Re: One factor
Given your other statements, this has the risk of being tautological. Predictions about climate change have had to be revised since they were made. Given that we still can't reliably predict the weather more than 4 days out, I don't see how we can figure out how things will be with 2°C warming.
But this is exactly what the IPCCs AR are all about, ie WG2 & 3 are adaptation and mitigation. So taking LA as an example again-
Temperatures in the coastal basin exceed 90 °F (32 °C) on a dozen or so days in the year, from one day a month in April, May, June and November to three days a month in July, August, October and to five days in September.
So with global warming, temperatures might now exceed 32°C on more than a dozen days, or there'll be 34°C on more days. So then factor that assumption into city planning and building regs. This is already done, ie power companies know that if warm weather is forecast, people are going to use more electricity for their AC. For water, consumption might also increase as people water their lawns. But LA already has ordinances to restrict that.
What science suggests, models support and recent weather patterns indicate is indeed happening, is that more energy in the water cycle is leading to more frequent severe weather (storms, heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation) around the world.
Not necessarily, eg-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01683-2
Decreasing trend in destructive potential of tropical cyclones in the South Indian Ocean since the mid-1990s
And it's much the same with the Atlantic and Pacific. This paper, albeit from 2012 explains why there's an apparent increase in the Atlantic-
On the Classification of Extreme Atlantic Hurricanes Utilizing Mid-Twentieth-Century Monitoring Capabilities
That points out that hurricanes aren't getting more extreme, it's just that we're better able to observe them. Satellites can see them forming, crazy pilots can fly into them and collect data. And it's much the same for all the other 'extreme' weather. Look at the trends, and generally not extreme at all, but quite average. The difference is now we have 'named' storms, 'red' weather alerts, manipulation of weather forecasts that turn normal summers into angry red summers.. and of course the media hyping up weather and attempting to attribute that to global warming. Science may suggest it, but if observations don't support it, then the science (and especially models) need revising.
Then on the bigger picture, how much warming should be attributed to post-LIA, general warming since the LGM, cycles like ENSO, AMO & PDO, solar etc etc.. And finally CO2, the weak GHG that is so profitable.. Which is back to figuring out what, exactly the climate sensitivity wrt to CO2 really is.
Then there are problems of feedback loops related to reduced glacial or forest cover, which have mathemetically chaotic consequences.
Or there isn't, or those issues are local. A famous example was melting snow on Kilimanjaro that was hyped as an example of 'climate change'. Reality was it's a result of deforestation. So a localised example of 'man made climate change', but not globally significant. But because CO2 is a weak GHG, forcings and feedbacks are necessary to amplify the effect and hype up the fear around CO2. If those predictions are falsified (which most have been) then CO2's back to being a weak GHG. IPCC reports (reluctantly) show this, because observations don't support older theories, or high sensitivity. And the big one was the idea of 'tipping points', which don't exist outside models that have been parameterised with unrealistic assumptions.
Plus of course negative feedbacks also exist. You just don't generally see anything negative on the news, especially on the Bbc because they're firmly committed to CO2 dogma.
The problem with all developments dependent upon underground aquifers (including California) is that demand has far exceeded supply for decades, with shortfall being made up from meltwater from the mountains.
Sure. Lake Mead has been a good example because that had been drying out. An artificial reservoir that's often used as an example of 'global warming' rather than an increased population using more water than it can supply. But that's also an example of the paradoxical nature of CO2. It's drained Lake Mead, now it's filling it, so CO2 can have equal and opposite reactions, often simultaneously. Or Lake Mead's dependent on ENSO and PDO cycles.. Plus some very human decisions, ie the decision not to divert water to save the Delta Smelt. Or deciding that it's a really good idea to grow soft fruit, veg and almonds in an arid environment. Sure, you can do this, if you have the water to irrigate.. But those crops require a lot of water. But perhaps not the smartest idea when there's competition for that water from ever growing populations. So not climate change, just bad planning and policy.
As for sprinkler systems and forest fires, once temperatures get close to or above 100°C they are useless, and even the biggest swimming pool would be emptied surprisingly quickly. These remain incredible wastes of water in areas that can ill afford them.
Maybe. LA's made it policy to fit them, so it'll be interesting to see if they had any effect, and you're probably right. I watched the LA fires from when it started as a small fire in the Palisades, and then it grew, and grew. Now the smoke has settled, there's a number of reports ongoing into what caused them, what allowed them to spead, and what improvements might be made. One issue is, of course water. So a fire engine might use 1000-1500 gallons per minute. If there's only 1 or 2 fires in an area, the water supply and hydrants can cope. When it's 100 fires in a small area, they can't.. Especially if they may be competing for water with home sprinklers that may or may not be effective.
But LA's done strange things wrt water before. Like mandating low-flow toilets, and then discovering the sewer system.. actually needs water to move things along. So sewers blocked, and the utilities had to pump water & disinfectant to deal with the mess that policy created. Something that might be effective as a consequence of localised events like the Palisades fire is to compulsory purchase some lots on top of hills and build new reservoirs. Then when fires happen again, there might be more water available to fight them. Or perhaps some other policy changes. EVs, E-bikes, scooters and 'hover boards' have been responsible for a growing number of fires. Maybe those aren't the safest things to keep in a garage attached to a home. Some parts of Germany have already banned EVs from underground/under structure car parks due to the fire risk.
So lots of things to consider, and potentially done to mitigate risks, but not necessarily from CO2.. but they need to be the right things. So again the wisdom of relying on wind for electricity, or installing solar PV on rooftops made from shingles that catch fire when there's a fault, a DC arc and it ignites a rooftop.. Which amusingly happened to Brighton Council in the UK. There are consequences of going 'Green' without thinking things through.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
