California Drought Natural?

[pancreasman]

Mexicans cause droughts? (Smacks head in disbelief).

[QuantaFille]

Moderated By: QuantaFille

Moving to Natural Science.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

You have a government claiming, based on the scientific studies linked by the government, that the drought was caused by AGW. That was just false. The models did not work.

No you do not have the 'government claiming' anything. The government itself has no official position on global warming, nor specific models and research conclusions. The scientist published their research and conclusions, and they are the only ones responsible for their work, not 'government.' Likewise, the conclusions made by Noah. At present they are neither true nor false. More models and research in the future may shed more light on the trends in the drought cycle of the southwestern USA.

You still have not realized that differences in conclusions in research are not a matter of what is true and false in science.

I accept science no problem, Methodological Naturalism. Science cannot falsify anything related to the existence of the soul

[phank]

An interesting thread, in light of the recent flooding and mud slides as California gets drenched. As I write, they're closing schools in anticipation of up to 4 inches of rain in parts of the state. Storm systems like this are also pretty typical, especially this time of year.

But I personally see no contradiction here between models that predict incrementally less rainfall over the course of the next century, and the observation of normal periodic droughts which are unrelated to this long-term overall trend. Saying that science "got it wrong" by predicting slightly longer or deeper droughts on average over a century, and then saying "nyah nyah, science is stupid" when these same people say the current drought is normal and probably not a direct result of the long term trend, is braying ignorance at the moon.

[shunyadragon]

An interesting thread, in light of the recent flooding and mud slides as California gets drenched. As I write, they're closing schools in anticipation of up to 4 inches of rain in parts of the state. Storm systems like this are also pretty typical, especially this time of year.

But I personally see no contradiction here between models that predict incrementally less rainfall over the course of the next century, and the observation of normal periodic droughts which are unrelated to this long-term overall trend. Saying that science "got it wrong" by predicting slightly longer or deeper droughts on average over a century, and then saying "nyah nyah, science is stupid" when these same people say the current drought is normal and probably not a direct result of the long term trend, is braying ignorance at the moon.

Very good response!! Yes, these cycles are normal for the Southwest. There is another factor in this case concerning the geologic history of climate that can complicate these models. We have been in global drying trend and increasing desertification for over 10,000+ years. We see this in the larger desert regions of the Sahara, Central Asia, and likely in our own Midwestern region.

An anecdotal testimony on my part is what I saw in western China near the boundary of the desert near Urumichi China. I saw tree stumps of Aspen forests in what is now desert, and I saw evidence of irrigated rice fields buried under ~15 feet of wind blown loess in a construction cut. The fields were likely ~2,000 years old.

The evidence for global climate change from human influence has a much broader scientific basis in other regions of the world, rising sea level, melting of glaciers, and ice sheets, and wide spread climate change on the borders of the arctic climate regions of Asia and North America, just to name some of the obvious evidence worldwide.

[TheLurch]

You have a government claiming, based on the scientific studies linked by the government, that the drought was caused by AGW. That was just false. The models did not work.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I've read the NOAA report - it relies almost entirely on climate models to build its case that the lack of rainfall was the result of natural variations.

So, did the models work or not?

It's also worth noting that the focus of this report was simply on the lack of rainfall. The drought has been badly exacerbated by unusually high summer temperatures in California, which enhanced evaporation and dried out the ground and helped empty reservoirs. The NOAA study did not look at whether there was a link between these elevated temperatures and human influence.

(For those curious about the technical details of the model use as opposed to arguing about the conclusions: the authors find that continued greenhouse warming will have two effects on California: enhanced early winter rain caused by warm ocean conditions, followed by drier late winter/springs. The current drought has involved several years of both dry winters and dry springs, and therefore isn't consistent with this pattern. That, combined with the historic record, which shows several three year drought periods in the past century and a half, suggest that natural variability is a significant contributor to the recent patterns.

