HOT DRY EARTH If you think that California's extreme drought is just a fluke, you'd better wake up and watch the dust blow. One of the world's greatest areas of agricultural production in Central California, is seeing its production slashed. Noticed the prices of tree nuts, fruits and produce from California going up very fast. That's a harbinger of things to come as our growing regions with sufficient water move far far north. And the sea levels rise, covering some of the great cities of the world, including places like New York City, the region of Southern Florida and London. Pay-me-now-pay-me-later is the name of the game. If we fail to prepare for global climate change now, the results will be far more costly and disruptive than taking preventive measures. As Ben Franklin said, A stitch in time saves nine. And he knew what he was talking about!
3
Not going to happen. Everyone from politicians to common ordinary folk are too self-absorbed and short sighted to really do anything about climate change that might amount to personal or political sacrifice. It's going to have to get a lot more dismal out there before people wake up to the fact that it's costing them - personally - more to sit back than to sacrifice. Then there might be real, effective action - probably too little anyway, and probably too late.
2
While we have spent the last 20 to 30 years trying to determine whether there is climate change or not, the planet has continued to warm. Anyone 50 years old and older living in the Southwest should be able to recognize the change in the climate. The problem is global and needs to be globally addressed. America could have done a lot to address the problem years ago, but chose not to. We had the knowledge and the resources to bring about positive change. The world has changed immensely in the last 4 decades. We are now only one of many players contributing to the warming of the planet, but we are very much a part of this sealed capsule called planet earth.
1
It doesn't matter if the drought, and global warming, are Human "inspired," Human induced by kicking the natural cycle into the extremes of high gear, or not caused by Humans at all. The fact is warming and droughts are occurring, indeed they seem to be intensifying. And since we have bred into the multiple of billions during a rather benign phase of the climatic cycle this puts us all at varying degrees of risk .
The question is, what is our leadership class doing to guard the future of our society? This is, after all, the main tenant of their job, the one we elected them to fulfill. To aid and guard not only the prosperity of society today, but of the future as well. This without regard to ideological constraints. To aid and guard with the wisdom of forethought.
I am not seeing much in that regard. And unfortunately, by the time they start to engage in their job it will be much too late to do anything other than mitigate slightly the impact of the climate/environmental avalanche that is even now bearing down upon us all.
So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
The question is, what is our leadership class doing to guard the future of our society? This is, after all, the main tenant of their job, the one we elected them to fulfill. To aid and guard not only the prosperity of society today, but of the future as well. This without regard to ideological constraints. To aid and guard with the wisdom of forethought.
I am not seeing much in that regard. And unfortunately, by the time they start to engage in their job it will be much too late to do anything other than mitigate slightly the impact of the climate/environmental avalanche that is even now bearing down upon us all.
So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
Dry lake beds all over California for centuries but this drought is connected to climate change (at least 25% lol) meanwhile this past winter global warming froze people to death in Mexico with record low temperatures---Mexico!
I found it interesting that during the woolly mammoth era it was found by scientists that climate change was worse than the present, guess somehow the animals decided to do away with fossil fuels.
In the last 11,000 years there have been three super droughts in the west lasting up to a hundred yoars. I know that this old planet experiences major fluctuations in temperature. Past, present and future. I am curious about just how many cars and coal burning power plants were around back then.
1
Humans’ use of fossil fuels, and the resulting carbon dioxide air emissions, has no material effect on climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. Most of the rest are the result of decomposing plant material. CO2 is in equilibrium. It is a weak greenhouse gas in theory, but its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces.
The theory of fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for any regulation.
1. CO2 does not materially affect the Earth’s climate; and,
2. Fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for regulation of CO2 emissions; and,
3. Nature already effectively captures and sequesters CO2 as mineral carbonate; and,
4. Climate cycles are natural, and caused by forces other than CO2; and,
5. Human activities generate about 3% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest are from rotting plants.
Anyone who took 10th grade chemistry could arrive at these conclusions using public information sources. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of the mineral carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Virtually all carbonates are formed from atmospheric CO2 that has been taken up by seawater or soils.
The theory of fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for any regulation.
1. CO2 does not materially affect the Earth’s climate; and,
2. Fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for regulation of CO2 emissions; and,
3. Nature already effectively captures and sequesters CO2 as mineral carbonate; and,
4. Climate cycles are natural, and caused by forces other than CO2; and,
5. Human activities generate about 3% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest are from rotting plants.
Anyone who took 10th grade chemistry could arrive at these conclusions using public information sources. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of the mineral carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Virtually all carbonates are formed from atmospheric CO2 that has been taken up by seawater or soils.
1
"Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said that “alarmists” about global warming were trying to gain “more power over the economy and our lives.”
Let's hope the alarmists succeed, because most of the people who actually do have control over the economy and our lives are trashing the planet for profit and driving our species toward extinction.
Let's hope the alarmists succeed, because most of the people who actually do have control over the economy and our lives are trashing the planet for profit and driving our species toward extinction.
4
Perfectly explained.
1
Change to drought tolerant crops, require soil moisture monitors as a precondition for irrigation water. State takes control of all agricultural wells. If an acquifer begins to drop then agriculture use is cut off.
The water people need to drink, bath, launder must have priority over corporate farmers' profit margins.
Also, residential use of water to water grass and plants must be stopped period. Tucson, Az did this in the early sixties.
The water people need to drink, bath, launder must have priority over corporate farmers' profit margins.
Also, residential use of water to water grass and plants must be stopped period. Tucson, Az did this in the early sixties.
3
As a young person growing up in California, the drought situation is very alarming. Many of California's lakes are drying up and there is even more risk of fire. This article seems to capture a very serious issue global warming and its effects on the California drought. I am glad that this issue is being brought to the attention of other states. In order to help with this issue, Californians are limiting their use of water which includes watering yards, filling pools and now you have to ask for a glass of water at a restaurant. Also, people are buying hybrid cars to prevent harmful gases from entering the atmosphere which is a big problem with global warming. I hope all Americans know how important this issue is. Even those who don't live in California.
2
If the drought is costing California almost $3 billion a year, I'm not sure how anyone can claim that cutting coal-fired power plants could hurt the economy any more than that.
The headline would be hilarious if it weren't already so dire. Didn't the Pentagon suggest the very same thing to Congress? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2FJf6opsoY
1
By choosing not to endorse action to reduce climate change, Republicans and other "doubters" essentially are saying "it's OK that human beings and other animals and plants are endangered."
Even if rising temperatures are NOT completely human-made, if there is a way humans can slow, halt or even reverse rising temperatures, why would we not do all possible? Or are Republicans OK with losing their summer homes. paying high prices for food, fighting for water, and - horrors! - having to fund FEMA even more than it is currently funded, to deal with the disasters that are assuredly on their way? Classic ostrich with head in sand behavior.
I wonder: What is the payoff for followers of these deniers? What do they think they'll get by taking no action? Fantasies of some benefit to them is the only way to explain the denial and failure to act on climate change.
Even if rising temperatures are NOT completely human-made, if there is a way humans can slow, halt or even reverse rising temperatures, why would we not do all possible? Or are Republicans OK with losing their summer homes. paying high prices for food, fighting for water, and - horrors! - having to fund FEMA even more than it is currently funded, to deal with the disasters that are assuredly on their way? Classic ostrich with head in sand behavior.
I wonder: What is the payoff for followers of these deniers? What do they think they'll get by taking no action? Fantasies of some benefit to them is the only way to explain the denial and failure to act on climate change.
4
I live near Tehachapi, CA on the edge of the Mojave desert. The last time there was snow on the ground was on Sunday, 1/8/2012. It rained twice in the last 1 1/2 months, each for about 2 hours. Junipers are showing brown, the only native plants are rubber rabbit brush and great basin sagebrush. August appears to be hotter than past years - 106 is hot here.
If the media giants, corporations and Congress don't quit putting the economy before survival and invite more pollution, drilling, mining and deforestation, our Garden of Eden will become another lifeless planet in the universe. Over what? Useless vanity of our species.
If the media giants, corporations and Congress don't quit putting the economy before survival and invite more pollution, drilling, mining and deforestation, our Garden of Eden will become another lifeless planet in the universe. Over what? Useless vanity of our species.
5
I don't understand how anybody can NOT be an environmentalist. I don't care how much money you have, if you are human you need air, water, food and temperatures that don't exceed a certain threshold. Take it a step further and you may actually want things to stay green and pretty, too. Without the planet, nothing else matters - not your money, not your house, not your boat, not your power or prestige, nothing. So how can anybody be against taking immediate and forceful action on this issue, at any cost? Even more so if you have children! I mean, I'll be gone in 50 years. But what about our kids, what will be left for them? I just cannot for the life of me understand opposition to this critical issue. I'll give up half my income in taxes to fix this, my God it is so vitally important!
8
The old politicians who run the country don't care about the next generation. They want a comfortable living now.
2
This article is too narrowly focused. The Times should pay a writer to cover the drought throughout the west. Take a look at what is happening in WA state, BC, Alaska, Canada. Consider the toxic blob off the coast, the disruption of the Jet Stream, climate change and its impact.
California is not the only state suffering. With article restricted to CA, people go off on tangents on more myopyic points and fail to look at the big picture, which is critical.
There was an article on the condition of our forests, every one of which is in stress. This is extremely important.
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/every-forest-biome-on-earth-is-ac...
And how might the blob that is causing the persistent high-pressure ridge on the Pacific Coast, which has given us dry, warm weather, particularly in winter, be affected by El Nino, climate change -- all under study, and all dutifully ignored by the Times.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/pacific-ocean-blob/
We had no snow in the mountains this past winter and apparently can expect more of the same this winter. The impact on forests and fisheries is significant.
Meanwhile, fishing banned in the Arctic because the waters are too warm and President Obama sends Shell to look for more oil, which will ensure that we will bust through 2 C, which apparently people who are focused on this, expect, despite Christina Figueres' best efforts and optimism.
NYT cover COP21! Closely, please! Now. Before it's too late.
California is not the only state suffering. With article restricted to CA, people go off on tangents on more myopyic points and fail to look at the big picture, which is critical.
There was an article on the condition of our forests, every one of which is in stress. This is extremely important.
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/every-forest-biome-on-earth-is-ac...
And how might the blob that is causing the persistent high-pressure ridge on the Pacific Coast, which has given us dry, warm weather, particularly in winter, be affected by El Nino, climate change -- all under study, and all dutifully ignored by the Times.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/pacific-ocean-blob/
We had no snow in the mountains this past winter and apparently can expect more of the same this winter. The impact on forests and fisheries is significant.
Meanwhile, fishing banned in the Arctic because the waters are too warm and President Obama sends Shell to look for more oil, which will ensure that we will bust through 2 C, which apparently people who are focused on this, expect, despite Christina Figueres' best efforts and optimism.
NYT cover COP21! Closely, please! Now. Before it's too late.
3
The claim from republicans
" In response to a letter from Mr. Brown asking about their plans, several of the candidates retorted last week that California should be building more dams to store water for future droughts."
IS CRAZY! There is no possibility of building enough storage to span years of draught.
" In response to a letter from Mr. Brown asking about their plans, several of the candidates retorted last week that California should be building more dams to store water for future droughts."
IS CRAZY! There is no possibility of building enough storage to span years of draught.
2
Atlas Shrugged! I would suggest that the author of this article list the source of all his income. How much did Gore or me pay him to construct it?
It's a disturbing trend, with potentially disastrous consequences: a segment of the American leadership and population, with no scientific training or expertise, firmly believe that they know what is happening with the globe's climate and oceans, and that the people who actually study it for a living, who've examined it for decades, and are responsible for understanding it, are all just completely and utterly wrong.
That's the real issue with climate change. However sincere, the cadre of nay-sayers are quick to spread commentary in the media, yet never, ever appear with any evidence at scientific conferences. They protest others' data, but produce none. They claim to know that humans cannot possibly affect climate, but present no facts to support that belief. They don't believe they need any.
Should we trust the future to ideologues who lack the ability or willingness to participate in the scientific process - gathering data, testing hypothesis, and so on? Would we trust the gardener to diagnose cancer?
We may disagree on solutions or part ways on policy. But I think the day has come to demand the nay-sayers argue their case in the Academy of Science, or the CIA or Department of Defense, or in any of the scientific bodies who have conducted actual, careful analysis - not in talk shows or comment sections.
If you can't make your case there, then you have no case to make, and your opinions - and that is all they are - are simply excuses to avoid responsible action.
That's the real issue with climate change. However sincere, the cadre of nay-sayers are quick to spread commentary in the media, yet never, ever appear with any evidence at scientific conferences. They protest others' data, but produce none. They claim to know that humans cannot possibly affect climate, but present no facts to support that belief. They don't believe they need any.
Should we trust the future to ideologues who lack the ability or willingness to participate in the scientific process - gathering data, testing hypothesis, and so on? Would we trust the gardener to diagnose cancer?
We may disagree on solutions or part ways on policy. But I think the day has come to demand the nay-sayers argue their case in the Academy of Science, or the CIA or Department of Defense, or in any of the scientific bodies who have conducted actual, careful analysis - not in talk shows or comment sections.
If you can't make your case there, then you have no case to make, and your opinions - and that is all they are - are simply excuses to avoid responsible action.
7
Exactly! Like Senator Inhofe and band of Zombie like followers, You just need your little bible, and some big fat checks from the American Petroleum Institute! Just like Big Tobacco of the past, you just have to create some shady created doubt! No wonder other educated countries laugh at us.
3
Why don't the powers that be talk about one of the BIGGEST causes of climate change: meat production? The UN concluded it is a massive contributor. Watch Cowspiracy if you want the real story because so-called environmental groups won't address it. But, the media needs to address meat production's role in climate change: the destruction of the rainforest for cattle grazing, the methane the billions of cows and pigs produce and the inefficient use of soy, grain and water to feed 9-billion farm animals raised for food the US every year! Stop ignoring the big elephant in the room!
Not even close. Meat production is far behind energy production, industry, and transportation. In fact, emissions from all ruminants worldwide is roughly equivalent to that from marshlands.
Try science, not propaganda. Cowspiracy? The guy behind it is a DENTIST, not someone familiar with environmental science. Sheeeeesh.
Try science, not propaganda. Cowspiracy? The guy behind it is a DENTIST, not someone familiar with environmental science. Sheeeeesh.
2
Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns
29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.
“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author. Livestock now use 30 per cent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 per cent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 per cent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.
“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author. Livestock now use 30 per cent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 per cent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 per cent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
2
Rising populations,worldwide,and more people buying cars,using air conditioners,etc. is the cause of more use of fossil fuels.California,encouraging unlimited immigration,which lessens other countries' incentive to reduce their population growth and building more housing to accommodate that immigration,isn't helping.
1
Temperatures are rising on our planet. According to measurements made by NASA it is clear that global surface temperatures have warmed since 1880. The 20 warmest years in recorded history have occurred since 1981. Ten of the warmest years have occurred in the past 12 years.
“Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field.” – Report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2014
What does this mean?
Rising sea levels — Global sea levels are rising faster than what was predicted. In just the last decade sea levels have risen nearly double that of the last century.
Warming oceans — Oceans have absorbed much of the increased heat. The top 2,300 feet of the oceans show a warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 45 years.
Glaciers are retreating worldwide … including the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska, and Africa.
Extreme events – We are seeing record high temperatures and rainfall, and storms of greater intensity, while the number of record low temperatures are on the decline.
We must act now!
“Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field.” – Report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2014
What does this mean?
Rising sea levels — Global sea levels are rising faster than what was predicted. In just the last decade sea levels have risen nearly double that of the last century.
Warming oceans — Oceans have absorbed much of the increased heat. The top 2,300 feet of the oceans show a warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 45 years.
Glaciers are retreating worldwide … including the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska, and Africa.
Extreme events – We are seeing record high temperatures and rainfall, and storms of greater intensity, while the number of record low temperatures are on the decline.
We must act now!
6
Well, according to "experts" like Sen. Inhofe, the fact that "only" 97% of scientists agree that global warming exists and that man is a chief contributor means that there's still serious room for doubt. After all, they're not scientists, right?
There are solutions: nuclear power, 50 mph speed limits, higher taxes on oversized vehicles, and on fuel, water flow restrictors, desert landscaping, extended mass transit. But there is no will to implement them.
5
Regardless of how much or how little impact the use of fossil fuel has on the global warming trend, there's no feasible alternative. The human race will continue to burn more of it, come what may. Why? Because prosperity and even the survival of a large part of the world's (over)population depends on massive amounts of cheap and available energy. Those of us who mean well want to raise up the poor, but significantly reduce the burning of coal and kerosene and charcoal and the middle class will become poor and the poor will starve. Cut the use of gasoline and diesel for trucks, trains and ships and fewer people will get the food and other goods they need. It just isn't politically possible to cut fossil fuel emissions enough to make a real difference and there's nothing out there now or in the foreseeable future that can take its place. And by the way, sooner or later we will rune out of stuff to burn. Hand wringing won't help. We can't save the world so we might as well work on making our own part of it more livable.
1
Having a very hard time getting past the first sentence: "Global warming caused by human emissions ..." Didn't realize our emissions were so bad. We must be right up there with cattle after eating.
1
Emissions from ruminants are far, far less than those from industry, transportation, and energy production.
A cultural blindness afflicts too many Americans about the growing damage from excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. With so much $$ (Koch bro., Murdoch, etc.) misdirecting voters on this you have rightist in Kansas, Texas and Alabama helping to cook liberal California. Of course these "conservatives" have a lot help heating up the planet as India and China use even more oil and coal. We need some big changes soon.
1
Justin Gillis quotes a John Kasich spokesman saying we need action on climate change that “…doesn’t throw the economy and jobs out the window at the same time.” Finally, a Republican who acknowledges what scientists have been saying for decades.
But what is that unnamed action? Any action that does not put a price on fossil fuels will not mitigate climate change. Will Mr. Kasich be the first Republican with the backbone to challenge the fossil fuel lobby?
The Fee and Dividend approach advocated by Citizens Climate Lobby is projected to add jobs and increase GNP at the same time it reduces CO2 emissions by 50% over 20 years; exactly what Mr Kasich claims is needed. No addition to government or new regulations; strictly market based.
Was this just campaign word salad, or are Republicans inching toward reality?
But what is that unnamed action? Any action that does not put a price on fossil fuels will not mitigate climate change. Will Mr. Kasich be the first Republican with the backbone to challenge the fossil fuel lobby?
The Fee and Dividend approach advocated by Citizens Climate Lobby is projected to add jobs and increase GNP at the same time it reduces CO2 emissions by 50% over 20 years; exactly what Mr Kasich claims is needed. No addition to government or new regulations; strictly market based.
Was this just campaign word salad, or are Republicans inching toward reality?
1
Agriculture in California's Central Valley is said to account for only a small percentage of the State's trillion dollar economy. However, agriculture reportedly is disproportionately consumeing an enormous amount of the State's remaining available surface and aquifer water.
Modern desalinization plants have been built in recent years in counties like (Dubai) with breakthrough water processing engineering that successfully eliminate the "brine" contamination issues found in early generation desalination plants. I hope California's political leadership is studying the possibilities of constructing new large scale desalination plants that could greatly reduce the State's water dependence upon cyclical weather trends.
Modern desalinization plants have been built in recent years in counties like (Dubai) with breakthrough water processing engineering that successfully eliminate the "brine" contamination issues found in early generation desalination plants. I hope California's political leadership is studying the possibilities of constructing new large scale desalination plants that could greatly reduce the State's water dependence upon cyclical weather trends.
2
I leave in California and my Brother-n-Law is a major grower....50% of the water release is strictly environmental discharged
1
So here we are again.
Unless the GOP pulls off what JEB! did as governor in 2000 by disenfranchising and purging 93,000 legally registered black Floridian voters off the voting lists so his beloved bro could get the Florida vote.
Unless they continue to suppress the vote, or steal votes the GOP will never win the whitehouse because the majority of free thinking able to vote voters see that the GOP is on the wrong side of human social issues.
What do they tell they grandchildren? Don't worry dear you will have enough money to have your own bubble to live in.
Unless the GOP pulls off what JEB! did as governor in 2000 by disenfranchising and purging 93,000 legally registered black Floridian voters off the voting lists so his beloved bro could get the Florida vote.
Unless they continue to suppress the vote, or steal votes the GOP will never win the whitehouse because the majority of free thinking able to vote voters see that the GOP is on the wrong side of human social issues.
What do they tell they grandchildren? Don't worry dear you will have enough money to have your own bubble to live in.
2
Rightly assume that global warming is here, and for the foreseeable future, it is here to stay. No amount of limiting "human emissions" is going to reverse the course anytime soon. What we need is a strategy to respond to the national water crisis.
We need to ask when are we going to begin seriously and earnestly discussing a national water infrastructure. In any given year we have oversupplies of water in various regions of the country. THAT WATER CAN BE MOVED.
Would a national water infrastructure be expensive? Yes. But if you want to have a debate about spending on "national defense" this is where the debate should begin. There is no current greater threat to our welfare as a nation.
If we can build tens of thousands of miles of pipeline for oil and natural gas, we can do the same for water.
We need to ask when are we going to begin seriously and earnestly discussing a national water infrastructure. In any given year we have oversupplies of water in various regions of the country. THAT WATER CAN BE MOVED.
Would a national water infrastructure be expensive? Yes. But if you want to have a debate about spending on "national defense" this is where the debate should begin. There is no current greater threat to our welfare as a nation.
If we can build tens of thousands of miles of pipeline for oil and natural gas, we can do the same for water.
3
If we are to do anything about global warming we need China as a partner. As I read posts for NYTimes stories about China there is a lot of sabre rattling. We are going to have to make a choice whether we want to encourage China to work with us or work against us. That's assuming of course our rulers can be convinced that global warming threatens their interests. Now that I think of it, I'm not sure who the enemy is.
1
I see this problem as an opportunity. We could become the leaders of green technology and sell that technology to the rest of the world. We have the scientific and industrial resources to scale up production to do this. This would nudge our unemployment numbers to record lows. We only have this one planet to live on, and right now we are trashing it. Lets get started.
1
Who can guarantee and name specific changes to human behavior will stop climate change? No one. Shutdown all the fossil fuel power plants, if man is contributing to climate change, what changes will result from all the oil lamps and wood fires? The severity of droughts as the cycle of droughts has varied for many years.
1
Is that Ted Cruz comment taken out of context or is it real? Does it reflect his opinion on dealing with climate change? Long past time to wake up. We drive two hybrids. My neighbor won't bother....figures his participation means nothing when the Chinese live as they do. Cash for Clunkers years ago was half a good idea. They should have, instead, only allowed new hybrids to be the byproduct of the trade in. Offer incentives...sizable ones....to people who dump the smog emitting guzzlers and have them go electric...or a lesser but still meaningful subsidy for hybrids. The benefits are positive for everyone....rich and poor. Why is that so hard to do?
1
The water shortage in the Southwest can be directly tied to coal. The Black Mesa coal mines feed the power plants that deliver electricity to three major cities, Phoenix, LA, and Vegas. The coal is shipped as slurry using water in huge pipes. The coal industry gets the largest allocation of water from the reservoirs that feed these three cities.
The emissions from coal fired power plants increased the snow melt. The mountains are under a constant warm blanket of coal emissions. As the three cities grow, especially Vegas, they require more and more power and water. Las Vegas is called an Artificial City, an adult amusement park with lush green fairways, built over an arid land that hits 117 degrees in the summer. Adding to the misery is a 100 year event, the Haboob, a 2,000-6,000 foot high dust storm that lasts 20-30 minutes. This "100 year event" now occurs regularly over the summer months.
The emissions from coal fired power plants increased the snow melt. The mountains are under a constant warm blanket of coal emissions. As the three cities grow, especially Vegas, they require more and more power and water. Las Vegas is called an Artificial City, an adult amusement park with lush green fairways, built over an arid land that hits 117 degrees in the summer. Adding to the misery is a 100 year event, the Haboob, a 2,000-6,000 foot high dust storm that lasts 20-30 minutes. This "100 year event" now occurs regularly over the summer months.
1
This is the kind of article that gives substance to those that don't believe in climate change. While they admit that California drought is a result of the fact that it's a desert (hello?!) they jump to an unsupported conclusion that 'it's made worse by climate change... continents across the globe are experiencing a hot summer' - how does that support a 15-20% increase in droughts in CA?!!!
Of course this report was requested by Obama, and the conclusions were written before the study. Sad. But one can't get a grant from the Fed unless they are studying AND confirming climate change.
The drought in CA has been repeated for centuries. It is a desert. And too many people live in this desert with swimming pools, landscape, and thirsty grasses. Add the fact that agriculture does what it wants - they are not growing low water consumption products, but almonds and other produce that are very thirsty.
Shame on these 'scientists' for yet again using politics to pad their grant funding and producing yet another piece of junk. If we expect people and countries to reduce their pollution, water consumption, and emissions, we can NOT CLAIM EVERYTHING IS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY EMMISSIONS.
Of course this report was requested by Obama, and the conclusions were written before the study. Sad. But one can't get a grant from the Fed unless they are studying AND confirming climate change.
The drought in CA has been repeated for centuries. It is a desert. And too many people live in this desert with swimming pools, landscape, and thirsty grasses. Add the fact that agriculture does what it wants - they are not growing low water consumption products, but almonds and other produce that are very thirsty.
Shame on these 'scientists' for yet again using politics to pad their grant funding and producing yet another piece of junk. If we expect people and countries to reduce their pollution, water consumption, and emissions, we can NOT CLAIM EVERYTHING IS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY EMMISSIONS.
1
I'm curious why, in the hard light of knowledge like this, California and other western (desert) states are not seeking to limit development, and continuing to keep the welcome mat out for more and more migrants that they cannot hope to provide with water.
Seems like its time to take the next logical step and acknowledge they have way overbuilt in an environment that has been over-engineered to beyond its limit to support such a population.
WR
Seems like its time to take the next logical step and acknowledge they have way overbuilt in an environment that has been over-engineered to beyond its limit to support such a population.
WR
1
This commentary belongs on "opinions" rather than "science". There is no empirical evidence that co2 level has EVER (including over geologic periods) had any impact on global warming. And, co2 level has been several times higher than now. Whats more, the prior four inter-glacial periods (covering the 340,000 years) have been 2 degrees warmer than this one. But during this one, co2 is 40% higher, so obviously co2, even at its higher current level, has no measurable impact on global warming
We have had several earlier durations during our current inter-glacial period which were as warm, likely warmer than our current warming (such as it is). Both weather satellites show no additional warming for the past 18+ years, so the entire global warming scare is based on the warming period which began in the 1970s and ended around 1998.
We have had several earlier durations during our current inter-glacial period which were as warm, likely warmer than our current warming (such as it is). Both weather satellites show no additional warming for the past 18+ years, so the entire global warming scare is based on the warming period which began in the 1970s and ended around 1998.
2
Although I don't know what "Both weather satellites show no additional warming for the past 18+ years" means exactly, it's clearly wrong (based on empirical evidence, by the way: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif). 2014 was the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the long-term average. To date, including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occured during the 21st century (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413). And surface temperature is only one indicator of global warming. Most of the heat gain is in the oceans (http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif), which together with warming atmosphere has accelerated the melting rate of glaciers and ice sheets, sea ice, global sea levels. And rising CO2 concentrations are acidifying the worlds oceans. These aren't "opinions", they are "scientific facts".
Your post must be categorized as non-science ideology—or a red herring as a minimum. Air temperature is only 3% of the heat balance on the globe plus the ~18 year time period is too short for statistical accuracy. The surface air temps have warmed 0.8C since 1880 with 0.6C occurring since 1980. The remaining 97% of the planet heat balance has shown an acceleration of warming with accelerated rise in sea levels and accelerated glacier melting. It takes approximately 360 gigatons (360,000,000,000) of land ice to melt to raise sea levels one millimeter. Since sea levels have risen about 3 mm/year over the past 20 years and 1.2 mm/year for 100 plus years prior, that is a lot of heat and a direct indication of the planet warming quickly. (about one-third of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion....the oceans hold ~1000 times more heat than the atmosphere.
Past changes during the ice ages have occurred over thousands of years due to the Milankovitch cycles. The planet has cooled slowly over the past 6000 years during the holocene as a result of the those cycles...the cooling was wiped out in the last 150 years with the only significant change being anthropogenic greenhouse gases. There is no natural change that has occurred in that time frame which can account for the total planet warming.
Cherry picking a limited time period and section of the planet to imply "no warming" denies the applicable science and math.
Past changes during the ice ages have occurred over thousands of years due to the Milankovitch cycles. The planet has cooled slowly over the past 6000 years during the holocene as a result of the those cycles...the cooling was wiped out in the last 150 years with the only significant change being anthropogenic greenhouse gases. There is no natural change that has occurred in that time frame which can account for the total planet warming.
Cherry picking a limited time period and section of the planet to imply "no warming" denies the applicable science and math.
It seems that the gist of this article is the idea that the higher temps in CA has worsened the drought by more water going up (evaporating) than usual. As a result, the soil is dryer leading to increased demand for irrigation waters (from reservoirs that are also evaporating faster).
But it is said that what goes up, must come down. So, the article seems to tell only half of the story. Where is the water that CA is "exporting" (as evaporation) being "imported" (as precipitation)? Might there be a connection between the CA's dryness and flooding elsewhere?
Does anyone else want to hear "the rest of the story"?
But it is said that what goes up, must come down. So, the article seems to tell only half of the story. Where is the water that CA is "exporting" (as evaporation) being "imported" (as precipitation)? Might there be a connection between the CA's dryness and flooding elsewhere?
Does anyone else want to hear "the rest of the story"?
A lot of people have been taking in and in some cases promoting nonsense. It's not all that difficult to "get" the concept of accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gases increasing the energy in the system (global warming) and disrupting the planetary circulation (climate change).
Start here, it's pretty obvious.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
and this:
www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/20/science/ap-us-sci-hottest-month.html
All this guff about how computers don't work and modeling can't work, and believing all the phony evidence promoted by unskeptical "skeptic" zombie deniers, adds up to being persuaded by false arguments without looking at the wide variety of evidence available from every legitimate organization worldwide.
And how about all those wildfires? Do you think that's normal?
However, despite substituting political preference and propaganda for real evidence, which people would not do with their health or almost anything else in their lives (you car? your plumbing? your health? get an expert), some of them get that it will not hurt to pursue clean energy anyway.
Clean energy is a great jobs program, too.
The pollution from fossil fuels is not limited to atmospheric greenhouse gases, there are plenty of other toxins involved too. And those new fuels coming from extreme fossil (fracking, deepwater and Arctic drilling, tar sands) are inadequately accounted for, with problems like methane leaks, water supply, and earthquakes just emerging.
Start here, it's pretty obvious.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
and this:
www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/20/science/ap-us-sci-hottest-month.html
All this guff about how computers don't work and modeling can't work, and believing all the phony evidence promoted by unskeptical "skeptic" zombie deniers, adds up to being persuaded by false arguments without looking at the wide variety of evidence available from every legitimate organization worldwide.
And how about all those wildfires? Do you think that's normal?
However, despite substituting political preference and propaganda for real evidence, which people would not do with their health or almost anything else in their lives (you car? your plumbing? your health? get an expert), some of them get that it will not hurt to pursue clean energy anyway.
Clean energy is a great jobs program, too.
The pollution from fossil fuels is not limited to atmospheric greenhouse gases, there are plenty of other toxins involved too. And those new fuels coming from extreme fossil (fracking, deepwater and Arctic drilling, tar sands) are inadequately accounted for, with problems like methane leaks, water supply, and earthquakes just emerging.
4
Ask yourself some hard questions when you start the "sustainability" mantra - how sustainable could Southern California ever be? Las Vegas? Palm Springs? Phoenix? Look at where cities have exploded and homes have been built with no thought as to adequate water supplies.
If you want to talk about true sustainability as a long term solution, you are really talking about the wholesale relocation of tens, if not over 100, millions of Americans. And we will see how much this dialogue continues if, as the California meteorologists are warning, the "Godzilla" El Nino [their term] that is forecast for this coming this year, arrives with massive rainfall...
John Steinbeck, a native Californian, in his magnum opus, "East Of Eden" said it best:
“And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.”
If you want to talk about true sustainability as a long term solution, you are really talking about the wholesale relocation of tens, if not over 100, millions of Americans. And we will see how much this dialogue continues if, as the California meteorologists are warning, the "Godzilla" El Nino [their term] that is forecast for this coming this year, arrives with massive rainfall...
John Steinbeck, a native Californian, in his magnum opus, "East Of Eden" said it best:
“And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.”
4
Hilarious. Climate change? How about "Climate Same?" The fact is California's climate, for the few hundred years we have studied it has always hovered in that range between moderate to severe to catastrophic drought, with a slightly damp year being an aberration. Do you think this typical, cyclical drought they are going through might have something to do with the fact that there are ten or twenty million more people living there than nature can naturally support? Could you have gone with the thought that Californians have been irrigating semi-arid lands and deserts for over a hundred years, and that might have some worsening effect on today's drought? But no, let's sell some Climate Change today!
3
So this explains global warming over the entire globe? All we have to do is fix California?
2
Bob, the fact that the fact that there are ten or twenty million more people living there than nature can naturally support might account for disappearing groundwater. But not for the the vanishing snowpack in the Sierras. All those people are using up their reserves, as you correctly note. But the reserves aren't being replenished. That is a problem.
Global warming which is measured as the mean temperatures on seasonal basis in various parts / locations / on this planet earth is not an adequate measure of anything relative. What really counts is the extreme differences in temps, which leads to the destruction of the functional ecosystem. Which has evolved over millions of years under ground, on the surface , the atmosphere, in depth of oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, plus the immediate outer spaces . Where a junk yard exists and getting worst day, by day and year by year. To that end we and other nations have build secret system of weapons for and all out war in in outer space.
1
Has the NYT been hacked or are they just suddenly buying into the Energy Industry spin?
Thanks to the energy industry's "think tanks" the climate change conversation has evolved over time...
1) 30 years ago - climate change doesn't exist
2) 20 years ago - climate change does exist but it's not that extreme
3) 10 years ago - climate change does exist, is extreme, but it's not man made (and so we shouldn't try to control it).
4) 5 years ago - climate change does exist, is extreme, is man made...but we just can't afford to deal with it (economically).
5) Now - climate change does exist, is extreme, is man made, and our economy can afford to deal with it....but....we could be more effective by focusing on adapting (innovating) rather than fighting the root cause (because controlling climate change is up to the rest of the world....just ask California).
There is a business case for a carbon tax ($2.7Billion to Californias farm economy is only a sliver of the ROI).
We need to stop debating climate change and do what's needed.
Thanks to the energy industry's "think tanks" the climate change conversation has evolved over time...
1) 30 years ago - climate change doesn't exist
2) 20 years ago - climate change does exist but it's not that extreme
3) 10 years ago - climate change does exist, is extreme, but it's not man made (and so we shouldn't try to control it).
4) 5 years ago - climate change does exist, is extreme, is man made...but we just can't afford to deal with it (economically).
5) Now - climate change does exist, is extreme, is man made, and our economy can afford to deal with it....but....we could be more effective by focusing on adapting (innovating) rather than fighting the root cause (because controlling climate change is up to the rest of the world....just ask California).
There is a business case for a carbon tax ($2.7Billion to Californias farm economy is only a sliver of the ROI).
We need to stop debating climate change and do what's needed.
3
So despite the headline, the drought's incontrovertible origin is a weather pattern, not climate change. In fact, they go on to admit it is a notmal recurring pattern of weather. Nowhere do they suggest that droughts are the result of climate change much less can be prevented by "climate action".
This bolsters President Obama and Jerry Brown in their call for costly climate change regulations and investment?
This bolsters President Obama and Jerry Brown in their call for costly climate change regulations and investment?
3
I don't need to be that smart like a climatologist to know when weather is changing into something that I've never seen before. There is definitely a warming trend with more extreme and violent weather throughout the world. I recall a research stating that people become more irritable as temperatures rise. You think. Anyway republicans are denying necause their campagin donors or business lobbiests are suggesting the cost to address climate change will put them out of business. I think climate change wiil put them out of business sooner.
1
Though English may not be your first language, you make a lot of sense.
It took a bit of courage to speak up, but this is just common sense. Thank you!
It took a bit of courage to speak up, but this is just common sense. Thank you!
1
This cannot change until we impose strict limitations on child-bearing, world-wide. Perhaps forcing parents to post a bond the equivalent of ten years' income for each child beyond the second would work. Currently we're headed down the dinosaur path, and providing our own terminal meteor.
The human race is not about to revert to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle nor are we going to seriously entertain implementing global population control and reduction. If we can't find an alternate to fossil fuels then we will have to come around and conclude global warming Must Be part of His plan...
Kool-aid comes in many flavors. "Climate Change" is one of those flavors. All jokes aside, I'm sure we are having some impact. I'm just not convinced about the magnitude of the impact. On a related note, I admit that we have ruined many parts of the planet with pollution. That part is tragic. (China is the worst).
2
Some might want to look and up see what Stanford is doing in storm water retention. They are working with several cites to harness this water instead of dumping it into the ocean. Not a bad idea.
No one program can solve all the issues, but it is obvious that more talent needs to be put into the water treatment and retention.
No one program can solve all the issues, but it is obvious that more talent needs to be put into the water treatment and retention.
3
For years scientist have predicted that climate change would make weather more extreme. Now it is happening. We need to face climate change and think more broadly about growth in sensitive areas. We will have increasing numbers of areas where climate change has dramatic affect including water shortages, flooding from the ocean and food shortages.
1
Americans are smarter than the political and media elite think. You can't just say the sky is falling for 4 decades, through which the sky does not fall and think that people are not going to want more and more evidence.
The problem with global warming is how the choice of the problem to be solved was made, on assumptions. So the facts found to support a predetermined theory are simply facts, without any true discussion on all the problems and prioritizing of problems that could happen in our environment.
The problem with global warming is how the choice of the problem to be solved was made, on assumptions. So the facts found to support a predetermined theory are simply facts, without any true discussion on all the problems and prioritizing of problems that could happen in our environment.
2
Just wondering. Have NOAA and the UN worked out their differences regarding the decline in global temperatures for the last two decades? Science published a major article in which a gaggle of NOAA government scientists disputed the methodology that the IPCC used in calculating its temperatures. NOAA claimed that the computer programs were so complex that it is difficult to determine what global temperatures actually are.
In other words, have the experts settled on the science yet?
In other words, have the experts settled on the science yet?
2
Huh? The UN and NOAA? United Nations and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a part of NASA? Perhaps you meant the IPCC, which provides periodic assessments and summaries of the state of knowledge?
And who said the sky is falling?
I'd suggest you actually take a look at the evidence instead of providing a poorly argued political argument as to why we shouldn't look at the evidence or act all the all to obvious trends in worldwide weather and climate over time.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
And who said the sky is falling?
I'd suggest you actually take a look at the evidence instead of providing a poorly argued political argument as to why we shouldn't look at the evidence or act all the all to obvious trends in worldwide weather and climate over time.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
2
Human activity on this Earth is obviously a contributing factor to the increasingly bizarre weather phenomena. Hotter Summers, colder Winters, longer droughts, more violent forest fires and warming oceans are all signs of Global Warming. Why can no one else see that this is a big problem, Global Warming is not a conspiracy its real people. Anyone who does not see that we are the cause for a hotter Earth has their blinders all the way on. Climate variability is nonsense, please stop blaming this on fairy tales and blame it on the real problem. If we want this planet to be here for our ancestors then we need to make big moves to fix the climate and stabilize it.
1
I am concerned about this drought and climate change and think the government needs to protect the environment, but it is worth noting that the 2 places in the photos look like that at end of the summer in any year - drought or no drought. It is normal to be able to drive out on to empty shores of Folsom Lake in August and September. The golden dry grassland is the natural landscape in the summer. Green hills in the summer would be abnormal. The city of Folsom has done a excellent job of protecting green belt wet lands within the city and landscaping the city with native drought resistant plants.
2
What to believe?
Certainly not climate-science where their chaotic results relies on their computer models to obtain and continue to get government and corporate grants. Not only government and its entities, but also science and the media continue to play on our emotions as to cause and effect.
A report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said natural variations – mostly a La Niña weather oscillation – were the primary drivers behind the drought. Natural weather patterns, not manmade global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says federal scientists.
The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern North Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
The study notes that this ridge, which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011: is almost opposite to what computer models predict would result from human-caused climate change.
Now we have two versions from their computer models, but it is the data, good or bad, that they put in that tells us what to expect, not!
Certainly not climate-science where their chaotic results relies on their computer models to obtain and continue to get government and corporate grants. Not only government and its entities, but also science and the media continue to play on our emotions as to cause and effect.
A report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said natural variations – mostly a La Niña weather oscillation – were the primary drivers behind the drought. Natural weather patterns, not manmade global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says federal scientists.
The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern North Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
The study notes that this ridge, which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011: is almost opposite to what computer models predict would result from human-caused climate change.
Now we have two versions from their computer models, but it is the data, good or bad, that they put in that tells us what to expect, not!
3
Your second and final paragraphs are peculiar and not an accurate report. It's obvious you are arguing politics rather than looking at the evidence.
1
Susan Anderson
The evidence demonstrates that politics control policies for Climatologists that cannot explain why all their projections are wrong. They're putting coal miners out of work all based on a 17-year history that doesn't exist.
How could the IPCC claim with “95 percent certainty” that human activity is causing global warming when it failed to predict that global temperatures would remain flat over the past 17 years?
Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the UAH findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the latest (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR). Not one of the 73 models used in the 5AR accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996.
IPCC’s climate models are off by 46 percent when it comes to temperature CO2 sensitivity. Surface temperature is simply not as susceptible to changes in CO2 as was assumed by the climate modeling community. They do not tell you there models only work to show global warming when they added water vapor no matter how much CO2 they add.
The evidence demonstrates that politics control policies for Climatologists that cannot explain why all their projections are wrong. They're putting coal miners out of work all based on a 17-year history that doesn't exist.
How could the IPCC claim with “95 percent certainty” that human activity is causing global warming when it failed to predict that global temperatures would remain flat over the past 17 years?
Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the UAH findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the latest (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR). Not one of the 73 models used in the 5AR accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996.
IPCC’s climate models are off by 46 percent when it comes to temperature CO2 sensitivity. Surface temperature is simply not as susceptible to changes in CO2 as was assumed by the climate modeling community. They do not tell you there models only work to show global warming when they added water vapor no matter how much CO2 they add.
1
I share some of the skepticism about the validity of computer models and our ability to predict the climate 50 or 100 years down the line. Although I respect climatologists, I think it is possible they have made a mistake, and it wouldn't be the first time a scientific consensus was wrong.
But I still think we have an obligation to act on the evidence we have, rather than wait to see if all the predictions are correct.
1) We have millions of years of hard empirical evidence that the earth does very well when we do NOT spill massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Choosing to NOT greatly alter the atmosphere has a nearly 100% probability of NOT triggering a climate catastrophe.
2) There is good fossil evidence that when the atmosphere does change quickly, such as when large volcanoes erupt or asteroids hit the Earth, mass extinctions occcur.
3) Human energy consumption and waste production never before increased by nearly the amount that it has in the past 100-200 years, so we have zero evidence that this is safe.
4) We have alternative energy sources that are objectively better, more plentiful, safer, cleaner, and more profitable.
Given these observations, none of which depend on a complicated computer for validity, I believe there is no excuse for failing to act. It is reasonable to have doubts and to debate details. But there is ample reason to take action immediately.
But I still think we have an obligation to act on the evidence we have, rather than wait to see if all the predictions are correct.
1) We have millions of years of hard empirical evidence that the earth does very well when we do NOT spill massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Choosing to NOT greatly alter the atmosphere has a nearly 100% probability of NOT triggering a climate catastrophe.
2) There is good fossil evidence that when the atmosphere does change quickly, such as when large volcanoes erupt or asteroids hit the Earth, mass extinctions occcur.
3) Human energy consumption and waste production never before increased by nearly the amount that it has in the past 100-200 years, so we have zero evidence that this is safe.
4) We have alternative energy sources that are objectively better, more plentiful, safer, cleaner, and more profitable.
Given these observations, none of which depend on a complicated computer for validity, I believe there is no excuse for failing to act. It is reasonable to have doubts and to debate details. But there is ample reason to take action immediately.
3
Compared to other states, California is pretty cutting edge on the environment, however it still has a long, long way to go. California is covered with fossil fuel pipelines, and one that recently burst in Santa Barbara. And of course, they've also allowed the oil companies to frack to their heart's content, to the great detriment of their youth.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/20/45-fracked-wells-2-...
Jerry Brown, please explain.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/20/45-fracked-wells-2-...
Jerry Brown, please explain.
1
We have changed the surface of the earth by building cities, dams and removing forests. We have altered the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. We have pumped so much water out if he ground that massive sinkholes are a common thing. We have pumped oil out of the ground also, that may be linked to increases earthquakes. Volcanic activity is incredibly increasing ag alarming rates. Also, the earthsagnetic poles are shifting. Worry, why worry. Everything's fine.
1
We are the self-extinguishing species.
1
Have you noticed that pretty much EVERYTHING bad is connected with global warming "according to scientists"? If we are to take these connections seriously we have to question the science. Models that try to account for everything, globally, with very little actual hard data to drive them are dubious enough as it is. But the prevailing suggestion that climate change of any sort or from any cause can only result in bad outcomes for mankind (and the types of flora and fauna mankind values) is an untenable proposition and exposes how much ideology shapes climate science. It simply isn't possible that every possible scenario in a global model is somehow bad. And as of yet, I've not heard one single report of anything good coming from man-made climate change. And if that doesn't cause people to question global warming theory (and we _should_ question everything right?) then we are truly a nation incapable of critical thought.
12
It's not that every effect will be bad, it's that you better know about and prepare to deal with the negatives first. And on a planet where there's already plenty of hunger and drought you might want to cover your bases before you celebrate that you might not have to shovel snow in your old age.
One good thing is the ability of people in colder climates to grow more food as temps rise.
Have you noticed that pretty much EVERYTHING bad is connected with thermonuclear war "according to scientists"? If we are to take these connections seriously we have to question the science. Models that try to account for everything, globally, with very little actual hard data to drive them are dubious enough as it is. But the prevailing suggestion that thermonuclear war of any sort or from any cause can only result in bad outcomes for mankind (and the types of flora and fauna mankind values) is an untenable proposition and exposes how much ideology shapes nuclear science. It simply isn't possible that every possible scenario in a global model is somehow bad. And as of yet, I've not heard one single report of anything good coming from man-made thermonuclear war. And if that doesn't cause people to question nuclear theory (and we _should_ question everything right?) then we are truly a nation incapable of critical thought.
Flag
Flag
1
Climate change is certainly intensified by the burning of fossil fuels. But that's not why we need to stop burning fossil fuels. We need to stop because they are running out, and because they pollute the air and the water. It is all going to be about water in the next hundred years. Most of the earth's aquifers are now irreversibly polluted, even as the clean water dries up. It is on the verge of becoming critical in many regions of the world. The choices we make now will be decisive for billions of people and their children in the next three generations.
5
The amount of fossil fuels we can access depends on our current technology. Using only 19th-century technology, we would have run low on oil and gas already, but instead technology advances literally fueled our rip-roaring 20th century, and are continuing to do so now (remember "fracking"?).
We won't be "running out" of fossil fuels for hundreds of years or more.
We won't be "running out" of fossil fuels for hundreds of years or more.
Changes in climate are directly caused by 7 billion humans. It's called the inevitability of physical cause and effect. When humans pump 20+ billion tons of CO2 into the upper atmosphere yearly, where it lingers for an average of 100 years, the Earth doesn't magically adjust to absorb that extra amount. It sits up there and warms up the atmosphere and oceans, and has a cascading effect by releasing more CO2 previously locked up in oceans, ice sheets and tundras that are rapidly melting. You won't have any climate change opinions to argue about when a planetary human caused catastrophe starts killing everyone. Are the profits of greasy oil corporate criminals so important to you that you would sacrifice not only humanity, but all life on earth? There are too many immoral self centered crazies born into the human race whose answer to that would be yes.
5
Sell your car, stop heating your home and stop eating food brought to market by truck, rail or air cargo.
1
Well it's a good thing at least that before we had billions of people the climate didn't change.
Soon enough the effects of climate change will extend to Texas, Florida, Manhattan, and the southern states as coastal cities and towns have seawater swirling over freeways, train tracks, roads, subways, and into basements. What will the "conservatives" say then, that it was Obama's fault?
9
No, it will always be Bush's fault.
Up front, I want to say that I absolutely believe in global warming/climate change, that it is a fact, that mankind's activities have contributed to and exacerbated the problem and that finding ways to become more carbon neutral are imperative to the well-being if not downright survival of the human species in the long run. Now with that out of the way...
While science may well be able to draw strong indications that the current California/western US drought has been influenced and even exacerbated, the whole percentages thing on just how strong that contribution has been leaves me cold and leaves science out on a limb. The fact is that the Western US has experience periods of extreme drought/dryness in the past, some of these periods within human memory and some down to historical and/or geological records. It's also a fact that for the lifetimes of most in the US if not for the lifetime of the US itself, the Western US has been wetter with more rainfall than the historical record shows as average.
What I am saying here is that the science, while sound, should leave the percentages to gamblers. Percentages just give the other (creationist, ignorant, science adverse or whatever) side something to latch onto and to try and discredit. "You said 15-20 percent, but some say only 11-16 percent! Liars!" is sort of the way that goes, and people being what people are...well...I'd rather not see science hand that length of rope to the deniers.
The Western US is in for a tough slog.
While science may well be able to draw strong indications that the current California/western US drought has been influenced and even exacerbated, the whole percentages thing on just how strong that contribution has been leaves me cold and leaves science out on a limb. The fact is that the Western US has experience periods of extreme drought/dryness in the past, some of these periods within human memory and some down to historical and/or geological records. It's also a fact that for the lifetimes of most in the US if not for the lifetime of the US itself, the Western US has been wetter with more rainfall than the historical record shows as average.
What I am saying here is that the science, while sound, should leave the percentages to gamblers. Percentages just give the other (creationist, ignorant, science adverse or whatever) side something to latch onto and to try and discredit. "You said 15-20 percent, but some say only 11-16 percent! Liars!" is sort of the way that goes, and people being what people are...well...I'd rather not see science hand that length of rope to the deniers.
The Western US is in for a tough slog.
2
Drought is normal in other words and not caused by mankind, thanks.
1
Unskeptical "skeptics" aka zombie climate deniers will say and use anything, so trying not to provide them with fuel is a losing effort.
Unfortunately, science is a matter of probabilities, and scientists won't lie. (possibly a couple of bad apples, but most of them are the darlings of the fossil-financed alternate universe).
Unfortunately, science is a matter of probabilities, and scientists won't lie. (possibly a couple of bad apples, but most of them are the darlings of the fossil-financed alternate universe).
The major polluters have to be held accountable. California (drought) or New Jersey (floods) can't cope with this alone. The burning of coal in the midwest and China, vehicles that get less than half the mpg economy possible with today's technology, the clear cutting of forests and carbon sinks, wasteful use of energy in housing, etc.--not one state or one nation will solve this problem. It requires massive cooperation in an enforceable treaty, beginning with a carbon tax to fund the switch to renewables. Time is running out; halfway measures won't do. Divide and conquer strategies by diverting attention of voters to side issues by the fossil fuel industry needs to be exposed at every turn. As the ice melts, the world gets warmer and warmer; pH in the ocean drops and species disappear. All because of wasteful consumption powered unnecessarily by fossil fuels.
3
"Global warming caused by human emissions has most likely intensified the drought in California..."
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
6
Sacramento is just west of Folsom and I know exactly where the picture of the El Dorado Freeway (AKA US Route 50) was taken. Yes, the grass is dry - just like every year in mid summer. It is a common joke to hear people refer to the golden hills during the summer as the reason for the state's nickname of The Golden State. We have a wet season and a dry season. There is virtually no rain from late April through early October. The month-long accumulation averages for June, July, August, and September are measured in hundredths of an inch.
This is not to say that California does not have a drought. But many of the pictures taken to show how bad it is could have been taken in a year with average precipitation or a year that saw devastating floods.
This is not to say that California does not have a drought. But many of the pictures taken to show how bad it is could have been taken in a year with average precipitation or a year that saw devastating floods.
1
As Albert Hammond sung in 1972, "It Never Rains in Southern California".....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyC7WnvLT4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyC7WnvLT4
2
I live in San Diego. I bath every two days to help conserve water
1
Suggest Justin Gillisaug, author of “Climate Change Intensifies California Drought, Scientists Say” do some research.
See: “In California, A Wet Era Maybe Ending”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
“Analysis of tree rings suggests that western states have had many droughts of two decades or longer, including two megadroughts lasting longer than 100 years.”
These droughts happened LONG BEFORE Europeans sent foot in the Americas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See: “In California, A Wet Era Maybe Ending”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
“Analysis of tree rings suggests that western states have had many droughts of two decades or longer, including two megadroughts lasting longer than 100 years.”
These droughts happened LONG BEFORE Europeans sent foot in the Americas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
There may have been worse droughts in California in the remote past, but there weren't 38 million people using the water back then, and the Central Valley aquifers were not pumped dry 1000 feet down.
5
There have been worse droughts in the recent past: 1977, 1924, and three in the 1800s. And there have been others in the recent past on a par with this one: 1988-1992, 1931, and 1934. Not that the New York Times wants anyone to know.
So what N Va? The fact is that CA is severely drought prone regardless of man's activities.
President Obama may openly "mock" Republicans for their attitudes towards climate change, and rightfully so, yet, his actions, by permitting new Arctic drilling, make a mockery of all of us, and raise the question of how truly knowledgeable he is on the subject. It's no secret, the frozen methane in the Arctic is melting faster the warmer it gets, and adding more CO2, from methane, to our atmosphere,is accelerating the Earth's warming even faster, perhaps now at the point of no return. History, for the time left it's recorded, will show who and what actions led to our planet's destruction, his decisions will be part of that history, unfortunately.
4
Wrong. It is sucking water for lawns, golf courses, and decorative fountains, all competeting with economic irrigation
5
Well, duh.
6
Americans should be ashamed, something they are incapable of. As it had rallied in WWII and to reach the moon, under Carter there should have been a move to do the right thing and move towards cleaner energy. That was over four decades ago and may have saved us.
8
If you believe you are in immediate peril, wake up. Modern green agenda is mostly about keeping the research dollars flowing to the politicians and selling news... There is little research funded that is looking at the total environment from a risk assessment perspective and all the ways it could go wrong. We know today, there are literally 100's of ways for this planet to die naturally. Man is only now beginning to understand this reality, let alone manage it...
Alas, nasty facts get in the way:
1. The drought started in 2012, but there's been no statistically significant global warming for 18.58 years. Hard to pin an effect on an absent cause.
2. If AGW intensified the drought by raising local temperatures, then since greenhouse gases are supposed to cause AGW, temperature trends in the affected area should be consistent with GHG as cause. GHG-driven warming happens equally night and day. But NOAA's temperature record for the affected region of California shows 0.0F/decade daytime (TMax) trend and 0.2F/decade nighttime (TMin) trend since 1895. I.e., the warming isn't driven by GHG, so it's not anthropogenic.
3. The current California drought is a piker compared with others in the last twelve centuries. Droughts in the American West were both more frequent and more severe from 800 to 1500 AD than from then to now.
4. Total “climate change” (= increase in global average temperature) since about 1880 is about 0.8C, and since the computer models on average simulate twice the observed warming over the relevant period, that leaves precious little “climate change” to blame on humans—perhaps some fraction of 0.4C.
5. The models lack skill at the spatial resolution necessary to attribute any of the drought’s intensity to AGW.
But don't let facts cloud your judgment. Go ahead, waste $Trillions fighting AGW to spare California any more droughts.
For graphs and sources, see my blog piece today at CornwallAlliance.org.
1. The drought started in 2012, but there's been no statistically significant global warming for 18.58 years. Hard to pin an effect on an absent cause.
2. If AGW intensified the drought by raising local temperatures, then since greenhouse gases are supposed to cause AGW, temperature trends in the affected area should be consistent with GHG as cause. GHG-driven warming happens equally night and day. But NOAA's temperature record for the affected region of California shows 0.0F/decade daytime (TMax) trend and 0.2F/decade nighttime (TMin) trend since 1895. I.e., the warming isn't driven by GHG, so it's not anthropogenic.
3. The current California drought is a piker compared with others in the last twelve centuries. Droughts in the American West were both more frequent and more severe from 800 to 1500 AD than from then to now.
4. Total “climate change” (= increase in global average temperature) since about 1880 is about 0.8C, and since the computer models on average simulate twice the observed warming over the relevant period, that leaves precious little “climate change” to blame on humans—perhaps some fraction of 0.4C.
5. The models lack skill at the spatial resolution necessary to attribute any of the drought’s intensity to AGW.
But don't let facts cloud your judgment. Go ahead, waste $Trillions fighting AGW to spare California any more droughts.
For graphs and sources, see my blog piece today at CornwallAlliance.org.
4
"3. The current California drought is a piker compared with others in the last twelve centuries. Droughts in the American West were both more frequent and more severe from 800 to 1500 AD than from then to now."
Perhaps so, but now there is this pesky detail. Forty million souls hang in the balance.
Perhaps so, but now there is this pesky detail. Forty million souls hang in the balance.
5
1. Actual fact: Air temperature is only 3% of the heat balance on the globe; the ~18 year period is too short for statistical accuracy. Air temps have warmed 0.8C since 1880 with 0.6C rise since 1980. The remaining 97% of the planet heat balance has shown an acceleration of warming with rise in ocean levels and accelerated glacier melting.
2. Greenhouse warming has not occurred equally day and night. Night time temps have increased more than day time temps indicating Greenhouse gases trapping heat. The troposphere has warmed with the stratosphere cooling providing further evidence.
3. There is insufficient evidence to determine if past droughts in the west were worse than what is occurring now.
4. The 0.8C increase in surface air temperatures is not based on climate models. It is from global temperature measurements.There is zero evidence that climate models over estimate climate change. There is work that needs to be done, but the climate models have underestimated glacier melting in Greenland and Antarctica—both of which have shown acceleration during the last decade…again, showing no pause.
Ocean levels have increased 20 cm indicating extensive global warming-a fact ignored by the denier camp.
5. This conflicts with your statement in no. 3. Past climate in the west is based on climate models…you can’t rely on models and deny they are accurate.
The Cornwall alliance has a tenant that supernatural powers will prevent global warming -a bias to dismiss climate change
2. Greenhouse warming has not occurred equally day and night. Night time temps have increased more than day time temps indicating Greenhouse gases trapping heat. The troposphere has warmed with the stratosphere cooling providing further evidence.
3. There is insufficient evidence to determine if past droughts in the west were worse than what is occurring now.
4. The 0.8C increase in surface air temperatures is not based on climate models. It is from global temperature measurements.There is zero evidence that climate models over estimate climate change. There is work that needs to be done, but the climate models have underestimated glacier melting in Greenland and Antarctica—both of which have shown acceleration during the last decade…again, showing no pause.
Ocean levels have increased 20 cm indicating extensive global warming-a fact ignored by the denier camp.
5. This conflicts with your statement in no. 3. Past climate in the west is based on climate models…you can’t rely on models and deny they are accurate.
The Cornwall alliance has a tenant that supernatural powers will prevent global warming -a bias to dismiss climate change
4
"Forty million souls hang in the balance."
Well then. Send 20 million of them back to Mexico.
Well then. Send 20 million of them back to Mexico.
Let's stop pussy-footing around. Bottom line is that Earth now receives more energy from the sun than it can radiate away. It gets expressed in various ways in different places, but that's GLOBAL WARMING. Let's call a spade a spade and stop using that wishy-washy term, "climate change."
The reason for the imbalance is well understood: it's the CO2 we've added to raise atmospheric levels from a (pre-industrial) 270 ppm to (today's) 400 ppm.
Pogo said it well: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The reason for the imbalance is well understood: it's the CO2 we've added to raise atmospheric levels from a (pre-industrial) 270 ppm to (today's) 400 ppm.
Pogo said it well: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
10
"Global Warming" was changed to "Climate Change" because temperatures have been dropping for the last 19 years destroying the models scientists have been devising.
Now that we know the climate is always changing where is the scare going to come from?
Now that we know the climate is always changing where is the scare going to come from?
Bryce, even if you had data to prove your comment, do you know that this will continue. How is the Earth handling it today? You can't honestly answer that question, because we have very little understanding of all the systems (from cellular to macro) at play in the atmosphere and oceans. The only way you can get to your conclusion is the arrogant assumption that Man is powerful and all controlling and what we as animals on earth do could disrupt it all. This is your bias...
1
A few things are certain about the drought; you can not save your way out of it and you can not buy your way out of it. You can only hope and prey that rain will soon fall in abundance.
2
When Mitch McConnell cries crocodile tears and says we have to keep mining coal for jobs, I don't see why the government can't just pay the miners and associated industry workers 80 to 100% of their salaries for five years. In the long run it will be cheaper that the economic costs of climate change like rising sea levels and acidification of the oceans.
9
Five years? The way welfare and subsidized housing was supposed to be temporary? Let me take you to a housing project with generations of single women with children who grew up in the same project they now live in.
There is never a time limit to subsidy programs.
There is never a time limit to subsidy programs.
I would feel much more accepting of this study if we could have the concurrence of Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. who some believe is a skeptic. It seems that the study's conclusions are converging on those of Dr. Pielke's. If he has any reservations, it would be good to know what they are.
1
There are no unique "experts" in this or any area of science.
While opinions from Pielke, Sr. would be welcomed those from Pielke, Jr. would not be.
Science progresses by fits-and-starts and consensus on a particular topic is how it progresses.
Is consensus flawless? Of course not.
While we can mine the historical record for occasions when it has not been, on balance, no better methodology has replaced it.
While opinions from Pielke, Sr. would be welcomed those from Pielke, Jr. would not be.
Science progresses by fits-and-starts and consensus on a particular topic is how it progresses.
Is consensus flawless? Of course not.
While we can mine the historical record for occasions when it has not been, on balance, no better methodology has replaced it.
2
Huh? All the people ion the world and you only respect Pielke Sr.?
And he's compromised by family loyalty, in addition to his other prejudices. Because Pielke Jr. is just a Republican "expert" who makes a good living taking other people down, without substance or honesty.
And he's compromised by family loyalty, in addition to his other prejudices. Because Pielke Jr. is just a Republican "expert" who makes a good living taking other people down, without substance or honesty.
4
Susan:
Please prove your allegations:
"And he's compromised by family loyalty, in addition to his other prejudices. Because Pielke Jr. is just a Republican "expert" who makes a good living taking other people down, without substance or honesty."
Please prove your allegations:
"And he's compromised by family loyalty, in addition to his other prejudices. Because Pielke Jr. is just a Republican "expert" who makes a good living taking other people down, without substance or honesty."
There's an old saying from the auto mechanic point of view on car for cars:
"Pay me now or pay me later, but you'll pay me." California is paying now and lots ore than if they had planned, controlled growth, and slowed down on the auto as means of transportation and spent more on mass transport. Sadly, GM was the big start on the car mania. It was GM that closed down the Red Line and rail transportation (which has been slowly revived in the L.A. and Inland Empire area), but by ruining buses and urban sprawl which lended it self to cars, rather than buses and rail, California trapped itself in a no-win situation. Add the massive sprawl and easy freeways in the Bay Area and ALL of SoCal, the inevitable happened.
"Pay me now or pay me later, but you'll pay me." California is paying now and lots ore than if they had planned, controlled growth, and slowed down on the auto as means of transportation and spent more on mass transport. Sadly, GM was the big start on the car mania. It was GM that closed down the Red Line and rail transportation (which has been slowly revived in the L.A. and Inland Empire area), but by ruining buses and urban sprawl which lended it self to cars, rather than buses and rail, California trapped itself in a no-win situation. Add the massive sprawl and easy freeways in the Bay Area and ALL of SoCal, the inevitable happened.
2
Dick: Why can't you and all the "Population Blamers" accept that California's water problems are not caused by out population but by the fact that we are the bread basket of the world. 70%% of our water goes to agriculture.
I guess your population control ideology gets in the way of reality.
I guess your population control ideology gets in the way of reality.
1
Read: Beyond the 100th Meridian, by Wallace Stegner and none of these drought problems should be a surprise John Wesley Powell predicted this in the 1880's and suggested that the West cannot sustain large populations of settlers. The climate is not sustainable and argued with Congress to change course. But the allure of the west prevailed and millions of people are now suffering the consequences.
8
Elizabeth Kolbert has an excellent article on the "woman who would stop global warming," in the most recent New Yorker. This article is well worth a read.
People need to understand what is going on with COP21, which is coming up.
Christina Figueres remains positive as she feels that "bad news doesn't motivate people." However, David Victor says that the goal is effectively unattainable.
"To hold warming to less than two degrees Celsius, global emissions would have to peak more or less immediately, then drop nearly to zero by the second half of the century. Alternatively, they could be allowed to grow for a decade or so longer, at which point they’d have to drop even more precipitately, along the sort of trajectory a person would follow falling off a cliff. In either case, it’s likely that what are known as “negative emissions” would be needed. This means sucking CO2 out of the air and storing it underground—something no one, at this point, knows how to do. The practical obstacles to realizing any of these scenarios has prompted some experts to observe that, for all intents and purposes, the two-degree limit has already been breached.
“The goal is effectively unachievable” is how David Victor, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and Charles Kennel, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, put it recently in the journal Nature.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-policy-ditch-the-2-c-warming-goal-1.1...
Contrast Hansen's 2C isn't safe.
People need to understand what is going on with COP21, which is coming up.
Christina Figueres remains positive as she feels that "bad news doesn't motivate people." However, David Victor says that the goal is effectively unattainable.
"To hold warming to less than two degrees Celsius, global emissions would have to peak more or less immediately, then drop nearly to zero by the second half of the century. Alternatively, they could be allowed to grow for a decade or so longer, at which point they’d have to drop even more precipitately, along the sort of trajectory a person would follow falling off a cliff. In either case, it’s likely that what are known as “negative emissions” would be needed. This means sucking CO2 out of the air and storing it underground—something no one, at this point, knows how to do. The practical obstacles to realizing any of these scenarios has prompted some experts to observe that, for all intents and purposes, the two-degree limit has already been breached.
“The goal is effectively unachievable” is how David Victor, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and Charles Kennel, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, put it recently in the journal Nature.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-policy-ditch-the-2-c-warming-goal-1.1...
Contrast Hansen's 2C isn't safe.
2
I can't help it. Irritation and concern is my gut reaction each time I hear that those on the other side reject science or human caused climate change. Irritation that their lightening quick reactions always make their "convictions" seem thoughtless, unexplored, and automatic. (Like the Iran deal before they even explored what it has to say.) It all boils down to Just another spontaneous just-say-no response to anything and everything Obama and progressive. Regardless the consequences. And it's clear, the way Donald Trump is able to lead them by the nose regarding the fourteenth amendment and so on, how fundamentally flawed and unsound are their superficial views. And that's a concern regarding Republicans being the majority in congress. We must make sure to vote next election and put someone in the White House who is grounded, in tune with reality, and not swayed by nonsense regarding climate change and everything else. Our survival and the ultimate survival of our planet depends on it.
5
Tell the truth and shame the devil. Thank you.
Ready Pope's Laudato Si and I find Trump to be the apotheosis of immoral selfishness. He and Lord Monckton are cut from the same cloth, and very shoddy cloth it is.
Ready Pope's Laudato Si and I find Trump to be the apotheosis of immoral selfishness. He and Lord Monckton are cut from the same cloth, and very shoddy cloth it is.
1
I know over-population is a popular fear these days, and I believe it is a legitimate concern. However, California's water problems are not about over-population.
UCLA Institute of Environment and Sustainability shows that urban indoor use accounts for only 8% of the state's water use. That's drinking, showering, and normal daily activities. 77% is agriculture.
Of agriculture's use, the bulk of it goes to alfalfa and almonds. Other crops, like onions, use maybe 10% of what alfalfa uses.
I am not dismissing over-population as a concern overall. But when talking about specific problems, it is important to get the facts straight rather than jump to pet conclusions.
UCLA Institute of Environment and Sustainability shows that urban indoor use accounts for only 8% of the state's water use. That's drinking, showering, and normal daily activities. 77% is agriculture.
Of agriculture's use, the bulk of it goes to alfalfa and almonds. Other crops, like onions, use maybe 10% of what alfalfa uses.
I am not dismissing over-population as a concern overall. But when talking about specific problems, it is important to get the facts straight rather than jump to pet conclusions.
Climate change might be a driver behind this issue, but reducing carbon emissions won't get rid of the drought and the problems it is causing in the near to medium term. Disclaimer: I am not a denier, but this is an issue that must be dealt with immediately. If it doesn't start to rain again, soon, the time will come when we must pick winners and losers. I have tried to look up some basic stats but they are inconsistent; however they all claim that the GREAT majority of California's GDP (up to 94%) is produced in the service and technology sectors, not agriculture. Similarly, the majority of the state's population are employed in services or tech, not agriculture. It's easy to decide what needs to go, once you get past the noise made by the big-ag lobby.
Weather patterns in California are most likely reverting to their historical trend, El Nino or no. Agriculture simply cannot continue in this State in the manner that it has been for approx. the last century and may soon be a dead industry. While we must make lifestyle adjustments in accordance with the fact that we live in a desert, we cannot forcibly relocate 38 million people to other parts of the country. California will ride this out, and so will agriculture in the US. I don't expect things will ever be the same though.
Weather patterns in California are most likely reverting to their historical trend, El Nino or no. Agriculture simply cannot continue in this State in the manner that it has been for approx. the last century and may soon be a dead industry. While we must make lifestyle adjustments in accordance with the fact that we live in a desert, we cannot forcibly relocate 38 million people to other parts of the country. California will ride this out, and so will agriculture in the US. I don't expect things will ever be the same though.
2
"Adaptation" is seldom ever in the conversation by the media on the effects of climate change, regardless if the drastic changes in weather patterns are due to human negligence, population growth and/or any other human intervention, or due to the natural cycles of weather patterns.
With all the knowledge and technologies the world has at hand,adapting to such consequences in addition to minimizing CO2 and methane emissions needs to be part of the equation, such as limiting how much wine in produced from California.
If only this type of forum on commenting on such issues and articles like this would be utilized more productively by providing possible solutions rather than just reiterating the known problems and "pointing fingers, perhaps such issues might be resolved more effectively....
With all the knowledge and technologies the world has at hand,adapting to such consequences in addition to minimizing CO2 and methane emissions needs to be part of the equation, such as limiting how much wine in produced from California.
If only this type of forum on commenting on such issues and articles like this would be utilized more productively by providing possible solutions rather than just reiterating the known problems and "pointing fingers, perhaps such issues might be resolved more effectively....
Cut out the arguing, people - climate change vs. over-population vs. whatever.
There simply are too many people on this earth to maintain a standard of living that we in the US enjoy and have enjoyed for so many years. Admit it. And climate change is with us. Admit it. We in the US and Western Europe waste and waste and waste. Admit it. Quit pointing fingers. The real question is: What are we going to do about it?
There simply are too many people on this earth to maintain a standard of living that we in the US enjoy and have enjoyed for so many years. Admit it. And climate change is with us. Admit it. We in the US and Western Europe waste and waste and waste. Admit it. Quit pointing fingers. The real question is: What are we going to do about it?
5
Water is not "disappearing" it is simply going someplace else.
Conservation Of Mass - A principle of classical physics stating that the total mass of a closed system is unchanged by interaction of its parts.
The Earth is a closed system.
We are still changing the climate and a lot of suffering and death will result if we do not come together as a planet and tackle this issue.
It is not just stopping human caused climate change and misuse of water (growing rice & alfalfa in a desert is not wise use) we have to elevate the poor of the world to a minimum standard of living that includes sanitary living along with food and economic security. There is more than enough wealth in the world to do this.
Poverty causes people who care a lot to do things that has short term benefit but long term harm to us all just to try to stay alive one more day.
I’m one who believes that the Sahara is largely a human made desert. One can see the paintings of animals and plants that can no longer live there by human’s millennia ago.
Northern Africa, which is all pretty much part of the Sahara now, was as wet and forested as southern Europe was during the days of Carthage and into the first centuries of the Roman Empire. I think one of Michael Pailin’s Sahara programs goes past the last naturally growing Cedar tree in the Sahara. It is very old & still makes fertile seed but there is not enough rain to germinate them. Southern Europe is still getting drier and drier.
Conservation Of Mass - A principle of classical physics stating that the total mass of a closed system is unchanged by interaction of its parts.
The Earth is a closed system.
We are still changing the climate and a lot of suffering and death will result if we do not come together as a planet and tackle this issue.
It is not just stopping human caused climate change and misuse of water (growing rice & alfalfa in a desert is not wise use) we have to elevate the poor of the world to a minimum standard of living that includes sanitary living along with food and economic security. There is more than enough wealth in the world to do this.
Poverty causes people who care a lot to do things that has short term benefit but long term harm to us all just to try to stay alive one more day.
I’m one who believes that the Sahara is largely a human made desert. One can see the paintings of animals and plants that can no longer live there by human’s millennia ago.
Northern Africa, which is all pretty much part of the Sahara now, was as wet and forested as southern Europe was during the days of Carthage and into the first centuries of the Roman Empire. I think one of Michael Pailin’s Sahara programs goes past the last naturally growing Cedar tree in the Sahara. It is very old & still makes fertile seed but there is not enough rain to germinate them. Southern Europe is still getting drier and drier.
3
Klein: "We have been told it’s impossible to get off fossil fuels when in fact we know exactly how to do it ...."
Yeah, right. It's not a matter of physics, engineering, and cost efficiency--no, no, it's just politics.
Okay, Klein, you just go out there and show all those electrical power generation and transmission engineers how to overcome all the problems of intermittency, inadequate scale, high generation costs, and unevenness that make wind and solar so doggone difficult to blend into grids without burning out sensitive equipment in every home, business, and factory in the country or winding up with blackouts and brownouts. You "know exactly how to do it," so go show 'em!
Yeah, right. It's not a matter of physics, engineering, and cost efficiency--no, no, it's just politics.
Okay, Klein, you just go out there and show all those electrical power generation and transmission engineers how to overcome all the problems of intermittency, inadequate scale, high generation costs, and unevenness that make wind and solar so doggone difficult to blend into grids without burning out sensitive equipment in every home, business, and factory in the country or winding up with blackouts and brownouts. You "know exactly how to do it," so go show 'em!
1
Egg on face: I wrote that comment in response to a different article in a different publication, pasted it in here quickly thinking I was at that other publication, clicked "Submit," and then realized what I'd done. Ah, well. Klein there is Naomi Klein, a Marxist supporter of climate alarmism. Interesting to see her thinking, in her new book.
One thing the climate skeptics should remember; in the end the nature wins and then we humans will lose. Why tempt fate, when better options are available?
3
It took millions of years to sequester the oil, coal and natural gas based carbon on the planet. We have released a substantial portion of that in the past 150 years or so. The significant changes to the planet’s natural cycle over that time is CO2, methane, aerosols and humans expanding to every corner of the planet.
