Slashdot Mirror
188,000 Evacuated As California's Massive Oroville Dam Threatens Catastrophic Floods (washingtonpost.com)
Mr D from 63 quotes a report from The Washington Post: About 188,000 residents near Oroville, Calif., were ordered to evacuate Sunday after a hole in an emergency spillway in the Oroville Dam threatened to flood the surrounding area. Thousands clogged highways leading out of the area headed south, north and west, and arteries major and minor remained jammed as midnight approached on the West Coast -- though by early Monday, Lake Oroville's water level had dropped to a point at which water was no longer spilling over. The lake level reached its peak of 902.59 feet at about 3 a.m. Sunday and dropped to 898 feet by 4 a.m. Monday, according to the Sacramento Bee. Water flows over the emergency spillway at 901 feet. "The drop in the lake level was early evidence that the Department of Water Resources' desperate attempt to prevent a catastrophic failure of the dam's emergency spillway appeared to be paying dividends," the Bee reported Monday. Officials doubled the flow of water out of the nearly mile-long primary spillway to 100,000 cubic feet per second. The normal flow is about half as much, but increased flows are common at this time of year, during peak rain season, officials said. But water officials warned that damaged infrastructure could create further dangers as storms approach in the week ahead, and it remained unclear when residents might be able to return to their homes.
Now it's time for Water World!
When I walked into a coffee shop in Palo Alto before 7AM this morning, people were sitting down or standing up while watching the local news about the dam.
Question: Which energy technology has displaced the most people from their homes and villages, has rendered the most land uninhabitable by humans as well as all native plants and animals, and has killed thousands of square miles of animal and plant life?
Answer: Hydro of course. Everyone's favorite renewable. The source so many countries credit for high renewable percentages.
Other interestig tidbits: Deforestation due to hydro results is reduced carbon sequestration. Also, decay of plant material under hyrdo reseviors and active aquatic microbial digestion is a source of added methane emmissions. Studies show these emissions may be quite high.
I think Hyrdo is a great power source. But nothing comes without trade-offs. I think most here are willing to trade off the things I listed above for the benefits of hydro.
This dam is primarily for water supply, the hydroelectric aspect is secondary.
considering the state is in a drought half the time. If only there was a way to build a wall or something to hold the water until it was needed.
That does not negate any of his points.
They are fixing the blister on the emergency spillway as we speak and they are able to drain off excess water on the main spillway for now. The coming week of rain will be the test, but as long as they're able to fix the blister there's really no risk of the damn "failing catastrophically" - and if the blister were to erode the emergency spillway completely leading to an uncontrollable deluge, while VERY BAD, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the dam failing. Basically it's under control unless xyz happens, which is why they're continuing the evacuation because they can't be 100% certain, and if it did happen, it would happen quickly.
If I were a betting man I'd put all monies on the dam being just fine. They initially thought the spillway was going to slough off completely. It's not going to.
I was watching last week when the bad cracks in primary spillway gave way and limited its use. Of course, that didn't stop Governor Moonbeam last night, who finally addressed the issue at 11pm over a week after we knew this was going to be a problem, from playing politics and blaming global warming. The requirements for the dam were created in the late 1950's, and this hasn't exceeded the design capacity of the dam. The problem is that the damaged spillway can't be used at full capacity because of bad maintenance. Well, maybe even that isn't a strong enough term since the last time the spillway was inspected it was done visually at a distance.
The dam is for water management first, electrical power generation second, and flood control third. You can concern troll about hydro if you want, but it's mostly inappropriate here.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
except that this area has always had a good amount of water, which is WHY they put the dam there in the first place... Ca has had record rainfall esp that area which is WHY it is overflowing, but don't let facts interfere...
So you're saying overfilled reservoirs due to massive rainfall is "what you get" when living in a desert? Sounds good to me.
It's interesting that everyone's trying to put a political spin on this, and finger pointing is starting.
First, T supporters say T should only give emergency assistance if CA swears away from "sanctuary cities". CA's response is that CA has always paid into the fed just like every other state, and that one political issue shouldn't be used as a threat against another.
Second, is the reason for not preventing this. There was concern of weakness in the dam's overflow systems going back years. Different experts gave different opinions. It seems it was on the borderline of being problematic, at least on paper. If it's only on the borderline of being a problem, then expensive fixes tend to get ignored.
It may also be a case of "cascading failure" whereby the backup (overflow handling) failed, and then the secondary backup also failed. Sometimes bleep just happens under extreme weather. Other CA damns and water systems held up; the chance of all them working perfectly is slim. If you have hundreds of water systems, at least a few will have notable problems during heavy rains just out of shear probability.
Large dams are probably a thing of the past, in part because they are a single big point of failure, and in part because they screw up the existing state of nature. Smaller sub-dams are the preferred way now, if any. But we still have to maintain the big old ones because many existing dwellings and roads rely on them to work.
Table-ized A.I.
I just wanted to post some info before everyone spins this as a partisan failure of one sort or another.
1) The dam was built and is owned by California.
2) California was warned about the potential problem (the one we are currently seeing) in 2005.
3) In 2005, as part of the federal re-licensing procedure for the dam, several groups urged federal officials to require that the dam’s [earthwork] emergency spillway be upgraded to concrete. The federal government declined.
4) The dam was built at a time when requirements were less strict in comparison to today's standards. The dam foundations were dug down to "weathered" rock, which is less structurally sound than "bedrock".
And finally,
5) As much as people feel the need for karma or justice or revenge or whatever, we DO NOT punish people's lives and homes over partisan bullshit. The federal government should (and most probably will) assist in any way that they can to help avoid a disaster.
As has been pointed out by many people, California spent several billions of dollars on the hyperloop while letting this particular bit of infrastructure upgrade get ignored. Both California and the Federal government (viz: the licensing mentioned above) can share the blame for this.
It's another Katrina-like situation: both governments (Cali and Federal) were warned, did nothing, and now it's an emergency.
Also of note, and I'm trying to look at the big picture here and not point fingers, it's been pointed out that the infrastructure in our country has been neglected for a long time (especially roads, bridges, and the electrical grid), and we really need to start fixing up things.
Fixing our infrastructure was one of the campaign promises of the party in power, perhaps this will galvanize them to action.
You have no idea how big California is or how many biomes it spans, do you?
Well, yeah it does because the main reasons the dam was built was to provide a water supply and flood control.
Without dams California would see the repeat of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862
It would forcefully displace much more people, wildlife, etc and cause much greater damage than few inconveniences such as a village or "wildlife habitat" displacement at the reservoir site.
First, Oroville, California, gets 52 inches of rain per year. NOT a desert.
According to US climate data 30.7 inches of precipitation per year
http://www.usclimatedata.com/c...
which is about 20% less than the national average
https://rainfall.weatherdb.com...
Still: not a desert.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It actually does negate most of Mr. D's point -- Mr. D suggested that there are alternatives worth considering for hydro power to avoid the eco damage. He's right about that. But there is no alternative to storing water. You either dam the water up somewhere so that you have it available during droughts or you don't. And water takes up space.
Big infrastructure projects like general dam shoring-up are NOT "shovel ready"; they can take years to ramp up due to engineering studies, land studies, and procurement steps. (In an emergency, it may have to be quick, but obviously that's difficult to budget for.)
This is one reason why Obama's stimulus had relatively few big infrastructure projects in it. Economists suggested based on past data, mostly from Japan, that stimuluses have to launch pretty quick to be effective.
Instead, the Democrats elected to mostly shore up state funds for teachers and first-responders because that gets used more quickly, being many states were planning on chopping staff due to recession-related budget cuts.
Table-ized A.I.
I don't know what rock you've been living under. For years, client scientists have been saying that AGW will bring about more droughts and more floods. Those two items are in no way mutually exclusive.
