My Photo

May 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

BlogStats


« Sandbox - 16feb17 | Main | Hot time in the ol’ Town Hall tonight »

17 February 2017

Comments

Russ

Rather than concerning themselves with the safety of the California water management infrastructure, for example Oroville Dam and other aging dams, our Water Resource Mangers are more concerned about Climate Change and the contribution of human CO2 emissions to global warming. On the other hand, according to the Governor, climate changes is our greatest threat, not leaking dams and collapsing flood control structures that could flood the home of 200,000 citizens.

CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

DISCUSSION
In September 2007, the State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 2007-0059, which set forth initial actions staff should take to respond to climate change and support the implementation of AB 32, the landmark climate change law that was adopted in 2006. Since then, the State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (collectively referred to as Water Boards) have played a collaborative and substantive leadership role in promoting water measures that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to adaptation to the effects of climate change. These measures include water recycling; water conservation and use efficiency; storm water capture; ecosystem protection, enhancement and restoration; drought response; and groundwater recharge. These measures are implemented primarily though issuing permits, developing policies and regulations, and providing financing. The State Water Board has also taken on additional responsibilities and functions since 2007, including the addition of the Division of Drinking Water, implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, and adoption of statewide drought response and water conservation regulations.

With the additional Board responsibilities added since 2007, additional understanding of climate change impacts, and new state plans and policies, the Board is in need of an updated resolution to set priorities and direct actions. The updated Climate Change Resolution (Resolution) sets forth a comprehensive set of climate change mitigation and adaptation actions, and establishes regular and ongoing progress reports on implementation of those actions. The Resolution covers all of the Water Boards’ functional areas, including major regulatory divisions (Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Water Rights) along with financial assistance, data analysis and technical support, and administrative and program support. The Resolution is intended to generate near-term action, manifesting in potential changes to policies, permits, and plans. The resolution also requires State Water Board staff to use plans and tools developed by other state and federal agencies to inform Water Board work products.

An updated and revised climate change resolution will give staff clear direction on high priority topics that will support implementation of the state’s key climate action priorities as identified in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Safeguarding California Plan, and Water Action Plan. It will also provide transparency to stakeholders on how the Water Boards will use their programs and authorities to further climate change mitigation and adaption.

Full Resolution HERE.

Russ

PPIC California's Views on Climate Change, July, 2016 Survey.

Nearly two-thirds of Californians (64%) say global warming’s effects have already begun, and a quarter (25%) say the effects will happen in the future. Only 8% say the effects will never occur. Since 2005, when PPIC first began asking Californians this question, majorities have said the effects have already begun. Today, majorities across regions and age, education, and income groups hold this view. Californians (64%) are about as likely as adults nationwide (59%, March 2016 Gallup Poll) to say the effects of global warming have begun.

However, only 24% of Republicans think that climate change is a serious threat to California, where as 71% of Democrats think it is a serious threat to California. Now we know where the hysteria is located, firmly on the left. More reasoning on the Republican right.

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1172

George Rebane

Dumb people get the government they/we deserve.

fish

Posted by: Russ | 17 February 2017 at 01:32 PM


C'mon Russ....fixing infrastructure costs money.....it doesn't make money.....like assigning a cost to carbon emissions makes money!

Don Bessee

While the dem partners in the media (that's you PE) are still chattering about Flynn and yesterdays news conf. The Presidents EPA pick Pruitt was confirmed as Secretary. The slash and burn started 1 hour ago. ;-)

Paul Emery

Yeah, those warmers (65%) are strictly tools of the Communist Conspiracy enabled by the UN sponsored Agenda 21 and co-ordinated in California by the Socialist Democrats and Governor Brown aided by bought off scientists and their studies .

Did I miss anything George? I'm trying to do a Dummies version of your hyperbole.

Todd Juvinall

Paul Emery, it is a hoax man. It is going to be defunded and your"consensus" scientists will have to come up with another money grubbing idea.

