Season 3/Episode 7: Richard Seager: The 100th Meridian and Climate Change
Richard Seager
Listen
Richard Seager, a climate scientist and the Palisades Geophysical Institute/Lamont Research Professor at Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, joins John to talk about changes in aridity in North America around the 100th Meridian, and how climate change is going to affect the heartland of the U.S. and the Mississippi river basin. Richard’s current work is focused on how global hydroclimate will change in the near-term future as a result of rising greenhouse gases, and how that will affect people and food systems.
Show Notes
Richard Seager on Google Scholar
Richard mentioned that he gets his students to read a paper by Jim Hansen in Science magazine from 1981. Read it here.
Richard says “What we have learned, though, in the last decade or two, is how much of this climate change is manifested in extreme weather.” Read more on NASA’s website.
Richard and John talk about John Wesley Powell and the 100th Meridian. Learn more about the 100th Meridian and the east-west divide here.
Richard discusses a population density map, where he noticed two straight lines, one is the population to the south of the Sahara, the east-west line of the Sahel, and the other “goes right up through the heartland of North America.” See a world population density map here.
John and Richard discuss that the 100th Meridian is moving east. Read Richard’s paper here that discusses the Meridian’s migration.
Learn more about El Niño and La Niña from the National Ocean Service.
Transcript
START (RICHARD SEAGER INTERVIEW)
[MUSIC]
JOHN: Welcome to Audacious Water, the podcast about how to create a world of water abundance for everyone. I'm John Sabo, director of the ByWater Institute at Tulane University.
[MUSIC]
JOHN: On today's show, the 100th meridian and climate change. My guest is Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Richard's current work is focused on how global hydroclimate will change in the near-term future as a result of rising greenhouse gases, and how that will affect people and food systems. Coming up I talk with Richard about whether he imagined we'd be where we are today with climate change when he began his work in the late '80s, why the central part of continental North America will likely experience a shift to a more arid climate, and whether low river levels of the last couple years is a signal of more significant change to come.
JOHN: Richard, welcome to the show.
RICHARD: Oh, you're welcome. Glad to be here.
JOHN: So let's start out with what I sometimes call a "softball pitch," which is about how you got to where you are. When you were a kid did you ever think that you would be a climate scientist?
RICHARD: No [LAUGHTER], not really. Do you want to know what happened?
JOHN: Yeah, tell me.
RICHARD: Well, I’m originally from England so I was an undergraduate at Liverpool University. In the British university system you have a system--I don't know whether it's still true--but then you had a system where you had tutors, who was a professor that you've met with in a small group once a week and talked about absolutely everything. It could be coursework, it could be things going on in the real world. And in my third year, my final year, my tutor was Dr. Ann Henderson-Sellers, and she was an atmospheric scientist, and she had just returned from sabbatical in the United States where she'd been working at the NASA Institute for Space Studies, which is in Manhattan on the Columbia University campus. And she suggested, "You know, you could apply to graduate school in the United States, and they would pay for you to study there." So I thought, well, why not? I had been - I'd taken courses from her on clouds and climate and things like that. So I applied to graduate school in the U.S.--this was 1983, at a time when Britain was in a huge recession induced by Margaret Thatcher's policies, and it was all too welcoming to get out. And I was a huge jazz fan, and the fact that I could go to Columbia University and live in New York City, and pursue science, and also listen to jazz, was an opportunity not to be turned down. So I came here and I started doing ocean atmosphere climate stuff, and that was that. There's a lot of chance in that trajectory [LAUGHTER].
JOHN: That's interesting. Given that background we're going to have to get you to come to New Orleans and give a seminar and hear some jazz down here.
RICHARD: Yeah, my taste in jazz leans to the more avant-garde than the traditional New Orleans jazz. But I listen to the whole century and a half of the music [LAUGHTER].
JOHN: I think we could find you some avant-garde. It might not be the same style, but there certainly is a lot of fusion down here that's really interesting to listen to. Let me ask you another question. Climate change--did you imagine when you embarked on your career at Columbia that we would be where we are today with climate change?
