California -Burning

[The Doctor]

Twain is right this time. Ca is in a massive drought, last year was really bad and this year looks grim.

I'm not arguing whether or not Californian is in a drought. Much of it is...



I'm taking issue with this moronic lie about what I have posted on the subject...

On the bright side, I you go back to the 2013 Debates in the 'Science' forum, we no longer have the paisley graph creator claiming that California will be lusher than Ireland' by 2014....

Even if the drought ended today, much of California needs more than 15" of rain just to get back to normal...

[Mystikeye]

I live in Santa Maria Cali and it is raining right now as I read this. We have been getting quite a bit of rain this year. But it was pretty bad the last 3 or so years needing rain.

[Bwaha]

Ah well 't' often 'misspeaks'. (washinton lingo.)

[The Doctor]

I live in Santa Maria Cali and it is raining right now as I read this. We have been getting quite a bit of rain this year. But it was pretty bad the last 3 or so years needing rain.

The recent rains have brought most of California into short-term balance...



The long-term recovery will require the ENSO to shift into an El Nińo-dominant phase.

[T. A. Gardner]

California's problems are in part makings of their own. Their extremist environmentalism has in part created the resulting conditions from this drought.

For example, California for decades relied on being able to buy much of Arizona's and Nevada's share of Colorado River water. Back in the late 80's, early 90's both states stopped selling to California due to increased need in their own state. California sued and went all the way to the Supreme Court only to be shot down. They lost and lost a major source of water for Southern California.

At the same time, environmentalists in California had all but entirely stopped allowing the state to build dams, reservoirs, or enlarge those in service making a shortage of water all but inevitable. Add in environmental laws that prevented good management of grasslands and such and you get massive wild fires from dry conditions.
Both Arizona and Nevada have far better management of their water resources than California. In the last couple of years the drought has eased some and it is really only California that is still suffering mainly because of California. Their needs for recovery are much greater because their incompetent management of water resources caused a greater drought condition in the state.

[Half Pint John]

California had all but entirely stopped allowing the state to build dams, reservoirs, or enlarge those in service making a shortage of water all but inevitable.

What good is increasing storage when your not getting a product to store? Blame Mother Nature, she doesn't care if your a libtard or a condumb

[The Doctor]

What good is increasing storage when your not getting a product to store? Blame Mother Nature, she doesn't care if your a libtard or a condumb

If they had enough rain, they wouldn't need dams, reservoirs and other methods of storing water. Southern California and the Central Valley have always needed additional water storage.

The 10 largest reservoirs in California, linchpins of the water system for 38 million people and the nation's largest farm economy, were all built between 1927 and 1979. Shasta Lake, the massive inland sea on the Sacramento River near Redding, was finished in 1945. Oroville, the tallest dam in the United States, at 770-feet high on the Feather River in Butte County, was started under Gov. Pat Brown's building boom in 1961 and finished in 1968.

The last huge reservoir built in California was New Melones, on the Stanislaus River in Calaveras County. Since the Army Corps of Engineers cut the ribbon on it in 1979, California has grown by 15 million people, the equivalent of adding everyone now living in Washington, Oregon and Nevada to the Golden State.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/c...build-big-dams

[T. A. Gardner]

What good is increasing storage when your not getting a product to store? Blame Mother Nature, she doesn't care if your a libtard or a condumb

Because, as Nevada and Arizona have shown increased storage mitigates the affects of a drought. Doing things like taking water from agriculture to "save" on tenuous (at best) evidence the Delta Smelt for example has destroyed much of the Imperial Valley and California's farming. Lack of dams on rivers does the same thing. It increases runoff while not providing for increased human growth and activity.

More water stored means better ability to make it through dry periods and mitigate the affects of wet ones. California's approach has been to be adverse to human activity in favor of nature and the end result has been disastrous on both.

Here in Arizona only the South Eastern corner of the state (headed up by Tucson the "Berkeley" of Arizona) has had serious drought issues. This is because Tucson and Pima County have followed the same ideas as California. They won't move to dam the San Pedro River or make any real attempts at artificial lakes, reservoirs, instead relying primarily on in place systems and "conservation." Tucson has finally taken steps to massively increase rainwater harvesting and retention recognizing their serious ground water recharge problems.

Phoenix has a series of massive lakes and dams on every river off the Mogolian Rim to supply much of the needed water supply. The CAP canal (the longest in the world now as it goes from the Colorado river to Tucson) supplies more water. SRP and other water providers are moving to cement and even cover every existing canal to limit water loss in transit.

Compare to the inaction of California...

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Ah well 't' often 'misspeaks'. (washinton lingo.)

Often'?

[marktwain]

Doctsalk 2013

Instead of lying about what I have posted, quote the post in which I supposedly claimed this.

THE DROUGHT OF THE CENTURY?

The historical drought trend (or lack thereof) indicates that we just had the worst drought in a bit over 10 years (not 100) and that droughts of this severity occur about once every 8 years.

The drought of 2012 was pretty bad, about as bad as the droughts of 2000-2001, 1988, 1981, 1963, 1940, 1925, 1917 and 1910… But not nearly as bad as the protracted droughts of 1953-1956 and 1933-1936. And there is no increasing trend of drought severity or decreasing trend in precipitation over the last 117 years. We're less than 2 months into 2013... The drought status of the year won't be known for months.
How'd that work out??

[T. A. Gardner]

THE DROUGHT OF THE CENTURY?

The historical drought trend (or lack thereof) indicates that we just had the worst drought in a bit over 10 years (not 100) and that droughts of this severity occur about once every 8 years.

The drought of 2012 was pretty bad, about as bad as the droughts of 2000-2001, 1988, 1981, 1963, 1940, 1925, 1917 and 1910… But not nearly as bad as the protracted droughts of 1953-1956 and 1933-1936. And there is no increasing trend of drought severity or decreasing trend in precipitation over the last 117 years. We're less than 2 months into 2013... The drought status of the year won't be known for months.
How'd that work out??

On the Progressive Left "ancient history" is something that happened like last month or something...

[The Doctor]

THE DROUGHT OF THE CENTURY?

The historical drought trend (or lack thereof) indicates that we just had the worst drought in a bit over 10 years (not 100) and that droughts of this severity occur about once every 8 years.

The drought of 2012 was pretty bad, about as bad as the droughts of 2000-2001, 1988, 1981, 1963, 1940, 1925, 1917 and 1910… But not nearly as bad as the protracted droughts of 1953-1956 and 1933-1936. And there is no increasing trend of drought severity or decreasing trend in precipitation over the last 117 years. We're less than 2 months into 2013... The drought status of the year won't be known for months.
How'd that work out??

Lying about the context of a post is still lying. This is how you quote posts...

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...l_drought.html

the NOAA predictions are in for the spring of 2013 - a Wet spring for the Eastern half of th e United states- presistance & developing drought for theSouth West/ Central west...
How are you affected?

An' just WOT sort of Farmer are you,NAOW, i ASK?

ACTUALLY ,IT IS A PRETTY MAJOR EVENT- THE DROUGHT OF THE CENTURY.

No fodder, no cavalry horse.. no artillery teams-
No malting barley

It's politics because of ludicrous claims like this...


THE DROUGHT OF THE CENTURY?

The historical drought trend (or lack thereof) indicates that we just had the worst drought in a bit over 10 years (not 100) and that droughts of this severity occur about once every 8 years.

The drought of 2012 was pretty bad, about as bad as the droughts of 2000-2001, 1988, 1981, 1963, 1940, 1925, 1917 and 1910… But not nearly as bad as the protracted droughts of 1953-1956 and 1933-1936. And there is no increasing trend of drought severity or decreasing trend in precipitation over the last 117 years. We're less than 2 months into 2013... The drought status of the year won't be known for months.


No trend in drought severity or precipitation since 1895. Source: NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp

That thread was not about the current California drought. My post was not about the California drought. This was about overall US drought conditions.

And this is still a bald-faced lie...

On the bright side, I you go back to the 2013 Debates in the 'Science' forum, we no longer have the paisley graph creator claiming that California will be lusher than Ireland' by 2014....

[Arnold J Rimmer]

As a battle of wits, this lacks suspense.

One side is unarmed.

[marktwain]

THE DOC GOES= "SOCIALSIT'

You appear to be increasingly frustrated, Davey, by your inability to get me to shovel your 2013 turkeysquaddle.

You just have to do your own shifting of your previous bombastic tub thumps.

theres no "free lunch".

[Half Pint John]

Because, as Nevada and Arizona have shown increased storage mitigates the affects of a drought. Doing things like taking water from agriculture to "save" on tenuous (at best) evidence the Delta Smelt for example has destroyed much of the Imperial Valley and California's farming. Lack of dams on rivers does the same thing. It increases runoff while not providing for increased human growth and activity.

More water stored means better ability to make it through dry periods and mitigate the affects of wet ones. California's approach has been to be adverse to human activity in favor of nature and the end result has been disastrous on both.

Here in Arizona only the South Eastern corner of the state (headed up by Tucson the "Berkeley" of Arizona) has had serious drought issues. This is because Tucson and Pima County have followed the same ideas as California. They won't move to dam the San Pedro River or make any real attempts at artificial lakes, reservoirs, instead relying primarily on in place systems and "conservation." Tucson has finally taken steps to massively increase rainwater harvesting and retention recognizing their serious ground water recharge problems.

Phoenix has a series of massive lakes and dams on every river off the Mogolian Rim to supply much of the needed water supply. The CAP canal (the longest in the world now as it goes from the Colorado river to Tucson) supplies more water. SRP and other water providers are moving to cement and even cover every existing canal to limit water loss in transit.

Compare to the inaction of California...

Little snow pack and no rain. Your talking out of your condumb ass. You cannot save what you don't get. Very simple. Why cannot you get a hold of that idea.