Oh, my! So much to set straight. One floody late winter night, I nearly go electricuted at 2 AM when trying to get an lld sump pump working at my parent’s house. They were asleep. Water was pouring off the roof with punk gutters, onto the bulkhead a d into the cellar. I had to put my tal green rubber garden boots on, amd even then the water nearly went over the tops of them.

The electrical was a mess. They bought the house in a hurry, both frail and it did not get inspected properly. I flipped the circuit breaker that should have controlled any outlets near the sump pump gully. I’d never used any sump pump before, let alone that ratty think. Water was rising as was my heart rate. I’d not had sleep dor many hours and the lighting was bad.

The pump started working, so extracted myself from the cellar and went to the second floor to fall into bed. I woke at 10 AM and went to the kitchen where my father had made coffee and was paying the plumber he’d gotten to install a new sump pump. The punky one had conked out and the cellar was flooded even more.

Weeks later I learned that the circuit breaker was mislabled (previous owner) and so I had not turned off the outlets, lights etc. in that sump pump hole. I was grateful I hadn’t gotten electrocuted and annoyed that the previous owner was such a screw up.

Geez, Rob, now I want my own chainsaw and pole chain saw. This is the third year that evergreen near our boundary Nd leech field need to be trimmed. DH procrastinates horribly. I would chop the trees down, but we had to plant them 15 or 20years ago to give us privacy and to screen out the uphill neighbor’s disaster site sight.

Right now is the time to prune back the evergeens, otherwise they will look hacked and the tree grow would have already happened, so no covering up the pruning hack. (The trees are too large and sprawly because they were not kept trimmed yearly. Once they get taller and lanky, these arborvitae are difficult to trim down. Big gaps.

My sump pump was only hindered by my hose, so that was an easy fix.

I will use the new hose on the rain barrel, so no loss there.

Isn't it funny how one project reminds us to do another project?!

And elmer, be glad you don't have to put up with this during our season? What's bad, because of global warming, we get those tornado warnings year round now. It's hard. But weather is everywhere.

We have that pole/saw, a gift from daughter.I've never used it but it does the job, although we have a full-blown chain saw. With all the trees in our yard, it's needed.

That saw is designed to cut limbs that are attached to trees. It is not the safest thing in the world even then but using it to cut up free limbs in your yard is not best practice. I am saying this as a friend. A good pair of loppers? Like I said above we have these things that are like jaws. Very safe for that sort of thing. We also have chain saws. When stuff is large or hinky we call in the professionals. Well I do. DH always thinks he can manage it. I disagree and I will win that argument because I do not give in. I value DH.

patriciae

" What's bad, because of global warming, we get those tornado warnings year round now. "

Has that been specifically proven, especially to not be just a century's variation?

" But weather is everywhere. "

Well, yeah. So is air. It's not the same everywhere, not hardly. .

Oh! So you suffer no weather effects in California? No landslides or droughts or.... be careful, because I've lived in California.

No it's not proven, but you're going to say that global warming doesn't exist? Curious. If I said that global warming doesn't exist, you would have disagreed with that? Or would you have agreed?

I mean you're currently proving you disagree with everything I say. You don't seriously mean that global warming doesn't exist? Or, do you disagree more frequent activity exists, when it comes to weather, are you? You're seriously saying that?

It's because I'm saying it. I'm 99.9999999999999% sure it's because of that.

The red herring surfaces. How many years did you live in California? How many of those were not during your childhood years? Did you have any post-HS college years in California?

There are weather records for California that go back about 175 years. Most reliable ones since its political affiliation moved along to the US. All the way back then, there were periods of significant drought and periods of torrential rains. Sequences of years when crops failed due to droughts and years when fields were flooded for so long that crop production was teeny. (That's part of why the levee system and water management practices of the Delta region are in place now. You probably know all about that!)

Landslide traces have been found from centuries and centuries ago.

" No it's not proven "

They you're doing no one any favors, nor any favors to your own credibility, by repeating speculation as if it were something other than speculation.

I was questioning your broad generalization.

You've said before that part of your work is in an organization that does scientific research. Ask the research honcho (not an administrative one) what happens to the reputation of a researcher who widely communicates his own personally held speculations without unambiguously describing such words as such. Even worse, suggesting any undemonstrated thoughts are anything more than undemonstrated and speculations/hypotheses.

Do you think that global warming doesn't exist?

That's yes or no.

You know he can't say it doesn't exist!

From these comments, I'll assume this is your answer - it was a few years during elementary school years.

So you can't say yes or no?

Everyone take notice! Elmer believes that global warming doesn't exist.

Hmmm, since science has shown that the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles in the past the real question has always been is human activity speeding up this current warming cycle. The oceans are definitely warmer and the glaciers and ice sheets are definitely melting. You cant get around that. You are free to claim that cutting forests and killing ocean flora, filling the air with CO2 doesn't cause any of those things. We do appear to be having catastrophic fires that are killing a lot of people but is that because people are building homes in areas where homes should not be? Rational questions to ask. Same issue for hurricane damage or flooding in cities. Still flooding caused by paving over the earth so it cant absorb the water is man caused.

I am puzzled by this idea that just because I was a kid when I lived somewhere my living there doesn't count. Not all of us are clueless when we are kids.

patriciae

" We do appear to be having catastrophic fires that are killing a lot of people but is that because people are building homes in areas where homes should not be? "

I'm not sure where a lot of people have died from fires but for one instance and for the fires in my state of recent years, if you want to blame it on global "something", blame it on "global electrification".

Different parts of California have instances, often annually, of very high winds. 50 mph or more. In SoCal, the condition is called "Santa Ana winds".

Many of the recent fires are instances of either trees falling on power lines that then drop to the ground or lines/poles blowing down. No matter which, that starts a fire in our dry area and the heavy winds then spread the fire far and wide. PG&E, the electrical distribution company in NorCal, got a significant fine for failure to comply with requirements for keeping areas around power lines clear, as it had been instructed by the state Public Utility Commission to do.

A few days ago there was snow on the ground, today it’s supposed to get to 80 degrees or above, welcome to Colorado.

Elmer, have you forgotten the northern California Camp Fire that killed over 80 people, the 2023 fires in Hawaii driven by high winds that killed over 100, I suppose you are referring to the recent Palisades etc fire which only killed twelve or so. All wind driven fires during periods of unusual drought. Erratic is the actual description of global warming weather. Other countries have experienced strange, unusual or even extraordinary weather systems at the wrong times of the year. It is when extraordinary becomes the norm that you have to consider the why.

And about that bit where where you live doesn't count if you move there because of who you live with.

patriciae

I have lived in Los Angeles County all my life, and yes, California wildfires are increasingly large and destructive due to global climate change — longer extended droughts, hotter summers and autumns, stronger winds, and heavier rainfall from atmospheric rivers (increasing chaparral and plant growth as potential fuel during long dry seasons).

Of the 20 largest wildfires in California, 19 occurred since 2000, and 15 since 2010.

Of the 20 most destructive wildfires in California, 18 occurred since 2000, and 15 since 2010.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires

The high fatalities from the Griffith Park fire were due to unique terrain, untrained fire fighters, and shifting winds trapping them. There was a documentary made on the fire and casualties.

Santa Ana winds are stronger now — Palisades and Eaton fires, for example — and in January we saw the devastating results. There was also a heavy fuel load from the 2023 and 2024 above normal rainfall (atmospheric rivers, becoming stronger due to climate change), and practically nil rainfall in the 2025 season (more severe droughts due to climate change).

There are no controlled burns in the chaparral, for obvious reasons. Nor can all plants be removed as that encourages the growth of grasses which are even more fire prone.

I remember the most horrific fire of my youth — the Bel Air Fire in 1961 – which sent ashes into my family’s swimming pool many miles away. We could see the orange glow of the fire below the crest of Mulholland Drive many miles away. Compared to what was lost in Pacific Palisades, and Malibu, the destruction there was much less.