Guess how many of these quickly build damn dams exist in California.
The next 160 year cycle of Pineapple Express mega-floods is due in 2022. Geologists know the cycles from core sediments, which are indisputable.
Can they retrofit dams in time? Will they even try? Will it make any difference if they do retrofit? Will any bureaucrat get fired? I am betting NO.
Do the dam and water engineers already acknowledge this and the bureaucracy keep quiet on it, just like at Oriville Dam?
Didn't they try that "shovel ready" stuff about 8 years ago? About the only thing I saw was a few roads that didn't need resurfacing were resurfaced with some kind of pork.
California probably pays for a lot of infrastructure in your state, so you might want to think twice about that statement.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Anytime you put more energy into a closed system, the number of possible states increases.
So does Mr. Peabody, but he recently declared bankruptcy.
What percentage of climate change is due, solely, to fossil fuel burning? We all agree that the number is less than %100, but what is it?
How much area, in square kilometers or whatever area unit you wish to use, has been affected by climate change so that people have been displaced?
Until you can answer those two questions, you have no place in this discussion -- your assertion is little more than mere conjecture.
sig: sauer
I have an idea!
Why don't we put all the water back into the aquifers we've been taking it out of, instead of letting it out, and down to the pacific?
What a lamentable situation! If only someone could invent something to do that!
Oh. Wait. They did. In 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1992, though, was 25 years ago.
What a lamentable situation! If only a millennial could reinvent old technology in ignorance, thinking it was new, to do that!
Didn't they try that "shovel ready" stuff about 8 years ago? About the only thing I saw was a few roads that didn't need resurfacing were resurfaced with some kind of pork.
The stimulus wasn't big enough to make a meaningful impact. It should have been two to three times larger. Most of the states spent the money on other things like paying down their debts than infrastructure projects. For what little it did, it was better than nothing.
Well, that's just fucking delusional.
Try actually reading & understanding the second paragraph.
Even though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability, the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising because of climate change.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
"You are mistaken. Climate change due to fossil fuel is blamed for ALL displacements of people for weather events like flood and drought." That distinction is critical, and not maintaining the distinction is intellectually dishonest. History is full of records dating back thousands of years describing floods and droughts which caused mass migration, famine, and all of the illness that comes with those things. Those are not from "fossil fuel", but normal natural events.
Rational discussion with people who are intellectually dishonest is a fruitless pursuit, which is why there are so many fervent skeptics. Passing blame and claiming everyone should pay taxes with no plan of action has resulted in absolutely no progress on real issues from Fossil fuels, like pollution. The barrage of appeals to emotion and "nuh uh" responses get us nowhere.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Most of the nations food can be easily grown in the midwest.
If you want tomatoes in January, you aren't going to get them from the Midwest. You also aren't going to get grapes, almonds, or a wide range of vegetables. You will get sweet corn in July and August, and nothing the other 10 months.
The #2 state for agriculture is Texas, #3 is Iowa. In dollar value, California produces more than both of those combined.
If the levee breaks and washes away the legislature in Sacramento is that carbon positive, neutral, or negative? What about the snail darter and silvery minnow?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Yep. So, why worry about flooding, if we are in the middle of a drought — made worse by Trump and his Nazis?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
New and shiny will always attract funding. Old and boring, not so much.^W^W^W^W^W^W^W Corrupt politicians don't care about people once elected, they care about more power.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Not really anything to do with hydro though, is it?
The dam was built to manage the water supply and prevent flooding. They just added hydro as a nice bonus because why not make use of all that free energy? It wasn't build for hydro, it was built for water management.
It's like blaming radios for car accident deaths because many of the cars involved happen to have them. Banning hydro wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, the dam would have been built anyway. And even if this dam didn't have hydro, it would still have failed in exactly the same way.
Besides which, few places are building new hydro dams because most of the places where a dam is beneficial already have them. Small scale hydro perhaps, but it's mostly wind and solar and some geothermal now. Oh, and tidal of course.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As far as I know, the Banqiao Dam was build for flood control.
Wasn't long ago you were crying for water. Now you got it.
I love it when people demand citations, but post none of their own.
Ah, the Ukrainian dumbass is back. Now he is too stupid to realise that a drought in one place doesn't mean a drought elsewhere. Let ke explain it so you can understand: Frankfurt am Main is on the roughly same latitude as Kharkov, but when they had -20 degrees Celsius and a shitload of snow, we had +8 and a drizzle, which is, by the way, not how a winter is supposed to be in Germany. It has been years since we had snow for longer than a couple of days. Last January I saw birds trying to find food for their chicks. In January. That is global warming, dumbass.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
When the Banqiao dam system failed in 1975, killing 230,000, the hydro lobby's excuse was that because Chinese dams were built to different design standards from the US, such an accident could never happen here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But this failure of a modern American design means that the hydro lobby has finally run out of excuses. No matter how up-to-date the design, no dam is walkaway safe. No large project can be built without the possibility of corner-cutting by some person at some time. Some of this country's largest dams are approaching 80 years of age, and there are no provisions for dealing with the costs of eventual decommissioning. And after all these years, nobody knows how to deal with the increasing amount of leftover silt.
Really? Hoover did a HUUUUGE stimulus program. It didn't work.
.... the Booming 20s and the Booming 80s.
Japan's been doing stimulus projects for 20+ years and still have not recovered.
However Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan cut spending and
Hmmm. Maybe if Hoover didn't go the stimulus route, and if the western Democracies didn't start trades wars the the 30s depression would have been simply a downturn.
The point is that gov't spending is not necessarily the answer to all our problems. In fact -- it can be the cause of future problems.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Also, decay of plant material under hyrdo reseviors and active aquatic microbial digestion is a source of added methane emmissions. Studies show these emissions may be quite high.
No headlines make these emissions sound "quite high" relative to every other energy source they're in-line with solar and wind. They aren't perfect, but they aren't worse than fossil fuels by a factor of 10.
Nice little racist a$$h0le comment there.
And no. We're not going to pick up shovels. This is the fu(king 21st century. We have things called bulldozers and backhoes and dump trucks. You can keep your fu(king shovels.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
This comment is what you get when you have a very poor understanding of geography.
CA is large. Only parts of it are desert.
Nations that spent more on stimulus had slower recoveries. But it hard to find a true apples to apples comparison.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Regardless of the cause, the task for us now is certainly to tear down and replace this dam. Not a problem, an opportunity to see what we can do better this time. Spend the money, endure the inconvenience, pay the price and get the job done.
Answer: Hydro of course. Everyone's favorite renewable. The source so many countries credit for high renewable percentages.
It's not everyone's favorite renewable, environmentalists hate it. It's basically impossible to build a new dam in California because of it. San Francisco decided against draining Hetch Hetchy because they were afraid environmentalists would prevent them from filling it again.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Electricity is dangerous. I've seen video of Edison killing elephants just by touching them with wires!
Actually all points against hydro you make are wrong: ...
A) the energy source with the most devestating loss of land is nuclear energy, due to open pit mining of uranium. Oh! That does not happen in your country but in another country far far away
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
C) while methan is released (and a given size of methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbondioxide) the methan is destroyed by UV rays and dimishes rather quickly ... in other words the livestock we breed increases the total amount of CH4 in the atmosphere, but it is not a growing effect, it is static. Every belch or poop they make is sooner or later disintegrated by UV radiation. Or to explain it in other words: putting CO2 into the atmosphere will increase the percentage of CO2 untill we stop doing it. Having simple CH4 sources like a random hydro plant (you kno wit does stop its ill habit after all the sunken green stuff has rotted, right?) or a certain amount of lifestock only increase the 'constant level' ... it basically is in an equilibrium of decay of 'old' CH4 and newly produced one.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ok, post your citations demonstrating that the predictions have not come true. All you need is
A link to the published prediction
A link to confirmation of the prediction not coming true.. Outside, say, 20% of the predicted value (if quantifiable)
The two links must be published at least several years apart. Inaccurately predicting tomorrow's weather does not count.
