California Drought Natural?

[seer]

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.

No, no matter how you word it you have two different conclusions. One study says that AGW did not contribute to the drought, and another says that it did. They are not consistent with each other. The NSF study said explicitly that the drought was most likely caused by AGW, the NOAA report contradicts that.

And if they were not in contradiction I doubt that you would have had this quote from Michael Mann in the first link.

"The authors of the new report would really have us believe that is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the impact of human-caused climate change?" Frankly, I don't find that even remotely plausible."

[TheLurch]

No, no matter how you word it you have two different conclusions. One study says that AGW did not contribute to the drought, and another says that it did. They are not consistent with each other. The NSF study said explicitly that the drought was most likely caused by AGW, the NOAA report contradicts that.

Have you read either study? If not, how can you be so certain?

One study actually concludes that the drought is consistent with natural causes. The second says that the probability of having a drought is enhanced by climate change. The two are not logically incompatible.

[seer]

Have you read either study? If not, how can you be so certain?

One study actually concludes that the drought is consistent with natural causes. The second says that the probability of having a drought is enhanced by climate change. The two are not logically incompatible.

Then why did Mann say what he did? I assume that he understands the studies.

[TheLurch]

Then why did Mann say what he did? I assume that he understands the studies.

Before we move on to Mann, should i take you changing your question as evidence that you accept that the two studies are not logically incompatible?

[seer]

Before we move on to Mann, should i take you changing your question as evidence that you accept that the two studies are not logically incompatible?

No, I'm suggesting that Mann also sees the NOAA study as contradicting the idea that the drought was likely a direct cause of AGW.

[mossrose]

I guess the drought is over?

[TheLurch]

No, I'm suggesting that Mann also sees the NOAA study as contradicting the idea that the drought was likely a direct cause of AGW.

I don't want to get in to what Mann says until we can agree on what the conclusions of the actual studies are. So far, all you've indicated is that you've not read them, and you're not willing to accept the summery of someone (myself) who's actually read both of them. What's it going to take to get you to come to terms with the studies' conclusions?

[Leonhard]

I wish I was on campus at the moment so I could read the reports.

[TheLurch]

I wish I was on campus at the moment so I could read the reports.

Both of them are free!

NOAA: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.document...compressed.pdf

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...0477-95.9.S1.1

[seer]

I don't want to get in to what Mann says until we can agree on what the conclusions of the actual studies are. So far, all you've indicated is that you've not read them, and you're not willing to accept the summery of someone (myself) who's actually read both of them. What's it going to take to get you to come to terms with the studies' conclusions?

What conclusions. In your links, in the abstracts, the NOAA report clearly states that AGW did not contribute to the drought. And the American Meteorological Society's report did say that AGW most likely did contribute or was the cause.

[TheLurch]

What conclusions. In your links, in the abstracts, the NOAA report clearly states that AGW did not contribute to the drought. And the American Meteorological Society's report did say that AGW most likely did contribute or was the cause.

And if you'd read beyond the abstracts, you'd find exactly what i summarized above: that the NOAA report focuses on ocean conditions to conclude that they trigger the drought, while the AMS paper indicates that climate change is not necessary for the ocean conditions to form, but increases the probability that they will. Those are two different questions. Your inability to see that and continued desire to focus on superficial summaries does not tell us anything about climate science. It tells us about your ability to come to terms with scientific reasoning.

[seer]

And if you'd read beyond the abstracts, you'd find exactly what i summarized above: that the NOAA report focuses on ocean conditions to conclude that they trigger the drought, while the AMS paper indicates that climate change is not necessary for the ocean conditions to form, but increases the probability that they will. Those are two different questions. Your inability to see that and continued desire to focus on superficial summaries does not tell us anything about climate science. It tells us about your ability to come to terms with scientific reasoning.

Then why was Mann so upset? Didn't he understand this simple distinction?

[TheLurch]

Then why was Mann so upset? Didn't he understand this simple distinction?

Wait, does that mean you accept there is a distinction?

[seer]

Wait, does that mean you accept there is a distinction?

No. So again, do you understand what it being claimed better than Mann?

[TheLurch]

No.

Then there's no point continuing this discussion.

And, amazingly enough, I've talked to Mike Mann, and have a pretty good idea what his thoughts are on this.