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

How bad is the California drought?

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#51

Post by recondite »

epicureanideal wrote: post #28

Are we not able to desalinate water? No doubt some special interests are preventing us from solving this problem. Access to plentiful, cheap water has not been a first world problem in a very long time. Just authorize the building permits and a contract to buy water sufficient to make it profitable, and this problem will be solved quickly.

Not refuting your point, but it's not quite that simple. Current desalination techniques are very energy costly, and the state has actually decreased its energy capacity in the past few years. For example, the San Onofre nuclear station went offline permanently in 2012 because of a botched repair job by, a little ironically, the Japanese (Mitsubishi). Neither ConEd or the state have announced any plans to replace the lost capacity (~10% of the state's total energy capacity) = higher energy costs.

San Diego county is currently building a billion dollar desal facility off the coast of Carlsbad, but it hasn't been easy or cheap. And even with the state in dire conditions, this project has faced opposition for various reasons - e.g. environmental concerns about desal runoff (apparently the salt water byproduct is very bad for marine life and has to be treated before being released back into the ocean).

Even when it's completed and producing at full capacity of 50 million gallons per day, this will be a literal drop in the bucket compared to the 38 billion galls of water per day that are used by the state overall (2010 USGS estimate). With population projections having the state grow 40% by 2060, things are not looking good and nobody seems to be addressing the longer-term impacts.

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#52

Post by dded »

meeks wrote: post #17
jedberg wrote: post #8

It's bad. I recently drove to LA through the central valley, and in 18 years of doing that drive, I've never seen it so dry. Whole farms are just gone, everything is brown. There are a couple of problems preventing us from saving more water though. #1, we had a drought in the 80s. A lot of people learned to conserve then and never changed their habits (like me). There is no way I could use 20% less water -- I already…

The number 1 way to conserve water is to eat less meat. I don't think that people have learned this yet and most people have not changed their habits to consume less meat. Serious question: why is it acceptable to change all kinds of behaviors, take shorter showers, fix leaks, turn off taps, and even install gray water systems, yet not change our behavior to eat less meat? If you didn't eat beef for one day (1/2 lb b…

The latest issue of National Geographic has a map showing meat calories consumed per-capita for various countries and regions around the world. The US is high, but more-or-less right on par (or a little under) with many other places: Brazil, western Europe, northern Europe, Australia, and China[1]. Some countries are considerably higher, including Argentina and Finland.

This is, indeed, a global phenomenon, not a US one.

[1] China is interesting in that the meat calories consumed is high, but the amount (in weight?) of meat consumed is less. This due to the consumed meat being largely high-fat-content pork.

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#53

Post by dded »

steven2012 wrote: post #31

I think the issue isn't only the lack of rain, it's the immense use of water. I read at some point recently farmers have moved to crops such as pistachio nuts which have high margins, but take something like 1 gallon of water per nut. And water usage in rich areas actually increased year-over-year, which is infuriating. We had rain throughout the winter, and even a couple of summer showers recently which is rare, and…

> We had rain throughout the winter

Snow would have been better. Rain fill the reservoirs, and then the excess must be spilled off. Snow sits in the mountains forming a huge natural reservoir, and the more gradual melt can be used more efficiently.

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#54

Post by Cyther606 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #37
Cyther606 wrote: post #23

If you want to understand the drought conditions better, I implore you to watch this Ted talk by environment scientist David Keith: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_c... To sum it up, governments are engaged in cloud seeding to fight climate change, and they're staying silent on the issue because informing the public is a moral hazard. As a side effect of cloud seeding, certain areas are bou…

Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengine…

Ted.com, and a youtube recording of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.

That's what I linked you to.

Your criticism would be better directed at the various websites you have apparently frequented.

> Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengineering methods.

> http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/

> Sorry, this is kooksville. A reasonable argument would start with a review of meteorological classification and then assert novel observations before introducing theories about possible causes. Instead we have some guy who drones into his camcorder about how sheeple can't remember what real clouds look like.

What made this poster go to the lengths he did? Dennis Kucinich? UFOs? Did he even read what I posted?

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#55

Post by Terr_ »

tghw wrote: post #36
Terr_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number 1 way to conserve water is to eat less meat. Sure, but that's more of a global issue than a local one, insofar as meat (and food for livestock) is shipped much further than water is.

California produced about 2 billion pounds of beef last year. That comes out to 8% of the US market for beef, the vast majority of which comes from the US. The numbers I found said that each pound of beef requires anywhere between 1000 and 5000 gallons of water. (I suspect the high end is probably too high, so let's go with the low end.) That gives us 2 trillion gallons of water used in California each year for beef…

Thanks for that, but I think it somewhat misses the point. The demand-side of "everyone wants meat" problem is more of a long-term global-trends sustainability thing.

The California issue is that the cost of locally-used water is not being reflected in locally-produced meat.

People don't necessarily have to eat less meat in general, as long as less of the production comes specifically from California.

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#56

Post by anigbrowl »

Cyther606 wrote: post #54
anigbrowl wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengine…

Ted.com, and a youtube recording of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. That's what I linked you to. Your criticism would be better directed at the various websites you have apparently frequented. > Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from…

The guy leading the presentation to the Shasta County board of supervisors is the same guy who runs http://GeoengineeringWatch.org which is the first link in the description of the video. Not wanting to sit through an hour-long video of people making speeches - rarely a good way to get informed on a topic - I went to his website in search of a written summary of his argument. Unfortunately it sent my BS meter straight into the red.

