Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

No, drought refers to lower supply, NOT increased demand.

 

Then show me in the records where the rainfall has significantly decreased in the last century and a half.

Come on, I presented you with the historical records. Yet you scream I "reject science".

How in the hell is that, when I prove there has been no change? Or are the historical records wrong?

Do significant areas of the state not flood every year?



I present to you the "Yolo Causeway", literally just a few miles west of Sacramento. Every single spring, that area is like that. Under 3+ feet of water, part of the massive flooding that area sees every single year. Remember when the Oroville Dam almost collapsed? That was only 5 years ago, and the concern for those of us that lived there was great. It was February, and the dam was already almost at maximum capacity. And that was long before the spring runoff even started!

And if you go to the Yolo Causeway now, it is dry as a bone. All the water has run off, and that is mostly used for wheat farming. That is the California water cycle.

But as usual, you just scream everybody is wrong, even those that live in those very areas. And ignore any actual records and proof, because you believe "some scientists" that are nameless because they said so. Never actually checking facts and figures for yourself.

That is not science, that is religion.

 

The U.S. population has increased from around 200 million when I was getting out of high school, now it is over 340 million, yet we still see articles complaining about ' declining birth rates'.

 

I grew up in a time when we could see scientists running around telling us all the studies showed that cigarettes were not harmful and not addictive. And yes, it;s obvious you're an ideologue and just citing 'sources' you approve of and have no idea and don't care if they are lying or just stupid and being paid to feed the public bullshit, same as every other ideologue here to shill for THE CAUSE, whatever it may be, instead of real discussions.

 

You got caught up in the lies being loudly broadcast by the cigarette industry and the "scientists" they hired. This was well known at the time.

If you had looked at medical science sources, you would have seen the truth about smoking, which has not changed.

You DO have to consider the source.

Today, there are large numbers of legitimate science sources on climatology in all parts of the world. The results of these legitimate science sources do show differences on some issues. However, the bottom line that Earth is warming and humans are the primary cause is clearly supported.

 

No, I didn't' I could see the effects for myself by seeing what it did to several relatives.

And you should take your own advice; your 'sources' are people cashing in on the latest political fad, is all, and you think it makes you 'Speshul' to be part of the herd/

 

No, you pointed to the "cigarette scientists" of that era as if it was a deal. And, it WAS a deal to those who failed to consult medical science.

You used that as a critique of actual science.

Your second paragraph is just plain BS. Take a look at history. Those whose names are in lights are those who found new understanding of how things work, contrary to prior belief.

The idea that all the Einsteins, Planks, Bohrs, etc., etc., of the ENTIRE WORLD today chose instead to sell out for pay gained by fake studies is just your insult to the entire world of science.

 

I'm REALLY tired of your total dependance on ad hom.

Here's a list of those who do not agree with you.

https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-o...e for Climate,Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

 

Translation, "I got nothing, and refuse to believe actual facts. So here is another blind site I found".

Still no refutation of the actual facts I presented.

Please tell me where rainfall has decreased. Actual proof, as according to modern records, it is still falling within the expected range of records dating back to the middle of the 19th century.

Vomiting up some random list does not prove that rainfall has reduced. Vomiting up a list of "science organizations" does not refute that in reality rainfall has not decreased.

Why are you completely unable to discuss the actual facts?

 

I cited western states drought conditions.

I just wanted you to have an actual list of the scientists who aren't nearly as smart as you are.

 

Drought is literally lack of water. It has no relation to the amount of rainfall.

You can have a drought in the wettest climate, if there is not enough water to provide water to everything that it is needed.

And I notice, you still refuse to discuss that rainfall has in fact not decreased. I admit there is a "drought" in California. And it is entirely man-made. You could have the annual rainfall of Hawaii (63" a year compared to California of 41"), and the area would still be in a "drought".

Not having a damned thing to do with the amount of rain, but because there are far to many people for the ecosystem to support naturally.

So once again, your fail just goes on and on and on. You play stupid word games, and refuse to discuss even a simple fact like rainfall. Instead simply pointing at "scientists", as if that is enough to prove your point.

Sorry, this is not a religion thread. In science, we discuss facts and not faith.

 

Liars gonna lie.
Climate Change Weekly #437: Persistent Lies about Green Power
Guest Blogger
Misleading advertising and outright fraud are all too common among companies and politicians promoting green energy schemes. Two of the biggest scams are biofuels and biomass burning for electric power. . . .

 

The definition of drought is a prolonged period of abnormally low precipitation.

Having demand grow beyond supply is not described as drought.

Western states drought is described in this link.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/newsroom/t...ding to the USDM, on,in the region since 2000.

Sacramento gets its water from two rivers, not from local rainfall. The issue of drought covers the western region more broadly, as per the above.

 

Abnormal, for what? California has been a desert for thousands of years. It will continue to be a desert for thousands of years more.

It has a monsoon cycle of 7 years, and has an average rainfall of over 40" per year. In fact, it gets more rainfall than New York does.

However, New York is not sitting in a desert. And gets regular annual rainfalls and relies upon water brought in also. But funny, nobody is talking about the "New York Drought", are they?

Oh, and interesting "reference". Did you notice one thing it actually did not talk about at all when trying to prove the "drought"?

Actual rainfall. And the fact that the region suffers from a 7 year monsoon cycle. You know, that very thing I have been discussing from day 1?

Also look at their pretty charts. Did you notice that the "drought classification" falls right off the bottom of their scales every 7 years?

So once again, you absolutely fail to prove in any way that there is less rainfall in California.

Why can you neither give actual proof that the rainfall has decreased, or simply admit you are wrong?

Oh, and a final nail. Yes, it does talk about snow pack in 2021 being lower. Big whoop-de-doo, did they talk about 2017? Which was the second deepest snow pack in recorded history? And that by following the average 7 year cycle, the snow packs will continue to remain small, until 2024 to 2026, when there will likely once again be record snowfalls. And massive flooding all over the state.

Once again, you pick a site that cherry picks their claims, and purposefully selecting dates of low rain. And purposefully ignoring the 7 year cycles, and the record rain and snow of just a few years before.

Now once again, a real reference that shows that the average rainfall of California has decreased in the last 2,000 years. Or even the last 200 years.

Hell, even 100 years. But you can't pick a single year and strut around claiming that proves your claim. Science does not work that way.

 

I cited the USDA on the last 11 years.

That's more than your claimed 7 year cycle.

Plus, agriculture having plenty of water every 7 years is obviously not even slightly good enough.

 

It did not discuss rainfall at all. Which is what you are trying to claim. That you and all your pet scientists state that rainfall has decreased significantly.

Your "reference" did not discuss that at all. And since when does agriculture have anything to do with rainfall? Do the plants make it rain, or make the rain go away?

Wow, you really do not understand how any of this science stuff works at all, do you?

Once again, prove your claims that the rainfall in the Western US has significantly decreased. Because that reference did not do it at all.

And come on now, covering 11 years of a 7 year cycle? What a freaking joke! Might as well try to scream that the US is mostly "Democratic". Then showing a Presidential chart from 2008-2021.

What I just stated and what you are doing are classic cases of trying to use weighted facts to stack the deck. The difference is that I see it, and you do not.

 

The USDA points out that snowpack is a major issue, possibly THE major issue in much of the west.

I showed analysis covering an 11 year period, which would have included any 7 year cycle you claim exists.

I'm citing the analysis of those who study this issue of drought. And, you are objecting to involving experts, but you cite NOTHING.

 

I cite nothing? For goodness sakes, I gave a direct link to a publication from the 1930's that covered rainfall going back over a century.

Once again, what you mean is that I cite nothing that you like, so you ignore it. Then give a reference that does not even discuss rainfall.

Care to try again? An actual reference that confirms that the amount of rainfall over California has significantly decreased.

Oh, and in case you do not know snowpack is of little importance when it comes to rainfall. Only a small percentage of precipitation makes up snowpack. The vast majority is never snow. Snowpack is only important as that is the stored amount that is important in the cities. And as I have been saying for ages, that amount changes on a 7 year cycle.

And no, trying to claim a "7 year cycle" is displayed in an 11 year chart is wrong. To give an accurate reference, one needs to include multiple occurrences of that to happen. In other words, 25 years or more to show at least 3 such occasions of overwhelming rain.

As I said, you really do have no understanding of science, and simply have a religious faith in repeating anything you find that agrees with your beliefs. That is not science, that is religion.

