California Drought

[bcp]

So Cal had rain and mountain. Glad I wasn't standing under one.

 

[NoTrespassing]

You know that 100 year droughts have happened in California, and will happen again. Anyone think predicting a large earthquake in California is chicken little. You'd be an idiot to think its not going to happen.

Sure but I think earthquake, weather, and climate prediction are still in their infancy. I'd like to see more of the so called experts admit that they don't have much of a clue when it comes to predictions longer than a few days.

Kevin

 

[Raspy]

They dug down 10 feet into the to the rock to find "suitable rock" for the emergency spillway (not sure how far they went down on the main spillway). Then they drilled holes into the rock and grouted in rebar pegs which they poured concrete over.

Aaron Z

With that, it seems all the downstream dirt could be scoured out and not lead to failure.

Thank bcp for the additional info and that book.

 

[houstonscott]

Sure but I think earthquake, weather, and climate prediction are still in their infancy. I'd like to see more of the so called experts admit that they don't have much of a clue when it comes to predictions longer than a few days. Kevin

We all understand there are no experts in predicting tomorrow, let alone next year or next 500 years. But it's not chicken little to understand what could happen.

 

[Raspy]

Here's an interesting video of the Washington Scablands. Unrelated to Oroville, but flooding on a huge scale.

Channeled Scablands of Washington State (Patrick Stewart) - YouTube

 

[ForestGrump]

There should be no exceptional or extreme drought in CA after this last round of storms. So much for the dire predictions of 100 years without appreciable rains and the sky is falling we're all gonna die chicken little forecasts. How many times can scientists be wrong and still keep their jobs? Sure, they'll couch their positions with percentages and all kinds of excuses when they're proven wrong. I wish someone would take them to task once in awhile.

Kevin

Metereologists - please - not all scientiststs. When I listen to them I can see where they can often be led astray. First much of their data is from a single observation, meaningless. Second they have computers and withcomputersyoucan easily build models - I'm sureyouhaveheardthemuse this phrase. Then they use these models to predict the weather in the future and I have heard them say that they use data acquired from these models to generate data for new models. They are creating data not using observed data.

I personally don't believe El Niño and La Niña are real and can be supported by statistically valid observable facts. I think they saw a trend and jumped on it. The long term forcast for California was La Niña, colder and dry... ooops.

All scientists need to take and understand statistics and to apply it to their work and observable data, if not you can not tell if the observation is statistically relevant and significant. I think they use a lot of insignificant information.

I chided my cardiologist who did not know how to read an 8 hour glucose tolerance test. He was unfamiliar with data that was a straight line with a negative slope, scarey, and I told him so. Bye bye cardiologist.

 

[NoTrespassing]

We all understand there are no experts in predicting tomorrow, let alone next year or next 500 years. But it's not chicken little to understand what could happen.

I disagree with your first sentence. I think there are many people that take those predictions as gospel unfortunately.

 

[jerrybob]

I disagree with your first sentence. I think there are many people that take those predictions as gospel unfortunately.

Exactly.......kinda like churchgoers.........hook em and reel em in.

 

[EddieWalker]

Metereologists - please - not all scientiststs. When I listen to them I can see where they can often be led astray. First much of their data is from a single observation, meaningless. Second they have computers and withcomputersyoucan easily build models - I'm sureyouhaveheardthemuse this phrase. Then they use these models to predict the weather in the future and I have heard them say that they use data acquired from these models to generate data for new models. They are creating data not using observed data.

I personally don't believe El Niño and La Niña are real and can be supported by statistically valid observable facts. I think they saw a trend and jumped on it. The long term forcast for California was La Niña, colder and dry... ooops.

All scientists need to take and understand statistics and to apply it to their work and observable data, if not you can not tell if the observation is statistically relevant and significant. I think they use a lot of insignificant information.

I chided my cardiologist who did not know how to read an 8 hour glucose tolerance test. He was unfamiliar with data that was a straight line with a negative slope, scarey, and I told him so. Bye bye cardiologist.

I think most of the problem with predicting the weather and explaining what is going on is because the scientists at the universities have been bought and paid for to push a political agenda that relies on making up data, destroying data and intimidating those who disagree with their opinions. Just look how NOAA was once again caught lying about global temperatures claiming 2016 was the hottest year ever because of the extreme temps in Africa when there wasn't even any weather stations there to give them the data. They just make it up to get the results they wanted so they can get the funding from the governments around the world to the universities to continue supporting a political agenda.

NASA, NOAA Data Show 216 Warmest Year on Record Globally | NASA

Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse | True Pundit

1% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

 

[jerrybob]

Global warming? I don't know if it's real or not but I just hope to heck we never run out of party ice!:thumbsup: