Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a report on NBC News this evening on the relative lack of snow thus far across the United States. Surprisingly in the Sierra Nevada of California, where more usually heavy, but with exception in such Rocky Mountain states as Colorado and New Mexico, where a fair amount of snow: msnbc.com Video Player
As these things are variable, any given year can be quite different from another, as the preceding reference notes, with a year ago New York City covered in snow, while a year on looking like autumn now.
However another report this evening (December 28, 2011) on the PBS News Hour lends a larger perspective on what may be a trend. A remarkable story, and recollection of weather events in this last year, from the massive flooding in Australia and Thailand, to drought in Texas, and severe tornadoes in the Southeast United States. They mentioned that while the average of three to four extreme weather events are to be expected in a year, that 2011 experienced 12. As a record only slightly less matched with a total of 9, and that in the year 2008. (advance manually with lower horizontal time bar to about the 29:00 minute mark for report): Video: Wednesday December 28, 2011 | Watch PBS NewsHour Online | PBS Video
There are of course various implications. Our globally warming average temperatures are cited as an accelerant to these storms, as warmer temperatures lend more energy to storms such as hurricanes and tornadoes. The severe drought in Russia last year caused that nation to suspend wheat exports. With this in consequence leading to a rise in world food prices. That having a direct impact in such geographically dissimilar places as North Africa. One crucial reason for the uprisings of the Arab Spring, aside from repression and the desire for democracy and civil rights, also the discontent fostered by sharply rising food prices.
In a following report in this same program of the PBS News Hour, there is a discussion on the widespread problem with a fungus attacking wheat crops. Although this report based in Africa, the problem is global. There is a fuller story there which doesn't directly touch upon this discussion. Although mention made that whereas before such a fungus would have been confined to lower elevations, now affecting regions previously immune due elevation and latitude.
Like, perhaps, Colorado. And, related, one reason why the pika is continually adjusting its preferred alpine home ever higher in Rocky Mountain National Park.
There is hardly "a fair amount of snow" in most of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. Most of the area is very dry so far this winter, and much of it has been locked in drought all year. As an example, Durango's annual precipitation for 2011 remains at only about 70% of average, which is pretty bad. The whole winter weather pattern this winter has been very weird, so far. The western valleys of Colorado (the lower Gunnison and Uncompahgre valleys, in particular) got quite a bit of snow this month (which has not melted, due to the cold inversion hanging there for a couple of weeks now), while the surrounding mountains have scant snowcover for this time of year.
I hesitate to panic about a severe drought just yet, as the big snow months in the Colorado mountains are February through April, but the long-range forecasts from USDA are not promising--they are showing severe drought persisting in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico through the big snow months. Since May and June are normally very dry in that region, a dry late winter could portend both water shortages and severe fire danger come early summer. About the only thing to hope for then is a wet and early Southwest Monsoon to at least moderate the fire danger. The Monsoon does little, though, to ameliorate the water deficit caused by lack of winter snowpack.
Meanwhile, people continue to flock into the region, most completely oblivious to what living with a long-term drought can be like in an already arid region. And, the more demand there is on already strained water resources, the more widespread and damaging the effects will be.
Meanwhile, people continue to flock into the region,
Please post a link to a reliable source to support this statement. Based simply on personal observation, this doesn NOT appear to be the case...but I could be wrong about that.
Meanwhile, people continue to flock into the region,
Please post a link to a reliable source to support this statement. Based simply on personal observation, this doesn NOT appear to be the case...but I could be wrong about that.
Not only that, but that other remark is equally a personal bias: "people continue to flock into the region, .... the more demand there is on already strained water resources, the more widespread and damaging the effects will be"
Let me put some facts on the table from this source:
- "Over 90 percent of water consumed through human activities in Colorado occurs in agriculture."
- "Despite its semi-arid climate and public perception, Colorado is a water rich state."
There are environment impacts to dams and water diversions, no doubt about it, but with 90% of the states water still going to agriculture, it's rather disingenuous to keep harping on population growth as the boogeyman.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Meanwhile, people continue to flock into the region,
Please post a link to a reliable source to support this statement. Based simply on personal observation, this doesn NOT appear to be the case...but I could be wrong about that.
Well, Colorado is the state with the 4th highest population growth rate. But even saying that, it is just 1.8%, but when you consider the population growth rate of the whole country as being .87%, that means as compared to the country as a whole, the Colorado population is growing .93% by people moving into the state...less than 1%. I'm not clear how that can be said to be people flocking into the region. (Data based on Wikipedia).
Not only that, but that other remark is equally a personal bias: "people continue to flock into the region, .... the more demand there is on already strained water resources, the more widespread and damaging the effects will be"
Let me put some facts on the table from this source:
- "Over 90 percent of water consumed through human activities in Colorado occurs in agriculture."
- "Despite its semi-arid climate and public perception, Colorado is a water rich state."
There are environment impacts to dams and water diversions, no doubt about it, but with 90% of the states water still going to agriculture, it's rather disingenuous to keep harping on population growth as the boogeyman.
You constantly harp about agricultural water use. I have this funny idea that producing food in this state is a useful economic activity, especially when compared with massive waste of water to irrigate suburban Kentucky Bluegrass lawns. Moreover, a good chunk of that agricultural irrigation water is used to irrigate mountain meadows--basically a form of wetlands protection and enhancement. Go take a look at Middle Park sometime--beautiful irrigated wetlands that are not only important for hay production and livestock grazing, but also are important for numerous wild animal species. Enjoy it while you can, because Denver already owns most of the water, and WILL dry it up when the growth-lovers have their way. Just like they did with South Park over 30 years ago. Of course, you never saw South Park before it was dried up, so how would you know?
And, if Colorado is such a "water rich" state, why is it that every major river drainage in the state is ALREADY overappropriated? Occasionally, you might want to defer to someone who deals with Colorado water issues on almost a daily basis. Just sayin'.
You constantly harp about agricultural water use. I have this funny idea that producing food in this state is a useful economic activity, especially when compared with massive waste of water to irrigate suburban Kentucky Bluegrass lawns. Moreover, a good chunk of that agricultural irrigation water is used to irrigate mountain meadows--basically a form of wetlands protection and enhancement. Go take a look at Middle Park sometime--beautiful irrigated wetlands that are not only important for hay production and livestock grazing, but also are important for numerous wild animal species. Enjoy it while you can, because Denver already owns most of the water, and WILL dry it up when the growth-lovers have their way. Just like they did with South Park over 30 years ago. Of course, you never saw South Park before it was dried up, so how would you know?
And, if Colorado is such a "water rich" state, why is it that every major river drainage in the state is ALREADY overappropriated? Occasionally, you might want to defer to someone who deals with Colorado water issues on almost a daily basis. Just sayin'.
More hyperbole, "massive" waste means that 50% of human water use in the SUMMER is for lawn irrigation, i.e., five months of the year at most in this climate -- not exactly "massive" since only 10% of the water is going to non-ag to start with and only 50% of that for 5 months goes to lawns. Meanwhile, ag pours 90% of the state's water on crops that don't belong in an arid climate to start with, talk about massive waste....
Over-appropriation has nothing to do with water usage in COLO, it is the downstream states that cause it to be over-appropriated.
I'll defer to no one on anything if all they post is biased, blind-hate bitterness.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Meanwhile, ag pours 90% of the state's water on crops that don't belong in an arid climate to start with, talk about massive waste....
One could also easily argue that we waste water on a whole lot of people that don't belong living in an arid climate to start with, talk about massive waste . . .
One could also easily argue that we waste water on a whole lot of people that don't belong living in an arid climate to start with, talk about massive waste . . .
While I agree that a dry climate can support a lesser population than a wetter eastern or west coast state, I would never pretend to know who belongs or does not belong living in an arid climate. Have you ever considered that just maybe....you might be one of those who do not belong? Perhaps you'd be happier in the Queen Charlotte Islands with a rainfall of 180 inches annually, but that outrageous desire to live elsewhere would make you just another Queen Charlotte Island wannabee.
Last edited by CosmicWizard; 12-29-2011 at 12:05 PM..
Per population in Colorado, the 1860 census had 34,277* people living in Colorado. This serves as a good baseline, as much before that date a negligible European population of fur trappers and other adventurers. But beginning July 1858 with the Pikes Peak Gold Rush, or Colorado Gold Rush if you prefer, all that changed. So radically so, and due eastern politics and the onset of the Civil War, that the Colorado Territory was born shortly thereafter on February 28, 1861.
By 1890 the population had swelled to 413,249 Coloradoans, although this figure still possibly not counting the Native Americans having been displaced, but some still here.
In 1930 the number topped a million for the first time, at 1,035,79. Two million for the first time in 1970, at 2,207,259. The official number 4,301,262 in 2000. And, as many are aware, Colorado recently having passed the 5 million mark.
This is a good example of exponential growth, and if unsure the term ask your broker what compound interest means. All the more as Colorado's population is projected to double to 10 million before 2050.
There are a number of reasons why that may not come to pass. But should it, then the math is easy. Double the number of residences, cars on the roads, and people at your favorite campground and hiking trail. Subtract by half all available resources shared, such as water, timber, agricultural products. Particularly the later are variable, as so often trans-shipped and from elsewhere. So perhaps use the greater calculus of a single planet, and do the math on 7 billion sharing all resources, and the projected 9 billion before 2050.
Another way of looking at this might be if your wife found a mouse in the kitchen. She will probably not care if it happens to represent less than 1% of all the mice out in the woods or in the subdivision. It is still one mouse to many. Or try convincing her otherwise.
At some point just one more is too much.
* Statistics from Wikipedia
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Per population
