Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California is not in drought

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 216 posts

Re: California is not in drought

#31

Post by neartheplain »

We have the technology to solve this problem, and we've had it for thousands of years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_cisterns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_stepwells_in_Gujara...

Los Angles piloted a "smart cisterns" program in 2015 that captured residential roof runoff in centrally monitored and operated cisterns, which could hold or release water according to flood conditions and local demand:

https://stormwater.wef.org/2015/11/los-angeles-homeowners-ca...

Re: California is not in drought

#32

Post by kansface »

npsimons wrote: post #25
devmunchies wrote: post #14

California has plenty of water for California. Now, whether it can continue to be a fruit and nut agricultural hub for the rest of the country is another thing to consider.

Beef and dairy use more water, use more land, generate more GHG[0]. Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts. [0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths

I'm highly skeptical of this source. What percentage of that water usage for animal agriculture is actually in the form of grass (or rainfall more properly)? What percentage of the land used could be productively farmed by humans for human edible foods? What percentage of the GHGs from animal husbandry are net new? IE, a cow eats some grass, makes some co2 or w/e, which then goes back into new grass.

Re: California is not in drought

#33

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

neartheplain wrote: post #31

We have the technology to solve this problem, and we've had it for thousands of years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_cisterns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_stepwells_in_Gujara... Los Angles piloted a "smart cisterns" program in 2015 that captured residential roof runoff in centrally monitored and operated cisterns, which could hold or release water according to flood conditions and local dema…

I recall reading about something similar in Tokyo

Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge Channel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Area_Outer_Underg...

Re: California is not in drought

#34

Post by quixoticelixer- »

kansface wrote: post #32
npsimons wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beef and dairy use more water, use more land, generate more GHG[0]. Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts. [0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths

I'm highly skeptical of this source. What percentage of that water usage for animal agriculture is actually in the form of grass (or rainfall more properly)? What percentage of the land used could be productively farmed by humans for human edible foods? What percentage of the GHGs from animal husbandry are net new? IE, a cow eats some grass, makes some co2 or w/e, which then goes back into new grass.

Animals drink a lot of water but grass does take even more. Cows produce net CO2e emissions because they produce methane.

Re: California is not in drought

#35

Post by devmunchies »

npsimons wrote: post #25
devmunchies wrote: post #14

California has plenty of water for California. Now, whether it can continue to be a fruit and nut agricultural hub for the rest of the country is another thing to consider.

Beef and dairy use more water, use more land, generate more GHG[0]. Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts. [0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths

> Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts

I'm trying! I can only eat them so fast!

Re: California is not in drought

#36

Post by ericbarrett »

chrisco255 wrote: post #3
01100011 wrote: post #2

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/... CA climate has been much drier in the past, even before global warming. We seem to have this discussion every few years when there's a drought, but quickly forget. It seems like we do the same thing with wildfires and earthquakes.

But we moved 50 million people there in the past 60 years so clearly nature must stop the mega drought cycle.

“Non-environmental” water use in California is 20% urban, 80% agricultural. Source: https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/...

Re: California is not in drought

#37

Post by coyotespike »

npsimons wrote: post #28
idiotsecant wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really have to trust anyone's opinion on this... You literally just need a yardstick and a calendar. Or a pair of eyes. Snowpack gets worse and worse every year.

> Or a pair of eyes. Snowpack gets worse and worse every year. Yup. I spend a good deal of time training for and rescuing people in the Sierras. Snow pack is very obviously lower than a decade back. Sure, sure, we'll get the occasional outlier like that massive snow pack a few years back, but ever other year, it gets lower and lower.

Love this.

One level up from eyes, you can just look at the geological record to observe climate change and CO2. CO2 goes up, place gets hot. No need for models.

You only need fancy models if you're trying to get super precise about when changes will occur, like less than 100 years precise.

Re: California is not in drought

#38

Post by slavoingilizov »

neartheplain wrote: post #31

We have the technology to solve this problem, and we've had it for thousands of years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_cisterns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_stepwells_in_Gujara... Los Angles piloted a "smart cisterns" program in 2015 that captured residential roof runoff in centrally monitored and operated cisterns, which could hold or release water according to flood conditions and local dema…

How exactly do wells and cisterns prevent wildfires? Like many others this technology treats the symptom and doesn’t solve the problem.

Re: California is not in drought

#39

Post by lumost »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #26
throwaway197812 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better membranes and renewable-powered desalination plants are not going to do anything about the waste problem. Has there been any progress on that?

Brine disposal has always been my concern. I haven't come across anything promising but I'm well out of the loop.

wouldn't releasing brine into the ocean be viable with a suitable dispersal mechanism? Or are there additional chemicals released from the plant?

Re: California is not in drought

#40

Post by rsj_hn »

slavoingilizov wrote: post #38
neartheplain wrote: post #31

We have the technology to solve this problem, and we've had it for thousands of years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_cisterns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_stepwells_in_Gujara... Los Angles piloted a "smart cisterns" program in 2015 that captured residential roof runoff in centrally monitored and operated cisterns, which could hold or release water according to flood conditions and local dema…

How exactly do wells and cisterns prevent wildfires? Like many others this technology treats the symptom and doesn’t solve the problem.

The technology to prevent wildfires is controlled burns. The Ohlone indians would regularly do controlled burns, reducing the density of trees by 90%. A combination of anti-controlled burn mentality, building expensive homes in forested areas, and an antipathy to "greedy loggers" has turned California into a tinderbox waiting to go off.

The state needs to liquidate 90% of its forests ASAP, because reducing carbon emissions and blaming political enemies aint gonna turn California into a tropical climate. It's an arid state prone to hundred-year droughts, and it's not the place where you want to see lots of trees, not unless you also enjoy seeing the occasional massive wall of flame devouring the countryside.

Post reply on HN