Is Leaving California More Practical Than Water Rationing?

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by expatCA

You do realize that Venus is far closer to the Sun than Earth??

Taught to me in elementary school in CA.

Yes the cloud cover does trap heat, but without it, Venus would still be ... far, far hotter than earth.

With a true cloud cover like Venus has, earth would be kinda like Hawaii most everywhere as it would tend to even out the temperature over the surface.

As to temperature difference, it ain't much different as far as we are concerned.

Temperature on the Surface of Mercury

Temperature on the Surface of Venus

Yes the gasses trap heat and make it hotter than Mercury as it holds the heat in. However the closeness to the Sun is the major issue and green house just an aggravating issue.

The greenhouse effect here on Earth may be an aggravating factor, but the lack of rain and snow is the main one and ................ if it doesn't change soon, what will CA do next year?

Ok then maybe I didn't read the context leading up to your post. It's obvious to me that most of the reason Venus is hotter than Earth because it is closer to the sun, but I thought you were completely discrediting the greenhouse effect.

Mercury and Venus do have similar temperatures, but the fact that Mercury is millions of miles closer to the sun, yet still has a cooler surface temperature, is quite remarkable.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

Ok then maybe I didn't read the context leading up to your post. It's obvious to me that most of the reason Venus is hotter than Earth because it is closer to the sun, but I thought you were completely discrediting the greenhouse effect.

The whole thing started because expatCA criticized a totally assumptive and disproven statement. Read the statement carefully in your head and see if you can find the problem.

"2020. Temperatures on Earth projected by 2020 to be at the hottest levels in 150,000 years. “Astronomer and author Carl Sagan says a closer look at Venus could help inspire Earth's residents to break their dependence on fossil fuels. Speaking to more than 1,000 people Thursday [September 13, 1990] at the College of Southern Idaho, Sagan said Venus is an incredibly hot, barren planet because of the intense greenhouse effect there. And that should be a lesson to people on Earth, which faces a worsening greenhouse effect with the continued use of fuels like oil and coal, which produce carbon dioxide that traps heat in the atmosphere."

Which is a 100% faulty statement to make.

Venus is a hot, barren planet because it was created with a certain chemical makeup, one we don't fully understand and therefore can't make the leap the same thing would happen to Earth. Scientists theorize Venus was made around the same time as Earth, had no life at any point. Pundits theorize that it's the human being presence on Earth that is causing global warming with fossil fuels and what not. They can't both be right.

A more plausible theory is that (A) proximity to the sun alters its chemical makeup (which is the reason Mercury is not as hot); (B) Any planet not within a certain proximity is doomed to an eventual fate, just takes longer for certain planets vs others; and (C) gravity will affect the outcome (which explains Mercury and Mars compared to Venus).

In other words, Venus may represent how the Earth will eventually end up, OR Venus represents a stage of evolution that it has not recovered from, and may never.

Remember the Hadean theory? (There's that word again)

Originally Posted by Tech Times

Scientists thought for over a hundred years that, because no major stone formations from the Hadean period still existed, the climate must have been so hot it melted all stone. However, this new theory that the planet was cool and wet backs evidence that solid land and some surface water definitely existed.
"We reasoned that the only concrete evidence for what the Hadean was like came from the only known survivors: zircon crystals - and yet no one had investigated Icelandic zircon to compare their telltale compositions to those that are more than 4 billion years old, or with zircon from other modern environments," said Calvin Miller, one of the researchers.

And the funny thing is, it's still assumptive. Some guys say "hmm, no rocks from hundreds of millions of years ago, musta been so darn hot it melted them all!" And now it's "Wellll, we got this one rock here, looks like it might be from that time, it didn't melt, so there's no way it could have been molten!" We have no hard evidence. But the fact that they identified a rock that has characteristics of coming from an earlier period at all, lends credence to the theory I posted above - this isn't about man made damage to the planet, but evolution. Whether Man is or isn't speeding up that evolution with unnatural selection is theory only, not proven.


But what Carl Sagan and schools should not do is try to strike fear of filling up your car because it's somehow going to lead us down a path that causes the planet to end up like Venus. That's fear mongering and it's BS.

Conservation (including water) can only get you so far. The root of the problem has to be fixed given the heat problem The rate of consumption must go down.

