Newsflash Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Drought data will show that your assertions are way off. I wanna be you when I grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Drought data will show that your assertions are way off. One of the most commonly used (at least in the US) measure of drought is the Palmer Drought Severity Index, which you can find archived here by NOAA. Basicallyanything below -2 is a moderate droughtbelow -3 is a severe droughtbelow -4 is an extreme drought. Your first assertion is that California is well known for droughts. I took the Drought index data from Jan 1895 to Dec 2013 for the 48 contiguous states, averaged climate divisions within a state, and looked for the number of months with severe or extreme droughts. California ranked 29th out of 48th states with 79 out of 1428 months, so it is not even the top 50%, not sure how that qualifies California as `well known for droughts'. (For the curious, first is Arizona with more than twice the number: 170 months, second is Nebraska with 137 months.) Your second claim is that the current drought is dwarfed by the 2001/2002 drought. This is clearly incorrect. US drought monitor has a handy tool that allows you to see a finer spatial distribution of the current drought. Here's the % of area in California in various drought conditions (white is no drought, dark red is exceptional): It is easy to see that the 2001/2002 drought is much smaller in comparison to the current drought.At its peak, only 19% of California is in extreme drought, and none in exceptional drought condition.At present, 57% of the state is in extreme drought, 9.8% of the state is in exceptional drought condition. Your choice of 2001/2002 is a bit perplexing given that 02/03 and 07 droughts are more severe. In any case, all three of the droughts started in the drier summer months, and ended after the wet winter months. This makes the current drought more significant since it is happening during the winter months, when it needed to get enough precip to cover the drier summer months. To put the current drought into perspective, all three significant droughts since 2000 resolved in about 6 months since it peaked. Not only is the current drought significantly more severe, it will likely last longer:All three previous droughts resolved in about 6 months or so after it peaked.We don't know if the current has peakedEven if it peaked, it will only return to normal condition in 6 months only if California receive 200-250% of its monthly rainfall every month. (source) Personal experience is not a substitution for real data. http://www.engr.colo...-alley 1984.pdf The PDSI addresses two of the most elusive properties of droughts: their intensity and beginning ending times. Unfortunately, the index uses rather arbitrary rules in quantifying these properties. In addition, the methodology used to normalize the values of PDSI is based on very limited comparisons and is only weakly justified on a physical or statistical basis. Which is why, oh global warmin-- er, "climate change" follower, you're relying on a heavily flawed system, and I trust my years of living in a state that is constantly hammered with droughts over your flawed index. Following flawed statistics and logic is no substitute for more comprehensive science. The 2001/2002 drought had a much more severe impact on the state. Perhaps living there might help you understand more about California's climate and it's impacts upon living conditions rather than relying on indexes that don't factor enough about the climate of that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 http://www.engr.colo...-alley 1984.pdf Which is why, oh global warmin-- er, "climate change" follower, you're relying on a heavily flawed system, and I trust my years of living in a state that is constantly hammered with droughts over your flawed index. Following flawed statistics and logic is no substitute for more comprehensive science. The 2001/2002 drought had a much more severe impact on the state. Perhaps living there might help you understand more about California's climate and it's impacts upon living conditions rather than relying on indexes that don't factor enough about the climate of that state. I trust 98% of the world scientists. You have provided no science , you actually accuse scientists of lying to governments to get increased funding in previous posts on this subject. You are hilarious buddy , please keep posting , I need my daily laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Sorry tree huggers and ("save the planet!") green nuts, California has long been well known for droughts, and thus far this California drought is dwarfed by the 2001/2002 drought alone. Hyperbole doesn't work for someone who has actually lived in that state and isn't interested in being spoon-fed green guilt like so many others here who take any opportunity to blame so much as a fart in the wind on global warming (re-branded as climate change). The way it's been is pretty much any agricultural uses of water in the southern half of California is at the behest of Northern California (thanks to the mountains and glaciers) or other US states diverting water to SoCal. That part of the state should always be on severe water restrictions due to it's inability to provide for itself without usurping water from elsewhere. A personal case doesn't tell the entire story. That's not how research works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 A personal case doesn't tell the entire story. That's not how research works. I'm confused as to where you came up with this conclusion from me suggesting the obvious -- that California is well known for droughts. Anyone actually from California (or has lived there like I have) who wants to argue otherwise? The only thing I said that seems even up for contest is concerning which was more severe -- this one is still ongoing so of course there's more potential. I'm well aware that it's anecdotal, however, given my experience with droughts in that state (which are far worse in SoCal since their limited water is already borrowed from elsewhere -- and given the fact that there's so much desert there), I don't need some highly flawed method of measuring droughts to tell me about the problems a state I've lived in has. Droughts are commonplace in California. I sat there watching reservoirs and the Delta, which I once used for skiing, dry up (seeing markers in the shore where the water once was --- helps when you drive past them on a regular basis), and this was well before this latest drought. At least 5 times off the top of my head we were on severe water restrictions and that was in San Francisco -- not exactly Los Angeles or Riverside. California does not have it's own sustaining water supply with around the population of Canada. These droughts will obviously get worse as the population rises, or until areas like Southern Cal learn to use desalination (another thing that will get the green nuts crying) more efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Catastrophic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dedalus Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 LOL @ Aleksandr Pistoletov Dude, I live in SoCal and even the news here are saying if there continues to be little rain, this might be the driest period in 500 years. Right now, we are officially in a drought so we have to cut back on water usage by 20%, which right now is only a 'recommendation'. But this is merely semantics to not get everyone in a panic. http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-declares-drought-emergency-in-california-20140117,0,3244744.story#axzz2snn3wfJR Any person raised in California, yes, will downplay the droughts because they've heard it all their life, but the numbers don't lie. I know many Californians laugh and take the numbers with a grain of salt, which, to me, is mind-boggling. I