GB54;842473333 said:

---

Oil and gas in Texas isn't as big a deal as it was in the 1980's. It will
certainly be felt in certain pockets but Alaska is the place where it will really take its toll.

---

North Dakota?

Holmoephobic;842473355 said:

---

North Dakota?

---

As well, yup

burritos;842473168 said:

---

People come to California because of its good weather, and it's not humid.

---

and cheap higher education for their kids.

68great;842473330 said:

---

Not always. Education makes it difficult for someone to deny the existence of things such as evolution and climate change. That is why a some people from a certain political party (note: i am NOT saying all Republicans) want to change how science is taught.

---

I have no doubt that despite having Cal education, there are probably a good number of Cal grads(including on this board) who don't believe in evolution or climate change.

TouchedTheAxeIn82;842473334 said:

---

The changing weather pattern is what is going to sink California. :cry:

---

I am not so sure. I know of many farmers and grape growers who are making adjustments to deal with a warmer drier climate. ca
We will also see changes in crops to those that require less water: eliminating rice, almonds etc.
there are many crops that can grow well in a warmer drier climate. The grape growers are already changing the types of grapes that are being grown.

Plus, desalination plants, better use of water are all things that CA is already looking toward.

I would be more concerned about other parts of the US which are still in denial about climate change and refuse to make accommodations.

From what I have read the entire Great Plains will be adversely affected and if the ag producers fail to adjust, we could see another LARGER Dust Bowl.
IMO we should be looking at building a Keystone Pipeline; but to bring water from Canada not oil.

Finally there are even greater problems to be faced by low lying costal areas in places like the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Southeastern Seaboard.
The people there might not believe in climate change, but an increase of 2-3 feet in these areas really will "sink" these locations. Although there will be some flooding in the South Bay Area and possibly San Diego, CA does not have similar large flat areas adjacent to the coast line where the flooding will be the most severe.

burritos;842473406 said:

---

I have no doubt that despite having Cal education, there are probably a good number of Cal grads(including on this board) who don't believe in evolution or climate change.

---

Maybe you are right. But I would guess that that number is probably extremely small. I do not doubt that there are many religious people at Cal who believe in the Bible. But being religious and believing in the Bible does not preclude some one from believing in evolution and climate change.

California is going to have to seriously get into water conservation, like the Aussies. Dual flush toilets, gray water use, restrictions on lawns, covered aqueducts, new water monitoring technology and desalination. It will work because it has to and because the current system is wasteful.

68great;842473413 said:

---

Maybe you are right. But I would guess that that number is probably extremely small. I do not doubt that there are many religious people at Cal who believe in the Bible. But being religious and believing in the Bible does not preclude some one from believing in evolution and climate change.

---

Have you seen how vitriolic the green/blue debates get on this board? There is no doubt there are MANY people here who absolutely believe that climate change is a governmental conspiracy in cahoots with the IMF that want to enslave the liberty conscious American patriot and that we need to go back to the Gold Standard yesterday. As for evolution, the 5000 year old dinosaur fossil in Liberty University is proof it's bullsh!t.

oskirules;842473384 said:

---

and cheap higher education for their kids.

---

i pity the fool comes to Ca expecting cheap higher education. those days are loooooooong gone.

68great;842473409 said:

---

Finally there are even greater problems to be faced by low lying costal areas in places like the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Southeastern Seaboard.
The people there might not believe in climate change, but an increase of 2-3 feet in these areas really will "sink" these locations. Although there will be some flooding in the South Bay Area and possibly San Diego, CA does not have similar large flat areas adjacent to the coast line where the flooding will be the most severe.

---

uh-oh, 68great, don't think you got the memo yet about the as yet unnamed ocean waters gonna reclaim portions of the central valley. 20 foot rise is just a matter of time, much more thereafter.. ironically worsened by ongoing subsidence as CV acquifiers are sucked dry.

on the upside, look for norcal water being (literally) shipped to la-la land by freighter, since high speed rail just won't do the job.

# manical laughter goes here. [no, i'm not kidding]

smh;842473480 said:

---

uh-oh, 68great, don't think you got the memo yet about the as yet unnamed ocean waters gonna reclaim portions of the central valley. 20 foot rise is just a matter of time, much more thereafter.. ironically worsened by ongoing subsidence as CV acquifiers are sucked dry.

on the upside, look for norcal water being (literally) shipped to la-la land by freighter, since high speed rail just won't do the job.

