"Cough! Cough! You're wrong! You are just absolutely wrong! Al Gore didn't peer review that article. Why as we sit here typing our men are going back in history and we will change that. Why do you true scientists always cause us trouble. Once we get everything setted you have to go even further back and then all our lying. . . .er . .view of the matter has to be altered. This costs us money, you know. Scientists are getting more and more expensive and more reluctant to cook the books. They are holding us ransom."
Just look at Gary F, "Wrong – absolutely, completely, and outrageously stupidly wrong." When they get caught with their pants down they just jack up the rhetoric, as if that will scare you into submission. Ha! Ha!
Notice how these greenies come up with different definitions of drought? At least they could get their act together.
This is a great question. It shows the utter insanity of the greenies. Greenies, just look at your answers and see the folly.
Try asking the question so that it's understandable to someone that is not in your head.
EDIT: See, your question relies on an assumption that droughts were forecast for the Pacific Northwest due to global warming. Can you show us where you got that prediction? I constantly see people like you take some regional statement and then apply it globally. I have to admit I'm not an expert on regional climate change forecasts for the Pacific Northwest, but when scientists are talking future increased droughts, it's usually for places closer to the subtropics, like California
Another EDIT: Well now at seems like you're actually admitting that your question is based on nothing but your own personal delusions, which goes back to my original answer.Your additional information proves beyond any doubt (as if there were any doubt) that you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You have plenty of company, though, in the club of people that are too stupid to check on whether what they say is true or not.
Another EDIT: Yes, the word "Cycle" is denier synonym for something that beyond understanding. I really think we should ask them for the Fourier decomposition of the climate cycle.
It is just like you and watts to present info that is barely relevant
Most of the concern about drought in the US is in the heartland, the southwest and california, although there has been drought throughout the contiguous states *in the last 3 years primarily)
You are so full of it, I am surprised you haven't already been converted to a manure plant
My time machine isn't working, so I can't live between 1300 and 1870 ...
The claim that anyone ever tried to erase the little ice age from history is a lie. And your wattsup link is an admission that not every place on Earth was cold all the time between 1300 and 1870. Dry = hot
Wrong on several counts.
1. Drought is a condition of precipitation being less than potential evapotranspiration, not precipitation being less than a certain amount.
2. Drought is a condition of an area or location being dryer than normal.
Finding a lack of evidence =/= hiding
The reconstruction only goes back to the 1400s, you nitwit. That is like saying where you found your car keys is the last place you looked.
Besides, the results are well known. I have at least a half dozen publications on drought history myself that make the same observation and last Saturday I gave a public lecture on the use of historic and proxy records of climate variables in understanding the history and processes of drought.
Further – why would “AGW cultists” hide the LIA since they are the scientists who have identified it and defined its spatial and temporal distribution? If it was not for “AGW cultists” Deniers would never have even heard of the LIA because in addition to being too stupid to discover anything of scientific worth, you have no interest in it at all other than as something else to lie about.
Or, if you want to learn something, Michael Mann has published several articles on the LIA. Here are a couple:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public...
I’ve saved the best for last ---
Do you have any reason – based on your extensive scientific knowledge – for implying that AGW cultists might care about the drought study? [Pretend that everyone – including Michael Mann – has not known this for 30 years.] In other words, other than resulting from whatever psychotic episodes you may be experiencing – Can you explain why the drought study is a better reason for AGW cultists to hide the LIA than the fact that someone ran into my BMW?
=====
edit --
>>We have been told by the IPCC and nearly every AGW cultist scare monger out there that global warming is going to cause massive droughts<<
Pegminer is correct that you are the scare monger. IPCC drought predictions are presented in the context of specific environments and the associated atmospheric physics responsible for differences in those environments.
>>: How hard is it for someone with a PH.D to figure this out?<<
It's not - although it is clearly too hard for you to understand.
Let's get a few basic facts straight:
1. Reconstructions of drought have absolutely nothing at all do with the fact that AGW theory predicts increased drought problems for certain arid regions. It does not matter whether there were no droughts in the 20th century or if every drought occurred during the 20th century
2. The main conclusion (I mean the main scientific conclusion and not stupid imaginary Denier-conclusions) is that we should expect future drought episodes that will be amplified by both AGW and non-AGW factors.
Do you have any thoughts on the fact that the reconstruction is based on trees from the Rocky Mountains and historic streamflow records from Utah?
I just noticed that they reference some of my data and research as supporting evidence for their interpretations. Did they consult with you, as well?.
>>LOL<<
LOL
====
>> AGW climate forecasts and predictions have been proven to be completely meaningless<<
Actually, they proven to be reasonably accurate and – as should be expected since this is their purpose – they have helped us better understand the climate system by identifying areas where our knowledge is OK and areas where we need more information. In science, we do not consider increasing knowledge to be meaningless. But, I can understand you opinion since knowledge has never been an interest of yours.
>> One has a much clearer understanding of current events if one has a clearer understanding of past events.<<
What do you think climate models are based on? You cannot build a climate model without past events. The whole reason scientists keep working to develop longer and beater records is precisely so those can can be used as additional input, to develop algorithms based in physical evidence, and to discover the empirical probability functions that mathematically describe the distributional characteristics of the variables used and generate initial parameter estimates.
>>Climate history has proven to be cyclic<<
Wrong – absolutely, completely, and outrageously stupidly wrong.
Your statement is meaningless. Scientifically, it is the same as saying that climate history has proven that there is a Climate Fairy who controls everything. Cycles have mathematical time and frequency solutions and established scientific connections to physical forces that explain the cycle.
If you do not have the spectral properties and physical explanation – then you do not have a cycle; you have a stupid magical explanation that Deniers call a “cycle.”
New research shows that the top ten droughts in the US northwest occurred during the little ice age (1300 to 1870) when the global climate was cooler.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/02/worst-drought-of-this-century-barely-makes-the-top-10/
