California water crisis

[Michchamp]

Well, this is kinda what happens when you settle millions of people in a desert and divert all natural sources of water to that area. Oh, sorry, I mean "when the Christian god decides to punish you with a drought, since we all know humans can't actually affect the environment, and therefore are free to pollute it & waste its resources like there's no tomorrow as long as they appease the Christian god."

Ya know... we got plenty of water just a couple miles east... it's called THE Great Lakes.

and if you try to lay your grubby hands on it, you're toast. Same goes for you hicks south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Look at that:

a whopping 21% of the freshwater on Earth, right there. 5,439 cubic miles of water.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, this is kinda what happens when you settle millions of people in a desert and divert all natural sources of water to that area. Oh, sorry, I mean "when the Christian god decides to punish you with a drought, since we all know humans can't actually affect the environment...

Archimedes was dabbling in hydraulics centuries before Jesus came along.

And this place has always been a desert, humans didn't contribute to that.

But you do have point, it's possible that the christian god is punishing us because we're tolerant of gays.

Or because we're the porn capital of the world.

Or maybe because we're the gay porn capital of the world.

 

[Michchamp]

Check out the images in this link. Yowzas, that's not a lot of snow.

"Many scientists now believe a megadrought?an intense drought lasting longer than two decades?has already begun. Eleven of the last 15 years have been abnormally dry across the West. With the added boost of global warming, parts of California are slowly being transformed into a desiccated wasteland."​

 

[zyxt9]

That was written back in October. If I'm not mistaken, the snow caps once again had insufficient accumulation this winter. It is going to be a very bad 2015 for these guys.

And I wonder how much lower Lake Mead will be this year too.

It will be interesting to see if this Megadrought lasts for a few more years, or a few more centuries (not that we will be alive to see that, obviously). Historical records listed on Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but they are still a good resource for this type of info): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadrought
indicates some megadroughts have lasted over 200 years. Yikes!!! Time to sell that CA real estate while it has a relatively high value!

 

[Gulo Blue]

I seem to recall people in saying that parts of the southwest, where there's already not that much water, have actually had a very wet past 50 years and if it revers to normal, they're in trouble.

I wonder if anyone has thought about what to do with desalination waste once that becomes a massive industry.

 

[zyxt9]

I seem to recall people in saying that parts of the southwest, where there's already not that much water, have actually had a very wet past 50 years and if it revers to normal, they're in trouble.

I wonder if anyone has thought about what to do with desalination waste once that becomes a massive industry.

Well as you know there would be a chance to make money at it if you can efficiently and inexpensively extract all the individual elements. My concern with company(ies) figuring that out is how long will it take for them to convert cubic miles of seawater into fresh water such that the sea life is impacted to an even greater degree than it already has been. For every potential solution, there are more problems to tackle. It's like taking meds for one problem only to have those meds result in complications with other organs, and so on, and so on...

Sometimes it is better to just let nature do its thing...

 

[Gulo Blue]

Sometimes it is better to just let nature do its thing...

Not something I'd expect you to say. I figured you want to climb the Kardashev scale as quickly as possible.

 

[zyxt9]

Not something I'd expect you to say. I figured you want to climb the Kardashev scale as quickly as possible.

I actually love bio-diversity and consider the K-scale to be about complete destruction of the environment in order to sustain the ever increasing energy demand. IMO, the next level in a civilization's development is not based on being able to reach a point where the civilization uses all the energy available on its planet, but in recognizing the importance of bio-diversity and controlling its population in order to preserve the beauty of the planet.

Technology can advance at this point without the need to continue over-populating Earth. That is a crucial recognition our civilization needs to reach. We no longer have the requirement of reproduction in order to survive. Instead we can maintain, or even reduce the population - via natural ways before some start proclaiming I want to use nukes or something. We have attained a point where technology will continue to advance, and it is important we have a conservation mindset while advancing technology.

In the K-scale, there is no conservation of the environment. It is a cold, logical, void of happiness perception for the future. I see zero reason to pursue that path. We can achieve tech advances without destroying the environment. Tech, despite its energy demands, is in many ways about generating more processing power while using less energy. Tech pushes for maximizing efficiencies. It is far more efficient to allow nature to take care of itself than to try and harness the power of the sun, convert it, and use that product to take care of nature. Scientifically, it is far better to let nature do its thing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I actually love bio-diversity and consider the K-scale to be about complete destruction of the environment in order to sustain the ever increasing energy demand. IMO, the next level in a civilization's development is not based on being able to reach a point where the civilization uses all the energy available on its planet, but in recognizing the importance of bio-diversity and controlling its population in order to preserve the beauty of the planet.

Technology can advance at this point without the need to continue over-populating Earth. That is a crucial recognition our civilization needs to reach. We no longer have the requirement of reproduction in order to survive. Instead we can maintain, or even reduce the population - via natural ways before some start proclaiming I want to use nukes or something. We have attained a point where technology will continue to advance, and it is important we have a conservation mindset while advancing technology.

In the K-scale, there is no conservation of the environment. It is a cold, logical, void of happiness perception for the future. I see zero reason to pursue that path. We can achieve tech advances without destroying the environment. Tech, despite its energy demands, is in many ways about generating more processing power while using less energy. Tech pushes for maximizing efficiencies. It is far more efficient to allow nature to take care of itself than to try and harness the power of the sun, convert it, and use that product to take care of nature. Scientifically, it is far better to let nature do its thing.

Kscale doesn't say anything about environment either way, just power usage. If we can increase food production per acre by a factor 75 by going to indoor vertical farming we can do both. Create more habitat for wildlife and feed more people. More natural habitat achieved by more unnatural production methods. It's cost prohibitive because energy is still an expensive resource. But there's so much game changing energy research out there, what happens if something hits?

http://munchies.vice.com/articles/the-worlds-largest-indoor-vertical-farm-is-coming-to-new-jersey

 

[Spartanmack]

Kscale doesn't say anything about environment either way, just power usage. If we can increase food production per acre by a factor 75 by going to indoor vertical farming we can do both. Create more habitat for wildlife and feed more people. More natural habitat achieved by more unnatural production methods. It's cost prohibitive because energy is still an expensive resource. But there's so much game changing energy research out there, what happens if something hits?

http://munchies.vice.com/articles/the-worlds-largest-indoor-vertical-farm-is-coming-to-new-jersey

vertical farming doesn't have to be indoor. Of course, indoor gives you the benefit of greater control of the environment and can be done year round just about anywhere, but it can be done outdoor requiring less energy while increasing yield per acre. My friend started a business in this area about 4 years ago. He talks about urban farming on rooftops and the sides of buildings. Supposedly, rooftop farming (vertical or "traditional") has the added benefit of improving the energy efficiency of buildings. I'm not sure I'd want to eat tomatoes grown on an LA rooftop that's constantly enveloped in smog though...

 

[zyxt9]

Kscale doesn't say anything about environment either way, just power usage. If we can increase food production per acre by a factor 75 by going to indoor vertical farming we can do both. Create more habitat for wildlife and feed more people. More natural habitat achieved by more unnatural production methods. It's cost prohibitive because energy is still an expensive resource. But there's so much game changing energy research out there, what happens if something hits?

http://munchies.vice.com/articles/the-worlds-largest-indoor-vertical-farm-is-coming-to-new-jersey

Read something about having to build on too of oceans in order to meet requirement of using all of the sun's energy...theory being until every ray of sun is captured and harnessed the civilization is not at K2. If every bit of energy is harnessed on land and over the oceans, that means the environment is completely destroyed unless energy harnessed is being used to preserve the environment, which as mentioned is illogical due to inefficiency.

I'm not one to buy into the K theory of civilization progression though.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Read something about having to build on too of oceans in order to meet requirement of using all of the sun's energy...theory being until every ray of sun is captured and harnessed the civilization is not at K2. If every bit of energy is harnessed on land and over the oceans, that means the environment is completely destroyed unless energy harnessed is being used to preserve the environment, which as mentioned is illogical due to inefficiency.

I'm not one to buy into the K theory of civilization progression though.

It's not that specific. It's not a theory, just a classification. Kardashev actually said class I was around where we were at already (in 1962). Carl Sagan tried to fit a function to power use. By his scale, we were at 0.724 in 2012. That the power mostly came from fossil fuel is irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from, it doesn't have to be solar panels covering the Earth.

Still, 0.724 is still a long ways from 1; a factor of 575 difference. I wonder how much fuel we have for fusion. Not that it matters, the point of the scale is that we're in the ballpark. 0.7 vs 1. By 2, we're an entirely different type of civilization.

 

[Michchamp]

It's not that specific. It's not a theory, just a classification. Kardashev actually said class I was around where we were at already (in 1962). Carl Sagan tried to fit a function to power use. By his scale, we were at 0.724 in 2012. That the power mostly came from fossil fuel is irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from, it doesn't have to be solar panels covering the Earth.

Still, 0.724 is still a long ways from 1; a factor of 575 difference. I wonder how much fuel we have for fusion. Not that it matters, the point of the scale is that we're in the ballpark. 0.7 vs 1. By 2, we're an entirely different type of civilization.

imagine how big the pickup trucks will be at 2.

 

[Gulo Blue]

imagine how big the pickup trucks will be at 2.

At 2, a typical pickup truck should be a Millennium Falcon minus the lightspeed. Going to other stars requires many years and options are limited. If there's some possible way to go faster, you don't have the power to do it until you're Type 3. So there's a pretty big hitch there. You can't travel the galaxy quickly, until you're utilizing power on the scale of a galaxy. Even with Millennium Falcon pickup trucks, we have to grow for centuries (probably millennia) before we're able to make the jump to hyperspace.

 

[zyxt9]

It's not that specific. It's not a theory, just a classification. Kardashev actually said class I was around where we were at already (in 1962). Carl Sagan tried to fit a function to power use. By his scale, we were at 0.724 in 2012. That the power mostly came from fossil fuel is irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from, it doesn't have to be solar panels covering the Earth.

Still, 0.724 is still a long ways from 1; a factor of 575 difference. I wonder how much fuel we have for fusion. Not that it matters, the point of the scale is that we're in the ballpark. 0.7 vs 1. By 2, we're an entirely different type of civilization.

Sorry, but IMHO it is a useless classification because technology is independent of power. If someone stumbles upon a faster than light transportation method that is energy efficient, they could colonize the galaxy before K2 is achieved, or at least long before K3. There will never be an exact correlation between how advanced a civilization is to the power it produces. Some will achieve breakthroughs faster than others. Yes, power is important, but it is not something I would use for classification of a civilization in the manner he did. There are far too many variables from all the other sciences, not to mention when breakthroughs will happen is never going to be in a specific sequence. There are countless things outside what we know that other civilizations at our same relative development stage learned already, and things we have learned that they have not. These things are going to greatly impact the amount of power being used by that civilization. Maybe they don't yet know how to harness fission, maybe they already know how to harness fusion. They might already have self-aware AI or developed cyborg connections, using their bodies to power their computers instead of other fuels. They might be stronger/faster/have the ability to fly thereby reducing the demands for what we describe as fuel, and instead their fuel is entirely based on food supplies.

Its a human centric classification system that does not take into account the vast amount of variables and possibilities, and therefore I cannot use it as a classification system. A true classification system is supposed to be able to take into account and work with all that is known and remain flexible enough to classify things not yet known when they are discovered, including expanding classification categories when necessary. This K classification is just not able to accurately address the considerable variables.

