The Western Drought, Illustrated

[progressive hunter]

View attachment 500105

Starting in 2000, to 2021.

How Severe Is the Western Drought? See For Yourself. (Published 2021)

Maps show that drought conditions are the most widespread and severe in at least 20 years, with reservoirs running dry.

www.nytimes.com

Nothing to see here, folks.

You are correct, there is nothing to worry over it.

Ignorance is bliss.

To show how poor a researcher YOU are, I made this post elsewhere to show that ignoring the rest of the country's precipitation trends is hilarious.

Meanwhile other large areas of the country show INCREASE in Precipitation, 1970-2020 time frame

From the NOAA,

Northern Rockies and Plains LINK +.20"/decade

South LINK +.20"/decade

Northeast LINK +.60"/decade

Ohio Valley LINK +.85"/decade

Upper Midwest LINK +.69"/decade

Southeast LINK +.17"/decade

That is ALL the rest of the country, all show INCREASE in Precipitation and 50 years time.

You are so far behind it is sad.

Dishonest little ass that you are, you did not post the Southwest. Nor the link. You see, one of the predictions of the climate change caused by a warming globe is that areas that get a lot of rain, will get even more, and areas that are arid, will become more so. And the southern Rockies are not getting an increase, as anyone can see from the Colorado River drainage.

You have to wonder, what is wrong with people like her?

your confusion is understandable,, unlike you some people are capable of thinking for themselves

 

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 500105

Starting in 2000, to 2021.

How Severe Is the Western Drought? See For Yourself. (Published 2021)

Maps show that drought conditions are the most widespread and severe in at least 20 years, with reservoirs running dry.

www.nytimes.com

Nothing to see here, folks.

You are correct, there is nothing to worry over it.

Ignorance is bliss.

To show how poor a researcher YOU are, I made this post elsewhere to show that ignoring the rest of the country's precipitation trends is hilarious.

Meanwhile other large areas of the country show INCREASE in Precipitation, 1970-2020 time frame

From the NOAA,

Northern Rockies and Plains LINK +.20"/decade

South LINK +.20"/decade

Northeast LINK +.60"/decade

Ohio Valley LINK +.85"/decade

Upper Midwest LINK +.69"/decade

Southeast LINK +.17"/decade

That is ALL the rest of the country, all show INCREASE in Precipitation and 50 years time.

You are so far behind it is sad.

Dishonest little ass that you are, you did not post the Southwest. Nor the link. You see, one of the predictions of the climate change caused by a warming globe is that areas that get a lot of rain, will get even more, and areas that are arid, will become more so. And the southern Rockies are not getting an increase, as anyone can see from the Colorado River drainage.

You have to wonder, what is wrong with people like her?

Meanwhile you keep avoiding a few posts of mine because you have no effective counterpoint to offer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

El Nino years are almost always shitty snow years...Drier and warmer than usual....So what?

So we have been in a La Nina since August of last year. Damn you people are stupid;

View attachment 501343

Why don't we release the Flood version of CO2 over the CA desert?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here are few more published science papers to read about:

Several More New Studies Show Drought Is Now Less Common And Severe Than Centuries, Millennia Ago​

Reposted from TheNoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 14. June 2021

Excerpt:

Scientists continue to publish new drought reconstructions indicating there were far more frequent and severe drought periods in the past several thousand years than anything observed in the modern period.​

A new study (Berg and McColl, 2021) indicates there has long been “qualitatively incorrect” estimates of the impact modern and future warming has on drought trends and dryland expansion because atmospheric aridity is “not an accurate proxy of the future extent of drylands.” Consequently, the authors suggest there will be “no global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming, contrary to previous claims based on atmospheric aridity.”

Indeed, instead of being driven by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and warming, droughts along the western coast of the United States are “predominantly [84%] driven by internal atmospheric variability” and cooling sea surface temperatures (Baek et al., 2021).

View attachment 501681


LINK

No Tricks Zone, really? Why not post from the Daily Observer?

"Fueled in part by human-caused climate change, a “megadrought” appears to be emerging in the western U.S., a study published Thursday suggests.

In fact, the nearly-20-year drought is almost as bad or worse than any in the past 1,200 years, scientists say.

Megadroughts – defined as intense droughts that last for decades or longer – once plagued the Desert Southwest. Thanks to global warming, an especially fierce one appears to be coming back:

"We now have enough observations of current drought and tree-ring records of past drought to say that we're on the same trajectory as the worst prehistoric droughts," said study lead author A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University, in a statement. This is “a drought bigger than what modern society has seen."

'Megadrought' emerging in the western US might be worse than any in 1,200 years

Fueled in part by human-caused climate change, a “megadrought” appears to be emerging in the western U.S., a new study published Thursday suggests.

www.usatoday.com

I have to wonder WHY you are here, because you just told us that FIVE published science papers are not worth your rime to read, but you have orgasms' over a single modeling only study to drool over.

We use hydrological modeling and new 1200-year tree-ring reconstructions of summer soil moisture to demonstrate that the 2000–2018 SWNA drought was the second driest 19-year period since 800 CE, exceeded only by a late-1500s megadrought.

Meanwhile you ignored the following because of your prejudice:

Indeed, instead of being driven by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and warming, droughts along the western coast of the United States are “predominantly [84%] driven by internal atmospheric variability” and cooling sea surface temperatures (Baek et al., 2021).

2. Brice et al., 2021

“Despite its significant recent impacts, the 2000s drought is ranked as only the sixth driest run in the CHU reconstruction, is only half or less the duration of the 1700s, early 1900s, and 1950s droughts, and has a magnitude (running SWE total of years with snowpack below the mean) 50–75% less severe than these others.”

“The magnitude of the 1950s drought in the WSR reconstruction is only 67% of the magnitude of the highest-ranking droughts in the same record, 1818–1834 and 1728–1744.”

“The 20th century has less frequent and long dry or wet periods. … Our findings are also consistent with studies that document pre-instrumental droughts that have been more intense or longer-lasting than dry periods of the 20th century (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998, Novak, 2007).”

More in the link you are terrified of.

 

[Sunsettommy]

just curious,, do you have anything on how its supposed to be?? maybe an instruction manual on whats supposed to happen to the earth over the yrs???
cause this could be normal,,,

It is quite normal, even wetter than it was a millennium ago.

Lordy, lordy, another dumb fuck.

"Catastrophic wildfires, decreasing snowpack and dwindling water resources have become a normal part of life for residents in the western U.S. And, as a result of climate change, this may be just the beginning. A new study from Columbia University says the region has now entered into a climate-driven megadrought — possibly the worst in modern history.


Since 2000, the West has experienced one of its driest 20-year periods in history due to a combination of a dry natural cycle and the changing climate. While there have been some wet years like in 2019, overall water resources have been under unprecedented stress in the modern era.

Going back over a thousand years, there's evidence that naturally driven megadroughts have devastated the region several times in history. These droughts led to upheavals among indigenous civilizations in the Southwest."

Megadrought emerging in western U.S. could be the worst in 1,200 years, study finds

"We're on the same trajectory as the worst prehistoric droughts," the researchers say.

www.cbsnews.com

can you prove thats not just the normal progression of life on earth???

snow/glaciers has been melting since the peak of the ice age and wildfires have been a normal thing throughout history,,,

For the last 4000 years we have been in a cooling trend, driven by the Milankovich Cycles.

View attachment 501531

His paper has ling since been shown to be unreliable.

Climate Audit

No Uptick in Marcott Thesis​

March 14, 2013

Excerpt:

Reader ^ drew our attention to Marcott’s thesis (see chapter 4 here. Marcott’s thesis has a series of diagrams in an identical style as the Science article. The proxy datasets are identical.

However, as Jean S alertly observed, the diagrams in the thesis lack the closing uptick of the Science. Other aspects of the modern period also differ dramatically.

Here is Figure 1C of the Science article.

Now here is the corresponding diagram from the thesis (Figure 4.3a):

LINK

The next day,

How Marcottian Upticks Arise​

March 15, 2013

Excerpt:

I’m working towards a post on the effect of Marcott re-dating, but first I want to document some points on the methodology of Marcott et al 2013 and to remove some speculation on the Marcott upticks, which do not arise from any of the main speculations.

In the graphic below, I’ve plotted Marcott’s NHX reconstruction against an emulation (weighting by latitude and gridcell as described in script) using proxies with published dates rather than Marcott dates. (I am using this version because it illustrates the uptick using Marcott methodology. Marcott re-dating is an important issue that I will return to.) The uptick in the emulation occurs in 2000 rather than 1940; the slight offset makes it discernible for sharp eyes below.



LINK

Next day,

The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service​

March 16, 2013

Excerpt:

Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)

LINK

The last day, the final destruction of a stupid paper

Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421​

March 17, 2013

Excerpt:

As noted in my previous post, Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix disappeared two alkenone cores from the 1940 population, both of which were highly negative. In addition, they made some surprising additions to the 1940 population, including three cores whose coretops were dated by competent specialists 500-1000 years earlier.

