3 Months Till Atlanta Runs Out of Water

[Dry Observer]

For those of you who are wondering what I mean about cities becoming unlivable under full-blown global warming, here's a hint from the Atlanta Journal Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2007/10/11/wateruse1011.html)...
> Metro Atlanta normally receives an estimated 50 inches of rain annually. In 2007, less than 25 inches has fallen.

> Lake Lanier is 13 feet below full. Without more rain, it could drop to 31 feet below full by the end of the year —- a historic low.

> On the peak day in 2007, metro Atlanta used 583 million gallons of water from Lake Lanier and the upper Chattahoochee River.

Lake Lanier, metro Atlanta's main source of water, has about three months of storage left, according to state and federal officials.

That's three months before there's not enough water for more than 3 million metro Atlantans to take showers, flush their toilets and cook. Three months before there's not enough water in parts of the Chattahoochee River for power plants to generate electricity. Three months before part of the river runs dry.

Three months is the best guess by hydrologists with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Georgia Environmental Protection Division Director Carol Couch as the record-breaking drought parches much of the Southeast.

To sum up, for those not reading the article, Atlanta desperately needs rain in the next three months, or a very big new source of water, or it's facing an incredible shortfall. While this probably won't destroy the city the way a cutoff of fuel and/or electricity might in other worst-case scenarios, a collapse in water resources could devastate certain kinds of businesses and make life much harder for residents of the city.

And imagine, this is a major U.S. city (3.4 million people), not even that far south, actually at a relatively high elevation (over 1,000 feet), and most 'global warming alarmists' talk about the dangerous effects of climate change as being some time in the distant future. Perhaps 30 years off, or 50, or 100.

For those wondering, losing another major city with something like 6 times the population of New Orleans would be a Bad Thing.

Just so we're clear.

[the4thpip]

Talk about a dry observation! :eek:

And the boyfriend just moved to ATL. I guess this means we'll have to shower together?

[PatrickG]

For those of you who are wondering what I mean about cities becoming unlivable under full-blown global warming, here's a hint from the Atlanta Journal Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2007/10/11/wateruse1011.html)...


To sum up, for those not reading the article, Atlanta desperately needs rain in the next three months, or a very big new source of water, or it's facing an incredible shortfall. While this probably won't destroy the city the way a cutoff of fuel and/or electricity might in other worst-case scenarios, a collapse in water resources could devastate certain kinds of businesses and make life much harder for residents of the city.

And imagine, this is a major U.S. city (3.4 million people), not even that far south, actually at a relatively high elevation (over 1,000 feet), and most 'global warming alarmists' talk about the dangerous effects of climate change as being some time in the distant future. Perhaps 30 years off, or 50, or 100.

For those wondering, losing another major city with something like 6 times the population of New Orleans would be a Bad Thing.

Just so we're clear.

On the upside, the state capital changed once already and Atlanta is horribly designed IMO. I find that for a city that sprawls over at least five counties, it's funny how the bad part of town is always half a block's wrong turn from clean glass buildings and corporate HQs...

I dunno. I still think pollution and the housing collapse may take Atlanta down first. There have been many thousands of foreclosures this year. Newly evicted people showing up on the court house steps and their old home is put up in a street auction, hoping to beg the new owners to let them rent.

Atlanta should have plenty of water when the ice caps melt. It'll be purification systems and energy consumption that will be the big deal, IMO.

I mean, we can remove the salt from saltwater. With a freshwater shortage in large cities, I think purification will be a way of life eventually.

Also, I think a lot of farmers and developers have had skewed expectations of Georgia's climate for decades, beyond issues presented by global warming.

Fifteen years ago, most of North Georgia was technically considered a rain forest. And every year since the first year that I recall it falling short of the "rain forest" categorization, people have been crying "drought".

After fifteen years, I don't think "drought" is the word for it. I think we have unrealistic ideas about the sustainability of population growth here and screwy ideas about what the climate should be.

[Cam63]

In a bucket, Pip.

Fark, things can't get any rosier for those poor buggers.

[Charles RB]

Shit.

Smart plan would be to bring an immediate water rationing so the supply can last a few more months, I'd figure.

[stealthwise]

Time for a Die-back? Ok, ok, just asking...

[Lunar Daydreamer]

They can have some of our rain, we really haven't had a summer at all.

I blame the Rhianna song.

In fact this October is by far and away the warmest and the most dry weather we've had all year, bizarrely enough.

[Linkara]

Forgive my squirrely ignorance, but haven't we been able to produce artificial water? I mean, it's just two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom...

[the4thpip]

Forgive my squirrely ignorance, but haven't we been able to produce artificial water? I mean, it's just two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom...

And it probably only takes a barrel of crude oil to produce a refreshing glass of water!