It's actually a really difficult scientific problem, given that the ocean temps that created these conditions were somewhat different in each of the three years of drought. So, don't expect this report to be the last word on the topic, as other researchers will probably try to tackle the challenge.)

[seer]

You have no idea what you're talking about. I've read the NOAA report - it relies almost entirely on climate models to build its case that the lack of rainfall was the result of natural variations.

What are you talking about? So the NOAA report was wrong?

And they did conclude:

Natural weather patterns and climate variability, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought that's parching California, says a study out today from federal scientists.

"It's important to note that California's drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state," said Richard Seager, report lead author and professor with Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report, "Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought," was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

They are claiming, right up front, that the drought was not caused by AGW.

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about? So the NOAA report was wrong?

And they did conclude:



They are claiming, right up front, that the drought was not caused by AGW.

Not concluded as right or wrong, the conclusions are the result of some computer models, and there are other computer models that reach different conclusions, which will be resolved as more climate data is available overtime or more research and models resolve the difference

[shunyadragon]

No I didn't. I made a comment that they didn't try to fudge their data to confirm their models. If you or anyone else thinks it was more than that, that's on you, not me.

How do you know they did not fudge their data to confirm their data? Do you have personal knowledge or qualification to determine this?

[TheLurch]

What are you talking about? So the NOAA report was wrong?

No, you were wrong - or at least inconsistent. You're claiming that "models did not work" - based on evidence generated by models.

[seer]

No, you were wrong - or at least inconsistent. You're claiming that "models did not work" - based on evidence generated by models.

Well no, someone's models were wrong - either NOAA's or the models used in the report quoted by The National Science Foundation.

[TheLurch]

Well no, someone's models were wrong - either NOAA's or the models used in the report quoted by The National Science Foundation.

They're actually concluding somewhat different things. (conveniently, i've read both studies)

The NOAA report suggests that: 1) similar events have occurred in the past, and there's been no trend as greenhouse warming has accelerated; and 2) that climate models suggest we'd see an increase in early winter rain as a result of greenhouse warming, which is not consistent with what we've seen in the drought years. Thus, it concludes that greenhouse gasses did not contribute specifically to the lack of rainfall.

The models it used also showed that a specific pattern of warm ocean water contributes to the lack of rainfall.

The NSF-funded study also saw this same pattern of warm ocean water. But it looked in detail at the pattern, and found that this pattern is more likely to occur after greenhouse warming. So, it concluded that greenhouse warming increases the odds that something like the drought would occur, even though it's possible for the same pattern to occur naturally.

So, the two studies are consistent with each other. One is simply asking a yes-or-no, is this clearly human-driven question, and concluding we can't say it is. The second is asking "has human-driven warming shifted the odds", and concludes that we can say it has.

[shunyadragon]

Well no, someone's models were wrong - either NOAA's or the models used in the report quoted by The National Science Foundation.

Yes or maybe no, but this is not a big deal in terms one model or the other in this case. The models do not ask the same questions, and yes they may come to slightly different results. It is not a yes and no proposition. Individual climate models are not "hard science." They are interpretive of the evidence available. The hard science is the collection of data over time that the models are based on. Climate change or global warming is based on hundreds of thousands of years of data and tens of thousands of computer models in many places in the world over time.

[phank]

Well no, someone's models were wrong - either NOAA's or the models used in the report quoted by The National Science Foundation.

And it's interesting that you started with the conclusion that science was wrong, referred to studies which actually say no such thing (they ask different questions and answer appropriately), and after this is carefully explained to you, you ignore all the explanations and revert to your original foregone conclusion.

And my conclusion is that you should be doing this on a religious discussion, where it is required. NOT on a science discussion, where the facts matter.

[Roy]

And my conclusion is that you should be doing this on a religious discussion, where it is required. NOT on a science discussion, where the facts matter.

My conclusion is that as usual seer is not interested in the truth, only in finding something that can support his prior views, no matter how tenuously or contortedly.

Roy