Bill Tozer

Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly.

Todd Juvinall

Susan Collins voted against Pruitt. Joe Manchin voted for him.

Russ

Todd@ 04:27PM

Tree hugging state vs coal miner state.

Gregory

Punchy Emery, if you had a rational argument you wouldn't resort to constructing so many straw men to taunt.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4zzXOoVcAAC51w.jpg

Not only is an AGW heretic now in charge of the EPA, but one of those science deniers is rumored to become Trump's science advisers... that confirmation would be worth watching live.

He's a tenured professor of physics at Princeton. I suspect he'll hold his own with the Senate, most of whom, like Al Gore, never took any real science in college, just a "Your friend, the Honey Bee" life science appreciation class. Maybe Stephen Frisch will step up to demolish his arguments that are remarkably like my arguments.

On yet another front, and this is very speculative, but the abiogenic theory of at least some oil is gaining attention again with the recent discovery of phenomenal amounts of molten carbon under North America. That says nothing about how said oil might be made, where it might be found and how much (if any) of current presumed (for good reasons) biogenic oil being extracted might be abiogenic.

We live in interesting times. Heads are exploding and buckets are tipping.

Scott Obermuller

The climate change disasters are always in the future.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7710229/Climate-change-could-make-half-the-world-uninhabitable.html
Never mind the past predictions never coming true.
Remember we were supposed to have a record amount of hurricanes?
Instead we had the most numbers of days with no hurricanes.
Maybe Paul can dig up the old 'facts' of 'settled science' and replay them here.
We could all use a good laugh.
C'mon poodle dog Paul. Remind us of the great predictions by the alarmists. Please bring your facts to the table.
I'll hold my breath.
Not.

Paul Emery

This about sums it up

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

George Rebane

PaulE 514pm - What the nation's science naifs never get from such a press release is that the predicted impacts of all this over the next century are negligible, and any politicized exercise of their mangled models haven't held water for the decades they've been playing with them. All these unfortunates can do on cue is squawk 'Consensus science! consensus science!' which also turns out to be fake news.

Don Bessee

This about sums it up, President Trump and his cabinet spend the money. Your semi religion on global warming has been caught lying and fudging the reports too often. The jig is up. PE, you can spend your money on it all day, just not ours anymore. ;-)

Gregory

Paul, that isn't the NASA of Werner Von Braun, it's NASA GISS, until recently run by hard left warmista James Hansen (at least an astrophysicist), and now run by Gavin Schmidt, a warmista mathematician who now refuses to appear in public with, for example, physicists, remembering how badly he lost a widely broadcast debate to the likes of Lindzen.

Schmidt warned Trump not to cut Schmidt's budget after the loss. How well that works is may be entertaining for us AGW heretics.

Paul, you've been getting your.science sermons from false prophet.

Russ

Paul, I agree NASA's satellite technology has provided some significant data on the global temperatures change. It had varied over time above average, below an average since 1979 when the satellites were launched. Today the global temperature is no higher in January 2017 than it was in July 1991. The overall average shows no significant increase for over the last 18+ years, yet the CO2 has continued to rise. Why have the temperatures not risen in parallel if there is a relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature?

Check out the graphic here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2017_v6.jpg

I will agree that CO2 has an impact on global temperatures, but it has been calculated to be about 1 degree C per century. That said, most of that CO2 is natural, not generated by humans. Humans are responsible for 3.207% of annual CO2 emissions; Mother Nature is responsible for 96.793% Do you think that controlling 3% of CO2 will have a significant impact on climate change? Please provide your analysis.

Russ

Interesting turn of events:

For the first time in years, self-identified Republicans slightly outnumber Democrats nationwide, according to the Gallup U.S. Daily Tracking Poll. Political junkies and news consumers would never know it if they simply watched network and cable news all day, but the results of Gallup’s tracking are the latest set of data indicating the modern Democratic Party is in serious political peril.

My emphasis

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

re: Russ @5:51

Plus, this kind of thing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/17/student-lefts-culture-intolereance-creating-new-generation-ofconservatives/

although I'm not sure that liberal vs. conservative is a good taxonomy. Thinking of the Democratic Party as a coalition of special interest groups makes it harder to pin down.

Bill Tozer

While the climate is always in flux, it is important to take a look at NASA top priority. Hike not on topic of this current thread, the ramifications do touch on the oceans cease to rise, union schools hyperventilating, and Arabs policing their own.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html

stevenfrisch

Posted by: Russ | 17 February 2017 at 01:32 PM


With all due respect Russ, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) does not have jurisdiction over dam maintenance and safety, nor do they control in any way how state resources are used for maintenance of the infrastructure.

The SWRCB regulates discharges of wastewater to surface waters from construction, industrial uses, municipal activities, wastewater treatment, dredging and filling, and agriculture and any alterations covered by the federal Clean Water Act.

Consequently their climate policy is intended to address specifically how a changing climate will affect their covered activities.

Todd Juvinall

Here is the homepage of SWR. Looks like Russ is right.

http://www.water.ca.gov/

stevenfrisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 18 February 2017 at 08:52 AM

Sorry Todd, but you posted the homepage of the California Department of Water Resources, not the California State Water Resources Control Board, which is here:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov

These are two entirely separate agencies with separate mandates. So...in short... I am right and you are full of beans.

Russ

The Glassy Eyed Cult

Professor William Happer, who has been tipped as front runner to replace John Holdren as the Whitehouse Science Advisor, has described climate scientists as a glassy eyed cult.

More HERE.

Todd Juvinall

No Frisch, you are wrong and Russ is right. And by the way, I like beans.

stevenfrisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 18 February 2017 at 09:54 AM


So Todd, I really don't mind it that people have different points of view about how we should spend state resources, or about how water should be managed. That is a judgement.

But when you are so demonstrably incorrect...the letter Russ posted was from the SWB not DWR...and they have different mandates which I directly pointed to...and my description of the SWB mandate is backed up by not just their web site but California Water Code...that is a FACT..and there are actual FACTS in the world...it just makes you look like an idiot when you deny them.

Russ

Steven@09:35AM

The call for review and comment on the resolution was on the Water Resources web page, and I referenced Water Resource Managers meaning to encompass all California Water Managers. California is spending billions to control climate change, with little or no impact, while the state's infrastructure is fraying at the edges. My point was the state needs to allocate resources to maintain infrastructure and not on attempts to control the climate, which is an impossible task.

Todd Juvinall

Oh please, it is something without a difference. You are just a bureaucrat lover. All one government to we peasants.

Paul Emery

Russ that same gallop poll shows trump down by 18 points in job approval How does that blend with your numbers on Democrat and Republican Preferences

Bill Tozer

Update, the Day without Paychecks

http://www.krem.com/news/nation/21-people-fired-after-taking-part-in-a-day-without-immigrants/409573045

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/02/employees-whine-day-immigrants/

My pool boys went on strike. No biggie, I put a padlock on the refrigerator. They went on strike and I went on strike by not feeding them for a day. You could here them howling from the basement come suppertime half way across the back forty.

Bill Tozer

Trump new Arab policy. What was the old policy?

http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/leaked-audio-obama-wanted-isis-to-grow/

http://yournewswire.com/congresswoman-obama-funded-isis/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/12/fact-check-obama-hillary-founders-isis-bet/

It's what Flynn was warning us about.


Bill Tozer

Trump's Arab Refugee Plan: Turkey, boots on the ground, risks, and the Saudis.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/trump-real-estate-approach-safe-zones-syria-170130135423734.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-saudi-idUSKBN15D14L

Sessions 8 months ago.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/trump-refugee-plan-build-safe-zones-middle-east-protect-refugees-close-home/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad