The closest thing to a permanent solution is to build modern desalinazation plants in large numbers. However, even with Manhattan/Apollo project level resources behind such an effort, it would be a few years before they went on line.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/california-running-out-of-water-nasa-scientist-says-2015-03-14
Quote
California running out of water, NASA scientist says
By Joseph Adinolfi
Published: Mar 14, 2015 4:12 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — California only has about one year's supply of water left in its reservoirs, said Jay Famiglietti.
The senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech, wrote that the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, in commentary published in the Los Angeles Times Thursday.
Citing NASA data, Famiglietti said that water storage has been declining steadily since 2002, the year that NASA began monitoring the state's water supply with satellites. He noted that groundwater supplies have been shrinking since the 20th century.
About half of the state's land area is experiencing "exceptional drought" conditions, according to the U.S. drought monitor, as a vicious drought enters its third year.
Famiglietti proposed four measures that, if implemented quickly, might save California from drying up entirely.
The first step: "Mandatory water rationing should be authorized across all of the state's water sectors, from domestic and municipal through agriculture and industrial."
The second: Speeding up implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. The law requires forming numerous, regional groundwater sustainability agencies by 2017. The new agencies will be tasked with devising a plan to sustainably manage water supplies, which they will need to submit by 2022 — with the goal of achieving sustainability by 2042.
"At that pace, it will be nearly 30 years before we even know what works. By then, there may be no groundwater left to sustain," Famiglietti writes.
Third: The state must create a "task force of thought leaders" who will brainstorm long-term water-management strategies.
Famiglietti said the public needs to become more involved with setting priorities for water usage. "Water is our most important, commonly owned resource, but the public remains detached from discussions and decisions," Famiglietti writes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation told central-valley farmers in February that the U.S. federal government wouldn't delivery any water to them in 2015.
(https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffc06.deviantart.net%2Ffs70%2Ff%2F2012%2F261%2F1%2F9%2Fermahgerd_by_photopersuasion-d5f5qsn.jpg&t=550&c=3SySrgOsKU0Iug)
I'm telling ya, there should have been a project setup to take the huge amounts of snow being removed from streets and other areas in the Northeast and put into massive "snow farms" and instead put it onto cargo ships and trains to move to California. :bowler:
I am glad California is arriving at crisis levels first so we can copy whatever solution they find in a couple years.
Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.
Cutting water use by agriculture should work wonders, either through increased efficiency, higher prices or reduction of its most water intensive crops. It is as a sector by far the largest user of water everywhere.
i suggest fencing off the state and letting nature take its course.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 07:31:16 AM
I am glad California is arriving at crisis levels first so we can copy whatever solution they find in a couple years.
Copy
California??? Good God. What's next? New York???
E: Wait. Rick Perry is gone. Might take a while to get his bros out of every government position he could provide though.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 18, 2015, 09:04:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 07:31:16 AM
I am glad California is arriving at crisis levels first so we can copy whatever solution they find in a couple years.
Copy California??? Good God. What's next? New York???
E: Wait. Rick Perry is gone.
Well that is how things go in most of the US, whether they want to admit it or not. ^_^ <_<
But sadly, there's always another Rick Perry just around the corner.
I'm in CA right now. The coastal mountains in the central part have had far more water this year than last, however the High Sierra is still really bad.
Mom will be all right, the canyons here in Big Sur captured enough rainfall so that they will run their streams all Summer.
There is a desalinization plant in Santa Barbara although they only run it when they need to. I was there once when it was running and it makes the whole neighborhood around it smell really bad. :(
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 09:28:29 AM
There is a desalinization plant in Santa Barbara although they only run it when they need to. I was there once when it was running and it makes the whole neighborhood around it smell really bad. :(
That's dumb-- They could have enough salt to last forever.
It won't be a problem after May 29th. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2126355/
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2015, 09:36:28 AM
That's dumb-- They could have enough salt to last forever.
Apparently it's just too expensive to run it all the time.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2015, 10:48:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2015, 09:36:28 AM
That's dumb-- They could have enough salt to last forever.
Apparently it's just too expensive to run it all the time.
I may have posted it here, I can't remember, but the latest generation of plants are like an order of magnitude cheaper to run.
I was at Lake Almanor a couple weeks ago, and it looked like the water level was down at least ten feet from normal. All the summer homes along the eastern shore had boat docks that didn't reach the water. Also, most of them were on the market.
There's about a fifth of a cubic kilometre for each person on the planet, given California is on the coast, how could they possibly run out of water. :smarty:
The alpine lakes hold a crapload too. They say Tahoe has enough water in it to cover California more than a foot deep. It's difficult to wrap your mind around how much it is.
I heard the other day that Baikal has 20% of the world's fresh water. If so, then Tahoe must have a significant percentage as well.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 18, 2015, 05:35:51 PM
The alpine lakes hold a crapload too. They say Tahoe has enough water in it to cover California more than a foot deep. It's difficult to wrap your mind around how much it is.
I heard the other day that Baikal has 20% of the world's fresh water. If so, then Tahoe must have a significant percentage as well.
Yeah, there's a Lot of purely fresh water in the world too.
I'd probably make a Yi like argument and say California's problem is in large part a failure to accurately price the scarcity/'true' value of the fresh water in the state.
The problem is not lack of water, just too many people, a well placed nuke would fix the problem, for a while at least.
I don't really think it's the people, tbh. California has an absolute crapload of reservoirs. They're everywhere. There's definitely enough water for the population to drink. They've already been shutting off the taps for agriculture though. That's been going on for a long time. Take a trip down I-5 and you can't avoid it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fww3.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F26%2F71%2F17%2F6001642%2F3%2F920x920.jpg&hash=527848d57dcae3475a8a15830d43f6dc0fc0effd)
Those farmers are throwing a fit over it.
Quote from: mongers on March 18, 2015, 05:40:08 PM
I'd probably make a Yi like argument and say California's problem is in large part a failure to accurately price the scarcity/'true' value of the fresh water in the state.
Odd use of the conditional.
California should probably stop handing out free water to farmers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 18, 2015, 06:05:47 PM
I don't really think it's the people, tbh. California has an absolute crapload of reservoirs. They're everywhere. There's definitely enough water for the population to drink. They've already been shutting off the taps for agriculture though. That's been going on for a long time. Take a trip down I-5 and you can't avoid it.
Those farmers are throwing a fit over it.
I did a quick google and it appears California's average rainfall 23-24 inches per annum is very close England's average, but we have around four times more people per square mile and we have a fair amount of agriculture too, but generally we've no real shortage of water, plus we have Wales and possibly Scotland to one day call upon in a national emergency.
The problem seems to be a lack of water conservation across many areas of California.
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25090363/california-drought-water-use-varies-widely-around-state (http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25090363/california-drought-water-use-varies-widely-around-state)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fextras.mnginteractive.com%2Flive%2Fmedia%2Fsite568%2F2014%2F0207%2F20140207_052923_ssjm0209wateruse90-01_500.jpg&hash=ed3f1963544ab64ca3863c63b49d96731afbec1e)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 18, 2015, 06:05:47 PM
I don't really think it's the people, tbh. California has an absolute crapload of reservoirs. They're everywhere. There's definitely enough water for the population to drink. They've already been shutting off the taps for agriculture though. That's been going on for a long time. Take a trip down I-5 and you can't avoid it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fww3.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F26%2F71%2F17%2F6001642%2F3%2F920x920.jpg&hash=527848d57dcae3475a8a15830d43f6dc0fc0effd)
Those farmers are throwing a fit over it.
I like how the sign appears to be defaced, and was originally proud of the CONGRESS CREATED DUST BOWL.
Anyway, they're right. A presidential dictatorship would sort this problem out in no time.
You mean trying to grow crops in the desert is a bad idea? Wow. I'm shocked.
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 03:48:39 PM
You mean trying to grow crops in the desert is a bad idea? Wow. I'm shocked.
Weird given how much agricultural produce California generates each year. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 03:48:39 PM
You mean trying to grow crops in the desert is a bad idea? Wow. I'm shocked.
Weird given how much agricultural produce California generates each year. :mellow:
The desert regions?
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 03:48:39 PM
You mean trying to grow crops in the desert is a bad idea? Wow. I'm shocked.
Weird given how much agricultural produce California generates each year. :mellow:
The desert regions?
Those dust bowl signs are generally in the Central Valley which is the agricultural heartland of California. Not sure I'd call it a desert region - that's more like the Palm Springs area which not surprisingly isn't a big agricultural region. :D
And note, both regions were on that map showing regions facing big water issues.
