It has been a rainy cold summer here in MA, so far.

In California it is either an area with a bunch of rain or arid. We tend to think of much of the state as a lush garden when in truth much of it is just man made.

People think of Oklahoma as a dry, near desert. That is not the case. We recognized our shortcoming and built more man made lakes than any other state in the Union. And we still have times when we have less than what we really want.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626216162.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626216203.jpg

You forgot last year when that damn up near Folsom was about to burst due to poor maintenance and heavy rains.

Chico, and it was more about poorly designed than maintaining, or that is my understanding.

The type of almonds that I get from Cali (non pariel) have no flavor. They don't taste like almonds.

When I was in college, I had amaretto and was told "this is almond flavored." I thought, "WTF are they talking about?" I was probably in my 40s before I had regular almonds (from Europe) that actually tasted like something (other than just being crunchy and mildly sweet).

But, the good news is that "non pariel" almonds are very uniform in shape and size and a little sweet.

I've become a believer in man made climate change.
Much of Ca's problems are from those that do not believe in man made climate change.
Climate change is shown by archeoligy to extend into the very bottom of history.
Nature is calous, uncaring.
Nature is corrupt, entropy.
Much of California policy is driven by a perverse religion that revers "the planet", or "nature".
They don't believe in man made climate change, and instead believe in reducing mankind.

We also have to recognize the reality of a receding ice age where much of where North American's live was under ice.
I see two layers, both must be followed:

Change our own structure with the climate change we yet lack power over.
Work against nature in order to bring benefit, and increase the life yield of the earth, as we have power over it.

An utterly ignorant statement

Making long term decisions based on short term data is a fools game. And 200 years of climate data is extremely short term.
I remember back in the 70's being told that New York will be under water by 2000. Last time I looked, NY streets are still drivable. Now we are being told the planet has 12 years left...... how foolish can one be.
Here in Ohio, we have all the water anyone could ever use. We choose to live here not in a desert. So for the folks that live in a desert and complain about having no water, I have no sympathy for you.

its still ohio. and people there are so unsympathetic. no thanks.

I think I will go outside and water my lawn and garden. Then probably wash my cars. Oh my pool is a little low so I will top it off.
Then just for fun, I will let the hose run will I have lunch.

With tree rings we have a bit more than 200 years of data.
And they show a heck of a lot of change, even "pre industrial" change.
I do agree, a lot of people have been fear conned with persuasion that conceals our inaccuracy of prediction, as well as the extensive changes of the past.
Faith in false predictions, and lack of knowledge of past changes, result in fear of change, and any perturbance increases the frenzy.

What is left out about the NY hysteria is that although the ocean is rising, so to is land that carried the weight of an ice age.
Coastal area is expanding in greater portion compared to where it is shrinking.

Miami does seem to be in trouble.
New York, not so much.
Much of Florida seems to have been under the ocean in the past, probably will again.

A good solution would indeed be migration of remote capable jobs.
I think it is already happening.

bull headed denial of science. that's one of the reasons for contrarian-type behaviour.
some prime examples within this thread.

One question I've never heard addressed (because probably nobody knows or wants to know the answer): We have this big push to go with artificial turf here in LA. Everyone's doing it to maintain that lawn look while conserving water. Or maybe a desert landscape. Great. But all of that lawn must have some environmental impact on exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen and all that greenhouse gasses thing. The combined surface area of grass has got to be mind boggling. Just as cutting down rainforest in the Amazon is bad, wouldn't eliminating all lawns (and going to turf--which has got to be some sort of petroleum-based product--or decomposed granite/rock/gravel xeriscape) in drought areas be environmentally bad, too? There's got to be some degree of "good" biomass in grass and all the bugs/worms/spiders that live in it.

<iframe width="733" height="412" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wAgUICswZuY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No one is denying science, actually quit the contrary. I just choose to listen to ALL the facts not the ones that suit an agenda.
Intelligent people do not blindly follow, intelligent people will always continue to question.

Ah ha! You are the miscreant creaturecat speaks of.

PM me at your convenience. I got an idea.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626287906.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626288516.jpg

Some years ago when the Mississippi was flooding I was thinking...why not just pump that to Lake Meade.
Then I looked at the relative altitudes of the places.
Then the energy cost, even in a lossless system of lifting that water.
That idea, well, it died there.

The interesting thing I've learn more recently when studying climate models is solar powered phase changes and movements for water.
Some potential there to move massive amounts of water, an drop it where we want it within the limits of prevailing systems.
We don't understand why water does a lot of what it does.
But we do understand some of what water does.
And even with just that some, there is a lot we could do if we chose to.

don't be stoopid tobra, building water storage means destroying wetlands, and river canyons

or did you stupidly think they'd build big metal tanks??? or flood football stadiums??

:D

So... I lived in SoCal 1982-1985 and then again 1989-2015. 28 years or so...

I now live in the Cincinnati suburbs... The Good Lord looks after us very well, keeps our lawn watered for us and the swimming pool filled. (other than the initial Spring cover removal/shock/fill)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1626289499.jpg

I am very thankful that so many high earners continue to work/stay in California, keeping my pension fund solvent.

We opted to "give up" in 2015. We moved away but visit California friends/family often. (HOWEVER, many of our California friends are retiring and moving to Tennessee and The Carolinas.)

DL

But you must remember, this group just doesn't want water, they want cheap / free water that everyone else pays for!! The Leftist way!