Coming Soon to a Grocery Store Near You — Climate Change Inflation

California’s Lake Oroville, Central Valley   Photo credit: The Mercury News

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

Some commenters on this blog have downplayed the effects of climate change and even derided early projections of serious consequences. Except for more frequent flooding in parts of Hampton Roads (which is serious for those directly affected), Virginians have not experienced serious consequences of climate change. However, the American West is experiencing serious effects of climate change and the ramifications of those effects will soon be felt by Virginians, if only indirectly.

Climate change is affecting the resource that has been at the heart of politics and development in the American West since Americans began settling there: water.

States in the American Southwest depend on water from the Colorado River to grow their crops and sustain their towns and cities. Rather, they depend on Colorado River water stored in two huge reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Water from those reservoirs is allocated by law and interstate compacts among the states (and Mexico). Even Southern California has a straw in the Colorado River. The federal Bureau of Reclamation is charged with administering all the agreements.

A recent Wall Street Journal article highlights the decreased flow of the Colorado and the lowering of the levels in the reservoir, with a focus on Arizona. Last year, the federal government declared the first-ever shortage on the Colorado. That declaration triggered an 18% decrease in Arizona’s allocation, which will be implemented this year. On a local level, one county stands to lose all of its allocation next year. It is projected that about half of the farmland in Arizona will remain unplanted this year. If Lake Mead’s water level continues to fall, California’s allocation could be reduced.

The authors of a study published last month report that Southwestern North America is in a “megadrought.” (A megadrought is one that lasts for more than one decade.) It is true that droughts, even long-lasting ones, have occurred throughout history in the Southwest. In fact, using soil moisture as a measure of drought and tree ring history to estimate levels of soil moisture in the past, the authors identify several megadroughts throughout history, going back to the year 800. Based on this research, they conclude that the years 2000-2021 “ranks as the driest 22-yr period since at least 800 c.e.” The second driest megadrought occurred between 1571-1592.

In addition to being the driest, the current megadrought has two major distinctions from earlier megadroughts:

  1. The others did not occur when millions of people were living in the area.
  2. The current megadrought is the result of “anthropogenic climate change (ACC)”.

The authors developed a model in which they compared observed soil moisture measurements since 1901 to projected soil moisture levels “simulated under a counterfactual climate without post-1901 ACC trends in temperature, humidity and precipitation.” After stripping out the effects of man-made climate change, they concluded that climate change accounted for more than 40% of the reduction in soil moisture from 2000-2021 (the current megadrought). Their conclusion: “Without ACC, 2000–2021 would not even be classified as a single extended drought event.”

California is also experiencing drought conditions, but the circumstances are different than those in Arizona, and the effects will be felt by Virginians.

There is a caricature of California that involves Hollywood, crowded cities, massive traffic jams, and, at least on BR, a population of wacky progressives. There is likely some truth to this caricature, but California is also a large agricultural state. In fact, it accounts for a greater percentage (over 13%) of the nation’s agricultural revenues than any other state. It is “America’s garden,” producing over a third of the country’s vegetables, including two-thirds of the country’s fruit and nuts.

The state’s main agricultural region is the Central Valley. To provide water for the crops grown there, the region depends on a complex system of dams, reservoirs and canals. Much of the water for that system comes from runoff from the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In fact, the snowpack accounts for about 30% of the state’s water supply.

Another recent Wall Street Journal article has reported on the current dire water conditions facing California this year. Although the state has been struggling through a drought in recent years, there was hope late last year when it experienced one of the wettest Decembers on record. Snow piled up in the Sierra Nevada to depths of more than 15 feet, 154% more than normal. However, January and February were the driest on record. With the lack of precipitation and warmer temperatures, the snowpack on March 1 was only 63% of normal depth. The major reservoirs in the Central Valley were at less than 50% capacity.  In February, the federal Bureau of Reclamation informed many farmers in the Central Valley that their water allocation would initially be 0%.  As a result, fewer crops will be planted. (Another effect of the ongoing drought was the shutting down of the hydroelectric plant on Lake Oroville last summer because there was not enough water in the lake to spin the blades of the turbines.)

