Great .gif of California's drought problem
- Thread starter mjvcaj
- Start date
My neighbor's daughter
lives in CA and he asked her how the new restrictions on water in CA was going to affect her. Her answer "What restrictions?" I wonder how many really don't know about the new restrictions. That gif is a good illustration on how bad it really is. Even if they started getting rain it would take several years to recover.
lives in CA and he asked her how the new restrictions on water in CA was going to affect her. Her answer "What restrictions?" I wonder how many really don't know about the new restrictions. That gif is a good illustration on how bad it really is. Even if they started getting rain it would take several years to recover.
The photos of lakes are incredible
It is a serious problem, both for the people that live there and all our food supply.
Since the fall of 2013 a large area of the Pacific has been hotter than normal. This forces the jet stream up and over it. The jet stream than comes back down of middle America. That explains why the winters the last two years have been worse than we had seen in some time. But with the jet stream going up through Alaska, the storms aren't hitting California. Now I'm sure a debate will erupt on global warming, I have no idea. But as long as that stays there, the high pressure created by it curves the jet in a most annoying manner.
It is a serious problem, both for the people that live there and all our food supply.
Since the fall of 2013 a large area of the Pacific has been hotter than normal. This forces the jet stream up and over it. The jet stream than comes back down of middle America. That explains why the winters the last two years have been worse than we had seen in some time. But with the jet stream going up through Alaska, the storms aren't hitting California. Now I'm sure a debate will erupt on global warming, I have no idea. But as long as that stays there, the high pressure created by it curves the jet in a most annoying manner.
So true
They should have been conserving water long before this. We never seem to learn anything in this country. When we have plenty of something we think it will always be that way rather than trying to conserve where we can.
I know a few people who made huge salaries before the 2008 recession but never saved a dime because they thought they would always make those huge salaries.
They should have been conserving water long before this. We never seem to learn anything in this country. When we have plenty of something we think it will always be that way rather than trying to conserve where we can.
I know a few people who made huge salaries before the 2008 recession but never saved a dime because they thought they would always make those huge salaries.
The water restrictions are a feel-good measure.
They will do next to nothing. About 80% of the water used in California goes to agriculture. Saving water by having shorter showers or not serving water automatically in restaurants is a good idea, but it's not going to really touch the problem.
Remember the big hullaballoo about selling Great Lakes water to China? Well, think about this...
California grows about 6 million tons of alfalfa for livestock annually. Almost one-tenth of it is exported, with China being, by far, the largest customer*. The alfalfa being shipped to China accounts for almost 2% of the state's entire water usage.
One of the single biggest changes we could make to help the water crisis: eat less animal product. One pound of beef requires 1,800 gallons of water to produce, twenty-four times the amount required to produce an equal number of calories from corn. Pork is a lot better at 576 gallons per pound, but it's still very wasteful compared to vegetable foods.
Again, I'm all for people conserving water. But if anyone thinks we can solve this problem simply by watering the lawn less, they are very much mistaken. The vast majority of our water gets used for purposes that would require radical lifestyle changes on our part to properly address.
goat
* Japan is actually the largest consumer of exported American hay overall.
They will do next to nothing. About 80% of the water used in California goes to agriculture. Saving water by having shorter showers or not serving water automatically in restaurants is a good idea, but it's not going to really touch the problem.
Remember the big hullaballoo about selling Great Lakes water to China? Well, think about this...
California grows about 6 million tons of alfalfa for livestock annually. Almost one-tenth of it is exported, with China being, by far, the largest customer*. The alfalfa being shipped to China accounts for almost 2% of the state's entire water usage.
One of the single biggest changes we could make to help the water crisis: eat less animal product. One pound of beef requires 1,800 gallons of water to produce, twenty-four times the amount required to produce an equal number of calories from corn. Pork is a lot better at 576 gallons per pound, but it's still very wasteful compared to vegetable foods.
Again, I'm all for people conserving water. But if anyone thinks we can solve this problem simply by watering the lawn less, they are very much mistaken. The vast majority of our water gets used for purposes that would require radical lifestyle changes on our part to properly address.
goat
* Japan is actually the largest consumer of exported American hay overall.
That's nothing goat...
California almonds use a stunning 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year, or enough for you to take a 10-minute shower each day for 86 million years (using a low-flow showerhead, of course).
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html
Note: I did not check the calcs
California almonds use a stunning 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year, or enough for you to take a 10-minute shower each day for 86 million years (using a low-flow showerhead, of course).
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html
Note: I did not check the calcs
I still find some irony in California's problem
The population at large tends to associate itself with progressivism, innovation, discovery and environmentalism. And yet, here it sits. I am no expert in science nor do I read enough about the process to understand why Desalination plants are not abundant. But, if you look at the global picture, Israel and Australia are wildly ahead of California when it comes to problem-solving water scarcity.
The population at large tends to associate itself with progressivism, innovation, discovery and environmentalism. And yet, here it sits. I am no expert in science nor do I read enough about the process to understand why Desalination plants are not abundant. But, if you look at the global picture, Israel and Australia are wildly ahead of California when it comes to problem-solving water scarcity.
That's a lot.
That's actually less than the alfalfa (and other forage crops grown in California), but it's still an awful lot.
That's actually less than the alfalfa (and other forage crops grown in California), but it's still an awful lot.
How do you figure the 1,800 gallons of water per pound of beef?
If we assume an average animal consumption of 610 libs of meat per animal, the total water consumption per pound of meat is 26.5 gallons. On a water consumed basis, you are off by a factor of 70.
Figuring the water needed to produce the feed has so many variables I'm not sure how you can ever come up with reliable data. Nevertheless, the difference between 26 and 1800 is so great I doubt you could ever get to 1800 from 26 no matter what you fed them.
That's point 1. Point 2 is I don't think your point is very relevant. Water used for irrigation, animal consumption, and human use is mostly on a basin by basin calculation. While raising cattle may affect the water available in the California central valley,I doubt that is a major contributor to the shortage. Herds tend to decrease or increase in particular regions based upon available pasture and water.
If we assume an average animal consumption of 610 libs of meat per animal, the total water consumption per pound of meat is 26.5 gallons. On a water consumed basis, you are off by a factor of 70.
Figuring the water needed to produce the feed has so many variables I'm not sure how you can ever come up with reliable data. Nevertheless, the difference between 26 and 1800 is so great I doubt you could ever get to 1800 from 26 no matter what you fed them.
That's point 1. Point 2 is I don't think your point is very relevant. Water used for irrigation, animal consumption, and human use is mostly on a basin by basin calculation. While raising cattle may affect the water available in the California central valley,I doubt that is a major contributor to the shortage. Herds tend to decrease or increase in particular regions based upon available pasture and water.
Three things
1. First California and the EPA required minimum flows in many rivers and estuaries for specie support. I don't know if those flows are still being maintained now, but they were earlier in the drought period which emptied the reservoirs.
2. California is very short of storage capacity. The environmentalists have been very very aggressive in stopping new water storage projects which is not a big deal during normal times, but is a problem during dry times.
3. Energy prices in California are intentionally high in order to force conservation and limit consumption. The bad news is that desalinization projects which require energy haven't been developed.
1. First California and the EPA required minimum flows in many rivers and estuaries for specie support. I don't know if those flows are still being maintained now, but they were earlier in the drought period which emptied the reservoirs.
2. California is very short of storage capacity. The environmentalists have been very very aggressive in stopping new water storage projects which is not a big deal during normal times, but is a problem during dry times.
3. Energy prices in California are intentionally high in order to force conservation and limit consumption. The bad news is that desalinization projects which require energy haven't been developed.
It's almost all feed.
This link says you're overestimating how much water is required for drink, in fact. It's almost entirely feed. Think about how much water goes into growing food you eat, and compare that to how much water you drink. I have no problem imagining that the difference would be a factor of 70 or more.
Over 20% of California's water is used to produce forage crops. Many of those crops are consumed by livestock in other regions, so they are all connected, in a way, although I do agree that simply cutting down meat consumption would not immediately stop the drought.
goat
Water cost
This link says you're overestimating how much water is required for drink, in fact. It's almost entirely feed. Think about how much water goes into growing food you eat, and compare that to how much water you drink. I have no problem imagining that the difference would be a factor of 70 or more.
Over 20% of California's water is used to produce forage crops. Many of those crops are consumed by livestock in other regions, so they are all connected, in a way, although I do agree that simply cutting down meat consumption would not immediately stop the drought.
goat
Water cost
The link says nothing (link added)
For example are when it says "plus irrigation water" are they referring to the raw water requirement or consumptive use? Only a small percentage of the irrigation water is consumed by the plant. Return flows from a a flood irrigated field is a lot of water. You have a better argument with circle sprinklers but I believe that is much less gross water. Most acreage is flood irrigation.
This post was edited on 4/13 7:59 PM by CO. Hoosier
For example are when it says "plus irrigation water" are they referring to the raw water requirement or consumptive use? Only a small percentage of the irrigation water is consumed by the plant. Return flows from a a flood irrigated field is a lot of water. You have a better argument with circle sprinklers but I believe that is much less gross water. Most acreage is flood irrigation.
This post was edited on 4/13 7:59 PM by CO. Hoosier
No one is bringing up the real problem. . .
Too little water isn't the problem. Too many goddamn people is the problem. Los Angeles county alone has 10 million people. That's 10 million people in a county that technically doesn't have a fresh water supply.
Almost 40 million people in the state. Most of that population is in areas that didn't have a whole helluva lot of water to begin with. Any drop in water supply is gonna hurt.
Too little water isn't the problem. Too many goddamn people is the problem. Los Angeles county alone has 10 million people. That's 10 million people in a county that technically doesn't have a fresh water supply.
Almost 40 million people in the state. Most of that population is in areas that didn't have a whole helluva lot of water to begin with. Any drop in water supply is gonna hurt.
It includes both evaporated and transpired water
As it should.
Besides, so long as it is measured consistently for all crops, both forage and for human consumption, the comparison is valid.
This isn't fringe science. This is pretty standard stuff.
Follow link below for a detailed report on the math for beef.
Beef water footprint.
As it should.
Besides, so long as it is measured consistently for all crops, both forage and for human consumption, the comparison is valid.
This isn't fringe science. This is pretty standard stuff.
Follow link below for a detailed report on the math for beef.
Beef water footprint.
hm . . . .
what is the relevance of your first point?
did somebody say this was "fringe science"? (Seems like the standard liberal argument falacy is to appeal to the "authority of science" where the science isn't in issue..)
What is m3?
Looks to me that if we shoot all the horses we'd be better off.
what is the relevance of your first point?
did somebody say this was "fringe science"? (Seems like the standard liberal argument falacy is to appeal to the "authority of science" where the science isn't in issue..)
What is m3?
Looks to me that if we shoot all the horses we'd be better off.
For a host of reasons
we just need to cut off immigration, legal and illegal. We did that during the 50's and early 60's and we had boom times.
we just need to cut off immigration, legal and illegal. We did that during the 50's and early 60's and we had boom times.
I'm being defensive.
I know you didn't accuse me of espousing "fringe science," but this is all, to me, pretty much common knowledge, so I don't have all the graphs and numbers handy. I was offering that off-handed comment as a simple explanation for why that is. This is stuff that people who are familiar with the food industry all know about.
FWIW, it's not that meat is, by nature, less efficient in terms of water. It's the added step in the food chain that leads to more water waste. Beef is an especially big culprit, because cattle are bred to be very high-calorie and require a ton of feed. Leaner animals, like goats, have a much smaller water footprint.
