The Colorado River is drying up because of climate change, putting millions at risk of 'severe water shortages' - CNN

[flowerbug]

So, a thought just passed thru my pea brain.

We have scientists trying to prove what they believe is right with climate change. Wouldn't it be more productive for the scientists to work together to accomplish a practical solution instead of trying to prove they are right and the others are wrong?

part of the job of any scientist is to explain their efforts so it can be replicated. since there is no absolute proof of anything you have to look at the evidence and the reasoning, look at what the hypothesis was in the experiment, look at the data, look at the methods and then see if the evidence does support the conclusions.

so far there is about 40yrs of climate models which most are accurate enough in what they've predicted vs. the observed measurements that anyone who disregards that 40yrs should have 40yrs of equally impressive counter arguments and other observations and data which are even more accurate. so far, nobody does and i don't think it worth doing nothing while we keep studying the issues because we already can see the damage and changes coming about.

also, consider the accurate science that went into acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer, both of those issues showed that atmospheric science isn't just people off watching clouds, but actually capable of studying a problem and figuring it out and then solving it. until recently the destruction of the ozone layer was making progress in recovery (which will be on-going for many years yet, but it has improved from where it was before), but the measurements of the destructive chemicals being released into the air was found to be sensitive enough to find out that some areas of the world had recently been violating the agreements and so we also had a way to go find who was doing what and giving them a bit of a poke again. not sure yet that new release of harmful chemicals has been stopped but at least they have been put on notice...

 

[Mildog]

i'm sure i can find millions of scientists who would say otherwise. cherry picking scientific stuff published on the web isn't proof of much of anything other than you can use google.

I doubt you will find millions.. Don't cherry pick the other side either...So you can use google too LOOK IT UP it is an actual letter of record to the UN secretary General from Sept 2019 With 500 academics, scientists, PHD and professors from around the world ! Pretty solid names on it if you check. Are they any less smart than the ones saying otherwise? Only one place on the web I could find tries to dismiss it and it is a climate change believer site....
. But for a change look for stuff that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, look for stuff that doesn't fit what you want to hear it is out there as well and weigh all of it. Climate change is real always has been the question is how much do we impact it and how much can we Change it. I think Pollution of the earth air and water is a far bigger threat than Climate change and global warming whatever you want to call it. We should do all we can to protect the earth water air and oceans. Most current climate junk is about redistribution of wealth and all kinds of other stuff wrapped together even the authors of the Green new deal have said it is just a vehicle to promote change. FOLLOW THE MONEY many people have and will get rich from Climate Hysteria.

Having some fun here, there are all kind of opinions out there from people a lot smarter than I am on both sides. Just wise to take it all in and consider the sources. It is not absolute settled science for sure !

I hope all and their families are safe and best wishes for this current virus situation to pass with as little impact as possible. With Love and Peace out

 

[Mildog]

part of the job of any scientist is to explain their efforts so it can be replicated. since there is no absolute proof of anything you have to look at the evidence and the reasoning, look at what the hypothesis was in the experiment, look at the data, look at the methods and then see if the evidence does support the conclusions.

so far there is about 40yrs of climate models which most are accurate enough in what they've predicted vs. the observed measurements that anyone who disregards that 40yrs should have 40yrs of equally impressive counter arguments and other observations and data which are even more accurate. so far, nobody does and i don't think it worth doing nothing while we keep studying the issues because we already can see the damage and changes coming about.

also, consider the accurate science that went into acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer, both of those issues showed that atmospheric science isn't just people off watching clouds, but actually capable of studying a problem and figuring it out and then solving it. until recently the destruction of the ozone layer was making progress in recovery (which will be on-going for many years yet, but it has improved from where it was before), but the measurements of the destructive chemicals being released into the air was found to be sensitive enough to find out that some areas of the world had recently been violating the agreements and so we also had a way to go find who was doing what and giving them a bit of a poke again. not sure yet that new release of harmful chemicals has been stopped but at least they have been put on notice...

Not a great comparison with Acid rain a real proven problem with a real and proven cause and solution. Climate change has been happening for time and eternity and will continue with or without us. What actually causes it is multifaceted, that is a fact. How much man causes and or can mitigate it is the 64,000 dollar question.

