Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, everything I read on the current trends in California's climate just keeps sounding more and more dire. I was stuck inside all weekend due in large part to thick smoke and ash; I don't want to live in a drought or on the cusp of a drought every year for the foreseeable future and I don't think it's real smart to breathe smoke from wildfires year after year either.

California could mitigate a lot of this, and probably will, eventually. But, it's only been about 6 years since the CRU email leaks led to it being dubbed "climategate" and a whole bunch of people loudly declared that it was proof that AGW was a vast climate scientist conspiracy. There's going to be a tremendous amount of resistance from all angles to any attempts to mitigate the effects of the climate in California.

So I started looking for work out of state a while ago, and will keep looking.

Nice place, but it would be dumb of me to stay here.

View on HN

Hmm...there's resistance within California from the inland counties that are heavily Republican, but politically the Democrats are largely in the driving seat, plus as far as water management goes the coming infrastructure public works are backed by the voters in a ballot initiative last year, which is probably politically insurmountable. A sufficiently disastrous flood in the central valley will sideline the remaining political opposition to a great degree. Betweent he drought and the El Nino this is going to be a pretty rough winter which I think will firm up support for mitigation measures.

I'm curious to know what you consider the safest places in terms of environmental safety and sustainability.

Great Lakes region is looking okay right now.

I've no idea, honestly. As a practical matter, first I have to find someplace I can work. And there are no utopias.

There are a few things I'm not fond of: tornadoes, wildfires, periods of extended drought, heavy traffic, extremely high crime, dislike for Californians (Oregon & Montana). A few things I don't mind: cold and snowy Winters (it's just mountaineering with more infrastructure and support), regular storm seasons, earthquakes and hurricanes. A few things I really appreciate: mountains within a couple hours' drive, lots of outdoor activities, younger and more active and better-educated populations. Maybe Utah? (But: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-drought-20150530-st...)

Unfortunately, snowfall over the entire Rockies seems to be on a declining trend (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-clima...), so any place that relies on the Rocky Mountain watershed is going to be dealing with drier conditions for the foreseeable future.

I'm open to suggestions.

You just described Boston. (The traffic can turn into a pain in the rear during peak times, but that's pretty avoidable and on a tech salary you can easily live somewhere you don't need a car for regular stuff.)

New Zealand checking in. Ticks all your boxes except that I know some Californians. They are good ones.

Hey! I've heard conflicting things on how friendly NZ'rs are towards Americans. What's your take on that, y'all rather keep that gorgeous place all to yourselves?

I couldn't really claim to have any great knowledge but I would be surprised if there was any big issue. There has been fairly widespread discussion on racism of late as a (?)perceived inflow of Chinese money has been causing housing cost issues in Auckland. If any group have a rough time here it would be the Asian population. It has to be frustrating for them as some of the earliest settlers here in modern times were Chinese.

Have you thought about Europe? It does all those things. Central Europe especially.

Have a look to south Switzerland. Lot of tech (10% of peoples are working in R&D), and it does check all you points.

> dislike for Californians (Oregon & Montana)

Have you considered that the dislike for Californians is due to them turning any state in which a great number of them settle…into California?

It's a perfectly natural process: whenever we leave a place, even if we dislike some aspects of it, it's still our home. We're liable to find our new homes just fine, oh 'except for just a few things.' Add up enough ex-pats, and razor-fine margins on many issues, and suddenly a relatively small number of people can have a relatively high impact on a state, while the natives residents look about themselves and wonder what the hell happened to their own homes.

Those natives then move, and the process repeats itself…

Yes, but there may also be something more insidious at work here.

http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Class...

It's an interesting essay, but I would call your attention reason six.

The north slope of Alaska, is the safest place in the US if you're worried about climate change.

For near term stability and economic resilience the Pacific Northwest won't be too bad until it's wrecked by a bunch of people fleeing the bay area ( some say this has already happened ).

Optimists can hope for a global government that would undertake climate mitigation in the name of long term species survival. Pessimists will suggest that we start learning to colonize Antartica ( which already has a permanent population of around 5000 humans ).

The two scenarios that bookend the spectrum of possibility for climate change are:

1. The interglacial world - risings seas, resource wars and ecological upheaval

2. The hot Venus scenario - literally turning the earth into something that resembles Venus in atmosphere and environment.

Our civilization may be more resilient than our engineers would credit it to be. But it is not infinitely so. This is a game humanity can lose. Our species may be part of the great die-off that is currently winnowing most multicellular life on this planet.

Not only is global warming real, it could kill you and yours sooner rather than later.

I don't know where you live in California, but drought, or no drought, I don't think you will have to spend another weekend inside because of smoke. As horrid as the fires are, they are clearing that dry underbrush? Underbrush that has been their for years--for different reasons.

Everyone is focusing on the drought right now, for good reason, but if it's not too late, and we go back to normal rain levels; I have found floods, landslides, and earthquakes to be California's warts. I have seen families lose everything to these disasters.

And while Insurance companies happily accept our insurance premiums--they cover less and less each year.

These policies, which have pages of exclusions, basically just cover fire.

This year they will be paying out, but for as long as I can remember residential/commercial fires are going down each year, but you wouldn't know it by listening to to the media, and the "Head of whatever". Yes, I know this year Firefighters are really busy, and it's because of the drought.

I do know most fire personnel(exception this year) hardly ever see a fire. Modern building codes have have really made structures safe. Most of their time is spent on medical emergencies. Something like 90% plus?

Anyway, I sometimes think California's Insurance commissioner does pretty much what our illustrious Luitentant Governor does; Nothing?

As to leaving California, I think the only reason, I would leave is rent, and housing costs. I can't believe it costs so much to live in California, at least within 30 miles of the coast. It's the rent that keeps me up at night. I am close to being homeless. Most of my income goes to rent in one way, or another. Whenever I hear someone brag about their income, in my head, the real question is "what does it cost to keep a roof over your head? I know my landlord can have a butt twitch, and decide to raise my rent, and I will be homeless. I don't like feeling so Helpless! And it's not so easy to just pick up and move to an area of lower rent. It's kids in school. It's that job, that's only in the Bay Area. It's getting older and not wanting to abandon the few friends, or family members you are close too. It's just not easy I guess, but living off the land in Alaska is looking good? No, I've been in CA too long. I couldn't kill an animal. Yes--I will now shut-up. Sorry about the rant. Tired.

California could mitigate a lot of this, and probably will, eventually. ... There's going to be a tremendous amount of resistance from all angles to any attempts to mitigate the effects of the climate in California.

Where do you see the resistance coming from? The timescale here is interesting, because "driest in 500 years" implies that although this particular instance might be caused by human activity, that we are still in the range of natural variability. I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority. Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed?

> Where do you see the resistance coming from?

Environmentalists don't want more dams constructed; agriculture doesn't want more water use regulation; industry doesn't want tighter environmental (or water) regulations; residents aren't going to be able to cut back on water usage much more; automobile manufacturers don't want further emissions cuts. Every single interest group wants to point to another interest group and say, "this situation is their fault, make them fix it instead."

I think a better question is, where do you not see resistance coming from?

> we are still in the range of natural variability

And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you?

> I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority.

It's true that the recent and continuing decline of carbon dioxide emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Yea...) is "upending civilization" -- we have never been worse off, as a species, than we are now -- but why we could expect those people to agree on how to get a reliable water supply is a mystery to me, given that they can't even be expected to agree on what the problem is.

> Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed?

Well, I dunno, I guess. If people refuse to address the causes -- which, even in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence, they seem likely to do -- then I suppose the only remaining option is to decrease demand down to levels that can be supported by the relatively meager amounts of precipitation across the state.

Which, again, makes California sound like a pretty nice place to be from.

> > we are still in the range of natural variability

> And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you?

Not more comfortable, but perhaps also not something for which we should immediately point the finger at CO2 emissions. I think a more important step for California is to re-asses its priorities for water use. The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. In my area, the climate isn't quite as nice, but I can dig a 10ft deep hole in my horse pasture and it'll turn into a nice pond. No, you can't grow almonds and certain other trendy foods in the midwest ... but you can grow crops that will adequately feed the populace, and it's a far more ecologically responsible place to farm. We grow tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, strawberries, broccoli, green beans, blackberries, corn, and a few other things in our garden and most years I don't need to give it a drop of water from a hose. I've actually had to put a good deal of time, effort, and money into managing the water that runs off of our land (we have ~11 acres that all slope toward our house). The commercial corn field across the street has no irrigation system, at all. Although some farmers do it, watering with groundwater here is definitely the exception and not the norm.

... now if only the competition for software engineers were a bit more intense ... I blame the damn snow :).

No offense intended, and I'm not being accusatory, but:

> The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense.

This is the sort of statement I was talking about being frustrated with earlier. Given the overall growing conditions in California, it's insane not to farm as much of it as is practical. The water problem in California is complicated and multi-faceted, and it is not entirely the responsibility of agriculture to solve it. (Which isn't to say that they can't do a lot to help, either.)

Water - and the lack of water - is a part of the overall growing conditions in California.

We know that California has droughts and that those droughts can last many years. (50 year, 80 year droughts are not unknown).

Given that it is weird to allow agricultural water use without strict controls, realistic pricing, and beeter storage.

Not exactly. I mean, you're not really wrong, but you underestimate the severity of the current conditions. Here's one of my favorite articles on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-histor... (also: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ingram-california...)

The trend right now is drier than anything else in the last thousand years. If this were merely another instance of the 1980's drought, we'd all be coping more or less OK. But, it's drier than that and we've added a lot of population since then and, as you point out, no additional water storage.

I think a better question is, where do you not see resistance coming from?

In general, there is resistance to everything everywhere. I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now. Personally, I think that concentrating on mitigation may be a better societal pragmatic strategy than concentrating on blame.

  > * we are still in the range of natural variability*
  > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation  
  > for you?

Like you, I'm a current Californian with worries about the future of the state (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10217233). Yes, I guess I do hope that we'll swing back to normal rainfall sometime soon, buying us more time to deal with the structural problem. If the current drought is human caused, our chances of a return to a viable state are much lower.

I think I disagree with your interpretation of Climategate, though, as I believe both that we are facing major ecological problems due to climate change (some portion of which is human caused) and that a large amount of climate science research is terribly flawed and untrustworthy. Not only are we lost, some of our more prominent scientific guides are not to be trusted.

  > then I suppose the only remaining option is to decrease
  > demand down to levels that can be supported by the 
  > relatively meager amounts of precipitation across the 
  > state.

Or possibly increase supply through desalinization, or reallocate supply with major changes to infrastructure. As I'm sure you know, the majority of water use in California is agricultural. The bright side of that is that legal changes to water rights can go a long way toward reducing demand. Coming from somewhere where water is less of an issue (Wisconsin) I find water rights (and the concept of the 'surface estate') fascinating.

  > Which, again, makes California sound like a pretty nice 
  > place to be from.

Where do you see as more promising?

> I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now.

Oh, sorry. I did misinterpret your comment. I might be getting a little punchy on this topic (this isn't the only place I've been having this argument -- I've really gotta quit doing this). (And thank you.)

> If the current drought is human caused, our chances of a return to a viable state are much lower.

FWIW I'm pretty optimistic about the long-term future, just not so much for the next 20 years or so, and I personally don't want to live through that particular transition. There's a ton of capital and vested interests in California; people will figure it out, probably roughly equal parts adjustments to how we live and engineering of the environment. For instance, if these conditions continue, it's going to become extraordinarily difficult for environmentalists to effectively oppose building new reservoirs, and as much as I usually agree with environmentalists, new reservoirs are one of the things that really need to happen in the state.

> ...a large amount of climate science research is terribly flawed and untrustworthy. Not only are we lost, some of our more prominent scientific guides are not to be trusted.

Totally honest question (which I might or might not rebut depending on your answer): what was it about the CRU emails that caused you to find climate scientists to be untrustworthy? I'm not aware of any findings of academic misconduct.