The prediction must be marginally useful.
Read? Set! Go!
I've seen you do this before. I'm not wasting my time going down your semantic rat hole.
The preconceived conclusions are so thoroughly baked in to your reactionary mind that there is no possible external input of information from the real world that could ever cause you to admit that you're wrong.
Also, decay of plant material under hyrdo reseviors and active aquatic microbial digestion is a source of added methane emmissions. Studies show these emissions may be quite high.
No headlines make these emissions sound "quite high" relative to every other energy source they're in-line with solar and wind. They aren't perfect, but they aren't worse than fossil fuels by a factor of 10.
Actually we don't have the data yet to make those claims. Also, if you just look at electrical generation sources you get a different balance as much fossil fuel burning is for transportation and other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The point is that gov't spending is not necessarily the answer to all our problems. In fact -- it can be the cause of future problems.
We needed infrastructure spending eight year ago after the economy cratered. Republicans gave Obama the bum rush. Now Trump is proposing $1T in infrastructure projects and $20B for THE WALL at a time when the economy doesn't need government intervention. The same Republican leadership will probably rubberstamp his executive orders without a second thought about the national debt.
Hydro means water, I guess you know this. It is greek.
Your post would make much more sense if you would add the missing word you are talking about.
Obviously considring the context of the post, the parent etc. we know the missing word is 'power' ...
Just saying.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Even reservoirs made for other purposes have the same impact. Not sure why you didn't catch on to that.
In the event that you didn't know there are 5 vineyards within an hour drive from my home in Kansas. California's growing seasons span the year round at least in some parts where as Iowa is 6-7 months of the year so I'm not surprised it produces almost twice as much.
no clue what last year was but heres 2015...
https://data.ers.usda.gov/repo...
A) Don't just make stuff up. Hydro surface area globally is approx 30,000 sq miles. Nothing you mention even comes close to that.
B) Forests hold a set amount of CO2 at any given time, but that is released and no longer held. Forests are important for CO2 control. What worse is that what would be CO2 release is now release as methane from decay.
C) Methane is considered one of the most potent greenhouse gasses. Much more than CO2
the main reasons the dam was built was to provide a water supply and flood control.
Well which was it? Water supply would mean you'd keep it as full as possible. Flood control means the opposite. Given what's going on, i.e., worse flooding than if the dam hadn't been there, even if it doesn't fail, it's fairly clear that flood control was given almost zero priority in operating this dam.
Climate change was never going to produce never-ending drought. It will cause longer, more severe droughts and more flooding when it does rain. The people who "believed the lie" understand this. You don't.
That's why scientists changed from "global warming" to "climate change". Too many morons were unwilling to get beyond "duh! It was cold today".
At least the people of Oroville got a warning.... :P
Nations that spent more on stimulus had slower recoveries.
Spending cuts in Europe extended the Great Recession there. That almost happened in the U.S. despite repeated attempts by Republicans to sabotage the economy. Things would have turned out quite differently if the Republicans put the country first and cooperated with Obama.
Do you not understand the word 'variability'?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Exact? No. How about ballpark-range?
sig: sauer
EVERYTHING is consistent with CAGW, so we all must believe in it for many more decades. And since the science is settled, we can cut funding by 90% and retrain climate scientists to work in engineering and manufacturing for solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
Until you can learn to communicate in a post-elementary-school-playground manner, neither do you.
It certainly does if you're trying to ascertain whether fossil fuel burning has caused enough climate change to displace people, as the OP asserted.
Your hypothetical interview scenario is moot and useless. Calculation of population displacement due to climate change would never be based on interviews -- it would be linked directly to (habitable land mass before change) - (habitable land mass after change).
Protip: Use more logic and reason, and less emotion when composing your arguments.
sig: sauer
For years, client scientists have been saying that AGW will bring about more droughts and more floods.
The question this brings to mind is "who's clients are the scientists?"
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Reagan cut taxes and _increased_ gov't spending. The result (unsurprisingly) was a boom economy, and growth in the national debt. IJS.
Wikipedia:
"Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
-- "Oh. This guy again."
"Worse flooding"
Where? Point me at the flooding downstream of the dam.
Yeah, with scurvy and rickets.
Both predictions have not failed. As your parents pointed out.
If you need links then I suggest to use google or offer some money, I'm not doing 'work' for you for free that you could do your own.
Surprising that you are running around in the world and can not be bothered to notice what is happening around you.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No it is not weather, because:
A) it happens every year since decades, but 20 to 30 years go we had winters like you have, hint: latitude
B) the birds are supposed to have flown south, as they used to do when we had real winters
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Question:
Which energy source has provided the greatest increase in fresh water living habitat for increasingly endangered freshwater wildlife.
Which energy source is second only to nuclear in minimising deaths per gwh in the US?
Which energy source is renewable, zero emissions, and can provide controllable baseload energy?
Which energy source is able to efficiently store energy by reverse operation?
Which energy source has saved countless lives through its ability to prevent flooding?
Which energy source can transfer winter excess fresh water supply in to much needed summer water supply?
But no, a minor number of people relocated (something we tend to do naturally quite often anyway) and a microscopic amount of animals doing the same
are the big concern!
Oh, and you are dead wrong on the your methane also, but nice attempt with the 'might'. its almost as if you dont know that normal land with mammals
living on it also produce methane, and that lake bottoms are notoriously anaerobic..
Bullshit.
The EU spent _more_ on stimulus than the USA. Much much more, if you include all the money flushed down Greece.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Hm.. No. I don't believe this. I do believe that money was never spent on critical projects such as regular and on going maintenance of core infrastructure that California needs to survive. Rather the people of California would rather spend their money on trains between wealthy areas.
It's a reservoir to hold water long-term and supply it as-needed. During heavy rains, it fills to avoid flooding downstream since the rain will supply the water necessary. During the dry season, water is released downstream for supply.
There is a separate mechanism that releases water when the reservoir gets full. There's only so much flood protection you can provide with a fixed-size reservoir and massive rainfall.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Oh, and you are dead wrong on the your methane also, but nice attempt with the 'might'. its almost as if you dont know that normal land with mammals living on it also produce methane, and that lake bottoms are notoriously anaerobic..
You didn't even try to check, did you? Here is one source of many.
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
Bullshit.
The Europe Union had a policy of austerity that reduced expenses.
The EU spent _more_ on stimulus than the USA. Much much more, if you include all the money flushed down Greece.
Never mind that all the money that went into Greece repaid the bonds and loans held by the European Union.
Question: Which energy technology has displaced the most people from their homes and villages, has rendered the most land uninhabitable by humans as well as all native plants and animals, and has killed thousands of square miles of animal and plant life?
Large amounts of energy are inherently dangerous. It doesn't matter what form. To be safe, a power source should:
1. be distibuted
2. be diverse
3. have redundancy
"With great power comes great responsibility."
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
It's no one's favorite renewable. It impacts too much, hell just look at the columbia and snake and the disasterous impact on historically important fisheries.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
If it will make you feel any better, just imagine that beavers did it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
An emergency spillway test is a destructive test. And a failed test could mean a 30' wall of water heading downstream.
Both good reasons to engineer a solution and not give it a real life test.
Scientists rarely use stock photos of any kind in their publications, so you're not responding, just insinuating and deflecting.
I already feel good about Hydro power. I can accept all those impacts.
A) it does not matter, hydro plants or instalations dont destroy anything. ... regardless of its stronger greenhouse gas effect than CO2!
B) forests, as the wood living three hold CO2 in the sense that trees are mostly contain C (and water), but killing a continent of trees only releases CO2 equivalent to that amount if wood, and jas no further impact on the CO2 balance of the planet.
