View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Techno--you have better manners than mrgybe, but you are just as clueless. You think:
Quote: | All I did was refute Mac's comment about the snow pack being lost to climate change with some facts. |
Well, no. You neither stated an argument or asked a question or presented facts to refute. Perhaps I needed to be clearer to people who don't understand mountains higher than 3,000 feet, but stating that California is losing the storage in the snow pack doesn't mean it is already gone, or will ever be gone. It means the melt line moves up the slope. That means that precipitation will fall as rain in the lower parts of the Sierra's--during the time when capacity in the reservoirs is being reserved for flood control. Something that those of you unfamiliar with California, including the "journalist" you cited, appear to not understand. Refuted? Keep thinking that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I don't need a course in statistical analysis to clearly see that there is nothing unusual regarding California's snow pack other than it is very low this year."
You give us Mammoth Mountain statistics, to include those for Donner Summit, and you start talking about California's snowpack. By the way, I never said anything one way or another about trends. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's look at rainfall for Fresno. Data from NOAA.
Wettest and Driest Calendar Years
Fresno, Calif.
Top 10 Wettest
1. 21.61”/1983
2. 21.47”/1884
3. 19.14”/1969
4. 17.84”/1884
5. 17.68”/1978
6. 17.65”/1998
7. 17.29”/1995
8. 16.97”/1996
9. 16.74”/1941
10. 16.51”/2010
Top 10 Driest
1. 3.01”/2013
2. 3.55”/1947
3. 3.91”/1917
4. 4.50”/1919
5. 4.88”/1910
6. 4.90”/1929
7. 4.99”/1898
8. 5.54”/1928
9. 5.69”/1932
10. 6.07”/1966
Any trends? I couldn't copy and paste the more inclusive charts, but if you want to look at the trends, go to NOAA and have a look. The average annual rainfall in Fresno is 11.5 inches.
[url] http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/hnx/fatmain.php [/url]
Mac said: Quote: | Perhaps I needed to be clearer to people who don't understand mountains higher than 3,000 feet |
I wonder if it's possible for mac to respond without making a condescending remark? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pointster
Joined: 22 Jul 2010 Posts: 376
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno900 wrote: | Let's look at rainfall for Fresno. Data from NOAA.
Wettest and Driest Calendar Years
Fresno, Calif.
Top 10 Wettest
1. 21.61”/1983
2. 21.47”/1884
3. 19.14”/1969
4. 17.84”/1884
5. 17.68”/1978
6. 17.65”/1998
7. 17.29”/1995
8. 16.97”/1996
9. 16.74”/1941
10. 16.51”/2010
Top 10 Driest
1. 3.01”/2013
2. 3.55”/1947
3. 3.91”/1917
4. 4.50”/1919
5. 4.88”/1910
6. 4.90”/1929
7. 4.99”/1898
8. 5.54”/1928
9. 5.69”/1932
10. 6.07”/1966
Any trends? I couldn't copy and paste the more inclusive charts, but if you want to look at the trends, go to NOAA and have a look. The average annual rainfall in Fresno is 11.5 inches.
[url] http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/hnx/fatmain.php [/url]
Mac said: Quote: | Perhaps I needed to be clearer to people who don't understand mountains higher than 3,000 feet |
I wonder if it's possible for mac to respond without making a condescending remark? |
Well, here's a trend:
Records from the North American Freezing Level Tracker show the 10-year average level at Lake Tahoe during the months of December through March rose from about 7,500 feet in 1980 to about 8,000 feet in 2010.
Since then, the tracker shows three seasons around the 7,500 level and one near 8,500 feet. This season, which is incomplete, shows a mean level around 9,000 feet, which would be the highest since 1950 when scientists started tracking the statistic.
"The last two years have been especially high freezing level," said Kelly Redmond, a professor of climatology at Desert Research Institute in Reno. "It has been creeping up, and it has been doing so for close to 25 or 30 years now."
http://www.rgj.com/story/life/outdoors/recreation/2015/02/12/climate-change-sierra-snow/23323995/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pointster
Joined: 22 Jul 2010 Posts: 376
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mrgybe used a quote from a Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society to refute Mac's contention that California was losing the snowpack as a reservoir. The report "found no conclusive evidence linking human-caused climate change and the California drought." However, Mac's point was not that the current lack of snowpack was due to global warming, but that we could no longer rely on the snowpack as a reservoir because of warming trends.
In the actual report, the scientists would seem to support Mac's position:
In 2013/14, the North Pacific SSTs (Sea Surface Temperatures) and the intensity of the upper troposphere geopotential height gradient (Wang etal. 2014) reached historic maxima. These extremes appear very unlikely without anthropogenic climate change. If SST and ridging events like this become more common, California could experience more frequent droughts (Favre and Gershunov 2009). The impacts of decreased Arctic sea ice may also contribute to upper-level ridging and dry western U.S. winters (Sewall 2005). In addition, given the strong thermal control on evaporation, snowmelt, and water resources in California, the long-term warming is continuing to exert a growing stress on water availability (Barnett et al. 2008), potentially amplified by both more frequent dry days and more precipitation extremes (Polade et al. 2014). Local air temperature increases in the western United States impact the timing and availability of snowmelt and amplify the demand for water during the summer and fall, exacerbating the impacts of water deficits associated with these droughts.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477-95.9.S1.1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Techno--was Poinster's posting clear enough for you? The freezing point is moving upslope. Which means that less snow will be stored on the mountains and released with melting. Which was my point all along.
When will I stop making sarcastic comments? When you and mrgybe actually try to understand a post, ask a question if it wasn't clear, and don't jump on some right wing loonies posting to crow that you've refuted me and global warming. When you don't post something that pretends you are experts about California's complicated water system--and get it fundamentally wrong.
Speaking of crow, would you and mrgybe like it with salt, or plain? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poinster--one of the things about the internet is that older understandings remain alive as long as their host web site. For most of the current drought, the scientific assumption was that the drought and climate change were not causally linked, although higher average temperatures might make the drought more severe.
I posted the news report of the first credible effort that had actually looked at the data--the Stanford paper. The master of spin made a big deal of Exxon funding at Stanford and USGS papers that posited no causal connection between the drought and climate change. The thing ignored by those who aren't much interested in actually learning something, is that the Stanford paper is brand new. It would have to be rigorous to be published in the journal it was published in--but may not hold up to scrutiny. My posting said either maybe, or probably. I'm not yet convinced one way or the other--but I am actually interested in following the debate. Would that the right actually provided a debate on this site. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember this?
mac wrote: | RR--best advice yet on the forum. We should all take it. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Got me. Even politely. Good on ya. Now you and my wife both know how flawed I am. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: | Got me. Even politely. Good on ya. Now you and my wife both know how flawed I am. |
Ahem,,,,,,,,,,,, I think there are a few more than just that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|