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

And this is exactly what I mean. Where did I say "conspiracy"?

I did not, and never would say that. Once again, you are projecting your adversarial opinions onto me without any cause, and claiming things I never said.

But please, feel free to knock over all of the pieces and continue to scream you are right.

 

No they weren't.

I.e., they just took it.

So it's only "theirs" because government says so.

 

Why do they "need" it, other than the fact that they are used to getting it far below cost?

 

Which is where, exactly? Let's just stick to this by itself. Where exactly is that? With enough to provide for all of the needs of the people that consume those products?

And are you aware that for most of the first 100 years, California was the agricultural center of the country. It still is, but much less than it was as urban sprawl consumed the very land that used to be agriculture.

And for most of that hundred years, that is exactly what they did. But as the cities demanded more and more of their water, they piped it away from the agricultural areas and piped it to the cities.

You keep making these claims, not provide us with some answers. Where is this that you want to allow farming, as it obviously can't be where it is now. Then tell us how you are going to get what they produce to the cities. Instead of just making questions, how about providing some answers?

 

Because your claim is false; it is an excuse, not a reason.

 

Northern CA and much of WA, OR, ID, MT, and WY for starters. Or virtually the whole southeastern quadrant of the country:


https://gisgeography.com/us-precipitation-map/

By contrast, you may notice that southern CA, especially the area east and north of LA, is the driest in the country, and naturally a desert. Not rocket science.

Urbanization has occupied just a tiny fraction of CA's agricultural land base.

Because cities have higher-value uses for it.

I provide answers when I am asked questions.

You know that it's not a question of "allowing" it, but of where it makes economic sense.

You are aware, I assume, that people do manage to eat pretty well in places like Dubai, Honolulu, Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco, etc., where almost none of their food is produced domestically? How do you think they do it?

The answers should be obvious.

 

Because it is necessary to grow crops.

 

They would find they can grow crops just fine with less of it, if they had to pay for more of its value. Greenhouse agriculture is 5-10 times as productive per unit area, and uses an order of magnitude less water.

 

Sorry, but I'll trust the farmers on this.

 

No; ~200 years ago, we came out of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. It is probably cooler now than it was in the Holocene Optimum, 5000-8000 years ago.

 

They are not disinterested parties! That's like trusting Blackwater to decide on the merits of starting a war somewhere.

 

I trust them.

 

Right.

You are aware that most of Northern California is falling rapidly to urban sprawl, right? It was not all that long ago that Yuba City was the outmost suburb of Sacramento. Now, people are commuting from Oroville and Chico, and there is soon going to be a housing boom there also, right? Did you not even notice when I talked about the shrinking of the rice production in California? Where do you think most of that is grown? In the Sacramento Delta area, which is rapidly being replaced with housing.

"Northern California" indeed. Now do the math, how much is it going to take in transportation to bring fresh dairy and meat from states away or across the continent?

Let me guess, big city boy. Who has maybe at most looked at a farm as you drove past it at 70 mph on the freeway. That moving almost 2 million cattle to the other side is simplicity. And then moving the product to California in a fast and efficient manner is no harder than getting a next day delivery from Amazon.

Oh, and most of the cattle in the states you listed are actually beef cattle. There is already a lot of them there, and they provide you things like hamburgers and angus steaks. And don't forget all the french fries that come from Idaho potatoes. Replace all that land with dairy cows, now where are the potatoes, sugar beats, and soy beans going to be grown?

Probably with the same magic that sees the milk moved I assume.

BTW, there is a damned good reason why those states do not have a huge dairy industry (outside of the Willemite Valley in Oregon). Not enough water. It takes a lot more water to raise dairy cows than it does to raise beef cows. Beef is largely "free range" grown. Roughly 5 acres per head, largely let free to graze and eat on huge areas of land, with little to no irrigation or food provided. Until the fall when they are "fattened up" prior to auction and butchering time. And that is why so much beef is raised in states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. But they don't have a huge dairy industry.

You see, most of that is largely desert, being in the rain shadow they are dry climates.

The actual area to produce dairy products is rather small. Largely in coastal areas, not inland. And the farms in the South East? Guess what, they are already supporting their own megacities.

And once again, transportation. Even if special train routes were set up just to haul milk, that is 4 days with no stops from there to California. Four days, for a product with a shelf life of 7-10 days.

Tell you what, city lad. Stick to the city, and leave the agriculture to people that actually understand things like that.

 

Plenty of otherwise intelligent people are religious. Go figure that one out.

Wrong. Flat, outright wrong. There is plenty we can do to mitigate the effects of natural climate change, even to take advantage of it. That is perhaps the most harmful effect of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria: diverting attention and resources from genuine problems and solutions -- which would often involve using a lot of fossil fuels -- to ridiculous and expensive schemes that can't possibly solve a problem that exists only as a figment of their imaginations.

 

Yes, I have heard this kind of nonsense all my life from "city folks". They know it all, have all the answers, dumb country folks know nothing.

Which is why I left LA 20 years ago, and finally left the Bay Area 5 years ago, and California 2 years ago. It is like some kind of disease, where they insist they have all the answers. But can't even explain something as simple as logistics that every farmer understands. Or how many acres per head are needed to raise animals.

 

I'm aware that it isn't. Try flying over it. Look out the window. Not rocket science.

A lot less than to bring the feed or the water to grow it.

You don't know anything about me, other than the fact that I already told you I lived in a farming area. Spent 14 years there, in fact.

How about wherever it makes the most economic sense to grow them without subsidies?

No, that can't be the reason because southern CA has a lot less. The northwestern states just don't have that much subsidized water.

And I already showed you the map that shows how much more water falls on the northwestern states and northern CA than on southern CA.

Because CA's is too heavily subsidized.

Look at the freakin' rainfall map I posted a link to. Southern CA is RED. That means it is a natural desert, the DRIEST climate of all.

There is plenty of land there.

And have their own systems of distorting, inefficient subsidies. I know.

I guess you forgot: northern CA is a lot closer, and gets a lot more rainfall. For the few products with a short shelf life, that's close enough.

<yawn>

 

No, I have not forgotten. But where do you think that water goes?



And no, it really does not get all that much more rainfall. LA gets 16 inches on average per year, Sacramento a whopping 19 inches per year. The rainfall does not start to really increase until you get to the Siskiyou's and enter the Willamette Valley. Where a lot of the storm clouds can pass over the Coastal Range, then get caught on the Cascade's and drop huge amounts of rain in a valley only a few dozen miles wide and 150 miles long.

Most of the state? Is in the rain shadow of the Cascades. Arid and dry. But even there, the farmland is vanishing and being replaced by city.

I know, I live just north of the Oregon-California border. Annual rainfall, under 19 inches per year. The Rogue River Valley is almost as hot and dry as Bend. You have to get past Eugene to get where the rainfall significantly increases.

But somehow, it will just move there. But yea, I guess you did not know that California "getting more rainfall" is measured in less than a handful of inches. You have to go a hell of a lot farther north than that. Because almost all of that water is already being taken by LA.

Hell, ever heard of Oroville? Probably not, most people have not. That is well north of Sacramento, and a key feeder for the California Aqueduct.



And even farther north, you have Lake Shasta.



Guess what? Also feeding the California Aqueduct. Providing water for Southern California.

Not much more of the state after that, and what there is is largely mountains.

I guess geography is not your thing either.

 

Coastline growth is outrunning sea level rise.

Coastal Land Area Is Expanding So Fast That ‘Catastrophic’ Sea Level Rise Cannot Keep Up
By Kenneth Richard on 10. January 2022

Share this...
Contrary to what would be expected with alarmingly high sea level rise rates, shorelines across the world are expanding rather than retreating into the sea. . . .

 

To be fair, that really does not apply because it is fill.

Hell, a huge chunk of San Francisco is artificial, and built on similar fill. The same with Boston and New York.

 

Not all of it.
Amato et al., 2020

 

I was referring to your reference, not all cases.

Lagos, Salerno, and many others.

Others like Ephesus and others are from silting. Slow moving rivers dump their silt near the shore, hence the Tigris and Euphrates which in prehistoric times were two rivers are now a single river where it meets the sea. Silting of those rivers have extended the outlet into the Persian Gulf even as shorelines rose. In fact, the interesting thing about silting is that it is geologically unstable. Remove the path of the river, and the land starts to sink and no new silt is deposited.

Hence, why New Orleans and Venice are sinking.

Remember, I look at things like this primarily as a geologist. And I do not pick sides, I will point out any flaws in an argument, no matter which side. The reference I was referring to is false, because it is the same issue. Trying to attribute "expanding shoreline" with a lowering of sea level. That is simply not true, no more than the Celsius Stone is rising due to that.



That is not sea level lowering that caused a rock once submerged to now be mostly on dry land, but glacial rebound.

 

That link was in the reference

 

Does not matter, because it was largely making completely false claims. When the evidence was Lagos, Salerno and Ephesus, the evidence is pointless because I know it is either wrong, or being taken out of context.

Oh, and an abstract that says nothing about that at all and the research itself is hidden behind a paywall? That is meaningless. It could say the exact opposite, who would know? I am certainly not joining to see if it is correctly cited or not.

Hell, the same "article" also screams that "sea levels have dropped 2-3 meters in the last 1,000 years". This is blatant bullshit, and I would seriously stop going to such a site unless you simply want a good laugh.

The fact is, the last time sea levels dropped was during the last ice age. Even during the Little Ice Age, they continued to rise, just more slowly. Because that climate effect was not global but regional, primarily to Europe and North America, and had little effect on the rest of the planet.

 

And Ephesus? Once a port, and now 9 kilometers from the sea.


Image Source: ephesus.us and David Noel, Australia

 

Already stated.

Silting was a common problem in harbors of the era. Most of the ancient Roman ports were moved because of it.

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01099871/document

The reason why the port in Judea of Caesarea Maritima was completely rebuilt in the time of Herod the Great is that the port that had been there previously had silted up. But this time thanks to the use of Roman Cement and more advanced studies first it was placed in a way that most of the silt continued out to sea. However, it was not perfect, and it still silted up within a thousand years (unlike 200-300 years as most ports).

The moment somebody tries to claim that Ephesus is inland because the seas lowered, they obviously know nothing about geology. Silting was something the Romans knew about, and battled during their entire Republic and Empire. The cost did not "retreat", it advanced because of silting.

Please, try giving a reference that uses real science, not junk science. "NoTrickZone" is a garbage pseudo-science web site, and should not be taken seriously at all. You know my stance on "AGW", but fishing in garbage sites like that just because you agree with it is no better than those that scream at me to "read the paper" or post similar things from the other side. Seek the truth and factual information, not garbage just because you want to believe it.

But please, feel free to show me some actual scientific reports from geologists that will admit that Ephesus did indeed appear to move inland because the sea level dropped. And not because of silting, which was a constant problem for the Romans and other sea faring cultures of the era.