Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm (/thread-9585.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm (/thread-9585.html)
Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - amartinsu13 - 08-14-2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/science/signs-of-a-historic-el-nino-but-forecasters-remain-wary.html?_r=0
El Nino is a comin'
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - fullmetal - 08-14-2015
Long cleats. And sometimes, it rains.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Robbie - 08-14-2015
Surely no Californian is going to complain about rain.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - rudruff - 08-14-2015
No, but soon we will see the articles about how it will all fall in the wrong places.
:)
SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - Redrum - 08-14-2015
Almost all major rainwater infrastructure is designed to move water away fast and prevent floods. Some groundwater charging might take place in the outlying areas, like the San Gabriel river near Irwindale, but SoCal not set up for storage like the rest of the state.
Re: SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - Rally - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 10:17 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Almost all major rainwater infrastructure is designed to move water away fast and prevent floods. Some groundwater charging might take place in the outlying areas, like the San Gabriel river near Irwindale, but SoCal not set up for storage like the rest of the state.
We might as well have no storage at all (SoCal.). One thing I can guarantee: regardless of the amount of rain/snow the pols will immediately remind us, constantly, that it doesn't end the drought. Usage restrictions may be loosened but not eliminated. The land water grab (to use one side's term) will not be reversed. This lifelong Southern Californian has been through this before. The politics never change. I am worried about my hometown, Glendora. The last time a large El Niño (they didn't call it that back then) closely followed brobdingnagian fires in the foothills above us a hundred homes were lost and 5 people died. Now a lot of those foothills are covered in homes. My sister lives in a small oak grove right at the base of the foothills. Her home narrowly escaped the flames. Hope her luck continues.
Re: SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - stupac2 - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 11:29 AM)ferrari link Wrote:One thing I can guarantee: regardless of the amount of rain/snow the pols will immediately remind us, constantly, that it doesn't end the drought. Usage restrictions may be loosened but not eliminated. The land water grab (to use one side's term) will not be reversed.
Well, it won't end the drought unless we get twice as much rain as the previous biggest El Nino year. So, I'm not sure what your point is. As for "land water grab", the only people saying that sort of thing are flaming morons. The idea that you should be able to use as much water as you want is beyond idiotic, it's like saying you should be able to pollute as much as you want. The commons is a real thing and it's the government's job to protect it, and so far CA's government is actually doing a shitty job, mostly because of the idiots who don't realize that their little parochial world is not all there is. The selfishness and myopia about this is astounding.
Re: SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - Rally - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 11:39 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124375#msg124375 date=1439576985]One thing I can guarantee: regardless of the amount of rain/snow the pols will immediately remind us, constantly, that it doesn't end the drought. Usage restrictions may be loosened but not eliminated. The land water grab (to use one side's term) will not be reversed.
Well, it won't end the drought unless we get twice as much rain as the previous biggest El Nino year. So, I'm not sure what your point is. As for "land water grab", the only people saying that sort of thing are flaming morons. The idea that you should be able to use as much water as you want is beyond idiotic, it's like saying you should be able to pollute as much as you want. The commons is a real thing and it's the government's job to protect it, and so far CA's government is actually doing a shitty job, mostly because of the idiots who don't realize that their little parochial world is not all there is. The selfishness and myopia about this is astounding.
[/quote]
I was careful to qualify my use of "land grab" to prevent just this sort of knee-jerk reaction. It is a complicated subject and you know it. If you think calling one side or the other "flaming morons" then God bless you. As for the coming rains not ending the drought. I also didn't say that. I said regardless of the amount of rain the pols will immediately remind us it isn't ended. They may be right or wrong. My point was that they will say so regardless. I wasn't making a political statement but I guess you are. I am surprised to run into this here. I once posted an article on Facebook; my only comment was, "your thoughts?" I was immediately blasted by a classmate who called me a moron and questioned how I could be a Stanford grad. I asked him first in he had read the article, second please re read my one and only comment. He said he didn't need to read the article to know it was horseshit and my stupidity derived from having the temerity to even ask for thoughts. Maybe he and you are the same guy.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:26 PM)garvin link Wrote:I don't know anything about California's water problems, but I think ferrari is sure correct that any restrictions will prove difficult to lift even if it rains every day for a year. American politics often fall under the sway of a group of activists who believe that asceticism is morally elevated whether it's necessary or not. Hence the weird movement to encourage people to eat only stuff grown with 50 miles of their homes (growing up in New Mexico, I would never have tasted shrimp, orange juice or artichokes under this regime) or Bernie Sanders' outraged complaint that we can choose among 23 underarm spray deodorants, as if that somehow creates poverty.
President Nixon, citing gasoline shortages triggered by the OPEC oil embargo, imposed a federal speed limit of 55 mph in November 1973. The embargo ended four months later, but the federal speed limit lasted another 20 years. That's a good example of what I'm talking about.
Thanks, Garvin, for commenting on something I actually said.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - yvonne - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:26 PM)garvin link Wrote:President Nixon, citing gasoline shortages triggered by the OPEC oil embargo, imposed a federal speed limit of 55 mph in November 1973. The embargo ended four months later, but the federal speed limit lasted another 20 years. That's a good example of what I'm talking about.
This is apropos Garvin's post, but kind of off the topic of the thread, but could someone explain something to me? A few weeks ago, someone said that the 55 MPH speed limit led to congestion. I can see how increased volume leads to lowered speeds, but I can't see the how reduced speed leads to increased volume.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - washingtonismoney - 08-14-2015
A price mechanism would (I presume) be the better system for managing water in California. Nevertheless it seems kind of strange to think that a lot of rain should automatically change California's water policy outlook. That's the type of short-term-driven behavior that got the Western U.S. into this mess in the first place.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015
e
(08-14-2015, 01:31 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=12510.msg124391#msg124391 date=1439583976]
President Nixon, citing gasoline shortages triggered by the OPEC oil embargo, imposed a federal speed limit of 55 mph in November 1973. The embargo ended four months later, but the federal speed limit lasted another 20 years. That's a good example of what I'm talking about.
This is apropos Garvin's post, but kind of off the topic of the thread, but could someone explain something to me? A few weeks ago, someone said that the 55 MPH speed limit led to congestion. I can see how increased volume leads to lowered speeds, but I can't see the how reduced speed leads to increased volume.
[/quote]
The other day I was tooling along I-10 going 70, the speed limit, in the fast lane. Like the old codger I am I finally noticed cars pulling up very closes to me then passing on the right. A glance in the mirror showed the congestion my speed had caused. Took 5 minutes before I could safely move out of the fast lane. If everyone goes the same speed there should be no congestion at any speed, but I have yet to see a freeway where that applies.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - FarmBoy - 08-14-2015
Not looking forward to the mess this rain will make of the field. The playing surface from 2011 was a bit of an embarrassment by the end of the season. Hopefully they've improved drainage.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - CrazedZooChimp - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:43 PM)ferrari link Wrote:e[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12510.msg124395#msg124395 date=1439584286]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=12510.msg124391#msg124391 date=1439583976]
President Nixon, citing gasoline shortages triggered by the OPEC oil embargo, imposed a federal speed limit of 55 mph in November 1973. The embargo ended four months later, but the federal speed limit lasted another 20 years. That's a good example of what I'm talking about.
This is apropos Garvin's post, but kind of off the topic of the thread, but could someone explain something to me? A few weeks ago, someone said that the 55 MPH speed limit led to congestion. I can see how increased volume leads to lowered speeds, but I can't see the how reduced speed leads to increased volume.
[/quote]
The other day I was tooling along I-10 going 70, the speed limit, in the fast lane. Like the old codger I am I finally noticed cars pulling up very closes to me then passing on the right. A glance in the mirror showed the congestion my speed had caused. Took 5 minutes before I could safely move out of the fast lane. If everyone goes the same speed there should be no congestion at any speed, but I have yet to see a freeway where that applies.
[/quote]
The real lesson is that unless you are actively passing someone you should not be in the left lane. It's basically the rule of thumb that allow Germany to have highways without speed limits. It kills me when someone in one of the left most lanes is going slower than the traffic to their right.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:41 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:A price mechanism would (I presume) be the better system for managing water in California. Nevertheless it seems kind of strange to think that a lot of rain should automatically change California's water policy outlook. That's the type of short-term-driven behavior that got the Western U.S. into this mess in the first place.
I think pricing is a good way to regulate water usage. But the restrictions in place now cannot be sustained in the medium term unless millions of people leave California. Drinking water is of course the first priority (even that is threatened in some small communities) but people also have to eat. Despite the 50-mile idea our sources of food would shrink dramatically if current restrictions on the Central Valley stay unchanged for too much longer. When the farms are gone not only will no food come from one of America's most productive regions but all those displaced workers will migrate to cities, where they will increase the need for drinking water. We need rain, lots of it, and storage which environmentalists will continue to fight tooth and nail. I have read that Californio was a lovely place before dams, cemented waterways, massive canals, etc. and I assume the people who lived here then got along just fine. All 50,000 of them.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:47 PM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124397#msg124397 date=1439585012]
e[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12510.msg124395#msg124395 date=1439584286]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=12510.msg124391#msg124391 date=1439583976]
President Nixon, citing gasoline shortages triggered by the OPEC oil embargo, imposed a federal speed limit of 55 mph in November 1973. The embargo ended four months later, but the federal speed limit lasted another 20 years. That's a good example of what I'm talking about.
This is apropos Garvin's post, but kind of off the topic of the thread, but could someone explain something to me? A few weeks ago, someone said that the 55 MPH speed limit led to congestion. I can see how increased volume leads to lowered speeds, but I can't see the how reduced speed leads to increased volume.
[/quote]
The other day I was tooling along I-10 going 70, the speed limit, in the fast lane. Like the old codger I am I finally noticed cars pulling up very closes to me then passing on the right. A glance in the mirror showed the congestion my speed had caused. Took 5 minutes before I could safely move out of the fast lane. If everyone goes the same speed there should be no congestion at any speed, but I have yet to see a freeway where that applies.
[/quote]
The real lesson is that unless you are actively passing someone you should not be in the left lane. It's basically the rule of thumb that allow Germany to have highways without speed limits. It kills me when someone in one of the left most lanes is going slower than the traffic to their right.
[/quote]
Oh I agree with you completely, but some days oldfartdom just takes over.
Re: SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - Roberton3 - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:08 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12510.msg124378#msg124378 date=1439577598]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124375#msg124375 date=1439576985]One thing I can guarantee: regardless of the amount of rain/snow the pols will immediately remind us, constantly, that it doesn't end the drought. Usage restrictions may be loosened but not eliminated. The land water grab (to use one side's term) will not be reversed.
Well, it won't end the drought unless we get twice as much rain as the previous biggest El Nino year. So, I'm not sure what your point is. As for "land water grab", the only people saying that sort of thing are flaming morons. The idea that you should be able to use as much water as you want is beyond idiotic, it's like saying you should be able to pollute as much as you want. The commons is a real thing and it's the government's job to protect it, and so far CA's government is actually doing a shitty job, mostly because of the idiots who don't realize that their little parochial world is not all there is. The selfishness and myopia about this is astounding.
[/quote]
I was careful to qualify my use of "land grab" to prevent just this sort of knee-jerk reaction. It is a complicated subject and you know it. If you think calling one side or the other "flaming morons" then God bless you. As for the coming rains not ending the drought. I also didn't say that. I said regardless of the amount of rain the pols will immediately remind us it isn't ended. They may be right or wrong. My point was that they will say so regardless. I wasn't making a political statement but I guess you are. I am surprised to run into this here. I once posted an article on Facebook; my only comment was, "your thoughts?" I was immediately blasted by a classmate who called me a moron and questioned how I could be a Stanford grad. I asked him first in he had read the article, second please re read my one and only comment. He said he didn't need to read the article to know it was horseshit and my stupidity derived from having the temerity to even ask for thoughts. Maybe he and you are the same guy.
[/quote]
Ferrari, I'm a bit baffled as to why you're so upset with Stupac2 here. I didn't see him as attacking you. He criticized people who think they ought to be able to use as much water as they want, even during a drought. If that's not you, then he's not criticizing you.