RICHARD: Well, when I started in the 1980s, early 1980s, we already knew that climate change was going to be occurring due to rising CO2. Many numerical models had already been run with increasing CO2. I'm thinking in particular of a paper that I give my students to read here, that Jim (Hanson) wrote in 1981 in Science Magazine. And the prediction that they had for what the temperature of the Earth would be in 2020, now, that they did in 1981 with a really rudimentary model, it's where we are. And they also said in their paper drought in western North America would be common, would be going over towards a seasonally-ice-free arctic because of polar amplification, we'd be worrying about whether the west Antarctic ice sheet would be destabilizing. You know, that was 42 years ago, and what we are worrying about now seeing happening, living through, was predicted back then. So I'm absolutely not at all surprised that we are... What we have learned though in the last decade or two is how much of this climate change is manifested in extreme weather. So extreme precipitation, extreme heatwaves. We didn't understand that 40 years ago. We've been living through that for, like, 10 or 20 years now, so we're learning to get used to that reality, that it's not just (inaudible) climate, but the variability changes and the extremes get more intense.
JOHN: It's amazing that 40 years ago with a rudimentary model the predictions are spot-on. And it's also I think impressive to point out that the second moment is important, that the variability is also going to be the key observation of change in the future probably, right? We're living it right now but it's going to be part of what we experience.
RICHARD: Mm-hm.
JOHN: Good. Well, let's move into a different phase of the interview. What I'd like to talk to you about is hydroclimate, climate change, and how that's going to affect the heartland of the U.S. and the Mississippi River basin. And most of the questions are continental in scale, but I'll probably ask a little bit about the Mississippi as we go along. Talk to me about the 100th meridian. The 100th meridian is this sort of imaginary line that goes right through the heartland of the U.S., and it's a line that John Wesley Powell a long time ago said, "This is the line that demarcates where agriculture needs irrigation to the west, and where it can be rain-fed to the east." It's moving. Talk to me about that.
RICHARD: Yeah, so this is some work we did a few years ago, and it was very much inspired by reading some of the books by John Wesley Powell where, as you said, he identified that around about the 100th meridian North America divides into an arid West and a humid/sub-humid East. And he was saying as development proceeded--he was writing of course at a time when much of the West had not been settled by European-Americans--he was saying that that settlement over there would have to be very different to the way it is in the East, because water availability was very limited and that was going to require very careful settlement to pay attention to soils, climate, and geology. I had also got an interest in this because a fellow colleague here who runs a unit that does demographic mapping of the world, population demographics, had prepared one of those cloths that you clean your glasses with or your computer screen, and they'd printed their last map of the population density of the world on one of those. And I look at that--it's right in front of me as I talk now--I look at that and I see two straight lines. One is the population south of the Sahara--there's an east-west line--population to the south, no population to the north. And the other one goes right up through the heartland of North America. Heavy population density to the east, and very little population density to the west until you get to the coast. And that dividing line in population is right at the 100th meridian, right? So why is that? Is that simply because Powell was right, that there really is this strong gradient in aridity there that has limited human settlement? Or is it after Powell proposed that idea legislation was influenced by the presence of the - by the supposition of the 100th meridian, and therefore that influenced settlement? So we looked at that and, first of all, it really is a very strong dividing line by common metrics of aridity. And it's very well-reflected in what the natural vegetation is, what the soil moisture is. So it's a very real geophysical-environmental divide. But then we also found that looking at aspects of the agricultural economy, that that divide has been reflected in what is grown where, the size of farms, the numbers of farms. And when we further looked at it we found that there really isn't any legislation of any importance that codifies the 100th meridian. The Bureau of Reclamation works east and west of there. Water rights don't divide up neatly there or anything like that. So we were thinking that the reality of this environmental divide there has translated one way or another into a divide in how the land is used and how it's settled. So it's not just a geophysical and environmental divide now, it's very much a social one as well.
JOHN: And how is that changing? What's the - is the aridification moving east?
