California braces for another heat wave as climate change and drought take their toll

California braces for another heat wave as climate change and drought take their toll

California braces for another heat wave as climate change and drought take their toll (yahoo.com)

The National Weather Service issued an excessive heat warning Tuesday for much of California that will last from Wednesday through next Monday, the third potentially record-breaking heat wave over the last two months in a state racked by a drought made worse by climate change.

"The drought is leading to extremely low soil moisture, which is making it easier for these high pressure systems to generate extreme heat waves because more of the sun's energy is going into heating the atmosphere rather than evaporating nonexistent water in the soil," Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, told NPR, adding, "that's sort of the vicious cycle of drought and extreme heat in a warming climate."

This problem is going to continue to get worse and worse. Hopefully our leaders can agree on something to perhaps solve future issues, if anything can even be done at this point. Thing is some of them can't even agree on the basic facts of this problem.

@zaryia: somewhat sad that everyone keeps talking past each other. The very fact is carbon emissions are real and so is climate change. I’ve lived in CA for 26 years, and I can attest to the fact that every year it gets a little hotter. There’s also more fires and the drought period gets more and more lengthy.

I bet AC salesmen are making a killing right now. A killing. You wouldn't want to put those jobs in jeopardy, would you? /s

If I were younger and entrepreneurial-minded I know where I'd be packing my bags to right now. That market is so ripe it stinks.

Jokes like that might put you in hot water. But that's OK, to error is part of the human condition. One could forgive you for being insensitive.

Oh god I just looked at the forecast. SOooooooooooooooooo happy I am switching to overnight shifts right now. Though trying to sleep when it's 90+ out is tough.

Hope it floods. Bye Bye CA wont miss ya

I have no faith in our so called leaders doing the right thing they are the equivalent to greedy AAA gaming publishers.

@sargentd: Wow. Humanity blows.

When I worked graves, blackout curtains were a must. Any south facing windows, you can always put reflective insulation on it to help block out some of the heat (It's a little ghetto, but hey, sacrifices). Lastly, I installed one of these in my bedroom. Whole lot cheaper to run long term compared to the central cooling AC system. Plus, while you sleep, you can keep things nice and cool during the day for just that room.

There's no quick fix for changing the climate of an entire planet. I think as a whole, humanity is on the right path of working through a transitionary period of moving towards cleaner reusable energies but at the same time I think we need to look at nuclear again.

As for those living near the equator, I don't see a way to resolve their heat problem for the foreseeable future.

@girlusocrazy: Nice. Thanks for the link. That does sound promising.

@girlusocrazy: Hopefully placed long away from people…

Drought is going to be a serious issue from here on out. I wouldnt be surprised if Water will end up being for the 21st century, what Oil was for the 20th.

Those were concerns with old reactors, not really issues with new ones. There are basically two parts to a modern reactor that when they come close to eachother begins the process that generates the heat necessary to be converted into energy. When those components are moved away from eachother the process shuts down and no unwanted fission or a meltdown occurs. They also no longer need to be built in a water source since they are cooled with liquid sodium which alone eliminates most the environmental risks.

Nuclear really is a dirt cheap, long term energy source that could run the country for millennia to come. And believe it or not, it's actually cleaner than most "green" energy sources as well.

new reactors would likely be the liquid sodium "fast" reactor types that can extract about 97% of the energy out of existing fuel rods which have only been about 3% used so far. We already have hundreds of years of incredibly cheap energy in existing fuel rods. What do you think would happen to the profits of the green energy and "fossil" fuel industries though if they were built and energy was suddenly cheap enough it could almost be given away for free?

I like nuclear, but it's not as cheap as you seem to think in relation to other renewable options. It's a good piece of the puzzle, bit it's certainly not a super cheap panacea.

@mattbbpl: Lets not forget that some of the renewable options like solar power combined with a powerbank will allow houses to keep power even when the power grid fails. A nice back up.

This may work for a limited area but it will not power a nation. If the US goes to all electric cars there will not be enough power to supply all the electric needs. Wind mils and solar panels are not the answer. Cost is regulated by demand. When the demand for more electricity goes higher the cost for it will also go higher in fact it will go way higher because of limited electrical generation capability. California experiences brown outs on a regular basis because of electrical shortages, What will it look like when the demand for electricity goes up with no carbon production of electricity.

That is why we also use Nuclear Power.

As for solar being cheap. Quite the opposite. Solar got cheap due to improved technology and the virtuous cycle. In which Solar got more popular, which resulted in more investment, which in turn resulted in solar power becoming more favorable leading to solar becoming even more popular.

Solar is far from perfect. But Coal is obsolete.

The financial toll of the pride of the people living there preventing them from leaving is a burden to those of us east of that region.

In the US it takes eleven years to get through the permitting process after the land fore the site has been acquired before construction can even begun. You are looking at about fifteen years before the plant can go on line.

Actually, without the ridiculous regulations in place by those in the pocket of multi billion dollar green energy corporations, solar and wind would be obsolete. Those regulations are in place to make those companies more money, period. That's all "green" is about for those pushing it. The only "green" they care about is what ends up in their pockets.

Climate change is just a right wing conspiracy theory.

@eoten: What a bunch of ridicilous nonsense. How big is the renewable energy sector's lobbying groups, and how would regulating other industries DRAMATICALLY cut the price of renewables?

