Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
San Diego is a sea port.
Where are you going to capture and impound all that water at?
Build barges in the ocean?
Glad you asked! I think I posted it previously in this thread, but I'll post it again. This is how:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQrZtG-LVg
How effectively surface runoff can be captured and stored is completely an issue of topology and geology.
Not completely. there are other issues, such as time for absorption.
A good contrast are the San Gabriel and Los Angeles river drainage's.
Almost none of the water (relatively speaking)that falls on the San Gabriel drainage ends up in the ocean. Since it sits on a huge alluvial fan it's perfect for capturing all of it and settling it down into the aquifer.
the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles river drainage is geologically completely different. (it wouldn't make any difference as far as water capture and storage if all the concrete was removed.)
There's no way to get the water into the aquifer and most of it ends up in the ocean.
Great example! Although totally wrong. the San Fernando Valley is the home of one of the largest aquifers in the state. Over 500 million acre feet, enough water for LA for 5 years. The soil is PERFECT for absorption. Two problems: the surface has largely been covered with impermeable surfaces. The water can't get there, and has been shunted into the LA river for removal to the ocean. The second is that a large part of the aquifer is contaminated, predominantely from aerospace industry. It's being cleaned up.
The issue is not one of geology, it is an issue of politics and money (and isn't that how we spell W-A-T-E-R in Ca?) The San Gabriel Valley has spent the money and built the infrastructure to capture the water. LA has not.
I actually sit on the committee that is involved in changing the water policy, and it is an exciting time!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Ah, NO!
Just because modern humans here in Cali have not experienced the reality of a true mega drought of 25-30 years or more that have and do occur regularly, does not mean they are NOT the norm.
As the studies clearly indicate, the past century was an atypical WET period and was NOT the norm for this region.
You all are using a time frame (135 or so years) which includes the atypical wet period as the norm. That period is miniscule compared to the Big Picture in time that in reality includes long extended period mega droughts that are the norm.
Sorry Chef,
you keep repeating yourself without making a point.
No one disputes the history of water that you are presenting. But you then go on to present that it therefore, is not a problem.
What you ignore is that in your historical setting, there are many tens of millions of people, many cities, one of the breadbaskets of the planet, even the state of California missing. None of it was here.
The relative lack of water has relatively little impact, when few people live in an area. Sadly, not so when it has been occupied by millions
Perhaps you are pining for the days when the deer and the antelope wandered downtown LA. Or no white men lived in Bishop. Pine away.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
The biggest buck deer I ever saw, judging by the size of its rack, was in the city of L.A. In Griffith Park, between the Observatory and the Greek Theatre.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
The number of Cal Fire involved fires 2013 calendar year was about 475. The prior year was zero.
not sure where you got your information, but 2012 saw plenty of Cal Fire involved fires.
That would be California Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird, April 4, 2014 in an inteview published in the San Diego Union Tribune. Perhaps the original statement should have included Mr. Laird's qualifier, "of any substance".
You look at the benchmarks — a year ago January we had zero fires of any substance that Cal Fire had to deal with. This year it was 473.
As to the rest of the commentary, I'll come back to it.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
Take your complaints up with Mr. Laird, (if you get some free time from cleaning toilets). What I can't understand is why he is in the position he is in rather than you, since you appear to be so much more knowlegdable.
How did you count over 10? Did you grow another hand out your ass?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
Write to Mr. Laird and inform him of your discovery. I'm sure he'll appreciate your facts more than anybody reading this thread.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
As I explained, the number of fires has more to do with lightning strikes, wind events, high temp days and spring rain for grass growth.
I have no idea where you guys are getting your information, plus I don't really understand how a fire is determined to be a cal fire or one of the other agencies that fight fires in California. From reading their website it says they protect state owned lands and private property. That leaves a lot of federal land and a lot of fires. Plus does a fire become run by one of the other agencies once it cross over onto national forest land or BLM land or National park land. How does that go into the statistics? I don't know.
This site says there were 7175 Cal fire incidents in 2013 and 4803 in 2012 with a 5 year average of 4851, I have no idea how to interpret that.
http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_stats?year=2013
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
Yes.. I understand that. My question was how they define a fire that starts out as theirs and moves to a combination federal response and cal fire response. They don't define their statistics on their website. At least I haven't been able to find it. For instance, on their own map they list fires that they say were not Cal Fire incidents, yet they responded. So the water is a bit murky.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
I found the article Zbrown posted. I don't' believe he is talking about incidents for an entire year. I believe he was talking about incidents in January of 2114, verses incidents in January of 2013. This year was so dry that there were fires when normally there aren't fires.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Apr/03/laird-water-drought-california/
I still haven't figured out how a fire is determined to be a Cal fire incident, or some other organization. There are fires that Cal Fire responded to that are and aren't Cal Fires, including fires that burned on both Cal Fire controlled land and on national forest or BLM land.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 6, 2014 - 07:25am PT
|
OFF TOPIC
California is rotten
Bluey,
Probably, but you will find lobbying and corruption in every state and country in the world. Just look at some of the stuff that has gone down here in Ireland, especially if Irish billionaire (who made his fortune via a brown envelope) Denis O'Brien is involved. The rich just keep getting richer and the poor just keep getting poorer (I include middle income in the latter group), usually with the help of corrupt officials.
