5 ms·

This is straight up hyperbole. No, those areas are not going to deserts in the next few years, or even our lifetimes.

latchkey 4y ago
I'm not saying all of the areas I went through are going to desert... but if you look at the extent of the damaged areas, I doubt that you're going to see the same forests come back again in our lifetimes. Take a look at the Pine Ridge area. As far as the eye can see, everything is gone. Driving through Sequoia, huge swaths of the trees are gone. It is 100+ degrees in the summers and no water...
- kortilla 4y ago
  No water is the norm for these trees. A dam system built by humans has no bearing on that.
thrown_22 4y ago
The Western US is a semi-arid desert: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.1.20180801a/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.1.2018080... We have historic evidence that droughts have destroyed civilizations in that part of the country before. It is happening again.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 8bitsrule 4y ago
  Very good article, with several illustrative cites going back to 1979. The west is dominated by the [0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermontane_Plateaus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermontane_Plateaus] , much of it losing water since the pluvial lakes like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville] reached its greatest height 18000 years ago. "The abandoned shore lines have yielded evidence of past climatic changes second in importance only to those of the Pleistocene glaciated areas."[0] A lot of snow falls in the winter, but for a century the meltwater has had plenty of mouths to feed. A lot of the distribution plans have been based on only a couple centuries of experience.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  Well, there is that ocean on the left coast which theoretically can provide all the water needed to avert problems. There is also that sun in the sky which could provide power for the desalination plants needed to turn that salty sea water into fresh water. The resulting brine contains a number of harvestable minerals as well so given the incentive there would be a possibility to stave of desertification of at least parts of the area - something which was not possible to those previous populations which got decimated by this cycle.
SkittyDog 4y ago
You should read "Cadillac Desert", if you live in the American Southwestern state--California, Arizona, and Nevada in particular. It has significant implications for the future survivability of large-scale civilization in the region. Mark Reisner originally wrote the book in the early 1990s, and his predictions have turned out to be quite accurate over the last three decades. If you want to make informed decisions, as a voter and a resident, this is probably the single most important thing you need to get educated about.
- kortilla 4y ago
  It’s hyperbolic trash though. What is happening to the Colorado river has been predicted as a possibility since the dams were built. It has absolutely no implications for the survivability of large scale civilizations in the area because the vast majority of the water goes to farming. Residential and office usage is willing to pay far more than farmers and uses significantly less. The flow rate of the Colorado river could drop by another 70% and still support everyone living here (socal, az, nv). The instance things get a little dire, farmer rights will be stripped away by the voters, they’ll pay market rate like everyone else, and the problem will be solved overnight.
  - SkittyDog 4y ago
    > It’s hyperbolic trash though. This is rude, and unnecessary. If your own counter-argument is actually sound, why are you bothering to label Reisner's as trash? It doesn't make you more believable--it mostly just undermines your credibility, because you apparently don't trust the soundness of your arguments to stand on their own. Have you read the HN comment guidelines? I'll quote something that you might want to consider: > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Right now, I have zero interest in engaging with you, because of the unpleasantly combatitive way you've chosen to approach the topic. What would even be the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who believes it's OK to speak to strangers like this? Consider rewriting your comment, and maybe we can talk about the actual merits of Reisner... As it is now, good luck, and I hope you learn a better way to interact with the world.

I'm not saying all of the areas I went through are going to desert... but if you look at the extent of the damaged areas, I doubt that you're going to see the same forests come back again in our lifetimes. Take a look at the Pine Ridge area. As far as the eye can see, everything is gone. Driving through Sequoia, huge swaths of the trees are gone. It is 100+ degrees in the summers and no water...

kortilla 4y ago
No water is the norm for these trees. A dam system built by humans has no bearing on that.

thrown_22 4y ago

The Western US is a semi-arid desert: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.1.20180801a/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.1.2018080... We have historic evidence that droughts have destroyed civilizations in that part of the country before. It is happening again.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
8bitsrule 4y ago
Very good article, with several illustrative cites going back to 1979. The west is dominated by the [0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermontane_Plateaus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermontane_Plateaus] , much of it losing water since the pluvial lakes like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville] reached its greatest height 18000 years ago. "The abandoned shore lines have yielded evidence of past climatic changes second in importance only to those of the Pleistocene glaciated areas."[0] A lot of snow falls in the winter, but for a century the meltwater has had plenty of mouths to feed. A lot of the distribution plans have been based on only a couple centuries of experience.
the_third_wave 4y ago
Well, there is that ocean on the left coast which theoretically can provide all the water needed to avert problems. There is also that sun in the sky which could provide power for the desalination plants needed to turn that salty sea water into fresh water. The resulting brine contains a number of harvestable minerals as well so given the incentive there would be a possibility to stave of desertification of at least parts of the area - something which was not possible to those previous populations which got decimated by this cycle.

SkittyDog 4y ago

You should read "Cadillac Desert", if you live in the American Southwestern state--California, Arizona, and Nevada in particular. It has significant implications for the future survivability of large-scale civilization in the region. Mark Reisner originally wrote the book in the early 1990s, and his predictions have turned out to be quite accurate over the last three decades. If you want to make informed decisions, as a voter and a resident, this is probably the single most important thing you need to get educated about.

kortilla 4y ago
It’s hyperbolic trash though. What is happening to the Colorado river has been predicted as a possibility since the dams were built. It has absolutely no implications for the survivability of large scale civilizations in the area because the vast majority of the water goes to farming. Residential and office usage is willing to pay far more than farmers and uses significantly less. The flow rate of the Colorado river could drop by another 70% and still support everyone living here (socal, az, nv). The instance things get a little dire, farmer rights will be stripped away by the voters, they’ll pay market rate like everyone else, and the problem will be solved overnight.
- SkittyDog 4y ago
  > It’s hyperbolic trash though. This is rude, and unnecessary. If your own counter-argument is actually sound, why are you bothering to label Reisner's as trash? It doesn't make you more believable--it mostly just undermines your credibility, because you apparently don't trust the soundness of your arguments to stand on their own. Have you read the HN comment guidelines? I'll quote something that you might want to consider: > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Right now, I have zero interest in engaging with you, because of the unpleasantly combatitive way you've chosen to approach the topic. What would even be the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who believes it's OK to speak to strangers like this? Consider rewriting your comment, and maybe we can talk about the actual merits of Reisner... As it is now, good luck, and I hope you learn a better way to interact with the world.