There’s more than one science fiction story positing a world where water is much more valuable than oil. This is a plausible scenario, and we certainly do have oil and gas pipelines across the continent. I’m sure as hell not suggesting water pipelines, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to fear them. All it takes to justify them is sufficient demand and desperation.
Do not hijack this thread into a sidetrack about Great Lakes water being piped out.
Moderating
You’re quite right, we got carried away on that sidetrack, sorry.
At this point, there is sufficient residual heat in the oceans that even if all of the excess carbon dioxide released by industrial processes since 1850 were magically removed today, we would still experience increases in global surface temperature and extreme weather events until enough of that thermal energy were radiated away to come back to the pre-industrial baseline, notwithstanding continuous releases of methane by large scale agriculture and irreversible changes to the cryosphere. “Abatement”, at this point, is housing and infrastructure that is more resilient to extreme weather and located away from flood- and mudslide-prone areas.
Levels on the Great Lakes (and other large inland lakes) are primarily predicated on long term rainfall trends. I doubt there will be much of an impact upon lake levels in the foreseeable future due to climate change, although with more high rainfall events there may be more erosion of bluffs and steep lakeshore features. I also don’t think there is really much reason to be concerned about areas that are in long term drought ‘stealing’ water from the Great Lakes due to geography; aside from state and international compacts protecting use of the lakes, it is just wholly impractical to move significant amounts of fresh water from, say, Lake Superior or Lake Michigan to the American Southwest. Other lakes are not so lucky; the Aral Sea, for instance, is almost completely depleted due to irrigation.
Well, it is possible to design buildings to be tolerable, and this is scarcely a new thing; before the advent of mechanical air conditioning, there were a wide variety of natural convection systems used in buildings in hot and humid areas to prevent still air, and the fact that this has mostly been lost to a cookie-cutter approach of buildings required on HVAC illustrates how much we have become dependent upon highly artificial and energy-hungry conditioning technologies. But regardless of how much air they can move, it won’t help if the wet bulb temperature is above 95 °F (35 °C). Read The Heat Will Kill You First by climate journalist Jeff Goodell.
The idea that climate change only significantly affects properties on the oceanfront or below 35 degrees latitude is highly misguided. The change doesn’t just result in higher mean sea level (and thus, higher surges during hurricanes and tropical storms) or a slight bump in temperature, but a highly unstable polar vortex, warm air capable of carrying substantially more water inland, more dry air capable of desiccating grasslands and forests making them more prone to large scale wildfires, and generally more extreme weather conditions. The kind of extremely powerful, long-lasting, and sequential tornado systems we are seeing in the American Midwest in the last few weeks are not normal weather variations but are so atypical as to be collectively beyond previous experience, as were last summer’s massive wildfire season in Canada and the triple digit temperatures and melting permafrost in the Siberian tundra. While it is not possible to make specific predictions of tornado power or quantity from climate models as is now possible with hurricane seasons, the conditions that provide prime conditions for tornado development are entirely consistent with what climate models anticipate given observed ocean surface temperature and vortex oscillation.
The Great Lakes region is coincidentally situated to be both far enough inland to not be directly affected by ocean heating and sufficiently north to avoid ‘Tornado Alley” and the region where the most powerful derechos will occur (and probably buffered by “lake effect” humidity) but as average atmospheric temperature rises and the amount of moisture sequestered by seasonal glacier accumulation and cooler ocean temperatures decreases, they will be impacted as well with stronger storms and possibly drier summers. And while much as been done to clean up the lakes, industrial pollution and the impact of invasive species still compromises the usability of the water for human consumption and irrigation. See Dan Eagan’s The Death and Life of the Great Lakes.
Stranger
I hadn’t read that in particular but I know we are losing and will lose a lot of species.
thank you for the moderation!
I really hope someone will start a thread about the SW “running out of water” because I don’t think @snowthx was correct it’s not problem for the (growing!) cities and people’s ideas about piping it from the great lakes can go there
By the way, when I wrote about higher levels of water in my hometown (and the neighbring town) during Sandy, I’d like to emphasize that these towns are NOT on the ocean. They’re located on rivers, miles upstream of the bay. But Sandy drive water levels higher in rivers that it impinged on, too, resulting in historically hifgh wate levels. Besides entire streets being flooded out, the surge cauught Main Street by surprise in my town. One bank had to close because the vaults rusted out. They had been comfortably above high water before Sandy.
Sandy also affected water levels in the Hudson River at least as far as Tarrytown. I saw a warehouse that had been flooded for the first time there.
Higher temperatures will, however, lead to more evaporation from the Lakes. In winter, especially, the Lakes used to get significant ice cover which drastically reduced winter evaporation from the lake surfaces. With a lot less ice, or no ice at all some years, evaporation will increase year round. That will counteract to some degree increased precipitation.
At present, the only communities allowed to draw water from the Lakes are those that either naturally drain back into them or are willing to pipe treated sewage back into them. In some places that watershed can be surprisingly narrow. This reduces (but does not eliminate) the impact of human uses on the lake levels.
Over very long time spans the Great Lakes are shrinking naturally. Their watersheds don’t entirely replace the water that leaves the Lakes. In communities near the Lakes it is quite common to find a road named “Ridge” (or something similar) and that is actually an ancient lakefront. In some places you can find multiple “fossil” shorelines if you know what to look for. Whether or not climate change will accelerate their shrinking, stop it, or reverse it remains to be seen.
I have plans to retire to a place further north that is still near the Lakes, but sufficiently inland and elevated that I won’t have to worry about that in my lifetime.
If you despise cold weather, just stay put. Warmth is coming to you, you don’t have to go to it. THAT is climate change. Ohio has changeable weather. People who confuse those two things are part of the problem.
Part of the reason I moved to New England from California is that wildfire season went from a regular September hazard to year round. I have a friend who lives near Paradise, where the 2018 Camp Fire burned 150,000 acres, killed 85 people, and destroyed the whole town. It is still a wasteland. There is no reason at all that will not happen to my house eventually. Sooner rather than later. I hate fire. I’ve lived through all kinds of natural disasters but it’s only fire I dread. And that is what is coming for the West.
the book talks about California generally and that fire specifically a lot. What happened to the people who had lived in Paradise as a microcosm of what happens to climate migrants more generally.
the more money one has, of course, the more options and the further away you can go. I forget the exact stat, but the poorest people ended up making the homeless population in Chico spike.
missed the edit window but since I posted the above I heard on the news Paradise is now the fastest growing town in California! there is a boom fueled by disaster relief money, apparently. hmmm.
anyone else feel like 2018 was a lifetime ago?
Climate change (or more appropriately, climate warming) does mean higher average temperatures, but also means wider temperature extremes. Winters may be colder and last longer (or have early and late extreme phenomena) as well as longer summers with higher temperatures. However, the biggest impact is the effect of higher temperatures and flooding or droughts on crop yields, which affects people regardless of where they are physically located.
There is no place where you can move that you will not be affected by climate change because it is quite literally a global phenomenon.
Stranger
It’s a nuclear bomb, you can’t run away!
I know that we will still be affected by climate change, but at least we will have water until our end days. I’ve been a tree-hugger since I was a hippy teenager, I have done all I can to change other people’s habits, I choose to not have children. I’ve done all I can so now I just hope that we will have another comfortable 20 years.
Right. Here in CA, of water used (not allocated) only 10% goes for residential. 70-80% for AG. Just almonds alone (high water use) use about what people do here in CA.
AG is thirsty. Now yea, we need food, but do we NEED almonds? Most of CA almonds are exported anyway.
CA farmers could save a lot of water — but profits would drop - CalMatters.
Boser found that the usual suspects topped the list of the most water-intensive crops in California, including almonds and alfalfa as well as dates, kiwis and cotton . Grain and other hay crops, turf farms, wheat and sunflowers were among the thriftiest.…California farms could use 93% less water but less-thirsty crops, such as grains and hay, are much less lucrative than nuts and fruits. Fallowing a small fraction of the thirstiest crops would save 9%.…In a less-extreme scenario, the researchers reported that fallowing 5% of fields with the most water-intensive crops could cut water consumption by more than 9% So, cutting Almond and alfalfa by 10% would almost save enough to equal what people use in their homes.
None of those are crops that need to grow here in CA.
Nope, you are incorrect- see above.
Welcome! Not that much, but yeah, living within a few feet of the high tide mark is not gonna be a good idea. The rise in sea level is one thing- rather minor as things go- but increasing storms is the really bad thing.
Yeah, I’m a bit conflicted. We live at 11,200 feet in the Colorado mountains. I can make snowballs into June.
That may change for the worse or better year to year.
We don’t really want to move but are considering it because of our age. No delivery here, EMS would have a hard time getting to our place in winter.
We are sort of considering the Colorado front range or the western slope. But they are getting temps over 100f. My best friend on the western slope (Colorado) is thinking about moving up in elevation because of the heat. He’s at 4,500 feet in elevation, the lowest he has ever lived.
I very much doubt we’ll have twenty comfortable years. Every year is hotter than the one before. There is no sense whatsoever that humans even want to slow the juggernaut of destruction – at least, not the humans who could.
What I saw to be true when I was fourteen years old, the first Earth Day, that humans were destroying the world and no one in power would save it, is now coming to pass.
I’m only glad I’m old and have lived most of my life already. That is the only thing I’m glad about.
Today is the future I also saw coming, hence the no children thing.
I hope that you are wrong about how much longer we have, but at least i was able to see the world before it got really trashed.
May the survivors of this mass extinction event take better care of this planet than we did.
Yep. That would be a consideration. A FOAF was impacted; I think the road approaching their house was washed away or something.
Somewhat humorous exchange here the other day. Housemate had opened the kitchen window for a bit.
Her: “Wow. If I didn’t know better, I’d think we were at the beach. It really smells like the ocean out there!”.
Me: “Well, sea levels ARE rising”
(we live a minimum of 40 miles from the nearest salt water, so I suspect it’ll be a while before our place is beachfront property).
I grew up outside Harrisburg, PA, and the city saw significant flooding due to several tropical storms. The rainfall caused the Susquehanna river levels to rise. Nearby Hershey Park seems to flood somewhat regularly (due to a creek, not the river).
With increasing storm severity due to global warming, this kind of thing will happen more often.
Our house - which was nowhere near any body of water - was largely unaffected by the storms, though we had 6+ inches of water in the basement. I would definitely insist on some kind of backup sump pump, as well as adequate drainage space for the output of that pump. Our current house’s sump used to just disappear into the ground, 10-15 feet from the house, and that would NOT be adequate; we’ve since corrected that situation.