.

---

Quote:

---

No. I don't depend on others, that's kind of the whole point of being wary of sources, innit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I feel badly for dead mammal flesh-addicts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
I can't believe that you don't question who is telling you what? You believe Ted Cruz?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's entirely within the realm of possibility that Ted Cruz might possibly someday accidentally allow truth to escape his lips. Truth is not owned by the speaker of it, the speaker merely passes it on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
he is like a broken digital calendar. Right once a year.... IF it happens to be plugged in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So far, CA has reacted to the historic drought as if it were a one-time event. Early measurements indicate a significant El Nino brewing in the Pacific, and some long-range forecasters are pinning their hopes on significant rainfall this coming winter. But El Nino does NOT reliably deliver rainfall, and when it does deliver, it's only to Southern CA.

Our Water Management District- the agency which measures and regulates the groundwater under southern LA County- has increased the amount of treated sewage water being pumped into the aquifers by 7 million gallons per year, to a total of 23 million gallons.

And 23 million gallons per year sounds like a LOT, until you realize that the service area includes about 3 million people. That means a supply of about 7 gallons per person per year. Which, in those terms, isn't a heckuva lot.

If we're facing a long-term drought, what should we do?

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
he is like a broken digital calendar. Right once a year.... IF it happens to be plugged in.

---

I'd agree to that. Point is, that truth is truth. I've heard Rappy say some true stuff at times. Yes, he is a really lousy source, and he gets his political programming from really lousy sources, but when he says Firefly is a good show, what should we say? Oh, that's the Rapturd talkin' so Firefly might not really be that good-?

I'm with Signy on this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
We have few squirrels here. But we DO have opossums. And raccoons. And tree rats.

Personally, if you have the room and the city allows, I've heard that keeping some chickens in the backyard is a good source of protein, and they keep your garden bug-free without chemicals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:


The number I keep hearing is that 80 % of the water in California is used for agriculture. Which makes all of the bitching we do about swimming pools and green lawns in the desert a, well, a drop in the bucket. Even though I love to bitch about 'em too.

Time for agribusiness to get serious about low water farming. After all, the ag business is about money, not people's lives. 'Course, money talks, and big money, like ag-biz, talks really loud when your local Congressman is up for sale.

---

Quote:

---

In 2009–10, the Agriculture industry was by far the largest consumer of water, accounting for 52% of total water consumption in that year. The Water supply, sewerage and drainage services industry and Household sector were the next highest (14% each), followed by the Manufacturing industry (5%).

The Agriculture industry consumed 6,987 GL of water in 2009–10. Sheep, beef cattle and grain farming had the highest consumption within the Agriculture industry, with 2,649 GL (or 38% of the industry’s consumption). An estimated 2% (126 GL) of total agricultural water use was actually re-use water. Nursery and floriculture production consumed the highest percentage of re-use water at 7% of their total water consumption, followed by Mushroom and vegetable growing at 3% of their total water consumption.

The Mining industry accounted for 4% (489 GL) of water consumption by Australian industry in 2009–10, with Metal ore mining consuming the greatest amount (298 GL or 61%) of the water consumed by this industry.

In 2009–10, the Electricity, gas, water and waste services industry was the largest extractor of water from the environment, taking 49,793 GL. However, because 99.7% of this is in-stream use for hydro-electric power generation, the industries only actually consumed 297 GL or 2% of Australia's total water consumption.

Total water consumption in Australia fell by 28% between 2004–05 and 2009–10, from 18,767 GL to 13,476 GL, with household water consumption falling by 11% to 1,868 GL over the same time period. The decline in water consumption over this time period is indicative of reduced rainfall and drought conditions affecting water availability, particularly in southern and eastern parts of Australia.

In 2008–09, there was a large difference in the average amount paid for supplied water by different parts of the economy – households on average paid $1.93 per 1,000 litres (kL) and agricultural businesses $0.12 per kL.

