Remember me
▼ Content

Tropical Storm Barry


Tropical Storm Barry12-07-2019 00:12
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
https://www.wftv.com/weather/eye-on-the-tropics/storms-race-over-central-florida-gusts-lightning-ts-barry-eyes-new-orleans/965903695

That was quick jump to a tropical storm. Seems like yesterday, maybe the day for (been busy), there was just chance something might be forming. Skipped right over the sub-topical category. Doubtful it'll do much, except rain a lot, probably won't notice it over this way. Guess Louisiana will see if they did a good job repairing the levies after Katrina, and if they learned anything from the experience.

I suppose I should get my grocery shopping done tomorrow, before the big rush on everything. It's not the storm, but the panic the media likes to stir up. I do understand it's best to be prepared, and abundance of caution, but they go above and beyond common sense. Worst we can expect, is a wetter climate for a few days. It'll be on and off showers all day, instead of the evening soak. Guess I won't be drone flying for a few days either.

Slow storm, hope it's no the kind that doesn't have enough momentum to make landfall, circle the gulf a little, and try again, when it picks up a little more speed, like Katrina. Personally, I think this one is mostly hype though, but the extra rain might not be such a good thing for some.
14-07-2019 22:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
The big concern for this storm was the already full Mississippi from Spring snow melt and heavy rain runoff. Forecast models were suggesting 25 inches of rain for New Orleans. Wrong again. Looks like most of the punch is done and radar estimates are in the 2-4 inch range. This is pretty close to a non event. A lot of dehydrated reporters right now.
Edited on 14-07-2019 22:20
15-07-2019 00:50
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The big concern for this storm was the already full Mississippi from Spring snow melt and heavy rain runoff. Forecast models were suggesting 25 inches of rain for New Orleans. Wrong again. Looks like most of the punch is done and radar estimates are in the 2-4 inch range. This is pretty close to a non event. A lot of dehydrated reporters right now.


They've been over-hyping these storms for years, which is a bad thing when a really bad one forms. I've gotten a pretty good sense of the level of hype, and the level of threat. The big ones take a week or so to gain strength, don't usually form in the gulf, but can gain a lot while crossing. Barry is less than a week old, from something might be forming, to a hurricane making landfall. Think it just barely fit the definition of a tropical storm, and they ran with it. Sort of think they do it, mostly to scare people into going out and spending a lot of money, quickly. Good for the economy, good for the sponsors. I always have a few days food and water on hand, doesn't really make sense to stock up for a long stay. If you need to evacuate, you can only carry so much stuff. Never been to a shelter, or evacuated, but sort of think they put some limit on how much stuff people pack with them, since the really need the space for people. Storms don't take a whole day to pass, least not the worst of it. Even with power out, doesn't take more than one day, before roads are open enough, to get fresh supplies in. The worst hit areas, usually get access to food and water from emergency workers, even ice is made available. Maybe out in the less populated areas, might have to go a few days, maybe a week. Most people don't wait for clean up crews to clear roads. I didn't, for one storm, took my chainsaw out, and cleared the street I live on, least enough, so everyone wasn't using my driveway for a turn-around. Had lots of help too, neighbors heard the saw, came out and started dragging branches off to the side of the road.

It's not really as bad as on TV, they usually have to do some looking to find bad damage. You get to noticing, that they don't have a lot of material, keep showing the same places, sometimes, just different angles. Most of the bad stuff happens on the coast, with the landfall, and storm surge. They loose a lot of strength and speed on land. The storms are huge, cover a couple hundred miles. Not the same as a tornado.

I'm glad it turned out to be dud. It was slow moving, so it could have turned and follow the coast, or crossed back over the gulf, and picked up more water and strength.

Heard sort of funny thing on TV, they said this was the peak of hurricane season. It just started memorial day, and goes through November. The peak, is usually August-September, when we see the most storms. Maybe Climate Change shifted things around some. Don't really pay that much attention to the news interpretations, just try to pull something useful out of the misrepresentations.
15-07-2019 03:06
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The big concern for this storm was the already full Mississippi from Spring snow melt and heavy rain runoff. Forecast models were suggesting 25 inches of rain for New Orleans. Wrong again. Looks like most of the punch is done and radar estimates are in the 2-4 inch range. This is pretty close to a non event. A lot of dehydrated reporters right now.


They've been over-hyping these storms for years, which is a bad thing when a really bad one forms. I've gotten a pretty good sense of the level of hype, and the level of threat. The big ones take a week or so to gain strength, don't usually form in the gulf, but can gain a lot while crossing. Barry is less than a week old, from something might be forming, to a hurricane making landfall. Think it just barely fit the definition of a tropical storm, and they ran with it. Sort of think they do it, mostly to scare people into going out and spending a lot of money, quickly. Good for the economy, good for the sponsors. I always have a few days food and water on hand, doesn't really make sense to stock up for a long stay. If you need to evacuate, you can only carry so much stuff. Never been to a shelter, or evacuated, but sort of think they put some limit on how much stuff people pack with them, since the really need the space for people. Storms don't take a whole day to pass, least not the worst of it. Even with power out, doesn't take more than one day, before roads are open enough, to get fresh supplies in. The worst hit areas, usually get access to food and water from emergency workers, even ice is made available. Maybe out in the less populated areas, might have to go a few days, maybe a week. Most people don't wait for clean up crews to clear roads. I didn't, for one storm, took my chainsaw out, and cleared the street I live on, least enough, so everyone wasn't using my driveway for a turn-around. Had lots of help too, neighbors heard the saw, came out and started dragging branches off to the side of the road.

It's not really as bad as on TV, they usually have to do some looking to find bad damage. You get to noticing, that they don't have a lot of material, keep showing the same places, sometimes, just different angles. Most of the bad stuff happens on the coast, with the landfall, and storm surge. They loose a lot of strength and speed on land. The storms are huge, cover a couple hundred miles. Not the same as a tornado.

I'm glad it turned out to be dud. It was slow moving, so it could have turned and follow the coast, or crossed back over the gulf, and picked up more water and strength.

Heard sort of funny thing on TV, they said this was the peak of hurricane season. It just started memorial day, and goes through November. The peak, is usually August-September, when we see the most storms. Maybe Climate Change shifted things around some. Don't really pay that much attention to the news interpretations, just try to pull something useful out of the misrepresentations.



How's your partner Harvey? Have a good feel for him? Life's a bitch.
15-07-2019 03:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
It's not personal Harvey. The climate is changing. To say it isn't, that's not helping anyone. Even ITN will say that ground water depletion or the lack of select harvesting of timber is a problem. Why there is no problem.

If you don't get it Harvey, there's clear cutting and there's sustainability. ITN supports clear cutting and the depletion of our water tables. That's why me and ITN will never get along with each other.
Edited on 15-07-2019 03:15
15-07-2019 03:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
James___ wrote:
It's not personal Harvey.

Translation: You rejected my precious religious beliefs and I'm offended. I'd ruin your life if I could.

James___ wrote: The climate is changing.

Translation: The [undefined] is changing [in unspecified ways]. You can't prove that it isn't.


James___ wrote: To say it isn't, that's not helping anyone.

... and what you say needs to help people or you don't get to say it.

James___ wrote: Even ITN will say that ground water depletion or the lack of select harvesting of timber is a problem. Why there is no problem.

Well, if even Into the Night will say it, then it must be true . By the way, even Into the Night will say that the ozone isn't depleting. Even Into the Night will say that no atmospheric gas can increase the planet's average global temperature.

@ Into the Night, strangely it has come down to name-dropping your name ... on an anonymous board. I'm not quite sure how this happened.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-07-2019 03:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's not personal Harvey.

Translation: You rejected my precious religious beliefs and I'm offended. I'd ruin your life if I could.

James___ wrote: The climate is changing.

Translation: The [undefined] is changing [in unspecified ways]. You can't prove that it isn't.


James___ wrote: To say it isn't, that's not helping anyone.

... and what you say needs to help people or you don't get to say it.

James___ wrote: Even ITN will say that ground water depletion or the lack of select harvesting of timber is a problem. Why there is no problem.

Well, if even Into the Night will say it, then it must be true . By the way, even Into the Night will say that the ozone isn't depleting. Even Into the Night will say that no atmospheric gas can increase the planet's average global temperature.

@ Into the Night, strangely it has come down to name-dropping your name ... on an anonymous board. I'm not quite sure how this happened.


It's sad that you could say nothing. ITN knows that I am right. That's why we agree on certain issues that he can't talk about.
I'm the enemy. It's funny. I chose not to graduate from a school for Native Americans. Life is strange that way.
15-07-2019 03:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote: They've been over-hyping these storms for years, which is a bad thing when a really bad one forms.

It's pure business. Hype increases the odds viewers will remain glued to the channel for the updates. The science is:

Ratings_Spike = Danger_Magnitude * Hype_Coefficient


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-07-2019 04:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: They've been over-hyping these storms for years, which is a bad thing when a really bad one forms.

It's pure business. Hype increases the odds viewers will remain glued to the channel for the updates. The science is:

Ratings_Spike = Danger_Magnitude * Hype_Coefficient



Yet you failed to mention ground water depletion or clear cutting.
I am playing the Devil's advocate here. Can you imagine what clear cutting does to streams? How are fish to spawn? You probably don't want that, do you?
How about pumping all of the water out of the water tables? Just not necessary for what's above it.
And this is the problem. No one cares about sustainability.
15-07-2019 05:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
It's true. We can't harm our environment. We can't pollute rivers or streams. We can't denude the land of a forest. There are some things we just aren't capable of.
But we can build cities.
15-07-2019 11:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
Sure we can harm our environment, and we do, probably always will. But, we aren't harming the planet, it will do fine after we leave it. There are people, total slobs, house or apartment is a filthy mess. Sometimes they get thrown in jail, children taken to foster care. The house or apartment is simply cleaned up, and ready for new people. Rarely are those buildings condemned and torn down. True, the planet is our home, and people are total slobs, we foul the environment, but don't destroy the planet.

