Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2014 - 08:07am PT
|
How does the graph I POSTED parrot the graph CHILOE POSTED???
Oh man, are you a troubled child.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Speaking of the Cali drought: how does the true cause of the modest 20th century global warming of .6c (induced by a prolonged period of high solar activity, decrease of albedo due to a long period 1980-2000 of lessened cloud cover therefore lessened albedo, increased sw storage of heat in the oceans and its release by el ninos, global oceanic turnovers and gyres etc.) , the RRR causation of the cali drought , El Nino, anomalous oceanic hotspots like the one currently in the gulf ofalaska, and excursions of the polar vortex into large portions of the mid lattitude NH ,with resultant increased severity of winters, interrelate? Any scientists out there without CO2 fried brains care to answer?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2014 - 10:07am PT
|
The Chief
Jun 10, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
And here's The Chief back again with his wet finger. Fresh from a lake, he can claim (with that wet finger) that there is no drought in California.
Another example of the fatalistic trumpeting. Central to Southern California is historically a Very Dry Temperate Climate Zone. Thus, this "Drought" you speak of, is actual the norm.
So The Chief, is it a drought or is it the norm (it cannot be both).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2014 - 10:17am PT
|
Dingus, I see the models claim that high SST have been the cause of our recent dry spell.
The report states that the drought is not caused by warmer/dryer air. What it says is the the drought is caused by the ridge formed by warmer oceans. And that it is typical for CA to experience droughts when this condition occurs.
The report does not go into the details of the cause of the raised ocean temp. But, we know the oceans have been capturing a lot of the trapped heat.
I am not saying that the drought was, or was not, caused by human-induced warming. What I am saying is that the headlines stating this is is not caused by human-induced warming is "sensationalism" (as you and Sketch like to say of the climate reporting).
The report itself does not identify the root cause of the warming oceans > HP Ridge > Western NA drought, and it is misleading to imply that it does.
What the report does say is this:
Much coverage and discussion of the California drought has raised the question of whether human-driven climate change is in any way responsible. This is a reasonable question because models project that southwest North America as a whole will become more arid as a result of rising greenhouse gases (Seager et al. 2007, 2013; Maloney et al. 2014). Determining human-induced climate change from the observational record is difficult. ...
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
The Chief, from the drought thread.
We currently stand some 1.9" or so from equally 2007's total snowfall at Mammoth Pass.
As of this morning, Mammoth Pass LADWP SS is indicating 20.1". Total for Mammoth Pass in 2007 was 22.0".
Never once heard any mention of any "Drought" in the Spring of 2007 when snow levels here on the Eastside were at what we are close to seeing.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
LOL!
You were not wondering, you were telling. No 'why' or question mark, Chief.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Chief wrote: How bout we use that same logic regarding the existence of GOD, MALNUTS!
No that would be voo-doo...we are talking science.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2014 - 01:58pm PT
|
Show where I stated anything about NO DROUGHT?, the man stompted!
Well, there is this (which you seemed to miss the first time around).
The Chief
Jun 10, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
And here's The Chief back again with his wet finger. Fresh from a lake, he can claim (with that wet finger) that there is no drought in California.
Another example of the fatalistic trumpeting. Central to Southern California is historically a Very Dry Temperate Climate Zone. Thus, this "Drought" you speak of, is actual the norm.
Oh The Chief, regale us again with your humorous buffoonery!
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Euros are the worst and most profuse smokers in the world. They hold the most seats on the IPCC as well.
Ever been to japan...or a Japanese campsite in camp 4?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Not a single CO2 unfried brain amongst you CAGW scientific types, eh?
To have explained the interrelationship amongst the climate mechanisms I mentioned this morning would have been to elaborate on the basics of a climate change theory requiring very little radiative forcing from CO2. It fits the modern climate fluctuations, as well as historical fluctuations ,much better than the tortured defense you offer up here for the simplistic CO2 CAGW scam.
But, of course, your rigid ideology wont allow explanations deviating from the agenda. Pathetic it is.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
from the report that started the latest "discussion"
http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/MAPP/Task%20Forces/DTF/californiadrought/california_drought_report.pdf
CAUSES AND PREDICTABILITY OF THE 2011-14 CALIFORNIA DROUGHT
Abstract
The causes and predictability of the California drought during the three consecutive rainy seasons (November-April) 2011/12 to 2013/14 are analyzed using observations and ensembles of simulations conducted with seven atmosphere models forced by observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Historically, dry California winters have most commonly been associated with a ridge off the west coast, part of a mid-latitude wave train having no obvious SST forcing. Wet winters have most commonly been associated with a trough off the west coast and an El Niņo event. These attributes of dry and wet winters are captured by many of the models used in the current assessment. According to the models, up to a third of California winter precipitation variance can be explained in terms of SST forcing, with the majority explained by internal atmospheric variability. Nonetheless. SST-forcing was key to sustaining a ridge of high pressure over the west coast during each of the last three winters, and may have explained nearly one-third the CA precipitation deficits during the recent drought. In 2011/12 the forced component was a response to a La Niņa event whereas in 2012/13 and 2013/14 it was related to a warm tropical west Pacific SST anomaly. All models contain a mode of climate variability that links west Pacific SST anomalies to a northeastward propagating wave train with a ridge off the North American west coast as part of its SST sensitivity during at least the last 35 years. This mode explains less variance than ENSO and Pacific decadal variability and its importance in 2012/13 and 2013/14 was unusual. The CMIP5 models project that rising greenhouse gases should increase California winter precipitation but that changes to date are small compared to the recent drought anomalies. As such, the recent drought was dominated by natural variability, a conclusion framed by a discussion of the differences between observed and modeled tropical SST trends over the past decades.
Interestingly, The Chief seems to be defending this report which has a substantial model input and includes a comparison to the CMIP5 runs.
How are the models considered "right" in this report, and "wrong" in others?
I'm not sure how many posting to this thread has actually read the report. Perhaps one might take that as a first step...
|
|
Bob Harrington
climber
Bishop, California
|
|
I read the Seager et al. report today. The gist of it is that the past three years of drought in California were driven by 'internal atmosphere variability' and sea surface temperature anomalies, not by human-induced greenhouse gas forcing. It looks like a well done modeling study, to the extent I understand it -- I'm no expert in this kind of modeling.
I guess we've at least reached consensus that GCM models are useful.
The linkage between SST's and California climate has been greatly exaggerated in the media. We've had very dry years during strong El Ninos (e.g. 1988) and wet years during La Nina (e.g. 2011) so the reliance on SST's to predict California precip is very tentative, as this paper acknowledges. The conclusions the paper are limited to the past three years, and don't address longer term trends in California climate. For a more general analysis of climate change effects on the southwest, see Richard Seagar's web page, where, from a 2007 publication, he concludes that the southwest US will become increasingly arid due to greenhouse gas emissions, the transition to a drier climate may already be underway, and that this is a robust climate modeling result.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while.
are you speaking from personal experience?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
To have explained the interrelationship amongst the climate mechanisms I mentioned this morning would have been to elaborate on the basics of a climate change theory requiring very little radiative forcing from CO2. It fits the modern climate fluctuations, as well as historical fluctuations ,...
if you have detailed models, rick show them... put them up against the "standard models..."
in fact, point us to the output files from your model(s) so we can include them in discussions... you know, like the outputs available from all the current climate models.
I'd readily put them on various plots for comparison... just show me where the outputs are...
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
dancin on the tip of god's middle finger
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2014 - 07:24am PT
|
shut the f*#k up both of you
im the d#@&%ebag around here.
raining
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2014 - 08:26am PT
|
there is really only one serious problem with personal insults
and that is that someone will report the post to ChrisMac or RJ
who both said a week ago that such posts would not be tolerated and should be reported
then one is deactivated, with no apparent warning, other than many of them through the years
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 10, 2014 - 08:40am PT
|
I mean, who would get so butt hurt over little ouchy words to do that?
I don't post here and read this forum to get attacked or to see others get attacked. The clowns that begin the ad homs attacks should pack it up--it only brings this forum down. The consequence is that folks who have good contributions to make leave.
So what do you want, the forum to wallow down in the cesspool of insults and negative attacks, or should we attempt to clean it up.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2014 - 08:42am PT
|
Maybe both of you guys should do some post editing and move on.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2014 - 08:53am PT
|
In case you don't already understand this, a "drought" is not the "norm." Here, take a look:
drought
noun
a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall; a shortage of water resulting from this.
So what are you saying above The Chief when you state that the conditions were "THE NORM!!!!"?
Just because I stated it was the "Norm" does it no where state there is NO DROUGHT.
Are you trying to say that the "drought" is then norm, meaning there is no drought? If not, then what do you mean??
Watch out here The Chief, your credibility might be at stake!
Isn't it the case that as we learn more about what was going on hundreds and even thousands of year ago our idea of "normal" is evolving.
In particular, whatever has been considered as "normal" California climate by 20th century standards is too limited and that a real "normal" California climate includes intermittent but multi-years-long droughts?
And that the current drought is not outside of what we now understand to be California's "norm."
I thought this was NOAA's point, when it declined to blame AGW for the current drought.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!