Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   That giant sucking sound you hear is Texas water going south. They took our dihydrogen monoxide   (nbcnews.com) divider line 210
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

13158 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 8:04 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-16 02:01:07 PM  
Water should be regarded as part of the landscape and non-removable as it is vital to all life and everything else you may try to do in any place. . Taking water away is as criminal as taking away the topsoil or forceably transplanting the natives to some alien hell hole.

If anybody asks for me, I'll be up here in Canada pissing in wells to try to keep our continentalist governments from sucking Canada dry to paliate the errors and crimes of the past.

Ça ira, as the French were wont to say. Ça ira.

You only realize what you've got when it's gone.
 
2014-07-16 02:02:48 PM  

kvinesknows: morons like you who limit their thinking to what they know as fact are the reason why the aquifer is essentially empty.


That the aquifers have been putting out more than they are taking in is a known fact to people like me for years.

It is morons like you who think it can be fixed with dumb solutions that are the problem.

kvinesknows: YES it is actually just a empty vessel waiting to be filled.


If the wiki entry is above you I really can't fix that level of stupid.


Stone Meadow: Both infiltration (as used in Tucson) AND injection pumping are routinely used to recharge aquifers. In fact, as of 5 years ago there were some 1200 aquifer recharging operations listed by the EPA, and some of them are 'holes waiting to be filled'.


Aquifer recharging doesn't imply mean pumping water in.

Even when they are "pumping water in" they aren't holes waiting to be filled. It required energy, it requires storage due to the rate at which water can be pumped in, it requires monitoring, it requires filtration, and you also have the numerous risks presented in your own link.


Stone Meadow: The concept itself, of pumping water uphill to store in aquifers is in practice every day.


No it isn't.

What we have, everyday, is diverting water to places where it can be more easily absorbed by aquifers. We have some places where water is pumped back in, but they don't pump that in from hundrerds of miles away.

kvinesknows: who the fark cares? you want people to die and land to dry up... or you want to pretend that protecting one watershed from the other is somehow a critically important thing


Great plan dumb dumb, lets just keep using however much water we want, just because we dry out this watershed doesn;t mean we will never dry out another.
 
2014-07-16 02:10:02 PM  

liam76: kvinesknows: morons like you who limit their thinking to what they know as fact are the reason why the aquifer is essentially empty.

That the aquifers have been putting out more than they are taking in is a known fact to people like me for years.

It is morons like you who think it can be fixed with dumb solutions that are the problem.

kvinesknows: YES it is actually just a empty vessel waiting to be filled.

If the wiki entry is above you I really can't fix that level of stupid.


Stone Meadow: Both infiltration (as used in Tucson) AND injection pumping are routinely used to recharge aquifers. In fact, as of 5 years ago there were some 1200 aquifer recharging operations listed by the EPA, and some of them are 'holes waiting to be filled'.

Aquifer recharging doesn't imply mean pumping water in.

Even when they are "pumping water in" they aren't holes waiting to be filled. It required energy, it requires storage due to the rate at which water can be pumped in, it requires monitoring, it requires filtration, and you also have the numerous risks presented in your own link.


Stone Meadow: The concept itself, of pumping water uphill to store in aquifers is in practice every day.

No it isn't.

What we have, everyday, is diverting water to places where it can be more easily absorbed by aquifers. We have some places where water is pumped back in, but they don't pump that in from hundrerds of miles away.

kvinesknows: who the fark cares? you want people to die and land to dry up... or you want to pretend that protecting one watershed from the other is somehow a critically important thing

Great plan dumb dumb, lets just keep using however much water we want, just because we dry out this watershed doesn;t mean we will never dry out another.


fark you are dumb

you say there is a problem, yet refuse to even hope for a solution and just want to cry about it.
 
2014-07-16 02:14:29 PM  

MisterTweak: Anyone here visit Lake Travis in the last, say, half-decade or so? Not quite as horrific as Lake Mead yet, but heading there. The water level is down by almost 40 feet, and unlike previous droughts, this one isn't short-lived, it's been decreasing steadily for almost a decade, and despite fairly drastic measures, shows little hope of returning to the levels seen over the last 50 years.


Meanwhile, in Austin, people are moving here at the rate of about 3000/month last stat I heard. An already overburdened water supply is getting more and more pressure applied to it every day.

The wife and I are quietly and quickly preparing our escape. Hopefully, we can take advantage of a newcomer and make some decent money on our house when we go.
 
2014-07-16 02:14:51 PM  

People_are_Idiots: HeadLever: People_are_Idiots: Want to know how I know you don't know the Romans did this?

Pump thousands of cubic feet per second of water thousands of feet uphill?  You are right.  I didn't know that Romans were capable of this.  I guess I better start watching Ancient Aliens a bit more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_screw (quite efficient)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_Romans_get_water_up_hills_usin g_ aquaducts (Not so efficient)


The second sentence of your second link:  the Romans were not able to get water to move uphill in a general sense.

oops, try again.

And screw pumps are decent for low head applications.  Don't forget that these also require power to operate.  Cranking one of these babies by hand isn't going to solve many flooding/drought problems.
 
2014-07-16 02:21:12 PM  

brantgoose: Water should be regarded as part of the landscape and non-removable as it is vital to all life and everything else you may try to do in any place.


So everyone on the planet is dead in 2 to 3 days?  Not sure, but I suspect that this plan is not going to have much of a following.

Maybe a few members of vhemt.  Maybe.
 
2014-07-16 02:45:59 PM  

kvinesknows: fark you are dumb


Tell me again how aquifers are just holes waiting to be filled.


kvinesknows: you say there is a problem, yet refuse to even hope for a solution and just want to cry about it


Pointing out the glaring flaws with your "solution" that somebody wih a highschool understanding of geology or physiscs would see as a deal breaker isn't refusing to "hope" for a soution.

The only one crying here is you because you don't like how reality infringes upon your unicorn dream fixes.

And rather than "hope" for your magic plans to work, I woudl recommend things that would actually work, like a system to regulate how much water they can takes.
 
2014-07-16 03:57:57 PM  

People_are_Idiots: ZeroPly: Your father has obviously never been in an actual flood.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fort+worth+flood&client=firefox-a&rl s= org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=E6z GU_zuAsquyASln4HABQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoATgo&biw=1920&bih=900

My dad's been through 3 (myself, only 2), including the massive flood on 7th Street. Know how they fixed it? Massive Irrigation and levees.


I am giggling uncontrollably at what Texas considers a "massive" flood. I was in St. Louis for the 1993 flood - that was 30,000 square miles of flooded land. We don't consider roads being covered in water a flood.

But even for Forth Worth, containing that water before it can run off would take some very large pipes and a lot of pumping. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that we don't have the engineering to do something like that.
 
2014-07-16 06:12:39 PM  

ZeroPly: I am giggling uncontrollably at what Texas considers a "massive" flood. I was in St. Louis for the 1993 flood - that was 30,000 square miles of flooded land.


1949 - Flooded 7th Street, Up to the first floor of Montgomery Wards.
1980's - Flooding took out a trailer park (Levee failed).
1996 - Portland Oregon had massive flooding, that took out an industrial island. Several stores had sandbags up to the roofs due to the flooding.
2001 - Houston flooded with Tropical Storm Allison
2014 - Flash Flooding took out several low-lying roads, cars submerged.

It's not the land mass, it's HOW MUCH in that land mass.
 
2014-07-16 06:50:18 PM  

liam76: Stone Meadow: The concept itself, of pumping water uphill to store in aquifers is in practice every day.

No it isn't.

What we have, everyday, is diverting water to places where it can be more easily absorbed by aquifers. We have some places where water is pumped back in, but they don't pump that in from hundrerds of miles away.


Yes it is. Every year Tucson gets 40 billion gallons of water via the CAP canal, and every gallon of it has to pumped from Lake Havasu at 448' elevation more than 2000 vertical feet and more than 300 miles to the terminus at 2548' elevation near Tucson. That's just ONE project.
 
Displayed 10 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report