Climate Change/Water Issues....

[Darian]

An article in the SacBee indicates that a lawsuit that over turned a 2003 accord for sales of water from growers in the Imperial Valley to San Diego is under appeal in Sacto this week. This agreement, if overturned, would mean that San Diego would have to rely entirely on the LAMWD for it's water supply. That would put more pressure on MWD to increase its demand for water from the Delta. Bad news. The court is currently conducting hearings:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/20/406...ange-mean.html

Another article, seemingly unrelated, reports that the affects of climate change could imperil efforts to restore the Delta, Delta Smelt and Salmon/Steelhead unless it is controlled now:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/20/406...nia-water.html

Seems like all of this plus the recent DFG actions make up the convergence of a "perfect storm" of potentially negative outcomes for the Delta and it's ecology....

[STEELIES/26c3]

oboy thanks

[Mike Churchill]

The article in the Bee was just more simple minded b.s. regarding another scaremongering "study" cranked out by academics riding on the gravy train of government funding for climate change alarmism. Remember when they used to call it "global warming?" Global temperatures have plateaued since about 1998, so the activists and folks who depend on government grants "re-branded" it "climate change" a couple of years ago.

The thing is, the climate has been changing, sometimes slowly, sometimes relatively quickly, for a couple of billion years. Many of those changes are cyclical, and there is no persuasive evidence that humans have any control over the global climate at all. (However, we significantly affect local climates all the time through land use changes (deforestation, dams / irrigating large areas, building / expanding cities, etc.) Moreover, attempting to "stabilize" CO2 levels will just screw up our economy to no effect while China and India keep building coal-fired power plants at a rapid rate.

Contrary to the spin repeated ad nauseum in the media, the allegedly severe impact of humanity's CO2 emissions on the climate is in fact not well supported by empirical evidence. This is not an appropriate forum for the necessarily lengthy explanation supporting my statements above, but if you are interested in learning about atmospheric CO2, the state of "the science" of climate change, and the current (severe) limitations on the accuracy of climate modeling, I suggest you take a look at www.whatsupwiththat.com, www.bishophill.com, and / or www.climateaudit.com.

By the way, reading the latest batch of emails between the "leading climate scientists" that were released to the internet by an apparent whistleblower this week reveals how uncertain the science behind the alarmism is and how many of the scientists and journalists involved have private opinions very different from what they say in public.

Finally, given the difficulty of predicting the weather even 10 days in advance, the idea that the climate (weather) can be accurately predicted 50 years in advance should give you pause. For a number of very good reasons, it can't be.

Mike

[Darian]

MMmm,... Interesting. Do you subscribe to the reports in todays media that say that the e-mails recently produced were similar enough to the prior e-mails (released by the same hacker) that they appear to be the same

Mike,.... I'm not sure I disagree with some of what you say but there's so many scientists on either side of this fence that I'm not sure which has the best info....

One thing's for sure, coal fired power plants pollute. In areas downwind from them, acid rains have occurred and many of the waterways on the east coast were rendered too acidic to support fish life from pollution caused by coal fired power plants. That has documented over a lengthy period of time. Coal mines are also major sources of pollution by themselves. So, for me, the climate is changing (as you point out). Are we impacting (accelerating) that change I believe that we are in a lot of ways. Will we do much of anything to change that Not as long as there's big money in production in mining coal or gas/oil production.... Still adds up to a major problem of clean-up for the rest of us.

[Mike Churchill]

Darian,

The MSM is way behind the blogosphere regarding the email releases. The three websites I referenced above all include links to archives of the 5292 new emails and one links to a combined searchable archive with the approximately 1000 "Climategate" emails from 2009. The authenticity of the emails has been confirmed by multiple sources, including Penn State Professor Michael Mann and University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones, two of the scientists at the center of the email storm

The denizens of WUWT, Climate Audit, and Bishop Hill--who include scientists and engineers from around the world as well as regular folks--are busy reviewing, analyzing and posting individual emails from the new archive. Taken in context, the emails confirm the huge holes in the science behind the alarmism and highlight the close connections between activist scientists and some media organizations (e.g., the BBC), NGOs, and other organizations out to profit from the climate scare.

