No, I think it’s pretty idiotic to claim the drought is over, period. We’ve had two short rainstorms. The reservoirs are still nearly empty, and the snowpack, while getting a nice little boost, is still below normal levels.
The people who are saying “the drought is over” aren’t basing it on a Scientific American article. They’re basing it on two days of rain.
And that’s pretty idiotic.
It’s a shame of course that an actual scientific topic gets shut down, but let’s face it, some people don’t want scientific discussions to happen.
I’m not “implying” that, I am straight up claiming it. In regards to the trends, and the reason for “the pause”, you and everyone else reading the topic also now know more than they do.
Now six months later, there is a new paper that is saying what I was saying.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062323/abstract
Of course we are not constrained by the long time period for papers to be accepted, nor do we have to pay 48 bucks to read here.
1998-2014 spring
1998-2014 summer
Yep, same thing is still evident. Only difference in regards to here is now GIGO and company can’t keep repeating their idiot claim that the experts aren’t saying it.
The amusing thing is how much the troll is bothered by people pointing out he’s a troll: he can’t stop referring to it.
Well to be fair, in the areas where they got 14 inches of rain, the drought is over for them.
Sounds like the NH is warming more than you would like to admit:
So much fail here. It’s astounding how much a troll thinks he knows about meteorology and how much he can get wrong when you can google real facts.
Even if 13.85 inches ran off into the ocean?
I spent only 12 seconds on that story, but even I grasped the point that runoff water is useless. Are you telling me even that thought process was beyond the troll’s capability?
I get an error message on all the troll’s posts and only get to read him when he’s quoted. In fairness to him, I hope someone quotes him [del]when[/del] if he ever says anything intelligent.
It’s actually not possible to “sum up” at this point, the thread wandered a lot, or rather meandered, but the key issue is still simple enough to explain in a paragraph. Several people, obviously intelligent people, grasped it right away.
Basic global warming theory predicts warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect will cause changes beyond natural variation, changes which we can measure, so we can know that some of the climate change observed is from human activities. This is important because we know climate changes, based on past changes, so detecting the enhanced greenhouse signal matters. Greenhouse theory (CO2 theory) states that increasing CO2 will result in an increase in LW (long wave) energy effecting the troposphere, surface and ocean temperatures. Physics calculates that because the greenhouse effect is always happening, an increase (enhanced greenhouse effect) should result in warmer night time lows, rather than increased daytime highs. That warming will be greatest over land, and greater in winter than summer. That warming will be most evident at high latitudes, rather than at the equator. And that the lower troposphere should warm more than the surface. Because the NH has much more land, it is expected to warm more than the SH. (the oceans will warm much slower, due to the huge thermal inertia)
That’s the most basic part of the theory. But just as important is expected feedbacks from warming, most notable is decreasing sea ice, glaciers and snow cover, all of which should result in greatly increased warming due to LW (long wave) heating, as the surface changes albedo, and open water replaces ice. And of course an increase in water vapor (wv), due to warming in general, which is expected to greatly increase the greenhouse effect, since wv is the most important greenhouse forcing. (scientific source)
OK that was way more than a paragraph. We could discuss the other thread about global warming going on, but of course, there isn’t one at the moment.
sad but true, and it’s partly due to his absence here, that this thread is so awesome.
of course, and that simple point is easy to grasp, if you are at all scientific. It’s a basic issue.
Of course not. In fact, they are so far off at this point, efforts are being made to change them. It’s not like real climate scientist want a model that doesn’t work. The real problem is politics, which has munged the scientific process.
That’s one way of looking at it, but nature isn’t simplistic, no matter how much we wish it were.
Understanding how weather works, and how climate changes, it’s one of the largest problems mankind has ever tried to solve. If anyone had a climate model that actually worked, we would be discussing that, rather than this.
Of course not, don’t be obtuse. The actual data is far more fun than ignorance. California isn’t some mystery when it comes to the water supplies, nor is the amount of snowpack and reservoir retention that hard to find. The topography of the region means a lot, and where the stream feed an artifical lake or three, 14 inches of rain actually matters.
That the rain hasn’t stoppedmatters even more. (since that link is current conditions, it won’t make any sense later. In essence it has rained or snowed in the Mt Shasta region for 13 out of the last 16 days)
Rainfall totals in that region are now actually above the yearly average. Of course the long term deficit means technically it’s still drought, but in the real world, it’s wet. (because the official data is from Redding, Shasta rainfall totals are not shown on the WU monthly/yearly chart)
(missed the edit window)
But even Redding shows the situation well enough.
Average rain since July 1
10.31inches
Current data,
16.74 inches
Average for December
2.82 inches
So far this month
7.44 inches
The data for lake Shasta shows several things, all of them good at this point.
Of course California isn’t one monolithic state when it comes to water. But for some areas, the drought has broken at last.
Sorry global warmers, but I’m sure you will find something else to use. I know how heartbreaking it is when things go well.
Thank you.
There are times when you can get away with using a term loosely. There are other times you can’t.
I remember, back in June of 2009, it was officially announced that the recession was over. A lot of people sneered at that, because the economy was still hurting badly, and huge numbers of people were out of work. But, by the technical definition of the word, yes, the recession did end then.
Informally, loosely, carelessly speaking (“O.J. Simpson murdered his wife”) the drought is over…at this moment…because it’s raining right now. But the drought condition is not over. Reservoirs are low, the rivers are low, the snowpack is low, agriculture is still desperately thirsty, and cities are still engaging in necessary conservation measures.
At very least, if you’re going to use language loosely and informally, without regard for technical definitions, you ought to avow this openly.
This, of course, clearly indicates that you’re making it a personal issue, and have no respect or regard for real science.
The only limit to your cherry-picking is your academic incompetence.
Now now, it’s obvious you understand sarcasm, you use it yourself. So don’t play the pedant now.
You see? We understand you actually stated the opposite of what you really think, it’s a rhetorical device. It would be pedantic to take you to task for saying something stupid, because we know what you meant by it isn’t what you actually said.
Adults do these things, they often use language for an emotional effect, like when somebody talks about “the arctic death spiral”, they are trying to sway an audience, they don’t really mean the arctic region is going to die, they are trying to create anxiety, by talking in a manner that isn’t scientific at all.
Nah, just saying the same stupid shit warmists say, rather than debate the science. It is the Pit after all.
Of course if you responded to the scientific data, we could talk like adults do. For example, I find the CFS data amazing, looking at Whiskeytown, Shasta and Sonoma, you can actually see how much water came in to the reservoirs from the recent rain.
Sonoma has already reached higher than last year at this time. And that is great news.
Whiskeytown has had 15 inches since Dec 2, and the inflow data shows it. Dec 1st the inflow was just 153, but after the epic rain the inflow jumped to 7220, and the levels reflect the rainfall there.
Same for Shasta, with the inflow CFS at 4205 on Dec 1st, then jumping to 66542 on Dec 11th. They got 14 inches of rain! That is fucking huge. And the water levels show this clearly.
Of course the rest of the state didn’t get that much, but drought is also not a monolithic event. As always, I find facts more interesting than fear mongering or rhetoric.
The monthly rainfall totals so farare amazing. A reasonable person can understand why somebody in FOUR TREES would think the drought broke, after 20 inches of rain there already this month.
BRANDY CREEK, over 28 inches of rain.
BUCKS LAKE, over 18 inches already.
These are huge numbers. STRAWBERRY VALLEY, 17.7 inches, the list is long. Certainly California is still way below average, but some places there are above average now.
Weather is like that.
Hell, STRAWBERRY VALLEY averages 7.57 inches of rain for the entire winter. And 6.43 for the fall. It received more rain already this month than it usually does in 6 months.
That’s a novel approach. If you decide to try it out, let me know how it goes.
.
Speaking of California, it’s another situation where no matter what happens, somebody will try and say it’s due to global warming. The drought is global warming. If the drought breaks with heavy rain, that is global warming.
Everything except “nice weather” is global warming, which is just insanity talking.
Try reading sometime. Like here
See?
(tl;dr - complicated NH monthly mean data and shit like that)
Why is it important to look at long term data? Long trends? Because CO2 theory (AGW) predicts an increase in the heat energy of the atmosphere and oceans. This is, in the simplest form, the global warming theory based on an increase of CO2.
How can we know if that theorized event has happened? By checking the data. I will now show you, very simply, why the CO2 theory has been proven wrong, in an easy to understand way. (there will be no skepticalscience link fro GIGOGallop to counter this, as they don’t even know about this)
Here is the global anomaly for January, since 1940.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/every:12
That is the coldest month in the NH, which theory predicts will show the most warming from CO2. This is an absolute prediction of CO2 theory. This is due to the nature of CO2 warming, it’s physics.
The raw data shows the problem very clearly.
1942 0.215 - this was the warmest winter in that period, though several others were quite close. Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
With
1958 0.224
but it wouldn’t be fair to use the highest value, 1942 will work just fine. Remember these numbers represent the global average above the global mean using the period Jan 1961 - Dec 1990 (30 years)
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
So there is the January anomaly, it represents the global heat balance.
1942 0.215
We see the cooling period until 1976, followed by warming.
1976 -0.266
1977 -0.134
1978 0.014
1979 -0.029
1980 0.106
1981 0.26
1982 -0.028
1983 0.386
1984 0.088
1985 0.019
1986 0.115
1987 0.118
1988 0.348
1989 -0.002
1990 0.198
1991 0.229
1992 0.282
1993 0.217
1994 0.157
1995 0.359
1996 0.065
1997 0.15
1998 0.492
1999 0.37
2000 0.206
2001 0.324
2002 0.598
2003 0.525
2004 0.504
2005 0.461
2006 0.319
2007 0.61
2008 0.053
2009 0.387
2010 0.489
2011 0.194
2012 0.206
2013 0.39
1942 0.215
Right there you can see, in black and white, what the graph clearly shows. The heat balance change for January, in the last 70 years.
The astute observer might say, it’s not fair to use the global average in regards to NH winters, and you would be correct. Since the SH hasn’t warmed like the NH, we should look at just NH winters.
Here is the warm period (before current warming)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1930/every:12/to:1960
Note the warm winter of
1958 0.487
but that winter of 42 is now not that high. But 44 sure as hell is.
1944 0.572
When comparing the NH heat balance of then to now, it’s quite fair to look at the difference. The warmists will of course cry foul, and want the coldest periods then compared to the warmist year now.
But that isn’t how heat balance works. If the heat balance in 44 was 0.572, then in 58 0.487, you have to look at how much heat has accumulated since then.
1944 0.572
1945 -0.045
1946 0.273
1947 -0.349
1948 0.305
1949 0.256
1950 -0.541
1951 -0.366
1952 0.176
1953 0.127
1954 -0.351
1955 0.241
1956 -0.163
1957 -0.285
1958 0.487
1959 0.174
1960 -0.036
1961 0.131
1962 0.173
1963 0.056
1964 0.066
1965 -0.104
1966 -0.094
1967 -0.172
1968 -0.304
1969 -0.544
1970 -0.014
1971 -0.019
1972 -0.676
1973 0.069
1974 -0.471
1975 0.064
1976 -0.073
1977 -0.436
1978 0.088
1979 -0.08
1980 0.068
1981 0.507
1982 -0.131
1983 0.44
1984 0.116
1985 -0.064
1986 0.238
1987 0.097
1988 0.384
1989 -0.032
1990 0.248
1991 0.337
1992 0.436
1993 0.268
1994 0.217
1995 0.536
1996 0.07
1997 0.232
1998 0.499
1999 0.47
2000 0.272
2001 0.376
2002 0.773
2003 0.611
2004 0.649
2005 0.589
2006 0.317
2007 0.924
2008 0.053
2009 0.495
2010 0.531
2011 0.142
2012 0.297
1944 0.572
There is your global warming in the last 69 years.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
You can use other data sets, maybe the well liked CRUtemp4 (which shows the past as cooler)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/download.html
1944 0.656
2012 0.453
There is the current accumulated heat in the last 68 years. Comparing the NH winter heat balance.
That is global warming.
Haha of course that is completely unfair. We need to compare more average winter anomalies.
2008 0.216
1946 0.292
Actually the whole point is why averages matter. And why using the short time period since the last cool period is bullshit for showing drastic warming.
Comparing 1932 with
1932 0.376
2011 0.332
(Hadcrut4)
or using Hasdcrut3 to compare
1932 0.326
2012 0.314
makes it seem like there has been no gain in heat for 80 years. When it just means there was no increase in the heat balance between those years.
The real global warming shows up in spring and summer. And make no mistake, there is warming.
here is summer (June) anomalies
1932.5 -0.037
2012.5 0.675
No doubt if you look at NH summers, there has been a lot of warming. The thing is, that isn’t what CO2 theory predicted, predicts, or explains.
Which is why GIGO and company are so funny. They don’t know this. Neither does SS.
So why is there such alarm in some minds? They take the coldest temperatures, like winter 72, and compare it to the hottest summer temperatures.
1972 -0.639
2007 0.904
Which obviously shows almost 1.5 degrees warming. In a very short time. Everybody panic.
If you did that trick, took the warmest reading in the 40s and compared it to the coldest in 2008, you could show global cooling instead.
1944 0.552
2008 0.084
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
But that is a bullshit trick.
The thing to take away is that if you compare the heat balance now with then, there hasn’t been much CO2 warming at all. This does not mean no warming, but it certainly means the theory is wrong.
Not that CO2 doesn’t act as a greenhouse gas, that isn’t what is wrong.
It’s the predictions of how we will see warming based on that forcing. That is what is obviously wrong. We will get to why in another post.
Short version, (haha, there actually isn’t one) is that the expected warming from CO2 depends very much on wintertime warming, and an increasing feedback loop from that warming. Less ice, less snow, more open water, more bare rocks and vegetation, leading to a warming loop, but from sw radiation, not lw.
The models that predict drastic warming show that it is the increase in sw energy that should drive the warming, the small amount of lw forcing isn’t nearly enough to make it happen.
source
This might explain why we do not observe the expected warming, and especially why we are observing a NH cooling effect for Jan/Feb, which is not what was predicted by the theory, or the current models.
I tried to explain that wv is a forcing, but such science fell on deaf ears of course. Snow, ice and clouds are all far more powerful than the small amount of forcing from CO2, especially in winter in the NH. The increasing NH snow cover, along with the cooling it causes, may actually be the reason for the pause.
And (no sarcasm at all) this might be due to global warming.
So you agree that the specific example I found (which is the only example in the top twitter search results) is idiotic? A simple yes or no will do.
False. The only example in the top results of the twitter search I did cited a Scientific American article. Maybe there are other examples out there, but that’s what I found with a Twitter search.