possibilities of a megadrought (Sacramento: live, cost of, move)

[docmcstuffin]

All of this talk about drought can easily be solved by diverting money that was set aside to build the bullet train into building desalination plants. $1B plant can serve about 300k households, so if we spend $100B, we can serve 30M household. That's enough to serve about 78.9% of CA's population. We can even go overboard and spend $200B and have enough water to serve California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Technologies will help us deal with climate change pretty easily.

[oddstray]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

All of this talk about drought can easily be solved by diverting money that was set aside to build the bullet train into building desalination plants. $1B plant can serve about 300k households, so if we spend $100B, we can serve 30M household. That's enough to serve about 78.9% of CA's population. We can even go overboard and spend $200B and have enough water to serve California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Technologies will help us deal with climate change pretty easily.

Tch!

That's entirely too sensible. No self-respecting politician would vote for that.

[JohnAlt]

When did global warming become climate change? Was it a way for proponents to play both sides? Drought, flood, heat wave, record cold, it's all man's fault and government better get involved.

[shmoov_groovzsd]

Originally Posted by JohnAlt

When did global warming become climate change? Was it a way for proponents to play both sides? Drought, flood, heat wave, record cold, it's all man's fault and government better get involved.

Global warming and climate change have been used in the media, part and parcel of one another. But no one here mentioned Global warning. Inherently there is a crossroads somewhere in there in regards to the cause, which of course no one really knows. Its a best guest scenario in terms of impact in raw numbers.
Hopefully mother nature cleans up the mess.

But I would be more skeptical about the livestock creating more of this weather mayhem than humans.

Silencing the Lambs: Scientists Target Sheep Belching to Cut Methane - WSJ

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

I wish climate change deniers would stop pointing to every record cold spell as evidence for their case, and equally wish fellow believers would stop pointing to everything as evidence of climate change. We lose the high ground on this issue when we dilute the credibility of our arguments by blaming every drought, tornado, hurricane, blizzard, etc., on climate change. If CA has 10-20 years of drought it will not be unprecedented in recent earth history.

This makes sense. Now I am one who does understand that human activity is likely causing climate change. Release gas that trap heat and you get more trapped heat. 1 + 1 = 2. However, one cannot point to one, or two, or 3 things and say that's evidence. One has to look at an accumulation of things over a longer period then compare them to other , natural climate changes that have occurred then find the variable between the two. I also agree that one should not look at a cold spell as evidence against it. While the earths mean temperature will rise, some local areas may actually get colder. This is why Climate Change is a better name than Global Warming.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by JohnAlt

When did global warming become climate change? Was it a way for proponents to play both sides? Drought, flood, heat wave, record cold, it's all man's fault and government better get involved.

Because the average person doesn't understand Global Warming. Most people here that and think it will just get warmer as something they can feel and notice. Climate is much more complex than that.

[docmcstuffin]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Because the average person doesn't understand Global Warming. Most people here that and think it will just get warmer as something they can feel and notice. Climate is much more complex than that.

But climate change is just as confusing to J6pack. Climate is always changing. With global warming, you're feared that when there's a cold spell, people might say, oh look, no more global warming, since it's getting colder. But with climate change, you're always right, because climate is always changing. No one can prove you wrong.

[docmcstuffin]

Originally Posted by oddstray

Tch!

That's entirely too sensible. No self-respecting politician would vote for that.

Sad but true. It's easier to beat the climate change drum than to solve the current problems. This is not just politician but your average person too. This thread is a prime example. It started with megadrought but evolved into climate change. It's easier to talk about such a big overarching problem that have no clear solution, than to just propose solutions to the current problems. Even if there's no climate change, the fact is that, SoCal is a big giant desert and more and more people are living here. Which means there will be more and more need for water. So, we need to get that resource from somewhere. Why not get it from the most abundant source right next to us.

For funding that $200B project, we can just apply a tax on every property in CA. We pay property tax for roads and other infrastructure, so why not also pay for our water infrastructure too. $200B divide by 38M households in CA would only be ~$5200 per household. That's not even counting commercial buildings. So realistically, it would probably be $2k or less per household. Since commercial is actually a much bigger user of water than residential. Divide that $2k over 30 years and you're looking at an increase of $66/year in property tax. Even if it's the whole $5200, you're still only looking at an increase of $173/year. That doesn't sound too crazy, especially since we're already paying thousands to $ in property tax already.

[TristramShandy]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

All of this talk about drought can easily be solved by diverting money that was set aside to build the bullet train into building desalination plants. $1B plant can serve about 300k households, so if we spend $100B, we can serve 30M household. That's enough to serve about 78.9% of CA's population. We can even go overboard and spend $200B and have enough water to serve California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Technologies will help us deal with climate change pretty easily.

Isn't there some pretty nasty residue that comes from desalination plants? I think I remember reading that years ago - - I always thought that that would be the solution for the coast, but if I remember correctly, there were some real negatives to what was left after making the potable water.

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

But climate change is just as confusing to J6pack. Climate is always changing. With global warming, you're feared that when there's a cold spell, people might say, oh look, no more global warming, since it's getting colder. But with climate change, you're always right, because climate is always changing. No one can prove you wrong.

Atmospheric dynamics are complicated, VERY complicated, so trying to narrow the concept of a whole huge systemic shift down to a single easy-to-relate-to term for joe public is kind of hard.

Climate change is the preferred term because most people can't wrap their heads around the fact that a rise in the average global temperature would mean colder and more severe winters in some areas, and drought and heat in others, and more frequent ice storms in others, and more or less rain in others. People would hear "warming" and then stop listening, or not actually care enough to comprehend, then throw a fit when it's actually colder than normal where they live. Just like "El Niño". It turns into a buzzword that nobody understands but everyone's an expert on because some folks were yelling at each other on CNN about it.

**Only commenting on the terminology, not whether I think climate change is real or not, because I do not feel like debating that point here.