California suffering through SEVERE climate change

[Billy_Bob]

California Facing Worst Drought on Record | NOAA Climate.gov

The most populated state in the country is facing what may be its worst drought in a century of record-keeping. On January 20, the governor of California declared a state of emergency, urging everyone to begin conserving water. Water levels in all but a few reservoirs in the state are less than 50% of capacity, mountains are nearly bare of snow except at the highest elevations, and the fire risk is extreme. In Nevada, the situation is much the same.

Wonder why that could be

In bold above are the key words... According to the paleoclimate records this type of drought hits that region about once every 130 years.. IT IS NORMAL AND CYCLICAL!

Why are people so freaking gullible....?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The idea that individual action can control the climate, or storms, or rainfall, or any natural occurrence is something that one would expect from a savage culture. Something close to being prehistoric. Maybe we should sacrifice a few virgins to the rain god.

Yeah, just because we have billions of vehicles, most not regulated like in this great nation, belching billions of tons of GHG's into our closed system makes no diff at all

Please show me how you stopped natural variation and induced only man made warming. The rates of the last two warming cycles are statistically insignificantly different from each other. Thus Natural variation is the driver. Until you can quantify, and show how you did it, the so called man induced forcing, there is none. The last 17 years 11 months disprove your ideology and falsify the premise.

 

[Crick]

You act as if warming and cooling takes place idiopathically. That's not what "natural" means. The state of the Earth's climate does not change without cause. The primary (not sole) cause for the warming of the last 150 years - of which the last 15 qualifies as internal variability - is the greenhouse effect acting on anthropogenic GHGs and deforestation for human developmeclesnt. The sun has not provided sufficient increased energy to account for the warming we've seen. Orbital cycles would simply alter TSI, so that's out. Solar spectrum? TSI is wideband. Cosmic rays acting on cloud cover? Out. Misinterpreted cloud effects? Out. Anything else?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You act as if warming and cooling takes place idiopathically. That's not what "natural" means. The state of the Earth's climate does not change without cause. The primary (not sole) cause for the warming of the last 150 years - of which the last 15 qualifies as internal variability - is the greenhouse effect acting on anthropogenic GHGs and deforestation for human developmeclesnt. The sun has not provided sufficient increased energy to account for the warming we've seen. Orbital cycles would simply alter TSI, so that's out. Solar spectrum? TSI is wideband. Cosmic rays acting on cloud cover? Out. Misinterpreted cloud effects? Out. Anything else?

BULL SHIT!

Total Solar Output (Irradience) has not changed more than 2 degrees in over 25 years. Tilt and precision of the earth has changed. Distance from the Sun has changed as we enter the elongated section of our orbital path. And you obviously haven't a clue how our convective cooling system works on earth or how certain gases affect it.

All of your "outs" are crap because the science is incomplete. what is it with alarmists who do not want to do the science just force everyone under their thumbs to control them...

 

[flacaltenn]

ummm..... Theres a hurricane over on the SW coast. Nice try though

So What Dottie ?? You making up the "drought" rules while we play ??

 

[flacaltenn]

You act as if warming and cooling takes place idiopathically. That's not what "natural" means. The state of the Earth's climate does not change without cause. The primary (not sole) cause for the warming of the last 150 years - of which the last 15 qualifies as internal variability - is the greenhouse effect acting on anthropogenic GHGs and deforestation for human developmeclesnt. The sun has not provided sufficient increased energy to account for the warming we've seen. Orbital cycles would simply alter TSI, so that's out. Solar spectrum? TSI is wideband. Cosmic rays acting on cloud cover? Out. Misinterpreted cloud effects? Out. Anything else?

Oh I love me a good Crickism Jimminy...

"Solar Spectrum? TSI is Wideband." Just shows you had NO CLUE what I been telling you for a couple years or what BillieBob was presenting on the other thread. You should actually be GRADUATING with an undergrad cert in Climate Science by now -- and INSTEAD -- you haven't bothered to learn a thing..

No wonder you buy the simplistic fairy tales --- because you SUCK at science and physics. After explaining this to you SEVERAL TIMES -- you still don't get the significance of shifting a minute amount of incoming solar irradiance from one band slightly to another. The result of even TRIVIAL redistribution of solar energy could either TORCH this planet or turn it into an iceball in your lifetime. Have a nice day..

That's the only approach to folks who don't WANT to learn science and physics..

 

[Crick]

Speaking of simplistic fairy tales, you still seem to want 1 watt to do the work of 10.

 

[flacaltenn]

Speaking of simplistic fairy tales, you still seem to want 1 watt to do the work of 10.

1W/m2 at the surface would MORE than explain the kind of impulse warming that we got. Don't NEED 10.. Keep trolling my Cricket..

 

[Dot Com]

ummm..... Theres a hurricane over on the SW coast. Nice try though

So What Dottie ?? You making up the "drought" rules while we play ??

^ a weather = climate adherent You deniers are a hoot

 

[Billy_Bob]

ummm..... Theres a hurricane over on the SW coast. Nice try though

So What Dottie ?? You making up the "drought" rules while we play ??

^ a weather = climate adherent You deniers are a hoot

Short Term Climate = localized weather
Long Term Weather = Climate

You alarmist are so.......

 

[Crick]

This fella say "Nope"

http://www.acrim.com/Reference Files/Sun & Global Warming_GRL_2006.pdf

So does this fella

Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic fl

and this fella

Reconstruction of solar irradiance variations in cycles 21 23 based on surface magnetic fields A A

These two say the sun has been cooling us off for the last 35 years

Global temperature evolution 1979 2010 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

So, where are the studies that tell us your spectral fears are justified and that such changes have taken place and are responsible for the observed warming?

 

[flacaltenn]

This fella say "Nope"

http://www.acrim.com/Reference Files/Sun & Global Warming_GRL_2006.pdf

So does this fella

Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic fl

and this fella

Reconstruction of solar irradiance variations in cycles 21 23 based on surface magnetic fields A A

These two say the sun has been cooling us off for the last 35 years

Global temperature evolution 1979 2010 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

So, where are the studies that tell us your spectral fears are justified and that such changes have taken place and are responsible for the observed warming?

Pull me a quote FROM ANY Of those references that discusses SPECTRAL SHIFTS of Solar Irradiance data and we can chat. Otherwise you're wasting my time and yours.. There has been a step of about 1W/m2 since the Maunder Minimum and we are STILL sitting at the relative high of that step -- but THAT has nothing to do with your "wideband" observation. And the ridicule that comes with that..

 

[Billy_Bob]

This fella say "Nope"

http://www.acrim.com/Reference Files/Sun & Global Warming_GRL_2006.pdf

So does this fella

Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic fl

and this fella

Reconstruction of solar irradiance variations in cycles 21 23 based on surface magnetic fields A A

These two say the sun has been cooling us off for the last 35 years

Global temperature evolution 1979 2010 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

So, where are the studies that tell us your spectral fears are justified and that such changes have taken place and are responsible for the observed warming?

You post several papers which only deal with spectral output of the sun in general. But you do not realize that only since about 1992 have we had the satellites and technology in place to observe and document it. We've been cooling since 1998. that is the time a spectral shift occurred. TSI did not change and that was the gauge during this time frame of solar activity. That is what they observed. What changed is a shift in how the sun emits its energy not just the total energy.

Please stop... you are clueless..

 

[flacaltenn]

ummm..... Theres a hurricane over on the SW coast. Nice try though

So What Dottie ?? You making up the "drought" rules while we play ??

^ a weather = climate adherent You deniers are a hoot

Your are the moron whining about a 2 or 3 year drought as THO it is climate change.
Aren't you? What is the Title of this POS?

 

[flacaltenn]

This fella say "Nope"

http://www.acrim.com/Reference Files/Sun & Global Warming_GRL_2006.pdf

So does this fella

Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic fl

and this fella

Reconstruction of solar irradiance variations in cycles 21 23 based on surface magnetic fields A A

These two say the sun has been cooling us off for the last 35 years

Global temperature evolution 1979 2010 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

So, where are the studies that tell us your spectral fears are justified and that such changes have taken place and are responsible for the observed warming?

You are truly a turdish fool to be tossing up papers that are irrelevent to the topic of Solar SPECTRAL shifts. But to boot -- NOT READING those papers could be fatal to any reputation that you have left.

From the FIRST cite in the ACRIM paper...

Our findings, summarized in Figure 2, show the compar-
ison between NH temperature reconstruction for the past
400 years and the phenomenological solar temperature sig-
nature obtained with the smooth curves of the TSI proxy
reconstructions (shown in Figure 1) and Eqs. (4,7).
Since the 17th century minimum the sun has induced a
warming of ¢T ¼ 0:7K. This warming is of the same mag-nitude of the cooling of ¢T ¼ 0:7K from the medieval maxi-
mum to the 17th century minimum. Because anthropogenic
contributions to climate change are unlikely before 1800-
1900 AD, this ¯nding suggests the presence of a millenarian
solar cycle, with two medieval and contemporary maxima,
driving the climate of the last millennium [Eddy, 1976].

In any case, as some authors have already noted [Dou-
glass and Clader, 2002, Scafetta and West, 2005 and 2006],
solar change e®ects are greater than what can be explained
by several climate models [Steven and North, 1996; IPCC,
2001; Hansen et al., 2002; Foukal et al., 2004]. For example,
Douglass and Clader [2002] and Scafetta and West [2005]
found that the amplitude of the 11-year solar signature on
the temperature record seems to be 3 times larger than the
theoretical predictions and similar or larger factors are likely
to persist at lower frequencies as well.

A comparison between the
curves indicates that the sun might have contributed ap-
proximately 50% of the total global surface warming since
1900 [Scafetta and West, 2006]. Since 1975 global warming
has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected
from the sun alone.

In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter cli-
mate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter
the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration, as 420,000
years of Antarctic ice core data would also suggest [Petit et
al., 1999]. Most of the sun-climate coupling mechanisms are
probably still unknown.

But NOT A WORD in that paper about how to FRY or FREEZE the earth by just MILD shifts in solar SPECTRUM.. Just give it up.. Go back to your 97% malarkey..

What that paper CONFIRMS -- is how the IPCC CONSTANTLY LIES about the relevance of TSI changes since 1750.. Thanks for the reference Jimminy.. Think you'll remember that next time you pull up that shitty IPCC "forcing" slide? (nope).

 

[Dot Com]

Not One Drop How Long Will California Survive Life Without Water - NBC News

 

[Dot Com]

The Dry Land

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You act as if warming and cooling takes place idiopathically. That's not what "natural" means. The state of the Earth's climate does not change without cause. The primary (not sole) cause for the warming of the last 150 years - of which the last 15 qualifies as internal variability - is the greenhouse effect acting on anthropogenic GHGs and deforestation for human developmeclesnt. The sun has not provided sufficient increased energy to account for the warming we've seen. Orbital cycles would simply alter TSI, so that's out. Solar spectrum? TSI is wideband. Cosmic rays acting on cloud cover? Out. Misinterpreted cloud effects? Out. Anything else?

You've eliminated all the variables except for a wisp of CO2, but you don't have a lab experiment show how a wisp of CO2 raises temperature...because there are too many variables

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not One Drop How Long Will California Survive Life Without Water - NBC News

CA = local, not global

 

[elektra]

Not One Drop How Long Will California Survive Life Without Water - NBC News

How come all the Global Warming nuts lie? As its raining in California, after record setting rain in August, they find a spot where they are suffering poor Democrat/Government planning.

California is mostly desert

Rain brings relief - and flood threat - to Calif. fires
Trevor Hughes, USATODAY4:11 p.m. EDT September 25, 2014
48TWEETLINKEDIN 2COMMENTEMAILMORE
SEATTLE — A major storm is bringing temporary relief -- but also a flash flood threat -- to California and parts of the West struggling through a devastating wildfire season, giving firefighters the upper hand in battling blazes across the region.

The rain was hard enough for the National Weather Service to issue a flash flood warning Thursday afternoon for the King Fire burn area east of Sacramento. "Flash floods and debris flows are possible in the King Fire burn area through early evening due to heavy rain," the weather service warned.

The rainstorm, which hit Seattle on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, is barreling through California, where more than 8,400 firefighters are battling four major wildfires, including the highly visible King Fire, which grew explosively under hot, dry conditions last week.