|
Pohl posted:My neighbor likes to tell me that San Diego is a desert. I can't convince him that just because it doesn't rain a lot, it is most certainly not a loving desert. All he has to do is walk outside any night and see the condensation covering everything. But noooooo, that isn't real water. (We live about a mile from the coast). That doesn't make it not a desert, it's merely a desert on the coastline. You get just 10 inches of rain a year, many large desert regions in the US get up to 12 inches a year. Anyway, OP, conssult this map for who's likely to end up with insufficent water in the near future (20 years): 
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Nathilus posted:Haha. "SURE IS COLD THIS WINTER" screams the global warming denier into the faceless storm. But it's correct in the case. Unless we somehow manage to pollute all the worlds oceans to the point that they can no longer take their proper part in the world's water cycles, we'll be fine due to desalination. It's merely expensive, not undoable. That said it isn't looking good for inland cities in many parts of the world. Well yeah, settling in deserts and near-deserts is pretty stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:That's not so much the issue here. It's that formerly moderately wet places are going to be turning into near-deserts. There are other currently dry places that are also going to get wetter, but thats up north where the population is currently thin. These places that are going to be drying up include the current breadbasket of america. If you live somewhere where you've had to rely on fossil aquifers heavily, you likely do not reside somewhere that would have been considered "moderately wet" by an ecologist within living memory.  Lots of texas is straight up dry, or on the borders of dry and acceptable, with excessive human population quickly reducing it to unsustainable long term. I posted a full desertificiation risk map earlier in the thread, much of Texas is "moderate risk" or even already dry on there Plus even the cities that have decent local rainfall, they don't have the far planned ahead water setups that places like NYC have, where the city owns and controls vast amounts of land elsewhere in their general area for long-distance supply, which ties with heavy restrictions on development in those area.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:You know that most of the water you need goes to growing your food, right? It wouldn't, much of the US' food growing in dry areas is strictly excess or even for export. Hell simply stopping corn ethanol growth would mean a ton less water usage.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:do people live in the places with annual rainfall of over four thousand millimeters? because holy lol that is a lot of rain Those are mostly located in national or state parks, and some of them are mountaintops where a lot of it falls as snow because the weather system can't really get across the top intact.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Not if you live in the moist pacific northwest, or in New York City, one of the only cities to even consider where it's water comes from. Boston, Philadelphia, and most of the cities on or near the Great Lakes are pretty well set too. Some may need improved treatment facilities, but otherwise they're all good. (Among other reasons, Philadelphia is set due to both having the same Delaware supply NYC draws from, but also there's a vast aquifer under South Jersey that has remained basically untouched due to abundant surface water).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 15:45
|
|