But seriously, somebody developing a way that can get the salt out of sea water by using small amounts of (renewable?) energy could solve a world of problems.

[stamen]

So if the drought is a product of global warming, then cities with above average rainfall are the products of what, exactly? And what did global warming have to do with the most severe American droughts on record which were in the 1930's in the plain states? Or the belief that drought nearly destroyed the Egyptian civilization 3,500 years ago. And I thought global warming was responsbile for the excessive rainfall we had during El Nino a decade ago... at least that was the buzz.

At some point, we need some hard science to start couching all our assumptions. While the evidence certainly suggests an average rise in global tempture (for the past 5,000 years) and a signficant rise over the past few years, I've not seen any convincing data to suggest that droughts are anything new, and therefore it sounds a lot more like fear-mongering and pandering to assert that this latest drought is somehow of epic proportions and related to global warming.

If you have links, I'd be happy to read up and re-access my take.

[kingdom2000]

^ One thing I haven't seen is an argument for why not take action on global warming. What is the harm in finding better energy sources and cutting down on pollution? It ones of things that amazes me about the argument which comes down to since can't prove it beyond all doubt, nothing should be done. About the only people that attitude helps is big business and oil. Exactly how does it help you to not wanting something done?

In the end, I don't want to hear about how global warming is a fantasy, I want to hear why nothing should be done just in case it isn't.

[Dry Observer]

Technically, it doesn't help most big business, either. Paying wildly inflated costs for energy? The population paying those same inflated costs and also getting sick from the pollution?

Just cuts down on most business's bottom lines whether through direct costs or by hurting consumers/other businesses who purchase their products or services.

[PatrickG]

Technically, it doesn't help most big business, either. Paying wildly inflated costs for energy? The population paying those same inflated costs and also getting sick from the pollution?

Just cuts down on most business's bottom lines whether through direct costs or by hurting consumers/other businesses who purchase their products or services.

Yeah, here's my thing. I think we might lose a few big cities at some point. But I don't believe in apocalyptic global warming; I think we'll adapt somehow even if it does get that bad. I have faith in humanity's ability to infest whatever corner of the cosmos they have to in whatever conditions they need to in order to keep breeding.

But even if you don't believe in manmade climate change AT ALL, where's the harm in better resource management? I've never heard of a proposition made in response to global warming that would be a bad idea even if there was no global warming...

(I gotta say though, where Atlanta is concerned, screw the mussels. We as a society thrive on the breeding and killing of animals so I'm not sure why we're so concerned about causing species to go extinct when we're perfectly willing to thrive on bred and slaughtered cows. If you're down for any amount of killing animals for fun and profit, why is genocide such a leap when there are measurable benefits? Just store a few of the dead mussels somewhere and find a way to recreate them later if needed.)

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

You cannot replicate water. In spite of the simple chemistry, it's never been done successfully. There are processes for taking salt out of the water though.

That said the best bet would be to adapt some of the old middle eastern methods of water conservation. They were able to make a desert fertile. And best of all, they were able to produce their own ice. Those methods could probably help Atlanta. Just a thought.

JP

[The Mutt]

The boys are thirsty in Atlanta
and there's beer in Texarkana,
and we'll bring it back
no matter what it taaaaaaakes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN8dP4CoFaw

http://classicautotags.com/images/burt_on_bandit_car_300_size_i1yx.jpg

The greatest song ever written for a film!

[LewisH]

an extreme cycle in periodic rainfall, it's still a problem that needs to be solved not an issue that needs to be debated. However, that is what will happen. Politicians will endlessly debate the whys rather than just getting on with the whats and hows.

Of course the real problem is overpopulation which in turn leads to all the other problems we are experiencing. I've done my part by not reproducing though.

[Dedagda]

So if the drought is a product of global warming, then cities with above average rainfall are the products of what, exactly? And what did global warming have to do with the most severe American droughts on record which were in the 1930's in the plain states? Or the belief that drought nearly destroyed the Egyptian civilization 3,500 years ago. And I thought global warming was responsbile for the excessive rainfall we had during El Nino a decade ago... at least that was the buzz.

At some point, we need some hard science to start couching all our assumptions. While the evidence certainly suggests an average rise in global tempture (for the past 5,000 years) and a signficant rise over the past few years, I've not seen any convincing data to suggest that droughts are anything new, and therefore it sounds a lot more like fear-mongering and pandering to assert that this latest drought is somehow of epic proportions and related to global warming.

If you have links, I'd be happy to read up and re-access my take.

Go watch Inconvenient Truth. We just watched it last night.

While droughts have been throughout history, the trending is way up.

One of the interesting points brought up in the 2005/2006 movie is the varied distribution of water and rainfall. Gore showed the map of the US with droplets water indicating an overabundance of rainfall and mini sun icons representing hot spots and droughts. His map indicated these areas so close that neighboring states were affected versus regions.

Atlanta may be in a drought, but central Texas has seen a deluge. We're not even in a drought anymore. We've been in some form of drought as far back as I can remember. But this all happened for Texas within a few months.

Global warming = more evaporation of the oceans causing more rainfall in some areas.
Global warming = more evaporation of water from land itself causing more droughts as well.

He did have one cool comparison of scientific journals versus media articles.

Of 962-ish articles on global warming, ZERO of them disagreed that it was happening. Of 300-ish media articles, 56 percent of them doubted its existence.

He likened it to the smoking and cancer links from the 50s & 60s. Science didn't doubt the connection. Popular media did.

[Linkara]

And it probably only takes a barrel of crude oil to produce a refreshing glass of water!

But seriously, somebody developing a way that can get the salt out of sea water by using small amounts of (renewable?) energy could solve a world of problems.

What about desalinization plants? Okay, they're probably still using crude oil in order to do it, but then we need to come up with better devices to use to convert energy (which we kind of have since we finally cracked fusion power in the last few years).

[mgs]

Atlanta? I'd blame 2 things: Coke and golf courses.

Coke should be helping the environment if they are not already, otherwise all the H2O they use is simply bottled up and shipped around the world and golf courses are the salt of earth, literally. Everywhere they spring up, people lands suddenly become dry, forests burn, etc. Keeping golf courses around takes so much water for wasted space that idiot people don't seem to realize just how much it takes to keep them nice and fresh looking when the PGA comes around.

[Dry Observer]

What about desalinization plants? Okay, they're probably still using crude oil in order to do it, but then we need to come up with better devices to use to convert energy (which we kind of have since we finally cracked fusion power in the last few years).

A good point, Linkara, but here's one thing I haven't always noted when discussing how dangerous Australia's drought has been this year -- Australia has one of the most advanced and robust-per-capita desalination programs of any nation on Earth. (Maybe the most advanced and robust.)

That doesn't mean solutions like that can't help, or that they aren't enough for some locations. But one of the key things to remember about global warming is how much worse it already is compared to any weather problems we've seen in centuries -- and how cataclysmic it could easily become.

Having said that, one of the biggest problems we're facing is a staunch refusal to consider even the most basic safeguards regarding essentials such as water supplies and food production. That, and many people who are still oblivious to the threat.

[Nick Soapdish]

For those of you who are wondering what I mean about cities becoming unlivable under full-blown global warming, here's a hint from the Atlanta Journal Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2007/10/11/wateruse1011.html)...


To sum up, for those not reading the article, Atlanta desperately needs rain in the next three months, or a very big new source of water, or it's facing an incredible shortfall. While this probably won't destroy the city the way a cutoff of fuel and/or electricity might in other worst-case scenarios, a collapse in water resources could devastate certain kinds of businesses and make life much harder for residents of the city.

And imagine, this is a major U.S. city (3.4 million people), not even that far south, actually at a relatively high elevation (over 1,000 feet), and most 'global warming alarmists' talk about the dangerous effects of climate change as being some time in the distant future. Perhaps 30 years off, or 50, or 100.

For those wondering, losing another major city with something like 6 times the population of New Orleans would be a Bad Thing.

Just so we're clear.

I wonder what that means for the Apalachicola River.

We've been involved in a massive water fight with Georgia over them cutting off the water supply and killing the oyster industry as well as many species of fish that spawn on the normally submerged sandbars.

We reached an accord, but I don't know who has the guaranteed water. Or if we're both guaranteed more water than we have right now like what they did with the Colorado River.

[mgs]

Continuing....

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/10/20/perdueweb_1020_web.html

""There is water available for the drinking water needs of metro Atlanta for the next several months and well beyond," Jorns said."

Wow! For the next several months they don't have to worry about their water needs! Great! O.o
There's a reason why military/scientific people don't exactly make the greatest of public correspondents.

[Charles RB]

A state of emergency has been declared and they're calling for federal disaster help? That is worrying. Though not quite as worrying as the power-play between the Georgia state officials and the Army Corps of Engineers & Department of Wildlife, because that could lead to someone on either side doing something harmful just to one-up the other side.

[Nick Soapdish]

Well, that answered my questions about the water supply for Apalachicola which had been the ones getting the short end of the stick. I'm guessing that they're still short, but Atlanta isn't in the mood to share anything any more. Under the circumstances, I doubt that they care that the water supply also supports the livelihood of a community that's been there for decades and long before it got dammed up.

Interestingly enough, the Army Corps of Engineers is both helping and hurting the Apalachicola River right now. It's dredging it and dumping sand on the shores which destroys lots of habitat for the benefit of gravel barges going up the river. OTOH, they're working to protect the waterflow so those gravel barges can keep coming so they're helping to make sure that water still flows.