Coal is obsolete because the energy needed to extract it, has steadily increased while the gains have remained fairly static.

Do you even read the garbage you post?

Did I say regulating industries cuts the price of renewables? I said it makes renewables more profitable. Do you even read at all? Regulations increase the cost of competing forms of energy, which makes green energy more viable. It artificially makes better energy options more expensive in order to keep green in business at all and they lobby for those regulations to be made.

@eoten: I see my point flew completely over your head.

Regulations is not to blame for Coal no longer being a good energy source, the reason is simply put, it has basically capped. Regulations or not. This isn't just a US thing either, but internationally. So don't blame the government for Coal no longer being a good energy source. Blame Coal itself. Coal did help us reach the wealth and industrialization we now have. But we have better ways to provide us with energy. It is time to phase it out. Notice how during this time, Gas had no issues dropping in price quite heavily?

Edit: Also don't talk about how governments dont like Coal. Wyoming is suing other states like Colorado, because they are no longer buying their coal.

The thing about climate change is carbon dioxide is being blamed for it, yet life die not explode on the planet until carbon dioxide was introduced into the atmosphere. The Paris accord in which the left is in love with does nothing to address climate change, I mean global warming what it does do is destroy capitalism which was the intent of global warming along. China is not going along whit the Paris accord neither is India. The Europeans have a number of nucellar power plants for electricity the US only had four less than that are in operation.

By all means provide more context to this sentence, JimmyBoy.

The Cambrian Explosion followed a steep rise in OXYGEN levels.

Shhhhhhh, let's let him explain it....and the stark rise in iron oxide levels in our geological data.

lol

There five life exterminations that have occurred in the planets history. One was volcano eruptions, Three were caused by the effects of oxygen and one was caused by an asteroid strike. It was after the third oxygen life elimination event, Better known as the ice age was when carbon dioxide was introduced into the atmosphere that life on the planet exploded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzUa28bMaVY

It was caused by oxygen. One of the three life ending events caused by oxygen in the planets history.

Don't worry our supreme leaders will bring the solution very soon.

The solution demands to surrender all our freedoms and property, people will live in concentration like camps, sleep in rooms with 20+ other people on bunk beds (it is more sustainable this way), they won't be allowed to go more than 300 yards from their camp (you know we have to keep our carbon emission in check), people will only eat approved meals, almost nobody will have a job, UBI for all, and you will own nothing. And all day we will listen to propaganda in order to truly accept that this is the best way of life, and we have to thank our supreme leaders for that.

It is almost as if they invented the problem in order to give as the solution they want, oh wait...

@MK-Professor: Invented a problem?

Over 100 Germans as have died due to climate change caused disasters.

That would be nice, but doubtful.

No one serious has suggested any of this.

The fiction you just spouted makes you sound like a cooky conspiracy theorist fear monger.

You do realize you now sound as bad as Flat Earthers when you say climate change is in invented, right?

What's with the far right and science denial lmao.

@zaryia: I think that's just what the party is now. They're "all in" on nonsensical conspiracy theories.

Anaerobic organisms died due to the oxygenation event, but the free oxygen in the atmosphere then allowed multicellular life to form and thrive.

Later (much later), the higher oxygen concentrations (as compared to today) allowed creatures to grow to immense size, like 6-foot-long dragonflies and centipedes.

But JimB, CO2 levels have dropped dramatically since the Cambrian period where life exploded. This is the exact opposite of what your post is insinuating. You don't seem to have a very good grasp on paleoclimatology and it's impact on life (surprise surprise). It's no wonder that your post is attempting to make an irrelevant point by misunderstanding cause and effect of atmospheric composition.

Even if the climate change we are experiencing is NOT being caused or exacerbated by humans, what's the downside of moving to green energy? Even if we were wrong, and there wasn't actually an issue?

Vs saying there's no issue, doing nothing, and being wrong?

Oh noes, better air quality, no more loud trucks/motorcycles and potentially a healthier populace.

Should be:

Coal -> natural gas -> nuclear -> hydro/solar imo.

Too many are still afraid of the nuclear boogeyman tho, and we absolutely need it as part of any strategy to transition off of fossil fuels.

If Co2 levels have dropped dramatically why are we trying to get rid of it then. Biden wanted to suck it out of the atmosphere. Another fact we need oxygen to live and it is also what ages us and eventually kills us because of the damage it does to our cellular structure. When life exploded on the planet it was because of CO2 which is what I said in my original post, and why and why are we trying to get rid of it in the name of climate chaange?

I believe we had methane in the atmosphere that was destroyed by the oxygen that led to the ice age that lasted over 10,000 years. It was after the ice age that CO2 became the replacement for methane that caused the explosion of life on the planet.

You're essentially telling a drowning person, 'Hey, water can't be bad for you since we need it to live. You'll be fine!'

It ignores context and relies on some fairly basic fallacies to be brought forward. Because CO2 is required for some basic principles of modern life to exist does not mean it is good in all scenarios or at all concentrations.

It's obvious that you have little knowledge on basic chemistry, paleoclimatology, or paleontology. But if you're still interested in proving your point you can put your method to the test. Place yourself in a sealed chamber and raised the CO2 concentration above 10% of the air you breathe. Think you'll last? Just remember that when you're convulsing and losing consciousness, 'CO2 is good!'