Underground water is good water, but we also use surface water. Really not sure about the whole water shortage deal, 80% of the planet surface is water. If your well runs dry, find a new source, or move... Quit crying about it, and take care of yourself. Clear cutting, a strip mining stopped a long time ago, least in this country. Even when they clear cut trees, other stuff continued to grow, damage was temporary. Sort of like the ice melting during the summer months, some places look really bad, almost scary. Then winter comes, ice returns, not big deal, until next summer.

We do relatively light damage to the environment, the planet will recover. Mostly, it's disgusting, inconvenient, ugly, sometimes dangerous and deadly, but nothing permanent. Yes, we could do a whole lot better, but there is always going to be lazy slobs, who are going to the cheapest, easiest, mostly to increase profit, with minimal effort.
15-07-2019 15:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote:Underground water is good water, but we also use surface water. Really not sure about the whole water shortage deal, 80% of the planet surface is water.

Harvey, it's not really so much a water shortage as it is a drinking water shortage ... where such shortages exist.

Ocean water is not drinkable. Only about 3% of the earth's water is not in the ocean. Of that, more than half would be drinkable if it weren't solid ice at the poles. Of the remaining 1% or so of earth's water that isn't in the ocean or ice at the poles, we pollute a good chunk of it.

Yes, there is plenty of drinking water for all the people on the planet, but work and logistics are required to keep it drinkable and to deliver it to everyone. Where you have breakdowns in the work or the logistics, you have drinking water shortages.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-07-2019 18:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The big concern for this storm was the already full Mississippi from Spring snow melt and heavy rain runoff. Forecast models were suggesting 25 inches of rain for New Orleans. Wrong again. Looks like most of the punch is done and radar estimates are in the 2-4 inch range. This is pretty close to a non event. A lot of dehydrated reporters right now.


They've been over-hyping these storms for years, which is a bad thing when a really bad one forms. I've gotten a pretty good sense of the level of hype, and the level of threat. The big ones take a week or so to gain strength, don't usually form in the gulf, but can gain a lot while crossing. Barry is less than a week old, from something might be forming, to a hurricane making landfall. Think it just barely fit the definition of a tropical storm, and they ran with it. Sort of think they do it, mostly to scare people into going out and spending a lot of money, quickly. Good for the economy, good for the sponsors. I always have a few days food and water on hand, doesn't really make sense to stock up for a long stay. If you need to evacuate, you can only carry so much stuff. Never been to a shelter, or evacuated, but sort of think they put some limit on how much stuff people pack with them, since the really need the space for people. Storms don't take a whole day to pass, least not the worst of it. Even with power out, doesn't take more than one day, before roads are open enough, to get fresh supplies in. The worst hit areas, usually get access to food and water from emergency workers, even ice is made available. Maybe out in the less populated areas, might have to go a few days, maybe a week. Most people don't wait for clean up crews to clear roads. I didn't, for one storm, took my chainsaw out, and cleared the street I live on, least enough, so everyone wasn't using my driveway for a turn-around. Had lots of help too, neighbors heard the saw, came out and started dragging branches off to the side of the road.

It's not really as bad as on TV, they usually have to do some looking to find bad damage. You get to noticing, that they don't have a lot of material, keep showing the same places, sometimes, just different angles. Most of the bad stuff happens on the coast, with the landfall, and storm surge. They loose a lot of strength and speed on land. The storms are huge, cover a couple hundred miles. Not the same as a tornado.

I'm glad it turned out to be dud. It was slow moving, so it could have turned and follow the coast, or crossed back over the gulf, and picked up more water and strength.

Heard sort of funny thing on TV, they said this was the peak of hurricane season. It just started memorial day, and goes through November. The peak, is usually August-September, when we see the most storms. Maybe Climate Change shifted things around some. Don't really pay that much attention to the news interpretations, just try to pull something useful out of the misrepresentations.


Someday they'll call a hurricane 'Wolf'.


The Parrot Killer
15-07-2019 18:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
It's not personal Harvey. The climate is changing. To say it isn't, that's not helping anyone. Even ITN will say that ground water depletion or the lack of select harvesting of timber is a problem. Why there is no problem.

If you don't get it Harvey, there's clear cutting and there's sustainability. ITN supports clear cutting and the depletion of our water tables. That's why me and ITN will never get along with each other.


Clear cutting does not deplete water tables. Non-sequitur fallacy.

Clear cutting harvests all the trees on the land for some use (usually lumber or paper). The land is completely clear to sow the next crop of trees, including several species that like to grow there.

Water tables are not aquifers. Aquifers are like underground rivers and lakes. Most that we tap are in the form of a lake.

Overuse of water is overuse of water. When more is used than the water that is draining into the lake, the lake level drops. The same is true of any aquifer.

The midwest aquifers are fed by runoff from the northern Rockies. Sometimes the rain pattern moves south, and northern part of the aquifer doesn't get refilled as quickly. This not not one large aquifer, but a series of aquifers.

Due to ranch activity increasing, the use of much of this water is becoming too high. Down by Texas, those aquifers are just fine. They get filled by these storms and hurricanes.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-07-2019 18:57
15-07-2019 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's not personal Harvey.

Translation: You rejected my precious religious beliefs and I'm offended. I'd ruin your life if I could.

James___ wrote: The climate is changing.

Translation: The [undefined] is changing [in unspecified ways]. You can't prove that it isn't.


James___ wrote: To say it isn't, that's not helping anyone.

... and what you say needs to help people or you don't get to say it.

James___ wrote: Even ITN will say that ground water depletion or the lack of select harvesting of timber is a problem. Why there is no problem.

Well, if even Into the Night will say it, then it must be true . By the way, even Into the Night will say that the ozone isn't depleting. Even Into the Night will say that no atmospheric gas can increase the planet's average global temperature.

@ Into the Night, strangely it has come down to name-dropping your name ... on an anonymous board. I'm not quite sure how this happened.


Heh. James showed up when you weren't so active on this forum. He had already been through quite a few arguments with me before you showed up again.

Rest assured, your name gets dropped from time to time as well now.


The Parrot Killer
15-07-2019 19:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's not personal Harvey.

Translation: You rejected my precious religious beliefs and I'm offended. I'd ruin your life if I could.

James___ wrote: The climate is changing.

Translation: The [undefined] is changing [in unspecified ways]. You can't prove that it isn't.


James___ wrote: To say it isn't, that's not helping anyone.

... and what you say needs to help people or you don't get to say it.

James___ wrote: Even ITN will say that ground water depletion or the lack of select harvesting of timber is a problem. Why there is no problem.

Well, if even Into the Night will say it, then it must be true . By the way, even Into the Night will say that the ozone isn't depleting. Even Into the Night will say that no atmospheric gas can increase the planet's average global temperature.

@ Into the Night, strangely it has come down to name-dropping your name ... on an anonymous board. I'm not quite sure how this happened.


It's sad that you could say nothing. ITN knows that I am right.

No, James. You are wrong.
James___ wrote:
That's why we agree on certain issues that he can't talk about.

No James, we don't agree on your random buzzwords you call 'science'.
James___ wrote:
I'm the enemy.

No. Your beliefs are just screwed up.
James___ wrote:
It's funny.

What's so funny about illiteracy?
James___ wrote:
I chose not to graduate from a school for Native Americans.

So you have no high school diploma, correct?
James___ wrote:
Life is strange that way.

Nah. Just you.


The Parrot Killer
15-07-2019 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: They've been over-hyping these storms for years, which is a bad thing when a really bad one forms.

It's pure business. Hype increases the odds viewers will remain glued to the channel for the updates. The science is:

Ratings_Spike = Danger_Magnitude * Hype_Coefficient



Yet you failed to mention ground water depletion or clear cutting.
I am playing the Devil's advocate here. Can you imagine what clear cutting does to streams? How are fish to spawn? You probably don't want that, do you?
How about pumping all of the water out of the water tables? Just not necessary for what's above it.
And this is the problem. No one cares about sustainability.


Fish don't live in aquifers, James.

Clear cutting does nothing permanent to a stream.


The Parrot Killer
15-07-2019 19:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Underground water is good water, but we also use surface water. Really not sure about the whole water shortage deal, 80% of the planet surface is water.

Harvey, it's not really so much a water shortage as it is a drinking water shortage ... where such shortages exist.

Ocean water is not drinkable. Only about 3% of the earth's water is not in the ocean. Of that, more than half would be drinkable if it weren't solid ice at the poles. Of the remaining 1% or so of earth's water that isn't in the ocean or ice at the poles, we pollute a good chunk of it.

Yes, there is plenty of drinking water for all the people on the planet, but work and logistics are required to keep it drinkable and to deliver it to everyone. Where you have breakdowns in the work or the logistics, you have drinking water shortages.


This is basically true. Yes, most of the planet surface is ocean water. What is needed for crops and drinking is fresh water, a much scarcer commodity.

Getting it to where it's needed is the other challenge.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2019 02:53
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
Water from the aquifers is basically clean filtered water, for free, and usually where it's used a lot. In the absence of a free source, there are other options, but you have to spend a little money, do a little work. Those options are available, just cheaper and easier to sit and complain about shortages. How polluted is rain water? Lot of places get a surplus part of the year, then are crying about drought conditions the rest of the year. California really uses a lot of kleenex, guess that's why the need to clear-cut so much land. Would it be so hard to collect and store some of that surplus, save it for those not so rainy days? Yeah, we have lakes and reservoirs, but they tend to get polluted, they let fish shit in them, and other things. Most of those were either natural, or man-made with dams, long time ago, hardly keep up with the population, or use. A lot of storm water is directed out to sea, quickest possible route, which some times over burdens the river system. Seems like they could remove the crap it picks up off the roads and parking lots (most places I drive or park, anyway, leaks a little), maybe feed some of it through an artificial filter, are hold some back, and release it in places where it will naturally filter into the aquifers, at the normale rate. Of course, nobody wants to spend money on something they normally get for free. We pipe oil and gas from Canada, down to the Gulf, would water be such a problem to move? Least it would blow up, catch fire, or pollute the environment, if the pipe gets damaged. Should be profits in it, if you need it, not much choice, but to pay for it. People pay a $1.00 or more for a bottle of filtered water, where tap water is just a few steps away. We even have filtered water for free, yet people still buy the bottled water out of the machines. We have free ice as well, always sort of wonder if the put in an ice vending machine...

Sea water can be desalinated, California has the longest coastline, next to Alaska, and make little use of those resources either. What do they use all that water tax money, or fines for using water during a drought (has it ever stopped)?

Basically, we've grown, but we don't want to spend any money on upgrading the things we need, to keep up with the growth. I don't believe anything we built a hundred years ago was expected to last forever, and take care of our every need. Isn't there a profit potential, if you can supply a product, for which there a great demand?

What about winter snow? I remember seeing a few times on the news last winter, where they were dumping truck loads into rivers. Guess there wasn't a shortage of water then. Most of it looked like clean, white snow, not the yellow kind.

I don't think it's so much a shortage of fresh water, just bad timing. We waste it when there is a surplus, and cry when it doesn't rain or snow for a while. It's cost and convience, not that we could do something to make better use of what nature gives us for free.
16-07-2019 03:24
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
James___ wrote:
It's true. We can't harm our environment. We can't pollute rivers or streams. We can't denude the land of a forest. There are some things we just aren't capable of.
But we can build cities.


How much damage do we do, compared to the forces of nature? In 1980, I had the rare operatunity to witness firsthand (well, several hundred miles away), a volcano erupt, top third or more no longer exists. A shower of ash, that we used snow shoves to clear sidewalks and driveways, and that was about 300 miles away. You could google Mt. St. Helens, and see all the damage done to the rivers and streams. It clear cut, basically a whole mountain in minutes. Spirit lake, pretty good sized lake was covered shore to shore with logs. Rivers were clogged with even more logs. A year later, we were still dealing with the ash problem. Few years later, the logs were pretty much cleared, mountainside green, life goes on.

Hurricanes are mostly water damage, knock over a few trees here and there, lot of debris to clean up. But tornadoes do some serious damage, they rip up every thing in their path. Had a few cross roads I drive frequently, and had an unobstructed view, of stuff I never knew. There was a small lake revealed, saw houses behind some undeveloped land, that I never thought even possible around here, large and luxurious. One revealed an old junkyard/salvage business, not sure if it was still in business, stuff look really old and abandoned, even the buildings and sheds.

When I was growing up, we had quite a few winter storms, that did a lot of damage. Some of the worse, came from freezing rain. Basically, the ground temperature is well below freeing, but the air temperature is warmer. The rain frozen on the first thing it touched, and build up thick, heavy layers, which rip down power lines, branches, even whole trees, damaged roofs, cars. People even got ice locked in their houses. This wasn't just one neighborhood, or one city, very large area of devastation. One winter, the main power feed to our city got ripped down, went two weeks with no electricity. National Guard brought in some huge diesel generators on flatbed trucks, and fixed us up. Took months to repair the power lines. Fossil fuels really save the day, can't imagine doing without. Two weeks was bad, in the middle of winter, but not life threatening, couple of months though...
16-07-2019 18:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water from the aquifers is basically clean filtered water, for free, and usually where it's used a lot. In the absence of a free source, there are other options, but you have to spend a little money, do a little work. Those options are available, just cheaper and easier to sit and complain about shortages. How polluted is rain water? Lot of places get a surplus part of the year, then are crying about drought conditions the rest of the year. California really uses a lot of kleenex, guess that's why the need to clear-cut so much land. Would it be so hard to collect and store some of that surplus, save it for those not so rainy days? Yeah, we have lakes and reservoirs, but they tend to get polluted, they let fish shit in them, and other things. Most of those were either natural, or man-made with dams, long time ago, hardly keep up with the population, or use. A lot of storm water is directed out to sea, quickest possible route, which some times over burdens the river system. Seems like they could remove the crap it picks up off the roads and parking lots (most places I drive or park, anyway, leaks a little), maybe feed some of it through an artificial filter, are hold some back, and release it in places where it will naturally filter into the aquifers, at the normale rate. Of course, nobody wants to spend money on something they normally get for free. We pipe oil and gas from Canada, down to the Gulf, would water be such a problem to move? Least it would blow up, catch fire, or pollute the environment, if the pipe gets damaged. Should be profits in it, if you need it, not much choice, but to pay for it. People pay a $1.00 or more for a bottle of filtered water, where tap water is just a few steps away. We even have filtered water for free, yet people still buy the bottled water out of the machines. We have free ice as well, always sort of wonder if the put in an ice vending machine...

Sea water can be desalinated, California has the longest coastline, next to Alaska, and make little use of those resources either. What do they use all that water tax money, or fines for using water during a drought (has it ever stopped)?

Basically, we've grown, but we don't want to spend any money on upgrading the things we need, to keep up with the growth. I don't believe anything we built a hundred years ago was expected to last forever, and take care of our every need. Isn't there a profit potential, if you can supply a product, for which there a great demand?

