$100 billion is a lot of money in other than military endeavors! Perhaps we could have another thread here on how much of that goes to satellite development/launching/ data analysis, vs. money spend only on the ground. I don't blame researchers one bit either. mojo=me. But I have the notion that they lie awake at night trying to make their work more accurate, not about a house in the Hamptons or a more powerful car. As such I presume them to be more like me. Would take it as a great kindness if mojo would back away from 'whore' @20. His industry (gemstones) is based on artificial scarcity, which does not provide much support for attacking others' motives.
I'm not sure what that $100B is but this is the tree ring lab Tree-Ring Lab History | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory tens of millions I could believe, but it doesn't look like a very expensive Now we do have a couple expensive tools the NASA GRACE satellites launched in 2002 and expected to work on a 5 year mission. This study was not the original intent, but isn't it great that we can use that great hardware that is still working. The replacements will probably be launched in 2017, I'm not sure how much they will cost, perhaps you can provide a more manageable estimate. I think if Cook wated to make a lot of money he would have chosen a different field. He does have his name in text books now though ;-)
Actually, I was not really wanting to generate criticism of any statement you made but state an alternate perspective on statistics relating to policy based on you bringing up the subject. A 100 year flood can have human contributions providing as much or more than natural contributions whereas statistics makes it appear as a purely random nature event. Projections are needed. Properly understanding them is also needed...but that is very elusive for a great many. Likewise, rational water plans are really badly needed regardless of what projections exist or what they say. There is a big difference between these two positions: 1) Flood statistics indicate water plan A is adequate for ....... 2) Water plan B is designed to maximize human water use effectiveness and efficiency. One result would be present flood statistics indicate better ....... All the other beneficial results of plan B are left out of plan A. Most other AGW discussions would be far more productive if approach B was how the discussion was framed. This is important because just about every AGW topic discussed revolves around what to do with the results or how the results justify some worldwide action. I have always considered that to be inverted. We need to minimize and eliminate ALL pollution (e.g. achieve real sustainability). One (of a great many) results of doing this is models show (right or wrong) less environmental damage.....
Interesting to read this thread. All blaming global warming or regular cycles, considering satellites to monitor the draught etc. Why not just cut consumption of water to that available? California wastes water like you wouldn't believe and then whinges when it starts to run out. Australia knows a thing or two about lack or water and they seem to manage ok. Cut your coat according to your cloth. Job done.
It's not quite that easy. People always lie with numbers, but many people agree that something like 80-percent of Caly's water is used in BIG AG. Since they also rely on tourism I'm betting that much of the rest of the water is wasted on keeping lawns, golf courses, and road medians green, keeping swimming pools topped off, washing dishes in restaurants, etc. Probably less than 5-percent of Caly's water goes into people's houses, and yet people are yelling at each other to take shorter showers, and to eschew flushing their toilets for non-solid waste, thinking that they're contributing to the solution in a meaningful way. It's like the rationing we did back in World War II. In the UK, you did it because you HAD no other choice, but in the US it wasn't done as much due to the actual scarcity of war materials, but in order to keep the population connected to and focused on the steps necessary to solve the problem. The problem Caly faces is that they REALLY are causing the problem, only the solution isn't going to be LED light bulbs, Priuses, and urban water rationing. Too bad they didn't spend their train money on some desalinization plants - Like Austrailia, California's is a rather dry and sparsely populated state with an overpopulated coast....except that California is bigger in population and GDP than Austrailia....so their economy has further to fall if people start having to pay real world prices for water.
This is a good chart mojo; the 850-1300 corresponds to Medivial Warm Period and after 1300 LIA. There are not enough statistical data to define current trends but there is a correlation btw warming and CA drought.
Funny thing, give bright people a challenge and 'brown water' becomes a resource. His chart is out of date because it is regional, not world wide. You may want to lookup the work of the "PAGES 2k" project. They are finding the "Medeval Warm Period" was specific to a region but the earth's global temperature across all regions shows there wasn't one. Source: PAGES - Past Global Changes - News Bob Wilson
The url doesn't point on any MWP article.. Irregardless not trying to shift CA drought discussion into MWP-LIA existance. Regional or not there was definitely less ice in Arctic during MWP which may have influenced weather patterns over North American continent. BTW this chart does not specifically describes CA, just West in general. The only reference to CA is 1850, when California became a state.
You mentioned the "Medieval warming" which is another climate change 'lore.' I should have looked and realized it was the drought chart. There are regional climate changes that happen often enough that are not global and the fault in this case was mine. My understanding is a Native American group in Arizona or New Mexico disappeared during a pre-Conquestador period. Very likely, a regional thang. Still, I do like the idea of treating 'brown water' as opposed to sea water. It looks like similar technology but without having to deal with separating an ionic salt. I suspect the energy savings over sea water is significant. Bob Wilson
I've been to some of these sites in NM, AZ and CO (montezuma castle, painted desert, Messa Verde, etc) a few years back, and from talking to people who study this it appears that the native Am did not disappeared, they just migrated to other places.. Pre-concistador conquest of Mexico is an example. with respect to deniers using MWP as a prove of no AGW, this is laughable at best. It is like to say that b/c iron had been heated and smelted in forge you cannot heat it anymore on your kitchen stove.. or b/c it was heated in forge you heating it on stove has no implication whatsoever.. right? What I think is might be interesting that while the reasons for arctic deicing now and back in MWP might have been different, there may be a correlation btw ice disappearance and drought.
So you live at the head of a watershed? We've been drinking a lot of processed 'brown water' for a very long time. The Clean Water Act was just the first stage. Bob Wilson
since 911, the boston and surrounding water supply has been secured from potential terrorism, but as a reservoir, it is subject to natural and air pollution, and is appropriately treated. it is a far cry from sewage though.
