• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Droughts worse in the past

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
16,277
Reaction score
3,200
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
More climate change BS. Every change in weather is now is climate change propaganda. Weather has been changing for thousands of years.
 

Agree? No?
WUWT--Isn't that the stupid disinformation site another poster now gone used to spam the place with?

Anyway, here's a credible site.
 
*Disagrees in Arizonan*
 
Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda.
 
WUWT--Isn't that the stupid disinformation site another poster now gone used to spam the place with?

Anyway, here's a credible site.
credible sites vs wonky sites, and those deniers always cite from wonky sites.
 
More climate change BS. Every change in weather is now is climate change propaganda. Weather has been changing for thousands of years.
WEATHER and CLIMATE are different!

GAWD!

What is the difference between weather and climate?​


disappointed_40x40.gif
 
More climate change BS. Every change in weather is now is climate change propaganda. Weather has been changing for thousands of years.

Ummm, this particular citation is from Watts Up With That, a famous DENIER blog, so I wouldn't worry too much about it being some propaganda.

But, that being said, you can always learn the science if you like.
 
credible sites vs wonky sites, and those deniers always cite from wonky sites.

The IPCC's AR4 report Chapter Ten page 750 says:

Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water

vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Hardly a recipe for increased drought

Here's what NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows for precipitation
for the United States since 1895:

Climate At A Glance US PrecipitationII.jpg

Neither the IPCC nor NOAA's Climate at a Glance is a wonky site.
 
The IPCC's AR4 report Chapter Ten page 750 says:

Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water

vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Hardly a recipe for increased drought

Here's what NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows for precipitation
for the United States since 1895:

View attachment 67339101

Neither the IPCC nor NOAA's Climate at a Glance is a wonky site.
so temperatures have not been going up in the US over the last few years?
 
The IPCC's AR4 report Chapter Ten page 750 says:

Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water

vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Hardly a recipe for increased drought

Here's what NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows for precipitation
for the United States since 1895:

View attachment 67339101

Neither the IPCC nor NOAA's Climate at a Glance is a wonky site.
lol...that's dumb. Heads up: droughts do not occur in places that already get lots of rain.
 
Did I miss something? Did Steve say, "temperatures have not been going up in the US over the last few years?"?
No, but he basically said nothing other than that places with lots of rain are likely to get more.
 
No, but he basically said nothing other than that places with lots of rain are likely to get more.
That still does not match with the statement!
 
lol...that's dumb. Heads up: droughts do not occur in places that already get lots of rain.
Not only does the IPCC say that globally there will be more precipitation,
Chapter Ten also says:

Temperature Extremes...
It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more frequent and longer
lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold episodes are projected to decrease
significantly in a future warmer climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum
temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases in frost days are
projected to occur almost everywhere in the middle and high latitudes, with a
comparable increase in growing season length.


What that says, is most of the one degree of warming since 1850 that we are
enjoying has been at night, in winter and in the higher latitudes, summer
afternoons, not so much. It's really a recipe for milder weather. Pretty soon
we could see headlines screaming about "Unprecedented Extreme Mildness"
Don't laugh, there's this one from a few years back:

The U.S. coast is in an unprecedented hurricane drought - why this is terrifying.
The Washington Post August 2016

 
The IPCC's AR4 report Chapter Ten page 750 says:

Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water

vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Hardly a recipe for increased drought

Here's what NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows for precipitation
for the United States since 1895:

View attachment 67339101

Neither the IPCC nor NOAA's Climate at a Glance is a wonky site.

"Gobally averaged". That is the issue. Global average may increase, but that does NOT in any way say that some areas will get WORSE DROUGHTS.

This is the whole issue of AGW in a nutshell. The globe is a big place. The problem with denialism is it doesn't require any appreciation of even basic words like "global average". Denialists appear to assume that if there is a trend in one place that the EXACT SAME TREND MUST BE TRUE IN ALL POINTS on the globe....which is very, very incorrect.
 

Agree? No?

Watts Up With That (bull$hit) @ wattsupwiththat.com

looking at the big picture, science tells me a long drought is not all that uncommon


southwestern-USA-megadroughts-tree-ring-analysis.png


...According to the tree ring data, which extend back to A.D. 800, there have been a handful of extreme megadroughts over the last 1,200 years.

The most recent [DROUGHT] is happening right now. It’s gripping a wide swath of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, and it’s been ongoing since around 2000.

“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,”


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...s-helped-fuel-a-megadrought-in-the-southwest/


think a hundred year drought is bad news,...


Great-Basin-Caves.png


...geochemical data from Leviathan Cave shows that drought can last 4,000 years—findings that Lachniet’s team cross-checked against paleoclimate data from the Arctic and tropical Pacific. In short, the story in the cave data suggests a “worst-case scenario” that could—and probably should—guide planning throughout a region that provides water to 56 million people.

https://www.kunc.org/2020-11-30/if-...-thousands-of-years-what-does-the-future-hold
 
"Gobally averaged". That is the issue. Global average may increase, but that does NOT in any way say that some areas will get WORSE DROUGHTS.

This is the whole issue of AGW in a nutshell. The globe is a big place. The problem with denialism is it doesn't require any appreciation of even basic words like "global average". Denialists appear to assume that if there is a trend in one place that the EXACT SAME TREND MUST BE TRUE IN ALL POINTS on the globe....which is very, very incorrect.

The AGW in a nutshell is that the nutshell is 40 years of
projections and predictions that so far haven't really begun
to happen. Well really there has always been bad weather,
too hot cold dry or wet and no matter which it is, the headlines
scream "Global Warming" "Climate Change" "The Climate Crisis"
and the latest: "Climate Chaos" not to mention "The existential
crisis of our time" and it all obviously isn't true.

Well, you use the denier and denialism. What is it you think
is being denied and why to you think that what's being denied
is true? Assuming that you do.
 
The AGW in a nutshell is that the nutshell is 40 years of
projections and predictions that so far haven't really begun
to happen.

Incorrect. While some of the more dire predictions have not come to pass, the data is still showing that the warming initially predicted by the models is coming to fruition.


So, you see, you are incorrect.

Well really there has always been bad weather,
too hot cold dry or wet and no matter which it is, the headlines
scream "Global Warming" "Climate Change" "The Climate Crisis"
and the latest: "Climate Chaos" not to mention "The existential
crisis of our time" and it all obviously isn't true.

Well, you clearly don't really know much about the technical literature because you are still hung up on the "worst case scenarios" of popular press pundits. The possible outcomes INCLUDE the worst case scenario but also include things that will still be destructive to our economy and way of life, but in the end we really can't know.

Are you the kind of guy who buys a house and DOESN'T buy insurance? Do you drive around uninsured? No, you probably don't. Because you are RESPONSIBLE ADULT which means you take precautions against the worst case scenario.

That's what the climate scientists are telling us: we are in for change, we see it happening right now as predicted, and it MIGHT get very, very bad.


Well, you use the denier and denialism. What is it you think
is being denied and why to you think that what's being denied
is true? Assuming that you do.

Well, for instance, your ignorance of the veracity of the climate models shows that you wish to deny that climate change has been seen. It has. Of course your debate point is very mushy so you can always dodge it by saying "It's not as bad as the worst case scenarios what I read in the newspapers!" And that would be true, but not really how the science works.

So, I say, denialists (especially the non-science regular Joe Internet Sixpacks) deny how basic science operates in preference to a cartoon strawman.

In summary: YES climate change is happening. YES it was predicted. YES it is bearing out to be true.

QED.
 
Incorrect. While some of the more dire predictions have not come to pass, the data is still showing that the warming initially predicted by the models is coming to fruition.


So, you see, you are incorrect.



Well, you clearly don't really know much about the technical literature because you are still hung up on the "worst case scenarios" of popular press pundits. The possible outcomes INCLUDE the worst case scenario but also include things that will still be destructive to our economy and way of life, but in the end we really can't know.

Are you the kind of guy who buys a house and DOESN'T buy insurance? Do you drive around uninsured? No, you probably don't. Because you are RESPONSIBLE ADULT which means you take precautions against the worst case scenario.

That's what the climate scientists are telling us: we are in for change, we see it happening right now as predicted, and it MIGHT get very, very bad.




Well, for instance, your ignorance of the veracity of the climate models shows that you wish to deny that climate change has been seen. It has. Of course your debate point is very mushy so you can always dodge it by saying "It's not as bad as the worst case scenarios what I read in the newspapers!" And that would be true, but not really how the science works.

So, I say, denialists (especially the non-science regular Joe Internet Sixpacks) deny how basic science operates in preference to a cartoon strawman.

In summary: YES climate change is happening. YES it was predicted. YES it is bearing out to be true.

QED.
There was also some very real criticism of Hausfather et al. paper
Hausfather Climate Model Paper Not What It’s Cracked up to Be
I also question which criteria was used in the model evaluation, and did the criteria match the observed changes?
To me it looks like the observed temperature is between Scenario B and C, while the actual emissions are closer to Scenario A.
 

Agree? No?
No.

WUWT is, as noted, a well-known denier blog that cycles between posting pseudo-scientific garbage, and distorting actual scientific research.

In this case, it's the latter. The fact that droughts happened in the past in no way, shape or form proves that the current droughts have primarily natural causes or that AGW is somehow not the cause of our current droughts. It's just another example of WUWT cherry-picking and manipulating the data.
 
The IPCC's AR4 report Chapter Ten page 750 says:

Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water

vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Hardly a recipe for increased drought

Here's what NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows for precipitation
for the United States since 1895:

View attachment 67339101

Neither the IPCC nor NOAA's Climate at a Glance is a wonky site.
Damn, the Colorado plateau has been lying to me, Lake Mead levels are an illusion....
 
Back
Top Bottom