Droughts worse in the past

[longview]

That is an absurd, irrational comment ignoring YOUR OWN DATA. Every state water agency in the system has recognized the extreme nature of the last 20 years.


There you are AGAIN making a claim you cannot defend, twice you have avoided supporting your demand claim...and now you move the goal post from "unexpected demand increase" to "likely increase".

I have lived in this region all my life, I have never seen the level of tree deaths occurring here in Phx ever. Even Saguaros have been perishing at levels beyond observed levels. This has been due to not only drought, but elevated evaporation rates from increased average temperatures. The soil is not only being not replenished, it is dryer due to increased temps.

I know you would like to call data that disagrees with your preconceived notions absurd, but the data is the data even if you do not like it.
The trend from 1941 to 1977 was -.34 in per decade.
trend 2000 to 2021
While the trend from 2000 to 2021 is a +.04 inches per decade.
trend 2000 to 2021
Keep in mind, I am not saying that the warmer climate is not contributing, but that there are two sides to the equation.
We may have less water coming in, but we have also increased the water going out as well.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I know you would like to call data that disagrees with your preconceived notions absurd, but the data is the data even if you do not like it.

Uh, the 30 precipitation data supported me, it undercut your argument that we are not in a 20 drought.

The trend from 1941 to 1977 was -.34 in per decade.
trend 2000 to 2021
While the trend from 2000 to 2021 is a +.04 inches per decade.
trend 2000 to 2021

huh, increased drought levels.......weird!

Keep in mind, I am not saying that the warmer climate is not contributing, but that there are two sides to the equation.
We may have less water coming in, but we have also increased the water going out as well.

And again, you continue to move the goal post while not supporting your claims.

 

[longview]

Uh, the 30 precipitation data supported me, it undercut your argument that we are not in a 20 drought.


View attachment 67339204
huh, increased drought levels.......weird!
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/regio...d_base=10&begtrendyear=2000&endtrendyear=2021

And again, you continue, to move the goal post while not supporting your claims.

Except that you are not looking at precipitation, but the drought index.
Which is why your chart is labeled "West Palmer Drought Severity Index" instead of precipitation.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Except that you are not looking at precipitation, but the drought index.
Which is why your chart is labeled "West Palmer Drought Severity Index" instead of precipitation.

I know, you don't want to look at the drought index, it ruins your "no drought" argument.

 

[Visbek]

Where did I say global warming had no effect?

lol

You posted an article from one of the most notorious climate change denier sites in the world, and proceeded to sealion about it.

Then you asked if "it's a reasonable possiblity that is just a drought and would have happened with or without climate change."

Answer: No. It's not a reasonable possibility. The evidence of anthropic global warming is overwhelming, as is its role in causing droughts.

Are we clear?

 

[longview]

I know, you don't want to look at the drought index, it ruins your "no drought" argument.

I am not saying there is not any drought! I am saying that the lake level is down because of more than
a decline in precipitation.
Also Your chart says WEST, not Southwest, do you have a link, showing the source?
I think West is California, not the lake Mead watershed.

 

[longview]

lol

You posted an article from one of the most notorious climate change denier sites in the world, and proceeded to sealion about it.

Then you asked if "it's a reasonable possiblity that is just a drought and would have happened with or without climate change."

Answer: No. It's not a reasonable possibility. The evidence of anthropic global warming is overwhelming, as is its role in causing droughts.

Are we clear?

I do not think that is clear at all, because there were other periods of lower precipitation within the last 125 years.
The 1941 to 1977 period was really long.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I am not saying there is not any drought!

Yes, that has been your argument, you have been trying to show precip rates have not declined in the last 20 years. They have.

I am saying that the lake level is down because of more than
a decline in precipitation.

No, not only have you supported my precip argument, you have ignored evap rates from increased temps......which is why the drought index has gotten worse in the last 20 years.

Also Your chart says WEST, not Southwest, do you have a link, showing the source?
I think West is California, not the lake Mead watershed.

its from the same page.

Point remains, 20 year drought is real, you have provided nothing showing a significant increase in use.

I'm glad you never tire of losing.

 

[longview]

Yes, that has been your argument, you have been trying to show precip rates have not declined in the last 20 years. They have.


No, not only have you supported my precip argument, you have ignored evap rates from increased temps......which is why the drought index has gotten worse in the last 20 years.

its from the same page.

Point remains, 20 year drought is real, you have provided nothing showing a significant increase in use.

I'm glad you never tire of losing.

