And If The Water Dries Up?

[rz3300]

That is a lot of data up there, so thank you to those who are posting that. It is very useful information, but I have just come to the understanding that you can really find any source or any information that proves the point you want to make, regardless of what the point it. It is still valuable, no doubt, but in terms of having it make my decision, I need to weigh it all.

 

[palerider]

That is a lot of data up there, so thank you to those who are posting that. It is very useful information, but I have just come to the understanding that you can really find any source or any information that proves the point you want to make, regardless of what the point it. It is still valuable, no doubt, but in terms of having it make my decision, I need to weigh it all.

There is really no "decision" to be made. Either there is a drought or there is not a drought....what you "decide" is meaningless to the actual state of things. The fact is that if the native flora and fauna are thriving, then there is no drought....simple as that. Now one can "decide" to ignore the facts in favor of whatever pseudoscience one favors and "believe" whatever one chooses to believe, but that decision is completely divorced from reality. If one can't simply look at the most basic facts regarding a situation and come to a conclusion based on those facts....why bother....and in this case, the basic facts are that the native flora and fauna have spent a great long time evolving to live in certain conditions...and when claims of drought...or drought disaster....or worst drought EVAH are being made and the local flora and fauna are carrying on in a business as usual manner...then the claims are clearly bullshit. Believe what you like....decide what you like...but the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Believe what you like....decide what you like...but the facts speak for themselves.

Problem with your "definition" of drought is that once we get to the point where not even the plants, and animals, that have adapted to the situation of no, or little, water die off, then all life will die off, and it will be too late. Of course, that is one "fact" you have ignorantly chosen to ignore, and the best reason for ignoring you.

And the facts do speak for themselves.

 

[palerider]

Problem with your "definition" of drought is that once we get to the point where not even the plants, and animals, that have adapted to the situation of no, or little, water die off, then all life will die off, and it will be too late. Of course, that is one "fact" you have ignorantly chosen to ignore, and the best reason for ignoring you.

And the facts do speak for themselves.

Again..the native plants and animals are doing fine...it is only the transplants that are having problems...therefore...no actual drought. There is an actual water use problem which will not be addressed because the problem is being blamed on climate change rather than the actual problem and any money that may have been used to address the actual problem will be sucked up and squandered by climate science and their agenda...which is not to preserve the water resources of the region.

 

[dogtowner]

Again..the native plants and animals are doing fine...it is only the transplants that are having problems...therefore...no actual drought. There is an actual water use problem which will not be addressed because the problem is being blamed on climate change rather than the actual problem and any money that may have been used to address the actual problem will be sucked up and squandered by climate science and their agenda...which is not to preserve the water resources of the region.

Amen to that. They have been over taxing their supplies since long before climate change was a gleam in a politicians eye.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Again..the native plants and animals are doing fine...it is only the transplants that are having problems...therefore...no actual drought. There is an actual water use problem which will not be addressed because the problem is being blamed on climate change rather than the actual problem and any money that may have been used to address the actual problem will be sucked up and squandered by climate science and their agenda...which is not to preserve the water resources of the region.

If you were to address reality it is being blamed on both which was stated in the article I posted.

However, that does not address your definition of "drought", and you even ignore the effect of the changing climate on native species of both flora, and fauna. Simply because it is not being seen in your area as of now does not mean it does not exist. And it matters not if man is the cause of lowering water tables since the lack of moisture in many parts of the world prevent even the slightest chance of the water being replaced.

And if you had been paying attention I have long support hydroponic gardening, and numerous other methods of using less water for the production of food, and energy.

 

[palerider]

If you were to address reality it is being blamed on both which was stated in the article I posted.

However, that does not address your definition of "drought", and you even ignore the effect of the changing climate on native species of both flora, and fauna. Simply because it is not being seen in your area as of now does not mean it does not exist. And it matters not if man is the cause of lowering water tables since the lack of moisture in many parts of the world prevent even the slightest chance of the water being replaced.

And if you had been paying attention I have long support hydroponic gardening, and numerous other methods of using less water for the production of food, and energy.

Maybe you should address your imagination...since there was no report in any of your links of the native plants and animals dying in the region at issue....that would be because there is no actual drought...there is only misuse of the water resource.

 

[PLC1]

We have virtually the same amount of water we have always had. When water goes down the drain it doesn't disappear it goes through the waterms cycle over and over. Desalination can add to the potable supply but not much. There is no solution. Supply and demand will work things out.

Yes, there is the same amount of water, but there are a lot more people using that water.

Locally, the southern San Joaquin Valley is drying up. It is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world, and continues to produce, but only with deeper and deeper wells.

Historically, the five southernmost rivers all flowed into the largest lake in California, Tulare Lake. That lake is now dry, and the rivers are all completely used up, every drop. The San Joaquin, second biggest river in California that once had ocean going vessels in it, goes dry just west of Fresno. Meanwhile, wells go dry and deeper wells are drilled.

Logically, there has to be a bottom to the water table, but no one knows just how much water is left.

The 2014/15 water year was the driest in 500 years. The Sierra snow pack, source of the rivers, was almost non existent. That served to wake people up, some, but then last winter was about 75% of normal. People are now saying that the drought is over. It's not over, but now in its fifth year.

Some of the farmers in the west side of the valley have wells that go down 2,000 feet now. That's pretty expensive water.

 

[palerider]

Yes, there is the same amount of water, but there are a lot more people using that water.

Locally, the southern San Joaquin Valley is drying up. It is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world, and continues to produce, but only with deeper and deeper wells.

Historically, the five southernmost rivers all flowed into the largest lake in California, Tulare Lake. That lake is now dry, and the rivers are all completely used up, every drop. The San Joaquin, second biggest river in California that once had ocean going vessels in it, goes dry just west of Fresno. Meanwhile, wells go dry and deeper wells are drilled.

Logically, there has to be a bottom to the water table, but no one knows just how much water is left.

The 2014/15 water year was the driest in 500 years. The Sierra snow pack, source of the rivers, was almost non existent. That served to wake people up, some, but then last winter was about 75% of normal. People are now saying that the drought is over. It's not over, but now in its fifth year.

Some of the farmers in the west side of the valley have wells that go down 2,000 feet now. That's pretty expensive water.

There hasn't at this point been any actual drought in the area....there is certainly claimed drought based on an artificial definition...but until the native plants and animals begin to die off due to lack of water, there is no actual drought...and the native plants and animals have evolved to live in such conditions as exist now for hundreds of years at a stretch....such is the nature of the area....history tells us of dry spells lasting for 500 years or longer are just business as usual in the area.

Handwaving hysterics claiming record drought due to climate change instead of level headed science stating water use issues is the reason the problem is not going to be addressed....the money that could be used to address a whole host of solvable environmental problems is swirling down the toilet of climate pseudoscience which has, to date, not addressed even the most basic environmental problem in any real way....it only uses the money to grow itself, and perpetuate its perceived importance.

 

[dogtowner]

Socal has this built in problem that it is beautiful (in a dry sort of way) fertile (with external water) and suffers the curse of mainly sunny and warm weather.
So too many people want to live there, too many farmers see they can make a buck there and nobody wants to eithe limit the population or find/make water because it costs money.
I remember doing research on this WAY back in grade school and this problem is not new. They finished a desalination plant in, I believe, Saudi Arabia at some enormace cost but it let them have grass around the house and they didn't care what it cost as they were flush with cash.
Seems there is never a point when you say no to development. I guess the lure of tax dollars is the great siren song these days.

 

[PLC1]

There hasn't at this point been any actual drought in the area....there is certainly claimed drought based on an artificial definition...but until the native plants and animals begin to die off due to lack of water, there is no actual drought...and the native plants and animals have evolved to live in such conditions as exist now for hundreds of years at a stretch....such is the nature of the area....history tells us of dry spells lasting for 500 years or longer are just business as usual in the area.

Handwaving hysterics claiming record drought due to climate change instead of level headed science stating water use issues is the reason the problem is not going to be addressed....the money that could be used to address a whole host of solvable environmental problems is swirling down the toilet of climate pseudoscience which has, to date, not addressed even the most basic environmental problem in any real way....it only uses the money to grow itself, and perpetuate its perceived importance.

Sorry.
The main supply of water to this area is the Sierra snowpack. That snowpack has been below average for the past five years. The 2014-15 snow year was the lowest in 500 years.

That's a drought.

We've had droughts in this area before, and now doubt will have more. These are "actual" droughts, defined by lower than normal precipitation.

And, even when we do have normal precipitation, we still use more water than nature gives us.

Oh, and the pines and firs in the Sierra are native plants. Millions of them are dead. That's a drought, even by your definition.

 

[PLC1]

Socal has this built in problem that it is beautiful (in a dry sort of way) fertile (with external water) and suffers the curse of mainly sunny and warm weather.
So too many people want to live there, too many farmers see they can make a buck there and nobody wants to eithe limit the population or find/make water because it costs money.
I remember doing research on this WAY back in grade school and this problem is not new. They finished a desalination plant in, I believe, Saudi Arabia at some enormace cost but it let them have grass around the house and they didn't care what it cost as they were flush with cash.
Seems there is never a point when you say no to development. I guess the lure of tax dollars is the great siren song these days.

Exactly.
Meanwhile, the votes are in the LA and San Francisco areas. Whenever water projects are discussed, dams, bringing in more water, desalinization, they oppose it. There are way too many people who don't know where their food comes from, and think as long as water comes out of the spigot, there's no problem.

 

[palerider]

Sorry.
The main supply of water to this area is the Sierra snowpack. That snowpack has been below average for the past five years. The 2014-15 snow year was the lowest in 500 years.

Newsflash...it is the desert...and what proxy reconstruction are you using that have fine enough resolution fore you to claim one year is different from all other years...there is no such proxy reconstruction...you are just making it up as you go in an attempt to make a point...and that sort of behavior is why climate science and its agw cult adherents have no credibility.

That's a drought.

No..that's a somewhat dry year....it is a drought when the native plants and animals....life that is evolved to live in conditions where water is very scarce start to die off...not happening...no drought.

We've had droughts in this area before, and now doubt will have more. These are "actual" droughts, defined by lower than normal precipitation.

And what constricted time span do you base your definition of "normal"...does it include times when actual droughts lasted for hundreds of years? Another reason climate science and its cultish adherents have no credibility.

And, even when we do have normal precipitation, we still use more water than nature gives us.

And that problem will never be addressed so long as climate change is being blamed for the problem.

Oh, and the pines and firs in the Sierra are native plants. Millions of them are dead. That's a drought, even by your definition.

The pines and firs that are dying off are not native...they were planted there by the lumber industry and park service.. and bark beetles are their scourge....if you want to know when drought hits, look for dying junipers.

 

[PLC1]

Newsflash...it is the desert...and what proxy reconstruction are you using that have fine enough resolution fore you to claim one year is different from all other years...there is no such proxy reconstruction...you are just making it up as you go in an attempt to make a point...and that sort of behavior is why climate science and its agw cult adherents have no credibility.



No..that's a somewhat dry year....it is a drought when the native plants and animals....life that is evolved to live in conditions where water is very scarce start to die off...not happening...no drought.



And what constricted time span do you base your definition of "normal"...does it include times when actual droughts lasted for hundreds of years? Another reason climate science and its cultish adherents have no credibility.



And that problem will never be addressed so long as climate change is being blamed for the problem.



The pines and firs that are dying off are not native...they were planted there by the lumber industry and park service.. and bark beetles are their scourge....if you want to know when drought hits, look for dying junipers.

You are so consistently wrong that it's amazing you keep even trying. The pines and firs are not native to California? Of course they are. There aren't any junipers until you get very high in the mountains, and then only a few interspersed with, guess what, pines and firs.

You obviously have not visited the Sierra Nevada. We're talking about a place I've lived for decades.

Normal is the average snowpack over the past few decades. Five years of below normal, including the driest season in hundreds of years, is a drought by anyone's definition but yours.

 

[palerider]

You are so consistently wrong that it's amazing you keep even trying. The pines and firs are not native to California? Of course they are. There aren't any junipers until you get very high in the mountains, and then only a few interspersed with, guess what, pines and firs.

You obviously have not visited the Sierra Nevada. We're talking about a place I've lived for decades.

Normal is the average snowpack over the past few decades. Five years of below normal, including the driest season in hundreds of years, is a drought by anyone's definition but yours.

Normal is what the flora and fauna have evolved to live in...and such evolution didn't happen in the past few decades....and again...bark beetles are the main bane of the pines...along with misuse of the water resources....there is no drought.