RICHARD: Yeah. So then - it was a two-part paper. The second part of the paper looked at how it was moving. And we expect, based on many work--and again, it goes all the way back to Jim (Hanson)'s paper in 1981 to (point this out)--the continental North America should, under the influence of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, shift to be more arid in the central part of the continent. So there are two things that really control this. One is precipitation, which is on the supply side of moisture; and the other one is evapotranspiration, which is on the demand side of moisture. So precipitation is the water that goes into the soils, and evapotranspiration is what the atmosphere takes out of the soils through vegetation, or through bare soils. That tends to increase with temperature, according to something we call the potential evapotranspiration. So the warmer the atmosphere the more moisture it can hold, and the more its ability to extract moisture from the surface is. So needless to say, warming increases potential evapotranspiration, and on the basis of that you expect the surface to adjust to having less soil moisture in the surface, which means more aridity. So that kind of happens everywhere over North America. But then the precipitation change the models predict will happen is a bit more complicated than that. They predict (that) in the Southwest, and sort of the western part of the southern plains, there will be reduced precipitation. But in the Northeast and in the Midwest there will be increased precipitation. So when you combine the influence of precipitation and the influence of temperature on evapotranspiration together you do find that the aridity increases everywhere, but also that this gradient gets a little bit more muted. Because you actually have a bit more of an increase in aridity east of the meridian than to the west. But overall it means that Powell's famous line shifts eastward over time as part of this aridification, that dividing line between the semi-arid and the subhumid, moves over time from the 100th meridian a couple of degrees of longitude eastward.
JOHN: That's interesting and concerning, right? Like, America's corn belt, and wheat belt, and in the South the rice belt, is right on that dividing line. One of the things that people have been asking me a lot about is we had low river levels the last two years. And, you know, first part of this question is, as that aridification moves east is that something we should expect to be normal?
RICHARD: Well, not necessarily actually, because in the last few years there have been a run of season with low precipitation in sort of roughly the central U.S., so sort of in the Mississippi basin, but also in the Southwest - interior Southwest as well. And this has gone along with a long period of La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean, when the equatorial Pacific gets colder. And when that happens, for reasons we could get into, that tends to reduce cool season and even perhaps summer precipitation in the Southwest and in the central U.S. And that is a natural cycle of atmosphere ocean variability. So I see what's been going on in the central U.S./Mississippi basin in the last few years as more a reflection of internal-climate variability than of this emerging climate-change signal. As I said, the climate-change-induced change in precipitation that we expect, and which does seem to be occurring, is more of a precipitation reduction in the Southwest and southern plains like Texas, but an increase in the Northeast and Midwest, where some of the rivers coming into the Mississippi come down from. So despite that increasing aridification by metrics of soil moisture, those same models (inaudible) would actually predict the river flow in the Mississippi could actually increase. So you've got to be careful here about what aspect of the hydrological cycle you're looking at when making prediction of the future and, like, a blanket forecast of more aridity and then reduced stream flows, as well, might not be correct.
JOHN: When I think about the portfolio flows of the Mississippi, the Ohio is number one, the mainstem Mississippi is number two, and the Missouri is number three. One of the things that I was worried about when I saw that - when I've seen visualizations of that paper as well, is the potential for that line, the 100th meridian, to move to the 95th. The 95th is where, like, Itasca is, and it's right in that heartland of spongy soil that soaks up all the melting snow and sends it to the Mississippi in the second-most-abundant source. How much of an increase--I mean, you don't have to give me exact numbers--but are the increases in the Midwest you think sufficient to balance that change in aridity?
RICHARD: Well, I think again, we don't come into the seasonality of - the precipitation increases tend to be focused in the winter season. Evapotranspiration is low; it can be converted relatively easily into runoff that gets into streams. But when we're talking about the agriculture and the fields, the summer season is very important. Like corn, you know, is growing in the summer. So that of course is the high-evapotranspiration season, and that is the season when atmospheric warming and its ability to extract moisture from the soils and reduce soil moisture, reducing the water available for the roots of crops, is going to come into play. So definitely there's a real problem there in the summer with this increased aridity.
JOHN: That makes sense. And that's kind of what we're seeing. Although I agree with you about La Niña, you know, I got asked a lot of times, "Is this is the new normal?" And I said, well, it's hard to tell because we're in a La Niña.
RICHARD: [CROSSTALK] We're in El Niño now, so we'll see what happens over the coming months as to whether the same areas will get a lot of precipitation.
JOHN: And beyond that, a sample size of two years is not enough to look at a trend, right?
RICHARD: Right. It's a region of tremendous variability, year to year. To see the trends you have to look over decades.
JOHN: Right.
[MUSIC]
JOHN: Up next, Richard and I discuss where it's warming in the United States, what causes El Niño and La Niña, and why it's not too late to adapt to changes in climate. And stay tuned to the end, where we talk a little bit about jazz.
JOHN: Let's shift gears a little bit and talk about warming and heat. And the 100th meridian is interesting for all the reasons that you mentioned. It's a line that divides east and west. What about heat moving from the south up to the north? How does that look in terms of warming? Where is it going to be most felt?
RICHARD: To date most of the - in the United States the regions that have warmed the most have been the interior West. And there's been considerably less warming in the Southeast and in parts of the Northeast. So exactly why it's had that pattern is not immediately clear. But the places where you expect the precipitation to be reducing you also expect to be having more warming, because the surface isn't able to cool from evapotranspiration. Increased precipitation in sort of the Northeast of the continent enables evaporative cooling and should be restricting the amount of warming. So probably the temperature changes we're seeing are also being coupled together with the hydrological changes that we're seeing.
JOHN: What about the upper Midwest, the northern Midwest? Have we seen increases in temperature there, and are we expected to?
RICHARD: We certainly have. I mean, we've seen increases in temperature almost everywhere. I don't think it's warmed up there as much as in the West, and I haven't looked at projection--I'm going to disappoint you--because I haven't looked at projections, the temperature there [LAUGHTER] in the future very recently.
JOHN: No worries. So you kind of already covered this a little bit, but what I was imagining in my mind is you've got temperatures that we expect to be more southern encroaching on the North. You've got rainfall patterns that we expect to be more western encroaching on the East. So it's kind of like this double-(pinch). Do you see that as a scenario for the Mississippi basin? Like, it feels like the intersection of those two lines is, like, right in the middle of the United States in some ways.
RICHARD: I certainly don't conceptualize it like that. Yeah, the rising temperatures you could definitely imagine the heat more familiar in the South and the West moving northward and eastward. The precipitation change, the places where climate change is reducing precipitation in the United States tend to be in the interior Southwest and down in Texas, Mexico, and, you know, in North America more generally, and an increase in the Northeast. So that's not so much an East-West thing as a Southwest-Northeast kind of thing. It certainly will help increase the aridity divide in the southern part. But the really big effect on the aridity is more going to be the temperature change and its influence on the potential evapotranspiration and actual evapotranspiration. And that's, like, warming up everywhere.
JOHN: That makes sense. We talked a little bit about La Niña before, the last two years. Talk to us about El Niño, La Niña--what causes them?
RICHARD: Yeah, so El Niños and La Niñas happen in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, and that region is interesting because right the way along the Equator from the coast of Peru out to the Dateline there a tongue--it's called the "cold tongue"--there's a tongue of cold water. And the reason why it's there is because when the trade winds blow from the east to the west, because of the rotation of the Earth they push the water northward away from the Equator in the Northern Hemisphere, and southward away from the Equator in the Southern Hemisphere. And that divergence of water is replaced by cold water coming up from below. So it's a region of cold waters and intense upwelling. (Inaudible) the winds also push the water to the West, so it piles up in the west and is lower in the East. And the whole upper ocean layer of warm water gets thicker in the West and shallower in the East. And then this arrangement is not very stable. If there are perturbations to the winds then you can set off a feedback process that... For example, if you have winds - if there's a wind perturbation that comes from the West to the East then it reduces the upwelling, so that causes warming. But it also reduces this tilt in the surface of the water and the thickness of the water, and that moves some of the warm water from the West to the East, which causes more warming. But if you warm the waters in the East relative to the West then the winds tend to flow to the warm waters and you get more winds from the West to the East. So that's like a positive feedback. And that generates an El Niño event. And that's what we're having right now. La Niña events tend to occur when you have a perturbation going the other way. If something happens to have winds going from the East to the West it causes more upwelling, brings the cold waters closer to the surface in the East, that cools the East. Therefore you have more winds going from the East to the West, and that's a positive feedback in the other direction. And the system has a way of turning around because you set off complicated waves in the ocean to propagate around the basins and reflect off the boundaries. And that's capable of turning the - preventing the positive feedback from going on forever. And as a result you have an endless oscillation between El Niño events and La Niña events. They typically are, like, three to seven years apart, but the variability is tremendous. And this has been going on for as long as we can tell, from shipwreck - well, we know it's been going on for 170 years. But from coral records, and from records - geological records we know that this has been going on for millions of years.
JOHN: We're currently in an El Niño. How long is that El Niño supposed to last, and what are the impacts of El Niño on the interior U.S.?
RICHARD: Right. We should talk about that. El Niño events typically last only about one year. They grow in the summer, they peak in around about November, December, January, and then decay in the following spring to summer. That's typical. Sometimes they can come back and you can have two back-to-back. But when that warm water forms in the equatorial Pacific Ocean it's moved where the rain systems are over the equatorial Pacific Ocean. They tend to move to being over the warm water. They cause deep convection, thunderstorms, and motion all the way from the surface up to the tropopause, which move the air - diverges away aloft. And that drives waves in the atmosphere that propagate around the entire world. So there's almost nowhere in the world that is not affected by El Niño events of their opposite La Niña events. So of interest for North America and the North Pacific is that during El Niño events you tend to have a much deeper low-pressure system over the North Pacific, and with it a North Pacific jet stream that is both stronger and deflected more south of its usual location. So it starts barreling into California and the Southwest United States, and across towards Texas. So that tends to cause more winter precipitation in that region. And because it's moved southward it tends to cause reduced precipitation up in, like, Seattle, British Columbia. So a similar thing happens, almost like a mirror image in Chile. And then there are effects throughout the tropics, as well, El Niño events will cause droughts over the Amazon typically, as well. So there's, like, a global reorganization of hydroclimate that occurs during these events. And we're actually quite good at predicting them. We can predict El Niño events to almost a year in advance. And this one was predicted earlier in 2023, and so far is living up to its - what we expect in that it's been pretty wet in the Southwest this past winter so far.
JOHN: That's interesting. Are there similar impacts in northern latitudes, more in the interior of the U.S. like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri? Or is it mainly a Southern thing?
RICHARD: It's mainly across - in the Pacific Northwest and in the southwestern Southern United States. So where I am here in New York we don't have a big impact on precipitation of El Niño. There are other modes of climate variabilities, such as the North (inaudible) which express(ed) a big influence over here. But they're not coupled to the tropical Pacific Ocean.
JOHN: Got it. One thing that I wanted to dip into is what do we do about these changes? Obviously we have to do our homework and a lot more rolling up the sleeves on the mitigation side, but I'm really more interested in kind of the adaptation piece of this. Like how can we adapt to these kinds of changes, and do we need to now or is it too late? Tell me about that.
RICHARD: Oh no, it's not too late. There are things that can be done. I think in the Southwestern states that have been aware of water limitations for a long time there's been a lot of effort to adapt and increase water efficiency. But the reality is that most of the water, either there or, you know, in the plains area, is used by agriculture, right? In California it's 75% of water is used by agriculture. So increasing water efficiency in agriculture is a very, very high priority. But you probably know better than me, but in the Mississippi basin and in much of the Midwest area that's growing corn, not too much of that corn is actually irrigated, right?
JOHN: It's true, but the number of acres that are irrigated has consistently gone up over the last decade.
RICHARD: Right. Which is what you would expect. If we're experiencing higher potential evapotranspiration and soils drying in summer, you would think that farmers would think, "Oh, I'd probably better put in some irrigation so the, you know, yields will still be okay during the hotter, drier summers." But of course then that's a major capital investment, and that has to lead to higher prices. The alternative is to decide that, well, to grow crops that are more drought-resistant, of which the one that's grown in that region as an alternative is wheat. But I don't think farmers consider that as desirable a crop to grow as the corn-soy combination that is more common. But one way or another there's going to have to be some kind of adjustment. When we did the, you know, the original paper on the 100th meridian we made these pictures that showed how - what is actually grown, how controlled it is by the level of aridity on the ground at that point. Now, so that must mean that over, like, a century or more of farmers making decisions, eventually they came down to make decisions as to how they were going to use the land that were consistent with the environment and climate that they found themselves in. And as that changes in the future, inevitably there's going to have to be some change in what farmers grow and how they grow it. Whether that means just more and more irrigation, or whether that means an adjustment in using different crops, or shifting between crops and rangeland, I think inevitably that decision is going to have to be made.
JOHN: Interesting. Changes that are coming. And the (Hanson) paper 40 years ago, that's not that long ago. Like if you think about the next 40 years - like, if you were to be at that spot looking back another 40 years what do you think are things that we're predicting now that we're going to see come to fruition?
RICHARD: Yeah, I don't quite know how we're going to deal with it. I mean, one thing that - because a lot of my work is actually in the Southwest--when we look at the California/Central Valley, it's not just climate, because they use tremendous amounts of irrigation of course because they're growing fruits and vegetables. And a lot of that comes from groundwater. And when droughts come along and they have less surface water they pump more groundwater. And groundwater goes down, and then during wet winters it never goes up to get to where it was before. So there's just this long-term depletion. And looking 30, 40 years in advance for that system--and this is enormously important, right--98% of cauliflowers consumed in the United States are grown in California. I can't see how, given the way that system is run now, how that's going to last several more decades. And I don't see how over in the Midwest areas of huge production of corn and soy, in currently very optimal climate conditions on really good soils, how that also is going to survive as-is given the levels of temperature and increasing potential evapotranspiration expected (drops) models project for the next few decades. It just seems that it would lead to - by just irrigating everything and putting all the necessary investments and capital investments and that, it just seems that it would drive the prices up. So I'm sort of wondering whether the U.S. food system is going to have to adjust much more broadly. You know, where I sit everywhere around New York City and up through New Jersey, New York State, Massachusetts, Connecticut, there's just tons of what used to be farmland. And some of it's housing development; a lot of it is just sitting just abandoned now. But it used to be farmed for grains and fruit and vegetables. And it's in a place where precipitation is meant to go up. And it's going to have plenty of climate stresses, but it's unlikely to have ones as severe as California and some of the Midwestern areas have. And I just wonder whether we're going to see the - it's going to become competitive for some of these older production areas to come back into production. Hey, but I'm a climate scientist; I’m not an (inaudible).
JOHN: That's fine though. I'm really [CROSSTALK] super fas...
RICHARD: I’m a bit outside my wheelhouse here. [LAUGHTER]
JOHN: Yeah, but those are I think consistent with the conversation about the next 20 years even, so I appreciate those comments.
RICHARD: And also, you know, I mean, U.S. food depends a lot on what happens around the world as well, right? And the other major global commodity grain producers that the U.S. shares the market with are in Brazil, Europe, Ukraine, Russia, Australia--I mentioned Brazil--Argentina, Uruguay. These are all places, especially Europe and Australia, that are facing many of the same climate stresses of extreme heat, and soil-moisture declines, and reducing yields. So I think we're going to have to see a global rearrangement of the food system under climate change. And this is going to be happening now, you know, in the next few decades.
JOHN: I agree with you. Little story to end the interview. My first Mardi Gras here as a resident of New Orleans was 2021. Went and watched the Zulu Parade, Trombone Shorty was leading that parade. Like, five hours later ended up in the Frenchmen Hotel and there was Trombone Shorty sitting there, and got to talk to him. Who's your favorite jazz musician?
RICHARD: My favorite jazz musician currently working--I have so many, but I'll pull one name out--is William Parker, who's a bassist in New York City. Doesn't play in any commercial venues; he plays in artist-run places, community-run places. He never stops playing. But he's probably in his 70s now, but he has nurtured up so many young jazz musicians. He works with children in New York City and in other countries of the world, getting them interested in music. His own music is absolutely exceptional. But he's just a huge important figure on the creative music scene in New York. So I'm going to put him there.
JOHN: Fantastic.
RICHARD: If I'm going to go back in time then it has to be Duke Ellington. He's the most important - about the most important musician of the 20th Century I think, you know? [LAUGHTER]
JOHN: That's fantastic. Thanks for sharing that.
RICHARD: He was a New Yorker, too. [LAUGHTER]
JOHN: All right. Well, I see hopefully a visit for you to New Orleans to see some avant-garde jazz in a different style hopefully. And it's been really fun talking to you, Richard. Thanks for taking the time.
[MUSIC]
JOHN: I hope you enjoyed the episode; I certainly did. One of the things that I'm thinking about that is so impressive is Richard's comment that the predictions in Jim (Hanson)'s article in 1981 are all coming to fruition with a much less robust, more rudimentary set of climate models in 1981 than we have now. If this doesn't engender trust in what we're going to expect on climate adaptation in the future with current models, I don't know what will. I want you to think about that between this episode and the next episode. And also think about jazz.
[MUSIC]
JOHN: That's it for this episode of Audacious Water. If you like the show please rate or review us and tell your colleagues and friends. For more information about Audacious Water visit our website at AudaciousWater.org/podcast. Until next time I'm John Sabo.
[0:36:02]
END (RICHARD SEAGER INTERVIEW)