Page 6 of 24

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Tue 23 Feb 2016, 07:15:12
by dohboi
And more:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 022216.php

Nearly all US forests threatened by drought due to CC

Forests nationwide are feeling the heat from increasing drought and climate change, according to a new study by scientists from 14 research institutions.

“Over the last two decades, warming temperatures and variable precipitation have increased the severity of forest droughts across much of the continental United States,” said James S. Clark, lead author of the study and Nicholas Professor of Environmental Science at Duke University.

“While the effects have been most pronounced in the West, our analysis shows virtually all U.S. forests are now experiencing change and are vulnerable to future declines,” he said. “Given the high degree of uncertainty in our understanding of how forest species and stands adapt to rapid change, it’s going to be difficult to anticipate the type of forests that will be here in 20 to 40 years.”

Drought-induced forest diebacks, bark beetle infestations and wildfires are already occurring on large scales across the West, and many models predict droughts are likely to become more severe, frequent and prolonged across much of the United States.

There is also mounting evidence that climate is changing faster than tree populations can respond by migrating to new regions.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sun 28 Feb 2016, 22:31:26
by dohboi

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sun 28 Feb 2016, 22:33:43
by Subjectivist
I hate to admit it, but this winter has been so wet in Ohio I kind of forgot a lot of people are still in a drought. In fact it is raining in Toledo right now, with high winds.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Mon 29 Feb 2016, 01:50:46
by ennui2
pstarr wrote:Like peak oil?


You're probably the only one really worrying about peak-oil right this moment.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Mon 29 Feb 2016, 10:29:12
by ennui2
pstarr wrote:Actually right now this minute I am laughing at your AGW doomers. You must feel all silly with your pants legs all hoisted up by your butts. Trying to stay dry lol


Seriously, you should submit an application to be a Monckton sock-puppet. I'm sure you'd make more money doing that than wasting your time spewing your denialism here or tending to your redwoods.

Image

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Wed 02 Mar 2016, 22:45:41
by dohboi
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -900-years

Syria’s drought 'has likely been its worst in 900 years'

New findings show a ‘convergence of evidence’ that climate change has influenced the Syrian drought

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Thu 03 Mar 2016, 09:55:47
by dohboi
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndDa ... rison.aspx

Not much change in US, except some spots of increasing dryness in the South and SW, and some increased drought in Montana.

Still looking like a warm summer overall, and then an especially cold winter for most of us in the northlands:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/p ... olor/t.gif

Drier than usual predicted for the Great Lakes region in the next few months, but wetter in the far West and SW. Then dry all across the South and up the East Coast, and wet in the NW and eventually in the Great Lakes area.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/p ... olor/p.gif

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Thu 03 Mar 2016, 10:20:37
by Tanada
dohboi wrote:http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/WeeklyComparison.aspx

Not much change in US, except some spots of increasing dryness in the South and SW, and some increased drought in Montana.

Still looking like a warm summer overall, and then an especially cold winter for most of us in the northlands:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/p ... olor/t.gif

Drier than usual predicted for the Great Lakes region in the next few months, but wetter in the far West and SW. Then dry all across the South and up the East Coast, and wet in the NW and eventually in the Great Lakes area.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/p ... olor/p.gif


That may be, but between the snow melt and the rain Monday my small yard was flooded pretty well. All of that ends up eventually in my local river and from there into Lake Erie.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Thu 03 Mar 2016, 11:09:40
by dohboi
Nice to hear you got some moisture over there. We're a bit below where we should be in MN, and there don't seem to be any major rains or snow showers coming through any time soon.

I had submitted a request to lease some city land to garden in, but I'm starting to reconsider.

There is no access to water, and if we're going to have a dry spring and unusually hot summer, I'm thinking it might not be the right year to start ag on that plot--there's only so much water this old back can haul! :cry:

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Thu 03 Mar 2016, 11:22:39
by Tanada
dohboi wrote:Nice to hear you got some moisture over there. We're a bit below where we should be in MN, and there don't seem to be any major rains or snow showers coming through any time soon.

I had submitted a request to lease some city land to garden in, but I'm starting to reconsider.

There is no access to water, and if we're going to have a dry spring and unusually hot summer, I'm thinking it might not be the right year to start ag on that plot--there's only so much water this old back can haul! :cry:


You might be surprised how easy it is to move water with a wheel barrow, especially the two front wheel kind that is easy to balance. Then again if you have to haul the jugs out to your car and then unload them into the barrow to wheel over to your plot that would be a bit of a chore. A trick I learned as a youngster most people seem to not know, if you balance a carry load with half the weight, say a jug or bucket of water in each hand, the difficulty carrying is greatly reduced even with twice the weight.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Thu 03 Mar 2016, 11:42:14
by dohboi
Thanks for the tips.

Snowing here now, lightly.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Fri 04 Mar 2016, 10:46:35
by dohboi
http://www.arabnews.com/world/news/888906

Vietnam hit by worst drought in 90 years

Vietnam is suffering its worst drought in nearly a century with salinization hitting farmers especially hard in the crucial southern Mekong delta, experts said Monday.

“The water level of the Mekong River has gone down to its lowest level since 1926, leading to the worst drought and salinization there,” Nguyen Van Tinh, deputy head of the hydraulics department under the Ministry of Agriculture, told AFP.

The low-lying and heavily cultivated Mekong region is home to more than 20 million people and is the country’s rice basket.


Not just the country's. Vietnam is the second largest exporter of rice in the world (after Thailand), and most of that is produced on the Mekong delta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_prod ... in_Vietnam

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Fri 04 Mar 2016, 10:52:09
by dohboi
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2408/

Drought in eastern Mediterranean worst of past 900 years

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sat 05 Mar 2016, 02:33:19
by careinke
dohboi wrote:Nice to hear you got some moisture over there. We're a bit below where we should be in MN, and there don't seem to be any major rains or snow showers coming through any time soon.

I had submitted a request to lease some city land to garden in, but I'm starting to reconsider.

There is no access to water, and if we're going to have a dry spring and unusually hot summer, I'm thinking it might not be the right year to start ag on that plot--there's only so much water this old back can haul! :cry:


Wood Chips, lots of wood chips. Not sure how much land, but maybe shallow ditches on contour to slow and soak what rain you do get. :)

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sat 05 Mar 2016, 08:57:40
by vtsnowedin
It looks like it is going to be a good week for California drought wise.
http://snowpack.water-data.com/uppercol ... eather.php
:)

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sat 05 Mar 2016, 09:06:15
by vtsnowedin
I wonder if those farmers that irrigate with well water and have depleted their aquifer to the point the land has subsided can restore it now if they pump surface water back down the wells while it is available. There is the energy cost to run the pumps of course but other then that I see no reason why not. It would come down to how fast the sandstone or soil that holds the aquifer would let water back into the formation. You could easily send it down the pipe casing at 100 psi.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sat 05 Mar 2016, 10:54:24
by Tanada
vtsnowedin wrote:I wonder if those farmers that irrigate with well water and have depleted their aquifer to the point the land has subsided can restore it now if they pump surface water back down the wells while it is available. There is the energy cost to run the pumps of course but other then that I see no reason why not. It would come down to how fast the sandstone or soil that holds the aquifer would let water back into the formation. You could easily send it down the pipe casing at 100 psi.


You shouldn't have to use a pump, water weighs 8 pounds per gallon. A 4 inch diameter pipe holds 66 gallon for every 100 feet so even a short well pipe 2^2*3.14= 12.56 inches ^2 cross section area. 66*8=528, divided by 12.56= 42 PSI per 100 feet. Increase the diameter slightly or make the feed pipe 250 feet deep and the bottom hole pressure is 105 PSI with nothing but gravity driving the water down the hole.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sat 05 Mar 2016, 11:58:28
by vtsnowedin
Tanada wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:I wonder if those farmers that irrigate with well water and have depleted their aquifer to the point the land has subsided can restore it now if they pump surface water back down the wells while it is available. There is the energy cost to run the pumps of course but other then that I see no reason why not. It would come down to how fast the sandstone or soil that holds the aquifer would let water back into the formation. You could easily send it down the pipe casing at 100 psi.


You shouldn't have to use a pump, water weighs 8 pounds per gallon. A 4 inch diameter pipe holds 66 gallon for every 100 feet so even a short well pipe 2^2*3.14= 12.56 inches ^2 cross section area. 66*8=528, divided by 12.56= 42 PSI per 100 feet. Increase the diameter slightly or make the feed pipe 250 feet deep and the bottom hole pressure is 105 PSI with nothing but gravity driving the water down the hole.
Your math is slightly off. :) A gallon of water weighs 8.33 lbs and a column of water one square inch in size weighs .433 lbs. So a well (No matter what size pipe ) 250 feet deep would have 108.3 psi pressure at the bottom if it was full to the top.
But you'd have to pump the water from the nearest flowing stream anyway so you might as well hook it up tight and have 100 psi on the top and 208 down at the bottom.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Sun 06 Mar 2016, 22:28:17
by kuidaskassikaeb
Since we are all showing off, even though your math is right you have to know the state of the soil. If the sandstone is unsaturated and has air filled pores capillary action will suck the moisture in. It may even suck a syphon upstream from a creek. If the pores are filled with water and there is plenty of permiablility, than the bottom pressure has to be high enough to move the top of the water column not the surface, you should also include some pressure to move water through the pores.
However, if the soil has collapsed, which happens a lot, and you have to lift the rocks, than your pressure has to be greater than the force per unit area of the rock column, and you still probably won't open any pores, just find a fracture and have your water flow away.

Re: The Drought Thread Pt. 4

Unread postPosted: Mon 07 Mar 2016, 10:43:33
by vtsnowedin
kuidaskassikaeb wrote:Since we are all showing off, even though your math is right you have to know the state of the soil. If the sandstone is unsaturated and has air filled pores capillary action will suck the moisture in. It may even suck a syphon upstream from a creek. If the pores are filled with water and there is plenty of permiablility, than the bottom pressure has to be high enough to move the top of the water column not the surface, you should also include some pressure to move water through the pores.
However, if the soil has collapsed, which happens a lot, and you have to lift the rocks, than your pressure has to be greater than the force per unit area of the rock column, and you still probably won't open any pores, just find a fracture and have your water flow away.

All I know about the formations has come from news stories so is quite incomplete. Basically they all held water before and have been pumped down often hundreds of feet to reach the remaining water and many have had the land subside as the water was removed. There is still water below so we are talking about the top two hundred feet or so. Static water pressure was enough to keep the pores open before and though it has collapsed there is no reason to think that water present at that same static pressure wouldn't flow back into those pours and re-expand them to their former size. Perhaps it would take higher pressure to re-expand the pours similar to a fraking operation , I don't know. I would think you could pump it in almost as fast as you pumped it out but I'd have to test that theory. At any rate any water you pumped down the well would stay fairly close by or flow down and join the remaining water and be available next summer.