While the article says that ages were recalibrated with CALIB6.0.1, the differences between CALIB6.0.1 and previous radiocarbon calibrations is not material to the coretop dating issues being discussed here. Further, Marcott’s thesis used CALIB6.0.1, but had very different coretop dates. Marcott et al stated in their SI that “Core tops are assumed to be 1950 AD unless otherwise indicated in original publication”. This is not the procedure that I’ve observed in the data. Precisely what they’ve done is still unclear, but it’s something different.

In today’s post, I’ll examine their proxy #23, an alkenone series of Isono et al 2009. This series is a composite of a piston core (MD01-2421), a gravity core (KR02-06 St. A GC) and a box/multiple core (KR02-06 St A MC1), all taken at the same location. Piston cores are used for deep time, but lose the top portion of the core. Coretops of piston cores can be hundreds or even a few thousand years old. Box cores are shallow cores and the presently preferred technique for recovering up-to-date results.

There are vanishingly few alkenone series where there is a high-resolution box core accompanying Holocene data. Indeed, within the entire Marcott corpus of ocean cores, the MD01-241/KNR02-06 splice is unique in being dated nearly to the present. Its published end date was -41BP (1991AD). Convincing support for modern dating of the top part of the box core is the presence of a bomb spike:

(Snipped)

A plot of this series is shown below, with the “present” value reported by Isono et al shown as a red dot.



LINK

=======

It has been 8 years now and long discredited as a pile of mess.

Only out of date ignorant warmist/alarmists use this shit paper today and its Fraud chart.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Piling it on

Where's the hockey stick? The 'Marcott 9' show no warming past 1950​

Match 26, 2013

More on the Marcott et al “hockey stick”. All of the ‘Marcott 9’ had altered dates.

The Marcott hockey stick compared to the Mann hockey stick – it seems that redating and other tricks made the uptick, not the data itself.

Guest post by John Kehr

Selected excerpt:

I will be referring to those 9 proxies as the Marcott 9. They are perhaps the most interesting proxies that he used and those proxies disprove the conclusion of his paper. In order of the most modern data, the Marcott 9 are:

Lake 850, most recent data is from 2000.

Flarken Lake, most recent data is from 1999.

Lake Nujulla, most recent data is from 1998.

Tsuolbmajavri Lake, most recent data is from 1995.

Homestead Scarp, most recent data is from 1995

Mount Honey, most recent data is from 1995

Composite MD01-2421…, most recent data is from 1991

Moose Lake, most recent data is from 1970

Agassiz & Renland, most recent data is from 1960

What is most interesting about all of these proxies is that none of them show the warming result the paper ended up with. Not a single one.

Without further ado, here are charts for the Marcott 9.

These nine proxies are the only ones of the 73 that Marcott used that have data past 1950. The only one that shows any kind of warming is the last one which is the Agassiz-Renland ice core and the warm point was not the most recent, but the proxy from 1940. The last point which is 1960 shows as cooler than the data from 1940. The ice core certainly does indicate that the warming in the 1930-1940 period was impressive, but few claim that mankind caused that warming.

LINK

bolding mine

=======

The Marcott paper is JUNK!

Here is the link to a series of articles destroying this fraud paper:

Category: Marcott et al proxy paper​

LINK

 

[odanny]

Anyone can post pages of junk science, trying to obscure the truth, make it opaque, introduce enough garbled scientific nonsense in order to do one thing: create doubt.

There is a reason the scientific community is almost unequivocal in its acceptance of science, and they should be, as their copious research and decades of dedicated measurements has proven to be true, albeit the scale and scope of climate change is even worse than originally predicted, and even that makes sense: Increasing deforestation, increasing cattle farms, more permafrost melting at a faster rate means more methane release, etc., etc..

What you junk scientists try and "prove" is beyond me, you've been indoctrinated in conservative thought to reject science, so you try and use science as your shield, and lose the reader in scientific clap-trap that spotlights some outlier scientist who is writing research papers funded by Exxon and BP.

Sure, listen to the 3% and ignore the 97% in agreement.

Homey don't play that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Anyone can post pages of junk science, trying to obscure the truth, make it opaque, introduce enough garbled scientific nonsense in order to do one thing: create doubt.

There is a reason the scientific community is almost unequivocal in its acceptance of science, and they should be, as their copious research and decades of dedicated measurements has proven to be true, albeit the scale and scope of climate change is even worse than originally predicted, and even that makes sense: Increasing deforestation, increasing cattle farms, more permafrost melting at a faster rate means more methane release, etc., etc..

What you junk scientists try and "prove" is beyond me, to me is just that you've been indoctrinated in conservative thought to reject science, so you try and use science as your shield, and lost the reader in scientific clap-trap that spotlights some outlier scientist who is writing research papers funded by Exxon and BP.

Ha ha, it appears Danny has reached the bottom of the barrel, completely dried up, has no counter arguments to produce, but then again he doesn't understand what is really going on.

He doesn't understand the media manipulation of the science illiterate like Danny who uncritically swallow up the propaganda and ignore a lot of information that would show it in its proper context, yes there is a drought in the Western Region, yes it has been warming too but the media and himself ignores the rest of America and North America as well where there are plenty of large areas of Increasing Precipitation.

It is the propaganda that easily swallow the ignorant like Danny so easily and in the process makes a fool of himself trying so hard to convince himself of that media created propaganda.

I am unimpressed with your poor replies in the thread, you show a distinct lack of knowledge and understanding of the topic.

I showed that the rest of the country is getting wetter since 1950, you ignored it.

I showed their lies about the temperature trend and wildfires, you ignored it.

I showed the published science papers that there were periodic and worse droughts than this decade in parts of the Western region., you ignored it.

You made a fool of yourself demanding the year 2021 precipitation data that has 7 1/2 months of no data and the NOAA doesn't provide it when the request is for full year data to create a 20 year trend, you never did understand my reply on it, you still persist in your stupidity over it.

You ignored post 22 expose of poor water management, you also ignored post 32 as well, it is clear you are a brainwashed idiot who fights information and learning.

Now you drag out the worn out consensus stupidity, which is built on a pile of modeling scenarios with published lies and data fraud.

You are a true picture of a brainwashed science illiterate, there are many out there like you which is why the man made global warming hoax is a big moneymaker.

 

[odanny]

He doesn't understand the media manipulation of the science illiterate like Danny who uncritically swallow up the propaganda and ignore a lot of information that would show it in its proper context, yes there is a drought in the Western Region, yes it has been warming too but the media and himself ignores the rest of America and North America as well where there are plenty of large areas of Increasing Precipitation.

No, no one has ignored this, Old Rocks has already told you this, and you didn't understand then, and you don't understand now.

Let me give you the synopsis: All of this precipitation is still happening, although where precipitation once was fairly predictable, now it is increasingly localized, and in quantities that often lead to flooding, while other areas of the country get no precipitation.

So while the precipitation is still equal, or perhaps even in greater abundance, now we have parts of the Southeast under water, while we have much of the West on fire and parched.

And one thing we ALL get is hotter temperatures.

The rest of your ranting is just, well, sad.

 

[Sunsettommy]

He doesn't understand the media manipulation of the science illiterate like Danny who uncritically swallow up the propaganda and ignore a lot of information that would show it in its proper context, yes there is a drought in the Western Region, yes it has been warming too but the media and himself ignores the rest of America and North America as well where there are plenty of large areas of Increasing Precipitation.

No, no one has ignored this, Old Rocks has already told you this, and you didn't understand then, and you don't understand now.

Let me give you the synopsis: All of this precipitation is still happening, although where precipitation once was fairly predictable, now it is increasingly localized, and in quantities that often lead to flooding, while other areas of the country get no precipitation.

So while the precipitation is still equal, or perhaps even in greater abundance, now we have parts of the Southeast under water, while we have much of the West on fire and parched.

And one thing we ALL get is hotter temperatures.

The rest of your ranting is just, well, sad.

Bla, bla, bla......

When are you going to get into a real point/counterpoint discussion?

You also did it again, ignored some of my posts completely that addressed your topic.

 

[Old Rocks]

The counter point is really simple. The more GHG's in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will be. At present we have changed the amount of CO2 from a normal interglacial high of 280 ppm, to over 410 ppm. That is a change of about 130 ppm. The glacial low was about 180 ppm. So we have exceeded the amount that changes us from an ice age to an interglacial by 30 ppm. The normal for CH4 is about 600 to 700 ppb. We have changed that to over 1450 ppb. On a decadal time scale that is equal to about 100 ppm of CH2. So we are seeing a very rapid warming. And a changing climate in response to that warming.

So, what do most of the scientists in the world think concerning this? Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But, of course, we should believe an ignoramus with no scientific education at all that they all do not know what they are talking about. Or believe a very few scientists that have prostituted their credentials to the fossil fuel companies for a lot of shekels of silver to lie for their profits.

 

[ding]

The counter point is really simple. The more GHG's in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will be. At present we have changed the amount of CO2 from a normal interglacial high of 280 ppm, to over 410 ppm. That is a change of about 130 ppm. The glacial low was about 180 ppm. So we have exceeded the amount that changes us from an ice age to an interglacial by 30 ppm. The normal for CH4 is about 600 to 700 ppb. We have changed that to over 1450 ppb. On a decadal time scale that is equal to about 100 ppm of CH2. So we are seeing a very rapid warming. And a changing climate in response to that warming.

So, what do most of the scientists in the world think concerning this? Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But, of course, we should believe an ignoramus with no scientific education at all that they all do not know what they are talking about. Or believe a very few scientists that have prostituted their credentials to the fossil fuel companies for a lot of shekels of silver to lie for their profits.

You do realize that the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation is 280 ppm, right?

I mean... you can see it on the graphs with your own eyes, right?

 

[skookerasbil]

Only the true rubes heads explode when drought hits.........bozo's who have no hope.

Drought comes.......drought goes............always has............always will.

https://stacker.com/stories/2789/history-droughts-us


d0y

 

[Sunsettommy]

Only the true rubes heads explode when drought hits.........bozo's who have no hope.

Drought comes.......drought goes............always has............always will.

https://stacker.com/stories/2789/history-droughts-us


d0y

From your link is misleading claim:

"Warming temperatures over the past century have directly contributed to major droughts across the country, but particularly in the American West. It was only in 2019 that California finally got relief from a catastrophic dry spell that defined the state's ecology throughout much of the past decade."

Actually the REST of the Country has at least 50 year trend of INCREASING precipitation as shown in Post 69 using the NOAA data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Anyone can post pages of junk science, trying to obscure the truth, make it opaque, introduce enough garbled scientific nonsense in order to do one thing: create doubt.

There is a reason the scientific community is almost unequivocal in its acceptance of science, and they should be, as their copious research and decades of dedicated measurements has proven to be true, albeit the scale and scope of climate change is even worse than originally predicted, and even that makes sense: Increasing deforestation, increasing cattle farms, more permafrost melting at a faster rate means more methane release, etc., etc..

What you junk scientists try and "prove" is beyond me, you've been indoctrinated in conservative thought to reject science, so you try and use science as your shield, and lose the reader in scientific clap-trap that spotlights some outlier scientist who is writing research papers funded by Exxon and BP.

Sure, listen to the 3% and ignore the 97% in agreement.

Homey don't play that.

Those links you never read are unchallenged thus not addressed.

Don't you tire of pushing your stupid useless consensus claims?

 

[Sunsettommy]

For the last 4000 years we have been in a cooling trend, driven by the Milankovich Cycles.

View attachment 501531

Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Stop the lies Rockhead.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No Tricks Zone, really? Why not post from the Daily Observer?

"Fueled in part by human-caused climate change, a “megadrought” appears to be emerging in the western U.S., a study published Thursday suggests.

In fact, the nearly-20-year drought is almost as bad or worse than any in the past 1,200 years, scientists say.

Megadroughts – defined as intense droughts that last for decades or longer – once plagued the Desert Southwest. Thanks to global warming, an especially fierce one appears to be coming back:

"We now have enough observations of current drought and tree-ring records of past drought to say that we're on the same trajectory as the worst prehistoric droughts," said study lead author A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University, in a statement. This is “a drought bigger than what modern society has seen."

'Megadrought' emerging in the western US might be worse than any in 1,200 years

Fueled in part by human-caused climate change, a “megadrought” appears to be emerging in the western U.S., a new study published Thursday suggests.

www.usatoday.com

The Megadrought paper is already dropped due to stupid statistic harvesting claims which only a pseudoscientist would produce, and you would fall quickly for.

Your AAAS link is a 404

 

[skookerasbil]

The biggest question is, any smoke signals from the Indian tribes? Evidence of rain dancing?

I want to see vids btw....

 

[Flash]

For the last 4000 years we have been in a cooling trend, driven by the Milankovich Cycles.

View attachment 501531

Which one of the Environmental Wacos that we have caught numerous times fabricating data did that silly ass graph come from?

 

[Flash]

The "Western drought" put into historical perspective.