theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Preach it brotha, you and Infowars Reverend Alex Jones have all the d/l info that none of the other sheep have. 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. The link is from NASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The link is from NASA. Ohh, the link is from NASA.. that doesn't mention one word about "climate change" or Eurasia or this being a 500 year drought. In other words, Eurasia conspiracy confirmed, amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Ohh, the link is from NASA.. that doesn't mention one word about "climate change" or Eurasia or this being a 500 year drought. In other words, Eurasia conspiracy confirmed, amirite? It mentions that this drought is extremely significant. I never mentioned climate change, That debate is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Or did you not read it?` / From the OP link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 It mentions that this drought is extremely significant. I never mentioned climate change, That debate is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Or did you not read it?` / From the OP link: Bah, unfortunately some people are incapable of discerning rather obvious sarcasm.. I give up on it. Anyways, we all know it's a huge drought. Droughts in California are common. The lack of rainfall is a characteristic of a drought. On the other hand, California has managed through many droughts. The last decade has seen what, 4 or 5? I remember roughly the same in the 90's too. It will likely temporarily affect us in Canada in the produce section as we get our produce from the states, and we see California is a major supplier of it. There's a lesson to be learned by those still living in that state -- water conservation should be a perpetual thing, especially in SoCal. The northern central valley, Napa Valley, and Emerald Triangle/North coast will be fine. If anything, the central valley has long been prone to floods, including a massive flooding in the late 90s/early 2000s. http://www.nytimes.c...california.html El Nino Brings Flooding and High Winds to Coastal California Published: February 4, 1998 EMAILPRINT A big storm, driven by El Nino and expected for months, hit California with driving rain and hurricane-force winds yesterday, sending thousands fleeing to high ground, while another storm drenched the Southeast after plowing across Florida with tornadoes. The storm was one of the biggest on record for California, said James Bailey, assistant chief of California's flood center, but it was not as serious as the January 1997 one that caused billions of dollars in damage. ''There's more coming in, but it's no time for panic,'' Mr. Bailey said. Eighteen-foot waves threatened beach homes in Southern California and winds up to 80 miles an hour uprooted trees and left thousands of people without power. A falling tree killed one person in Northern California. ''We've received over the last 24 hours nothing less than a bomb,'' Mr. Bailey said. On the other side of the country, at least two ships were driven aground in Florida during the night, several people were rescued at sea, and one person was killed. About 200,000 people were left without power. Heavy snow warnings were issued for West Virginia, and coastal flood watches extended as far north as Maryland. The West Coast storm stretched the length of California. Of course, I made in large bold font the key word that gets people riled up and chasing this doom and gloom crap (with an agenda, of course).. "record". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty 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. Anecdotal evidence is comprehensive science. Hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Anecdotal evidence is comprehensive science. Hilarious! LOL What's more hilarious is that you inferred that I was saying anecdotal evidence is a comprehensive science. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 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. It is contradictory that on one hand you advocate for a more comprehensive look at the science, yet at the same time your actions suggests personal experience trumps quantitative data (if that's not the case, please present some evidence other than "my experience of living in CA tells me that this is rubbish") On to indices... Of course no climate indices are perfect, and each of them has its own limitations, the question is whether the index gives you useful information, and whether the limitations are relevant to the particular question. Dismissing an index just because it has limitations is foolish. I don't want to go into the details of the Alley 1984 paper you've quoted here, for it detracts from the bigger picture, but I would point out that the paper is highly cited, and obviously the limitations of the index are well known within the community, yet the PDSI remains a popular tool for because contrary to what you think, it is actually useful despite of some limitations. See for example, a review paper of drought indices Heim 2002: Since its inception, the Palmer Index has become widely used by a variety of people (hydrologists, foresters, field meteorologists, economists, policy decision makers, news media, private consultants, and re- searchers) as a tool to monitor and assess long-term meteorological drought and wet spell conditions. As pointed out by the National Drought Mitigation Center (see online at http://enso.unl.edu/ndmc/) and Willeke et al. (1994), it is most effective when applied to the measurement of impacts sensitive to soil moisture conditions, such as in agriculture, and it has also been used to start or end drought response actions. In the decades since Palmer introduced the PDSI, PHDI, and Z Index, several other drought indices have been developed and adopted, but none has proven superior enough to relegate Palmer’s Index to the dusty annals of history. Some of