posted December 09, 2014 01:39 PM            

Researchers said sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean set up an atmospheric roadblock off the West Coast that diverted winter storms away from California. The state relies on winter rain and snow for most of its yearly water.

The roadblock is a persistent ridge of high pressure that first formed in 2011 during a La Niņa event. Even though La Niņa broke down after the 2011-2012 winter, the western equatorial Pacific Ocean remained a warm water bull's-eye, a pattern known to trigger droughts in the Southwest and California, the researchers report.

In the new study, scientists determined that the high-pressure system, dubbed the "ridiculously resilient ridge" by a California forecaster, continued through the 2013-2014 winter because of these favorable ocean temperatures. The pool of warm water generates atmospheric winds that form patterns of high and low pressure (called planetary waves) that can get stuck off western North America as a high-pressure ridge. [The 5 Worst Droughts in US History]

The ridge and its accompanying drought are opposite the conditions that climate models predict under global warming, lead study author Richard Seager, a professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, said today (Dec. 8) during a news briefing. Climate models project low-pressure systems off the West Coast, with wetter winters and drier springs for central and northern California, he said. "Overall, it's a shorter, sharper rainy season," Seager said.

The report, "Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought," was released today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study compares drought observations with 160 climate model simulations to tease out the most important factors controlling the drought. The researchers plan to submit the work to the Journal of Climate, Seager said.

The study authors are not questioning whether climate change exists, only its effects on the short-term drought.

"There is no question global warming continues to unfold," said Marty Hoerling, study co-author and a researcher with NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. "The three-year drought is not related to the overall warming, but [droughts in California] are something that happens time and time again."

Scientists not involved with the study, such as Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann, criticized the report for not including the effects of California's record-high temperatures in 2014. Heat makes droughts drier by amplifying moisture loss from soil and plants and increasing water demand.

According to the new report, which measures drought by precipitation, last winter was California's sixth-driest since 1895, and the state's three-year drought is second only to the historic 1974 to 1977 dry spell, which sparked California's first big water conservation movement.

posted December 29, 2014 12:54 PM            

The study authors are not questioning whether climate change exists, only its effects on the short-term drought.

"There is no question global warming continues to unfold," said Marty Hoerling, study co-author and a researcher with NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. "The three-year drought is not related to the overall warming, but [droughts in California] are something that happens time and time again." http://news.yahoo.com/california-drought-linked-natural-causes-not-climate-cha nge-230935805.html

According to the new report, which measures drought by precipitation, last winter was California's sixth-driest since 1895, and the state's three-year drought is second only to the historic 1974 to 1977 dry spell, which sparked California's first big water conservation movement.

But if one measures drought by soil moisture, an indicator of both precipitation and temperature, then California's drought is the worst in 1,200 years, according to a study published last week (Dec. 3) in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. http://news.yahoo.com/california-drought-linked-natural-causes-not-climate-cha nge-230935805.html

posted December 29, 2014 06:37 PM            

How about no consensus as to the water cycle from ocean to vapour to cloud to rain to earth and rivers and back to ocean (I'm no scientist so oversimplifying here)

How about no consensus that a human gestation period is normally around 9 months.

No consensus that we need to eat, drink and breathe to live.

No consensus that Winters are cold and summers hot..unless you're near the equator.

No consensus that water boils at 212*

Flat Earth Society notwithstanding, I would say there is plenty of consensus in Science.

posted December 29, 2014 06:49 PM            

quote:

---

There is no question this fraud continues to unfold.

---

Only among Conservatives.

quote:

---

It's not rare for true scientists to be honest, but climate "science" is far from true science.

---

Obviously false. Why even try to state something as obviously untrue as this? I don't get it.

quote:

---

"Consensus" is a political term.

---

It's not. The only reason the issue is political at all is because Conservatives choose to have a viewpoint at odds with the evidence.

quote:

---

No true scientist would ever use that term, because science is about the scientific method, not consensus. By repeatedly falling back on that terminology, they reveal what their true motives are.

---

They wouldn't have to if Conservatives weren't acting stubborn the way that they are. Furthermore, scientists within the climate community are constantly checking one another's work as well as addressing even the most outlandish of "skeptical" claims put out there by interests that would rather stick their heads in the sand.

Attempting to use the word "consensus" as the basis of a point on this also seems far-fetched from just a practical standpoint. "Consensus" comes into play precisely because people have questioned whether these conclusions are accurate, and to what degree is there unity among the scientific community on this point. When you consider that most skeptics with science backgrounds don't actually work in this field, nor publish papers, nor submit their work for review, it's rather easy to see why they are not part of the consensus. When a skeptic with a science background goes ahead and attempts to verify something normally outside of his field of expertise (in a very public fashion using Conservative money to fund the study), and instead ends up confirming this consensus, it's easy to confirm that the consensus is made of people that actually study the topic, and not crackpots.

posted December 30, 2014 01:15 PM            

Global temperatures rose rapidly for almost three decades, and then leveled off somewhat, so you have a globe that is stuck in this high register of global temperature. The temperature isn't necessarily constant, though, so there has been some mild variation. That's how we can have MANY of the hottest years of record in the last decade while not showing any STATISTICAL warming. Statistical warming is a trend observed over several years.

Look at the chart here: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Notice that after 2000 the five year mean line is fairly straight, which indicates neither warming nor cooling. There's also seven dots above the mean line since 2000, and just five under the mean line. Also, notice that we're stuck in this +0.5 degree Celcius anomaly.

posted December 31, 2014 03:09 PM            

Those sites don't repeat the same things over and over. They continue to measure, analyze, and report as their jobs specify.

posted January 02, 2015 11:54 AM            

And it keeps coming to mind that you are going to be a lawyer. You are going to have to be able to understand opinions not held by you at some point.
Can you imagine if you were well prepared for trial? You have all your precedents prepared, and you know what precedents the other side might throw at you. Then one day you notice online that all these novices are voicing opinions about your case that are absolutely absurd. You know they're wrong. It's perfectly obvious to you. Yet, they claim that it's YOUR intent to deceive people with what you're claiming. All you've done is your due diligence, which is standard procedure for you. You may not even be that emotionally invested in the outcome. You just know how it's going to play out because you have the experience and knowledge to make such a determination. Now swap out yourself for a climate scientist.

posted January 02, 2015 04:31 PM            

What do you mean, "How so?" You know how it happened. You also should know from previous discussions that the ocean has been absorbing the excess heat. You can read some of the articles I posted in the other thread to learn more.