The farmers in California have been taking it on the chin the last couple of years with reduction/shutoff of their irrigation water supply. This year will most likely break all but the most financially secure of them.

:hmmm::hmmm: heard some interesting numbers on this topic today the one that stands out the most is that 70% of all percipitation runs out to sea,, this is truely a man made problem or the lack of man to build the needed reservoirs to substain a growing population

the 2% solution?!
 

Thanks to Donna for this one; came across it looking for some Kahuna-Cajones humor for another (Her) thread: The real politics is: Out of the 2 trillion state economy(arguably the 8th most powerful economy in the world http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/07/07/tech-construction-drive-california-s-worldwide-gdp.html) agriculture is 2% of California's economy but uses 80% of the water...http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/agriculture-is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to-cut-back/http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0407023700.jpg

Reply to CaptainHaplo's post:

Global warming and Climate change are two different things.

"Global warming is the term used to describe the current increase in the Earth's average temperature."

"Climate change refers not only to global changes in temperature but also to changes in wind, precipitation, the length of seasons as well as the strength and frequency of extreme weather events like droughts and floods."

Source?

Incorrect.

"As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.

For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.

Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.

The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed."

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

Ah, the Oregon Petition. Here's some fun facts about that piece of toilet paper:

"The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned.

Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe". When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake". A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."

"In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Nothing to see here, move along...
 

The planet has been here billions of years and most likely undergone many periods of fluctuation in temps, sea level etc. etc.

Our time here is but a blip on the geological clock and I don't think that even the best scientists can say with absolute surety that the current cycle of warming is man made, unless someone has an agenda to put out that kind of propaganda.:-?

Contrary to my older post somewhere north of here, i have come to another conclusion :oops:
Just following and interpreting, based on sheer numbers and facts.

The CO level may be high, compared to the last 10.000 or so years, but not compared to some million years ago. Also, following the numbers, the high CO level during the permian age was a result of the then global warming, not its cause.

The wrong assumption is, that there would be a greenhouse effect, but there is no green house effect on earth ! The outer gaseous 'mantles' do not hold back light frequencies or thermal radiation, this is a myth!
Were there some glass casing, it would of course be another thing, but there is not.

We can see this everywhere, of course clouds hold back some radiation, or even reflect it towards the earth again, but they consist of water vapour, not CO2, or methane. If you look at the deserts, they give back their warmth completely at night, there is no holding back.

Indeed watger vapour is the real climate changer, and for good. At times when the climate was warmer than today, supposed to be at the end of the last great ice age, the people of the time found a real paradise, and the Sahara desert was green, and had lots of water.

CO2 is NOT the climate changer, it never has been. Even methane is not, its impact on the earth's climate temperature-wise is near zero.

It is all in the numbers, just read it ! :up:

Man this could get ugly. I think these guys are going to regulate themselves into oblivion. The Hollywood-types...have fun with your water rationing. I bet a diet Dr. Pepper that they are above the water rationing rules. I feel sorry for the farmers there though.

Please tell me you are kidding, Catfish. :huh:

We have a saying in Danmark- "distress are the inventor's mother"

so maybe something good could come out of this.

Markus

No, I do not. The thing is, we have a warm time ahead due to increased sun activity. It will happen anyway, whatever we do. Even if we reduced the CO Input, it will not help us. CO will rise as a result of rising temperature without man's input, but it will not make things worse.
No reason for panic, just some planning required.

Well, then that is literally the most foolish thing I have ever read on this issue.

You show to not understand even the very basic properties of greenhouse gases.

Here's the wikipage for GHG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

The very first sentence completely flattens your two prior posts.

The Link is right, but you have to read it right.. gases do absorb energy, yes. But to what amount, compared to water vapour? Compare..

You can't directly compare CO2 and water vapor. They both absorb longwave thermal radiation in different wavelengths.

And that's the problem. Think of it as a greenhouse. The roof has frames for 50 glass panes. H20 and the rest of the GHGs take up, say, 30 panes. The greenhouse traps some heat, but also lets a lot of it escape. Now you add in, say, 10 panes more (the CO2). Your greenhouse now has 40 out of 50 panes installed. More heat is getting trapped inside and less is allowed to escape.

The more CO2 we release to the atmosphere, the more it will absorb the longwave thermal radiation at wavelengths the other gases dont, resulting in Earth trapping more heat.

Of course, I'm no scientist (Shocking, I know!), so I could be completely wrong. :hmmm:

There could be a relation between CO2 and greenhouse - effect. Think of the planet Venus. 96,5 % CO2 in the atmosphere, 400 degree C temperature all day and night.

OK, it's a bit nearer to the sun than Earth is, but I think the concept is clear.

I think water vapor mostly negates itself. Clouds trap heat, but also reflect sunlight.
CO2 lets sunlight trough and traps the heat that radiates from the Earth (The surface heated from the sunlight, to be clear)