California Drought Natural?

[Roy]

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

Maybe he guessed his words would be distorted by a dishonest naysayer and used by them as an argument from authority in a pathetic attempt to avoid discussing the actual data.

Roy

[seer]

Maybe he guessed his words would be distorted by a dishonest naysayer and used by them as an argument from authority in a pathetic attempt to avoid discussing the actual data.

Roy

Nonsense, he is going after the authors of the study: "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]

Nonsense, he is going after the authors of the study: "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."

Given you've somehow ended up with a dangling internal quotation mark, i don't even feel confident that this is actually what he said.

[seer]

Given you've somehow ended up with a dangling internal quotation mark, i don't even feel confident that this is actually what he said.

Well that was in the USA article, but you can find his objections here:

Just a couple months ago, I critiqued a pair of studies that disputed any linkage between human-caused climate change and the exceptional 2014 California drought. Now comes yet another study (“Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought”) with the imprimatur of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced with great fanfare (a NOAA press conference), drawing yet again the same conclusion. My criticisms of the latest study are yet again basically the same, but for reasons I explain below, that conclusion is even more implausible now than it was just two months ago.

http://www.planetexperts.com/noaa-re....JeAesV3p.dpuf

So whether Mann's objections are correct or not, the fact is there is a clear dispute.

[TheLurch]

So whether Mann's objections are correct or not, the fact is there is a clear dispute.

Yes, and what exactly do you think that dispute is?

(Hint: it's not about whether the ocean conditions contribute to reduced rainfall.)

[seer]

Yes, and what exactly do you think that dispute is?

(Hint: it's not about whether the ocean conditions contribute to reduced rainfall.)

It is about what I first said and what Mann says in my new link. Did AGW have any effect on the California drought. Mann says yes, the NOAA paper says no. It is no more complicated than that.

[TheLurch]

It is about what I first said and what Mann says in my new link. Did AGW have any effect on the California drought. Mann says yes, the NOAA paper says no. It is no more complicated than that.

Yes, it actually is more complicated. The NOAA report (it's not a peer review paper) ascribes the cause of the lack of rain to ocean conditions, and recognizes that those ocean conditions occur naturally. Mann (among other things) pointed out that the severity of the drought is partly due to the unusually high temperatures California has been experiencing, and the NOAA study didn't even look at those. Therefore, he argues, it cannot conclude that the drought was not influenced by human CO2 emissions.

But again, i suspect you'll try to tell me there's no distinction between the two. I'll just point out that your inability to recognize a distinction is not evidence that no distinction exists.

[shunyadragon]

Over the next ten to maybe fifty years if the cyclic drought deepens then I would support the view that human influence is unquestionably effecting the natural drought cycle

[seer]

Yes, it actually is more complicated. The NOAA report (it's not a peer review paper) ascribes the cause of the lack of rain to ocean conditions, and recognizes that those ocean conditions occur naturally. Mann (among other things) pointed out that the severity of the drought is partly due to the unusually high temperatures California has been experiencing, and the NOAA study didn't even look at those. Therefore, he argues, it cannot conclude that the drought was not influenced by human CO2 emissions.

But again, i suspect you'll try to tell me there's no distinction between the two. I'll just point out that your inability to recognize a distinction is not evidence that no distinction exists.

Nonsense Lurch, it does not matter why Mann disagrees with the study, the fact is he does. The NOAA study does in fact conclude that that AGW was not a contributor to the drought. It doesn't matter who is right, the point is they are in contradiction. Mann is attacking the authors and the study directly. He doesn't think it is merely an irrelevant "distinction" they are completely at odds.

[phank]

Nonsense Lurch, it does not matter why Mann disagrees with the study, the fact is he does. The NOAA study does in fact conclude that that AGW was not a contributor to the drought. It doesn't matter who is right, the point is they are in contradiction. Mann is attacking the authors and the study directly. He doesn't think it is merely an irrelevant "distinction" they are completely at odds.

Let's try a futile analogy. Let's say you have slightly loaded dice, making certain numbers a bit more probable. So you roll the dice and get those numbers. Now, one person says that the loaded dice make those numbers more probable, and the other person says that those numbers occur naturally all the time without loaded dice. Who is right? Is there an actual conflict here?

[seer]

Let's try a futile analogy. Let's say you have slightly loaded dice, making certain numbers a bit more probable. So you roll the dice and get those numbers. Now, one person says that the loaded dice make those numbers more probable, and the other person says that those numbers occur naturally all the time without loaded dice. Who is right? Is there an actual conflict here?

Of course there is an actual contradiction here. Mann would not be ranting like he is if there wasn't. Mann is not saying that both side are right, they are just looking at it differently. He is claiming that the conclusions of the NOAA study is just plain wrong.

[TheLurch]

Nonsense Lurch, it does not matter why Mann disagrees with the study, the fact is he does.

Here's a funny thing about science: reasons matter. They may not matter when you're trying to make a cheap point on the internet. But when trying to actually understand the natural world (and mankind's interactions with it), reasons are utterly essential.

The fact that you don't care simply says that you don't care about science. Which is perfectly fine. But, if true, stay out of scientific discussions, because you have nothing to say.

[phank]

Of course there is an actual contradiction here. Mann would not be ranting like he is if there wasn't. Mann is not saying that both side are right, they are just looking at it differently. He is claiming that the conclusions of the NOAA study is just plain wrong.

No he isn't. You are reading what you wish to conclude. As usual. I join those who wonder why you bother reading at all. You already know the Truth, and misrepresenting things you are dead set against understanding is unhelpful for everyone, including you.

[seer]

Here's a funny thing about science: reasons matter. They may not matter when you're trying to make a cheap point on the internet. But when trying to actually understand the natural world (and mankind's interactions with it), reasons are utterly essential.

The fact that you don't care simply says that you don't care about science. Which is perfectly fine. But, if true, stay out of scientific discussions, because you have nothing to say.

What are you talk Lurch? The fact is I was correct and you were wrong. This was not merely a matter of a slight distinction like you suggested - it was a fundamental difference. A clear contradiction between the different studies. So when I said "science got it wrong" I was correct - one of these scientific claims is absolutely incorrect. I just don't see the big deal, science has often been wrong.

[seer]

No he isn't. You are reading what you wish to conclude. As usual. I join those who wonder why you bother reading at all. You already know the Truth, and misrepresenting things you are dead set against understanding is unhelpful for everyone, including you.

Are you lying or stupid phank? Did you even read what Mann said about the NOAA study?

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. I’m sure this latest study was done in good faith, and I don’t question the intentions of the authors.

But I’m troubled by the fact that the findings were announced with such fanfare (how many studies, let alone non peer-reviewed ones, get the benefit of a NOAA press conference?), when the conclusions are so flimsy, are contradicted by so much other peer-reviewed scientific work and involve a matter of tremendous societal importance. I fear that the dubious claims by this latest report simply complicate prospects for having the very important and necessary conversation about what measures California will need to take to deal with what is likely to be a steadily worsening water crisis. That is no small matter.