C) learn to read. CH4 decays, unlike CO2. So if we produce suddenly a lot of CH4 we only have a temporary problem. It is not a long term problem like CO2. As long as we have no runaway effect as in perma frost melting or other scenarios where an uncontrollable unmeasureable amount of CH4 suddenly bursts into the atmosphere, it does not matter at all if we convert a wood into CH4
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There's actually 2 things going on.
The existing spillway is made of concrete, and suffered some structural damage.
Here is an image of the damage, from a couple of days ago, and here is that same spillway today.
The lower half of the spillway is probably completely gone. The raging water might erode up to the level of the dam, but that's not likely.
The actual problem was the emergency spillway, which is an earthen bank to the left (looking up to the dam) of the regular spillway.
You can see the damage in this image. Note that one of the eroded canyons reaches almost up to the level of the water.
If the erosion had reached the emergency spillway it would have burst, releasing a whole lot of water downstream.
Here's a closeup, and note the middle lower portion of the image. We were that close to a breech.
That didn't happen, and the waters are now below emergency levels.
However, the situation is rather precarious and the emergency spillway could still burst. There's still a lot of water still coming in to the reservoir, which is being frantically lowered.
(And yes, I wrote "Hyperloop" when I meant "High Speed Rail" above.)
A) They destroyed forests and animal habitat when they were built. (I guess you realized your mining point was stupid and unsubstantive) B) If vegetation didn't hold carbon, we wouldn't have coal today. C) Methane is a big concern of climate scientists, so go argue with them. You can ignore it here if you like, but don't go off spouting about cow farts and such when that topic comes up, nor methane releases from fracking.
Yeah, because it makes tons of sense to grow monsoon crops in a fucking arid zone.
Most of the water problems are created by stupidity.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Actually, the northeast corner (Susanville area) is a desert too. It's basically a piece of Nevada mistakenly placed in California.
This space intentionally left blank
The spillway failed due to a construction issue. Had it not failed, its capacity would have been adequate.
I believe you are confusing the [concrete] regular spillway with the [earthen] emergency spillway.
The concrete spillway is gone, but this doesn't seem to be a safety issue.
The earthen emergency spillway eroded almost all the way back to the berm, which would have resulted in a dam breech. That's what everyone is worried about.
I posted an update response above, with images.
Do we also need to get it notarized by God and submit it while rubbing our bellies, patting our heads and hopping on one foot?
Would you actually accept that or would you just punt saying lucky guess.
Perhaps you don't pay attention to the news, but Ca has indeed experienced an extended drought and is now seeing floods. Sorry, but nobody was able to predict the rainfall down to the mm.
Weather in a lot of places has been getting steadily stranger.
If you want tomatoes in January,
You can them like we have been doing for a while. People lived and ate food in the midwest year round long before we got food from CA.
I think Hyrdo is a great power source. But nothing comes without trade-offs. I think most here are willing to trade off the things I listed above for the benefits of hydro.
Agree but...Fresh drinking water is and will always be the most precious commodity on this planet.
You just didn't comprehend.
How many people are living at the bottom of Lake Roosevelt, in it's 400 square kilometer footprint? A lake that is entirely man-made by the Grand Coulee Dam in eastern Washington state. How many squirrels, sword ferns, and fir trees? Zero. There's even pictures of the last tree in the reservoir zone being cut down. Also in the zone: eleven towns, two railroads, three state highways, about one hundred and fifty miles of country roads, four sawmills, fourteen bridges, four telegraph and telephone systems, and many power lines and cemeteries. All facilities had to be purchased or relocated, and 3,000 residents were relocated.
However, how much energy do we harvest from this one dam on the mighty Columbia river? 6,800 MW. It's the largest generating station in the United States. And there's 10 more dams downriver that also generate power besides this one, and three more upriver in Canada.
Hydroelectric does have it's costs, and they often get whitewashed away.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Well which was it? Water supply would mean you'd keep it as full as possible
In most years you can do both, because you can collect the rainwater and release it at a reasonable rate into the river instead of all at once during a storm, and you can also collect the water for water supply and still have enough.
This year has been unusually wet, and has overflowed the dam despite a moderate water release.
In periods of extreme drought, it's insufficient for water supply, though it works pretty well as flood control.
The reason they're saying the hydro downsides don't apply is because it has little to do with hydro power. The storage and damming is going to happen regardless, because having water supply is going to outweigh any other type of consideration. If you can get the hydro power for free, then you have no reason to not do it except for spite. But you can't blame the downsides of damming on hydro power if damming will happen with or without power generation.
What does safety have to do with "dirty"?
And the dam was built for flood control, not power, the power was just added later, because they could.
Learn to love Alaska
Did you forget about the 1997 flood already?
Scientists rarely use stock photos of any kind in their publications, so you're not responding, just insinuating and deflecting.
My beef is not with scientists, but with the political screech owls who write scare articles that purport to interpret science. Isaac Asimov they're not, just hacks whose whole agenda is to insinuate and deflect.
"Given what's going on" ... implies something about current flooding, not flooding 20 years ago.
The massive inflows of water into Lake Oroville in late 1996, coupled with massive rain all over the region lead to widespread flooding. I'm not sure how much of that flooding was just from releases from Lake Oroville and I'm not sure how someone can conclude that if the dam wasn't there the water flow would have been any less.
That a dam offers flood control doesn't mean it is able to prevent all flooding and it doesn't mean that if a flood occurs it is due to a failure of the dam to provide flood control.
But I'm open to data that shows that if the dam hadn't been in place that flooding would have been less severe.
This is not symmetrical — what you demand is that I prove a negative. It is equivalent to demanding from a man claiming to be single an affidavit from every woman, stating, she is not his wife.
There are plenty of patently failed predictions by Climate Scientists, but that does not prove, none have come true. All you need to prove me wrong is find a couple of successful ones. And yet, you can't...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There, there. That's how logical people win arguments — even while losing the popular vote.
OMG! "Reactionary"?!? That takes me back to my childhood in the USSR — with weekly denunciations of "reactionary" capitalist oppressors in school...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In the 20+ years since "Global Warming" became "a thing", there should by now be plenty of successful predictions. If you can cite just 3, I'll concede, that the discipline is not entirely hopeless.
Both happened before — and I do offer citations.
Yeah, and asteroids are passing closer and closer more and more often — must be all of that bovine meteorism (pun intended).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
what you demand is that I prove a negative.
Nope. I am not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking for citations where the predictions were way off.
There are plenty of patently failed predictions by Climate Scientists
Yet you've provided zero. Odd.
All you need to prove me wrong is find a couple of successful ones
Nope. If you actually believe in science, I have to provide you with successful ones that survived peer review and replication in order to begin to "prove" climate change.
Instead, I'm asking for the evidence behind your assertion, that climate scientists have repeatedly been waaaay off in their predictions.
It's nearly a gigawatt of power production and it's also used in pumped storage
Sounds rather co equal.
So, you're admitting that there is no way to know that anyone has been displaced due to the burning of fossil fuels. Yet, you're arguing for the validity of making that very assertion. Now, who's the idiot?
sig: sauer
If you want tomatoes in January,
You can them like we have been doing for a while. People lived and ate food in the midwest year round long before we got food from CA.
Sounds like you solved the problem. A nice labor intensive crop like that will be picked by proud and employed American workers, leading us to greatness again.
So why are they not doing exactly that now? Not only will the heartland rise up making America Productive and great again, but they will help to crush the communist state of California, which despite it's socialism is the 6th largest economy in the world. Seems like there might be a problem if y'all aren't doing it yet.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Your points are all 100% legitimate, and for the sake of honesty, I wouldn't argue any of them.
I do wonder, however, if you're aware of the relative scales.
A coal plant de-sequesters 9500 tons of carbon in the form of CO2... per day.
