pec...@gmail.com <peceed@gmail.com> schrieb:

> Fire is a frequent natural process, there are trees that evolved
> toward high resistance that requires fire to survive. For example
> cones are vehicles that protects the seeds from fire and release
> them soon after.

Correct.

> The only negative human activity is firefighting, it allows to
> accumulate higher amounts of combustible materials. In "protected"
> areas fires are less frequent but more intense. >

There are also such things as setting fires, for example in order
to build wind turbines on the land thus cleared, as claimed in
https://www.krone.at/2480147 .

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 2:48:07 AM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Brett [2021-08-08 23:29:02] wrote:
> > Stefan Monnier <mon...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >>> Is there any way to detect absolutely _massive_ ancient fires using geology?
> >> Could be. BTW, I like https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a fun rendition of the
> >> data we know about past temperatures (I'd be interested in comparable
> >> renditions for CO2 levels).
> >> In any case, the explosive nature of exponential processes should make
> >> it obvious to any computer scientist that if we keep doing what we've
> >> been doing for the last couple centuries (with exponential growth in all
> >> kinds of ways) we'll sooner or later hit a major wall. There is
> >> overwhelming evidence in various areas that the human presence on this
> >> planet is not in the "negligible" part of the curve any more, so a wall
> >> is probably not too far off.
> > Earths climate is about to leave the brief interglacial cycle and suffer an
> > 8 Celsius temperature drop, that is 46 degrees Fahrenheit.
> >
> > https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles
> Even if that happens to be right, it just pushes one of the oncoming
> walls, there are plenty more on the horizon.
>
>
> Stefan

Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today could still feed human population
of 1e10 to 2e10?
To me that sounds extra optimistic.
If cooling happens on span of few 1000s years then, may be, humanity will adapt. But not if it happens on span of 100-200 years.

On 08/08/2021 23:11, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/8/2021 1:17 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 2:41:07 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>>> Before Humans, how many fires went crazy, and crowned up in the tops of
>>> the trees and burned massive areas?
>> <
>> I am going to go with:: "Nobody knows".
>>
>
> Is there any way to detect absolutely _massive_ ancient fires using
> geology?

There are ways to model the possibilities and probabilities. And there
is circumstantial evidence, such as soot layers dated to the same period
found in different places around the earth. Usually these are combined
with other evidence of volcanic or meteoritic activity (the two main
sources of world-encompasing fires).

On 09/08/2021 00:05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/8/2021 2:47 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Is there any way to detect absolutely _massive_ ancient fires using
>>> geology?
>>
>> Could be.  BTW, I like https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a fun rendition of the
>> data we know about past temperatures (I'd be interested in comparable
>> renditions for CO2 levels).
>>
>> In any case, the explosive nature of exponential processes should make
>> it obvious to any computer scientist that if we keep doing what we've
>> been doing for the last couple centuries (with exponential growth in all
>> kinds of ways) we'll sooner or later hit a major wall.  There is
>> overwhelming evidence in various areas that the human presence on this
>> planet is not in the "negligible" part of the curve any more, so a wall
>> is probably not too far off.
>
> I can see a natural warming cycle, mixed with pollution, equaling a very
> dangerous scenario.

The irony is that air pollution is actually /limiting/ global warming
somewhat - some of the crap we humans have pumped into the atmosphere is
reflecting back a bit of the solar radiation.

Still, garbage does not smell sweeter by leaving it out in the sun...

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>There are also such things as setting fires, for example in order
>to build wind turbines on the land thus cleared, as claimed in
>https://www.krone.at/2480147 .

krone.at is *not* renowned for journalistic quality.

Reading this piece, it's obvious that there is one source for this
claim, the guy who sold the journalist a ventilator; this guy claims
that all 110 of the fires were started to make room for wind turbines,
and he claims that none of the people there want wind turbines. He
does not present any evidence for this claim, nor does the journalist
present any evidence for or against it (in particular, he did not ask
the people responsible for investigating the fires), but then this is
only one part of the piece.

krone.at makes this claim the headline (but at least in quotes), and
introduces the headline with "Greeks report" (while the claim was
coming from only one Greek).

And now you repeat this without quotes and without any context.

- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

> Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
> could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?

Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
either ;-)

> If cooling happens on span of few 1000s years then, may be, humanity will
> adapt. But not if it happens on span of 100-200 years.

IIUC past extinction history suggests that large animals like us are
more vulnerable, tho being omnivore might let our specie overcome the
challenge. Of course that only applies to the survival of the specie
itself rather than specific individuals.

Stefan

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>There are also such things as setting fires, for example in order
>>to build wind turbines on the land thus cleared, as claimed in
>>https://www.krone.at/2480147 .
>
> krone.at is *not* renowned for journalistic quality.

I'm sure that worse sources than a newspaper have been quoted
on Usenet. Of course, you could argue that newspaper articles
should not be quoted without being fact-checked first.

There was a rather amusing case recently where a "fact checker"
employed by Facebook demanded exactly that of a news oraganization.
They ruled that the article should be limited in distribution
because it was not backed up by a government statistic. Ugh.

> And now you repeat this without quotes and without any context.

....

You did note the "claimed" there, did you?

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:10:54 PM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
> > could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?
> Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
> But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
> will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
> this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
> either ;-)

1-4 degrees of warming are very likely to negatively affect a quality of our food,
but I can't believe that they will be bad for quantity.
Both majority of human population and majority of our staple food plants are currently
living/grown in colder climate than they are naturally adapted to.

> > If cooling happens on span of few 1000s years then, may be, humanity will
> > adapt. But not if it happens on span of 100-200 years.
> IIUC past extinction history suggests that large animals like us are
> more vulnerable, tho being omnivore might let our specie overcome the
> challenge. Of course that only applies to the survival of the specie
> itself rather than specific individuals.
>

Don't we talk about prospects of thriving rather of survival?

>
> Stefan

Michael S [2021-08-09 09:10:38] wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:10:54 PM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> > Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
>> > could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?
>> Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
>> But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
>> will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
>> this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
>> either ;-)
> 1-4 degrees of warming are very likely to negatively affect a quality
> of our food, but I can't believe that they will be bad for quantity.

IIUC the reason for such predictions is that such changes to average
temperatures have much more serious consequences in terms of the
expected temperature ranges (where the extermes are more extreme).

In any case, it was just one possible scenario among many others.
As usual, it's much easier to predict the past,

Stefan

On 7/30/2021 4:14 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> (..I thought the group would be interested in this..)
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/26/dell_energy_pcs/
>
> (..A few paragraphs of interest..)
>
> Dell is no longer shipping energy-hungry gaming PCs to
> certain states in America because they demand more energy
> than local standards allow.
>
> Customers seeking to purchase, for example, an Alienware
> Aurora Ryzen Edition R10 Gaming Desktop from Dell's website
> and have it shipped to California are now presented with a
> message that tells buyers they're out of luck.
>
> "This product cannot be shipped to the states of California,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont or Washington due to power
> consumption regulations adopted by those states," the
> website says. "Any orders placed that are bound for those
> states will be canceled."
>
> ...
>
> Such concern about energy efficiency appears to be
> appropriate given the findings of a 2015 Semiconductor
> Industry Association report that, given a benchmark system
> of 10**-14 Joules/per bit transition, "computing will
> not be sustainable by 2040, when the energy required for
> computing will exceed the estimated world's energy
> production."
>

Invaders from afar!

https://youtu.be/NqnauxtCX6I

On 8/9/2021 10:21 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/30/2021 4:14 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
[...]
>
> Invaders from afar!
>
> https://youtu.be/NqnauxtCX6I

Oh shit! Wrong newsgroup! Sorry.

;^o

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>>There are also such things as setting fires, for example in order
>>>to build wind turbines on the land thus cleared, as claimed in
>>>https://www.krone.at/2480147 .
>>
>> krone.at is *not* renowned for journalistic quality.
>
>I'm sure that worse sources than a newspaper have been quoted
>on Usenet.

Sure. And there are worse tabloids than krone.at. That does not mean
that this headline in krone.at deserves being taken seriously, as you
did by repeating it (but without the quotes that krone.at put around
the claim).

>Of course, you could argue that newspaper articles
>should not be quoted without being fact-checked first.

It's ok to cite it as an example how krone.at sensationalizes the
opinion of a single person to satisfy the taste of its audience, many
of whom probably don't want wind turbines.

>There was a rather amusing case recently where a "fact checker"
>employed by Facebook demanded exactly that of a news oraganization.
>They ruled that the article should be limited in distribution
>because it was not backed up by a government statistic. Ugh.

A headline that sensationalizes the opinion of a single person who
does not give any evidence is more trustworthy in your opinion?

>> And now you repeat this without quotes and without any context.
>
>...
>
>You did note the "claimed" there, did you?

Given that most readers around here probably don't know krone.at and
therefore don't know that it is a tabloid newspaper of dubious
reputation, and many probably don't understand the linked article (and
even those who do would need to spend quite a bit of time to find out
on how little evidence that headline is based), for most readers here
that is not context; but at least it is a source, so I could follow it
and provide more context.

- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> On 8/8/2021 11:15 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:

[...]

>> An interesting statement, considering the massive fires now
>> burning in several states, the recent heat dome in Oregon and
>> Washington that killed over a billion marine animals in the space
>> of about a week, and the severe water shortage occurring in the
>> western states with no end in sight. Even GOP congresspersons
>> are starting to wake up to the reality that the effects of
>> climate change are already terrible and there is no sign of the
>> pace lessening.
>
> Before Humans, how many fires went crazy, and crowned up in the tops
> of the trees and burned massive areas?

This sounds like a rhetorical question. A more serious question
is, To what extent are massive fires in recent years, and also
the other heat/water events mentioned, the result of human-caused
climate change? The answer is unequivocally very much so.

To appreciate the seriousness of human-caused climate change,
take a look at the IPCC report released just in the last week.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

> (..I thought the group would be interested in this..)

I'm sorry that my posting this resulted in so much off-topic
discussion. I will try to restrict my own postings here to
more topical subjects.

Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Michael S [2021-08-09 09:10:38] wrote:
>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:10:54 PM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
>>>> could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?
>>> Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
>>> But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
>>> will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
>>> this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
>>> either ;-)
>> 1-4 degrees of warming are very likely to negatively affect a quality
>> of our food, but I can't believe that they will be bad for quantity.
>
> IIUC the reason for such predictions is that such changes to average
> temperatures have much more serious consequences in terms of the
> expected temperature ranges (where the extermes are more extreme).
>
> In any case, it was just one possible scenario among many others.
> As usual, it's much easier to predict the past,
>
>
> Stefan

The IPCC computer model predictions are known to be wrong,
and in the past the IPCC report acknowledge they required
some manual adjustments.

They took the climate info from, say, 30 years ago, and model it forward
by 10, 20, 30 years, and compare the predictions to the actual climate.

And the predictions didn't match the actual.

Then they took the results of, IIRC, 6 models and averaged them.
And the predictions still didn't match the actual.

So manual adjustment factors were added to make the predictions match
the actual data (it was documented in, IIRC, chapter 8 of that IPCC).
The current IPCC AR6 refers to this on page 1-43 as "the practice of
‘tuning’ parameter values in models to make their outputs match variables".
and more in section 1.5.3.2 "Model tuning and adjustment" on page 1-84.

They are now looking into improving the computer model projections.

U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

Tim Rentsch [2021-08-10 04:18:08] wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>> (..I thought the group would be interested in this..)
> I'm sorry that my posting this resulted in so much off-topic
> discussion. I will try to restrict my own postings here to
> more topical subjects.

FWIW, I found it interesting (and somewhat relevant to comp.arch, even
tho it quickly diverged).

Stefan

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 15:58:23 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
<MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 4:11:39 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> Is there any way to detect absolutely _massive_ ancient fires using geology?
><
>Burned forests covered by rocks and sediments.

I don't have links handy, but I recall reading about evidence being
found for massive, wide spread, wild fires in North America
approximately 10,000 years ago. Apparently in many areas, if you dig
down to that level, you find a layer of wood ash.

It was postulated that thousands of fires were started (more or less)
simultaneously by a large meteoritic air burst in what now is eastern
Canada. IIRC, the meteor burst near the area of Montreal, and debris
spread southwest in the direction of St. Louis.

The resulting fires appeared to have destroyed much of what is now
Ontario and enormous areas of the United States from the east coast to
the Rocky mountains. It was thought that habitat destruction killed
off many of the large prey animals and possibly contributed to the
extinction of the Clovis people.

YMMV,
George

On 8/9/2021 9:10 AM, Michael S wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:10:54 PM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
>>> could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?
>> Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
>> But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
>> will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
>> this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
>> either ;-)
>
> 1-4 degrees of warming are very likely to negatively affect a quality of our food,
> but I can't believe that they will be bad for quantity.

It is not just the warming per see, but the fact that the climate change
also effects the pattern of precipitation. California is currently in
the grip of a multi-year record drought caused by lack of rain, which
many attribute to warming. Its Central Valley produces about 1/2 of the
nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts (and is a significant supplier of
these to the world). The drought has caused farmers there to idle
fields, pull out high water consumption crops in favor of lower
consumption ones, etc. The amount of food harvested there is being
reduced. We'll have to wait to see how bad it gets, and what is done
about it.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/8/2021 11:15 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> An interesting statement, considering the massive fires now
>>> burning in several states, the recent heat dome in Oregon and
>>> Washington that killed over a billion marine animals in the space
>>> of about a week, and the severe water shortage occurring in the
>>> western states with no end in sight. Even GOP congresspersons
>>> are starting to wake up to the reality that the effects of
>>> climate change are already terrible and there is no sign of the
>>> pace lessening.
>>
>> Before Humans, how many fires went crazy, and crowned up in the tops
>> of the trees and burned massive areas?
>
> This sounds like a rhetorical question. A more serious question
> is, To what extent are massive fires in recent years, and also
> the other heat/water events mentioned, the result of human-caused
> climate change? The answer is unequivocally very much so.

https://youtu.be/LZxufUBSRp0

The burn rate is a near decade low, and 10% of what burned in the 1930’s
and only a few percent of pre-industrial natural burn expected in a forest.

> To appreciate the seriousness of human-caused climate change,
> take a look at the IPCC report released just in the last week.

The critics have been dissecting that bullshit also.
No confidence level any more as all the old predictions failed.

Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/9/2021 9:10 AM, Michael S wrote:
>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:10:54 PM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
>>>> could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?
>>> Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
>>> But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
>>> will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
>>> this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
>>> either ;-)
>>
>> 1-4 degrees of warming are very likely to negatively affect a quality of our food,
>> but I can't believe that they will be bad for quantity.
>
> It is not just the warming per see, but the fact that the climate change
> also effects the pattern of precipitation. California is currently in
> the grip of a multi-year record drought caused by lack of rain, which
> many attribute to warming. Its Central Valley produces about 1/2 of the
> nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts (and is a significant supplier of
> these to the world). The drought has caused farmers there to idle
> fields, pull out high water consumption crops in favor of lower
> consumption ones, etc. The amount of food harvested there is being
> reduced. We'll have to wait to see how bad it gets, and what is done
> about it.

California has always had droughts and always will have droughts, some of
these droughts lasted 200 years.
Just two years ago California had record rain, does not qualify as
multi-year drought until next year.

https://www.bytemuse.com/post/drought-historical-rainfall-california/

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 7:48:48 PM UTC-5, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Stephen Fuld <sf...@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > On 8/9/2021 9:10 AM, Michael S wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:10:54 PM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>>> Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
> >>>> could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?
> >>> Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
> >>> But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
> >>> will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
> >>> this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
> >>> either ;-)
> >>
> >> 1-4 degrees of warming are very likely to negatively affect a quality of our food,
> >> but I can't believe that they will be bad for quantity.
> >
> > It is not just the warming per see, but the fact that the climate change
> > also effects the pattern of precipitation. California is currently in
> > the grip of a multi-year record drought caused by lack of rain, which
> > many attribute to warming. Its Central Valley produces about 1/2 of the
> > nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts (and is a significant supplier of
> > these to the world). The drought has caused farmers there to idle
> > fields, pull out high water consumption crops in favor of lower
> > consumption ones, etc. The amount of food harvested there is being
> > reduced. We'll have to wait to see how bad it gets, and what is done
> > about it.
> California has always had droughts and always will have droughts, some of
> these droughts lasted 200 years.
> Just two years ago California had record rain, does not qualify as
> multi-year drought until next year.
>
> https://www.bytemuse.com/post/drought-historical-rainfall-california/
<
When Pangea was "together" the parts which represent the west and mid-west
in America had a millennial long drought.

Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/8/2021 11:15 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> An interesting statement, considering the massive fires now
>>>> burning in several states, the recent heat dome in Oregon and
>>>> Washington that killed over a billion marine animals in the space
>>>> of about a week, and the severe water shortage occurring in the
>>>> western states with no end in sight. Even GOP congresspersons
>>>> are starting to wake up to the reality that the effects of
>>>> climate change are already terrible and there is no sign of the
>>>> pace lessening.
>>>
>>> Before Humans, how many fires went crazy, and crowned up in the tops
>>> of the trees and burned massive areas?
>>
>> This sounds like a rhetorical question. A more serious question
>> is, To what extent are massive fires in recent years, and also
>> the other heat/water events mentioned, the result of human-caused
>> climate change? The answer is unequivocally very much so.
>
> The burn rate is a near decade low, and 10% of what burned in the 1930?s
> and only a few percent of pre-industrial natural burn expected in a forest.

In the last 20 years, the water level of Lake Mead has dropped
140 feet.

Both Lake Mead and Lake Powell are at about 33% of their capacities.
These levels are lower than any time in the past since their
respective dams were built.

EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> writes:

> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
>> Michael S [2021-08-09 09:10:38] wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:10:54 PM UTC+3, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you suggest that the Earth that is 8 Degrees colder than today
>>>>> could still feed human population of 1e10 to 2e10?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes, there's plenty of other problems with his "solution", indeed.
>>>> But there's a fair chance that the increased temperatures caused by us
>>>> will already have reduced the global population to ~2e9 by the end of
>>>> this century so maybe the above problem won't have to be solved
>>>> either ;-)
>>>
>>> 1-4 degrees of warming are very likely to negatively affect a quality
>>> of our food, but I can't believe that they will be bad for quantity.
>>
>> IIUC the reason for such predictions is that such changes to average
>> temperatures have much more serious consequences in terms of the
>> expected temperature ranges (where the extermes are more extreme).
>>
>> In any case, it was just one possible scenario among many others.
>> As usual, it's much easier to predict the past,
>
> The IPCC computer model predictions are known to be wrong,
> and in the past the IPCC report acknowledge they required
> some manual adjustments. [...]

It has been obvious for more than 30 years that the Earth
is headed for a catastrophic collision with some fundamental
global limits.

Whether that collision is due to happen in 5 years, 10 years,
20 years, or 50 years, the time to start doing something
about it is now.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/8/2021 11:15 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> An interesting statement, considering the massive fires now
>>>>> burning in several states, the recent heat dome in Oregon and
>>>>> Washington that killed over a billion marine animals in the space
>>>>> of about a week, and the severe water shortage occurring in the
>>>>> western states with no end in sight. Even GOP congresspersons
>>>>> are starting to wake up to the reality that the effects of
>>>>> climate change are already terrible and there is no sign of the
>>>>> pace lessening.
>>>>
>>>> Before Humans, how many fires went crazy, and crowned up in the tops
>>>> of the trees and burned massive areas?
>>>
>>> This sounds like a rhetorical question. A more serious question
>>> is, To what extent are massive fires in recent years, and also
>>> the other heat/water events mentioned, the result of human-caused
>>> climate change? The answer is unequivocally very much so.
>>
>> The burn rate is a near decade low, and 10% of what burned in the 1930?s
>> and only a few percent of pre-industrial natural burn expected in a forest.
>
> In the last 20 years, the water level of Lake Mead has dropped
> 140 feet.
>
> Both Lake Mead and Lake Powell are at about 33% of their capacities.
> These levels are lower than any time in the past since their
> respective dams were built.

Here is the water use report for the lower Colorado river, Nevada uses 5%
of lake Mead. The vast majority of that water goes to California to flood
square miles of desert with acres feet of water to grow rice.

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/weekly.pdf

Watch me not care about millionaire truck farmers in California who might
be inconvenienced by this natural drought.

Not going to conserve water so a millionaire can flood another square mile
with an acre foot of water to grow rice.

The press is feeding you bullshit.

Even Southern California has 10 times more water than they “Need”.

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:34:18 PM UTC-5, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> > Brett <gg...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/8/2021 11:15 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>>> An interesting statement, considering the massive fires now
> >>>>> burning in several states, the recent heat dome in Oregon and
> >>>>> Washington that killed over a billion marine animals in the space
> >>>>> of about a week, and the severe water shortage occurring in the
> >>>>> western states with no end in sight. Even GOP congresspersons
> >>>>> are starting to wake up to the reality that the effects of
> >>>>> climate change are already terrible and there is no sign of the
> >>>>> pace lessening.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before Humans, how many fires went crazy, and crowned up in the tops
> >>>> of the trees and burned massive areas?
> >>>
> >>> This sounds like a rhetorical question. A more serious question
> >>> is, To what extent are massive fires in recent years, and also
> >>> the other heat/water events mentioned, the result of human-caused
> >>> climate change? The answer is unequivocally very much so.
> >>
> >> The burn rate is a near decade low, and 10% of what burned in the 1930?s
> >> and only a few percent of pre-industrial natural burn expected in a forest.
> >
> > In the last 20 years, the water level of Lake Mead has dropped
> > 140 feet.
> >
> > Both Lake Mead and Lake Powell are at about 33% of their capacities.
> > These levels are lower than any time in the past since their
> > respective dams were built.
> Here is the water use report for the lower Colorado river, Nevada uses 5%
> of lake Mead. The vast majority of that water goes to California to flood
> square miles of desert with acres feet of water to grow rice.
>
> https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/weekly.pdf
>
> Watch me not care about millionaire truck farmers in California who might
> be inconvenienced by this natural drought.
>
> Not going to conserve water so a millionaire can flood another square mile
> with an acre foot of water to grow rice.
<
Would you consider conserving water so the price of rice does not double ?
>
> The press is feeding you bullshit.
>
> Even Southern California has 10 times more water than they “Need”.