5 ms·

Yeah, everything I read on the current trends in California's climate just keeps sounding more and more dire. I was stuck inside all weekend due in large part t

Yeah, everything I read on the current trends in California's climate just keeps sounding more and more dire. I was stuck inside all weekend due in large part to thick smoke and ash; I don't want to live in a drought or on the cusp of a drought every year for the foreseeable future and I don't think it's real smart to breathe smoke from wildfires year after year either. California could mitigate a lot of this, and probably will, eventually. But, it's only been about 6 years since the CRU email leaks led to it being dubbed "climategate" and a whole bunch of people loudly declared that it was proof that AGW was a vast climate scientist conspiracy. There's going to be a tremendous amount of resistance from all angles to any attempts to mitigate the effects of the climate in California. So I started looking for work out of state a while ago, and will keep looking. Nice place, but it would be dumb of me to stay here.

nkurz 11y ago
California could mitigate a lot of this, and probably will, eventually. ... There's going to be a tremendous amount of resistance from all angles to any attempts to mitigate the effects of the climate in California. Where do you see the resistance coming from? The timescale here is interesting, because "driest in 500 years" implies that although this particular instance might be caused by human activity, that we are still in the range of natural variability. I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority. Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed?
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  > Where do you see the resistance coming from? Environmentalists don't want more dams constructed; agriculture doesn't want more water use regulation; industry doesn't want tighter environmental (or water) regulations; residents aren't going to be able to cut back on water usage much more; automobile manufacturers don't want further emissions cuts. Every single interest group wants to point to another interest group and say, "this situation is their fault, make them fix it instead." I think a better question is, where do you not see resistance coming from? > we are still in the range of natural variability And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? > I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority. It's true that the recent and continuing decline of carbon dioxide emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Yearly_trends_in_annual_regional_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1971_and_2009.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Yea...) is "upending civilization" -- we have never been worse off, as a species, than we are now -- but why we could expect those people to agree on how to get a reliable water supply is a mystery to me, given that they can't even be expected to agree on what the problem is. > Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed? Well, I dunno, I guess. If people refuse to address the causes -- which, even in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence, they seem likely to do -- then I suppose the only remaining option is to decrease demand down to levels that can be supported by the relatively meager amounts of precipitation across the state. Which, again, makes California sound like a pretty nice place to be from.
  - danjayh 11y ago
    > > we are still in the range of natural variability > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? Not more comfortable, but perhaps also not something for which we should immediately point the finger at CO2 emissions. I think a more important step for California is to re-asses its priorities for water use. The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. In my area, the climate isn't quite as nice, but I can dig a 10ft deep hole in my horse pasture and it'll turn into a nice pond. No, you can't grow almonds and certain other trendy foods in the midwest ... but you can grow crops that will adequately feed the populace, and it's a far more ecologically responsible place to farm. We grow tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, strawberries, broccoli, green beans, blackberries, corn, and a few other things in our garden and most years I don't need to give it a drop of water from a hose. I've actually had to put a good deal of time, effort, and money into managing the water that runs off of our land (we have ~11 acres that all slope toward our house). The commercial corn field across the street has no irrigation system, at all. Although some farmers do it, watering with groundwater here is definitely the exception and not the norm. ... now if only the competition for software engineers were a bit more intense ... I blame the damn snow :).
    - thaumaturgy 11y ago
      No offense intended, and I'm not being accusatory, but: > The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. This is the sort of statement I was talking about being frustrated with earlier. Given the overall growing conditions in California, it's insane not to farm as much of it as is practical. The water problem in California is complicated and multi-faceted, and it is not entirely the responsibility of agriculture to solve it. (Which isn't to say that they can't do a lot to help, either.)
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Water - and the lack of water - is a part of the overall growing conditions in California. We know that California has droughts and that those droughts can last many years. (50 year, 80 year droughts are not unknown). Given that it is weird to allow agricultural water use without strict controls, realistic pricing, and beeter storage.
- jcranmer 11y ago
