What Irked You Today?

[Harry P.]

The lake behind the Hoover dam. Or so I think.. not sure...

Correct, Lake Mead. But the water level is dropping...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lake-mead-is-shrinking-and-with-it-las-vegas-water-supply/

[Ace-Garageguy]

Correct, Lake Mead. But the water level is dropping...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lake-mead-is-shrinking-and-with-it-las-vegas-water-supply/

What wasn't mentioned in the video is that Lake Mead is fed by Lake Powell to the north, which is in turn fed mostly by snowmelt from mountains in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. The winter of 2010 / 2011 was good for snow, and the melt raised the water level in lake mead something like 50 feet. That was the last good year, however.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Lake Mead is a manmade lake formed by damming the Colorado River (Hoover Dam). They built the dam to provide a source of hydro-electricity for the southwest, which was growing by leaps and bounds back then and creating a huge demand for electricity. Lake Mead is the byproduct of Hoover Dam, but the dam has nothing to do with water supply.

The Colorado is dependent on snow melt, and of course, that varies from year to year. But the water level of Lake Mead has been dropping. I was there several years ago, and I remember seeing that "bathtub ring" where the water level used to be.

[Petetrucker07]

There is about a 20 foot ring around the lake. Its amazing over all the years of going there, about 30 or so, how much has changed. My family lived in Calville Bay for many many years. We had many vacations there, countless memories. So sad most of my family is gone now, RIP, my mom lives south of there now in Laughlin, not the same even if we go to Lake Mohave.

I guess whats irks me sometimes is life, how it changes in ways we dont want. Here lately its been 2 steps forward, 1 step back, a few times its been 3 steps back.

[Ace-Garageguy]

... but the dam has nothing to do with water supply...

The Colorado is dependent on snow melt, and of course, that varies from year to year. But the water level of Lake Mead has been dropping. I was there several years ago, and I remember seeing that "bathtub ring" where the water level used to be.

I have to be pedantic, as usual, and disagree with the first statement, for clarification. If the dam hadn't been built, there would be no really good way to get water out of the Colorado to supply Vegas, etc. The reservoir behind the dam, Lake Mead, is a water reservoir as well as being storage for water to turn the turbines that run the generators in the dam...and was intended to supply water for irrigation from the outset.

I've worked in the area off and on for many years, and I've seen the white ring too, but the level of water in the lake is almost ENTIRELY dependent on winter snowfall to the north, and on how rapidly water is pulled out of the reservoir for irrigation, industrial/commercial and household use, AND on how much water is let out through the turbines to generate electricity.

Believe in global warming or not, but the fact is that the hottest, driest conditions on record have shorted water coming into the lake, and account for the current drop to the lowest level since the dam was built.

[Ace-Garageguy]

There is about a 20 foot ring around the lake.

Much more than that, I think.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[southpier]

so it didn't enable Las-Fricken-Vegas to be built, where does the water go - recirculation loop...?

[Danno]

Dan, thanks for the info but the weather channel today showed someone on top of their car as they always do when Phoenix get lots of rain..

Yes. Stupid Motorists. We have them just about any time there's a heavy rain. We get about a half dozen rains each year that generate enough flash flooding to cause the idiots to try inland sailing in their cars.

The rains/flooding we've had over the past 3-4 days has been described as a "200 year" weather event. Not likely to re-occur for a couple of centuries.

The national news channels yesterday were showing residents on the roofs of their homes in the middle of raging floodwaters being rescued by sheriff's and state DPS helicopters. That's different than any other old time it rains.

Any other questions?

[Danno]

MOST of the Colorado's Lake Mead and Lake Powell water goes to California.

And, it is true the water levels of the reservoirs have dropped, but it's not so much that things have dried up as it is that rainfall levels have returned to more normal (historically) conditions. When the 'levels' of the reservoirs were established, abnormally wet conditions were thought to be the norm. Basically, the levels were set too high. Now that nature has returned to historically more normal conditions, the levels have dropped. It's not that conditions are drier, its just that conditions are not as opulently wet as they were when the "normal" levels were determined.

It's all about definitions. If you define the world as flat, then a sphere would be abnormal.

If you set your fuel jets too high, your car will run too rich. If you call that normal, it is your normal.

[Harry P.]

From KLAS TV, Las Vegas, June 2014:

Lake Mead is reaching historic lows not seen since the lake was filled in the 1930s. The lower levels are having an impact on the amount of electricity Hoover Dam produces. The Hoover Dam produces electricity to serve about 1.3 million people a year. Most of the power is purchased by California with about one-quarter of it going to Nevada.

Tour groups can be found at the dam most days. On this particular tour, the guide explains the lower water level. "The water maintenance level should actually be about halfway up that white line," the guide tells the group.

"We've come across the dam here quite a few times, and we've never seen in this low," said Kenneth Absher who is visiting from California.

The lake is about to be at its lowest level ever.

"The level of Lake Mead is supposed to drop to an elevation of 1081.75 over the next few days, which is the lowest elevation it's ever been since the lake was filled when Hoover Dam was built," said Rose Davis, Bureau of Reclamation.