As to the claim that "thousands of scientists believe in man-made global warming" / there is a scientific consensus, it has been debunked repeatedly but keeps getting dredged up by in the media. I don't have the citation handy, but the claim is actually based on a ridiculous two question on-line survey that was sent to about 10,000 scientists a few years ago. The two questions were themselves very ambiguous, a minority of the 10,000 responded, most of them were then excluded as not being "climate scientists" (because they didn't answer the way the surveyors wanted", and the final reported result that "97% of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming" turns out to be that 77 of 79 self-identified "climate scientists" agreed with two ambiguous questions that didn't identify "by how much" or "over what time period."

In contrast, 30,000 scientists and engineers signed what is called the Oregon Petition a couple of years ago pointing out to the government that the climate has always changed and that there is no compelling evidence that there is anything unusual about what is happening currently.

With regard to coal and acid rain:

1) Acid rain was a big scare a couple of decades ago that you don't hear much about any more. My understanding is that more recent studies suggest that the "acidification" and related decline in fertility of many East Coast streams and lakes during the 20th Century was actually a return to more natural conditions after large forest fires in the late 19th century had injected great amounts of ash into the environment, which raised the pH of the water temporarily.

2) With current SO2 scrubbers installed, coal plants don't contribute to "acid rain" like they used to. (Technology installed at great cost for what was probably a significant public health benefit, but further improvements / restrictions heading far into the land of diminishing marginal returns.)

3) Coal mining has significant environmental impacts. How bad they are varies from place to place and by mining technique. Some places, some industry practices, very bad. Not to mention the deaths of coal miners. (The worst pollution and safety practices are in China, not the US, and China is mining and burning coal like mad and will continue to do so to fuel its development regardless of what the U.S. does.) Now we are talking about balancing the tremendous benefits that flow to the entire population from cheap and abundant energy with the damage caused by coal mining. I agree that mining should be done in ways that limit environmental impacts but think that common sense should be involved in the balancing rather than anti-energy hysteria as practiced by some environmental groups. (I say that neither owning a coal mine nor any property in Appalachia threatened by mountain top removal or a potential sludge tailings flood. Details matter, of course.) Right now, coal is the cheapest way to generate electricity, and until the anti-nuclear hysteria fades, the best way to keep the population warm and productive.

Back to the original topic of this thread: There is no reason to panic about diminishing flows in the Sac system in the next century.

Mike

[Darian]

Mike,.... Thanks for the info. Interesting stuff. Not sure I agree that there's no danger of decreased flows in the Sacramento River over the next decade, tho. That's one area that is and increasingly will be impacted by human activities and demands for increased water supplies. With all of the potential development, political drum-beats and money being spread around, there's nothing on the horizon to indicate that another canal or tunnel to draw water from the Sacramento won't be built.

Hope you and your family had a good Thanksgiving....

[Mike Churchill]

Darian,

Let me be more specific: there is no scientific evidence that human emissions of CO2 will have any effect on river flows in the next couple of centuries. Diversions are a direct human impact that (of course) has a long history and, one can easily project, a bleak future.

By the way, over the last couple of days, the "crowd source" analysis of the over 5200 emails has turned up numerous admissions by the "top" climate scientists of uncertainties and limitations in their work and incredible examples of unprofessional and unscientific behavior. I strongly recommend that folks educate themselves on these issues.

Wattsupwiththat.com is the best place to go for an introduction to the subject.

Mike

[Darian]

Mike,.... I'm a bit confused. When you cite, "....human emmissions of CO2....", are you referring to human exhalation of CO2 That based on the impact of population increase If so, I'm not sure how that applies to increases or decreases in any rivers flow....

If not, does human emmissions mean emmissions from human activities I thought our prior posts already covered that....

[Mike Churchill]

I meant human activities. Although there are some folks who think there are too many of us currently breathing on the planet. (I am not one of them.)

[Woodman]

numerous admissions by the "top" climate scientists of uncertainties and limitations in their work and incredible examples of unprofessional and unscientific behavior.

One thing the "anti-climate change" folks will never be accused of is uncertainty. So Mike...there is one, non-peer reviewed website that we should believe over the overwhelming evidence of climate change.

Even if you debate the degree to which anthropogenic effects are to cause, changes in the timing and magnitude of flows in Central Valley rivers are well documented. Pretending it isn't true doesn't really help anyone...

I tried to resist entering this thread ....,but I could no longer help myself.