The Eaton fire in Altadena was in older established neighborhoods and commercial areas, not particularly close to the Angeles National Forest. (Similar to the blaze that devastated residential and commercial areas in Santa Rosa.) The Castellamare area in the Palisades, overlooking the Pacific between the Getty Villa and Sunset Blvd, was from the 1920s and 1930s. Same for the Will Rogers home, now a state park in the Palisades. One area razed by the Palisades Fire was post-war housing where in-laws used to live. These were not new encroachments into fire areas.

As an example of stronger Santa Ana winds, all fire fighting aircraft was grounded due to the force of the gusts.

Again, climate change plays a large part in the larger and more destructive fires since 2000: prolonged drought, stronger winds, hotter temperatures, more severe rain storms.

I hadn't heard that wind velocities were higher than historical data of similar circumstances. Not fires just previous major Santa Ana periods.

We know three families who lost their homes in the Palisades. I once lived nearby and know the area.

I too remember the Bel Air fire but I was living east of there. There was also a major Hollywood Hills fire, I don't remember the year. I'm not sure if high windspeeds were a factor for that. Smaller scale, smaller area.

Depending on the news source, January 2025 Santa Ana winds were the strongest in 70 - 100 years.

I’ve been at this house since 1997, and I had wind damage on a number tall shrubs and small trees that never were harmed in other Santa Ana winds. Limbs snapped off my schefflera elegantissima (false aralia) that reached the second story eaves, mature ti plant had top growth snapped off , brugmansia (angel’s trumpet) leaves shredded and blown to bits, and synadenium compactum (African milk bush) plants with broken stems. And entire neighborhoods littered with downed palm fronds.

Santa Ana winds have always had varying force — some stronger, some less so. The long existence doesn’t mean that velocity is always the same, as you no doubt experienced when you lived in the area.

I stand by what I wrote — I heard and read the reports in real time as the fire approached Santa Monica and Brentwood.

Even taking your 2011 date, that fits the pattern of the extremes of California wildfires overwhelmingly occurring after 2010.

While some like to diminish the existence and implications of global climate change, I look to the climatologists — experts in the science.

We’ve known for some time that we will be facing more extreme events in the context of global climate change — this should be no surprise — and we’re seeing those events across the US and the world.

Reports in real time tend toward inaccuracy and hyperbole. Your claim the the winds were the strongest in 70-100 years appears to be factually untrue and way off. I'm not suggesting intentionally so but false just the same.

Nothing has been rigorously studied in the scant few months since.

It's facile to cite a desired cause to fit a problem but not reasonable to me to do so. As the now sadly overused saying goes, you and I are welcome to formulate opinions that suit us but we cannot formulate facts.

Yep, just a kid. But I lived through an historic drought. Whether or not you can admit that anything related to you, lacks in some sort of way, remains. You only disagreed with me saying global warming exists to be argumentative. I have also lived in Hawai'i. Put that in your spreadsheet, for your future "gotcha".

rob, either every draught is an historic draught or none of them are. "Record setting draughts" occur regularly. And have not only since I've been on the planet starting in the 50s but indeed, for the decades and centuries before that. My preference is that none of them are because the available records and first person accounts from the Spanish period show that annual rainfall varies just like annual mean temperature, some years near the average but far more years way over or way under.

I took a class on 19th century California history in college and as I may have mentioned before, several sets of new arrivals in different areas over the years nearly starved because of crop failures caused by either consecutive years of very heavy rainfall or none at all. This is the pattern.

The Santa Clara Valley (Silicon Valley) water supply is imported and much of it is percolated into the underground water table. In the mid-1970s, record consecutive draught years caused much of NorCal to have to get by with tiny fractional amounts of water in the municipal systems. SC Valley got through okay because there was something like 5 years of water contained underground. However, as pumping continued, the falling ground water level caused ground sinking. My very first house, in Santa Clara, developed hairline cracks in most of the walls as the ground under it sank. We had to patch the cracks and repaint.

The draught ended with years of substantial rainfall and the water district was able to restore the previous level in the water table. As might have been expected but I didn't think of it, as the water table rose, the ground rose, my house rose, and cracks reappeared in the walls that again needed to be patched and then repainted.

Draught=cold air or a drink at the pub

Drought=a dry period

Since 1841, the following dry years have had significantly below-average precipitation.

• 1841[21]
• 1863–1864[21]
• 1895-1896
• 1917–1921
• 1922–1926
• 1928–1937
• 1943–1951[citation needed]
• 1959–1961
• 1971-1972
• 1976–1977

Roxsol, the haze of evening and morning,. Accentuated by poor sleep of 5 hour or less duration in the past week, are why I didn't enter a spelling contest this week. Along with the erratic results of my phone's spell check.

Hmm, we spell it misspelled here.😄 Not mispelled.

Once I could see it, but three times!

You’re welcome.

A history of droughts in California does not mean that all periods of drought are of the same severity and duration.

The most recent prolonged drought 2011 - 2017 was the longest in California history. This also covers the period (2010 to present) for the largest, and most destructive fires in the state. iirc it was also during that drought that Malibu had a wildfire in January that resulted in the reassessment of California’s fire season — now 12 months of the year. The catastrophic events of January 2025 reinforces this reevaluation.

Well that sounds terrible! It was difficult enough just for the short period that I was there. Prolonged sounds awful. Nancy, do you think it's from global warming? Or do you think it's just cyclical and it just happened to be worse for that time frame?

Hugs!

The drought from 2011-2017 is the most extreme in California since the year 800.

Yes, that drought was awful. Water restrictions plus lack of rain caused trees in parks and public places to die, as well as in the mountains. LA’s Dept of Water and Power had restrictions on water usage for gardens and landscaping. Impatiens which used to freely reseed in my yard disappeared, and haven’t been seen since.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/california-drought-worst-least-1200-years

Droughts will continue to be cyclical, but more severe within those cycles according to climatologists, and possibly more frequent. Awareness and practice of water conservation is ongoing, and in LA city proper, promoted by the DWP. San Diego will be relying on desalinization to meet water needs.

Robb, good luck with the clean up from the storms.

I assume it is and it isn't cyclical. So is increasing in intensity. Drat!

I have finished cleaning up from the storm. Except the very large branches which are still sitting there. We have another little front coming in tonight, and I thought I would wait. I'm probably going to get the loppers out tomorrow and get rid of 85 to 90% of it. It needs to go to a pile across the street, and that takes effort. Probably pretty good exercise.

Nancy, please factor in to your enthusiasm about stats that the winter of 2016-2017 was the wettest ever in NorCal. According to a Wiki article.

Who was keeping stats in the year 800? Where does this info come from?

Once again, global climate change will produce longer and/or more frequent droughts, but also periods of heavier rainfall with more flooding. The two back-to-back winters of exceptional rainfall (2023-2024) due to atmospheric rivers are an example of more extreme rains — you must be aware of the flooding that happened in the Central Valley, and crops that failed plus the reemergence of Tulare Lake in 2023.

The linked article from Science News gives the method of measuring — tree rings.

Here's the problem with climate change studies: Most studies do not share their raw data with the Peer reviewers-they are limited to evaluating the analysis of the raw data-in other words, the peer reviewers (during the peer review process) typically focus on how the original researchers of the study-have drawn conclusions from the raw data-rather than seeing the raw data with their own eyes-which can definitely be biased from the originators of the studies.

Bringing to my end point: It's important to know these studies start way earlier, at the funding stage. And making it even worse, you don’t get funding to overturn a narrative. They are-in reality-actually getting paid to come up with a desired narrative. This climate change narrative is a HUGE money-maker!

I mean...how often have we heard the world was already supposed to end-because of climate change?

In my view, we have to work with our climate-you cannot change it.

Note: This happens in other studies also, not just climate change studies-to be fair.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the new/old Tulare Lake. I drive by that area very often. Sometimes monthly.

Here's something about the lake from the Wiki article:

" The lake reappears during unusually high levels of rainfall or snow melt as it did in 1942, 1969, 1983, 1997, 1998, and 2023. "

So there was a gap in the sequence of years after 1998. But this is a normal occurance going back 80 years and likely more.

I don't believe one or even a handful of studies to be conclusive and determinative. Relatively indicative, sure. Absolute? No.

It seems to be scientifically accepted that humans have influenced world weather and the reasons for it seem to be well understood. The domain you seem to be in is that of the politicization camp making it the bogeyman blamed for every and all problems.

Weather is irregularly cyclical. Over years, decades, centuries, and more. It trends up and then it trends down. Sometimes starts, sometimes stops, in particular directions. Fine. Next topic.

PS - When I was a kid, there was no weather term used for the general public called "atmospheric rivers". Back then, the term was "Pineapple Express". Do you remember that?

I remember years of many instances of Pineapple Expresses and record breaking rain. I also remember years of scarce rainfall. I'm not a scientist or a meteorologist in fact or by hobby but what I see during the years of my adult life are many years of typical patterns and unpredictability as regards rainfall. And extremes. I don't look at it with a political agenda in mind and, frankly, I find the repeated politically motivated drum pounding and blame assignment for everything under the sun to be 1)intellectually lacking, and 2)boring.

No one says the world will end because of climate change but it will change. You cant argue that climate change is natural and not man caused but also argue that there is no climate change. The oceans are measurably warmer and ice shelfs and land ice are melting. We are not supposed to be able to feel warming but it makes weather more erratic. More erratic is what we have been getting. Climate changes. You cant argue it doesn't because we have ice ages and then warmings. Where and how we can live on this planet changes with that. The only question has always been is to what degree humans are exacerbating the change. Even if we are not causing this it affects how many of us can live here. So stop arguing and start thinking about can 8+ Billion people live on a planet where parts of it are going to be uninhabitable for a few thousand years.

The names of things are irrelevant. It is what happens and why.

patriciae

Weather cycles with warming periods and cooling ones have been discovered throughout the eons. Human existence demonstrably has affected the cycles and caused warming but not necessarily changed the pattern of cycles.

Blame peanut butter and sliced bread, the connection is as valid. The warming trend started as peanut butter gained in popularity.

Ah, Isnt that what I just said, except for the peanut part.

patriciae

Maybe so Patricia, but he's a man, and everything has to be their idea.

Gender isn't a factor in this or any other discussion. Are you demonstrating an insecurity?

I wish you would not do that Elmer. If you have a valid argument you undermine it when you question peoples happiness or in this case question security and do not instead explain why you felt the need to restate what I had just said-minus the peanuts.

patriciae

I was responding to this:

" but he's a man, and everything has to be their idea. "

I'll withhold the appropriate adjective that applies.

How would you feel if I said this:

Patricia, you're only saying that because you're a woman and you need to dominate the conversation to feel recognized and not marginalized.

Ridiculous and outrageous, no? I'd never say something like that in any circumstance, it's the opposite of my own feelings and beliefs

Just as you would be offended by my hypothetical ridiculous comment, so too was I by that actual comment.

I take those who tout "Climate Change" and the world will end as they are wanting to somehow Change the Climate, as I think most in my camp, believe. I do believe climate has changed and has naturally for millions of years and there is nothing we can do about it. Hope that explains the confusion, patriciae.

Elmer, you attack me personally, such as calling childish. Just avoid talking to me since I offend you so much.

Elmer, what Rob said should not surprise you. They are a large segment of their party-of which most women, are man-haters. It's very strange. How did you not know that??? I see it on here all the time. LOL

Independent voters hate men? Ha! No I think I just dislike people who attack me, calling me childish repeatedly.

I'm not a liberal, but there's nothing wrong with being a liberal!

Thank you for clearing that up for me. It is pretty normal for numerous liberal women to display their man-hating nowadays.

Elmer, if someone attacks your scenario you do not support your case by attacking their sense of security in themselves. You attack their argument. That is what I mean. And OllieJane does not support her agenda by attacking all supposed liberal women. These are weakening and futile arguments.

Rob's point is your tendency to explain to everyone and since virtually everyone here is female you do come across as a Mansplainer. Since I had already made the point your restating it comes across as mansplaining. You don't seem to be getting that. If you had prefaced it with some sort of acknowledgment of my statement you avoid this. See how that works? If you disagree with anything I said you have to point out which bits those are. It takes more work and but in the long run it is worth it.

Just here to help and voice MY opinion.

patriciae.

STOP THIS CARP!!! STUPID!!!