While the IPCC has the world wringing its hands about an innocuous gas, an actually serious problem is growing daily, has global implications, will cause (is causing) widescale suffering and extensive economic damage. The problem is that groundwater is mostly of geologic origin and is either not replenished or is being replenished at rates far slower than extraction. It is unsustainable. Groundwater will run out far sooner than oil. Try blaming that on co2.
A review of 'World's Water Wells Are Drying Up!' highlights the problem.
Around the world, groundwater from deep wells is the main source of drinking water for over three billion people. In addition, a large proportion of the food supply in many poor countries is based on irrigation from wells. However, almost all of the world's wells have falling water levels, and declining yield, and already, many have run dry.
...The professional groups most concerned with water resources and groundwater are all strangely silent about the worldwide decline of groundwater resources. The textbooks on groundwater hydrology appear to be part of the problem: They all show mathematical models of groundwater flow based on the key assumption that the groundwater is recharged from surface rainfall. As a consequence, the related computer models of groundwater flow are very seriously misleading.
These days it is so easy for professionals to share ideas with colleagues all around the world, and one would expect that the serious matter of the worldwide decline of groundwater resources would command attention. But it does not. It is apparent that the main cause of the silence is that the present understanding of the origin of groundwater by the professions involved, is not all consistent with what is actually happening. The theory is not working out in practice.
There is a global disaster, and the key experts are silent./quote
The main impact is on crops. China is suffering to the extent it is diverting rivers, and pumping water back into the ground to reduce dangerous subsidence. Much of the States' crops are groundwater-irrigated. It would bode policy makers well not to ignore this problem as it will quickly develop and the repercussions will be increasingly devastating.
From my perspective, I see oil taken from the ground and turned into pollution and harmless co2. Groundwater has similarities, it is a non-renewable resource, it is highly necessary in the maintenance of civilization, and it produces a volatile GHG, water vapor. As a percentage of water vapor in the air, I wonder how much comes from anthropogenic production?
Time to legislate water as a harmful pollutant.
The veracity of co2 driving warming is based on the availability of IR around the 15 micron range. There is virtually zero heat in this range. The IR that is available to co2, continuously inflated by modelers, is fractional and mopped up by less than 100 ppm co2. Co2 contributes around 26% to the heat retentionability of the climate. After it has contributed this (less than 100 ppm) the ability to react dwindles to close to zero.This is because of lack of sufficient IR. Increasing the density of co2 means the IR is fully intercepted at a lower height. Modelers talk about side bands of IR passing through the GHG block to reach the upper atmosphere where different conditions permit co2 to react. This is only significant at the edge of space where this IR's departure is interrupted, and we are talking less than 1% of atmospheric co2 of which anthropogenic is much less than a third, and a tiny amount of IR that in the fist place barely makes into the tangible heat arena. Enter super co2, a modelers' contrivance, where co2 miraculously reacts with water molecules to produce 3 times more heat. Then equally miraculously stops at 3. As well as going beyond common sense, modelers go beyond reason. Energy can't pass from a lower state to a higher state, how does it get back to the ground? And all this happens at night. Co2 increasing in the atmosphere will continue until pressure between the air-held and water-held co2 balances. Waving feathers can't change this fact. Temperature increases and decreases irrespective of co2. Co2 varies regardless of humans.
California burn-out has attracted claims and counterclaims of cause. A bit like arguing over a dead man's boots before the corpse is cold. If I was Arnie I would focus spending less on co2 sequestration and more on real life. There is a round-up of comments to be found on Slate.
You can read about models from an honest modeler - "But we're just getting to the stage where we can put all those things in."