and where do millions of people get their water to drink?
Runaway Global Warming
- Thread starter Facial
- Start date
From where? In New York? From the existing water supplies. But you might not be able to water your lawns if that supply is reduced. Keep in mind that your typical American needs about a liter of water a day for drinking purposes - but the average American used 360 gallons of water a day. That means that they are getting more than 1000 times what they need to drink. Which is why you could even cut it by a factor of 10 and not have anyone go thirsty.
(Uh, you don't think that there's one solitary reservoir supplying everyone's water that is never refilled, and when it's empty it's all gone, do you?)
ok... I'll play... so when all the extra reserves you refer to are gone because of extended drought what then?
What happens to NYCity if there IS NO fresh water?
which is the same as asking what happens to Sao Paulo when their 3.5 % reserve is used up?
What happens to NYCity if there IS NO fresh water?
which is the same as asking what happens to Sao Paulo when their 3.5 % reserve is used up?
That part I made bold, should give you some pause to question your thinking.
(Assuming you are not so egotistical and arrogant that your believe every idea of yours must be correct.)
For example a few pages back you said that "gravitational instabilities were the fundamental cause of Climate change," not CO2 driving more than 30 positive feed back systems.
In post here http://www.sciforums.com/threads/runaway-global-warming.142102/page-13#post-3235456 (post 241 of this thread)
I showed why that is utter non-sense, and asked you to tell what you spoke of that was even 0.000,1 as large or as rapid as the seasonally shift of the Earth's Center of Gravity, CoG, as snow and ice mass changes from summer to winter in the Northern Hemisphere, but you did what you accuse many thousands of scientist of collectively doing - I. e. ignored my factual reply and give no answer to my questions:
What are you speaking of?
What causes or "drives" this instability?
(inside a very viscous or near surface rigid Earth? (The core is also quite rigid as it is solid not liquid as many ignorant people assume.)
What is the time scale of the "instability"?
(For example how long does it take to move the Earth's CoG by one meter?)
What is the nature of the instability?
(I.e. is it oscillator or growing with greater than unity positive feed back loop?)
You, according to your posts, seem to hold the POV that all those in the multitude* of scientific experts are wrong; CO2 concentration is not very important - not even the reason for the observed temperature rise - I know what is but can't tell you. Etc.
Did God reveal the cause to you, but only after you promised not to tell?
* I don't have survey data, but think more than 98% of scientists with Ph. D. in physics, who have an opinion on the fundamental cause of observed global warming since the industrial age began extensive production of energy from fossil fuels do believe that CO2 release is the cause of that observational fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
Below is an extended comment on my just made post 304. It is pertinate to point in 304 as it tells how man learned the shape of the gravity field and the higher order terms in that description are not constants but some vary with the seasons* as I noted in post 304.
It also shows that CC's gravitational instability is his myth - does not exist.
The US Navy's nuclear IBM subs needed two pieces of information back in the cold war era, and APL/JHU, where I worked of 30 years, made the two systems that provided that data.
They need to know precisely where in the ocean they are, and the exact shape of the earth's gravitational field, as that determines the ICBM's trajectory after thrust shut off, which of course determine where on Earth the ICBM will impact earth.
You probably know that earth is not a sphere and perhaps that large mountains and deposits of common heavy metals, like iron ore, etc. with in it keep that gravitional field from be a simple spherical inverse r^2 field. It is described in an orthogonal set of mathematical terms, called the tesseral or spherical harmonics. The coefficients of first few have been known for more than 100 years. (Main reason for their "tesserial" name.) Now many more are known. Even just how many is very secrete - I don't know even though I had the top secrete level of clearance as I had no need to know and did not work directly on their determination but did help a little in the design of the satellite that collected the needed data.
Any near earth satellite will let you add quite a few terms to the description of the Earth's gravitational field, but all such satellites have non-gravitational forces acting on them. The three most important are residual air drag, solar radiation pressure and magnetic forces. So to eliminate them (and others) we made a tiny (about 1 cm diameter) sphere of an alloy of platinum and gold, that was the true satellite. It was located at the exact mass center of the big satellite it "flew" in as if elsewhere within the big satellite there would be very tiny graviatational attraction of the 1 cm sphere towards the CoM of the big satellite. We wanted ONLY earth's gravity to determine the trajectory of the 1 cm sphere.
Magnets do exert a very weak force on both gold and platinum, but one is attracted (gold I seem to recall) and the other is repelled by the magnet. Our alloy was neither as it would be "flying" thur the Earth's magnetic field and to get, by months of precise measurements of the trajectory of the 1 cm true satellite the description of the earth's gravitational field could be extended to a very large number of terms.
The "big satellite" had sensors to tell precisely where in its chamber the 1 cm sphere was - and fired tiny thrusters to off set the non-gravitational forces that did act on it - keep the 1cm sphere at its CoG. That meant we, the builders of it, had to know where the main satellites CoG was. That is why this satellite, was probably 500 times more expense per pound to build than any other that has ever been launched. We weighed every drop of solder used, knew precisely the location of every resistors and its weight, etc, in the big satellite so we could accurately calculate where its CoG was.
Now the ICBMs on US subs are more powerful but still fit in the launch tubes. Thus, it no longer is so important that the sub knows where it is at launch to a error of a meter or less** or that the impact point is in "red square" of Moscow - any point in Moscow makes all of Moscow radioactive ash, even the deep under ground bunkers.
* I bet some of the highest order terms may even vary with the weather's high pressure systems (more gravitational air mass) but don't know if that is a reasonable guess or not, as just knowing that would give a handle on how many terms there are, and that is highly classified data.
** An APL/JHU built system also supplied that information (actually more accurately than the GPS system does). In the insanity of the cold war era, the Navy did not like the fact that the exact trajectory of its navigational systems could only be predicted a week or so in advance. I. e. their on-board "knowledge" of their trajectory was "up-dated / corrected" from the ground. APL/JHU had one of several ground stations that did this. After all, if the big bad USSR reduced all of the US to ashes in a "first strike" the navy wanted it subs, which for safety reasons might be too far from USSR to immediately launch retaliatory strike to have time to get into launch location. During that time with out ground up date of the navigational satellites, their sub would not know exactly where they were.
Two men at APL/JHU were recording the steady transmission of Sputnik. USSR gave no data on its orbit and many were using various methods to discover it exactly. They processed the Doppler shift to do that., which turned out to give the most accurate orbital parameters data. Then a very simple but clever thought occurred: We could invert this process to learn exactly where we are on earth IF we knew the orbit of the satellite we were recording Doppler from precisely. This was the invention of the "Transit Program" see details by google of that and the names of those two men. It was ventually replaced by the GPS system but only one satellite, not three , made the Transit system for geo-location via Doppler shift work.
It also shows that CC's gravitational instability is his myth - does not exist.
The US Navy's nuclear IBM subs needed two pieces of information back in the cold war era, and APL/JHU, where I worked of 30 years, made the two systems that provided that data.
They need to know precisely where in the ocean they are, and the exact shape of the earth's gravitational field, as that determines the ICBM's trajectory after thrust shut off, which of course determine where on Earth the ICBM will impact earth.
You probably know that earth is not a sphere and perhaps that large mountains and deposits of common heavy metals, like iron ore, etc. with in it keep that gravitional field from be a simple spherical inverse r^2 field. It is described in an orthogonal set of mathematical terms, called the tesseral or spherical harmonics. The coefficients of first few have been known for more than 100 years. (Main reason for their "tesserial" name.) Now many more are known. Even just how many is very secrete - I don't know even though I had the top secrete level of clearance as I had no need to know and did not work directly on their determination but did help a little in the design of the satellite that collected the needed data.
Any near earth satellite will let you add quite a few terms to the description of the Earth's gravitational field, but all such satellites have non-gravitational forces acting on them. The three most important are residual air drag, solar radiation pressure and magnetic forces. So to eliminate them (and others) we made a tiny (about 1 cm diameter) sphere of an alloy of platinum and gold, that was the true satellite. It was located at the exact mass center of the big satellite it "flew" in as if elsewhere within the big satellite there would be very tiny graviatational attraction of the 1 cm sphere towards the CoM of the big satellite. We wanted ONLY earth's gravity to determine the trajectory of the 1 cm sphere.
Magnets do exert a very weak force on both gold and platinum, but one is attracted (gold I seem to recall) and the other is repelled by the magnet. Our alloy was neither as it would be "flying" thur the Earth's magnetic field and to get, by months of precise measurements of the trajectory of the 1 cm true satellite the description of the earth's gravitational field could be extended to a very large number of terms.
The "big satellite" had sensors to tell precisely where in its chamber the 1 cm sphere was - and fired tiny thrusters to off set the non-gravitational forces that did act on it - keep the 1cm sphere at its CoG. That meant we, the builders of it, had to know where the main satellites CoG was. That is why this satellite, was probably 500 times more expense per pound to build than any other that has ever been launched. We weighed every drop of solder used, knew precisely the location of every resistors and its weight, etc, in the big satellite so we could accurately calculate where its CoG was.
Now the ICBMs on US subs are more powerful but still fit in the launch tubes. Thus, it no longer is so important that the sub knows where it is at launch to a error of a meter or less** or that the impact point is in "red square" of Moscow - any point in Moscow makes all of Moscow radioactive ash, even the deep under ground bunkers.
* I bet some of the highest order terms may even vary with the weather's high pressure systems (more gravitational air mass) but don't know if that is a reasonable guess or not, as just knowing that would give a handle on how many terms there are, and that is highly classified data.
** An APL/JHU built system also supplied that information (actually more accurately than the GPS system does). In the insanity of the cold war era, the Navy did not like the fact that the exact trajectory of its navigational systems could only be predicted a week or so in advance. I. e. their on-board "knowledge" of their trajectory was "up-dated / corrected" from the ground. APL/JHU had one of several ground stations that did this. After all, if the big bad USSR reduced all of the US to ashes in a "first strike" the navy wanted it subs, which for safety reasons might be too far from USSR to immediately launch retaliatory strike to have time to get into launch location. During that time with out ground up date of the navigational satellites, their sub would not know exactly where they were.
Two men at APL/JHU were recording the steady transmission of Sputnik. USSR gave no data on its orbit and many were using various methods to discover it exactly. They processed the Doppler shift to do that., which turned out to give the most accurate orbital parameters data. Then a very simple but clever thought occurred: We could invert this process to learn exactly where we are on earth IF we knew the orbit of the satellite we were recording Doppler from precisely. This was the invention of the "Transit Program" see details by google of that and the names of those two men. It was ventually replaced by the GPS system but only one satellite, not three , made the Transit system for geo-location via Doppler shift work.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know anyone familiar with the CO2 boost issue who is claiming that "it is under control". Just the opposite. Whom are you talking about?quantum said:
Y'know, if you have to ask a question like that, it should cross your mind that your opinions in the matter are not informed ones.river said:
Try this question: if the CO2 boost is not altering the climate, what's stopping it?
You do know that there is more CO2 in the air than used to be, that it has certain physical properties, and that it should therefore be changing the climate - right? - so what do you think is preventing it from doing so?
OK, sorry, you were serious about the "the water will be all gone."
Water systems don't work like that. For example, San Diego does not say "gee we have 100,000 acre-feet of water left, so in six months everyone will run dry." That's because water systems are constantly replenished. Here in San Diego we get about 20% of our water from local sources (local streams and rivers) about 30% from the Sacramento river delta and about 50% from the Colorado River. Next to my house there is a stream that runs year-round whether it rains or not. (And it hasn't rained in about nine months - and we are in one of the worst droughts ever - and it's still running.) And of course the Colorado runs year-round.
"Well, why do we have a water shortage if all those sources of water are running year-round?" you might ask. Because we use so very much of it. Farmers use the water to irrigate the desert. Golf courses use water to keep their fairways green. Even the highways around here have plants and flowers around them that need water.
As we go deeper into drought, the flows start to reduce. Instead of 26,000 cubic feet of water per second, for example, the All-American Canal might only carry 15,000 cubic feet of water per second. That leads to problems - farmers can't irrigate all their fields any more. We have some local storage (to store the surplus in the winter) but even with those zeroed out we still have that 15,000 cubic feet of water per second, and that's enough to provide drinking and sanitation water to everyone. But golfers might face brown fairways.
So to answer your question, when the reserves are gone, you rely on the water you are getting every day through your streams, rivers and canals. And that amount of water is considerable even during a drought.
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to write a response even if indicating your frustration.
Perhaps, in this instance writing about the detail, a little, may help clarify some of my thoughts on the subject as the complexity can be overwhelming at times and I shall gauge responses accordingly.
The problem I have with discussing this issue candidly are complex. Some are to do with inspiring tremendous fear in the reader due to the nature of the "possible" ramifications. Some are to do with the "need to know" criteria you mentioned in your subsequent posting. Some are to do with the futility of getting too involved in the explaining as the doing so makes very little difference to the outcome.
Also due to the fixation science currently seems to have with Minkowski/Einstein space time and the inability to seriously consider that all things are QM entangled universally and what that actually means to universal structure discussion is often blocked by intense skepticism and paranoia.
Suffice to say that there appears to be only one source of gravity that is shared commonly by all objects of mass. [controversial contention)
The reason I know this is that the above applies to organic life as well and not just stars, planets and moons. Essentially stating in absolute terms, that all things are entangled via this constant and that includes you and I, and they and them.
In the current scientific climate the above statement alone invokes all sorts of irrational outbursts, typically aggressive skepticism.
as demonstrated in my if "delta t = 0 then so to does distance" contention in another thread.
How ever due to extensive painful personal experience over 30 years, I am left with the above as being undeniably true.
To the problem:
With out going into too much detail the over view is thus:
The anomaly is not about a "wandering COG" but about having more than one COG simultaneously. [a very different issue and outcome]
There appears to be more than one simultaneous COG occurring with in all matter. The anomally means that not only is gravitational attraction generally weakened significantly [ uni formally across the universe hence cosmic expansion's acceleration but not the expansion itself per see] in a way that is undetectable due to this universal homogeny of both subject and testing apparatus [except by observing acceleration (*?)], but that the universe was essentially splitting into two concurrent states that when interacting generates a form of fusion between two COG's thus heat generation and instability at an atomic level.
On a universal scale this can be evidenced by [yet to be confirmed]:
The anomalous Dark flow phenomena when compared to the Great Attractor phenomena.
The existence of massive CBR cold spots such as what was originally labelled the Eridanus Void
and a few other less obvious anomaly's on a universal scale such as evidence of something "out there" shown as color blue in images of galaxies that requires the need for Dark Energy to be postulated.
On a more local scale:
Over heating of planetary mass [Global mass hyperthermia]
Severe vortex weather dynamics [ cyclonic spirals, tornadoes, water spout activity etc ]
Increasing seismic tension and pressure.
Major changes in human health trending to the negative especially regarding respiratory and auto immune functions. (example Asthma, SIDS, SADS, Inexplicable myocardial failure etc)
Increased Severe depressive type states globally. [Especially those that appear mood polarised]
Increased childhood hyper activity such as ADHD and General Autism spectrum disorders.
Increased teenage psychiatric hospital admission.
Inexplicable Mass oceanic animal die off... shrimp, sardine, plankton, dolphins, seals, fish, sea lions, turtles, due primarily to internal over heating (inexplicable hyperthermia)
Do you wish me to continue?
I also believe there are people who know exactly what I am talking about that would be very concerned about such a disclosure as I mentioned above and it is their response that I am gauging as well..
Last edited:
Fascinating and worth noting further that most of the serious science undertaken in this world is highly classified...
If I recall correctly you had a lot of interest in plasma bonding etc... ie. fusion reactions etc...
One of the reasons I have been reluctant to discuss in any useful detail is that the anomaly can be used to understand fusion and what it takes to establish a useful reaction by artificial means.
Highly classified indeed!
I'll post more on your post above later after I have had time to consider a few things and gauge responses
In the mean time does any one know why the permafrost temperature was 3 Degrees Celsius in the 80's?
When it has been predicted that rates in the ARTIC would be up by only 1.5 to 2.5 degrees by 2040?
When it has been predicted that rates in the ARTIC would be up by only 1.5 to 2.5 degrees by 2040?
Last edited:
Permafrost where?quantum said:
Rates of what? Whose prediction was that?quantum said:
As far back as 2005 the IPCC models were handing us mean surface air temps in the Arctic, including over the oceans, increasing by 3+C - implying 4+C over permafrost inland - by 2040 (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/revised.IPCC.temp.slp.paper.final.lowerres.pdf) These estimates have been revised upwards as the ice disappears much faster than predicted.
Last edited:
from wiki:
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost
Compare the two statements in bold, top paragraph and the one below.
Yes please continue, but the above, particularly part I made bold, is contra factual, and none of it is explained as well by some non-existent "gravitational anomaly" or your earlier equally false "gravitational instability" for which I am still waiting answer to questions* about it as it is explained by the measured CO2 increase and the many (at least 30) positive feed-backs that amplify the small temperature increase that CO2 alone could make.
BTW, your concept of more than one center of gravity of center of anything with conceptually well defined system boundary is non-sense too.
For example, the population center of native Indians within the USA is ONE spot (at any time, but can move as some Indians do.) The CoG of the earth, moves mainly along the spin axis with the seasonal change in snow and ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere, but is at any time is in ONE location, which is at different location than the CoG of the Earth/moon system.
* For your convenience, here from post 304 are those still unanswered questions again:
What are you speaking of?
What causes or "drives" this instability?
(inside a very viscous or near surface rigid Earth? (The core is also quite rigid as it is solid not liquid as many ignorant people assume.)
What is the time scale of the "instability"?
(For example how long does it take to move the Earth's CoG by one meter?)
What is the nature of the instability?
(I.e. is it oscillator or growing with greater than unity positive feed back loop?)
Last edited by a moderator:
Some can do that but 90+% of the urbanites of a large city like Sao Paulo can not as they depend upon H2O reasonably potable coming thru the distribution system. It does not have "streams, rivers, and canals" a the point were the distribution system's water enters but reservoirs.
There is a river that flows thru Sao Paulo, but it is quite polluted - 100 years ago people swam in it and caught fish to eat there, but no fish can live in it now. In fact with the very low flow the stink is so bad you would not even walk along the bank, much less drink that water.
One of the most popular soccer clubs , the Corinthians, was originally a rowing club. You can still see on their avatar the crossed ores!
Google to see it if this does not post
Last edited by a moderator:
The top paragraph is excerpted from me, based in two sources one linked: 1) visually examining a graph plot of the actual predictions of the models used by the IPCC, as of 2005 (when the models were predicting a slower rate of increase than they are now). As I knew the rate of increase had been revised upward in light of more recent data, I chose a point midway in the range above the apparent central curve of the data cloud. The graph is in the link (you have to scroll several pages), which is to a peer reviewed paper whose author is discussing the various models. The prediction was therefore in the middle of the upper range of IPCC model predictions around 2000 for the total increase 1900 - 2040, in my view. Then I briefly checked it with this:quantum said:
2) the overview of IPCC 5 in Wiki, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report, in which one reads:
which in light of this common knowledge we can take from your quoted source:
yielded my 3+ as a reasonable, conservative guesstimate backed by IPCC models.
The first bold quote, second paragraph, is from a regional breakdown of the total Arctic temperature increase as measured, warning us that 1) the IPCC overall estimates have been and remain conservative, potentially underestimating the effects of the overall warming especially regionally 2) The data continues its decades long pattern of coming in on the high end of the IPCC likelihood ranges in certain regionally significant and globally dangerous ways. Note that it agrees with my guesstimate above.
The second is a quote from a Wikipedia article derived from advance info on what will have been the IPCC official, Exxon executive approved, forecast in 2013. The criteria by which the range was selected are not visible, and the author is anonymous. The prediction is apparently an advance notification of what the IPCC 5 will have said in 2013 now past, which would set its data and model base around or before 2010. It appears to agree with my guesstimate, as far as it goes, without including the more recent revisions in light of the recent quick ice melt etc.
Your point?
Right. Instead it has a distribution system, which still works and still has a source of water.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not toxic in itself. Nevertheless, the higher the CO2 level, the more the human breathing and brain functioning are affected. Persons with respiratory problems like asthma may be affected at a low level like 1000 ppm where other people will not feel any discomfort. But for the hazardous high levels in excess of 6 000 ppm, the CO2 caused discomforts are totally reversible. The affected person just has to go breathe in a lower CO2level place like outside until the discomfort disappears as the CO2 level in blood lowers.
The following table shows CO2 levels associated with various experienced discomforts.
ConcentrationSituationSymptoms and feelings
600 - 800 ppmOffice or well vented dwellingNone
1000 ppmAcceptable level for closed roomPossible symptoms for asthmatics and beginning of « intellectual fatigue » for sensitive persons
1200 - 2000 ppm
Asthma and previous symptoms increasing
5000 ppmHigh limit for a continuous exposure during 8 hoursOnly for tolerant persons
Previous symptons reinforced
6000 - 30 000 ppmShort exposure onlyFainting possible prior to death*
3000 - 8000Out of control indoor garden CO2enrichmentBreathing and cardiac rythms increase
When and how much CO2 ?
Generally, enriching the garden's air to raise the level between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm is recommended. There is apparently no benefit to augment the concentration higher than 1,500 ppm.
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm
The following table shows CO2 levels associated with various experienced discomforts.
ConcentrationSituationSymptoms and feelings
600 - 800 ppmOffice or well vented dwellingNone
1000 ppmAcceptable level for closed roomPossible symptoms for asthmatics and beginning of « intellectual fatigue » for sensitive persons
1200 - 2000 ppm
- Many people in a poorly vented meeting room
- Unvented bedroom occupied for 4-8 hours
- Indoor garden enriched in CO2
- Poorly vented or airtight house (air exchanger recommended)
- Poorly vented office, factory, school room (more ventilation air exchanger recommended)
Asthma and previous symptoms increasing
5000 ppmHigh limit for a continuous exposure during 8 hoursOnly for tolerant persons
Previous symptons reinforced
6000 - 30 000 ppmShort exposure onlyFainting possible prior to death*
3000 - 8000Out of control indoor garden CO2enrichmentBreathing and cardiac rythms increase
When and how much CO2 ?
Generally, enriching the garden's air to raise the level between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm is recommended. There is apparently no benefit to augment the concentration higher than 1,500 ppm.
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm
As of today, yes for most there is water in the taps; however, it no longer comes to the intake pipes of the distribution system by simple gravity flow. It is the so called "dead" water, meaning its surface is lower than the intake pipes. This use of the first section of "dead water" by syphoning to a lower point was authorized a few weeks ago. Yesterday the use of second part of the "dead water" was authorized. I think it is too low to even syphon out, but must be pumped up to the intake level of the distribution system from the now separate, deeper parts of the reservoir.
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/7047533/sao-paulo-drought-water-crisis-brazil-election said:The water shortages are starting to cause severe disruptions. According to Bloomberg, 60 percent of São Paulo's residents have now reported that they've had their water cut at least once in the last 30 days — with many of the outages lasting more than 6 hours.
The region's economy is also taking a hit. The Wall Street Journal reports that coffee and sugarcane harvests are withering, while manufacturers are struggling to find cooling water and one major meat-packing plant has had to shut down temporarily. (Indeed, the drought in southeastern Brazil is one big reason why global coffee prices are expected to rise in the future.)
BTW, back inpost 314 I tried to show the following:
One of the most popular soccer clubs , the Corinthians, was originally a rowing club. You can still see on their avatar the crossed ores!
When telling that yes 100+ years ago people could have drun the water of the river flowing thru Sao Paulo city.
"If the drought continues, residents will face more dramatic water shortages in the short term," said Vicente Andreu, president of Brazil’s National Water Agency, according to Weather.com. "If it doesn’t rain, we run the risk that the region will have a collapse like we’ve never seen before."
I don't think it will come to a few hundred thousand poor people in Sao Paulo dying of thirst, probably at worst a few hundred dying in "water riots." As their are quite a few water delivery trucks existing - some were used a year of more ago to spray clean streets. Surely all, the privately owned ones included, will be commandeered and tour poor neighborhoods giving out a liter of so to each person each day.
Your idea that the thirsty masses (10+ million in Sao Paulo, if no substantial rains soon) will just go to the very polluted river , stinking with raw sewerage, and drink is non-sense. Sao Paulo city is filled with many small hills and valleys between, that often flooded, so long ago pipe* were installed to drain the low points of streets into the river. I only know of one park with a lake of any size, but have not been there recently to see if it sill has water in it without too much duck feathers and shit in it to drink.
Got to the link of the quote above, and slide the white vertical line right to see areal view of the resevoiur a year ago, then slide it to the left to see it as it was (nearly dry) about week or two ago.
* In a few of the valleys that drained large hill sides, the pipe would need to have been perhaps 50 feet in diameter to avoid flooding so there are excavated subterranean water holding basins (just rock and dirt walls, I think, when possible), They may have some stored water still - I don't know but guess not, if they have any way to limit the drain rate into the river - not considered necessary when they were built as the pipe size does that. Even if there is water there that washed down from the street, I would not know how to get it up or want to drink it as at least half a million homeless poor shit in the parks or streets.
BTW back in post 314 I said
There is a river that flows thru Sao Paulo, but it is quite polluted - 100 years ago people swam in it and caught fish to eat there, but no fish can live in it now. In fact with the very low flow the stink is so bad you would not even walk along the bank, much less drink that water.:
One of the most popular soccer clubs , the Corinthians, was originally a rowing club. You can still see on their avatar the crossed ores!
Last edited by a moderator:
That is because they are taking too much water from the source that is refilling the reservoir. Solution - take less.
I never made that claim. That is a strawman, an argument you invented because you thought it would be easier to argue.
Yep - and we have plenty of those same "look how low the reservoir" stories are here, too.
Easy to say/ difficult to enforce with more than 100 million places water can be taken from the distribution pipes. Wife & I have been doing all we reasonably can to reduce our water use. Only flush toilets with water caught in large tube we stand in when we taking our short showers, but many in our apartment high rise complex do little different from their normal patterns, I fear. With bathroom window open (at both top and bottom for slight thermally driven air flow - physics is often useful) and door shut this "no water used to only flush" policy makes surprisingly little smell in the bath room.
After the run-off election this sunday, 26 of October, I exect there will be rotation no water regions, but mainly the poor will suffer. For example there is a huge water storage tank on top of our 22 story apartment building. as it is already on a high spot in Sao Paulo. They need to boost pump water up there to assure the top floors have water. The building manager will just fill it each night so we will have water in the taps, 24/7 even if some don't; but just to be sure, I have 90 liters of bottled water inside the apartment.
Last edited by a moderator: