How to deal with Global Warming

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote, “1300 c.e. is 714 years bp.”

Ok, so it is “Before the Present” with different letters. Do I really need to google it? No. How’s about cranky eel? Chunky elephant? Cozy Earmuffs? Canal Ear? Canned echo?

Jules Troy wrote:

Well up here in Canada we only have 2 seasons.

end quote

Ah, Canadia, our 51st state! I got the clue. Carbon dating shows that the fossil is from one million years Celine Eon.

Near, far, wherever

You are

I believe that the

Heart does go on

Tick, tick, tick . . . .

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bob, repeat re post #19: from where are you getting your statements?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Interesting analysis by Climate Depot's Marc Morano:

link

January 14, 2014

Climate Depot Analysis: There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim pause never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor

Ellen

[moralist]

Well up here in Canada we only have 2 seasons.

Winter and road construction. We will just play hockey longer eh.

In California we have four: Earthquakes, Riots, Wildfires, and Mudslides... except due to the lack of solar activity, Mudslides has been replaced by Dust Storms.

Greg

[Peter]

Greg wrote:

In California we have four: Earthquakes, Riots, Wildfires, and Mudslides... except due to the lack of solar activity, Mudslides has been replaced by Dust Storms.

end quote

The lack of precipitation in California and areas that feed the Colorado River and Lake Mead are making the news. I heard dozens of cities in Cal would begin water rationing soon. Governor Brown was urging citizens to turn the water off when brushing and shaving. It simply takes “weather events” lasting a decade to make people move and change their lifestyles. During 1930’s Dust Bowl, immigrants to California from Oklahoma were called “Okies.” Will Californians immigrating to Oklahoma be called “Coakies” “Callies” “Calla Lilies,” or perhaps, “Cookies?” Cookies might be the least offensive.

The Weather Channel is devoting itself to the Super Bowl today, so California’s woes are relatively minor. The big news is the countdown to kickoff.

[moralist]

Greg wrote:

In California we have four: Earthquakes, Riots, Wildfires, and Mudslides... except due to the lack of solar activity, Mudslides has been replaced by Dust Storms.

end quote

The lack of precipitation in California and areas that feed the Colorado River and Lake Mead are making the news. I heard dozens of cities in Cal would begin water rationing soon. Governor Brown was urging citizens to turn the water off when brushing and shaving. It simply takes “weather events” lasting a decade to make people move and change their lifestyles. During 1930’s Dust Bowl, immigrants to California from Oklahoma were called “Okies.” Will Californians immigrating to Oklahoma be called “Coakies” “Callies” “Calla Lilies,” or perhaps, “Cookies?” Cookies might be the least offensive.

It should be Kookies.

The Weather Channel is devoting itself to the Super Bowl today, so California’s woes are relatively minor. The big news is the countdown to kickoff.

I believe that drought will become the new normal here unless there is a change in solar inactivity. For contrast, in 2005 we had 66 inches of rain where we live.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Greg wrote:

In California we have four: Earthquakes, Riots, Wildfires, and Mudslides... except due to the lack of solar activity, Mudslides has been replaced by Dust Storms.

end quote

The lack of precipitation in California and areas that feed the Colorado River and Lake Mead are making the news. I heard dozens of cities in Cal would begin water rationing soon. Governor Brown was urging citizens to turn the water off when brushing and shaving. It simply takes “weather events” lasting a decade to make people move and change their lifestyles. During 1930’s Dust Bowl, immigrants to California from Oklahoma were called “Okies.” Will Californians immigrating to Oklahoma be called “Coakies” “Callies” “Calla Lilies,” or perhaps, “Cookies?” Cookies might be the least offensive.

It should be Kookies.

The Weather Channel is devoting itself to the Super Bowl today, so California’s woes are relatively minor. The big news is the countdown to kickoff.

I believe that drought will become the new normal here unless there is a change in solar inactivity. For contrast, in 2005 we had 66 inches of rain where we live.

