22 Replies to “Permanent Drought”

  1. That’s good news! Do you have another point? Oh, I suppose it is that this proves climate change is bunk. Sorry, but it does not. More extreme (oscillating) weather is becoming the norm. Melting ice and permafrost in the arctic and snow/freezing temps in the U.S. south. Get used to it!

  2. It’s not that “…climate changes is bunk.” The climate always has changed, and always will change until the day the sun is finally big enough that it swallows the earth.
    What is bunk are the ideas that CO2 is a tuneable control that decides the climate will do, and that humans have sufficiently advanced knowledge of the feeds and feedbacks in the environment to be able to model future climates based on present inputs.
    Feel free to disagree with those of us who aren’t concerned about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, because we know that the models that tell us “we’re going to kill all life on earth!” are precisely what said that there would be permanent drought in Australia and California. If the models are right, then there should be drought. If there is no drought, what does that say about the models that predict dire things?

  3. That’s why you are the cook and not the rancher.
    To your way of thinking, the point is that libturds think in extremes. Every ‘what if’ event spells doomsday.
    Y,know like your comment that “More extreme (oscillating) weather is becoming the norm.”
    Get out from behind that desk and get into the real world.
    SC

  4. “More extreme (oscillating) weather is becoming the norm.”
    That is simply untrue. A category 3 hurricane has not hit the US coast in 11 years.
    A couple years ago a typhoon hit the Philippines and was reported as the strongest ever. Looking up the energy and windspead it was quite average. You are believing the media. Don’t.

  5. “More extreme (oscillating) weather is becoming the norm.”
    Interesting string of words.
    What might it mean?
    Just as Global Warming is being measured in feet this year,extreme weather is a fiction that only a city dweller would be stupid enough to fall for.
    That would be weather for the rest of us.
    Storms being part of said weather.
    Just as projecting linear trends from cyclic weather might make you look particularly gullible.
    Climate Change is real,normal and nobody but The Cult of Calamitous Climate has ever claimed otherwise.
    However Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, now that is a great source of comedy.
    And a rather brilliant intelligence test.

  7. JR is correct, of course. Nearly all the AGW alarmists are urban lieberals who get their talking points from fake-news leftist propaganda. They are poorly educated in the sciences and are easily manipulated by sophisticated propaganda disguised as ‘news’. Social media only makes it easier to manipulate them.
    Social media is like giving a infinite number of monkeys access to a typewriter and assuming they will write Shakespeare.

  8. What IS bunk … is that Jerry Brown has STILL NOT yet lifted the “official” drought “emergency” from the State. Listen Jerry … I am a FOURTH generation native Californian. And I have seen MULTIPLE droughts come and go in CA … most notably the mid 1970’s drought. We all took “military showers” for a couple years … all in a spirit of VOLUNTARY cooperation during a period of water shortage. But now we have a Totalitarian Socialist State … which includes dozens of “eco-bureaucracies” who flat out LIE about “permanent drought” and “global warming”. These same departments of eco catastrophe do everything possible to exacerbate the HUMAN problem by dumping our reservoirs to provide a constant, unchanging, water flow for baitfish in the Sacramento Delta. Nevermind that these fish have NEVER experienced anything remotely close to this CONSTANT measured flow of fresh water EVER before mankind moved-in. Jerry imposes his draconian rules on a compliant CA population … compliant, because most of the misfits living in CA …. JUST moved here from their flyover states of birth and don’t know any better. They are clueless about CA’s natural, normal, cyclical-drought Mediterranean climate. Normal. Our LAST drought lasted 4-years (2012 – 2015) … it was OVER last year when the storm patterns changed enough to FILL all our major reservoirs LAST YEAR (look it up) and deposit NORMAL levels of snow in the Sierra. This current, MASSIVE water season was actually started a year ago … if you are attuned to CA’s NORMAL, NATURAL, CYCLICAL, weather patterns which respond directly to El Niño & La Niña ocean currents.
    PS … thanks Kate, for publishing these FAKE (permanent) CA drought stories … so I can prattle-on about our FASCIST, TOTALITARIAN, faux-eco State of CA.

  9. Time to mention a new word which is badly needed IMO
    Empixellated
    Describing those who spend too much time looking at computer screens and not enough looking out of real windows

  10. ah hopplingsing, from your post I am able to determined that the representative numbers for your shoe size and IQ are one and the same, and you have damn small feet!

  11. Does this mean that Ontario and Quebec no longer have to subsidize California’s cap ‘n hat emisions?

  13. The SoCal area would never be in a drought if not for the fact that some politically
    motivated judge throttled back the flow of water from Northern California. Unlike
    liberals, I can read. That means I know about the massive infrastructure projects
    in the early part of the 20th century by William Mulholland and others. Dams,
    reservoirs, pipelines and viaducts were built to turn what was at one time an
    arid crap-hole into dozens of thriving cities.
    I have lived in this area all of my 61 years, and the usual pattern is 5 or 6 years
    of dry followed by 1 or 2 of wet. One of the perks of all that infrastructure was
    turning the Central Valley into the Garden of Eden. Thanks to this one liberal
    judge, huge portions of the Central Valley now looks like scenes out of The Grapes
    Of Wrath.

  14. Hoppsing, who says the ice and permafrost are melting in the arctic?
    First of all, permafrost is only measured at two points in the arctic, Fairbanks AL and some town in Siberia. Two points is hardly representative of the entire arctic and the records only go back for 80 years which is an eyeblink in time, so saying there is global change is a reckless extrapolation. For what it’s worth the NOAA website states “There has been a retreat to colder temperatures (less than -1°C) in the last few years.”
    Second, the past few years have seen increasing difficulty with Sealift, the yearly resupply of fuel to communities such as Repulse Bay, Pond Inlet, Pangnirtung, Clyde River, et al. The ice in the harbours is hanging around for weeks longer and coming back sooner so the tankers have tighter schedules and need icebreakers more often.

  15. Catastrophic manmade global warming is garbage. The science doesn’t support it which is why it was rebranded as the ultra-flexible “Climate Change”.
    I applaud the very modest recovery of CO2 levels.
    Hoppsing – please work on being less…poorly informed.
    https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Skeptic-Comprehensive-Earths-Climate/dp/0984782915/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i1_r?_encoding=UTF8&fpl=fresh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=&pf_rd_r=0T1BWX3CQ0KRXCB257NN&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=1cded295-23b4-40b1-8da6-7c1c9eb81d33&pf_rd_i=desktop

  18. I think the point has been well made here, but so many seem to be missing it in the main culture…
    We have HUGE government policies, taxes, etc. all based on some computer models that predicted, among other things, that both poles would be free of ice by 2015, and that most of the continental US would be in drought mode by now. Those predictions are demonstrably false, now that some time has passed. So why are we still basing anything at all, let alone massive tax increases and so-called “green” subsidies, upon obviously failed computer predictions??
    They were all wrong. Get over it, and attempt find some other excuse to impose burdens on anything and anyone and any country found to be productive. Cuz that was your real goal all along, wasn’t it?

  19. So many climate change predictions have been wrong due to erratic nature of climate change, which is exactly what was predicted by climate change science. Or something.

  20. As far as CO2 is concerned, you are spot on! I am old enough to remember what the term
    “Harmless trace levels” mean. At 350 PPM, there is no way in hell that any gas or compound
    at that level can possibly drive global climate!
    I once gathered all the coins I hoarded and created an array of pennies 20x25x20 high. The
    trick was to keep my rescued feral Tomcat from destroying my work. Of the 10,000 pennies,
    I removed 4. I cut one in half, putting one piece with the three cents in the foreground
    and the other in the main array.
    I still have the hi-res dSLR I took of the project. Here is where this gets interesting:
    Of the 350 PPM, mankind’s contribution is 14 of those 350 parts per million. The remaining
    336 PPM is contributed by Mammy Nature.
    Even “if” elevated levels of CO2 contribute to global warming, it has two very beneficial
    effects; Warmer conditions = happy plants. Also, increased levels of CO2 are like ringing
    the dinner bell for flora due to photosynthesis . That is the biggest benefit of higher
    levels of CO2.
    In North America, we have more forest land than before Columbus stumbled into the New World.
    This is an unassailable fact. Before we developed the technology to aggressively fight forest
    fires, all we could do is sit back and watch the forests burn. Tree harvesting in the U.S.
    has resulted in laws established in the Teddy Roosevelt administration that require at least
    a 1-1 replant ratio by timber companies. The current ratio is 8 planted for every 1 harvested.
    Fauna has existed long before Humans arrived on the scene, so natural propagation is probably
    a huge factor. Tree-huggers will fall for any hoax that comes from Al Gore (Got a D in his
    general science class in college,) and paid actors with no connection to science whatsoever
    (Bill Nye.) One of my favorite pieces of neo-Stalinist, Neo-Luddite propaganda is the concept
    of “Old growth forests.”
    According to legitimate research, “Old growth trees” have never accounted for more than about
    5 percent of the total forest land in North America. One lightning strike a hundred years
    ago could devastate areas larger than some American states. Fire does not give a rodent’s
    rectum about whether it was burning old or new growth! And that leads me to my final point.
    Younger flora, just like us animals have much higher metabolic rates. Young plants are far
    more efficient at converting CO2 into O2 than a thousand year old Sequoia . Add this all
    together and global warming theory would not pass the laugh test in my Jr Hi science class!

  21. As far as CO2 is concerned, you are spot on! I am old enough to remember what the term
    “Harmless trace levels” mean. At 350 PPM, there is no way in hell that any gas or compound
    at that level can possibly drive global climate!
    I once gathered all the coins I hoarded and created an array of pennies 20x25x20 high. The
    trick was to keep my rescued feral Tomcat from destroying my work. Of the 10,000 pennies,
    I removed 4. I cut one in half, putting one piece with the three cents in the foreground
    and the other in the main array.
    I still have the hi-res dSLR I took of the project. Here is where this gets interesting:
    Of the 350 PPM, mankind’s contribution is 14 of those 350 parts per million. The remaining
    336 PPM is contributed by Mammy Nature.
    Even “if” elevated levels of CO2 contribute to global warming, it has two very beneficial
    effects; Warmer conditions = happy plants. Also, increased levels of CO2 are like ringing
    the dinner bell for flora due to photosynthesis . That is the biggest benefit of higher
    levels of CO2.
    In North America, we have more forest land than before Columbus stumbled into the New World.
    This is an unassailable fact. Before we developed the technology to aggressively fight forest
    fires, all we could do is sit back and watch the forests burn. Tree harvesting in the U.S.
    has resulted in laws established in the Teddy Roosevelt administration that require at least
    a 1-1 replant ratio by timber companies. The current ratio is 8 planted for every 1 harvested.
    Fauna has existed long before Humans arrived on the scene, so natural propagation is probably
    a huge factor. Tree-huggers will fall for any hoax that comes from Al Gore (Got a D in his
    general science class in college,) and paid actors with no connection to science whatsoever
    (Bill Nye.) One of my favorite pieces of neo-Stalinist, Neo-Luddite propaganda is the concept
    of “Old growth forests.”
    According to legitimate research, “Old growth trees” have never accounted for more than about
    5 percent of the total forest land in North America. One lightning strike a hundred years
    ago could devastate areas larger than some American states. Fire does not give a rodent’s
    rectum about whether it was burning old or new growth! And that leads me to my final point.
    Younger flora, just like us animals have much higher metabolic rates. Young plants are far
    more efficient at converting CO2 into O2 than a thousand year old Sequoia . Add this all
    together and global warming theory would not pass the laugh test in my Jr Hi science class!

  22. Little Hoss, trust me when I say that your barrel reference will go right over his head!

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation