Climate Change Banter

[ORH_wxman]

The trick is, like skierinvermont says, is that OK, drought in CA has been bad historically. In fact, paleoclimate indicates it may have been much worse.

In fact as is sorta a cliche by now, we had the great misfortune from a planning perspective to have allocated the Colorado's water after a decade of flow measurements done during an abnormally wet decade.

And CA has 38 million people and a rather large economy locked in a precarious relationship with water already.

As the CA water blog points out, historically bad drought in CA has spurred policy change and infrastructure development:

http://californiawaterblog.com/2014/01/21/california-droughts-precipitate-innovation/

After a century of this and multibillions of private, muni, county, State, and Federal dollars getting spent on water and fire we're starting to hit limits of what can be done with surface & groundwater. Even absent climate change.

Again, as skier says, the best guess on what AGW means for CA is notably drier and hotter. So when we get events like the current drought, CA elected officials need to be hammering home for the electorate that as we do policymaking, economic development, land use, individual habit, and so on in the current drought we need to spend one dang minute thinking 30 or 40 years out at the prospect of more people, combined with more (and more) diverse commitments of water, and less water to go around.

That conversation has got to be pessimistic about climate impacts for CA and aggressive about being conservative -- because if it turns out that Mike Mann and James Hansen are frauds and charlatans or just plain wrong or whatever and water availability remains much as it is, fine. CA can go back to building tickytacky semirural ranch houses in seismically active burn zones and accept those risks that we're already used to and eventually it will no longer be feasible costwise to waste water on stupid crap and we'll stop that kind of expansion.

If they're right, then you got millions of people and billions of dollars of investment sunk into economic activity and infrastructure that is no longer tenable and suddenly its people getting displaced and industry shutting down. If they're right,

... 30, 40 years from now boy will our faces be red.

 

 

Hansen can be completely full of crap and CA could still have horrible droughts...global warming at a steep rate and CA drought are not connected at the hip.

 

This is the problem with climate change debate in general. Everyone has to debate who is "right" and who is "wrong"...rather than, say, the science itself. Climate science isn't black and white.

 

 

The southwest U.S. is very vulnerable to longer term drought...with or without rapid AGW. It is definitely ignorant to assume good decades of rainfall like the late 20th century would continue...and continue reliably. Heck, short memory for planning bureaucrats to forget the terrible southwest drought at the turn of 19/20th century. Being conservative on land use and water allocation is a very important part of sustaining a growing population...especially in the arid regions.

[Jonger]

Drudge and Jonger have been communicating.

 

In century: 2000-2014.

 

That's possibly true by the end of the month.

[Jonger]

Hansen can be completely full of crap and CA could still have horrible droughts...global warming at a steep rate and CA drought are not connected at the hip.

 

This is the problem with climate change debate in general. Everyone has to debate who is "right" and who is "wrong"...rather than, say, the science itself. Climate science isn't black and white.

 

 

The southwest U.S. is very vulnerable to longer term drought...with or without rapid AGW. It is definitely ignorant to assume good decades of rainfall like the late 20th century would continue...and continue reliably. Heck, short memory for planning bureaucrats to forget the terrible southwest drought at the turn of 19/20th century. Being conservative on land use and water allocation is a very important part of sustaining a growing population...especially in the arid regions.

 

That's probably why its classified as an arid region. It doesn't mean the rainfall comes in steady intervals, more likely it comes in waves and periods.

[sokolow]

Hansen can be completely full of crap and CA could still have horrible droughts...global warming at a steep rate and CA drought are not connected at the hip.

This is the problem with climate change debate in general. Everyone has to debate who is "right" and who is "wrong"...rather than, say, the science itself. Climate science isn't black and white.

The southwest U.S. is very vulnerable to longer term drought...with or without rapid AGW. It is definitely ignorant to assume good decades of rainfall like the late 20th century would continue...and continue reliably. Heck, short memory for planning bureaucrats to forget the terrible southwest drought at the turn of 19/20th century. Being conservative on land use and water allocation is a very important part of sustaining a growing population...especially in the arid regions.

Yes. Many many people in rural CA are redstate as all get out and either believe climate change is a lie made up by Al Gore or don't give a crap about it. Its not like we don't think about water or fire or aren't educated about it -- lots of rural semirural men and women in CA are seriously involved in their water district or are out there wielding chainsaws and pulaskis. Its a paradox that we don't think on the multibillions & ecological alterations it took / takes -- the immense tax hit and legislative priority! The huge opportunity costs! The elaborate bureaucracy! -- to build and maintain the water projects and wildland management we already have, developed in response to droughts we already experienced, and we don't care to do the accounting projecting that forward in best, likely, bad, and catastrophically bad AGW exacerbated scenarios.

[sokolow]

In short rapid AGW needs to be a part of the conversation for CA because first because it is already incredibly vulnerable to drought & heat. With AGW well, that would be "real real bad". We don't need that risk. Doing the adaptation and decarbonization now is worth it. Second because it is a major leader in broader US policy what we do matters outside the state; in fact its CO2 emissions per capita are already among the lowest in the nation.

late edit: to be slightly more specific about the risks (and given the limitations of regional climate models) using a conservative emissions & sensitivity scenario by late century that would mean perhaps a doubling of heat waves, half again the number of dry water years, a 25% increase in blockbuster fires, a cut in Sierra snowpack by 25% or more, a cut in Peninsular / Transverse range snowpack by yet more; extreme heat days are expected to be yet more frequent in the LA area ranges at altitude. Move all the mountain ecozones up by 300 meters or so. Anticipate a population of 60 million; figure on more pressure on groundwater supply when flows in the Colorado drop by 10% or more. Decide which habitat refurbishment projects in the Delta & elsewhere are going to get scrapped. Start right now and shell out five billion dollars to rehab the Salton Sea.

[Msalgado]

I'm preparing a paper for publication (My FIRST!) that shows increased levels of evaporation effecting stream flow out west due to temperature increase that is from climate change.  Droughts have occurred before and will continue to occur but the simple fact is that increased temperatures due to climate change are going to make these droughts worse.  Its already affecting the water supplies in a region that is hard pressed to meet the demands of its population.  

 

I really don't see how there's any debate here that climate change makes the situation worse.  THAT is why its always brought up in these situations.

[New Englander]

Nearly closing out a January 30 miles sw of Boston. Yeah it has been cold but not very cold if the month is taken into account fully. One week of  a very mild thaw in mid month will put us nearly on line with January 2011. A month that made headlines here for its near 40 inch snow depth but not cold. It's been colder than the past few winters, which right now...is about 1 degree below normal. January 2009, now that was cold. January 2003 was impressive and January 2004, that was the most impressive.

[PhillipS]

I'm preparing a paper for publication (My FIRST!) that shows increased levels of evaporation effecting stream flow out west due to temperature increase that is from climate change.  Droughts have occurred before and will continue to occur but the simple fact is that increased temperatures due to climate change are going to make these droughts worse.  Its already affecting the water supplies in a region that is hard pressed to meet the demands of its population.  

 

I really don't see how there's any debate here that climate change makes the situation worse.  THAT is why its always brought up in these situations.

 

Good luck with the paper!  It sounds interesting and I agree that the on-going drought out west could produce major impacts if it continues.  When you can, please link to your paper so we can read it, too.

[Jonger]

I put this together after it was pointed out on a few "Denier Sites"

 

I'm really trying to figure how they came to this maps conclusions. This type of map will end up as a media release, completely glossing over and basically removing an otherwise COLD February.

 

Ashville, NC for February +0.1 = Above Average.

 

Hartford, CT -5 for February = Near Average.

 

Just disgusting.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

They are taking it out of context.

 

Here is the statewide graphic.

 

There is nothing fishy about it.

 

Folks who are ignorant about the process NCDC uses will probably think absolute anomalies are comparable when they aren't.

 

A 4F+ month in place could be in the top 10 warmest on record. 

 

While -8F anomalies somewhere else could be outside of that top 10. 

 

Sadly there are going to be thousands of folks toiling in ignorance thinking the NCDC must be apart of some government conspiracy to promote global warming.

 

This is honestly kind of funny because of how absurd it is when it's really not that hard to grasp

 

 

Here is the "divisional" graphic.

 

[Jonger]

Not buying what your selling.

This is manipulation for the masses.

Ashvilles +0.1 above average should not have the same categorization as Lansing Michigan's -9.2.

There is no way to wiggle out of this one Friv. It looks terrible.

[Msalgado]

Do you think they're lying?

[ORH_wxman]

Not buying what your selling.