It's also worth noting that the relationship of livestock to crops is not a one-way street. Manure gives benefits back to the next generation of crops planted, for example. I'm not a proponent of a vegan diet, which I think is a mistake for many reasons. But modern Americans do eat, historically, a lot of fatty meat and dairy, and the animals that produce that meat and dairy eat a lot of grain and hay, and those crops require a lot of water to grow.
m3? You mean cubic meter? About 264 gallons. Alternatively, there are about 1,200 cubic meters in an acre-foot.
I think the main lesson that people need to take away from all this is that we use the vast majority of our water to produce food, and producing meat products is, in most cases, much less efficient than producing edible vegetation. But even if we all became vegetarians, agricultural use of water would still far outstrip any other use.
When you sit down in a restaurant and the waiter pours you a glass of water you didn't ask for, yes, that's wasteful. But it's also a tiny fraction of the total water use being represented by your meal. These types of water restrictions make politicians look like they are doing something, when they really aren't.
I know you didn't accuse me of espousing "fringe science," but this is all, to me, pretty much common knowledge, so I don't have all the graphs and numbers handy. I was offering that off-handed comment as a simple explanation for why that is. This is stuff that people who are familiar with the food industry all know about.
FWIW, it's not that meat is, by nature, less efficient in terms of water. It's the added step in the food chain that leads to more water waste. Beef is an especially big culprit, because cattle are bred to be very high-calorie and require a ton of feed. Leaner animals, like goats, have a much smaller water footprint.
It's also worth noting that the relationship of livestock to crops is not a one-way street. Manure gives benefits back to the next generation of crops planted, for example. I'm not a proponent of a vegan diet, which I think is a mistake for many reasons. But modern Americans do eat, historically, a lot of fatty meat and dairy, and the animals that produce that meat and dairy eat a lot of grain and hay, and those crops require a lot of water to grow.
m3? You mean cubic meter? About 264 gallons. Alternatively, there are about 1,200 cubic meters in an acre-foot.
I think the main lesson that people need to take away from all this is that we use the vast majority of our water to produce food, and producing meat products is, in most cases, much less efficient than producing edible vegetation. But even if we all became vegetarians, agricultural use of water would still far outstrip any other use.
When you sit down in a restaurant and the waiter pours you a glass of water you didn't ask for, yes, that's wasteful. But it's also a tiny fraction of the total water use being represented by your meal. These types of water restrictions make politicians look like they are doing something, when they really aren't.
It's not actually a desert...yet.
Most of California is a Mediterranean or semi-arid climate. The problem is that this current drought is essentially turning it into a desert.
It's also a problem that the highest-value crops - fruit and nut trees, and forage hay - tend to require larger than average amounts of water.
Most of California is a Mediterranean or semi-arid climate. The problem is that this current drought is essentially turning it into a desert.
It's also a problem that the highest-value crops - fruit and nut trees, and forage hay - tend to require larger than average amounts of water.
OK
then it appears that it takes 792 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, assuming a three year life. Less than 1/2 of the 1800 gallons in your other link.
then it appears that it takes 792 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, assuming a three year life. Less than 1/2 of the 1800 gallons in your other link.
You can't use that table to make that claim.
That table doesn't have enough data to figure out a use/weight number.
Look at table 4. It has all the data you need.
That table doesn't have enough data to figure out a use/weight number.
Look at table 4. It has all the data you need.
Ah.
The data for size of animals and resultant meat is also in the link I provided. The average result is about 220 pounds of meat (101 kg), not 610. See Table 5 for an extremely detailed breakdown of the water footprint of cattle, including how it is allocated between resultant products.
The data for size of animals and resultant meat is also in the link I provided. The average result is about 220 pounds of meat (101 kg), not 610. See Table 5 for an extremely detailed breakdown of the water footprint of cattle, including how it is allocated between resultant products.
