Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on December 08, 2014, 08:15:26 PM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/
Synopsis: A NOAA scientific study shows that the drought in California is being caused by weather, and that the dry cycle contradicts the computer models of what [alleged] damage we should expect as a result of global warmingâ„¢. Right on cue, the true believers jumped right in and condemned the study and the report.
Some outside climate scientists criticized the report, saying it didn't take into effect how record warmth worsened the drought.
"The authors of the new report would really have us believe that is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the impact of human-caused climate change?" Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann wrote Monday in The Huffington Post. "Frankly, I don't find that even remotely plausible."
Never mind that what's happening is totally different from what the computer models predicted as a result of human-caused climate change.
"This study completely fails to consider what climate change is doing to water in California," wrote Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He said the work "completely misses" how hotter air increases drying by evaporating more of it from the ground.
This year, California is having its warmest year in 120 years of weather records, the National Climatic Data Center reported Monday.
Peer-reviewed studies are divided on whether the drought can be blamed on climate change.
Translation: The science isn't settled.
-
Too many true believers involved in this stuff, and that is the actual researchers, not just the non-scientists.
Stuff like this makes me wonder what other branches of science are also being affected by true believers. (Like archeology or anthropology).
-
[quote"The authors of the new report would really have us believe that is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the impact of human-caused climate change?" Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann wrote Monday in The Huffington Post. "Frankly, I don't find that even remotely plausible."][/quote]
If you're being criticized by Michael Mann, it likely means your science is sound.
-
It thought the drought was caused by some judge ordering the reserviors drained to save Pelosi's pet fish?
Too Hot? Global Warming
Too Cold? Climate Change
No matter what? Mankind's fault.
Total BS.
-
It thought the drought was caused by some judge ordering the reserviors drained to save Pelosi's pet fish?
Too Hot? Global Warming
Too Cold? Climate Change
No matter what? Mankind's fault.
Total BS.
So for a change it isn't fistful's?
-
Stuff like this makes me wonder what other beaches of science are also being affected by true believers.
The Beaches of Science!
-
It thought the drought was caused by some judge ordering the reserviors drained to save Pelosi's pet fish?
Too Hot? Global Warming
Too Cold? Climate Change
No matter what? Mankind's fault.
Total BS.
You forgot that the REAL cause is the money in YOUR pocket; the only cure is to transfer it from YOUR pocket to the pockets of Al Gore and others of his ilk.
That's the whole point.
-
Can deserts have droughts?
-
The Beaches of Science!
Yeah, like the Beach of Physics, Beach of Biology, Beach of Bikinis, etc....
Thanks for catching that. I know I was tired, but auto-correct sucks sometimes.
-
Can deserts have droughts?
What esle would you drink? There certainly isn't any water.
-
Can deserts have droughts?
I know your are being a smartass but, depends how you use the word drought, drought basically means less moisture/precipitation. Say a desert gets 2" of rain average precipitation and the last 2 years it has gotten only 1" of annual precipitation, I would say it is in a drought.
I describe some soils as droughty because they have a low water holding capacity, not because there isn't enough rain in the local climate.
-
Too many true believers involved in this stuff, and that is the actual researchers, not just the non-scientists.
Stuff like this makes me wonder what other branches of science are also being affected by true believers. (Like archeology or anthropology).
Kind of hard to transfer wealth because of dinosaur bones or old indian arrowheads.....
Climate change is just newspeak for wealth redistribution. That is the end goal.
-
I know your are being a smartass but, depends how you use the word drought, drought basically means less moisture/precipitation. Say a desert gets 2" of rain average precipitation and the last 2 years it has gotten only 1" of annual precipitation, I would say it is in a drought.
I describe some soils as droughty because they have a low water holding capacity, not because there isn't enough rain in the local climate.
If most of the 'moisture' is originating from the Colorado River, its less of a 'drought' problem, and more of a problem with water usage outstripping supply.
Its more of an economics issue- perhaps the price of water is low enough that there is more demand than supply?
-
If most of the 'moisture' is originating from the Colorado River, its less of a 'drought' problem, and more of a problem with water usage outstripping supply.
Its more of an economics issue- perhaps the price of water is low enough that there is more demand than supply?
Yep, I still don't understand why someone wants to live in a place where one of the basic essentials for life is normally in low supply.
Or why someone wants to grow water dependent food where water is limited except by artificial means, i.e. growing corn in western Nebraska under pivot irrigation or cotton in Texas Panhandle. Just because you get the proper growing degree days, doesn't mean you should grow it there. You may get it to grow there by using ancient water from the aquifer but eventually that water will run out because the withdraw is greater than the recharge.
-
Looking at a map there's this giant blue thing just west of California. I bet with a little work, it could supply all the needs to of the people of California, if only there was some way to remove the salt. [/facetious]
-
Looking at a map there's this giant blue thing just west of California. I bet with a little work, it could supply all the needs to of the people of California, if only there was some way to remove the salt. [/facetious]
During the last drought in '96, locally, the county and progressives went wild with the idea of a distillation facility. To the point of getting it 95% built, then the '97 El Nino hit, we had more rain than we knew what to do with, and they mothballed the plant. Now they are back to wanting to "un-mothball" it (which is gonna cost a bundle due to the sitting and disrepair).
Of course now it looks like we're going to have at least a minor El Nino this year (we've already gotten nearly 5 inches (rain season starts in OCT) and a couple more are coming this week), so I predict they'll now talk about how it's not worth it to bring the plant online. Until the next drought, when the panic will start all over again.
Hello, weather.
-
During the last drought in '96, locally, the county and progressives went wild with the idea of a distillation facility. To the point of getting it 95% built, then the '97 El Nino hit, we had more rain than we knew what to do with, and they mothballed the plant. Now they are back to wanting to "un-mothball" it (which is gonna cost a bundle due to the sitting and disrepair).
Of course now it looks like we're going to have at least a minor El Nino this year (we've already gotten nearly 5 inches (rain season starts in OCT) and a couple more are coming this week), so I predict they'll now talk about how it's not worth it to bring the plant online. Until the next drought, when the panic will start all over again.
Hello, weather.
I wonder what the per gallon cost of water is when the plant is running.
-
I wonder what the per gallon cost of water is when the plant is running.
I'll see if I can look it up. As I recall, it was high, but still marketable. Part of the higher cost was it being a small plant for local supplemental service. Larger infrastructure would bring the price down significantly.
Edit: I couldn't find any per HCF amounts, but found this:
"The city would pass on the cost to water users by as much as $14 to $20 on the average monthly bill," the report said.
I currently pay $5/HCF with a $13/mo meter charge.
-
The problem is paying for desalinated water would mean the local politicritters can't steal as much money from the local water bills to pay for pet projects. I can't say this is happened everywhere, but I know it happens in a number of big cities.
-
Kind of hard to transfer wealth because of dinosaur bones or old indian arrowheads.....
Climate change is just newspeak for wealth redistribution. That is the end goal.
Yeah, but that is just the political side of it. The true believers in acedemia and science aren't just screwing around with climate change research. I am just concerned that evidence and information is missed and/or overlooked because the researchers are not open minded or expect the evidence to fit their preconceived ideas. At least when it comes to weather, it is pretty obvious when they get it wrong.
Hell, I have probably seen similar behavior in operating chemical plants so it isn't an uncommon fault.
-
The problem is paying for desalinated water would mean the local politicritters can't steal as much money from the local water bills to pay for pet projects. I can't say this is happened everywhere, but I know it happens in a number of big cities.
Hell, in the last place I lived, the village was pushing for a tax on the square footage of roofing/patio/sidewalks/driveway as a 'runoff tax.' Water where I lived was darned near inexhaustible, yet quarterly water bills were still $250 on average, due to all of the fees/taxes added to it. The actual water charge on a bill was around $40-50.
-
I'll see if I can look it up. As I recall, it was high, but still marketable. Part of the higher cost was it being a small plant for local supplemental service. Larger infrastructure would bring the price down significantly.
Did that also factor in the sale of the salt?
I've occasionally wondered why places along the Dead Sea seem to prefer open evaporation ponds to collect salt, rather than using cheap greenhouses as solar stills; get both the salt and some pure water for not much more investment. Done right, you could even keep a flow going through the length of several, harvesting the water along the full length, while concentrating the salt more and more until the solution is saturated and easier to deal with.
-
IIRC, I remember reading that the PTB in 1920's California recognized that there were periods of drought lasting several years. So they built the various reserviors to hold enough water to last ten years of drought.
Fast forward to the 2012 and let's release enough water to supply the Silicon valley for two years.... in the middle of a drought.
Morons. The lot should be put up against the wall.
http://spectator.org/articles/40982/emptying-reservoirs-middle-drought
-
Morons. The lot should be put up against the wall.
Hold on. Only the CIA can do that now.
-
You are all wrong. The drought is caused by a HAARP attack by the PTB. They just switched it off because a huge storm is headed to the upper left coast.