HikeArizona.COM

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... powell.php

A series of satellite pics of the northeastern end of Lake Powell (where the Dirty Devil River joins the Colorado). I found it interesting so why not share?

That's a neat map! I hear they expect water level to rise. Wish they'd fill Lake Mead instead.

Would be amazing if Music Temple, Cathedral in the Desert, etc would be able to be seen again. Then again, perhaps our water bills will be more like a car payment---

Global Warming. Denying it doesn't make it go away.

Or does it..?

@gummo Uh, what?

@Jim_H
The theory is that global warming (increased methane and CO2 in atomsphere amongst other factors) is causing the drought in the southwestern US.

Quick answer:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 308AAJsTN2

This discussion brought to mind a question: What caused the 50-year drought in the Southwest in the 1100's and other long-term droughts in the region over the past 2,000 years, and how do they compare to 21st century drought in the area? I found an interesting article here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21283.full

@gummo
Could be, just as it could not be, given that there have been worse droughts before, as Liz states. This year was not a drought for most of the upper basin states, as the lakes are rising and the snowpack is still high. Actually, except for NM, there is not really a drought in the upper basin states.

Lake Powell has risen 30 feet since April, it's rising 9-12 inches a day, total content is approaching 4 trillion gallons, snowpack is over 200 percent of normal. As Jim says, a pretty good water year.

http://www.lakepowell.water-data.com

Jim_H wrote:@gummo
Could be, just as it could not be, given that there have been worse droughts before, as Liz states. This year was not a drought for most of the upper basin states, as the lakes are rising and the snowpack is still high. Actually, except for NM, there is not really a drought in the upper basin states.

Yeah maybe. Redistribution of the rainfall, so some areas get less and some get more and some areas don't change at all. There's a lot of misinformation on the web about it on both sides of the topic, but it's not worth debating. The only way we'll resolve Global Warming and every other problem in the world is if we decrease the earth's population by half or somehow convince people return to a nomadic lifestyle and that'll never happen. It's hard enough to convince people in Las Vegas stop growing grass in their yards.

@gummo
I am of the cheerful persuasion that one day someone will press the wrong button, or a genie will get out of a bottle and wipe out a lot of people. Yes, I read a lot of sci-fi-- ;) ---and that will solve the problem!

RedRoxx44 wrote:@gummo
I am of the cheerful persuasion that one day someone will press the wrong button, or a genie will get out of a bottle and wipe out a lot of people. Yes, I read a lot of sci-fi-- ;) ---and that will solve the problem!

Or the scenario laid out in Larry Niven's and Jerry Pournelle's 'Lucifer's Hammer:' a comet hitting earth would do the trick, but would probably be much less enjoyable than global thermonuclear war.

Of course, if there's one thing our species has proved it is that we are very good at killing our fellow man and ourselves....

Back to (hopefully) reality, I think the biggest difference we can make today is through conservation. My coworker claims to be an ex-hippy who typically votes for the elephants, but he walks the walk when it comes to calling for water conservation. When his shower is warming up, he sprays the still-warming water into a bucket then pours it onto landscaping. Then he soaps/shampoos himself with the water off, then turns it back on when he's ready to rinse. Needless to say his family subscribes to the same "if it's yellow, let it mellow" philosophy that I do.

It has been said before and I will say again: the greatest user of water in California and the Colorado basin is agriculture.

This brings up recycling, which in some areas is a ridiculous waste of fossil fuels and money spent on wages. For instance, in St. Johns and Springerville there is no community recycling plant. A friend from St. Johns was lamenting this state of affairs. I tried to explain to her that hauling semi-truck-loads of recyclables 5 hours to Phoenix would not be cost-effective and would be a waste of fossil fuel. Add it up: the trucks, the fuel, and paying the drivers, etc. Then when you get the recyclables to Phoenix, another huge expense to convert them into usable elements. So in what way would hauling all her glass, aluminum and plastic to Phoenix be "environmentally friendly"?

Answer, it's not. Put it in the landfill. Mine the landfill later, if you want all that stuff.

Phoenix is at a lower elevation. Use the plastic and metal to create gliders to haul the balance.

@joe bartels
Or just float it down the LCR. It'll be in Yuma in a few weeks. Or a few mile trip over the divide to drop it in the Black and send it into the Salt!