2013 was the dryest year in the history of the state. That does not prove anything, other than it was different than any time since 1850. But we also know that there has been a measurable trend towards earlier snow melts over the past 50 years. Climate has been changing in California and the SW US in ways that make water less secure as the need for water is growing. We do have to be alert to these changes.
You cannot make an intelligent argument with your head in the sand. Anyone who claims the the past 15 months in California have been normal has their head stuck deeply up the sand.
Snowpack, which is the primary reservoir for summer and fall water for the great majority of the state -- including where JimZ lives -- is about 1/3 of normal. There's ranting in ignorance about facts, and then there are actual facts.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/snowapp...
Cain claims that population growth stopped the precipitation. These people are goofy. I vacationed last month in Yosemite specifically because it now has summer whether without the summer crowds. Cain would be surprised to see that there is little water in Merced River and Yosemite Creek and very little snow to be seen and yet there was little snow to be seen. Cain claims that climate change cannot cause drought but population growth can. Definitely goofy.
It's funny that you call the New York Times a "liberal rag", and you call scientifically literate people "AGW Cultists", and yet you link to a paper started by a religious cult leader to advance his politics. Did you give all your worldly possessions to his church, like so many other of his disciples?
Regional climate models lead us to expect that California droughts will last longer and be more intense as the planet warms, but that doesn't mean we haven't had droughts before or that we won't have rainy periods in the future. Global warming just changes the odds, making droughts more likely. So while the current drought may not be "proof" of global warming, it may be giving us a taste of things to come.
And a note for those that want to treat California as one giant desert: the climate of California is extremely varied, and while we do have deserts, those all lie EAST of the mountain ranges (not one of the coastal cities is considered a desert climatically), and much of the region hardest hit by the drought of the past year is an area with relatively high rainfall normally. Take, for example, Eureka--this is a place that gets about 40 inches of rain per year, and the highest temperature EVER recorded is only 85--clearly not a desert. Since July of last year (when the official rainfall season starts), Eureka has received about 19 inches of rain, about 16 inches BELOW average. San Francisco, another city that anyone would be hard-pressed to call a desert, is also 10 inches of rain BELOW average.
EDIT for Raisin Caine: Why does someone with a background in statistics make some of the silliest arguments? Please tell me why you CAN'T have droughts AND floods in the same location--especially if you're looking over a period of decades? In fact, it would be very rare to find a place that didn't suffer both droughts and floods at one time or another.
Look in history. When Kit Carson went to the LA area there was a water shortage.
Even today, in Marin County, lawns are being watered. Pot is being grown which takes a lot of water. Cars are being washed. Of course if you know of Marin County, it is filled with rich hippies, lawyers, bankers and pretty much the 'elite' of society. I know 25 years ago it was the richest county per capita in the US.
All this while productive farms have to shut down.
This shows that all this AGW and Climate Change crap is only for the Peons not the Pelosis.
California, a location with plants that are suited for deserts has a long history of droughts??? Say it ain't so.
Unbelievably, warmers will actually make this argument.
Baccheus,
The water shortage may be caused by the fact that there are FAR more Californians than the land can support. It becomes exceeedingly difficult to talk about drought problems dealing with CO2, when California has made so many other changes to the environment.
But if you want to use this as a sign of "climate change", then why do you not mention every time that any location has better crops than normal???
This is the idiocy of your STUPID PATHETIC UNSCIENCE. You want to talk about change, ... FINE. Give me a study that shows a statistically significant change to the climate accounting for multiplicity.
Fact is that you once said hurricanes, but the latest hurricane number do not warrant that claim. Now you are going to droughts and floods, sometime in the SAME LOCATION!!!
This is not science, this is scare-mongering BS.
If you think it is science, I have this amazing cure-all medication that I can sell to you for $500 a pill. This pill has been known to cure depression, help people stop smoking, cure headaches, cure acne, and even cure cancer. It will make you stronger, smarter and happier. You too can have this at the low price of $500 per pill.
http://listverse.com/2013/02/16/10-crazy...
Pegminer,
Why is someone who claims to be a scientist, so ignorant about the scientific method? You can have a drought and a flood in the same location over a long period of time. What you can't do is predict every possible scenario and claim it is science. That is what psychics do. You make very clear, very specific predictions when you are testing a hypothesis. You don't just say something is going to change. THINGS ARE ALWAS IN A STATE OF CHANGE!!!
If you want to know why I don't regard the crap models and BS "change" predictions as science, then read Karl Popper.
I create models. They serve as a best guess and that is it, until they have been tested.
BTW, evidently my arguments are always so strong that you need to create a strawman argument to even refute them. I have yet to see you address one of my arguments. It is always some twisted out of context crap.
For example, Note you said:
"It's funny that you call the New York Times a "liberal rag", and you call scientifically literate people "AGW Cultists", and yet you link to a paper started by a religious cult leader to advance his politics."
If I was using your method, you said
"the New York Times a "liberal rag", started by a religious cult leader to advance his politics."
JImZ,
The LA almanac??? Obviously a conservative rag. LOL. Those warmers crack me up.
No.
The proof you are looking for is in the science, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% and if nothing else changes, that will increase the heat retention capacity of the earth,
Just like the Communist and Nazi's, Sagebrush seems to have a problem how (rich) people spend their money. I guess he wants the government to prohibit them to water their lawns or wash their cars or even what crops to grow.
Simply, the answer is no; it is not proof alone. Global climate change refers to change in conditions across the entire world. This is one region that needs to be considered with the rest.
Others members please leave your biases at home. This question does note require more than 3 sentences to address.
We have been quite dry but not so much recently. Raisin is right. Much of California is desert. I got up to run this morning and luckily just missed the rain. We need the rain. We have been quite dry recently. It isn't anything new. There is no such thing as normal. If you were at the average, even that wouldn't be "normal". It varies.
It is hard to try to talk sense into those who believe for reasons other than science and available evidence.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.ht...
I found this graph of temperatures since 1921 here in LA
http://www.climatestations.com/wp-conten...
Edit: It rained yesterday and today and Antarcticice and Bacheous are trying to convince people it is the worst drought ever here in So Cal. These people are ridiculous.
They are pretending this is new and never happened before.
Micheal Mann on Charlie Rose said Sandy was cause by Climate Change because the water was a foot higher?
thats not proof
I'm not going to waste my time read your same old over hyped rot from thinkprogress links
The Washington post doesn't actually quote Obama saying the California drought is caused by AGW, the reporter tries to make a vague connection with this
"Mr. Obama and many Democrats, along with their supporters in the environmental community, have held up extreme weather events such as California’s drought, Hurricane Sandy and others as proof that global warming is wreaking havoc all across the planet" but offers nothing to back this claim it is just the opinion of the reporter.
Drought is not heat, it is a lack of water, quite cold climates can have drought.
California and Eastern Australia are both in drought and that is due to the processes of ENSO but at the moment ENSO is in a neutral phase which is usually not liked to such strong in both California and Australia at the same time, nobody is saying AGW caused these droughts but a warmer climate is certainly going to add to the effect of such a drought, from media reports I have seen in a number of different media sources, considerably more reliable than thinkprogress the California drought is perhaps the worst drought in 500 years.
Here is one from the same paper you use as one of your quotes
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/us/sev...
campbelp2002 (which I guess means your 12)
One drought certainly does prove nothing and an increase in droughts over 50 years would prove something, so I guess you better start warming up those denial excuses.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/23/3417814/global-warming-california-drought/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/drought-ravaged-california-obama-sounds-alarm-clim/
Obama seems to not be letting a good crisis go to waste but even the liberal rag The NY Times couldn't buy into that crap
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/global-warming-not-always.html
And California seems to have a looooong history of severe droughts
http://news.msn.com/in-depth/scientists-past-california-droughts-have-lasted-200-years
How can AGW cultists and a clueless president claim with a straight face that the California drought is caused by AGW when there is an extensive long term history of droughts there before humanity started driving SUVs?
Is this more delusional insanity or bold faced lies to perpetuate a failing theory?
One drought proves nothing. Just like one smoker getting cancer proves nothing. It will take double the number of droughts in the world over a 50 year period to be proof, just like it takes double the cancer deaths over all smokers for 50 years that is proof smoking causes cancer. And it is still proof even if millions of smokers never get cancer (or many countries never have a bad drought).
Of course it is proof. More precipitation is also a sign of global warming, as the warmer weather evaporates the oceans. Also more hurricanes from all that precipitation. and heat waves. And cold weather too.
Maybe any one single calamity isn't proof.
Maybe all of them taken together isn't proof, but is a good indication.
However, trust deniers to not understand.
That's what they do best. :)
