Slashdot Mirror


California's Hot, Dry Winters Tied To Climate Change

mdsolar sends word that hot dry winters may be the norm in the future for California. "Climate change is one of the most prominent public health issues currently on the CDC's radar. The organization's Climate and Health Program attempts to help state and city health departments to prepare for the health impacts of climate change, which can come in the form of things like temperature extremes, air pollution, allergens, and changes in disease patterns; they can also be felt indirectly through issues like food security. Since 2012, California has been in the midst of a record-setting drought, with extremely warm and dry conditions characterizing the last three years in that state. A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that warming caused by humans is responsible for the conditions that have led to this California drought. This study, published by scientists affiliated with the Department of Environmental Earth System Science and the Woods Institute for Environment at Stanford University, used historical statewide data for observed temperature, precipitation, and drought in California. The investigators used the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI) and the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), collected by the National Climatic Data Center, as measures of the severity of wet/dry anomalies. They also used global climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) to compare historical predictions for anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic historical climates."

279 comments

  1. Price Controls? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have they considered asking economists about the effects of price controls on water for agricultural uses?

    Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one... if you hold down the price of water, people (especially larger users) will use more of it, not less of it...

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    1. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Happened where I live... the locals conserved water to the point of a drought that foundations started cracking... but the total amount of water saved was completely negated because the golf courses just wound up using more water.

      My trick is to use gray water that has been filtered and a little bit of bleach added to water the yard. The result were healthy trees while neighbors were having their dead ones cut down the coming fall.

      The problem with California is that they have too many people, too few special interests.

      The solution is obvious: A nuclear plant + a desalination plant. This is how Israel has turned desert wasteland into an area that is more fertile than the rest of the Middle East. However, people would rather just foul up that state, then run to Texas, Okie-style ("Texas or bust") to foul up that state, then head to Colorado after that. Human histories... trash the area, exodus... trash the new spot... exodus. Repeat.

    2. Re:Price Controls? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now wait just a damn minute. Are you trying to tell us that it's stupid and completely irresponsible to grow monsoon crops in an arid desert environment, and then bitch when there isn't enough water to go around?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Price Controls? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      why do you have a "yard"?

      Use local plants that are adapted to your climate. Seattle has been doing this and reducing water use for lawns at the same time. Plus, greener.

      Also, when you mow your lawn, use a mulching mower, mow 3 to 6 inch not 1/2 inch, let the cut grass stay in the lawn. Less fertilizer, less water. Deep soak once a week IN EVENING not during the day when salt buildup from evaporation happens. Less water, better growth, better roots.

      You're not getting our nuclear fusion plants that we're making at the UW until you adapt.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Price Controls? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Your point is a good one tho the situation is complex with many moving parts.

      In the case of oil, they held up the price of oil for 4 years and so tremendous oversupply resulted.

      For california,
      It has a history of 50+ year long droughts (and some much longer in reality- just with 1-2 year breaks between 50 year spells).
      Artificially low water prices due to water shipped in from several states away.
      Beautiful climate that attracts a lot of people anyway.

      I wonder if solar water distillation of sea water will be one answer.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    5. Re:Price Controls? by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wow. you sure love telling others what they can and cant do huh????

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Price Controls? by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Native plants to Seattle is grass and trees. Native plants to California is rocks.

    7. Re:Price Controls? by danbert8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's obviously man made climate change that is the problem with growing grapes and rice in the desert!

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    8. Re:Price Controls? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      why do you have a "yard"?

      Because they like the feel of grass under their feet rather than concrete? They like to create a cooler micro-climate around their home? Because they have kids who can play on the safety of their own place? They want some distance between them and their neighbors? They like the smell of grass? They can lay out during the summer without having to worry about anyone else?

      There are a number of reasons people have a yard. Even more amazing, they can still be green by modifying how they take care of it while still enjoying the benefits.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    9. Re:Price Controls? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      why do you have a "yard"?

      I'm not the OP, but I'll tell you why I have a yard: I like the privacy and convenience it enables for me and my family for doing stuff outside. Public parks are great but cover different use cases. It's the same question and answer as why anyone lives in a single-family residence instead of a multi-family apartment/condo.

    10. Re:Price Controls? by rs79 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.

      Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.

      And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"

      Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.

      Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.

      Refs:
      1) Ice
      http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
      http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
      http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
      http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
      http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...

      2) records:
      http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide...
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
      http://www.staradvertiser.com/...
      https://www.facebook.com/video...
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
      http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
      http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      3) Trees:
      http://www.pri.org/stories/201...
      https://web.archive.org/web/20...
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
      http://www.agu.org/news/press/...

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    11. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want a $50 head of lettuce?

    12. Re:Price Controls? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      It has a history of 50+ year long droughts (and some much longer in reality- just with 1-2 year breaks between 50 year spells).

      Doesn't this mean that 'desert' is the normal situation, with occasional 50 year flooding/rains?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    13. Re:Price Controls? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm going to do something very foolish and imagine that you actually believe what you're saying, that you're not just being a troll, and that you actually think the data supports your conclusions. And now I'm going to explain why you're wrong, indulging in the fantasy that you'll listen with an open mind and, once you realize your mistake, freely acknowledge it. Prove me right. Or wrong. Your choice.

      Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years,

      Three years? Three years is random noise. The climate consists of steady, long term trends with lots of short term fluctuations superimposed on top of them. Take artic ice, for example. It shrinks every summer and grows every winter. There are lots of factors that affect the summer minimum: wind patterns, ocean currents, etc. A few years ago, lots of factors converged to give an exceptionally low minimum. It hasn't matched that since; but it's come close, and has remained far below anything seen until just a decade ago.

      Here's a graph showing sea ice for almost 40 years: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i.... Yes, it fluctuates up and down from year to year. But look at that and tell me it shows anything other than fluctuations around a steady decreasing trend that remains upbroken.

      Let's look at something even more convincing: world wide temperatures. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist.... Look at those graphs, and then tell me they show anything other than short term fluctuations on a long term warming trending that has been in place for the last century.

      Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country.

      Wrong! There has not been record cold "around the country". Believe me, the whole western half of the country has been getting record heat, as has most of the planet. Here's a map showing it: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/.... Those are the difference between Jan. 2015 temperatures and historical (1981-2010) average temperatures. The red areas are hotter than average. The blue areas are colder than average. Yes, there's a small blue patch over the eastern US. But overall there's a lot more red than blue.

      This is why scientists tend to prefer the term "climate change" to "global warming". Yes, the globe is warming up, but that doesn't mean everything is exactly the same, just uniformly warmer. Some times and places are a lot warmer. Others are only a little warmer. Others are actually cooler. Wind patterns are changing. Ocean currents are changing. Precipitation patterns are changing. Sea level is rising. Permafrost it melting. The climate is changing.

      And if you want to know precisely how global warming is causing unusually cold weather in the eastern US, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P....

      Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010

      Sorry, but that is just BS. You linking to a story about how fungi help to hold onto carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere, and somehow translated that into "NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis". No. I don't know what you think that article actually meant, but I can assure you that isn't what it meant. (OK, I see you also linked to that Register piece that totally misrepresented the conclusions of that study. The Register is a notorious denialist website. Believe me, the scientists who actually did the work would not agree with the conclusions they're trying to draw from it.)

      No one has "falsified the CO2 hypothesis". In fact, it was recently proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, by actually directly measuring the incoming and outgoing radiation, showing that the CO2 abso

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    14. Re:Price Controls? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Children and pets love yards. It's somewhat a standard living requirement for the suburbs.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:Price Controls? by crywalt · · Score: 1

      The ironclad theory of supply and demand is wonderful. If its effects on prices don't seem to be occurring, just keep looking until you find an excuse. Then stop. In this way the theory of supply and demand can be shown to be one hundred percent accurate.

    16. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be ridiculous. Such a sensible and logical explanation won't guarantee future research funding.

    17. Re:Price Controls? by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Seattle is rainy as fuck, though.

    18. Re:Price Controls? by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

      He is right about the extent of Antarctic sea ice, increasing, in the last few years it's been the highest winter extent in recorded history. The problem is that the extent of sea ice (ice floating on the ocean) is an irrelevant measure of anything. There could be hundreds of causes and most have nothing to do with climate change (natural fluctuations) and the few that do actually relate to climate change point to severe consequences and are supporting evidence.

      One recent study of salinity levels showed that antarctic sea saline levels were lower than previously recorded values. Lower saline levels would cause dramatically increased amounts of sea ice but there are only two major reasons saline levels could drop (other than bad measurements). The first is that the mixing currents at the pole that cause high saline warm water from the inter-ocean currents to surface are beginning to cease. This would be catastrophic to local climates and actually cause regions near each pole to get colder as the warm tropical waters that keep northern climates warm stop. The second is that significant melting of the glaciers on Antarctica have begun and at a significant enough rate that local ocean salinity is declining because inter-ocean mixing currents cannot keep up. Melting of the Antarctica glaciers (3 miles thick) would portend massive massive sea level increases on the orders of hundreds of feet. Not even the worst climate change predictions predict Antarctica glacial melt on this scale.

      The reason the sea ice extent is most likely irrelevant is because it's temporary. It's ice that builds up in the winter and melts in the summer. Even if sea ice levels are the highest ever seen during the winter, they are at the same time the lowest ever seen during the summer. This includes the massive massive ice shelves (the portion of the glacier that is floating on the ocean) that have broken off and disintegrated.

      The anti-climate change people like to point at antarctic sea ice levels without ever talking about the details. Most I doubt even understand what any of it is or means, they are simply reporting a sound bite they heard on TV or the internet.

    19. Re:Price Controls? by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Problem is, that arid climate happens to be where the good sun and soil is. I just moved from wet Northern Europe to arid Southern California, and it's amazing how much longer the growing season is here. Maybe they could grow somewhere else where there's more water, but colder temperatures and less sun would probably lead to a drop in productivity.

      I'm actually more incensed by the casual wasting of water I see here - sprinklers on during a rain storm, for instance.

    20. Re:Price Controls? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The soil in California is terrible (desert), but they fix that with fertilizer. The farmers love California because it's got lots of sun and cheap land.

    21. Re: Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California has some of the country's most fertile soil. In fact, desert soil is extremely fertile as it hasn't been leeched of its nutrients by waterfall. The problem is getting water to it to use it...

    22. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail. It's a chaparral or Mediterranean climate, not arid or semiarid. FAIL

    23. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now wait just a damn minute. Are you trying to tell us that it's stupid and completely irresponsible to grow monsoon crops in an arid desert environment, and then bitch when there isn't enough water to go around?

      But of course dear boy .. Mind you we could always irradiate the entire area making it useless for food groth solve 2 problems in one smooth move that way ..

      canning the dork in the whitehouse is the other usefull measure you could take ..

    24. Re:Price Controls? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually, parts of california (san diego) are classified as semi arid.

      To your comment-

      http://extras.mnginteractive.c...

      It's been pretty wet since 1600. But it was pretty dry before that.

      Humans don't really think on a time scale of 500 year cycles. You can have an entire civilization rise and fall during a 500 year period.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    25. Re:Price Controls? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      because parks are too dangerous for kids. once they are out of your line of sight, they are in the line of sight of every pedophile in the state...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    26. Re:Price Controls? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying, if you have 50 year droughts, with rainy 'seasons' only lasting a couple years, then you should probably stop considering the 'majority' rain conditions as 'drought conditions' and just accept that they are the norm, and you get occasionally lucky with a couple years of rain every so often.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    27. Re:Price Controls? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He was simply giving advice, albeit possibly in a rather clumsy fashion. Getting all offended by someone giving advice isn't becoming. Do you shout at cookery books for ordering you around? Slam down a good recipe because it talked to you like a Nazi? "Don't tell me how hot to set the oven!" "I'll use as many eggs as I like!" "If I want to use white phosphorous in my quiche I'll use it!"

    28. Re:Price Controls? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Well the risk is certainly higher with public parks... Actually, I was thinking about not having a 5 yr old walk across the street alone to the park. Rather, they can play in the front yard with other trust-worthy neighbors or in the backyard; with friends, siblings. Parents should really be involved in all activities for children that young IMHO, but thanks to our industrial grind-frest in which both parents are required (dual income) to pay the mortgage and pay the bills, family time can be exceedingly busy at times. As such, proximity is important.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    29. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2007 called and wants it's tired 'FAIL' meme back.

    30. Re:Price Controls? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      That's why when scientists talk about arctic sea ice, they almost always talk about the minimum extent at the peak of the summer melt. That's basically a measure of how much of the multi-year ice is still left, a good indicator of long term trends. The peak amount in the middle of the winter is mostly irrelevant, as you point out.

      Antarctic sea ice is completely different. There is almost no multi-year ice (the south pole being in the middle of a continent, and thus far from anywhere that sea ice could form), so the summer minimum is essentially zero. Instead they talk about the winter maximum, but that has little to do with long term changes and everything to do with current conditions in that particular year.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    31. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do you have a "yard"?

