California is drying out

There are 49 other state, each capable of growing lettuce. The other states may not be able to do it as cheaply without using the slave labor pool California uses, but the world will continue on with plenty of fresh fruit and veg if California drops into the ocean.

 

The pollution in your picture is NOT CO2. CO2 emissions cannot be seen. So I hardly think it qualifies as the "potential of this CO2 trend".

And I can't remember ever seeing where anyone denied that CO2 concentrations were increasing.

 

It's difficult for me to understand people who cant grasp the concept that CO2 is NOT a pollutant and that it's a plant nutrient. CO2 is as important to all life on earth as is oxygen. Without CO2 we wouldn't be here. The more CO2 the faster and healthier plant life grows. more food crops.. faster habitat recovery. etc.

Yes I do think we can do better.. could you imagine how much better this planet would be if we spent all the billions and billions that was used for CO2 and used it to actually go after real environmental problems? habitat reclamation, cleaning up lakes and rivers, creating new nature preserves, parks, and habitats?

 

thats a picture of the bay bridge toll plaza on the oakland side looking towards san fran on a foggy day.with very little smog on foggy days because of the breezes

- - - Updated - - -

thatsa picture of the bay bridge toll plaza on the oakland side looking towards san fran on a foggy day.with very little smog on foggy days because of the breezes

 

July 19, 1994
BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

The evidence for the big droughts comes from an analysis of the trunks of trees that grew in the dry beds of lakes, swamps and rivers in and adjacent to the Sierra Nevada, but died when the droughts ended and the water levels rose. Immersion in water has preserved the trunks over the centuries.

Dr. Scott Stine, a paleoclimatologist at California State University at Hayward, used radiocarbon dating techniques to determine the age of the trees’ outermost annual growth rings, thereby establishing the ends of drought periods. He then calculated the lengths of the preceding dry spells by counting the rings in each stump.

Severe Ancient Droughts: A Warning to California – New York Times

 

Let's see:
More daily high temperatures.
More intense precipitation.
More heatwaves.

Not more hurricanes etc.

It's all a matter of where you look.

And in the meantime the glaciers melt, the oceans rise, the sea becomes more acidic and stores more solar energy and the last 4 decades saw the average temperatures rise above the previous ones and partially drought driven conditions help precipitate conflict and refugees in the ME and much of the west turns into a tender box - just so we don't forget where the important markers are.

Here is a summary of the IPCC Report on extreme climate events and their relative assessment and meaning.
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf

 

And just in case you are shilled into the "no big deal" posturing of the denialists you might want to check this out. The IPCC specializes in low balling or appearing to.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/27/2691471/ipcc-report-warming-extreme-weather/

 

California is drying out

So what, whose fault is it?

 

Then there is something that there is little public awareness, "solar dimming"...50% of the soot and dust over California originates in asia, this dimming is connected to decreased evaporation and more frequent and intense droughts...so while the planet is getting warmer it's also getting drier...in tests over the indian ocean scientists expected to find .5 to 1% reduction in sunlight they were stunned to discover a 10% reduction....how much is the dimming effect masking actual warming by co2 emissions?...

 

Normally I don't reply to diatribes but if CA drops into the ocean, you can kiss the USA goodbye for many decades...

 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2. The main sources of CO2 emissions in the United States are described below.

Electricity. Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 38% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 32% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas.

•Transportation. The combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods is the second largest source of CO2 emissions, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. This category includes transportation sources such as highway vehicles, air travel, marine transportation, and rail.

•Industry. Many industrial processes emit CO2 through fossil fuel combustion. Several processes also produce CO2 emissions through chemical reactions that do not involve combustion, for example, the production and consumption of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the production of chemicals. Fossil fuel combustion from various industrial processes accounted for about 14% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. Note that many industrial processes also use electricity and therefore indirectly cause the emissions from the electricity production.


- - - Updated - - -

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2. The main sources of CO2 emissions in the United States are described below.

Electricity. Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 38% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 32% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas.

•Transportation. The combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods is the second largest source of CO2 emissions, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. This category includes transportation sources such as highway vehicles, air travel, marine transportation, and rail.

