More on Middle East Drought, Cold, and California Drought

This posting is preserving a comment chain made at WUWT here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/21/some-pushback-against-obamas-ridiculous-climate-remarks-at-the-coast-guard-commencement/#comment-1941503

E.M.Smith May 21, 2015 at 3:18 pm

That part of the world gets drought during cooling events. In the 4.2 ky Event it caused empires to fall:

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/4/379.abstract

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/akkadians-and-chad/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event

That would be Bond Event 3. An extreme cold plunge.
Bond Event 2 was “drought in the Mediterranean” and the collapse of late Bronze Age cultures.
Bond Event 1 was the Migration Era Pessimum about 1.4 kya, also known as the Dark Ages.

The wiki claims that the Little Ice Age was Bond Event Zero, but they are wrong. These things come around ever 1470 or so years. 540 AD onset of Dark Ages, plus 1470, gives 2010 … or just about now…

Oh, and The Dark Ages was a half Bond cycle… we get modest dips then. Yes, the LIA was “modest”…

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/

So when there is severe drought in the Levant and Middle East, and severe drought in California, it’s a cold time, not warm, that’s causing it.

Crispin in Waterloo May 21, 2015 at 8:36 pm

The old events are well noted. Now, the claim in the paper is that if it gets warmer it will get drier and there are very specific mechanisms touted.

So, in 5000 BC when it was a couple of degrees warmer than now, was this region the cradle of civilisation and agriculture or Sahara Desert East?

And my reply, note that I’m not blockquoting from here on down as it would just be one giant block quote and hard to read. After this quote, I’m going to reproduce most / all of the Stanford page just to document the original in case some “pressure” is put on to have it rewritten…

@Crispin in Waterloo:

5000 BC, or 7000 BP? In Africa, the Sahara was a lush green savana about then:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/cold-dry-sahara-hot-wet-savanna/

Around 12,500 BC, the amount of dust in the cores in the Bølling/Allerød phase suddenly plummets and shows a period of much wetter conditions in the Sahara, indicating a Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) event (a sudden warming followed by a slower cooling of the climate). The moister Saharan conditions had begun about 12,500 BC, with the extension of the ITCZ northward in the northern hemisphere summer, bringing moist wet conditions and a savanna climate to the Sahara, which (apart from a short dry spell associated with the Younger Dryas) peaked during the Holocene thermal maximum climatic phase at 4000 BC when mid-latitude temperatures seem to have been between 2 and 3 degrees warmer than in the recent past. Analysis of Nile River deposited sediments in the delta also shows this period had a higher proportion of sediments coming from the Blue Nile, suggesting higher rainfall also in the Ethiopian Highlands. This was caused principally by a stronger monsoonal circulation throughout the sub-tropical regions, affecting India, Arabia and the Sahara. Lake Victoria only recently became the source of the White Nile and dried out almost completely around 15 ka

So yeah, hotter makes the place lush. That’s why there are abandoned cities scattered through the deserts around there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial

The Neolithic Subpluvial began during the 7th millennium BC and was strong for about 2,000 years; it waned over time and ended after the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BCE). Then the drier conditions that prevailed prior to the Neolithic Subpluvial returned; desertification advanced, and the Sahara Desert formed (or re-formed). Arid conditions have continued through to the present day.

But that’s more Africa focused and you wanted to know about Mesopotamia. While one could generalize from Africa, there is also specific information about it:

http://web.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/summary.html

(Yes, that Stanford…)

After a millenium, the end of the Younger Dryas (9500 BC) came about almost as quickly as it had begun, warmth returned to the North, and water to the deserts of the Near East. Again about 6000 BC, another abrupt cooling in Greenland, (6200 BC) this a short lived cycle, then a warming for two thousand years the sun shining, a great green spring in the northern lands, the wolves retreating, as the planet entered the the mid Holocene altithermal.

6200 BC is the 8.2 kilo-year event, 8200 years before present, or Bond Event 5. (These things are pretty regular…) so cold and dry, then warm and wet returned In “the Near East”.

Consider Mesopotamia, the land between the rivers: warm and wet, interrupted by the aformentioned severe cold drought (6200 BC) Again, warm conditions returned and the sea rose again, now at about 50 feet below present level.

Illustration: We place the “Garden of Eden” in the lower Tigris-Euphrates (most recently the scene of the Gulf War) at the time of 8000 to 6000 yrs. BP (6000-3500 BC) at which time the temperature is warming culminating in an era warmer than present, when equatorial weather patterns may have reached farther north than at present, and the westerly storms of the north would have been confined to latitudes higher than at present.
[…]
In those warm wet years a kind of Eden in Egypt (7000 BC) , Reported (5500 BC) Mid-Holocene flooding of Baltic Sea. a time of canoes and elephants. (3000 BC) This period the Atlantic or altithermal or hypsithermal, (4000 BC) with temperatures 5 degrees warmer than at present, raining all the time, Lake Chad one hundred feet higher until 3000 BC. The desert now supports game allowing hunting and herding or nomadic pastoralism. Predynastic Nagada (Naqadah) cultures. Evidence for this “Garden of Eden” can oddly enough be found almost everywhere; in California, the rings of bristlecone pines (4850 BC) near the Nevada border grew fat in the wet heat. By 4500 BC the favorable climatic conditions and stabilized lower alluvial plains favoring territorial control and mound building (4500 BC) among native Amercan groups in the lower valleys. Slowing sea level rise at 10-15 below present level, beginning of meander belts on (4000 BC) Mississippi River. In the San Francisco Bay area we begin to see a transition from hunter-gatherer to sedentary cultures. (3000 BC) In Santa Barbara the Mid Holocene Atlantic wet period features high human population growth (3300 BC) with increasing hunting, sea fishing, residential bases, status ranking, mortar and pestle use for large pulpy seeds, technology in general. This seems to be reflected as well in the central coast (3600 BC) as well as santa barbara basin off the coast (3250 BC) ; some principal evidence locally exhibited in the Stanford man (3020 BC) and Sunnyvale girl (3160 BC) burials in the San Francisco Bay area. Photos of the “Stanford Man” skull can be seen on “the skull”. (3020 BC)

Elsewhere in the Mississippi valley we see a proliferation of native american mounds (3000 BC) starting at about 7000 BCE; See also sticks in boston (3100 BC) ; In New England coastal areas we find warmth and plenitude as represented by the great Boylston Street fish wier (3100 BC) discoovered in the 1940s some 15 feet below sea level, In Europe, early agriculture (3500 BC) appears.

Toward the end of the fourth millenium ominous signs in the North. The upper treeline in alps (3500 BC) drops 100 meters in 3500 BC then rises to 2500 BC indicating a northern cold spell (and corresponding Near Eastern drought) at 3500. See alsothe startling iceman of the alps ( BC) ; In the alps we see an Iceman; (3150 BC) see also iceman of the alps (3150 BC) ; At the same time the irish elm decline (4000 BC) occurs.

So a very consistent pattern with warmer being good times, advance of societies and cultures, plenty of food; always followed by a sudden plunge of temperatures into a collapse of societies as dry cold deserts make food dear. That last cold plunge is a bit unclear on the exact dating, using a 1000 year span and all, but Bond Event 4 was called the 5.9 Kilo-year-event, and was in 3900 BC. That gives it 400 years of ‘error band’ or perhaps just a long plunge to depth in 3500 BC starting a couple of hundred earlier.

What’s very clear in all cases: It is s a cycle. It is natural. It WILL happen again. Rain and plenty comes with warmth and civilization builds. Cold brings drought, crop failures and the collapse of civilizations. The last one was The Dark Ages starting about 535 BC to 540 BC (hazy as records were lost in collapse of the Western Roman Empire). It’s now “just about time”… (The good news is that there’s about 100 years error on some of the Bond Event timing, so we might have a few more decades. Maybe even up to 300 years as one author finds the average is 1470 years but it has some shorter near 1200 and some longer near 1800… or maybe it’s just the error in dating things that far back…)

The other thing that is clear is that increased drought in the Sahara and Levant into the Middle East and Near East is a sign of cold, not warmth.

So don’t worry though. Just because the sun is taking a nap, the lunar tidal cycle is shifting on it’s regular 1500 to 1800 year wander of tides, and the atmospheric height has shortened from lower UV, that to me looks like it is causing lots of early and late snow in the mountains (and Boston ;-) and it is just exactly on schedule for Bond Event Zero, that’s no reason at all to expect things to get very very cold. The IPCC tells us it will be warm ;sarc>

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/dry-and-drought-in-the-middle-east/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/polar-night-jet-and-uv-driven-albedo/

Duplicate Stanford Page

This will duplicate the excerpts above, but preserves the page in case “PC Rewriting” gets pushed… There are a LOT of live links in the original and likely a lot more that needs exploring / preserving from there. Begin Quote:

Climate, Culture, and Catastrophe in the Ancient World

This page presents a summary narrative of and links to geological and paleoclimatalogical data bearing on the remarkable events of 3000 BCE (calendar years BC), when urban/technological society began. Most of our data comes from referenced scientific literature, although some of the studies, such as of the Mesopotamian delta,and certain sea level interpretations, are the author’s. You will also find a handy chronological index HERE. A summary graph of events around 3200 BC will be found here.
Illustration: Dry glacial climate in Near East, including Egypt and Mesopotamia. Monsoons are far to the south.

(20000 BC)

Comments?

In the beginning, the earth in a fitful sleep, (100000 BC) , stirring in a night sweat every five thousand years. Last stands of (30000 BC) Homo erectus and Neanderthal. The end of the Ice Age; (13000 BC) Slowly the great ice sheets melt away, from Chicago and Boston and Seattle and London, under the influence of an “altithermal” climate several degrees warmer than today. The sea level, which has remained some 350 feet below its present level for 100,000 years, begins to rise at a rate of ten feet a century.

Then, 12000 years before present, when the sea level had reached 100 feet below present level, something happened to interrupt the process; temperatures plunged 7 degrees, the sea level hesitated. This was the beginning of the Younger Dryas, (10500 BC) a millenium in which the circulation system of the North Atlantic went into a kind of planetary fibrillation, the African monsoons migrated southward, drying the desert. After a millenium, the end of the Younger Dryas (9500 BC) came about almost as quickly as it had begun, warmth returned to the North, and water to the deserts of the Near East. Again about 6000 BC, another abrupt cooling in Greenland, (6200 BC) this a short lived cycle, then a warming for two thousand years the sun shining, a great green spring in the northern lands, the wolves retreating, as the planet entered the the mid Holocene altithermal.

I could not rest until I had written it out and then the great dread of my soul was that some accident would destroy the single copy & the world would lose a revelation.
–Ignatius Donnelly, 1882, on the writing of his “Ragnorak, The Age of Fire and Gravel”
Consider Mesopotamia, the land between the rivers: warm and wet, interrupted by the aformentioned severe cold drought (6200 BC) Again, warm conditions returned and the sea rose again, now at about 50 feet below present level.

Illustration: We place the “Garden of Eden” in the lower Tigris-Euphrates (most recently the scene of the Gulf War) at the time of 8000 to 6000 yrs. BP (6000-3500 BC) at which time the temperature is warming culminating in an era warmer than present, when equatorial weather patterns may have reached farther north than at present, and the westerly storms of the north would have been confined to latitudes higher than at present.

(5000 BC)

Comments?

In those warm wet years a kind of Eden in Egypt (7000 BC) , Reported (5500 BC) Mid-Holocene flooding of Baltic Sea. a time of canoes and elephants. (3000 BC) This period the Atlantic or altithermal or hypsithermal, (4000 BC) with temperatures 5 degrees warmer than at present, raining all the time, Lake Chad one hundred feet higher until 3000 BC. The desert now supports game allowing hunting and herding or nomadic pastoralism. Predynastic Nagada (Naqadah) cultures. Evidence for this “Garden of Eden” can oddly enough be found almost everywhere; in California, the rings of bristlecone pines (4850 BC) near the Nevada border grew fat in the wet heat. By 4500 BC the favorable climatic conditions and stabilized lower alluvial plains favoring territorial control and mound building (4500 BC) among native Amercan groups in the lower valleys. Slowing sea level rise at 10-15 below present level, beginning of meander belts on (4000 BC) Mississippi River. In the San Francisco Bay area we begin to see a transition from hunter-gatherer to sedentary cultures. (3000 BC) In Santa Barbara the Mid Holocene Atlantic wet period features high human population growth (3300 BC) with increasing hunting, sea fishing, residential bases, status ranking, mortar and pestle use for large pulpy seeds, technology in general. This seems to be reflected as well in the central coast (3600 BC) as well as santa barbara basin off the coast (3250 BC) ; some principal evidence locally exhibited in the Stanford man (3020 BC) and Sunnyvale girl (3160 BC) burials in the San Francisco Bay area. Photos of the “Stanford Man” skull can be seen on “the skull”. (3020 BC)

Elsewhere in the Mississippi valley we see a proliferation of native american mounds (3000 BC) starting at about 7000 BCE; See also sticks in boston (3100 BC) ; In New England coastal areas we find warmth and plenitude as represented by the great Boylston Street fish wier (3100 BC) discoovered in the 1940s some 15 feet below sea level, In Europe, early agriculture (3500 BC) appears.

Toward the end of the fourth millenium ominous signs in the North. The upper treeline in alps (3500 BC) drops 100 meters in 3500 BC then rises to 2500 BC indicating a northern cold spell (and corresponding Near Eastern drought) at 3500. See alsothe startling iceman of the alps ( BC) ; In the alps we see an Iceman; (3150 BC) see also iceman of the alps (3150 BC) ; At the same time the irish elm decline (4000 BC) occurs.

In recent years analysis of ice cores has yieklded even more precise information. recent studies of the ice cores by the GISP2 team (3200 BC) shows a minglacial feezeup at about 5000 BP.

Illustration: Rain storms, climatic oscillation. Millennial-scale warming terminates with a period of climatic disturbance and flooding in the lower latitudes (Nile, Arizona, Morocco, Israel, Mesopotamia), followed by a drought; general, worldwide, climate-driven shock to early societies living in “edenic” geography of plenty with “fertile crescent” survivors organizing into more centrally administered culture based on irrigation.

(3500 BC)

Comments?

Sea Level Changes

Fairbridge cycles…. late Holocene sea level ( BC) Holocene delta development worldwide (3500 BC) By 4000 BC sea level rise began to slow and deltas begin to form.The sequence of events along the coast is illustrated graphically in a diagrammatic sequence in “The End of Eden” (4000 BC) San Francisquito geology ( BC) More locally view of San Francisquito creek development ( BC) Recent data from the Han River delta (3500 BC) indicate a rapid sea level rise (3 meters) from 4000 to 3000 BC. The sea level curve of the Han river delta (3500 BC) does not contain enough data in the 4000-3000 BC period Huang Ho river (2900 BC) also the South Carolina sea level (3500 BC) South Carolina sea level ( BC) ; The Fiji sea level (3500 BC) drops; the Fji sea level curves. ( BC) show a one meter drop between 3500-3000 BC. For example, data collected by Atwater a few years ago in San Francisquito bay (3300 BC) features sea level stillstands (3000 BC) Also the Mississippi delta (3400 BC) In Iraq sea level, persian gulf (4000 BC) Studies of the Nile and holocene delta development worldwide (4000 BC) shows a similar sequence. At about 6000 BC something odd happened. This is recorded in an erratic sea level response all over the world; when the rise stopped rivers began to discharge their silt onto a constant shoreline. Deltas were built, with their rich loads of fertile silt. A notable example is the mesopotamia delta (3200 BC) in times leading up to the great flood. This is a condition that had not existed for 120,000 years. It is a history that is preserved to this day in most of the delta environments (6000 BC) of the world.
Mesopotamian and Nile Deltas

(3250 BC) In the middle East, Egypt’s Nile delta (3250 BC) A core (5-44) taken at the south margin of one of the coastal lagoons at the north end of the Nile delta showed a layer of potsherds 25 ft. below sea level dated at 3,500 to 4,500 CYBP. egypt, nile (3090 BC) Similar evidence permits a reconstruction (by the author) of stratigarphy of the mesopotamia delta (4000 BC) showing the ancient city of Ur at the edge of a 100 mile flood basin.
Illustration: sea level rise and stabilization in Gulf of Persia, and accompanying warm, 4000 BC

(6000 BC)

Comments?

Lake Van oscillation (3150 BC) ; Ironically Ur is a t the center of the recent Gulf War and notably very close to the area in with the “Gulf War Syndrome” reportedly originated. chemical gas poisoning ( BC) tigris-euphratres (3200 BC) This sequence may be compaed with other events in a Tigris and Euphrates comparative chronology ( BC) . Beginning of the Sumerian king list culminates with Glgamesh, king of Uruk. (2700 BC) Between Palestine and Mesopotamia, the lost city of Jawa. (3000 BC) Tigris and Euphrates alluvial plain (3500 BC) Irrigated society, 3500 BC

Sumerians in Mesopotamia (3000 BC)

The story of the great flood was told in the 1930s by Leonard Woolley. (3500 BC) dated later by Father Burrows (3700 BC) His associate the Jesuit epigrapher Father Burrows (3700 BC) presents an early Mesopotamian version of the flood story, Also this is the time of Pharoah Sneferu at Meydum (3400 BC) ; sumerian influences on egypt (3000 BC) ; unification of Egypt (3100 BC) ; recent reports of ancient egyptians in palestine (3000 BC) . A dramatic rise in Dead Sea level near mt. sedom (3001 BC) occurs at this time. According the Lebor, as inter[erted by O’Rahilly… cessair (3200 BC)

The Flood (3150 BC) 3150 BC(?). Abrupt cooling at higher latitudes, possibly related to oceanic effects, especially in Northern Europe, corresponding to peak of megalith cultures. Probable oscillation in sea level shortly before 3000 BC followed by 10-15 ft. alluvial deposition in river valleys.

The Great Shock of 3250 BC

( BC) ; Many other paleocliamtic events are summarized on the paleoclimate data page (3200 BC) . A period of stormy weather (3250 BC) ; The sequence of events is shown in a San Francisquito Creek history (3250 BC) ; This period corresponds to the so-called palynological Pora oscillation in Europe (3250 BC) ; Elsewhere we see natural catastrophes during the bronze age (3000 BC) ; as shown on the paleoclimate data page ( BC) ; sierra cooling (3100 BC) ; gisp ice core (3100 BC) ; Globally corresponds sulfate in gisp2 (3250 BC) ; In Greenland sulphate spike ( BC) ; atmospheric methane (3250 BC) ; sulphate spike (3150 BC) ; camp century, greenland (3150 BC) ; yangtze river (3110 BC) ; methane peak, (3050 BC) ; methane ( BC) ; Heckla eruption heckla eruption, iceland (3190 BC) ;
In the Americas devon island (3050 BC) ; bristlecone pines (3000 BC) ; hemlock decline new england (3250 BC) ; elm collapse (3270 BC) ; july summer cooling, soviet union (3300 BC) ; wooden tracks (3000 BC) diamond pond, (3000 BC) ; paleoclimatic flood, global (3150 BC) ;

In the Americas: a flood peak (3150 BC) ; huascaran glacier (3250 BC) ; general wetting western u.s (3000 BC) ; republican river, (3100 BC) ; floods in netherlands (2970 BC) ; pine bursts (3250 BC) ; pomme de terre river (3200 BC) ; end of alluvial period (3100 BC) ; new data from peru ( BC) ;

Significant archeological finds of this period include: belgian coastal monuments (3300 BC) ; brittany coast emerges (3050 BC) ; newgrange megalithic tomb (3075 BC) newgrange megalithic tomb (3075 BC) ; carnac megaliths (3000 BC) ; mayan recreation (3113 BC) ; ancient french trapper (3000 BC) ; french coastal megaliths (3212 BC) ; stonehenge (start) (3100 BC) ; newgrange start (3250 BC) ; In Europe irish oaks (3199 BC) ;

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Climate Perspective and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to More on Middle East Drought, Cold, and California Drought

  1. Ian W says:

    The question should be – if a Bond event were to start it would look rather like it does now. How fast does it progress to dry cold? The low sampling rates of the proxies would miss very rapid changes as they get smeared out. So claims of ‘geological time’ to change to cold may be optimistic. In the Andes I believe there were flowers found frozen under snow similarly trees frozen into glaciers. This does not sound like an extended period of slow temperature drop.

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    @Ian W:

    Yup. There is green plant material just coming out from under a retreating glacier in the Andes. Similarly, Utze, the Ice Man, had the bad fortune to fall from an arrow near a big rock. Then snow began to fall and he was covered, frozen, and never thawed for 5000 years until now. Both these events speak to a place and time where it was warm enough to grow things, and not snow covered; then immediate snow fall, followed by accumulation for decades until compacted to ice. The transition time is one year, at most. (IF it had thawed again, Utze would have rotted. IF it had thawed briefly, the greens would have browned. Etc.)

    A way too long elaboration follows:

    FWIW, there looks to also be a 5000 (ish) year cycle on top of the Bond Event 1470 cycle. From here:
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/

    References this paper that has the 1800 year orbital cycle:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full

    See graph no. 3 here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F3.expansion.html
    that shows the cycles.

    (Ninderthana? has a thesis that it needs to be in the context of the season at apogee? so ends up with a 1470 repeat. Might have legs…
    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2013/06/are-dansgaard-oeschger-d-o-warm-events.html )

    And don’t forget:

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/

    quoting: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rapid.pdf

    Abrupt changes in climate, termed Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events, have punctuated the last glacial period (~100 – 10 kyr ago) but not the Holocene (the past 10 kyr). Here we use an intermediate-complexity climate model to investigate the stability of glacial climate, and we find that only one mode of Atlantic Ocean circulation is stable: a cold mode with deep water formation in the Atlantic Ocean south of Iceland. However, a `warm’ circulation mode similar to the present-day Atlantic Ocean is only marginally unstable, and temporary transitions to this warm mode can easily be triggered. This leads to abrupt warm events in the model which share many characteristics of the observed Dansgaard-Oeschger events. For a large freshwater input (such as a large release of icebergs), the model’s deep water formation is temporarily switched off, causing no strong cooling in Greenland but warming in Antarctica, as is observed for Heinrich events. Our stability analysis provides an explanation why glacial climate is much more variable than Holocene climate.

    http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/publications/Jacobson%20et%20al.%202012%20Hg%20in%20L.%20Tulane%20ES%26T%2046%20%2011210-11717%5b1%5d.pdf

    also finds a Gulf Stream switch of sorts, but with warm water backing up near Florida, so it’s the place to be when the cold plunge starts… No, honest, not just saying that to get a grant to move to Florida and retire ;-)

    So “something” happens to the Gulf Stream at least, and the whole global thermohaline circulation; it looks like it is driven by lunar tidal metronome timing; and then you get a warm rise followed by a cold plunge. Frankly, I’d not be nearly so bothered by it were it NOT for that warm rise, then plunge. Since we’ve just finished a warm rise…

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/a-remarkable-lunar-paper-and-numbers-on-major-standstill/ hints at what might be causal:

    A Remarkable Lunar Paper and Numbers on Major Standstill
    Posted on 25 January 2014 by E.M.Smith
    Yesterday we had a sort of a review of the lunar postings so far and a look at how the orbital changes are not quite as expected. That the lunar orbit is “wrong” – per some folks. Also a touch on the history of tides and that some of the very earliest writings are claiming much stronger tides than at present. There was also a link to a WUWT article about about the way tides are much larger during certain alignments of sun, moon, and earth with particular orbital conditions (perigee). Including calculations that tides then could be significantly larger. Between 1.5 x and 2 times present. This would tend to wash more warm water under the North Pole ice cap and help break up the ice. It would also cause large changes in ocean mixing of water levels and change both ocean surface temperatures, and through them, air temperatures.

    I raised the question of other effects and that, perhaps, the lunar orbit might have a greater range than we presently think; and that might lead to some truly extreme tides. Perhaps even as extreme as the earliest recorded observation (that has been rejected by some as fanciful due to the large size.)

    For details, see: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/the-moons-orbit-is-wrong-it-can-change-a-lot-and-tides-will-too/

    So then I went off looking for any evidence for just “how big” variations from expected might be. Along the way I found some Wiki articles that give a general idea how much the moon changes position. First I’ll put some of that information here, then I’ll put some bits from the paper on historic eclipse variation.
    […]
    I can not praise this paper enough for the clear way the authors follow the Scientific Method. Please read it, the whole thing.

    http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/105/01/0061.pdf

    What it finds is that the actual history of recorded eclipses in India from 400 A.D. to 1800 A.D. does not match what a NASA model post-dicts for them. They then look at that difference and discover that the lunar “orbit” of the Earth must change more than predicted and that the tides on the Earth must be strong enough to change the Length Of Day. Think about that. LOD is dependent on the Moon and the particular orbital status. That is a LOT of mass to move around. Even at milliseconds, it is a big effect. Certainly more than it takes to move some air around on the surface and change some temperatures…

    That is how Science is really supposed to be done. When the model diverges from reality, the model is WRONG. What can we learn from that wrongness?

    So my working thesis is that it’s the lunar orbital changes that stir the tides and lead to the periodic swings of the THC and Gulf Stream, and thus cyclical weather changes. The lunar tidal mixing is of the order of that from wind on the oceans, and just mixing or not mixing the warm top layers in with cold deep layers can cause a load of changes. Now layer that on top; of Orbital Resonance that may very well cause these lunar driven changes to arrive exactly in sync with solar changes… makes a fellow go Hmmmm……

    The Gas Giants orbits set the terms for both the lunar orbital changes and the sun barycenter pattern, so it isn’t at all a stretch to say they are coordinated. It is essentially required that they be coordinated since the same giant mass / gravity changes are ‘tuning’ both orbits. The large gas giants also ‘tune’ the changes in the orbit of Earth that cause Ice Age cycling, so while the proximal cause is those orbital changes, just backing up and asking “What changes the degree of elliptical of the Earth orbit?” gets you right back at orbital resonance and the Gas Giants. A couple of times I’ve pointed out that you can’t use “correlation” to prove causality (v.s. sun or moon or taurid storms or volcanoes or…) as they all beat to the same metronome, so assigning degree of causality will be a bitch.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/why-weather-has-a-60-year-lunar-beat/
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/

    So, finally, in all that context:

    When we look at the records from things like dust in Egypt during the break between the old and new kingdoms, we find the drought comes in one year… they does not leave for a very long time. IIRC it was something like 100 years.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/egyptian-dark-ages/

    Take just a moment to look back at the very long term solar status graph in paper from the prior posting.

    Look for about 2200 B.C. to 2500 B.C. (The wiki has 2181–2055 B.C.)

    The second period was from about 1200 B.C. to 1600 B.C. so take a look at that as well. (The wiki has 1650–1550 B.C.)

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/more-tsi-variation-and-big-uv-variance/

    http://www.mendeley.com/download/public/4546061/3769892321/e8f61061299da6fa325466e6bf016b3212b5d7d4/dl.pdf

    Notice the big “dip” in solar activity at about 1500 BC ( -1500 on the graph) and at 2500 B.C and 2200 BC ( -2500 and -2200 on the graph)? Those were strong solar slumps.

    This paper in this posting is from about 1971 if I’m reading things right.

    INTRODUCTION
    In the history of the ancient Near East two striking Dark Ages have occurred. They occurred more or less simultaneously (within the limits of current dating accuracy) over a wide area extending at least from Greece to Mesopotamia and Elam, from Anatolia to Egypt, and probably beyond.

    In Egypt, where the chronology is best established, the first Dark Age began around 2200 B.C., when at the end of Dynasty VI Egypt, until then a very stable society, with seeming suddenness fell into anarchy. About the same time the Akkadian Empire disintegrated. Byblos and a number of other sites in Syria and Palestine were destroyed by fire and some were abandoned for a time. Troy II, the wealthy citadel of Schliemann’s gold treasure, was destroyed by fire and rebuilt on only a very shabby scale. Lerna and other prosperous Argolid centers were burned and their destruction was followed by greatly lessened prosperity.

    In western and southern Anatolia “the end of the E.B. [Early Bronze] 2 period is marked . . . by a catastrophe of such magnitude as to remain unparalleled until the very end of the Bronze Age” (Mellaart, 1962); widespread destruction is followed by a general decline in material culture and a decrease by about 75 percent in the number of known settlements. We may probably include also the decline of the Indus Valley civilization. The radiocarbon dates of Phase F (mature Harappan) lie between 2100 and 1900 B.C. (Dales 1965; half-life 5730), with an average of 1975 B.C. from 12 measurements. But when these dates are corrected for the systematic error in C-14 dates of this period, as determined by Suess (1967) and by Ralph and Michael (1969), the dates fall between about 2500 and 2250 B.C.

    The second Dark Age began around 1200 B.C. It was marked by the disappearance of the Hittite Empire of Anatolia and the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization of Greece. About the same time, or a little later, Egypt went into a prolonged decline, while Babylonia and Assyria were also weak for most of the 1100’S and 1000’S. When we turn to the revised Cambridge Ancient History (CAH) or other modern studies for explanation, we find numerous references to evidence of destruction by fire. The destruction is often attributed to invasions by barbarians about whom little is known, however, and for whose activities the archaeological evidence is often meager or nonexistent. Moreover Adams (1968) has pointed out that the interpretation of seemingly violent destruction and discontinuous layering in a habitation site is more complex and ambiguous than previously recognized, and cannot be considered clear evidence of either intermittent occupation or enemy attack. He thus urges more caution in inferring invasions when there is no clear positive evidence for the presence of invaders.

    But even where it is clear that barbarian invasions did occur, we are left with the question of whether they are a sufficient cause or explanation for the destruction of a number of apparently powerful and prosperous states, and why so many different barbarian tribes were stirred to attack centers of civilization at about the same time. Anyone or two of the above disasters, standing alone, might be sufficiently explained by political factors. But the concentration in time of so many disasters and the universal absence of prosperity throughout the area strongly suggest a common underlying cause. Of “historical truth,” Frankfort (1951) wrote that a concept whereby “many seemingly unrelated facts are seen to acquire meaning and coherence is likely to represent a historical reality.”

    It is the thesis of this study that the two Dark Ages, and the numerous disasters in the periods c. 2200-2000 and c. 1200-900 B.C., can be given coherence and can all be explained at once by a single primary cause. The cause I postulate as “historical reality” is drought-widespread, severe, and prolonged lasting for several decades and occurring more or less simultaneously over the entire eastern Mediterranean and adjacent lands. This is not to deny the significance of contemporary political and social factors; it is, however, to assert that a climatic economic deterioration of sufficient magnitude can set in motion forces beyond the strength of any society to withstand.

    Such an hypothesis has indeed already been advanced by Rhys Carpenter (1966) for the Second Dark Age, c. 1200-900 B.C.; his argument is based primarily on study of the decline of Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite Empire. And in a subsequent paper I plan to discuss this period with primary reference to Egypt. The present paper will examine the evidence for the hypothesis that the First Dark Age of Egypt, the so-called First Intermediate Period, was brought on by a similar prolonged and intense drought. Later papers will examine the evidence from other lands, but there are several advantages in beginning with Egypt:

    Note that 2200 BC is the 4.2 Kilo-year event or Bond Event 3, while 1200-900 BC spans 3200-2900 ya, or darned close to the approximate 2.8 kya dating of Bond Event 2 (and well inside the combined errors / corrections of things like carbon vs material dating and all). From the wiki:

    Bond Event “2 ≈2.8 ka early 1st millennium BC drought in the Eastern Mediterranean, possibly triggering the collapse of Late Bronze Age cultures.”

    So yeah. Rapid onset, right after a hot spike ( 1998 anyone?…) with sudden collapse of agriculture in blowing dust and famine followed by collapse of empires… then mass chaotic migrations in violence. Notice the news lately? Folks abandoning North Africa headed into Europe. “Mesopotamia” in war, partly fueled by food shortages, food prices, and droughts, with destruction of empires and material goods / cities in rubble?

    Maybe we can get through this one with less damage. Folks around The Persian Gulf are doing desalinizing for water and growing food in greenhouses. We do have global infrastructure now and we do have a level of technology that would relatively easily let us ship food from Kansas to Egypt in huge bulk. But will we? “This time is different” has never worked out very well when dealing with stock moves or historical shifts… It may not repeat, but they always strongly rhyme…

    We have about 30 more years of rapid cooling in front of us, that also implies rapid increase in drought in the Eastern Mediterranean through the Levant and Persia and perhaps even into China ( I’ve not checked the memory of correlation yet…) and to include a megadrought in California. At some point for each place the rains just stop, and don’t come back for decades. Could we really handle that now? Maybe…

    But that’s how the rapid onset manifests. We can live with 5 F or even 10 F warmer or colder. We can’t live with sudden zero water in the lower latitude bands, and sudden perpetual mud in the growing fields of northern Europe. (During the LIA, it wasn’t the cold, it was the perpetual rain and wind destroying crops, that was the issue. It looks like the rains move north making a mud pit of ‘temperate’ Europe and a dust bowl of the Levant / Egypt… can we hand that now?)

    While I don’t care at all about “warming”, as historically that has always been a good time for growth and civilization; “cooling” is a whole ‘nother beast…

  3. omanuel says:

    Thank you for this historical perspective on climate change. Might the discovery of nuclear energy have altered the consequences?

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    @OManuel:

    It wouldn’t have been able to do much for the past events, but now it could have a major impact. IFF we use it.

    Nuclear power would enable essentially unlimited desalination of seawater, so any drought areas near oceans / bays / seas can have all the food and water they want. Yes, more expensive than using natural surface water, but not enough to make it a non-starter. It is being done now in some places to some degree.

    California gets nuclear power from Palo Verde in Arizona into the So. Cal area. There are a lot of greenhouses down there and desal. San Diego just announced a new desalination plant. So to some limited degree (depending on how much nuke is in the ‘mix’ down there) we are already using nuclear power to keep California alive and watered.

    The present war in “Mesopotamia” is being fought in the presence of a fleet of nuclear powered subs and aircraft carriers. It is unlikely we could effectively “project force” that far away to this degree without nuclear power. To the extent we are “stabilizing”, that’s nuclear power enhancing the survival of the area. (To the extent Iran gets a nuke, not so stabilizing…)

    Sadly, we are not using it effectively for the best use. California could easily have unlimited power generated inside the State and sold for about 10 ¢ / kW-hr. That would, then, mean unlimited desal facilities and no “drought” issues. Using that power to make greenhouse cover for thousands of acres would reduce water loss a lot, and then no food issues from the “drought”. The industry that would move in would make it even more prosperous.

    But California is more interested in shutting down nuclear power plants and putting up bird frying giant solar farms and bird chopping windmills. Why California Government hates birds is an interesting question… Same thing for Germany and the UK.

    Oh Well. Russia and China have clue and are using it. Maybe it’s time to dig out that old Russian language book and see how much I remember… they certainly seem to be thinking more clearly than “the West” at this point…

  5. Larry Ledwick says:

    And those were not just average famines where the population had higher than normal mortality but general social structure remained intact either, those famines resulted in catastrophic collapse of the social order.
    http://www.heretical.org/cannibal/egypt.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml

  6. omanuel says:

    @E.M. Smith and Larry Ledwick:

    I agree that the survival of society may depend on reliable information about nuclear energy. That is why the nuclear scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences and the US Department of Energy should immediately address empirical evidence of misunderstanding of the basic nuclear forces:

    “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf or

    “Solar Energy for school teachers”
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supplement.pdf

  7. Another Ian says:

    E.M.

    Sort of around this thread. This comment up at

    “ScotsmaninUtah

    May 23, 2015 at 5:35 am · Reply

    Jo, great post :D

    Anyway , being a skeptic I also did visit a pro CAGW website to get their viewpoint on the “hot spot”. Apparently we have misunderstood the “Hot Spot” :o

    So here is the quote from the said website.(www.skepticalscience.com)

    “Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming..”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

    “…rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming”.

    It seems that for AGW , in addition to the “Hot Spot (Troposphere)”….there also needs to be a “Cold Spot (Stratosphere)”.

    But then I read this from the article…

    The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period.
    Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well.
    Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural warming (e.g. increased solar)

    I am really tempted to download the source code from GISS and see what ModelE actually does , because this “hot spot” has an identity crisis …”

    Have you looked at this last bit in your GISS work? Might save him a fair bit of time

  8. Jake J says:

    That was a fascinating comment at WUWT. It led me over here. Before I clicked to get here, I had bookmarked that whole thread just to save the comment. I can’t think of any other time I’ve done something like that.

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @Another Ian:

    I looked ar GIStemp, not ModE. I have the code for it, but havn’t opened the can

  10. omanuel says:

    Paul Homewood notes how NASA adjusts temperature data:

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/how-nasa-lie/

    and E. M. Smith reports on the impact of historical climate changes on civilizations:

    NASA and DOE scientists obviously do not comprehend how serious the consequences may be for their own friends and relatives from purposely deceiving the public about solar and nuclear energy.

  11. Another Ian says:

    E.M.

    OK. I linked him to your work so he can read the hazards you encountered and be prepared just in case it is a similar minefield

  12. David A says:

    “Sadly, we are not using it effectively for the best use. California could easily have unlimited power generated inside the State and sold for about 10 ¢ / kW-hr.”
    =============================
    If possible I would appreciate this being broken into more detail.

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    @David A.:

    Not a lot of detail to be had. Many places in the world use effective conventional nuclear power to generate electricity at about 10 ¢ per kW-hr retail. See most of the nukes in the USA… It could be even cheaper without all the artificial roadblocks layered onto it, and most of the cost here, now, is regulatory, legal, and delays; not construction or operation.

    Then add in present gen nuke like the Westinghouse design, and the complete passive safe walk away design… It is just incredibly stupid not to use them. Yet that is what we do.

    Were I in charge as Emperor, I would be building CANDU reactors 50 miles inland from the major faults (the quake safe distance) and negotiating for Westinghouse / Toshiba AP1000 units for the more remote areas.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

    The CANDU can use thorium and “spent fuel” aka “waste” from other reactor types, while the AP1000 is just a great “no troubles” passive design for less central places.

    Instead, we tax, litigate and regulate to distruction. Then shut down major facilities after construction, driving costs to insane levels “for effect”. In that context, no sane person builds, and we get expensive power from out of State. (Palo Verde in Arizona, power from Texas [from Enron in a prior time…], and see the Pacific Intertie to Washington State…)

    Thus the 19 ¢ / kW-hr headed for 36 ¢ tariff already filed power cost here.

    Let me know if there is some other detail you had in mind.

  14. Larry Ledwick says:

    @David A.:

    “Sadly, we are not using it effectively for the best use. California could easily have unlimited power generated inside the State and sold for about 10 ¢ / kW-hr.”
    =============================
    If possible I would appreciate this being broken into more detail.

    Here in Colorado we pay (Denver Metro) about 0.14 /kwh right now. Of that 0.07984 / kwh is “adjustments”
    I payed a base fee for service and facility of $6.75 (0.02935 / kwh), plus 0.046040/kwh on 230 kwh bill last month, plus the additional adjustments.

    Without the adjustments it would be about $0.076 /kwh. Mostly from coal (source wyoming) Natural gas, some pumped hyrdo peak demand and some wind/PV (which customers pay a premium for if you go with the “windsource plan”

    We have 5 different payment plans to choose from.
    http://www.xcelenergy.com/Billing_&_Payment/Rate_Advisor_Tool

    For the last couple decades electricity has been near the inflation adjusted cost of $0.11 – 0.12 /kwh (in todays dollars) until just recently (last couple years)

  15. David A says:

    Thanks to both E.M. and Larry. Yes, that is a start. I have not taken the time to really research Nuclear costs Wind and solar folk often claim nuclear to be very expensive, but the indications are this is somewhat a combination of old reactors and the need for safety, and Government solutions that are instead roadblocks; a version of “Under my plan electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket”

    Also I think when they (wind solar advocates) calculate costs they take worse case scenarios, including all nuclear clean up costs, and then do the opposite when comparing nuclear to wind and solar, where I have noticed that the MANY hidden costs, including grid balancing increasing the cost of every form of energy, are not considered.

  16. omanuel says:

    There is little doubt that AGW, SNM (standard Nuclear Model), SSM (Standard Solar Model) and BBC (Big Bang Cosmology) are all government scams.

    In case the current global cooling trend continues, a more important potential scam is the FEAR OF NUCLEAR RADIATION. Galen Winson gives reasons to believe this is only The Nuclear Scare Scam

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA&feature=player_embedded

  17. E.M.Smith says:

    @David A.:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA–Nuclear-Power/

    Electricity market challenges
    About 54 GWe of US nuclear capacity is in regulated markets, and 45 GWe in deregulated merchant markets, with power sold competitively on a short-term basis.
    In states with deregulated electricity markets, nuclear power plant operators have found increasing difficulty with competition on two fronts: low-cost gas, particularly from shale gas developments, and subsidized wind power with priority grid access. The imposition of a price on carbon dioxide emissions would help in competition with gas and coal, but this is not expected in the short term. Single-unit plants which tend to have higher operating costs per MWh are most vulnerable. The basic problem is low natural gas prices allowing gas-fired plants to undercut power prices. A second problem is the federal production tax credit of $22/MWh paid to wind generators, coupled with their priority access to the grid. When there is oversupply, wind output is taken preferentially. Capacity payments can offset losses to some extent, but where market prices are around $35-$40/MWh, nuclear plants are struggling. According to Exelon, the main operator of merchant plants and a strong supporter of competitive wholesale electricity markets, low prices due to gas competition are survivable, but the subsidized wind is not. Though it is a very small part of the supply, and is unavailable most of the time, its effect on electricity prices and the viability of base-load generators “is huge”.

    So only real competition is from the incredibly cheap shale gas. Excessive subsidies to wind make it cheaper, but only due to incredible subsidy to wind…

    Nuke work above $40/MWh, Below that it’s a struggle. That’s 40/1000 / kWh or 4 ¢ per kWh.

    Yes, under a nickle…

    Now I’m just guessing, But I think allowing a double of cost to distribute ought to be enough to cover it…

    And that isn’t even using the way cool and cheaper modern facilities.

    In April 2014 the heads of the NEI, Edison Electric Institute and Electric Power Supply Association urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to continue its efforts to improve US electricity and capacity markets. While the nation’s electricity supply and delivery system largely passed the ‘stress test’ imposed by extreme cold weather from the polar vortex earlier in the year, the weather events raised reliability and market design issues that should be addressed, they said. Grid operators found that problems in bringing coal and gas capacity online had brought the North Atlantic grid close to breakdown. The situation was saved by a very high level of nuclear availability. “FERC reforms of competitive wholesale power markets as to market design, tariff rules and grid operator practices” are needed to improve investment signals and provide the portfolio of resources necessary to maintain grid reliability.

    We just barely dodged a collapse bullet during the cold shock, but only because large nukes had capacity.

    The NEI presented figures from the Electric Utility Cost Group on generating costs comprising fuel, capital and operating costs for 61 nuclear sites in 2012. The average came to $44/MWh, being $50.54 for single-unit plants and $39.44 for multi-unit plants (all two-unit except Browns Ferry, Oconee and Palo Verde). The $44 represented a 58% increase in ten years, largely due to a three-fold increase in capital expenditure on plants which were mostly old enough to be fully depreciated. Over half of the capital expenditure (51%) in 2012 related to power uprates and licence renewals, while 26% was for equipment replacement.

    So 4 ¢ to 5 ¢ / kWh average of all plants. And that is a 58% increase, but that is largely due to regulatory compliance to get renewals on licences. It’s not the equipment costs, it is the regulatory burden.

    There’s a whole lot more in there. Just realize that with old designs that are lousy on fuel economy, hugely more complex than new designs, need 26% cost for equipment replacement and a giant regulatory burden for re-licence and live extension; they cost about a nickle/kWh.

    Now in a sane world with newer more efficient designs and lower operating costs, along with much more effective use of fuel, and with a new licence and not a ‘patch it and re-license’ I’d expect that to be rather lower…

    So again, were I Emperor, I’d be pushing for just that to replace the 40+ year old plant (as it ages out of spec and / or become uneconomical in comparison – no need to just junk working things because they have worked for a long while…) while having natural gas come in for anything smaller and more localized (with a gas supply ‘close enough’) as that is the lowest cost option for dispatchable power right now.

    I’d also, if you pardon the phrase, nuke wind and solar subsidies. They sink or swim based on merit, not political connections and manipulations.

    But I’m not Emperor, so we get what we get with some folks in the Central Valley on time of day rate plans paying just under $1 / kWh for peak use in summer (when the A/C demand peaks… and as I grew up there in “110 F in the shade, and there aint no shade…” I can tell you that you need that A/C some times… even though we didn’t have it when I was a kid…

    A nice rule of thumb:

    Diesel efficiency for mid sized commercial portable generators runs about such that the price of Diesel / 10 is the cost / kWh in cents. So if Diesel is $3.20 (recent price) fuel cost is 32 ¢ / kWh. As the present “over baseline” rates reach that point, and as there is a filed tariff request for 1/2 Buck in a couple of years, it will soon be cheaper to run your own Diesel than buy electricity from the utility. Some large commercial users already install cogeneration facilities (the Sun Newark site was installing that when I was managing the install of their network to that rather large campus. We were given a tour… one of the ‘features’ was that in the rolling blackouts we had all come to expect, they would keep running.) IF it is nearly economical to do that with Diesel (including road taxes!) think what happens to the cost structure when you connect to the natural gas supply instead…

    There is going to be a real hard WTF wall hit real soon. Electrical utilities are pricing themselves out of the market. Already I’ve thought of just letting my Diesel car fast idle and run the house of an inverter… The car cost me $1200 a decade or so ago, has 130,000 on an engine good for 1/2 million. Captal cost is not an issue… BTW, you can buy generators that are already set up to run off of natural gas. Both spark ignition and standby Diesel where they use a small injection of Diesel like a ‘spark plug’ to ignite a load of natural gas fumigated in the air intake. The selling point mostly being that they run longer on a given size Diesel tank after the quake, as long as the gas supply is intact, but can run on 100% Diesel if needed. One is installed at the shopping center a mile or so away from me. It won’t take those kinds of folks long to “do the math”…

    Now that is presently dealt with by giving sweetheart rates to “industrial users” and buying them off. How long do you think that will last once J.Q.Public finds out he is being screwed by $1/2 buck / kWh and the mall gets it for a quarter?…

    We are on the cusp of a whole lot of breakdowns from this “managed” market. Any time folks try to micromanage a “market” it gets screwed up. Just a matter of time.

    Oh Well. I have a generator and a Diesel car + inverter, so I’m set. But it does bother me that we ought to be paying a dime / kWh for absolutely reliable power 24 / 7 / 365 and without chopping or frying birds and bats.

  18. David A says:

    Thanks EM.. I live in Northern Calif now as well. I am basically straight east of you (a bit north) Pinecrest Lake area. Our home is at 5700. My Dad built a cabin near by in the early 1950s, right after WWII, while he was attending San Jose State.

    I looked into solar, and, while it is likely worth while, However, I do not think my conscience will justify it. On the one hand Calif and Federal policy is forcing all rates up, so I could justify protecting my self from a political price penalty, I am aware that in reality it is a heavy tax on the lower middle class, and as I do not approve of it, I would not feel right in participating in it. I knew wind took precedent over fossil fuel generation, but did not know it took priority over nuclear as well. I think Calif is down to only one plant anyway with the shut down of San Onofre.

Comments are closed.