What about winter snow? I remember seeing a few times on the news last winter, where they were dumping truck loads into rivers. Guess there wasn't a shortage of water then. Most of it looked like clean, white snow, not the yellow kind.

I don't think it's so much a shortage of fresh water, just bad timing. We waste it when there is a surplus, and cry when it doesn't rain or snow for a while. It's cost and convience, not that we could do something to make better use of what nature gives us for free.


Actually, California has plenty of water, for a desert region. They waste it on trying to grow things like rice (a swamp grass) or almonds (require a LOT of water) in the desert.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2019 18:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's true. We can't harm our environment. We can't pollute rivers or streams. We can't denude the land of a forest. There are some things we just aren't capable of.
But we can build cities.


How much damage do we do, compared to the forces of nature? In 1980, I had the rare operatunity to witness firsthand (well, several hundred miles away), a volcano erupt, top third or more no longer exists. A shower of ash, that we used snow shoves to clear sidewalks and driveways, and that was about 300 miles away. You could google Mt. St. Helens, and see all the damage done to the rivers and streams. It clear cut, basically a whole mountain in minutes. Spirit lake, pretty good sized lake was covered shore to shore with logs. Rivers were clogged with even more logs. A year later, we were still dealing with the ash problem. Few years later, the logs were pretty much cleared, mountainside green, life goes on.

Hurricanes are mostly water damage, knock over a few trees here and there, lot of debris to clean up. But tornadoes do some serious damage, they rip up every thing in their path. Had a few cross roads I drive frequently, and had an unobstructed view, of stuff I never knew. There was a small lake revealed, saw houses behind some undeveloped land, that I never thought even possible around here, large and luxurious. One revealed an old junkyard/salvage business, not sure if it was still in business, stuff look really old and abandoned, even the buildings and sheds.

When I was growing up, we had quite a few winter storms, that did a lot of damage. Some of the worse, came from freezing rain. Basically, the ground temperature is well below freeing, but the air temperature is warmer. The rain frozen on the first thing it touched, and build up thick, heavy layers, which rip down power lines, branches, even whole trees, damaged roofs, cars. People even got ice locked in their houses. This wasn't just one neighborhood, or one city, very large area of devastation. One winter, the main power feed to our city got ripped down, went two weeks with no electricity. National Guard brought in some huge diesel generators on flatbed trucks, and fixed us up. Took months to repair the power lines. Fossil fuels really save the day, can't imagine doing without. Two weeks was bad, in the middle of winter, but not life threatening, couple of months though...


Bingo.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2019 21:32
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water from the aquifers is basically clean filtered water, for free, and usually where it's used a lot. In the absence of a free source, there are other options, but you have to spend a little money, do a little work. Those options are available, just cheaper and easier to sit and complain about shortages. How polluted is rain water? Lot of places get a surplus part of the year, then are crying about drought conditions the rest of the year. California really uses a lot of kleenex, guess that's why the need to clear-cut so much land. Would it be so hard to collect and store some of that surplus, save it for those not so rainy days? Yeah, we have lakes and reservoirs, but they tend to get polluted, they let fish shit in them, and other things. Most of those were either natural, or man-made with dams, long time ago, hardly keep up with the population, or use. A lot of storm water is directed out to sea, quickest possible route, which some times over burdens the river system. Seems like they could remove the crap it picks up off the roads and parking lots (most places I drive or park, anyway, leaks a little), maybe feed some of it through an artificial filter, are hold some back, and release it in places where it will naturally filter into the aquifers, at the normale rate. Of course, nobody wants to spend money on something they normally get for free. We pipe oil and gas from Canada, down to the Gulf, would water be such a problem to move? Least it would blow up, catch fire, or pollute the environment, if the pipe gets damaged. Should be profits in it, if you need it, not much choice, but to pay for it. People pay a $1.00 or more for a bottle of filtered water, where tap water is just a few steps away. We even have filtered water for free, yet people still buy the bottled water out of the machines. We have free ice as well, always sort of wonder if the put in an ice vending machine...

Sea water can be desalinated, California has the longest coastline, next to Alaska, and make little use of those resources either. What do they use all that water tax money, or fines for using water during a drought (has it ever stopped)?

Basically, we've grown, but we don't want to spend any money on upgrading the things we need, to keep up with the growth. I don't believe anything we built a hundred years ago was expected to last forever, and take care of our every need. Isn't there a profit potential, if you can supply a product, for which there a great demand?

What about winter snow? I remember seeing a few times on the news last winter, where they were dumping truck loads into rivers. Guess there wasn't a shortage of water then. Most of it looked like clean, white snow, not the yellow kind.

I don't think it's so much a shortage of fresh water, just bad timing. We waste it when there is a surplus, and cry when it doesn't rain or snow for a while. It's cost and convience, not that we could do something to make better use of what nature gives us for free.


Actually, California has plenty of water, for a desert region. They waste it on trying to grow things like rice (a swamp grass) or almonds (require a LOT of water) in the desert.