these indices applied old concepts to new applications, while others addressed inadequacies in the Palmer model. Even if you stubbornly refuse the the Palmer Drought Severity Index actually has value, and insist that we should look at "more comprehensive science", you will be disappointed to know that the graph I used in my previous post is produced via a comprehensive survey of 4 other indices in addition to the Palmer Drought Index (one of which is in fact a blend of a host of other indicators. For details, see here). For example, one issue with the PDI index is that it doesn't distinguish between snow and rain, whereas the US drought monitor takes winter snowfall into account So here it is: comprehensive science also says that you are wrong in saying that 2001/02 drought is worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 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. It is definitely true that one cannot relate a single drought to to climate change, yet we should keep in mind that significant precipitation pattern change is expected in a warming world. I think the issue with precipitation will be more significant than temperature change. Short version is that a higher global temperature will result in: 1) wet places gets wetter and dry places gets drier. 2) the subtropical dry regions will migrate northward. In a sense California will be hit extra hard, as SoCal will be become drier as it is already dry, while central California will also become drier as the circulation pattern changes. Another effect, that is currently receiving a bit of attention in the research community, is how the storm track changes in the future. In California most of the rainfall comes during the winter months when the winter storms hit the west coast (same as Vancouver), but it is very likely that the tracks of these storms will change in the future, possibly making rainfall less reliable. So while the current drought does not directly have anything to do with global warming, drought is likely going to become an issue going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It is contradictory that on one hand you advocate for a more comprehensive look at the science, yet at the same time your actions suggests personal experience trumps quantitative data (if that's not the case, please present some evidence other than "my experience of living in CA tells me that this is rubbish") On to indices... Of course no climate indices are perfect, and each of them has its own limitations, the question is whether the index gives you useful information, and whether the limitations are relevant to the particular question. Dismissing an index just because it has limitations is foolish. I don't want to go into the details of the Alley 1984 paper you've quoted here, for it detracts from the bigger picture, but I would point out that the paper is highly cited, and obviously the limitations of the index are well known within the community, yet the PDSI remains a popular tool for because contrary to what you think, it is actually useful despite of some limitations. See for example, a review paper of drought indices Heim 2002: Even if you stubbornly refuse the the Palmer Drought Severity Index actually has value, and insist that we should look at "more comprehensive science", you will be disappointed to know that the graph I used in my previous post is produced via a comprehensive survey of 4 other indices in addition to the Palmer Drought Index (one of which is in fact a blend of a host of other indicators. For details, see here). For example, one issue with the PDI index is that it doesn't distinguish between snow and rain, whereas the US drought monitor takes winter snowfall into account So here it is: comprehensive science also says that you are wrong in saying that 2001/02 drought is worse. Oh hai again Lockout Casualty's alter ego. Let me rephrase it since it seems you had trouble reading: I trust my years living in drought conditions in California more than I trust your flawed index. This is much like the issue with climate models.. they're often wrong because they aren't comprehensive enough -- you can't ignore essential information about something and make sweeping conclusions about a system without having all the information. This isn't even that difficult, you don't really have to look far to find news articles pointing out a drought virtually every few years in California. The drought's impact is not merely a lack of rainfall, but the costs of it. California is known for frequent droughts, so news like this isn't surprising, and neither is someone cut and pasting data from someone else without the correct information on what they're talking about. It is definitely true that one cannot relate a single drought to to climate change, yet we should keep in mind that significant precipitation pattern change is expected in a warming world. I think the issue with precipitation will be more significant than temperature change. Short version is that a higher global temperature will result in: 1) wet places gets wetter and dry places gets drier. 2) the subtropical dry regions will migrate northward. In a sense California will be hit extra hard, as SoCal will be become drier as it is already dry, while central California will also become drier as the circulation pattern changes. Another effect, that is currently receiving a bit of attention in the research community, is how the storm track changes in the future. In California most of the rainfall comes during the winter months when the winter storms hit the west coast (same as Vancouver), but it is very likely that the tracks of these storms will change in the future, possibly making rainfall less reliable. So while the current drought does not directly have anything to do with global warming, drought is likely going to become an issue going forward. Of course it's going to be an issue -- CALIFORNIA HAS DROUGHTS. California has fires. It's a very dry state. This is how it's been. Northern and Central California get their rain indeed from the north (follow the ocean currents), but Southern California gets theirs from the middle Pacific and western Mexico. That might be a factor into why Southern California gets so little precipitation in comparison and needs to take water from elsewhere. Anyone living in California should always be prepared for a drought. Given how commonplace it is, California's government should make water restrictions permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 LOL What's more hilarious is that you inferred that I was saying anecdotal evidence is a comprehensive science. Really? You're the Pouria of environmental discussion on this forum, seemed in line with the other stupid stuff you've said on the subject here and elsewhere. ROFL, I'm not nearly smart enough to be MadMonk. Thanks for the compliment though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You're the Pouria of environmental discussion on this forum, seemed in line with the other stupid stuff you've said on the subject here and elsewhere. ROFL, I'm not nearly smart enough to be MadMonk. Thanks for the compliment though! This is what is unfortunate about science and what these leftist enviro-nuts have turned it into. Science is a great tool for understanding things, what is not to be confused with science is cut and pasting data from others without much reliability.. especially in light of more simple methods of gathering information about how commonplace droughts are in a specific area. Guy thinks he's smart, but condescending to try and make up for own inanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Oh hai again Lockout Casualty's alter ego. Let me rephrase it since it seems you had trouble reading: I trust my years living in drought conditions in California more than I trust your flawed index. Let's focus on the basics: in your first post, you asserted that this California drought is dwarfed by the 2001/2002 drought alone. I've shown data from the US Drought Monitor why such assert is incorrect. If you don't agree, at the minimum you'll need to a ) explain why the metric used by the US Drought Monitor does not accurately depict the severity of the 2001/02 and current drought (i.e. why and how is it flawed for this application. Having limitation does mean flawed) , and b ) what empirical evidence you have for your claim. So far you have done neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Let's focus on the basics: in your first post, you asserted that I've shown data from the US Drought Monitor why such assert is incorrect. If you don't agree, at the minimum you'll need to a ) explain why the metric used by the US Drought Monitor does not accurately depict the severity of the 2001/02 and current drought (i.e. why and how is it flawed for this application. Having limitation does mean flawed) , and b ) what empirical evidence you have for your claim. So far you have done neither. I hate to break it to you but I'm not a scientist (I've taken enough of physics with uni degrees in both Canada and the USA to know the lack of comprehensiveness in climate models, which this one parallels in incompleteness), so while I certainly can cut and paste things for you, as you clearly have the time to do, I'm not going to provide a standard that you don't even provide yourself. And as I iterated, the problems with droughts aren't merely the lack of rain but the cost associated with that, as in droughts hit Wine Country harder than it does Orange County.. which is yet another major thing the models you cut and pasted don't account for. So let's please stop as if I'm arguing with the science itself, I'm arguing with a guy who is piggybacking on someone else's work and clearly doesn't understand the issues with the data he's posting because he's got a number of fans (high Lockout! ) who are easily impressed by such a low standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I hate to break it to you but I'm not a scientist (I've taken enough of physics with uni degrees in both Canada and the USA to know the lack of comprehensiveness in climate models, which this one parallels in incompleteness), Didn't expect you to be one, but was hoping for something that resembles a counter point rather than personal attacks. so while I certainly can cut and paste things for you, as you clearly have the time to do, I'm not going to provide a standard that you don't even provide yourself. And as I iterated, the problems with droughts aren't merely the lack of rain but the cost associated with that, as in droughts hit Wine Country harder than it does Orange County.. which is yet another major thing the models you cut and pasted don't account for. Ok, let's move from severity in meteorological sense to actual economical impact. Your argument still doesn't hold water I think. Let's assume that the cost of a drought in Wine country is more than that in Orange Country is indeed true. In fact I think it is fair to say that the agricultural sector will be affected most by a water shortage in general (correct me if I am wrong). This is height of the drought in 2001 Height of drought in 2002: Current drought: So with most of the agricultural regions in the north, and central valley (including Napa county and Sonoma wine regions) being in much worse shape than it was in back 2001/2002. How can the economical impact be less severe? In case you haven't noticed, the only place in the entire state that is better off is ironically the desert region to the south east, plus a tiny strip to the north. So let's please stop as if I'm arguing with the science itself, I'm arguing with a guy who is piggybacking on someone else's work and clearly doesn't understand the issues with the data he's posting because he's got a number of fans (high Lockout! ) who are easily impressed by such a low standard. Perhaps personal attack works for you in real life, but being in science myself I can tell you that it doesn't earn you points in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Can you lay off the personal attack nonsense? Criticizing your position (and taking a pot shot at Lockout) and background of your arguments is nothing whatsoever of a personal attack upon you, so please stop the melodrama. The droughts heaviest on the Central Coast is nothing of a hit comparable to Wine Country and much of Northern California where much of the agriculture comes from. Consider the points made: - The 2001/2002 drought was worse, the state's economy was under significant duress because of the hit to Northern California. - I did point out that because there is an ongoing severe drought there is still more potential, exacerbated if the drought continues plus fires, which are certainly a possibility with all the dry brush there. There is no absolutism in that post, so please don't treat it as such. I get that you have pieces of data here and there and you think that qualifies a conclusion about how bad it is on that state, but it's pretty clear as someone who has lived through numerous droughts in California and fully understands how commonplace they are that you don't really know half as much as you're making it seem like. The equivalent of what you're saying is comparable to pointing toward Earthquake stats about the worst Earthquake season in California, yet comparing that merely to seismic record instead of location of the Earthquake and revenue loss associated with lost production or damage cost. The "percent area" of California argument is moot, again, another comparison is how the state votes -- one can say California is Republican because more of the state geographically votes Republican, yet that doesn't account for the urban areas that have most of the votes. This is what I'm talking about when criticism is levied upon the comprehensiveness of the index you cited. It does not take enough things into consideration, and is focused on something that people in California hardly associate with droughts. No one goes, "hey look at this index that shows no rain in whogivesafrackville, California, the droughts are terrible!". Words like "worst" are indeed ambiguous, but tend to be associated with the impact of it on a region, which is more related to cost and not merely showing a map with where there was less rain (i.e. worse drought) over a period of time, as less rain affects different areas of the state and the state's economy much differently. As I said, the impact of a drought on that state is much different if it were in Wine Country versus Orange County (not Country). Right now the drought is most severe on the Central Coast, which is indeed a hit because the Central Coast has a good amount of agriculture but this is still not yet remotely the hit of the 2001/2002 drought that severely hit Northern California. I await the know-it-all response. This is really turning into a piece of entertainment. I fully respect science, what I don't respect are people who think that someone should jump on a bandwagon merely because they piggyback on someone else's data and clearly can't understand they still don't know enough. Unfortunately regarding your posts, I find this issue also relates to climate.. anthropogenic climate change, not just on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The droughts heaviest on the Central Coast is nothing of a hit comparable to Wine Country and much of Northern California where much of the agriculture comes from. ... Right now the drought is most severe on the Central Coast, which is indeed a hit because the Central Coast has a good amount of agriculture but this is still not yet remotely the hit of the 2001/2002 drought that severely hit Northern California. Really? Real data does not support your assertion yet again. You have a point, if the agricultural heartland is indeed in the north, where the worst part of the drought was in 2001. Unfotunately, it is not even remotely close. I pulled up the data from National Agricultural Statistics Service (here), found the top 10 counties in terms of gross value in 2004 ( so away from the 2001/2002 droughts), and labelled them on the 2001 drought map. Bottom line is, the top 10 counties, which accounts for 69% of the agricultural output in california, was at worst in moderate drought condition in 2001: Where are they today? Oh nowhere special, just smack middle in the extreme/exception region. "Central Coast has a good amount of agriculture"? I think almost all will be the right description. Should also note that the wine country is also in worse shape today than in 2001. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that drought indices are only useful for assessing the meteorological side of things, and we need more information to assess the economical impact. It's just that you'll still arrive at the same answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dedalus Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20140207,0,1425489.column#axzz2swZCdagR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dedalus Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 And another one: http://www.nytimes.c...wl-returns.html "Experts offer dire warnings. The current drought has already eclipsed previous water crises, like the one in 1977, which a meteorologist friend, translating into language we understand as historians, likened to the “Great Depression” of droughts. Most Californians depend on the Sierra Nevada for their water supply, but the snowpack there was just 15 percent of normal in early February. And the dry conditions are likely to make the polluted air in the Central Valley — which contributes to high rates of asthma and the spread of Valley Fever, a potentially fatal airborne fungus — even worse. The current crisis raises the obvious question: How long can we continue to grow a third of the nation’s fruit and vegetables?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.