Modesto gets a little over 13 inches of rain a year. I don't think that's quite a desert but it's got to be pretty close.
Quote from: Caliga on March 19, 2015, 04:17:53 PM
Modesto gets a little over 13 inches of rain a year. I don't think that's quite a desert but it's got to be pretty close.
That's about desert. Most of the water that comes to the Central Valley is from the mountains.
Mountains are made of rock.
Latest Israeli desalination plant only cost $500 million, a huge reduction in cost. Previous plants have cost in the billions.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-desalination/
A billion dollar plant is opening in 2016 that will provide San Diego with 50 million gallons a day
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/drought-resilience-desalination-plant-california
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 03:48:39 PM
You mean trying to grow crops in the desert is a bad idea? Wow. I'm shocked.
Weird given how much agricultural produce California generates each year. :mellow:
The desert regions?
Those dust bowl signs are generally in the Central Valley which is the agricultural heartland of California. Not sure I'd call it a desert region - that's more like the Palm Springs area which not surprisingly isn't a big agricultural region. :D
And note, both regions were on that map showing regions facing big water issues.
All the lawns/golf courses in Palm Springs should be banned, though.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 19, 2015, 06:51:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2015, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2015, 03:48:39 PM
You mean trying to grow crops in the desert is a bad idea? Wow. I'm shocked.
Weird given how much agricultural produce California generates each year. :mellow:
The desert regions?
Those dust bowl signs are generally in the Central Valley which is the agricultural heartland of California. Not sure I'd call it a desert region - that's more like the Palm Springs area which not surprisingly isn't a big agricultural region. :D
And note, both regions were on that map showing regions facing big water issues.
All the lawns/golf courses in Palm Springs should be banned, though.
I've no problem with that but rich people would probably be pretty annoyed.
Also, I realized I was wrong. There is a decent amount of farm land around Coachella which is pretty desert-like. Originally started up because of all the natural aquifers that were there. Now apparently it relies on water siphoned from the Colorado River.
The Colorado doesn't really have a mouth left anymore. All its water is drawn off before it reaches the sea.
Get excited California! You're going to be drinking your own piss soon. :yucky:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/desalination_vs_purification_why_californians_will_soon_drink_their_own.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2015, 06:38:29 PM
Latest Israeli desalination plant only cost $500 million, a huge reduction in cost. Previous plants have cost in the billions.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-desalination/
A billion dollar plant is opening in 2016 that will provide San Diego with 50 million gallons a day
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/drought-resilience-desalination-plant-california
What about the fish???.? :mad:
California only has a year of cheap water left at current usage. Right now, a lot of water-intensive agriculture is practiced in the San Joaquin Valley, rice being the most egregious example. Global warming is only going to make the state more arid, so we need to concentrate on more appropriate Mediterranean produce and let places like Louisiana start growing more of the thirsty crops.
I'm sure they've been adapting for a while now. You can already see huge swathes of land with dead walnut and almond trees being removed down there. That's gotta be a time-consuming mess though. Several unproductive seasons worth.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 20, 2015, 02:31:10 AM
California only has a year of cheap water left at current usage. Right now, a lot of water-intensive agriculture is practiced in the San Joaquin Valley, rice being the most egregious example. Global warming is only going to make the state more arid, so we need to concentrate on more appropriate Mediterranean produce and let places like Louisiana start growing more of the thirsty crops.
Rice is grown in several Mediterranean places, most notably Valencia and the Po valley. In fact Spain has the same problem (although not as severe) on its own highly agricultural but severely dry SE,
California's fucked.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/03/20/california_megadrought_it_s_already_begun.html
QuoteCalifornia's Next Megadrought Has Already Begun
By Eric Holthaus
465639979-small-pool-of-water-is-surrounded-by-dried-and-cracked_2 Expect more of this. Above, the Almaden Reservoir in January 2014 in San Jose, California.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
As California limps through another nearly rain-free rainy season, the state is taking increasingly bold action to save water.
On Tuesday, the California state government imposed new mandatory restrictions on lawn watering and incentives to limit water use in hotels and restaurants as part of its latest emergency drought regulations. On Thursday, California Gov. Jerry Brown announced a $1 billion plan to support water projects statewide and speed aid to hard-hit communities already dealing with shortages. Last month federal water managers announced a "zero allocation" of agricultural water to a key state canal system for the second year in a row, essentially transforming thousands of acres of California farmland into dust.
Advertisement
This week's moves come after the state has fallen behind targets to increase water efficiency in 2015 amid the state's worst drought in 1,200 years. Last year, voters passed a $7.5 billion water bond and the legislature approved its first-ever restrictions on groundwater pumping, which won't go into full effect until 2025. Stricter, more immediate limits on water use are possible as summer approaches.
FT_150320_Drought2 TheCalifornia drought has intensified during its four-year duration, with 40 percent of the state now in "exceptional drought," the highest category.
Courtesy of U.S. Drought Monitor
But it's not enough. These moves are small potatoes compared to what's needed to reign in statewide water use, of which agriculture forms the vast majority. Last week, a pair of op-eds, one in the Guardian, the other in the Los Angeles Times, spoke with urgency about the West's growing water crisis.
"California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain," wrote NASA water scientist and University of California-Irvine professor Jay Famiglietti. A better plan, he said, was for "immediate mandatory water rationing" across the state. Famiglietti's work has focused on the shocking recent declines in groundwater across the West, where excessive pumping has caused the ground to sink at rates up to a foot per year and a measurable rise in global sea levels.
Underlying the frantic, short-term search for water is an ominous underlying trend that threatens to fundamentally transform America's most important agricultural state. Climate change may have already initiated a new megadrought.
But first, a reality check: California's cities have more than enough water to withstand the current drought and then some. They simply don't use that much. Not true for agriculture, which uses 80 percent of California's water—10 percent of that just on almonds. Though it's still a national powerhouse, fed increasingly by fast-depleting groundwater supplies, the state's agriculture industry has likely begun a long-term decline due mostly to simple math. Abnormally dry conditions have dominated in 11 of the last 15 years, and the cuts have to come from somewhere. Agriculture is the elephant in the ever-shrinking room of California water.
Statewide, California's snowpack is now at a record low—just 12 percent of normal, and less than half of last year's astonishingly meager total. Normally, California's snowpack holds the equivalent of about 15 million acre-feet of water around its traditional April 1 peak, about as much as all the state's reservoirs combined. This year, it's as if half of the state's water reserves simply vanished. It's difficult to imagine the hardship the state will face this summer as the rivers of snowmelt that normally feed the state during the dry season dwindle dangerously. As I wrote last year during my drought-themed reporting trip across the West, California just wasn't built to handle a world without snow.
But it's not just California. It's been freakishly hot out West all winter. Other states are also suffering, with record low water levels expected this year in the two major reservoirs on the Colorado River—Lake Mead and Lake Powell. The warm winter has helped to dry up the land even more, and pre-emptively melt what little snow has graciously fallen.
If a megadrought has already begun— and there is increasingly strong evidence to support that it has (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/02/california-megadrought/14446195/), or will soon—there will be widespread implications, including a significant reshifting of California agriculture outside the state. The California of the past is gone, and climate change is bringing a new one faster than it seems we're ready for.
Dieback's starting.
Well the article notes that the main area that is fucked is Calfornia's agricultural sector. Looks like residences will have more than enough water. Of course, a sharp decline in California's agricultural sector will probably have negative impacts on that state and the US.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 22, 2015, 04:51:40 AM
Dieback's starting.
I wouldn't have thought you that excited about dying plants. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on March 22, 2015, 05:24:25 AM
Well the article notes that the main area that is fucked is Calfornia's agricultural sector. Looks like residences will have more than enough water. Of course, a sharp decline in California's agricultural sector will probably have negative impacts on that state and the US.
Yeah, I think it'll be a huge impact on the state, and also the nation and some other nations that buy Cali produce if/when Cali farmers have to keep cutting way back on production or have to shut down. The state's a huge supplier of all sorts of produce. This is probably going to hurt some.
Almond production is shifting more and more towards pistachios. :cry:
I'd rather have more cashews. :mmm:
Nuts in general are terrible. :yucky:
Just in case no-one has mentioned it, I guess it never rains in Southern California.
How are people happy there?
I guess they get onboard the westbound 747. And don't think before deciding what to do. That talk of opportunity, TV breaks and movies, sure rang true.
Denizens of the Nordic countries. Ugh.
:blush:
Will Joni Mitchell now have to stay in the South of France with the gigolo who stole her camera? :(
How come none of you get the Albert Hammond reference? My talent is wasted. :cry:
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 07:41:17 AM
I guess they get onboard the westbound 747. And don't think before deciding what to do. That talk of opportunity, TV breaks and movies, sure rang true.
