|
|
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
But the entire state is on a flood watch.
But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
|
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
the drought began when I was thrown out. the drought ends when I went back. send $$$$ I was calling a wolf at Ortega Highway State Park n Rallye ...why I got the wolf to sit down in a field at 200', roll over n enthusiastically wag his tail where upon a Ranger began screaming 'ITS A DOG ITS A DOG' ok ok its a dog....... |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
the drought began when I was thrown out. the drought ends when I went back. send $$$$ I was calling a wolf at Ortega Highway State Park n Rallye ...why I got the wolf to sit down in a field at 200', roll over n enthusiastically wag his tail where upon a Ranger began screaming 'ITS A DOG ITS A DOG' ok ok its a dog....... https://alerts.weather.gov/cap/ca.php?x=1 |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:59:35 PM UTC-6, wrote:
But the entire state is on a flood watch. You seem to be confusing droughts and floods. Floods are immediate events. Droughts are long term. Floods happen for a day or two or so. Droughts happen for years or more. Its very easy to have a flood during a drought. Droughts dry the soil so much it is unable to absorb any surface water. So a light rain which occurs once a year can result in a flood. The surface water has no where to go except through people's houses and cities. Haven't you ever watched the TV shows which show rains in the desert. They happen once a year or so and dump a foot or so of water in a few hours. All the water runs off and floods everything. But its still a desert and in a drought. Its also very possible to get heavy rains during a drought. If it rains 4 inches in one day, this does not counteract the fact the entire state is 48 inches of rain below normal. Still a drought. The 4 inches would cause a flash flood just for fun. There is also the very important consideration of frequency of waterfall. Plants and everything else need small amounts of water delivered frequently. Crops and everything else cannot grow if they receive one foot of rain in 24 hours and then nothing for the rest of the growing cycle. Even if 12 inches of rain is the correct annual waterfall, it has to be spaced out during the year for everything to do well. Rain is not like money. You can receive $1 million once a year or $2,739..73 per day all year. Doesn't really make any difference. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:59:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. The recent rains might help with reservoirs and surface water, but it will take years to recharge the aquifier and return water table levels to normal: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA This is from 3 years ago, but is still generally valid: "NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses" https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses/ Meanwhile, this is from only 4 days ago: "California eyes treated wastewater for human consumption" http://www.sonomanews.com/news/6506804-181/california-eyes-treated-wastewater-for Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There have been wolves in California for many years: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif It's just that us werewolves have a public relations problem and prefer to maintain a low profile. Pretending that we're extinct is a good defensive measure. Please keep your wolf siting to yourself. Jeff - Did you actually READ the NASA paper? http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61707/1/JOH_2013.pdf is an analysis of the rates of recharge of aquafers and section 2 (page 9) is the true guts of the matter. The rest of the paper only tests these theories and finds them to be true. And what is the conclusions of California? I think they are totally false. Why? Because the recharge rates they are quoting are STEADY STATE. This means that if farmers were to draw water ONLY from the aquifers as they did in the drought period it would require some 3 years of NORMAL rain to recharge. But since water is much cheaper from water services using full reservoirs this is not a proper view. The NASA paper makes the rather surprising statement that California's aquifers hold no more water than 1 1/2 times the total water held in California's largest reservoir. And that amount has so far been exceeded several times over. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 4:22:01 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:59:35 PM UTC-6, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. You seem to be confusing droughts and floods. Floods are immediate events. Droughts are long term. Floods happen for a day or two or so. Droughts happen for years or more. Its very easy to have a flood during a drought.. Droughts dry the soil so much it is unable to absorb any surface water. So a light rain which occurs once a year can result in a flood. The surface water has no where to go except through people's houses and cities. Haven't you ever watched the TV shows which show rains in the desert. They happen once a year or so and dump a foot or so of water in a few hours. All the water runs off and floods everything. But its still a desert and in a drought. Its also very possible to get heavy rains during a drought. If it rains 4 inches in one day, this does not counteract the fact the entire state is 48 inches of rain below normal. Still a drought. The 4 inches would cause a flash flood just for fun. There is also the very important consideration of frequency of waterfall. Plants and everything else need small amounts of water delivered frequently. Crops and everything else cannot grow if they receive one foot of rain in 24 hours and then nothing for the rest of the growing cycle. Even if 12 inches of rain is the correct annual waterfall, it has to be spaced out during the year for everything to do well. Rain is not like money. You can receive $1 million once a year or $2,739.73 per day all year. Doesn't really make any difference. russell - please give me some credit for having some idea of what I'm speaking of. Are you aware of HOW you refill the reservoirs? Do you have any idea of the effects of the Stage 1 rains that California has been having for the last 2 months? If you gained some $2740 a day you could invest it and done properly you could make 12% or more in addition to your million. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 16:29:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:59:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. The recent rains might help with reservoirs and surface water, but it will take years to recharge the aquifier and return water table levels to normal: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA This is from 3 years ago, but is still generally valid: "NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses" https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses/ Meanwhile, this is from only 4 days ago: "California eyes treated wastewater for human consumption" http://www.sonomanews.com/news/6506804-181/california-eyes-treated-wastewater-for Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There have been wolves in California for many years: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif It's just that us werewolves have a public relations problem and prefer to maintain a low profile. Pretending that we're extinct is a good defensive measure. Please keep your wolf siting to yourself. Jeff - Did you actually READ the NASA paper? http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61707/1/JOH_2013.pdf is an analysis of the rates of recharge of aquafers and section 2 (page 9) is the true guts of the matter. The rest of the paper only tests these theories and finds them to be true. No, I skimmed it and moved on to the original calculations on groundwater recharge rates. I am not a hydrologist, but I found the stuff interesting. From my browser history: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/groundwater.html https://earthzine.org/2016/02/23/recharging-californias-diminishing-aquifers/ http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/NEHhydrology/ch10.pdf I tried to estimate how many inches of rain, over some percentage of the state, it would take to produce 11 trillion gallons (33,700,00 acre-ft) of groundwater recharge, and gave up as I was making far too many assumptions and bad guesses. And what is the conclusions of California? I think they are totally false. Why? Because the recharge rates they are quoting are STEADY STATE. This means that if farmers were to draw water ONLY from the aquifers as they did in the drought period it would require some 3 years of NORMAL rain to recharge. But since water is much cheaper from water services using full reservoirs this is not a proper view. So, you expect farmers to dump all the water conservation equipment and procedures and return to the bad old days of over-irrigating and water loss by evaporation? It's possible, but probably unlikely. The state will not slack off on water use controls until the dry well tests show an increase in water table levels and a reduction in salt water incursion. That will take several years. The NASA paper makes the rather surprising statement that California's aquifers hold no more water than 1 1/2 times the total water held in California's largest reservoir. And that amount has so far been exceeded several times over. What page? I couldn't find that statement. California's largest reservoir is Lake Shasta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_reservoirs_of_California which holds 4,552,000 acre-ft or 5.6 km^3. I'm not sure if the underground aquifer includes those that were recently discovered. "Large Aquifers Discovered Under California's Drought-Stricken Central Valley" https://weather.com/science/environment/news/california-aquifers-discovered "Stanford researchers show that there are about 2,700 cubic kilometers of accessible fresh or brackish water locked in the Central Valley’s deep underground aquifers. That’s almost triple the 1,020 cubic kilometers of freshwater that had been previously estimated." That would be 482 times the largest reservoir discovered, and 182 times the pre-discovery aquifer estimate. Something is obviously wrong here. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
Water. Sand. Gravel
|
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
|
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
|
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
|
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
|
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 5:31:34 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 16:29:07 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:59:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. The recent rains might help with reservoirs and surface water, but it will take years to recharge the aquifier and return water table levels to normal: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA This is from 3 years ago, but is still generally valid: "NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses" https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses/ Meanwhile, this is from only 4 days ago: "California eyes treated wastewater for human consumption" http://www.sonomanews.com/news/6506804-181/california-eyes-treated-wastewater-for Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There have been wolves in California for many years: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif It's just that us werewolves have a public relations problem and prefer to maintain a low profile. Pretending that we're extinct is a good defensive measure. Please keep your wolf siting to yourself. Jeff - Did you actually READ the NASA paper? http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61707/1/JOH_2013.pdf is an analysis of the rates of recharge of aquafers and section 2 (page 9) is the true guts of the matter. The rest of the paper only tests these theories and finds them to be true. No, I skimmed it and moved on to the original calculations on groundwater recharge rates. I am not a hydrologist, but I found the stuff interesting. From my browser history: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/groundwater.html https://earthzine.org/2016/02/23/recharging-californias-diminishing-aquifers/ http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/NEHhydrology/ch10.pdf I tried to estimate how many inches of rain, over some percentage of the state, it would take to produce 11 trillion gallons (33,700,00 acre-ft) of groundwater recharge, and gave up as I was making far too many assumptions and bad guesses. And what is the conclusions of California? I think they are totally false. Why? Because the recharge rates they are quoting are STEADY STATE. This means that if farmers were to draw water ONLY from the aquifers as they did in the drought period it would require some 3 years of NORMAL rain to recharge. But since water is much cheaper from water services using full reservoirs this is not a proper view. So, you expect farmers to dump all the water conservation equipment and procedures and return to the bad old days of over-irrigating and water loss by evaporation? It's possible, but probably unlikely. The state will not slack off on water use controls until the dry well tests show an increase in water table levels and a reduction in salt water incursion. That will take several years. The NASA paper makes the rather surprising statement that California's aquifers hold no more water than 1 1/2 times the total water held in California's largest reservoir. And that amount has so far been exceeded several times over. What page? I couldn't find that statement. California's largest reservoir is Lake Shasta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_reservoirs_of_California which holds 4,552,000 acre-ft or 5.6 km^3. I'm not sure if the underground aquifer includes those that were recently discovered. "Large Aquifers Discovered Under California's Drought-Stricken Central Valley" https://weather.com/science/environment/news/california-aquifers-discovered "Stanford researchers show that there are about 2,700 cubic kilometers of accessible fresh or brackish water locked in the Central Valley’s deep underground aquifers. That’s almost triple the 1,020 cubic kilometers of freshwater that had been previously estimated." That would be 482 times the largest reservoir discovered, and 182 times the pre-discovery aquifer estimate. Something is obviously wrong here. Jeff, doing some research I looked up the historic water table in California in order to answer your question about "water conservation equipment". Department of Water Resources: Groundwater Data and Monitoring. This data is no more recent than 2011 but the story this tells is rather telling. There IS no water table in California. The Central Valley is essentially watered by river levels percolating through the porous soil. And the rivers are fed by the Sierra snow pack. And the "water table" is WELL below the river levels except in the areas where the water flowing through the soil is forced over non-porous areas such as around Turlock in ONE very small area. Otherwise to get water you have to drill down over 100 feet. The story this tells answers WHY farm windmills were only run to fill the animal water troughs. Because the energy necessary to pull the water up from that depth was too high and the percolation rate into the well hole too slow to make getting water in that manner as cheap as running a water pipe from a county supply line fed from a reservoir. This also suggests that without the coastal range ALL of the groundwater would be brackish to the extend that the ground would soon fill with ocean salts and wells would give nothing other than brackish water. So be VERY careful of anything where they are talking about "underground reservoirs of brackish water" because that has to be around the Delta. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 7:50:48 AM UTC-5, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/precipMaps...=24&synoptic=0 and a Data Exchange Center... data exchange https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/u...cd=00065,00060 |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 8:56:09 AM UTC-5, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 7:50:48 AM UTC-5, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote: http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/precipMaps...=24&synoptic=0 and a Data Exchange Center... data exchange https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/u...cd=00065,00060 http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/index.php?wfo=sto |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 5:31:34 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 16:29:07 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:59:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. The recent rains might help with reservoirs and surface water, but it will take years to recharge the aquifier and return water table levels to normal: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA This is from 3 years ago, but is still generally valid: "NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses" https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses/ Meanwhile, this is from only 4 days ago: "California eyes treated wastewater for human consumption" http://www.sonomanews.com/news/6506804-181/california-eyes-treated-wastewater-for Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There have been wolves in California for many years: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif It's just that us werewolves have a public relations problem and prefer to maintain a low profile. Pretending that we're extinct is a good defensive measure. Please keep your wolf siting to yourself. Jeff - Did you actually READ the NASA paper? http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61707/1/JOH_2013.pdf is an analysis of the rates of recharge of aquafers and section 2 (page 9) is the true guts of the matter. The rest of the paper only tests these theories and finds them to be true. No, I skimmed it and moved on to the original calculations on groundwater recharge rates. I am not a hydrologist, but I found the stuff interesting. From my browser history: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/groundwater.html https://earthzine.org/2016/02/23/recharging-californias-diminishing-aquifers/ http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/NEHhydrology/ch10.pdf I tried to estimate how many inches of rain, over some percentage of the state, it would take to produce 11 trillion gallons (33,700,00 acre-ft) of groundwater recharge, and gave up as I was making far too many assumptions and bad guesses. And what is the conclusions of California? I think they are totally false. Why? Because the recharge rates they are quoting are STEADY STATE. This means that if farmers were to draw water ONLY from the aquifers as they did in the drought period it would require some 3 years of NORMAL rain to recharge. But since water is much cheaper from water services using full reservoirs this is not a proper view. So, you expect farmers to dump all the water conservation equipment and procedures and return to the bad old days of over-irrigating and water loss by evaporation? It's possible, but probably unlikely. The state will not slack off on water use controls until the dry well tests show an increase in water table levels and a reduction in salt water incursion. That will take several years. The NASA paper makes the rather surprising statement that California's aquifers hold no more water than 1 1/2 times the total water held in California's largest reservoir. And that amount has so far been exceeded several times over. What page? I couldn't find that statement. California's largest reservoir is Lake Shasta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_reservoirs_of_California which holds 4,552,000 acre-ft or 5.6 km^3. I'm not sure if the underground aquifer includes those that were recently discovered. "Large Aquifers Discovered Under California's Drought-Stricken Central Valley" https://weather.com/science/environment/news/california-aquifers-discovered "Stanford researchers show that there are about 2,700 cubic kilometers of accessible fresh or brackish water locked in the Central Valley’s deep underground aquifers. That’s almost triple the 1,020 cubic kilometers of freshwater that had been previously estimated." That would be 482 times the largest reservoir discovered, and 182 times the pre-discovery aquifer estimate. Something is obviously wrong here. The numbers you didn't find were in the very first sentence of the NASA paper: "It will take about 11 trillion gallons of water (42 cubic kilometers) -- around 1.5 times the maximum volume of the largest U.S. reservoir." There are 6,000.000 square inches to the acre. There are 231 cubic inches to the gallon. That means that one inch of rain falling on a single acre is 26,000 gallons. This is why you generally refer to rainfall in acre feet. One acre foot of water would equal to about a third of a million gallons - ONE ACRE. The area in question (cropland) is approximately 1/5 of the state of California pt 27 million acres and it is ALL being inundated. Assuming that we have minimum levels of rain at a bare foot over these areas so far this year this is equal to 8.5 Trillion gallons of water. Assuming that the water percolation rate is a mere 10% we have had almost a trillion gallons of water added to the water table in half of the normal rainy season. NONE of this includes the far greater amounts of water that almost all gets fed into the central valley from the coastal and sierra ranges of the FAR higher rainfall levels in northern California. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:19:24 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The numbers you didn't find were in the very first sentence of the NASA paper: "It will take about 11 trillion gallons of water (42 cubic kilometers) -- around 1.5 times the maximum volume of the largest U.S. reservoir." Oops. I was looking at the wrong paper. https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses and as you note, it's obvious not correct. There are 6,000.000 square inches to the acre. There are 231 cubic inches to the gallon. That means that one inch of rain falling on a single acre is 26,000 gallons. This is why you generally refer to rainfall in acre feet. One acre foot of water would equal to about a third of a million gallons - ONE ACRE. 1 acre-ft = 325,851 gallons. The area in question (cropland) is approximately 1/5 of the state of California pt 27 million acres and it is ALL being inundated. Assuming that we have minimum levels of rain at a bare foot over these areas so far this year this is equal to 8.5 Trillion gallons of water. Most of which will be runoff and end up in the ocean. That's what I as trying to estimate by reading the various papers on the topic of groundwater recharge. It's quite non-linear and varies with soil conditions and previous rainfall (ground saturation). Assuming that the water percolation rate is a mere 10% we have had almost a trillion gallons of water added to the water table in half of the normal rainy season. Methinks it's much less than that, especially when the ground is saturated by high rainfall in a short period of time. I don't want to do the math, but if I take the total ocean discharge rate for all the major California rivers during the current storm: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/current/?type=flow I suspect I will get a fairly large percentage of the rainfall for the last storm. The remainder will be delivered by the rivers over a period of days (or weeks) as the accumulated surface water slowly drains into the rivers. NONE of this includes the far greater amounts of water that almost all gets fed into the central valley from the coastal and sierra ranges of the FAR higher rainfall levels in northern California. Yep. There has been some analysis done on the local well water to determine it's origin. Most of our ground water comes from the Sierras, not from local percolation. However, the major consumer, the City of Santa Cruz gets 95% of its water from surface sources. Gotta run (literally)... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 8:36:55 AM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:19:24 -0800 (PST), wrote: The numbers you didn't find were in the very first sentence of the NASA paper: "It will take about 11 trillion gallons of water (42 cubic kilometers) -- around 1.5 times the maximum volume of the largest U.S. reservoir." Oops. I was looking at the wrong paper. https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses and as you note, it's obvious not correct. There are 6,000.000 square inches to the acre. There are 231 cubic inches to the gallon. That means that one inch of rain falling on a single acre is 26,000 gallons. This is why you generally refer to rainfall in acre feet. One acre foot of water would equal to about a third of a million gallons - ONE ACRE. 1 acre-ft = 325,851 gallons. The area in question (cropland) is approximately 1/5 of the state of California pt 27 million acres and it is ALL being inundated. Assuming that we have minimum levels of rain at a bare foot over these areas so far this year this is equal to 8.5 Trillion gallons of water. Most of which will be runoff and end up in the ocean. That's what I as trying to estimate by reading the various papers on the topic of groundwater recharge. It's quite non-linear and varies with soil conditions and previous rainfall (ground saturation). Assuming that the water percolation rate is a mere 10% we have had almost a trillion gallons of water added to the water table in half of the normal rainy season. Methinks it's much less than that, especially when the ground is saturated by high rainfall in a short period of time. I don't want to do the math, but if I take the total ocean discharge rate for all the major California rivers during the current storm: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/current/?type=flow I suspect I will get a fairly large percentage of the rainfall for the last storm. The remainder will be delivered by the rivers over a period of days (or weeks) as the accumulated surface water slowly drains into the rivers. NONE of this includes the far greater amounts of water that almost all gets fed into the central valley from the coastal and sierra ranges of the FAR higher rainfall levels in northern California. Yep. There has been some analysis done on the local well water to determine it's origin. Most of our ground water comes from the Sierras, not from local percolation. However, the major consumer, the City of Santa Cruz gets 95% of its water from surface sources. Gotta run (literally)... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 Jeff, I am making MINIMAL estimates of 10%. Why is that? Because every gallon of freshwater run-off has only ONE exit from the central valley - the Carquinez Straits. The average STREAMFLOW that enters the valley totally separate from the rain falling in the valley itself is some 32 million acre feet per year. 10 trillion gallons. This has to exit the valley almost entirely during low tides. Otherwise it is greatly impeded. The numbers are available from the Library of Congress. There was a paper I read a long time ago that had to do with "Ground Water in the Central Valley" or some such. As a scientist the very FIRST thing you learn is NEVER to trust the government on anything that is presently in the public eye. There is alway too much political profit hanging on both sides of the balance beam and whoever is presently in power gains the extra weight. Climate Change is the perfect example. Plus a very large amount of "scientific information" is constructed upon the data of a single brick with an entire pyramid of supposition, theory and hypothesis above balancing so that the slightest gust of new information topples it. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 8:36:55 AM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:19:24 -0800 (PST), wrote: The numbers you didn't find were in the very first sentence of the NASA paper: "It will take about 11 trillion gallons of water (42 cubic kilometers) -- around 1.5 times the maximum volume of the largest U.S. reservoir." Oops. I was looking at the wrong paper. https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses and as you note, it's obvious not correct. There are 6,000.000 square inches to the acre. There are 231 cubic inches to the gallon. That means that one inch of rain falling on a single acre is 26,000 gallons. This is why you generally refer to rainfall in acre feet. One acre foot of water would equal to about a third of a million gallons - ONE ACRE. 1 acre-ft = 325,851 gallons. Of what use is a precise number in the middle of a hundred suppositions? Remember that we are discussing both present rainfall, over an extremely large area in which there are actually areas that this downpour has missed entirely, and the MEAN rainfall. So absolutely none of these figures is very accurate to within 20% and giving a number exact to the third decimal point in the middle is meaningless. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:36:55 AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Snipped 1 acre-ft = 325,851 gallons. The area in question (cropland) is approximately 1/5 of the state of California pt 27 million acres and it is ALL being inundated. Assuming that we have minimum levels of rain at a bare foot over these areas so far this year this is equal to 8.5 Trillion gallons of water. Most of which will be runoff and end up in the ocean. That's what I as trying to estimate by reading the various papers on the topic of groundwater recharge. It's quite non-linear and varies with soil conditions and previous rainfall (ground saturation). Snipped Long periods of no or little rain can cause the ground to dry out to the point that it does NOT absorb much water. You really do NOT want to be in a canyon with steep sides or in a dry weash in the desert when it rains even miles away or in an area that has had a long drought. That's because the water runs off and water levels in washes or canyons can rise very high EXTREMELY quickly and the force of that water roaring through is virtually irresistable. You'd never be able to outrun it either. That's part of what makes it so hard for underground aquifiers to get replenished after a drought = the water runs off into rivers and such before it has a chance to penetrate to the aquifier. Cheers |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote:
But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California.. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Long periods of no or little rain can cause the ground to dry out to the point that it does NOT absorb much water. You really do NOT want to be in a canyon with steep sides or in a dry weash in the desert when it rains even miles away or in an area that has had a long drought. That's because the water runs off and water levels in washes or canyons can rise very high EXTREMELY quickly and the force of that water roaring through is virtually irresistable. You'd never be able to outrun it either. That's part of what makes it so hard for underground aquifiers to get replenished after a drought = the water runs off into rivers and such before it has a chance to penetrate to the aquifier. However much truth there is to that this isn't the case since we had a month of very slow rains that gave the ground lot of time to reabsorb water all the way down to the water table. Now the only thing standing in front of absorption is the normal percolation rates of the soils in various areas. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:59:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. The recent rains might help with reservoirs and surface water, but it will take years to recharge the aquifier and return water table levels to normal: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA This is from 3 years ago, but is still generally valid: "NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses" https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses/ Meanwhile, this is from only 4 days ago: "California eyes treated wastewater for human consumption" http://www.sonomanews.com/news/6506804-181/california-eyes-treated-wastewater-for Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There have been wolves in California for many years: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif You weren't doin that the day I met you |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
Water. Sand. Gravel clean or brackish? |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? I should add that you should think about this for a second Doug. I'm sure that it's clear to you that a scavenger like a coyote has a completely different physical requirement than a predator. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
Sir Ridesalot considered Mon, 9 Jan 2017
09:49:19 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:36:55 AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Snipped 1 acre-ft = 325,851 gallons. The area in question (cropland) is approximately 1/5 of the state of California pt 27 million acres and it is ALL being inundated. Assuming that we have minimum levels of rain at a bare foot over these areas so far this year this is equal to 8.5 Trillion gallons of water. Most of which will be runoff and end up in the ocean. That's what I as trying to estimate by reading the various papers on the topic of groundwater recharge. It's quite non-linear and varies with soil conditions and previous rainfall (ground saturation). Snipped Long periods of no or little rain can cause the ground to dry out to the point that it does NOT absorb much water. You really do NOT want to be in a canyon with steep sides or in a dry weash in the desert when it rains even miles away or in an area that has had a long drought. That's because the water runs off and water levels in washes or canyons can rise very high EXTREMELY quickly and the force of that water roaring through is virtually irresistable. You'd never be able to outrun it either. That's part of what makes it so hard for underground aquifiers to get replenished after a drought = the water runs off into rivers and such before it has a chance to penetrate to the aquifier. Cheers It's a shame my father is no longer with us, as he quite literally wrote the book on some of this stuff, with actual formulae to calculate the expected retention of water on various ground types - working back all the way to rainfall radar, so you could work out flood likelihood in any given area from the radar images. That was back when rainfall radar was a whole new concept. Not being a member of the professional bodies of which he was a member, I don't have access to the papers which he had published on the subject. Of course, rainfall - runoff - evaporation = water retention. That part is simple and obvious. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:35:17 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters.. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? I should add that you should think about this for a second Doug. I'm sure that it's clear to you that a scavenger like a coyote has a completely different physical requirement than a predator. As you can see Tom they are almost the same dam thing https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conserva...Identification |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? They don't have em anywhere near Mt Hamilton Tom I've been hearing this crap for 30 years |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? Sounds like you saw a coywolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:30:59 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:35:17 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? I should add that you should think about this for a second Doug. I'm sure that it's clear to you that a scavenger like a coyote has a completely different physical requirement than a predator. As you can see Tom they are almost the same dam thing https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conserva...Identification That is a coyote in winter coat and showing pictures like that doesn't give you a perspective on what a large difference in size there is. A wolf is larger than a German Shepard many of which I owned while a coyote is significantly smaller. Coyote's DO NOT run long distances and they have a hopping gait. Wolves have a LONG loping gait capable of running down dear in full flight. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:40:17 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters.. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? Sounds like you saw a coywolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf And maybe you've been seeing Peekayotes. |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 12:49:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:40:17 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? Sounds like you saw a coywolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf And maybe you've been seeing Peekayotes. That's prokaryotes |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:31:40 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters.. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Right. We've always watched coyotes run across a mile of more of open ground at high speed. Coyotes are know for that don't you know. Are you aware that the spinal structure of a coyote and a wolf are different and that they have a different gait? They don't have em anywhere near Mt Hamilton Tom I've been hearing this crap for 30 years Exactly why would you think it's crap? Because you personally have never observed it? Even in Montana and Idaho where they KNOW wolves are present they only get camera shots of them on rare occasions. Most people in those states sound as incredulous as you. I remember asking some farmers in Cor d'Lain about it and being laughed out of the cafe. "They been gone fer a century" |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On 1/9/2017 12:20 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-8, wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. But the riding will undoubtedly be marvelous this spring with new growth everywhere and the old dead growth knocked down by the heavy winds and water soaked root systems. The hills will be alive with plants and animals everywhere. The bird watchers made a count a week or so ago and I'll be seeing one this coming weekend to see the results among other things. Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There really are no such things as "lone wolves". These are very temporary. The Alpha Male or head wolf will evict the male pups from the pack after a couple of years when they get large enough to be a possible threat to his dominance. So seeing one wolf insures that many others are near. The rivers even close to the cities are now turning up river otters. Naturalists are sort of confused about them. They only recently (relatively) discovered that sea otters are absolutely necessary to grow the kelp forests that grow the large diversity of sea creatures and other flora that maintain the health of the coastal waters. Now since river otters had disappeared so long ago the reappearance of them gives them pause. They do not understand what part they play in the ecosystem. They are still struggling with beavers as an absolute necessity as well. If you LOOK while you ride it is amazing the things you can see. Now is only one of these reappearing animals will control the almost uncontrollable Crow and Raven populations. What you saw was most likely a coyote, though, Tom Saw this in Science News; https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...n-wolf-species DNA says coyotes/wolves overlap quite a bit now. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 1:26:28 PM UTC-5, Doug Landau wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote: Water. Sand. Gravel clean or brackish? down deep prob antediluvian. did the rice paddies on upper Sac dry ? NNJ had or has Lake Passaic. I'll look: goo.gl/ug1OC4 Lake Passaic was artesian with flowing fountains before The Bridge. Glacial water in gravel. That's Home or was caws as you know you can't ... of interest are the photo spread of pre and post revolutionary war USA and preindustrial. I lived on Washington's escape routes and at the end of Speedwell Ave where is said the American industrial revolution began. Sam Morse's business mgr Alfred Vail had a summer home there at a mill pond. Terrific land buys. HS ( Zisk, Daniels, Krisiloff and Dante) was at the intersection of Vail n Baldwin (locomotive works) a land of vast fields. Take a look at V&B today at Parsippany NJ. I last herd THEY pumped it dry. ? |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
wolves have a larger head n more body mass |
58% of California is in Heavy Drought.
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 5:53:15 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 5:31:34 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 16:29:07 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:59:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: But the entire state is on a flood watch. The recent rains might help with reservoirs and surface water, but it will take years to recharge the aquifier and return water table levels to normal: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA This is from 3 years ago, but is still generally valid: "NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses" https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses/ Meanwhile, this is from only 4 days ago: "California eyes treated wastewater for human consumption" http://www.sonomanews.com/news/6506804-181/california-eyes-treated-wastewater-for Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several other places in California. There have been wolves in California for many years: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif It's just that us werewolves have a public relations problem and prefer to maintain a low profile. Pretending that we're extinct is a good defensive measure. Please keep your wolf siting to yourself. Jeff - Did you actually READ the NASA paper? http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61707/1/JOH_2013.pdf is an analysis of the rates of recharge of aquafers and section 2 (page 9) is the true guts of the matter. The rest of the paper only tests these theories and finds them to be true. No, I skimmed it and moved on to the original calculations on groundwater recharge rates. I am not a hydrologist, but I found the stuff interesting. From my browser history: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/groundwater.html https://earthzine.org/2016/02/23/recharging-californias-diminishing-aquifers/ http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/NEHhydrology/ch10.pdf I tried to estimate how many inches of rain, over some percentage of the state, it would take to produce 11 trillion gallons (33,700,00 acre-ft) of groundwater recharge, and gave up as I was making far too many assumptions and bad guesses. And what is the conclusions of California? I think they are totally false. Why? Because the recharge rates they are quoting are STEADY STATE. This means that if farmers were to draw water ONLY from the aquifers as they did in the drought period it would require some 3 years of NORMAL rain to recharge. But since water is much cheaper from water services using full reservoirs this is not a proper view. So, you expect farmers to dump all the water conservation equipment and procedures and return to the bad old days of over-irrigating and water loss by evaporation? It's possible, but probably unlikely. The state will not slack off on water use controls until the dry well tests show an increase in water table levels and a reduction in salt water incursion. That will take several years. The NASA paper makes the rather surprising statement that California's aquifers hold no more water than 1 1/2 times the total water held in California's largest reservoir. And that amount has so far been exceeded several times over. What page? I couldn't find that statement. California's largest reservoir is Lake Shasta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_reservoirs_of_California which holds 4,552,000 acre-ft or 5.6 km^3. I'm not sure if the underground aquifer includes those that were recently discovered. "Large Aquifers Discovered Under California's Drought-Stricken Central Valley" https://weather.com/science/environment/news/california-aquifers-discovered "Stanford researchers show that there are about 2,700 cubic kilometers of accessible fresh or brackish water locked in the Central Valley’s deep underground aquifers. That’s almost triple the 1,020 cubic kilometers of freshwater that had been previously estimated." That would be 482 times the largest reservoir discovered, and 182 times the pre-discovery aquifer estimate. Something is obviously wrong here. Jeff, doing some research I looked up the historic water table in California in order to answer your question about "water conservation equipment". Department of Water Resources: Groundwater Data and Monitoring. This data is no more recent than 2011 but the story this tells is rather telling. There IS no water table in California. The Central Valley is essentially watered by river levels percolating through the porous soil. And the rivers are fed by the Sierra snow pack. And the "water table" is WELL below the river levels except in the areas where the water flowing through the soil is forced over non-porous areas such as around Turlock in ONE very small area. Otherwise to get water you have to drill down over 100 feet. The story this tells answers WHY farm windmills were only run to fill the animal water troughs. Because the energy necessary to pull the water up from that depth was too high and the percolation rate into the well hole too slow to make getting water in that manner as cheap as running a water pipe from a county supply line fed from a reservoir. This also suggests that without the coastal range ALL of the groundwater would be brackish to the extend that the ground would soon fill with ocean salts and wells would give nothing other than brackish water. So be VERY careful of anything where they are talking about "underground reservoirs of brackish water" because that has to be around the Delta. http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/geol4.html |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com