Guess their world class wine industry uses a considerable amount of water as well, which is exempt for drought restrictions. Never really got into wine, always figured it was more for show, than enjoyment. I've politely, consumed plenty enough, over a large assortment of types, and prices, never had one, that didn't stop my wanting a beer instead. Had a few glasses of something special, that I pray never to be served again, wasn't good, and really tough to mind my manners. Guess it's hard work, to appreciate the finer things...
16-07-2019 22:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water from the aquifers is basically clean filtered water, for free, and usually where it's used a lot. In the absence of a free source, there are other options, but you have to spend a little money, do a little work. Those options are available, just cheaper and easier to sit and complain about shortages. How polluted is rain water? Lot of places get a surplus part of the year, then are crying about drought conditions the rest of the year. California really uses a lot of kleenex, guess that's why the need to clear-cut so much land. Would it be so hard to collect and store some of that surplus, save it for those not so rainy days? Yeah, we have lakes and reservoirs, but they tend to get polluted, they let fish shit in them, and other things. Most of those were either natural, or man-made with dams, long time ago, hardly keep up with the population, or use. A lot of storm water is directed out to sea, quickest possible route, which some times over burdens the river system. Seems like they could remove the crap it picks up off the roads and parking lots (most places I drive or park, anyway, leaks a little), maybe feed some of it through an artificial filter, are hold some back, and release it in places where it will naturally filter into the aquifers, at the normale rate. Of course, nobody wants to spend money on something they normally get for free. We pipe oil and gas from Canada, down to the Gulf, would water be such a problem to move? Least it would blow up, catch fire, or pollute the environment, if the pipe gets damaged. Should be profits in it, if you need it, not much choice, but to pay for it. People pay a $1.00 or more for a bottle of filtered water, where tap water is just a few steps away. We even have filtered water for free, yet people still buy the bottled water out of the machines. We have free ice as well, always sort of wonder if the put in an ice vending machine...

Sea water can be desalinated, California has the longest coastline, next to Alaska, and make little use of those resources either. What do they use all that water tax money, or fines for using water during a drought (has it ever stopped)?

Basically, we've grown, but we don't want to spend any money on upgrading the things we need, to keep up with the growth. I don't believe anything we built a hundred years ago was expected to last forever, and take care of our every need. Isn't there a profit potential, if you can supply a product, for which there a great demand?

What about winter snow? I remember seeing a few times on the news last winter, where they were dumping truck loads into rivers. Guess there wasn't a shortage of water then. Most of it looked like clean, white snow, not the yellow kind.

I don't think it's so much a shortage of fresh water, just bad timing. We waste it when there is a surplus, and cry when it doesn't rain or snow for a while. It's cost and convience, not that we could do something to make better use of what nature gives us for free.


Actually, California has plenty of water, for a desert region. They waste it on trying to grow things like rice (a swamp grass) or almonds (require a LOT of water) in the desert.


Guess their world class wine industry uses a considerable amount of water as well, which is exempt for drought restrictions. Never really got into wine, always figured it was more for show, than enjoyment. I've politely, consumed plenty enough, over a large assortment of types, and prices, never had one, that didn't stop my wanting a beer instead. Had a few glasses of something special, that I pray never to be served again, wasn't good, and really tough to mind my manners. Guess it's hard work, to appreciate the finer things...


Their 'world class' wine industry is just 'world class' snobbery.

There is nothing 'world class' about any wine. Some wineries are simply marketing internationally. There is a lot of snobbery in the wine business.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-07-2019 22:58
16-07-2019 23:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water from the aquifers is basically clean filtered water, for free, and usually where it's used a lot. In the absence of a free source, there are other options, but you have to spend a little money, do a little work. Those options are available, just cheaper and easier to sit and complain about shortages. How polluted is rain water? Lot of places get a surplus part of the year, then are crying about drought conditions the rest of the year. California really uses a lot of kleenex, guess that's why the need to clear-cut so much land. Would it be so hard to collect and store some of that surplus, save it for those not so rainy days? Yeah, we have lakes and reservoirs, but they tend to get polluted, they let fish shit in them, and other things. Most of those were either natural, or man-made with dams, long time ago, hardly keep up with the population, or use. A lot of storm water is directed out to sea, quickest possible route, which some times over burdens the river system. Seems like they could remove the crap it picks up off the roads and parking lots (most places I drive or park, anyway, leaks a little), maybe feed some of it through an artificial filter, are hold some back, and release it in places where it will naturally filter into the aquifers, at the normale rate. Of course, nobody wants to spend money on something they normally get for free. We pipe oil and gas from Canada, down to the Gulf, would water be such a problem to move? Least it would blow up, catch fire, or pollute the environment, if the pipe gets damaged. Should be profits in it, if you need it, not much choice, but to pay for it. People pay a $1.00 or more for a bottle of filtered water, where tap water is just a few steps away. We even have filtered water for free, yet people still buy the bottled water out of the machines. We have free ice as well, always sort of wonder if the put in an ice vending machine...

Sea water can be desalinated, California has the longest coastline, next to Alaska, and make little use of those resources either. What do they use all that water tax money, or fines for using water during a drought (has it ever stopped)?

Basically, we've grown, but we don't want to spend any money on upgrading the things we need, to keep up with the growth. I don't believe anything we built a hundred years ago was expected to last forever, and take care of our every need. Isn't there a profit potential, if you can supply a product, for which there a great demand?

What about winter snow? I remember seeing a few times on the news last winter, where they were dumping truck loads into rivers. Guess there wasn't a shortage of water then. Most of it looked like clean, white snow, not the yellow kind.

I don't think it's so much a shortage of fresh water, just bad timing. We waste it when there is a surplus, and cry when it doesn't rain or snow for a while. It's cost and convience, not that we could do something to make better use of what nature gives us for free.


Actually, California has plenty of water, for a desert region. They waste it on trying to grow things like rice (a swamp grass) or almonds (require a LOT of water) in the desert.


Guess their world class wine industry uses a considerable amount of water as well, which is exempt for drought restrictions. Never really got into wine, always figured it was more for show, than enjoyment. I've politely, consumed plenty enough, over a large assortment of types, and prices, never had one, that didn't stop my wanting a beer instead. Had a few glasses of something special, that I pray never to be served again, wasn't good, and really tough to mind my manners. Guess it's hard work, to appreciate the finer things...


Their 'world class' wine industry is just 'world class' snobbery.

There is nothing 'world class' about any wine. Some wineries are simply marketing internationally. There is a lot of snobbery in the wine business.

So one might call an $80 bottle of wine "snobbery robbery".



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
17-07-2019 01:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water from the aquifers is basically clean filtered water, for free, and usually where it's used a lot. In the absence of a free source, there are other options, but you have to spend a little money, do a little work. Those options are available, just cheaper and easier to sit and complain about shortages. How polluted is rain water? Lot of places get a surplus part of the year, then are crying about drought conditions the rest of the year. California really uses a lot of kleenex, guess that's why the need to clear-cut so much land. Would it be so hard to collect and store some of that surplus, save it for those not so rainy days? Yeah, we have lakes and reservoirs, but they tend to get polluted, they let fish shit in them, and other things. Most of those were either natural, or man-made with dams, long time ago, hardly keep up with the population, or use. A lot of storm water is directed out to sea, quickest possible route, which some times over burdens the river system. Seems like they could remove the crap it picks up off the roads and parking lots (most places I drive or park, anyway, leaks a little), maybe feed some of it through an artificial filter, are hold some back, and release it in places where it will naturally filter into the aquifers, at the normale rate. Of course, nobody wants to spend money on something they normally get for free. We pipe oil and gas from Canada, down to the Gulf, would water be such a problem to move? Least it would blow up, catch fire, or pollute the environment, if the pipe gets damaged. Should be profits in it, if you need it, not much choice, but to pay for it. People pay a $1.00 or more for a bottle of filtered water, where tap water is just a few steps away. We even have filtered water for free, yet people still buy the bottled water out of the machines. We have free ice as well, always sort of wonder if the put in an ice vending machine...

Sea water can be desalinated, California has the longest coastline, next to Alaska, and make little use of those resources either. What do they use all that water tax money, or fines for using water during a drought (has it ever stopped)?

Basically, we've grown, but we don't want to spend any money on upgrading the things we need, to keep up with the growth. I don't believe anything we built a hundred years ago was expected to last forever, and take care of our every need. Isn't there a profit potential, if you can supply a product, for which there a great demand?

What about winter snow? I remember seeing a few times on the news last winter, where they were dumping truck loads into rivers. Guess there wasn't a shortage of water then. Most of it looked like clean, white snow, not the yellow kind.

I don't think it's so much a shortage of fresh water, just bad timing. We waste it when there is a surplus, and cry when it doesn't rain or snow for a while. It's cost and convience, not that we could do something to make better use of what nature gives us for free.


Actually, California has plenty of water, for a desert region. They waste it on trying to grow things like rice (a swamp grass) or almonds (require a LOT of water) in the desert.


Guess their world class wine industry uses a considerable amount of water as well, which is exempt for drought restrictions. Never really got into wine, always figured it was more for show, than enjoyment. I've politely, consumed plenty enough, over a large assortment of types, and prices, never had one, that didn't stop my wanting a beer instead. Had a few glasses of something special, that I pray never to be served again, wasn't good, and really tough to mind my manners. Guess it's hard work, to appreciate the finer things...


Their 'world class' wine industry is just 'world class' snobbery.

There is nothing 'world class' about any wine. Some wineries are simply marketing internationally. There is a lot of snobbery in the wine business.

So one might call an $80 bottle of wine "snobbery robbery".


Except it isn't robbery. Someone willingly paid $80 for that bottle of wine. Just snobbery. No robbery involved.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Tropical Storm Barry:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
'The youth have risen!' Climate strikers storm the streets326-03-2019 06:50
Hurricane Florence is a Once IN A Lifetime storm3618-09-2018 19:45
Must've Been a Strong Storm007-10-2017 17:26
John Christy on Tropical Cyclones120-11-2013 12:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact