California drought due to nature, not climate change

[Robert]

I found this a very interesting article in part because it furthers the black eye to the climate change group. Its the politicians

conforming to the UN that don't know the appropriate end of their body to speak out of, yet make the US adhere to rules and

regulations that are absurd.

The roadblock is a persistent ridge of high pressure that first formed in 2011 during a La Niña event. Even though La Niña broke down after the 2011-2012 winter, the western equatorial Pacific Ocean remained a warm water bull's-eye, a pattern known to trigger droughts in the Southwest and California, the researchers report.
 
In the new study, scientists determined that the high-pressure system, dubbed the "ridiculously resilient ridge" by a California forecaster, continued through the 2013-2014 winter because of these favorable ocean temperatures. The pool of warm water generates atmospheric winds that form patterns of high and low pressure (called planetary waves) that can get stuck off western North America as a high-pressure ridge. [The 5 Worst Droughts in US History]
 
The ridge and its accompanying drought are opposite the conditions that climate models predict under global warming, lead study author Richard Seager, a professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, said on Monday, Dec. 8, during a news briefing. Climate models project low-pressure systems off the West Coast, with wetter winters and drier springs for central and northern California, he said. "Overall, it's a shorter, sharper rainy season," Seager sai

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/california-drought-due-to-nature-not-climate-change#ixzz3OZjWTvKc

As a side note I found out that the UN can make rules that the US will follow but you cannot bring a lawsuit against them for the damages done or to change the law.

[G-Man]

"F" the UN !!!!!!!!!

It does not serve the intended purpose any longer and it has become a platform for terror  hate to spread across the world and for our leader to allow it to happen.

 

[Patrick]

I thought it was proven some time ago that the climate computer 'models ' were wrong which had turned this whole global warming thing into the fiasco it is.  What was the old computer saying, something like 'garbage in garbage out'.

[czuch]

Its also political.
The "endangered delta smelt"  which is a non native species needs the water diverted so they dont dry up. Thanks EPA and liberal crusaders. Good thing the great central valley is not that important.
UN U-chmen. wankers.

[Windrider]

Robert, I would add two more quotes from the article to your selections:

Quote Number 1: "The study authors are not questioning whether climate change exists, only its effects on the short-term drought."

Quote Number 2: "There is no question global warming continues to unfold," said Marty Hoerling, study co-author and a researcher with NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. "The three-year drought is not related to the overall warming, but [droughts in California] are something that happens time and time again."

In my opinion there is not black eye on the "global warming group", whatever that is, from this article.  It's just my opinion, but I see this as a legitiment article by a science writer describing a study done by honest, legit scientists doing what scientists do. They are even preparing the work for publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Computer climate modeling is, and always will be, a work in progress.  These scientists and meteorologists are constantly, even daily, comparing what the computer models generate with observed data and then trying to improve the accuracy of the computer models. They ran 160 different scenarios and the computers couldn't produce what was actually observed in the real world.  It doesn't mean computers are garbage (as suggested in the replies to the post), it just means the data is not complete enough or the algorithm needs changing.  They will learn something from the process of fixing this.

Regarding Plimer's Global Warming 101: I had no intention of starting anything -- hadn't even read many of the comments before writing. Plimer just really set off my BS detector because he is a guy who should know better than to use partial or whole truths in a deceptive way toward a political end. 

Anyway, interesting article. Thanks! 

   

[Patrick]

Yep, garbage in garbage out. 160 computer models just in that one study and not one worked correctly.
Why not just look at weather history. Weather history shows worse weather before we were here than we are now predicting, and, even what we have tried to predict is wrong.

[Windrider]

I found this a very interesting article in part because it furthers the black eye to the climate change group. Its the politicians

conforming to the UN that don't know the appropriate end of their body to speak out of, yet make the US adhere to rules and

regulations that are absurd.

The roadblock is a persistent ridge of high pressure that first formed in 2011 during a La Niña event. Even though La Niña broke down after the 2011-2012 winter, the western equatorial Pacific Ocean remained a warm water bull's-eye, a pattern known to trigger droughts in the Southwest and California, the researchers report.
 
