Yeah, the reservoirs are fine after a couple of pretty rainy years in 2022-23 and 2023-24. The bigger issue is that it hasn't really rained in LA in almost a year, so the landscape is insanely dry.
This just makes that fact that a lot of the reservoirs being empty even more ridiculous. They knew it was an issue and weren't prepared in a way that they COULD have been prepared.
If this "analysis" was correct, most climate scientists would agree with it. But they don't. And no, it's not because of some "massive globalist conspiracy". It's because they understand this topic far better than those who dabble in climate change denial.
If spreading this stuff makes you feel great about yourself, hey, you do you. Meanwhile, I'll continue to listen to the experts who actually know wtf they are talking about.
Sir, this is a message board. I’m not “spreading” anything, I’m asking about information I pulled directly off NASA’s website.
Please point to where I said or implied anything about a “massive globalist conspiracy”.
What’s the answer for the seemingly regular shifts in temperature?
I am genuinely asking - but in point of fact, the idea of any science being beyond question or re-examination is profoundly unscientific.
Especially when we’re dealing with a concept as vast as the climate of the Earth.
And if your only response is “people smarter than you have already figured it out” you might have just traded one religion for another.
Last edited by GreenLantern2814; 01-13-2025 at 02:34 PM.
The other thing I don't get is how one of the states most prone to fires who just happens to be beside the ocean, and should also have water reservoirs built up in anticipation for these fires doesn't have 10 water bombers that can scoop water ready to go at all times.
Sir, this is a message board. I’m not “spreading” anything, I’m asking about information I pulled directly off NASA’s website.
Please point to where I said or implied anything about a “massive globalist conspiracy”.
What’s the answer for the seemingly regular shifts in temperature?
I am genuinely asking - but in point of fact, the idea of any science being beyond question or re-examination is profoundly unscientific.
Especially when we’re dealing with a concept as vast as the climate of the Earth.
And if your only response is “people smarter than you have already figured it out” you might have just traded one religion for another.
I am going with the "traded religions", back to the science
Regular shifts in temperatues answer - it's never one thing but one big reason is...
Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles
Quote:
Cycles also play key roles in Earth’s short-term weather and long-term climate. A century ago, Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages).
It is also naturally a lot more of a desert that it is now. You've got an unnaturally high amount of plant life there, and then you throw in increased population and climate change causing a drought.
California is moving at a snails pace on dealing with its issues. They've been talking about large scale desalination, but there's been no major movement in the face of, what clearly, is now becoming an immediate disaster. The response should have been let's mobilize the army if we need to get this done as it's ultra urgent. Instead it's been a decade of deliberation, with successive governments promising to streamline the process.
The irony is that it's often environmental groups that block the desalination initiatives, which might be the best way to combat global warming related damage. I suppose from their perspective you'd be opening one hole to patch another, but expecting global warming to stop isn't all that realistic.
Sir, this is a message board. I’m not “spreading” anything, I’m asking about information I pulled directly off NASA’s website.
Please point to where I said or implied anything about a “massive globalist conspiracy”.
What’s the answer for the seemingly regular shifts in temperature?
I am genuinely asking - but in point of fact, the idea of any science being beyond question or re-examination is profoundly unscientific.
Especially when we’re dealing with a concept as vast as the climate of the Earth.
And if your only response is “people smarter than you have already figured it out” you might have just traded one religion for another.
The difference is the rate of change. I expect you were looking at the Antarctica ice core data over the last 800,000 years. This shows the oscillations well, but it is hard to compare to current times due to scale. Using this data as the Earth leaves the ice ages, the temperature could rise 7 or 8 degrees over as short as 5,000 years. Which on a graph of 800,000 years would be an almost vertical line.
But in our recorded times, we are looking at almost 1 degree increase in the last 100 years. At that rate (and all records show the rate increasing) we would hit 8 degrees in less than 1000 years. 5x faster than the normal cycle. When they include exponential growth and feedback loops, this gets even faster.
So the scientific community has consensus that more than just a natural cycle is occurring.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
Last edited by belsarius; 01-13-2025 at 03:24 PM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
We all know Mathgod just started this thread because it’s been a few weeks since he’s lectured everyone on how climate change is going to end the world in our lifetime
Good to see you found someone to take the bait so you can start turning the thread into what your original intention was
Funny enough, this thread was supposed to be about land use, groundwater depletion, and aridification, making areas more conducive to megafires. And it was at first. But then someone derailed it. It wasn't me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
Sir, this is a message board. I’m not “spreading” anything, I’m asking about information I pulled directly off NASA’s website.
Please point to where I said or implied anything about a “massive globalist conspiracy”.
What’s the answer for the seemingly regular shifts in temperature?
I am genuinely asking - but in point of fact, the idea of any science being beyond question or re-examination is profoundly unscientific.
Especially when we’re dealing with a concept as vast as the climate of the Earth.
And if your only response is “people smarter than you have already figured it out” you might have just traded one religion for another.
Please explain how you could possibly know something about climate science that the climate scientists don't already know.
Questioning and re-examination is one thing. Continue to re-ask questions that have already been answered many times over, for the purpose of spreading confusion, is quite another.
This just makes that fact that a lot of the reservoirs being empty even more ridiculous. They knew it was an issue and weren't prepared in a way that they COULD have been prepared.
Wasn't it just 1 reservoir that was undergoing repairs that was empty?
And that's all kind of a red herring. You don't fight fires of that scale with water from hydrants in city distribution systems. Those are designed to fight smaller fires, like a few houses, a smaller industrial area, or absolute worst case, part of a neighbourhood.
The amount of water needed to fight the Palisades fire can't realistically be supplied by a municipal water system. Particularly given that basically every burnt house creates a new water demand as the pipes burst. Trying to oversize the drinking water system to match that theoretical demand would introduce a ton of other problems and be obscenely expensive. Theoretically they could have a discrete firefighting water system, but no city actually does that because of the massive cost.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
If you look at the global temperatures of this planet over the last million years, you will notice that the planet oscillates by about 12-20 degrees Celsius. Quite reliably, in fact.
You will also see massive, rapid spikes in warming for 5-10,000 years, followed by periods of cold (as low as eight degrees below ‘modern normal’) which last 50-90,000 years.
There have been four times in the last 500,000 years where global temperatures reached higher than they are today, and in each case, a 50,000+ year period of extreme cold occurred directly after.
We happen to be at the very end of one of these rapid warming spikes - maybe we have hundreds of years left, maybe thousands - who can say. I’ve heard that by 2200, Alberta is going to be closer to Northern California, climatologically speaking.
Maybe you come up with this on your own, but it's used pretty heavily by climate deniers and has been down to be irrelevant to today's issues by virtually every notable scientific organization. It's this type of information that kind of poisons the well for those who aren't literate in the issue as it sounds like a plausible reason for temperature increase. Except it flies in the face of every but of climate science we have and doesn't explain the rapidity of the rise.
I always go back to, do we think millions of scientists and policy makers have just... missed this information?
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
It is also naturally a lot more of a desert that it is now. You've got an unnaturally high amount of plant life there, and then you throw in increased population and climate change causing a drought.
California is moving at a snails pace on dealing with its issues. They've been talking about large scale desalination, but there's been no major movement in the face of, what clearly, is now becoming an immediate disaster. The response should have been let's mobilize the army if we need to get this done as it's ultra urgent. Instead it's been a decade of deliberation, with successive governments promising to streamline the process.
The irony is that it's often environmental groups that block the desalination initiatives, which might be the best way to combat global warming related damage. I suppose from their perspective you'd be opening one hole to patch another, but expecting global warming to stop isn't all that realistic.
Desalinated water is insanely expensive. California's problem isn't a drinking water shortage; it's that agriculture there uses an obscene amount of water to grow things that shouldn't be grown in such a dry climate (almonds, pistachios, alfalfa, etc.).
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Wasn't it just 1 reservoir that was undergoing repairs that was empty?
And that's all kind of a red herring. You don't fight fires of that scale with water from hydrants in city distribution systems. Those are designed to fight smaller fires, like a few houses, a smaller industrial area, or absolute worst case, part of a neighbourhood.
The amount of water needed to fight the Palisades fire can't realistically be supplied by a municipal water system. Particularly given that basically every burnt house creates a new water demand as the pipes burst. Trying to oversize the drinking water system to match that theoretical demand would introduce a ton of other problems and be obscenely expensive. Theoretically they could have a discrete firefighting water system, but no city actually does that because of the massive cost.
Why do you assume that the reservoirs only supply a municipal system? They can also be used to provide non-salt water for fire tankers, water bombers, etc.
Also, properly designed hydrant systems connected back to reservoirs with adequate supply can provide millions of gallons per water in short order if the system is designed properly.
End of the day outside of fire re tar dant being used, the primary source of extinguishing fire is water. A large scale fire like that obviously is very hard to control, but access to abundant water gives the firefighters better options.
Desalinated water is insanely expensive. California's problem isn't a drinking water shortage; it's that agriculture there uses an obscene amount of water to grow things that shouldn't be grown in such a dry climate (almonds, pistachios, alfalfa, etc.).
I agree that turning a dessert into fancy produce farms has issues. The cost of desalination has been substantially decreasing. The up front cost is big (hundreds of millions), but once the plants are built the cost is relatively cheap.
California has also failed to institute other water saving measure, like using grey water for agriculture and water recapture.
Desalinated water is insanely expensive. California's problem isn't a drinking water shortage; it's that agriculture there uses an obscene amount of water to grow things that shouldn't be grown in such a dry climate (almonds, pistachios, alfalfa, etc.).
