Texas has a very unique weather. There periods of time that large portions of Texas are semi-arid and times when the same geographic area is semi-tropical. South Central Texas has a consistent history of producing localized rain events that might be considered 500+ year events. The LCRA is in a no win situation managing Lake Travis, much of its own making. The lake was created with the primary purpose of be a flood control resovoir. Beginning in the 1950's it became a recreational lake. The LCRA began selling water to local municipalities in the 1970's which resulted in another priority. Lake Buchanan's primary purpose is to store water. The LCRA is in a no win situation. They acknowledge that at some point there will be a rain event that the lake has not been designed to handle. Too many politicians.

Yeah, I've been interested in your stories about JB Thomas. I've had a sticky on the wall of my office for the last year or two of lakes that I check periodically. Buchanan, Choke Canyon, JB Thomas, Kemp, Medina, Meredith, OC Fisher & PK. JB Thomas was due to the pictures you posted a year or two ago of an empty lake.

Travis at 102% now

quote:

---

I'm not talking about professional, just random joes that would state "Oh ya, never gonna be full again.."

About climate change: I spent a few years working along side quite a few meteorologists. Some really bright guys that got off to the weather. Those guys could recall every significant weather event in the US over the past 100 years and know stupid details about them. Every single one whole heartedly believed climate change to be a complete load of ****. It was THE rant on our desk for 4-5 years outside of Obama and politics. I've looked at more Polor Ice Cap pictures and historical data than Bill Nye's goofy ass because of it and am fairly certain climate is cyclical. Which is why I find "Never gonna be full again.." hilarious.

It's a great way to spend money though.

---

I'm in the maritime industry and we deal with meteorologists quite a bit. There's a large, but discreet battle between climatologists and meteorologists. It boils down to things like where the temps are taken, incorrect prediction models, temp corrections, and long range predictions.

Part of it is due to the fact that meteorologists can't accurately predict weather more than 4-5 days in advance and they get all hot and bothered by climatologists making matter-of-fact climate claims. One meteorologist mentioned to me that the meteorology equivalent of what's happening in climatology circles would be to say that the forecast for two months from now called for snow and to recommend a run on goods, snow tires, and cities to spend money to prepare salt trucks for that day. To meteorologists, what climate peeps are doing is negligence.

quote:

---

Buchanan was the last remaining hold out not at 100% was it not?

---

http://waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/basin/colorado

Combined Reservoir capacity for the Colorado River stands at just 64% full as of this morning. The West Texas lakes are all basically bone dry.

Now that Buchanan is full can they slow the downstream flow from the other lakes to start filling them up?

I see that. Rain in the panhandle!

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm not talking about professional, just random joes that would state "Oh ya, never gonna be full again.."

About climate change: I spent a few years working along side quite a few meteorologists. Some really bright guys that got off to the weather. Those guys could recall every significant weather event in the US over the past 100 years and know stupid details about them. Every single one whole heartedly believed climate change to be a complete load of ****. It was THE rant on our desk for 4-5 years outside of Obama and politics. I've looked at more Polor Ice Cap pictures and historical data than Bill Nye's goofy ass because of it and am fairly certain climate is cyclical. Which is why I find "Never gonna be full again.." hilarious.

It's a great way to spend money though.

---

I'm in the maritime industry and we deal with meteorologists quite a bit. There's a large, but discreet battle between climatologists and meteorologists. It boils down to things like where the temps are taken, incorrect prediction models, temp corrections, and long range predictions.

Part of it is due to the fact that meteorologists can't accurately predict weather more than 4-5 days in advance and they get all hot and bothered by climatologists making matter-of-fact climate claims. One meteorologist mentioned to me that the meteorology equivalent of what's happening in climatology circles would be to say that the forecast for two months from now called for snow and to recommend a run on goods, snow tires, and cities to spend money to prepare salt trucks for that day. To meteorologists, what climate peeps are doing is negligence.

---

I guess none of the meteorologists that you know subscribe to the American Meteorological Society, which in 2012 released "Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society". It said, "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

But hey, they are just weathermen that can't tell us what will happen tomorrow, much less the day after that!

Oops. Double post.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm not talking about professional, just random joes that would state "Oh ya, never gonna be full again.."

