Print

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

[RalphH]

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.

Huh? Has Lake Mead filled up? Southern California gets a significant portion of it's water from Lake Mead. Fact is it is the largest user of water from the Colorado River. Most of the rains storms occurred well north of there. The agricultural areas that draw old water from deep wells also aren't going to helped much since rain doesn't replenish that water.   

[SuperBobby]

Huh? Has Lake Mead filled up? Southern California gets a significant portion of it's water from Lake Mead. Fact is it is the largest user of water from the Colorado River. Most of the rains storms occurred well north of there. The agricultural areas that draw old water from deep wells also aren't going to helped much since rain doesn't replenish that water.

Lake Mead is in eastern Nevada/Arizona. I'm talking about the California specific watersheds.
And....if you properly research Lake Mead, you will quickly realize that there is nothing natural about it anymore. The drawdown is so overused now that there is no natural way to obtain proper data there anymore. Regardless of snowmelt or rainfall, the removal of water has been only increasing. Here is a fact. Lake Mead hasn't been full since 1983, even though there have been some very good water years since then.
Sorry, but your Lake Mead example doesn't work here.....

Edit: another fact is that Arizona had one of the most robust monsoon seasons last summer ever.....It barely put a dent in helping Lake Mead recover. The Lake Mead lack of water is a 'water use' problem....NOT a climate problem.

[RalphH]

Lake Mead is in eastern Nevada/Arizona. I'm talking about the California specific watersheds.
And....if you properly research Lake Mead, you will quickly realize that there is nothing natural about it anymore. The drawdown is so overused now that there is .

I don't think you even bothered to read what I asked. You just regurgitate what you read on some climate misinformation website.

California takes the most water (58%) from the Colorado via Lake mead. It has the highest priority in the agreement. Parts of other Southwestern states are being cutoff from Colorado River water.  For southern California it can't be replaced. That 's where the problem is. Ditto for the deep water that irrigates most of California's high profit export agriculture. Nevada & California - states that both get substantial water from Lake Mead and the Colorado both have good water conservation regimes. Arizona was among the worst in the US until the last few years and they reformed their water use rules.

[RalphH]

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.

LOL!  . How ridiculous.

[clarki]

In order to cement my status as a bona fide data scientist, I took some time this evening to run "historic" water level queries, for the Fraser River at Hope going back 80 yrs to 1944. (caveat: some data was missing for the winter months in the early 1950's)

Only in one year (2001) did the monthly water level ever get below 3.0 m. In that year, the water got below 3.0 for about six wks but the three month average (Jan-Mar) would have been greater than 3.0

Compare that to 2023 Jan to March when the river only had one blip above 3.0m and averaged around 2.7m.

The persistent low flows can't be attributed to a snowpack that hasn't started to melt.

Draw your own conclusions...

 

[wildmanyeah]

Is it weather related or humans increasing take of groundwater.


And if snow pack for the Fraser watershed is near 100% of normal.

Then that leaves what lack of rainfall in areas that it rains and does not snow

[RalphH]

There is scant mention of "climate change " in the article, just a comment by Marvin Rosenau, a "Fish and Wildlife" Instructor at BCIT that "he is concerned  the instability seen in recent years is a direct result of climate change." Out of that one person asserts a laser focus and spins a conspiracy that include myself as "Indoctrinated" and woke (words he clearly does not comprehend"). 

While measured water levels are absolutes - they are solid numbers, I'm not sure they are 100% comparable over an extended period. The measurement regime has certainly changed on the Vedder/Chilliwack since Nov 2021.

As before I posted the article as one of interest & get attacked by one individual who spins it into being part of a grander conspiracy. I can draw my conclusions. hopefully most others can as well.

[stsfisher]

Wow, didn't really expect such a simple topic to go off the rails so fast.

Way more to add, but that would only fuel the fire by being taken out of context anyways.

[SuperBobby]

There is scant mention of "climate change " in the article, just a comment by Marvin Rosenau, a "Fish and Wildlife" Instructor at BCIT that "he is concerned  the instability seen in recent years is a direct result of climate change." Out of that one person asserts a laser focus and spins a conspiracy that include myself as "Indoctrinated" and woke (words he clearly does not comprehend"). 

That's how indoctrination works. It is usually 'scant'. Indoctrination is rarely something that is shoved in your face all at once. It's fed to you little by little over time until the subtleties of it have done their job.

that include myself as "Indoctrinated" and woke (words he clearly does not comprehend"). 

I absolutely comprehend what 'woke' means, but I'll let Pierre Poilievre answer the question for you as he was asked to define it on Mar 30th of this year. His answer was absolutely brilliant.
Here is an exact quote of what he said:

“It (Woke) is designed to divide people by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by religion, by vaccine status, and any other way they can divide people into groups,”
“Then you can justify having a government that can control all those groups.”

That's exactly what the farce of man made climate change was designed to do. CONTROL
Pierre Poilievre knows that just like anyone else with their eyes open.

As for the meaning of 'indoctrination'.....if you understand 'woke', you can definitely comprehend the meaning of 'indoctrination'.

[SuperBobby]

In order to cement my status as a bona fide data scientist, I took some time this evening to run "historic" water level queries, for the Fraser River at Hope going back 80 yrs to 1944. (caveat: some data was missing for the winter months in the early 1950's)

Only in one year (2001) did the monthly water level ever get below 3.0 m. In that year, the water got below 3.0 for about six wks but the three month average (Jan-Mar) would have been greater than 3.0

Compare that to 2023 Jan to March when the river only had one blip above 3.0m and averaged around 2.7m.

The persistent low flows can't be attributed to a snowpack that hasn't started to melt.

Draw your own conclusions...

That's a little bit better. 80 years of research at least has a little meat on the bone. 10 years does NOT

Ok....let's look at this as best we can.

1. We are talking about a difference of about 30 centimeters in water levels. A crazy new record? No. Significant enough to mention? Yes
2. The Fraser watershed at this time of year has pretty much zero water being removed anywhere in the watershed, and the little that might be would not vary enough to make a difference in winter.

The first things we would look at for this time of year is snowmelt and fall/winter rainfall.
The Fraser watershed over that period was very dry. The snowmelt is late. Also, the low/mid elevation snowmelt is late....and that quite often makes the biggest difference. Put that together with a dry fall/winter....and I'm not surprised that even over 80 years we have record low waterflows for early April. I'm really not surprised at all.

If that isn't enough though.....what else is left? Not much.
In fact the only thing I can think about here is perhaps the large amount of forest fires in the last few years have left a lot of the watershed slopes really bare...in turn not holding as much of the winter water as we'd expect. So in late fall/early winter......the water all ran off then instead of being held in the normally forested slopes...
But I can't provide data that is concrete on that.

Bottom line is that water just doesn't disappear in the cool season. I truly believe it is a combination of a drier fall/winter with a very delayed snowpack in all elevations.

[RalphH]

Gee SuperBobby  you're like the LOoney Tunes Singing and Dancing frog. There is no stopping you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80UjzxfNugs

oh and thanks for sharing those wise words from Pierre Poilievre, that man is truly a real snollygloster!

[banx]

well bobby, there's this pretty simple 'woke climate change test' you can attempt.  You run a hose from your exhaust pipe into the vehicles interior.  Get inside the vehicle and turn said vehicle on.  If nothing happens to you, in say 30 minutes.  climate change is in fact fake.

[sumasriver]

That's how indoctrination works. It is usually 'scant'. Indoctrination is rarely something that is shoved in your face all at once. It's fed to you little by little over time until the subtleties of it have done their job.


I absolutely comprehend what 'woke' means, but I'll let Pierre Poilievre answer the question for you as he was asked to define it on Mar 30th of this year. His answer was absolutely brilliant.
Here is an exact quote of what he said:

“It (Woke) is designed to divide people by race, by gender, by ethnicity, by religion, by vaccine status, and any other way they can divide people into groups,”
“Then you can justify having a government that can control all those groups.”

That's exactly what the farce of man made climate change was designed to do. CONTROL
Pierre Poilievre knows that just like anyone else with their eyes open.

As for the meaning of 'indoctrination'.....if you understand 'woke', you can definitely comprehend the meaning of 'indoctrination'.

Quoting Pierre Follyvre....  the guy that has never had a real job in his life... Now that is funny.....

[clarki]

Ok....let's look at this as best we can.

Ralph is correct. The long term reliability of the height/discharge measurements at Hope is suspect. The federal/provincial water managers would know. I’ve sat in on briefing presentations by the River Forecast Centre. Smart people.

Couple of brief comments:

When you look at the average flow/height of this year compared to previous years, the average decline is much greater than 30 cm. The article mentioned one metre. That’s much closer to the truth.

The decline started in the fall. Sept was running comparable to other years, then it started to drop and by Nov it was running below 3m. I was at Kilby in mid Nov. the launch was high and dry then too. The current Fraser River levels has nothing to do with seasonal snow melt.

[SuperBobby]

The decline started in the fall. Sept was running comparable to other years, then it started to drop and by Nov it was running below 3m. I was at Kilby in mid Nov. the launch was high and dry then too. The current Fraser River levels has nothing to do with seasonal snow melt.

Ok. I only mentioned as far back as late fall. You're right. The decline absolutely started in September. You could even say that July and August were to blame too as there was literally no rain and summer was super hot.
But let's look at Sept and Oct in BC last year. The whole province was bone dry by this time. Some areas didn't even see a drop of rain until the very end of Oct. Even November was drier than normal after that.
What also happened in early Nov throughout the interior Fraser watershed? The answer is that we got a very quick prolonged freeze.
So a very dry soil froze. Some places even had shallow layer of frozen snow on top of the dry soil.
Also, most of Nov and Dec were below average temperatures, so the little rain that happened probably just ran off or evaporated with the cold dry low humidity.

So when you put the whole thing together....you are partially correct because the late snow melt is not solely responsible....but when you put the whole scenario together....it's a perfect storm for the lowest water levels in 80 years. Again....I'm not surprised by this.