 

[Squirrel]

part of the job of any scientist is to explain their efforts so it can be replicated. since there is no absolute proof of anything you have to look at the evidence and the reasoning, look at what the hypothesis was in the experiment, look at the data, look at the methods and then see if the evidence does support the conclusions.

so far there is about 40yrs of climate models which most are accurate enough in what they've predicted vs. the observed measurements that anyone who disregards that 40yrs should have 40yrs of equally impressive counter arguments and other observations and data which are even more accurate. so far, nobody does and i don't think it worth doing nothing while we keep studying the issues because we already can see the damage and changes coming about.

also, consider the accurate science that went into acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer, both of those issues showed that atmospheric science isn't just people off watching clouds, but actually capable of studying a problem and figuring it out and then solving it. until recently the destruction of the ozone layer was making progress in recovery (which will be on-going for many years yet, but it has improved from where it was before), but the measurements of the destructive chemicals being released into the air was found to be sensitive enough to find out that some areas of the world had recently been violating the agreements and so we also had a way to go find who was doing what and giving them a bit of a poke again. not sure yet that new release of harmful chemicals has been stopped but at least they have been put on notice...

Bug, I enjoy your comments and will continue to read them. Please start your sentences with a capital letter so my old eyes can see where your next sentence starts. Sq

 

[Outside]

Not a great comparison with Acid rain a real proven problem with a real and proven cause and solution. Climate change has been happening for time and eternity and will continue with or without us. What actually causes it is multifaceted, that is a fact. How much man causes and or can mitigate it is the 64,000 dollar question.

The cause is co2 being trapped in the atmosphere on a massive scale beginning with the industrial revolution creating the greenhouse effect that is jacking with climate, no bueno.

 

[Dave I.]

part of the job of any scientist is to explain their efforts so it can be replicated. since there is no absolute proof of anything you have to look at the evidence and the reasoning, look at what the hypothesis was in the experiment, look at the data, look at the methods and then see if the evidence does support the conclusions.

so far there is about 40yrs of climate models which most are accurate enough in what they've predicted vs. the observed measurements that anyone who disregards that 40yrs should have 40yrs of equally impressive counter arguments and other observations and data which are even more accurate. so far, nobody does and i don't think it worth doing nothing while we keep studying the issues because we already can see the damage and changes coming about.

also, consider the accurate science that went into acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer, both of those issues showed that atmospheric science isn't just people off watching clouds, but actually capable of studying a problem and figuring it out and then solving it. until recently the destruction of the ozone layer was making progress in recovery (which will be on-going for many years yet, but it has improved from where it was before), but the measurements of the destructive chemicals being released into the air was found to be sensitive enough to find out that some areas of the world had recently been violating the agreements and so we also had a way to go find who was doing what and giving them a bit of a poke again. not sure yet that new release of harmful chemicals has been stopped but at least they have been put on notice...

Again, here it is for your enjoyment:

50 Years of Failed Global Warming Doomsday Predictions

pjmedia.com

What was done to prevent the acid rain prediction? Taxes were collected and laws were passed but they were minimal and ONLY in the USA. What was done about the Ozone hole? Taxes were collected and hairspray got a new propellant ONLY in the USA.

Anyone ever hear how the EPA punished themselves for the toxic mine water dumped into the Colorado River back in 2015? hmmm. I'm sure scientific studies were done on it, but nothing was done about it, and that is the case with probably 90% of the scientific studies.

But, like it's been said, for every scientific study you find to support your opinion another 3 will pop up saying the opposite and it goes both ways. They all say their right but yet, for the last 50 years, they have all been wrong. Go figure. Now, they are just playing it safe and calling it "Global/Climate Change". They know they can't get that wrong because the earth has been doing it for millions of years. You can find scientific evidence going in 20 different directions to match what you believe and discuss it all you want, but there are going to be others that disagree because they have their scientific proof that they believe also.

Point being, ANY scientific study is just that, a study. Unless there are real actions following the study, all it is are arguing points to try to get your view across. That's it. Actions need to happen to be able to make the necessary changes for the planet. Studies alone don't do squat except prove a point, and that goes for both sides.

 

[Havalina]

This is a side note, but I looked up population growth of Arizona and it grew by 120,000 people for 2018-2019. Then if you look at average water usage. A family of four uses 300 gallons of water per day in Arizona. That is alot of water usage that is increasing on an annual basis.

 

[scubatim]

This is a side note, but I looked up population growth of Arizona and it grew by 120,000 people for 2018-2019. Then if you look at average water usage. A family of four uses 300 gallons of water per day in Arizona. That is alot of water usage that is increasing on an annual basis.

Just FYI - when we (and the government funding agencies) plan for household water use - a standard volume ( especially for determining safe yield of wells) is 80 gal/day/person. In house use of course, does not account for blue grass, swimming pools etc. So a family of 4 SHOULD be able to get by on 300- 400 gpd. How much do you all use??

 

[Havalina]

You misread we are talking the same facts. I am coming up with roughly 10, 081 acre ft per year for a population growth of 120,000 folks per year in Arizona. That is alot of increasing water consumption. Now granted there are 24,322,000 acre ft in Lake Powell when it is full. It defiantly starts adding up and at what point does the water demand out pace supply? I see this as a bigger threat than global warming. Then considering that 40,000,000 people and growing depend on the Colorado. I don’t see the lake ever filling again global warming or not.

 

[Outside]

You misread we are talking the same facts. I am coming up with roughly 10, 081 acre ft per year for a population growth of 120,000 folks per year in Arizona. That is alot of increasing water consumption. Now granted there are 24,322,000 acre ft in Lake Powell when it is full. It defiantly starts adding up and at what point does the water demand out pace supply? I see this as a bigger threat than global warming. Then considering that 40,000,000 people and growing depend on the Colorado. I don’t see the lake ever filling again global warming or not.

That's the problem, warming is just adding more stress to all the maxed-out systems, ---water crisis, ecosystems, agriculture, global poverty, civil wars, famine, drought, fires, mega storms,,,, its all connected

 

[JFRCalifornia]

Just FYI - when we (and the government funding agencies) plan for household water use - a standard volume ( especially for determining safe yield of wells) is 80 gal/day/person. In house use of course, does not account for blue grass, swimming pools etc. So a family of 4 SHOULD be able to get by on 300- 400 gpd. How much do you all use??

I'd agree with that per household water use estimate. Here in the CA planning world, a rule of thumb is about 0.25 AF/household/year...and an average household size of about 2.8 people (varies a lot depending on location and household type)... which is about 80/gal/day/person... which assumes drought-tolerant landscaping, low flow toilets, etc...

 

[JBinNM]

All this talk for 50+ years. In the 70's we were all going to freeze to death.

What's the solution to this 'problem'? (There isn't one.)
What should the temperature be?
Would climate change (do they still call it that?) still be a concern if the Yellowstone super-volcano blew? A meteor hit? A virus developed in a lab was unleashed (er...)?
Is there perhaps an agenda being pushed?

If everyone held their breath for 30 minutes, CO2 would drastically reduce and the problem would just go away. (Can't help myself)

Which do you choose:
Enjoy your limited time on this earth
Worry endlessly about something you can literally do nothing about. Nothing.

Am I a skeptic? You bet, that boy has cried wolf too many times.

Just one man's opinion. Your mileage may vary. See you on the lake.

 

[Oregano]

It's refreshing to find a civil and thoughtful discussion via this forum on two of my passions - Lake Powell and science.

After years of hiking its shores, boating its side canyons and fishing its inlets, I embrace Lake Powell as a precious resource but a transient one. Nothing about it is natural, and nature will eventually reclaim it, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Powell was born from science, technology, and tunnel vision - sort of a metaphor for our precarious modern society. We've built a house of cards, and as overallocation, population growth, and climate change poke at the edges, Powell will of course eventually return what water it has to the sea.

None of that is wrong or bad, just inevitable, and that's ok. Name a past civilization or human endeavor that has not eventually gone down the same road.

That's Lake Powell. What about science? How can we know why resources change? And how it works?

Science is a method to clear the fog, to get closer to the truth, to connect us to all that was and is, and to show us how it works. It's imperfect. Full of stops and starts, inching forward, circling back. But there is no better tool in the box. No other method has anywhere close to its track record. It's a double-edged sword, but the power it wields is undeniable.

I'm an atmospheric scientist, trained in physics and the scientific method. Here's how I learned to put science to work, building on a 400-year-old legacy: Observe something, wonder how and why, test your idea, repeat the test, have others poke at your idea, explore all angles, keep at it for years, build expertise, do the hard work, throw away opinion and wishful thinking, set aside anecdote and contrarianism, and compete with the best in the world. You're then a bit closer to the truth. Then, repeat it all again. What survives are the fittest ideas. Science put the Sun at the center, revealed the interconnection of all life, unleashed the Industrial Revolution, gave us cures for disease, put people on the moon, weaved the electronic web of knowledge, and gave us easy access to it. Science is indifferent to the outcome. We decide how to use, or to ignore, the knowledge gained. Vaccines, general relativity, and DNA are not political ideas, though they upset some people.

That the release of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of a warming world is an idea not at all in debate in the scientific community. We're working on the details. We are still learning how regional climate is altered. Still understanding the feedbacks with the biosphere and ice-covered regions. But the big picture is clear. Perturb the climate by injecting a massive carbon source and it will respond. Heat builds up most where polar sea ice melts, letting the ocean absorb and retain that heat. This alters the patterns of jet stream winds, bringing more extremes in weather where most people live. Some places warm a lot, others less. More rain here, less there. The southwest U.S. is drying out with less snowpack, and though a warmer world plays a role, there is more to learn on how it will play out. But globally the trends are clear and easily understandable - add a lot of carbon to the air and you get a warmer, wetter world. There is no debate about that, no data inconsistent with that hypothesis.

Don't go to opinion or politics for science. Don't talk to an interest group or someone who profits from opinion. Don't google a graphic, cherry pick a fact, or search for a convenient quote. Go to the body of work of the global community of scientists. Look for summaries of the big picture from scientific societies, statements of the settled part of climate science based on a massive body of work, and acknowledgement of what's left to learn. Here are a few, from the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, European Geosciences Union. These aren't political statements, guesses, or opinions. These are our best current ideas, built with the strength of collaboration and expertise rather than wishful thinking or political influence.

Climate Change

(Adopted by the AMS Council on 15 April 2019)

www.ametsoc.org

Position Statement on Climate Change - AGU

Climate change & its impacts

EGU, the European Geosciences Union, is Europe’s premier geosciences union, dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the Earth, planetary, and space sciences for the benefit of humanity, worldwide.

www.egu.eu

 

[JFRCalifornia]

Welcome to the forum Oregano!... great thoughts and insight... thanks for clarifying the nature and role of science in this discussion and the bigger picture...

 

[Outside]

" Here are a few, from the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, European Geosciences Union. These aren't political statements, guesses, or opinions. These are our best current ideas, built with the strength of collaboration and expertise rather than wishful thinking or political influence."

Thanks for the links, very informative and timely, but seems like conservative scenarios based on our current trajectory, hope I'm wrong

 

[Dave I.]

Did everyone miss the simple fact that everything we use in today's world contributes to carbon emissions? If there is any question, just remember the Beijing Olympics or visit Salt Lake City during a Winter inversion. These are full effects of pollution

Point being, Pollution IS NOT going away. You can not burn CO2. But we burn plenty of things to create green house gasses. Great strides have been made for cleaner air but as the population rises, so does the demand for manufactured goods and the demand for oil.

I find it ironic that tire companies are working on an "airless tire" but nothing is being done about a "green tire". They are still made from a petroleum product. If you have anything to do with any kind of tire, you are part of the global warming problem. I am not throwing stones, I have plenty of tires here.

Sadly, I will probably not see a solution in my lifetime. Nor will my kids. Only way to get rid of green house gasses is to return to the 1800's and I'm willing to bet my life savings that will not happen. But we have plenty of "scientific studies" to tell us how we are screwing up the planet and predicting when the world is going to end.

Don't y'all know that the Corona Virus Is going to kill us all long before that? HAHA

 

[Dave I.]

Climate change & its impacts

EGU, the European Geosciences Union, is Europe’s premier geosciences union, dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the Earth, planetary, and space sciences for the benefit of humanity, worldwide.

www.egu.eu

[/QUOTE]

And what we have here is another study to prove a point. The majority of Methane does not come from livestock, it comes from the earth. Having worked in underground environments, I know first hand how plentiful methane is within our earths crust.

One volcano eruption emits more methane in one event than all the livestock on earth will produce in 5 years. I read a scientific study that said this!

Methane.... Yet another byproduct of Gas and oil

 

[birdsnest]

All this fear for mankind dying out from global warming and in the meantime we get blindsided by a global pandemic. The irony is deep.

 

[birdsnest]

i'm sure i can find millions of scientists who would say otherwise. cherry picking scientific stuff published on the web isn't proof of much of anything other than you can use google.

Isn't that the point trying to be made here? It's not the millions of scientists that would say otherwise, it's the other millions that disagree with the other millions. Wow, that almost hurt my brain writing that but I am not a scientist. Probably half of the ones who say they are aren't either.

 

[John P Funk]

What should the temperature be?

Nail on the head, what is the best temperature for this bright blue marble? Is it cooler than what we see today, is it warmer, what criteria do we use? All indications are that a warmer climate will be of net benefit to most. Obviously oceanfront properties will suffer, but we are a mobile and adaptable species. I don't see the need to lock the third world into permanent poverty in an incredibly expensive effort to maintain a temperature that may or may not be optimal.