Global warming: Regional climate change impacts

[GandK]

Both of my grandfathers were beef cattle farmers. Every time I read a water article, I find myself wondering how long it is before the meat industry faces mandatory cutbacks because of this. Meat requires so much more water (directly and indirectly) than crops require, on top of the fact that the animals also require crops... OTOH, saying out loud that we should cut back on meat production to send water to the coast and the desert will raise the ire of most of the midwest, where there's still plenty of water at the moment. I can hear it now. "We're not parting with our water and our hamburgers because they used up all of their water making golf courses in the desert!"

I suppose the best solution is desalination, since most of the places facing drought are coastal, but I've read that it's crazy expensive and I'm ignorant about what happens to the salt and other byproducts once they've been removed. We obviously don't need more pollution.

[Tyler9000]

. We've seen tens of millions of people move into areas, and bring agriculture with them, that don't naturally have the water resources to sustain them. That's probably a mistake on our part.

Yep. California's Central Valley is perhaps the prime example. Climate is certainly contributing to the drought problem, but the history of California's water wars runs much deeper than that.

"This informative look at water politics traces the fierce battles that raged around the transformation of California's Central Valley from semiarid desert into the most environmentally altered agricultural region in history." http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-M ... 0780019296

EDIT: the original book: http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-A ... 0140178244

[DSKla]

@illinidave It shouldn't be static, but a few months ago NASA released some models that show we might be coming up on a drought event, the magnitude of which hasn't happened since the Anasazi, over 1,000 years ago, so if this is just cyclical, we still could be facing a low that happens far less often than 10-15 years.

@GandK http://www.cnbc.com/id/102581700
This California city came up with an interesting solution. I absolutely don't think pumping in water from elsewhere is ever going to be an answer. We have a centralized water supply in CA, so if it hits hard times, everyone suffers. Decentralizing through local (and even personal) collection and storage would probably alleviate the issue to some degree, freeing up more water for agriculture, which still needs to rethink a lot of their practices. In the cattle example, the water cost is largely due to the way the cattle are raised, and where they are raised. Allan Savory has some great material on range management that he believes could make cattle part of the solution instead of a major part of the problem.

The most likely scenario for us to adopt better practices in water and food management are not for the state to send down a directive, but for locals to take it upon themselves from the bottom up. Sun Valley started collecting water on their own initiative. Individual cattlemen could adopt more sustainable practices. I'm positive people would be more likely to imitate a successful neighbor than to change because Jerry Brown told them to.

[IlliniDave]

@illinidave It shouldn't be static, but a few months ago NASA released some models that show we might be coming up on a drought event, the magnitude of which hasn't happened since the Anasazi, over 1,000 years ago, so if this is just cyclical, we still could be facing a low that happens far less often than 10-15 years.

Sorry, I meant a severe drought event that lasts for 10-15 years, not one that repeats on a 10-15 year cycle. Arguably the current California drought is already on the order of 10 years old. The implication in the discussion I heard was that such extended droughts are infrequent, but do happen, and in the extreme can last for decades (~80 years, if I heard correctly).

Interestingly, there is potential evidence that the Maya civilization was largely done in by a long, severe drought. Seems to be the bane of the lower north latitudes in this hemisphere.

[DSKla]

Oh, gotcha. Yeah that's the same as what I've been hearing--potential for rare, multidecade drought like the ones that ended agrarian civilizations on several occasions.

[jacob]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/february ... risk-of-us

"Natural droughts like the 1930s Dust Bowl and the current drought in the Southwest have historically lasted maybe a decade or a little less," said Ben Cook, climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York City, and lead author of the study. "What these results are saying is we're going to get a drought similar to those events, but it is probably going to last at least 30 to 35 years."

According to Cook, the current likelihood of a megadrought, a drought lasting more than three decades, is 12 percent. If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent.

However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase along current trajectories throughout the 21st century, there is an 80 percent likelihood of a decades-long megadrought in the Southwest and Central Plains between the years 2050 and 2099.

[chenda]

For some long term historical perspective see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

The myths of Atlantis, Noah's ark etc are probably the result of a collective memory of the end of the last ice age and the devastating sea level increase.

[black_son_of_gray]

I suppose the best solution is desalination, since most of the places facing drought are coastal, but I've read that it's crazy expensive and I'm ignorant about what happens to the salt and other byproducts once they've been removed. We obviously don't need more pollution.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_2 ... es-up-near

Apparently the San Diego region is trying out the desalination approach and will be the bellwether for the region.

[jacob]

https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2 ... er-autumn/ (overview)
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedg ... tory01.htm (impacts)

[black_son_of_gray]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/us/dr ... iness&_r=0

Very interesting... looking at the drought from the perspective of different economic strata.

The fierce drought that is gripping the West — and the imminent prospect of rationing and steep water price increases in California — is sharpening the deep economic divide in this state, illustrating parallel worlds in which wealthy communities guzzle water as poorer neighbors conserve by necessity. The daily water consumption rate was 572.4 gallons per person in Cowan Heights from July through September 2014, the hot and dry summer months California used to calculate community-by-community water rationing orders; it was 63.6 gallons per person in Compton during that same period.

Not unsurprisingly, there are huge differences in water usage in the LA Basin. The UN says there is a basic human right to water at a minimum of 50-100 liters per person per day (http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/water/). So Comptonites were averaging ~2-4X that amount, but the wealthy communities of the region were ~20-40(!)X that amount. As water gets squeezed further, it will get interesting... will it dip below 1X in certain poor communities? Clearly Compton has FAR less fat that could be cut.

[jacob]

http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Carbon ... s-20150504

Summary showing that world governments are currently planning to abandon RCP2.6 aka the 2 degree (C) scenario as being 'unpossible' to achieve politically and instead aim for the next one on the list, RCP4.5. This would cap total emissions at 650 ppm CO2e and level out the temperature hike by 3C/5.4F (more at the poles and landlocked places, less in other places) as the new upper limit instead of the usual "2C if we act now"-limit that people keep talking about.

[jacob]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/0 ... explainer/ ... concerning how important California is to the US food system.

But it looks like they found a "solution":
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/0 ... riculture/

[cmonkey]

But it looks like they found a "solution":
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/0 ... riculture/

Well it can't be much worse than what they spray on most crops right?

Solution to both problems - grow your own.

Edit - It dawned on me that they can probably water "USDA Organic" crops using that water and still be labeled organic...since they are just watering. Any thoughts???

Edit 2 - Looking through the USDA regs, it seems that this "oil water" would probably fall under the list of banned substances for organic agriculture.

To be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product must be produced and handled without the use of:

...
...
(c) Nonagricultural substances used in or on processed products, except as otherwise provided in §205.605;
...
...

I am pretty sure oil waste water would fall under a non-agricultural substance used on a processed product.

Section 205.605 lists out essentially a bunch of preservatives that have been determined "safe". Take that with a grain of salt.

[jacob]

http://www.southernclimate.org/document ... _texas.pdf

In Texas, models project increased hurricane intensity
and storm surge, continued sea level rise, and changes
in rainfall that will likely create more periods of heavy
precipitation between long dry spells.

Droughts will likely become more frequent, last longer
and be more intense. Rains following droughts will
often be quick and heavy, causing flash-flooding and
destroying aging and vulnerable infrastructure (NCA).

And so it came to pass that the recent flooding more or less instantly ended four years of drought conditions.

[Tyler9000]

Climate change may certainly have something to do with it, but most scientists seem to be pointing to El Nino this year.

http://tinyurl.com/q5copek

[jacob]

Yes, we've had an El Nino event going on since March, but that only explains the "what and where", not "how much". Global warming increases the baseline temperature [leading to longer drought periods] as well as the amount a moisture a warmer atmosphere can hold [leading to more extreme rainfall events ], so what is a typical and recurring event whenever El Nino bumps the jet stream is increasingly a more extreme and recurring event.

In any case, Texas doesn't have any state level climate plans (as far as I know), but some cities do (Austin, San Antonio, ...) ... so more or less, citizens can choose for themselves how to deal with the excess water or lack thereof.

El Nino is predicted to persist throughout the year, so expect more heavy rainfalls.

Added: More details on the physics here: https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2 ... -to-texas/

[Molly]

I have been lurking on this website for years, but this is the first time I have ever written anything on the forums. This particular forum however, has prompted me to "come out of the woodwork." I have been reading through the science behind climate change and the regional changes and I agree with the conclusions that the scientists have come to. However, as I read through the various regional changes a couple of questions keep coming to mind. Obviously, the pacific northwest will suffer the least amount problems. Places like the southwest region, southern central plain region, the southern parts of the southeast and pretty much all of the coastal cities are going to suffer the worst of it. However, the entire American population cannot move to the pacific northwest and there is a lot of area between the best and the worst places to be. As a southerner who will most likely be alive past 2050 I am looking at eventually moving. It seems to me that when looking for a new community what this data really tells me is that I should be looking for a place that is actively building resilience into the current system and spend less time on finding the "ideal" piece of land. An example of what I mean from one of the links supplied by jacob:
"Because of Clayton County, Georgia’s, innovative water recycling project during the 2007-2008 drought, they were able to maintain reservoirs at near capacity and an abundant supply of water while neighboring Lake Lanier, the water supply for Atlanta, was at record lows. Clayton County developed a series of constructed wetlands used to filter treated water that recharges groundwater and supplies surface reservoirs. They have also implemented efficiency and leak detection programs (for additional specific information see the Clayton County Water Authority website at: http://www.ccwa.us/)."

Our species has shown time and time again that we are not(in general) forward thinkers(present company excluded of course), but rather reactionary thinkers. We change when we have to. It seems to me, that the communities that are already dealing with the consequences will likely adapt more quickly because there will be incentive to do so. So, my question is this: Is going north really the best solution? Would a better solution be to look for a community that is taking the nesscessary steps to save itself? Or possibly a combination of the two? While the pacific northwest will suffer the least amount of problems, to me, this also means that they will be some of the last ones to adapt.

[jacob]

Hehe, it's certainly a combination. However, consider that some places are ultimately indefensible and can not be adapted (e.g. Phoenix, AZ) which means that even if a plan existed it would eventually have to be abandoned. There are also places which can be defended (NYC, NY) but which will ultimately be very expensive for the taxpayers, e.g. building several miles of sea wall.

Overall, there are three choices ...

1) Places where the impact will be inconvenient but not "fatal" ... like the PNW.
2) Places where the impact will be strong but where people are already building adaption measures... like the Netherlands.
3) Places where the impact will be strong but where people aren't even allowed to say the words "climate change" ... like Florida.

In the first case, the costs will be small even if little is done.
In the second case, the costs are already there and are medium and permanent.
OIn the third case, the costs are currently nil but will ultimately be extremely high.

So it all depends on time horizons, etc. As we know, people will happily like in flood plains and on the side of volcanoes thus accepting the risk because of the benefit of more fertile soil.

So I'd say that's your answer. It's all about the cost-benefit for your particular situation. Maybe even dependent on whether your home is on the left side of the street or the right side.

Perhaps people are happy to live in Florida without any adaptation in order to avoid paying 1-2% extra in tax because the weather is nice and they only got a few years left of golf time left anyway ... and it's currently only a minor "inconvenience" that salt water is now being pushed into the sewer system and onto the low-lying streets because the sea levels are higher and the Gulf stream is weaker (further increasing levels) than what the system was designed for before the climate changed.

[jacob]

By now, India, has 2300 dead(*) from the 5th largest heat wave since records began. Such heatwaves are a regular occurrence and normally follow from a strong El Nino.

(*) The young, the old, and the poor.

However, unlike the past, there's a strong heatwave despite the fact that we currently only have a weak El Nino.

As predicted, though, because the climate has changed, global warming strengthens the effect so that now weak El Ninos have the same effect as strong ones did in the past and strong El Ninos have stronger effects. Effectively the misery distribution curve has shifted to the right.

The Monsoon is currently delayed by 1 week by the heatwave.

Quantitatively speaking, humanity has currently (2015) locked in 0.85C of warming. At this level 18% of extreme rain events are attributed to our emissions. At the 2C level, considered a red line by the scientific community, this percentage will shift to 40%. World governments are currently discussing treaties that would result in reaching the 3C level by year 2100. World industry and consumers are currently behaving so as to hit the 4C level by that time. It remains to be seen action, if any, will be taken to prevent 4C.

Science here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2617.html (see Figure 3 and compare to the temps above)

More importantly, since this thread pertains to regional impacts, here's the impact to the sub-continent for those who live or plan to live there.

Speaking of edges, there's a strong edge between India and Pakistan that is part climate dependent and part due to historical accident (when the Brits(?) drew up the map).

Both nations are nuclear armed and can easily destroy each other making for a highly dynamic edge. Additionally, it's my understanding that these nations don't really like each other.

Pakistan has a population of 180 million and its agriculture is mainly based on irrigation from rivers that flow from the Himalayas. [Almost all of] These rivers are controlled by India!

India has a population 1,200 million and its agriculture is mainly based on rainfall.

Climate science predicts that
1) The rainfall will become even more sensitive to El Nino than it already is. Longer periods of drought followed by more intense rainstorms. (Similar pattern as seen in the SW US in recent weeks.)
2) The Himalayan glaciers could (it's hard to calculate) disappear within this century.

Hence, when (1) happens, it's likely that India will divert more river water toward its agriculture thus frustrating Pakistan.

Conversely, when (2) happens, it's likely that Pakistan will demand that India release more of the water they control to support its agriculture.

Given the immense population pressure, diverting water is, however, a zero-sum game. This edge is, therefore, probably the biggest nuclear risk in the world.

More detailed analysis here. Also see the book Climate Wars.

http://www.quantumrun.com/prediction/in ... ate-change

[black_son_of_gray]

Pakistan also has one of the highest population growth rates and could double in size in as little as 30 years(!), dramatically exacerbating water needs.