California is experiencing the worst drought in its 163 year statehood. I live in Northern Calif. We have had exactly one day of rain the entire autumn and winter. There is very little Sierra Snowpack and Ski resorts are closing (this is January, not June).

For those who have been paying attention, man-caused carbon emissions have long been predicted to cause massive weather extremes around the world. It was not predicted that there would be universal warming. What was predicted was that there would be regional climate disasters. Climate prediction is an incredibly complex science, that involves numerous feedback loops related to
ocean current temperatures, ice pack, and too many other variables to list in this post.

What would be the big repercussions if the high pressure ridge, parked off the coast, doesn't budge?

1. It would be a disaster for all Californians. If California becomes a modern day dust bowl, the state's 38 million people would have to migrate to other states. Their departure would cause trillions of dollars in real estate value to evaporate. Many of the biggest U.S. banks would be ruined.

2. The cost of fruits and vegetables would rise dramatically for much of the U.S.

3. A California exile would dramatically raise demand for housing in other states and drive up their housing costs.

4. 38 million people departing from a very blue state will cause numerous red states to turn blue. Californians don't like living in extreme cold, so the southern "red" states would be the most appealing.

5. The population and financial dislocations would trigger a national depression, which would make the 1930s pale in comparison.

6. The high pressure ridge would cause Calif. bound rain to be routed up over the western mountains and cause flooding in much of the east. The climate disruption will actually cause more ice and snow (and paradoxically) cold events in the east. Like I said, feedback loops are complicated.

7. Conservatives in other states would do well to refrain from gloating. If the nation's boat develops a large hole, ALL of its passengers will get extremely soaked. "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

An endless sunny summer is fun...until its not...

Climate change? Global warming? Carbon emissions from human activity?
Guess what? before mankind made a " carbon footprint" the weather was changing constantly. So, we have a drought due to weather patterns. It will change and then you all will say "see. it's man made emissions.." C'mon. use your brains. Ask yourself..have there been ice ages? Why are there volcanoes we can't stop from spewing more gasses in one eruption than all industry and cars combined? Do you never ask these questions about the history of the earth, or do you just go by weather reports of the day? Seriously...I have seen droughts before in the Sierras ( I was a ski racer during the worst) and it was bad. Followed by a major dump. California is an arid state. It through proper use of water resources that it has become a " feeder". But, you get idiots that want to tear down dams and limit storage. You libs elect them and the rest of us pay...Thanks Libs!

California is experiencing the worst drought in its 163 year statehood. I live in Northern Calif. We have had exactly one day of rain the entire autumn and winter. There is very little Sierra Snowpack and Ski resorts are closing (this is January, not June).

For those who have been paying attention, man-caused carbon emissions have long been predicted to cause massive weather extremes around the world. It was not predicted that there would be universal warming. What was predicted was that there would be regional climate disasters. Climate prediction is an incredibly complex science, that involves numerous feedback loops related to
ocean current temperatures, ice pack, and too many other variables to list in this post.

What would be the big repercussions if the high pressure ridge, parked off the coast, doesn't budge?

1. It would be a disaster for all Californians. If California becomes a modern day dust bowl, the state's 38 million people would have to migrate to other states. Their departure would cause trillions of dollars in real estate value to evaporate. Many of the biggest U.S. banks would be ruined.

2. The cost of fruits and vegetables would rise dramatically for much of the U.S.

3. A California exile would dramatically raise demand for housing in other states and drive up their housing costs.

4. 38 million people departing from a very blue state will cause numerous red states to turn blue. Californians don't like living in extreme cold, so the southern "red" states would be the most appealing.

5. The population and financial dislocations would trigger a national depression, which would make the 1930s pale in comparison.

6. The high pressure ridge would cause Calif. bound rain to be routed up over the western mountains and cause flooding in much of the east. The climate disruption will actually cause more ice and snow (and paradoxically) cold events in the east. Like I said, feedback loops are complicated.

7. Conservatives in other states would do well to refrain from gloating. If the nation's boat develops a large hole, ALL of its passengers will get extremely soaked. "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

An endless sunny summer is fun...until its not...

Damn Brian, you have finally brought a subject up with a basis in reality. Putting politics aside (as much as possible) here is an answer to a problem that has been creeping up on the ENTIRE USA for quite some time.
We have droughts in our agricultural areas, while we have flooding in industrial and commercial areas.
If you will look north on your map of the USA, you have Oregon north of you. The Columbia River pours into the Pacific Ocean, fresh water wasted. Why not create a recovery of some of that water, by use of pipelines, pump stations and other techniques to redirect that water into existing waterways? Existing active waterways already have dams and therefore have storage capacity, and hydroelectric generators. You increase the water availability (maybe even cause water tables to rise again) have more water for irrigation, as well as increase the availability of clean electric production. Look at the water along our northern border that originates from Canada and the Arctic. Channel it to existing waterways and old waterways that can be modified (dams with hydroelectric generators) to hold that water in more lakes. Same with the Mississippi which usually floods areas up and down its length. Channel that water to the drought stricken middle west (corn and wheat areas). We have the technology to do this and it is vital to the continued existence of our nation - it would increase the agricultural output, available electricity, rebuild water tables, and assist in developing an expansion of currently arid but fertile land. Cattle would no longer have to sold during droughts because feed would no longer be expensive or unavailable. Think of the jobs that would be created, during construction as well as the resultant increase of employment for the increase of productivity and development. Who knows, food prices could even drop. Not to mention the increase in wildlife and sporting activities. Fishing, watersports, wildlife habitat, - possibilities endless as well as a more secure homeland.

Excellent dissertation on the effects of global shifting. Although, I sense that the equator's movement is occurring at a much greater rate than either you or I suspect. To date, solution debates on equator shift have yielded nothing but circular arguments.

The Earth's axis shift is altogether another issue and can not be easily solved while government busies itself debating free birth control pills. If serious action is not taken soon, well,......it could turn EVERYTHING upside down!

The gulf stream shift? just outrageous! Having minimal knowledge of ocean current science, I think it best not to stick my toes into those waters.

Damn Brian, you have finally brought a subject up with a basis in reality. Putting politics aside (as much as possible) here is an answer to a problem that has been creeping up on the ENTIRE USA for quite some time.
We have droughts in our agricultural areas, while we have flooding in industrial and commercial areas.
If you will look north on your map of the USA, you have Oregon north of you. The Columbia River pours into the Pacific Ocean, fresh water wasted. Why not create a recovery of some of that water, by use of pipelines, pump stations and other techniques to redirect that water into existing waterways? Existing active waterways already have dams and therefore have storage capacity, and hydroelectric generators. You increase the water availability (maybe even cause water tables to rise again) have more water for irrigation, as well as increase the availability of clean electric production. Look at the water along our northern border that originates from Canada and the Arctic. Channel it to existing waterways and old waterways that can be modified (dams with hydroelectric generators) to hold that water in more lakes. Same with the Mississippi which usually floods areas up and down its length. Channel that water to the drought stricken middle west (corn and wheat areas). We have the technology to do this and it is vital to the continued existence of our nation - it would increase the agricultural output, available electricity, rebuild water tables, and assist in developing an expansion of currently arid but fertile land. Cattle would no longer have to sold during droughts because feed would no longer be expensive or unavailable. Think of the jobs that would be created, during construction as well as the resultant increase of employment for the increase of productivity and development. Who knows, food prices could even drop. Not to mention the increase in wildlife and sporting activities. Fishing, watersports, wildlife habitat, - possibilities endless as well as a more secure homeland.

I've thought along those same line for a long time. First look at which party that isn't interested in investing in our infrastructure. I believe Australia is building or it is done now one of the largest desalination plants in the world to take salt water and make fresh water out of it. With the ocean right next to California I don't see why the same thing couldn't be done in different parts of the state up and down the west coast. It would cost billions to make it possible but it's still cheaper than running out of water.

The problem with that is, it takes years to build such a plant. Most politicians are only interested in the next election. Doing something today, the results of which wouldn't be seen for 3 or 4 years, might get you elected/reelected ONCE. People will have forgotten about it by the next election cycle.
Politicians are marketers/ salesmen, you can't sell something no one will see for years, so don't do it. This water problem was known 20 years ago. Some steps were taken but they were short term fixes, and they KNEW they were. "just get me reelected until I retire and move to Florida" won out against " there will be people still here and in big trouble".