Facts are stubborn and we have over 360 straight months of above average temperatures on a global scale—when compared to the 20th century average and over 100 years without a yearly record low; coupled with accelerating glacier melting and sea level rising, the evidence is there completely independent of any climate model or any study. Climate change predictions have been accurate overall and actually have underestimated the planet warming. Yet, we continued to see the alleged failure of the scientific community—or the tin foil hat crowd keeps touting the lies, false data etc.
Climate science is polarizing and will continue to be as the soft endpoint won’t be acknowledged despite the global observations. This study doesn't resolve that as no single piece of the puzzle can. If it is correct, calif. is in trouble in the next decades.
I have asked global warming deniers or self-proclaimed skeptics many times what would change their minds about AGW. In all cases I have never received any science based answer. Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades to hundreds of years, the planet will react as physics dictates…not stopping for opinions.
Facts are stubborn and we have over 360 straight months of above average temperatures on a global scale—when compared to the 20th century average and over 100 years without a yearly record low; coupled with accelerating glacier melting and sea level rising, the evidence is there completely independent of any climate model or any study. Climate change predictions have been accurate overall and actually have underestimated the planet warming. Yet, we continued to see the alleged failure of the scientific community—or the tin foil hat crowd keeps touting the lies, false data etc.
Climate science is polarizing and will continue to be as the soft endpoint won’t be acknowledged despite the global observations. This study doesn't resolve that as no single piece of the puzzle can. If it is correct, calif. is in trouble in the next decades.
I have asked global warming deniers or self-proclaimed skeptics many times what would change their minds about AGW. In all cases I have never received any science based answer. Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades to hundreds of years, the planet will react as physics dictates…not stopping for opinions.
4
Very well put.
1
In the Kolbert piece on Christina Figueres, it is pointed out that the replacement for the gas that was destroying the ozone is a potent global warming gas.
When you drive in CT, the vast majority of all the vehicles are monster SUV's. No doubt the majority of these people are sincerely concerned about global warming.
11
Same thing in NJ. And everywhere else.
1
Any honest scientist who is not motivated by a need to perpetuate the man made global warming myth would tell you that the climate is far too complex and our understanding of these phenomena is far to meager to determine what percentage of this drought, if any, is human caused. What a sham. The times should be ashamed.
6
And you're basing this on what exactly? How is it a myth? Climate is complex alright, but so is particle physics and we've got a decent grasp on that. Anyway, your denial will not stand in the way of climate change, so at some point you'll need to come up with a different way to cope, like long-distance swimming.
4
Please educate us about the scientific process you used to arrive at such a conclusion. And your credentials,
Thanking you in advance.
Thanking you in advance.
4
Your understanding may be far too meager to determine that man made global warming is a myth and that the current drought in California is partially worsened by it, but some scientists have a much more complete understanding which was duly reported in the Times, for which I am proud to pay my monthly subscription.
2
Perhaps I overlooked it but it was reported today that worldwide it was the hottest October since record-keeping began in 1880.
5
correction you mean last month, July.
July, you mean?
Since there is no "Global Warming" nor is there any human caused "Climate Change" nor are the seas rising, the entire premise is nonsense. Since NOAA increased average temperatures to fit their moronic narrative, their claim is bogus and politicized. So the so called study is so much environmental wacko sewage. None of it is true. All of it is made up. Just like the entire leftist, loon ball, weather hysteria. All is a huge lie!
2
Your post is foolish beyond belief.
1
Because Inhofe can make a snow ball and you say so.
1
We are an impetuous species, lulled into traps by our most thoughtless creations, nukes, god, and the combustion engine. Compared to our accomplishments, even the dodo bird was a genius.
7
INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE--its related methane, unchecked water use, deforestation, and toxic manure lagoons--represents THE PRIMARY CAUSE of climate change. Methane is "30 TIMES more potent" than carbon dioxide, as a "heat-trapping gas," says Princeton University. We now have flesh eating bacteria in our lakes and rivers (necrotizing fascitiis) and brain eating amoebas (naegleria fowleri) in that water--all directly related to concentrated animal feeding operation waste water runoff. 50% of all of the world's pharmaceutical drugs are used in industrial animal agriculture (particularly antibiotics which cause resistant "superbugs"). Climate change is an industrial problem of AGRICULTURE. It is NOT about you taking too long of a shower. One pound of beef requires 2,500 gallons of water to produce, and growing feed crops for animal agriculture uses 56% of the water in the US, amounting to 34-76 trillion gallons, annually. General industrial agriculture is responsible for 80%-90% of all water use in the United States. I am not a vegetarian, yet, but I am becoming one gradually. I have eliminated beef and am crossing more meats off my list. Meat consumption is at unprecedented global levels, and it is at the heart of our climate change. As the new mantra says, "vote with your fork". But also, we MUST end industrial agricultural pollution and unabated water waste. We must rethink how we eat due to its encroaching, irreparable damage to our planet.
4
>>What caused the dearth of rain and snow that began in 2012?
A patch of warm water off the coast of San Francisco, a direct result of the warming of the earth's oceans. This area of warm water has hovered in the sea and formed a high-pressure system which has deflected the Jet Stream. This has robbed the Pacific Northwest of its regular pattern of rain and moisture.
The coming El Nino has been hyped as the savior of the West Coast, but that has yet to be proven.
A patch of warm water off the coast of San Francisco, a direct result of the warming of the earth's oceans. This area of warm water has hovered in the sea and formed a high-pressure system which has deflected the Jet Stream. This has robbed the Pacific Northwest of its regular pattern of rain and moisture.
The coming El Nino has been hyped as the savior of the West Coast, but that has yet to be proven.
3
It's hard to connect the dots that this drought or this storm or this
trend is a result of carbon emissions.
But consider that hundreds of millions of years of carbon storage
are being released in a couple of centuries. Something is bound to
happen.
trend is a result of carbon emissions.
But consider that hundreds of millions of years of carbon storage
are being released in a couple of centuries. Something is bound to
happen.
6
Most of the world's problems seem related at some level to over population and the human desire to live in places, such as the semi-desert regions of the American west, that cannot naturally support the large populations that currently reside there.
8
well its a fact that there are about 100 families in the top rich American families that decide on what course of political action we take on matters of state ..
Unless one of these rich guys tell that climate change is a fact of science and they followup with a endowment to do something about it .. I am not buying..
Please make sure one of these families vet your scientific proof.
Unless one of these rich guys tell that climate change is a fact of science and they followup with a endowment to do something about it .. I am not buying..
Please make sure one of these families vet your scientific proof.
4
I have heard that grass will go dormant, not die. And, are there not better, drought resistant, attractive ground covers to plant other than grass?
We're tapping into the alpine lake reserves this year as our unusually warm and dry summer wears on. Our normally wet month of June, was almost without rainfall this year.
We're tapping into the alpine lake reserves this year as our unusually warm and dry summer wears on. Our normally wet month of June, was almost without rainfall this year.
2
Global warming is a concern. But it's not a real factor to the California drought. In fact, I disagree with the premise that the California drought is a problem at all. It's a self made problem.
Consider this analogy. You have a stove-top fire. You also have a fire extinguisher right in front of you. The fire keeps raging because you don't want to use the extinguisher because it might leave some residue on your carpet. Now is the fire a problem? No it is not, because you have the solution (the extinguisher) right in front of you.
Likewise, we have a drought in California. Yet we also have a proven solution - desalination. Desalination works completely fine in deserts like Israel (http://nyti.ms/1eDk5I5) and Saudi Arabia. In comparison, California is only 29% desert. So is the drought really a problem? No. The problem are those who would worry about the extinguisher residue, e.g.:
- we have 4435200 feet of coastline - but where are we going to find the 1000 feet necessary for a few desalination plants?
- we have 163,696 sq miles of land (including many uninhabited salt pans) - but where are we going to dump the residual salt?
- we need to drink water to live - but desalinated water costs a few cents more and I don't want to give up much more expensive wine!
etc. etc.
Consider this analogy. You have a stove-top fire. You also have a fire extinguisher right in front of you. The fire keeps raging because you don't want to use the extinguisher because it might leave some residue on your carpet. Now is the fire a problem? No it is not, because you have the solution (the extinguisher) right in front of you.
Likewise, we have a drought in California. Yet we also have a proven solution - desalination. Desalination works completely fine in deserts like Israel (http://nyti.ms/1eDk5I5) and Saudi Arabia. In comparison, California is only 29% desert. So is the drought really a problem? No. The problem are those who would worry about the extinguisher residue, e.g.:
- we have 4435200 feet of coastline - but where are we going to find the 1000 feet necessary for a few desalination plants?
- we have 163,696 sq miles of land (including many uninhabited salt pans) - but where are we going to dump the residual salt?
- we need to drink water to live - but desalinated water costs a few cents more and I don't want to give up much more expensive wine!
etc. etc.
4
"In fact, I disagree with the premise that the California drought is a problem at all. It's a self made problem."
A self-made problem *is* a problem. Sure, California's is largely man-made -- obviously the drought wouldn't matter as much if the state had vastly smaller quantities of farmland or residents -- but it's a problem nonetheless.
"Yet we also have a proven solution - desalination."
I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you *why* desalination isn't widely used? Case in point: the town of Carlsbad, in the North County part of the San Diego area, is about to start building its own desalination plant. The cost is estimated at $1 billion -- but, like most pre-construction estimates, the final cost will likely be higher. Care to guess how many residents it's intended to serve? Approximately 110,000. (That's roughly 1/320th of the state's population.) I have no idea where you got the idea that desalinated water "costs a few cents more," but you're waaaaaaay off.
Since California doesn't have a spare $320 billion lying around -- never mind the operating costs for every plant once up and running -- desalination on a wide scale isn't a viable option. The vastly *more* sensible option is accepting that mass-scale farming of inexpensive crops -- no, I'm not including vineyards here, obviously -- is patently absurd in a mostly arid area, and should thus be significantly cut back.
A self-made problem *is* a problem. Sure, California's is largely man-made -- obviously the drought wouldn't matter as much if the state had vastly smaller quantities of farmland or residents -- but it's a problem nonetheless.
"Yet we also have a proven solution - desalination."
I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you *why* desalination isn't widely used? Case in point: the town of Carlsbad, in the North County part of the San Diego area, is about to start building its own desalination plant. The cost is estimated at $1 billion -- but, like most pre-construction estimates, the final cost will likely be higher. Care to guess how many residents it's intended to serve? Approximately 110,000. (That's roughly 1/320th of the state's population.) I have no idea where you got the idea that desalinated water "costs a few cents more," but you're waaaaaaay off.
Since California doesn't have a spare $320 billion lying around -- never mind the operating costs for every plant once up and running -- desalination on a wide scale isn't a viable option. The vastly *more* sensible option is accepting that mass-scale farming of inexpensive crops -- no, I'm not including vineyards here, obviously -- is patently absurd in a mostly arid area, and should thus be significantly cut back.
5
Amen, brother. Our water problem is a lack of political will, not of water. We had. Totally "normal" rainfall on the coast in the rainy season 2014-2015. It is stored largely .... In the ocean, with dams being removed.
1
A self-made problem isn't a real problem if you have the solution right in front of you and you refuse to grab it.
I agree that maybe we shouldn't farm in the desert.
You are wrong that plant doesn't make economical sense. It wouldn't have been built if it didn't make economic sense. Further, it's on budget and scheduled to be completed ahead of schedule, so you're also wrong that it's likely going to be over-budget.
The plant is going to serve 7% of the potable water needs for the San Diego region. As of April 2015, San Diego County imports 90% of its water. The desalinated water will cost $100 to $200 less per acre-foot than imported water. So in this case, it will actually be cheaper.
Finally, this plant is essentially a pilot plant - your $320 billion estimate wrongly assumes that we can't decrease the cost per plant as we build more. Your estimate also assume that our current sources of water will somehow vanish and the entire CA population needs to use only desalinated water - wrong again.
I agree that maybe we shouldn't farm in the desert.
You are wrong that plant doesn't make economical sense. It wouldn't have been built if it didn't make economic sense. Further, it's on budget and scheduled to be completed ahead of schedule, so you're also wrong that it's likely going to be over-budget.
The plant is going to serve 7% of the potable water needs for the San Diego region. As of April 2015, San Diego County imports 90% of its water. The desalinated water will cost $100 to $200 less per acre-foot than imported water. So in this case, it will actually be cheaper.
Finally, this plant is essentially a pilot plant - your $320 billion estimate wrongly assumes that we can't decrease the cost per plant as we build more. Your estimate also assume that our current sources of water will somehow vanish and the entire CA population needs to use only desalinated water - wrong again.
1
Let's get to work! If enough of us band together and perform our basic civic duty of hating and insulting Republicans, conservatives, and religious people, then man-made climate change can be reversed! If it appears ineffective, it is only because our hatred is not pure enough, and our invective still contains vestiges of reason.
Or maybe we haven't conflated the three categories of hated people adequately. Further research is needed in this area. But the basic principles are clear. You do good work to save the planet every time you insult the other side. It's like a metaphysical air-conditioner with zero harmful emissions.
Go get 'em, team!
Or maybe we haven't conflated the three categories of hated people adequately. Further research is needed in this area. But the basic principles are clear. You do good work to save the planet every time you insult the other side. It's like a metaphysical air-conditioner with zero harmful emissions.
Go get 'em, team!
4
Dont solar panels industrial scaled up especially with mirrors absorb some of that heat in desert areas. Is some of that drought caused by the rising ocean temperatures across the pacific from China's pollution?Perhaps those same mirrors should be used to reflect the heat out to space since heat rises. NASA should get involved with what is going on in California. The recent strategy of covering lakes with bubbles to halt evaporation, has that been effective? Using water table water should be banned. Salt water conversion plants should be built. Heat tolerant trees and forests should be replanted away from the santa ana winds and from human development. Trees cool temperatures down.
2
Gov. Jerry Brown maybe cerebral and understands the enormity of the calamity California is facing. But all his efforts to reign in some damage will be in vain as long as there are Californians like Mr. Palmer of Folsum. He has Lake Folsum drying before his eyes and he is trying to bring in jobs and commerce by building settlements on arid desert lands. Gov. Jerry is helpless before these climate-deniers and nincompoops especially when Mr. Palmer has been given rights which are more important than the health of the land which is on life-support already.
5
Yes, global warming is a contributing factor to the drought, but so is the natural cycles of nature.
WE can do all the things necessary to stop global warming here in the U.S. but until the entire world which pollutes many times more than we do also agrees then this issue is moot.
The main problem is over population. If California and the western states that are experiencing this drought had the same population as it did in 1945 there would be sufficient water to get through this cycle.
We have to big a population and it is growing. We might be able to economically support the growth, but it now shows that nature can't. That is one factor that we cannot control.
California and the south western states by their very nature were not meant to have the population and agriculture it now has. Politicians knew this for years, but as politicians they did nothing because telling the truth is not in their nature. They functioned then as today, as long as the wall is not going to fall on my watch I don't care. Let the next person deal with it. Just another case of kicking the can.
WE can do all the things necessary to stop global warming here in the U.S. but until the entire world which pollutes many times more than we do also agrees then this issue is moot.
The main problem is over population. If California and the western states that are experiencing this drought had the same population as it did in 1945 there would be sufficient water to get through this cycle.
We have to big a population and it is growing. We might be able to economically support the growth, but it now shows that nature can't. That is one factor that we cannot control.
California and the south western states by their very nature were not meant to have the population and agriculture it now has. Politicians knew this for years, but as politicians they did nothing because telling the truth is not in their nature. They functioned then as today, as long as the wall is not going to fall on my watch I don't care. Let the next person deal with it. Just another case of kicking the can.
3
Totally agree that population is the main problem. And all of our population growth is caused solely by immigration. Mass immigration into the United States is the policy of our government. Our immigration policy is to allow in more than a million legal immigrants a year and untold illegal immigrants. California is set to add millions more to its population over the next few decades, all from immigration, and developers are planning to pave over our open spaces and build up our towns and cities for this massive population expansion. They are building high-density, stack-and-pack apartments centered on public transit hubs up and down the state--high-density megalopolis living. Immigration policy can be changed overnight by Congress, which can restrict immigration to zero, which would alleviate our environmental problems and reverse wage decline. But the same people warning us about climate change (Brown, Obama, Jeb Bush, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bloomberg, Soros, etc.) all want to increase immigration while also pushing for climate change policies that increase costs for the middle class.
2
"The main problem is over population. If California and the western states that are experiencing this drought had the same population as it did in 1945 there would be sufficient water to get through this cycle."
And how much of that overpopulation is due to the massive influx of illegal aliens?
And how much of that overpopulation is due to the massive influx of illegal aliens?
1
Jason, considering that the stack and pack apartments on transit lines have a low vacancy rate, isn't that the market at work?
1
Population, population population. When will that be addressed in the United States as well as in the finger pointing at China, for example, that Did take the radical step to limit reproduction to one child. The idea, too, that seniors can live as long as medicine will keep them laive as many continue to gobble resources in best food, best travel, best housing if they can afford it is beond self-centered.
I care most that my beloved one child will be able to hold his head above water and I try daily to conserve, reuse water, and recycle everything I use then pass it on again. This is in the East where we had record snow, but are having long stretches without rain this summer. Days follow days when towering clouds hold evaporated moisture high above us, but do not precipitate onto our dry land. And the ocean rises.
I care most that my beloved one child will be able to hold his head above water and I try daily to conserve, reuse water, and recycle everything I use then pass it on again. This is in the East where we had record snow, but are having long stretches without rain this summer. Days follow days when towering clouds hold evaporated moisture high above us, but do not precipitate onto our dry land. And the ocean rises.
6
Committes should be formed to decide who would be allowed to have children. Old people upon reaching 40 years of age be executed. The lives of smelt depends on it.
5
Population growth in California, and the United States at large, is solely the result of our immigration policy. If Congress would vote to change our policy from allowing over 1 million immigrants in a year and instead restrict immigration to zero, then our population would stabilize and perhaps even slowly decline. But our government allows more than a million people to come here every year because our billionaires (Zuckerberg, Gates, Koch brothers, Soros, Bloomberg, etc.) want more immigrants. Rapid and massive population increase from immigration is our government's policy. If you want to address over-population in the United States, you have to address immigration policy. No need for China-style reproduction limits when our birth rate is below replacement level.
2
But Jason the impact on the Holy planet began in 1492. All immigration is bad for the planet. Why not have an independent police force to kick down doors and eliminate undesirables and unproductive? Let's face it the only way the planet can heal itself is if the human race is eliminated. Bad humans. Except for blondes. What would the world be without blondes?
Who paid for this "study" what were their motivations?
The primary conclusion is that this is a natural cycle. Who paid for the added spice that it was "likely" man-made?
The primary conclusion is that this is a natural cycle. Who paid for the added spice that it was "likely" man-made?
4
And while parts of California and the Pacific Northwest burn unabated, Marco Rubio's timeless dismissal of the effects of climate change: "I'm not a scientist, man." is more than revealing. It is this sort of ignorance that has been baked and fried into the political discourse in America and now passes for orthodoxy. Mitch McConnell and his slavish devotion to the coal barons in Kentucky (and elsewhere) has urged coal-producing states to defy the Obama administration's EPA directive to curtail greenhouse gas emissions as some sort of leftist-socialist plot to rob the rich of their expected profits. While the earth bakes. While the trees smolder. While streams and brooks run dry (if they still run at all). While fetid animal carcasses turn up everywhere, their poor painful deaths ushered in by a lack of nourishing water or a livable habitat. The real backdraft is being caused by entrenched ignorance in Congress and the statehouses who are beholden to their whip-masters, the Koch Brothers. They're marching us down the road to the ovens: an over-heated landscape that when no one's here to see it, the distant, rocky, barren moonscape will seem like an oasis in our known universe as a reminder of the void created by the stupid stewards of a planet who burned it up.
11
I really don't get the degree of inaction -- given the obvious magnitude of the CA drought & water crisis -- on the State or Federal levels. The Central Valley is sinking by 2 inches a month due to Big Ag's over-reliance on groundwater sources, & in some spots it's 100 ft (!) below where it used to be. The Paso Robles Water Basin, one of the largest underground sources in CA, was just declared to be in "critical overdraft." And yet Big Ag sucks up groundwater at relatively minimal cost -- with no monitoring of how much they use on a daily basis! But hey, they have to have a local water management district established by 2020 or '22, so no need to worry, right?
I don't know what other warning signs need to occur before we get some real solutions. A few ideas are as follows:
1.) Go for the short-term band-aids, like water desalination plants & new statewide water distribution pipelines.
2.) Develop a national infrastructure for water distribution, given that the East is now wetter than it used to be -- i.e., there's excess water there -- while the West is increasingly dry. Given how much CA meat & produce feeds the nation, such a move is in everyone's best interests.
3.) Get some of those Federal farm subsidies for California farmers, so they can leave more acreage fallow, and begin transitioning from extremely water-thirsty crops (almonds, rice, etc.) to more sustainable options.
The ripple effect of continued inaction is going to knock our collective socks off.
I don't know what other warning signs need to occur before we get some real solutions. A few ideas are as follows:
1.) Go for the short-term band-aids, like water desalination plants & new statewide water distribution pipelines.
2.) Develop a national infrastructure for water distribution, given that the East is now wetter than it used to be -- i.e., there's excess water there -- while the West is increasingly dry. Given how much CA meat & produce feeds the nation, such a move is in everyone's best interests.
3.) Get some of those Federal farm subsidies for California farmers, so they can leave more acreage fallow, and begin transitioning from extremely water-thirsty crops (almonds, rice, etc.) to more sustainable options.
The ripple effect of continued inaction is going to knock our collective socks off.
9
The Pope gets it:
"most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide,methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun's rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive used of ofssil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes."
Laudato Si, #21
(just for the record, I'm an atheist with a lot of respect for religious beliefs and particularly ethics, especially as our government is becoming morally bankrupt on issues like sharing water)
"most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide,methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun's rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive used of ofssil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes."
Laudato Si, #21
(just for the record, I'm an atheist with a lot of respect for religious beliefs and particularly ethics, especially as our government is becoming morally bankrupt on issues like sharing water)
9
Unfortunately this does not stop bigoted people from attacking all believers as deniers of science and of climate change.
3
otoh, James, religious people make a lot of blanket accusations about atheists, and the ones I know are the most ethical and caring around.
4
This Islamic Declaration is similar:
"Our planet has existed for billions of years and climate change in itself is not new. ... changes have been gradual ... communities of life have adjusted ... catastrophic climate changes that brought about mass extinctions, but ... life adjusted even to these impacts ... Climate change in the past was also instrumental in laying down immense stores of fossil fuels from which we derive benefits today. Ironically, our unwise and short-sighted use of these resources is now resulting in the destruction of the very conditions that have made our life on earth possible."
"The pace of Global climate change today is of a different order of magnitude ... Moreover, it is human-induced: we have now become a force dominating nature. ... a steward of the earth, has been the cause of such corruption and devastation that we are in danger of ending life as we know it on our planet. This current rate of climate change cannot be sustained ... But the same fossil fuels that helped us achieve ... are the main cause of climate change. Excessive pollution from fossil fuels threatens to destroy the gifts bestowed on us ... a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans. But our attitude to these gifts has been short-sighted ... What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy?"
http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-clima...
"Our planet has existed for billions of years and climate change in itself is not new. ... changes have been gradual ... communities of life have adjusted ... catastrophic climate changes that brought about mass extinctions, but ... life adjusted even to these impacts ... Climate change in the past was also instrumental in laying down immense stores of fossil fuels from which we derive benefits today. Ironically, our unwise and short-sighted use of these resources is now resulting in the destruction of the very conditions that have made our life on earth possible."
"The pace of Global climate change today is of a different order of magnitude ... Moreover, it is human-induced: we have now become a force dominating nature. ... a steward of the earth, has been the cause of such corruption and devastation that we are in danger of ending life as we know it on our planet. This current rate of climate change cannot be sustained ... But the same fossil fuels that helped us achieve ... are the main cause of climate change. Excessive pollution from fossil fuels threatens to destroy the gifts bestowed on us ... a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans. But our attitude to these gifts has been short-sighted ... What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy?"
http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-clima...
2
Animal agriculture is the biggest waste of water and one of the main causes of environmental degradation, including climate change.
Eating meat, dairy, eggs isn't just torture/murder, it's torture/murder/suicide. Let's just stop already.
Eating meat, dairy, eggs isn't just torture/murder, it's torture/murder/suicide. Let's just stop already.
3
Every morning before I go to work I listen to the Morning Joe program. It's entertaining enough, however at least half of the time of the program is spent on Telling us how bad Hillary's emails so called scandal is and close to the other half spent on telling us about what a great guy Donald Trump is. There is almost zero time spent on issues like global warming and climate change. The rest of the media have been almost as derelict in reporting on the issue. As usual, to report on a settled scientific issue that is as proven as the science of relativity is considered liberal slander. The news media have surrendered good reporting and common sense to the so called conservatives. Let's hope the rest of the country doesn't follow suit.
17
It would be helpful if the NYT would point out in their reporting what the relative percentage of scientists are relative to these two positions, instead of using terminology like, "some scientists" dispute the effects of global warming. It's science, not ideology.
5
"I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty."
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-ag...
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty."
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-ag...
2
I'm pretty sure Mary V was referring to the multiple studies that show qualified expertise runs about 97% in agreement, not wmar's diversionary material.
This shows it to be even higher:
"About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/about-that-...