How many of the worlds dams does it take to de-sequester that forested space worth of carbon (remember, it has to decay underneath the water-inundated land) in a year that which a coal plant does in a day?
Most of the water problems are created by stupidity.
I hear this sentiment a lot from otherwise smart people. What those smart people don't seem to grasp, though, is that these situations exist because we live in a free, capitalist country. If someone thinks they can make a go of growing rice in California, there's nothing to stop them from doing so, except simple economics. If they can obtain the water, and the numbers pencil out, then they are free to grow what they want.
Your implication seems to be that you think we are currently living in a centrally-planned society (aka "communism") or you are actually advocating that we should abide by some kind of central planning doctrine (aka "communism"). But you'd be wrong on both counts.
TL;DR: You're not actually as smart as you think you are.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
I must pick a nit...
The fact that there is an increased biomass density in an area of land that is forested, is a net minus to the carbon that is available to the atmospheric portion of the cycle.
Sure that forest is still *part* of the cycle, but for as long as it is in existence, it absolutely is an effective sequestration of that carbon- because as you said, it's a zero sum game.
It is indeed unusual when the highest dam in the United States fills up from near zero to overflowing within two months. That's not just a little rain shower.
Bruce Perens.
the net result of fossil fuel use has enabled otherwise uninhabitable areas to have all the benefits of modern civilization. the use of fossil fuels has drastically lengthened human lifespan and quality of life. the benefits far far outweigh any negatives.
Unfortunately, we weren't smart enough to stop doing it when it was no longer necessary, so your closing statement is bullshit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can them like we have been doing for a while. People lived and ate food in the midwest year round long before we got food from CA.
If people wanted to do that more than they wanted to send money to California, they would already be doing that. You don't. So you aren't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Most of the water problems are created by stupidity.
I hear this sentiment a lot from otherwise smart people. What those smart people don't seem to grasp, though, is that these situations exist because we live in a free, capitalist country.
Some might say that freedom and capitalism are incompatible. But the real upshot of your comment is that it's not stupidity, it's greed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1/3 of California state funding comes from the Feds Almost $100,000,000,000.00. So not sure what your smoking out there in California.
Here's what ends up happening: the feds take an enormous amount of money from the state residents. Then some of that money is given back to the state, with strings attached. If DJT decided to cut off all federal funding, and the state refused to send one dollar to Washington, the state residents would end up keeping more of their money, and the state would be better funded.
This is the nastiness of removing state power and giving it to the federal government that conservatives are so up in arms about whenever there's a Democratic President.
Nice little racist a$$h0le comment there.
Racist maybe, but racist against whites. It's an acknowledgement that Hispanics, in some cases illegal, are doing the jobs that are otherwise hard to fill. I don't notice white people flocking to the CA central valley to be crop pickers.
I never said nor hinted that it is comparable to coal. I don't even think I mentioned coal.
No, it's what happens when your State government decides it's more important to build a high speed rail that no one wants (and they have no plan how to get it to the largest city in the State - the mountains prevent it from getting there) rather than maintaining existing infrastructure. We don't need to worry about dams, or roads, or sewer systems we need to focus on trains from Bakersfield to Modesto!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You mean things we created supplements for? Sure fresh fruit is a better source but using outdated conditions that we have many, many ways to fix, that's a weak argument. Hell potatoes have about 20mg of vitamin c per 100 mg. It's not a hard vitamin to get as you make it sound when the average person needs around 90 mg per day.
So we're up to 3 now and the best you'll do is concede that it's not totally hooey? Sounds like a lot of work for little gain to me.
If you don't want to be ignorant, perhaps you should look in to it. I'm also not going to do your math homework.
At least as far as stuff like fruit and leaf crops, not having as much mold (like right before harvest) which causes rot and destroys the crop's commercial value is a big reason CA agriculture has been so successful compared to places that get a lot of rain like the US South East. It turns out it is easier to deal with the lack of water (by taking it from others) than deal with the risk of rain at the wrong time. Indoor agriculture may change that eventually though.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Hmm, I haven't seen actual Cali weed in years except in California. The entire west coast pretty much smokes local weed, as I assume the other legalized states do
I would bet a lot of 'Cali weed' sold in non-legal states came from farms far away from there, as the quality is pretty consistent, well, at least on the west coast, I haven't tried it from anywhere east of here in years. But there is no reason it shouldn't be fantastic anywhere it's grown.
Ya can't beat walking into a clean store with 30+ strains, oils, waxes and edibles, all tested for purity and potency and at par or cheaper than the street.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
You fail to realize how much habitat is now available for growing and raising animals and how much land is not destroyed by periodic massive floods. Water in California is a precious resource. It is what makes California the most productive agricultural state in the nation. The value of the crops grown in California are almost double the next largest state (Texas). Because of this, there are many acres of land that are used to grow crops, which consume CO2 in order to grow which are far more productive than the usual desert one would find for much of the year. Without the dam there would be periodic massive flooding and most likely the land would be used for cattle grazing, which is what much of the grassland in California is used for.
Before spouting off that California is wasteful of water, California agriculture has been getting more efficient with water use and already leads most of the country. They've been moving away from gravity irrigation/flooding to drip irrigation and other methods.
The Oroville dam was built in large part to prevent major flood damage, estimated to have prevented more than $1.3 billion in damage between 1987 and 1999 alone.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the water from the reservoir used in agriculture was more than enough to offset any greenhouse gases emitted. Many trees are alive because of the water where the central valley grows a lot of nut and fruit trees.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Those people are stupid, ignore them.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I know for a fact that their is a dude that comes to CA every three months to get a big chunk of Phoenix's supply. Don't ask.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Old growth forests/rainforests/jungles are net zero CO2.
What you say is true for tree farms.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You can't add a hydro plant after the fact. All dams are at least dual purpose, just one is primary.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Old growth forests/rainforests/jungles are net zero CO2.
No- they are a net zero in terms of active reduction of CO2 from the atmosphere- they're still made of sequestered carbon.
It's a simple logic exercise-
You have 20 pounds of carbon.
You can have 10 pounds of it in the form of wood, with 10 left over for the air, or you can have 20 in the air.
The tree is a sink merely by existing. An old growth forest is a sink merely by existing as biomass. It no longer actively scrubs the atmosphere- that's absolutely true, but in the absence of that forest- that carbon would be in the air.
No you did not, and nor did I say you did.. In fact, I pointed out how you didn't ;)
You pointed to its emissions as a drawback, while I pointed out that in comparison to any fossil source, it's not even a blip on the radar.
Studies show those emissions to be quite high- compared to zero emissions sources, sure. But not compared to any extant emitting power source.
Climate change predicts a lot of things such as more extreme weather events becoming more common.
The California drought is the worst that's happened in the state in the last 1000 years.
If anything, many of the predictions were overly conservative.
In 2001 the IPCC predicted that sea level would rise 2mm/year. It's actually rising 3.3mm/year. They predicted that the arctic ice sheet would melt in 50-70 years in 2006. It's now predicted to melt by 2052.
Here are some predictions that came true:
1. The sea level is rising in most places, though at the high end (or higher) than original predictions (3.2mm/year vs 2mm).
2. The sea level fell near Greenland as predicted due to the loss of mass and the gravitational pull of that mass.
3. Extreme weather events were predicted to become more common with climate change. This is happening as "about 25% of moderate daily hot extremes can be attributed to warming.".
4. The predicted radiative forcing effect from CO2 has been observationally confirmed.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Yup: Banqiao Dam, 1975: 170000 dead, 10 millions displaced, an ungodly amount of land stripped to the bedrock and uninhabitable forever... Fukushima is a joke compared to it.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Today, children, we're going to be talking about arithmetic. I know... big word, right? A + B = C. If you know C (total climate change = 100%) and you know B (total climate change not caused by the burning of fossil fuels), then you know A, right? A = C - B.
