California suffering through SEVERE climate change

[Crick]

You might want to let all these folks know:

Worst Drought in 1 000 Years Predicted for American West

NASA Megadroughts to scorch American West for decades - CNN.com

A megadrought will grip U.S. in the coming decades NASA researchers say - The Washington Post

The worst droughts in 1 000 years may be on the horizon for the American West Public Radio International

U.S. Droughts Will Be the Worst in 1 000 Years - Scientific American

History Travel Arts Science People Places Smithsonian

Drought in the American West Is the Worst Yet to Come Yale Climate Energy Institute

Warming Pushes Western U.S. Toward Driest Period in 1 000 Years - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

 

[eagle1462010]

Are you saying that you believe the drought will not last out the next year?

YES!

 

[Crick]

This seems a bit more informative:

http://www.oc.nps.edu/webmodules/ENSO/images/we.prec.animate.gif

And it doesn't show much of an effect on California, does it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

pick a time period and animate it and you can see we are in a strong El Nino state...........

History has a habit of repeating itself.........and that history shows Mother Nature sending rain and high surf to California.

 

[eagle1462010]

National Overview - May 2015 National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

• The May precipitation total for the contiguous U.S. was 4.36 inches, 1.45 inches above average. This was the wettest May on record and the all-time wettest month in 121-years of record keeping. The previous wettest May was in 1957 when 4.24 inches of precipitation was observed. The previous wettest month was October 2009 when 4.29 inches of precipitation was observed.
• Wetter than average conditions were widespread across the central United States. Fifteen states from the Great Basin to Mississippi River had precipitation totals that were much above average.Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas were each record wet for the month. In fact, Oklahoma and Texas each had their wettest month of any month on record with precipitation totals more than twice the long-term average.
  • The Oklahoma May precipitation total of 14.06 inches bested the previous wettest May of 1957 by 3.52 inches and the previous wettest month of October 1941 by 3.31 inches. TheTexas May precipitation total of 8.93 inches bested the previous wettest May of 1914 by 2.31 inches and the previous wettest month of June 2006 by 2.27 inches.
  • The heavy precipitation during May essentially ended the multi-year drought that has plagued the Southern Plains since 2011. At the beginning of June, only 0.6 percent of Texas and 0.0 percent Oklahoma were in drought. This was the first time since 2010 that the drought footprint in both states has been this low. Although long-term (60+ months) precipitation deficits persist in some locations, some reservoirs have returned to above-average levels after being record and near-record low for the past several years.
  • The heavy rains in the central U.S. were accompanied by severe weather with over 400 preliminary tornado reports, the most since April 2011. The flooding rains and severe weather resulted in dozens of fatalities and widespread property damage.

 

[Crick]

Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

pick a time period and animate it and you can see we are in a strong El Nino state...........

History has a habit of repeating itself.........and that history shows Mother Nature sending rain and high surf to California.

I'm not challenging your el Nino prediction, I'm challenging the idea that it will end the California drought.

I hope you also realize that a strong el Nino will likely end the Hiatus.

 

[Dot Com]

The evidence is there people. More people = more GHG's = more drought.

 

[SwimExpert]

So, drought in the desert is because of global warming. And it's the same reason why precipitation has been on the decline everywhere else in the country.

May wettest month on record

 

[Crick]

The evidence is there people. More people = more GHG's = more drought.

Global warming does not universally produce more droughts - not at all. Some regions will see more droughts and some will see more precipitation. Some will see more storms, some (I suppose) will see less. There will be an increase in the AVERAGE intensity of storms and the incidence of anomalous weather will increase. But it will not be all droughts.

 

[eagle1462010]

Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

pick a time period and animate it and you can see we are in a strong El Nino state...........

History has a habit of repeating itself.........and that history shows Mother Nature sending rain and high surf to California.

I'm not challenging your el Nino prediction, I'm challenging the idea that it will end the California drought.

I hope you also realize that a strong el Nino will likely end the Hiatus.

Of course it will...............so are you finally admitting there was a Hiatus........lol

Historically El Nino brings warmer weather and drought to places like India and Austrailia..................

So you will get your warming data that you so desperately are looking for.........

And you will ham it up to no end.................

Are you also admitting the El Nino is Natural made and not by man.

 

[Crick]

I have never denied that there has been a hiatus in surface warming. I have consistently denied and continue to deny that their has actually been a hiatus in global warming.

 

[SwimExpert]

Global warming does not universally produce more droughts - not at all. Some regions will see more droughts and some will see more precipitation. Some will see more storms, some (I suppose) will see less. There will be an increase in the AVERAGE intensity of storms and the incidence of anomalous weather will increase. But it will not be all droughts.

In other words, whatever happens, we'll just call it global warming. Hotter, colder, wetter, drier....it's all global warming. Oh, and don't forget prostitution, teenage pregnancy, toe fungus, and stale bread. That's all global warming too. In fact, the only thing that global warming can't do is win a Super Bowl for the Cleveland Browns. Everything else is definitely on the horizon, though.

 

[Crick]

Do you think global warming would cause universal droughts?

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you think global warming would cause universal droughts?

I think that anyone who says damn near every possible future event, no matter how inconsistent or contradictory, is attributable to one hypothesized phenomenon, has long divorced themselves from logic and scientific analysis.

 

[Crick]

Did you not just read, in this very thread, the list of effects credited to an el Nino? Dry here, wet there, hot here, cold there. All from a single cause.

 

[SwimExpert]

Did you not just read, in this very thread, the list of effects credited to an el Nino? Dry here, wet there, hot here, cold there. All from a single cause.

And you think that compares, don't you? You really are a shallow mind, aren't you?

If you blow on a candle, it goes out. If you blow on another fire, it could fuel the flame. Those are particular circumstances, i.e. independent events. Trying to use that as justification for your shitstorm of sloppy and contradictory thinking where every and anything that happens, even if it contradicts your predictions, is spun into "evidence" in support of your hypothesis.

In science, effective experimentation requires identifying a specific hypothesized outcome, and testing that hypothesis. If your prediction pans out, the experiment supports your hypothesis. If it your prediction does not prove true, then the results indicate a need for an alternative hypothesis. That's how things work in the scientific process. But in Crick's world of dogma, it's an entirely different story. You start out with an assumption, you claim a certain result will come to pass, and when it doesn't happen you claim to have learned a whole new consequence of global warming.

There is absolutely nothing that can happen that you won't attribute to global warming. You'll hoot and holler all thread long about how a regional drought is caused by global warming, but then when increased precipitation in another area is shown you say that's global warming too. If precipitation on the rest of the country were normal, that would be global warming too. If a particular day is really hot, you'll say that's global warming. And then you'll have the absurdity to say that when someone points to an extra cold winter day as contrary evidence they're confusing weather vs. climate.

 

[Crick]

My keyboard got a case of the stutters while working on this note. Standby

 

[Crick]

Did you not just read, in this very thread, the list of effects credited to an el Nino? Dry here, wet there, hot here, cold there. All from a single cause.

And you think that compares, don't you? You really are a shallow mind, aren't you?

Not shallow enough to be entertained by an animated emoticon.

If you blow on a candle, it goes out. If you blow on another fire, it could fuel the flame. Those are particular circumstances, i.e. independent events.

No, they are not. All those effects can and will be produced by a single el Nino. That is the normal course of events.

Trying to use that as justification for your shitstorm of sloppy and contradictory thinking where every and anything that happens, even if it contradicts your predictions, is spun into "evidence" in support of your hypothesis.

I never suggested any of that was evidence for anything. I was responding to the contention that global warming would produce more and more droughts worldwide.

In science, effective experimentation requires identifying a specific hypothesized outcome, and testing that hypothesis. If your prediction pans out, the experiment supports your hypothesis.

Hypothesized outcomes can be produced by experiments or observed in the environment. In the study of the Earth's climate - a system far too complex and chaotic to reproduce in a lab setting - you either get to watch what happens outside your door or try to simulate it with a GCM inside a computer. Reality's not always so tidy.

If it your prediction does not prove true, then the results indicate a need for an alternative hypothesis.

Predictions of the behavior of a system as complex as the Earth's climate are never going to "prove true" or false.

That's how things work in the scientific process.

Science almost NEVER involves proof. Far more often, it simply involves evidence that must be weighed.

But in Crick's world of dogma, it's an entirely different story.

I'm not demanding proof.

You start out with an assumption, you claim a certain result will come to pass, and when it doesn't happen you claim to have learned a whole new consequence of global warming.

I've done no such thing. If you believe I have, show it to us.

There is absolutely nothing that can happen that you won't attribute to global warming.

This statement is false. And stupid.

You'll hoot and holler all thread long about how a regional drought is caused by global warming, but then when increased precipitation in another area is shown you say that's global warming too.

Perhaps you should review the discussion. We were talking about the effects of el Ninos which DO cause reduced precipitation in some regions and increased precipitation in others. Then we had the comment that global warming would cause global droughts, with which I took exception.

I'd think you'd want to get a good grip on what has actually happened here before wasting two pages of obloquy chastizing me for things I have not done (and which everyone here has witnessed me 'not doing'.)

If precipitation on the rest of the country were normal, that would be global warming too. If a particular day is really hot, you'll say that's global warming. And then you'll have the absurdity to say that when someone points to an extra cold winter day as contrary evidence they're confusing weather vs. climate.

Let us know when you're done blathering.

 

[Dot Com]

Did you not just read, in this very thread, the list of effects credited to an el Nino? Dry here, wet there, hot here, cold there. All from a single cause.

And you think that compares, don't you? You really are a shallow mind, aren't you?

Not shallow enough to be entertained by an animated emoticon.

If you blow on a candle, it goes out. If you blow on another fire, it could fuel the flame. Those are particular circumstances, i.e. independent events.

No, they are not. All those effects can and will be produced by a single el Nino. That is the normal course of events.

Trying to use that as justification for your shitstorm of sloppy and contradictory thinking where every and anything that happens, even if it contradicts your predictions, is spun into "evidence" in support of your hypothesis.

I never suggested any of that was evidence for anything. I was responding to the contention that global warming would produce more and more droughts worldwide.

In science, effective experimentation requires identifying a specific hypothesized outcome, and testing that hypothesis. If your prediction pans out, the experiment supports your hypothesis.

Hypothesized outcomes can be produced by experiments or observed in the environment. In the study of the Earth's climate - a system far too complex and chaotic to reproduce in a lab setting - you either get to watch what happens outside your door or try to simulate it with a GCM inside a computer. Reality's not always so tidy.

If it your prediction does not prove true, then the results indicate a need for an alternative hypothesis.

Predictions of the behavior of a system as complex as the Earth's climate are never going to "prove true" or false.

That's how things work in the scientific process.

Science almost NEVER involves proof. Far more often, it simply involves evidence that must be weighed.

But in Crick's world of dogma, it's an entirely different story.

I'm not demanding proof.

You start out with an assumption, you claim a certain result will come to pass, and when it doesn't happen you claim to have learned a whole new consequence of global warming.

I've done no such thing. If you believe I have, show it to us.

There is absolutely nothing that can happen that you won't attribute to global warming.

This statement is false. And stupid.

You'll hoot and holler all thread long about how a regional drought is caused by global warming, but then when increased precipitation in another area is shown you say that's global warming too.

Perhaps you should review the discussion. We were talking about the effects of el Ninos which DO cause reduced precipitation in some regions and increased precipitation in others. Then we had the comment that global warming would cause global droughts, with which I took exception.

I'd think you'd want to get a good grip on what has actually happened here before wasting two pages of obloquy chastizing me for things I have not done (and which everyone here has witnessed me 'not doing'.)

If precipitation on the rest of the country were normal, that would be global warming too. If a particular day is really hot, you'll say that's global warming. And then you'll have the absurdity to say that when someone points to an extra cold winter day as contrary evidence they're confusing weather vs. climate.

Let us know when you're done blathering.

^ that

 

[Muhammed]

we had one of the wettest years a couple of years ago

Bullshit.