This is manipulation for the masses.

Ashvilles +0.1 above average should not have the same categorization as Lansing Michigan's -9.2.

There is no way to wiggle out of this one Friv. It looks terrible.

 

 

What are they manipulating?

 

 

Other than using extremely light blue (which makes it difficult to distinguish between normal and below normal), the rankings aren't made up.

 

These are prelim numbers anyway...I've noticed the final numbers are usually a bit lower because a lot of the more rural areas don't report right away.

 

 

I'd prefer to see just the raw temp anomalies, but the rankings are correct. That's how they choose to graph it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Dude Ashville is in the far Western part of North Carolina.  It is in Climate division #1.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php

 

 

Climate division #4 is the one that says above normal.

 

 

The division Ashville is in landed on normal bar.  NCDC uses 1901-2000.  Using the 1981-2010 climo is wrong.  And if folks are using anomaly's based on the 30 year averages and then comparing them to graphics that are based on the 20th century averages and then peddling them off as if the NCDC is in some conspiracy they are tin foil wearing ignorant morons who don't know what they are talking about.

 

 

I don't care if folks are crazy pro or anti AGW but when folks desicrate valid scientific data sets like whatever blog posted total crap about the NCDC it pisses me off.  Speading misinformation period is super weaksauce.

[PhillipS]

I put this together after it was pointed out on a few "Denier Sites"

 

I'm really trying to figure how they came to this maps conclusions. This type of map will end up as a media release, completely glossing over and basically removing an otherwise COLD February.

 

Ashville, NC for February +0.1 = Above Average.

 

Hartford, CT -5 for February = Near Average.

 

Just disgusting.

 

Bias.jpg

 

Get over it.  The temperature ranks and anomaly plots use two very different baselines.  The Divisional Temperature Ranks plot uses a 1901 - 2000 mean as the baseline and the Divisional Temperature Anomalies plot uses a 1981 - 2010 mean as its baseline.  Tamino has a post explaining the situation here.

 

Is the fact that the Earth has warmed too much for you to comprehend?  As usual, your conspiracy ranting is groundless.

[heavy_wx]

I put this together after it was pointed out on a few "Denier Sites"

 

I'm really trying to figure how they came to this maps conclusions. This type of map will end up as a media release, completely glossing over and basically removing an otherwise COLD February.

 

Ashville, NC for February +0.1 = Above Average.

 

Hartford, CT -5 for February = Near Average.

 

Just disgusting.

 

Bias.jpg

 

That map clearly shows how it was a much colder than average February for parts of the upper Midwest. It was also an anomalously warm February in the southwest US. 

 

The raw temperature departures don't tell the whole story; there is significantly more variability during the winter in the Midwest vs. the southwest US. Using the example of Needles vs. Lansing, one standard deviation of mean February temperatures is 4.9F in Lansing and 2.9F in Needles. This past February had a greater number of standard deviations from the mean temperature at Needles than Lansing so the warmth there was more unusual than the cold in Lansing.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Get over it.  The temperature ranks and anomaly plots use two very different baselines.  The Divisional Temperature Ranks plot uses a 1901 - 2000 mean as the baseline and the Divisional Temperature Anomalies plot uses a 1981 - 2010 mean as its baseline.  Tamino has a post explaining the situation here.

 

Is the fact that the Earth has warmed too much for you to comprehend?  As usual, your conspiracy ranting is groundless.

 

 

It's incredible.  It started with a blog post by a person named Harold Amber.

 

This is the best part though that is just hard to grasp.  Like W T H?  That's scary.  20 years huh?  Is this the first time you have ever used an NCDC product? 

 

The folks reading these blogs almost accross the board are woefully ignorant.  Litterally being spoonfed this garbage verbatim. 

 

This 20 year veteren of climate journalism doesn't have the simple knowledge of a baseline?  It never occured to this Man that he is probably mis understanding the data/graphics he is looking at?  Instead it's a ****ing govt conspiracy by the NCDC? 

 

Watts posts snippits from Tamino trashing him in the comments section because he doesn't care.  He knows the sheep that read him will obviously ignore it. 

 

 

 

About Harold Ambler

Harold Ambler has been writing about weather and climate for more than 20 years. He started his journalism career at The New Yorker and his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Huffington Post, The AtlanticWire, and wattsupwiththat.com, among other places. He lives in Rhode Island.

 

 

 

 

 

http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/noaa-map-of-february-temperatures-less-than-accurate/

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/18/noaas-odd-way-of-presenting-feb-temperatures/

 

http://blogs.woodtv.com/2014/03/19/february-u-s-temperatures/#comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's going to be incredible pandimonium when the global temperature record falls.  I can already imagine the panic of hundreds of thousands of denier realities crying out together and being silenced all at aonce.

[skierinvermont]

Not buying what your selling.

This is manipulation for the masses.

Ashvilles +0.1 above average should not have the same categorization as Lansing Michigan's -9.2.

There is no way to wiggle out of this one Friv. It looks terrible.

 

More denier nonsense. Everyone has smacked you down for this stupid conspiracy bull****. The reason for the difference is obvious to anybody with a brain. They are using a 1901-present baseline for rankings. Anomalies are calculated on a 1981-2010 baseline. 

 

Try thinking before posting next time.

[PhillipS]

An honest skeptic would know , when comparing anomaly plots, to check the baselines of each - otherwise the comparison is meaningless.

 

If you really want to compare them then you shift one of the anomaly records by the difference in the baselines.  Then, and only then, can you make a relevant comparison.

 

Jonger - do you not understand this or are you now denying basic mathematics, too?

[Jonger]

There are 7 rankings.

 

The two extreme rankings can only be used for 2 years. That leaves 5 rankings to split with 118 years, coming out to a span of approximately 26 years of rankings per classification, when infact the NCDC only uses 12 for the "Well above Average and Well below Average" years, that means the (plain Above Average and Below Average) is assigned 31 years of range.

 

The problem is that using only the top and bottom 1/10th of ranking years to 2 of the ranges does distort what the map is trying to display.

 

Michigan climate division 9 was only colder 14 out of 118 possible years, using the 2 extreme of warmest ever and coldest ever being left off.

 

Considering the wording is more or less for quick glance consumption, this could be improved.

 

Is the NCDC map wrong... No, I agree that its accurate.

 

I'll concede to making a mountain out of a molehill.

[skierinvermont]

Ok so this has the effect of making most of the map most months appear white or very pale blue or orange. Considering most months are above the 118 year average, most months this will create the perception that positive anomalies are more subdued than they actually are. If they had a more liberal use of the bright orange and blue, most months the whole map would have a lot more bright orange instead of just pale orange.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Ok so this has the effect of making most of the map most months appear white or very pale blue or orange. Considering most months are above the 118 year average, most months this will create the perception that positive anomalies are more subdued than they actually are. If they had a more liberal use of the bright orange and blue, most months the whole map would have a lot more bright orange instead of just pale orange.

 

lol, that would be a conspiracy as well.

[skierinvermont]

lol, that would be a conspiracy as well.

 

i could totally see him making that post. deniers complain about the brightness of anomaly maps all the time. The NCDC makes a paler anomaly map and in cold months the deniers complain it's not bright enough!

[AvantHiatus]

The 2012-esque upward movement in arctic sea extent is somewhat eerie. 

[ORH_wxman]

The 2012-esque upward movement in arctic sea extent is somewhat eerie. 

 

 

Looks like a new record low will occur.

[AvantHiatus]

Looks like a new record low will occur.

You are joking but I am serious, more likely than last year but probabilities are still diminished.

[PhillipS]

Just saw this on the IFLS FB page and wanted to share:

 

[LakeEffectKing]

 

Just saw this on the IFLS FB page and wanted to share:

 

 

Funny, by the criteria set forth to determine that 97%....I fit right in!!

So how ya doin' fellow warmer?!!

[Bob Chill]

4 out of 3 people have problems with fractions

[sokolow]

Latest IPCC WG II report is out. Report notes potential negative impacts are global but unsurprisingly will be greatest for the global south and regions that are already impoverished.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/science/earth/panels-warning-on-climate-risk-worst-is-yet-to-come.html

“Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger,” the report declared.

The report also cites the possibility of violent conflict over land or other resources, to which climate change might contribute indirectly “by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”

...

The warning about the food supply in the new report is much sharper in tone than any previously issued by the panel. That reflects a growing body of research about how sensitive many crops are to heat waves and water stress.

Edit: wunderground rundown. Most important parts are food and freshwater security, and their follow-ons

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2656