|
enraged_camel posted:That last sentence is the key. Yes, California has always had ups and downs, but those ups and downs have been getting more and more extreme in relation to population levels. I actually wrote a long rear end paper recently for class and came to the conclusion that ENSO variations and frequency won't do jack poo poo to offset a global rise in temperatures. Basically, I matched tree rings with various sediment cores from around the state against cores from areas that are extremely correlated with El Nino (these sites were outside of CA). I also borrowed some ENSO models from some other dudes since I have no capability to make that. Even though El Nino dries out a lot of the world and brings more rain to CA, the increase in temperature is more likely to cause more violent but shorter storms instead of frequent, less violent events (according to the projections I used). Pretty much most of the precipitation will be wasted as runoff even if more is received over time. I went back several thousand years and CA climate variations sucked poo poo back then too. I was just disputing the "new" part of it because it doesn't seem to be common knowledge that California is actually regularly experiencing insane storms or droughts - which is why we need to work so drat much to counteract the potential effects (everything from LA's flood control network to the aqueduct/reservoir systems). California is generally more dry than wet, too. I think we are all in agreement though. SA doesn't seem to have many (any?) climate skeptics. Sydin posted:It's very possible we're just entering the next dry period of California's long climate cycle. Hell, California has been - on average - wetter than usual since the 17th century. Oh that's a neat graphic. I basically came to a similar, but less specific, conclusion. e: I am no expert, just a dude studying and learning vvvv that's fair 3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Feb 2, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
I'm aware of the historical variability in California's climate, I was mostly commenting on the global trend of increasing average temperatures which going forward is going to limit snowpack creation in California. As has been pointed out, California getting more moisture doesn't mean much if it's not in a form which we're prepared to utilize and I suspect our handy snowpack is going to become a think of the past, moisture or no moisture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
old dog child posted:New? California has a long and storied history of severe drought and severe storm events long before anyone started recording this poo poo. I read and liked A Great Aridness, which is about how climate change will affect water distribution and usage in the Southwest. I thought it was pretty good - does anyone who knows more about water management have a review?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The good news is that parts of Northern California may get up to a foot of rain this weekend. The bad news is that it's supposed to stay warm enough that the snow levels will be 8,000 to 10,000 feet, resulting in no change to snowpack levels. Thankfully we've got plenty of room in the reservoirs to catch whatever runoff we can get. At the very least some of the bigger reservoirs are higher than they were last year at this time (and last year we didn't get much beyond the couple inches in late Februrary). We still won't get out of the drought but we're still better off than last year I think if this storm comes through. Sydin posted:It's very possible we're just entering the next dry period of California's long climate cycle. Hell, California has been - on average - wetter than usual since the 17th century. I assume at some point we'll have to actually sort out the mess that is water rights and allocations, since at the very least the estimates for the Colorado river that the allocations were based on were actually higher than reality, and if we get a dry period it'll rapidly drain the reservoirs there (.. which have been dropping steadily for decades anyways). I'm pretty sure the same is true for the Central Valley Project (now that we aren't allowed to outright kill the Trinity River).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Los Angeles wants a footbal team so bad. So bad. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-inglewood-stadium-20150209-story.html This article is running on the front page today. Gotta love the LAT essentially reprinting a developer press release including referring to the law as "red tape" and detailing the various loopholes that can be used to get around the democratic process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Los Angeles wants a footbal team so bad. So bad. Anything to attract champion tier teams like Raiders or Rams again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
etalian posted:Anything to attract champion tier teams like Raiders or Rams again.  Won in the Rose Bowl no less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
etalian posted:Anything to attract champion tier teams like Raiders or Rams again. It's not like we're trying to get the Browns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Forceholy posted:It's not like we're trying to get the Browns. I was hoping the Santa Clara 49ers would relocate to LA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
