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.
A recent study by Sandia Labs (reported here) forecasts that as a result of climate change over the next 40 years, New Mexico and many other states will lose population and our economy will tank, while the west coast and possibly Colorado may benefit economically.
I wonder if you forum folks who live in NM or are thinking of moving here pay attention to this kind of thing, think it's hogwash, will wait and see, are making plans to leave, want to tough it out, or what? What do you think and feel when you read this kind of thing? Are there people who take these kinds of reports into consideration when deciding where to live?
I doubt that Sandia Labs is invested in painting a bleak picture about the state where it's located, so I pay attention. I will be looking for evidence that might contradict these findings. I wonder if our southwestern cities will continue to attract snowbirds and retirees (and the health care workers required to care for them) well into the future, or will even they start to go elsewhere? Will Albuquerque and Santa Fe follow in Detroit's footsteps faster than we think? I do get the feeling that we may already have reached a growth limit. Recent data on migration patterns show that a lot of NM residents are already moving to the Pacific Northwest (for economic, not climate reasons), while east coasters and and SoCalifornians are still moving here (for retirement?).
July 21, 2010 Groundbreaking Sandia study ties climate uncertainties to economies of US states
California, Pacific Northwest and Colorado achieve positive net impacts; other states languish
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A climate-change study at Sandia National Laboratories that models the near-term effects of declining rainfall in each of the 48 U.S. continental states makes clear the economic toll that could occur unless an appropriate amount of initial investment — a kind of upfront insurance payment — is made to forestall much larger economic problems down the road.
It seems to vary a bit from the New Mexico Independent article.
I find it very hard to place a whole lot of faith in a study predicting rainfall patterns 30-40 years into the future, particularly when "experts" can't reliably predict precipitation levels a year, month, or even a week out.
I'm still waiting for the ice age that the experts in the early 70's said was right around the corner.
I find it very hard to place a whole lot of faith in a study predicting rainfall patterns 30-40 years into the future, particularly when "experts" can't reliably predict precipitation levels a year, month, or even a week out.
Well, short-term weather forecasting and longer-term climate predictions are different balls of wax. Like the difference between predicting who will win a certain baseball game tomorrow versus predicting whether the Isotopes will still be around in 40 years. But maybe both kinds of forecasting are equally inaccurate. Even so, we put a lot of money and effort into making predictions and people do make plans accordingly. Who is the audience for this research and what will they do with the information? (I haven't yet downloaded the actual study.) Are the prophets just having fun with us? Will we be sold back to Mexico before we become an even bigger drain on the US economy? (OK, that one was just a joke).......
I find it very hard to place a whole lot of faith in a study predicting rainfall patterns 30-40 years into the future, particularly when "experts" can't reliably predict precipitation levels a year, month, or even a week out.
It is much easier to make long range predictions than by year, month, or week.
That is why as an amateur I can safely predict that August will be warmer than October but I can't safely predict that today will be warmer than tomorrow.
That said, I'm not going to comment on the validity of Global Climate Change. If it happens it happens.
I do think that it is quite possible that the future will bring greater reliance on local food production and distribution which would be a limiting factor in population and economics in New Mexico.
There are plenty of places for an analysis like this to fall on it's face.
People haven't been moving to NM or AZ or NV because of plentiful water...
and I very much doubt they will move away if the rainfall drops a little.
I would have said this but rruff said it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Horrell
We currently "waste" so much water that we could
probably compensate for a long time to come.
I would have said this but Mike said it more concisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
I doubt that Sandia Labs is invested in painting a
bleak picture about the state where it's located,
Of course, as an entity that is entirely funded by government money,
it can issue dire warnings with the caveat that there might be a way to
"make things better" if they were to get additional funding in this area ...
Of course, as an entity that is entirely funded by government money, it can issue dire warnings with the caveat that there might be a way to "make things better" if they were to get additional funding in this area ...
I assume the point of the study was to put a $ cost on global warming... presumably to rationalize spending money to reduce it.
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.