The infrastructure for the alternative universe of unskeptical "skepticism" (aka climate science denial) has cleverly followed the model developed by big tobacco, complete with think tanks, conferences (Heartland), the NIPCC, WattsUpWithThat and other popular blogs run by nonexperts, and resources for the press (and no doubt pressure, though that would also come from advertisers) is funded by the wealthiest industries on earth (big fossil, Kochs, etc.). A dollar of their influence money earns a return of 10 to 100 dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, nice work if you can get it.
And no doubt some of these 24/7 commenters are paid as well, though one cannot ordinarily make a direct identification.
This shows it to be even higher:
"About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/about-that-...
The infrastructure for the alternative universe of unskeptical "skepticism" (aka climate science denial) has cleverly followed the model developed by big tobacco, complete with think tanks, conferences (Heartland), the NIPCC, WattsUpWithThat and other popular blogs run by nonexperts, and resources for the press (and no doubt pressure, though that would also come from advertisers) is funded by the wealthiest industries on earth (big fossil, Kochs, etc.). A dollar of their influence money earns a return of 10 to 100 dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, nice work if you can get it.
And no doubt some of these 24/7 commenters are paid as well, though one cannot ordinarily make a direct identification.
11
Pretty sure by "some" they mean "three or four".
2
Recent studies show that the drought is a product of natural climate variances. This study shows that a small part of the drought is attributable to climate change. What is newsworthy about the study -- that it confirms that the drought is mostly a product of natural climate variations or that it indicates that the drought is slightly enhanced by climate change? Any idiot knows that a drought would be enhanced by higher temperatures during a period of dry weather. So it is confirmation of the fundamental cause of the drought that matters most. Leading this story with the opposite finding renders what is supposed to be a news article into an opinion piece, abandoning objectivity.
1
It should be noted that, while 15%-20% of the total effect of the drought in California might be due to climate change due in turn to human emissions (and it's curious that they could gauge that with any accuracy -- why not 25% or 5%?), it's nevertheless true that if 80%-85% of the effects were to disappear California wouldn't be having noticeable problems at all.
What that conclusion affords is some comfort that California could come back again as soon as normal climate variability swung back to the rainfall and snowpack that they're accustomed to, or nearly that.
In the end, humanity must take serious measures to halt and, if possible, gradually reverse the effects of global warming. But it's also clear that this must be done globally, and not merely by the West alone; and that the means employed do not destroy economies.
What that conclusion affords is some comfort that California could come back again as soon as normal climate variability swung back to the rainfall and snowpack that they're accustomed to, or nearly that.
In the end, humanity must take serious measures to halt and, if possible, gradually reverse the effects of global warming. But it's also clear that this must be done globally, and not merely by the West alone; and that the means employed do not destroy economies.
1
Yes, yes, everyone who isn't in denial or completely ignorant has known this for at least a decade. California's climate, as well as the world's generally, is going to change considerably and not revert to what we're used to for millennia at minimum.
Doesn't matter much though because the people in power and Republicans are dead set on denial, so most people will not do enough about this in time to prevent dreadful consequences.
So what we'll need for real policy change to occur is extreme conditions that will destroy much property, kill many people, and render cities unlivable. All of that is assured within the next couple decades, and it's the impetus we need to make required changes to our habits and agriculture.
So by all means keep the articles coming, it'll give the intelligent folks out there enough warning that they'll escape the worst of the coming disasters. And people that stay in denial will fall prey to the disasters instead, and that's just fine, it'll improve our species a little.
Doesn't matter much though because the people in power and Republicans are dead set on denial, so most people will not do enough about this in time to prevent dreadful consequences.
So what we'll need for real policy change to occur is extreme conditions that will destroy much property, kill many people, and render cities unlivable. All of that is assured within the next couple decades, and it's the impetus we need to make required changes to our habits and agriculture.
So by all means keep the articles coming, it'll give the intelligent folks out there enough warning that they'll escape the worst of the coming disasters. And people that stay in denial will fall prey to the disasters instead, and that's just fine, it'll improve our species a little.
6
"All of that is assured within the next couple decades, "
Dan, would you mind using your crystal ball to tell me next week's powerball numbers? I'll split it with you.
Dan, would you mind using your crystal ball to tell me next week's powerball numbers? I'll split it with you.
When Powerball keeps coming up with the same numbers all the time, then Dan will be able to make that prediction. Climatologists keep finding the same patterns. Therefore, they have a good shot at accurate predictions.
4
Sure Joe, they're 43, 7, 18, 23, 51, and 12. However, I'm not sure which alternate timeline that's accurate for, you know how complicated time travel gets, and predicting the future will change what you do and thus affect future timelines, and all that. I've found it's better to stick with bank robbery than take a chance on the lottery.
As for extreme conditions that will destroy a lot of property, it's happening right now with the forest fires sweeping through CA. As for disasters that will kill a lot of people, there was a good big one 11 years ago in Indonesia with that tsunami. As for rendering cities unlivable, Katrina did a good job of that temporarily. I don't see any possibility of none of those types of events happening during the next two decades.
As for extreme conditions that will destroy a lot of property, it's happening right now with the forest fires sweeping through CA. As for disasters that will kill a lot of people, there was a good big one 11 years ago in Indonesia with that tsunami. As for rendering cities unlivable, Katrina did a good job of that temporarily. I don't see any possibility of none of those types of events happening during the next two decades.
2
So based on all this, we should be increasing the reservoir capacity in California by 50% right now. Start today it will take 10 years of environmental and NIMBY suits, then 10 years to build and fill.
2
More reservoir capacity may help, but the problem is likely that the reservoirs that currently exist may never again be full.
Cutting water consumption much further than it has already been cut is more important.
Cutting water consumption much further than it has already been cut is more important.
What do you plan to fill the added reservoir capacity with?
This article makes it clear that climate scientists are balanced in their interpretation of data: they don't ascribe every variation of weather to global warming. But the deniers ascribe nothing to human influence on climate.
While this article addresses one conclusion, it doesn't address the evidence of worldwide changes. And that gives the deniers a chance to ignore all that evidence. It's years since the Pentagon warned that climate change will be a threat to world stability. Regional water supplies are threatened by glacier depletion from the Andes, to the Ganges and Irrawaddy basins, to the Tian Shan mountain region. Glacier National Park may need a new name, and Russia has already claimed a vast region of the virgin Arctic Ocean.
What will it take for these people to realize that they are bequeathing to their children's children a crushing burden? We are an adaptable species, but let's start adapting now.
While this article addresses one conclusion, it doesn't address the evidence of worldwide changes. And that gives the deniers a chance to ignore all that evidence. It's years since the Pentagon warned that climate change will be a threat to world stability. Regional water supplies are threatened by glacier depletion from the Andes, to the Ganges and Irrawaddy basins, to the Tian Shan mountain region. Glacier National Park may need a new name, and Russia has already claimed a vast region of the virgin Arctic Ocean.
What will it take for these people to realize that they are bequeathing to their children's children a crushing burden? We are an adaptable species, but let's start adapting now.
6
Herewith, the Readers' Digest Condensed Version of Republican responses to climate change/global warming.
"There is no mention in the Word of God about global warming, therefore it ain't happening."
"There is no mention in the Word of God about global warming, therefore it ain't happening."
9
When this winter's El Nino delivers record moisture to CA, somebody somewhere will have an "aha!" moment upon realizing that climate change caused that too. And that 8-27% of the extra moisture was produced...
It may be time to swap out "climate change" for "a change in the weather".
It may be time to swap out "climate change" for "a change in the weather".
1
Republicans drag us into wars without energy conservation at home. For the life of me I cannot understand people who tool around in ATVs, RVs and motorboats like we don't need to conserve for their wars. Yes, Jeb!, I mean you and your gas guzzling family.
4
LOL are you kidding before 2009 GM made a Minivan you could buy a with a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. Now GM doesn't even sell a Minivan. Look around you gas guzzling SUV's everywhere by every manufacture, almost all with either a 6 or 8 cylinder engine. You want to talk about conservation, you might ask the administration about it. It reminds me of the 1% who have a 4000 square foot or larger home with 2 furnaces all kinds of electrical toys how green they are.
Meanwhile our fearless Democratic president uses a massive jumbo jet to fly his dog to Hawaii.
Proper headline: Climate change has a minimal role in California drought.
3
Well, at least you admit there is such a thing as climate change.
Acceptance is a good first step.
Acceptance is a good first step.
6
Folks, you have to get it: we are overpopulated. If you think it's bad now, just wait thirty years or so ...
7
It is said in a paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters by Griffin & Anchukaitis that the 2012–2014 drought in California was its most intense in at least 1,200 years. So given that, we know there were worse droughts in California before man-made climate change was known or even possible. That begs the question, what caused the drought 1200 years ago? Perhaps it was natural temperature fluctuations then as it is now. The only difference being that now we have governments and a science community ruling by fear and guilt.
3
Reality check globilzation is real cause of climate change .Billions of imports are carried across oceans causing ocean pollution .Killimg billion of fish now lay bottom ocean. Areas just off coast of California have huge plum radioactive waste from japans accident still has gone any wheres This plum nuke waste will eventually kill off fish like salmon an ones live will be mutated an unable to eat by humans As far as our government they buried head in sand an media doesn't want to scare any one with truth
Places like CA, where resources are scarce, can not rely on growing their tax base, to pay for desired services, by increasing the number of people and jobs. The only sustainable paths are a small, wealthy population that is able and willing to pay higher taxes per capita, or a lower demand for services.
Climate change won't be real to the average lazy person until it hits them in the wallet or the flood waters are around their neck or the hills and mountains have come crumbling, tumbling down about their ears. Of course, it'll be too late to affect "effective" change. But, hey, look on the bright side, at least we wouldn't have acted out of character, wouldn't have betrayed our true nature. You know, ego first.
lulu.com/michaelclayton
lulu.com/michaelclayton
7
Disaster science is well grounded in probability theory. It is safe to say that California's and much of the west's drought issues, are in a at least a semi-disaster phase, closing in a an actual full blown disaster. One of the attributes of disaster science is that disasters are usually caused by several contributing factors, (more of producer-product than cause-effect). Climate change is a factor, however in the immediate sense not the main producer. California is overpopulated for its water supply system, (2 immediate factors), and the issue is exacerbated by climate change, (1 additional factor). The only workable options are either reduce the population, (will not happen via any policy mechanism), or improve the water delivery system. The second option is possible, however would require desalination, and this has another issue at its core, energy requirements. Without nuclear energy it is not practical to address this core issue. It is the elephant in the room, and yes I am pointing it out on purpose.
6
In the USA data like this is publicly accessible and made widely available. In Canada under the current Harper Conservative ruling party scientific data like this produced by Federally employed environmental scientists may be suppressed. Currently Canada's population of around 30 million, the approximate population of New York State, are stewards of about the same surface area of the earth's land mass as the USA - roughly 2% of the Earth's total land mass each. At least the United States' awareness of scientific environmental findings could lead to an appropriate response whereas us Canadians are in a self imposed willfully ignorant State.
6
Too true, alas, but Harper may soon be out of office and truth may be allowed into the public domain after a decade of exile.
"Some scientists have argued that the ocean and atmospheric factors that produced the ridge have become somewhat more likely because of global warming, but others have disputed that, and the matter remains unresolved."
While true on its face, this sentence is misleading. There is clear evidence that the ridge is influenced by — actually trapped between — the descending jet stream (extended Rossby wave) and the so called "Blob," the massive area of anomalously warm northern Pacific ocean water.
The descending jet stream in turn is linked to the anomalously warm Arctic air temperatures, which are now locked in due to the loss of Arctic ice mass. (The effect of global warming on the fluctuation of the jet stream was first pointed out by climatologist Jennifer Francis a few years ago. Though some climatologists initially disagreed with her findings, the evidence on behalf of her hypothesis has been building.) Both the loss of Arctic ice mass and the appearance of the massive "Blob" are greatly exacerbated by, if not completely cause by global warming.
Although the high pressure ridge is the proximal cause of the severe drought in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia (see U.S. Drought Monitor online), its underlying cause is clearly connected to global warming. That some scientists may have not yet recognize these connections does not mean they do not exist.
While true on its face, this sentence is misleading. There is clear evidence that the ridge is influenced by — actually trapped between — the descending jet stream (extended Rossby wave) and the so called "Blob," the massive area of anomalously warm northern Pacific ocean water.
The descending jet stream in turn is linked to the anomalously warm Arctic air temperatures, which are now locked in due to the loss of Arctic ice mass. (The effect of global warming on the fluctuation of the jet stream was first pointed out by climatologist Jennifer Francis a few years ago. Though some climatologists initially disagreed with her findings, the evidence on behalf of her hypothesis has been building.) Both the loss of Arctic ice mass and the appearance of the massive "Blob" are greatly exacerbated by, if not completely cause by global warming.
Although the high pressure ridge is the proximal cause of the severe drought in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia (see U.S. Drought Monitor online), its underlying cause is clearly connected to global warming. That some scientists may have not yet recognize these connections does not mean they do not exist.
4
"Trump is not campaigning using a train."
I give up -- so what? Are ANY candidates "campaigning using a train?" Not that I've noticed.
I give up -- so what? Are ANY candidates "campaigning using a train?" Not that I've noticed.
At what point does California become uninhabitable? The Sahara desert was, at one point, wet, cool and verdant.
2
And the Sahara will again be wet, cool, and verdant. It runs in cycles of about 20,000 years. Of course once it reverts to being wet and cool, humans will take the credit.
2
And it did not change due to global warming, did it?
A commenter reminds us that GLOBAL FREEZING used to be predicted:
"LBJ was claiming a new ice age was rapidly approaching. LOL."
During a stretch of the Fifties and Sixties when the Earth was getting cooler rather than warmer, there were many doomsday predictions about the Earth turning into a giant ice cube. Probably the most famous was a long article entitled "The Coming Ice Age," which I remember being quite scared by. I looked up that article recently and learned it had been written by -- of all people -- Betty Friedan.
So, yes, LBJ DID claim "a new ice age was rapidly approaching" -- but so did many other people in those days.
"LBJ was claiming a new ice age was rapidly approaching. LOL."
During a stretch of the Fifties and Sixties when the Earth was getting cooler rather than warmer, there were many doomsday predictions about the Earth turning into a giant ice cube. Probably the most famous was a long article entitled "The Coming Ice Age," which I remember being quite scared by. I looked up that article recently and learned it had been written by -- of all people -- Betty Friedan.
So, yes, LBJ DID claim "a new ice age was rapidly approaching" -- but so did many other people in those days.
3
So your solution is, just ignore it and it'll go away?
1
Tom writes:
"So your solution is, just ignore it and it'll go away?"
"It" meaning global freezing? If so, yes -- I more or less ignored it, and it seems to have "gone away." I haven't seen any "global freezing" articles in decades.
"So your solution is, just ignore it and it'll go away?"
"It" meaning global freezing? If so, yes -- I more or less ignored it, and it seems to have "gone away." I haven't seen any "global freezing" articles in decades.
2
A small number of scientists for a short time hypothesized cooling, and there was a rapid correction. The press hyped it.
Since then, this has been used to mislead about the credibility of largely uncontroversial science on how heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased the energy (heat) in the system.
Since then, this has been used to mislead about the credibility of largely uncontroversial science on how heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased the energy (heat) in the system.
2
It's so strange that GOP candidates would never try to tell Dr. Ben Carson what to do in his operating room, but when it comes to climate change, we all seem to have opinions well out of the depth of our training.
9
California, and the near-Pacific region, are subject to some of the most intense and prolonged military and commercial geoengineering programs and experiments anywhere in the world (atmospheric chemical engineering, directed energy technology testing). California is also at the center of contestation over energy extraction interests versus agriculture, and as well, demographic engineering.
Until geoengineering effects are isolated from natural or random ones, causality cannot be accurately assigned, and regional 'climate change' of course may be strictly attributable to such geoengineering. As for carbon, it doesn't move the jet stream and therefore is not a relevant random variable.
Until geoengineering effects are isolated from natural or random ones, causality cannot be accurately assigned, and regional 'climate change' of course may be strictly attributable to such geoengineering. As for carbon, it doesn't move the jet stream and therefore is not a relevant random variable.
2
I presume that those who believe in the horror of climate change are not just acting to get the government to react but are also taking proactive measures themselves in the event Government and the world does not act. Such as moving out of California, out of New York City and Moving away from beach areas.
If they are not then I think they are dumber than the global climate change deniers. At least the deniers act on their beliefs but for climate change activists, knowing what is to come, not to change where they live and work is just idiocy or hypocrisy.
If they are not then I think they are dumber than the global climate change deniers. At least the deniers act on their beliefs but for climate change activists, knowing what is to come, not to change where they live and work is just idiocy or hypocrisy.
2
Ignore the deniers.
They're useless.
Meanwhile, it's heartening to read possible associated variables were studied that typically aren't, e.g., temperature and wind speed. We need that data for solutions to adaptation to drought and other changes to the climate brought on by the increasing rapidity of global warning, given the fact that the chance to mitigate has largely come and gone.
They're useless.
Meanwhile, it's heartening to read possible associated variables were studied that typically aren't, e.g., temperature and wind speed. We need that data for solutions to adaptation to drought and other changes to the climate brought on by the increasing rapidity of global warning, given the fact that the chance to mitigate has largely come and gone.
10
Climate change greenhouse gases exacerbate regional, seasonal and normal variable weather patterns. In California the drought, worsened by rising temperatures, has impacted the health of Californians, especially those living in the Central Valley, our farm belt. These are the families of farmers who produce more than half of America's fruits, nuts and vegetables. Since the current drought began nearly every county in Central Valley has demonstrated worsening air quality and concomitant with these data has demonstrated increases in the number of emergency room visit for asthma exacerbation. As particulate matter (2.5 pm) in the air has increased, visibility has markedly decreased. The current wildfires, also a product of the drought and manmade activity, have significantly worsened air quality.
We can not change the weather, but we can modulate as best possible the environment we live in. How we build, power our lives and what our policymakers negotiate on a global stage all influence our health and the health of future generations. The head in the sand approach toward retooling our energy sources is just no longer feasible.
We can not change the weather, but we can modulate as best possible the environment we live in. How we build, power our lives and what our policymakers negotiate on a global stage all influence our health and the health of future generations. The head in the sand approach toward retooling our energy sources is just no longer feasible.
48
The data and arguments presented here are valid, and apply, only if one is a Democrat.
For all the Republicans out there, please open your bibles to the book of Deregulation, Chapter 1, Verse 1 - 3:
"For everything thine eyes behold, thine skin senseth, and thine nose smelleth, behold ye are beholden to EXXON, BP, Monsanto, and Koch Industries.
"I, the Lord thy God, beheld in the beginning the potential of the combustion engine, the transmutation of coal into electricity, the clearing of filthy fish from the waters of my creation by chemical purification. And these, my chosen disciples of capitalism, have made it so."
"Bow down before them and offer all thou hast to them, down to thy last alm. They are blessed by me. Their profits and dividends sanctify me. They warmeth my feet with their fires. I am comfortable."
Thus saith the Lord.
For all the Republicans out there, please open your bibles to the book of Deregulation, Chapter 1, Verse 1 - 3:
"For everything thine eyes behold, thine skin senseth, and thine nose smelleth, behold ye are beholden to EXXON, BP, Monsanto, and Koch Industries.
"I, the Lord thy God, beheld in the beginning the potential of the combustion engine, the transmutation of coal into electricity, the clearing of filthy fish from the waters of my creation by chemical purification. And these, my chosen disciples of capitalism, have made it so."
"Bow down before them and offer all thou hast to them, down to thy last alm. They are blessed by me. Their profits and dividends sanctify me. They warmeth my feet with their fires. I am comfortable."
Thus saith the Lord.
12
For fun, let's stipulate that global warming is occurring and person-kind (cannot say mankind) is directly responsible. If the warming mongers are accurate, then the oceans will rise several feet and the climate world wide will be hotter. Why do we assume that is axiomatically bad? Cannot we move farther from the oceans, or raise a dike around Manhattan? Because it is a slow change, we can readily adapt. Crops will grow further north and south so the net effect on the food supply is likely negligible. Why all the hand wringing?
1
Read the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Summary for Policy Makers "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability". It's short and easy to understand.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
6
Actually, it's fairly long (30+ pages) and fairly dense. Nonetheless worth reading, I agree.
1
Exactly. We should really worry about global cooling, which would shrink agricultural zones and millions of people would starve to death.
I'm in Central Illinois for a time. The farm land is filled with nothing but corn and soybeans ... as far as the eye can see. This is probably true in Iowa as well.
Climate change is real and it is here ... effecting our lives right now, not in some distant time in the latter part of this century. And we need to make changes right now and that includes what we grow and were we grow it. That means we'll need a national if not international plan on what we grow where and when ... all coupled with predicted weather plans. Climate change isn't going to be solved tomorrow. It will likely take something close to a century for the world to get greenhouse gas levels back to where they need to be going forward ... even if we began the process of reducing greenhouse gases today ... which we are not.
Nevertheless, if we're going to survive as a global society with some level of food security, we're going to need to face the reality of what is coming ... if we don't, nature will most certainly remind us.
Climate change is real and it is here ... effecting our lives right now, not in some distant time in the latter part of this century. And we need to make changes right now and that includes what we grow and were we grow it. That means we'll need a national if not international plan on what we grow where and when ... all coupled with predicted weather plans. Climate change isn't going to be solved tomorrow. It will likely take something close to a century for the world to get greenhouse gas levels back to where they need to be going forward ... even if we began the process of reducing greenhouse gases today ... which we are not.
Nevertheless, if we're going to survive as a global society with some level of food security, we're going to need to face the reality of what is coming ... if we don't, nature will most certainly remind us.
5
Sorry, but if you ask Congress, you will not get a like opinion. A few may waffle, but the greater number led by the leaders will decry your assertion. You might have asked.
When there is climate change we and Congress shall know as it would be the equal of a declaration of war.
When there is climate change we and Congress shall know as it would be the equal of a declaration of war.
The most dangerous about climate change isn't it's effects, so much as it is our complacency to do anything about it. There are two very deadly human characteristics that threaten us most, our skewed concept of time and our desire for convenience. For example, watching climate change is like watching the hands of a clock, where the hands don't seem to move. However, when you stop staring at the clock, time seems to just fly by. In our desire for convenience, we are like frogs who have been placed in a lidless pot of slowly warming water. Why don't the frogs jump or try to escape? Probably, because it just feels too good. These are examples how our lack of cognition and complacency are the biggest threats we have to ourselves.
8
Any chance the Republican Party will enter the 21st century regarding climate change?
16
Sorry, but the answer is a definite NO. They can't afford to insult their supporters.
5
Maybe, when Miami is under water
6
Maybe when all those apocalyptic predictions form the last 15 years by Al Gore and others show at least some credibility. There is really a finite amount of time you can cry wolf before people do not pay attention. BTW, why is this the Republican Party problem, when the Dems had all the power in 2008 and later they choose to do nothing about it. Are you trying to tell me that the Climate Change (or Climate Warning as it was know then) was not a problem then?
1
I think there are a couple of lessons that can be learned from California's current situation. The first is the futility of tackling climate change by yourself. California has some of the strictest environmental laws on the books, yet it is now bearing the brunt of a lackluster response from the rest of the world. California has created a model that should be followed; too bad than few have.
The second was on display in a Times piece yesterday on how economic development is unfolding in the state. To wit, in the middle of one of the worst droughts ever recorded, with no end in sight, and with predictions that this may be the new norm, localities are continuing on with development plans as if nothing has happened. This appears to be short sighted in the extreme, and yet it is understandable without a competing economic model.
Did we really need yet another study to show conclusively that climate change made California's drought worse? What we need now is research on economic models that allow California to embrace the coming changes in a world of higher temperatures and less fresh water. Otherwise, all of this research is merely documentation of the inevitable.
The second was on display in a Times piece yesterday on how economic development is unfolding in the state. To wit, in the middle of one of the worst droughts ever recorded, with no end in sight, and with predictions that this may be the new norm, localities are continuing on with development plans as if nothing has happened. This appears to be short sighted in the extreme, and yet it is understandable without a competing economic model.
Did we really need yet another study to show conclusively that climate change made California's drought worse? What we need now is research on economic models that allow California to embrace the coming changes in a world of higher temperatures and less fresh water. Otherwise, all of this research is merely documentation of the inevitable.
83
Australia has been successfully dealing with many of these same issues. There are people in California who are working with Australians to learn about some of these solutions.
5
With no end in sight ? I don't think you have been paying attention. This year is the 3rd strongest El Nino on record. The other two El Ninos were followed by massive rains in CAlifornia. Climate Scientist are estimating a better than 85% chance that this winter is higher than normal,if not significantly higher than normal rainfall event. check your local listings.. even the NY Times last week ran an article on this
Think for yourself! Your parroting what you hear in the news, but can't believe news releases or the science, both of which has been tainted. For example
A report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said natural variations – mostly a La Niña weather oscillation – were the primary drivers behind the drought. Natural weather patterns, not manmade global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says federal scientists.
A report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said natural variations – mostly a La Niña weather oscillation – were the primary drivers behind the drought. Natural weather patterns, not manmade global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says federal scientists.