  There's basically two competing interpretations of the Western US drought: 1. It's a storage problem (i.e., most farmers): those damn environmentalists blocked us from building more dams so we lost the ability to store more water when wetter years happened in the past, and now we've got almost nothing left to draw water from. 2. It's a throughput problem (i.e., most environmentalists): those damn farmers are using more water per annum than nature is providing on average. They desperately need to cut their water. When major constituencies can't agree on the problem, how do you get them to agree on a solution?
  - IndianAstronaut 11y ago
    This is an easy problem to solve with our friend, data. Just run some models and simulations and calculate where water usage is heaviest.
    - thaumaturgy 11y ago
      That data pretty well exists, though it could always be improved. There are charts you can find that give the annual water usage per tree for different varieties of trees. But, as much as I'm a complete raving lunatic fan of data-driven politics, there's still politics involved. The data doesn't really tell you what to do, which was jcranmer's point, and mine. At best it just tells you what not to do.
  - DanielBMarkham 11y ago
    But isn't that the case with any kind of thing people use? You need to create/store it, and you need to deliver it. I go to the supermarket shelves and there are hundreds of items with similar issues. We don't debate the hoarding of pickles. Or the production capacity of peanut butter. This is a serious problem, and I'm not trying to belittle it. But as I recall, you can give people a gallon of water anywhere in California for just a few pennies, maybe less. To interested outsiders, the issue here seems to be almost entirely a political one.
anigbrowl 11y ago
Hmm...there's resistance within California from the inland counties that are heavily Republican, but politically the Democrats are largely in the driving seat, plus as far as water management goes the coming infrastructure public works are backed by the voters in a ballot initiative last year, which is probably politically insurmountable. A sufficiently disastrous flood in the central valley will sideline the remaining political opposition to a great degree. Betweent he drought and the El Nino this is going to be a pretty rough winter which I think will firm up support for mitigation measures. I'm curious to know what you consider the safest places in terms of environmental safety and sustainability.
- selectodude 11y ago
  Great Lakes region is looking okay right now.
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  I've no idea, honestly. As a practical matter, first I have to find someplace I can work. And there are no utopias. There are a few things I'm not fond of: tornadoes, wildfires, periods of extended drought, heavy traffic, extremely high crime, dislike for Californians (Oregon & Montana). A few things I don't mind: cold and snowy Winters (it's just mountaineering with more infrastructure and support), regular storm seasons, earthquakes and hurricanes. A few things I really appreciate: mountains within a couple hours' drive, lots of outdoor activities, younger and more active and better-educated populations. Maybe Utah? (But: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-drought-20150530-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-drought-20150530-st...) Unfortunately, snowfall over the entire Rockies seems to be on a declining trend (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-climate-change-global-warming-rockies-snow_n.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-clima...), so any place that relies on the Rocky Mountain watershed is going to be dealing with drier conditions for the foreseeable future. I'm open to suggestions.
  - lostlogin 11y ago
    New Zealand checking in. Ticks all your boxes except that I know some Californians. They are good ones.
marincounty 11y ago
I don't know where you live in California, but drought, or no drought, I don't think you will have to spend another weekend inside because of smoke. As horrid as the fires are, they are clearing that dry underbrush? Underbrush that has been their for years--for different reasons. Everyone is focusing on the drought right now, for good reason, but if it's not too late, and we go back to normal rain levels; I have found floods, landslides, and earthquakes to be California's warts. I have seen families lose everything to these disasters. And while Insurance companies happily accept our insurance premiums--they cover less and less each year. These policies, which have pages of exclusions, basically just cover fire. This year they will be paying out, but for as long as I can remember residential/commercial fires are going down each year, but you wouldn't know it by listening to to the media, and the "Head of whatever". Yes, I know this year Firefighters are really busy, and it's because of the drought. I do know most fire personnel(exception this year) hardly ever see a fire. Modern building codes have have really made structures safe. Most of their time is spent on medical emergencies. Something like 90% plus? Anyway, I sometimes think California's Insurance commissioner does pretty much what our illustrious Luitentant Governor does; Nothing? As to leaving California, I think the only reason, I would leave is rent, and housing costs. I can't believe it costs so much to live in California, at least within 30 miles of the coast. It's the rent that keeps me up at night. I am close to being homeless. Most of my income goes to rent in one way, or another. Whenever I hear someone brag about their income, in my head, the real question is "what does it cost to keep a roof over your head? I know my landlord can have a butt twitch, and decide to raise my rent, and I will be homeless. I don't like feeling so Helpless! And it's not so easy to just pick up and move to an area of lower rent. It's kids in school. It's that job, that's only in the Bay Area. It's getting older and not wanting to abandon the few friends, or family members you are close too. It's just not easy I guess, but living off the land in Alaska is looking good? No, I've been in CA too long. I couldn't kill an animal. Yes--I will now shut-up. Sorry about the rant. Tired.

nkurz 11y ago

California could mitigate a lot of this, and probably will, eventually. ... There's going to be a tremendous amount of resistance from all angles to any attempts to mitigate the effects of the climate in California. Where do you see the resistance coming from? The timescale here is interesting, because "driest in 500 years" implies that although this particular instance might be caused by human activity, that we are still in the range of natural variability. I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority. Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed?

thaumaturgy 11y ago
> Where do you see the resistance coming from? Environmentalists don't want more dams constructed; agriculture doesn't want more water use regulation; industry doesn't want tighter environmental (or water) regulations; residents aren't going to be able to cut back on water usage much more; automobile manufacturers don't want further emissions cuts. Every single interest group wants to point to another interest group and say, "this situation is their fault, make them fix it instead." I think a better question is, where do you not see resistance coming from? > we are still in the range of natural variability And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? > I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority. It's true that the recent and continuing decline of carbon dioxide emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Yearly_trends_in_annual_regional_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1971_and_2009.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Yea...) is "upending civilization" -- we have never been worse off, as a species, than we are now -- but why we could expect those people to agree on how to get a reliable water supply is a mystery to me, given that they can't even be expected to agree on what the problem is. > Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed? Well, I dunno, I guess. If people refuse to address the causes -- which, even in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence, they seem likely to do -- then I suppose the only remaining option is to decrease demand down to levels that can be supported by the relatively meager amounts of precipitation across the state. Which, again, makes California sound like a pretty nice place to be from.
- danjayh 11y ago
  > > we are still in the range of natural variability > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? Not more comfortable, but perhaps also not something for which we should immediately point the finger at CO2 emissions. I think a more important step for California is to re-asses its priorities for water use. The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. In my area, the climate isn't quite as nice, but I can dig a 10ft deep hole in my horse pasture and it'll turn into a nice pond. No, you can't grow almonds and certain other trendy foods in the midwest ... but you can grow crops that will adequately feed the populace, and it's a far more ecologically responsible place to farm. We grow tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, strawberries, broccoli, green beans, blackberries, corn, and a few other things in our garden and most years I don't need to give it a drop of water from a hose. I've actually had to put a good deal of time, effort, and money into managing the water that runs off of our land (we have ~11 acres that all slope toward our house). The commercial corn field across the street has no irrigation system, at all. Although some farmers do it, watering with groundwater here is definitely the exception and not the norm. ... now if only the competition for software engineers were a bit more intense ... I blame the damn snow :).
  - thaumaturgy 11y ago
    No offense intended, and I'm not being accusatory, but: > The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. This is the sort of statement I was talking about being frustrated with earlier. Given the overall growing conditions in California, it's insane not to farm as much of it as is practical. The water problem in California is complicated and multi-faceted, and it is not entirely the responsibility of agriculture to solve it. (Which isn't to say that they can't do a lot to help, either.)
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Water - and the lack of water - is a part of the overall growing conditions in California. We know that California has droughts and that those droughts can last many years. (50 year, 80 year droughts are not unknown). Given that it is weird to allow agricultural water use without strict controls, realistic pricing, and beeter storage.
jcranmer 11y ago
There's basically two competing interpretations of the Western US drought: 1. It's a storage problem (i.e., most farmers): those damn environmentalists blocked us from building more dams so we lost the ability to store more water when wetter years happened in the past, and now we've got almost nothing left to draw water from. 2. It's a throughput problem (i.e., most environmentalists): those damn farmers are using more water per annum than nature is providing on average. They desperately need to cut their water. When major constituencies can't agree on the problem, how do you get them to agree on a solution?
- IndianAstronaut 11y ago
  This is an easy problem to solve with our friend, data. Just run some models and simulations and calculate where water usage is heaviest.
  - thaumaturgy 11y ago
    That data pretty well exists, though it could always be improved. There are charts you can find that give the annual water usage per tree for different varieties of trees. But, as much as I'm a complete raving lunatic fan of data-driven politics, there's still politics involved. The data doesn't really tell you what to do, which was jcranmer's point, and mine. At best it just tells you what not to do.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  But isn't that the case with any kind of thing people use? You need to create/store it, and you need to deliver it. I go to the supermarket shelves and there are hundreds of items with similar issues. We don't debate the hoarding of pickles. Or the production capacity of peanut butter. This is a serious problem, and I'm not trying to belittle it. But as I recall, you can give people a gallon of water anywhere in California for just a few pennies, maybe less. To interested outsiders, the issue here seems to be almost entirely a political one.

anigbrowl 11y ago

Hmm...there's resistance within California from the inland counties that are heavily Republican, but politically the Democrats are largely in the driving seat, plus as far as water management goes the coming infrastructure public works are backed by the voters in a ballot initiative last year, which is probably politically insurmountable. A sufficiently disastrous flood in the central valley will sideline the remaining political opposition to a great degree. Betweent he drought and the El Nino this is going to be a pretty rough winter which I think will firm up support for mitigation measures. I'm curious to know what you consider the safest places in terms of environmental safety and sustainability.

selectodude 11y ago
Great Lakes region is looking okay right now.
thaumaturgy 11y ago
I've no idea, honestly. As a practical matter, first I have to find someplace I can work. And there are no utopias. There are a few things I'm not fond of: tornadoes, wildfires, periods of extended drought, heavy traffic, extremely high crime, dislike for Californians (Oregon & Montana). A few things I don't mind: cold and snowy Winters (it's just mountaineering with more infrastructure and support), regular storm seasons, earthquakes and hurricanes. A few things I really appreciate: mountains within a couple hours' drive, lots of outdoor activities, younger and more active and better-educated populations. Maybe Utah? (But: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-drought-20150530-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-drought-20150530-st...) Unfortunately, snowfall over the entire Rockies seems to be on a declining trend (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-climate-change-global-warming-rockies-snow_n.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-clima...), so any place that relies on the Rocky Mountain watershed is going to be dealing with drier conditions for the foreseeable future. I'm open to suggestions.
- lostlogin 11y ago
  New Zealand checking in. Ticks all your boxes except that I know some Californians. They are good ones.

marincounty 11y ago

I don't know where you live in California, but drought, or no drought, I don't think you will have to spend another weekend inside because of smoke. As horrid as the fires are, they are clearing that dry underbrush? Underbrush that has been their for years--for different reasons. Everyone is focusing on the drought right now, for good reason, but if it's not too late, and we go back to normal rain levels; I have found floods, landslides, and earthquakes to be California's warts. I have seen families lose everything to these disasters. And while Insurance companies happily accept our insurance premiums--they cover less and less each year. These policies, which have pages of exclusions, basically just cover fire. This year they will be paying out, but for as long as I can remember residential/commercial fires are going down each year, but you wouldn't know it by listening to to the media, and the "Head of whatever". Yes, I know this year Firefighters are really busy, and it's because of the drought. I do know most fire personnel(exception this year) hardly ever see a fire. Modern building codes have have really made structures safe. Most of their time is spent on medical emergencies. Something like 90% plus? Anyway, I sometimes think California's Insurance commissioner does pretty much what our illustrious Luitentant Governor does; Nothing? As to leaving California, I think the only reason, I would leave is rent, and housing costs. I can't believe it costs so much to live in California, at least within 30 miles of the coast. It's the rent that keeps me up at night. I am close to being homeless. Most of my income goes to rent in one way, or another. Whenever I hear someone brag about their income, in my head, the real question is "what does it cost to keep a roof over your head? I know my landlord can have a butt twitch, and decide to raise my rent, and I will be homeless. I don't like feeling so Helpless! And it's not so easy to just pick up and move to an area of lower rent. It's kids in school. It's that job, that's only in the Bay Area. It's getting older and not wanting to abandon the few friends, or family members you are close too. It's just not easy I guess, but living off the land in Alaska is looking good? No, I've been in CA too long. I couldn't kill an animal. Yes--I will now shut-up. Sorry about the rant. Tired.