---

Quote:

---

Grazing accounts for just over half of all land use. Environmental issues associated with sheep and cattle grazing include habitat loss, surface soil loss, salinity, and soil and water quality issues. Drought condition in 2002–03 exacerbated soil loss, leading to the highest dust storm activity since the 1960s (Endnote 1).

Vast areas of native vegetation have been cleared since Europeans first settled in Australia in 1788.

Since 1990, although land clearing has continued, the rate of forest land conversion has decreased by more than one-third or 182.6 thousand hectares. The figures do not distinguish between the clearance of native or non-native vegetation.

The clearance of native vegetation is a significant threat to terrestrial biodiversity. Other threats to biodiversity include deterioration of soil and water quality, increased prevalence of dryland salinity, the spread of weeds and feral pests and climate change.

Australia's biodiversity is unique and globally significant, with Australia being home to many endemic plants and animals, that is, they are found nowhere else in the world. Australia is recognised as one of only 17 'mega-diverse' countries, with ecosystems of great biological significance. This group of mega-diverse countries covers less than 10% of the global surface, but supports more than 70% of the earth's biological diversity.

Land clearing also has implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Refer to pages on greenhouse gases in the Atmosphere section.

---

Quote:

---

So... what I said 50 posts ago - check.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
In Signym's case, I'm curious why Signym goes from one Large event to another and tries to explain them very diligently and with some great deal of effort. It's as if she HAS to explain them. Why? What motivates her brain to work that way? Please no snarky replies like, "'cuz she's a responsible citizen!" There's something else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think G is soft trolling here. Move along....

---

"Soft trolling" great phrase, never heard it before, but no. Is it so much to ask to have people read and understand someone's posts? Wouldn't that be a kind of soft trolling? Ignoring the substance of what others say? You admit yourself that you don't understand what I type, and yet when I offer an explanation you disappear, no answer, which is far more interesting to me than "Kiev might or might not be doing xyz."
I'm more interested in that other kind of discussion - one that tries to understand why people post what they do and believe the way they do - more than the threads that try and speculate, say they know what will happen in x political/world event. I'm curious why Chris and AU and Jongs (and formally Niki) have the posting relationship they have had for so many years. One that seems unchanged, frustrating, counter productive and yet could go on as long as all 3 are posting.

---

Quote:

---

I'm more interested in that other kind of discussion - one that tries to understand why people post what they do and believe the way they do - more than the threads that try and speculate, say they know what will happen in x political/world event. I'm curious why Chris and AU and Jongs (and formally Niki) have the posting relationship they have had for so many years. One that seems unchanged, frustrating, counter productive and yet could go on as long as all 3 are posting.
In Signym's case, I'm curious why Signym goes from one Large event to another and tries to explain them very diligently and with some great deal of effort. It's as if she HAS to explain them. Why? What motivates her brain to work that way? Please no snarky replies like, "'cuz she's a responsible citizen!" There's something else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I find your focus on the "why" of people's postings to be somewhat myopic. I could describe to WHY I think people post the way they do, but that misses the point. But I will give you my interpretation of you: You must be terribly comfortable. Wealthy enough not to worry about the future, because you feel your future is already assured. So ideas like- IF we don't respond effectively to population growth and global climate change in the next twenty years, we're screwed - don't have any impact. You apparently can't imagine anything really changing, and so you feel free to focus on irrelevant issues.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
7 billion people is already too much- we're well beyond the capacity of the earth to recycle our carbon dioxide and nitrogen. We are PRESENTLY in another Great Extinction, one we've created ourselves. 10 billion is uninhabitable. If we MUST have children, stop at one. Whether we think it's achievable or not, given our cultures and habits*, it will be achieved for us.

*Just another failed intelligence test. I guess we're not a very intelligent species after all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, what I'm hearing you say is that it is impossible for people to unbury their heads from their asses long enough to take a good look around, think to themselves Yoiks! This isn't working!, and try something new? In other words, we're wedded to our habit-driven, culture-driven, propaganda-driven way of thinking, even if it takes us over a cliff?

---