etalian posted:I was hoping the Santa Clara 49ers would relocate to LA. What would they rename themselves then, the Los Angeles Superstars? ...that actually doesn't sound too bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Los Angeles wants a footbal team so bad. So bad. It this case the city of Inglewood (almost entirely black and latino) would be saddled with it, it seems to be a thing now to find smallish cities in metro areas to build stadiums in. The article doesn't give any specifics about what the costs will be either. This is what the 5 or 6th attempt to attract another football team to the LA metro area?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It this case the city of Inglewood (almost entirely black and latino) would be saddled with it, it seems to be a thing now to find smallish cities in metro areas to build stadiums in. The article doesn't give any specifics about what the costs will be either. What really makes it crazy is that the NFL just did this last loving season only to pull the ball away just as Los Angeles was about to kick it. They made it really clear that they don't actually have an interest in moving a team to Los Angeles, but all the city institutions seem all lined up ready to desperately fellate them until we get a team.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:What would they rename themselves then, the Los Angeles Superstars? Based on the naming pattern, the Los Angeles Oilers. This would probably piss off everyone in the gridiron-watching world and southern California for a variety of reasons. ... I think I'm a Los Angeles Oilers fan now. poo poo. Also I'm not surprised that a Tribune paper would print that and call it journalism, although I am a little that the Daily News didn't beat 'em to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:all the city institutions seem all lined up ready to desperately fellate them until we get a team. What good does it do for the city?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Los Angeles wants a footbal team so bad. So bad. Not sure an NFL franchise can fill the mighty shoes left by Chivas USA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:What good does it do for the city? So instead, now it looks like Hawthorne/Inglewood will try to host it. Might be a boon to homeowners down there. If traffic doesn't suck donkey dicks. Also there's this idea that a major metropolitan locale needs an NFL team to be a Big City or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It this case the city of Inglewood (almost entirely black and latino) would be saddled with it, it seems to be a thing now to find smallish cities in metro areas to build stadiums in. The article doesn't give any specifics about what the costs will be either. You called, doing it in Inglewood differs from the other 2 plans that were being worked on because instead of getting it through the much more difficult(and also corrupt, sure) LA city, they can railroad it through a tiny incorporated city desperate for daddy capitalism's love. And yeah, it's going to gentrify the gently caress out of that area, it's part of a much larger development including malls, office and apartments. Having said that, it's probably also the best option if they're going to build a stadium in LA, and it's also probably going to happen for any number of reasons: 1) Huge development already happening either way 2) No direct public money involved 3) Transit works, it's near trains, LAX, big roads 4) The Rams owner is the kind of guy who can do big developments, real estate is his thing 5) Colliseum nearby, good temp location for a team while the stadium is built. There's an ungodly amount of money LA, anybody who puts a team here is going to print money. You could build an entire stadium of luxury boxes and still sell the thing out for decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Also there's this idea that a major metropolitan locale needs an NFL team to be a Big City or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Iirc, ticket sales are shared with the league and luxury box sales are kept by the team. Thus the new stadiums like in Santa Clara that are half boxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-newsom-governor-20150210-story.html Newsom's in a hurry, it seems. Trying to lock down donors before anyone else can?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
I want the City of Industry stadium so I don't have to drive that far. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
If the new stadium caters to the same type of people as the new 49ers stadium the train access will be useless. If people aren't driving two hours to go watch games in San Diego I can't imagine they'll do it on the hellscape that will be the 405 on game day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
As expected, 2014 was a year in which old white people were the biggest voting bloc by far.quote:“Not only was the average voter older than the average Californian,” says political data expert Paul Mitchell. “The average voter was older than the average Californian’s parents.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:If the new stadium caters to the same type of people as the new 49ers stadium the train access will be useless. If people aren't driving two hours to go watch games in San Diego I can't imagine they'll do it on the hellscape that will be the 405 on game day. Sundays are actually relatively okay across LA. It's not like trying to make a 7pm Dodger game on a Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Sundays are actually relatively okay across LA. It's not like trying to make a 7pm Dodger game on a Thursday. I'm going off my experiences trying to get to the Rosebowl or the Collesium when they are near capacity. I also have no faith in the inhabitants of LA when it comes to driving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:I'm going off my experiences trying to get to the Rosebowl or the Collesium when they are near capacity. I also have no faith in the inhabitants of LA when it comes to driving. You would think with all their practice, they would actually get better over time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:As expected, 2014 was a year in which old white people were the biggest voting bloc by far. quote:“Not only was the average voter older than the average Californian,” says political data expert Paul Mitchell. “The average voter was older than the average Californian’s parents.” Jesus loving christ. Just, gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
etalian posted:You would think with all their practice, they would actually get better over time. "Practice makes perfect" is wrong, the correct saying is (should be) "perfect practice makes perfect." In other words, LA drivers have enormous amounts of practice driving really badly, so now they're really really "good" at driving terribly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:In other words, LA drivers have enormous amounts of practice driving really badly, so now they're really really "good" at driving terribly. Google's autonomous cars can't get here quickly enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"Practice makes perfect" is wrong, the correct saying is (should be) "perfect practice makes perfect." Better than Bay Area drivers. At least LA drivers know how to dive properly without a preceding 10-15 seconds of indecision. They also seem to understand that turn signals are actually useful, and use them. The ratio of people using their turn signals vs those who don't has plummeted from 75/25 to 5/95 when I moved up here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
I think it's part people not knowing how to handle stress and anxiety in general, and cars become extensions of their frustrations. "The solution to me being late because I argued with my wife on the way out is to grab this spot in the next lane because I'm owed it by the universe." Google can have all my personal data if they drive me to work and back every day. edit: Driving in Los Angeles, though, is its own drat ecosystem. Traffic in the Bay Area is poo poo, mind you, but of an entirely different class than the 405. doctorfrog fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Better than Bay Area drivers. The ratio of people using their turn signals vs those who don't has plummeted from 75/25 to 5/95 when I moved up here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:I had to stop using my turn signal to change lanes in San Francisco while driving a big work van. Every signal is an invitation to close up the gap I'm trying to get into. gently caress that poo poo. Now I just squeeze in wherever I can fit. If you try being a courteous driver there, you arn't going to move. It is a tragedy of commons That's never really happened to me in LA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:That's never really happened to me in LA. The grid system in LA and SF is really different, SF streets far more narrow and there are far fewer left turn lanes. Driving in SF is simply more stressful and difficult than LA although LA isn't a picnic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Bay Area is also full of great big babies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The grid system in LA and SF is really different, SF streets far more narrow and there are far fewer left turn lanes. The hills in SF also give it more scary blind spots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
As someone who drives from the 110 to the 405 on surface streets every day in LA, I would like a car horn that shouts "STOP TEXTING"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The grid system in LA and SF is really different, SF streets far more narrow and there are far fewer left turn lanes. Bay area freeways are also designed like poo poo, and it exacerbates traffic something fierce. Off the top of my head: 1. Carpool lanes aren't double yellowed, so people are constantly diving in and out which fucks with traffic flow. 2. Carpool lanes are omnipresent, even during stretches where the freeway goes down to 2-3 lanes. The 85 to 87 north merger is a nightmare during rush hour because it goes from four lanes + carpool to 2 lanes + carpool in the span of 1/4 a mile, and stays that way for a few miles before more lanes open up.  3. Instead of opening up new lanes for exits, lanes just end, and restart at the next entrance. So traffic is constantly bouncing back and forth between +/- 1 lane whenever an exit or entrance hits. 4. On a similar note, almost every entrance either quickly merges into the lane left of it, or dumps you right into an exit only lane you have to quickly weave out of or you'll get carted right back off the freeway. My favorite is the entrance to 87 South off Charchot, where as soon as you get on you're immediately in an exit only lane and the exit is only a couple of hundred feet ahead. So you have to find space to merge left in ~3-5 seconds, or you're forced off. This is good freeway design!  5. This is petty, but construction is slow as hell up here. They managed to complete a lane extension of the 405 in a weekend or whatever, meanwhile the 280/880 merger has been under construction and forced down to one lane for... what, two years now? Basically gently caress the Bay Area freeway design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Bay area freeways are also designed like poo poo, and it exacerbates traffic something fierce. Off the top of my head: 92 Junction is another annoying spot because it has the classic dumping piles of traffic into one spot, then having the exit a few hundred feet later. So you have people trying to merge out in addition to piles of people merging right to get on 92 east.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
Sydin posted:Basically gently caress the Bay Area freeway design. Also 880 is far and away #1 worse highway in California. Edit: Yes, worse than 101 in Sherman Oaks, and 405 south of Sepulveda pass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 06:07
|
|