# Enjoy the run off cause it ain't gonna last



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

Thanks, I will!


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

That article was garbage. Bringing in shit from 2009.. snowpack is great. Only part of the article that's true was Nevada Arizona and Texas are dryest states...as for global warming I can't believe you buy into that garbage. Snowpack last couple years was def higher than previous year.. its still snowing In mountains...as for people using all the water due to overpopulation, that has nothing to do with global warming...north platte drainage ended a 20 year drought last year thanks to " global warming"


----------



## shortbus (Jun 22, 2006)

Mike, 
you short-sighted simpleton, go back to the oilfield.

I'll give you this, there is a big difference between climate and weather, but if you think global climate change is garbage, you had better move to someplace where water and flooding and drought and severe heat and cold are never issues. Good luck to you.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Gotta see facts and haven't seen or read anything other than about pollution as main driving point. But the carbon equation is misinterpreted if you ask me.. climate change has always played apart of earths history blamming warming on human beings alone , would be nieve. The ice age is on decline its been that way since the mammoths disappeared...been proven in history that climates change regardless of there location on the planet. As for global warming we have zero way to prove its true or false since we do not have a control in the experiment. If we know global warming is true fact then why isn't anything being done by the big boys to counter act the effects.. anybody actually have the carbon equation. What is global warming and where are the effects obviously shown as a case against global warming.....


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Senator James Inhofe (R-Dumfukistan) thanks you for your support.


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

A) Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

B) We can have tax cuts and reduce the national debt.

C) Global warming is a liberal conspiracy against big oil.

D) If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

Guess what, these are all false.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

caspermike said:


> Gotta see facts


Gotta take more than 3 minutes to read them; and you won't find them on the FoxNews chyron. There are literally hundreds of thousands of pages of peer-reviewed documents that support this assertion. 



caspermike said:


> climate change has always played apart of earths history blamming warming on human beings alone , would be *nieve*.


BLAM! Spanish snow!


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Anybody have easy clean-up tips for a coffee-covered keyboard? I kinda spit my morning brew all over it. Blam! Spit! Café!


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Still ignoring the elephant in the room of overpopulation in deserts is pretty silly.


----------



## yakkeranna (Jul 8, 2009)

Climate change will amplify the hydrologic cycle- some places will get more precip, some will get less... and weather patterns (especially in a La Nina year) don't prove/disprove long term trends. Also, there is a carbon equation, it's called a mass balance.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

caspermike said:


> But the carbon equation is misinterpreted if you ask me.


OK. I'm asking you. How, exactly, is the "carbon equation" misinterpreted? Please show your work...


----------



## Bayou (Jan 31, 2011)

As an Earth Scientist I am ready and willing to answer any reasonable questions on this topic. 

*Caspermike*, yes, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been a cause of global warming and cooling trends for millions of years. If the industrial revolution never existed, would Earth's global temperature be rising right now? The answer is yes... but at a much lower rate. To act as if burning fossil fuels at the rate we have for the past 250 years isn't having some control over the accelerated rate of global temperature is just naive. 

Let's have a look at CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years: 










That graph was taken from the International Panel on Climate Change 4 (2007). They have received some criticism recently but by and large their work is accepted globally as the standard right now. 

And let me clear the air about something else: global warming does not mean increased temperatures everywhere... due to continental land masses, ocean currents, and atmospheric circulation, temperature and precipitation patterns are different based on geography (most importantly latitude, elevation, and proximity to an ocean, to name a few). Currently, all major deserts are expanding their footprint and ~95% of glaciers are diminishing (a few anomalous ones in Patagonia and Greenland are increasing). Don't believe me? Go visit Glacier National Park in 25 years. There won't be any "glaciers" left to walk on. But I'm getting off track...

High snowfall in one season does not contribute to the snowpack unless it remains through the warmer summer months without melting. Where do these situations exist? IN GLACIERS. Valley glaciers make up all of the glaciers in the continental US. Valley glaciers are the ones that are disappearing right now. 