In Transparency International's 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index, out of 177 countries the US came in at 74/100 on the index, ranked 19 (tied with Uruguay), Ireland came in at 21, and Canada tied at 9 with Australia. Denmark and New Zealand were tied at number 1 for being the cleanest of the 177.
Apologies for the thread drift.
Now back to playing Marco Polo, except there is no water in the pool.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
I found the article Zbrown posted. I don't' believe he is talking about incidents for an entire year. I believe he was talking about incidents in January of 2114, verses incidents in January of 2013. This year was so dry that there were fires when normally there aren't fires.
I assume that you mean 2014, not 2114, but your interpretation seems to say then that there were 473 in January of this year and zero in the prior year, which is even worse.
Mr. Laird's statement is not very clear, but that's why the chief is so important to the ST. He can figure out anything. Next time I'll read the article instead of relying on hearsay, or of course, I could just wait until tc reads, interprets and posts it.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
I assume that you mean 2014, not 2114,
Exactly.. I meant 2014
a year ago January we had zero fires of any substance that Cal Fire had to deal with. This year it was 473.
This is the quote I was working off of. I believe that He is talking about this years fires during January, versus last years fires during January. Normally things are too wet in January to have wild land fires. This year it was very dry.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
I'm anxiously (well not really) awaiting tc's interpretation of this data. Just more arsonists around when there is a drought that only exists in some folks' minds?
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
zbrown.
I think that use of the word drought is what the Chief is hung up on. His contention is that if the normal for this place is more drought like then is accepted, then what we are currently going through is normal, and thus not a drought, since by definition a drought is abnormally lower precipitation. Either way, whether we call it a drought or normal, it means less water and that is what we have to contend with.
The problem with the Chiefs point is that he seems to think that we will go back to wet, so why get up in arms. But if what he says is true that the normal is drier, then by average we should stay drier and not necessarily go back to a wetter period.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Looking at the rainfall-by-year graph posted earlier, it seems if California didn't have dry years periodically, something would be out of whack.
Everything in California runs on a boom-bust cycle.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
For the majority of the time the universe has been around, there has been no Solar System, no Earth, North America, no Sierra Nevada, no California, and certainly no climate in California. Therefore, the very existence of a climate here is abnormal. The only NORM for this location in the universe is apparently cosmic dust at ~3K.
I think I get what the chuff is going for here... complete avoidance of any societal responsibility through feigned knowledge of how the world works. By latching onto the tidbits of science that support his preferred state of apathy, while simultaneously disparaging the scientific framework that provided those tidbits, he is able to dupe himself into believing he has the inside scoop on what is really happening. He has apparently convinced himself that he is the only one who understands the complexity of the world around him... and nobody, not even the scientists who provided him with the long-term analysis of climate, can comprehend what he himself knows to be true. Since he is the only one who understands the world around him, and he sees no way to tackle the water shortage problem, there isn't a problem and there really is nothing anyone can do about it.
Fantastic!
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Oh come on chuff... we all know you can't trust peer reviewed literature... especially when it is related to climate change. The only thing we can trust is YOUR authoritative gut feeling. Maybe state leaders just need a retired Navy guy to tell them which peer reviewed studies to take seriously and which ones are part of a vast global conspiracy?
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
thanks for the explanation Chief. It makes sense to me. I haven't seen the studies, but I keep hearing about it.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
Wes, It depends on which government you mean. Local government versus state versus feds. Plus they may believe something, but haven't yet found the will to face it or know how to deal with it.
For instance, I would bet most people, including most people in the federal government believe that our tax code is messed up. But who has the will to deal with it. So things keep rolling along the way that they are. Messed up. The government may be starting to realize that we may have to deal with lower amounts of water, but do they have the will to do something about it, or the full realization of what this means? I don't know. Since I am new to this belief, I don't have an opinion. I haven't read up to see who believes what. The Chief talks about a study. I don't know if he means one study or what. I find that few things get changed on just one study. Especially something as large and complicated as California water supply.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!