If the US and/or other countries are actually seeding clouds on a massive scale, and if there is any evidence of this being linked to the drought in California as you asserted, then I would love to read it.

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#57

Post by jedberg »

melvinmt wrote: post #24
jedberg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're doing that here in the bay area too. My question is, do I have to have grass to count as a lawn? I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the house, so at this point it is just dirt. Can I still the the $3/sqft to put in turf?

"I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the house" In some cities, not watering your lawn may get you a fine too: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-lawns-...

Yep it sure can. They sent me a nastygram once so I watered for a week till they inspected and then stopped again. It's such a waste to water things that aren't edible. I was just ahead of the curve -- green is the new brown.

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#58

Post by Cyther606 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #56
Cyther606 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ted.com, and a youtube recording of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. That's what I linked you to. Your criticism would be better directed at the various websites you have apparently frequented. > Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from…

The guy leading the presentation to the Shasta County board of supervisors is the same guy who runs http://GeoengineeringWatch.org which is the first link in the description of the video. Not wanting to sit through an hour-long video of people making speeches - rarely a good way to get informed on a topic - I went to his website in search of a written summary of his argument. Unfortunately it sent my BS meter straigh…

The event lasted 3 hours, and the video was shortened. Sorry but I don't have a transcript.

David Lim, a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading, has a much more comprehensive presentation for the curious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zRREd8DZQ

"This public presentation has been created to introduce the topic of geoengineering to those with limited or no knowledge of the subject. It therefore provides an overview of this lesser known area of science. The talk entitled 'Increases in extreme weather, food prices and illness: the unspoken connection' was held in Trent, Sherborne, Dorset (UK) on 27th March 2013 in front of an 80 strong audience. The 'questions and answers' session lasted 90 minutes and has been excluded from the clip for manageability. The audience consisted of members of the public; it appeared that very few people were aware of geoengineering let alone the science and political issues underpinning this vast topic. A multitude of periphery subjects were also discussed during the Q&A session, leaving many with much to consider...

I was a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading (UK) looking at domestic electrical loads, when I stumbled across the science of 'environmental manipulation', encompassing Geoengineering, Weather Modification and Military Operations - all of which pose a significant risk to natural systems. Period.

Having investigated the climate change debate and become acquainted with 'the bigger picture' - delineated by topics such as politics, geopolitics, history, meteorology, sociology, economics, physics, metaphysics, quantum mechanics, medicine, law, military and many others - I concluded that something was wrong. In fact many 'things' are wrong with the version of reality that is presented to us by the mainstream media and government. It has taken over 1,500 research hours to comprehensively put together the pieces of the geoengineering puzzle, which pulls in all of the other subjects mentioned afore, it just does. The vast majority of people simply don't have the energy or time to investigate such overarching topics as geoengineering, thus many are left in the dark. Herein, I simply aim to shed some light on this murky area, for those at stage one of 'the journey'..."

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#59

Post by anigbrowl »

Cyther606 wrote: post #58
anigbrowl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy leading the presentation to the Shasta County board of supervisors is the same guy who runs http://GeoengineeringWatch.org which is the first link in the description of the video. Not wanting to sit through an hour-long video of people making speeches - rarely a good way to get informed on a topic - I went to his website in search of a written summary of his argument. Unfortunately it sent my BS meter straigh…

The event lasted 3 hours, and the video was shortened. Sorry but I don't have a transcript. David Lim, a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading, has a much more comprehensive presentation for the curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zRREd8DZQ "This public presentation has been created to introduce the topic of geoengineering to those with limited or no knowledge of the subject. It therefore provides a…

Look, I'm sorry if this seems rude, but do you not recognize that 90% of what you've pasted here is emotional manipulation? I'm willing to entertain your proposition but I would like to read something with specific assertions about chemicals, numbers, methods - stuff I can conduct searches on, not handwavey presentations by an expert who's dumbing it down for laypeople and so leaves me without any detail that I can check for myself.

I took some time to watch this guy's video, but his argument is incoherent and it's absolutely full of logical fallacies. I'm well aware that there have been multiple proposals for geoengineering, but it's a long way from that to claims that the clouds look wrong, geoengineering is being conducted on a mass scale, and there's a giant coverup. Having grown up near an airport, I've always had trouble with chemtrail advocates claims that 'these don't look like normal contrails' because my experience is that contrails have always exhibited a great deal of variety and do not have a single consistent appearance as contrail theorists are wont to claim.

I urge you to consider some of the debunking arguments that you can find at https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-chemtrails.9/ and search for specific written arguments that are based on empirical and repeatable observations.

Re: How bad is the California drought?

#60

Post by meeks »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #44
meeks wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number 1 way to conserve water is to eat less meat. I don't think that people have learned this yet and most people have not changed their habits to consume less meat. Serious question: why is it acceptable to change all kinds of behaviors, take shorter showers, fix leaks, turn off taps, and even install gray water systems, yet not change our behavior to eat less meat? If you didn't eat beef for one day (1/2 lb b…

If you're feeding beef irrigated feed, that's crazy. But normally beef are fed crops that are highly drought resistant, like grass, alfalfa and barley. Human crops like wheat, rice and corn require a lot more water than feed crops. So if your rainfall levels are less than what is required by human food crops, you have several options: - irrigate - grow cattle feed without irrigation - idle the land The 3rd option may…

This link states that beef are normally fed corn:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx

Also, cows can drink up to 30 gallons of water per day:

https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink

I don't know how we could consider it to be more efficient than simply eating other foods (i.e. plants) under any circumstance when all variables are considered.

Post reply on HN