Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

They are not rebuilding them. Interesting, I read through your reference, it said not a damned thing about replacing them, they are just being destroyed. So please tell us, what ever gave you the idea they are being "rebuilt"?

And I wonder what the thought is going to be when the El Niño returns and the area sees massive flooding again. You know, the kind of flooding that many of those dams were built to prevent? I bet that once again gets blamed on "global warming".

 

You and I have talked long and hard on these issues over the years and you know I am solidly embedded in the science supporting global warming though I will confess that often these days instead of trawling through paper after paper on the subject I have a tendency to tell people to go read the IPCC reports after all disagreeing with someone on the internet is not going to change what is happening in the world when those reports are what governments are using to set policy.

Climate is changing and it is our ecology that is suffering most. Australia will recover from its “year of fire” but only if it is allowed to. Same as California - it needs recovery

 

No but look at that price tag it is costing and you have to wonder what made people give up that much money? As I said I think we have to rebuild water storage but do so in an innovative way. Perhaps the answer lies in not large dams but smaller weirs along the length of the rivers

 

Fine, then kill all of the people, and remove all the agriculture.

But that still will not help, the climate has been warming for thousands of years.

 

((((((((Sigh)))))))

You are waaaaay too intelligent for this. Do yourself a favour read the latest summary reports and consider - if it is anthropogenic we can do domething about it or at least mitigate it but if it NOT anthropogenic we can do bugger all about it and billions may be affected by this

 

If it is, I still look at the deforestation as the main cause of increased CO2. You can pump out as much CO2 as you want, it is literally "plant food", and they will absorb all they can and grow faster. We have had times in the past with many times more CO2, and life (especially plants) flourished.

But acting like it is "unnatural" is just silly. Scientific instruments were developed in the 1600-1800s, during the "Little Ice Age". Strange, how our "record" starts in the coldest period in over 10,000 years and that is considered the "norm". Which by the way followed the "Medieval Warm Period", which was warmer than it is today.

You can shove all the reports you want, if they do not mesh with geological records and can not explain themselves, it is silly speculation that is starting with a belief and doing all it can to try and follow something that is unrelated. I can also show you reports that say the Earth is flat (and prove it), that oil came from dinosaurs, and all kinds of silly things. However, I have been hearing these kinds of statements now for over 50 years, and seen them reverse themselves so often that to me it is a classic case of chasing the data. They have already in their minds "found the cause", and are doing all they can to make the facts fit their belief. And if the evidence shows the hypothesis is wrong, they just change the claim a bit and continue with the exact same cause as before.

Global Cooling! Global Warming! Climate Change! No Ice Caps in 20 years! 50 years! 75 years! Animals extinct! I love the last, as if somebody really believes in science and Darwinism that is actually the natural order of things, creatures go extinct all the time (especially when the climate changes). It makes me wonder if Neanderthal had doomsday screamers yelling at his people in the Dogger Bank to stop making their fires, or their home would someday be underwater. Or is during the Little Ice Age some were screaming to burn more wood and coal to make things warm again so the Thames will stop freezing over.

BTW, are you aware that the Thames actually used to freeze over constantly? As did the Potomac River in the US. But the last recorded time of the Thames freezing over was back in 1814.

 

I get it that there has been warming in the past and in fact there are chapters within the IPCC reports outlining this and in fact there Is a whole field of science studying past climate change - it is called Paleoclimatology. And this is where I truly despair. When people only rely on right wing talking points (yes you are sounding like a Fox “news” host) and don’t bother going to the original documents themselves to read what is really there. Honestly most deniers act as though the IPCC reports are written in fire and brimstone by Satan himself

This is one of the early reports https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07-1.pdf

 

Not held up as the last word, only held up as a word. That is only a problem for those who fear discussion of the data.

 

Here in Florida, its not a matter of when it happens, because its already happening, and not even Republicans can deny it when the streets flood. DeSantis was announced a massive spending bill to raise seawalls is critical places, and then he was embarrassed when people hailed his as climate change warrior. It is what it it. Its not the end of the world, and some measures can be taken to combat the problem.

 

And this is exactly what I absolutely detest about most who try to cram their beliefs down my throat.

You see, I am not political at all. I am what some even call a "militant moderate", and I find great disgust at any who try to assign and force some political label on me. Because I find more often than not it is really about their politics, and having to see anybody who does not agree with them as "the enemy".

And it is really funny, as there have been a great many times where somebody will scream I am a "Fascist" in a thread, and on the exact same page another is screaming at me that I am a Communist. It really has nothing about me or my views, it is all about how they see me in relationship to their beliefs. And anybody that dares to not agree with them must be "the enemy".

Hence, why I generally ignore your comments, and demands that I "read the data". It is like telling me I should "read the Bible", because obviously once I read it I will be struck from a bolt from the skies and become a "true believer" in the "Religion of Climatology". You are like almost every Marxist or Libertarian I meet, that once exposed to "the truth", I can not help but become a convert to your own beliefs.

But if you notice, I do not spend (ie: waste) time trying to convince people of anything. I present data, most times with actual neutral sites to conform what I say. Then have the respect to back off and let the individual make up their own minds for themselves. You, you insist on bashing people over the head repeatedly with "the report", like it is a Holy Book and I will be cleansed of my foul beliefs and convert to The One Way.

And do you honestly think I have not read it? And many other things? As I said so clearly, I reject it because it is sloppy science in the extreme. It starts with the assumption "Humans cause global warming", then does all it can to try and prove that belief. And if some data does not fit their needs, they actually "correct" it. And if the climate suddenly cools again for a few years or the "killer storms", "droughts" and "mass deaths" do not happen, why they change the data some more and simply say that the climate change is so complex that they can not model it accurately. Because of the change, of course.

But your suddenly screaming about "right wing" and "Fox news" just goes to show how far into this you are, and that obviously anybody not in agreement with you must be "Right Wing", and therefore "the enemy". Rejecting anything they say as apostasy because it is not in keeping with the "True Faith of the IPCC".

To be honest, after watching this go on for over 40 years, to me it has become little more than mental masturbation in exchange for grant money. Although some have found ways to actually become rich off of it. And in seeing that so many who scream about this are also fawning over the likes of Elron Musk, it is not all that surprising to be honest.

 

Only about 10% of CA's water use is considered "urban." ~40% is agricultural. Almost all the rest is considered, "environmental," which includes maintaining scenic lakes and rivers and preventing intrusion of salt water into fresh water areas.

 

Well yeah, no duh.

When your highest point is on the Alabama border in the Panhandle at a whopping 345 feet, of course you are going to flood. Where most of the state is only a few meters above sea level and in water saturated ground, any even moderate storm surge or high rainfall (which Florida gets all the time) is going to cause floods.

That is just common sense. Just as when it rains in the deserts (Arizona, West Texas, Mojave Desert) it is going to flood also. And turn off the pumps at NO and it will flood, because of subsidence a lot of that city is actually below sea level and will flood without them.

 

But that "40%" has changed over the decades. In acre feet, it is lower because the volume of water extracted form the environment has increased, while the cities take more. And agriculture has shifted increasingly away from water intensive crops to ones that consume less water. That 10% was once less than 5%, and agricultural was the 50%. What they did was rob the water from agriculture, shift it to residential, and took a piece from the environmental.

If anybody looks, a lot of the agriculture is now out of state. For example, many do not realize that much of California now imports milk. Yep, California imports milk in many areas. In the last 20 years over half of the dairies have shut down, and half of the rest of the output is already contracted to the cheese industry. Many are predicting that within another 20 years most of California dairy products will be imported, other than cheese.

And a few years ago, after more than a century California lost the crown of "Largest Rice Producing State". California was once a powerhouse in the rice industry, now it produces less than half of Arkansas. Because more and more of the farmland (primarily Sacramento and North) is becoming houses. I have watched the sprawl of the big cities in that state for decades. And that all by itself is an environmental issue that nobody ever talks about for some strange reason.

 

It doesn't have to be so heavily subsidized. Some CA crops -- especially pasture and alfalfa for animal feed -- use stupendous amounts of water far out of proportion to the value of the crop:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/artic...the-california-crops-that-use-the-most-water/

Often a different crop that uses a lot less water would be more profitable if the water were not so heavily subsidized.

 

The think makes the link superfluous. You just never want to do the think.

 

Fair enough. I grew up working on farms and I never begrudge farmers their water.

 

Well, since you obviously can't do the think, here:

"Saltwater intrusion of this aquifer began when the Everglades were drained to provide dry land for urban development and agriculture. The reduction in water levels caused by this drainage, combined with periodic droughts, allowed saltwater to flow inland along the base of the aquifer and to seep directly into the aquifer from the canals."

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20145025

OTOH, AGW nonscience claims that one inch of sea level rise will somehow contaminate groundwater from above, while reducing groundwater levels by hundreds of feet in areas of porous geology near the ocean has somehow not sucked in seawater from below.

 

OK, and now tell me some figures for actually importing that feed.

Here is the thing about most animal feed. It is not very heavy, but it is very bulky. And also perishable. And with millions of head of livestock of various kinds, they have to eat something.

So what, we outlaw all kinds of farm animals? Because that is the only way you are going to get rid of that demand.

Or do we import the feed? Just try looking at the cost and impact of that.

To feed a single cow, that is over 4 tons of fresh fodder per year. A full Hay Carrier is literally enough feed to feed 4-5 cows for a year. Now do the math, how many loads of fodder are going to have to be imported to the state? By how many trucks per day?

And people scream at me that *I* do not think about the environment!

Pasture and alfalfa are needed to feed the livestock. The majority actually never leaves the county it is grown in. Because it is a bulky product, and does not travel well. And as I already stated, it is perishable.

I can only guess that you have never actually lived in an agricultural area. And maybe even that people should stop hunting, and instead get all their meat from stores. Which obtain them from farms that do not kill animals. Here is the funny part, I actually am in most ways a "country boy", and have actually written extensively about things like this. The destruction of the environment, the sprawling megacities and how they are choking the environment. And how the "city folk" just often appear to be rudely arrogant (not an accusation - but in my story it was accurate) because they do not know anything about agriculture but assume they can fix it because they are "smart people from The City".

In fact, one of the main focus later on in one story was the efforts one person takes to save an almost no-name river from being "urbanized", by buying the last mile or two before the outlet in order to prevent it from being "improved" in the way that California "improves" their rivers.

I think what confuses a great many in these discussions is that I am an "old school Conservationist". I am not political, and detest when people try to play political games with the environment. Seeing a state like California frack up their state by the numbers for a century, then having the gall to go to other states and try to scream at them how to take care of their own state. It is a kind of rude arrogance that makes California PNGs in many areas of the North-West.

But yes, it is subsidized. It is the only way they can survive, and the only way to get affordable meat, dairy, and produce to the cities. Do you know how many dairies operate in LA county? I can tell you, it is four. Yep, four dairies provide milk, eggs, and other goods to over 10 million people. So of course that is not enough, most of it is now imported. Much of the dairy needs of Northern California now come from Nevada and Oregon. How much CO2 and resources is that taking, to import dairy products to what was once the Dairy Capitol of the Country?

I see this, and it is only getting worse. Several dairies I knew in the LA area in the 1980's were sold off decades ago and are now housing projects. But people refuse to look at themselves, and ask "What am *I* doing about this?" Instead, they point fingers at everybody else, and pass the buck.

 

"Their" water? Water that falls on their land from the sky is their water. What makes water from elsewhere, often hundreds of miles away, "their" water other than government fiat and other people's tax dollars?

 

How about "the water they need?"

 

And part of the irony is that I was stationed for years on what is the last remaining salt marsh in Southern California.

Most of the coast from Los Angeles to San Diego was once salt marsh where it was not high cliffs. And over the decades, more and more of it was "reclaimed", and turned into beach front communities like Venice, Huntington Beach, Oceanside, etc. Until all that is left is now is about half of the 8 square mile Seal Beach Naval Weapon Station. And developers have been wanting to get their hands on it for decades.

However, they can't touch it because it is a National Wildlife Refuge. And a White Elephant the Navy is stuck with, as their mission vanished 3 decades ago but they can't get rid of the land. And that little spot actually has its own ecosystem, with predators (mostly owls and fox), as well as prey (hares) and other animals (badgers, possums, etc) living there in a small square surrounded by urban sprawl. And so far the Navy has resisted all attempts by others to come in and "monitor" and "take care of" a base they have been doing just fine with for 80 years.

And I always find it funny that most city folks have no idea what an "aquifer" really is. Or how capping a huge area with urban sprawl affects it, not even counting the water pumped out of it to support that city.

 

Most of them were there long before the cities. In fact, most of the aqueduct in California was built on top of old canals they dug to provide water to their crops in the first place. And part of the agreement in signing them over was the agreement that they could still pull water from it.

 

(((((Sigh))))

You know it would actually take less time to read the summary report than it would to go online each and every time to search out the relevant research yourself with the added bonus that when you get the inevitable drivel thrown back in your face after soending 2-3 hours on research it does not annoy so badly..

I tire of accusations of “hysteria” or the conspiracy theories about scientists “making things up” whilst some idiot they found on a blog somewhere who has invented the “statistics” is held as the saviour

Honestly sometimes it is like playing chess with pigeons

 

Why not raise the animals where the water is available naturally?

What are they doing there? Why aren't they being raised where water is available?

Strawman.

Just don't subsidize it so much.

Just import the desired consumer products, like anyone else.

None, if the cow lives where cows would survive naturally on the available water.

Why do the livestock have to be there?

Wrong. But water was only a problem in my farming area when there was too much of it.

Nothing wrong with hunting. There is a certain sustainable natural yield of wilderness areas that will allow the predators to survive.

You are aware, I assume, that people can afford to eat meat, dairy and produce in cities that are hundreds or thousands of miles from the places where those things are produced? I often see such items from New Zealand, Chile, the Philippines, etc. in local stores.

A lot less than it would take to import the feed, or the water to grow it.

And I don't happen to think CO2 is a problem, because it isn't.

 

Again - why bother with even that much when he has been shown time and again to invent the data he is presenting