The Lake Mead water level is still rising in August, when it is ALWAYS falling. So snow melt is not the

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
if the Colorado river is flowing at double this means that the river is twice as deep

Are you really that stupid?

Swan wrote:
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct?

No.

Still waiting to hear how a river can double its flow without becoming obviously deeper like the Mississippi does routinely, but then again this is plain to see





Yup, and since none of that is happening to any lake mead dam tributary, all is normal and the lake is rising because the output of the Hoover dam was REDUCED.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
if the Colorado river is flowing at double this means that the river is twice as deep

Are you really that stupid?

Swan wrote:
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct?

No.

Still waiting to hear how a river can double its flow without becoming obviously deeper like the Mississippi does routinely, but then again this is plain to see





Yup, and since none of that is happening to any lake mead dam tributary, all is normal and the lake is rising because the output of the Hoover dam was REDUCED.

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

Yup, if the Colorado river puts out double flow in the steep canyons where it runs thru there will be double depth. Why? because the water at the bottom has the same mass as the water at the top.

All that you are doing is confusing and mocking yourself

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

Yup, if the Colorado river puts out double flow in the steep canyons where it runs thru there will be double depth. Why? because the water at the bottom has the same mass as the water at the top.

All that you are doing is confusing and mocking yourself

By running faster.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

Yup, if the Colorado river puts out double flow in the steep canyons where it runs thru there will be double depth. Why? because the water at the bottom has the same mass as the water at the top.

All that you are doing is confusing and mocking yourself

By running faster.

Speed is a function of both the slope and gravity of which neither change. Any river running at twice the flow of last year will be higher and overflowing its banks, neither of which are observable, besides 99 percent of snow melt is over by now and the remainder is evaporating in the heat before it gets into any body of water, desert summers are known for this (REALLY). So the only realistic reason that lake mead water levels are rising in August is that they reduced the dams output flow.

But you keep up making stuff up like Al Bore who claims that he invented the internet and that the North pole is currently ice free.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

Yup, if the Colorado river puts out double flow in the steep canyons where it runs thru there will be double depth. Why? because the water at the bottom has the same mass as the water at the top.

All that you are doing is confusing and mocking yourself

By running faster.

Speed is a function of both the slope and gravity of which neither change. Any river running at twice the flow of last year will be higher and overflowing its banks, neither of which are observable, besides 99 percent of snow melt is over by now and the remainder is evaporating in the heat before it gets into any body of water, desert summers are known for this (REALLY). So the only realistic reason that lake mead water levels are rising in August is that they reduced the dams output flow.

But you keep up making stuff up like Al Bore who claims that he invented the internet and that the North pole is currently ice free.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

Yup, if the Colorado river puts out double flow in the steep canyons where it runs thru there will be double depth. Why? because the water at the bottom has the same mass as the water at the top.

All that you are doing is confusing and mocking yourself

By running faster.

Speed is a function of both the slope and gravity of which neither change. Any river running at twice the flow of last year will be higher and overflowing its banks, neither of which are observable, besides 99 percent of snow melt is over by now and the remainder is evaporating in the heat before it gets into any body of water, desert summers are known for this (REALLY). So the only realistic reason that lake mead water levels are rising in August is that they reduced the dams output flow.

But you keep up making stuff up like Al Bore who claims that he invented the internet and that the North pole is currently ice free.

I keep waiting for you to eventually define flow, but I'd be the moron if thought you'd ever define your terms.

What the hell, I'll ask anyway.
By "flow", do you mean volume or velocity?

Either way, your ignorance is on full display.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
@Swan,

Hey dumbass, I couldn't care less about lake Mead and it's tributaries. Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about. What caught me as hilarious was your ridiculous assumption that double the flow equals double the depth.

You have done a nice pivot and evasion from that original statement and tried to change it from double to deeper.

Are you going to double down with stupid and go back to double, or will you remain in paradox with a deeper statement?

Yup, if the Colorado river puts out double flow in the steep canyons where it runs thru there will be double depth. Why? because the water at the bottom has the same mass as the water at the top.

All that you are doing is confusing and mocking yourself

By running faster.

Speed is a function of both the slope and gravity of which neither change. Any river running at twice the flow of last year will be higher and overflowing its banks, neither of which are observable, besides 99 percent of snow melt is over by now and the remainder is evaporating in the heat before it gets into any body of water, desert summers are known for this (REALLY). So the only realistic reason that lake mead water levels are rising in August is that they reduced the dams output flow.

But you keep up making stuff up like Al Bore who claims that he invented the internet and that the North pole is currently ice free.

Are you saying that the velocity of water moving in a river never changes?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey Swan, quick sand is a real bitch. Stop flailing about and maybe you have a chance at someone saving you...or continue on. It is rather amusing.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey Swan, quick sand is a real bitch. Stop flailing about and maybe you have a chance at someone saving you...or continue on. It is rather amusing.

Someone saving me from what? You are the clown saying that you can put twice as much water into the same space.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey Swan, quick sand is a real bitch. Stop flailing about and maybe you have a chance at someone saving you...or continue on. It is rather amusing.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey Swan, quick sand is a real bitch. Stop flailing about and maybe you have a chance at someone saving you...or continue on. It is rather amusing.

Someone saving me from what? You are the clown saying that you can put twice as much water into the same space.

GasGuzzler wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey Swan, quick sand is a real bitch. Stop flailing about and maybe you have a chance at someone saving you...or continue on. It is rather amusing.

Someone saving me from what? You are the clown saying that you can put twice as much water into the same space.

I never said anything close to that. Your reading comprehension continues to suffer.

Let's recap.
You said the Colorado river would be double the depth with double the water. I called you stupid. I have to assume that you think the river has straight up sidewalls as a perfect tube throughout it's entire length. OK, got it.

Oh, and water is not self leveling. Got that too.

Happy flailing.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey Swan, quick sand is a real bitch. Stop flailing about and maybe you have a chance at someone saving you...or continue on. It is rather amusing.

Someone saving me from what? You are the clown saying that you can put twice as much water into the same space.

I never said anything close to that. Your reading comprehension continues to suffer.

Let's recap.
You said the Colorado river would be double the depth with double the water. I called you stupid. I have to assume that you think the river has straight up sidewalls as a perfect tube throughout it's entire length. OK, got it.

Oh, and water is not self leveling. Got that too.

Happy flailing.

Swan wrote:
Again you apparently do not know that, where the Colorado river flows thru steep carved canyons

Swan wrote:
with no riverbanks, that there is nowhere for the additional water to go except up.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Water will always take the path of least resistance. All the rocks and boulders in the river bed, are resistance to the flow. Slower rate, less volume. As the water level rises above the rocks, there is less resistance, faster flow of water. You don't need to double the water depth, to get double the volume of water flowing down the river. Nice attempted dodge... Talking tributaries, get stuck, so switch to the Colorado River, for a failed 'save'...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Thought the Virgin river was a tributary of the Colorado river, not directly Lake Mead. Not from around there... Too much back-peddling and deflection in this thread.

Changes nothing though, once a river has risen sufficiently to clear the rocks and boulders at the bottom, a much larger volume flows quicker, without a further rise in level. Less resistance... How often do you see river banks going straight up? Higher water, higher velocity, means faster erosion. Gravity tends to collapse undercuts as well. River depth is a simple-minded way of measuring the volume of water...

So, how many gallons of ketchup did you get out of 1000 tomatoes this week?

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Thought the Virgin river was a tributary of the Colorado river, not directly Lake Mead. Not from around there... Too much back-peddling and deflection in this thread.

Changes nothing though, once a river has risen sufficiently to clear the rocks and boulders at the bottom, a much larger volume flows quicker, without a further rise in level. Less resistance... How often do you see river banks going straight up? Higher water, higher velocity, means faster erosion. Gravity tends to collapse undercuts as well. River depth is a simple-minded way of measuring the volume of water...

So, how many gallons of ketchup did you get out of 1000 tomatoes this week?

So in your strange little world rivers never overrun their banks and flood the town because when more water enters the river it just runs faster,

PS Rivers get higher kiddy, really

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Thought the Virgin river was a tributary of the Colorado river, not directly Lake Mead. Not from around there... Too much back-peddling and deflection in this thread.

Changes nothing though, once a river has risen sufficiently to clear the rocks and boulders at the bottom, a much larger volume flows quicker, without a further rise in level. Less resistance... How often do you see river banks going straight up? Higher water, higher velocity, means faster erosion. Gravity tends to collapse undercuts as well. River depth is a simple-minded way of measuring the volume of water...

So, how many gallons of ketchup did you get out of 1000 tomatoes this week?

So in your strange little world rivers never overrun their banks and flood the town because when more water enters the river it just runs faster,

PS Rivers get higher kiddy, really

Gosh, a fukking Swan evasion. Never saw that coming.
Rivers don't double their depth with double the water volume, dumbass. Address it, or tap out, dumbass.

Happy flailing.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Thought the Virgin river was a tributary of the Colorado river, not directly Lake Mead. Not from around there... Too much back-peddling and deflection in this thread.

Changes nothing though, once a river has risen sufficiently to clear the rocks and boulders at the bottom, a much larger volume flows quicker, without a further rise in level. Less resistance... How often do you see river banks going straight up? Higher water, higher velocity, means faster erosion. Gravity tends to collapse undercuts as well. River depth is a simple-minded way of measuring the volume of water...

So, how many gallons of ketchup did you get out of 1000 tomatoes this week?

So in your strange little world rivers never overrun their banks and flood the town because when more water enters the river it just runs faster, and never gets higher. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Seriously were you always so weird, or did the government teach you to be strange?

If you have pills, please consume them now, as prescribed, but not without your mommy or daddy's help.

PS Rivers get higher kiddy, really

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Thought the Virgin river was a tributary of the Colorado river, not directly Lake Mead. Not from around there... Too much back-peddling and deflection in this thread.

Changes nothing though, once a river has risen sufficiently to clear the rocks and boulders at the bottom, a much larger volume flows quicker, without a further rise in level. Less resistance... How often do you see river banks going straight up? Higher water, higher velocity, means faster erosion. Gravity tends to collapse undercuts as well. River depth is a simple-minded way of measuring the volume of water...

So, how many gallons of ketchup did you get out of 1000 tomatoes this week?

So in your strange little world rivers never overrun their banks and flood the town because when more water enters the river it just runs faster, and never gets higher. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Seriously were you always so weird, or did the government teach you to be strange?

If you have pills, please consume them now, as prescribed, but not without your mommy or daddy's help.

PS Rivers get higher kiddy, really

Depth of the water, isn't the same as volume, when it's moving. You're missing the flow rate variable. How much water is passing through the point you are measuring. Guess you didn't get that far with your schooling. Did you drop out, or flunk out?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Think about flow rate, like water in a pipe. When you open the valve a little, only a small volume of water flows. The size of the pipe doesn't change, the physical volume is always the same. When you open the valve all the way, a greater volume flows out, a lot quicker too. The pipes remain the same size. When you have a river with rocks above the surface, you have resistance to the flow, like the water pipe, with a valve. But, once the water level rises above the rocks, it opens up a path with less resistance, the valve is wide open. A lot more water flows, through the same space. The level of the river doesn't need to double, to double the volume flowing through it.

Glad to see Apple is still hanging in there... Tech will all always get replaced with something better, cheaper to produce. Apple will eventually fall, probably not long either.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'll just give it a few days, maybe it will sink in... You just aren't understanding the water is moving. The volume of water in the river is greater than if it wasn't moving. There is a time element you just aren't grasping.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Looks like a flash flood warning was issued today, 8/13, around lake Mead.

https://news3lv.com/news/local/flash-flood-warning-issued-near-lake-mead-us-93

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Looks like a flash flood warning was issued today, 8/13, around lake Mead.

https://news3lv.com/news/local/flash-flood-warning-issued-near-lake-mead-us-93

Actually Las Vegas has sunshine all day in the forecast, 106F for the high. Furthermore, the lake is 200 feet below flood stage

Silly

PS LOL are you claiming that the .25 percent of an inch of rain that is falling hundreds of miles to the North will all make it into the lake?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Looks like a flash flood warning was issued today, 8/13, around lake Mead.

https://news3lv.com/news/local/flash-flood-warning-issued-near-lake-mead-us-93

Actually Las Vegas has sunshine all day in the forecast, 106F for the high. Furthermore, the lake is 200 feet below flood stage

Swan wrote:
PS LOL are you claiming that the .25 percent of an inch of rain that is falling hundreds of miles to the North will all make it into the lake?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Looks like a flash flood warning was issued today, 8/13, around lake Mead.

https://news3lv.com/news/local/flash-flood-warning-issued-near-lake-mead-us-93

Actually Las Vegas has sunshine all day in the forecast, 106F for the high. Furthermore, the lake is 200 feet below flood stage

Silly

PS LOL are you claiming that the .25 percent of an inch of rain that is falling hundreds of miles to the North will all make it into the lake?

Entirely possible..

Spongy Iris wrote:
Look Swan. Lees Ferry Arizona, on the Colorado river, upstream from Lake Mead gets rain all year, with July and August being their rainiest months.

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azlees

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Look Swan. Lees Ferry Arizona, on the Colorado river, upstream from Lake Mead gets rain all year, with July and August being their rainiest months.

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azlees

So? Do you have a point or are you just babbling again?

Yea Lees Ferry is a certified rain forest, right.



And you sir are weird

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Look Swan. Lees Ferry Arizona, on the Colorado river, upstream from Lake Mead gets rain all year, with July and August being their rainiest months.

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azlees

So? Do you have a point or are you just babbling again?

Yea Lees Ferry is a certified rain forest, right.



And you sir are weird

It's more support for the same point I have been making in this thread, that Lake Mead is rising due to more water flowing in from its tributary rivers.

Swan wrote: