U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:20 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,683,149 times
Reputation: 447

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonySA View Post
I couldn't tell you without researching. I've been here since 2002 and this is the first time I've seen us reach Stage 2. From my understanding though, we did reach stage 2 last in 2000.
Your not going to be able to make a direct comparison like that, the stages changed in 2007. 650 used to be the Stage 1 threshold, and 640 the Stage 2.

In 2000 it did drop below 640, but then it only caused Stage 2 restrictions, now we will be in Stage 3 at under 640.

One thing to keep in mind is that the drop does tend to slow down a lot as the Aquifer get lower, many springs either dry up, or run with much less pressure meaning less water is running out naturally. Spring flows are usually more than the pumped flow.

Picture below starts right after the 1950s drought as you can see spring flow has been mostly higher since then. (So has rainfall)

If you look at at a chart of rainfall, aquifer level, and pumping levels only the rainfall and aquifer level correlate. Changing Pumping levels has a marginal at best effect on aquifer level due to spring flows.


Last edited by smitty12; 06-18-2009 at 09:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:26 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
3,542 posts, read 7,526,858 times
Reputation: 3745
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty12 View Post
Your not going to be able to make a direct comparison like that, the stages changed in 2007. 650 used to be the Stage 1 threshold, and 640 the Stage 2.

In 2000 it did drop below 640, but then it only caused Stage 2 restrictions, now we will be in Stage 3 at under 640.

One thing to keep in mind is that the drop does tend to slow down a lot as the Aquifer get lower, many springs either dry up, or run with much less pressure meaning less water is running out naturally. Spring flows are usually more than the pumped flow.

Picture below starts right after the 1950s drought as you can see spring flow has been mostly higher since then. (So has rainfall)

If you look at at chart of rainfall, aquifer level, and pumping levels only the rainfall and aquifer level correlate. Changing Pumping levels has a marginal at best effect on aquifer level due to spring flows.
Great post... appreciate the graph.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:26 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
944 posts, read 2,802,870 times
Reputation: 263
wCat, I don't think that the scientists are speculating at this point. I think we are well beyond that stage.

Anthony, your explanations helped a lot, thanks. They taught me new info and I'm appreciative (e.g., the info about desert and the Gulf). It was my understanding, however, that climate scientists have concluded that climate change has made/will make the drought tendencies at 30 degrees that you mention much more severe than they otherwise would have been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:39 PM
Lil
 
32 posts, read 67,575 times
Reputation: 43
I love it! I am tickled to have landed on this thread. When it comes down to water rationing; we find out what we all prize the most in our landscapes. I am a passionate gardener; and when it comes down to deciding what I will save through this drought and what won't, is so conflicting. First, I love my trees; I have planted soooo many (Since the builders don't leave didley) and they are finally providing me with shade. The St. Augustine was the first thing I ripped out - that grass will die during a drought - the Bermuda goes dormant. I like my roses - those Knock-outs are holding their own. I am all for hand watering; except I don't have the time to get it all in with-in the two hours that I am told to do it! Oh well, what will be next to bite the dust........I feel like I have moved to El Paso all over again..... Always a new challenge...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:42 PM
Lil
 
32 posts, read 67,575 times
Reputation: 43
Very informative Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:42 PM
 
4,796 posts, read 13,717,357 times
Reputation: 2709
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello13685 View Post
wCat, I don't think that the scientists are speculating at this point. I think we are well beyond that stage.
Hello..."speculating" was your word, not mine. Go back and read your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:44 PM
 
4,796 posts, read 13,717,357 times
Reputation: 2709
Smitty....great post!! wonderful graphics! very informative!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:48 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,683,149 times
Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello13685 View Post
I'd love a local meteorologist to speculate about WHY we have these stubborn high pressure ridges over much of the southern U.S., but they won't. Any mention of climate change would ruffle the feathers of the conservative viewership.
Maybe because they understand Occam's Razor.... It is much more likely that this is part of the normal long term weather of the area.

http://www.gbra.org/Documents/Reports/TreeRingStudy.pdf (broken link)

If you look at the record you will see many periods of 10 years or longer where average rainfall was around 13 inches (We had 13.76 inches last year, 7.34 so far this year) :

Most significant droughts early 1710s, 1750s, 1840s, 1880s, 1950s. We aren't even close to droughts of those scales, Considering we had 47 inches of rain in 2007.

Any forecaster who speculated that this is caused by "Global Warming" would look pretty stupid since the data does not back that up.

The data I've seen has Global Warming causing more El Nino's which tend to give us much more rain. See 2007 rainfall above and article below. If anything this drought could be speculated to be caused by cooling conditions which evaporate less gulf water, it does not help the case for warming.

2007 El Nino Pushing Superheated Globe to New Record
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:57 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,683,149 times
Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by wCat View Post
Hello..."speculating" was your word, not mine. Go back and read your post.
She doesn't want to them speculate on the fact of global warming, just that this drought is somehow caused by it. Or using short term weather to fear monger... That is how it works, any short term weather that can be speculated to support the case for global warming among the "little people" should be hyped. But short term weather like record lows should be dismissed as normal variability.

By short term I mean patterns less that a few years. There are no short term trends that can be proven to support or deny global warming. That is a long term issue, that can only be proven or not over a long period of time. Speculating on the causes of short term weather is just that speculating.

I'm not saying there isn't a Global Climate change problem, but it can not be seen in short term weather trends pro or con. Having Local weathermen speculate on it would be disingenuous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 10:01 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
3,542 posts, read 7,526,858 times
Reputation: 3745
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty12 View Post
Maybe because they understand Occam's Razor.... It is much more likely that this is part of the normal long term weather of the area.

http://www.gbra.org/Documents/Reports/TreeRingStudy.pdf (broken link)

If you look at the record you will see many periods of 10 years or longer where average rainfall was around 13 inches (We had 13.76 inches last year, 7.34 so far this year) :

Most significant droughts early 1710s, 1750s, 1840s, 1880s, 1950s. We aren't even close to droughts of those scales, Considering we had 47 inches of rain in 2007.

Any forecaster who speculated that this is caused by "Global Warming" would look pretty stupid since the data does not back that up.

The data I've seen has Global Warming causing more El Nino's which tend to give us much more rain. See 2007 rainfall above and article below. If anything this drought could be speculated to be caused by cooling conditions which evaporate less gulf water, it does not help the case for warming.

2007 El Nino Pushing Superheated Globe to New Record

Oh man.... you just opened up a whole can of worms in this post! Teleconnections

I'll followup with a far more detailed post, but it's gonna take quite a while.

PS: Thanks for the tree ring data. Very interesting stuff indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:23 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top