•Industry. Many industrial processes emit CO2 through fossil fuel combustion. Several processes also produce CO2 emissions through chemical reactions that do not involve combustion, for example, the production and consumption of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the production of chemicals. Fossil fuel combustion from various industrial processes accounted for about 14% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. Note that many industrial processes also use electricity and therefore indirectly cause the emissions from the electricity production.

 

Nope. despite what people think, places like CA and NY are point of accounting for that which goes on elsewhere. New York's worst fear is the Wall Street moves online and corporations stop maintaining their token presence in the city.

 

I find that hard to believe. I would not call the predictions presented in the reference "low balled". They are mostly pretty extreme and I think an honest accounting of their previous predictions would show an exaggeration of the observed data. It seems the author is equating putting predictions inside a report with low balling - the report didn't scream in capital lettered headlines it's predictions, but they are nevertheless rather extreme.

I'll point out just one example. The pictures of the globe at the very top shows to sets of temperatures. One is real - the other is the result of computer projections. But is that how the label reads? Nope. It reads "Change in average surface temperature". And under the globes.... "Humanity's choice (via IPCC): Aggressive climate action ASAP (left figure) minimizes future warming. Continued inaction (right figure) results in catastrophic levels of warming, 9°F over much of U.S." This is inaccurate in the first part. The "aggressive climate...." portion does not depict the result of minimizing future warming - it depicts actual temperatures (presumably). And the second part is at the utmost extreme predictions of temperatures in 2100 by the IPCC models.

Low balled, indeed.

 

Not sure why you went to all that trouble OldManOnFire. Nothing you posted directly addressed the posts you quoted. And they most definitely did not counter either of the two quotes.

 

Climate Central goes into the IPCC bias toward conservative projection.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340

 

This may be of interest:
[h=2]Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode[/h] Posted on January 19, 2014 by stevengoddard
I spent the evening comparing USHCN V1 and V2 graphs, and discovered a huge discrepancy between their V1 and V2 adjustments.
This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999-2000, but they didn’t in the US graph.

Here is an animation of the complete set of USHCN2 adjustments, which turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend.

 

California is actually pretty much a desert to begin with, only the Sierras keep it from being a sandbox.

Everything north of San Diego is prone to desertification other than coastal areas.

 

you obviously have never been to northern calif or central calif...not even close to to desert like conditions..

 

If you say so....it must be true. I suppose my growing up in San Diego Spending much time hiking the Anza Borrego, Moving to Yosemite Nat'l Park for a decade, visiting family in Humbolt and San Francisco regularly, and driving to Oregon to see my brother every other year or so do not count. You obviously do not understand basic geology or the influence it has on climate.

You may also note I did not state California is a desert, as it obviously is not....I did however say it is "Pretty Much" a desert, in much the same way one might say Oregon is pretty much a rain forest.

 

So basically, not fit for human habitation.

 

Oh...I forgot who you are, and thus decided to engage you.......my mistake.


You're the one who constantly places strange words in others mouths.

 

The governor of Calif. now declares the state to be in a drought emergency.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/18/3182581/california-extreme-drought-emergency/

 

So in my area, within the past week, the two closest towns declared a water emergency and both have implemented a 25% mandatory water reduction.

Both the county and state have implied that farmers cannot remove water from the lakes and rivers for irrigation and frost protection. Without water many of the crops will be greatly reduced or nonexistent.

The entire area here depends on farming and tourism and there is no tourism without the farming so all of this has an economic potential downside.

And this morning, the largest shopping mall in the area is removing all of the trees from the parking areas...they are a multitude of varieties and approximately 10-15 years mature...it looks horrible like a sterile cement city!

 

This isn't exactly shocking. When you have the most populated state in the nation with HUGE heat islands it is unavoidable that you are going to effect local weather conditions to some degree. I would like to know if the localized increase in temperature from all the urbanization is keeping the moister air at bay somehow. But instead of focusing on the problems that are solvable by planting more trees or using different more reflective materials for road and parking lot construction people will still whine about carbon taxes. When is the last time you heard a story about the Olliguar sp? aquifer?

Water emergencies suck balls. I remember back in the early 90s when my area was so dry that no one was allowed to water their grass and even the public pools could only use so much water to keep their pools full. By the end of the summer everything looked like a nuclear bomb had gone off in a state this is normally super green during the spring and summer.

 

One thing's certain, CA isn't drying out because of anthropogenic Glowbull warming.