Lake Mead is not only the primary water source for Las Vegas, but it's also how Hoover Dam produces power. Simply put, the lower the lake, the less electricity.

"Our concern is the ability to generate power. We've seen a 23 percent reduction in our capacity to generate power since the lake continues to drop," Davis said.

The hydroelectric facility is taking steps so its current capacity of 1592 megawatts won't go down anymore. "We've been proactive over the last five years in putting in new equipment that operates more efficiently at low lake levels," Davis said.

Three wide head turbines have been installed, and two more are on the way in the next couple years. It's hoped they will arrive before Lake Mead gets to catastrophic levels that could bring the dam to screeching halt. "What we call the dead pool, which is the elevation of Lake Mead where Hoover Dam cannot generate any power, is about 950 feet," Davis said.

For now, states like California and Nevada still get their electricity from the 77-year-old manmade wonder, as long as the Southwest doesn't get dangerously dry. About 96 percent of the water in Lake Mead is from melted snow that fell in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming. Lake Mead needs several years of strong snow packs to get out of the drought.

[Petetrucker07]

The drought here in the south west part of country is really bad.

[Ace-Garageguy]

And, it is true the water levels of the reservoirs have dropped, but it's not so much that things have dried up as it is that rainfall levels have returned to more normal (historically) conditions. It's not that conditions are drier, its just that conditions are not as opulently wet as they were when the "normal" levels were determined.

Some seemingly credible sources site the recent conditions (the average over the past few years) as the hottest, driest since humans have been keeping records in the regions that constitute the Colorado River watershed. .

IF this is true, it's pretty easy to understand how a definition of local climate "normal" might have been mistakenly established.

I'll not get into a debate as to whether climate change is real or not at this time, as I simply don't have access to primary, un-spun data. The issue is so stupidly politically polarized that it's almost impossible to winnow actual facts from vehement rhetoric spewed by both the believers and the naysayers.

Realities like dropping water levels in snow-melt-fed reservoirs, rising water levels in the oceans, and disappearing glaciers tend to speak for themselves, however.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Belugawrx]

We've had rain

the woods is choked

[slusher]

Lake Mead and the drought is why they are writing tickets for watering lawns out west. The west is growing so much maybe a desalting water system could be built like some middle eastern countries.

[Harry P.]

Realities like dropping water levels in snow-melt-fed reservoirs, rising water levels in the oceans, and disappearing glaciers tend to speak for themselves, however.

The question isn't whether or not climate change is happening. It is. The earth's climate has been constantly changing for billions of years... long before man came along. Dinosaurs used to live on a planet that had a tropical climate, then the ice age came (major climate change)! In the middle ages there was a significant cooling down. etc., etc.

So it's not whether the Earth's climate is changing... it is. The question is... is this change just a continuation of the natural variations the Earth has always undergone, or is man somehow affecting the natural process?

IMO (and I'm no scientist, just using common sense)... man has been on this Earth for far too short a period of time (given the age of the planet) to make it possible to prove that any short-term changes in climate are due to human activity. You can't take the relative blink of an eye that man has existed on this planet since day one and take anything that happens in that blink of an eye and make a sweeping generalizations about human influence on the climate. It's just too small and insignificant of a sample.

[Danno]

Hear, hear, Harry! I agree with your assessment completely.

That's why I don't let my knickers get in an uproar about all the pseudo-experts peddling 'global warming' panic. Pretty arrogant to actually think mankind (or, to be more politically correct perhaps, womankind) could have enough impact on nature to really change the planet or the universe.

[Ace-Garageguy]

The question isn't whether or not climate change is happening. It is. The earth's climate has been constantly changing for billions of years... long before man came along. Dinosaurs used to live on a planet that had a tropical climate, then the ice age came (major climate change)! In the middle ages there was a significant cooling down. etc., etc.

So it's not whether the Earth's climate is changing... it is. The question is... is this change just a continuation of the natural variations the Earth has always undergone, or is man somehow affecting the natural process?

IMO (and I'm no scientist, just using common sense)... man has been on this Earth for far too short a period of time (given the age of the planet) to make it possible to prove that any short-term changes in climate are due to human activity. You can't take the relative blink of an eye that man has existed on this planet since day one and take anything that happens in that blink of an eye and make a sweeping generalizations about human influence on the climate. It's just too small and insignificant of a sample.

Agreed 99%. There is some compelling raw data (the stuff the REAL experts produce, not what the "pseudo experts" shout at every opportunity...on both sides) that does make a good argument for a human contribution to the phenomenon, however, like the known and provable increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the dawn of industrialization and widespread burning of fossil fuels, the apparently-understood inter-relationship between CO2 concentration and the so-called "greenhouse-effect", and the seeming disconnect between the time-period of rapid de-glaciation we're seeing today and what is THOUGHT to be the natural cycle and time span of previous warming events.

Apparently, there is a coupled ocean-atmosphere-astronomical-agricultural-industrial system that science is only beginning to understand, and it's far too early in the study to form any "final" conclusions...but it also seems to me misguided to continue dumping massive amounts of CO2 and heat into the atmosphere, insisting that it makes no difference whatsoever and that global warming is a made up problem.