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - SamAtoms1980 - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:08 PM)ferrari link Wrote:I once posted an article on Facebook; my only comment was, "your thoughts?" I was immediately blasted by a classmate who called me a moron and questioned how I could be a Stanford grad. I asked him first in he had read the article, second please re read my one and only comment. He said he didn't need to read the article to know it was horseshit and my stupidity derived from having the temerity to even ask for thoughts.
Honestly, IMHO, this says more about Facebook than anything or anybody else.....
(08-14-2015, 01:26 PM)garvin link Wrote:Hence the weird movement to encourage people to eat only stuff grown with 50 miles of their homes (growing up in New Mexico, I would never have tasted shrimp, orange juice or artichokes under this regime) or Bernie Sanders' outraged complaint that we can choose among 23 underarm spray deodorants, as if that somehow creates poverty.
I'm as big a fan as anyone of alternatives to a Hillary Clinton presidency, but I think he's off base here. Would he be happier, would we be better off, if AXE, Old Spice or even Mitchum had a monopoly?
Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Roberton3 - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 01:41 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:A price mechanism would (I presume) be the better system for managing water in California. Nevertheless it seems kind of strange to think that a lot of rain should automatically change California's water policy outlook. That's the type of short-term-driven behavior that got the Western U.S. into this mess in the first place.
You got it. Better pricing would greatly reduce some of the wasteful uses of water (e.g., growing relatively low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and rice), and wouldn't significantly cut into high-value uses. It has worked very well in other areas where water is scarce and needs to be divided between urban and agricultural users (such as the Australian state of New South Wales).Â
But I'm not optimistic, partly because the legal history makes that relatively difficult to do in California compared to some other places, and partly because water pricing would be a moderate compromise in a political environment dominated by the extremes (in this case, the "I should be able to use as much water as I want" folks that Stupac2 criticized and the "asceticism is a virtue" folks that Garvin criticized).
Re: SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - Rally - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 02:03 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124390#msg124390 date=1439582893]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12510.msg124378#msg124378 date=1439577598]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124375#msg124375 date=1439576985]One thing I can guarantee: regardless of the amount of rain/snow the pols will immediately remind us, constantly, that it doesn't end the drought. Usage restrictions may be loosened but not eliminated. The land water grab (to use one side's term) will not be reversed.
Well, it won't end the drought unless we get twice as much rain as the previous biggest El Nino year. So, I'm not sure what your point is. As for "land water grab", the only people saying that sort of thing are flaming morons. The idea that you should be able to use as much water as you want is beyond idiotic, it's like saying you should be able to pollute as much as you want. The commons is a real thing and it's the government's job to protect it, and so far CA's government is actually doing a shitty job, mostly because of the idiots who don't realize that their little parochial world is not all there is. The selfishness and myopia about this is astounding.
[/quote]
I was careful to qualify my use of "land grab" to prevent just this sort of knee-jerk reaction. It is a complicated subject and you know it. If you think calling one side or the other "flaming morons" then God bless you. As for the coming rains not ending the drought. I also didn't say that. I said regardless of the amount of rain the pols will immediately remind us it isn't ended. They may be right or wrong. My point was that they will say so regardless. I wasn't making a political statement but I guess you are. I am surprised to run into this here. I once posted an article on Facebook; my only comment was, "your thoughts?" I was immediately blasted by a classmate who called me a moron and questioned how I could be a Stanford grad. I asked him first in he had read the article, second please re read my one and only comment. He said he didn't need to read the article to know it was horseshit and my stupidity derived from having the temerity to even ask for thoughts. Maybe he and you are the same guy.
[/quote]
Ferrari, I'm a bit baffled as to why you're so upset with Stupac2 here. I didn't see him as attacking you. He criticized people who think they ought to be able to use as much water as they want, even during a drought. If that's not you, then he's not criticizing you.
[/quote]
I'm not personally upset with Stupac2. Maybe Stupac1 but that's another post. I said, to use one side's term, obviously implying at least two sides. From that Stupac2 launched into a tirade against morons and idiots. He says he doesn't understand my point. Perhaps because he was inflamed by the term "land grab?" I don't know but I think my point was pretty clear, as others have commented on: government never gives up power and authority without fighting tooth and nail. If someone is going to take issue with my post, fine, but take issue with this, not "land grab." Now, let's just forget the whole thing and get back to traffic congestion.