Climate change is a major factor behind the drought in California. For reasons beyond my understanding, studies and observations have shown that climate change will affect the pattern of rainfall. There will be more rain in winter and less in spring and fall, with the start of the spring rains being delayed by up to a month. As for the increased winter rains, higher temperatures mean that less of the precipitation will be in the form of snow.

A recent study confirms that temperature changes have resulted in smaller snowpacks in California. The authors compiled a record of snowpack measurements over time, then modeled that data by removing long-term trends… at each grid point from the model input temperature data (“no-warming”).”  The result was that “many areas with large negative trends … switch to smaller negative or even positive trends.” Their conclusion was that “warming is implicated in the large negative trends in [the snowpack] in the Pacific states.”

The authors of the study summarized their findings and the policy implications, as follows:

The magnitude of these changes relative to the built storage (reservoirs), and the certainty with which continued warming will lead to continued declines at a similar or increasing rate, illustrates the immense challenge facing western water managers. Patterns of water use that became established (even entrenched) during the climate of the past cannot be changed without intense political effort owing to large cultural, economic, and infrastructure investments in the status quo ante. Solutions cannot consist solely of future infrastructure: new reservoirs cannot be built fast enough to offset the loss of snow storage, so solutions will have to lie primarily in the linked arenas of water policy (including reservoir operating policies) and demand management.

Therefore, due to smaller snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, resulting from climate change, a head of lettuce, a couple of lemons, or a bag of California oranges will cost Virginians more this year and in the foreseeable future.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

99 responses to “Coming Soon to a Grocery Store Near You — Climate Change Inflation”

  1. PeteVinoEsq Avatar
    PeteVinoEsq

    Listen very carefully: if the climate is changing, it is not caused by human action. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that it is . There has been climate variability for millions, and this is no different.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      More than 99.9 percent of peer-reviewed articles disagree with you. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Nonsense. There are a lot of peer reviewed articles that assume human causation, which makes them irrelevant. The IPCC offers just one piece of evidence (figure 1b in the AR6 SPM) which is that the only way the models can get the warming is with human forcing. But figure 2 then shows that the only significant forcing in the models is human, so the reasoning is circular.
        See https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/19/the-silly-science-of-climate-alarmism/

        All of the observed changes are within possible observed natural variability, so there is in fact no actual strong evidence of human causation. For example the medieval and Roman warm periods may well have been as warm as today.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          It is always interesting when a source one gives to provide support for his opinion is a reference to an article by him. In essence, you are quoting yourself.

          And in that link you provide, there is just more opinion; no evidence or reference to specific evidence. And the arguments you make there don’t stand up to scrutiny.

          First, you take on the hockey stick, pointing out the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman period. Those periods have been taken seriously by climate scientists. It seems that the most prevalent attitude is that these were regional anomalies and not global, as is the case now. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

          You claim that the IPCC ignores the “thousands” of articles on these periods. That is not true. IPCC 1 and 3 discussed them. In Chapter 2 alone of IPCC 2021, there are numerous citations to some of these articles. See pages 120, 126, 137, 140, and 141.

          Shaun Marcott, et al. have extended Mann’s hockey stick more than 11,300 years and validated it, yet again.
          Their conclusion, “Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.” In one century, we have reversed a 5,000 year trend. Man-made causes are the best explanation. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026

          Next, you attack the IPCC charts. You claim that Figure 2 shows no natural
          causes that could cause warming. That is
          not true. Figure 2b plainly divides the
          possible causes for warming into two categories: human influence and non-human influence. Under non-human influences are: solar and volcanic drivers and internal variability. “Human influence” is shown as the biggest driver and that is what the report focuses on. You may disagree that “human influences” are that much greater than “non-human influences.” If so, make your case. However, it is wrong to say that the IPCC charts do not include natural causes.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Your citation states that 99.9% of the articles which postulated that AGW was real, concluded it was. It is a word game that has been played since the 97% statement.

        So you’re either being intentionally dishonest or willfully ignorant, I would hope it’s the latter.

  2. Most of California’s water problems are from very poor planning and not building the necessary water containment infrastructure (dams and resevoirs, they let rain water run to the ocean) and over population

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      That observation does not address or contradict the evidence that the snowpack and resulting runoff is decreasing. Those developments exacerbate the “poor planning” you cite.

