Wednesday, February 13, 2008

You think of what the implications are, and it’s pretty scary

The linked story is about the loss of Lake Mead as a reservoir.
Lake Mead, the vast reservoir for the Colorado River water that sustains the fast-growing cities of Phoenix and Las Vegas... has a 50 percent chance of becoming unusable by 2021, the scientists say, if the demand for water remains unchanged and if human-induced climate change follows climate scientists’ moderate forecasts, resulting in a reduction in average river flows.
And, you know, blah blah blah. The take away is that it's scary to think of the implications of climate change, so the best course of action is to not think about it. I kind of advocate thinking about it so much that you're comfortable with the desolation of the future, but certainly the amount of fear between not thinking about it at all and thinking about it all the time is uncomfortable, and best avoided.
O thus be it ever,
when freemen shall stand
between their loved homes
and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace,
may the heaven-rescued land
praise the Power that hath made
and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must,
when our cause it is just,
and this be our motto,
"In God we trust."


dan said...

Just came over via cartoon caption post, thanks. DANNY. re best not to think about desolate future, ir maybe best to think about it, i wonder if you have heard of my polar cities idea yet. read it here and see images. scary images. the idea of get people thinking about action NOW, not to build polar's a potent warning, not a hopeful future, as one of fellow bloggers told me

if you have any ideas pro or con on my polar cities guerilla theater project, please feel free to blog on the idea, pro or con, and whatever you think it's about. i need all the feedback i can get.

a reporter in Europe wrote me today, saying he cannot cover my project because:

"Dear Danny,
thanks for your emails -- sorry but I think I will pass
for the time being on writing about your polar cities idea, unless you
have some funding or other form of high-level's thought
provoking but the idea of future generations having to move to the
arctic in a few hundred years time makes me shiver and I fear it may
sound scaremongering to others.

If you get any further with it, please let me know."

Reaching the MSM is very hard. No reporter in his her right mind wants to cover this story. But it's an interesting take on global warming awareness, no?

Rionn Fears Malechem said...

I'm more of a writer than a reader, so you'll have to forgive me if I can't follow. What story? Sorry if this seems aggressive, but it's my nature.
I don't know that the Equatorial regions will be too hot to live in, although I suspect the concept of 'too hot to live in' will change. The polar areas will continue to have the intermittent darkness problem they have now.
I have no idea what will happen to the permafrost when it melts. It's not that no one knows, it's just not something I have a firm grasp on. It's apparently turning out boggy. It's not great for building on.
In the future, I'm not sure where we get water on Fogball Earth, and I'm not sure where we grow what kinds of crops when there's no stable or predictable year to year temperatures and the soil keeps dropping moisture. But, I don't see how moving to the Arctic -- especially not the coastal Arctic -- addresses those problems.
So... do you see my confusion? I'm not sure which problems coastal retreats solve or how they solve them.

Rionn Fears Malechem said...

This is the contest Danny refers to, by the way.

dan said...

Thanks, RFM, for your notes. Yes, nobody knows the future, that's for sure. Good points. Well taken. As for the polar cities, they will not be built along Arctic coasts, I guess I was not clear on that. Of course, with sea level rises in future, as much as 20 feet maybe, these so-called polar cities will have to be built in high ground, maybe hill country or mountain areas of Alaska (Fairbanks, inland), Canada, Russia, Greenland, Iceland, Norway etc..... and Antarctica, too. But yes, these polar population retreats will be situated in highland areas, well above sea level. Maybe inside mountain caverns. The word "polar" does not mean ice and col, as it does now, it will mean something different in the future: we could call them "northern population retreats" (NPRs) instead and maybe we will, but for now "polar cities" has a good ring to it, even though it is a bit confusing as well. Thanks for your comments. And thanks for your caption! A good one!

Fogball Earth! I like that term!

nephos said...

Your point that raising alarm often enough can be a way of reaching acceptance is important. Myself, I am often called pessimistic, but I think that is incorrect. Even realistic doesn't seem to fit quite right. Civilization will implode, noticably beginning within our lifetmes, there is little - probably nothing - that can be done proactively to prevent this, so why not just accept the fact and enjoy what we have in the meantime?

Plus if civilization collapse can be employed as an investment strategy, it might even be possible to get rich!

Rionn Fears Malechem said...

Yes, that's key. Construction boondoggles meant to stave off rising sea levels sound like a path to wealth to me, but as I doubt they'll work, it's hard for me to approach them sincerely.