Great song! :)
Quote from: KRonn on March 23, 2015, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 07:41:17 AM
I guess they get onboard the westbound 747. And don't think before deciding what to do. That talk of opportunity, TV breaks and movies, sure rang true.
Great song! :)
My mum told me she was singing it when giving birth to me.
I grew up with the radio always on. "It Never Rains In Southern California" along with "Hotel California" are early memories from my childhood. I think my mum used to play a lot of Cat Stevens and Elvis. I grew to get my own taste, but the 70s classics and Beatles and Elvis will always be there. If someone mentions a rose garden, I'll say I beg your pardon.
I've spent a total of about six weeks in Southern California and it only rained one day, and only for about ten minutes. :)
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 23, 2015, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 07:41:17 AM
I guess they get onboard the westbound 747. And don't think before deciding what to do. That talk of opportunity, TV breaks and movies, sure rang true.
Great song! :)
My mum told me she was singing it when giving birth to me.
I grew up with the radio always on. "It Never Rains In Southern California" along with "Hotel California" are early memories from my childhood. I think my mum used to play a lot of Cat Stevens and Elvis. I grew to get my own taste, but the 70s classics and Beatles and Elvis will always be there. If someone mentions a rose garden, I'll say I beg your pardon.
Some of my favorite songs, singers and groups there.
Mamas and the Pappas, Mama Cass, John and Michelle Phillips. Great oldies! But now, all the leaves are brown and the sky is grey.
Quote from: KRonn on March 23, 2015, 01:10:59 PM
Some of my favorite songs, singers and groups there.
Mamas and the Pappas, Mama Cass, John and Michelle Phillips. Great oldies! But now, all the leaves are brown and the sky is grey.
I've been for a walk on a winter's day, and realized that Momma Cass probably was the greatest female vocalist of them all. She'd be safe and warm if she was in L.A.
San Francisco is another one of those almost-bubblegum-lyrics songs (let's face it -
California Dreamin's lyrics are also pretty superficial) that I like a lot, for no particular reason other than nostalgia.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
California Dreamin's lyrics are also pretty superficial) that I like a lot, for no particular reason other than nostalgia.
Great, now I can't get that song out of my head
Quote from: mongers on March 23, 2015, 08:19:18 AM
Will Joni Mitchell now have to stay in the South of France with the gigolo who stole her camera? :(
My go to song when I fly to Cali. :blush:
Way too late to matter.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/california-drought/california-imposes-unprecedented-statewide-water-restrictions-n334096
QuoteCalifornia Imposes Unprecedented Statewide Water Restrictions
By Anna R. Schecter, Matthew DeLuca and Patrick J. Rizzo
In a historic move, California is ordering water use to be slashed by 25 percent across the state to deal with a drought that just won't quit.
With more than 98 percent of the state suffering from a drought that has stretched into its fourth year, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order from the mostly snow-bare Phillips Station in the Sierra Nevada mountains -- an area that would usually have snow pack more than 66 inches deep at this time of year.
"Today we are standing on dry grass where there should be five feet of snow. This historic drought demands unprecedented action," Brown said in a statement. "Therefore, I'm issuing an executive order mandating substantial water reductions across our state. As Californians, we must pull together and save water in every way possible."
Similar measures were considered during California's 1970s drought but were never implemented, according to the governor's office.
Brown announced the emergency measures at one of the regular surveys researchers take of the snow pack at what in wetter, colder times is a popular ski destination. Snow built up over the winter provides an important measure of the amount of water that will be available for California's taps and irrigation systems in the months to come.
Even before the governor's order on Wednesday, that supply wasn't looking good. Statewide, snow surveys were at about 5 percent of their average for the start of April, according to the California Department of Water Resources.
"This year looks like the lowest snow pack on record going back 70-plus years for many snow courses," Frank Gehrke, chief of snow surveys with the CDWR, told NBC News last week. Gehrke also conducted the measurement on Wednesday. "And that has very severe ramifications for what's going to flow into the reservoirs come next spring and summer."
The state has been instituting increasingly urgent steps to combat the drought. Gov. Brown declared a state of emergency more than a year ago, saying that "the magnitude of the severe drought conditions presents threats beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single local government and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat." Late last month, he signed emergency legislation to fast-track $1 billion for drought relief and water conservation projects.
He has already called on businesses, farms and people in California to cut water use by 20 percent.
The executive order issued by the governor on Wednesday requires the State Water Resources Control Board to trim water use by 25 percent, which Brown's office says amounts to 1.5 million acre-feet of water over nine months.
Some locations in the Sierra Nevada are at 2 percent of what would be considered normal levels of snowpack over a 30-year period, according to experts, who consider April 1st to be the peak snowpack date for the region.
"April 1st is kind of what we hang our hat on," said Prof. Michael Strobel, Director, National Water and Climate Center Program Manager, Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting. He said that many locations reached their peak earlier and have been in decline for a few weeks already. Some are already snow-free.
"It's a pretty dire situation," said Strobel.
The snowpack is crucial for managing California's water supply, especially for irrigating farms. In some locations, precipitation levels have been normal, but it has come as rain rather than snow. "It can really throw a wrench in the gears for farms," said Strobel.
Polls have shown that Californians are worried about both the long- and short-term effects of the drought. A recent survey from the Public Policy Institute of California said that 66 percent of adults don't think their area of the state is doing enough. Sixty-nine percent of respondents in that poll said they were worried that the amount of water in their area a decade from now would be "somewhat inadequate" or "very inadequate."
To date, however, most residents have said they prefer voluntary cuts in water use to government-ordered rationing, with 34 percent saying mandatory measures should be taken in a Field Poll released in February.
I was watching the China Syndrome the other day. It was made in 1979 in California. I struck me how green everything was.
Glad I got outta there before this shit started. :cool:
Of course people favour voluntary rationing. That way, they can ignore it.
Would you be willing to stop flushing after you pee for marginally cheaper avocados?
The glorious hydro revolution should torch the lawns of all those that dare use their sprinklers.
I turned my sprinklers on today.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 01, 2015, 08:13:47 PM
I turned my sprinklers on today.
I'm letting the snow melt do the lawn watering instead. :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2015, 06:20:27 PM
Way too late to matter.
If half of your predictions of doom came to pass, we would be living mad max style by now.
I grew up in a section of southwest florida that consisted of drained swampland that was only about 6 feet above the water table and the groundwater was unsafe. There was a serious shortage of water, water restrictions, and tap water was not potable.
There were lots of dire predictions about what would happen as the area continued to develop (or even if the current population was sustainable). Today, there are far more people, the water restrictions are analogous to what they were when I was a kid, and the tap water is now potable.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 01, 2015, 10:48:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2015, 06:20:27 PM
Way too late to matter.
If half of your predictions of doom came to pass, we would be living mad max style by now.
I grew up in a section of southwest florida that consisted of drained swampland that was only about 6 feet above the water table and the groundwater was unsafe. There was a serious shortage of water, water restrictions, and tap water was not potable.
There were lots of dire predictions about what would happen as the area continued to develop (or even if the current population was sustainable). Today, there are far more people, the water restrictions are analogous to what they were when I was a kid, and the tap water is now potable.
And in 50 years it will be completely underwater due to sea level rise.
Sea level rise. Sea houses flooded. Sea people run. Run run run.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2015, 01:06:50 AMAnd in 50 years it will be completely underwater due to sea level rise.
Water problem: solved.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2015, 01:06:50 AM
And in 50 years it will be completely underwater due to sea level rise.
Another prediction of disaster from Tim!
I seriously doubt it will be under water in 50 years. My home growing up was very low lying because it was a drained off swamp, but it was 20 miles from the coast. It doesn't seem likely that the coastline is, starting today, going to encroach inland at a rate of 0.4 miles a year.
...meanwhile we've had up to seven inches of rain over the last 24 hours. :wacko: Most area schools are closed or delayed today because so many roads are flooded out.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2015, 05:34:06 AM
...meanwhile we've had up to seven inches of rain over the last 24 hours. :wacko: Most area schools are closed or delayed today because so many roads are flooded out.
Kentucky is moist right now. And smells like wet dog.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2015, 05:34:06 AM
...meanwhile we've had up to seven inches of rain over the last 24 hours. :wacko: Most area schools are closed or delayed today because so many roads are flooded out.
Send some rain water of that to California....