So let's recap: 
1) CO2 levels are increasing many times faster than they typically do due to human fossil fuel consumption
2) Glaciers are disappearing
3) Snowfall only contributes to snowpack where glaciers exist

Conclusion: No glaciers = no snowpack. Even anomalously high snowfall will not reverse the trend of global warming. Using a few years of above average snowfall data to dismiss a trend that has been accelerating for centuries is just plain stupid. 


Also: I agree with everyone mentioning the urbanization of deserts (US Southwest) is a ridiculous and unsustainable practice.


----------



## Bayou (Jan 31, 2011)

To prove my point even further, how about we extend the data set further back than 10,000 years...

How about 400,000 years? 

Here's data from a Russian ice core drilled in Antarctica. 

**note that the "present" in chart is 1950 and that CO2 is since risen to ~380 ppm.**










So, yea, there is a clear periodicity to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere that humans are not responsible for... but these trends cannot account for the increase we've seen in the last century.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Do you seriously think this guy is going to read scientific data? He probably get all his "information" from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity. The ultra conservatives do not base their beliefs on facts and logic. BTW - I wonder what effect beetle killed forests will have on the runoff?


----------



## Bayou (Jan 31, 2011)

Not too sure about the forests destroyed by beetles right now. 

The USGS and Forest Service are conducting soil erosion studies right now in some places, but I don't know if it's beetle-related. I know there is work being done in the Pinyon/Juniper regions near Monticello, Utah. They're trying to get a better handle on how soil erosion changes when an ecosystem shifts from Pinyon/Juniper dominated to Sagebrush dominated (a trend happening in a lot of places in the Colorado Plateau). Really cool work I got to help out a bit on when I was with the BLM.


----------



## scooby450 (Dec 4, 2008)

Let's face it. we're [email protected]! I live in the desert and hate it! Wish I could get out (Idaho) but I got a paying job here that I will not give up during this economic situation.

All I really got to say is, "Fuck it, lets go bowling, er, boating"

Hey Rip, maybe I hit on the new MB slogan!


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

El Flaco said:


> BLAM! Spanish snow!


I fuckin' died.......................... oh my god, i fuckin laughed...


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

glenn said:


> Still ignoring the elephant in the room of overpopulation in deserts is pretty silly.


Interesting...overpopulation is only a problem in the desert. Talk about ignoring the elephant.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

caseybailey said:


> Interesting...overpopulation is only a problem in the desert. Talk about ignoring the elephant.


Yep that too. Per the article though, my point was supply is the only half of the issue ever discussed.


----------



## Blackshire (Feb 16, 2010)

It may or may not be happening. But Carbon taxes and the like is not the solution. Neither is damming ever river in the world for "clean energy". Let's just go boating while we can...


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

Wow, 
if you think Colorado is over-crowded, you should see California; 
if you think California is over-crowded, you should see Europe; 
if you think Europe is over-crowded, you should see China.


----------



## BmfnL (May 23, 2009)

That much of a CO2 increase in the atmosphere has to have a significant effect. The scale invites so much chaos that there will be difficulties quantifying and "labeling" the change. Our species would be wise to work toward eliminating our giant contribution to atmospheric carbon. That _cannot be denied_ with even a glance at tha statz. Sorry if you own a petroleum company.

Back on the bright side (and on topic), snowpack is big in many parts of the rockies, and crappy April weather translates to days on the river in August. Also there is another snowpack factor that has not reared its ugly head this season but I won't mention it as I don't want to jinx us.


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

Colorado boaters and skiers will likely see plusses due to global warming. As the average temperatures rise, there is increased humidity in the atmosphere. With Colorado's high elevation mountains, this moisture will get wrung out as rain and snow.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Some damn funny stuff in this thread but Dumfukistan might win the prize and oh, most of us are going to die in a pandemic anyway so enjoy now.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Blackshire said:


> It may or may not be happening. But Carbon taxes and the like is not the solution. Neither is damming ever river in the world for "clean energy". Let's just go boating while we can...


*Seriously?* Hell, even Senator James Inhofe admits that "_it's happening_." Of course, he and his minions claim it's just part of the natural cycle. "It" is clearly happening, and the overwhelming majority of credible climate scientists have concluded that "it" is the result of human activity since the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

Blackshire said:


> But Carbon taxes and the like is not the solution.


Says you (with no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion).

Yet Cap and Trade was a resounding success in getting acid rain under control, and it did so at much lower cost than originally forecast.


> *In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions*. In fact, power plants took advantage of the allowance banking provision to reduce SO2 emissions 22 percent (7.3 million tons) below mandated levels for the first phase of the program.
> 
> On the eve of legislation, the EPA estimated that the program would cost $6 billion annually once it was fully implemented (in 2000 dollars). The Office of Management and Budget has estimated actual costs to be $1.1 to $1.8 billion -- just *20 to 30 percent of the forecast*s.


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

As an engineer working on carbon capture for coal combustion, I can tell you it isn't going to come cheap. The DOE target is 35% increase in cost of electricity (COE). The benchmark technology right now has a COE of around 80%. I think we are a ways off from significant reductions in that number, but we're working on it. Once carbon capture is mandated, renewables will be much more competitive with coal, but I don't see coal going away any time soon.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Sorry boys,

Get used to the hydrocarbons until the far left accepts nuclear...see below shale oil/gas numbers. You think our water is polluted now! Let's hope the toxic water is to deep to affect our supply as the industry claims.



_*Largest oil shale deposits (over 1 billion metric tons)*_[7]DepositCountryPeriodIn-place shale oil resources (million barrels)In-place oil shale resources (million metric tons)Green River FormationUSATertiary1,466,000213,000Phosphoria FormationUSAPermian250,00035,775Eastern DevonianUSADevonian189,00027,000Heath FormationUSAEarly Carboniferous180,00025,578Olenyok BasinRussiaCambrian167,71524,000CongoDemocratic Republic of Congo?100,00014,310Irati FormationBrazilPermian80,00011,448SicilyItaly?63,0009,015TarfayaMoroccoCretaceous42,1456,448Volga BasinRussia?31,4474,500St. Petersburg, Baltic Oil Shale BasinRussiaOrdovician25,1573,600Vychegodsk BasinRussiaJurassic19,5802,800Wadi MagharJordanCretaceous14,0092,149Dictyonema shaleEstoniaOrdovician12,3861,900TimahditMoroccoCretaceous11,2361,719Collingwood ShaleCanadaOrdovician12,3001,717ItalyItalyTriassic10,0001,431
_*Largest oil shale deposits (over 1 billion metric tons)*_[7]DepositCountryPeriodIn-place shale oil resources (million barrels)In-place oil shale resources (million metric tons)Green River FormationUSATertiary1,466,000213,000Phosphoria FormationUSAPermian250,00035,775Eastern DevonianUSADevonian189,00027,000Heath FormationUSAEarly Carboniferous180,00025,578Olenyok BasinRussiaCambrian167,71524,000CongoDemocratic Republic of Congo?100,00014,310Irati FormationBrazilPermian80,00011,448SicilyItaly?63,0009,015TarfayaMoroccoCretaceous42,1456,448Volga BasinRussia?31,4474,500St. Petersburg, Baltic Oil Shale BasinRussiaOrdovician25,1573,600Vychegodsk BasinRussiaJurassic19,5802,800Wadi MagharJordanCretaceous14,0092,149Dictyonema shaleEstoniaOrdovician12,3861,900TimahditMoroccoCretaceous11,2361,719Collingwood ShaleCanadaOrdovician12,3001,717ItalyItalyTriassic10,0001,431


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Jesus, *Mr. Subprime*, your posts give me a splitting headache. In every way.


----------



## yakkeranna (Jul 8, 2009)

Roy said:


> Says you (with no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion).
> 
> Yet Cap and Trade was a resounding success in getting acid rain under control, and it did so at much lower cost than originally forecast.


Not that I don't think we need to get a international carbon cap and trade program going (I do), but the reason sulfur C&T worked so well was that nearly all sulfur oxide is released from industrial, point-source, smokestacks. A significant amount of carbon emissions comes from non-industrial, non-point sources (i.e. private vehicles). 

=> Carbon cap and trade will not be as straight-forward as sulfur cap&trade was- but the sulfur C&T program does show that when monetary penalties are threatened against industry, the incentive for cheaper ways to clean up emissions becomes huge, which is a good thing all-around.


----------



## melted_ice (Feb 4, 2009)

Sounds like most of you owe it to our globalness to just stay home. Polluting to "recreate" on a river is so rediculously unnecessary!

Besides I need an offset for my 1990's polluter and river beer drinking induced methane expulsion.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Riparian said:


> Jesus, *Mr. Subprime*, your posts give me a splitting headache. In every way.


 
Yes Rip, we already know you're a douche with nothing to add except for you left wing queef. No need for a reminder.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

mr. compassionate said:


> Yes Rip, we already know you're a douche with nothing to add except for you left wing queef. No need for a reminder.


Benjy - I have come to the conclusion that you were a fratboy at Western Michigan University before you got into the subprime loan racket. So did you and your subprime mortgage pals sit around drinking beers on Friday nights and laugh about all people you knew were going to end up in foreclosure?


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Hey you two, leave your continued personal attacks on each other in the Eddy.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

gh said:


> Hey you two, leave your continued personal attacks on each other in the Eddy.


What, like where this entire thread belongs?


----------



## hnw2 (Jan 14, 2009)

Bayou said:


> As an Earth Scientist I am ready and willing to answer any reasonable questions on this topic.
> 
> *Caspermike*, yes, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been a cause of global warming and cooling trends for millions of years. If the industrial revolution never existed, would Earth's global temperature be rising right now? The answer is yes... but at a much lower rate. To act as if burning fossil fuels at the rate we have for the past 250 years isn't having some control over the accelerated rate of global temperature is just naive.
> 
> ...





Bayou = hero.


----------



## rivervibe (Apr 24, 2007)

It amazes me that the "if" of this is even still a point of discussion. And yes, before any of the antagonists out there yell at me about not contributing in a meaningful way, I'll freely admit that this point of view of bewilderment does not further the "debate." But damn, the more people I see still questioning the "if" of this argument the more I start to think that as population goes up, intelligence goes down...


----------



## slamkal (Apr 8, 2009)

You mean as Fox viewership goes up ....


----------



## Bayou (Jan 31, 2011)

hnw2 said:


> Bayou = hero.


Just trying to add some facts to the discussion.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

Pretty interesting slide deck here, specific to Colorado. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/coloradoclimate.ppt
The highlights - dramatic changes in precipitation & snowpack are less likely than in other states, but changes in temperatures at high altitudes will lead to overall runoff reductions of -6% to -20% by mid-century, an earlier peak runoff (April) and much drier summers. 

"90% of models agree at least a 10% decline in annual runoff in Colorado."


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

Do the 27 west to east transcontinental diversions in colorado affect anything? My personal faucet (Roberts tunnel) spews water to denver, stolen from the other side of the divide. Is this right to support rampant overpopulation in the desert?
Save the future and kill yourselves!!! I'll go second...


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

badswimmer said:


> Do the 27 west to east transcontinental diversions in colorado affect anything? My personal faucet (Roberts tunnel) spews water to denver, stolen from the other side of the divide. Is this right to support rampant overpopulation in the desert?
> Save the future and kill yourselves!!! I'll go second...


Though the city does use some of that water, most of it goes to agriculture.


----------



## yak1 (Jan 28, 2006)

I posted this article as a point of information only. It has certainly generated a lot of discusion. The point is long term there are going to be reduced flows in the Western Rivers. The facts are that most of the snow that makes these flows will come from the Colorado River drainage. There will be impacts on the rivers. Remember in the West water flows towards money. There are lots of people who depend on California agriculture and make big bucks from it. In fact everyone who grows irrigated crops in the west tends to make big bucks from it. So instead of using each other as dart boards you may want to start thinking about what you can do to protect this resource. Some of it will be donating dollars to organizations like AW, Nature Conservancy, Seirra Club, Trout Unlimited, etc. Another big part will be political, and another part will becoming up with effective solutions to reduce waste of the water resources. "Wiskey's for drink'n, water's for fightiing"


----------