 

[Michchamp]

At 2, a typical pickup truck should be a Millennium Falcon minus the lightspeed. Going to other stars requires many years and options are limited. If there's some possible way to go faster, you don't have the power to do it until you're Type 3. So there's a pretty big hitch there. You can't travel the galaxy quickly, until you're utilizing power on the scale of a galaxy. Even with Millennium Falcon pickup trucks, we have to grow for centuries (probably millennia) before we're able to make the jump to hyperspace.

what about some of that technology that folds space as you move through it, or alternative theories of bending space so you travel a shorter distance? don't you keep up with this stuff?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Sorry, but IMHO it is a useless classification because technology is independent of power. If someone stumbles upon a faster than light transportation method that is energy efficient, they could colonize the galaxy before K2 is achieved, or at least long before K3. There will never be an exact correlation between how advanced a civilization is to the power it produces. Some will achieve breakthroughs faster than others. Yes, power is important, but it is not something I would use for classification of a civilization in the manner he did. There are far too many variables from all the other sciences, not to mention when breakthroughs will happen is never going to be in a specific sequence. There are countless things outside what we know that other civilizations at our same relative development stage learned already, and things we have learned that they have not. These things are going to greatly impact the amount of power being used by that civilization. Maybe they don't yet know how to harness fission, maybe they already know how to harness fusion. They might already have self-aware AI or developed cyborg connections, using their bodies to power their computers instead of other fuels. They might be stronger/faster/have the ability to fly thereby reducing the demands for what we describe as fuel, and instead their fuel is entirely based on food supplies.

Its a human centric classification system that does not take into account the vast amount of variables and possibilities, and therefore I cannot use it as a classification system. A true classification system is supposed to be able to take into account and work with all that is known and remain flexible enough to classify things not yet known when they are discovered, including expanding classification categories when necessary. This K classification is just not able to accurately address the considerable variables.

That's what the point of the classification is. Technology isn't completely independent of power; it is a limiting factor. Technology without power or power without technology, either way is lame. We may not know what efficiencies are possible because we can't make good technology predictions, but assuming 100% efficiency, we can create order of magnitude estimates using power as the limiting factor. If you want to control most of the things driven by solar power on Earth (weather, most of the biological functions of most organisms) you need something on the order of the solar power the Earth receives. If you want to talk about how civilizations might develop as they expand to other planets and stars, using energy (or mass) to classify what level of development you're talking about makes a lot of sense.

Whether or not you see that classification or useful, either way you think letting nature take its course is a better approach to resource management. I think we've burned that bridge already. Species are dying off at an alarming rate and many (the larger ones) will only survive with our intervention. We're going to wield more power over Earth. Setting up conservation areas where plants and animals live naturally is important, but if some natural force is wiping them out, we'll intervene. As we have progressively more power over the planet, the reality is that we will be actively maintaining the 'natural' spaces. At some point, it gets tough to figure out what 'natural' means anyway.

 

[Gulo Blue]

what about some of that technology that folds space as you move through it, or alternative theories of bending space so you travel a shorter distance? don't you keep up with this stuff?

I think every theory for folding space requires mass/energy on the order of stars.

 

[Gulo Blue]

what about some of that technology that folds space as you move through it, or alternative theories of bending space so you travel a shorter distance? don't you keep up with this stuff?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ideachev.html

Bolding mine.

Just when you thought it was confusing enough, those physicist had to come up with wormholes. Here?s the premise behind a "wormhole." [graphic] Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within spacetime, it is known that spacetime itself can be warped and distorted. It takes an enormous amount of matter or energy to create such distortions, but distortions are possible, theoretically. To use an analogy: even if there were a speed limit to how fast a pencil could move across a piece of paper, the motion or changes to the paper is a separate issue. In the case of the wormhole, a shortcut is made by warping space (folding the paper) to connect two points that used to be separated. These theories are too new to have either been discounted or proven viable. And, yes, wormholes do invite the old time travel paradox problems again.

Here?s one way to build one:

First, collect a whole bunch of super-dense matter, such as matter from a neutron star. How much?- well enough to construct a ring the size of the Earth?s orbit around the Sun. Then build another ring where you want the other end of your wormhole. Next, just charge ?em up to some incredible voltage, and spin them up to near the speed of light -- both of them.

 

[Michchamp]

oh.

I read some (non-scientific) articles that discussed the principle, but they didn't really get into the specifics of that.

sounds like energy really is a big deal, and I now see why the estimates of the complexity of a civilization focus on it.