I suspect that is what is happening in the SW, they are using water faster than can be recharged by the cycle of rainfall and aquifer recharge.Yes, and?
That's what really pisses me off about the AGW crowd. They always blame AGW, instead of doing real science.Strange, what I hear in your comments is,
Any possible change that can happen in the weather, can be attributed to AGW!
Strange, what I hear in your comments is,
Any possible change that can happen in the weather, can be attributed to AGW!
But that is fact. You leave out the inconvenient truths.
It is well known that the SW has a problem with their water supply due to increased populations.
Why do I need to prove something that is already accepted as fact?
Sure, I could waste my time finding such material, but my God man. This is a fact that you should already be aware of, especially if you have studied geology, aquifers, etc.
Precipitation is down. It is near record lows. See what I man about getting my arguments wrong?
I never claimed it was "solely" due to populations.
Is that how you conduct your science?
It might help, if instead of jumping to conclusions, if you actually thought out what my words really mean.
I suspect that is what is happening in the SW, they are using water faster than can be recharged by the cycle of rainfall and aquifer recharge.
It uses precipitation as an index, but uses two other main variables. Calculations are based on precipitation, temperature data, and the local Available Water Content of the soil. We have been pumping the aquifers rather low in the last few decades. Haven't we?
I never said we didn't have a growing water shortage. You act as if you understand these things better than I do. If that is true, why can't you get my arguments correct? My claim is simply that a large part of this drought, which will get even worse, is primarily due to population. More people means a greater demand of a limited resource.
If global warming were increasing drought, would it not be increasing it, globally?
Sorry. But comparing urban and rural stations don't cut it.I have already shown this to be incorrect in regards to the UHIE topic. Please do not force me to waste more time showing you your errors.
Here you go again. How many times have I pointed out you argue against something I didn't say?What you have failed to prove (or evidence in ANY way) is the contention that population increases are the SOLE reason for the lowering of Lake Mead and other drought related issuses.
And I never claimed otherwise. We are at near record lows on precipitation. I already said that several times.And, again, I am not debating that point at all. We are in absolute agreement that the desert SW has a population issue in regards to water that is only getting worse. The contention under discussion here is that there is also a likely meteorological component to the drought which can be (not necessarily IS) a result of climate change
Finally?So FINALLY you agree precipitation is lower. That is a component of the drought. It is not the ONLY problem but it IS a component. Which means it can be affected by and made worse by (and maybe even dominate) the problem and that can be (but not necessarily IS) due to climate change.
You are claiming it to be a meteorological drought. There are other factors.You CONSISTENTLY argue against ANYONE who posts discussions of meteorological drought. Your position seems to be changing because someone provided you with actual data. That's good, it shows you are capable of learning. Now show the responsible attitude of either being quiet or at the very least NOT trying to make it sound like you were of that opinion earlier.
I thought you said you were in a different post. Am I wrong?Who says I'm a scientist?
Maybe if you toned down your rhetoric, I would mine as well.Speaking of jumping to things you clearly just jump on people for no real reason. You have come out swinging at me so much in the past week it is mind boggling. Whether you are accusing me of being a "snobbish reactionary" or a "creationist" (A charge you will not support), or trying to accuse me of being someone's sock puppet. You are off the charts aggressive.
If we use more water than arrives through precipitation, and that we can draw from the aquafers, sooner or later, bad things will happen!
Strange, what I hear in your comments is,
Any possible change that can happen in the weather, can be attributed to AGW!
Precipitation has proven over the long record, to be cyclical. Can you show it to be due to CO2?If there is less precipitation available due to the variations of climate change, then sooner or later bad things will happen.
Can be? Sure, but the verdict isn't out yet on how much AGW there actually is, or how large of an effect it has.Are there changes in the weather that can be attributed to AGW? You seem to completely dismiss that possibility.
I suspect that is what is happening in the SW, they are using water faster than can be recharged by the cycle of rainfall and aquifer recharge.
I see. You wish to deny all other variables.That has nothing at all to do with the METEOROLOGICAL drought of less precipitation, which is the topic.
That's what really pisses me off about the AGW crowd. They always blame AGW, instead of doing real science.
I never claimed it was the sole variable. I only point it out as a very prominent variable.
I have said this before. I have never said anything contrary to that. Why do you make up arguments against me that have no merit?
Things like Lake Meade are because of too many people for the available water. Not because of CO2.
Why do you blame that on CO2?
I thought you said you were in a different post. Am I wrong?
Maybe if you toned down your rhetoric, I would mine as well.
It is very, very irritating for you to claim I said things I didn't. Maybe we can start there?
Sorry. But comparing urban and rural stations don't cut it.
Here you go again. How many times have I pointed out you argue against something I didn't say?
I never claimed it was the sole variable. I only point it out as a very prominent variable.
And I never claimed otherwise. We are at near record lows on precipitation. I already said that several times.
Finally?
I have said this before. I have never said anything contrary to that. Why do you make up arguments against me that have no merit?
You are claiming it to be a meteorological drought. There are other factors.
I thought you said you were in a different post. Am I wrong?
Maybe if you toned down your rhetoric, I would mine as well.
Something to consider.
It is very, very irritating for you to claim I said things I didn't. Maybe we can start there?
That's what really pisses me off about the AGW crowd. They always blame AGW, instead of doing real science.
Nobody was comparing rural and urban stations.
View attachment 67338592It looks cyclical to me.
Anyone else?
How Much Rain Does Tucson Get Annually?
Last week, monsoon storms dumped more than 2 inches of rain on some parts of Tucson in just one day. Sure, it's usually rainy during monsoon season, but what about the rest of the year? How much rain does Tucson get annually?kjzz.org
Really?Nobody was comparing rural and urban stations.
Are you claiming there isn't a clear cyclical pattern there?Anecdotal data.
I thought you actually understood science.
Too bad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?