In the new study, scientists determined that the high-pressure system, dubbed the "ridiculously resilient ridge" by a California forecaster, continued through the 2013-2014 winter because of these favorable ocean temperatures. The pool of warm water generates atmospheric winds that form patterns of high and low pressure (called planetary waves) that can get stuck off western North America as a high-pressure ridge. [The 5 Worst Droughts in US History]
 
The ridge and its accompanying drought are opposite the conditions that climate models predict under global warming, lead study author Richard Seager, a professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, said on Monday, Dec. 8, during a news briefing. Climate models project low-pressure systems off the West Coast, with wetter winters and drier springs for central and northern California, he said. "Overall, it's a shorter, sharper rainy season," Seager sai

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/california-drought-due-to-nature-not-climate-change#ixzz3OZjWTvKc

As a side note I found out that the UN can make rules that the US will follow but you cannot bring a lawsuit against them for the damages done or to change the law.

What is this UN rule making?

I'm aware of a big international climate treaty (can't name it now) that libs want, but thought the US never signed on for exactly the reasons you stated.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I found this a very interesting article in part because it furthers the black eye to the climate change group. Its the politicians

conforming to the UN that don't know the appropriate end of their body to speak out of, yet make the US adhere to rules and

regulations that are absurd.

The roadblock is a persistent ridge of high pressure that first formed in 2011 during a La Niña event. Even though La Niña broke down after the 2011-2012 winter, the western equatorial Pacific Ocean remained a warm water bull's-eye, a pattern known to trigger droughts in the Southwest and California, the researchers report.
 
In the new study, scientists determined that the high-pressure system, dubbed the "ridiculously resilient ridge" by a California forecaster, continued through the 2013-2014 winter because of these favorable ocean temperatures. The pool of warm water generates atmospheric winds that form patterns of high and low pressure (called planetary waves) that can get stuck off western North America as a high-pressure ridge. [The 5 Worst Droughts in US History]
 
The ridge and its accompanying drought are opposite the conditions that climate models predict under global warming, lead study author Richard Seager, a professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, said on Monday, Dec. 8, during a news briefing. Climate models project low-pressure systems off the West Coast, with wetter winters and drier springs for central and northern California, he said. "Overall, it's a shorter, sharper rainy season," Seager sai

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/california-drought-due-to-nature-not-climate-change#ixzz3OZjWTvKc

As a side note I found out that the UN can make rules that the US will follow but you cannot bring a lawsuit against them for the damages done or to change the law.

What is this UN rule making?

I'm aware of a big international climate treaty (can't name it now) that libs want, but thought the US never signed on for exactly the reasons you stated.

I think it was called the Kyoto Treaty. And yes we never signed on to it.

[Windrider]

Yes. Thanks!  Wikipedia shows we signed, but Never Ratified It. 

[..]

Mo regs, mo regs, mo regs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/us/politics/obama-administration-to-unveil-plans-to-cut-methane-emissions.html?_r=0

[Patrick]

Mo regs, mo regs, mo regs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/us/politics/obama-administration-to-unveil-plans-to-cut-methane-emissions.html?_r=0

He probably wants to kill off more beef stock. Everyone now knows they are the greatest producers of methane.

[Windrider]

Yup, more POTUS crap. Probably part of his jobs program -- destroy the economies of the beef producing states.  Drought was so bad in Texas lots of cattle had to moved up to Nebr. where we weren't hit so hard.

EPA was even after us about particulate matter, i.e. dust.  These guys are so nuts, you can't drive a tractor from one field to another without bein' bitched at.  Of course, the radical right wingers are so busy protecting the top 1% that we couldn't possibly afford to fix the roads and bridges. So the tractors have to be driven farther on roads because of bridges out in our area.  Sure is a challenge to make good puplic policy.  Guess I'm just a grumpy old man. And an equal opportunity critic of what I see as nonsense where ever it comes from. 

[Patrick]

Yup, more POTUS crap. Probably part of his jobs program -- destroy the economies of the beef producing states.  Drought was so bad in Texas lots of cattle had to moved up to Nebr. where we weren't hit so hard.