So, do you still think I'm being *sniff* unfair?
sig: sauer
I've not made ANY assertions. I've simply asked questions. Questions that, obviously, make some people angry and uncomfortable.
sig: sauer
You're not actually as smart as you think you are.
Neither are you. Don't attribute to communism (seriously, what the fuck?) what can adequately be explained by common sense. People growing monsoon crops in an arid zone just aren't thinking ahead. Sure, you have the water now, but will you in 10 years? What will you do when your fields are fucking dry and there's no water coming down the irrigation channel?
Since when is "planning ahead for your own future" equated with "centrally planned economy" ? Sure, they are free to grow what they want, but they are also free to not bitch and complain during a drought because they can't get the water to grow unbelievably thirsty crops of their choosing. Where's that side of your argument? And why is it that when people make these bad decisions, it's always up to government to bail their stupid asses out, at the cost of everyone else, be it taxpayer dollars, or raw natural resources?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Well. My understanding is that funds were provided. Remember Obama had a Democratic House and Senate from 2008-1010. Monies were not spent for physical infrastructure. It was spent elsewhere. Can't blame the Republicans for that. The Dems had a larger majority than the Republicans do now,
It should have been spent on bridges but wasn't. Blame the Dems if you want to blame someone.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
So Racism is now justified. Fuk that. And all who think that way.
Re the crops. Those jobs will be gone soon. Then what?
People don't rush for those jobs because it is a hard job with low pay in which you don't pick up skills to use elsewhere. If you get a low paying laborer's job (like I did at 16 tarring roofs) you can prove your worth (by coming to work on time and paying attention to instructions) and then get other jobs (replacing parapet crowns) and then help repointing brick. Each step is more demanding. Each step gives you a higher wage. Each skill set makes you more valuable.
I can get a construction job anywhere even though I haven't done it for 20 years.
Given a choice a construction job is far superior to picking farm produce. One gives you skills that allow you to grow with in the trade the other doesn't.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Well which was it? Water supply would mean you'd keep it as full as possible. Flood control means the opposite. Given what's going on, i.e., worse flooding than if the dam hadn't been there, even if it doesn't fail, it's fairly clear that flood control was given almost zero priority in operating this dam.
No, you are misunderstanding. When the purpose of the dam is to supply water, they will NEVER attempt to keep it as full as possible. They just need to keep the water in at least above a certain amount (logical sense). Those who manage a dam should know how much water the dam can hold. If it goes above a certain amount, they must release the water. The water could be release by either spillway (too much water in the dam) or manual way (pump out somewhere). The determination must be related to the current season of the year as well. For example, if they expect more heavy rain to come and the dam contains too much water than it can hold after the rain, they will need to release water in order to prepare the dam for the weather.
The dam can help controlling flood in the sense of releasing water slower than a normal flood occurs. A dam is built to take water in a vast area from watershed. If there is no dam there, the water will run down freely from the hill at its natural speed which could cause a bad flood. If there is a dam, the dam will hold the water first, and release water at a controllable speed which would not flood the area nearby. Thus, it helps preventing flood.
The issue here is NOT about the purpose of the dam, but they discovered a hole in their emergency spillway. In other words, their safety system is broken and it could break the dam. As a result, for precaution, they evacuate people because they expect for the worse. If the dam fails, it could cause a sudden flood (release the water) that could drown near by towns.
But there is no alternative to storing water. You either dam the water up somewhere so that you have it available during droughts or you don't. And water takes up space.
But there is more than one way of doing things. Storing water in a huge lake with a large surface open to the air, will lead to large losses to evaporation, for example. And of course, one could also question the wisdom in placing large cities and extensive farming in an area with water scarcity. Or watering crops by spraying water on top of the plants, where much of it will evaporate before it reaches the soil. and so on.
Remember Obama had a Democratic House and Senate from 2008-1010.
The 111th Congress was from 2009 through 2010 with 59 Democrats and 42 Republicans. However, with the Republicans in full obstruction mode, most legislation required 60 votes. So the Democrats had to negotiate with the Republicans to get the stimulus bill passed, agreeing to a smaller dollar amount when it should have been two to three times larger. The bill passed the Senate with 61 to 36 votes.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29106540/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/economic-stimulus-bill-passes-senate-hurdle/
On a related note, the 115th Congress today has 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats. Assuming that the Republicans don't eliminate the filibuster, and Democrats are in full obstruction mode, the Senate Republicans will have to negotiate with the Democrats to get any legislation passed with 60 votes. If Trump wants any of his policies passed in Congress, he will need to play nice with the Democrats just as Obama had to play nice with the Republicans. What goes around comes around.
Not for spending bills such as for infrastructure. That originates in the house and needs a simple majority in both branches.
Yes, of course, for things such as ObamaCare.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Thank you for trying, AaronW, but you missed the first requirement I posted:
Your list of four "successes" does not include a single prediction being made. You only cite the confirmations. Why do I insist on this first requirement? It is because without it, anyone can be "a scientist" — by making multitude of "predictions" and then publishing only those, that materialize.
For example, when tossing a coin, I can write down two "predictions" — heads and tails — and, after the coin settles, publish the successful paper while quietly discarding the failed one. So, no, any citations you wish to make answering my challenge must include separate links — to prediction and its confirmation. And, the third requirement, the links' publication dates need to be some years apart...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There are some famous vineyards in Switzerland which is not on a coast, although you are correct most of the more famous vineyards are on the coast in Tuscany and France.
I can't tell you if they are fermented grape juice I don't drink but I know they are kind of expensive you can easily drop a grand at a tasting.
These are a dime-a-dozen. The Internet is full of such lists assembled. But they don't necessarily disprove anything — it is normal for a scientific discipline to fail sometimes. This article even analyzes different ways of detecting and dealing with such failures.
Trouble is, successful ones are so hard to find...
Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000. Fail. “End of skiing” in Scotland. Predicted in 2004:It is now 2017, but snow is still plentiful in Scotland. Indeed, the 2014 was the snowiest since 1945. Do you think, the 2004 prediction will come true by 2024?
The Arctic would be “ice-free” The 2007 prediction, echoed by Al Gore, promised "ice-fre Arctic":Whether or not Arctic sea ice is at "record low" or not, the Arctic Ocean is decidedly not "ice-free" today.
I made no claims requiring citations. I merely pointed out, that folks claiming "science is settled" typically disappear, when asked for successful prediction of their favorite science.
That may be too onerous a requirement in the case of Climate Science — the experiments take many years, so any replication is difficult.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, of course, for things such as ObamaCare.
Yet the Republicans are planning to use the budget reconciliation procedure to pass the ObamaCare repeal on a simple majority vote, using the exact same procedure that the Democrats used to pass ObamaCare that they themselves derided. That's hypocrisy of the highest order.
That right. California, the new state of slave labor!
I'm curious how their secession initiative will go. If they do, there will be the matter of water supply. That could be an issue. I wouldn't expect Colorado or Nevada to be too worked up about it, but if Cali goes, Oregon and Washington State might as well, and be willing to share Columbia river water with Cali. Then Trump will need to extend the concrete curtain by a thousand miles or so. Possibly at that time to keep Americans in, not irreeger imgrunts out.. As for labor? I don't think California citizens have the ass puckering fear of Imgrunts that some folks have.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People don't rush for those jobs because it is a hard job with low pay in which you don't pick up skills to use elsewhere.
That's right. But I'm talking about people with NO jobs who complain there aren't any jobs (there are a ton of them in California and elsewhere), but they feel custodial work, crop picking, other "dead end" work is beneath them and they can't bring themselves to do it. Someone has to do it, and for the most part it isn't going to be done by machines either for the foreseeable future, regardless of the ever-rosey technologists' dreams. It's not racist to say that a certain segment of society is willing to do these jobs when a certain segment of society is willing to do them, but another is not. It DOES have the overall effect of segregation, but for the most part it's self-segregation.
Because at the time the Obama administration said it was not a tax.
Judge Roberts disagreed. For Obamacare to exist it must exist as a tax. THEREFORE it does not require cloture. As a tax provision it can be amended or overturned with a majority vote.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
By "existing" the tree is not a sink but a deposit.
1) You have a 20 pounds "carbon" tree:
I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year
After 10 years we have 9 pounds in the atmosphere and the tree gained 1 pound, so we have 21 pounds deposite.
If the tree dies and rots, we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) Now we have no tree, 20 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere to start with.
I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year
After 10 years we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere
There is no difference between scenario 1) and 2)
The only difference, and that probably was your point, is: as long as some amount of CO2 is stored in trees, the level in the atmosphere is correspondingly lower.
However, even if we burned all trees on the world over night, that amount of CO2 would still dwarf the amount we releases with burning coal and oil the last 200 years.
It is completely neglectible.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Citations?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1) So, you're admitting that there is no way to know that anyone has been displaced due to the burning of fossil fuels
Yes.
2) Yet, you're arguing for the validity of making that very assertion. ... hinting they can't. I pointed out: they can't. That does not make "your assertion" true, and/or does not make the fact go away that we have already migration streams due to global warming ;D Which is obviously caused by burning fossile fuels.
You did not make such an assertion.
You asked others to find proof for "1)"
Now, who's the idiot? :D Reason: demanding unprovable proves for your idiotic ideas.
So the idiot is still you
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A) yes. But that is a marginal amount of forest, considering the remains. ...
B) perhaps you want to read up on this
C) No it is not. The concern is if we have a melting perma frost areas or other methane sources that could increase the greenhouse effect of our CO2 in a couple of years (less than 10) by a factor of 2 or even 3. THAT is the concern. Regardless how much CH4 we get into the atmosphere, if we can prevent a complete runaway effect, it will settle down to "normal" levels rather quickly again. So neither cow farts nor rotting trees in a flooded hydro plant area are of any concern at all. Pick a random US hydro plant. I bet you alone produced more green house gases than the flooding of the area did. Oh, make it more easy, just pick the biggest one. A single person in the USA or Europe still produces more CO2 equivalent than the rotting of the trees in the whole area cause in CH4!!!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You can citate my older posts on this topic, or of the parent "dunkelfalke" as we both live in this area.
Wow, that was easy again :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1) You have a 20 pounds "carbon" tree: I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year After 10 years we have 9 pounds in the atmosphere and the tree gained 1 pound, so we have 21 pounds deposite.
You don't factor into this equation. Scenario 1 is a non-starter.
If the tree dies and rots, we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If that tree dies and rots in a stable forest, it will be replaced with the growth of another. That is *why* mature forests are carbon neutral.
2) Now we have no tree, 20 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere to start with. I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year After 10 years we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere
I see what you're doing. You're busy looking at the tree, and you're missing the forest.
Apply previously mention fix to scenario 1 to make it real instead of hypothetical, and the difference is paramount.
Yes, a tree is a deposit. Which is a sink. Any sink is subject to recycling back into the atmosphere at rates determined by its nature. Lithographic sinks not excluded.
Every carbon sink has a cyclical period attached to it for how long it takes it to recycle. The tree itself is not what needs to be looked at, it's the forest. The forest is a carbon sink. During its growth period, it's an active reducer of atmospheric carbon (conversion into CO2 into carbohydrates), and upon maturity, it is a net zero. But that carbon *is* removed from the cycle as a whole, and now caught up in the balanced cycle of that forest.
The only difference, and that probably was your point, is: as long as some amount of CO2 is stored in trees, the level in the atmosphere is correspondingly lower.
All sinks operate in this fashion. Even throwing all the carbon you can get your hands on into the dirt will eventually recycle. No sink moving slower than 11.2km/s relative to the Earth is permanent.
However, even if we burned all trees on the world over night, that amount of CO2 would still dwarf the amount we releases with burning coal and oil the last 200 years.
Not sure what you're trying to say: that the extant biomass dwarfs the amount of long-cycle sunk carbon that we're extracting?
Again- you're wrong about a forest not representing a carbon sink. A mature forest may be a sink that's at capacity, but it's still a sink. That carbon is still not in the atmosphere, and thus no longer contributing to warming.
Mature forests release CO2 from decomposing biomass at the same rate as they absorb it.
That is not a net sink.
Sinks are actually putting down new fossil fuels. There are a few swamps that qualify. The Okefenokee is one IIRC.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That's not, how it works — you claim something, you cite evidence.
Besides, your own posts is not evidence even if you properly cited them. And their contents — local observations — aren't evidence of planet-wide climate change either. Otherwise, you'll have to accept my citations of the local electric company-data average temperatures for, which show this winter to be (much) colder than the previous.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nobody has claimed that a mature forest is not neutral in carbon flux.
If that mature forest stops performing its duty as an at-capacity sink, it will start releasing its CO2 back into the air. If a change in conditions allows its density to increase, it will begin taking it away from the air again. It is a sink. A sink at capacity- but nonetheless, it is a sink.
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
This was the initial quote objected against. And for good reason. "wodds and trees" *DO* sequester CO2. They are a balanced cycle after they're done growing with a net minus to extant gaseous carbon due merely to their existence.
The problem with all the secession talk is all of the rural farmland areas in all three off those states are heavily Republican, and hate the liberal parts of the state.
Then they can give up their land and move across the border to Trumpmerica. Can't imagine why they wouldn't jump at the chance to leave a state that doesn't have the same values as they do. New America, on it's way to greatness, should be well worth any land they lose. I can't imagine why New America would mind losing a reliable Democrat voting state either.
Or they can stay.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Who? From where? You're saying people have moved due to global warming, yet you can't say from where or how many. And, as you've said, there's no way to even tell.
That's
completely
moronic.
Oh, yes -- obviously. Yet, you can't even state a +/- percentage of the portion of global warming that is actually caused by the burning of fossil fuels. So, how is it obvious?
sig: sauer
A) 30,000 square miles. B) I did read up, as typical you just say stuff without doing so. C) No, according to easily found articles, one I already linked to, I don't produce anything close to what a typical reservoir does. Again, you just say stuff with no clue.
no, flood control does not mean the opposite.
storm water control involves "retention ponds", places that store the water and release it at a slower rate than it would flow if it was uncontrolled.
reservoirs also frequently serve as giant retention ponds, slowing down the flow from rain events.
but just like any other retention pond they have a maximum mitigation ability.
and this particular rain event pushed the dam beyond its abilities.
hence the attempts to release water.
the problem came from the unexpected erosion of hte spillway, which halted the water release.
the dam then continued to fill, and began to flow over the spillway anyway, further eating into it.
for an earthen dam overtopping or erosion are --BAD-- things (overtopping leads to erosion of the dam face itself).
this particular rain even would have still led to flooding of the local area.
the "worse flooding", ie, the problem being faced now, is only if the dam itself fails due to the erosion. its a possible outcome, but not something that has occurred yet. nor is it a certianty
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
you are the kind of idiot/shill who uses the uncertainties of scientific measures and statitistics to rejects all of science.
your arguments and comments hold 0 validity.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Wow. All I've done is ask questions to a guy who made the bold statement that the burning of fossil fuels has lead the the largest displacement of humans. I asked him to back his statement up with some metrics. Not only have there been ZERO rough metrics provided, I've been called an idiot and a shill for simply asking. Certainly, if such a claim is true, there ought to be some stats available to back it up, right? I have not claimed or rejected ANYTHING myself. What I have done is piss some apparently zealous people off by asking simple questions.
sig: sauer
the science is settled.
your inability to grasp it doesnt change that.
nor did anything you stated prove or disprove anything.
and if youre going to link to hoover you might as well link to national enquirer, it has about the same level of scientific accuracy.
probably slightly higher.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
this is hte part where he starts playing his game where nothing you say will be good enough.
just ignore him,he's a professional troll
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no, you're hte one spouting bullshit unspported by the mountain of data.
you cite something real.
climate science in favor of AGW has reached the 2+2=4 stage: its so well grounded, so well established, it no longer carries the burder of proof.
proving simple shit over and over for shit trolls is a waste of time.
youre hte one with the claim that flies in the face of the mountain of evidence: you provide the citations.
otherwise fuck off.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
youre right its not symmetrical.
you are hte one with the extraordinary claim.
therefore the burden of proof is on you.
as for the "plenty of failed predicitons" have at it. name one.
we'll debunk if one by one as you cite sensationalized journalism (ie, not a scientist) or nonexistant claim as you make them.
the overwhelming majority of claims have in fact come true.
and you are full of shit.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yea, the illegal farms here have no market as the retail market is at par and frequently less expensive than the street was. I know for a fact* someone who takes their crop to Montana and N. Dakota. He sells it as California weed because it's easier to get rid of. Don't ask. :D
It's sort of kinda true though, as the strains we grow here are primarily offshoots of California plants that were brought here and acclimated to our shorter growing season back in the eighties. In fall we get a bonus crop of outdoor grown stuff, I'm told it tastes better but my old abused senses can't tell the difference between outdoor and indoor grown.
Unfortunately when my senses were in their twenties, the only thing available was homegrown, commercial, and Mexican brickweed, with that very rare hashish or Panama Red or Acapulco Gold.
*I stole your wording, it was just plain better than what I wrote originally.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Davis's failed and corrupt party politics on the Democratic side resulted in a successful recall. Davis followed a long history of Democratic scum milking society dry with empty promises, massive wealth redistribution of the middle class, and open corruption. A non-politician was voted in and started trying to fix the mess. As President Trump is seeing, there is a constant sabotage effort from the Marxist left. Considering the efforts of the Alinskyites, a non-politician still did a decent job. Issues with giving Drivers licenses to illegals were pushed back, not put in by Brown. Issues of massive increases to vehicle registration were pushed back, implemented by Brown. The Democrats and Union cronies illegally campaigned against him and his policies (found illegal by the US Supreme Court).
But hey, it's always someone else's fault even when the Democrats wreak havoc. Your tactic is to lie, and keep repeating the lie relentlessly. Alinsky learned from Himmler, and you morons either get it or follow along with the goose step your party chants. What is hillarious is that you idiots actually believe chanting "down with Nazis and Fascists" defends your use of Nazi and Fascist tactics.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
These are a dime-a-dozen. The Internet is full of such lists assembled
The first link just lists predictions. It doesn't actually provide any data showing the predictions were wrong.
The second link is talking about popular news articles form the 1970s....that were not about warming. In fact, the "we're heading into an ice age" prediction in the 1970s was a fringe position not backed by the majority of climate scientists. So, the exact opposite of what you claim.
And I'm not going to bother going through the rest of the google results when the top two are not remotely close to your claims.
Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000 [archive.org]. Fail [express.co.uk].
“End of skiing” in Scotland.
"Ski" does not appear in those articles.
With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.
It is now 2017, but snow is still plentiful in Scotland. Indeed, the 2014 was the snowiest since 1945
Hey look! You confused "weather" with "climate". That is an extremely common mistake made by those denying climate change. You should really learn the difference before attempting to discuss the issue.
Also, "no ski industry" does not mean "no snowfall". Having a skiing industry requires either making a lot of man-made snow or having a lot of natural snowfall in the right place, and consistently. You can not make a ski industry out of one year's snowfall, especially when that snowfall is not where your ski resort is. Unless you raise ticket prices to the point where man-made snow can do the job, but that apparently requires ticket prices too high to maintain the industry.
Amusingly, when your citations actually talk about the ski industry, they describe an industry in collapse because they do not consistently receive snow in the right places.....which would actually back climate change.
I made no claims requiring citations
Actually, you did. You made the claim that climate scientists are consistently wrong in their predictions.
And given the utterly abysmal quality of citations you have provided, you still need to provide those citations. And with your claim that they are always wrong, your inability to provide any citations is again rather odd.
That may be too onerous a requirement in the case of Climate Science — the experiments take many years, so any replication is difficult.
Replication in this case would be getting similar results using different measurement methods. For example, tree rings, ice cores, historical temperature data and sediment samples providing results that are consistent with each other.
Continounce mon ami!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Again, what is so difficult to grasp that a flooded area, that produces CH4 is just a temporarily effect?
It does not matter!
Mo you did mot read up about CH4 otherwise you would know that.
And who cares about the amount of square miles of water are? Except fish and sea eagles, or ducks? Are you are scared by big numbers or what? 30,000 square miles is 170x170 miles WTF ... Los Angeles is bigger!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Global warming is practically caused 100% by burning fossile fuels.
No idea why you want/need/demand a precise percentage.
IF YOU NEED IT, FOR FUCK SAKE GOOGLE IT YOURSELF.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The point is that a forrest does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere makes it a not sink.
I suggest next time you take a bath, you live in a civilized country and habe a bath, yes? You look what happens if you pull the plug: wow, all water goes down the sink.
A heat sink in your PC is not a heat sink, it is a radiator. It is just misnamed heat sink.
They are a balanced cycle after they're done growing with a net minus to extant gaseous carbon due merely to their existence.
No, there is no 'net minus' as we explained you now several times.
Millions of years ago, there was a net minus because the microbes that now eat dead wood did not exist at that time and the dead would was slowly covert with dirt or sucked down by tectonic movements.
Again:
1) if we burn all wood right mow, the difference in the CO2 level in the atmosphere would be hard to measure. The amount of millions of years of growth of 'coal' simply would dwarf it
2) if we plamt new trees, as much as you want, that effect would be even less!
We have to stop producing CO2 and perhaps even need a way to get some part out of the atmosphere again ... but trees would change NOTHING (regarding CO2).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And this is the level of critical thinking we skeptics have come to expect from global warming disciples such as yourself. Making a statement like this clearly illustrates your ignorance of the fact that the earth warmed and cooled long before fossil fuels were even discovered. No... but THIS global warming is caused ENTIRELY by humans. The sun has nothing to do with it. Ocean acidity has nothing to do with it. The other cyclical machinations of the planet... no effect. It's all humans burning oil.
Just so you know, not even the most ardent, militant, angry anthropogenic global warming evangelist claims that 100% of global warming is caused by humans. If you need proof, in your own words, "FOR FUCK SAKE GOOGLE IT YOURSELF."
sig: sauer
You are not a sceptic.
You are an idiot or a troll or both.
When we talk about global warming we talk not about million year old periods of different (warmer or colder) temperatures. For most of that periods we have a very good idea why the temperature was different.
We talk about artificial man made global warming which happened the last 100 - 200 years, which is 100% caused by CO2 emissions which are 100% caused by mankind burning fossile fuels.
Just so you know, not even the most ardent, militant, angry anthropogenic global warming evangelist claims that 100% of global warming is caused by humans.
Nevertheless every one interested in the field knows that it is the case, so what is your point?
And no go back and sulk in your corner, troll.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
it is still necessary, if we stopped using fossil fuels there would be mass death, disease and starvation. we're tapering off the use of fossil fuels in a sane manner. Man is more than ideologies of "greenies", who are man-haters.
It's not possible to say with 100% certainty if someone died from smoking because everybody dies anyway and some non-smokers also die from lung cancer.
So smoking is perfectly safe, has no impact on health whatsoever and anybody claiming the contrary has no place in this discussion!