Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RalphH]

The Fraser River has seen water levels drop a meter, resulting in levels not recorded in over 112 years.

The decline comes after the region's rivers and streams were pushed to new highs in 2021 that caused widespread damage — including to wildlife

story and video:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fraser-river-water-hits-lowest-level-in-over-a-century-1.6351726

[stsfisher]

Yup, I have seen a lot of beach I have never seen before while scouring the Fraser/Harrison this winter/spring.

[wildmanyeah]

not all doom and gloom

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/river-forecast/2023_apr1.pdf

[canucksfan233]

I feel like this is kind of a bait article, it's low because snow has just barely started to melt. Snowpack is pretty decent this year.

[SuperBobby]

I feel like this is kind of a bait article, it's low because snow has just barely started to melt. Snowpack is pretty decent this year.

That's exactly what it is.
You can't turn on the mainstream news anymore without someone trying to shove climate change propaganda down your throat.

Anyone who's lived on the west coast for a few years knows this sort of thing happens when early spring is cold. We are on track for a very cold April, so this isn't surprising. On top of that, BC had a pretty dry winter. We didn't get anywhere near the usual rain that we usually do.

[RalphH]

ah what joy! With the return of spring so returns the anti-climate science drama queens!

There's been a lot of talk on how low both the Harrison and Fraser Rivers are. The launch at Kilby is high and dry. Trout don't seem to move in until it higher than that, at least in my experience. So whatever nonsense one may believe, some of us are affected.

[SuperBobby]

This is no different than California 6 months ago.
There are literally 100s and 100s of articles from last fall that stated California would take decades to recover from the drought they were in. Some said that California would never recover and that the drought was here to stay.
The climate change fear mongering was relentless.

And here we are in April 2023....the California drought is all but completely wiped out with enough snow water in the mountains to fill the Great Lakes.
There are communities all over California that are dreading the spring run off in the coming weeks and months for the real possibility of catastrophic flooding.

Just like California, the Harrison/Fraser will be full in a few weeks or so. There is nothing to worry about here.
The continuous climate change fear mongering from the woke crowd is nauseating.

[clarki]

Regardless of your world view, there is validity to the article and the current low water levels aren't just due to a dry spring or late melt.

I did a quick search of historical Fraser River levels at Hope. For the past 10 years for the months of Jan, Feb March, the water levels rarely dipped below 3m; it was averaging well in excess of 3.0 for that time frame.

For the same time period in 2023, the water had just one blip above 3.0m in January. For the rest of the 3 month time frame, it was averaging around 2.6-2.7m.

So yes, the Fraser is lower than historical levels.

(I'm not a data scientist, I just play one on TV)

[SuperBobby]

Regardless of your world view, there is validity to the article and the current low water levels aren't just due to a dry spring or late melt.

I did a quick search of historical Fraser River levels at Hope. For the past 10 years for the months of Jan, Feb March, the water levels rarely dipped below 3m;

For the past 10 years And you're telling us here that you did a historical search on seasonal water levels??? Were you able to make this post without laughing???
Any respectable researcher on anything to do with climate, water levels, snow/rainmelt, etc, etc, would never post a opinion based on 10 years of sample size data and call it 'historical' research.

So yes, the Fraser is lower than historical levels.

If you are only going to give us 10 years of data, please don't call it 'historical levels'.....my goodness......

(I'm not a data scientist, I just play one on TV)

You didn't have to tell anyone that. Real unbiased scientists don't come to these types of conclusions on a 10 year sample size.....

[clarki]

My goddess, you are still the same rude arse that you were two years ago.

“Historical” just refers to the data type that I used, as opposed to real time.

And 10 years was all I had time to dig back into. Sorry…

[wildmanyeah]

Everything is climate change and no way was my comments anti climate change.

How long have we been recording to really say this may of be a regular 1/100 year event.

Ps I believe the since showing the earth is warming and how humans impacted it

[SuperBobby]

My goddess, you are still the same rude arse that you were two years ago.

“Historical” just refers to the data type that I used, as opposed to real time.

And 10 years was all I had time to dig back into. Sorry…

My intention was not to be rude, but the data you posted was completely useless in regards to the topic.

[RalphH]

Everything is climate change and no way was my comments anti climate change.

How long have we been recording to really say this may of be a regular 1/100 year event.

Ps I believe the since showing the earth is warming and how humans impacted it

my apologies if you thought that comment was directed at you specifically or even as part of a group as that was not my intention at all.

[RalphH]

I don't  want the troll to drag this off topic. While we have seen a lot of firsts and records in the last several years,conclusions on 'climate change' have to be based on statistical analysis of a number of events not just one. i had no intention that posting the article was to support any climate change agenda or my opinions on those or to contradict or disprove the opinions of anybody else. Hence my drama queen comment.

As far as the article being bait - many many media article headlines are 'bait', like 'click bait'. They are intended to draw you to read to watch it. Other public comments such as Pierre Poilievre's statement that the 'Chinese Government financed Trudeau Foundation has to be investigated', is also bait. 

[SuperBobby]

As far as the article being bait - many many media article headlines are 'bait', like 'click bait'. They are intended to draw you to read to watch it.

True enough. I agree that some headlines are clickbait to get views, but many others are titled and written in a way to indoctrinate you. That is a fact in journalism and media that simply no one can even argue anymore.
Unfortunately, once you've been indoctrinated....soon after you lose the ability to recognize when you someone is trying to indoctrinate you. Perhaps some are easy to indoctrinate right from the start.
A prime example of indoctrination is many woke people today that have been indoctrinated into thinking that man somehow has the ability to actually change the weather or climate....which is complete nonsense.