No more Lake Mead?

[Haut Medoc]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Hmmmmmmm........

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

I love the "global warming" crowd. I watch my local weather, and when the temps are discussed, he has the record high and low for that day, sometimes the record high is back in the 1900's, as in 1908. That was before any CO2 gasses, anything.

So what does that mean? It was hot as hell back then too.

 

[ricksrster]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

I saw on the news today that the global cooling of the last year is greater than the warming of the last 100 years.

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

I love the "global warming" crowd. I watch my local weather, and when the temps are discussed, he has the record high and low for that day, sometimes the record high is back in the 1900's, as in 1908. That was before any CO2 gasses, anything.

So what does that mean? It was hot as hell back then too.

They don't really determine global temps based on your local weather for the day though.

As far as when it was the hottest... the 10 hottest years ever recorded have all occurred in the past 14 years... with 2005 being the hottest ever... so what does that tell you?

by the way, 1908 wasn't before any CO2 gasses... by the 1900's, atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as they had been at any point in the 650,000 years of atmospheric records. Just because it's 3 times higher now, doesn't mean it wasn't there at all back then.

The question that should be asked though, is if global warming could be a good thing if it could somehow be controlled, and then the next question should be, how to control it. The idea that anything man does is bad is what needs to be slapped down.

 

[ricksrster]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Mars has global warming,too. They don't even have polluting people OR polluting cows!

 

[bekosh]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

As far as when it was the hottest... the 10 hottest years ever recorded have all occurred in the past 14 years... with 2005 being the hottest ever... so what does that tell you?​

That would be incorrect. Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years fall within the last 20 years. The rest date back mostly to the 20's & 30's. And 1934 was the warmest on record.
The chart shows deviations from normal in degrees Celsius.
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007​

Year Deviation
1934: 1.25
1998: 1.23
1921: 1.15
2006: 1.13
1931: 1.08
1999: 0.93
1953: 0.90
1990: 0.87
1938: 0.86
1939: 0.85​

 

[QC]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Man I hate it when good data messes up a good story . . . Dang it!!!!

 

[tommays]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

i will tread lighty

BUT the Dust Bowl days and the cause of this weather pattern are still a matter of study and while they THINK they understand it,There is still not enough data to be sure

 

[qaztwo]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

650,000yrs repersents less then a percent of the earths age.
co2 cycles every 100,000 looks like a completly normal thing.

 

[v1_0]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Well... Heard this on the radio the other day: if the weather man (and associated computer models) can be off on a 24 hour forcast... How much confidence can they have for a 24 year forcast?

I'm not too big on the whole global warming angle, although I do agree with what they are trying to get people to do with it. Less impact is better - but from a 'good stewardship' point of view.

That would apply to water conservation, etc. Some things - such as creating lake Mead in the first place have legitimate reasons. I'm a realist and can accept that we will never be 'zero' impact everywhere...

-V

 

[Drowned Rat]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Every prediction I've heard on the matter begins with "If the current trend continues..." I don't think anyone has any idea what's really going to happen. However, if the current trend does continue, they are probably very near the mark if not being a bit conservative. The 2 largest reservoirs in the U.S. (Powell and Mead) were nearly 100% full in 1999. Now they both sit, generally, around 45%. It stands to reason that another 9 years of the same and they'll both be completely dry. The Southwest cannot tolerate that. An Arizona and Nevada without lakes Powell and Mead would herald a disaster unlike anything that's ever happened in this country. Southern CA and UT would survive, but not without serious water conservation measures. All these states are critically dependent not only on their water but also on the power they generate. From my perspective, we've painted ourselves into a corner with these water projects and now it's too late to "back out". The desert SW has no business harboring cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Tucson, etc... These cities, home to millions upon millions of people depend heavily on support from other regions of the country. Too heavily. In this case it's the Wind River Range and Western slope of the Rockies.

The current projections for water availability also "assume" the same demand for water upstream. There's legislation that protects our water rights in the SW, but how bad do you think things will have to get before places like Denver and Salt Lake and their sprawling megalopolis' start fighting to keep more of the water that's falling in their states. That will only compound our problems here and hasten the drought's effects. It will happen, it's only a matter of time.

So why am I still here? Because it's the most beautiful, enchanting, mysterious, calling place on Earth.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

...but how bad do you think things will have to get before places like Denver and Salt Lake and their sprawling megalopolis' start fighting to keep more of the water that's falling in their states.

Somple solution - just have the AZ legislature pass a resolution to move the state line and incorporate portions of both. Then it'll be your water.

 

[hvachillbilly]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

let it hit 10000 ft above sea level then the restrictions go into place and a few states loose quite a bit of water (funny thing lake powell rising)

 

[QC]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

I think you meant a 1000 ft.

Filling Powell first makes sense to me as the higher you keep the water, the more opportunities you have to use it. As long as the intake pipes are submerged in Mead they can make power there, if they need more then Powell will have that reserve stored if filled first. I do not understand the evaporation issues regarding keeping it there vs. keeping at Mead, but I am sure that has been calculated.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Volume/Surface area ratio for Powell is about 2x that for Mead. Evaporation would be inversely proportional.

 

[QC]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Yeah, that's where I started, but I think it is not that simple . . . is the ratio constant at every altitude start point? Are there altitudes where a 20 ft. gain would mean that Mead gained surface area quicker as it rose?

 

[Drowned Rat]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

A lake's surface area, relative to its volume, increases exponentially the fuller it is. So, you lose more water to evaporation per acre foot stored when a lake is full. Make no mistake. These behemouth lakes lose HUGE amounts of water to evaporation every year. They lose 12 times more water every year than they get in rainfall. That's 7 vertical feet lost to evaporation.

 

[QC]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

Yes ^^^^ and I am not being clear. I am just confused about Mead vs. Powell. At certain points Mead might actually gain surface area quicker and visa versa depending on where you are starting from and what the steepness of the topography is at that level. Generally I agree, filling Powell first would seemingly increase the total system's evaporation rate than if you filled Mead first. Using the water twice for Power Generation favors filling Powell first.

 

[jonesg]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

It's all scientists on government grants making their dire predictions to justify thier work and keep getting their grant money. We had the opposite problem on Lake Erie 20 years ago with high water levels. They predictied it would take at least 10 years before the problem would go away. We had one year of low rain fall and the problem was gone. Now the problem is starting to go the opposite way with low water levels.

so true, Edited by QC

Had to laugh when Gore's silly movie was banned by the British high court from being shown in schools because its....political promotion and factually incorrect.

Don't blame the "scientists" , its the system.
If you release a study claiming the reproduction cycles of red squirrels is less effective in warmer months you don't get much attention.

But issue a press release claiming the squirrels are less frisky due to global warming and the money starts to roll in.

 

[gonefishie]

Re: No more Lake Mead?

But issue a press release claiming the squirrels are less frisky due to global warming and the money starts to roll in.

Oh Lord, say it ain't so! Let get some Viagra to those squirrels pronto.

Somebody dug up some old bones again.