A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

58% of California is in Heavy Drought.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 9th 17, 11:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default 58% of California is in Heavy Drought.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/
Ads
  #12  
Old January 9th 17, 11:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default 58% of California is in Heavy Drought.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cali...obile&ie=UTF-8
  #13  
Old January 9th 17, 12:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default 58% of California is in Heavy Drought.

https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/
  #14  
Old January 9th 17, 12:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default 58% of California is in Heavy Drought.

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/precipMaps...=24&synoptic=0

and a Data Exchange Center...

  #15  
Old January 9th 17, 01:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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.
  #16  
Old January 9th 17, 01:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default 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
  #17  
Old January 9th 17, 02:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default 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
  #18  
Old January 9th 17, 02:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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.
  #19  
Old January 9th 17, 04:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default 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
  #20  
Old January 9th 17, 05:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Airless Tires? And How Heavy Is "Heavy"? NYC XYZ General 32 February 10th 06 09:31 AM
Airless Tires? And How Heavy Is "Heavy"? NYC XYZ Techniques 31 February 10th 06 09:31 AM
Airless Tires? And How Heavy Is "Heavy"? NYC XYZ Recumbent Biking 26 February 10th 06 09:31 AM
THE DIVINE DRUDGING DROUGHT Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud Australia 0 November 30th 04 11:31 PM
how heavy is heavy(muni) thinuniking Unicycling 2 March 26th 04 12:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.