California water shortage--reprise

The year was 1864.  A visitor to northern Santa Barbara County, as well as many other parts of California, would be horrified by the sight of cattle carcasses by the thousands rotting on the black, barren ground.  Two years earlier a drought of drastic proportions struck the coastal and inland valleys.  Ranchers began selling their cattle in anticipation of continued drought and lack of grazing.  A glut on the cattle market followed as the grass for grazing disappeared.  There being virtually no demand for these herds, they were left to die and rot on the once-beautiful ranchos.

Fast forward to 1893.  After years of smaller droughts alternating with years of floods, a major drought hit again.  Accounts of the nine years which followed tell again of serious agriculture losses.  In the twentieth century, California’s population increased dramatically, creating demands for much more water than had ever been needed.  Steps were taken control water supplies.  Dams were built in major rivers to capture the waters; local and State agencies were set up to manage the water supply, although strong vested interests resulted in conflict about how to implement the controls.  Conflicts are not surprising considering the diverse users of water—humans, agriculture, industry, oil extraction and recreation. The State felt the constant threat of the next drought.

And it happened.  Starting in 1986, a five-year period of greatly reduced rainfall threatened our economy and lifestyles dependent of heavy water use.  During this period, concern increased yearly as the rainy seasons failed to re-fill the reservoirs.  In Santa Barbara we heard consideration of various solutions.  One was to bring water down from Washington state by ocean tanker; another was to tow icebergs from Alaska.  Cloud seeding was attempted.  In desperation, Santa Barbara decided to build a desalination plant, even though the initial cost and the resulting cost of water would be high.  Then, as Nature played one of its impish tricks, large rains began just as the plant was finished.

And here we are again—déjà vu.  This month there was a sudden awakening to the fact that we are again in a drought.  In fact, most of California has now been declared in either at D3 (extreme) or D4 (exceptional) drought category.  There will be attempts to control water usage, voluntary or mandatory, conservation and undoubtedly battles over allocation.  We hope that the proper steps will be taken to get us through this period until the rains return.

Considering the future.  Certainly there will be more droughts and our water wants will only increase.  My hope about this is that everyone--individuals and government and private interests--keep aware that water is a strategic national resource that belongs to the people, and respect it accordingly.

The New Stuff

A few years ago, I read The New New Thing by Michael Lewis, describing how the technologists and venture capitalists worked together (or possible at each others’ throats) to create that economy outburst known as dot-com.  Now, more than a decade later, the dot-com bubble has burst and the economy is stagnant.  So what did it all mean?

First, the technological capabilities remain, and should be a basis for further growth and jobs.  Secondly, many fortunes were made during the dot-com period.  Have those fortunes been reinvested in the next new, new thing—or slumbering in wealthy persons’ art vaults or in overseas banks?  Too much of the latter, I fear.

There are still new, new things there could be opportunities for investment that would advance the country’s economy and be a major job-creator.  Some examples:

Drone package delivery.  Amazon has proposed a drone package delivery system in which small packages could be delivered to customers by drone in a few hours or less.

Why, we might ask.  Who is not patient enough to wait a few days for his or her new merchandise?  There probably are some.  But, maybe, the use is far broader, extending to such things as manufacturing, medical facilities or car repair.  A few years ago when the Japanese were kicking our butts in manufacturing capability, they developed a concept known as just in time (JIT) for delivery of parts to the production line.  It eliminated large supply warehouses and double handling of material.  Might be one possibility.

Robotic automobiles.   Google has developed and demonstrated cars that are able to start, maneuver through traffic and park far more efficiently than most drivers do.  Given Americans’ love for the automobile and the feeling of being the “king of the road”, who would want such a vehicle?  But Google knows.  Reducing long-trip fatigue, enabling physically challenged persons to drive, etc are some possibilities plus more we don’t even recognize.

3-D printers.  This technology has been around for over a decade but is still developmental in the kinds of material, especially metals, that can be printed.  The possibilities range from artistic creation to small quantity fabrication to low-cost prototyping of production items.  If outsourced manufacturing comes back to the U.S., and I’m convinced it will, 3-D printing will be valuable.

Smart glasses.  Here is a natural extension of the smart phone.  Now, as demonstrated in the 2014 Consumer Electronic Show, a visual capability has been added.  The glasses have a tiny viewable screen near the eye and a camera capability for still photos and video recording as well as computing and internet.  A perfect step up from smart phones for the gadget-oriented.  But maybe much more.  A doctor recently performed surgery with one of these devices making it possible to view the patient’s x-rays without looking away from the operation.  Its potential value in police and fire protection is huge.

What do these devices have in common?  I think it is that their ultimate uses are not envisioned—not envisioned any more than the personal computer’s applications were when first introduced. 

In the early days of the personal computer and the internet, the entrepreneurs and technogeeks found how to reduce costs to make their stuff affordable for a wide market.  Venture capital sources flooded the promising entrepreneurs with money to make this happen.  Today, the technical geniuses are creating, but where are the venture capitalists?

Expanding--not limiting--Expectations

A recent article in Time magazine described a trend in lifestyles in which things are scaled down—low cost of living, low taxes and low government services and, of course, lower income.  It talks of living in micro houses, the size of a two-car garage, and “living off the grid.”  This article was written about Texas, and describes this lifestyle as “the Texas Model.”    I suspect that the trend is more widespread.

That isn’t the California model and I’m grateful.  Here we live high and spend more—sometimes outrageously.  We earn more and we have more government services.  But what else?  Throughout our history we have created, we have invented and we have innovated.  The movie industry began here led the world in film technology and artistry.  The aviation industry headquartered here was vital in war and in the country’s economic growth which followed.  Without the electronic advances made in Silicon Valley we would not have been able to put men on the moon or hand-held computers in everybody’s pockets.  We have pioneered in medicine (remember Dr. Salk?) and medical technology.  Our agricultural technology developed high yields and fed much of the country.  Our wine industry, young by European standards, has produced wines that rival those of the ancient vintners of Europe.

Indeed, the idea of increased expectations bodes well for the future.  This is my hope for the whole country in the new year.

Global Warming--What Do We Know?

For more than a decade, I’ve  followed information and opinions about climate change.  I’ve read a lot of denial and a lot of scientific data and projections which confuse me.  But through it all, one thing that to me is solid is the NASA measured data shown below.  It’s the holy grail of climate change science for me.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

The data points plotted for each year are the average over the whole earth and the entire year.  “Temperature anomaly” is the difference of data points from the average in the 1951 to 1980 period which is 15 plus a few tenths degrees Centigrade (59 degrees Fahrenheit). 

Recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its fifth Assessment Report and, as expected, there is a flood of criticism from skeptics and deniers.  It is inconceivable that one can look at the data above and deny that there has been global heating.  Skepticism on future projections?  Maybe that’s different.

But I have my own criticism from having read the “Summary for Policyholders” sub-report.  I look at the recent part of the chart above and see a definite leveling of warming.  The five year average change has been level at about 0.56 degree for four years and can be expected to stay level or slowly changing in the future because of the data points since 2001 which cluster about this average.

The IPCC report, which publishes the same chart does not acknowledge a leveling of  warming, but acknowledges a reduction in the warming rate for the period from 1998 to 2012 as compared with the period 1951 to 2012.  It does not acknowledge the flat data during 2004 through 2012 or in the periods 1880 through 1920 or 1945 through 1975.  Why not?  Could it be that these data are akin to the family with an alcoholic uncle whom they wish could just be kept out of sight?

Part of the mystery of this slowing or leveling of warming is that the increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere is on a steady rise as shown in the report.  The two do not appear to be going hand in hand as was thought at one time.  This begs for a discovery of causes other than or in addition to CO₂. 

What about long range projections?  The IPCC report states that the computer models for long range prediction have been revised and there are now four different scenarios ranging from mild to severe warming.  That seems to realistically represent the uncertainty; unfortunately it gives zealots on both sides of the issue an opportunity to pick the model that they prefer.

  

Back to the graph above.  Does the leveling of warming in the last decade mean that the great god of cooling has defeated the great god of warming and that global climate change is a thing of the past?  It would be comforting.  We wouldn’t have to use those curly light bulbs any more and we wouldn’t have to feel guilty about leaving a change in the environment for future generations.  But given the temperature rise in the last century and the higher rate of rise in the 1980s, the possibility of future warming can hardly be ignored.

Climatology is an incredibly complex science.  I believe that climate scientists are on a steep learning curve—and must be true scientists, not influenced by political agendas.   

Loving the Theater

Greetings fellow theater lovers.  Let me make some remarks about the Theater 2013 which is playing in the halls of our nation’s capital, and which we all support.

It’s reelection season which began at the conclusion of the 1012 election.  Campaigning is going on both for individual candidates and the political parties.

Positive campaigning is worthless; strong negativity is necessary to rouse those 40 per cent or more who are qualified to vote but don’t.

Political campaigns are expensive in spite of all the money being thrown at the parties and candidates by special interests and “promoters of democracy”.

The media—CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, radio talk shows and the newspapers—provide a campaign pulpit at no cost to those who wish to demean, marginalize or bash the other side.

Leaders of the two parties agree to let the arguments on phony issues—de-funding the ACA, letting the Government default on its debts, etc—run out until the deadline, giving as many speakers as possible access to the free campaign pulpit.  This is indeed rare cooperation between the two parties.

So, expect the theater performances to continue playing until the evening of Thursday October 17.  At this time the players will announce the restoration of the Government and take their bows as their partisan audiences cheer.

Some might say that this fighting over phony issues is shameful.  But remember, it was Shakespeare who wrote, “The whole world is a stage…”

A PARTY SCHOOL?

The Santa Barbara News Press recently reported the Princeton Review’s publication that UC Santa Barbara is ranked second in the nation (up from eighth last year) as a party school.  The party ranking is one of 62 categories ranked by the Review.  Searching for Princeton Review on the internet, I found that it is a privately-held company providing test preparation and admissions consultation—not affiliated with the prestigious Princeton University as I had thought.  I couldn’t find a list of the 62 categories, but dozens of newspaper articles telling of the party rating.

That emphasis on party rating without a reference to other attributes disturbs me—perhaps offends me.  I might be considered an elderly curmudgeon, but I do acknowledge the need for students to relax between periods of stress and to sometimes “whoop it up.”  But I see the division between two different ideas:

           

“I want to party whenever I can.”

            “I want to make major achievements.”

Now, ask 17 or 18-year-old college applicants which of the two is more important, and we are likely to hear “both.”   Such is the unbridled enthusiasm of youth.  But as college days progress, the split between the two ideas will become more apparent.  Some will follow the party icon too rigidly and fail.  But others will follow the achievement icon and will be our future.  We hope that college students in our lives will be more drawn to the achievement icon.

I give credit to the News Press for including in the article something that most of us locals know, that UCSB has a world class standing in research and has received excellence awards for its academic programs.

Guns Across the Border

A study by the IGARAPE Institute of Brazil and the Trans Border Institute of the University of San Diego provides some startling estimates of firearm trafficking. This study estimates that between 100,000 and 380,000 weapons are smuggled across the border annually from the United States to Mexico.  This smuggling has increased markedly from the 90’s.  The strict firearms control laws in Mexico make it a prime market for traffickers. 

How ironic that the United States is providing the weapons to the drug warriors who are killing each other to determine who supplies drugs to the abundant market here.

But is there more?  Could Mexico be the first stop of these guns on their way to Afghanistan to be used against our troops?  Surely gun traffickers have no conscience, and U.S. Government’s ability to intercept trafficking is limited.

Please, somebody, prove to me that movement of our weapons to Afghanistan isn’t—couldn’t be—happening.