Ok hold on now, Maybe we need to increase global warming! Winter Is Coming!

[Spike]

So what?

Oh I get it - only the pristine clean that drink at the trough of the new world order of socialism can be scientists now.


The Socialist Pope is coming to hold hands with Obama on Climate Change and other New World Order items later this month. - Can't wait

What was it Goebbels once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

 

[Steeltime]

A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University, said the study added to evidence that rising temperatures had exacerbated the lack of snow in California.

“We are now migrating into this new world where temperatures are higher,” Dr. Williams said. “So even though the chances of an event like this were extremely unlikely in the past, in the future it will be more likely to occur.”

Tibs, the lack of snow is due to the drought, not to temperature.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/c...in-Precipitation-Sierra-Nevada-290916671.html

Further, climate scientists have already specifically weighed in on global warming and California's drought and opined that global warming simply could not be linked as causing the current drought.

"But another study concluded that a long-term rise in sea surface temperatures in the western Pacific did not contribute substantially to the drought. And researchers noted that California precipitation since 1895 has "exhibited no appreciable downward trend. Overall, the report editors concluded that the papers didn't demonstrate that global warming clearly influenced the drought, which is one of the worst in the state record."

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...change-california-drought-20140929-story.html

Therefore, the guy who is claiming that global warming is causing the lack of snowfall in California is not in agreement with his climate-science brethren. I find these types of stories - "Global warming cannot be linked to drought," followed by "Global warming causes lack of snow!!" - one of the more infuriating aspects of global warming.

 

[Tibs]

Further, climate scientists have already specifically weighed in on global warming and California's drought and opined that global warming simply could not be linked as causing the current drought.

Global warming worsened the California drought, scientists say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...as-made-californias-drought-25-percent-worse/

Long-suffering California can blame drought on global warming, experts say
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/20/california-drought-blame-global-warming

 

[Vis]

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/aug_wld.html

2015 setting a record.

 

[Troglodyte]

If there was global warming it would be getting warmer everywhere. Where I live the last three summers have been unseasonably cool and winters worse than usual. Therefore it is just weather and not global warming.

You sure about that? My understanding is it refers to overall average temps around the globe. It's been warmer in the Arctic circle and cooler in Rochester, but warmer overall.

 

[Spike]

NO SEA LEVEL danger from Antarctic this century, even if ALL COAL and OIL burned

Hardcore warmist's amazing admission

One of the world's most firmly global-warmist scientists has put his name to a scientific paper which says that even if humanity deliberately sets out to burn all the fossil fuels it can find, as fast as it can, there will be no troublesome sea level rise due to melting Antarctic ice this century.

Dr Ken Caldeira's credentials as a global warmist are impeccable. He is not a true green hardliner - he has signed a plea to his fellow greens to get over their objections to nuclear power, for instance, and he doesn't totally rule out geoengineering as a possible global-warming solution. But that's as far as he'll go: in Dr Caldeira's view, it is plain and simple unethical to release greenhouse gases into the air. There's no middle ground on that as far as he's concerned - he's not OK with gas power as an alternative to coal, for instance.

But he's a scientist, and like all proper scientists he's willing to admit inconvenient truths. In this case, the truth in question is his own prediction that no matter what humans do in the way of carbon emissions, sea levels are not going to rise by more than 8cm this century due to melting Antarctic ice. For context, the seas have been rising faster than that for thousands of years. They rose 17cm just during the 20th century, and the Antarctic cap is far and away the biggest body of ice on the planet.

Even if we're on the burn-it-all road, we're looking at a not-so-terrifying 8cm of sea level rise over the next 85 years. You, and your children, and your children's children, can pretty much relax...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...this_century_even_if_all_coal_and_oil_burned/

 

[IndySteel]

NO SEA LEVEL danger from Antarctic this century, even if ALL COAL and OIL burned

Hardcore warmist's amazing admission

One of the world's most firmly global-warmist scientists has put his name to a scientific paper which says that even if humanity deliberately sets out to burn all the fossil fuels it can find, as fast as it can, there will be no troublesome sea level rise due to melting Antarctic ice this century.

Dr Ken Caldeira's credentials as a global warmist are impeccable. He is not a true green hardliner - he has signed a plea to his fellow greens to get over their objections to nuclear power, for instance, and he doesn't totally rule out geoengineering as a possible global-warming solution. But that's as far as he'll go: in Dr Caldeira's view, it is plain and simple unethical to release greenhouse gases into the air. There's no middle ground on that as far as he's concerned - he's not OK with gas power as an alternative to coal, for instance.

But he's a scientist, and like all proper scientists he's willing to admit inconvenient truths. In this case, the truth in question is his own prediction that no matter what humans do in the way of carbon emissions, sea levels are not going to rise by more than 8cm this century due to melting Antarctic ice. For context, the seas have been rising faster than that for thousands of years. They rose 17cm just during the 20th century, and the Antarctic cap is far and away the biggest body of ice on the planet.

Even if we're on the burn-it-all road, we're looking at a not-so-terrifying 8cm of sea level rise over the next 85 years. You, and your children, and your children's children, can pretty much relax...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...this_century_even_if_all_coal_and_oil_burned/

Ha ha, that's awesome! **** off, you warmist Commies.

 

[Steeltime]

Vis - I have written extensively in this forum about AGW and what we know, what we don't know, and that matters. Your reference source indicates that "the global average surface temperature in August 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.45°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.79°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891."

The warmest since 1891 ... and further, that the temperature shows an increase of 0.6 degrees C over a century.

Warming of 0.6 degrees per century does NOT justify AGW panic. It simply does NOT. The AGW panic stemmed from computer models projecting temperature increases of 1.6 to 3.2 degrees C.

The simple fact is this: Climate scientists do NOT believe that the substantial changes in energy production, transportation, fossil fuel use, etc. are merited for a temperature increase of 0.6 degrees C over the next century. That is why I have always been hesitant to change our economy, and energy production, and transportation based on climate models that are wrong in predicting substantial temperature increases due to AGW over the next century.

 

[ark steel]

That is why I have always been hesitant to change our economy, and energy production, and transportation based on climate models that are wrong in predicting substantial temperature increases due to AGW over the next century.

Well, when the point is, really, to redistribute, any reason will do.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

You sure about that? My understanding is it refers to overall average temps around the globe. It's been warmer in the Arctic circle and cooler in Rochester, but warmer overall.

Yes. If it doesn't get warm everywhere then it isn't global warming. If not, it's weather. Although if you want to use global average temperatures then that has risen by 0.8 degrees in the last 100 years. Again, weather.

 

[Steeltime]

It means that so far this century, of 14 yearly headline predictions made by the Met Office Hadley centre, 13 have been too warm. It’s worth stressing that all the incorrect predictions are within the stated margin of error, but having said that, they have all been on the warm side and none have been too cold. The 2013 global temperature also means that the Met Office’s projection that half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record (which on the HADCRUT measure was in 1998), issued around the time of the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, is already incorrect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/a5d5c088-75ac-3093-b1bb-7f685d5f71c3

 

[SteelChip]

Yes. If it doesn't get warm everywhere then it isn't global warming. If not, it's weather. Although if you want to use global average temperatures then that has risen by 0.8 degrees in the last 100 years. Again, weather.

But...but the bears, what about the polar bears ?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Global warming worsened the California drought, scientists say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...as-made-californias-drought-25-percent-worse/

Long-suffering California can blame drought on global warming, experts say
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/20/california-drought-blame-global-warming

Yea. Running billions of gallons of water (enough to supply the entire San Jose/San Fran area for 2 years) off into the ocean to protect the delta smelt was California brilliance. That has nothing at all to do with any of this, of course.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Yea. Running billions of gallons of water (enough to supply the entire San Jose/San Fran area for 2 years) off into the ocean to protect the delta smelt was California brilliance. That has nothing at all to do with any of this, of course.

Nor does having more than double the number of people that lived there 50 years ago.

 

[Troglodyte]

Population increase and water usage cause water shortages, they don't cause drought.

 

[Superman]

Population increase and water usage cause water shortages, they don't cause drought.

.......................

 

[SteelChip]

Population increase and water usage cause water shortages, they don't cause drought.

No, living in California just qualifies you automatically for a certain amount of drought 'cause that's the way it is and that's the way it could very well remain.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Population increase and water usage cause water shortages, they don't cause drought.

News flash, southern California is a desert. If people hadn't built millions of houses and moved there because the weather is great, it would be a desert. Deserts have droughts. That's why they're deserts.

 

[Troglodyte]

News flash, southern California is a desert. If people hadn't built millions of houses and moved there because the weather is great, it would be a desert. Deserts have droughts. That's why they're deserts.

Eastern Southern California is a desert and that's not where the people live.

Regardless, my point is the drought problems are all over the state and have nothing to do with San Francisco's usage or Southern California's population, it's a lack of rain (drought).

 

[SteelChip]

California represents about as much concern to me as New Orleans, the city built below sea level, directly in a hurricane zone and filled with Democrats. Brilliant move on somebody's part. Something akin to cramming millions of illegal Mexicans, most of the Country's snobhill celeb elite and a whole gaggle of of the dumbest Libtard politicians in the Country, all into a State with a long history of mud slides, raging wildfires and drought while sitting atop an active fault line.

BUT...the weather is great and the weed is plentiful. Ya jus hafta chuckle.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Eastern Southern California is a desert and that's not where the people live.

The urban area now goes from L.A. through Riverside to Palm Springs and almost to Arizona. Of course if they'd put up a wall to keep the illegals out then there would be less strain on the water supply.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Eastern Southern California is a desert and that's not where the people live.

Regardless, my point is the drought problems are all over the state and have nothing to do with San Francisco's usage or Southern California's population, it's a lack of rain (drought).

In the early 20th century, canals were dug to bring water from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley, transforming the land from unique desert habitat to a major agricultural area. The city of Los Angeles brought water south from the Owens River across the Mojave, draining wetlands and fragmenting habitat in the process. And these were just the first of many major water projects which supported the huge growth of southern California's population.

People still like to claim that the Los Angeles area is not/was not a desert. If it isn't/wasn't a desert, it's a bit hard to explain why massive engineering projects had to be undertaken to bring water into the area for its inhabitants (destroying other areas of the state as a result).

OK.

As to your claim that it's about lack of rain, yes that's contributed. But for you to deny that things like diverting fresh water into the ocean to protect the delta smelt hasn't contributed to the problem is absurd and you're denying facts simply to be political.

Forget the Missing Rainfall, California. Where’s the Delta Smelt?
Guided by bad science, regulators are flushing away millions of gallons of water to protect a three-inch fish.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-the-missing-rainfall-california-wheres-the-delta-smelt-1430085510

To protect smelt from water pumps, government regulators have flushed 1.4 trillion gallons of water into the San Francisco Bay since 2008. That would have been enough to sustain 6.4 million Californians for six years.

And the best part of this stupid Liberal plan? It's failing. The delta smelt are still dying off.

The agency acknowledges that its “existing regulatory mechanisms have not proven adequate” to arrest the fish’s decline since its listing under the Endangered Species Act in 1993 and that “we are unable to determine with certainty which threats or combinations of threats are directly responsible.”

Herein is a parable of imperious regulators who subordinate science to a green political agenda. While imposing huge societal costs, government policies have failed to achieve their stated environmental purpose.

Now, back to the lack of rain. People all over that state, and the country, are running around pointing to California as an example of climate change. And it certainly is. Climate always changes, and it has in California for centuries. Droughts, like the one they are facing, are not uncommon. In fact, this one may go much longer, according to history.

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

California's current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state's recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West's long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.

And they worry that the "megadroughts" typical of California's earlier history could come again.

Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

These must be the "stupid denier" scientists, I suppose.

To the other point in this thread...Southern California is a massive engineering feat, turning it into inhabitable area with all of the major water engineering projects that have gone on. But there's a price to pay, like New Orleans, when you force the unnatural. Some places weren't meant to be inhabited. Ecosystems were ruined to make Southern California livable, and the region is prone to severe, long droughts.

 

[Steeltime]

Yea. Running billions of gallons of water (enough to supply the entire San Jose/San Fran area for 2 years) off into the ocean to protect the delta smelt was California brilliance. That has nothing at all to do with any of this, of course.

That was not California's decision; a Federal judge ordered that the water diversion system - using filters and pumps - be stopped due to the effect on the delta smelt (a fish that looks like a sardine).

Californians have done a ****-ton of dumb stuff, but their agriculture industry is being decimated by a judge, not by politicians.

 

[Troglodyte]

As to your claim that it's about lack of rain, yes that's contributed. But for you to deny that things like diverting fresh water into the ocean to protect the delta smelt hasn't contributed to the problem is absurd and you're denying facts simply to be political.

What's absurd and political is not realizing that my only point was that drought is a weather event, not a man-made event. Diverting water has nothing to do with drought.

I would think that someone who disagrees with the idea of climate change being the result of human behavior would more easily grasp this notion. I guess not.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

What's absurd and political is not realizing that my only point was that drought is a weather event, not a man-made event. Diverting water has nothing to do with drought.

I would think that someone who disagrees with the idea of climate change being the result of human behavior would more easily grasp this notion. I guess not.

Oh I get the distinction. I continue to fail to understand why you continue to bring this up, as if it is somehow relevant to the discussion. "Hey, hey, hey look at me, I can define drought!" We are trying to discuss a water disaster, of which "drought" is one issue. All you want to do is remind everyone of what drought means....as if this has meaning to the discussion.

CA is suffering a drought. CA is a unique disaster because of the drought and ridiculous decision making that have left reservoirs empty and prevented the build of other reservoirs.

Droughts aren't preventable, but the means to deal with them are. And CA is ill-prepared to handle this drought.

And to combat your point, drought problems all over the state have everything to do with things like the delta smelt. No one said they are the cause of the drought, but these foolish decisions leave the state ill-prepared to combat the effects of the drought...so they are indeed related.