      The question is "why do you have a lawn". Not all yards are covered in manicured grass.

    32. Re:Price Controls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really have no idea what California climate is like - it isn't a desert

    33. Re:Price Controls? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      your reply sir was commendable, do you have a newsletter to which i could subscribe?

  2. I feel like a drought denialer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sympathies for the AGW folks.

    Because I'm in California, and it's so goddamned terrible here that car washes are still operating at maximum efficiency.

    And we're still farming where we have no business farming.

    And we're still demanding people water their lawns.

    And our water is still cheaper than other states I've lived in.

    It's terrible, let me tell you.

    1. Re:I feel like a drought denialer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because all the wells the farmers are using are still at ~15-20% of historic levels. In a year or two when thats used up too and the shit really hits the fan, it will be time to do something about it. And by do something I mean point fingers.

    2. Re:I feel like a drought denialer. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Are you guys still going to drain the Pacific Ocean because some guy pissed on it?

    3. Re:I feel like a drought denialer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right?

      I mean, I'm not stupid and comprehend there's a problem.

      I just don't comprehend that anything other than, "AWW YEAH THIS DROUGHT IS TERRIBAD! HAVE SOME WATER BRAH. DON'T WORRY ABOUT SPILLIN' IT WE GOT HELLA WATER." is actually being done.

    4. Re:I feel like a drought denialer. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      You can go talk to them and ask them yourself. Meeting

      Also, Lake Tulloch / New Melones ...

      Also 30 percent price raises in the Bay Area.

      If you think people aren't actively working on the problem, you need to look around more. That information took me 5 minutes to find.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    5. Re:I feel like a drought denialer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we should not be farming in the desert, such as around the Salton Sea and toward Yuma. However, most food grown in California comes from the Central Valley and we have been farming that region (which isn't a desert) since the early 19th century and that century was a lot drier than the 20th.

      We need to understand that the California drought is actually affecting the whole western United States. It is stretching all the way to Colorado and even into Washington.

  3. Winter is Ars gloss by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    The original paper http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... does not seem to make a big deal about Winter so TFA may be adding that owing to this Winter's weather which has had record warmth this Winter. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

  4. Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So you have to wonder why this was modded -1.

      There are no personal attacks.
      There are no disparaging remarks.
      It doesn't link to fake data, indeed, it uses data derived from the AGW community itself.

      The only real answer is that someone doesn't want people to see it, in true Slashdot fashion.

    2. Re:Models compared to reality by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Perhaps it is because there is no source of this chart. Who made it? Where does it come from?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's at -1 because it's wrong.

      See http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

    4. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh...so now we come to the Face Painting Homer part.

      I say YOURS is wrong.

    5. Re:Models compared to reality by zethreal · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm going to assume that 1) since it's on the NOAA website and 2) there's a largeish NOAA logo in the Atlantic Ocean, that it is most likely using information from NOAA. I mhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/15/03/09/1643256/californias-hot-dry-winters-tied-to-climate-change#ay be wrong, however.

    6. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to tell me that someone on Slashdot managed to suppress the innate response to just about anything with a "citation required"?

      Highly unlikely. More likely they just didn't want to deal with it.

    7. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the comments on the linked page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

      According to that page, the models only fit if you adjust post-hoc for different climate sensitivities and forcings than originally used...stop hyping rudimentary basic science into something its not.

    8. Re:Models compared to reality by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's an interesting graphic. But there's no clear attribution. Even for the couple of lines where there is explicit attribution, it's not clearly defined what the attribution means. Were it the part of a larger article in which the missing data were provided, and with links so it could be verified, it would be very interesting. (I'd still wonder exactly what it meant and, I admit, I might not follow up. But that graphic is so cryptic that it could mean many different things. And it's not clear that the predictions are even predicting the same thing (measured feature) as the measurements are measuring.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Models compared to reality by itzly · · Score: 0

      Bad graph. Explained here:
      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

    10. Re:Models compared to reality by next_ghost · · Score: 2

      Each of those 90 models has an error margin around the line shown in the picture. The line itself is meaningless, the error margin around it is the most important result.

    11. Re:Models compared to reality by rockout · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bullshit. The chart came from one Dr. Roy Spencer, who is not only a climatologist who has made a career out of claiming he's right and most scientists are wrong, but is also a noted creationist ("intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism" is my favorite quote from him on the topic).

      Here's a nice summation of how he fudged numbers in order to come up with that bogus chart: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

      To your point of "I may be wrong", let me say, yes.... yes you are.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    12. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Bad graph. Explained here:
      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

      How about a graph from the IPCC itself then instead, you can verify it in their AR5 report here. Not nearly as bad, but very clearly showing the last decade or more trending at the very low end of the models.

    13. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The URL is wattsupwiththat. Not NOAA's site. So when you claim "It's on the NOAA website", you're wrong.

    14. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's an interesting graphic. But there's no clear attribution. Even for the couple of lines where there is explicit attribution, it's not clearly defined what the attribution means. Were it the part of a larger article in which the missing data were provided, and with links so it could be verified, it would be very interesting. (I'd still wonder exactly what it meant and, I admit, I might not follow up. But that graphic is so cryptic that it could mean many different things. And it's not clear that the predictions are even predicting the same thing (measured feature) as the measurements are measuring.)

      How about a graph from the IPCC itself then instead, you can verify it in their AR5 report here. Not nearly as bad, but very clearly showing the last decade or more trending at the very low end of the models.

    15. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Models compared with reality.

      Which is a graph that has been lampooned as grossly inaccurate for calibrating against a 5 year temperature average instead of a 30 year temperature average which shifts things a good deal.

      To bypass that controversy compare a graph from the IPCC itself then instead, you can verify it in their AR5 report here. Not nearly as bad, but very clearly showing the last decade or more trending at the very low end of the models.

    16. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the models only fit if you adjust post-hoc for different climate sensitivities and forcings than originally used

      That's because the models are predicting adjusted values, which is exactly what models do. I don't care about differences local in time, I want to know if the planet is warming and why, and you have to adjust your data to obtain that information. Raw data is useless.

    17. Re:Models compared to reality by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's really funny is that even with the screwing around, the chart still clearly shows global warming. It's like a serial killer arguing that he should be acquitted of all 15 charges because the evidence clearly shows that he only killed 11 people at random.

    18. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... he knowingly manipulated the data with the intention of lying about the fact that the planet is warming because of human CO2 emissions... go figure!

    19. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is perfectly valid to adjust a model post-hoc and then test on new data. It is not valid to change the parameters after the data is in *AND THEN* use that to claim the predictions matched reality. The predictions depend upon the parameters used in the model, even a perfect model (which no one is claiming these are) with wrong parameters can make predictions opposite of reality. For example the model with incorrect parameters may predict warming when instead an ice age will be triggered.

      Of course, if you have enough parameters you can also always overfit to the data post-hoc even if the model itself sucks. That is why a priori predictive skill is important in assessing the model. Everyone knows this stuff, the only reason to pretend like they don't is bias.

    20. Re:Models compared to reality by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Wordpress is not a recognized water table expert. A random chart from a random anonymous source is not a valid argument.

    21. Re: Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The group that put it out is scandalous. They have ended the journal they published in for cherry picking data points.

      It's the Dr Roy Spencer group again, and again, and again, like a paid puppet for an industry looking to fabricate doubt.

    22. Re:Models compared to reality by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone avoiding actual models from actual research? googleusercontent is also not a recognized climate expert.

    23. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2

      Why is everyone avoiding actual models from actual research? googleusercontent is also not a recognized climate expert.

      The IPCC is, if you look back I linked to the actual IPCC AR5 article for the original. The thing is that it's a couple hundred pages as a pdf document, so I included a link to just the graph as well. If that's too avoidy for you, it's not my problem.

    24. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While there are people who claim there are serious problems with the data itself (I have not spent the effort to check this), just because there was warming does not mean it occurred for the reasons claimed (CO2 in this case). Now if they predict a certain temperature a decade out and this is close to what is measured, that is impressive. Warming/no warming predictions are too vague to be useful.

      The current data best matches Scenario C of Hansen et al 1988 (figure 3A), which was the scenario with no increased net forcing after 2000. It doesn't seem like anyone in either camp (maybe I missed it) takes the success of that model seriously though. For example see this discussion here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/ . They completely ignore the success of scenario C.

      Apparently a successful prediction is NOT sufficient to convince people that a model is good. What is missing is the mechanism. Hansen et al thought this could occur by reducing carbon emissions, but there may be other reasons that are mathematically equivilant (negative feedback approximately equal magnitude to the positive forcing). Anyway, it is strange to argue in favor of relying on less successful models while ignoring the astounding success of one of the earliest attempts! Why did Scenario C work so well?

      Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000... Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined; it represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and other trace gas emissions to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e., the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000.

      J. Hansen, I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, "Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model", J. Geophys. Res., vol. 93, pp. 9341, 1988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341

    25. Re:Models compared to reality by sycodon · · Score: 1
      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    26. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit. The chart came from one Dr. Roy Spencer, who is not only a climatologist who has made a career out of claiming he's right and most scientists are wrong, but is also a noted creationist ("intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism" is my favorite quote from him on the topic).

      Here's a nice summation of how he fudged numbers in order to come up with that bogus chart: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

      To your point of "I may be wrong", let me say, yes.... yes you are.

      For those wanting a similar graph of models versus measured there is a graph from the IPCC AR5 report here. It shows models aren't as bad as the grandparent, but it DOES clearly show the last decade or more trending at the very low end of the models.

    27. Re:Models compared to reality by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Looking at your link, Sou say nothing about being an accredited Climatologist. In fact, there is no information at all other than her gender.

      So I guess your link is as invalid as you accuse his link of being.

      Appeal to authority is a double edged blade eh?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    28. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid you Huckleberry is the IPCC. Not Roy Spencer.

      And you have to love the person at HopWhopper: "Update: Today Roy Spencer responded below. I've now written another article explaining his deception a slightly different way. "

      LOL! Because she was fucking wrong in the first place! BTW, she's a blogger. If we are to go with the usual appeal to authority that comes from you people, she'd be dismissed out of hand.

    29. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you don't understand what "adjusted values" mean. You see, doctored data and adjusted data are two completely different things. What they did was adjusting the data, what you propose is doctoring the data (i.e.: made up data). The model predictions are correct within their error margins (i.e.: the temperatures are rising). But you have to discount solar activity if you want to measure up to what point we, humans, are being responsible for that rise in temperatures. That's adjusting data (adjusting for solar activity, in this particular example). That's not, in any way, the same as reading the temperature then forgetting about what the thermometer says and writing down whatever value you see fit. That's not adjusting your data.

    30. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this argument all the time but it itself is invalid.

      It amounts to saying that because A is not a valid argument, then the inference provided by the invalid argument is false.

      That's not true.

      A invalid argument can provide false and true statements. That means the argument isn't useful in providing true prepositions, but it doesn't mean all the produced statements are false.

    31. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never mentioned adjusting data (although that may have also occurred), according to the person who created those charts they adjusted the parameters of the model. Stop wasting peoples time.

    32. Re:Models compared to reality by radtea · · Score: 1

      Those are great links. Thanks for posting them. But they appear to show the models almost exactly as bad as the the grandparent: both indicate reality is at the very bottom of the model prediction distribution. It's unfortunate that the grandparent is from such a sketchy source, as it demonstrates greater respect for the principles of visual display of information. It shows one thing, it shows it well, and axis that people care about (the vertical) is given reasonable scaling instead of being compressed away by cramming in multiple additional graphs.

      Furthermore, consider the lameness of the first claim in the AR5 chapter you like: "Predictions for averages of temperature, over large regions of the planet and for the global mean, exhibit positive skill when verified against observations for forecast periods up to ten years"

      This sounds good, until you realize that the best thing that can be said of the models' predictive capacity is that it is better than chance. That is what "positive skill means", and that is all it means.

      As someone who has worked in predictive modelling, this is something that people only say when their model has no practical predictive utility. It is easy to get models that show results that are by any measure many standard deviations away from chance, but that are still completely useless for the kind of predictions required by policy makers. To take a trivial concrete example: a model that tells you to "drive east" when your destination is in fact in the eastern half-plane will give results that are far better than chance (which would be driving in any random direction) but it will only rarely get you anywhere close to where you want to go.

      The report goes on to list a variety of positive results with varying confidence, but none of them add up to "predictively useful for policy makers" and that's for global and large-scale regional climate. Local climates--which are what we really care about--are far harder to predict.

      This is not to say that models are bad science or "global warming is a hoax" or any such nonsense. There is fairly strong evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a significant contributor to climate change by adding 0.3% to Earth's heat budget at the surface, and that anthropogenic aerosols are likely removing about 0.1% of the effective insolation at the surface, for a net 0.2% gain. These conclusions come from observations on the ocean heat budget, the temporal distribution of warming (which is greater at night than in the day, for example, ruling out solar variation) and the geographic distribution of the warming. It's possible to say all of this--and so have fairly high confidence that humans are having a significant impact on Earth's climate--but still not have much of a clue how the highly non-linear climate system is going to respond in the near or long term.

      In some ways, because our economic systems are relatively fine-tuned to the historical climate, which we can predict will undergo fairly significant variation even if we don't know precisely where or what, the details of the future climate matter less than the high confidence it is going to change. We should be investing in robust systems, or we will be facing a significant, ongoing global recession as climate conditions trash economic assumptions.

      But claims like the one in TFA are necessarily strongly dependent on model details, and while it's an interesting study, it was done by climatologists, not computational physicists, and that shows in the excessive confidence they place in the detailed model results.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    33. Re:Models compared to reality by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is worth looking at why model C seems to track. It isn't being takes seriously as-is because we know the conditions it assumed did not happen. CFCs were sharply cut and some effort has been put towards methane and NOx, but there hasn't been a net reduction in CO2.

      It is most probable that there is a CO2 or thermal sink that hasn't been accounted for. It could be huge or it could be just about full.

      Part of the problem is that the deniers give the impression (to the scientists) that they will sit on their ass till the sea rises enough to float their chair unless the prediction is unmitigated disaster. So there is a tendency to report the worst case scenario.

      In fact, I suspect that as long as there's money to be made by the deniers, Jesus could appear before them personally and explain it and they wouldn't believe him either.

      In between are a bunch of people not sure who to believe.

    34. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why you are aligned against the "deniers" since the data best fits the a priori predictions of a model wherein the net forcing has been constant regardless of the CO2 being measured. Evidence you are onto something doesn't get much better than that. Assumptions being made may point to some kind of disaster but the data and best model do not. Why stick with the assumptions?

    35. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Those are great links. Thanks for posting them. But they appear to show the models almost exactly as bad as the the grandparent: both indicate reality is at the very bottom of the model prediction distribution. It's unfortunate that the grandparent is from such a sketchy source, as it demonstrates greater respect for the principles of visual display of information. It shows one thing, it shows it well, and axis that people care about (the vertical) is given reasonable scaling instead of being compressed away by cramming in multiple additional graphs.

      Furthermore, consider the lameness of the first claim in the AR5 chapter you like

      I couldn't agree more with you, my liking for the chapter though is mostly for the graph, which rather strikingly shows a high end bias, thus far, on model predictions versus reality. It also shows the models making rather modest projections on short term temperature change, temperatures would need to stay static for the next 20 plus years still to even get outside the low end error bars of model predictions... Science soundly and emphatically suggesting the catastrophic alarmists are as anti-science as those they are attacking.

      This sounds good, until you realize that the best thing that can be said of the models' predictive capacity is that it is better than chance. That is what "positive skill means", and that is all it means.

      As someone who has worked in predictive modelling, this is something that people only say when their model has no practical predictive utility. It is easy to get models that show results that are by any measure many standard deviations away from chance, but that are still completely useless for the kind of predictions required by policy makers.

      Thanks for adding this, as again I couldn't agree more. I've played around with modelling for plasma physics just a bit and that really crushes my opinion of anyone placing to heavy an emphasis on current climate modelling. With the enormous number of variables that climate models must gloss over or approximate, and the sparsity of test data to compare runs against you just can NOT claim high confidence in most of what is being done today. It's not unscientific as you point out to be trying, nor is it without merit. But the limitations on what we can do is pretty huge, and pushing that back is very, very hard work and claiming otherwise is a sign you are dishonest or don't know what you are about.

    36. Re:Models compared to reality by sjames · · Score: 1

      Did you read the part about how the necessary conditions the model was based on weren't met so it can only be a thermal or CO2 sink? Or the part about how the temperature rise after 2000 is and remains non-zero?

      I wake up one morning feeling dizzy. I know that disorientation training for the space program causes dizziness. Conclusion, I joined the space program in my sleep. The data fits perfectly!

      Or perhaps since I am still in bed I should consider a different explanation. Perhaps I should take my temperature and consider seeing a doctor.

    37. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not familiar with the exact workings of the model but the code will not have anything that must be specifically tied to CO2. There may be something *named* "CO2 forcing" in the code but it could just as well be something else that was attributed to CO2 because it was around the assumed magnitude of that effect.

      Or, as you said there could be some kind of thermal sink, etc that is closely tracking the CO2. Many possibilities that would need to be checked. Regardless of what it is, the success of that model indicates relatively stable "greenhouse forcing" as was predicted by that scenario. Since this disagrees with other data, the conclusion would seem to be that we are missing some major piece of the puzzle.

      Also, your point works for vague predictions not being useful. I agree very strongly with this. However, precise a priori predictions (eg Hansen et al 1988's Scenario C) are as informative as they get.

    38. Re:Models compared to reality by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Even if it was true, a decade is literally a single data point in climate change analysis. Climate change is not local weather, it's not monthly predictions or even year to year values. About the smallest relative measure of time used in studying global climate change is roughly a decade. Any average data point less than a decade has a higher probability of being noise than actual average climate data. The climate models they are looking at do make predictions on the year to year stuff, but mainly as trends, but at an accuracy levels that's about as good as your local weatherman predicting weather 10 days from now. They can do it, but if you rely on it you are a fool because noise and random events have more local bearing than the trend. But once you get out to looking at climate change at the decade level the noise in the system is mitigated and the real data and trends become apparent. At that decade level the planet has been warming consistently and at an increasing rate since the industrial revolution.

      And even at that the models are an estimation. There are IMO massive aspects of climate change that the models don't address because the systems aren't fully understood and in some case aren't understood at all. Inter-ocean currents that help regulate global temperatures are not understood very well, certainly not the same level as say wind patterns. Though we understand the basic mechanism we don't really understand the extent or how the climate change will affect them. As a result there are portions of the models inputs that are simply guesswork and will be refined as time goes on and more data is developed that will allow them to better tune the models. That in fact is the scariest thing about climate change, which is that our models could be completely wrong, in the wrong direction. Best case scenario is the oceans are able to absorb much of the additional heat with very little impact to global climate. Worst case is the model vastly underestimate the impacts of these inputs and in fact the consequences of global climate change are far more severe than predicted. For example, not a single model predicts much more than a gradual but small decline in the glaciers in Antarctica which will cause relatively minor sea level increases. If the models are wrong and in reality those glaciers melt, much of the worlds population is going to be displaced as sea levels increase 100's of feet (30+ meters).

      Some say the models are alarmist. Others fear they aren't alarmist enough. Only time will really show how good the models are. But don't think even a decade of data contradictory to the models (not that there is mind you, that's a common myth others have addressed) is relevant, because a single data point isn't a prediction of a trend or even useful as an evaluation of the predictions. By the time 2030 rolls around we'll have tuned the models to be pretty good predictors, likely even of year to year trends. But if the models predictions are dire at that point and we haven't made reductions in C02 levels by that time, we may have already damned ourselves and our grandchildren to the worst climate change can offer. And that worst is a pretty scary future where humanity destroys itself in a fight over dwindling food and resources and displaced people.

    39. Re:Models compared to reality by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except it suggests that we are filling a reservoir and that once full we may expect the rate of warming to increase. It still suggests that we had best cut our emissions before we get into serious problems. It could also be serious trouble if the reservoir is carbonic acid formation in the ocean.

      I can say that the model would necessarily have a parameter for CO2 level and a function to determine it's level as the model evolved. If the real world doesn't match the evolution of the CO2 in the model, all bets are off and we can't really say what (if anything) the model is telling us.

    40. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Even if it was true, a decade is literally a single data point in climate change analysis. Climate change is not local weather, it's not monthly predictions or even year to year values. About the smallest relative measure of time used in studying global climate change is roughly a decade. Any average data point less than a decade has a higher probability of being noise than actual average climate data. The climate models they are looking at do make predictions on the year to year stuff, but mainly as trends, but at an accuracy levels that's about as good as your local weatherman predicting weather 10 days from now. They can do it, but if you rely on it you are a fool because noise and random events have more local bearing than the trend. But once you get out to looking at climate change at the decade level the noise in the system is mitigated and the real data and trends become apparent. At that decade level the planet has been warming consistently and at an increasing rate since the industrial revolution.

      And even at that the models are an estimation. There are IMO massive aspects of climate change that the models don't address because the systems aren't fully understood and in some case aren't understood at all. Inter-ocean currents that help regulate global temperatures are not understood very well, certainly not the same level as say wind patterns. Though we understand the basic mechanism we don't really understand the extent or how the climate change will affect them. As a result there are portions of the models inputs that are simply guesswork and will be refined as time goes on and more data is developed that will allow them to better tune the models. That in fact is the scariest thing about climate change, which is that our models could be completely wrong, in the wrong direction. Best case scenario is the oceans are able to absorb much of the additional heat with very little impact to global climate. Worst case is the model vastly underestimate the impacts of these inputs and in fact the consequences of global climate change are far more severe than predicted. For example, not a single model predicts much more than a gradual but small decline in the glaciers in Antarctica which will cause relatively minor sea level increases. If the models are wrong and in reality those glaciers melt, much of the worlds population is going to be displaced as sea levels increase 100's of feet (30+ meters).

      Some say the models are alarmist. Others fear they aren't alarmist enough. Only time will really show how good the models are. But don't think even a decade of data contradictory to the models (not that there is mind you, that's a common myth others have addressed) is relevant, because a single data point isn't a prediction of a trend or even useful as an evaluation of the predictions. By the time 2030 rolls around we'll have tuned the models to be pretty good predictors, likely even of year to year trends. But if the models predictions are dire at that point and we haven't made reductions in C02 levels by that time, we may have already damned ourselves and our grandchildren to the worst climate change can offer. And that worst is a pretty scary future where humanity destroys itself in a fight over dwindling food and resources and displaced people.

      "Even if this were true?", this is from the IPCC report, you know, the team that was awarded a noble prize for their work on climate change. And you are right, in climate change a decade should be viewed as a single data point. When it comes to assessing modern climate models, we have only that one data point. So it can also be viewed as 100% of the data points we have. It also means the instrumental record we compare our models to, have a grand total of 11-12 data points to compare to.

      Overall, if the models are being assessed, there's an awfull lot of reason to be cautious about placing to high a confidence in something we are just starting out with and still have serious challenges comparing/testing our results from.

    41. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it suggests that we are filling a reservoir and that once full we may expect the rate of warming to increase.

      Possible, but only speculation at this point.

      I can say that the model would necessarily have a parameter for CO2 level and a function to determine it's level as the model evolved. If the real world doesn't match the evolution of the CO2 in the model, all bets are off and we can't really say what (if anything) the model is telling us.

      I don't think we can say nothing... the success of the model is telling us "the greenhouse climate forcing [ceased] to increase after 2000". That is pretty vague, but not nothing. Anyway, I just found it odd no one is interested in investigating the success of that model. Also, if it is just a coincidence, it is easier than expected to accidentally get a good fit to temperatures for 30 subsequent years. That teaches us not to put much stock into any future correspondence between model and data. I don't see how that pair of conclusions can be escaped. Either it is telling us something important, or the current criteria for an accurate prediction is too low, and models assessed that way cannot tell us something important.

    42. Re:Models compared to reality by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Models compared with reality.

      The big problem with that chart is that all of the model runs start at 0 anomaly in 1983. There is no way all of those model runs just happened to be at 0 in 1983 so the comparison the chart makes is invalid.

    43. Re:Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      The climate models they are looking at do make predictions on the year to year stuff, but mainly as trends, but at an accuracy levels that's about as good as your local weatherman predicting weather 10 days from now. They can do it, but if you rely on it you are a fool because noise and random events have more local bearing than the trend. But once you get out to looking at climate change at the decade level the noise in the system is mitigated and the real data and trends become apparent ... even at that the models are an estimation. There are IMO massive aspects of climate change that the models don't address because the systems aren't fully understood and in some case aren't understood at all.

      I think I gave your post too much credit with my previous response. Your chunk here is decrying the state of the art climate models as severely as anyone I've heard...

      Worst case is the model vastly underestimate the impacts of these inputs and in fact the consequences of global climate change are far more severe than predicted. For example, not a single model predicts much more than a gradual but small decline in the glaciers in Antarctica which will cause relatively minor sea level increases. If the models are wrong and in reality those glaciers melt, much of the worlds population is going to be displaced as sea levels increase 100's of feet (30+ meters).

      If we are going to just entirely through out all the models and all of climate science we can claim whatever pleases us. Might as well include that we might be going into an ice age too. Then we can fret over what catastrophic glaciation we'll face if we don't maintain our CO2 emissions. Or we could, you know, stick with the scientific method and data...

      Some say the models are alarmist. Others fear they aren't alarmist enough. Only time will really show how good the models are... But if the models predictions are dire at that point and we haven't made reductions in C02 levels by that time, we may have already damned ourselves and our grandchildren to the worst climate change can offer. And that worst is a pretty scary future where humanity destroys itself in a fight over dwindling food and resources and displaced people.

      So you're argument is in essence that because of our ignorance of the consequences of actions, we should obviously be taking the action you recommend? Go ahead and start your own cult then, but don't come crying to anyone when the scientific community rejects all your hocus pocus as being nothing more than your own personal whim and fancy.

    44. Re:Models compared to reality by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Those are great links. Thanks for posting them. But they appear to show the models almost exactly as bad as the the grandparent: both indicate reality is at the very bottom of the model prediction distribution. It's unfortunate that the grandparent is from such a sketchy source, as it demonstrates greater respect for the principles of visual display of information. It shows one thing, it shows it well, and axis that people care about (the vertical) is given reasonable scaling instead of being compressed away by cramming in multiple additional graphs.

      Don't you think it's strange that all of the model runs start at the 0 anomaly point in 1983? There is no way the real model runs did that so they have been adjusted to all start there which makes the graph misleading.

    45. Re:Models compared to reality by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It also shows the models making rather modest projections on short term temperature change, temperatures would need to stay static for the next 20 plus years still to even get outside the low end error bars of model predictions.

      Those aren't error bars but rather confidence intervals. They encompass 95% of all individual model runs.

    46. Re:Models compared to reality by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's suspicious that all 90 model runs start at 0 anomaly in 1983. There is no way that's where they all started in reality which means the relationship between the different model run lines is incorrect.

    47. Re:Models compared to reality by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      One problem with Hansen's 1988 model is that it had and inherent climate sensitivity of about 4.2 degrees C whereas the currently most models have a sensitivity around 3.2 C. So while scenario C may match observations best it's obvious that what the scenario envisioned isn't what happened. If the sensitivity of Hansen88 were in the 3.2 C range then C would produce data well below the observations.

    48. Re:Models compared to reality by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the second link. I'm downloading the report now. The first only lead to another insufficiently defined graphic.

      OTOH, if you're just talking about the last decades worth of atmospheric warming, I think that's been adequately explained by "The ocean was warming instead" though it certainly would have been more convincing if they had predicted it in advance. Still, I often have to think a bit to figure out why programs that I write produce the results they do, even when the results are correct. (I'm only considering the cases where there aren't any bugs in the program.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    49. Re: Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      The first link is to an image of fig 11.9 from page 981 of the IPCC report in the second link. I thought I'd attributed as from the IPCC report prior but might've missed it. That's the page though for more info on the first link.

      The last decade being warming slower than expected has had explanations, but the more important metric of global energy imbalance hasn't trended up/down that decade either and the oceans have little to do with that end.

    50. Re:Models compared to reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to read the paper again, but if I remember correctly there is even a paragraph in there about designing it to essentially mimic some other ~30 years. It was either the period just prior to 1988 or just before that. As I said, I'd have to read it again to be sure but I don't think the situation was as you say. I recollect they were throwing in "random" events like volcanoes at a certain frequency to make it similar to the past.

    51. Re:Models compared to reality by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's not what I say, it's what Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen's colleague and successor as head of GISS says:

      Hansen et al, 1988

      Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2C for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3C) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower), and we see no need to amend that conclusion now.
      - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

      Schmidt should know so I'll take his word for it.

    52. Re: Models compared to reality by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'll keep an eye out for "energy imbalance" while reading the pdf(s?), but I *do* wonder how they measure that. Temperature I can understand, but energy imbalance seems like something that would either need to be estimated, or derived from a model.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re: Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      I'll keep an eye out for "energy imbalance" while reading the pdf(s?), but I *do* wonder how they measure that. Temperature I can understand, but energy imbalance seems like something that would either need to be estimated, or derived from a model.

      You'll find it at the top of chapter even in the bullet pointed summary/overview, with details later in the doc. Might be in a different chapter/pdf of the IPCC report, but it's based not on the models but from the CERES and other satellite top of atmosphere direct measurements of radiation in vs radiation out. If you go to the IPCC site and pull up the 5th assessment report it's in one of the chapters from the "Basic Science" report. The most important and real measure of our impact through CO2 emissions is going to show up most clearly here. As noted, temperature is gonna fluctuate a lot based on how much energy the oceans are absorbing/releasing but the radiation in and out imbalance is where the actual greenhouse effect is truly acting and taking place.

    54. Re: Models compared to reality by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Ahh... with that definition it makes sense.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    55. Re: Models compared to reality by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Just checked and it is in a different chapter. The IPCC 5th assessment has the observed energy balance discussed in Chapter 2: Observations: Surface and Atmosphere. The summary is as follows:

      Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have
      been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that
      significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets
      since 2000.

      Given the significant increase in measured anthropogenic GHGs over that same time frame and the estimated forcing(greenhouse effect), we should be a little surprised at this result. More importantly, we should be seriously expecting the energy imbalance to track more closely over time in the future and in the long term. If the non trend stretches into a second decade, I expect a whole lot of new research into that to dominate. Our modelling exercises will be rather irrelevant if the primary input(forcings/energy imbalance) stops matching with observations.

  5. It's ok though. No need to panic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California is a different planet anyway!

  6. So what? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    My real estate is inland on a mountain.

    Just make it legal for me to shoot the beach heads when they start to sink and I'm a-ok with saying that there is no global warming.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. "Linked/tied to climate change" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any two trending time series will be correlated. These links don't mean anything substantial has been detected. Predict something precise then it is worth paying attention.
    http://www.tylervigen.com/

    1. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The paper 'concludes' that AGW increases the risk of drought, but does not tie the recent droughts specifically to AGW as the submitter suggests. That is just an assumption.

    2. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And i wonder if it is not a completely incorect assumption. Wasn't there a study last summer stating the heat in the north west was because of changes in ocean currents and not global warming. I have a hard time thinking the drought in california is not unrelated. The weather there as well as for most of the US west is largely dependant on the pacific ocean.

    3. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are making the assumption that the changes in ocean currents are unrelated to global warming. This is likely to be an incorrect assumption, as the ocean has become considerably warmer recently. Another factor is the weakening of the jet stream which is clearly tied to the Arctic warming faster than the equator. (The jet stream is driven by tempertature differences, much more than by their absolute value for any small change.)

      OTOH, you're never going to prove that any one particular weather, or even seasonal, change is tied to climate. There's too much variation. Climate is basically a mean of several years weather, and there's not even an agreement over how many years should go into calculating the mean. (Of course that's arguing about words rather than about physical happenings, but people are good at that.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Climate is basically a mean of several years weather, and there's not even an agreement over how many years should go into calculating the mean

      I don't know who told you that, but that's definitely NOT correct. Weather is a local phenomenon, climate is a global phenomenon. That's the difference. It's not about time spans, it's about scope. For instance: the temperature in Columbus, Ohio, is weather. The mean temperature of the planet in February 2015 is climate.

    5. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      What? The water in the Grand Canyon went on with the river that carved it- the river that is TILL THERE and still running today.
        Or are you so uneducated that you think the Grand Canyon was a giant lake instead of carved over millions of years by a river?

    6. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not making any assumption not made by the study. You can google for it. Or i can later when not pisting from my phone and post a link. Hell, slashdot even ran a story on it so you can just search slashdot.

      Btw, i think it linked volcanic activity and natural current fluctuation but its been so long since i readabout it i could be wrong.

    7. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by HiThere · · Score: 1

      As I said, people are good at arguing about words.

      The way I have always used the word it had to do with long term average weather phenomena. This is complicated because you need to also allow for seasons. That's also the way it was used in the books I used in school, when they bothered to define it. (Usually they didn't, but by context that was what they meant. And they didn't use terms like "long term average" because the ones that bothered to define climate were intended to high school sophomores.) But it's OK with me if you use the word to mean something different as long as you define it clearly.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:"Linked/tied to climate change" by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there have been a lot of papers on global warming. If you mean http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... I've just downloaded it to study. If you *do* mean something else, a link would be best.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    In the example of fossil fuels, recently the price worldwide has dropped markedly.

    Despite this, consumption has dropped.

    Your claim may be obvious, but "obvious" in the same way as it's "Obvious the sky is a dome above our heads".

    1. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Over the short term something like that can happen. In the case of oil a lot of the buying was stockpiling with the expectation that prices would rise again.

    2. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Except there are articles stating that when the price of oil fell, SUV sales shot up.
      https://www.google.com/search?...
      Perhaps it simply takes a while.

      Downwards pressure on fossil fuel usage is mostly from green policies govt or business.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    3. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fossil fuels, recently the price worldwide has dropped markedly.

      Despite this, consumption has dropped.

      Errr.... prices dropped because DEMAND dropped. And why did demand drop? Because consumption dropped.

      It's cause and effect... and the opposite way around to what your post implies.

    4. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there are articles stating that when the price of oil fell, SUV sales shot up.
      https://www.google.com/search?...
      Perhaps it simply takes a while.

      Downwards pressure on fossil fuel usage is mostly from green policies govt or business.

      Prices also fell right when the next years models were being released. You have to also take into account they may have been better offerings than last year.

    5. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      part of the drop in fossil fuels is places like the West and Northeast switching to renewable fuels. we also are using transit more and walking and biking to work more.

      Adapt or die. We already are. Your old fossil fuel subsidized ways are over.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    6. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over the short term something like that can happen. In the case of oil a lot of the buying was stockpiling with the expectation that prices would rise again.

      And those who were already considering or have purchased a more fuel-efficient vehicle weren't likely to suddenly swap it for a gas guzzler instead.

    7. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      suvs are not what they used to be. many have over 30 MPG now a days. while you are correct. fuel use is still down

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      the main cause of the drop is the middle east trying to push the shale oil companies out of business

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      2010 Toyota V6 RAV4 here. Rated 19 city / 27 Hwy. (4 cylinder is rated for 22 city / 28 Hwy). At best, if I remain under 60Mph, I can hold 32 MPG with cruise control. Though for be past year driving, my average MPG driving around Houston has been 24 MPG. That 30 MPG while doable, is under the best of conditions with no stop-and-go traffic and flat terrain. And while a hybrid will make that figure more reasonable, the ROI for paying the extra delta coast for the feature is most likely longer than 10 years anyways; which may not be worth it unless you either plan on keeping the car that long, or gas prices more than double.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Also, supply is up. The US has been stockpiling oil. Now our reserves are full so our output is hitting the open market, causing a glut.

    11. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, higher efficiencies tend to _increase_ resource use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

    12. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      30mpg is not good fuel economy, 60+mpg is ok.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yep. Hopefully they will learn from this mistake, and not jack prices up after they do that. Jacking the prices up artificially, creates room for alternate supplies.

    14. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If the US government didn't WANT low oil prices they would buy up the surplus oil and stick it in the Emergency reserve stockpile they keep. And next year they can sell the oil back at $120 a barrel and make a proffit on the whole deal.

    15. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Errr.... prices dropped because DEMAND dropped. And why did demand drop? Because consumption dropped

      Wrong . . . Prices dropped because SUPPLY rose. And why did supply rise? Because prices rose enough to make hard-to-get oil worth investing in. So, don't expect prices to stay low when fracking investments, etc. decline.

    16. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      when only 10 years ago SUVs were doing 10-15 MPG, yes. it is a huge improvement. Ive never even owned a car that got better than 27

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    17. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      No, the US and the Saudis are trying to put ISIL out of business. Most of ISIL's income comes from illegal oil sales. Flooding the market with cheap crude has pulled the rug out from under them.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    18. Re: Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting the sky is not a dome?

    19. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US government didn't WANT low oil prices they would buy up the surplus oil and stick it in the Emergency reserve stockpile they keep. And next year they can sell the oil back at $120 a barrel and make a proffit on the whole deal.

      Who gives a monkeys fuck what the frigging US government wants bunch of breed tossers ..

       

    20. Re:Evidence indicates otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30mpg is not good fuel economy, 60+mpg is ok.

      By whose metric? I'd be surprised if even a diesel could get that reliably and hybrids pollute excessively in a different fashion (you think those batteries just grow out of the ground?)

  9. Why don't we rename Slashdot to ClimateDot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Every other day is AGW pushing BS

    1. Re:Why don't we rename Slashdot to ClimateDot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can make that spin-off after TeslaDot and SJWDot are launched.

  10. Droughts = Cold by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some insights....I grew up in San Diego, droughts were fairly common.

    I returned to southern California for school, and was there for the last half of the nineties, you know...those uber-hot years. Guess what, we were getting more rain those hot years. People were talking about the decades old drought finally coming to an end.

    Than it began to get cooler again, and the droughts returned. For your info, droughts, deserts, etc are often tied to global cooling. Cooler global temperatures lock up moisture as ice. Resulting in increased ice caps, but also increased equatorial deserts.

    Higher temperatures result in a much more humid global climate. Greener, greater moisture content. So when I see all the references to droughts. I think global cooling, not global warming.

    While that is climate change. It's Earth, the climate is always changing - I'd be more afraid if it wasn't. The earth has experienced far cooler periods, and periods that were twenty degrees hotter than today. Life continued and thrived.

    1. Re:Droughts = Cold by rwa2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Plus, if it was legitimate AGW, the Earth would have natural ways to shut the whole thing down.

    2. Re:Droughts = Cold by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Hotter means more evaporation -- both from the ocean, and from already arid areas.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:Droughts = Cold by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the water goes when it evaporates?

    4. Re:Droughts = Cold by thaylin · · Score: 2

      Actually, that is not even remotely correct. Deserts, and droughts, in cali are caused by cold ocean currents that drive rain elsewhere and the rainshadow effect. It is an odd double wammy with 2 the 3 deserts causing effect.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      It has nothing to do with global cooling, however warming does make it worse because warmer air can hold more mositure and thus takes longer to saturate to the point of rainfall.

      The otehr cause of the deserts being the land is too far inland for the moisture to consistently make it there.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Droughts = Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gold!

    6. Re:Droughts = Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you think the water goes when it evaporates?

      Argentina.

    7. Re:Droughts = Cold by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the water goes when it evaporates?

      It vanishes into thin air...

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    8. Re:Droughts = Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe its time to re-evaluate:

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...

      This winters arctic ice is trending towards a record low. Perhaps you should decouple drought = cooling in your mind or at the very least try to come up with some other justification besides "moisture is captured in ice caps". At the very least you got that part wrong.

    9. Re:Droughts = Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the oceans are no longer part of global warming? When did that happen?

    10. Re:Droughts = Cold by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Your question makes absolutely no sense, can you clarify it?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    11. Re:Droughts = Cold by colin_faber · · Score: 1

      Actually in colder climates water sublimates. And to the GP's point, one of the driest parts of the world is in polar regions.

    12. Re:Droughts = Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but global cooling doesn't affect anything, only global warming, apparently.

    13. Re:Droughts = Cold by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      one of the driest parts of the world is in polar regions.

      Well, that depends on what you mean by "dry".

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    14. Re:Droughts = Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try our new Arctic maxi-pads! Will keep you drive as an glacier! (Warning: May cause frostbite.)

    15. Re: Droughts = Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait...

      "that is not even remotely correct. Deserts, and droughts, in cali are caused by cold ocean current"

      And how does that NOT reinforce my statement - you just said cold (ocean currents) cause droughts.

      How does that in any way repudiate my statement that drought conditions are in fact more tied to cold?

      LOLZ

    16. Re:Droughts = Cold by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You're incredibly wrong. Droughts are caused by a lack of precipitation in an area. That's it. What causes that lack of precipitation depends on the particular instance, and can take many different forms, as weather patterns and the larger climate in general are very complicated.

      Yes, the climate changes, but it's never changed this quickly before without an asteroid smacking in to the planet and killing off great swathes of the population in the process. Life didn't thrive - it bounced back over millions of years after massive chunks of the ecosystem were gouged out, taking new forms in the process.

      You can think "global cooling" when you hear droughts all you want, but that simply reflects poorly on your education, not on the science which thoroughly contradicts your claims.

    17. Re:Droughts = Cold by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You are right but droughts can also be exacerbated by higher temperatures causing the soil to dry out faster and more completely. That has been a factor in the current California drought.

  11. Sucks for farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here I am sitting in shorts and a t-shit while the rest of the country is shoveling snow off of their sidewalks.

    It's been great for recreation but about once a week I ride up over the dam that contains the artificial Shasta Lake that is the source of Cali's main waterway, the Sacramento river. It's low. Really low. Worse, the snowpacks that feed it would not even be back to normal without five or six years of what's considered normal precipitation.

    Stil, that's not the real problem. The real problem is almost entirely political.

    We've been through more water scares than any other state in the nation. Back in the 70s and 80s the population centers have done the water rationing dance and per-person use is quite low compared to what it was. We can't squeeze any more water savings there.

    Agriculture uses 75% of the water in california (Yes far more than municipal and industrial COMBINED), and the distribution of such is just plain fucked up. 100 year old water rights agreements let certain farmers suck the water dry in a manner that is neither fair nor efficient. We can grow plenty here with much less water that's currently being used. But we can't because of a fucked-up love triangle between rural farmers, rural politicians, and agreements that were signed more than a century ago - A time when you could drain a lake or divert a river and nobody would blink because water was plentiful and concern for the environment was everyone's last priority.

    It gets weirder still.

    Turns out much of the water in this state also comes from only recently understood vast underground aquifers.. And they're drying up. Turns our recent legal precedent lets management of underground aquifers trump water rights agreements if said aquifers are affected by water consumption.. So there's an end run around these ancient laws that are causing problems.

    1. Re:Sucks for farmers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Ca has almost no inter year snow pack. Where did you pull the 'five or six years' from?

      Water rights law is much more complicated then you realize. Environment water rights were back dated by the courts and are senior to all others.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Sucks for farmers by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By agriculture, you mean livestock.. Livestock soak up 50% of CA's water use. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120915/american-west-drought-being-worsened-livestock-industry

    3. Re:Sucks for farmers by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      CA gets a ton of their water from Colorado mountain snowpack via a pipeline. They also get a ton of their river via the Colorado River which is fed by NM, Co, UT, and Wy snowpack. That is the snowpack referred to.

    4. Re:Sucks for farmers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      S Cal gets a minority of their water from the Colorado river.

      N Cal gets none of its water from the Colorado.

      Have you ever been in Colorado/Idaho etc in Late summer. There is little snow there ether. More then CA, but still not enough to claim it will take years to recover.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Sucks for farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, by agriculture you mean WINERIES. Have you ever been to CA?

  12. climate drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not climate change, it's “climate drivers” that are doing it.

  13. Been There Done That. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    CA has experienced droughts worse than this in the past.

    News for ya, CA is mostly a desert.

    1. Re:Been There Done That. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      yes....hundreds if not thousands of years ago, and caused by reasons unknown.
      that however doesn't mean this current drought isn't climate change related, just like the argument that "it was warmer before" doesn't negate global warming now.

      the immediate cause of this current drought is known: for several years in a row now the snowpack of the Sierras has not been replenished.

      Overall yearly precipitation, including general rainfall is down, far lower than normal. But even in "dry" years with little or no rain, the state generally gets by as the majority of its water supply from the snowpack melting throughout the year. So while a lack of rain primarily impacts the fire season, it is still survivable. But a repeated a lack of winter snows in the mountains is devastating.

      And the question is then "what's causing the lack of snow?"

      The weather patterns usually bring in moisture laden air over the winter that dumps in the Sierras. But lately those patterns have been dry.
      And if that can be linked to the planet's warming, then the case starts to be made. the hurricane season was less the past year as well, and those are also dependent on moisture laden air

    2. Re:Been There Done That. by Hussman32 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you RTA linked above, it discusses multiple droughts of durations varying from 10 to 20 years within the last 1,000 years, well within our current 10,000 warm period. These droughts occurred since, for example, the establishment of Heidelberg University, but after the establishment of the Farmer's Almanac.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    3. Re:Been There Done That. by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      try hundreds OF thousands of years ago.

    4. Re:Been There Done That. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? This is your argument? "We don't know what caused it before but we know what causes it now"?

      If you don't know the past cause, you can't rule that out as a current cause.

      And Hurricanes? WTF? It was only the other day you morons were claiming AGW causes MORE Hurricanes!

      I have to hand it to you people. You have a theory that explains everything. Physicists are envious.

    5. Re:Been There Done That. by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      It was CO2 from the native indian's fires.

    6. Re:Been There Done That. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is mostly semi-arid. And if you don't know the difference, you need to go back to grade school.

  14. Isn't this a bit obvious... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 0

    Climate change means temps go up and temps can go down. Drought happens, and heavy rains happen. That is the climate changing for sure.

    Don't be surprised when the next ice age hits. Weather is all about change. The question is how quickly humans adapt or not.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    1. Re:Isn't this a bit obvious... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Weather != Climate

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Isn't this a bit obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except in this case when it supports man made global warming, and therefore weather DOES = climate right?

    3. Re:Isn't this a bit obvious... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the fucking article?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Isn't this a bit obvious... by 0dugo0 · · Score: 1

      Climate is the 30 year average weather, both are subject to change.

    5. Re:Isn't this a bit obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Climate is the 30 year average weather, both are subject to change.

      That's why these articles are a complete joke. 30 years when our planet has existed for millions and they have the audacity to think their predictions are accurate.

    6. Re:Isn't this a bit obvious... by dywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ignoring your rather simplistic (and wrong) view of science and weather, I'll just say this: California is an easier case to investigate.

      Other states are much more dependent on rainfall for their water, and those rain patterns come from many sources. Such as plains states getting systems out of the Rockies, up from the Gulf, down from the Arctic, and even occasionally from the eastern seaboard if a big hurricane or nor'easter rolls in.

      But California is different. It's not reliant on multiple sources and patterns for its water supply, and it isn't actually very reliant on rain fall throughout the year.
      Rather, the majority of California's water supply comes from one predictable source, the Sierra snowpack, in a predictable yearly cycle.

      In Cali the snowpack is refreshed every Winter between (roughly) mid-December and April 1st by moisture laden air coming in off the ocean. That snow then melts through the rest of the year, supplying the state with the overwhelming majority of its water.

      So while droughts in general are increasing and that is in general attributed to warming, the variability of the weather patterns that supply various areas of the country make pinpointing the source of particular droughts difficult. But because California's cycle is much simpler the backtracking of causes and effects becomes much easier.

      And while the winter weather patterns have been there, the air has been dry, unusually dry, leading to almost no snowfall, leading to this horrible drought. So while the state is a very dry state in terms of rainfall and precipitation, the abundance of the snowpack meant they could overcome that and still be able to sustain much agriculture because people are good at engineering and building irrigation canals.

      California is rightly proud of the efficacy of its statewide irrigation system (we can debate the pros and cons of the system and its impact on nature and people all day long, but as far getting water to crops, it does its job very well). But that system is still ultimately dependent on the snowpack.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    7. Re:Isn't this a bit obvious... by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the oceans will need to get considerably warmer before the next ice age happens, unless a chain of volcanos lets off (as the deccan trapps once did).

      FWIW, as the temperature difference between the poles and the equator decreased the jet streams slowed. This makes it more likely of a weather patten to squat in one place and not move. This gives either hot and dry or cold and dry or hot and really wet or cold and icy...but a decrease in weather that rapidly changes from one variety to another...which means the percieved weather becomes more extreme.
      That paragraph was in the simple past because it's describing what has been happening in the last several years. Predictions are that this will continue and the jet stream will get even slower as the Arctic continues to warm faster than the equator. So global warming causes both increased hot spells and increased cold spells and increased flooding and increased drought...just not all in the same place. And only the average temperature increases, and that not enough to be quickly measureable.

      Sorry, complex systems defy simple analysis.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  15. What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 0

    compare historical predictions for anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic historical climates

    For a while now I've been asking adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to provide examples of just such predictions and so far nobody could manage... There are plenty of predictions that failed to materialize, and plenty of attempts to, sort of, "retroactively predict" some observed phenomena. But I have so far seen no mention of anything, that was predicted first and materialized later...

    Can you offer a list of pairs of links: with the first link pointing at a quantifiable prediction and the second — at evidence of it materializing within, say, 80% of the predicted figure(s)?

    The prediction and the materialization should be a few years apart (that is, successful prediction of tomorrow's rain does not count). Anybody up for it?

    (Note, that any responses without at least one such pair of links may be returned unopened.)

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:What "historical predictions"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why pairs of links? You can see it all in a one-er here:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/

      Where they've put your information together, from the results to the model prediction on that one page, for many of the models.

    2. Re:What "historical predictions"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000"
      J. Hansen, I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, "Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model", J. Geophys. Res., vol. 93, pp. 9341, 1988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
      http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen121.jpg

      So of the scenarios proposed when this whole thing started the one that matches the data best is the one where forcings ceease to increase after 2000.

    3. Re:What "historical predictions"? by 0dugo0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Go ahead, return to sender, but sticking fingers in your ears whilst singing LALALA doesn't make it a good idea to keep using the atmosphere as dumping ground.

    4. Re:What "historical predictions"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mi, buddy, we do it all the time.

      You just ignore it and continue to spout your drivel, while still proclaiming "can someone just explain to me"....

      I mean seriously.
      You're a troll.
      This what you do.

      You come in here asking for an explanation, you then get one, but you proceed to argue with it (without basis in fact) or ignore it, and continue to claim no one can explain it.

      so is it any wonder no one wants to engage with you any longer?

    5. Re:What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 1

      so is it any wonder no one wants to engage with you any longer?

      Well, so far three people did, including yourself. But none offered the link-pairs... Could it be, because they just do not exist?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:What "historical predictions"? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe people are tired of leading a horse to water and have the horse deny the water even exists, while it does all it can to ensure future horses don't even get the chance.

      You honestly can't sit their and with all seriousness deny that something so easy to find exists, and expect people to take you seriously. You don't want to learn, otherwise you'd not be on slashdot complaining about your ignorance - you'd be out there fixing it, like a rational human being.

      Either you've already made your mind up, or you are doing the best impression of such a person I've seen in a while. You use all the right words to sound like a sceptic, but when you don't bother to accept evidence, you become a cynic.

    7. Re:What "historical predictions"? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      No they exist, I'm just tired of repeating myself to you.

      You want the links?

      Check your post history or mine or dave420's or I kan reed's, or any of a number of other people who've taken the time to fix your ignorance in the past.

      But we both know you wont do that, cause you're just a troll.
      you pretend to want information, while using that as a cover to spread your misinformation.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    8. Re:What "historical predictions"? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 1

      You want the links?

      Check your post history or mine or dave420's or I kan reed's, or any of a number of other people who've taken the time to fix your ignorance in the past.

      Nope. All of you tried to come up with a list, but none succeeded.

      And right here you are doing it — failing — again. Posting angry accusations (mixed with "me toos") instead of simply offering the requested link-pairs...

      But we both know you wont do that, cause you're just a troll.

      Proving me wrong would've been much easier for you, if you could just offer the links requested — instead of impotently claiming they exist — somewhere... As is typical for losers, who can not, you are faking a case of would not.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the Real Climate post did you. Regarding Hansen's model it said (my bold):

      Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) (doi) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2C for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3C) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower), and we see no need to amend that conclusion now. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

      So scenario C wouldn't match observations if the Hansen model had a sensitivity closer to current estimates.

    11. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Can you offer a list of pairs of links: with the first link pointing at a quantifiable prediction and the second — at evidence of it materializing within, say, 80% of the predicted figure(s)?

      At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for. Good luck.

    12. Re:What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 0

      At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for.

      I am not a particularly involved student of this field, so my links would be of the popular kind, for which I apologize in advance. But here it is:

      1. In 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicted that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". It is now 2015 and there has not been a snow-free winter in the UK since. Some were particularly snowy: 2014-15, 20122010-11.
      2. In 2004 there was a prediction, that "Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years". We are now half-way through that prediction, so it might still come to pass. But in 2014 Scotland had its snowiest winter in 69 years and the skiing industry is striving.
      3. In 2007 BBC published a prediction of ice-free Arctic on or before 2013 by an American climate scientist stating (repeated by Al Gore in 2008). 2013 came and went, but there has not been a single ice-free summer in the Arctic ocean.

      Now, I'm not prepared to argue the validity of the above claims — all you asked for were samples of what I'm looking for.

      Of course, your samples would have to be valid — because you want me (and the rest of humanity) to change our way of life. The burden of proof is thus on you.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Even though you're not prepared to argue the validity of your claims I'm going to comment on them and let you know how I look at it.

      Re Dr. David Viner. The source for that wasn't a peer reviewed published paper but an interview with a journalist. I take any journalists interpretation of what a scientist said with a grain of salt. Also, the article quotes Viner as saying snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event." So he wasn't saying it would never snow, just that snowfalls would become rarer. Someone could dig through the records to determine if that were true.

      Re Skiing in Scotland. Again, not peer reviewed science but a story by a journalist. The full quote of what you excerpted is:

      With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.

      Note they aren't saying all climate change experts.

      To really know you'd have to go through the data to see what the trends are in the Scottish Ski industry.

      When I see stuff like that in stories I say "Yea, ok, maybe but show me the science."

      The ice free prediction by Maslowski was peer reviewed science but it was at odds with a lot of other predictions at the time. The IPCC reports of the time estimated the Arctic Ocean would be ice free (defined as less than 1 million km^2 of sea ice) sometime after 2040. Another scientist in the story, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge is quoted as saying:

      "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

      So while Maslowski's projection may not be correct it was far from the only scientific opinion about it at the time.

      I guess I would say you need to take a more nuanced view of these things instead of leaping on the worst case scenarios they envision.

      I'll see if I can rustle up some predictions for you but it might take a while and have to wait for the next time we engage.

    14. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's a twofer in one paper that compares observations to IPCC projections for temperatures and sea level rise. The temperature projection turns out to be pretty good and observed sea level rise is at the top end of the projections.

      Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011

    15. Re:What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 0

      The source for that wasn't a peer reviewed published paper but an interview with a journalist.

      That's fine — I don't insist, your examples must come from a scientific magazine either.

      So he wasn't saying it would never snow

      He did say: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". That means, it was not going to snow — in his opinion.

      The ice free prediction by Maslowski was peer reviewed science but it was at odds with a lot of other predictions at the time.

      Didn't prevent Al Gore from parroting it, did it? But fine, you can quote predictions, which were likewise disapproved by the predictor's peers at the time too.

      So while Maslowski's projection may not be correct it was far from the only scientific opinion about it at the time.

      In other words, contrary to frequent assertions, the science is not settled.

      Ok, here's a twofer

      I'm giving up... Just how can you call a single link a "twofer"? I gave you — and not for the first time — an example of the format:

      1. Prediction of foo happening made in year XXXX. Foo happening N years later.

      Is it really so hard?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Gore said the could be gone by 2013. not that it would be gone. What is settled about Arctic sea ice is that it's disappearing. You won't find cryologists arguing that it isn't. The exact rate it's going to disappear is subject to some discussion.

      Did you even bother to read the iop paper I sent you? It compares observations to IPCC projections. In other words it give you the example of projections that the IPCC made in 2001 and 2007 regarding temperature and sea level rise then compared them to actual observations. Isn't that what you want? What difference does it make that it's all in one link? Is that really so hard to understand?

    17. Re:What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 0

      What is settled about Arctic sea ice is that it's disappearing.

      Well, if it were "settled", there would've been a scientific theory behind it. And for anything to be a scientific theory, it needs to (among other things) be testable — and, indeed, tested — confirmed by exactly the method I'm describing: making predictions and confirming them.

      Worse (for you) — a scientific theory also needs to be falsifiable (also known as "refutable") — but not, actually, refuted... This "settled science" of yours is wanting in both of these requirements.

      Did you even bother to read the iop paper I sent you?

      I did, and could not understand, what to look for.

      What difference does it make that it's all in one link? Is that really so hard to understand?

      It is. I don't want to make assumptions as to what you meant and work myself up against (what will turn out to be) strawmen.

      Either post separate links to prediction and materialization, of retreat.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Frankly if your scientific knowledge is so poor you can't parse out what they are saying in the iop paper then I'm wasting my time engaging you. They presented graphs that compared IPCC projections of temperatures and sea level rise from 2001 and 2007 to observations through 2011. It doesn't get much simpler than that. I could link to the relevant sections of the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports then to papers on observations separately but you would have a harder time parsing them than you do with the paper I cited. I don't have the time to hand everything to you on a silver platter.

    19. Re:What "historical predictions"? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They succeeded, but you have already made your mind up and simply will not accept them. You shift your goalposts or claim to find some flaw which the peer-review process did not, and sit back and exultantly throw your arms up in the air proclaiming "see! see! I'm still right!" even when it's plainly obvious to anyone who did remotely well in science classes at school that you are not only wrong, but not interested in learning. It's quite easy to illustrate this - you spend a large amount of time on Slashdot complaining about how AGW isn't real and how the models haven't predicted anything, when there is lots of evidence a mere click or two away to quench any thirst for knowledge you might have.

      I'm sure you've found this link but found some errors with it that the rest of the scientific community magically didn't notice. It will show that your faux outrage against the scientific method is based on a toxic mix of hubris and ignorance, fuelled by relying on getting your scientific information from the daily press instead of the scientific journals you should be reading.

      Go on - shift those goalposts. We're still waiting. You're not a troll, but you do seem to be some poor human being caught up trying to maintain a cognitive dissonance which threatens to make you realise you're being incredibly selfish and stubborn at the expense of everyone else to follow you. If you're not, you are indistinguishable from one. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

    20. Re:What "historical predictions"? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you get the vast, vast majority of your understanding of climate change from the daily press. If you're not embarrassed by that, I think we found the root of the problem.

    21. Re:What "historical predictions"? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He's a cynic in sceptic's clothing. He might use all the right words to sound like he's engaged in a noble quest for knowledge, but using newspaper articles as an argument against AGW shows he's already made his mind up and is clutching at any straws he can in order to defend his position, and the only straws left are in newspapers. I guess there could be other explanations, but that is the most polite explanation there is... I mean, seriously - he uses quotes from tourist boards and Al Gore as evidence, and expects to be taken seriously. Baffling.

    22. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I realize that. Part of the reason I respond to folks like mi is simply so their assertions don't go unchallenged. Lurkers reading the exchange may benefit from it.

    23. Re:What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 1

      Frankly if your scientific knowledge is so poor you can't parse out what they are saying

      Wow... All these posts, all this indignation — instead of simply posting the expected links...

      They presented graphs that compared IPCC projections of temperatures and sea level rise from 2001 and 2007 to observations through 2011

      They did? Well, if so, where are the links to those projections? Post them and be done instead of, indeed, wasting time yours and mine.

      I could link to the relevant sections of the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports then to papers on observations separately but you would have a harder time parsing them

      Thank you. Maybe, those papers really aren't suitable for the general public, that you want to convince. Or, maybe, they simply do not really contain the concrete and refutable (falsifiable) projections. Either way, you failed my challenge (for the second time)...

      Because this would've been your sole example (valid or otherwise), and you'd need more than one in order to do better, than a broken clock...

      I don't have the time to hand everything to you on a silver platter.

      Ah, the "lack of time" excuse — sure...

      You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any. (The statement like "Arctic Ocean will be ice-free" is not falsifiable, for example, and therefor is not scientific.) And not just you — other believers cheering you on (and modding me down) are just as helpless as you are...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    24. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any.

      That's exactly what the paper "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" has. Projections from two different IPCC reports about 1) temperatures and 2) Arctic sea ice extent compared to observations of each. What's not falsifiable about either of those? The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.

      The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem. It's not that I lack the time, it's that you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says, instead arguing about the format of what I gave you. You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.

    25. Re:What "historical predictions"? by mi · · Score: 1

      The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem.

      It is your problem — you answered my challenge (for the second time in a month) and failed.

      The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.

      If it were this easy, you would've done it yourself long ago instead of extending this silly thread well beyond the point, where your inability to meet my challenge became painfully obvious.

      you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says

      I don't want to argue with somebody else's words — history of this very thread shows, how easy it is for you to throw other people statements under the proverbial bus:

      • "Maslowski's colleagues didn't agree with him", you said,
      • "Al Gore is an asshole" (dave420 implied — without any objections from you),
      • "Viner was talking to a popular publication, rather than a peer-reviewed magazine" (as if it makes any difference)

      — whatever. Like I said already, I don't want to think through an argument only to find myself attacking something you consider inconsequential...

      When you asked for an example, I gave you some — summarizing both the failed predictions and their disproofs in my own words instead of simply referring you to other people's articles (of which there are plenty). Because to do otherwise — as seems your wont — is to appeal to authority.

      You knew, what the "format" needs to be from the beginning. That you could not meet it is not my fault — it is your failure. Or, more likely, it is the failure of this belief, which you continue to call "science".

      You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.

      I'm not a scientist — nor do I need to be in order to be convinced (rather than compelled ) to do something about "the dangers of humanity's contribution to global warming". I am just a somewhat educated man, who knows of humanity's long history of fads and beliefs, and is aware of some of the scientific and philosophical mechanisms invented to help prevent our falling into the same holes and stepping on the same rakes again...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    26. Re:What "historical predictions"? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You started the tread by claiming "For a while now I've been asking adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to provide examples of just such predictions and so far nobody could manage... There are plenty of predictions that failed to materialize...". I gave you a link to a scientific paper that shows two predictions that have materialized, global temperatures and Arctic sea ice. Will you at least acknowledge that?

  16. a whole 130 years of data by alen · · Score: 0

    show me some real data going back a few thousand years and i'll believe you

    1. Re:a whole 130 years of data by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

      California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say....

      http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...

      Different scientists, different answers. There is something for everyone.

  17. no true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was the other side. As in too much rain it would also be Climate Change.
    Have we no learned anything about the earth? Earth is ever changing. Always have and always will. Record colds through out parts of the world but yet when we look back over the years the days all have a record high and record low. In 1964 today the high was 80 and in 1932 it was 16. Today high was 59.

  18. Fear IT by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    South Florida is at dire risk. We already have rising sea issues that are substantial and actually could effect the nation wide food supply as we are about the only spot in the US that can raise crops in winter. But we have an even more pressing problem. Diseases from tropical islands near Florida are becoming more common. In addition to malaria we now have two more mosquito born illnesses that are causing little outbreaks here and there. Just about any disease that flourishes in South America can now take hold here and they have many tragic illnesses down there that we do not normally see within the US. These diseases can generate quite an expense for society in general. We even have instances of pest invasions such as white fly that were caused by hurricanes blowing white flies all the way from the islands into Florida. White fly destroys trees and is very expensive to treat and keep your property livable. Citrus greening is already killing the citrus industry here. We are having invasions caused by global warming already.

    1. Re:Fear IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The diseases are from the wetbacks, er, I mean Democrat voters, you've let in. Enjoy your diversity. Diversity is disease, er, I mean strength!

    2. Re:Fear IT by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The diseases are from the wetbacks, er, I mean Democrat voters, you've let in. Enjoy your diversity. Diversity is disease, er, I mean strength!

      I'm really having trouble telling if this a troll, or somebody making fun of trolls by presenting themselves as a particularly idiotic troll.

    3. Re:Fear IT by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      Haven't you been following the news? Climate Change has been banned in Florida. There's no problem there.

  19. Can someone translate this for me? by ckatko · · Score: 0

    I'm behind 7 proxies, but I'm in Florida and all it says is:

    "California's Hot, Dry Winters Tied To [Redacted]"

    What's it say? Is it Obama? I knew he caused it. I saw my state representative on Fox last night and he said it was Obama.

  20. Watch your wording in the summary!!! by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Watch how you word your summary of a scientific finding. In particular when the summary states:
    A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that warming caused by humans is responsible for the conditions that have led to this California drought.
    You shouldn't go to read the linked article and find the conclusions of the study state:
    Our results suggest that anthropogenic warming has increased the probability of the co-occurring temperature and precipitation conditions that have historically led to drought in California.

    The header, California's Hot, Dry Winters Tied To Climate Change fit the study. The start of the summary mdsolar sends word that hot dry winters may be the norm in the future for California fit the study. Resist the urge to overreach with the extra statement trying to sound like scientists have claimed proof that the drought is definitively the end result of AGW and naught else. Why? Because the scientists didn't say it, and they most likely didn't say it because they don't want to say something so stupid. Obviously draught is a part of the natural cycle in California without the benefit of AGW, no scientist is gonna be eager to declare that only AGW is responsible. Instead you will see the conclusion they ACTUALLY USED in the article noting instead that AGW absolutely contributed to, rather than definitively caused, the drought.

    The difference between contributing to and worsening droughts and being the sole or dominant cause MATTERS.

    1. Re:Watch your wording in the summary!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MDSOLAR Is an AGW Shill and solar power shill.

    2. Re:Watch your wording in the summary!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the title can be changed to read, "Climate change tied to climate change."

      You mean that when the climate changes the climate changes? Holy crap, I never thought of that!

    3. Re:Watch your wording in the summary!!! by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Apparently the IPCC's literature content differs from the summary for policymakers. Anything to sell the hype and keep the gravy train of sweet, sweet government money going. Let the personal insults from the easily-duped, emotionally-invested and paid shills begin!

    4. Re:Watch your wording in the summary!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it doesn't matter. Saying the drought is definitively the end result of AGW is exactly what they are saying. And no, they are ABSOLUTELY NOT AVOIDING BEING STUPID.

      I think you are being confused by the term "probability" to mean some sort of doubt in the conclusion. In this case, they are just being very precise in exactly what they concluded. They can't predict exactly which years California is going have a drought, or exactly which droughts are going to be extreme droughts. We just can't do that with weather. No human has figured out how to predict the weather exactly like that. Literally every weather prediction is framed in terms of probability, because weather is too complicated to fucking predict. (Maybe in the future with some super computer)

      Did AGW, on its own, cause the drought? Is it even possible for AGW to, on its own, cause a drought? WHO GIVES A SHIT. All AGW needs to do is turn a few droughts into extreme droughts and it will quite harmful for California and subsequently the rest of the US.

    5. Re:Watch your wording in the summary!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even IF AGW has nothing to do with climate change, we should take this stance: http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/

  21. yep, climate change is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's called the weather

    some years winter is mild, some years warm, some years tons of snow like Boston got

    deal with it.

  22. Guns and the NRA are causing climate change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of these hillbilly right-wing neo-nazi gun owners firing off trillions of rounds a second from their assault weapons are putting off too much CO2 for our environment to handle. It's time to take their guns as the president has said many times. Let's all get on board with President Obama and his program to curb guns in the hands of these sickening whackos! Vote Hillary!

  23. Droughts are caused by cooliing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rts

  24. Also Up In Olympia, WA by surd1618 · · Score: 1

    It has been clear skies for over a week. At this time of year, this is, I think, totally without precedent. I've only been here for 5 years but it feels completely unnatural. Even when I first moved here it rained basically without ceasing from November until almost June. There's been comparatively almost no rain this winter. The climate is fucked!

    1. Re:Also Up In Olympia, WA by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      I don't see why you will love London-style climate.

    2. Re:Also Up In Olympia, WA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have lived in the Seattle area for over 20 years and part of the normal cycle. Some years are endless rain and snow, other years been very dry with no snow.

    3. Re:Also Up In Olympia, WA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've lived near Seattle my whole life, and not once do I remember being comfortable in shorts, no shoes, no shirt, in March... as I was yesterday. The climate's not fucked, we're fucked. This climate couldn't give a shit less about us monkeys. We're going down in a toxic shit-storm free for all, paving the way for Earth 2.0... which consequently doesn't involve us. It'd be interesting to what intelligent life takes hold next... I tip my hat to them and hope they sodomize themselves as badly as we have.

  25. Here's a better question by argStyopa · · Score: 0, Troll

    What ISN'T tied to climate change?

    A List Of Things Caused By Global Warming
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/...

    Acne , agricultural land increase , Afghan poppies destroyed , Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost , aggressive weeds , air pressure changes , airport malaria , Agulhas current , Alaska reshaped, moves , allergy season longer , alligators in the Thames , Alps melting , Amazon a desert , American dream end , amphibians breeding earlier (or not) , anaphylactic reactions to bee stings , ancient forests dramatically changed , animals head for the hills, animals shrink , Antarctic grass flourishes , Antarctic ice grows , Antarctic ice shrinks , Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment , algal blooms , archaeological sites threatened , Arab Spring , Arctic bogs melt , Arctic in bloom , Arctic ice free , Arctic ice melt faster , Arctic lakes disappear , Arctic tundra to burn , Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty , Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified , attack of the killer jellyfish , avalanches reduced , avalanches increased , Baghdad snow , Bahrain under water , bananas grow , barbarisation , beer shortage , beetle infestation , bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects , billion homeless , billions face risk , billions of deaths , bird distributions change , bird loss accelerating , birds shrinking , bird strikes , bird visitors drop , birds confused , birds decline (Wales) , birds driven north , birds return early , bittern boom ends , blackbirds stop singing , blackbirds threatened , Black Hawk down , blood contaminated , blue mussels return , bluetongue , brain eating amoebae , brains shrink , bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city , Britain Siberian , brothels struggle , brown Ireland , bubonic plague , budget increases , Buddhist temple threatened , building collapse , building season extension , bushfires , business opportunities , business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths , cancer deaths in England,cannibalism, cannibalism again , caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened , childhood insomnia, Cholera , circumcision in decline , cirrus disappearance , civil unrest , cloud increase , coast beauty spots lost , cockroach migration, coffee threatened , cold climate creatures survive , cold spells (Australia) , cold wave (India) , computer models , conferences , conflict , conflict with Russia , consumers foot the bill , coral bleaching, coral fish suffer , coral reefs dying , coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, Cabbage Shortage , cost of trillions , cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened , creatures move uphill, crime increase , crocodile sex, crops devastated , crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems , curriculum change , cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health , Darfur , Dartford Warbler plague , death rate increase (US) , deaths to reach 6 million, Dengue hemorrhagic fever , depression , desert advance , desert retreat , destruction of the environment , disappearance of coastal cities, disasters , diseases move from animals to humans , diseases move north , dog disease , Dolomites collapse , dozen deadly diseases , drought, ducks and geese decline , dust bowl in the corn belt , early marriages , early spring , earlier pollen season , Earth biodiversity crisis , Earth dying , Earth even hotter , Earth light dimming , Earth lopsided, Earth melting , Earth morbid fever , Earth on fast track , Earth past point of no return , Earth slowing down , Earth spins faster, Earth to explode,Earth's poles shift, earth upside down , earthquakes , earthquakes redux , earthquakes redux 2 , Egypt revolt , El Niño intensification , end of the world as we know it , erosion , emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost , equality threatened , Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrop

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Here's a better question by sycodon · · Score: 0

      LOL!

      Mod up, if for no other reason than the effort put into it.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Here's a better question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As noted in a post above, any two trending time series will be correlated. That is what causes this nonsense. The scientists that are convinced by some correlations suck at their jobs. They should need to predict something precisely and accurately to convince themselves.

    3. Re:Here's a better question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife left me. I'm pretty sure Global Warming was the cause.

    4. Re:Here's a better question by smashin234 · · Score: 1

      What is truly said is how all of these topics are from actual "scientists".

      i use that term loosely considering you can make bad assumptions anytime and not be a scientist, but go figure..

    5. Re:Here's a better question by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You know don't you that if your globes are too hot it makes you infertile.

  26. Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call it what it is, don't let the liberals use doublespeak to rebrand it from one thing to the next until the lies align enough with reality to avoid being called out on it.

    1. Re:Global Warming by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Actually it was conservatives who coined the phrase climate change, particularly Frank Luntz.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frank Luntz first used it in 2003, liberals first used it along with the term "global warming" and increased steadily in usage of it over time. Nice try, assuming the political party matters with respect to politicians.

    3. Re:Global Warming by itzly · · Score: 1

      It's climate change caused by global warming. Both expressions highlight different aspects of the issue, but both are equally valid.

      Also, both terms were already in use long before it became a well known public issue.

      http://www.skepticalscience.co...

    4. Re:Global Warming by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Actually it was conservatives who coined the phrase climate change, particularly Frank Luntz.

      Not really. I know that Luntz pushed using it as a less threatening phrase than global warming but in 1958 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" so it has a long history.

  27. Revelation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, just like the east's cold, wet winters are tied to climate change, this year. What are your predictions for next year?

  28. Re:Climate? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    When it's the coldest February on record, the mantra is "It's weather, not climate, you illiterate", but when it suits folks to claim a climate connection, *BOOM*.

    What was the *BOOM*, did your head explode?

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  29. Can't tell if trolling or serious.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets exclude all contradictory evidence of natural climate change and call people names! The GW spam here gets worse every day. Election season must be soon.

  30. Here's the real kicker... by um.yup. · · Score: 0

    When Columbia had a mild winter that's linked to climate change.
    When Scandinavia got more rain than usual in November that's linked to climate change.
    When Canada experienced an unusually warm winter that's linked to climate change.
    OMG, GUYS! THID IS SERIOUS! WE LIVE ON A PLANET WHERE THE CLIMATE CHANGES!

  31. California's Hot Dry Weather Tied to Climate Chang by jwbales · · Score: 0

    Must be a slow news day for this to make the headlines. There were probably no "Dog bites man" stories.

  32. Five Things To Consider by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. California is always a semi-desert, with the exception of the northern fifth of the state, which is a rainforest. Adapt or die, b*tc*s. Yes, that means sustainable crop practices.

    2. You're not getting any extra power from Oregon or Washington this year, cause our snowpack is around 8 percent of what it normally has been (which will be the norm in 2025 due to global warming, by the way, but is not directly caused by that). So we need our water to sell bottled water to you idiots who fail to realize the fancy water you drink in plastic bottles is just our usual drinking water in Seattle that we let settle a bit so it's "fresh". No cheap electricity for you. Grow a pair and build more solar and wind, cause it's just going to get much much much much worse.

    3. As to crop practices, do what British Columbia learned in the 1970s and 1980s. You've had 50 years to adapt. Mix crops (no monoculture), grow crop cover between tree rows (less soil loss, less water loss) which also fixes nitrogen and can kill bad bugs. Cover your dam water canals (hint: try using solar panels, win win) to reduce water evaporation. It's been done in other places in North America for a long time, cheap water is over.

    4. Most of your water use and water waste is farming. Most of that is because you insist on growing artificially subsidized water intensive crops that aren't suited for your climate. Stop subsidizing those and let the market self correct that very very bad choice. Adapt.

    5. There is no all or nothing artificial choice. Half measures are better than no measures. Small and moderate adaptations now, or even to partial removal of subsidies and misuse have major impacts. Try changing 1/10th of your crops to better methods. I drove thru almost all of Cali this past winter, you really haven't done much, and you could easily adapt without much of a problem, but you have to stop sticking your heads in the sands.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Five Things To Consider by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      1. California is always a semi-desert, with the exception of the northern fifth of the state, which is a rainforest.

      No it's not, it's a hugely varied state with many biomes. Even in relatively small distances (San Francisco to San Jose, for example) the climate varies drastically. The Central Valley of California, where most of the agriculture happens, is a grassland with ~15 inches of rain a year. In the east are the Sierra Nevada mountains, which is a temperate coniferous forest. Farther east is an alpine grassland, and to the south on that side is a true desert, Death Valley and the Mojave desert. Even the northern Shasta is different than the southern Bakersfield, and San Diego is different than Los Angeles.

      In short, anyone who tells you California is 'always a semi-arid' desert in vastly oversimplifying, and probably not in a useful way.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Five Things To Consider by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Whether we're experiencing AGW (likely but not completely certain) or not (unlikely but theoretically possible) the main problem in California is actually an economic one. They're failing to allow water to be correctly priced. Allow prices for agricultural water use to be set by the market instead of the artificially suppressed rate and the whole shortage issue will take care of itself.

    3. Re:Five Things To Consider by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      exactly. Right now they have 20 percent artificial water subsidies for "state water" and no charge for "well water" for agricultural uses, even when that depletes everyone else's water.

      Remove the artificial water subsidies and a lot (not all, a lot) of the problems go away. The incentives change.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Five Things To Consider by Scorch_Mechanic · · Score: 2

      Actually, the state legislature passed some bills to regulate the drilling of wells and the pumping of groundwater back in August.

      Amusingly, people have been conserving water so much locally that the water utilities are actually running out of money, they say, to maintain infrastructure. The article barely touches on it, but the Santa Clara Water District (termed affectionately by a local columnist as the "Golden Spigot") doesn't exactly have a record of sound spending. Hopefully this will bite them on the ass.

      --
      You should turn signatures off.
    5. Re:Five Things To Consider by volmtech · · Score: 1

      As a farmer you have to make the maximum profit you can otherwise you lose your land ( ask me how I know). Any practice that lowers your profit compared to your neighbors increases your chances of bankruptcy. Simply mandating all growers adopt the same practices may cause consumers to switch to less expensive foods.

      To have a sustainable economy everyone has to be forced to participate. Otherwise cheaters will make more profit. To stop climate change no country or individual can be allowed to cheat. Politics and money can force some change, it will take bullets and bombs to enforce the rest.

  33. The climate has always changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And will continue to do so. There will be droughts and floods. But hey as long as we can tag on "global warming" or "climate change" we can use it as fear mongering to push through our political agenda.

  34. Re:Climate? by thaylin · · Score: 1

    When was the coldest February on record? Oh, you mean coldest for a small group of cities, not any particular state, region, country or the planet....However you have to also realize it was the hottest February on record for about the same number of cities on the west coast. So again, it is weather, not climate, you illiterate.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  35. Re:Climate? by next_ghost · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Meanwhile, Central Europe had only about 7 days total this winter when mid-day temperature would stay below 0 degrees Celsius. That's in places where there used to be 10 inches of snow from early December to mid-March some 20 years ago and temperature wouldn't rise above -10 degrees Celsius until March.

  36. Re:It's ok though. No need to panic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a shocker - man-made oases are being reclaimed by the desert when Cali runs out of fossil water. Nobody saw that one coming. Too bad we couldn't have guessed that a fucking DESERT would continue to be a desert when the idiot humans who pollute and use up its resources have polluted and used up every fucking thing.

  37. Re:Climate? by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Show where this is the case. Anywhere- where a climate scientist referred to a local cold snap as proof of climate change.

    You can't. The *BOOM* only happened in the vacuum between your ears.

  38. Two words: Tropical Climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means the entire earth, including the poles, are tropical.

    Or your definition is wrong.

    1. Re:Two words: Tropical Climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tropical climate (or polar or continental or whatever) also encompasses a global phenomenon instead of a local one. You know, locality vs. generality. It's not about a specific amount of time (x years, x days, x months) its about scope: global or local scope. When you talk about today in one city, that's the very definition of local. When you talk about summer in a whole sub-continent that's global. Today is cold: weather. This winter has been wet: climate. In the case of AWG we are talking about a global phenomenon: rise in mean temperatures in the whole planet. It implies other global phenomenons (extended droughts, floods and hurricane seasons) at a smaller scale than the mean temperature of the planet, but still global phenomenons.

  39. I didn't know AGW was so geographically limited! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    Arizona had an unusually wet 2014, plus two major storms so far in 2015. How does all that man-belched atmospheric carbon know to loiter over California, and not spread over adjacent states until it's time for the political Maoists who interpret climate science to suit their own agenda to proclaim the next apocalypse?

  40. still bullshit by samantha · · Score: 0

    No significant average temperature change in 15 years and idiots are still going on about climate change. Yes climates change but getting oneself all worked up for a non-event in any sort of catastrophic terms is ridiculous. The answer to insufficient fresh water in various places is irrigation from desalinization. Which is largely a matter of cheap enough energy.

    1. Re:still bullshit by itzly · · Score: 1

      No significant average temperature change in 15 years

      Look at the trend, and don't stare too much at the 2-sigma outlier in 1998.

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

      The trend is still as robust as it was. And before you complain that I'm linking to a wordpress blog, you can download the data here, and draw your own graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

    2. Re:still bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked at "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change". Why is the post-2000 year-on-year change ~50% what it was 1970-2000? Until 2000 every few years there would be a +/-0.2 difference, after that it does not get much beyond 0.1. This is especially striking at the low end, as if there is a lower bound.

      I saw similar when investigating the Byrd station data, it turned out that right when this became evident (~1989) they had swapped out the automatic weather unit at that station. The timing of it suggested the new one may have been calibrated differently resulting in warmer measurements during the cold months. As far as I know no one ever acknowledged that this could be the cause of the "warming" observed at that station. Did something similar happen worldwide around 2000? There could be some methodological artifacts in play here. On the other hand a similar pattern can be seen ~1935-1952, perhaps different methodologies are being used for different periods.

  41. Trends can take time to reverse by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. There's 'inertia' to consider as well.

    IE if gasoline is high enough, long enough, lots of people buy fuel efficient vehicles. They don't instantly dispose of them just because oil(and gasoline) prices subsequently drop.

    If you 'suddenly' increase the price of water for one year, the farmers will grumble and pay for it. Some will go out of business, but that happens whenever you increase the price of something, or even don't decrease it fast enough. Some farmers just aren't good businessmen.

    If you go, okay, now it's $1 per 100k liters(1/2 the price British Columbia recently started charging), while telling them that the price is going to double each year for the next 10 years, they'll start adjusting how they do business.

    We know that there are wasteful watering methods that lose over half the water used to evaporation before it hits the plants. We also know there are systems where the only water lost is pretty much confined to the food products you take out of the specialized recycling greenhouses.

    The trick is to get the farmers to use a sustainable amount of water. Even just burying seep lines can drop usage by over 75% over daytime spray irrigation.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  42. Yawn by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Cue the sky is falling crowd again. 10-50-100 years of climate data is worthless. The earth is how many millions of years old? Plus, I remember as a school age teenager in the early 70's, how everyone was talking about we were entering a new ice age, due to pollution, dumping crap in the water, smog, etc....now after getting rid of lead in gasoline, using energy saving appliances, lights, houses etc...it's warming up? If that is the case, then maybe we should go back to pollution and wasting energy, just to cool us down a little?

    1. Re:Yawn by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Everyone" was not talking about global cooling, just journalists. That one titbit shows you get your scientific knowledge from the press, which isn't exactly doing you a great favour. Luckily there is more than 10-50-100 years of climate data, so your initial point is worthless, not the data itself. The Earth is ~4.7 billion years old, by the way. It's pollution which is causing this, so I don't know why you think more pollution is going to help. There is so much wrong with your post I don't even.

  43. It's not climate change... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    It's all the hot air coming out of Sacramento. Ironically, they keep yammering on about climate change so they really only have themselves to blame.

  44. What else? by gatzke · · Score: 1

    You know what else is caused by global warming? Nearly everything.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

  45. Queue the fuckwits... by eagee · · Score: 1

    I don't get how even on slashdot you get so many fucking unbelievably insane ass-wipes who believe in the scientific method *except* when it applies to global warming. However, every time it's mentioned they come out in the crazy droves to drop their dumb-ness on the rest of us, so, by all means crazy morons - have at it.

  46. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human climate change was responsible for the blip of cool wet weather, and now things are coming back around to typical long dry seasons.

  47. But - the geologists tell us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    California has a long record of occasional severe and long-lasting (up to 40 years long) (one of many links)

    droughts (all of which pre-date the car, and even the coal-fired power plant).

    Sadly, "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" applies in more than way ... think about it.

    California's problems have been made artificially far worse by politics - We have MILLIONS of illegal aliens adding to the already-too-large civilian population that needs water AND we have big agribusiness planting lots of water-hungry crops that are totally inappropriate for the region and only work with imported water (which was ok when neighboring states had few people and needed little water). And then, on top of all that, we have politicians pandering to all the "greenies" and demanding that large volumes of potable water get flushed into the sea to protect certain species, oppose desalinization plants, etc...

    1. Re:But - the geologists tell us... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Scary illegals! Oh noes! Agriculture uses 3x the amount of water as everyone else in California, including industry. Complaining about immigration in this context shows you either don't understand what's happening, you are more interested in blaming various groups of people for your problems, or you are simply an idiot. Pick one.

  48. OR you know, it could be attributed to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the fact that its in.......you know.... A MEDITERRANEAN CLIMATE. Next thing you know these climate nutzis will be blaming their manbearpig god for the lack of snow in the Philippines!

  49. It doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless of how much scientific evidence you throw at them, you will never convince the Slashdot crowd that climate change is anthropogenic. Slashdot has become the last refuge for irrational antiscientific ideology.

  50. Doubters by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

    And people wonder why we have global warming doubters. With all the acronyms and techspeak, it might as well be written in Swahili.

    1. Re:Doubters by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And whose fault is that? Should science use only terminology you and your ilk can understand, slowing progress to a snail's pace in the process, or should you educate yourself so you can participate in these discussions (and life in general) like an adult?

      Questions, questions...

    2. Re:Doubters by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And, by similar reasoning, General Relativity is a pile of crap. You can't understand it without some fairly advanced* mathematics.

      *How advanced depends on where you're looking from, of course. There are people who think calculus is advanced, and then there are real mathematicians who don't think of tensor analysis as advanced at all. Since almost everybody tops out at calculus and differential equations, I'm going to consider everything beyond that as advanced.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  51. Re:Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please just fuck off with that shit!

    Any fucking thing that the weather does is hyped to the fucking moon and blamed as climate change!!!..

    Just because it ties into your fucking stupid biases you don't fucking notice!

  52. Your bowel movements tied to climate ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... frackin' change. What the hell isn't these days?

    And all predictions made with 50% certainty.

    Oh, and this has all happened before climate change.

    Someone is making money off the 'climate change' mantra, which means pronouncements in that regard are no longer credible. Too much noise in the message. Don't care.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Your bowel movements tied to climate ... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be mistaking your ignorance for being correct. That's pretty dangerous. If you really cared to begin with, you'd have fixed that. Either you don't know how to teach yourself, or you are proud of your ignorance. Pick one - neither is flattering.

  53. Re:I didn't know AGW was so geographically limited by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Well, you can sit here loudly proclaiming your ignorance as if it's something to be proud of, or you can educate yourself, answering your question and preventing more unfortunate outbursts which tarnish your reputation further.

    You might also want to learn that Arizona started the year unusually dry, but it should leave its drought conditions in April. But whatever - don't let facts get in the way of an insane rant against Maoists! They're simply everywhere, didn't you know? Scary! Boo!

  54. Re:I didn't know AGW was so geographically limited by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Actually the first big storm of the year started onNew Year's Eve, and was in progress as the new year dawned. Can't get any earlier than that

    The people claiming that 'weather is not climate, unless it's on our side' are not the climate scientists, but the apocalyptics who have been pulling for the extinction of mankind since the early Seventies. We were all gonna die of running out of food, then because of the coming ice age, then running out of industrial metals, then because of nuclear anything, then acid rain, then the disappearing ozone layer. Climate is just the latest hope the Luddite lobby has for wiping out the hated human species.

  55. Re:I didn't know AGW was so geographically limited by dave420 · · Score: 1

    So you really don't care about learning, just complaining. Gotcha. Good jerb. You are a credit to your family.

  56. Models with huge errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on models with huge errors and another huge one just found

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/whoops-study-shows-huge-basic-errors-found-in-cmip5-climate-models/

  57. Guess what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insist on living in a desert, you get lots of sunshine and not very much rain. That's WHY they are deserts! California was one before humans arrived, it remains one today, and it will revert to one when liberals join the dodos. It right now pretends to be otherwise by swiping water from every other place around it. Whether it swipes more water, or less water, is a function of how the DESERT is progressing, and almost certainly not linked with global anything. Stop lecturing people about WEATHER when LOCALITY has even more to do with a LOCAL problem.

    I wish to God New England could get some drought. Some heat would be appreciated too. Of course the fact that we're freezing our frickin' asses off up here and digging mountains of snow out every week doesn't mean we don't have global warming! - or so say people who LIVE IN A FRICKIN' DESERT!

  58. Hey Morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California isn't a desert.

  59. The NOAA says the CA drought isn't climate change by lightbounce · · Score: 1

    This study is interesting in light of the fact that a recent NOAA study found that the current California drought is not caused by climate change. In fact, under climate change California winters are supposed to get wetter, if also hotter. See http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s... .