Over the last 20 years precipitation rates in the Southwest region, have been fairly neutral.
Now in that period, the rate was already about a inch per year below normal, but it was not declining.
I still think it come back to water usage, we are using more than before, and it is taxing an already stressed system.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Over the last 20 years precipitation rates in the Southwest region, have been fairly neutral.
Now in that period, the rate was already about a inch per year below normal, but it was not declining.
I still think it come back to water usage, we are using more than before, and it is taxing an already stressed system.

"I'm going to continue to not support my goal post move....and ignore drought indices"

 

[longview]

"I'm going to continue to not support my goal post move....and ignore drought indices"

Again I have not said that a drought is NOT happening, but that lake levels are falling for
several reasons, including reduced precipitation, but likely more from over use.
Also, I am not sure why you posted the Drought index for the West region, instead to the Southwest region?
Rain, or the lack thereof, in California, has minimal effect on Lake Mead's inflow.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Again I have not said that a drought is NOT happening, but that lake levels are falling for
several reasons, including reduced precipitation, but likely more from over use.
Also, I am not sure why you posted the Drought index for the West region, instead to the Southwest region?
Rain, or the lack thereof, in California, has minimal effect on Lake Mead's inflow.

this is the end of our debate, you still can't support your ever changing use claim, you keep creeping over to my arguments.....and BOTH the SW and W regions include CA.

I'm tired of your shitty inane inability to debate, thanks again for losing.

 

[longview]

this is the end of our debate, you still can't support your ever changing use claim, you keep creeping over to my arguments.....and BOTH the SW and W regions include CA.

I'm tired of your shitty inane inability to debate, thanks again for losing.

Wrong again! The West in California and Nevada, Whereas the Southwest Is Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado.
Do you know which of those feed Lake Mead?
The southwest region, as NOAA shows it has not had much of a change in the precipitation in the last 20 years,
but the lake level has continued to fall!
Even if the overall rainfall is down, they are still using more water than they are receiving.
NOAA Climate regions

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Wrong again! The West in California and Nevada, Whereas the Southwest Is Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado.

 

[longview]

Take it up with NOAA! they published your graph, and they say the West region is only California and Nevada.
So who is moving the goal posts, you post a NOAA graph, and then want to say NOAA's region is actually something else!

 

[Simpletruther]

lol

You posted an article from one of the most notorious climate change denier sites in the world, and proceeded to sealion about it.

Then you asked if "it's a reasonable possiblity that is just a drought and would have happened with or without climate change."

Answer: No. It's not a reasonable possibility. The evidence of anthropic global warming is overwhelming, as is its role in causing droughts.

Are we clear?

That is pure nonsense. The fact that global warming is happening doesnt negate the reasonable possiblity this just a heat wave.
Just like a bad hurricane might've just a bad hurricane.

You alarmists wànt to try to blame every event on this.

 

[Hafnium1979]

That is pure nonsense. The fact that global warming is happening doesnt negate the reasonable possiblity this just a heat wave.
Just like a bad hurricane might've just a bad hurricane.

You alarmists wànt to try to blame every event on this.

Real science seldom takes one event and lays it at the feet of climate change. That's just bad inferential statistics.

BUT, that being said, the current multidecadal drought in the SW might be exactly the kind of thing that will define our "new normal" as we alter the climate.

The real threat isn't the earth burning to a cinder, but rather that, even in the "modest range" of outcomes we might see the economic collapse of our society. Imagine if this multidecadal drought in the SW turns into a century long drought. Cities like LA, SD, Phoenix, Las Vegas, all those people move back east. Small towns are overrun with climate refugees and their infrastructure can't handle it. Millions of people in a "Dust Bowl in Reverse" trek descending on your towns.

Oh, yeah, and no matter where you live in the USA you won't be able to afford lettuce or most table vegetables at the grocery store. We will see the destruction of the Central Valley agricultural area which will lead to a near collapse of our industrialized food source/systems. Sure we'll be able to move it back to the midwest or east of the 100th Meridian and re-establish it, but it won't be the same.

Hey! I just thought of this: what if global warming shuts down the Gulf Stream due to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet dumping tons of fresh water into the upper arch of the gulf stream and causing Western Europe's climate to plunge thus destroying THEIR agricultural systems! And they are one of our biggest trading partners, so there goes another massive chunk of our economy.

Is this alarming? Because it's all very possible. And AGW might be our quickest ticket to it.

Maybe the Drought in the SW isn't due to climate change? But it might be a great way to see what fun the future will be WITH climate change!

 

[Simpletruther]

Real science seldom takes one event and lays it at the feet of climate change. That's just bad inferential statistics.

BUT, that being said, the current multidecadal drought in the SW might be exactly the kind of thing that will define our "new normal" as we alter the climate.