  3. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    Thanks for posting. My sense is that the inflation associated with the rapid increase in the price of fossil fuels caused by climate change policies will have a far greater and longer lasting impact on consumers. The cost of transporting goods to market will soar as will the cost of crops because of the scarcity of fertilizers made from natural gas. And we’ll all have even less to spend because of the high cost of heating and lighting our homes. There’s a reason we don’t have a carbon tax. Politicians don’t want to be blamed for higher prices.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      The increase in the price of fossil fuels has been driven by policies other than climate change, such as war. Who says we could no longer use natural gas to make fertilizer?

      1. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
        Ronnie Chappell

        While war and other factors are contribution to supply constraints, there’s no doubt that supply and production have been constrained by government policies. The question is how much higher would production be, and how much lower would prices be if the government wasn’t hostile to the industry, was encouraging pipelines not cancelling them etc. Maybe the Germans would be dependent on American LNG and not Russian gas. The problem with climate change Dems is they don’t want to own up the impacts of their policies on consumers. If they were willing to do that, we’d have a healthy carbon tax.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I would be fine with a carbon tax. Can you see a carbon tax getting through the Congress, although a carbon tax was the preferred method of conservative economists for many years.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “The question is how much higher would production be, and how much lower would prices be if the government wasn’t hostile to the industry”

          As of July 2021, there were ten petroleum pipeline projects in the United States in the construction phase; including new pipelines and expansions such as the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement project. Two additional projects reached completion between January and June 2021. The number of U.S. natural gas pipeline projects is higher than the number of petroleum product pipelines.

          Pipelines are not the issue. Demand is the issue.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Oil is traded in futures, the price spike that was blamed on war was traded before Russia invaded Ukraine.

        When POTUS Biden entered office the speculators drove up the price based upon his campaign statements and history. It had nothing to do with demand.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      The increase in oil & gas prices is due to increase in demand. Supply has increased since Biden took office. If “climate change policies” were effective, demand would drop and prices would crash.

      1. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
        Ronnie Chappell

        The post pandemic demand increase has certainly had something to do with higher prices. But global supply has not increased since Biden took office. And oil, and increasingly natural gas prices, are determined by the global market. If supply has increased, why is Biden begging the Saudis, who won’t even take his calls, to increase production. Why are we sucking up to Maduro if there’s no supply problem. The thing about oil and gas prices is that even a small shortfall in supply can result in a massive increase in prices. That’s because no one want to be left without. The Europeans are now out competing for LNG and oil from places other than Russia. Don’t kid yourself. It’s a supply problem. That said, Mr. Biden and the Dems could drive down demand by enacting a carbon tax. A lot more straightforward than canceling pipelines and treating American producers like horse manure. Why invest in a product that the government wants to ban? That Wall Street ESG funds won’t invest in?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Actually, it looks like world production has increased since Biden took office as well. Not like he has much sway in either arena. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/11c8f2a036c2f9abadfa509f23ead88f6dd8944e695cb3efdbfd99e7e4cedab9.png

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You can’t be saying that and provide data that confirms it, guy. You’re violating the “narrative” that it’s all Biden’s fault! shame!

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          You are correct in that I should have said that US production has increased since Biden took office.

        3. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          there is conflicting and contradictory info here;

          take this;

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49b932b5c73e2e9e3d17e7acdaabc39717328a19bfb3e79d29df0252816f9186.jpg

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/strategic-oil-reserve-biden-today-b2048510.html

          beyond that, why would any oil company devote more of it’s resources to essentially provide more oil – at lower prices?

          Isn’t their goal to make as much profit as they can so why provide more oil and lower prices?

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Oil and gas don’t price increase on demand alone, your statement is also false. Policy’s seen as impacting oil and gas will drive the price up.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          You mean that when the government hands out trillions of dollars including every Tom, Dick and Harriett in the country, the excess money will cause inflation?

          My kids never missed a beat working during COVID. They just went from working in the office to working from home.
          But they all received their stimulus checks.

