https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/28/us/california-december-snow-record-drought-cl...




By Rachel Ramirez, CNN

Updated 0712 GMT (1512 HKT) December 29, 2021






(CNN)After months of extreme drought that triggered water shortages and stoked wildfires, heavy snow is falling in the Sierra Nevada -- enough to break decades-old records.
As of Tuesday, more than 202 inches of snow -- nearly 17 feet (5.2 meters) -- had fallen so far this month at the University of California, Berkeley's Central Sierra Snow Laboratory, at Donner Pass east of Sacramento.
Scientists at the lab said this month is now the snowiest December on record for the location and the third snowiest month overall. The top month was January 2017 when 238 inches (6 meters) fell, and it's not likely enough snow will fall in the next three days to challenge that record. Records here go back to 1970.
Lab officials said the snow was "deep and hard to get through," and it took them roughly 40 minutes to get to where the measurements are taken just 150 feet away from the lab's front door.

Frank wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 8:41pm:

Jasin wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 9:18pm:



Someone should bury her in 17 feet of snow. 

Jasin wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 9:45pm:



She's just a kid who wouldn't know her arse from her elbow.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 10:07pm:


The ability to start a global movement -  aka "Fridays For Future" - would suggest otherwise.  Not to mention gaining speaking engagements at the UN.

I'm guessing you think the IPCC AGW climate science is nonsense?

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:59am:


I prefer the kids who start their own non-profits or charities. At least they are useful. Greta is merely "famous" for her loud words. Scaring kids on that scale is mental abuse. And you blame AGW rather than AGW scare campaigns for kids failing mental health.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:59am:


That takes brains? Plenty of politicians get to do that; and they aren't known for brain power generally.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:59am:


Which climate science? The one that believe it negligible. The one that believes it beneficial? Or the one that believes it catastrophic? All are represented.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:06pm:


So please show what SHE knows about climate science.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:


And you have shown you know nothing. You quoted Edward Teller. I responded and then you lamely said you believed the IPCC. The same IPCC that says the Summary for Policy Makers is supreme to the science.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:


So now the "science" is refutable.

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:


Did you miss the point? Greta believes in the IPCC consensus which is driving the COP meetings. What I believe is not the issue.

Quote:


See above. The COP meetings are unstoppable. You lost the debate, regardless of the "(ir)-refutable"  science.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:37pm:


She also believes she can see CO2, according to her mother.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:37pm:


Yay More snouts in the trough. More gatherings in exotic locations. More private jet flights to those exotic locations. "But this is serious I tell you".

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:37pm:


Nope. Young public opinion is not debate.

So all this time the alarmists have been saying the "science is settled" and it's not.

Remember 42.5% of German youth would do something (unquantified).

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:44pm:


oh dear, Lee descending into diversions and irrelevance (again) when he loses a debate.

Quote:


Undoubtedly "nice work if you can get it..."


Quote:


The IPCC consensus is not "young public opinion ". You lose.

Quote:


The IPCC have alarmed most of the world's citizens, and hence leaders who want to get re-elected; you lose.

Meanwhile Xi Jinping knows he has to clean up the poisonous fossil-caused smog ruining life in Chinese cities, so even he is on board. Ditto Modi in India.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:03pm:


So the LIA was in the midst of industrialisation?

Greta never mentions this:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

Thorium power could be a game changer.
Cheap, safe, unlimited power.
It would solve all our problems.
We wouldn't need to burn any fossil fuels.

That is the only way out that I can see.
It seems that only the Chinese and Indians are
making the massive investment required to do it.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:40pm:


China and India have nearly 3 billion people between them, suffering under vast fossil smogs; so the investment is worthwhile.

Likely not economic in Oz (and does Oz have its own Thorium)?
As for Greta, she likely is concerned about the unsolved waste problem with current nuclear plants; and even Germany is closing its nuclear power plants (and Japan is ambivalent after the Fukushima tsunami disaster).   

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:03pm:



We have some of the largest Thorium reserves in the world.
It's mostly unused tailings from existing mines.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:44pm:


Technology can give the whales the sonar to see past the structures? Have you noticed where whales eyes are on the head? Did you know whales apparently can't see more than about 12m? So what does that tell you about their sonar?

perhaps you want to fit earmuffs.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:09pm:


https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-r...

Development - thorium or uraniun - seems painfully slow. (The above article was updated in 2021).

Too expensive? (except in China?)  Or the fossil industry is hindering R&D? Or politics (eg, fear of waste, and plutonium  in bombs) is a barrier?

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 4:02pm:



Thorium is turned into Uranium-233 not Plutonium 239.
That already makes it much safer than a Uranium reactor.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

Uranium-233 is produced by the neutron irradiation of thorium-232.

While it is thus possible to use uranium-233 as the fissile material of a nuclear weapon,
speculation[10] aside, there is scant publicly available information
on this isotope actually having been weaponized:

A snowflake hit my forehead so there can't be climate change!

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 7:56am:



That is a good point -
higher temperatures will cause more humidity over the ocean
and that in turn can dump more snow when that air cools down over land.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 9:07am:


precipitation is not necessarily snow.

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 12:08pm:


But might be....? 

AiA wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:47pm:


Who was the snowflake who hit you?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:21am:


But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:01pm:


oh dear thegreatdivide is back. like a pimple on the a*se.

So tell us what you know about precipitation. What are its forms?

So what do you want me to tell you about Climate. We know you you agree with the IPCC and AGW. Although strangely you then go on to describe yourself as an agnostic on AGW. A doubtful believer.

The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

I doubt the climate has differed from that.

I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew.

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:10pm:


Like I said, you only prove you are incapable of thinking clearly. What I know about climate science is immaterial,  whereas the IPCC AGW climate change  consensus IS significant, leading to an agreed plan for global COP meetings to deal with this consensus.

Meanwhile you are the one claiming you KNOW the IPCC AGW climate-change consensus is wrong. 

Quote:


See...you can't think clearly. I've already explained umpteen times I'm agnostic  - have an open mind on AGW:  my interest is in eliminating the filthy, poisonous fossil industry, whereas your interest is in supporting the filthy, poisonous fossil industry because you "KNOW" AGW science is wrong....but feel free to tell why you are really determined to defend the filthy fossil industry and its overpriced products... Certainly we could easily close more than 50% of the fossil industry down in under a decade, with present technology. The Pilbara and Snowy 2.0 are beckoning.

Quote:


You "doubt"? I thought you 'knew'.......

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:11pm:



It is supposed to be Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming. 

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:10pm:


Are you trying to say something about snowfall Lee? Why are you afraid to actually say it? Does it look too stupid, even for you, when you write it down?

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:08pm:


Ask the IPCC; but logic is not your strong suit, as the following proves.

Quote:
  See? You turn my dislike of the fossil industry into "paying lip service to agnosticism". Pathetic inability to think clearly. 

Quote:


Fossils are poisonous, environmentally disastrous (which is why heavily populated India and China want to get rid of them, in order to breathe clean air) and obsolete.

Quote:
I'll let the engineers in the room laugh at you.

Quote:
Not in China and India; but nuclear need only be  small part of the energy mix (unless/until fusion is mastered).   

Quote:


Oh dear, addressed above - hopefully for the last time: I'm agnostic...even if you keep claiming otherwise - a clear case study in ideology ruining your capacity for clear thinking.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:


poor petal. I can only go on what you post. And you are a good b arracker for AGW and the IPCC.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:


Which is why China and India are building more coal plants. Much more power output than Solar or wind.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:


Poor petal. Can't back up your own rubbish.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:


That's why China and India are building nuclear.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:


You are the one that asked whether the climate has changed from being unable to be modelled. So obviously you, as usual, don't know. A complete bupkiss.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:


lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:08pm:




So  I ask again what about the climate has changed that it can now be modelled?

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 8:24pm:


For someone with nothing to say about snowfall, you are posting an aweful lot Lee.

Would you like to tell us what you are trying to say, or have you not figured it out yet? Do you think Bobby got confused and thought California was in the UK, so he could finally disprove something someone said 20 years ago?

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 8:21pm:


No, the problem is you can't think clearly, and can't read what I post. I can 'barrack'  for the AGW "religion" while at the same  time being agnostic, because the IPCC consensus  serves my purposes (ie, getting rid of fossils).

Quote:


China is building solar/wind at a faster rate than any other country, but the increasing demand for energy is so great that coal,  still being  the easiest and cheapest option, is also still increasing (set to peak in 2030). 

Quote:


I know a huge Pilbara solar/wind scheme was denied approval recently, for political, NOT engineering reasons.

Quote:


Blimey, are you  losing your memory, as well as capacity to think clearly?
I don't give two hoots about climate modelling, as you well know. That's the remit of the IPCC.  (I noted your doubt about a 1991 IPCC comment, as in
Quote:


Me? I don't really care, the AGW science is too complex to interest me, I just want to get rid of the filthy fossil industry ASAP.

Quote:


See.... you apparently want to conduct the argument you have with the IPCC through me as a proxy. I'm not interested.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:


Ah. So you are only along for the ride. No other reason. But you said you believe the science as espoused by the IPCC.

"aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on.."

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:


Yes. New coal plant 73GW. New Wind 55GW. Still lagging Coal install.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:


Oh political?

"Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley last week dismissed the USD-36-billion (EUR 30.3bn) proposal on the grounds that it would have “clearly unacceptable impacts” on wetlands designated of international significance and migratory birds in the region."

Ecologists don't like the ecology when it's green power they want.

You want a global governance that won't impinge on the green dream.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:


Wow. How to misrepresent something. They said the climate could not be modeeled; I said that I doubted the climate had changed that much; meaning it still was not possible to model.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:

You are not interested in science. We know.

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 12:33pm:




Is this FD? - no -  maybe Monk?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 2:35pm:

How about Temperature "Hottest evah" and AGW

How about temperature and snowfall?

Quote:


I don't need any help -
in fact I can help others.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 2:48pm:


Can you make a rational argument from this snowfall event Bobby? Or have climate skeptic numbers dwindled to a few remnants who are only capable of copying and pasting pictures?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:19pm:


You have been banging on about snowfall for a decade now Bobby. Why are you only just now revealing why?

All I can find is you claiming we get more snowfall because it is colder.

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 12:31pm:


well... if you want to put it that way...ok...

Quote:


Show me where I said that. I've been expressing  my agnosticism since day one.

Quote:


Er, that's what agnostics do, ie "move on", so long as the science serves the purposes of getting rid of the filthy fossil industry ASAP.   As for your 100% denialism.....

Quote:



...with CO2 emissions to peak in 2030.
But China is fiddling around with free market carbon pricing, like everyone else. China could do much better. I'm trying to wake the PBofC upto that fact. 

Quote:


Yes,  political (and Greens  are not always consistent, true.... not my fault).

Quote:


My views noted above; and btw Susan Ley rejecting the Pilbara scheme on environmental grounds is.....fishy..... her  real reason for rejecting the Pilbara scheme would informative.

The fact remains: the Pilbara is ripe for solar development and the engineers are ready to go. 

Quote:


That happened because of  your continuing argument with the IPCC, using me as a proxy  (which is why I misread your "modelling" narrative). 

 So the IPCC have changed their mind on "modelling"? Take it up with them. I'm more interested  progress on Snowy 2.0, among other things.    

Quote:


oh dear, talk about "misrepresentation".  I'm very interested in the science behind development of EVs, smart grids, and nuclear fusion, inter alia.

As for climate science, I'll let you waste your time  arguing with the IPCC.... who have gained the attention of the whole scientific and non-scientific world .

See you at the next COP (but don't tell anyone I'm agnostic....I'll be there to check out all the latest renewables technology and plans for implementation of same).    

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 6:13pm:

You jumped in too soon. I edited out the reference to another  poster's remarks (though they are certainly correct.)

Quote:


Correct; and China is the one country which sets and achieves its 5 year plans.

Quote:
 
And  they could achieve it much quicker if they abandon  Western market carbon-pricing BS. Might yet happen, I'm spreading the word....which is apparently stronger than the sword.... time will tell.  

Quote:


It certainly ain't engineering, which is my point. If Ley wants to play Greenie, that is certainly funny. 

Quote:


..see how confused you always  become? I want global governance related to free global electricity.

Quote:


again, see how confused you are...still wanting to argue your case through me as a proxy for the IPCC statements on climate models: YOU claimed the IPPC in 1991 said it's too difficult to model climate, and now YOU've  changed this to "averaging a plethora of models is better than..." something or other... (listen carefully), I DON'T CARE..   

Quote:


Correct, and regardless,  it's the consensus  attention which wins the day...like.... "look, the earth is flat, right..." (the consensus for a few thousand years). But in the case of climate science, the AGW consensus/attention might turn out to be right, in decades or less....

Quote:


Your ongoing confusion: I don't have to show ANY papers relating to the IPCC or AGW,  stop using me as  a proxy for your dispute with the IPCC.  Whereas I am using the IPCC consensus for my own purposes (ie, getting rid of the filthy fossil industry).  How hard is that to understand? See you at the next COP.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 9:57pm:



To me - record snow does mean cold temperatures.

It was very cold with record snowfall.
That is in direct contradiction of the predictions of Al Gore
any many other global warming alarmists who said
20 years ago or more -
that children would never see snow -
that the Arctic circle would be free of ice,
and that sea levels would rise flooding many countries.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 9:43pm:


Then piss off out of environment then if you are not interested.

Have you forgotten what you are trying to say again Bobby?

You are a pretty crap messenger if you cannot figure out what the  message is.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 2:20pm:


That climate skeptics have such a fragile ego from decades of being ridiculed that they are afraid to say what they are saying.

[quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1640772013/91#91 date=1641364570]You are the one defending the filthy, exploitative, poisonous, environmentally polluting (oil spills, smog etc etc), health-destroying fossil industry.




Posted by: freediver[/quote

Nope. But you are the one posting about "aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on.." ,  yet you can't show that the science says that. In other words you are a bullschist artist.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 5:29pm:


That settles it then you are bullscist artist who believes others (unsoecified).

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 5:29pm:


And as I have said the time is not yet right. Your beliefs notwithstanding. Something that is "technically" feasible is not necessarily feasible.

This thread didn't age well given that the Sierra snowpack has fallen to the lowest level in 70 years and so California's historic drought continues.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:25am:


They are all over the place today. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:164885113...

AiA wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:27am:



Thanks - well that's no good.
Meanwhile over here in Queensland we have biblical floods.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:30am:


Climate Change = extreme changes in weather.