1
California's been a region that's been subjected to drought since man walked across the Asian-Alaskan land bridge during the last ice age. Though climate change may exacerbate this desertification over time, blaming this particular individual drought on climate change is poor science and a political manuever to direct other people's money toward those who'd benefit from the money. Money today means more toys for boys and girls, like smartphones, Teslas and jetliners and other energy-intensive gadgets.
Let's face it, California has too large a population to support on the limited water supplies it has. It's a people problem, not a climate problem. The climate cares not one iota for man's folly, it is what it is, dry and getting drier over time in California as has happened elsewhere too over the eons of climate changes as continents drift and organisms rise and fall in population.
Let's face it, California has too large a population to support on the limited water supplies it has. It's a people problem, not a climate problem. The climate cares not one iota for man's folly, it is what it is, dry and getting drier over time in California as has happened elsewhere too over the eons of climate changes as continents drift and organisms rise and fall in population.
37
Direct contradiction of the article; did you read it? Otherwise, quite sensible.
“This would be a drought no matter what,” said A. Park Williams, a climate scientist at Columbia University and the lead author of a palper published by the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “It would be a fairly bad drought no matter what. But it’s definitely made worse by global warming.”
"The paper echoes a growing body of research that has come to similar conclusions, but scientists not involved in the work described it as more thorough than any previous effort, because it analyzed nearly every possible combination of data on temperature, rainfall, wind speed and other factors that could be influencing the severity of the drought. The research, said David B. Lobell, a Stanford University climate scientist, is “probably the best I’ve seen on this question.”"
“This would be a drought no matter what,” said A. Park Williams, a climate scientist at Columbia University and the lead author of a palper published by the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “It would be a fairly bad drought no matter what. But it’s definitely made worse by global warming.”
"The paper echoes a growing body of research that has come to similar conclusions, but scientists not involved in the work described it as more thorough than any previous effort, because it analyzed nearly every possible combination of data on temperature, rainfall, wind speed and other factors that could be influencing the severity of the drought. The research, said David B. Lobell, a Stanford University climate scientist, is “probably the best I’ve seen on this question.”"
30
For one thing, neither the article nor the scientific study said that California's drought was caused by global warming. They both carefully said that warming had exacerbated the drought's severity and effects.
But by all means, explain why the study's "poor science." In detail. Use numbers. because it loooks like you think it must be "poor science," because it says things you don't want heard.
But by all means, explain why the study's "poor science." In detail. Use numbers. because it loooks like you think it must be "poor science," because it says things you don't want heard.
20
Most of their water is going to agriculture which supports products that you eat. Although you are right that CA is over run with people, that is not exacerbating their water shortage at this moment
11
To all the know-nothings below who deny science, you are revealing your ignorance and embarrassing yourselves. Three points that should be obviousL First, unles you are a climatologist, your opinion is just that - an opinion. Second, even if you are correct (and you are not), addressing these concerns will still make us more energy independent, provide a better air quality, and cost less in the long run than the status quo. Finally, as we all know, the scientific community is virtually unanimous in their view that you are wrong. Please shut up and go away.
19
Look who is on his high horse pontificating to those he disagrees with? Typical liberal, who can't take that someone would disagree with him.
We are almost already energy independent and with the Keystone pipeline we would probably already be there, but your windmills are not going to get us there any time soon. Your last claim that the scientific community is virtually unanimous shows your ignorance and stupidity and if you read anything else by NYT and Huffington Post, you would know that your claim is far from truth. Your cult-like Climate Warming following is like the Inquisitors from the Middle Ages who burned anyone who dared to think that Earth was not flat.
We are almost already energy independent and with the Keystone pipeline we would probably already be there, but your windmills are not going to get us there any time soon. Your last claim that the scientific community is virtually unanimous shows your ignorance and stupidity and if you read anything else by NYT and Huffington Post, you would know that your claim is far from truth. Your cult-like Climate Warming following is like the Inquisitors from the Middle Ages who burned anyone who dared to think that Earth was not flat.
1
And just for the sake of logical consistency, are you a climatologist, Alan? Or is your opinion worthless?
The research makes sense as does the tie in between the severity of the extent of the drought and climate change.
I agree that we've increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 30% in the last 100 years and will become much greater over the next 100.
So...
Are we allowed to ask questions?
What impact will the President's policy, if followed to the letter, have on climate change and California drought? Not from a political perspective but from a scientific perspective.
What impact does California population, farming practices, water use, solar energy use etc have on climate change and California drought. . Are these impacts greater or lesser than CO2?
Have the models been accurate to date? Are they 25% accurate, 30%?
I agree that we've increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 30% in the last 100 years and will become much greater over the next 100.
So...
Are we allowed to ask questions?
What impact will the President's policy, if followed to the letter, have on climate change and California drought? Not from a political perspective but from a scientific perspective.
What impact does California population, farming practices, water use, solar energy use etc have on climate change and California drought. . Are these impacts greater or lesser than CO2?
Have the models been accurate to date? Are they 25% accurate, 30%?
5
These global warming disciples are starting to sound like evangelicals preaching about Armageddon. The so-called studies are nothing more than canned propaganda. The fear mongering is great for the movie screens and lefty rallies, but offers little predictive value in the real world. We all want a cleaner planet, but seriously, stop the madness. The global climate is highly variable and unpredictable and we have no data that supports man made catastrophe. Get over yourselves.
2
Could you explain where the article or the scientific study talked about "catastrophe?" thanks.
2
> The so-called studies are nothing more than canned propaganda.
Your verifiable evidence?
Your verifiable evidence?
3
Climate extremes are not only harder to predict, but harder to sell as directly related to man made climate change. Studies that connect the dots like this - however the toll is measured - are great news.
4
"most likely intensified the drought in California by roughly 15 to 20 percent"
They call this science? I call it guessing.
They call this science? I call it guessing.
4
If you want exact math, how about this?
There's a 100% chance that your views on climate change are wrong.
There's a 100% chance that your views on climate change are wrong.
10
Dear Mr. Salmon, please improve your reading comprehension. I offered no opinion on climate change, just on these phony junk science studies.
But if you must know, I am 100% convinced the climate is changing. It has been changing since the earth was formed and will continue to change until the earth stop revolving around the sun.
But if you must know, I am 100% convinced the climate is changing. It has been changing since the earth was formed and will continue to change until the earth stop revolving around the sun.
I guess you have no clue.
3
I have always wondered why more US cities do not take the lead of NYC and have an decent mass transit system. Its not just about the environment, it means fewer confrontations with traffic cops and all the money saved without having to pay for insurance and car maintenance.
5
This is very clear, thank you.
Here's a parable about contributory factors, measurement, and attribution, ending with those who won't look at the material or the evidence being convinced by those who weren't there.
"Mr. Greenhouse and Ms. Aerosol have bought mixed packs of tasty M&Ms for a meeting – Mr Greenhouse bought a special edition where you get many more red M&Ms and Ms Aerosol bought a special edition where you get many more blue ones. Their colleagues Enso, Pido, Amo, Eruptiony and Sunny bought jelly beans and mix packs.
"Everyone pours their contribution ... The boss enjoys her treats wants to know whom to thank and promote so she checks out the bowl. It’s overflowing with M&Ms with the odd jelly bean speckled through. ... Mr Greenhouse and/or Ms Aerosol are the biggest contributors. ... Mr Greenhouse is the biggest contributor, but to be sure Ms Boss sits down with her abacus and does the maths."
"if the anthropogenic stuff looks really different ... then you can use observed patterns to pick them apart with confidence. But if two anthropogenic factors look similar ... then it’s harder to pick them apart"
"a blogger who wasn’t there and didn’t do any of the calculations says that these M&Ms don’t really exist and anyway, this “claim” that Mr Greenhouse and Ms Aerosol contributed M&Ms is probably not true, despite receipts, witnesses and security camera footage confirming that they did. His blog becomes the most-viewed site on the topic of sweets in meetings."
Here's a parable about contributory factors, measurement, and attribution, ending with those who won't look at the material or the evidence being convinced by those who weren't there.
"Mr. Greenhouse and Ms. Aerosol have bought mixed packs of tasty M&Ms for a meeting – Mr Greenhouse bought a special edition where you get many more red M&Ms and Ms Aerosol bought a special edition where you get many more blue ones. Their colleagues Enso, Pido, Amo, Eruptiony and Sunny bought jelly beans and mix packs.
"Everyone pours their contribution ... The boss enjoys her treats wants to know whom to thank and promote so she checks out the bowl. It’s overflowing with M&Ms with the odd jelly bean speckled through. ... Mr Greenhouse and/or Ms Aerosol are the biggest contributors. ... Mr Greenhouse is the biggest contributor, but to be sure Ms Boss sits down with her abacus and does the maths."
"if the anthropogenic stuff looks really different ... then you can use observed patterns to pick them apart with confidence. But if two anthropogenic factors look similar ... then it’s harder to pick them apart"
"a blogger who wasn’t there and didn’t do any of the calculations says that these M&Ms don’t really exist and anyway, this “claim” that Mr Greenhouse and Ms Aerosol contributed M&Ms is probably not true, despite receipts, witnesses and security camera footage confirming that they did. His blog becomes the most-viewed site on the topic of sweets in meetings."
3
Here's the source.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/very-likely-versus...
I couldn't fit it all, so took the liberty of putting it here.
This article talks only about California drought and the careful research adding confidence understanding, but the continuous picking apart of individual bits of evidence goes on, without reference to the massive accumulation in obvious trends.
One deceptive practice is to "prove" an individual event is matched by some event over time, but if you look at the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, it becomes obvious that it adds up.
It seems odd that people cannot enlarge their minds to look worldwide over time, and are convinced by arguments that selective quote bits of it and cut out inconvenient other bits. There was a classic one just recently that cut off the recent heat, which is now exceeding the 1997-98 El Nino, while also treating that as a "low" for the purpose of comparison.
Regardless of evidence, it is clear that this drought is dangerous to all of us, and particularly those in its path. Our reliance on food from California means prices will rise.
Management of the whole water system on behalf of all parties would make sense, but politics and the law have made a patchwork that is hard to untangle.
Here's one more useful resource:
"Killing the Colorado"
https://www.propublica.org/series/killing-the-colorado
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/very-likely-versus...
I couldn't fit it all, so took the liberty of putting it here.
This article talks only about California drought and the careful research adding confidence understanding, but the continuous picking apart of individual bits of evidence goes on, without reference to the massive accumulation in obvious trends.
One deceptive practice is to "prove" an individual event is matched by some event over time, but if you look at the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, it becomes obvious that it adds up.
It seems odd that people cannot enlarge their minds to look worldwide over time, and are convinced by arguments that selective quote bits of it and cut out inconvenient other bits. There was a classic one just recently that cut off the recent heat, which is now exceeding the 1997-98 El Nino, while also treating that as a "low" for the purpose of comparison.
Regardless of evidence, it is clear that this drought is dangerous to all of us, and particularly those in its path. Our reliance on food from California means prices will rise.
Management of the whole water system on behalf of all parties would make sense, but politics and the law have made a patchwork that is hard to untangle.
Here's one more useful resource:
"Killing the Colorado"
https://www.propublica.org/series/killing-the-colorado
5
Notice they say "most likely, " because they have no facts to promote their left agenda...it is all about money they can get so they can keep studying on our dime.
3
Your descendants will 'most likely' resent the fact that their grandparents denied the reality of climate change. They will wonder how their grandfather, in 2015, could dispute the clear and proven scientific evidence that human-caused climate change would ruin their future.
10
Or because scientists typically produce probabilities rather than promises.
18
Please be smart about this; when you don't have a definite answer, you err on the side of the angels. Climate change is not a political issue, it's an Earth issue. If we destroy our atmosphere, our home, it won't matter whether you are on the right or the left, because no one will here to say "I won".
16
When I was born in 1943 in San Francisco, California contained about 6% of the American population—around 6.5 million residents. Today, the state represents around 13% of all Americans and has almost 40 million people.
In short, the state has been loved to death. It has plumbed every river for every drop of water, planted "from fence post to fence post" with 250 different cash crops, some of which are among the thirstiest of them all. And the most destructive crop of them all—houses, has overtaken prime frame farmland up and down the state.
Yes, human caused climate change is a reality. But sheer numbers of people and the gross expansion of farming in the deserts of California have strained water supplies, even in wet years, to the point that each new water year begins at roughly zero supply.
One of the great ironies of politics is that the present Governor Brown's father was Ground Zero in pushing water projects which ultimately created all the environmental problems the state faces: land subsidence, loss of wild and free flowing rivers, loss of the fisheries, salt water intrusion into inland ground water, the leaching of poisons like selenium into the environment.
In short, the state has been loved to death. It has plumbed every river for every drop of water, planted "from fence post to fence post" with 250 different cash crops, some of which are among the thirstiest of them all. And the most destructive crop of them all—houses, has overtaken prime frame farmland up and down the state.
Yes, human caused climate change is a reality. But sheer numbers of people and the gross expansion of farming in the deserts of California have strained water supplies, even in wet years, to the point that each new water year begins at roughly zero supply.
One of the great ironies of politics is that the present Governor Brown's father was Ground Zero in pushing water projects which ultimately created all the environmental problems the state faces: land subsidence, loss of wild and free flowing rivers, loss of the fisheries, salt water intrusion into inland ground water, the leaching of poisons like selenium into the environment.
100
In other words, irresponsible exploitation of water resources now matches up with irresponsible exploitation of fossil fuel respurces.
2
Ok, Bob, just get all those "excess people" to leave the West and solve the problem. Right? (Of course, you would get to stay.)
I remember reading in hunting and fishing magazines in the mid-50's about how great the rivers of California were. One, the San Joaquin, stuck in my memory. Not because of it's incredible fishing at the time, but because it was already being "tamed" and the salmon and trout populations were in freefall. The "Sports Afield" and "Field and Stream" issues of 60 years ago would make for interesting comparative reading next to the reports of California's straits of today.
1
Game over. We can't stop burning stuff, game over. Party on.
3
People need to move to centralized areas where public transportation is available. Suburban sprawl should turn into centralized towns/ cities with work stations and satellite stations. Transportation should be electric and solar charged. I envision big Elon Musk buses plugged into solar powered gas stations. Also, live small and close so you can walk to work. No yard, use the park. Go vegetarian, or eat less meat. If you feel the need, have one, maybe two children--no more. Learn to garden, learn to buy local.
6
Columbia University aside, it's laughable to have any "expert" suggest that mankind is now responsible for 15 to 20% of global warming. They don't know! What we know here is that during the last 50 years climate has warmed more than at anytime during the last several thousand years. Climate ruin (to be sure) is feeding upon itself. While the West burns, it adds immeasurably to CO2 emissions and consequently, our atmosphere's demise.
4
Come on now. Every Republican knows there has been no climate change. There was no evolution. It all started with Adam and Eve. Never mind what science has determined, the processes of determination should be ignored. We don't need common core. We live by myth, superstition and Duck Dynasty.
18
Right and cigarettes are good for us and teaching people where babies come from is sinful.
1
The risk of a global catastrophe should not be a partisan issue, and we should fiercely resist any effort or tendency to turn it into one. The most important problem here is not Democrats or Republicans. It is the huge gulf in understandng between climate scientists and everyone else.
In general, it takes many decades before major advances in the natural sciences get translated to the general public. To this day, most people do not understand, for example, the physical concept of Relativity, which was described at the start of the 20th century. Until at least the middle of the 20th century, it was the subject of significant debate even among scientists.
What climate-change advocates are asking for, which is the immediate promulgation and acceptance of an idea that most people do not understand, is in fact extremely unusual, if not unheard-of, in history. Responses such as demurral, denial, or scientific contest are actually the norm. And in many cases, due to uncertainty, these responses are rational and even helpful.
If we want Climate-Change to be different from Relativity, then we are going to need to make a serious effort to get the word out to normal people, in terms that are both truly explanatory and truly comprehensible. 9 out of 10 dentists agree! is not going to cut it.
If you really understand climate science, then get out there and explain it to the rest of us. If you don't then let's find a way to become educated.
In general, it takes many decades before major advances in the natural sciences get translated to the general public. To this day, most people do not understand, for example, the physical concept of Relativity, which was described at the start of the 20th century. Until at least the middle of the 20th century, it was the subject of significant debate even among scientists.
What climate-change advocates are asking for, which is the immediate promulgation and acceptance of an idea that most people do not understand, is in fact extremely unusual, if not unheard-of, in history. Responses such as demurral, denial, or scientific contest are actually the norm. And in many cases, due to uncertainty, these responses are rational and even helpful.
If we want Climate-Change to be different from Relativity, then we are going to need to make a serious effort to get the word out to normal people, in terms that are both truly explanatory and truly comprehensible. 9 out of 10 dentists agree! is not going to cut it.
If you really understand climate science, then get out there and explain it to the rest of us. If you don't then let's find a way to become educated.
5
I took one freshman level college course offered online for free by Coursers, UBC's 'Climate Literacy'. It's not difficult to understand the fundamentals of climate change. People are resisting understanding because they're afraid of the implications. That's why we need strong charismatic leadership on the issue. Al Gore did his best, but we need somebody from the conservative side of the aisle to cross over to gain any real traction. Maybe Trump will lead? Ha.
11
Don't forget the ozone hole: this was *theoretically* predicted by a scientist's model, and it was not even necessary to obtain an observation of it before the international community jumped in to work together to cut CFC emissions. Later, satellite observations proved the theoretical models correct. The climate science is not too hard to understand. The difference with the ozone hole was that there was no gigantic industry like the oil industry with a vast PR machine to deceive and confuse the public.
Climate change due to fossil fuel emissions is NOT hard to understand: more CO2 in the atmosphere increases the trapping of heat by the atmosphere, which increases temperatures. The only hard part is predicting regionally how areas of the Earth will be exactly affected. However, the climate models are not doing too bad, predicting more extreme climates, which we are now observing.
Climate change due to fossil fuel emissions is NOT hard to understand: more CO2 in the atmosphere increases the trapping of heat by the atmosphere, which increases temperatures. The only hard part is predicting regionally how areas of the Earth will be exactly affected. However, the climate models are not doing too bad, predicting more extreme climates, which we are now observing.
4
It may not be difficult for you to understand the basics of climate change. I think I understand them as well.
However, if you consider that many people do not have any college-level education, and that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was released almost ten years ago, then I think you would agree that a much bigger push is necessary to get "the basics" out there.
Second, the basics alone offer inadequate evidence to reach solid conclusions. The inner workings of climate-prediction models may be beyond the scope of most people's interests, but the fact that SO FEW people really understand them leads to a gigantic knowledge vacuum, in which people are asked to either adhere to "follow the leader" reasoning, or disengage intellectually.
I think that a lot can be done in the purely informational, rather than partisan, realm, to improve the situation.
However, if you consider that many people do not have any college-level education, and that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was released almost ten years ago, then I think you would agree that a much bigger push is necessary to get "the basics" out there.
Second, the basics alone offer inadequate evidence to reach solid conclusions. The inner workings of climate-prediction models may be beyond the scope of most people's interests, but the fact that SO FEW people really understand them leads to a gigantic knowledge vacuum, in which people are asked to either adhere to "follow the leader" reasoning, or disengage intellectually.
I think that a lot can be done in the purely informational, rather than partisan, realm, to improve the situation.
1
This piece did not reveal the volume of water that flows by Sacramento each minute, it never will.
2
From 1895 to present, NOAA gives a good chart of the highly variable rain fall pattern for California. You'll note that the variation is extreme even within decades. The problem is lack of capacity with an increasing population for water usage. In other words, climatic influence may push such extremeties, but the main factor is that the water resources from percipitation has limitations. From an environmental point of view, California cannot (and this pertains to other western states as well) support the excess population influx as natural resources have diminished.
Piping water in and desalination are band aid political approaches to a public that seeks an app approach. Such magical thinking views are destructive.
Piping water in and desalination are band aid political approaches to a public that seeks an app approach. Such magical thinking views are destructive.
51
Yet Californians are still building more homes and more commercial buildings and hire more people and cause more traffic than ever before. They want to expand the freeways but not build more rail or have more mass transport that is electric. We thought, back in the 1950's and 1960's that the monorail at Disneyland would be the way to go. Well, in California, it is still in Disneyland and just as much a myth and dream as it was over 50 years ago.
"Remember, when you have no water to drink, your near death from the heat, and your food is scorched lumps in the field, please VOTE REPUBLICAN!"
Though Democrats often pat themselves on the back, they don't have a monopoly on concern for the environment. There's plenty of room for Democrats and Republicans to cooperate here, and they have for many years.
My father, for example, was a Republican in spirit (though nominally independent), but he was also an inventor of water pollution control equipment that didn't sell well until the EPA came along and started fining his prospective customers for polluting rivers and lakes. (It also didn't hurt his business that the Cuyahoga River (which runs through Cleveland's industrial area) caught on fire in the summer of 1969.)
I might add that the mere CREATION of the EPA wasn't enough. In its early years, the EPA wasn't well-funded. Several prospective customers told my dad that EPA inspectors worked only 9 to 5, and so the factories just dumped their pollutants into the Cuyahoga River at night. Very shortly after that, the EPA received a highly publicized anonymous phone call (Dad?) reporting this, and the EPA soon installed devices that monitored pollution releases 24/7.
Sales of my dad's inventions skyrocketed – in Cleveland, and soon all over the US and Europe – and the Cuyahoga River hasn't caught on fire since.
My dad cared deeply about the environment. He also liked to make money. The two goals aren't mutually exclusive.
Though Democrats often pat themselves on the back, they don't have a monopoly on concern for the environment. There's plenty of room for Democrats and Republicans to cooperate here, and they have for many years.
My father, for example, was a Republican in spirit (though nominally independent), but he was also an inventor of water pollution control equipment that didn't sell well until the EPA came along and started fining his prospective customers for polluting rivers and lakes. (It also didn't hurt his business that the Cuyahoga River (which runs through Cleveland's industrial area) caught on fire in the summer of 1969.)
I might add that the mere CREATION of the EPA wasn't enough. In its early years, the EPA wasn't well-funded. Several prospective customers told my dad that EPA inspectors worked only 9 to 5, and so the factories just dumped their pollutants into the Cuyahoga River at night. Very shortly after that, the EPA received a highly publicized anonymous phone call (Dad?) reporting this, and the EPA soon installed devices that monitored pollution releases 24/7.
Sales of my dad's inventions skyrocketed – in Cleveland, and soon all over the US and Europe – and the Cuyahoga River hasn't caught on fire since.
My dad cared deeply about the environment. He also liked to make money. The two goals aren't mutually exclusive.
5
The fatal conceit of the global warming mongers is the belief that they can actually change the climate. The small amount of CO2 that the US emits is not a factor and to get the rest of the world to reduce it use of fossil fuels anytime soon is delusional. Making public policy based on a threat 100 years in future that may or may not be real is a sign of madness.
31
We've known human CO2 emissions affect the climate for at least half a century.
17
Humans have been modifying the climate for 10,000 years. It takes very few humans to have a big effect.
13
What a defeatist mentality you express, zugzwang. July was the hottest month on Earth ever recorded since such record-keeping began, and you are saying there is no value in the exceptional United States taking action to try to arrest climate change because others won't do it too.
If the threat isn't real, then steps taken now will have brought cleaner sources of energy, cleaner air, preparations for drought and other impacts already occurring, and myriad other benefits for the United States and the world as a whole 100 years in the future.
If the threat is real, then the world 100 years from now will have a polluted atmosphere, rising oceans, depleted water resources, disappearing plant and animal species, and more wars and human migration.
I'm for doing whatever we can now to create a better future. How about you?
If the threat isn't real, then steps taken now will have brought cleaner sources of energy, cleaner air, preparations for drought and other impacts already occurring, and myriad other benefits for the United States and the world as a whole 100 years in the future.
If the threat is real, then the world 100 years from now will have a polluted atmosphere, rising oceans, depleted water resources, disappearing plant and animal species, and more wars and human migration.
I'm for doing whatever we can now to create a better future. How about you?
7
What utter nonsense. It may well be that aversge CA temperstures are up 2 degrees since 1895 and that warmer temperatures will increase dryness. However, not a jot or tittle of this "study" provides a shred of proof that this warming trend is caused in whole or part by CO2 emissions. That is simply assumed -- an a priori truth, I suppose. Even then, the study authors are obliged to concede that the drying effect is "primarily" the result of "natural climate variation." No doubt.
4
'However, not a jot or tittle of this "study" provides a shred of proof that this warming trend is caused in whole or part by CO2 emissions.'
I'm guessing that you haven't read the study -- excuse me: "study" -- that you're criticizing.
I'm guessing that you haven't read the study -- excuse me: "study" -- that you're criticizing.
13
You do not understand the scientific method, nor 'a priori'.
The Times needs to lead a global change in terminology regarding "global warming" and "climate change." Thirty years ago, when scientists first sounded the alarm that we are making Earth literally uninhabitable, they (not sure who, exactly) used them so they wouldn't sound too alarmist. Now, with the evidence overwhelming—polar ice and glaciers disappearing, more and fiercer storms, ocean currents slowing, the jet stream steering weather to nee places, small islands slowly disappearing—and slow catastrophe accelerating along with our destructive practices, these terms are about as accurate as "ISIS dispute." It's time to call what we're doing what it really is: "Global heating" and "climate disruption."
4
We're stuck with the language we have; this is a semantic ussue. Changing it won't change the stubborn political resistance to evidence. Strictly speaking:
The accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting the planetary circulation (climate change).