# manical laughter goes here. [no, i'm not kidding]

---

The projections of 22 feet are over the next 200+ years.
The projections over the next 100 years are conservatively 1-4 feet or more aggressively 4-6 feet.
IMO projections beyond 100 years are a waste since there are too many variables known and unknown. For example a dam at the point where the Central Valley meets the SF Bay.
Btw if we get 22 foot rise in Sea level. California will be better off than the bulk of the US. Say goodbye to the Eastern Seaboard. Florida. Alabama Louisiana. Mississippi. Half of Texas. The Gulf Coast.

Has anyone been to the LHS science museum? There's a great exhibit showing how the Bay of SF was once a land basin where native americans used to reside.

beelzebear;842473328 said:

---

One of the reasons why Texass didn't eat sh*t during the Recession was strict home equity lending laws. They got ripped in previous bust years and the Keating fiasco, so they put laws to help prevent it again. Also a lot of the job growth Texass bragged about were minimum wage. Of course now that oil has crashed, well Texass is getting messed with in a big way.

---

You mean regulation helped Texas?!

68great;842473409 said:

---

I am not so sure. I know of many farmers and grape growers who are making adjustments to deal with a warmer drier climate. ca
We will also see changes in crops to those that require less water: eliminating rice, almonds etc.
there are many crops that can grow well in a warmer drier climate. The grape growers are already changing the types of grapes that are being grown.

Plus, desalination plants, better use of water are all things that CA is already looking toward.

I would be more concerned about other parts of the US which are still in denial about climate change and refuse to make accommodations.

From what I have read the entire Great Plains will be adversely affected and if the ag producers fail to adjust, we could see another LARGER Dust Bowl.
IMO we should be looking at building a Keystone Pipeline; but to bring water from Canada not oil.

Finally there are even greater problems to be faced by low lying costal areas in places like the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Southeastern Seaboard.
The people there might not believe in climate change, but an increase of 2-3 feet in these areas really will "sink" these locations. Although there will be some flooding in the South Bay Area and possibly San Diego, CA does not have similar large flat areas adjacent to the coast line where the flooding will be the most severe.

---

Good point about the Midwest. Most farmers in the Midwest do not irrigate and have no capability to do so. When the rains dry up (which happens sometimes) they are in a bad way. That is ridiculous given the abundant rainfall they have most years. My mom's boyfriend grew up as a farmer in Missouri and they never bothered to irrigate or even connect pipes to the Mississippi River which wasn't that far away. I am not sure people who haven't thought about their water infrastructure at all beyond the levees and dams that the feds usually build for them are in a position to judge the Western states given how much food production occurs here as well.

Grapes do just fine in our climate. They require very little supplemental irrigation. Many vineyards hardly irrigate at all (only when temperatures soar well into the hundreds and the vines show stress.) In fact, the bigger problem for vineyards is that global warming will make our weather more tropical. Grapes don't particularly care for lots of summer rain and it causes fungal diseases. That is why there are not a lot of vineyards in Mexico except for a few suitable microclimates.

As for almonds, the reason we grow them here is that they do well here. They grow pecans in the South. Almonds fail as a crop in the South because they are very susceptible to frost. Lots of times there isn't much frost in the South, but some years there is. In those years the crop would be very small or even non-existent. California is able to produce abundant, reliable crops of almonds and there are fewer diseases here because of the dry climate.

Other states talk about California "stealing" their water, but the reality is that there is more rainfall in places that don't need it as much and we should manage this at a national level. We don't steal Florida's orange juice or Alaska's salmon. They are commodities that there is a market for. Water has not been treated like a commodity in much of this country because it is so plentiful. For the same reason we don't really consider breathable air a commodity but you can be sure it will be treated as one on Mars if we ever get there. However, water is a commodity and the states that have more than they use should be compensated for sending it to places it is more beneficial to the national economy. We get salmon and pecans, Washington and Georgia get almonds and wine. Politicians in this country spend too much time bickering instead of solving national issues. We even fought a long and bloody civil war because some people are that pigheaded.

GivemTheAxe;842473633 said:

---

The projections of 22 feet are over the next 200+ years.
The projections over the next 100 years are conservatively 1-4 feet or more aggressively 4-6 feet.
IMO projections beyond 100 years are a waste since there are too many variables known and unknown. For example a dam at the point where the Central Valley meets the SF Bay.
Btw if we get 22 foot rise in Sea level. California will be better off than the bulk of the US. Say goodbye to the Eastern Seaboard. Florida. Alabama Louisiana. Mississippi. Half of Texas. The Gulf Coast.

---

yes, antartica AT CURRENT TREND could hang around for centuries. but trends are not our friend, um, friend.

climate academicians have been beaten up so bad in the conservative press they're channeling turtles now, heads (mostly) tucked inside the shell. all you gonna hear from them has to be proven from a rear view mirror perspective. meanwhile the arctic is melting like crazy. and there's a reason for that, if you take a look at *where* co2 is produced and where it concentrates afterwards..

[video=youtube;x1SgmFa0r04][/video]

the arctic melt is accelerating, greenland esp. if greenland and other landbound northern ice bleeds out it's pretty much game over for humanity, ie - 6 meters ~20feet. might be game over anyways, but i'm not going there quite yet.

have a nice day.

burritos;842473642 said:

---

Has anyone been to the LHS science museum? There's a great exhibit showing how the Bay of SF was once a land basin where native americans used to reside.

---

Many people are surprised to learn that the San Francisco Bay that we know is only a few thousand years old. The oceans have risen about 120 meters since the last ice age, and most of the Bay is less than 20 meters deep. No climate change, no San Francisco Bay.

dimitrig;842473661 said:

---

Grapes do just fine in our climate. They require very little supplemental irrigation. Many vineyards hardly irrigate at all (only when temperatures soar well into the hundreds and the vines show stress.) In fact, the bigger problem for vineyards is that global warming will make our weather more tropical. Grapes don't particularly care for lots of summer rain and it causes fungal diseases. That is why there are not a lot of vineyards in Mexico except for a few suitable microclimates.

As for almonds, the reason we grow them here is that they do well here. They grow pecans in the South. Almonds fail as a crop in the South because they are very susceptible to frost. Lots of times there isn't much frost in the South, but some years there is. In those years the crop would be very small or even non-existent. California is able to produce abundant, reliable crops of almonds and there are fewer diseases here because of the dry climate.

Other states talk about California "stealing" their water, but the reality is that there is more rainfall in places that don't need it as much and we should manage this at a national level. We don't steal Florida's orange juice or Alaska's salmon. They are commodities that there is a market for. Water has not been treated like a commodity in much of this country because it is so plentiful. For the same reason we don't really consider breathable air a commodity but you can be sure it will be treated as one on Mars if we ever get there. However, water is a commodity and the states that have more than they use should be compensated for sending it to places it is more beneficial to the national economy. We get salmon and pecans, Washington and Georgia get pecans and wine. Politicians in this country spend too much time bickering instead of solving national issues. We even fought a long and bloody civil war because some people are that pigheaded.

---

Yes. The idea that we should or shouldn't grow things is ludicrous. The reason we grow almonds is because we produce over 80% of the world crop, it's California's biggest cash crop and it's the best return on investment for a farmer who decides where to put his water. The markets decide these things.

CalLax;842473665 said:

---

Many people are surprised to learn that the San Francisco Bay that we know is only a few thousand years old. The oceans have risen about 120 meters since the last ice age, and most of the Bay is less than 20 meters deep. No climate change, no San Francisco Bay.

---

Oceans rose because all of that ice melted, of course.

The climate is always going to change. Antarctica used to be green and lush, too. What global change deniers don't realize is that is the RATE OF CHANGE that is unprecented in the historical record.

dimitrig;842473669 said:

---

Oceans rose because all of that ice melted, of course.

The climate is always going to change. Antarctica used to be green and lush, too. What global change deniers don't realize is that is the RATE OF CHANGE that is unprecented in the historical record.

---

yes sir, just so.

smh;842473664 said:

---

climate academicians have been beaten up so bad in the conservative press they're channeling turtles now, heads (mostly) tucked inside the shell.

---

Climate academicians pay attention to the conservative press? Who knew!

GB54;842473667 said:

---

Yes. The idea that we should or shouldn't grow things is ludicrous. The reason we grow almonds is because we produce over 80% of the world crop, it's California's biggest cash crop and it's the best return on investment for a farmer who decides where to put his water. The markets decide these things.

---

um, dunno, just a wild stab in the dark, maybe Almonds are the Golden State's biggest legal cash crop?

smh;842473675 said:

---

um, dunno, just a wild stab in the dark, maybe Almonds are the Golden State's biggest legal cash crop?

---

Lol, yes and all that water is unaccounted

dimitrig;842473669 said:

---

Oceans rose because all of that ice melted, of course.

---

Yes, that is what's so fascinating. Why did all that ice melt 10,000 years ago?

don't worry CalLax, honorable Dr Michael Mann has no reservations about serving as our lightning rod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

maybe it's just me but seems like he's the closest thing this generation has to a saintly Dr King. or General Washington swimming the Delaware?

# your smileage may vary

CalLax;842473677 said:

---

Yes, that is what's so fascinating. Why did all that ice melt 10,000 years ago?

---

the alleged day of the week varies, but i read somewhere that you-know-who needed more fresh water to irrigate adam and eve's victory garden. hope that helps CL.

oh, just in case you swing the other way, here's one of many Maany MAAAANNY helpful articles from the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

personal ps: might wanna channel less fox news and attend more classwork instead.

You might want to read the information in your link before posting. It says nothing about why glacial ages begin and end. Note the emphasis in my first post about the "why".

You might also want to reconsider who you are lecturing to. I did very well in class - and in graduate school. And I didn't major in basket weaving, if you know what I mean. And one more thing, Fox News and the Bible are not the sources of my knowledge of climate and geology. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.

CalLax;842473686 said:

---

You might want to read the information in your link before posting. It says nothing about why glacial ages begin and end. Note the emphasis in my first post about the "why".

You might also want to reconsider who you are lecturing to. I did very well in class - and in graduate school. And I didn't major in basket weaving, if you know what I mean. And one more thing, Fox News and the Bible are not the sources of my knowledge of climate and geology. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.

---

excellent. my work here is done.

feel free to research interesting stuff on the net by yourself from now on.

# fiat lux

Afraid to fight with someone in your own weight class? Understood. Lefties like knocking down their straw men but run and hide from true debate.

CalLax;842473691 said:

---

Lefties like knocking down their straw men but run and hide from true debate.

---

You wing-nuts, you think you know us and then love to generalize. Just makes you look silly.

I was curious. Found this. I cannot vouch for it, having no background in the field, but they make an interesting argument. Spoiler alert: it's the continental drift.

http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

CalLax;842473691 said:

---

Afraid to fight with someone in your own weight class? Understood. Lefties like knocking down their straw men but run and hide from true debate.

---

what were your graduate studies: 6th grade!? grow up.

i try to lead folks to reconsider what's what. they disagree, fine, go with oski. in my experience stubborn cases, determined to argue just for spice, those guys or gals aren't worth my effort. here's a saved snapshot 'splains why.
source:

ancient archived cybers' GW shoots and giggles here:
http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?74732-vid-cam-north-pole

hanky1;842473300 said:

---

2015 will be an interesting year for Texas. I expect it to substantially underperform the rest of the country.

---

That is why they (Texas businessmen and politicians) are among those leading the charge to start a war with Iran--they want oil prices to go up (war) instead of down (peace, with Iran selling again). War in the Mideast is good for Texas pocketbooks.

CalLax;842473677 said:

---

Yes, that is what's so fascinating. Why did all that ice melt 10,000 years ago?

---

A rise in CO2 levels coinciding with massive human deforestation in conjunction with the invention and spread of agriculture and a resulting booming human and livestock population (civilization).

Article of interest: Oops: The Texas Miracle That Isn't

Go!Bears;842473202 said:

---

There is plenty of water, we just need to be smarter about how we use it. Less rain just makes our weather even better.

---

Since I have more than a passing interest in the subject, this post is dead on. Storage facilities, especially underground basins, and greater use of reclaimed water could eliminate most of the drought related problems in terms of residential and agricultural (but not cattle) needs. I have to laugh at some of the dumb stuff I hear about conservation. Like the comment about washing our cars in the driveway. Other than the Governor, there is no one who is willing to look at the intensive uses of water for political reasons. The concept of rationing is idiotic when you think about the big users who maybe should not be in a state where there are water shortages. I would reference a cite to support all this, but that would only inflame everyone more, as its a Furd website on water. Finally, the drought and "water shortages" are a western US issue, not just a Cali issue. Flame away.

Bobodeluxe;842473257 said:

---

But shouldn't education moderate extreme views, somewhat?

---

I would hardly call what is coming out of college these days moderate. Racist students, racist professors (anyone read what Cal profs said about black student athletes in the latest academic report?), racist and stupid student government, etc. I am willing to support athletics and research but as far as i am concerned, the academic side can fend for itself without my money or taxes.