US Government Induced Drought

[jbg]

again, the duration is only a part of it... the level of strength within that duration is key. And again, the drought has built up to it's current severity over a three year period. No single El Nino event will do anything to counter that lengthy buildup and bring snowpack and reservoirs back to 'typical' levels.

I was using 2009-10's El Niño and 1988-9's La Niña as examples because those were both relatively strong events. Other strong El Niños have been 1957-8, 1972-3 (strong but not pervasive in that the Upper Midwest was cold, very atypical for a Niño), 1982-3 and 1997-8. Duration made up for relative weakness in the 1990-1995 "bleeding El Niño" which was punctuated by a moderate El Niño event in 1994-5 and interrupted by a "cold-neutral" period in 1993-4. This El Niño was extremely pervasive in that it just about wiped out hurricane activity for the period (except for Andrew in 1992) and doing some real damage to Arctic sea ice. That damage did start during the 1988 La Niña but the pervasive El Niño precluded any real recovery for Arctic ice.

Thus duration as well as peak strength are extremely important.

Since we flipped over to "cold-phase during 1998 at the earliest and 2007 at the latest, the La Niñas hit the "strong" territory only during late 2010 and early 2011. The almost endless duration of the episode, starting during the spring of 2010 as made up for its relatively puny strength from spring 2011 on.

[jbg]

I've never understood why right-wingers have such contempt for eco-systems. It seems they benefit from them just as much as left-wingers do.

There are some right wingers such as James Watt and Anne Gorsuch (eventually Anne Burford) who indeed did have contempt. Many just think that wild areas should be made accessible, and that human use needs to be balanced with the needs of nature.

[eyeball]

Except that more wild areas are being reduced virtually everywhere you find people and there's always more people, not less. Ecosystem diversity, meaning habitats for a diversity of other organisms that use and need them is being converted for human use. A state of imbalance is by far the new state of normal for most ecosystems, wild or otherwise.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's your permanent, natural state of imbalance: 99% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.....this was true long before the current dance with "climate change".

[jbg]

Except that more wild areas are being reduced virtually everywhere you find people and there's always more people, not less. Ecosystem diversity, meaning habitats for a diversity of other organisms that use and need them is being converted for human use. A state of imbalance is by far the new state of normal for most ecosystems, wild or otherwise.

Man is the "keystone species." How likely is man to abdicate that role?

[eyeball]

Keystone species are generally considered those which are crucial for holding an ecological community together, like otters, kelp forests and all the animals that live in them. Pull the keystone out and things fall apart.

Pull us out of the equation and there would be a collective cheer from just about every other living thing on the planet.

Edited September 29, 2014 by eyeball

[jbg]

Keystone species are generally considered those which are crucial for holding an ecological community together, like otters, kelp forests and all the animals that live in them. Pull the keystone out and things fall apart.

Pull us out of the equation and there would be a collective cheer from just about every other living thing on the planet.

About to go to sleep. But whitetail deer, coyotes and black bears would be miserable.

[marcus]

It's a bit funny but mostly embarrassing seeing some people who are still in denial when it comes to climate change and global warming. Like Shady who is putting drought in quotations and calling it "so-called global warming".

[jbg]

It's a bit funny but mostly embarrassing seeing some people who are still in denial when it comes to climate change and global warming. Like Shady who is putting drought in quotations and calling it "so-called global warming".

Have you witnessed or felt climate change in your lifetime?

[marcus]

Have you witnessed or felt climate change in your lifetime?

We all have.

The temperature increase both in the air and in the sea is a fact.

The increase in irregular weather patterns is also happening.

So is the migration of animals, insects and plants, which are due to climate change.

Are you also in denial?

[TimG]

The temperature increase both in the air and in the sea is a fact.

True. But a modest warming from the icy 70s is not a big concern and probably a net benefit.

The increase in irregular weather patterns is also happening.

Only in your imagination. There is no credible statistical evidence supporting the claim that weather patterns are more irregular today than in the past.

[jbg]

We all have.

The temperature increase both in the air and in the sea is a fact.

True. But a modest warming from the icy 70s is not a big concern and probably a net benefit.

I am a believer in PDO cycles; cold and warm phases. The 1970's were the climax of a 30 year cold phase, that ran from 1947 to 1977. The beginning of that cold phase was not all that cold. While NYC had its then-record snowstorm on December 26-27, 1947, the winters of 1948-9 (after a cold and snowy December), 1949-50, 1950-1, 1951-2, 1952-3, 1953-4 and 1954-5 were relatively warm and snowless. the The first major accumulating storm in NYC after December 1948 was March 26, 1956. The summers during those years were torrid; NYC broke 100 for 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955, the only such run of four years in a row. And 1957, perhaps triggered by my birth that April, NYC broke 100.