EPA was even after us about particulate matter, i.e. dust.  These guys are so nuts, you can't drive a tractor from one field to another without bein' bitched at.  Of course, the radical right wingers are so busy protecting the top 1% that we couldn't possibly afford to fix the roads and bridges. So the tractors have to be driven farther on roads because of bridges out in our area.  Sure is a challenge to make good puplic policy.  Guess I'm just a grumpy old man. And an equal opportunity critic of what I see as nonsense where ever it comes from. 

At least around this neck of the woods there is no money for infrastructure repair because our liberal legislators spend it all on social programs. Some of our bridges have been condemned for decades and some not yet condemned have even collapsed with vehicles on them. We also have about the highest fuel tax in the country just for such purposes, but, it gets sidetracked.

[G-Man]

Computer climate modeling is, and always will be, a work in progress.  These scientists and meteorologists are constantly, even daily, comparing what the computer models generate with observed data and then trying to improve the accuracy of the computer models. They ran 160 different scenarios and the computers couldn't produce what was actually observed in the real world. 

And yet they want to tax me on it.  They want to take money from my family for a "work in progress" that will never explain how this 1 degree change in 100 years is different from the freezing and thawing and refreezing and rethawing the earth underwent before people, cows, and cars ever existed.

Yes, the earth got a degree warmer.  No more argument.  Prove it's my fault.  Can't.  And never will be able to.  

[G-Man]

Yup, more POTUS crap. Probably part of his jobs program -- destroy the economies of the beef producing states.  Drought was so bad in Texas lots of cattle had to moved up to Nebr. where we weren't hit so hard.

EPA was even after us about particulate matter, i.e. dust.  These guys are so nuts, you can't drive a tractor from one field to another without bein' bitched at.  Of course, the radical right wingers are so busy protecting the top 1% that we couldn't possibly afford to fix the roads and bridges. So the tractors have to be driven farther on roads because of bridges out in our area.  Sure is a challenge to make good puplic policy.  Guess I'm just a grumpy old man. And an equal opportunity critic of what I see as nonsense where ever it comes from. 

At least around this neck of the woods there is no money for infrastructure repair because our liberal legislators spend it all on social programs. Some of our bridges have been condemned for decades and some not yet condemned have even collapsed with vehicles on them. We also have about the highest fuel tax in the country just for such purposes, but, it gets sidetracked.

I heard the idiots in Albany (no Repub majority) want to increase the gas tax because the price is down.  They really are idiots.  Will they repeal it when the price goes back up?  hey say that since gas is cheaper, they are losing, but that's B/S because it's taxed per gallon, so if people use the same number of gallons, they collect the same in taxes.  Actually, people may be using more gas (more gallons, more tax collected).  They may be losing some in sales taxes, but that's completely different.

[Patrick]

Yup, more POTUS crap. Probably part of his jobs program -- destroy the economies of the beef producing states.  Drought was so bad in Texas lots of cattle had to moved up to Nebr. where we weren't hit so hard.

EPA was even after us about particulate matter, i.e. dust.  These guys are so nuts, you can't drive a tractor from one field to another without bein' bitched at.  Of course, the radical right wingers are so busy protecting the top 1% that we couldn't possibly afford to fix the roads and bridges. So the tractors have to be driven farther on roads because of bridges out in our area.  Sure is a challenge to make good puplic policy.  Guess I'm just a grumpy old man. And an equal opportunity critic of what I see as nonsense where ever it comes from. 

At least around this neck of the woods there is no money for infrastructure repair because our liberal legislators spend it all on social programs. Some of our bridges have been condemned for decades and some not yet condemned have even collapsed with vehicles on them. We also have about the highest fuel tax in the country just for such purposes, but, it gets sidetracked.

I heard the idiots in Albany (no Repub majority) want to increase the gas tax because the price is down.  They really are idiots.  Will they repeal it when the price goes back up?  hey say that since gas is cheaper, they are losing, but that's B/S because it's taxed per gallon, so if people use the same number of gallons, they collect the same in taxes.  Actually, people may be using more gas (more gallons, more tax collected).  They may be losing some in sales taxes, but that's completely different.

Yep, we are now #2 [ NY ] in fuel tax rate. So, we are about to raise the tax ever more. I think it'll happen. prince andrew has a huge TV push for it.
At the same time along comes our favorite liberal witch from California pushing for a rise in federal fuel tax. They'll pass it.

[..]

The willingly ignorant Suck up the spew of lies .

[Windrider]

Yep, garbage in garbage out. 160 computer models just in that one study and not one worked correctly.
Why not just look at weather history. Weather history shows worse weather before we were here than we are now predicting, and, even what we have tried to predict is wrong.

I think you will probably disagree, but I'm very certain that the weather history is the garbage you speak about. It's in there and a lot more.

160 trials is nothing.  The story goes that Edison failed 1000 times before he got a light bulb to work.  When criticized about this he said it wasn't wasted time, he just learned 1000 ways not to make a light bulb. Of course if he had quit at 160 we all might be sitting in the dark yet.

In my job I worked with medical doctors and dealt with medical facts.  Those guys used to say positives are positive and negatives don't mean anything.

[G-Man]

Yep, garbage in garbage out. 160 computer models just in that one study and not one worked correctly.
Why not just look at weather history. Weather history shows worse weather before we were here than we are now predicting, and, even what we have tried to predict is wrong.

I think you will probably disagree, but I'm very certain that the weather history is the garbage you speak about. It's in there and a lot more.

160 trials is nothing.  The story goes that Edison failed 1000 times before he got a light bulb to work.  When criticized about this he said it wasn't wasted time, he just learned 1000 ways not to make a light bulb. Of course if he had quit at 160 we all might be sitting in the dark yet.

In my job I worked with medical doctors and dealt with medical facts.  Those guys used to say positives are positive and negatives don't mean anything.

So talk to us when you get a positive, then.  Right now it's all theory and hypothesis and that's just not enough to tax people on it and destroy industries.  I'm sorry, it just isn't.  They didn't outlaw gas lights, which caused too many house fires and deaths while Edison failed that 1000 times.  Any silly analogy can be picked apart.  No more analogies and no more studies, financed by those with agendas, that still don't prove anything.   Show me the positives.

In medical school, we were actually taught how to read articles and studies.  We were shown, over and over again how studies and "facts" are manipulated depending upon who financed the study/article, who gains from the findings, who loses from the findings, the background of the authors/technicians, etc.  Nowadays, in my discussions, I find that everyday people are asking the same questions when they hear things that come out of our politician's mouths.  The only Scientific mouths we hear from are the ones with the political ties, the same ones they go to every time to call the other side names on the sunday news shows.

But they want to tax me on it?   

[Patrick]

The only Scientific mouths we hear from are the ones with the political ties, the same ones they go to every time to call the other side names on the sunday news shows.
end quote




Exactly, follow the money.

[old2soon]

I read SOMEWHERE our gubmint consumes $7000000.00 a minute. We keep running out of money to keep this boondoggle going. And YET they demand/want/steal more money to keep the deal going. Any body know how much of a raise these asswipes voted themselves? Reason I ask I got 1.5% raise on my S S payment in Jan. I M H O if they didn't have the "climate change" black hole to dump money in it WOULD be dumped into some other "black hole".   I'm going to propose something that will send chills down the asswipes spines. Get a budget and live within it. Cut your spending by at least 30% for a START. And the weather will do what the weather will do. All my years of driving all over this country and pleading for the bad weather to git better-not ONCE did the weather change do to my pleadings-NOT ONCE.   The Hippy Dippy Weather Man nailed it-weather-we'll have some!  

[The emperor has no clothes]

I read SOMEWHERE our gubmint consumes $7000000.00 a minute. We keep running out of money to keep this boondoggle going. And YET they demand/want/steal more money to keep the deal going. Any body know how much of a raise these asswipes voted themselves? Reason I ask I got 1.5% raise on my S S payment in Jan. I M H O if they didn't have the "climate change" black hole to dump money in it WOULD be dumped into some other "black hole".   I'm going to propose something that will send chills down the asswipes spines. Get a budget and live within it. Cut your spending by at least 30% for a START. And the weather will do what the weather will do. All my years of driving all over this country and pleading for the bad weather to git better-not ONCE did the weather change do to my pleadings-NOT ONCE.   The Hippy Dippy Weather Man nailed it-weather-we'll have some!  

1.5% raise seems pretty good from where I'm sitting. Took a 10% cut 5 years ago and only gotten 5% back so far.

[Windrider]

Yep, garbage in garbage out. 160 computer models just in that one study and not one worked correctly.
Why not just look at weather history. Weather history shows worse weather before we were here than we are now predicting, and, even what we have tried to predict is wrong.

I think you will probably disagree, but I'm very certain that the weather history is the garbage you speak about. It's in there and a lot more.

160 trials is nothing.  The story goes that Edison failed 1000 times before he got a light bulb to work.  When criticized about this he said it wasn't wasted time, he just learned 1000 ways not to make a light bulb. Of course if he had quit at 160 we all might be sitting in the dark yet.

In my job I worked with medical doctors and dealt with medical facts.  Those guys used to say positives are positive and negatives don't mean anything.

So talk to us when you get a positive, then.  Right now it's all theory and hypothesis and that's just not enough to tax people on it and destroy industries.  I'm sorry, it just isn't.  They didn't outlaw gas lights, which caused too many house fires and deaths while Edison failed that 1000 times.  Any silly analogy can be picked apart.  No more analogies and no more studies, financed by those with agendas, that still don't prove anything.   Show me the positives.

In medical school, we were actually taught how to read articles and studies.  We were shown, over and over again how studies and "facts" are manipulated depending upon who financed the study/article, who gains from the findings, who loses from the findings, the background of the authors/technicians, etc.  Nowadays, in my discussions, I find that everyday people are asking the same questions when they hear things that come out of our politician's mouths.  The only Scientific mouths we hear from are the ones with the political ties, the same ones they go to every time to call the other side names on the sunday news shows.

But they want to tax me on it?   

The only Scientific mouths we hear from are the ones with the political ties, the same ones they go to every time to call the other side names on the sunday news shows.
end quote




Exactly, follow the money.

Well, yesterday was a beautiful 49 degrees and I got the Valk out for a ride.  Got home in time to attend a meeting of a science group I like.  The program was on the importance of scientific literacy.  Yes, as it turns out even the scientists know they have PR and communication problems with the public and they are trying to do something about it.

G-man, Your quote above about the funding and agendas affecting research: No argument here.  I might have said "Many" rather than the ""The only" scientific mouths. . ."

There are massive amounts of positives, but many on this board would not pay any attention if they were addressed. Couldn't even begin to deal with it here.

Many want only validation -- See Britman's signature line quote from Andy Rooney.  I like it.

Patrick, You're right about following the money. It matters.  Please remember, or kindly re-read, my post on Global Warming 101.  What I thought went a ways to discredit Plimer's position was what I found WHEN I FOLLOWED THE MONEY.  Trouble is the result wasn't what a whole bunch of guys expected or WANTED.  See, some folks won't even accept results of analysis done exactly the way they want it done!
John Schmidt did wisely give a caveat with his post stating that he couldn't swear to its veracity.

As to me having to show something, I didn't start either thread. I thought they were put up there for comment. So, I commented.  I've made what I think are sound comments why I don't personally agree that these posts, Plimer or the Drought study, undermine much, if any, of the climate research.  People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.  To paraphrase Oss in another post, I just call out what I think is non-sense when I see it.  BTW I change my mind when confronted with compelling evidence that shows I'm wrong.  I have a feeling some here are of the "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up group." Everybody can think what ever they want. 

"I'm an opinionated person and my opinions are passionately stated and loosely held."  --Stuart Brand

[Patrick]

but not their own facts. 
end quote


Facts are facts. They're not just my facts, they are historical facts. I like to study history, including that of weather. I've stated here many times before what weather has been historically.  Weather will change, it has to, thats its job. Always has, always will. Now add in the sun deteriorating as it is and the historical repeat in the reduction of the earths magnetic field eventually resulting in the already overdue reversal of the poles, weather will change. When she decides to change it will change quicker than we think. Weather changes actually happen pretty abruptly.