Californians can have our rainwater but they have to come get it. And pay cash :contract:
Quote from: KRonn on April 03, 2015, 08:28:37 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2015, 05:34:06 AM
...meanwhile we've had up to seven inches of rain over the last 24 hours. :wacko: Most area schools are closed or delayed today because so many roads are flooded out.
Send some rain water of that to California....
they need to build pipelines accross the US to get water to California ;)
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 18, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
The problem is not lack of water, just too many people, a well placed nuke would fix the problem, for a while at least.
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 03, 2015, 10:47:15 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 18, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
The problem is not lack of water, just too many people, a well placed nuke would fix the problem, for a while at least.
wouldn't the water be contaminated then? Maybe napalm would be better. It does the job, but it does not contaminate.
However, we need to circumvent the bombable areas. Napa valley is out of the question. Anywhere they produce wine can't be touched. We can't bomb Hollywood, we'll miss on all of these great movies like Sharknado 1-2-3. Ok, let me rephrase that. Actually, forget I said anything about Hollywood. Firebomb everything but the places they produce wine.
Fine them $20 million for every year! :mad:
http://news.yahoo.com/arrowheads-permit-pump-california-spring-water-expired-decades-201003194.html
Quote
Nestle Has Illegally Pumped Calif. Water Since the Last Major Drought—and Doesn't Want to Stop
By Willy Blackmore | Takepart.com
4 hours ago
In the late 1800s, a couple of enterprising businessmen decided to make a lake in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Los Angeles. The forest was cleared, dams were built, and eventually the creeks, streams, rainfall, and snowmelt from the surrounding mountains began to fill up Little Bear Valley, creating Lake Arrowhead.
Best known as a vacation destination today, the water in the lake remains privately owned, a legacy of the Arrowhead Reservoir Company's original plan for the 48,000 acre-feet of water: to sell it to towns in the arid valleys below.
Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water officially takes its name from a rock formation in the San Bernardino Mountains. But news that the company, which is owned by the food giant Nestle, has been pumping spring water out of the San Bernardino National Forest under a permit that expired in 1988 puts the brand more in line with the historic water grab of Lake Arrowhead than any geological feature.
The Palm Springs, California-based Desert Sun reported last Wednesday that Nestle has been pumping water out of the underground spring that feeds Strawberry Creek and transferring it by pipeline out of the National Forest on an expired permit for nearly 30 years. H2O from another spring-fed source that is eventually bottled and sold with an Arrowhead label on it has been transported across the National Forest under yet another expired permit since 1994. Conservationists say the reduced water flow in the creeks, especially after a dry winter, threatens the riparian habitats and the wildlife they support.
More than 135,000 people have signed a petition calling on Nestle to stop bottling and selling California's increasingly scarce water. Arrowhead is not the only company tapping California's springs—Mother Jones reports that many of the country's bottled-water companies get their product from the drought-plagued Golden State.
The Strawberry Creek permit expired in the midst of a drought, which ran from 1987 to 1992, and the state was excessively dry again in the early 2000s. California's current drought—by some measures the worst in 1,200 years—is now entering its fourth year. The severity of this dry spell led Gov. Jerry Brown to call for 25-percent reductions in urban water use.
"Now that it has been brought to my attention that the Nestle permit has been expired for so long, on top of the drought...it has gone to the top of the pile in terms of a program of work for our folks to work on," Jody Noiron, the San Bernardino National Forest supervisor, told the Sun.
Nestle says it draws a negligible amount of water from the spring—just 705 million gallons a year, or enough to water two golf courses for a year, as the company said in a statement. To put that in context, scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory estimate that California needs 11 trillion gallons of rain to end the drought.
No, Arrowhead is not the new almond—some water-sucking scapegoat or boogeyman to lay blame on instead of grappling with the complexities of climate change, water use and management, and conservation efforts. Nestle's CEO Peter Brabeck may have a penchant for privatizing water resources, but the pipelines running from Strawberry Creek didn't cause the drought.
But consider that, as the Sun investigation found, no state agency has an accurate grasp on how much water California's 108 bottling plants use. Bottling companies are required to test water but not to report how much water is being bottled. Like Little Bear Valley slowly filling up with water, a natural resource trickling into a commodity—or the Owens Valley being drained dry to keep Los Angeles showers and sprinklers running—the expired Arrowhead permit is a symptom of a relationship with the climate that expects it to give well past its ability to do so.
California can't afford to sell its water to consumers in other wetter states—just as it can't afford to keep watering its expansive lawns or farm in ways that the market demands instead of what the rainfall dictates.
Relax.
don't
Unleash les enragés on these water hoarding bastards! Nous sommes trahis!
ne parlent pas français se il vous plaît
Quote from: Caliga on April 15, 2015, 01:18:50 PM
ne parlent pas français se il vous plaît
Les enragés were the guys running around Paris during the French Revolution stiring up the sans culottes, sure counter-revolutionaries were hoarding grain from the people and creating famines (among many other things they were enraged about). Nous sommes trahis means 'we are betrayed' and is Jean Paul Marat's catch phrase.
So they were more references.
WTF? I set it up for us to sing some Fankie goes to Hollywood. <_< You guys suck. :yucky:
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 15, 2015, 01:40:44 PM
WTF? I set it up for us to sing some Fankie goes to Hollywood. <_< You guys suck. :yucky:
Fankie is a weird name.
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2015, 01:21:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 15, 2015, 01:18:50 PM
ne parlent pas français se il vous plaît
Les enragés were the guys running around Paris during the French Revolution stiring up the sans culottes, sure counter-revolutionaries were hoarding grain from the people and creating famines (among many other things they were enraged about). Nous sommes trahis means 'we are betrayed' and is Jean Paul Marat's catch phrase.
So they were more references.
Occupy La Bastille.
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2015, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 15, 2015, 01:40:44 PM
WTF? I set it up for us to sing some Fankie goes to Hollywood. <_< You guys suck. :yucky:
Fankie is a weird name.
True, but the song was so catchy. :mad:
What happens when two tards go to war?
Quote from: The Brain on April 15, 2015, 02:30:47 PM
What happens when two tards go to war?
I don't know, who are you fighting?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2015, 05:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 15, 2015, 02:30:47 PM
What happens when two tards go to war?
I don't know, who are you fighting?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.4plebs.org%2Fboards%2Ftg%2Fimage%2F1366%2F23%2F1366236683151.jpg&hash=9792bf0cff57e9f1caaf1c227c60aa30c555c1e7)
On something water related - I can't believe that UK water companies aren't charging per amount of water used. I am just getting charged a flat rate for the year as I don't have a water meter. I guess I can have a water party? :unsure:
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 15, 2015, 01:40:44 PM
WTF? I set it up for us to sing some Fankie goes to Hollywood. <_< You guys suck. :yucky:
I got the reference, but took it as a set up to go do something other than sing. :blush: :P
Bleed the Agripigs! :menace:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-revises-drought-plan-pressure-cities-220454487.html
Quote
California revises drought plan after pressure from cities
Reuters
By Alex Dobuzinskis
April 18, 2015 6:04 PM
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California water regulators on Saturday revised a still-tentative drought plan by easing cuts for Los Angeles and San Diego and bumping up reduction targets in the areas that consume the most water.
The changes are an apparent response to criticism from cities, which would have taken the brunt of the cuts under the original plan presented earlier this month. But regulators are standing pat on what critics say is the initial plan's leniency toward the state's huge agricultural industry.
With the country's most populous state entering the fourth year of a devastating drought, Governor Jerry Brown has ordered an overall 25 percent cut in urban water use though the first statewide mandatory reductions in California's history.
The plan, developed by the state's Water Resources Control Board, is scheduled to be approved in early May, but officials said more fine-tuning could take place before then.
"We're not at the point where we can set a single target for everywhere in California, because climates are so different and because we're in an emergency," Felicia Marcus, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, said in a conference call with reporters.
Brown has said cities that already use less water than others would have to make relatively smaller cuts, while those with higher per-capita use are facing more stringent targets.
The plan that regulators presented earlier this month would have divided local water agencies into four tiers, imposing a 10 percent conservation standard on those that use less water per capita and a 35 percent standard on those that use the most.
The plan unveiled on Saturday essentially doubles the number of tiers. Regulators said the additional categories would mean agencies with similar levels of consumption would not fall into tiers with vastly different curtailment standards.
Los Angeles and San Diego, the state's No. 1 and No. 2 cities, respectively in population, would each find themselves in a tier with a mandatory curtailment of 16 percent under the revised plan, compared to 20 percent in the tier they would have fallen under in the previous plan.
The suppliers with the highest per capita water use would have to accept a 36 percent cut, up from 35 percent.