There is something wrong with table 5
It's pretty standard to get about 600lbs of meat from a 1000 pound carcass. The cattle weights they use are way too low.
This isn't fringe science.
It's pretty standard to get about 600lbs of meat from a 1000 pound carcass. The cattle weights they use are way too low.
This isn't fringe science.
I've been to Doha and Kabul.
It's been over 20 years since I was in Doha and I don't remember it being especially bad at the time. It was much like all the other Middle Eastern countries I've visited. I'd guess that it's gotten a lot worse since then because they've been building like gangbusters. Kabul was three years ago and I was only there for a little less than a month doing training of Americans and Afghans. It was a time of year with mild temperatures and nice breezes so air wasn't as bad during that time. The weather was actually very nice and I didn't notice much air polution other than some unpleasant odors here and there. My in country compatriots told me that it did get very bad for much of the year. The place had the craziest traffic I've ever been in and I've been in crazy traffic in a lot of countries. The pollution from exhaust id very noticable when in the streets. The city is very poluted with garbage and the like. I'm told there had actually been notable improvement in that regard over several years. Don't know if it's gotten worse or better since then.
It's been over 20 years since I was in Doha and I don't remember it being especially bad at the time. It was much like all the other Middle Eastern countries I've visited. I'd guess that it's gotten a lot worse since then because they've been building like gangbusters. Kabul was three years ago and I was only there for a little less than a month doing training of Americans and Afghans. It was a time of year with mild temperatures and nice breezes so air wasn't as bad during that time. The weather was actually very nice and I didn't notice much air polution other than some unpleasant odors here and there. My in country compatriots told me that it did get very bad for much of the year. The place had the craziest traffic I've ever been in and I've been in crazy traffic in a lot of countries. The pollution from exhaust id very noticable when in the streets. The city is very poluted with garbage and the like. I'm told there had actually been notable improvement in that regard over several years. Don't know if it's gotten worse or better since then.
We don't know if it did
I explained it below. The waters of the Pacific south of Alaska down most the way through California have been warmer than normal for almost two years. This causes a high pressure to form. The jet stream carrying the storms buckles up and over that high pressure. So storm systems go north of California. The jet then comes back down out of Canada over the eastern half of the US. This is why the past two years have been colder and snowier for most of us east of the Mississippi. A weather guy I follow on Facebook talked about this last October in his winter prediction, he said that warm water caused the bitter cold and heavy snows we had in 13-14 and it was still there heading into 14-15. He did not mention AGW.
The problem is, no one can say this warm water is due to AGW. Like any hurricane or any other storm system, it may have happened with or without AGW. The only thing we can say is that the likelihood of warmer water would be greater due to AGW.
But the storms carrying precipitation are moved around CA. That is at least part of the drought issue. The problem with blaming it on AGW is we don't know. Part of the problem with this is that the area of the Pacific isn't warming up, it just isn't cooling down. During winter when it should drop, it isn't. Is that due to AGW? Who knows. Here is an article on it.
I explained it below. The waters of the Pacific south of Alaska down most the way through California have been warmer than normal for almost two years. This causes a high pressure to form. The jet stream carrying the storms buckles up and over that high pressure. So storm systems go north of California. The jet then comes back down out of Canada over the eastern half of the US. This is why the past two years have been colder and snowier for most of us east of the Mississippi. A weather guy I follow on Facebook talked about this last October in his winter prediction, he said that warm water caused the bitter cold and heavy snows we had in 13-14 and it was still there heading into 14-15. He did not mention AGW.
The problem is, no one can say this warm water is due to AGW. Like any hurricane or any other storm system, it may have happened with or without AGW. The only thing we can say is that the likelihood of warmer water would be greater due to AGW.
But the storms carrying precipitation are moved around CA. That is at least part of the drought issue. The problem with blaming it on AGW is we don't know. Part of the problem with this is that the area of the Pacific isn't warming up, it just isn't cooling down. During winter when it should drop, it isn't. Is that due to AGW? Who knows. Here is an article on it.
Those are global averages.
I dunno. So what? Why are you trying so hard to nitpick? My original point is still valid. It costs more water to produce meat and to produce vegetables.
I dunno. So what? Why are you trying so hard to nitpick? My original point is still valid. It costs more water to produce meat and to produce vegetables.
Exactly
and your explanation below is consistent with what I found in different places. Yet, there are politicians, including Obama, who have stated the drought is the result of climate change. There are people who receive their science from politicians believe that. Hoops is an example. To dispute this point puts one in the camp of a "climate denier" whatever that is supposed to mean..
and your explanation below is consistent with what I found in different places. Yet, there are politicians, including Obama, who have stated the drought is the result of climate change. There are people who receive their science from politicians believe that. Hoops is an example. To dispute this point puts one in the camp of a "climate denier" whatever that is supposed to mean..
According to the info COH provided
The final weight of meat products accounts for about 43% of the live weight. the 60% refers to the hanging weight, which is not an accurate way to measure what we're talking about. When I say a "pound of meat," in this discussion, I'm clearly talking about what weighs a pound inside the package at the store. A pound of food, not a pound of carcass.
That being said, the animals that were studied in the report I linked were much smaller on average. I assume that is because it was a survey of different breeds from around the world. The report included numbers for some individual countries. I note that U.S. cattle is slightly more efficient than average in terms of water footprint. That may be at least partially due to their larger size. I don't know.
The broader point still stands, and should be self-evident: any time you raise an animal for slaughter, you have to also grow food for it. Some of those calories go into making the animal fat. Many of those calories go into maintaining the animal - keeping it alive, supplying its brain, etc. Whatever water was used to grow that portion of the food is water you wouldn't have to use if growing vegetables for human consumption. That's why animals are less efficient. We are adding a step to the food chain. Of course they will require a lot more water. It's inevitable.
To take it to an absurd extension, imagine if we lived in a society that raised humans for slaughter. The vast majority of calories we put into those humans would be used to power their brains, not to develop fat and muscle. And if we fed those humans beef, a lot of those calories would be inefficient to begin with. Eating humans would therefore require many more gallons of water per calorie than eating beef. It's all a matter of how many steps you put in your food chain, and how efficiently those calories are converted to calories available for the next step in the chain.
goat
The final weight of meat products accounts for about 43% of the live weight. the 60% refers to the hanging weight, which is not an accurate way to measure what we're talking about. When I say a "pound of meat," in this discussion, I'm clearly talking about what weighs a pound inside the package at the store. A pound of food, not a pound of carcass.
That being said, the animals that were studied in the report I linked were much smaller on average. I assume that is because it was a survey of different breeds from around the world. The report included numbers for some individual countries. I note that U.S. cattle is slightly more efficient than average in terms of water footprint. That may be at least partially due to their larger size. I don't know.
The broader point still stands, and should be self-evident: any time you raise an animal for slaughter, you have to also grow food for it. Some of those calories go into making the animal fat. Many of those calories go into maintaining the animal - keeping it alive, supplying its brain, etc. Whatever water was used to grow that portion of the food is water you wouldn't have to use if growing vegetables for human consumption. That's why animals are less efficient. We are adding a step to the food chain. Of course they will require a lot more water. It's inevitable.
To take it to an absurd extension, imagine if we lived in a society that raised humans for slaughter. The vast majority of calories we put into those humans would be used to power their brains, not to develop fat and muscle. And if we fed those humans beef, a lot of those calories would be inefficient to begin with. Eating humans would therefore require many more gallons of water per calorie than eating beef. It's all a matter of how many steps you put in your food chain, and how efficiently those calories are converted to calories available for the next step in the chain.
goat
Similar threads
