Well which is it folks? Global warming is going to cause an extreme drought, or it's going to cause a rain bonanza? These researchers are starting to get lazy are blaming every change in the wind on warming.
From the paper: "In response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) versions 3 and 5 indicate decreases in precipitation in the subtropics and increases in middle to high latitudes."
This modeling prediction is in line with what we've observed:
This is one of those statements that is "not even wrong." Bundling it with insults and arrogance does not improve the statement at all.
Climate is not weather, climate is the patterns of weather that are seen. You can ask, "is this year a drought or a rain bonanza" and have it make sense, but it doesn't make sense to say that of the climate; both are possible at different times.
Your comment will certainly get downvoted here for several reasons. 1) No useful content 2) Pure sarcasm 3) being a bit AGW. Having said that, I have to agree with your sentiment.
Just two years ago the news was all about how the CA drought was all because of carbon emissions and global warming. At least this paper does not do a full flip-flop and claim the recent precipitation is due to GW. It suggests the future may have higher or lower precipitation and large uncertainty - perhaps large variability due to the region being near a transition. Regardless of what its trying to say, it can be viewed through an AGW lens as "we fucked up last time, but here's why and BTW it's still all from CO2."
My take away is just that modeling this stuff is really hard and they aren't there yet.
Remember: CA is STILL in a drought (mostly just SoCal, but still). It's just had a really good winter season that means it's likely to be not the utter trash fire the last few summers were.
For years CA has got worse and worse drought wise - one great year of rain that brought the state back from Exceptional and Extreme drought levels across almost the entire state to still Abnormal or Severe in about 25% of the state is really just a blip.
Like... one year is a data-point, not a pattern, and even if CA gets more rain in the winter it would appear to be getting hotter in the summer which is really not good.
We're like... 6 days into July. The hottest period in CA weather is July-September. Somewhat early to call.
Plus, again, the rain and weather in winter and spring is record breakingly anomalous this year. So "this year so far" is not really a sane comparison.
The trend overall has been clear. Using this year is like when people say "we had record snowfall in upstate NY this year, so much for global warming, nyuk nyuk". It doesn't follow.
Has anyone produced a model that has predicted long term temperature or climate trends for 10+ years? Like for instance a model run in 2007 that predicted global temperature in 2017 within one standard deviation?
Climate change generally predicts 2 things: higher average temperatures and more extreme weather. It is called global warming due to the increase in average temperature. It is a mistake to think it is an increase in constant temperature.
Droughts and heavy rain fit those predictions perfectly.
We have the same thing in Australia. There were public announcements that the eastern states would be in permanent drought a few years ago. Then it flooded... so we have public statements that climate change will raise the number and severity of floods.
Africa's 4th largest river floods the desert yearly and it never even reaches the ocean[1]. Rain when it falls in the valley around Las Vegas doesn't soak into the ground but does create massive floods[2]. Frankly is doesn't matter how much rain falls if the temperature is unaffected and continues rising.
Warming won't have a single symptom, that's why most people are moving away from calling it "warming." Global Warming has always meant the addition of stored energy in the atmosphere. "Warming" came from the the thermodynamic term for energy: heat.
On the ground it means we'll see more extremes. Droughts, floods, record breaking heat and cold.
Isn't the posters point that two years ago when CA was in a drought, scientists were predicting 100 years of droughts thanks to climate change, now they're calling for 100 years of floods. It seems like this science may be suspect.
> Isn't the posters point that two years ago when CA was in a drought, scientists were predicting 100 years of droughts thanks to climate change, now they're calling for 100 years of floods.
That may be the point, but it's false; before, during, and after the worst of the droughts in CA, scientists were projecting that extreme (relative to past patterns) weather patterns would be more common, that particular regions would see more droughts and others more rain, and they California is geographically positioned so as to be subject to both effects, with an uncertain net effect.
The present article, particularly, does not “call for 100 years of floods”.
We need to get the climate debate away from the ends, and look more at what is actually happening, i.e the facts. The facts are we have more carbon in our atmosphere than ever recorded, and it is a direct relation to human activities. We are losing glaciers at alarming rates. New invasive species that thrive in moist humid environments are now being unleashed. Sea levels are rising.
It doesn't take a scientist to understand that the more heat that gets trapped in our atmosphere, and the more glaciers and ice caps that melt, the worse off we are going to be. I don't need a scientist to tell me that California might have 100 years of this, or Sahara Desert might turn into a tropical rainforest. It is enough for me to know that this will have a devastating impact on ecological systems across the globe, and the vast majority of people live near water, and sea levels are rising.
I live in a state where the majority of the population is rural and most people are farmers. I ask climate change deniers if they "believe" in greenhouses, and they look at me like I am silly. Then I explain to them that what we are doing is creating a very big green house. This usually does the trick.
>We need to get the climate debate away from the ends, and look more at what is actually happening, i.e the facts.
I tend to watch a few websites every day to keep tabs on what's happening. There is so much crap being said on both sides that I've reverted to just watching the numbers to see where we are.
Citation please? I am skeptical that 'scientists' monolithically predicted 100 years of drought due to climate change. I never recall reading such a thing in years of news coverage.
As a layperson, I always assumed that most weather we experience is in line with historical variability. Climate change causes (or is) small changes in the bias and variance of this weather. Saying that some of the drought is caused by natural variability and some of drought was exacerbated by GHG-induced warming seems like a perfectly consistent and reasonable position.
When all the answers are found, science will stop.
As a scientist you cannot accept that what you know is the final answer. Our knowledge of the world around us should be constantly subjected to the closest scrutiny, because the answers we have are almost certainly incorrect, or incomplete.
While that's true the rest of the world does need concrete answers on questions, rather than, "We are only 95% certain that statement X is true." Basically scientific rigor is important to make good science, but that does not apply to policy and the rest of society. In other words, when making a statement that goes to the public, qualifying statements are problematic.
The scientific community is at great fault for not being loud enough about the impact of global warming.
Please carefully read articles before participating in discussions about them. Your question was answered by the reference. I'm almost certain that's why you're being downvoted.