Meanwhile, environmentalists and some urban dwellers say the state's $45 billion agriculture industry should bear a greater share of water savings, given its massive water use.
But Marcus defended the industry, saying farmers have already "taken very severe cuts."
The water board has proposed fining water utilities up to $10,000 per day if they fail to persuade residents and businesses to meet their conservation goals.
(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis)
Perhaps we could empty the oceans?
Maybe break off a chunk of some glacier and drag it. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2015, 05:35:09 PM
On something water related - I can't believe that UK water companies aren't charging per amount of water used. I am just getting charged a flat rate for the year as I don't have a water meter. I guess I can have a water party? :unsure:
Has the UK ever had a drought? I was under the impression it rained 24/7 there. :bowler:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 20, 2015, 07:04:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2015, 05:35:09 PM
On something water related - I can't believe that UK water companies aren't charging per amount of water used. I am just getting charged a flat rate for the year as I don't have a water meter. I guess I can have a water party? :unsure:
Has the UK ever had a drought? I was under the impression it rained 24/7 there. :bowler:
HMBOB! Long time no see. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
Bleed the Agripigs! :menace:
Exactly. Fuck the farmers; all they do is raise food. Who needs that? :contract:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 20, 2015, 07:04:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2015, 05:35:09 PM
On something water related - I can't believe that UK water companies aren't charging per amount of water used. I am just getting charged a flat rate for the year as I don't have a water meter. I guess I can have a water party? :unsure:
Has the UK ever had a drought? I was under the impression it rained 24/7 there. :bowler:
Actually, I seem to recall there have been issues with water shortage in Southern part of the country a while ago, with limits on gardening etc. being imposed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11548416/Only-a-third-of-average-rainfall-with-April-almost-over.html
QuoteOnly a third of average rainfall with April almost over
A drier than average April is raising fears of a potential drought, but forecasters predict some rain is on the way
Britain has experienced only a third of the average rainfall for April despite being more than half-way through the month, raising fears of a potential drought.
Last week's heatwave saw the Met Office slash its rain forecast, as the country basked in unseasonably hot weather with highs of over 25C.
And temperatures will continue to soar well above average this week – to as high as 19C by Tuesday around London, Southampton and southern coastal areas.
The dry spell follows months of below-average rainfall and conditions are not expected to bring significant showers before May's arrival.
Initial figures suggest only 35 per cent of the average rainfall for April has fallen so far.
Met Office forecaster Emma Sillitoe said: "We are over half-way through the month but we've had around a third of the rainfall we get on average.
"Over the next week temperatures are going to stay above average for most parts of the country, with the high pressure lasting until the weekend."
Weather data for the year so far shows national rain fall has been significantly lower than average nearly every month.
However, the Met Office reassured that fears of a drought were unwarranted, insisting that conditions would have to get much drier for longer before water levels become a concern.
Temperatures are expected to tumble slightly by midweek with rain expected in some areas.
The year got off to a soggy start, with January around 20 per cent higher than average but then around 13 per cent less rain fell in February than usual, and last month the figure was around five per cent below average.
Forecasters have not predicted heavy downfall to make up for April's lack of rain before the month is out, although The Environment Agency has said water levels are okay for the moment.
A spokesperson said: "River and groundwater levels across England are healthy.
"We monitor closely throughout the year and always advise people to use water wisely."
The pleasant conditions are expected to switch from Friday onwards, to a south-westerly flow of showers moving into western England.
But further east, it is expected to remain dry and temperatures will stay up around 17C on Friday.
Ms Sillitoe said: "The average for mid-April and it's been quite warm for the time of year.
"We have had high pressure in charge, sitting over the country but there is still quite a fresh breeze that will feel chilly if you're out on the south and east coasts."
Temperatures peaked on Wednesday, with a high of 25.1C recorded in Frittenden, Kent.
The heatwave filled parks and pubs across the country, but tragedy struck when a 19-year-old drowned in Hampstead swimming ponds in north London.
London Fire Brigade Assistant Commissioner, Peter Cowup, warned: "Rivers, lakes and canals may look inviting, especially on a hot day and after a drink, but it's important to realise that open water has hidden dangers that can hurt you and at worse, kill you."
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2015, 07:43:09 AM
Exactly. Fuck the farmers; all they do is raise food. Who needs that? :contract:
:D
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2015, 05:35:09 PM
On something water related - I can't believe that UK water companies aren't charging per amount of water used. I am just getting charged a flat rate for the year as I don't have a water meter. I guess I can have a water party? :unsure:
I have a meter & yet, my city has no plan to charge for water. It's been 40 years too. :hmm:
My building has a central meter that's then distributed on flat size. My last water meter was two apartments ago (and then only for hot water).
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2015, 08:29:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2015, 05:35:09 PM
On something water related - I can't believe that UK water companies aren't charging per amount of water used. I am just getting charged a flat rate for the year as I don't have a water meter. I guess I can have a water party? :unsure:
I have a meter & yet, my city has no plan to charge for water. It's been 40 years too. :hmm:
:wacko: All of the meters in my area are wireless and the water company just drives around and collects data remotely.
In my dad girlfriend's house, all the meters are facing a concrete wall, mere inches away. All impossible to read. (3 meters in the house, same city)
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2015, 08:53:58 AM
In my dad girlfriend's house, all the meters are facing a concrete wall, mere inches away. All impossible to read. (3 meters in the house, same city)
Again, as cal noted, meters aren't "read" any more. They are accessed wirelessly.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2015, 08:59:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2015, 08:53:58 AM
In my dad girlfriend's house, all the meters are facing a concrete wall, mere inches away. All impossible to read. (3 meters in the house, same city)
Again, as cal noted, meters aren't "read" any more. They are accessed wirelessly.
:hmm:
In NYC, a person from ConEdison would come weekly to each individual apartment, wanting access so that they could read the meter (electric). Mind you, not a water meter as I've actually never before now had to pay that directly.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2015, 08:35:12 AM:wacko: All of the meters in my area are wireless and the water company just drives around and collects data remotely.
They're becoming more popular here. Only meters in my apartment are for gas/electricity, and the way it works with my supplier, I read them once a year and enter it on their webpage; every third year they send someone over to read it.
At first I was like "It's weird we would have something in Kentucky before NYC", and then I remembered "Unions." :)
Unions protect workin' folks.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2015, 12:15:51 PM
At first I was like "It's weird we would have something in Kentucky before NYC", and then I remembered "Unions." :)
Older infrastructure that still functions is generally slow to be replaced. So they will be much more common in new builds than in places like NYC. The cost of replacing all the boxes in NYC would be unbelievable and probably a low priority. Lots of things in NYC are hardly cutting edge anyway so why would it be weird? Does NYC have this reputation for high tech I was not aware of?
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2015, 08:59:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2015, 08:53:58 AM
In my dad girlfriend's house, all the meters are facing a concrete wall, mere inches away. All impossible to read. (3 meters in the house, same city)
Again, as cal noted, meters aren't "read" any more. They are accessed wirelessly.
Not meters installed in 1979.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2015, 07:43:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
Bleed the Agripigs! :menace:
Exactly. Fuck the farmers; all they do is raise overpriced subsidized food. Who needs that? :contract:
Fixed your post.
How is it overpriced? Our food production is pretty efficient. I mean assuming we are not talking about cage free organic goodness and light stuff.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2015, 11:50:26 AM
:hmm:
In NYC, a person from ConEdison would come weekly to each individual apartment, wanting access so that they could read the meter (electric). Mind you, not a water meter as I've actually never before now had to pay that directly.
Those guys weren't from ConEdison. :ph34r:
You are lucky you didn't have anything worth stealing.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
How is it overpriced? Our food production is pretty efficient. I mean assuming we are not talking about cage free organic goodness and light stuff.
There are price floors and subsidies to reduce surplus.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2015, 01:06:08 PM
How is it overpriced? Our food production is pretty efficient. I mean assuming we are not talking about cage free organic goodness and light stuff.
Are you really challenging an argument by assertion?
You really need to get over me. We aren't going to fuck, it just ain't happening.
I thought the price floors were mainly for grain and wheat products are not exactly known for their expense.
But I could be wrong. Any food products actually being charged at those floors? Transportation and so forth usually make up a large portion of the cost anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2015, 02:44:34 PM
I thought the price floors were mainly for grain and wheat products are not exactly known for their expense.
But I could be wrong. Any food products actually being charged at those floors? Transportation and so forth usually make up a large portion of the cost anyway.
I don't know enough about the history of crop prices to say if the prices every hit that floor., I do know these laws exist along with subsidies to
not plant crops. These policies exist to keep farmers in business, who would otherwise be forced out do to low prices. Or at least that's the logic of the laws.
I thought the acreage restrictions got eliminated a couple Agriculture Bills ago.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2015, 07:43:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
Bleed the Agripigs! :menace:
Exactly. Fuck the farmers; all they do is raise food. Who needs that? :contract:
They can choose to grow something other than almonds, that doesn't suck up so much water.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2015, 04:26:04 PM
I thought the acreage restrictions got eliminated a couple Agriculture Bills ago.
I think the legal requirement to set aside acreage disappeared but I don't know if the subsidy did.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2015, 05:02:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2015, 07:43:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2015, 10:16:16 PM
Bleed the Agripigs! :menace:
Exactly. Fuck the farmers; all they do is raise food. Who needs that? :contract:
They can choose to grow something other than almonds, that doesn't suck up so much water.
Almonds are one of the lamest nuts anyway.
That's looney tunes Weegro.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2015, 01:13:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2015, 11:50:26 AM
:hmm:
In NYC, a person from ConEdison would come weekly to each individual apartment, wanting access so that they could read the meter (electric). Mind you, not a water meter as I've actually never before now had to pay that directly.
Those guys weren't from ConEdison. :ph34r:
You are lucky you didn't have anything worth stealing.
Well I doubt that's what she was doing. ;)
I hate almonds. Squeaky damn nuts. I'm also fucking tired of farmers bitching about how everyone else is getting welfare and demanding federal resources (or in the case of Clive Bundy, claiming that Blacks are only fit to be slaves and simply stealing federal resources).
I like almond milk. :)
I for one have never seen an almond with tits.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2015, 07:10:10 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 20, 2015, 07:04:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2015, 05:35:09 PM
On something water related - I can't believe that UK water companies aren't charging per amount of water used. I am just getting charged a flat rate for the year as I don't have a water meter. I guess I can have a water party? :unsure:
Has the UK ever had a drought? I was under the impression it rained 24/7 there. :bowler:
HMBOB! Long time no see. :)
:hug:
I'm poking my head in here now from time to time. Been pretty busy with grad school these days though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2015, 05:02:05 PM
They can choose to grow something other than almonds, that doesn't suck up so much water.
You can choose to donate half the salary you earn to charity, as well. Do you?
The problem isn't farmers, it is perverse incentives. It makes more economic sense to grow almonds for three years and then run out of water than it does to eschew growing almonds to conserve water, and watch your neighbors use that water to grow their almonds, and then run out of water.
Almond growing is simply too profitable to pass up for any reason bar inability. Since California lacks any power to protect its aquifers from being drained by individual land-owners, anyone who fails to use the water, while available, for growing such a profitable crop is simply denying his own kids a chance for that college education while allowing his neighbor to send his kids.
Agriculture in Arizona is fucked.
Tons of links embedded in the article if you want to check them out.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/05/arizona_water_shortages_loom_the_state_prepares_for_rationing_as_lake_mead.2.html
Quote
MAY 8 2015 3:11 PM
Dry Heat
As Lake Mead hits record lows and water shortages loom, Arizona prepares for the worst.
By Eric Holthaus
Last week, Lake Mead, which sits on the border of Nevada and Arizona, set a new record low—the first time since the construction of the Hoover Dam in the 1930s that the lake's surface has dipped below 1,080 feet above sea level. The West's drought is so bad that official plans for water rationing have now begun—with Arizona's farmers first on the chopping block. Yes, despite the drought's epicenter in California, it's Arizona that will bear the brunt of the West's epic dry spell.
The huge Lake Mead—which used to be the nation's largest reservoir—serves as the main water storage facility on the Colorado River. Amid one of the worst droughts in millennia, record lows at Lake Mead are becoming an annual event—last year's low was 7 feet higher than this year's expected June nadir, 1,073 feet.
If, come Jan. 1, Lake Mead's level is below 1,075 feet, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the river, will declare an official shortage for the first time ever—setting into motion a series of already agreed-upon mandatory cuts in water outlays, primarily to Arizona. (Nevada and Mexico will also receive smaller cuts.) The latest forecasts give a 33 percent chance of this happening. There's a greater than 75 percent chance of the same scenario on Jan. 1, 2017. Barring a sudden unexpected end to the drought, official shortage conditions are likely for the indefinite future.
Why Arizona? In exchange for agreeing to be the first in line for rationing when a shortage occurs, Arizona was permitted in the 1960s to build the Central Arizona Project, which diverts Colorado River water 336 miles over 3,000 feet of mountain ranges all the way to Tucson. It's the longest and costliest aqueduct in American history, and Arizona couldn't exist in its modern state without it. Now that a shortage is imminent, another fundamental change in the status quo is on the way. As in California, the current drought may take a considerable and lasting toll on Arizona, especially for the state's farmers.
"A call on the river will be significant," Joe Sigg, director of government relations for Arizona Farm Bureau, told the Arizona Daily Star. "It will be a complete change in a farmer's business model." A "call" refers to the mandatory cutbacks in water deliveries for certain low-priority users of the Colorado. Arizona law prioritizes cities, industry, and tribal interests above agriculture, so farmers will see the biggest cuts. And those who are lucky enough to keep their water will pay more for it.
According to Robert Glennon, a water policy expert at the University of Arizona, the current situation was inevitable. "It's really no surprise that this day was coming, for the simple reason that the Colorado River is overallocated," Glennon told me over the phone last week. Glennon explained that the original Colorado River compact of 1922, which governs how seven states and Mexico use the river, was negotiated during "the wettest 10-year period in the last 1,000 years." That law portioned out about 25 percent more water than regularly flows, so even in "normal" years, big reservoirs like Lake Mead are in a long-term decline. "We've been saved from the disaster because Arizona and these other states were not using all their water," Glennon said.
They are now. Since around 2000, Arizona has been withdrawing its full allotment from the Colorado River, and it's impossible to overstate how important the Colorado has become to the state. About 40 percent of Arizona's water comes from the Colorado, and state officials partially attribute a nearly 20-fold increase in the state's economy over the last 50 years to increased access to the river.
(Continued from Page 1)
On April 22, Arizona held a public meeting to prepare for an eventual shortage declaration, which could come as soon as this August. The latest rules that govern a shortage, established in 2007 by an agreement among the states, say that Arizona will have to contend with a 20 percent cut in water in 2016 should Lake Mead fall below 1,075 feet, which will decrease the amount available to central Arizona's farmers by about half. At 1,050 feet, central Arizona's farmers will take a three-quarters cut in water. At 1,025 feet, agriculture would have to make due largely without water from the Colorado River. That would probably require at least a temporary end to large-scale farming in central Arizona. Below 1,025 feet, the only thing Colorado River states have agreed to so far is a further round of negotiations. In that emergency scenario, no one really knows what might happen.
Beyond Arizona, the implications of the ongoing megadrought in the West are profound. The Colorado River currently supplies water to more than 40 million people from Denver to Los Angeles (as well as Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe—none of which lie directly on the river). According to one recent study, 16 million jobs and $1.4 trillion in annual economic activity across the West depend on the Colorado. As the river dries up, farmers and cities have turned to pumping groundwater. In just the last 10 years, the Colorado Basin has lost 15.6 cubic miles of subsurface freshwater, an amount researchers called "shocking." Once an official shortage is declared, Arizona farmers will increase their rate of pumping even further, to blunt the effect of an anticipated sharp cutback.
According to Dan Bunk of the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River operations office, the current projections, factoring in both the ongoing drought and the systemic overallocation, are "almost guaranteeing a shortage in 2017." Engineers are already installing new hydropower electricity-generating equipment at Lake Mead to prepare for the contingency of the lake reaching so-called "dead pool" levels—below which the Colorado River will no longer be able to spin Hoover's power-generating turbines. A new intake from Lake Mead to Las Vegas will come online later this year, allowing the city to essentially suck the lake dry, all the way down to the last drop.
So is there anything that can be done? As is the case in California, the fate of the Colorado River is largely in the hands of agriculture. Nearly 80 percent of the river's annual flow is diverted for agricultural use. Since urban water use is becoming more efficient at a quicker pace than agricultural water use, the only way to make the numbers work in an increasingly climate-constrained future is to switch to less water-intensive crops or decrease the total acreage devoted to agriculture. And that's not happening fast enough.
To solve that problem, Glennon has proposed a voluntary shift of water rights. In practice, this would mean that cities, which currently use water in more efficient ways, would pay farmers, who use water in less efficient ways, for the rights to their water. Farmers currently engaged in the most water-intensive crops (like cotton, rice, alfalfa, and almonds) would have a financial incentive to divert their water to people and businesses willing to pay more for it in times of shortage—and a financial incentive to grow less alfalfa."We're not talking about the elimination of agriculture," Glennon said. Since agriculture uses so much water, "a very small single-digit reduction in ag consumption translates into a huge percentage increase of water available for municipal and industrial consumption." In dry years, Glennon says, urban areas and industry would likely pay farmers even more than they'd make growing their crops for the right to use their water. The increased cost of water for cities as a result of his plan is "a rounding error," Glennon says. Problem is that it's currently common for state laws and byzantine rules governing water rights in Western states to restrict such transfers, as is the case in Arizona.
Among the other options officially on the table in the state of Arizona: desalination and cloud seeding. But, according to Glennon, such proposals are "not responsible stewardship of the state water agency." (The desalination idea would require building a desalination plant in Mexico and constructing another Central Arizona Project–like aqueduct system to transport it northward across the border.) Glennon thinks the answer is much easier. "We need to stop growing alfalfa in the deserts in the summertime."
And what if nothing changes? Well, then, the water supply certainly will. "Pretty dramatic cutbacks could happen relatively quickly," Glennon said. "That will bring a new urgency to doing a lot of things."
Guess I'll have to switch from Hershey's With Almonds to Mr. Goodbar. :(
The republic is collapsing. :(
:bleeding:
There really needs to be a federal body to smash some heads together and reorder things
Quote from: Tyr on May 10, 2015, 04:18:11 AM
:bleeding:
There really needs to be a federal body to smash some heads together and reorder things
:hmm: Like a government you mean?
Quote from: Tyr on May 10, 2015, 04:18:11 AM
:bleeding:
There really needs to be a federal body to smash some heads together and reorder things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bureau_of_Reclamation
I don't know why you make these assumptions all the time, man.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 10, 2015, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 10, 2015, 04:18:11 AM
:bleeding:
There really needs to be a federal body to smash some heads together and reorder things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bureau_of_Reclamation
I don't know why you make these assumptions all the time, man.
I'm assuming that he didn't read Tim's most recent article where that federal body is mentioned. :D
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2015, 04:22:42 PM
I'm assuming that he didn't read Tim's most recent article where that federal body is mentioned. :D
It's Tyr. He's oddly still pissed about the British government which smashed some heads together and reordered things in the British equivalent of the water in the West, Britain's coal industry. I don't think he believes that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2015, 06:30:12 PM
Agriculture in Arizona is fucked.
Agriculture in Arizona is fucked. California is fucked. West Africa is fucked because of ebola. Southern Africa is fucked because of AIDS. The Middle East is fucked because of ISIS. The Eurozone is fucked because of Greece.
IN Tim's world, basically everyone is getting fucked, except Tim. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 10, 2015, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 10, 2015, 04:18:11 AM
:bleeding:
There really needs to be a federal body to smash some heads together and reorder things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bureau_of_Reclamation
I don't know why you make these assumptions all the time, man.
What assumptions?
:unsure:
I was looking into the almond thing and apparently California produces 80% of them for the whole world.
But here's some other ones. For the US market, California produces:
-99 percent of the artichokes
-44 percent of asparagus
-two-thirds of carrots
-half of bell peppers
-89 percent of cauliflower
-94 percent of broccoli
-95 percent of celery
-90 percent of the leaf lettuce
-83 percent of Romaine lettuce
-83 percent of fresh spinach
-a third of the fresh tomatoes
-86 percent of lemons
-90 percent of avocados
-84 percent of peaches
-88 percent of fresh strawberries
-97 percent of fresh plums
People aren't going to stop eating, so obviously that production will be made up from other sources. The question is, where. Maybe Mexico's agricultural market can step up? Too bad Argentina is a basket case.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 16, 2015, 02:29:52 PM
I was looking into the almond thing and apparently California produces 80% of them for the whole world.
But here's some other ones. For the US market, California produces:
-99 percent of the artichokes
-44 percent of asparagus
-two-thirds of carrots
-half of bell peppers
-89 percent of cauliflower
-94 percent of broccoli
-95 percent of celery
-90 percent of the leaf lettuce
-83 percent of Romaine lettuce
-83 percent of fresh spinach
-a third of the fresh tomatoes
-86 percent of lemons
-90 percent of avocados
-84 percent of peaches
-88 percent of fresh strawberries
-97 percent of fresh plums
People aren't going to stop eating, so obviously that production will be made up from other sources. The question is, where. Maybe Mexico's agricultural market can step up? Too bad Argentina is a basket case.
Bolded are the foods that will be outlawed once my militia takes over during the Water Wars.
You want people to be stick thin, yet you'd outlaw lettuce and broccoli? :wacko:
Are those percentages of domestic production or of total consumption Mimsy?
I'd also outlaw meat farming.* It'd even out.
*In all seriousness, the amount of water and resources that goes into cattle farming, and the ecological damage that results, is insane. Humans are already too many, representing the second largest vertebrate species by biomass on this planet. The very largest is cattle, a methane-blasting human instrumentality. It's too much.
Too much for what?
An Earth that we expect or wish to support a middle class existence for all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2015, 02:38:24 PM
Are those percentages of domestic production or of total consumption Mimsy?
The big list is for the US market only. 80% of the almonds for the whole world though. I didn't look up walnuts but it's probably significant too.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/09/california-agriculture-too-productive-our-own-good
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 16, 2015, 02:56:47 PM
The big list is for the US market only. 80% of the almonds for the whole world though. I didn't look up walnuts but it's probably significant too.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/09/california-agriculture-too-productive-our-own-good
They seem to jump back and forth between US consumption and US production.
Not surprised Mother Jones is puzzled by a concept like this. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on May 16, 2015, 02:53:06 PM
An Earth that we expect or wish to support a middle class existence for all.
Why would we expect or wish for that?
How about "an Earth that can maintain our current technological civilization where your well-honed tertiary economy skills aren't useless"? Does that motivate you?
I like Broccoli.
There's probably a lot of underutilized farmland in the deep south.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 16, 2015, 02:53:06 PM
An Earth that we expect or wish to support a middle class existence for all.
Being able to eat thick, juicy steaks is a fundamental part of a decent middle class existence.
Hear, hear!
A life of eating 3 meals of IdeGruel(tm). :yuk:
Quote from: dps on May 16, 2015, 06:00:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 16, 2015, 02:53:06 PM
An Earth that we expect or wish to support a middle class existence for all.
Being able to eat thick, juicy steaks is a fundamental part of a decent middle class existence.
:yes:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 16, 2015, 03:17:02 PM
How about "an Earth that can maintain our current technological civilization where your well-honed tertiary economy skills aren't useless"? Does that motivate you?
No. It seems unlikely that Earth will suddenly fail to maintain that in my lifetime.
Due to the low snow pack Washington State has declared a drought emergency in order to try to save water for the crops grown in that State over what is predicted to be a long hot summer. That's right, the rainy State is going to experience a drought this year.
One knock on effect is that with lower amounts of snow melt there will be less hydro electricity generated and so more electricity will have to be generated by burning fossil fuels - mainly natural gas.
I went up to Stampede Reservoir today doing some off-roading. No pics, I forgot my phone this time. :glare:
Anyway, the water level was about 50 feet down from normal. I took the freeway home, so I passed Boca as well. That was so low the boat launches at the campgrounds were two hundred yards from the water. And it wasn't even a single lake anymore. It was a series of puddles with tire tracks across what used to be the lake bed.
We went around the June Lake Loop yesterday, and when we got to Grant Lake it was...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKw5udfP.jpg&hash=5703e5511cd421cd369238bf2cd78c0b34e53d69)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fmsxx7wV.jpg&hash=1f677004948c81ca64a2eada89760b4650a6bd42)
...not really a lake anymore. Nothing but a small stream running through what used to be the lakebed. Which...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F33KgzuH.jpg&hash=421cf815a771aab7c32def2c24b9c0deece25d84)
...Yes, of course I did that.
Oh, and the red stuff?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmAx2ZQk.jpg&hash=68455a06688255cfeb3e2b9beb498b3a7da9d067)
Creep Cluster! Good for potions to increase your carry weight among other things.
I was in LA a few weeks back and it seemed the same as usual. No plants looked dead, there were no water restrictions posted anyplace that I saw, and from the air all of the reservoirs (Irvine Lake, Lake Elsinore, etc.) looked full. :hmm:
The eastern side of the Sierra is always going to be worse off. If you don't know the history between the Owens River Basin and Los Angeles, you should check that out. I'm not saying it's not worth the tradeoff, but there is one. A big opportunity cost.
That looks kinda depressing, MiM. :(
Isn't Grant Lake an artificial construction that was part of LA stealing all the water?
Quote from: Caliga on October 27, 2015, 08:50:58 PM
I was in LA a few weeks back and it seemed the same as usual. No plants looked dead, there were no water restrictions posted anyplace that I saw, and from the air all of the reservoirs (Irvine Lake, Lake Elsinore, etc.) looked full. :hmm:
Well there are statewide restrictions on water usage.
California is about to receive a hundred inches of snow over the next ten days.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/04/el_ni_o_rain_and_snow_storms_headed_for_california.html
The bad news is it's all going to fall in one square foot.
If the environazis stopped blocking the use of water soirces to protect the fish, they would all have water.
I say charge per gallon of water and let the chips fall where they will.
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
If the environazis stopped blocking the use of water soirces to protect the fish, they would all have water.
I say charge per gallon of water and let the chips fall where they will.
What about the fish?
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2016, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
If the environazis stopped blocking the use of water soirces to protect the fish, they would all have water.
I say charge per gallon of water and let the chips fall where they will.
What about the fish?
Let them fall where they will too.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2016, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2016, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
If the environazis stopped blocking the use of water soirces to protect the fish, they would all have water.
I say charge per gallon of water and let the chips fall where they will.
What about the fish?
Let them fall where they will too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--HdRsFzbI--%2Fuboooyrf0w4avsorlvml.gif&hash=608122a1f4cc882ccebd03dbb145de8cd24eb274)
WTF?
Love the aerial stocking of mountain lakes.
FISH BOMBS!
Pescotrafficantes dumping an illegal load.
That lake looks familiar.
Dafuq?
From the underbelly, it looks like one of those modified C130s that they use to drop water on forest fires. I guess it's just a small extra step to add fish. :P
Edit: It's hard to tell from the shadow on the water, but probably something smaller.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 10, 2016, 03:36:32 PM
That lake looks familiar.
It was the lake where we found lots of dead fish floating in the water, with others around the shore and up in the trees.
I think that vid comes from Utah - I saw something like that a while ago on the news. It was a little single prop tail-dragger bush plane that could zoom around in the mountains.
Red Lobster's Air Force. Those are Cheddar Biscuits.
California needs to burn.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 10, 2016, 07:18:13 PM
Red Lobster's Air Force. Those are Cheddar Biscuits.
I don't care for Red Lobster but those biscuits are damn good.
Those are easy to make, you know. ;)
For what it's worth, all the rivers are running higher than I've ever seen right now. And there was a story a couple months ago about Lake Tahoe regaining a bunch of billions of cubic meters that it lost. I don't know if they're going to say the drought is over, but it's made incredible progress.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 10, 2016, 07:18:13 PM
Red Lobster's Air Force. Those are Cheddar Biscuits.
Yet another time I wish Languish had a "like/upvote" system. I lol'ed.
This is the only Red Lobster I know:
(https://meritreview.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/vlcsnap-2013-04-22-10h14m45s33.png)
Sure, I know you've never had their endless shrimp...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 14, 2016, 09:28:51 AM
Sure, I know you've never had their endless shrimp...
:yucky:
Shrimp is awesome. Not quite as awesome as pig though.
Aaaaaaand now for something completely different.
Water levels are now excessive, we've had rain and/or snow non-stop all winter, flooding in all the Sierra rivers, and now the dam at Lake Oroville is failing.
Live stream. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxbDJlruQ-4)
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article132332499.html
I'll be dammed.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2017, 05:01:51 PM
Aaaaaaand now for something completely different.
Water levels are now excessive, we've had rain and/or snow non-stop all winter, flooding in all the Sierra rivers, and now the dam at Lake Oroville is failing.
Live stream. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxbDJlruQ-4)
I read that though the drought is over, most places in Southern California will likely stick to rationing as the aquifers still need time to build themselves back up.
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2017, 05:12:16 PM
I read that though the drought is over, most places in Southern California will likely stick to rationing as the aquifers still need time to build themselves back up.
Yeah, makes sense. They've adopted some year round restrictions regardless of the water level in the aquifer here too.
Damn. Now a major storm pummelling Southern California with rain.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2017%2F01%2F15%2F16%2F3C2682C400000578-0-image-m-8_1484496417036.jpg&hash=a4027c897be10876d71de73fcac3d896ef3de448)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2017%2F01%2F15%2F16%2F3C2682B800000578-0-image-a-9_1484496423039.jpg&hash=c3e436c9f5369c639388642ae36642ebc3c43985)
I haven't returned to Grant Lake or anything, so no pics from me. But it's been horribly wet and even my many trips to Utah were mostly green instead of the nice clean brown of the usual great basin.
So much for only one year of water left.
It was true at the time.
It's difficult to see how a statement predicated on incorrect predictions could be true.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2017, 06:10:48 PM
It's difficult to see how a statement predicated on incorrect predictions could be true.
Quote from: from the first post in the threadCalifornia only has about one year's supply of water left in its reservoirs, said Jay Famiglietti.
The senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech, wrote that the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, in commentary published in the Los Angeles Times Thursday.
Citing NASA data, Famiglietti said that water storage has been declining steadily since 2002, the year that NASA began monitoring the state's water supply with satellites. He noted that groundwater supplies have been shrinking since the 20th century.
About half of the state's land area is experiencing "exceptional drought" conditions, according to the U.S. drought monitor, as a vicious drought enters its third year.
No predictions, just a statement of facts as they were at the time of writing - namely:
1) The reservoirs - at that time - held only enough water for one year's supply.
2) Water storage had been declining steadily since 2002, with groundwater supplies shrinking since the 20th century.
3) Half the state's land area was - at that time - experiencing "exceptional drought" conditions for a third year running.
None of those were predictions, nor were they predicated on "incorrect predictions". They were statements of fact that were true at the time, just as Timmy says.
That doesn't seem too difficult to me.
"One year left" seems to me a prediction. Clearly it did had more than a year left since it would rain in the future, though 2015 era Tim didn't know this.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2017, 06:54:48 PM
"One year left" seems to me a prediction. Clearly it did had more than a year left since it would rain in the future, though 2015 era Tim didn't know this.
You're leaving out the key part - "... left in its reservoirs." Saying "One year of water supply left in its reservoirs" is describing a specific volume of water (the amount used by the geographical area in a year) in specific location (its reservoirs). There is no prediction involved whatsoever, it's a description of a current fact.
If they had said "the water left in the reservoirs plus any future rainfall will run out in a year" that would have a been a prediction... but they did not. They described the amount of water in the reservoirs.
It's not a prediction, however it may seem to you. They did no
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2017, 07:04:25 PM
...
It's not a prediction, however it may seem to you. They did no
OMG! He stopped in the mi
I dunno, g...could just be a mis
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2017, 08:17:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2017, 07:04:25 PM
...
It's not a prediction, however it may seem to you. They did no
OMG! He stopped in the mi
There was only 80% of a post's worth of letters left in the reservoir :(
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2017, 08:17:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2017, 07:04:25 PM
...
It's not a prediction, however it may seem to you. They did no
OMG! He stopped in the mi
Raz was only reading part of the other sentences so it makes some sen
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2017, 06:54:48 PM
"One year left" seems to me a prediction. Clearly it did had more than a year left since it would rain in the future, though 2015 era Tim didn't know this.
How are you surprised, Tim has a thing for doom and gloom news porn.
By rendering Katmai down, Cali can gain another 2 years of water.
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2017, 07:04:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2017, 06:54:48 PM
"One year left" seems to me a prediction. Clearly it did had more than a year left since it would rain in the future, though 2015 era Tim didn't know this.
You're leaving out the key part - "... left in its reservoirs." Saying "One year of water supply left in its reservoirs" is describing a specific volume of water (the amount used by the geographical area in a year) in specific location (its reservoirs). There is no prediction involved whatsoever, it's a description of a current fact.
If they had said "the water left in the reservoirs plus any future rainfall will run out in a year" that would have a been a prediction... but they did not. They described the amount of water in the reservoirs.
It's not a prediction, however it may seem to you. They did no
I'm trying to bust Tim's balls here. You aren't making it easy. :mad:
Quote from: HVC on March 15, 2017, 09:07:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2017, 06:54:48 PM
"One year left" seems to me a prediction. Clearly it did had more than a year left since it would rain in the future, though 2015 era Tim didn't know this.
How are you surprised, Tim has a thing for doom and gloom news porn.
Yet he also thinks we'll reach the stars. :hmm:
He likes the doom and gloom in the hopes that it will urge mankind to take to the stars. :P