Climate change

[CLOUD 500]

Your post explain causes of drought in California but doesn't concern much climate changes.

The post explains facts vs fiction instead of the far-left's need to create climate alarmism to push their twisted agenda like a carbon tax.

Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

There is no scientific basis for the claim that climate change will be apocalyptic, but there is growing evidence that climate alarmism is contributing to rising anxiety and depression among teenagers.

www.forbes.com

^^^^^ Great article on this subject.

 

[Womaniser]

The post explains facts vs fiction instead of the far-left's need to create climate alarmism to push their twisted agenda like a carbon tax.

Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

There is no scientific basis for the claim that climate change will be apocalyptic, but there is growing evidence that climate alarmism is contributing to rising anxiety and depression among teenagers.

www.forbes.com

^^^^^ Great article on this subject.

Your reference is from 2019.
Since then, much water as passed under bridges and often over them !

 

[CaptRenault]

This Wall Street Journal editorial does a good job of explaining how environmentalists (the same people who are pushing climate change alarmism) have prevented California from dealing properly with its water problems.

As usual, government causes a huge problem (in this case, neglecting to build the infrastructure to deal with droughts and winter rains) and then blames some other reason for the problem and imposes an expensive solution that does nothing to solve the problem (everybody must drive electric cars!!).

Opinion | Water Is a Terrible Thing for California to Waste

The Golden State hasn’t built the storage to make use of winter rains.

www.wsj.com

California’s political leaders are obsessed with climate, so why don’t they prepare for droughts or deluges? The atmospheric rivers that are sweeping the parched Golden State should be a cause for relief, but they’ve instead given way to catastrophic floods and enormous water waste.

Scientists last fall forecast another warm and dry winter following three of California’s driest years on record. Yet storms this winter have already dropped tens of trillions of gallons of water across the state and more than a dozen feet of snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Alas, little of the storm runoff is getting captured.

***​

One problem is the state’s lack of investment in public works, especially storage and flood control. Drought has recurred throughout California history, punctuated by wet winters like this one. Two seven-year droughts that started in the late 1920s and 1940s spurred the construction of a massive system of canals, dams and reservoirs.

But few large water projects have been built since the birth of the modern environmental movement in the 1970s. Species protections for salmon and the three-inch smelt limit how much water can be pumped south through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which receives runoff from rivers in the North and the Sierra mountains.

---

The amount of water surging into the Delta on Friday could have filled a reservoir the size of Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy almost every 24 hours. Instead, nearly 95% of the Delta’s storm water this year has flushed into the Pacific Ocean. Such waste occurs whenever there’s a deluge and is why some reservoirs south of the Delta remain low despite the storms.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown wanted to build massive tunnels under the Delta that can export more water to farmers in the fertile Central Valley and cities in Southern California. But environmentalists oppose this idea as they do expanding water storage.

More reservoirs are desperately needed in the North to capture melting snowpack that would otherwise drain into the Pacific or overflow river banks. Reservoirs store runoff and help prevent flooding. Most reservoirs in the North are now above historical average levels so they may have to release water this spring to avoid overflowing.

State voters have approved eight water bonds since 2000 that authorize some $27 billion in funding for various water projects, but little of the money has gone to storage or flood control. That’s because politicians buy off green support for water bonds by promising to spend a large share of their proceeds on ecosystem restoration.

Only $2.7 billion of a $7.5 billion water bond that voters approved in 2014 was allocated for storage. None of the seven storage projects selected by the state for funding has begun construction. Blame in part a government permitting morass. Most aren’t expected to be completed until the end of this decade, assuming they aren’t marooned by lawsuits.

Voters support water bond measures because they think the money will be spent on drought preparation. But it never is. Liberals use droughts and floods to campaign for water bonds that end up funding pet environmental causes. Rinse and repeat. Mr. Newsom last week floated another bond measure for water projects and wildfire mitigation.

If water projects are a political priority, why not finance them with general tax revenue as the state does climate programs like electric-vehicle subsidies? Perhaps because borrowing for water projects allows the government to spend more on other things. As a result, taxpayers wind up paying more for debt service.

Californians are also having to pay much more for water owing to restricted supply. Central Valley farmers and Southern Californians have been slammed by rising water rates. The Nasdaq Veles California Water Index, which tracks the spot price for water in the state, has more than quadrupled over the past three years.

Some local water districts have invested in desalination and wastewater reclamation, but these are expensive. The state is also paying farmers up to $2.5 million to leave fields fallow. About 531,000 acres were left unplanted last year. That’s one reason California’s Central Valley boasts five of the 10 metro areas with the highest unemployment rates in the country.

***​

California’s problems never stay in California. Its profligate water policies are straining the overburdened Colorado River, which supplies six other states and California. Recent storms aren’t expected to bolster the Colorado, and federal officials are threatening to restrict supply for all seven states if they don’t reach an agreement to curb usage by the end of this month.

California has a dry climate long marked by drought. But its failure to plan for water storage and delivery during the wet periods is one more failure of the state’s government and its misguided political priorities.

 

[CaptRenault]

In the words of failed presidential candidate John Kerry, "a select group of human beings" has gathered in Switzerland at the World Economic Forum to save the planet...or something. Among this group of select humans was another failed presidential candidate, Al Gore (AKA Fat Albert ). Gore lost his cool and went on an embarrassing rant about "climate change"...or something.

 

[Jazzman1218]

In the words of failed presidential candidate John Kerry, "a select group of human beings" has gathered in Switzerland at the World Economic Forum to save the planet...or something. Among this group of select humans was another failed presidential candidate, Al Gore (AKA Fat Albert ). Gore lost his cool and went on an embarrassing rant about "climate change"...or something.

Deny the science and mock the climate activists all you want, but your opinions are in the minority. Nearly all climate scientists agree that the planet is dangerously warming due to man-made activities, and 3 out of 4 adults worldwide are worried about climate change.

 

[CaptRenault]

...your opinions are in the minority. Nearly all climate scientists agree that the planet is dangerously warming due to man-made activities, and 3 out of 4 adults worldwide are worried about climate change.

All of my opinions about everything are in the minority. That is a posture that has served me well on many occasions.

 

[Jazzman1218]

All of my opinions about everything are in the minority. That is a posture that has served me well on many occasions.

Right. I'm sure you think that has served you well. Good luck with all of that.

 

[CaptRenault]

Even the LA Times admits, as in this article, that environmentalists are largely to blame for California's water problems.

In order to protect obscure, tiny fish ("delta smelt") environmentalists have prevented the state from building the infrastructure of dams and reservoirs that is necessary to supply water in an environment whose climate has alternated between drought and floods for thousands of years.

Even ultra liberal, pretty boy Governor Gavin Newsom has realized that switching to electric cars, windmills and solar panels will not solve California's water problems which have existed long before anyone ever uttered the phrase "climate change."

Environmental rules stoke anger as California lets precious stormwater wash out to sea

About 95% of the water that flowed into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in the first two weeks of January ended up in the Pacific Ocean. Here's why.

www.latimes.com

Environmental rules designed to protect imperiled fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta have ignited anger among a group of bipartisan lawmakers, who say too much of California’s stormwater is being washed out to sea instead of being pumped to reservoirs and aqueducts.

In a series of strongly worded letters, nearly a dozen legislators — many from drought-starved agriculture regions of the Central Valley —have implored state and federal officials to relax environmental pumping restrictions that are limiting the amount of water captured from the delta.

“When Mother Nature blesses us with rain, we need to save the water, instead of dumping it into the ocean,” Assemblymember Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) wrote in a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Since the beginning of January, a series of atmospheric rivers has disgorged trillions of gallons of much-needed moisture across drought-stricken California, but only a small fraction of that water has so far made it into storage. In the delta — the heart of the state’s vast water system — nearly 95% of incoming water has flowed into the Pacific Ocean, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

The calls by lawmakers have reignited a long-simmering debate over where — and to whom — the state’s precious water supplies should go...

 

[Womaniser]

Even the LA Times admits, as in this article, that environmentalists are largely to blame for California's water problems.

In order to protect obscure, tiny fish ("delta smelt") environmentalists have prevented the state from building the infrastructure of dams and reservoirs that is necessary to supply water in an environment whose climate has alternated between drought and floods for thousands of years.

Even ultra liberal, pretty boy Governor Gavin Newsom has realized that switching to electric cars, windmills and solar panels will not solve California's water problems which have existed long before anyone ever uttered the phrase "climate change."

Environmental rules stoke anger as California lets precious stormwater wash out to sea

About 95% of the water that flowed into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in the first two weeks of January ended up in the Pacific Ocean. Here's why.

www.latimes.com

Did you read the latimes article ? It shows differents opinions between politicians and scientists.
If you need a heart surgery, would you trust a politician or a heart surgeon to make it ?

 

[CLOUD 500]

Did you read the latimes article ? It shows differents opinions between politicians and scientists.
If you need a heart surgery, would you trust a politician or a heart surgeon to make it ?

The thing is the scientist can be bought (usually by the government to push their political agenda). So the right question is do you follow the scientist or the science? Two very different things.

Doctors also are trained to push pills instead of treatments that can be solved without the use of pills. Pharma industry want to make money. Issue is the government has too much power and are too involved in everything.

 

[CaptRenault]

Her's another good article, this one from Reason.com, that explains how climate change fanatics use weather phenomena (such as the recent rain storms in CA) to back up their claims that Americans must abandon their way of life and surrender power and control to them.

California has always had problems managing water. Virtually the whole populated part of the state is a desert that only receives significant rain in huge amounts from unpredictable, unreliable storms.

The challenge is to manage the floods that inevitably result and to store the excess water for future use during dry periods. These problems are not caused by humans driving ICE-powered cars and using gas burning stoves and they will not be solved by humans completely changing their lifestyles to agree with the diktats of Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and John Kerry and the rest of the climate change despots.

California's floods another reminder of failed water management policies

The latest environmentalist fad is to ban gas stoves, with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission now doing a study on their ill effects (and a

reason.com

The latest environmentalist fad is to ban gas stoves, with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission now doing a study on their ill effects (and a commissioner saying a ban on their import and manufacture is on the table). The agency's rationale is that such stoves degrade indoor air quality. The pushback has been severe given that any self-respecting cook would rather heat up a frozen dinner in the microwave than pan-fry dinner on an electric burner.

Gas banners have touted studies showing that gas cooking exacerbates asthma—although a properly vented stove hood minimizes the risk. The main push behind this moral panic comes from climate-change worriers, who are intent on reducing the nation's carbon footprint. Some cities already are imposing moratoriums on natural gas.

What does this have to do with today's topic of water policy? One gets a sneaking suspicion that with any resource issue the environmental up-lifters are more interested in disrupting our lifestyles than solving actual environmental issues. The real climate threat comes from developing nations—not high-end gas stoves in suburban American households.

Likewise, some targeted investments could solve the state's water issues—by bolstering our water-storage capabilities, building desalination facilities, recycling water, improving groundwater recharge basins, and promoting water trading. California now faces a budget deficit, but last year we had a $97.5-billion surplus. A small portion could have fixed the problem for decades.

Instead, many California environmentalists prefer water rationing—with the goal of forcing us to use much less water even though we've vastly reduced our per-capita water usage. Conservation is good, but the end goal should be assuring plenty of water for our homes and businesses rather than forcing the public to do penance. Am I the only one who thinks our policymakers want us to suffer?

California has endured weeks of pounding rain, with 90 percent of the population facing a flood watch. Here in the low-lying Sacramento area, rising waters and bursting levees have washed out roads, destroyed homes, and taken lives. My community has at times become an island, with flooded roadways cutting access to town. We've lost electricity and were required to evacuate.

Many pundits blame climate change. Yet flooding is nothing new in the Golden State. During the great flood of 1862, historical reports say that a lake 300 miles long and 20 miles wide formed in the Central Valley. Gov. Leland Stanford rowed his own boat to his inauguration. Environmentalists love catastrophe—and they predict that the state is at risk of another similar flood.

Just months ago, as we suffered through another grueling drought, some environmentalists claimed we were entering a mega-drought that could last a century and turn the entire West into a dust bowl. They should make up their mind.

Drought or floods, excessive heat or cold—it's all climate change to them, even though Mother Nature has brought varying weather patterns since, well, forever. I'm not denying that we're facing a changing climate, but the doomsayers seem a bit too eager to use the latest weather event to justify their goals of changing the way we live.

The key reason California has yet to experience another 1862-style flood is obvious: In the 20th century, California dammed its major rivers, built giant dams, reservoirs, and a system of canals. They turned the state into a giant plumbing project. The State Water Project and Central Valley Project didn't only provide water for a then-growing population, but served as massive flood-control projects.

That's resulted in some environmental problems, but it's allowed nearly 40 million people to live here. Our water systems are engineering marvels, even if the state hasn't maintained them or expanded them to accommodate a doubled population. The obvious answer is to build upon a previous generation's legacy rather than hector us into using less water (when it's dry) or accepting floods (when it's wet).

Despite the recent atmospheric river, most of California still is officially experiencing drought conditions. The reservoirs are filling up, yet they remain below historical averages. It takes a long time to plan water infrastructure, navigate the environmental-impact hurdles, and build it. Unfortunately, if the recent past is a guide our state's leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the rains, do little or nothing, and then bloviate about climate change after the next drought takes hold.

Meanwhile, environmentalists will do what they always do: warn us about catastrophe and prepare us to endure years of unpleasantness. CNN quoted climate scientist Peter Gleick: "We have to let our rivers flow differently, and let the rivers flood a little more and recharge our groundwater in wet seasons. Instead of thinking we can control all floods, we have to learn to live with them."

So just get used to the evacuations. Or get used to rationing water. And you better give up those gas stoves and gas-powered lawn equipment or whatever. To some of us, these are solvable problems, but to others they're the latest excuse to make us miserable.

 

[Jazzman1218]

Her's another good article, this one from Reason.com, that explains how climate change fanatics use weather phenomena (such as the recent rain storms in CA) to back up their claims that Americans must abandon their way of life and surrender power and control to them.

California has always had problems managing water. Virtually the whole populated part of the state is a desert that only receives significant rain in huge amounts from unpredictable, unreliable storms.

The challenge is to manage the floods that inevitably result and to store the excess water for future use during dry periods. These problems are not caused by humans driving ICE-powered cars and using gas burning stoves and they will not be solved by humans completely changing their lifestyles to agree with the diktats of Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and John Kerry and the rest of the climate change despots.

California's floods another reminder of failed water management policies

The latest environmentalist fad is to ban gas stoves, with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission now doing a study on their ill effects (and a

reason.com

This is an opinion piece written by Steven Greenhut who is a well-known, right-wing political activist. He is welcome to his opinions, but he appears to have an anti-climate change and anti-government agenda.

 

[CaptRenault]

When I fuck up at work these days, I just blame it on climate change. My woke boss automatically accepts that excuse.

 

[CLOUD 500]

More madness from the far-left. Totally misguided people. The Biden administration plans to take drastic steps and will cut drastically the amount of pollution a car produced by 2032. In layman terms that means it will force car manufacturers to produce way more EV cars then gas powered ones even if they are less profitable and not the ideal choice for most customers. The reality is an electric car only is effective to reduce emissions if the electric grid it recharges from is produced from renewable resources. It also takes much longer to charge a EV car then to refill a gas one. There just is not enough network to support recharging all these cars. What the effect will be, the amount of gas powered cars available will be greatly reduced driving up the costs big time for both gas powered and EV cars (since the mineral required for the batteries are metals not widely available and will probably create a shortage of EV cars). For most people, EV cars cannot work. Unless you live in a big house (something the far-left is trying to wipe out with their population increasing policy, they want people to live in little condos) and you drive a short distance, an EV will not serve you well. These policies will make affording a car out of reach for the average joe. Lets face it, using public transit it not always ideal especially when you have a family of kids.

Hold on tight to your gas-powered car

The Biden administration wants to tighten car-pollution rules to dramatically speed the adoption of electrics. It's okay to resist.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[minutemenX]

More madness from the far-left.

 

[sene5hos]

Next five years set to be hottest period ever: UN

There is a two-thirds chance that at least one of the next five years will see global temperatures exceed the more ambitious target set out in the Paris accords on limiting climate change, the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[nothinghere]

Ahh yes the Sun is acting up again.
Heading into another unpredictable solar maximum.

Solar Cycle 25 Is Here. NASA, NOAA Scientists Explain ...NASA (.gov)https://www.nasa.gov › press-release › solar-cycle-25-i...

Solar Cycle Progression - Space Weather Prediction CenterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

During the last solar minimum 5 or so years ago they changed "global warming" to "climate change". I wonder why?
I think heading into the coming solar maximum it will again be called "global warming" again hehe

But the UN says solar cycles, ahh...the sun's activity, have negligible effect on climate.
Probably cause they can't apply taxation to the sun.

Apparently the Sun did affect climate disastrously a few hundred years ago.
But that was outdated science.

Maunder MinimumWikipediahttps

The Chill of Solar Minimum | Spaceweather.comspaceweatherarchive

Also interesting is that variations in Ultraviolet/infrared ratio from solar cycles can drastically alter weather.
This is well documented but not for the present public agenda.

Sunspots appear when Sun ramps up in activity.
Maybe UN could tax us based on monthly average sunspot count?
Obviously I am joking but making a point.

What about water vapour?Climate Change Connectionhttps

But these days with government funded science who knows.
"Follow the science" then get taxed or vaxxed.

 

[CLOUD 500]

More climate alarmism pushed by the far-left. They make people stupid with climate change propaganda so they can increase taxes. One thing is certain, your taxes will go up.

 

[minutemenX]

More climate alarmism pushed by the far-left. They make people stupid with climate change propaganda so they can increase taxes. One thing is certain, your taxes will go up.

I have already posted this but I am doing it again as I love it:

 

[nothinghere]

Interesting in 1970's they had different issues.

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be - Scientific American

I am Suspicious Scientific American, an outstanding publication, has some whiffs of leftism in their writing.
They even referenced Fox news haha.

Also interesting below.

Science News

According to article thankfully India and China spewing out sulphates and particulate matter into the atmosphere to offset carbon dioxide warming?
Sun blocking dust from Volcanos helps cooling too, a little more CO2 might be a good safety buffer for future volcanos? Hehe
Be sure references to global cooling will eventually be scrubbed from internet access.

The UN even had their own Greta Thumberg way back. But there was no warming yet.

Severn Cullis-Suzuki speaking at Rio in 1992