Now, are you ever going to confirm that the rainfall over California has not decreased? Because that is your claim, and you have yet to do that.

 

I've not said anything about less rainfall.

I did cite the USDA on drought conditions, though.

 

Snowfall is more important, because it is a storage capacity that releases over the summer months. That capacity covers large numbers of square miles. Also, agriculture is often dependent on aquifers. But, aquifers aren't refilled by the rain that falls on them. That's just not enough to do the job. They get refilled by a far larger region, such as mountain ranges that capture water as snowpack. The Sacramento River gets filled by the mountain ranges that follow all the way to its headwaters in the Klamath Mountains, for example.

Look at the Pit River and its drainage, including Mt. Shasta and Mt. Lassen.

If the Sierra Nevada have low snowpack, it's an important issue. And, the same is true for other western states.

 

I can go back more, but it is not worth my time.

This is largely a repeat of every other argument you try to make. Remember a while back, when you tried to insist over and over that population density has not a thing to do with the efficiency of a mass transportation system? Or your fawning belief in anything that Elron Musk says is the absolute truth?

So if there is not "less rainfall", then kindly explain how there could be a "decrease in water supply"? Because the supply has absolutely nothing to do with the demand, that can only mean you are saying that there is less rain. You see, "supply" is the amount coming in of something, "demand" is the amount taken out. ANd the supply of water has not changed significantly in thousands of years, but the demand has increased exponentially.

And you tried over and over to give some joke references that said nothing of the sort.

And suddenly, you are saying that you had never said that.

God, it is almost boring picking apart your flaws in logic. Then your spins once you realize that you have completely failed, and try to move on rather than admit that you have failed.

Now, I have no problem if you simply want to say you misspoke, and that rainfall has in fact not changed in over 1,000 years. And that you somehow confused demand and artificial drought based upon demand with the natural supply (which once again has not changed). But you can not pick both sides, as you have been trying to prove less rainfall as part of global warming, which is not true at all. The shortness of water in California and most Western States has not a damned thing to do with that, it is simply that the regions are overpopulated for the environment.

They are not the same thing.

But here is the thing, I do not expect you to do that, but you will actually double down and insist that you are right. That the "scientists" said that there is less rain, therefore it must be true.

 

Actually, that is exactly how they work.

Traditionally, naturally when there is not any excessive artificial drain upon the aquifers.

When there is an artificial drain upon it (like in California where the huge population centers demand far more water than can naturally be provided), then you start to have problems. And the longer it goes on, the worse the problem is.

Once again, what you should have said is "That is not enough to do the job in California, which has a far higher population than the natural environment can support". Because in most of the country, it can indeed "do the job".

 

LOL! You two just talk in circles. He addressed that point. He said the snow pack in the mountains is more important than the rainfall.

 

The data are not cooperating with the alarmist narrative.
Recent Greenland Cooling And Only ‘Limited Retreat’ Of Glaciers Since The Little Ice Age
By Kenneth Richard on 13. June 2022

Share this...
More evidence surfaces showing Greenland isn’t cooperating with the global warming narrative.
The notorious “Climategate” e-mail exchanges between activist scientists like Drs. Phil Jones and Tom Wigley revealed how grave a concern it was in 2004 that “GREENLAND HAS BEEN COOLING SIGNIFICANTLY” since the 1950s.

“…a warming trend occurred in the Nuuk fjord during the first 50 years of the 1900s, followed by a cooling over the second part of the century, when the average annual temperatures decreased by approximately 1.5°C.”
“…whatever the rest of the Northern Hemisphere may be doing, the part that holds the lion’s share of the hemisphere’s ice has been cooling for the past half-century, and at a very significant rate…”
“Greenland’s temperature trend of the past half-century has been just the opposite — and strikingly so — of that of which is claimed for the Northern Hemisphere and the world by the IPCC and its climate alarmist friends.”
“[Greenland cooling] presents these folks with a double problem, as they have historically claimed that high northern latitudes should be the first to exhibit convincing evidence of CO2-induced global warming.”. . . .

 

And now prove to us that precipitation has decreased.

Once again, discuss facts, and not your beliefs.

You have tons of beliefs, but are amazingly empty in facts.