> Or possibly increase supply through desalinization

I'm not a big fan of desalinization on a large scale, personally, though I'm not totally informed on it. My understanding so far is that it's terribly expensive in both startup and ongoing costs (including energy costs), that there is still a significant distribution problem to be solved, and that it won't make economic sense during wet years when there is plentiful freshwater available everywhere (for a few months anyway).

> or reallocate supply with major changes to infrastructure.

I'd be happier to see this (and it is underway: http://www.socalwater.org/news/scwc-water-blog/376-why-a-del...). There's a lot of storm runoff in wet years that gets shunted straight to the ocean; it would be nice if significant amounts of it were captured, so long as it didn't leave the Delta and similar areas vulnerable to seawater incursions during storm surges.

> The bright side of that is that legal changes to water rights can go a long way toward reducing demand.

I worry about this. I don't see agriculture as a net negative; I think we need to do as much as possible to make sure that they don't have to dramatically reduce demand. There are some aspects of it that are very screwy right now and need fixing (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-...) and I suspect there are some things that can be done, technologically, to maintain agricultural production with modest decreases in water supply, but I'd hate to see agriculture in the state slow down significantly. That would have effects on food supply all over the country (at least for a while until other areas started picking up the slack).

> Where do you see as more promising?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10219046

In short: I dunno. I'm open to suggestions.

(edit: not sure what you said to invite downvotes, I don't think it's deserved fwiw.)

  > what was it about the CRU emails that caused you to find 
  > climate scientists to be untrustworthy?

I haven't really looked at the emails since they came out, and at this point the details blur, and I'm not eager to dive back into them. It's more that they lowered the level of trust I had in the good faith of some of the participants. I'm sure there was a fair amount of confirmation bias, because I'd been immersed in the details of some of the papers for many years and already disliked a number of the participants because of (what I judge to be) the questionable quality of their scientific work.

While there were a few minor players who came off looking great (in my mind) several members of the leadership (in my mind) looked more like truth-twisting politicians than truth-seeking scientists. It wasn't a matter of smoking guns, rather lack of honorable exoneration for things that already concerned me. I agree that there were no findings of academic misconduct, but I don't think that shows the conduct was "becoming" of a good scientist.

Well, that's all pretty reasonable. Science has its fair share of oddballs and bureaucrats too.

I have to trust in the scientific process though. It's done pretty good so far, and I think that if there were serious flaws in the fundamental conclusions of climate science, one of the many good scientists out there would've pointed them out. (I'm using some weasel words here because I'd wager there are some disagreements among scientists in the field and I bet someone's going to come along and tell me so. But I doubt those disagreements would change statements like, "the planet is getting warmer", "humans are a significant contributing factor", "this is going to affect what we are accustomed to as 'normal' weather", and, "the west is going to get drier".)

There's basically two competing interpretations of the Western US drought: 1. It's a storage problem (i.e., most farmers): those damn environmentalists blocked us from building more dams so we lost the ability to store more water when wetter years happened in the past, and now we've got almost nothing left to draw water from. 2. It's a throughput problem (i.e., most environmentalists): those damn farmers are using more water per annum than nature is providing on average. They desperately need to cut their water.

When major constituencies can't agree on the problem, how do you get them to agree on a solution?

This is an easy problem to solve with our friend, data.

Just run some models and simulations and calculate where water usage is heaviest.

That data pretty well exists, though it could always be improved. There are charts you can find that give the annual water usage per tree for different varieties of trees.

But, as much as I'm a complete raving lunatic fan of data-driven politics, there's still politics involved. The data doesn't really tell you what to do, which was jcranmer's point, and mine. At best it just tells you what not to do.

But isn't that the case with any kind of thing people use? You need to create/store it, and you need to deliver it. I go to the supermarket shelves and there are hundreds of items with similar issues. We don't debate the hoarding of pickles. Or the production capacity of peanut butter.

This is a serious problem, and I'm not trying to belittle it. But as I recall, you can give people a gallon of water anywhere in California for just a few pennies, maybe less. To interested outsiders, the issue here seems to be almost entirely a political one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com