Greg

Historically California has been semi arid, especially southern California.

The only reason why L.A. can exist is that the Colorado river was hijacked and the water that historically flowed into Mexico was diverted for use by L.A.

Now the climatic hens have come home to roost. I think the citrus industry is ready to take a very big hit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Greg wrote:

In California we have four: Earthquakes, Riots, Wildfires, and Mudslides... except due to the lack of solar activity, Mudslides has been replaced by Dust Storms.

end quote

The lack of precipitation in California and areas that feed the Colorado River and Lake Mead are making the news. I heard dozens of cities in Cal would begin water rationing soon. Governor Brown was urging citizens to turn the water off when brushing and shaving. It simply takes “weather events” lasting a decade to make people move and change their lifestyles. During 1930’s Dust Bowl, immigrants to California from Oklahoma were called “Okies.” Will Californians immigrating to Oklahoma be called “Coakies” “Callies” “Calla Lilies,” or perhaps, “Cookies?” Cookies might be the least offensive.

It should be Kookies.

The Weather Channel is devoting itself to the Super Bowl today, so California’s woes are relatively minor. The big news is the countdown to kickoff.

I believe that drought will become the new normal here unless there is a change in solar inactivity. For contrast, in 2005 we had 66 inches of rain where we live.

Greg

Historically California has been semi arid, especially southern California.

That's true. Historical annual rainfall average in Los Angeles is 14 inches and where we live, it's 21 inches. Last year we got 4.0" and so far this year we have .7". Snow pack in the Rockies is 12% of normal. So this is the new normal.

The only reason why L.A. can exist is that the Colorado river was hijacked and the water that historically flowed into Mexico was diverted for use by L.A.

Now the climatic hens have come home to roost. I think the citrus industry is ready to take a very big hit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Indeed. A lot of farmers aren't planting crops because there is no water allotment. Estimates of farm labor layoffs run from 33% to over 50%.

We've transitioned from vegetable garden to orchard because trees use less water.

Greg

[Peter]

Greg wrote about drought:

Indeed. A lot of farmers aren't planting crops because there is no water allotment. Estimates of farm labor layoffs run from 33% to over 50% . . . . We've transitioned from vegetable garden to orchard because trees use less water.

end quote

Vegetable and fruit prices will predictably rise. Some crops as far south as Baja are watered with brackish water. Celery tolerates salt water, for example, so if celery tastes salty, you'll know why.

I lived in subtropical Sandy Aygo when I was a little kid. I think they used an aquifer or two for drinking water. I remember we could not water our grass once around 1952. We lived near salt flats and dunes on Gila Avenue with one gila monster reportedly caught and several rattle snakes killed. I had a pet King Snake.

I remember how hot it was a few miles inland from the Pacific. I walked to kindergarten on a path through salt flats that always had flat, shallow ponds. Cactus grew everywhere. I don’t recommend games where you jump over small cacti! I uneventfully did it for a while but finally got jabbed dozens of times and I cried and cried. You have to sit there, take your pants off and have your friend yank the prongs out. Very embarrassing.

So will there be a long term solution to the Californian inhabitants and their water shortage? Procrastination is not advisable. I saw a brief news story starring, Republican John Boehner, getting disgusted with environmentalists in Northern California who put animals' over people’s aquatic needs. In places like the Bahamas, all rain water coming off the roofs is collected. Perhaps thousands more ponds dug at every new construction site are needed as are required in Maryland, or street water could be directed into reservoirs. Desalination? How much water is held in Californian swimming pools? I would not like to seem people losing their rights to do as they please but there should be intelligent crisis management and long term solutions. Migration would be gradual.

[Darrell Hougen]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

. . . . Written records on the Little Ice Age indicate that the freeze of 1300 c.e. became permanent within a decade . . . . No, we won't see an ice age in a month, but it could happen as quickly as a decade or two.

end quote

Ba’al wrote, “1300 c.e.” Ba’al is that different from A.D.? I have heard of “BP” which is before the present.

I must admit I am already reconsidering next winter when I will be better prepared. I will have a light on in the watershed for most of the winter and I have pushed a half a roll of pink insulation around my water pump. Next Fall I will check the insulation for dampness and put more down. A decade. Gulp. Two days ago, it got to minus nine in Ocean City, Maryland, way below the old record. When I first heard that number I thought it was an error but it was not. My wife just ordered a double paned “guaranteed” replacement window which I will pick up soon. The old one started getting a small amount of condensation near the bottom between the panes. I have base board, electric heat and I got my electric bill today for last month which was $440! That is a huge amount. I wonder if solar panels will soon become cost affective? I may re-insulate my attic.

Anybody have any ideas? What are New Jersey-ites and those living further north going to do?

Hi Peter,

From your post it sounds like you just have one window. If not, replace them all with double pane windows if you haven't already. Insulate. Switch to natural gas if you can or try adding a propane heater. Although there is a propane shortage right now, I believe propane is typically cheaper than electricity. Natural gas is almost certainly cheaper than electricity. Or, you could just join us in Southern California. It has been down right balmy here and we got rain last night. Yea!

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Greg wrote:

In California we have four: Earthquakes, Riots, Wildfires, and Mudslides... except due to the lack of solar activity, Mudslides has been replaced by Dust Storms.

end quote

The lack of precipitation in California and areas that feed the Colorado River and Lake Mead are making the news. I heard dozens of cities in Cal would begin water rationing soon. Governor Brown was urging citizens to turn the water off when brushing and shaving. It simply takes “weather events” lasting a decade to make people move and change their lifestyles. During 1930’s Dust Bowl, immigrants to California from Oklahoma were called “Okies.” Will Californians immigrating to Oklahoma be called “Coakies” “Callies” “Calla Lilies,” or perhaps, “Cookies?” Cookies might be the least offensive.

It should be Kookies.

The Weather Channel is devoting itself to the Super Bowl today, so California’s woes are relatively minor. The big news is the countdown to kickoff.

I believe that drought will become the new normal here unless there is a change in solar inactivity. For contrast, in 2005 we had 66 inches of rain where we live.

Greg

Historically California has been semi arid, especially southern California.

The only reason why L.A. can exist is that the Colorado river was hijacked and the water that historically flowed into Mexico was diverted for use by L.A.

Now the climatic hens have come home to roost. I think the citrus industry is ready to take a very big hit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Don't forget the California aqueduct, among other things.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I messed up in my post #27 and gave a wrong Url.

Repeating my question to Bob, with details included:

Bob,

You made the claim:

If all the ice melted the oceans would rise over 140 feet.

I asked:

If all of which ice melted? And from what source do you get the 140-feet figure?

You stated:

I do not think -all- of the ice is going to melt. I suspect that the ice in Antarctica will remain 90 percent intact. But things look kind of grim for the Greenland cap.

[....]

If the Green Land cap goes we can expect a 20 - 40 -foot- rise in sea level [...].

Where are you getting these statements?

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

I messed up in my post #27 and gave a wrong Url.

Repeating my question to Bob, with details included:

Bob,

You made the claim:

If all the ice melted the oceans would rise over 140 feet.

I asked:

If all of which ice melted? And from what source do you get the 140-feet figure?

You stated:

I do not think -all- of the ice is going to melt. I suspect that the ice in Antarctica will remain 90 percent intact. But things look kind of grim for the Greenland cap.

[....]

If the Green Land cap goes we can expect a 20 - 40 -foot- rise in sea level [...].

Where are you getting these statements?

Ellen

Calculate the volume of the ice sheet. Multiply by .9. Spread that volume equally over all the oceans. Floating ice does not count since it density is .9 of the sea water it displace. When floating ice melts its volume shrinks and produces at much melt water as it displaces.