The winter of 1960-1 was particularly brutal and had a similar "polar vortex" pattern (then called a "50-50 low) to this past winter, and for that matter 1993-4. These kinds of cycles do make a difference.

Overall, the brutal winters were at the end of this "cold phase"; 1976-7 (extremely cold), 1977-8 (not quite as cold, but a lot of snow), and 1978-9, brutally cold, and some snow. The "warm phase", generally considered to have started in 1976 or 1977, did not, as just pointed out, start very warm.

The 1982-3 Super El Niño kicked off the warming in to high gear. a breaking of a major ice gyre in the Bering Sea accelerated the melting of Arctic Ice. There is some dispute over whether the ending of this "warm phase" was the 1998 end of the 1997-8 super El Niño, or 2007. I personally go with 2007 since La Niñas did not solidly predominate until the years subsequent to 2007. During the period 1998-2007 there was a La Niña from 1998-2001, and then an El Niño from 2002-2005, resuming in late 2006 into early 2007. That is why I don't think the cold phase had taken hold yet.

After 2007, La Niña years were 2007-8 (and into early 2009), and 2010-13 (and probably into early 2014). The El Niño, while pretty strong, was short; about August 2009-March 2010. Why is this important? Because just as the temperature downshift of the last cold phase took time after the start of cold phase in 1947 (really 1960 or so to be noticeable) so will this cold phase. And the last warm phase took about six years to be noticeable.

Thus, I dispute the "increase in temperatures." I asked "Marcus" what he witnessed in order to bring out weather changes he could sense. There are none.

The increase in irregular weather patterns is also happening.

So is the migration of animals, insects and plants, which are due to climate change.

Are you also in denial?

Any serious reader of history knows that there have been extensive and violent weather events throughout history. Ditto animal ranges. As to the change in ranges of animals, the latest fad is to point to the migration of grizzlies onto the tundra. How do we know if some individuals did not find food to their liking on the tundra, migrated, and brought mates along? Grizzlies range in areas with some frightenly cold temperatures. Edited September 29, 2014 by jbg

[eyeball]

I'd say the first clue is that we (you notwithstanding) know that bears don't have anything to do with their mates once they're done mating with them.

[jbg]

I'd say the first clue is that we (you notwithstanding) know that bears don't have anything to do with their mates once they're done mating with them.

Hard to get more bears without mating though. Unless they conceive by immaculate conception.

[eyeball]

It's even harder to take you seriously when you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You keep citing things that are just plain wrong as evidence that you think you do know what you're talking about.

You're probably in a state of denial because you're in such an oblivious state.

[jbg]

It's even harder to take you seriously when you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You keep citing things that are just plain wrong as evidence that you think you do know what you're talking about.

You're probably in a state of denial because you're in such an oblivious state.

Why not check out the rest of the post. But to your point it is obvious that even though bears may not stay together after they copulate, they still have to have members of the opposite sex available for a viable population. Or the grizzlies and polar bears find each other to their respective likings.

[eyeball]

Okay, I'll bite. I've witnessed an increasing number of climate scientists and experts come to a firmer conclusion and consensus that the world is still getting warmer - and warmer in 2014 than it's been in all of recorded history.

As for the future...El Nino is building in the Pacific as we speak and we're still putatively on the cold side of the last PDO. Can't wait to see what the next warm phase brings. Probably higher property values given my region (Pacific Northwest) is expected to be one of the climate change winners.

[jbg]

Okay, I'll bite. I've witnessed an increasing number of climate scientists and experts come to a firmer conclusion and consensus that the world is still getting warmer - and warmer in 2014 than it's been in all of recorded history.

The El Niño is building but far more weakly than expected. That is probably the effect of the negative PDO.

[marcus]

I am a believer in PDO cycles; cold and warm phases. The 1970's were the climax of a 30 year cold phase, that ran from 1947 to 1977.

Global temperature has increased by close to 1 Celsius in the last 100 years. If this is just a cycle, then why the rise in temperature?

If this is just a cycle, then why have the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years?

[eyeball]

The El Niño is building but far more weakly than expected. That is probably the effect of the negative PDO.

Well, just a cursory glance at history says here'll be another one along soon enough.