mean, wouldn't they rather err on the side of caution? It's not like it's such a thin line...I mean, the driest year where farmers aren't even working because of it sounds bad. I feel like that's the way this state is ran, though. It's like everyone waits till it's this massive life-or-death emergency to do something, otherwise, they're very 'mehh' about it. Kind of ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 LOL @ Aleksandr Pistoletov Dude, I live in SoCal and even the news here are saying if there continues to be little rain, this might be the driest period in 500 years. Right now, we are officially in a drought so we have to cut back on water usage by 20%, which right now is only a 'recommendation'. But this is merely semantics to not get everyone in a panic. http://www.latimes.c...y#axzz2snn3wfJR Any person raised in California, yes, will downplay the droughts because they've heard it all their life, but the numbers don't lie. I know many Californians laugh and take the numbers with a grain of salt, which, to me, is mind-boggling. I mean, wouldn't they rather err on the side of caution? It's not like it's such a thin line...I mean, the driest year where farmers aren't even working because of it sounds bad. I feel like that's the way this state is ran, though. It's like everyone waits till it's this massive life-or-death emergency to do something, otherwise, they're very 'mehh' about it. Kind of ridiculous. It's not just people in your state that behave in this fashion , so many people all over the world seem to share this trait, rather than act when we have the chance to effect change , people re-act once the damage is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leucoxene Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I would not use a drought as a soap box for Global Warming. California has had consistently had pretty bad droughts since forever and that has more to do with over consumption and inefficient use of water than a change in temperature. Desertification doesn't happen through temperature spikes it has to do with poor farming methods/deforestation and depleting water sources. Just saying, this isn't related to climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Holy crap, y'all. It was posted as a major environmental situation not a climate change debate. Stuff is real today though. Any way you see it. Ain't no water nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Not sure why you are saying that or why you put plenty in quotations, but ok. Wasn't trying to suggest anything with my post except that it's pouring in many parts of California right now Sorry, man. Didn't mean that as in your face kind of comment. I was ineptly trying to point out that a little bit of rainfall is not going to change this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 So the snow pack isnt there this year. Is it too late in the season for, say, a late bout of heavy snows to lessen the problem or are they SOL until next winter? Its a long ways away and rationing is already well underway. P.S. How much does it cost to build desalination plants to create drinking water out of salt water? How much energy do they use? Cuzz Im no geography expert but they got a pretty big ocean somewhere nearby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 So the snow pack isnt there this year. Is it too late in the season for, say, a late bout of heavy snows to lessen the problem or are they SOL until next winter? Its a long ways away and rationing is already well underway. P.S. How much does it cost to build desalination plants to create drinking water out of salt water? How much energy do they use? Cuzz Im no geography expert but they got a pretty big ocean somewhere nearby. Considering the scientist are saying it's a 500 year event then, yes, SOL. Nothing could be done quickly enough to save this agricultural season if nature doesn't catch up. There's no saying that technology can't bridge the gap but if this is a yearly event then they better get on it soon or luxuries will be zeroed for s little while at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I would not use a drought as a soap box for Global Warming. California has had consistently had pretty bad droughts since forever and that has more to do with over consumption and inefficient use of water than a change in temperature. Desertification doesn't happen through temperature spikes it has to do with poor farming methods/deforestation and depleting water sources. Just saying, this isn't related to climate change. Too late! A fart in the wind is enough to get that one going. The politicization of science by the left is nothing short of disturbing and does more harm than good to the advancement of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Too late! A fart in the wind is enough to get that one going. Sorry, comrade. It wasn't posted as such. Disregard your politics, this is really happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Mabye this means we will be able to buy more locally grown produce instead of the freak vegetables we get from the states. Yah...I'm kinda freaked-out that California grapes are now suddenly the size of baby fists. What kind of alien material are they usin' to produce these genetically-modified foods anyway?! I'd rather consume what Mother Nature creates for us... naturally & organically - thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Yah...I'm kinda freaked-out that currently California grapes are the size of baby fists. What kind of genetic-material do they use to produce those genetically-modified foods anyway?! I'd rather consume what evolution has created for us naturally & organically - thanks. Hippie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Sorry, comrade. It wasn't posted as such. Disregard your politics, this is really happening. LOL "This is really happening".. No way. There can't be a drought happening in California. I don't believe it. Not possible. Yah...I'm kinda freaked-out that California grapes were suddenly the size of baby fists. What kind of genetic-material are they using to produce those genetically-modified foods anyway?! I'd rather consume what evolution creates for us naturally & organically - thanks. LOL "naturally and organically".. wow. Selective breeding threw your "what evolution creates for us naturally and organically" argument out the window before you even made it. (does anyone else realize how religious that statement sounds?) Man what are these enviro-nut leftists smoking today? There's nothing wrong with California grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 LOL "This is really happening".. No way. There can't be a drought happening in California. I don't believe it. Not possible. A 500 year drought that will devastate local industry? Yes, really. I didn't post this as a vehicle for climate change debate. Facts are facts. This is substantial. If you can't see it then we are not war with Eurasia, I already told you, we've always been at war with Eurasia, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 A 500 year drought that will devastate local industry? Yes, really. I didn't post this as a vehicle for climate change debate. Facts are facts. This is substantial. If you can't see it then we are not war with Eurasia, I already told you, we've always been at war with Eurasia, Preach it brotha, you and Infowars Reverend Alex Jones have all the d/l info that none of the other sheep have. It's not like the industry can actually cope, you know, given without the help of Northern California and other states, the Southern half of California would be already completely dry. California doesn't regularly have droughts.. next thing you know they might start having Earthquakes too! This is the ultimate climate change catastrophe that will have us at war with the Klingons next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.