Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#161

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

CameronNemo wrote: post #52
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …also, you know California has kind of been America's wildfire capital recently, right? This year, so far, New Mexico has reluctantly claimed that particular throne.

Was it a Wild Fire or a Federal Fire? Wildfire season has not really kicked in yet, although it is fast approaching.

They are called wild fires because they burn in "wild land". It doesn't describe whether they were started by one human, one government or a lightning strike. It contrasts with fires in villages, towns and cities where what's burning is mostly human constructed.

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#162

Post by csdreamer7 »

carlivar wrote: post #109
zik wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that just seems crazy if your state's turning into a desert. What are the arguments against it?

Well it's in the article: incredible energy consumption, its impacts on marine life, projected sea-level rise and the cost of the resulting water itself -- with that cost being passed on to customers.

I read another article that phased the commission's argument that water recycling would be cheaper to rate payers and less environmentally destructive.

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#163

Post by troyvit »

Scarblac wrote: post #86
UkrainianJew wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather cause and effect. We need efficient mitigations to problems occurring right now, not gestures that would have an effect 50 years from now, if only the rest of the world followed suit.

They said the same thing 50 years ago. You need both, as it's only going to get worse, and we can do something about how quickly.

Yeah exactly. We need to solve this current problem with immediate solutions (if those exist), but we need need need to start thinking 50 years into the future now with the choices we make.

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#164

Post by ASalazarMX »

stareatgoats wrote: post #120

Climate science is in its infancy. No I'm not a "climate denier": we can can be reasonably confident that the science is correct in asserting that we are in a period of climate warming, caused in large part by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, to the most part caused by the accelerated burning of fossile fuels. But the predictive powers of climate science is low, which this article (among others) illustrates. W…

It's not reverting to a natural climate, it's trying to not make it worse by pumping even more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The adaptation we have to make is finding a way to keep most of our comforts in a sustainable way, and that won't come from recycling plastic or driving an EV, but from industry and regulation.

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#165

Post by danans »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #106
danans wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anecdotally, including us, anyone you talk to here is dealing with mold issues, Is the mold a recent thing related to el Niño or has it been a problem for a while? In the US at least, many houses built in the 90s-2000s have mold issues because they were built without proper water vapor permeability and also with materials that are also not moisture resilient. This is even an issue in dry areas like California.

It has increased the frequency of the problem. Homes tend to stand up to harsh rains, as that is normal. What is not normal is 100 almost consecutive days of the heaviest torrential rain I have every witnessed, similar to a tropical wet season. With this much rainfall, you get your building tested like never before. Our back lawn was flooded most of the time, with the water seeping into the building whatever way it c…

> It has increased the frequency of the problem.

That makes sense, and rhymes with climate change. What are the mitigation steps that can be taken at this point without completely reconstructing the house to exist feet above the rainy season water level?

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#166

Post by lovich »

bogomipz wrote: post #159
lovich wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you walk me through how the Federal Government could use eminent domain to untangle the water rights? Eminent domaining the water? The federal government at the highest level(SCOTUS) have no problem using eminent domain for things as frivolous as an unfinanced mall with no strings attached for the _private_ developer. They certainly wouldn't pause to eminent domain this if they cared. Unfortunately these are re…

You didn't actually answer my question. It sounds like you might be confused on what eminent domain is. Eminent domain provides the Federal government with the power to take private property and convert it into public use. There is no single piece of land here. This is not only not land it's literally water that flows across the land. Further it's not private property. The Colorado River basin covers 250,000 square i…

Then eminent domain multiple pieces of land.

You’re ignoring that they have the power to do so, they just don’t have the will. We have built mega projects before and taken land for it. This would be no different

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#167

Post by lovich »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #151
lovich wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not change the fact that the area is becoming unliveable without massive investment. Why should the rest of the country subsidize these people lifestyle choices to live in an inhospitable area? I’d be willing to support subsidizing moving them to a new location that’s better suited to living in, but I have no interest in helping pay for people to spit in reality’s eye so they can live in a place they have emo…

1. "the area" is not homogenous. the northern parts of AZ and NM (even CA) to some extent are climactically and geologically quite unlike the southern parts. 2. humans have lived in the area for thousands of years. Yes, it doesn't fit into a northern European notion of "the kind of place humans should live", but it fits entirely into the southern European, north African and Arabic culture and living patterns. These c…

> “the area" is not homogenous. the northern parts of AZ and NM (even CA) to some extent are climactically and geologically quite unlike the southern parts

Well then it sounds like they have a local solution to the issue and don’t need to bother us

> humans have lived in the area for thousands of years.

And then humans changed the environment.

> it's not unlivable

If it’s not unliveable then they should be able to support themselves, no?

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#168

Post by ianai »

bogomipz wrote: post #39
ianai wrote: post #3

Really starting to feel dangerous to live anywhere in the US southwest. Lake Meade approaching deadpool and massive wildfire nearing my house this summer. Plus the government is led by people who refer to much of the southwest as “fly over country” doesn’t help.

I've seen the pictures of the "bathtub" lines on Lake Meade and agree it looks scary however I keep seeing conflicting reports of how imminent the dead pool threat is. Here's an example I came across a few weeks ago. I don't know what the politics of this newspaper are but the person speaking is public affairs officer for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Basin Region. It's hard for me to reconcile the…

I think this is the raw data

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

Edit-I know far too little to extrapolate from that. It looks like this time of year and into the fall is when the water recedes due to agricultural use. It’ll be interesting to see the elevation at that lowest point.

Re: Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

#169

Post by bruce343434 »

nlitened wrote: post #154
bruce343434 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you count in 3 year slots? You're saying that it could happen on 1950, but not 1951, and not 1952, but again on 1953? What if there was La Niña on 1952, 1953 and 1954? Your method does not account for that. Natural events and climate do not adhere to someone's made up "mod 3" date statistics.

Let’s try going from contrary. You said 2 in 72. Imagine a situation when it’s 72 in 72, which means, 72 years straight, each year had a three-year streak. This doesn’t make any sense. Surely the maximum amount of three-year groups in 72 years is far fewer than 72.

Hmm, good point. I suppose you could count `0,1,1,1,1,0` as 2 occurences of 3 consecutive 1s, but we'd probably call it a single quadruple niña event instead, so I see where you're coming from now.
Post reply on HN