          Meanwhile, that blithering idiot Joe Biden tried his best to spend even more with his absurd Build Back Better handout. Thank God that the Republicans, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. Hard to imagine what the level of inflation would be if Bozo Biden, Nonsense Nancy and the rest of the geriatric clown show in DC had gotten their way.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Sans the usual pejoratives, I agree.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Inflation does have some play yes, but the common refrain is that oh well this event caused the oil price to peak, is utter BS. Oil futures are traded in exactly that futures on the speculation what oil will be needed. Future contracts for Oil are good for 2 years.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Tax cuts have the same effect as direct stimulus.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            yes, if they are not offset by spending cuts and basically financed by deficit/debt like the Trump tax cuts.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          You mean that when the government hands out trillions of dollars including every Tom, Dick and Harriett in the country, the excess money will cause inflation?

          My kids never missed a beat working during COVID. They just went from working in the office to working from home.
          But they all received their stimulus checks.

          Meanwhile, that blithering idiot Joe Biden tried his best to spend even more with his absurd Build Back Better handout. Thank God that the Republicans, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. Hard to imagine what the level of inflation would be if Bozo Biden, Nonsense Nancy and the rest of the geriatric clown show in DC had gotten their way.

  4. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    What makes you think these specific events are climate change? Climate is normally the 30 year average. Individual events are not climate change. This is a fundamental misconception.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      These studies were not based on specific events. The authors of the study of the drought in SWNA looked at data for the last 22 years and compared it to data going back 1400 years. The authors of the snowpack study looked at 100 years worth of data.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        First you said this: “Except for more frequent flooding in parts of Hampton Roads (which is serious for those directly affected), Virginians have not experienced serious consequences of climate change.” clearly saying the flooding is due to climate change.

        As for the drought, the study actually found that similar (“mega”) droughts had occurred before. That this one is somehow due to climate change does not follow. They just added it.

  5. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Some of any confusion can stem from the fact that we have two very different types of water law in the United States. In the eastern part of the country, we have the Riparian Doctrine.

    “Riparianism limits the use of water to only those landowners with riparian land. In order to be classified as a riparian landowner, the landowner must own the parcel of land adjacent to the watercourse, i.e. a river, stream, lake, or pond, from which the landowner plans to use the water. Even then, the water may only be put to a reasonable use. The courts can enjoin landowners for unreasonable uses.” https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/water-law/#:~:text=Even%20within%20the%20category%20of%20surface%20water%2C%20water,use%20water%20and%20restrictions%20on%20pollution%20of%20water.

    In the west, we have the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.

    “The Prior Appropriation System (also know as the Colorado Doctrine) can be simplified to “first in time, first in right”. In practice this means that the first person to withdraw water and apply that water to beneficial use has the first right to use the water within a particular water system. They become “senior” in their rights to the water. The second person to do so becomes the second most senior water rights holder and so on. Based upon seniority, each individual water right must be fulfilled before the next water right can be fulfilled.

    “Water rights under the Prior Appropriation System are separate property rights and can be sold separately from the land.” Ibid.

    As to climate change, assuming arguendo that human behavior is changing the climate and, ergo, each person’s carbon footprint is material, why does the left want open borders, bringing in people to the United States, who will most likely increase their lifestyle, consuming more and creating a larger carbon footprint here than they would in say, Central America? If the goal is to reduce Americans’ carbon footprint, why would we increase Americans’ carbon footprint by encouraging illegal immigration?

    When Brandon presents a consistent and coherent climate change policy that addresses the effects of illegal immigration, I’ll pay attention. His policies are so inconsistent, that even editorial writers should understand.

  6. Dick,

    I am relatively new to Bacon’s Rebellion and I’m grateful for its content specifically in relation to Virginia.

    I find it difficult to evaluate and discuss your above opinion article. As always, nobody will define the phrase “climate change.” For the purposes of future discussion, can you please define.

    Secondly, I find your reference links concerning and a bit of confirmation bias on your part in my opinion. The alternative is you are hoping that people will not read the articles.

    Your first scientific study is from a journal named “Nature Climate Change (Nat. Clim. Chang.)” Their stated aim and scope is “Nature Climate Change publishes cutting-edge research on the science of contemporary climate change, its impacts, and the wider implications for the economy, society and policy.” Their Advisory Board consists of professors of “climate change adoption“, sociologists, political scientists and business. Because the term anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is littered throughout the article, you feel safe in making that your number two take away – this current drought in the SWNA is man-made.

    You go on to state “climate change is a major factor behind the drought in California“. Again, what is climate change? Gratefully you state “for reasons beyond my understanding“. You site studies and observations linking to an article by Dana Nuccitelli, research coordinator for the nonprofit Citizens’ Climate Lobby, an organization which lobbies for global implementation of carbon taxes. It partners with the likes of environmentalist groups like 350.org through the U.S. Climate Action Network. Dana self-admittedly was inspired after seeing Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in 2006.

    You then go on to talk about California specifically in reference to snow packs. You cite an article that says “warming is implicated in the large negative trends in [the snowpack] in the Pacific states.” Well of course it is!

    You then make the leap to a bag of California oranges will cost Virginians more this year due to smaller snow packs. What about inflation, the increasing scarcity of fertilizer and the increased cost of fuel? What about big agra monopolizing the distribution of oranges throughout the world for profit. What about purposeful diversion of water from the Central Valley in order to preserve California fish populations (no judgement).

    It’s Sunday and I have time to think and discuss what you have to say, however, I will be less likely to take that time in the future. I respect differing opinions but I need to know that the discussion is proffered with facts and in good faith. “Coming Soon to a Grocery Store Near You–Climate Change Inflation”, really?

    Ted

  7. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    The alarmists falsely assume that natural climate is unchanging but since weather is chaotic climate must change continuously. In nonlinear dynamics this is called “strange statistics”. The nong term averages of a chaotic phenomenon like weather will endlessly oscillate. Take any of the climate measures, like 30 year average temp, rain, wind, clouds, etc. For each, no two 30 year averages will be the same.

    This is true at all scales from days to centuries and beyond. Some are hot, some cold, some dry, some wet, etc. A constant nature does not exist.

    Alarmism assumes

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      But those oscillating 30-year averages, taken together, do constitute a long-term trend. And that long-term trend is upward.

  8. Haigler Avatar

    There is plenty of water in the good old USA. It merely needs to be relocated.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      And how do you propose relocating water in the Great Lakes to Arizona?

      1. Haigler Avatar

        Mule Trains

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Stop building in a Desert.

  9. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The big problem with California is there are too many people there. Likewise the other burgeoning cities in the Southwest. They get droughts. They have always gotten droughts. They never properly plan or prepare for the next one. As to the role of “climate change” the physics is pretty clear that warmer air holds more moisture so give more credence (not much, but more) to claims of increased precipitation. Back in the 60s I often heard my Dad wondering out loud, “what part of this is a desert don’t they get?” When we went back to the same places in 2010, the development we saw in the desert was mind boggling.

    The Pacific Coast’s weather is driven by the El Nino La Nina temperature oscillations. “The authors developed a model….” That phrase should have set off some bells. They wanted an explanation other than the “settled” connection to the Pacific currents.

    “Before significant CO2 warming was possible, Dust Bowl years from 1928-1939 and the 1950s drought were the most severe 20th century American droughts. La Niña-like ocean temperatures blocked rain storms and triggered the Dust Bowl while plowing up native grasses made it worse. More concerning is 2 century-long megadroughts between 900 AD and 1400 AD. Trying to survive increasing dryness Native Americans created dams and irrigation canals. But those droughts finally led to the demise of once thriving Pueblo Cultures such as Mesa Verde.”

    Now, a 100 year drought that wipes out a civilization certainly qualifies as “climate change.” But CO2 from power plants and Fords didn’t cause it.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I am not sure what your source is regarding “2 century-long megadroughts” or that source’s definition of a megadrought. The authors of the study I cited defined drought in terms of anomalies in soil moisture and use tree-ring data for years before there valid measures of soil moisture. A megadrought was one in which the anomalies stretched over a multi-decade period. They identified eight such periods, with the longest one being 29 years. The current megadrought has been in process for 22 years 2000-2021) and they found that is the driest 22-year span since at least 800. Hopefully, ours will not stretch out another 8 eight years and become the longest as well.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      they use “models’ to predict the level of Lake Mead. Wrong?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        No. The article does not predict the level of Lake Mead. The models are used to demonstrate that, without the increase warming trend attributable to human activity, the current drought would be much less severe.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        No. The article does not predict the level of Lake Mead. The models are used to demonstrate that, without the increase warming trend attributable to human activity, the current drought would be much less severe.

  10. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    In a way, of course, Dick is correct. Fuel and transportation costs are the major driver of the grocery price spikes. Plus fertilizer and other inputs tied to fossil fuels. The Biden Administration’s War on Fossil Fuels (suspended until after the mid term) is a foolhardy response to the irrational fear of climate change (which may replace fear of COVID for this election, or may not, stand by. Democrats can’t make up their mind.)

  11. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    Let’s say that the climate is changing—what then, is to be done? Especially if the major forces driving climate change are outside our borders. Namely, use of coal by other nations. I suppose we could invade or nuke them.

  12. Nobody disputes that there is climate change in California — as in, extended periods of wetness and drought. Undoubtedly, California has experienced a megadrought in recent years. The question is this: Is the megadrought part of a regularly occurring cycle that occurs every few hundred years for reasons we don’t understand, or is it due to anthropogenic, human-caused global warming? Until we can answer that question, all the rest is B.S.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      That seems to be a very dangerous wager you wish to make there…

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yes. So-called ‘conservatives” who claim to be careful with unknowns and hedge their bets, seem more than willing to bet the farm on climate change.

        One would think even a 1% chance of true catastrophe would merit some ‘safe-but-sorry’ behavior but no – bet the farm.

  13. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Even if we concede that manmade CO2 may be warming the climate, we have little choice but to acclimate to the situation. One school of thought is that cost of acclimation is lower than the cost of draconian prevention measures, and prevention measures have questionable chance of success. The liberal argument is that USA must immediately shut down its fossil fuel industry to take the lead role, and show the way. But we are already making huge progress, in part due to the monopoly utility structure in the USA, we cannot stop the utilities from electrocuting us, oops Freudian slip, I am mean we cannot stop the Electrification Coalition lobby.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “The liberal argument is that USA must immediately shut down its fossil fuel industry…”

      No, it is not. There may be “liberals” who want to make that argument but most every decarbonization plan I have read has oil & gas in the mix for quite some time.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Indeed. The idea is to use solar/wind WHEN WE CAN and gas when we can’t and over time, decades, gradually increase non-fossil fuels and reduce fossil-fuels, taking advantage of technological advances in storage nd nukes to do so.

        The ” they want to shut down fossil fuels” is more ignorant hyperbolic rhetoric from the usual suspects.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Remember when Conservatives use to shout “we need an all of the above solution to global climate change!!”…?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            that’s the operative word with “conservatism” these days – i.e. “used to”.

  14. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    One statistic about the Colorado River and it’s reservoirs. 80% of the water is used for agriculture. There is no problem in the West and California with enough water for human consumption but water for agriculture – i.e. irrigation will start to reduce and those crops cannot grow without irrigation so that land will no longer be farmed and will return to arid and unuseable.

    Will less crops lead to higher prices or will such crops move to where there is more water? Will irrigated lettuce and tomatoes be grown in places like Montana or along the Mississippi?

    what will happen to the farmers out west who no longer get enough water to grow crops on their land?

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Weather makes CA optimum for agriculture as you can produce multiple crops on the same land throughout the year. If production moves to other less favorable areas (which are also growing crops, btw) the change will be felt and the “inflation” Dick cites will happen still.

      1. If weather makes California optimum for agriculture why do they need to irrigate so extensively using water from the Colorado River?

        It seems to me “optimum” weather would include not just the temperatures to produce multiple crops on the same land throughout the year, but having enough water to do so as well.

        Are you certain that growing one crop per year adequately watered by the growing area’s typical rainfall is less efficient and more costly than multiple crops requiring extensive irrigation?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          You are correct.. I should have added the “aside from precipitation…” qualifier. But even the otherwise dry conditions are good for agriculture, fewer problems with fungus than in the SE and more sunshine (fewer cloud cover).

          To answer your question, yes, I think it is for certain crops at least. The irrigation system in CA is existing infrastructure in many places (sunken costs). I don’t like it… especially for things like almonds and other high water use crops but that is the way it works.

  15. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    The Rockies are stacked with snow right now. Colorado River is getting the usual amount of water. In fact an average year over the past 10 years. If you live near the western continental divide you can’t wait for the melt and the end of winter. But it won’t come just yet. A town like Gunnison Colorado will have snow on the ground until June.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2606350a6f949527f506e25eca78441353c6acf44bdf767dfb40b32cde35b765.jpg

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Uncle Sam says this is an average year for the Colorado River Basin. Not even close to the dry as a bone year 2012. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/346fa438a1e50ad8daa71d8c758c4ed666781b8cce8a27070ef6caff20a458b6.jpg

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          looks to be that way James. Thanks for posting that.

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Uncle Sam’s water managers will waste time evaluating and all of that melting snowpack will be down river by the time they act to preserve the levels of Lake Powell/Meade.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            they got dams to capture runoff you know… whenever it comes down… they do stuff like that…

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Yeah but they just released half the water of Lake Powell to work on the dam. Only Uncle Sam can be this dumb.
            https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2021/03/high-water-coming-grand-canyon-national-park

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If they had not, then they might have lost water due to leaks and/or lose the ability to generate electricity, etc.

            I don’t think the govt is dumb. They have to make choices and sometimes the average person is not really knowledgeable about the choices and priorities.

          5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Yes they are dumb. The concrete apron that needed work is down stream from the plant and dam. Flow levels in July would permit the work to be done then. So for ten days 12,000 cubic feet per second was flushed down river. Total cubic feet per second over 10 days: 10, 368,000,,000. That is a ton of toilet flushes.

          6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            “Half the water” is surely hyerbole. They reduced the flow by half for four days, the gradually increased it to a peak flow for four days. Regarding your reference below to the water being “flushed” down the river. The Glen Canyon Dam, from which the releases were made, is above Lake Mead and Hoover Dam. So the water released was caught in Lake Mead and, if anything, helped to increase the lower water levels in that reservoir. Finally, according to gov’t folks, these releases were from the Glen Canyon Dam had no effect on the monthly or annul releases from Lake Powell, above the dam.

          7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            You have to capture water to manage water. I think they missed out on a chance to capture the early phase of the snow pack melt.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        The charts supplied by Larry illustrate the point being made in my article: the current snowpacks in California are more than 50 percent lower than the 30-year median and only 50-70 percent of the median in the Colorado River watershed. If the Colorado River were getting the usual amount of water, the feds would not be cutting Arizona’s allotment.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Oh that’s nice since Hoover Dam was very low last few years. One of our vacation trips pre-COVID was out to Zion and Bryce, and we walked on the Hoover Dam and saw the old water levels. Keep in mind the Hoover Dam water take-off rates were set too high years ago.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The thing to keep in mind, the vast amount of ‘rights” are for agriculture and some of it could be grown elsewhere if not for “guaranteed’ irrigation. That’s the big advantage. They don’t have to worry about when or if it will rain. As long as they can get THEIR water there is no drought.

  16. Matt Adams Avatar
    Matt Adams

    To expand on a comment I made before, that this 99.9% and 97% consensus figures are total and utter BS. Look at the cited paper by DHS in the comments as a response to another poster’s comment.

    https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

    It’s language can be compelling, till you look at the actual paper and it’s abstract.

    “While controls over the Earth’s climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.”

    They choose 3000 papers at random, which is merely a 3% sample size and keyword searched for AGW, which AGE being the hypothesis of those studies. It returned that 99.9% of those papers returned that AGW was real.

    The phrase figures don’t lie, but liars figure is clearly illustrated by what is done to arrive at this “consensus”.

    Man is merely an ant in the Universe to believe that they can stop something like climate change is a) foolhardy b) self-important c) egotistical.

    By all means we should take care of our environment and do what we can when we can, but this race to bottom fueled by liars and cons needs to stop.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      With a population of 88,000, what sample size would give you say a 99% confidence level with say a 3% margin of error?

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        3% would be the Confidence interval and the proper sample size is 1811. They oversampled to magnify their desired result.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          All increasing the sample size would do would be to reduce the margin of error. You might be able to quibble with other parts of the methodology but sample size is not an issue here.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Increasing the sample size without a careful controlled other aspects of your study induce type I and Type II errors.

            Which is exactly what I said.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      With a population of 88,000, what sample size would give you say a 99% confidence level with say a 3% margin of error?

  17. killerhertz Avatar
    killerhertz

    Buy local. We don’t need to have produce from California. It’s just cheaper to source from there with the (relatively) low cost of energy. We just aren’t very creative with farming for the most part. We need more regenerative farms rather than energy intensive monoculture farms.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Yes do away with California produce… a sound plan…

      1. killerhertz Avatar
        killerhertz

        End your sentence with California. Why stop at produce?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          If it were a country, 7th largest in the world?

          1. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            And?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            a major economy bigger than most countries and most US states… really write it off?

          3. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            To the crux of your point, why do we need the GDP? What good does it me? Buying more stinger missiles for Ukraine? Larger stimulus payments? Boomers seem to equate GDP with well-being. I don’t. Autonomy is paramount.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well you could say that about ANY state, right? If you want maximum autonomy, the world abounds with minimal govt, minimal tax countries besides the US, right?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9e01554f971dac0b730fcb9f8d3d085edc5e4890d367b3fdce67a65ced34d9ea.jpg

          5. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            Right. The average Floridian has very little in common w/ the Californian. Why remain in a relationship when you despise each other? The last 2 years have made that apparent.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The average Nebraskan has little in common with either states. Right?
            what’s your point? Do you want to live somewhere else not here?

            There are plenty of places to live besides here for sure if you are unhappy with the US as a nation of united states.

          7. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            My point is this there’s no reason to have the relationship. Especially for agricultural products. Why trade w/ someone you so despise?

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            And, as a 7th largest economy, it floats 6 flyover states.

  18. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Anyone who has spent any time driving out west – off the interstates and up and down the mountain passes knows that there are thousands of small creeks coming down the upper valley’s and on quite a few, most, there is a small farm that is diverting what water that comes down onto fields for crops – and that water never makes it to Lake Mead.

    Those creek beds are dry below those farms. Multiply this all over the west, and the problem is not what many folks think – which is thinking that water is sucked out of the lakes. The water never gets to the lakes to start with. The only time the water gets to the lakes is when the snowpack is higher than normal. Even normal snowpack’s are sucked up by farms before the water gets to the lakes. Each of those farms COUNTS on that runoff for their spring crops.

  19. Merchantseamen Avatar
    Merchantseamen

    “global warming”…. pffft. Follow the money i.e. Politicians and Dominion in this case. As for flooding in Hampton Roads. It is one huge paved parking lot. Some flooding here in my neck of the woods. But 60 years of building parking lots and malls hmmm… it stays a bit warmer around here also. Dated sewer and run off systems is he big contributing factor. Oh…..wait government in all their wisdom then ban water collection systems of any type….wonder why. Oh yeah no personal windmills to supplement your electrical consumption. Something about a noise ordnance. Astronomical special permits for Generac standby generators. Keep believing “they” care about you or the global warming.

  20. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    So when does Biden close the borders to illegal immigration to prevent more people in the world from having a larger carbon footprint? And why is virtually every Democratic politician in California supporting illegal immigration?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Who would clean the lawmakers’ houses?

  21. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The climate deniers response to everything: “35 years?! Phew, I thought you said, ‘3 to 5 years’ so we’ve got plenty of time.”

  22. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    It’s going to get too expensive for the survivalists to maintain their stocks of freeze dried beef jerky. Oh wait…

  23. serferten Avatar
    serferten

    What the author seems to miss is not that conservatives aren’t climate change deniers, some are but a small minority. What’s missing is that the US and a few other western countries, in the minds of progressives, are supposed to make all the costly changes while the biggest polluters like India and China don’t sign up for doing much at all.

Leave a Reply