Until we KNOW, it might be wise to behave with some moderation.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

The reason that I believe you can't prove that human activity is affecting the climate is very simple and obvious: We have at most a few hundred years worth of accurate, reliable weather data.The Earth has existed, and its climate has been changing, for billions of years. You can't possibly take data from an infinitesimally small sample (the few hundred years of climatological records we have) and then say that the data from that tiny, tiny sample proves that climate change is being altered by human activity.

[Danno]

Until we KNOW, it might be wise to behave with some moderation.

I agree with that, too, Bill. By and large, I think we do - overall.

There just isn't any real justification or need for the over-the-top, irrationally panicky, hand-wringing and insidious fear-mongering that the radical eco-terroristas shove at everyone all the time. And, unfortunately, 'global warming' is their favorite mantra. Thus, the reality (whatever it really proves out to be someday) gets blown way out of proportion in the here-and-now, and the fact gets overshadowed by the sensationalist fiction.

Like the end of the world in December 2012.

[Harry P.]

Until we KNOW, it might be wise to behave with some moderation.

That's just plain old good common sense, regardless of where your beliefs fall on the climate change debate.

But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that human activity is increasing the Earth's overall average temperature, and that we can halt and/or reverse that trend by implementing tighter regulations. The problem is, we can pass all sorts of rules and regulations here, but we can't do anything about the world's two largest polluters–India and China–and all the other developing countries that have no laws in place regarding pollution or emissions.

It's as if you personally go on a diet because there are too many obese people in the world. Your diet (and good intentions) isn't going to make a bit of difference in the overall scheme of things, because your diet isn't going to affect anyone else. And you alone dieting won't change the fact that too many people are obese.

If anyone thinks humans can ever put some sort of international climate treaty in place that everyone will adhere to, they're hopelessly naive.

[Harry P.]

The ultimate climate change irony is that "Mr. Climate Change" himself sold his TV network to an outfit that is funded by petro-dollars...

Hypocrite.

Rich hypocrite.

[Ace-Garageguy]

The reason that I believe you can't prove that human activity is affecting the climate is very simple and obvious: We have at most a few hundred years worth of accurate, reliable weather data.The Earth has existed, and its climate has been changing, for billions of years. You can't possibly take data from an infinitesimally small sample (the few hundred years of climatological records we have) and then say that the data from that tiny, tiny sample proves that climate change is being altered by human activity.

Yes, but...there are several interesting scientific techniques that give us a better look into the distant climatic past than you might think.

One is sampling ice-cores from the polar regions. The mechanics of the formation of deep ice from snow accumulation and compaction seems to be well understood, and it forms in readily identifiable, annual layers, much like tree-rings. By counting back the layers and analyzing the CO2 content of the air trapped in the ice, it's possible to get a very good idea of atmospheric CO2 concentration for millenia. Again, the raw data indicate un-arguably that the atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse gasses" is far higher now (and measurably increasing with industrialization) than it was during long-ago warming events, whose cycles are at least theoretically understood.

Of course, it's almost a moot point, because we ARE running out of fossil fuels and will HAVE to come up with some widespread alternative within 100 years or so. And of course, there are those who argue that oil will last indefinitely somehow, far far into the future.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend back 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica.

800,000 years is a blink of an eye in the 6-7 billion year existence of Earth. Not even that. A nanosecond. Again, far too small a sample to be seen as proof of anything as far as the Earth's overall history of climate change.

Yes, we can say that the Earth has been warming for the last century. But we have to look at the overall changes that have taken place over billions of years... what has happened in the last one hundred years is just a tiny blip. What has happened in a relative nanosecond of Earth's history isn't proof of anything one way or another.

To give another analogy, what happens in the stock market today is meaningless as far as the market's overall activity since its inception, or how it will act in the coming 100 years.

We simply cannot say with certainty that human activity is affecting the Earth's normal climatological swings, because we don't have a large enough sample (time-wise) of data.

[Harry P.]

Instead of our society holding this endless "climate change-no climate change" debate, we'd be far better off if we all (believers, non-believers and undecideds) took sensible, achievable steps to limit emissions and pollution as much as we can, without turning our entire economic/industrial system upside-down just to placate a relative handful of climate change zealots.

That means serious attempts to bring solar and wind power into the mainstream, so that prices come down to a point where those sources would be economically feasible to use on a much larger scale... not just as trendy "boutique" energy sources for a select few.

There's no reason why every home in America couldn't have both solar panels and a small wind turbine or two on the roof. Maybe that wouldn't supply all of the energy needed, but it would obviously supply some. If solar panels and small wind turbine generators were priced at a consumer-friendly level and available at your local home center, they'd sell by the millions. Who wouldn't want to reduce their energy costs? But for some reason those products still don't exist on a consumer-friendly, DIY level.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Instead of our society holding this endless "climate change-no climate change" debate, we'd be far better off if we all (believers, non-believers and undecideds) took sensible, achievable steps to limit emissions and pollution as much as we can, without turning our entire economic/industrial system upside-down just to placate a relative handful of zealots.

Exactly.