The real threat isn't the earth burning to a cinder, but rather that, even in the "modest range" of outcomes we might see the economic collapse of our society. Imagine if this multidecadal drought in the SW turns into a century long drought. Cities like LA, SD, Phoenix, Las Vegas, all those people move back east. Small towns are overrun with climate refugees and their infrastructure can't handle it. Millions of people in a "Dust Bowl in Reverse" trek descending on your towns.

Oh, yeah, and no matter where you live in the USA you won't be able to afford lettuce or most table vegetables at the grocery store. We will see the destruction of the Central Valley agricultural area which will lead to a near collapse of our industrialized food source/systems. Sure we'll be able to move it back to the midwest or east of the 100th Meridian and re-establish it, but it won't be the same.

Hey! I just thought of this: what if global warming shuts down the Gulf Stream due to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet dumping tons of fresh water into the upper arch of the gulf stream and causing Western Europe's climate to plunge thus destroying THEIR agricultural systems! And they are one of our biggest trading partners, so there goes another massive chunk of our economy.

Is this alarming? Because it's all very possible. And AGW might be our quickest ticket to it.

Maybe the Drought in the SW isn't due to climate change? But it might be a great way to see what fun the future will be WITH climate change!

At least you're saying might.

 

[Hafnium1979]

At least you're saying might.

That's how science is done. Best available evidence but don't over-extend the data.

 

[Visbek]

That is pure nonsense. The fact that global warming is happening doesnt negate the reasonable possiblity this just a heat wave.

It's not a heat wave. It's not a routine event. It's a megadrought, i.e. a drought that is going on for decades. It's the driest period since the 1500s.

Keep in mind that those past megadroughts were also associated with warming periods. And what's causing almost all of the warming now...?

Just like a bad hurricane might've just a bad hurricane.

20 or 30 years ago, it was reasonable to assert that almost all of the speed, severity and precipitation of a hurricane were a result of natural events.

Those days are gone. There is really no question that climate change is making hurricanes wetter, slower, more intense, and thus more damaging. The same goes for all sorts of other extreme weather events, and warming-related changes that haven't happened in hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands -- and soon millions -- of years.

You alarmists wànt to try to blame every event on this.

Read my post. I explicitly pointed out that AGW probably doesn't actually cause heat waves or hurricanes. What it does is make them more intense.

The reason why we are blaming a lot (not "all," but a lot) of negative changes to climate is because... anthropogenic global warming is causing a lot of the negative changes to the climate.

We keep sounding the alarm, because too many people keep denying the solid scientific evidence -- mostly because they are overwhelmed by partisan nonsense.

Let's try another analogy. Somewhere between 10% and 20% of lung cancer cases are in people who basically never smoked. Smoking cigarettes increases your risk of lung cancer anywhere from 3 to 7 times.

So, we can't blame every case of lung cancer on cigarettes. But if someone who smokes a pack a day gets lung cancer, is it reasonable to assume that their smoking played no role whatsoever in their lung cancer? Nope. That dog won't hunt.

 

[Simpletruther]

Take it up with NOAA! they published your graph, and they say the West region is only California and Nevada.
So who is moving the goal posts, you post a NOAA graph, and then want to say NOAA's region is actually something else!

Wow they embarrassed themselves

 

[watsup]

The AGW in a nutshell is that the nutshell is 40 years of
projections and predictions that so far haven't really
materialized. 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 seem to think it is true. Why?

The research and data of climate scientists as opposed to the denier talking points (see above) of anonymous chatters in an online forum. That's why.

 

[Luce]

Damn, the Colorado plateau has been lying to me, Lake Mead levels are an illusion....

Also, 3 missed rainy seasons in a row in Arizona means nothing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

From Wiki:

Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]

LOL.

Wikipedia is more biased than just about anything you find on the internet. It's a F'n joke for anything contentious.

Keep up your denial of science. You immediately make false claims as soon as you see WUWT. Funny thing is, in the first sentence, they link the science study. The study is found in the universally accepted science journal called Nature Climate Change. Here is the link:

No projected global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming - Nature Climate Change

Model projections of future drylands distribution using a proxy based on atmospheric aridity show expansion under climate change, but may not be an accurate representation. An alternative index based on ecohydrological variables such as water limitation shows no global expansion of drylands.

www.nature.com

It is amazing that you guys cry "denier" al lthe time, when it is in fact, you guys denying the science in favor of propaganda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

WUWT--Isn't that the stupid disinformation site another poster now gone used to spam the place with?

Anyway, here's a credible site.

Climate Change Has Made Droughts More Frequent Since 1900

Tree ring data from various parts of the world shows that greenhouse gas increases have impacted soil moisture for over 100 years

www.smithsonianmag.com

Funny how you say that without ever reading the lined material he has to show his contentions.