Nobody's looked at the cloud seeding activities in central CA. Nobody's cracked down on the nut farmers abusing water for their crops. Nobody's forced desalination efforts. Nobody's cracked down on the overpopulation. Nobody's applied penalties against the super rich who are building massive water fixtures for their homes and hotels. Nobody's punished the golf courses for requiring real grass instead of synthetic turf.

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

What I'd like to see happen is that if the states of Washington and Oregon have an abundance of water, we should get it somehow.

Look, if you want to keep your lawn and not have the government order you to strip it out, by all means you're welcome to move up to Oregon and Washington and bask in the greatness as you realize that you are no longer required to pay taxes to the state government.

Otherwise, the water that is in those states should remain there. It's not their fault the farm businesses out there are exploiting California.

[pecanku]

If someday you'll be fined by the state 10K for drinking a glass of water, what other option is there than to move out?

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by revelated

A theory is something attempted to be proven but not.

The two of you used the word theory here in a casual, everyday language kind of way where the word "theory" barely implies an educated guess. The term "conspiracy theory" also falls into this category.

This is not the same as the title given to scientific Theories that are explanations with significant scientific acceptance through evidence such as the Theory of Relativity. In other words, they will have been used to predict outcomes in experiments and have managed to repeatedly hold up under that examination.

That being said, I don't think I have seen Anthropogenic Climate Change referred to as a scientific theory yet. There is a good amount of evidence out there for it though.

It is a disservice to readers, science in general, and the English language when the word "theory" is used in a manner that confuses the two vastly different levels of intellectual rigor involved.

Originally Posted by revelated

It's surprising to me that people don't get this. I mean does nobody else remember when every scientist in the world swore up and down the world was flat simply because that's all we saw? Photos and diagrams and all sorts of garbage showing a box instead of a globe, and it took some crazy nut to actually brave it to disprove the theory.

I heavily trimmed the quoted post above.

My main issue with the stated position is that it heavily underestimate scientists. Your examples are so basic that there is no way that people who are smarter than us wouldn't have thought of them already.

The level of sophisticated detail in the concepts and math that they work with is astounding. There are probably related papers buried amongst research addressing the hypothesis that you posted. We won't see them or bother to try simply because it is beyond our abilities to analyze to begin with.

This doesn't seem to stop a lot of people from forming unchangeable opinions though.

Originally Posted by revelated

Otherwise, the water that is in those states should remain there. It's not their fault the farm businesses out there are exploiting California.

Moving away from science and into socio-political questions of resource ownership, I agree with this principle.

Why shouldn't water belong to the borders that they appear in by default, with a partial exception for flowing water? If it is profitable enough to do so, the PNW states ought to be able to choose whether or not to send water to California and not be coerced into doing it. Of course this assumes they will get something in return either way.

If water is scarce in PNW, then certainly they should get first use of all of their water without worrying about exporting. But if water is plentiful to the point of excess, should they have to sell it or not? I think coercing them is wrong but at the same time, refusing to sell excess just to give an FU to California over politics is rather petty and implies that these people do not value a cohesive United States.

Originally Posted by pecanku

If someday you'll be fined by the state 10K for drinking a glass of water, what other option is there than to move out?

You mean you don't do anything with water other than drink it?

Here's an analogy with that logic: If you were a department head entrusted with a $100k budget and then you spent $95k on hookers and 'caine for yourself and a few select friends, would you then complain to your executive director that your raise and bonus was unfairly cut and that you're going to quit the job (before he fires you)?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

Ok then maybe I didn't read the context leading up to your post. It's obvious to me that most of the reason Venus is hotter than Earth because it is closer to the sun, but I thought you were completely discrediting the greenhouse effect.

Mercury and Venus do have similar temperatures, but the fact that Mercury is millions of miles closer to the sun, yet still has a cooler surface temperature, is quite remarkable.

Hi no problem. My main comment was on Sagan's effort to make the Greenhouse the primary cause and it isn't. Does the greenhouse have some impact, probably. Does it here on earth, yes, nut how much is the issue.

In CA's current state the greenhouse effect is a non player. It is a lack of rain and snow.

What will CA do IF no significant rain or snow shows up and the 1 year remaining water (less now) in storage/containment is used up? Where does ANY water come from?