Then factor in the very probable event that the land under the ice will rise up some because the weight of the ice has been removed.

I have a correction. If the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers melt then the ocean rise will be 80 meters. That is about 280 feet. That is enough to swamp the Atlantic coast of the United States.

Please see http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

I have a gripe. I have seen Ba’al, Wikipedia, and others use the term CE (before the current era) or BCE which is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era and I think that is unscientific and religiously inappropriate. There is no need to tick off all other religions or scientists. We should be using BP or “Before The Present.” So, to say “the Sphinx was built around 6000 years Before Christ” would change to “the Sphinx was built around 8000 BP, or before the present.” That is so much more precise and gets religion out of science. Language and understanding would abound.

Thanks Ba’al for the site. What will happen if the ice melts? Rising sea levels, (and warm drinks.) From Ba’al’s referenced site, “East Antarctic ice sheet 64.80 meters, plus . . . . for a total of 80.32 meters."

(Which is 263 feet 6 and 13/64 inches . . . .) As Frank Sinatra sang, “I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island too . . .” Much of the state of Delaware is a dozen feet above sea level. I “think” my location in Maryland is 14 to 20 feet above high tide. When I applied for Federal guv’mint insurance I think they estimated I was a mere 14 feet above but I live on a rise of land. I never did get the insurance though it was cheap.

Once again I recently saw an article predicting a sea level rise, but what will happen if there is more glaciations and a sea level “drop?” Science channel or Nat Geo had a show about farming where the Mediterranean Sea now exists. And farming there was not that long ago.

Peter

Notes:

From Ba’al’s referenced site, USGS, Sea Level and Climate:

East Antarctic ice sheet 64.80 meters, West Antarctic ice sheet 8.06, Antarctic Peninsula .46, Greenland 6.55, and all other ice caps, ice fields, and valley glaciers .45 for a total of 80.32 meters which is 263 feet 6 and 13/64 inches . . . . A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3). Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey and elsewhere are investigating the magnitude and timing of sea-level changes during previous interglacial intervals. Better documentation and understanding of these past changes will improve our ability to estimate the potential for future large-scale changes in sea level.

end quote

Main article from Wikipedia: History of the Mediterranean region

Neanderthals inhabited western Asia and the non-glaciated portions of Europe starting about 230,000 years ago. Modern humans moved into western Asia from Africa less than 100,000 years ago. Modern humans, known as Cro-Magnons, moved into Europe approximately 50-40,000 years ago. The most recent glacial period, the Wisconsin glaciation, reached its maximum extent approximately 21,000 years ago, and ended approximately 12,000 years ago. A warm period, known as the Holocene climatic optimum, followed the ice age. Food crops, including wheat, chickpeas, and olives along with sheep, and goats, were domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean in the 9th millennium BCE, which allowed for the establishment of agricultural settlements. Near Eastern crops spread to southeastern Europe in the 7th millennium BCE. Poppy and oats were domesticated in Europe from the 6th to the 3rd millennium BCE. Agricultural settlements spread around the Mediterranean Basin. Megaliths were constructed in Europe from 4500 – 1500 BCE. A strengthening of the summer monsoon 9000–7000 years ago increased rainfall across the Sahara, which became a grassland, with lakes, rivers, and wetlands. After a period of climatic instability, the Sahara settled into a desert state by the 4th millennium BCE.

[BaalChatzaf]

Neanderthals inhabited western Asia and the non-glaciated portions of Europe starting about 230,000 years ago. Modern humans moved into western Asia from Africa less than 100,000 years ago. Modern humans, known as Cro-Magnons, moved into Europe approximately 50-40,000 years ago. The most recent glacial period, the Wisconsin glaciation, reached its maximum extent approximately 21,000 years ago, and ended approximately 12,000 years ago. A warm period, known as the Holocene climatic optimum, followed the ice age. Food crops, including wheat, chickpeas, and olives along with sheep, and goats, were domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean in the 9th millennium BCE, which allowed for the establishment of agricultural settlements. Near Eastern crops spread to southeastern Europe in the 7th millennium BCE. Poppy and oats were domesticated in Europe from the 6th to the 3rd millennium BCE. Agricultural settlements spread around the Mediterranean Basin. Megaliths were constructed in Europe from 4500 – 1500 BCE. A strengthening of the summer monsoon 9000–7000 years ago increased rainfall across the Sahara, which became a grassland, with lakes, rivers, and wetlands. After a period of climatic instability, the Sahara settled into a desert state by the 4th millennium BCE.

Civilization as we know it has flourished during the current interglacial. That last ice age is what separated the neanderthal from the cro mag. The cro mags were able to put their social and technical skills to work to figure out how to survive the Ice. The neanderthals did not make the grade. The disappeared about 30,000 years BP.

We have been spoiled rotten by an interglcaial period of 10-15 thousand years and many believe the climate we now enjoy has been the "normal" climate of Earth. Bzzzzt.... Not true. When the next Big Freeze comes modern homo sapien will be put to as rigorous a challenge as faced neanderthal and cro mag.

Given the accumulated technical skills of over 10,000 years of civilization we probably will make it. I think.... I hope...

Ba'al chatzaf

[Darrell Hougen]

Buy real estate in Denver, the mile high city, before the ice melts. The water won't get anywhere near Denver or its suburbs.

Darrell

[moralist]

I have a gripe. I have seen Ba’al, Wikipedia, and others use the term CE (before the current era) or BCE which is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era and I think that is unscientific and religiously inappropriate. There is no need to tick off all other religions or scientists. We should be using BP or “Before The Present.” So, to say “the Sphinx was built around 6000 years Before Christ” would change to “the Sphinx was built around 8000 BP, or before the present.” That is so much more precise and gets religion out of science. Language and understanding would abound.

Interesting concept, Peter. Using your idea how will you identify 2014?

Greg

[Peter]

Greg wrote:

Interesting concept, Peter. Using your idea how will you identify 2014?

end quote

As Oliver Hardy said, “If other cultures insisted upon using a significant event in their past as a starting point what a mess we would have, Stanley.” And every time someone says “one million BC” we need to add on the current year to figure out it was “one million, two thousand and fourteen years ago.”

BP would be used in discussions of archeology, Greg, and its not my idea. “2014” would be the correct term for this year and BP would not be used because it is not before the present. (BP could change with each passing second, if one wanted to count time in seconds, but the event that occurred is always stationary in time. We are the ones moving.) An “era” or “age” for a particular time period, as in “The Bronze Age,” would remain the same. In 2015 the year 2014 would be 1BP. Then what happened two years ago would become 2BP. The birth of Christ would be 2014BP, one year before his birth would be 2015BP, etc. Current words used for time would not change.

From Wikipedia:

Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used mainly in geology and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the "present" time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as commencement date of the age scale, reflecting the fact that radiocarbon dating became practicable in the 1950s. The abbreviation "BP", with the same meaning, has also been interpreted as "Before Physics"; that is, before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, making dating after that time likely to be unreliable.

end quote

[Peter]

So what year is it using BP? 2014! I would not mess with the nomenclature. Remember Microsoft’s battle with programs that only counted up to 1999? Unfortunately other cultures use other frames of reference as in “the year of the horse.” So, there should be a common phraseology in Science but for everyday usage, C’est la vie.”

[BaalChatzaf]

I have a gripe. I have seen Ba’al, Wikipedia, and others use the term CE (before the current era) or BCE which is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era and I think that is unscientific and religiously inappropriate. There is no need to tick off all other religions or scientists. We should be using BP or “Before The Present.” So, to say “the Sphinx was built around 6000 years Before Christ” would change to “the Sphinx was built around 8000 BP, or before the present.” That is so much more precise and gets religion out of science. Language and understanding would abound.

Interesting concept, Peter. Using your idea how will you identify 2014?

Greg

YBP 0

[Selene]

During 1930’s Dust Bowl, immigrants to California from Oklahoma were called “Okies.”

[Jules Troy]

Canadians will be fine! We have snow blowers and zambonis!

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is further proof that the IPPC climate models are no damned good:

Please see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study

The IPPC expect us to take an Oath of Poverty based on their models.

As my grandmother of sainted memory would have said: Bald es vill kommen --- Yiddish for Yeah! Sure!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Californian Darrell Hougen and others interested in long term solutions to climate change (and population growth and migration) might wish to read the following. And go back and check out Darrel’s map on this thread. A Southern Californian congressman was just on Fox and he said The Sacramento River carries more water than The Colorado, but for human consumption we store more water from the Colorado. Should the Sacramento be diverted for more human usage? Yes. It COULD BE “objective,” fair, and the right thing to do to stop the damage from droughts. It could be considered an “emergency situation” too.

But as Robert Campbell once wrote:

As one of my brothers puts it, "Zoning delays the inevitable on behalf of the connected."

end quote

How would an Objectivist deal with this problem? The “Coming to the Nuisance” Doctrine (see def. in notes) would be a logical exchange for eminent domain and zoning laws. However, there are still a few applications of the doctrine that need to be expanded upon. How would the change over from eminent domain and zoning to CttN affect current land owners? CttN in its definition states that the owner has a right to use their property in the current way indefinitely, but it has been said that the victors write history. Would conniving, larcenous people concoct the history or be able to bribe the history writers? As Robert’s brother’s quote illustrates “money talks,” and as Barack Obama might add, “and poor folk walks.” How can anyone from memory, describe how a property was used but has now changed? A verifiable history of all property within a jurisdiction would be needed, before changes are done to The Sacramento. Since its history goes back to Spanish ownership it just might. And if the landowners and current user’s agree and are compensated for their loss, then save and divert more water for humans.

Peter

Notes:

From Wikipedia and one other source: The Sacramento River's average discharge 23,490 cu ft/s to 30,000 cubic feet per second (850 m3/s), carrying over 22,000,000 acre feet (27 km3) of water each year, making it the second largest river on the Pacific coast of the continental United States.

The Colorado River, which reaches the Gulf of California just south of the US-Mexico border near the southeast part of the state, is far larger than the Sacramento by both length and drainage area but has a slightly smaller flow. In its natural state, the Colorado River poured about 16.3 million acre feet (20.1 km3) into the Gulf of California each year, amounting to an average flow rate of 22,500 cubic feet per second (640 m3/s). Its flow regime was not at all steady – indeed, "prior to the construction of federal dams and reservoirs, the Colorado was a river of extremes like no other in the United States."

Since the 1950s the Sacramento watershed have been intensely developed for water supply and the generation of hydroelectric power. Today, large dams impound the river and almost all of its major tributaries. The Sacramento's water is used heavily for irrigation purposes and serves much of Central and Southern California through the canals of giant federal water projects. While now providing water to over half of California's population and supporting one of the most productive agricultural areas in the nation, these changes have left the Sacramento greatly modified from its natural state and have caused the decline of its once-abundant fisheries.

Construction of Shasta Dam, the main dam on the Sacramento, started in 1938 and was completed in 1945. Capable of absorbing enormous flood flows and storing the water for use in prolonged drought as well as navigation and electricity generation, it gave inhabitants of the Sacramento Valley nearly complete control over the whims of the river.

1959, construction began on the final link for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River water system, the California Aqueduct. A series of dams, dikes, channels and pump plants was constructed in the Delta to facilitate water flow from the Sacramento into this huge man-made river, which can carry up to 5,834 cubic feet per second (165.2 m3/s) of water. From its origin at the Delta the canal runs some 444 miles (715 km) southwards through the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, providing irrigation water to farmlands along its length. The remainder is then powered over the Tehachapi Mountains via a 3,000-foot (910 m) pump lift. The Aqueduct's waters, which functionally extend the Sacramento River southwards, then run on to serve the enormous populace of California's south, supplying the needs of some 22 million people

David Wilens (2000.08.14 ) in Politics: “Coming to the Nuisance” means exactly what it sounds like: if a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use. The other property owner, who started his use subsequently on his own property, has lower priority and thus must either yield or quit complaining, since he came to the nuisance and therefore could have stayed away.

For example: if a farmer has on his property a feedlot for his animals that is being properly operated1 and yet which still causes bad odors, a developer who later constructs single-family residences on a nearby parcel can’t complain about the feedlot’s odor, effluent, or other negative attributes (nor can the purchasers of the residences); if he does, he won’t prevail in a nuisance action against the farmer because of Coming to the Nuisance — i.e., because the feedlot was there first.

It is important to emphasize that the Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine does not give a property owner priority to engage in any and all uses of his property; it only gives him priority to engage in particular uses of property — namely, only those uses which one starts prior to the uses made by other property owners.

For example, if I purchase a piece of land and use it solely as a residence, I have a right to continue using it as a residence as against the rights of all newcomers. Let’s assume that, subsequent to my purchase and commencement of use as a residence, someone moves in next door to me on a vacant piece of land and uses it as his residence. Then, subsequent to that, I open a hog farm on my land which causes a nuisance to my neighbor. I do have the right to use my property as a residence as against the rights of my neighbor, since my residence was there first, before his residence was.

However, I do not have the right to use my property as a hog farm as against the rights of my neighbor if doing so causes him a nuisance, since his residence was there before my hog farm was. When I opened the hog farm, I started a new use — and thus my hog farm has lower priority than the uses of other property owners which commenced before my hog farm. (Other factors, such as when I bought my property, etc., are for the most part irrelevant. It is when I started my particular use which matters.)

“Coming to the Nuisance” is a corollary of the right to keep and use property. One must have the ability, without permission from others, to use property indefinitely (unless, of course, one voluntarily agrees to use it only for a specific time period, such as with a lease). If one does not have such an ability — meaning, in essence, that someone can come along at any time and arbitrarily demand that one no longer may use his property — then all use of property in effect ends up being by permission of those who have the power to stop its use, and the right to property in effect vaporizes.

For example, if the government decides to stop a particular owner’s use of his property simply because a majority of people in the area find it offensive for one reason or another, then ultimately everyone’s use of property is no longer by right but rather by permission.

Because the right to property means the right to use it indefinitely, it follows that, once a property owner has started using his property in a particular fashion, he has the right to stop others from interfering with that particular use. This is the rationale behind the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine’s requirement that, when uses of two properties conflict with each other, the use which has priority is the one started first, and the owner has the right to stop others from interfering with this prior use (the “first in time, first in right” rule).

Since the right to property necessarily implies the right to use it indefinitely, and since the right to use property indefinitely implies the first in time, first in right rule, it follows that respecting property rights ultimately means respecting the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine too. The two are inseparable.

Also, because the only objective means by which men can properly deal with one another is for them to respect each other’s rights, then in the appropriate context the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine is the only objective means for men to deal with one another as well.

The Antidote for Zoning: The “Coming to the Nuisance” Doctrine (Part 4)

David Wilens (2000.08.17 ) in Politics:

The Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine is the only objective means of determining who has the right to continue using his property in the event of a nuisance. If zoning is to be replaced, therefore, it must be replaced with the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine. Since it is the only objective means of determining who has the right to continue using property in the event of a nuisance, the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine must be regarded as an absolute in all nuisance cases where it is at issue, determining the rights of the parties without being watered down by less important doctrines.

Unfortunately, this is not the present state of American law. Although it is still used in nuisance cases, Coming to the Nuisance is not regarded as an absolute, but rather as merely “one factor among many” by the courts.

For example, courts today very often determine the rights of property owners in nuisance cases not solely by who started his use first, but rather by factors such as the “trend of development in an area” — meaning that, if there is a farm or factory in an area that previously was agricultural or industrial but which is becoming residential, the government will force the farmer or factory owner to shut down.2 This opens the door to unjust decisions in nuisance cases, and provides an excuse for government intrusions on property rights such as zoning.

Replacing zoning with the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine as an absolute would mean the end of the government’s initiation of physical force in the land development process due to zoning. This is because the government would not be able to tell anyone how to use his land prior to the creation of a nuisance. Once a nuisance occurs, however, the government may use force to stop it, as the result of a lawsuit. The government is justified in doing this because it is the nuisance (rather than the government’s remedial actions) which, since it is a violation of the right to use property, constitutes the initiation of force — and the government’s remedial measures are simply force used in retaliation.

Ending the initiation of force brought about by zoning will greatly help to restore objectivity to the land development process.

This is because decisions regarding land use will no longer be in the hands of the government but rather will be handled by the owners of the property to be developed. Instead of being forced to design projects to conform to the whims of bureaucrats, developers will be free to design their projects to conform to reality — in this context, to the rights of other property owners who started using their properties previously, and who might be adversely affected by the developer’s proposed project. This would necessarily involve figuring out which property owners might be affected by a proposed project and what uses these owners are already making of their properties, so that the developer can design his project to be compatible with these uses. (Unfortunately there isn’t space to go into the mechanics of this here; it will have to be the subject of future work.)

Finally, replacing zoning with the Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine should bring the prices of homes and building space down dramatically because the design criteria for development projects will be objective rather than arbitrary, and development costs will thus become more predictable and manageable.

In conclusion, because property rights are a necessity if men are to live together, it follows that they must be respected in every area of one’s life, including land development. Humans must develop land; we can not live, as the environmentalists insist we do, in the world “as it is” without creating the buildings, roads, and utility systems we need in order to live. But these must be built with total respect for everyone’s rights. This means ending zoning — and its only antidote is the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine.

References:

1. If a nuisance results solely because a use is being improperly operated, then there is no Coming to the Nuisance issue and the doctrine doesn’t apply. For example: if the feedlot caused odors only because of improper operation, and proper operation would end the odors and thus the nuisance, a court would simply order the owner of the feedlot to take measures to end the odors, and would not apply Coming to the Nuisance.

[moralist]

Hey Peter, that's a great description of a sound logical principle that many people tacitly intuit because it is a product of common sense.

Finally, replacing zoning with the Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine should bring the prices of homes and building space down dramatically because the design criteria for development projects will be objective rather than arbitrary, and development costs will thus become more predictable and manageable.

When we built on land that was adjacent to previously built homes, we chose the style of one of the adjacent homes (Spanish) so as to harmoniously blend in with what was already there. The prevailing natural feature for the area is Oak trees, so much of the land surrounding the house remains in the same natural state as the contiguous land parcels.

Many people here are very resource conscious and are already adapting their behavior to the new conditions. One general approach to conserving water is letting high maintenance ornamental plants die off while tending the more drought tolerant species. We nixed the vegetable garden this year and instead planted more fruit and nut trees as they are less water intensive.

Some friends own a recreational diving company off the coast of Mexico and told me yesterday that the seasonal water temps are running very high. This could bring a beneficial change of an "El Nino" current which typically brings a wet weather pattern with it. Nine years ago we had an extremely large El Nino event of 66 inches of rain in one wet season.

The weather pattern the United States is currently experiencing is classic Ice Age climate of frigid higher latitudes and drought lower latitudes, and ends the secular leftist political religion of catastrophic human caused global warming.

This is now the new normal so we had better adapt to it.

Greg