California is not going to shut down a multi billion dollar agriculture industry overnight.
And yes, the farming practices leads to insane water usage for the things you mentioned, but when there is snowpack and rain in the Sierra Nevada and Lassen Peak mountains, which there has been the last couple years, how much of that water is being captured before it flows into the ocean? Not enough.
Outside of severe drought, it is possible to properly manage water usage even in high usage areas. California just sucks at it. Badly.
With how the water bombers managed to contain these fires over the last couple of days, how have they not invested in an adequate number of these in anticipation of their annual wildfires? They'd get more use out of them than most other regions around the continent.
They're far more effective than any on-foot resources will ever be in containing fires in remote areas.
Surprised that they needed extra air support flown in from OC and up north. They should have a fleet ready to at a moment's notice at this point.
Desalinated water is insanely expensive. California's problem isn't a drinking water shortage; it's that agriculture there uses an obscene amount of water to grow things that shouldn't be grown in such a dry climate (almonds, pistachios, alfalfa, etc.).
Israel, a much smaller economy, has built desalination plants that are even supplying neighbouring countries with water while at the same time supplying a decent size agriculture sector that actually plants and harvests in very desert like conditions.
California certainly is rich enough to do it, and they are also located in literally the perfect place to build the plants.
With how the water bombers managed to contain these fires over the last couple of days, how have they not invested in an adequate number of these in anticipation of their annual wildfires? They'd get more use out of them than most other regions around the continent.
They're far more effective than any on-foot resources will ever be in containing fires in remote areas.
Surprised that they needed extra air support flown in from OC and up north. They should have a fleet ready to at a moment's notice at this point.
When it first kicked off it was far too windy to be operating fixed-wing aircraft, in water bombing operations. So even if they had them, they would have sat idle while the worst occurred.
The winds have dropped considerably, which is why heli and fixed-wing suppression is helping them get a handle on things.
With how the water bombers managed to contain these fires over the last couple of days, how have they not invested in an adequate number of these in anticipation of their annual wildfires? They'd get more use out of them than most other regions around the continent.
They're far more effective than any on-foot resources will ever be in containing fires in remote areas.
Surprised that they needed extra air support flown in from OC and up north. They should have a fleet ready to at a moment's notice at this point.
From what I understand Quebec has an agreement with California where some of the water bombers are sent down as the Quebec & California peak fire seasons are at different times of the year.
But yes, its an big question mark at this point. Super rich state with a long history of fires. Seems pretty ridiculous that they don't have an entire fleet of these things ready to go at all times.
I wonder what was spent on budgetary fire prevention and management in the last 3 years. Opendoor seems very capable of finding such numbers. Is it possible to find this?
When it first kicked off it was far too windy to be operating fixed-wing aircraft, in water bombing operations. So even if they had them, they would have sat idle while the worst occurred.
The winds have dropped considerably, which is why heli and fixed-wing suppression is helping them get a handle on things.
Yeah, I don't think the bulk of the Palisades and Kenneth fire damage was preventable by human resources due to the 80-100 mph winds. Really unfortunate, extreme circumstance with the worst conditions possible for a fire outbreak. It evolved so quickly.
A guy did manage to save his and a couple neighbors homes in that area by staying behind and basically hosing down the houses all night and putting out any spot fires that started before they grew, but that's a very dangerous situation to be in and he easily could have been amongst the fatalities.
Regardless, barring those conditions (which tend to be short-lasting at that strength and speed), having a healthy reserve of craft that can be deployed the moment conditions allow feels like it should be a baseline for CA.
The difference is the rate of change. I expect you were looking at the Antarctica ice core data over the last 800,000 years. This shows the oscillations well, but it is hard to compare to current times due to scale. Using this data as the Earth leaves the ice ages, the temperature could rise 7 or 8 degrees over as short as 5,000 years. Which on a graph of 800,000 years would be an almost vertical line.
But in our recorded times, we are looking at almost 1 degree increase in the last 100 years. At that rate (and all records show the rate increasing) we would hit 8 degrees in less than 1000 years. 5x faster than the normal cycle. When they include exponential growth and feedback loops, this gets even faster.
So the scientific community has consensus that more than just a natural cycle is occurring.
I suppose I need to be clear, I understand all the stuff we burn is turbocharging this rise in temperature.
I’m not arguing the planet isn’t warming, I’m not arguing humans aren’t putting our thumbs (or whole fists) on the scale.
I am all for any and all new technologies and sources of energy that make our planet and our neighborhoods cleaner and healthier.
I’m not for a bunch of doomsayers who think they can predict the future.
97% of scientists agree the planet is warming and we’re having an impact - fair enough.
That can’t possibly equate to 97% of them reaching the same conclusions about the long term impact of something as complicated as the climate of the Earth. Not unless a bunch of them are copying each other’s homework.