About climate change: I spent a few years working along side quite a few meteorologists. Some really bright guys that got off to the weather. Those guys could recall every significant weather event in the US over the past 100 years and know stupid details about them. Every single one whole heartedly believed climate change to be a complete load of ****. It was THE rant on our desk for 4-5 years outside of Obama and politics. I've looked at more Polor Ice Cap pictures and historical data than Bill Nye's goofy ass because of it and am fairly certain climate is cyclical. Which is why I find "Never gonna be full again.." hilarious.

It's a great way to spend money though.

---

I'm in the maritime industry and we deal with meteorologists quite a bit. There's a large, but discreet battle between climatologists and meteorologists. It boils down to things like where the temps are taken, incorrect prediction models, temp corrections, and long range predictions.

Part of it is due to the fact that meteorologists can't accurately predict weather more than 4-5 days in advance and they get all hot and bothered by climatologists making matter-of-fact climate claims. One meteorologist mentioned to me that the meteorology equivalent of what's happening in climatology circles would be to say that the forecast for two months from now called for snow and to recommend a run on goods, snow tires, and cities to spend money to prepare salt trucks for that day. To meteorologists, what climate peeps are doing is negligence.

---

I guess none of the meteorologists that you know subscribe to the American Meteorological Society, which in 2012 released "Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society". It said, "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

But hey, they are just weathermen that can't tell us what will happen tomorrow, much less the day after that!

---

Imagine how lame this planet would be if everyone agreed on everything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm not talking about professional, just random joes that would state "Oh ya, never gonna be full again.."

About climate change: I spent a few years working along side quite a few meteorologists. Some really bright guys that got off to the weather. Those guys could recall every significant weather event in the US over the past 100 years and know stupid details about them. Every single one whole heartedly believed climate change to be a complete load of ****. It was THE rant on our desk for 4-5 years outside of Obama and politics. I've looked at more Polor Ice Cap pictures and historical data than Bill Nye's goofy ass because of it and am fairly certain climate is cyclical. Which is why I find "Never gonna be full again.." hilarious.

It's a great way to spend money though.

---

I'm in the maritime industry and we deal with meteorologists quite a bit. There's a large, but discreet battle between climatologists and meteorologists. It boils down to things like where the temps are taken, incorrect prediction models, temp corrections, and long range predictions.

Part of it is due to the fact that meteorologists can't accurately predict weather more than 4-5 days in advance and they get all hot and bothered by climatologists making matter-of-fact climate claims. One meteorologist mentioned to me that the meteorology equivalent of what's happening in climatology circles would be to say that the forecast for two months from now called for snow and to recommend a run on goods, snow tires, and cities to spend money to prepare salt trucks for that day. To meteorologists, what climate peeps are doing is negligence.

---

I guess none of the meteorologists that you know subscribe to the American Meteorological Society, which in 2012 released "Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society". It said, "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

But hey, they are just weathermen that can't tell us what will happen tomorrow, much less the day after that!

---

Just because they spouted some bullshark we need to believe it...same guys that warned us about global cooling I suppose.

I like how your quoted section made the effort to give us the chemical formula CO2 but not the others. What is the slant there?

Can we see a donor list for this society?

Im sure we've all seen this in one form or fashion.

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day." (Ian Plimer)
But we're the problem the past 50 years.. Mmhmm

quote:

---

I like how your quoted section made the effort to give us the chemical formula CO2 but not the others. What is the slant there?

---

Here's the whole statement, you can draw your own conclusion.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

quote:

---

Im sure we've all seen this in one form or fashion.

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day." (Ian Plimer)
But we're the problem the past 50 years.. Mmhmm

---

Well, the Geological Society of America put out a "Position Statement on Climate Change" in 2010 that said,
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhousegas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."

I don't care what any society funded by PACs has to say.. They're all full of **** and pushing agendas.

Why would a climatologist ever say the climate isn't permanently changing? To do so would say that his whole career was pointless, all of his funding would dry up. He'd essentially be firing himself. He has no motivation to do so.. The same goes for these scientists that are funded to study evolution, for that matter.. I'm not smart enough to say either is true or not, but evidence certainly doesn't make either a fact, and the people telling me that they are "fact" rely on it being so for their financial well-being, as well as their sense of purpose. At the very least there is confirmation bias in play.

If that volcanic statement is true, then please gtfo with all the "humans cause global warming" bull. We're not even relevant if this is the case.

And to bring this full circle, Lake Travis is fine and everything is cyclical, and it will continue to operate within it's historical boundaries.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I like how your quoted section made the effort to give us the chemical formula CO2 but not the others. What is the slant there?

---

Here's the whole statement, you can draw your own conclusion.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

---

no thanks. I just found it odd is all....

quote:

---

I don't care what any society funded by PACs has to say.. They're all full of **** and pushing agendas.

If that volcanic statement is true, then please gtfo with all the "humans cause global warming" bull. We're not even relevant if this is the case.

And to bring this full circle, Lake Travis is fine and everything is cyclical, and it will continue to operate within it's historical boundaries.

---

It is very fair to ask who funds any research, but do you have the same standard when someone puts out info that you are inclined to believe?

There is an old Texas saying that the next drought starts the day after the last flood. My initial comments on this topic were in response to those that are inclined to use any convenient fact (i.e. Pictures of ice) to justify their own bias.

Water supplies and flood control are going to always be issues that we will grapple in Central TX. Believing that everything will always be alright instead of trying to keep an open mind is foolish.

Pushing 110% full...

quote:

---

Pushing 110% full...

---

Luckily that's still 24ft below the spillway

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pushing 110% full...

---

Luckily that's still 24ft below the spillway

---

Wouldn't that be a sight to see...

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pushing 110% full...

---

Luckily that's still 24ft below the spillway

---

Wouldn't that be a sight to see...

---

Agreed.

My dad and I were talking recently about what exactly would happen if something went wrong side up at Buchanan Dam. Talk about a **** show

i believe they are working on the dam, thus the reason its staying below 95%?

quote:

---

i believe they are working on the dam, thus the reason its staying below 95%?

---

That appears correct. I wasn't aware of that though.

http://kxan.com/blog/2016/04/21/lake-buchanan-floodgate-opening-for-first-time-since-2007/

The top of the splllway at Buchanan is 1025". The lake is currently 7' below the top of the spillway.

I think I am preaching to the choir here, but just in case:

• If you are anywhere near a creek, tributary, drainage system of any size, etc. you should look into getting flood insurance, even if you are not required to.
• FEMA FIRM (floodplain maps) are for insurance and mortgages purposes first and foremost, not for safety. And they all have errors.
• Everything is a floodplain, so don't just trust the FEMA maps.
• If you are looking at a FEMA map, know that the designation between Zone A and Zone AE floodplains can be significant. Zone A floodplains typically do not have a recent detailed study that go along with them.

Sorry... I thought that 24ft reference was for Travis/Mansfield.
Buchanan isn't designed for flood storage. I was looking for a top of spillway elevation for Buchanan just a few minutes ago. 100yr flood elevation is 1021 so yeah, only having an extra 4 ft aint a whole lot of room.

I don't understand your cnofusion. Maybe I'm missing something. Now that the Highland Lakes are full to the brim, might there be even greater conservation in the Upper Colorado lakes (Twin Buttes, OC Fisher and EV Spence)?

Those lakes aren't empty because they've been sending all of their water downstream. They're empty because nothing has flowed into them still. Some of them, I'm not certain may still be too low to even send water through their dam.

Gotcha. Didn't know they were not discharging anything. So is the Colorado essentially dry downstream of their dams?

For all practical purposes, yes. Going back to the drought any rain that did fall out there just soaked in. Even all the rain we've gotten I don't think those areas have gotten the saturation needed for sustained river flow.

Anyone local to those areas able to chime in with more detail?

I think the lakes above Buchanan are still dry as others have said.

quote:

---

Sorry... I thought that 24ft reference was for Travis/Mansfield.
Buchanan isn't designed for flood storage. I was looking for a top of spillway elevation for Buchanan just a few minutes ago. 100yr flood elevation is 1021 so yeah, only having an extra 4 ft aint a whole lot of room.

---

24ft is for Travis.

Buchanan was added in by me as a different topic.