I pixeled a response to Mr. Bauder, but it somehow never got posted. I will try to re-create it here and hope once again for the best.
I appreciate your calling me on the numbers. A good answer goes beyond a byte a bit, but they are derived from CIMIS data ( http://missionrcd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/… ), which indicate an annual evapotranspiration of about six feet. That's the theoretical MINIMUM amount of water required to keep grass green all year.
After that, one needs actual data from actual cases, meaning actual APPLIED water. Various inefficiencies of the applied (irrigation) methods and procedures make the reality part of the picture go up from there. Sprinklers, for example, atomize a significant fraction of the water, which evaporates before it hits the ground. Simple "overwatering" (applying more than the amount actually required) is even more significant. I remember, but cannot cite, research that revealed that applications rates of two or three times the CIMIS minimum were common; hence the (conservative?) doubling of the base requirement of six feet. Big trees, with their heads up high were the winds are stronger can add to the actual base rate in any give situation.
I know this isn't perfect, but I hope it's better than my previous attempt to put some numbers on the situation. — April 1, 2017 6:58 p.m.
County unemployment rate drops to 4.2 percent
*Encourage* all universities certainly do. But they also teach *facts,* rather than how to actually think. The lack of understanding the crucial distinction between thinking and believing is widespread, even dominant in everyday discourse and social intercourse, and the actual teaching of what thinking is is rare to nonexistent. The common expression, "Nobody's gonna tell me how to think" is a good example. Unfortunately, that has long been taken literally. Compare to "Nobody is going to tell me what to believe." What I'm getting at is that children and students at all levels should be actually taught that crucial distinction. Clearly, they are not, debating classes and clubs notwithstanding (which are, by the way, commonly more about selling a belief than intellectual discipline).— April 3, 2017 2:22 p.m.
Yay! San Diego reservoirs filling up
I somewhat resemble that remark! Take my advice; don't take my advice. Think young. Cultivate young friends. STOP LOOKING AT THE G0DDAM CALENDAR!— April 3, 2017 10:43 a.m.
The Lord passed by the San Diego Symphony
But what has caused the Great Decline?— April 2, 2017 9:41 p.m.
The Lord passed by the San Diego Symphony
We can no longer afford to fly anywhere, so if the Vienna won't come to us, we will have to settle for the hint of greatness we can get on YouTube.— April 2, 2017 9:39 p.m.
Yay! San Diego reservoirs filling up
You're smarter than I am, but perhaps don't have as much water on the brain as I. I was trying to clarify the issue for Ponzi, but I suspect he wasn't interested in my scheme.— April 2, 2017 9:36 p.m.
Yay! San Diego reservoirs filling up
I pixeled a response to Mr. Bauder, but it somehow never got posted. I will try to re-create it here and hope once again for the best. I appreciate your calling me on the numbers. A good answer goes beyond a byte a bit, but they are derived from CIMIS data ( http://missionrcd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/… ), which indicate an annual evapotranspiration of about six feet. That's the theoretical MINIMUM amount of water required to keep grass green all year. After that, one needs actual data from actual cases, meaning actual APPLIED water. Various inefficiencies of the applied (irrigation) methods and procedures make the reality part of the picture go up from there. Sprinklers, for example, atomize a significant fraction of the water, which evaporates before it hits the ground. Simple "overwatering" (applying more than the amount actually required) is even more significant. I remember, but cannot cite, research that revealed that applications rates of two or three times the CIMIS minimum were common; hence the (conservative?) doubling of the base requirement of six feet. Big trees, with their heads up high were the winds are stronger can add to the actual base rate in any give situation. I know this isn't perfect, but I hope it's better than my previous attempt to put some numbers on the situation.— April 1, 2017 6:58 p.m.
The Lord passed by the San Diego Symphony
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was "Don't buy stuff. Buy experiences!"— April 1, 2017 4:34 p.m.
Yay! San Diego reservoirs filling up
I'm glad you challenged me on this, but I assert that my bottom figure is not particularly exaggerated. The doubling, however, probably is. I'll accept the CIMIS website' figures as honest ones, but that does not mean that every farm field or orchard uses that much or that little; still, the Class A evaporation pan may not always reflect reality either. When irrigation malpractices are figured in, the exaggerations may not be exaggerated. Other studies (buried in some dusty box in storage or gone for good) showed much higher actual water use figures than I cited, as much as 16 acre-feet *applied* per year, even in coastal regions. In other words, applied water tends to exceed actual water demand. In terms of actual usage, transpiration studies tend to use grass; that may not apply to trees that get more wind, for example. The devil is in the details, and well and water-meter studies could settle a lot of such questions, but for some reason tend not to be done--or at least I haven't found them yet. I used to get paid for this kind of stuff, and with an overflowing cup (heh, heh) going much further isn't my inclination right now. However, I can hope that someone will challenge me on the specifics, and provide evidence to back herorhimself up. I will be delighted to be corrected on the numbers. Yes, this is still inadequate, but not, I hope, misleading. http://missionrcd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/…— April 1, 2017 1:04 p.m.
The Lord passed by the San Diego Symphony
What mentality--then and now? This needs an explanation.— March 31, 2017 11:19 p.m.
Yay! San Diego reservoirs filling up
Ponzi et al: An acre of farm in the desert requires at *least* 6 acre-feet per year, and it could go as high as nine or ten, in round figures around two million gallons. That's enough for about three olympic pools. The water loss from said pools is about 80,000 cubic feet, or about two acre-feet per year. Up to about double those amounts, depending on the variables.— March 31, 2017 8:34 p.m.