The Pope gets it:
"most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide,methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun's rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive used of ofssil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes."
The accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting the planetary circulation (climate change).
The Pope gets it:
"most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide,methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun's rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive used of ofssil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes."
4
I disagree. I did homework after placing my comment that I should have done before.
Geochemist Wally Broecker coined the term “global warming” 35 years ago, Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, reportedly coined “climate change” in 2003 to blunt the “frightening” use of “global warming” and to support global heating deniers via a progrram of doubt-sowing in the general public. He knew very well that the terminology was critical to the denial strategy.
The fact that we retain the terms when glaring global evidence has rendered them absurdly obsolete simply shows environmentalists don't get their power—by now, to vastly and reassuringly understate the changes before our eyes.
Geochemist Wally Broecker coined the term “global warming” 35 years ago, Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, reportedly coined “climate change” in 2003 to blunt the “frightening” use of “global warming” and to support global heating deniers via a progrram of doubt-sowing in the general public. He knew very well that the terminology was critical to the denial strategy.
The fact that we retain the terms when glaring global evidence has rendered them absurdly obsolete simply shows environmentalists don't get their power—by now, to vastly and reassuringly understate the changes before our eyes.
We will ignore global warming and human emissions until it is to late to matter. Then we will blame it all on China.
29
More likely to blame it on Obama--least favored President, than China--most favored nation.
Some people seem incredibly fearful of what would have to change to address climate change. I suspect it's not end of the world stuff. Buy a fuel efficient car. Pay more for some products, less for others (imagine what more home solar systems would do for your utility bill or fuel efficiency will do for how much you spend on gas.) Support candidates who support R&D and investment in efficient, alternative energy solutions. If you fear for your pocketbooks, there's no comparison to what you'll pay to deal with uncontrolled climate change.
174
Better yet, maintain and drive your car for many more years. The battery alone in a Prius requires 200 lbs of rare earth minerals to be extracted and refined.
My brother bought an electric car and had an electrician install a solar powered charging station on the house right next to his driveway. It didn't cost much. He can drive 100 miles on each charge. That covers to work and back and errands all over town. What's so scary about that? It sounds smart to me and the right thing to do. And he got a reduced utility bill because the local power company bought some of his electricity off him. Hope this helps inspire people to make a change.
1
Climate change can not be "addressed." Climate will change with and wothout us.
"I'm prayin' for some rain in California
So the grapes will grow and they can more wine..." Dean Martin.
Shortage of crops, wild fires, the beautiful life destroyed. Humans are a plague on the earth but think they're the pinnacle of creation. And they'll take us all down. I'm with Dino.
So the grapes will grow and they can more wine..." Dean Martin.
Shortage of crops, wild fires, the beautiful life destroyed. Humans are a plague on the earth but think they're the pinnacle of creation. And they'll take us all down. I'm with Dino.
6
Exactly, meanwhile Jeff Bezos believes "absolute Darwinism" is an ideal workplace model, ignoring the fact that more heat does not necessarily correlate with more light. We're on a global economic hamster wheel, and the world is heating up like an overstressed semi truck lumbering through the desert.
2
These effects intensify as you move south into Mexico, where the population approaches 124 million people, up from 39 million in 1960.
5
What it seems to come down to for too many Americans is the old Irish joke about the kid who sat too close to the fire: Move me, Mammy, I'm burning.
6
The Republican Party stands in the way of the US leading the world community to confront global warming. It seems they believe that the "free" market solves all problems. And were still waiting. Global warming proves that the corporate world does not solve anything that is profitable to do and selling fossil fuels is very profitable. Citizens United has made it possible to carry this deadly ideology around like a green monkey. Denial of reality is paid for by the fossil fuels industry through disinformation campaigns and by bribing Republican to go on with this lie. Industry has the Republican Party locked up. Republican voters have no way of influencing it since it votes as a tribe no matter the consequence for the nation.
Look at the Republican field not a man with the courage to tell the truth and one of them may be our next president leading us into a climate disaster just to get the money to get elected. How twisted.
Look at the Republican field not a man with the courage to tell the truth and one of them may be our next president leading us into a climate disaster just to get the money to get elected. How twisted.
5
But James Inhofe made a snowball and brought it into the Senate chamber, thus reinforcing (in his mind) that climate change is a hoax.
Well I'm not a scientist, but I understand that 97 out of 100 real scientists are concerned about human activity adding to climate change. I don't know where the point of no return is, but I don't want to get past it.
Politicians that are not scientists but insist on expressing their ideas based on politics that will get them reelected, are a difficult problem. How bad do things have to get before they listen to the experts? And will there be time to make meaningful changes?
Well I'm not a scientist, but I understand that 97 out of 100 real scientists are concerned about human activity adding to climate change. I don't know where the point of no return is, but I don't want to get past it.
Politicians that are not scientists but insist on expressing their ideas based on politics that will get them reelected, are a difficult problem. How bad do things have to get before they listen to the experts? And will there be time to make meaningful changes?
13
Another commenter points out that CA's leaders are fiddling while Rome burns:
"in the meantime, Jerry Brown and the rest of the Democratic Political Ruling Class are wasting billions to build a useless and unneeded Train To Nowhere."
Many non-CA readers may have forgotten this (or perhaps never knew), but CA has planned a "high speed" railroad line from SF to LA, last estimated to cost around $70 billion but expected to cost much more. Most of it is to be financed by federal money, which means you'll pay for it even if you live in Maine or Florida. Several billion dollars have already been appropriated to finalize plans for a short stretch (just a few miles) in the Central Valley.
The original plan was for this train to go between downtown SF and downtown LA (assuming LA has a "downtown") in 2-3 hours. Planners soon learned that bedroom communities near both cities were less than enthusiastic about 200 MPH trains roaring through their neighborhoods, and many small cities on the planned route though it might be nice for the trains to stop in their cities. As a result, the 2-3 hour projection is no longer operative, and it's unclear now what the projected travel time is.
What is clear, though, is that this train will increase population in the parched Central Valley of CA. Environmentally speaking, will that be a good thing?
"in the meantime, Jerry Brown and the rest of the Democratic Political Ruling Class are wasting billions to build a useless and unneeded Train To Nowhere."
Many non-CA readers may have forgotten this (or perhaps never knew), but CA has planned a "high speed" railroad line from SF to LA, last estimated to cost around $70 billion but expected to cost much more. Most of it is to be financed by federal money, which means you'll pay for it even if you live in Maine or Florida. Several billion dollars have already been appropriated to finalize plans for a short stretch (just a few miles) in the Central Valley.
The original plan was for this train to go between downtown SF and downtown LA (assuming LA has a "downtown") in 2-3 hours. Planners soon learned that bedroom communities near both cities were less than enthusiastic about 200 MPH trains roaring through their neighborhoods, and many small cities on the planned route though it might be nice for the trains to stop in their cities. As a result, the 2-3 hour projection is no longer operative, and it's unclear now what the projected travel time is.
What is clear, though, is that this train will increase population in the parched Central Valley of CA. Environmentally speaking, will that be a good thing?
4
Yes, climate change is changing things, just as it has before humans. WOW what a shocker. The science behind this article relies on scientific principles that are way outside the acceptable scientific method. One can only move on to a second variable (humans) until the first variable (natural climate variables) until the first variable has been fully identified and explained. This article is extremely poor as it completely ignores the scientific method in favor of irrational hatred and fear.
2
There is only one geological precedent for climate change at this rate: the meteor(s) that obliterated the dinosaurs.
12
Eventually the Republicans will come around. They're like the congressmen and senators who fought for the tobacco industry and brought in doctors and scientists that testified that tobacco was not addicting or dangerous. They were wrong. Republicans aren't really bad people they're more like kids who in spite of being told the oven is hot will go ahead and put their hand in it just to find out for themselves.
12
You're kidding, right? Inhaling streams of burning weed is now the same as CO2, which is and always has been the largest natural and essential component of the earth's atmosphere.
Some have accepted the reality of global warming, but they still insist that humans have nothing to do with it.
1
I read this front page climate science story 3 times. It's definitely front page material but something puzzles me.
Mr. Gilles writes, "But, in an interview, Dr. Williams said the low number was derived from a method that did not take into account the way that global warming had sped up since the 1970s. That led him and his colleagues to conclude that climate change was most likely responsible for about 15 to 20 percent of the moisture deficit."
Does this mean that the climate-caused "moisture deficit" occurred because there was less rainfall or because it was hotter and that sped up moisture evaporation in the soil, thus causing the "deficit". This matters because working out the details of climate-changing causation is important for bullet-proofing climate science
Mr. Gilles writes, "But, in an interview, Dr. Williams said the low number was derived from a method that did not take into account the way that global warming had sped up since the 1970s. That led him and his colleagues to conclude that climate change was most likely responsible for about 15 to 20 percent of the moisture deficit."
Does this mean that the climate-caused "moisture deficit" occurred because there was less rainfall or because it was hotter and that sped up moisture evaporation in the soil, thus causing the "deficit". This matters because working out the details of climate-changing causation is important for bullet-proofing climate science
1
.
Misleading headline
should read "Vast majority of cause of drought is due to natural variability"
why?
because, according to the article, climate change only accounts for 15-20%
.
Misleading headline
should read "Vast majority of cause of drought is due to natural variability"
why?
because, according to the article, climate change only accounts for 15-20%
.
5
I think the sloppy wording is in the article.
"But, in an interview, Dr. Williams said the low number was derived from a method that did not take into account the way that global warming had sped up since the 1970s. That led him and his colleagues to conclude that climate change was most likely responsible for about 15 to 20 percent of the moisture deficit."
This only makes sense if the word "anthropogenic" was left out.
"But, in an interview, Dr. Williams said the low number was derived from a method that did not take into account the way that global warming had sped up since the 1970s. That led him and his colleagues to conclude that climate change was most likely responsible for about 15 to 20 percent of the moisture deficit."
This only makes sense if the word "anthropogenic" was left out.
The key point is that the Democrats have really done nothing in CA to fix the water system. It needs desalinization plants to survive and use the limitless water of the Pacific; in the meantime, Jerry Brown and the rest of the Democratic Political Ruling Class are wasting billions to build a useless and unneeded Train To Nowhere. In a very few years the population will leave to places with running water, there will be no more agriculture and there will be no more tax base. CA will spend the last of its money on public employee pensions as the state turns into Arizona. Politics always beats public policy.
3
Arizona FYI is run by the Republicans and is doing well.
Instead of building energy intensive desalinization plants why does CA build more reservoirs and capture more rain water during rainy periods to use during droughts? Evaporation from the oceans is Nature's desalinization plant. It does them no good if they allow the majority of it to run right back into the ocean.
Reservoirs also allow water to seep back into the underground aquifers
They also need to fix leaky outdated water mains so they don't lose treated potable water.
Reservoirs also allow water to seep back into the underground aquifers
They also need to fix leaky outdated water mains so they don't lose treated potable water.
Surely this is the pivotal hour for a scientifically minded and decades-long focused 2016 political candidate for President of the United States. I struggle to identify such a candidate from the current crop...
5
Charge for water...there is no free lunch.
5
Water is a natural resource and MUST NOT be controlled by the top financial elite, Steve. Now, back to your financial market job.
And since when are natural resources free? Isn't oil a natural resource? Gold?
Who get free water. When i had city water I paid at the meter. Now that I am on a well I pay for the electricity to pump it.
For you city folks, running well pump is not cheap. Pulling water up from 300 feet below ground, treating it, and maintaining the system can cost us more more per gallon than you pay for city water.
The only "free water" is the rain water I capture and reuse for my garden and fruit trees. Even that is not free since I had to buy the parts and still need to pay for the energy to pump it.
For you city folks, running well pump is not cheap. Pulling water up from 300 feet below ground, treating it, and maintaining the system can cost us more more per gallon than you pay for city water.
The only "free water" is the rain water I capture and reuse for my garden and fruit trees. Even that is not free since I had to buy the parts and still need to pay for the energy to pump it.
2
Here in Los Angeles, we are being told to expect perhaps the biggest El Nino on record this fall and winter. It will be interesting to hear people "spin it" when it's over to try and have us believe it did nothing to help the present drought situation. Just wait, they'll be out there...
1
Odds are good it won't end the drought. Odds are slight that it might. You won't know facts for about a year.
5
You accept the forecast of a big El Nino but think everything else is spin? No wonder you're Wondering!
4
It won't solve the long term problem. A good part of your water comes from the snow pack and that's been dwindling for some time now.
I was born in California and spent most of my life there. Anyone who really pays attention knows that a spell of heavy rain doesn't mean permanent relief from drought.
I was born in California and spent most of my life there. Anyone who really pays attention knows that a spell of heavy rain doesn't mean permanent relief from drought.
1
It must have been very hard to write this story. It's clear that the authors really, really really wanted the message to be that climate change was the main cause of the California drought. Unfortunately, the facts didn't fit the narrative. According to the research discussed, climate change is a contributing factor, but not the primary cause. Even if there were no climate change caused by CO2 emissions, California would still be in a severe drought. Now that's a scary story.
3
no, you are wrong. They gave the correct factual message that climate change was only a contributing factor. Are you suggesting bias in the story? What is your point?
13
This is typical of the denialist crowd: Cast doubt even with the most trivial of allegations.
4
They got the basic facts right: the drought is 20% due to man-made climate change and 80% due to other causes of climate variability. But every paragraph, even the headline, downplays the 80% and emphasizes the 20%. 80% of the article is about 20% of the problem. So, yes, I'm suggesting the tone of the article is biased.
California and the rest of the Southwest have a big problem with water supply. Climate change certainly exacerbates that problem, but it is not the only, or even the primary, cause of it. Fixing climate change alone won't solve the water problem. Worry about climate change, but don't ignore unsustainable agriculture and overpopulation.
California and the rest of the Southwest have a big problem with water supply. Climate change certainly exacerbates that problem, but it is not the only, or even the primary, cause of it. Fixing climate change alone won't solve the water problem. Worry about climate change, but don't ignore unsustainable agriculture and overpopulation.
53
"Climate change ... If we acknowledge its existence, we stand to benefit in enormous and unforeseen ways as we develop new technologies to address it. If anthropogenic climate change isn't real, no harm is done: we will have made positive, healthier lifestyle changes, and still have developed those technologies such as clean energy and new products..."
There are many regulations based on "climate change" here in San Francisco. Some probably aren't very expensive to comply with. For example, the developers of the mammoth waterfront Pier 70 project approved last year are required to build the project farther above sea level than was previously required. That probably won't cost them much more (a bunch of trucks hauling dirt from somewhere else for a few days) and it seems like a good precaution.
I don't know whether that's true of other "climate change" regulations that apply to those developers. For someone like me who's not involved directly, it's often impossible to tell whether some part of the developer's plan is there to comply with a regulation, or would be there anyway.
There are many regulations based on "climate change" here in San Francisco. Some probably aren't very expensive to comply with. For example, the developers of the mammoth waterfront Pier 70 project approved last year are required to build the project farther above sea level than was previously required. That probably won't cost them much more (a bunch of trucks hauling dirt from somewhere else for a few days) and it seems like a good precaution.
I don't know whether that's true of other "climate change" regulations that apply to those developers. For someone like me who's not involved directly, it's often impossible to tell whether some part of the developer's plan is there to comply with a regulation, or would be there anyway.
1
You've got admire Anthony Hill, the man shown mowing his dead grass in the picture accompanying the story, for his pride in taking care of what is his, regardless of what the rest of our ways inflict on his environment and resulting from that unwillingness to take care what is all of ours in the form of this planet.
2
Climate change intensifying California's latest drought should come as no surprise. With 40million, many of whom want a white picket fence, and counting: good luck.
2
It isn't the white picket fence so much as it is the picture-perfect lush green lawns.
So it's come down to this? Wanting to have only a simple white picket fence and nothing more is now considered a cause for damnation.
I take you've got none of your own in Germany?
I take you've got none of your own in Germany?
“Anti-intellectualism (which includes anti-science rightwing wacko birdism) has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov
It's a shame that the Earth's atmosphere had to be destroyed by the organizing genius of the Greedy Old Polluters and Propagandists who have ironically persuaded the religious and the poor that aborting the Earth for unbridled profit is somehow a 'culture of life'.
― Isaac Asimov
It's a shame that the Earth's atmosphere had to be destroyed by the organizing genius of the Greedy Old Polluters and Propagandists who have ironically persuaded the religious and the poor that aborting the Earth for unbridled profit is somehow a 'culture of life'.
225
I guess the polluters and their families breathe separate air from the hoi polloi? Not plausible.
1
Great quote, but just to be clear: the words between the parentheses are yours, not Asimov's. I doubt Isaac would have thought it necessary to add such explicit qualifications...
Correct, Josh.
Thank you !
Thank you !
Yet Californians still insist on encroaching on the desert to build more an more homes. They use the crutch of climate change as a reason to deflect blame from themselves. We have friends in San Diego who are ready, willing and able to blame climate change for the drought, all the while using water for their backyard vegetable garden, flowers and patch of front lawn. Meanwhile they blame the evil Republicans for refusing to build more reservoirs and a pipeline to import water from the northwest. Hey, it can't possibly be their fault for using too much water. That would mean that they have assume personal responsibity
2
This is more than a little ridiculous. No one blames the Republicans for refusing to build reservoirs or pipelines, the Republicans are on record as claiming that evil liberals won't let them build dams. Republicans never mention that dams won't help when there isn't any rain or snow.
Your friends irresponsible water use does nothing to change the fact that climate change has made the drought worse.
Your friends irresponsible water use does nothing to change the fact that climate change has made the drought worse.
2
And why aren't the evil Republicans not building more reservoirs, etc. Why do they escape responsibility?
Of course when the winter rains come in the wettest winter "evah" and the mudslides start and the flooding starts because not even the drainage has been cleared of debris some people will likely think "you know, we could have had some reservoirs to save this water for the dry time" California dereliction in water resource management stretches back at least half a century there is absolutely nothing unpredictable about what has happened and it didn't require "climate change" to get there.
I had to smile at the Climate Change Intensifies (whatever) headline.
We have been subjected to such passionate headlines for so long that many of us have developed a shoulder shrugging, skeptical attitude.
If there is a drought, it is the fault of climate change; if there is a lot of rain it is the fault of climate change. If there are many hurricanes, it is the fault of climate change; if there are few it is the fault of climate change, ad nauseum.
Some people apparently never read the children's tale of the little boy who cried wolf.
We have been subjected to such passionate headlines for so long that many of us have developed a shoulder shrugging, skeptical attitude.
If there is a drought, it is the fault of climate change; if there is a lot of rain it is the fault of climate change. If there are many hurricanes, it is the fault of climate change; if there are few it is the fault of climate change, ad nauseum.
Some people apparently never read the children's tale of the little boy who cried wolf.
3
Did you not read Jerry Browns quote? Climate change has more severe storms in the east and mid west, while causing droughts it the West. Its not simple to understand.
12
Children's stories are fine, but also read the first couple paragraphs of the article before commenting. Scientists know the drought is related to natural variability. Climate change is very likely intensifying it, and there are several hundred additional words explaining the effects of warmer air on water levels. No honest person blames climate change for the CA drought, but it's worth studying whether CA can expect increasingly severe droughts in the future and whether human activity is a contributing factor.
91
"Climate change is very likely intensifying it" is not the same as the statement made by the scientists which is "likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising"
becoming is a future tense word. It is not that climate change IS making this drought worse. It is that the chance that a future drought may be worse is rising. Rising how? I can quadruple the probability by changing from 1% to 4%. It is still an insignificant number.
What is the objective measure for this drought being worse than ones 75 - 100 years ago?
becoming is a future tense word. It is not that climate change IS making this drought worse. It is that the chance that a future drought may be worse is rising. Rising how? I can quadruple the probability by changing from 1% to 4%. It is still an insignificant number.
What is the objective measure for this drought being worse than ones 75 - 100 years ago?
1
Remember, when you have no water to drink, your near death from the heat, and your food is scorched lumps in the field, please VOTE REPUBLICAN!
8
"But it is the science which should guide policy, not talking points or anathema to business regulation. ... We all must follow the science ..."
Not quite so.
Here in San Francisco, for example, if we just "followed the science," we might get complacent. I've lived here for 40 years, during which time the sea level hasn't risen enough that one can notice (though some authoritative sources report a 2-3 inch rise during that period). If we based our laws and rules solely on that "science," rather than on predictions (it's not uncommon to read predictions that sea level here will rise 3-7 feet by the end of the century, causing sea water to reach all the way to Sacramento), we might not pass stringent regulations and Sacramento might be toast (well, wrong metaphor, but you get the picture).
Not quite so.
Here in San Francisco, for example, if we just "followed the science," we might get complacent. I've lived here for 40 years, during which time the sea level hasn't risen enough that one can notice (though some authoritative sources report a 2-3 inch rise during that period). If we based our laws and rules solely on that "science," rather than on predictions (it's not uncommon to read predictions that sea level here will rise 3-7 feet by the end of the century, causing sea water to reach all the way to Sacramento), we might not pass stringent regulations and Sacramento might be toast (well, wrong metaphor, but you get the picture).
1
We've known for a long time that anthropogenic climate change is intensifying drought (also flooding, storms, etc); and that historically dry areas are becoming much dryer. But culturally (in the US), we seem to have decided not to do anything about either carbon emissions or our profligate use of water. So, we've decided on climate catastrophe, agriculture collapse, civilization collapse, and a rapid decline of the human population. We can still envision another way -- a path toward sustainability is still possible, barely, if we put everything we have into it. Not much indication that's going to happen, though.
194
People who put their faith in God will appeal for divine intervention until the planet is toast.
2
Most strident environmentalists would welcome fewer humans as they call us parasites. Further, the left is dominated by atheists so why they even care about the world 100 years from now is a mystery.
I would really like to know the source of your information. When I review the satellite global temp database , I cannot find any global warming for 18 years and on .3C change over 100 years. What is the specific source of your temperature data related to your comment? Also, I cannot find any evidence to support the idea that drought conditions are different than what happened during the last 150 years.. Could you please cite the source for that comment also?
1
Climate change should be approached as an economic form of Pascal's wager. If we acknowledge its existence, we stand to benefit in enormous and unforeseen ways as we develop new technologies to address it. If anthropogenic climate change isn't real, no harm is done: we will have made positive, healthier lifestyle changes, and still have developed those technologies such as clean energy and new products, as is always the case with concerted scientific research and development.
It's extremely dangerous that water shortages are on the horizon at a time of dysfunctional politics, as our resources are increasingly controlled by a tiny elite. We take water far too much for granted. Water is a basic human need, and thus a basic human right. How we manage access to water will be a major test of whether we can function as a democracy on principles of human equality. That means, no, you don't get to waste water, or have more access to it, just because you have more money to pay for it. Money is not the defining characteristic of your rights. Here's hoping California shows us the way.
It's extremely dangerous that water shortages are on the horizon at a time of dysfunctional politics, as our resources are increasingly controlled by a tiny elite. We take water far too much for granted. Water is a basic human need, and thus a basic human right. How we manage access to water will be a major test of whether we can function as a democracy on principles of human equality. That means, no, you don't get to waste water, or have more access to it, just because you have more money to pay for it. Money is not the defining characteristic of your rights. Here's hoping California shows us the way.
22
"Even though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability, the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising because of climate change. "
Translation: The science shows that the drought is from natural variability but we are going to blame this on man made climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels anyway.
This current drought, like the many in the past, is not caused by climate change. The effects of the drought IS caused by man's activities. Environmental policies which cause forests to become overgrown with brush making it a fire hazard (heaven forbid we do any logging). Overpopulation of a desert region coupled with no new reservoirs. (more people = more water consumption). Changes in CA micro climate due to growth of cities (heat island), localized solar dimming due to pollution which reduces evaporation from the oceans (evaporation not only cools the ocean it is also nature's desalination plant).
Man may be to blame when it comes to the impact the drought is having on the local area but it is an intellectually weak argument to blame this on a 1°C global average temperature rise and CO2.
Translation: The science shows that the drought is from natural variability but we are going to blame this on man made climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels anyway.
This current drought, like the many in the past, is not caused by climate change. The effects of the drought IS caused by man's activities. Environmental policies which cause forests to become overgrown with brush making it a fire hazard (heaven forbid we do any logging). Overpopulation of a desert region coupled with no new reservoirs. (more people = more water consumption). Changes in CA micro climate due to growth of cities (heat island), localized solar dimming due to pollution which reduces evaporation from the oceans (evaporation not only cools the ocean it is also nature's desalination plant).
Man may be to blame when it comes to the impact the drought is having on the local area but it is an intellectually weak argument to blame this on a 1°C global average temperature rise and CO2.
5
Nobody is saying that there is a causal link between the droughts and climate change. The article, from the heading on, clearly states that the severity of the drought has been made worse by the effects of climate change.
Perhaps you missed this part later in the article:
"The paper echoes a growing body of research that has come to similar conclusions, but scientists not involved in the work described it as more thorough than any previous effort, because it analyzed nearly every possible combination of data on temperature, rainfall, wind speed and other factors that could be influencing the severity of the drought."
Maybe it's your rather lackluster denialist comment that's "intellectually weak".
Perhaps you missed this part later in the article:
"The paper echoes a growing body of research that has come to similar conclusions, but scientists not involved in the work described it as more thorough than any previous effort, because it analyzed nearly every possible combination of data on temperature, rainfall, wind speed and other factors that could be influencing the severity of the drought."
Maybe it's your rather lackluster denialist comment that's "intellectually weak".
32
Wrong. The current drought is one of many that California has experienced over the centuries, climate change is making it worse.
4
It is worse based on what measure? How is this "worse" than past droughts? Does is seem worse because there are more people? Does it seem worse because the agriculture industry is larger?
what is the objective measure for worse?
For example I can objectively state that my new bowling ball is heavier than my old one because the old one was 15 lb and the new one is 16 lb.
what is the objective measure for worse?
For example I can objectively state that my new bowling ball is heavier than my old one because the old one was 15 lb and the new one is 16 lb.
Clearly, human activity influences the environment. Clearly, the world is full of cheap fossil fuel, so forcing people to change energy use patterns is very hard.
Also true - great scientists do not simplify their findings. The papers mentioned here are not as absolute as headlines in news media.
The much more important water question is, "what do we DO about it?"
Here scientists are far less certain, because it means forecasting a completely unpredictable future.
I help people create innovations that will actually be adopted. With colleagues, we have physically traveled more than 7,000 miles of the rivers that feed California, looking at water solutions that work - now.
Several things are evident in the research papers mentioned here.
Most data sets used are limited to the political boundaries of CA. But CA water comes from ecosystems that range thousands of miles beyond its borders. Some feeder watersheds are now flush with water. Are the papers seeing the whole system if they use only CA data?
Second, to anyone examining the water system on the ground, the CA problem is excess consumption and reliance on a system of dams and rivers that has been deficient for decades. This part of the problem comes from government "Reclamation" policy (see Cadillac Desert) and near zero pricing of water.
How do we fix systems we KNOW are broken, and CAN be fixed, with water recycling for example?
Much better to list real options, not prolong the abstract debate of sunspots.
Also true - great scientists do not simplify their findings. The papers mentioned here are not as absolute as headlines in news media.
The much more important water question is, "what do we DO about it?"
Here scientists are far less certain, because it means forecasting a completely unpredictable future.
I help people create innovations that will actually be adopted. With colleagues, we have physically traveled more than 7,000 miles of the rivers that feed California, looking at water solutions that work - now.
Several things are evident in the research papers mentioned here.
Most data sets used are limited to the political boundaries of CA. But CA water comes from ecosystems that range thousands of miles beyond its borders. Some feeder watersheds are now flush with water. Are the papers seeing the whole system if they use only CA data?
Second, to anyone examining the water system on the ground, the CA problem is excess consumption and reliance on a system of dams and rivers that has been deficient for decades. This part of the problem comes from government "Reclamation" policy (see Cadillac Desert) and near zero pricing of water.
How do we fix systems we KNOW are broken, and CAN be fixed, with water recycling for example?
Much better to list real options, not prolong the abstract debate of sunspots.
5
It's highly-trained experts using science to inform decisions about our world versus a whole lot of people with folksy "gut feelings."
The winner is obvious until it isn't, much thanks to our politicians who have developed a knack for dismissing intellectual pursuits and any interest outside of their myopic vision for the country (read: the next election, and no further. To them, life doesn't exist beyond 2020.)
Good luck.
The winner is obvious until it isn't, much thanks to our politicians who have developed a knack for dismissing intellectual pursuits and any interest outside of their myopic vision for the country (read: the next election, and no further. To them, life doesn't exist beyond 2020.)
Good luck.
10
I have not heard any discussions relating what crops should be grown in California. What crops does this country need to feed the population. Which crops grow in California that can not be grown elsewhere in the country. Why do almonds need to be grown in California. We can eat Georgia pecans, Grow smart in California. To conserve water maybe only grow crops in the winter when other states can not.
7
From A Special Message To Congress,
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through a steady increase in CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel."
President Lyndon Johnson
1965
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through a steady increase in CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel."
President Lyndon Johnson
1965
62
LBJ was claiming a new ice age was rapidly approaching. LOL
Reference, please?
Southern California, before massive irrigation works, was a semi-arid desert which was made to bloom by man cultivating millions of acres for agriculture. As the water resources available to the Southwest diminish, California is returning to a semi-arid desert.
This climate shift was predicted decades ago and eventually over pumping the aquifer will eliminate it as a source of water to combat California's Super Drought.
This climate shift was predicted decades ago and eventually over pumping the aquifer will eliminate it as a source of water to combat California's Super Drought.
13
Oh, please, it is only about 97% of scientists who believe in this liberal lie of Climate Change caused by man. We need to follow the Republican Party and their Flat Earth Belief.
Thank you Koch brothers.
Thank you Koch brothers.
17
ray ...
More like 43-47%, not 97%:
"I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty."
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-ag...
More like 43-47%, not 97%:
"I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty."
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-ag...
2
Nonsense, and you know it, wmar.
For our denial friends: OK, basic chemistry. We've added trillions of tons of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere and to our oceans. The oceans have captured a great deal of what we've pumped out, absorbed the greenhouse components and heat, but that will start to change as saturation increases. This is not a theory, we can analyze the oceans and analyze the atmosphere. These are facts - denying them is denying basic science. It's foolish, myopic and finds its roots not in countervailing science (99% v 1% is a bit of a tough argument to buy, isn't it?), but in profits and politics. The profits drive the politics. Period. And we're going to follow that path until we tip our environment into a condition that will make life for us nearly untenable. The window in which we have to act is probably shorter than we imagine. Failure to do so, to act as a mature species to preserve this remarkably benign ecology we currently enjoy, is the greatest crime against humanity in the history of humanity. We're going to let this bright light of knowledge and sentience - this human race that contemplates not only its own existence but explores the creation and fabric of the universe - fade out. If there is an ultimate crime, it is the destruction of our potential as a species.
27
Even the most dire models say 100 years in future and 2 degrees. Not exactly apocalyptic. Yet, 20 trillion and increasing in unsustainable national debt raises not a peep. Misplaced priorities.
1
Whether you understand the problem of anthropogenic related global warming or deny its existence it should be clear that we have in the past century consumed an enormous amount of fossil fuel. Very little of that fuel is used efficiently and a lot of it is wasted. Pollution is real and has impacted the breath we take and the water we sip. There are a lot of advantages to using energy more efficiently and in a cleaner manner. Why not do it, if for no other reason than the accepted rule to leave the campsite cleaner than when you found it. The condition of the earth is our legacy.
20
I do not think anyone who has not bought into the AGU Religion is for the destruction of the planet by polluting it. I believe everyone is for living more efficiently and using our resources responsibly. I don’t believe we need to have the government takeover of our lives and telling everyone how to live. Most of the AGU crowd is just in it for the money and power they get from it.
Right, it's all about the vast sums of many on the climate change side. Nothing to to do with the billions controlled by the fossil fuels industry/empire. Not at all like the tobacco industry. Not at all.
4
Speaking as someone who understands and accepts the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I assure you that I'm not in it for the money. Honestly, I'd be content if we all just paid our fair share of the full cost of the energy we use. Why would you want someone else to pay for your comfort and convenience?
The cost of climate change still isn't included in the price of a gallon of gasoline or a kW of electricity generated by burning fossil carbon. That doesn't mean it won't be paid, though. AGW will impact some people more than others, but everyone will wind up paying one way or another. You're responsible for your share, whether you buy into "the AGU(?) Religion" or not.
The cost of climate change still isn't included in the price of a gallon of gasoline or a kW of electricity generated by burning fossil carbon. That doesn't mean it won't be paid, though. AGW will impact some people more than others, but everyone will wind up paying one way or another. You're responsible for your share, whether you buy into "the AGU(?) Religion" or not.
California has always been in a drought it has never been a rainy state. They have had to pipe in water in for years. What is intensifying the drought is the amount of people and farms. It has nothing to do with the climate
2
3
The data suggests otherwise. (How can you say "it's been in a drought for years" and then say it has nothing to do with climate?)
4
David G, wrong. California is a huge state with many different climate zones, Parts of California are naturally desert. Other parts of California are not. Some coastal areas in Northern California are even technically classified as rain forest. Where I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, average annual rainfall in the past has been 25 inches per year. Not a desert. True, more Californians live in arid Southern California than in wetter Northern California, but there are plenty of us in the North.
2
Wrong, wrong, wrong. ALL climate change is due to natural variations, and NO variations result from human activities. That's their story, and they're sticking to it. Party on!!!
5
While on a recent rip to Europe I met some Australians who said they use primarily desalinated sea water. The hottest states in America are perfect places for a new, green desalination method known as Seawater greenhouse where desalination without environmental impact or the use of fossil fuel is accomplished through evaporation and condensation for crops using solar and wind power. There are many other methods being researched so humans can use sea water as a reliable source, instead of using up the water tables and rivers in America. Time to put the BIG OIL money people out to pasture and implement ideas that will make the world better, not destroy it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination
3
Australia has come up with quite a few innovative solutions. NPR had a great story on this on 8/19 on All Things Considered.
3
It's not just human emissions that have caused climate change, it is human omission, too, namely Republican leadership and their deliberate ignorance, recklessness, and irresponsibility, on behalf of fossil fuel industrialists. Republican leadership fights the EPA and pollution control at every turn, so now we have out-of-control planetary warming and destructive climate change. Republican climate change deniers have been out in force for decades, lying to the American public, and laughing at Democrat Al Gore who tried to warn us. Fox put climate change deniers on its "news" even though almost all scientist were unanimous in their warnings, so that still its Republican viewership denies this "inconvenient truth." That Americans might elect a president who threatens to get rid of the EPA and environmental regulations on behalf of the fossil-fuel industrialists, is testament to the awesome and destructive power of Republican party.
115
And yet, as citizens struggle to cope with the effects and consequences of climate change, national leadership lags. For Florida state personnel, it is literally that-which-must-not-be-named. Senator Inhofe chairs the Committee completely unbefitting his mockery of the environment. Republican Presidential contenders either deny the phenomenon or shrug and say "I'm not a scientist." But it is the science which should guide policy, not talking points or anathema to business regulation. No one will thrive with unfettered pollution and resource depletion. We all must follow the science, consider our own impacts, and also vote accordingly.
45
As long as Republicans choose to play politics with science and Mother Nature we will not take any positive steps towards curbing the problem of global warming. Denial and folding ones arms and saying "No" is like acting like a three year old.
34
We're dealing with it. Water cuts demanded by our Governor have been met. Obama's recent carbon-reduction plan for the US is a slower, more gradual version of the one California already has in place. California already has a cap-and-trade carbon market. Use of coal for power generation in California is at 6% of the total and will soon be zero. Solar systems are going up on roofs everywhere here, powering increasing numbers of electric vehicles, many made here in California, creating California jobs.
California is doing something about greenhouse gases. We're managing to reduce water use. Now, we're waiting for the rest of the US to catch up.
California is doing something about greenhouse gases. We're managing to reduce water use. Now, we're waiting for the rest of the US to catch up.
76
Perhaps Al Gore can turn off some of his 1,000 lights on his massive estate. Maybe Hillary Clinton can have one mansion, rather than 2 (Chappaqua and The Hamptons). Can Nancy Pelosi drive a car rather than a corporate jet?
I will be willing to listen to the "climate change" argument when I believe it is about the environment. But we all know what this is really about - more taxes. "Give us more of your money, and we Democrats will cool the planet down for you." In the meantime, they are causing massive damage to the earth with their multi-million dollar machines and estates.
I will be willing to listen to the "climate change" argument when I believe it is about the environment. But we all know what this is really about - more taxes. "Give us more of your money, and we Democrats will cool the planet down for you." In the meantime, they are causing massive damage to the earth with their multi-million dollar machines and estates.
2
You forgot to mention Republicans. Trump is not campaigning using a train.
9
What in heavens name does Hillary Clinton's lifestyle have to do with climate change? Certain gasses, such as methane and carbon dioxide, absorb (and radiate isotropically) infrared radiation. That's been known for well over a hundred years, and the quantum mechanics have been understood about a hundred years. As to whether we've been adding these gasses to the armosphere, you only need to know we mine and burn coal and natural gas. We can quantify the increase in armospheric carbon with stunning accuracy. And with really amazing instruments we can measure the increase in "old" (mined) carbon-12 and the relative decline in "new" C-13 and C-14, created constantly by the interaction of cosmic rays and the atmosphere.
All these phenomenon are understood because of painstaking intellectual work, a marvel of the well trained human mind. And you would listen to none of it, lift no intellectual finger to comprehend it, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't ride a bicycle to work.
We are screwed. Screwed because the majority of mankind is too lazy to think.
All these phenomenon are understood because of painstaking intellectual work, a marvel of the well trained human mind. And you would listen to none of it, lift no intellectual finger to comprehend it, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't ride a bicycle to work.
We are screwed. Screwed because the majority of mankind is too lazy to think.
28
This is a classic example of how an issue of science is turned into one of partisan politics. There is no mention of increased taxes in this article. If Gore, et al, can take greater responsibility for their use of energy, I'm all for it. But by reducing this argument to one party vs. the other, everything comes to a screeching halt.
12
"Global warming caused by human emissions has most likely intensified the drought in California by roughly 15 to 20 percent, scientists said Thursday."
Just because scientists say something does not mean it rises above mere speculating. What exactly does it mean for a drought to be intensified by 15 to 20 percent anyhow? Is there some objective criteria through which a metric like drought intensity is measured? What does "most likely" mean? Is that a sort of preponderance of the evidence standard as employed in civil jury trials? Were a jury of the climate scientists empaneled and polled to arrive at a conclusion that mankind is "most likely" guilty for having intensified the drought?
I really have no opinion on whether it is in fact the case that the climate is warming, or why. We have ample evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed and cooled numerous times well before our arrival, but we don't have ample evidence to conclusively ascertain why it did then or why it might be doing so now.
But I do know this. Climate science is not science at all. It is mere speculations and unfalsifiable hypotheses dressed up as science. It is climate scientists leveraging the natural human inclination to seek definitive cause and effect relationships with the natural human hubris to imagine that such things are always ascertainable with our big brains to propound hypotheses that will garner them favor and status. And that's all.
Just because scientists say something does not mean it rises above mere speculating. What exactly does it mean for a drought to be intensified by 15 to 20 percent anyhow? Is there some objective criteria through which a metric like drought intensity is measured? What does "most likely" mean? Is that a sort of preponderance of the evidence standard as employed in civil jury trials? Were a jury of the climate scientists empaneled and polled to arrive at a conclusion that mankind is "most likely" guilty for having intensified the drought?
I really have no opinion on whether it is in fact the case that the climate is warming, or why. We have ample evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed and cooled numerous times well before our arrival, but we don't have ample evidence to conclusively ascertain why it did then or why it might be doing so now.
But I do know this. Climate science is not science at all. It is mere speculations and unfalsifiable hypotheses dressed up as science. It is climate scientists leveraging the natural human inclination to seek definitive cause and effect relationships with the natural human hubris to imagine that such things are always ascertainable with our big brains to propound hypotheses that will garner them favor and status. And that's all.
5
You ask some fair questions. Those question actually have direct and specific answers:
" Is there some objective criteria through which a metric like drought intensity is measured?"
Yes. It is called the Palmer Drought Severity index.
"What does "most likely" mean? "
In the formally applied statistics used in most of these reports it means that there is a better than 90% chance that the finding is correct.
When scientists make the statements made in the original research article using the language that is used it is *far* beyond 'mere speculation'.
Climate science is absolutely a science and a very extensive and robustly pursued one. That you are unaware of the scope and nature of complex fields such as climate science does not mean those fields are constrained to your understanding of them. You ask some reasonable questions but you asked them as rhetorical weapons not as honest pursuit of information. Your questions have definitive answers however that blunt the use you are trying to affect.
I suggest you research the concept of the Dunning-Krueger effect. The conversation surrounding so many of today's complex topics is rife with it and I'm afraid your comment is a classic example of what the effect looks like when encountered in the wild.
Willful ignorance on the part of some does not change the empirical reality of us all.
" Is there some objective criteria through which a metric like drought intensity is measured?"
Yes. It is called the Palmer Drought Severity index.
"What does "most likely" mean? "
In the formally applied statistics used in most of these reports it means that there is a better than 90% chance that the finding is correct.
When scientists make the statements made in the original research article using the language that is used it is *far* beyond 'mere speculation'.
Climate science is absolutely a science and a very extensive and robustly pursued one. That you are unaware of the scope and nature of complex fields such as climate science does not mean those fields are constrained to your understanding of them. You ask some reasonable questions but you asked them as rhetorical weapons not as honest pursuit of information. Your questions have definitive answers however that blunt the use you are trying to affect.
I suggest you research the concept of the Dunning-Krueger effect. The conversation surrounding so many of today's complex topics is rife with it and I'm afraid your comment is a classic example of what the effect looks like when encountered in the wild.
Willful ignorance on the part of some does not change the empirical reality of us all.
61
What evidence do you have which supports your claims?
8
What are your credentials for claiming that "Climate science is not science at all" or your evidence for that matter? You see, that's the one thing that climate scientists do "leverage" their hypotheses with - evidence. The fact that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past does not mean that humans are not now helping to push a natural warming cycle into a level dangerous to life on the planet. Would you argue that we must do nothing to counter a dangerous planetary warming trend whether it is human-caused or not? As for me, I'm going to opt for hubris over self-destructive.
17
1. Anticipate water scarcity and drinking water uncertainty globally. High quality germ free water will cost more than gasoline soon.
2. Implement global geo-engineering to cool the planet before it becomes uninhabitable. or we run out of clean water. whichever comes first.
2. Implement global geo-engineering to cool the planet before it becomes uninhabitable. or we run out of clean water. whichever comes first.
6
I have lived through two Oregon winters here, and I feared 8 months of cloudy rainy weather. The shocking thing is these last two winters have seen an amazing amount of sun, the rain is mostly a "mist" it does not rain all day, and the winters here are incredibly enjoyable, there is always time to be outside during the winter and out of the rain. The drought here in the summer is becoming more horrific with so many fires having destroyed up to 30 homes currently.
16
I've been waiting for this. You can't watch nightly news without thinking the world seems to be in melt-down mode--quite literally. Such extremes from coast to coast.
But California seems to be getting the worst of it from natural weather cycles to exacerbation of drought by human activity.
I'm pessimistic enough to know he GOP will dismiss this recent analysis as pure bunk. But CA itself seems to recognize the significance and the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Throughout our history, CA has been at the the forefront of changes and shifts in technology, culture, and political experimentation. I expect no less with climate change.
Hopefully more Americans and their leaders will finally recognize the obvious before it's too late.
But California seems to be getting the worst of it from natural weather cycles to exacerbation of drought by human activity.
I'm pessimistic enough to know he GOP will dismiss this recent analysis as pure bunk. But CA itself seems to recognize the significance and the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Throughout our history, CA has been at the the forefront of changes and shifts in technology, culture, and political experimentation. I expect no less with climate change.
Hopefully more Americans and their leaders will finally recognize the obvious before it's too late.
37
I am visiting California now but I am not from here. I have been driving through farm country and see watering taking place in he daytime. Back home in New York, which is actually hotter than here, I know better than to water in the daytime because I know that a substantial portion of the water that I lay down will evaporate and be wasted. My sprinklers are programmed to water overnight, 8 minutes per area, which is not so much. and I have lush grounds. They can't do that here?
9
By California's historical patterns, this past drought, which should end via torrential rains caused by the current El Niño, has been relatively short and mild. Further, according to both satellite sets (RSS) and UAH), climate change has been paused for not less than 18 years and 5 months, as a result, could not have contributed to the drought which El Nino should end. If this El Nino is like others past, the rains will be extreme and there will be flooding and mudslides. I would expect then to hear how such rains and extremes are, also, worse because of climate change, which once again, hasn't exhibited itself for more than 18 years.
As even this study says "Even though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability, the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising because of climate change."
It is because of natural variability.
Then there is speculation that droughts could be worse because of "global warming" - however, there has been no projected global warming in any data set, there has been no statistically significant global warming in any data set for at least 17 years (GISS) all the way to at least 23 years (RSS).
Global warming did not speed up since the 1970's, the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) simply turned warm - more natural variation:
From Nature 2015:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb08197816970d-pi
As even this study says "Even though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability, the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising because of climate change."
It is because of natural variability.
Then there is speculation that droughts could be worse because of "global warming" - however, there has been no projected global warming in any data set, there has been no statistically significant global warming in any data set for at least 17 years (GISS) all the way to at least 23 years (RSS).
Global warming did not speed up since the 1970's, the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) simply turned warm - more natural variation:
From Nature 2015:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb08197816970d-pi
7
2000-2009 was the warmest decade in over a century. You are using cherry picked data to refute the entire body of knowledge and that is why you are wrong. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-st...
8
One chart, taken in isolation, does not an argument make.
Neither does argument from a constant commenter and denialist who makes technical arguments but has yet to list his qualifications for challenging highly trained and knowledgeable experts in the field.
Wmar has, in the past, based many of his arguments on articles in wattsupwiththat, a denialist site that is substantially financed by the fossil-fuel industry.
Neither does argument from a constant commenter and denialist who makes technical arguments but has yet to list his qualifications for challenging highly trained and knowledgeable experts in the field.
Wmar has, in the past, based many of his arguments on articles in wattsupwiththat, a denialist site that is substantially financed by the fossil-fuel industry.
10
I followed your link and looked at the graph. It shows the increase in global temperatures you deny exists. The graph indicates that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation helps hold temperatures steady when the Pacific is cold, but has not reversed the rise. Even during the cool period from 2010-2014, global temperatures remained half a degree higher than at the end of the prior cold cycle.
7
Once again California is at the forefront of our country, using top-of-the-line research and innovative responses to the effects of the climate-change magnified drought. Meanwhile the rest of the country, and in particular the head-in-the-sand politicians from the Midwest and Southeast regions, twiddle their thumbs and wait for some sort of divine intervention. As usual, the California approach will prove to be the best and other states will eventually follow its lead; the question remains, however -- how much damage will be done before the ignorant minority sees the light?
77
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) chairs the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has categorically stated: “The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful, they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.” In fact, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) brought a real snowball to the floor of the Senate to prove that the world's climate can still produce icy precipitation just outside the U.S. Capitol building.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) ought to go to somewhere in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California and find enough snow for a snowball right now, and break that snowball up -- like Jesus did with the loaves and fishes -- to produce enough water for California to stop the drought and fight its wildfires and serve its agriculture. Because if man can't change climate -- as Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) claims -- then man can reverse his own damage, either, and it's going to take a miracle.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) ought to go to somewhere in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California and find enough snow for a snowball right now, and break that snowball up -- like Jesus did with the loaves and fishes -- to produce enough water for California to stop the drought and fight its wildfires and serve its agriculture. Because if man can't change climate -- as Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) claims -- then man can reverse his own damage, either, and it's going to take a miracle.
109
Thank you so much for the spot-on comment, Mark. Inhofe's mockery and reference to the Bible as all he needs to know about the earth are a disgrace to his Title. He is also a good reminder that, even focusing on a Presidential election, we can't lose sight of returning the Senate and its chairmanships to Democrats. Best regards to you.
12
Thank you, NM. I regret only my missing 't. I get so agitated by anti-intellectualism that I sometimes hit send faster than I should. I'm always chagrined by my typos after I see them in print.
5
Mark:
Nothing enables accurate proof-reading so much as having just hit the "Send" button. It's true for all of us.
Nothing enables accurate proof-reading so much as having just hit the "Send" button. It's true for all of us.
The attitude of Republicans toward climate change is incredibly irresponsible and not "conservative" in the true sense of the word. This article makes very clear that the effects of climate change in California and the Southwest will have dire consequences for two basic, essential human needs: food and water! Not addressing this problem isn't conservative at all; it's nonsense. Pres. Obama is right to call Republicans members of the Flat Earth Society.
180
I appreciate Mr. Gillis' writing. I think he does a very good job.
The problem, Mr. Gillis, is that many Americans think that science is part of a huge conspiracy to defraud the rich while others believe that God makes all decisions (including the climate) so there's no reason for them to care about how they might be influencing climate.
In the end, for many Americans the best way to solve a terrible problem is to simply (and I emphasize the simply) denies that the problem exists.
Heck, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated most of the Voting Rights Act, leading hundreds of thousands of mostly minority citizens to lose their right to vote in the South, against the will of Congress, because according to the SCOTUS, Confederate flag-waving racism in America was mostly over. Problem solved.
The problem, Mr. Gillis, is that many Americans think that science is part of a huge conspiracy to defraud the rich while others believe that God makes all decisions (including the climate) so there's no reason for them to care about how they might be influencing climate.
In the end, for many Americans the best way to solve a terrible problem is to simply (and I emphasize the simply) denies that the problem exists.
Heck, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated most of the Voting Rights Act, leading hundreds of thousands of mostly minority citizens to lose their right to vote in the South, against the will of Congress, because according to the SCOTUS, Confederate flag-waving racism in America was mostly over. Problem solved.
148
It's not the poor that are investing big bucks in solar, wind and other alternative energy sources. Start with Ton Steyer as an example.
1
We've changed the climate,
I know, it's obscene.
In this sixth extinction
the Anthropocene.
I know, it's obscene.
In this sixth extinction
the Anthropocene.
3