[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The liberal Democrat San Jose Mercury News printed this story last year:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_2 ... asted-more

$1:

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say

California's current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state's recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West's long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.

And they worry that the "megadroughts" typical of California's earlier history could come again.

Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

"We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are ever going to encounter is about seven years," said Scott Stine, a professor of geography and environmental studies at Cal State East Bay. "We're living in a dream world."

California in 2013 received less rain than in any year since it became a state in 1850. And at least one Bay Area scientist says that based on tree ring data, the current rainfall season is on pace to be the driest since 1580 -- more than 150 years before George Washington was born. The question is: How much longer will it last?

A megadrought today would have catastrophic effects.

California, the nation's most populous state with 38 million residents, has built a massive economy, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and millions of acres of farmland, all in a semiarid area. The state's dams, canals and reservoirs have never been tested by the kind of prolonged drought that experts say will almost certainly occur again.

Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.
Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall -- the kind that would cause devastating floods today.

The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.

Modern megadrought

What would happen if the current drought continued for another 10 years or more?

Without question, longtime water experts say, farmers would bear the brunt. Cities would suffer but adapt.

The reason: Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture. In an average year, farmers use 80 percent of the water consumed by people and businesses -- 34 million of 43 million acre-feet diverted from rivers, lakes and groundwater, according to the state Department of Water Resources.

"Cities would be inconvenienced greatly and suffer some. Smaller cities would get it worse, but farmers would take the biggest hit," said Maurice Roos, the department's chief hydrologist. "Cities can always afford to spend a lot of money to buy what water is left."

Roos, who has worked at the department since 1957, said the prospect of megadroughts is another reason to build more storage -- both underground and in reservoirs -- to catch rain in wet years.

In a megadrought, there would be much less water in the Delta to pump. Farmers' allotments would shrink to nothing. Large reservoirs like Shasta, Oroville and San Luis would eventually go dry after five or more years of little or no rain.

Farmers would fallow millions of acres, letting row crops die first. They'd pump massive amounts of groundwater to keep orchards alive, but eventually those wells would go dry. And although deeper wells could be dug, the costs could exceed the value of their crops. Banks would refuse to loan the farmers money.

The federal government would almost certainly provide billions of dollars in emergency aid to farm communities.

In short, attributing this relatively innocuous California drought to global warming flies in the face of epically worse droughts that took place well before any kind of human activity could have influenced global climate.

Is climate change 100% responsible for the drought - no, of course not. They have happened before and will again too.

The difference this time is two-fold. California has 38 million people living there and they all need lots more water than anyone living there in the past did. The other is that climate change HAS been linked to melting glaciers all over the world, including in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Never said I was an expert. Never claimed to be an authority on the subject. Simply stated my experience on it. You inferred the rest. See:Ridiculous.

But you are the authority on the subject. So much so, you've made a claim that my statement was wrong because you've never read it.

Correct. I have read many articles on the California drought, not one failed to mention that droughts in California are cyclical, contrary to your initial claim. But only you are saying that I'm claiming to be authority on the subject.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Or perhaps I've read much less than you assume. I gave no numbers to how many articles I've read on that subject. I prefer quality over quantity. And I never 'froth'.

Or much less than you tried to sell me on...."quite a bit" has turned to "quality over quantity".

Yes, and much less than 'every' article that you seem to think I need to read in order to have an opinion on the subject. I have read quite a few very long articles and studies on the subject of the California drought.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

All of this because you think I'm a climate change denier despite me telling you that I'm not. Frothing.

I've also explained on here (in the past) the lengths I have gone in my personal life to conserve energy and water in the name of protecting the environment. But that's all bullshit because I don't go with the flow and be a "yes man" when it comes to anything and everything climate change.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I have neither said nor implied any of those things. And I'm pretty much done with defending things that you make up and then get pissed off at. It's gotten boring. Have a nice day!

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I have neither said nor implied any of those things. And I'm pretty much done with defending things that you make up and then get pissed off at. It's gotten boring. Have a nice day!

Bullshit.

You didn't jump on me because I agree with you, you jumped on me because you assumed I was a denier. You didn't like my post because I wasn't ass-kissing the climate change agenda and you tried to discredit me and my post right from the start. You didn't even know where I stood on climate change because I rarely talk about it here. My post couldn't possibly be true because:

1. It doesn't follow with the/your 'agenda'.
2. You've never read anything like it.

Your posts speak volumes, especially your first post and second where you went on about deniers and directly quoted me, it's a clear indication of your intent.

This is where your arrogance comes in. You jump in to label me as a denier, claim my statement was false (because of your extensive readings) and now, you're backtracking claiming you never said or meant any of it. Nothing said or implied.

All just a misunderstanding.

This is how you operate. You throw out your own assumptions and when you're called on it or are proven wrong, you back peddle.

[DrCaleb]

Quotes, or it didn't happen. *yawn*.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Quotes, or it didn't happen. *yawn*.

Ah yes.....nothing to see here. Can't remember what I wrote yesterday and will pretend to be obtuse and unable to look back to page 2. Nothing said or implied.

Just a misunderstanding.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Quotes, or it didn't happen. *yawn*.

Ah yes.....nothing to see here. Can't remember what I wrote yesterday and will pretend to be obtuse and unable to look back to page 2. Nothing said or implied.

Just a misunderstanding.

Yup. That's your M.O. Make wild assumptions about what people say, then try to dig yourself out of the hole.

I remember things I wrote last year. I remember things you wrote last year. Yesterday is easy. Why can't you quote me where I do the things you claim? Because I didn't. You took things out of context, and in accordance with your usual weak debate tactics, try to throw things back at me to try to defend the absurd.

Even though I didn't make the assumption that you were calling everyone a 'nutter' in your first post, I never once said or implied you were a climate change denier.

Here, I'll even do your work for you - just cut out the bits that highlight where I call you a denier. I'll highlight where I specifically don't.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Many of the climate changer nutters are completely ignoring the fact that this has happened before.

1950`s, 60`s, 70`s, 80`s.....this time though, it's all because of climate change.

And most of the climate change deniers are ignoring that climatologists have been saying it's been made worse because of both over use and climate change. Not that it hasn't happened before.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You have me confused with a denier. Wipe the froth from your mouth and calm down.

With respect to the "nutters" are those who act like this type of event in California has never happened with the purpose of pushing their aggressive agenda.

The denier agenda is to bring forward things that never happened and prove them wrong, in order to give their argument some weight. This is known as the 'Strawman'.

For example, it's a strawman to say that 'warming nutters' have said that 'this kind of drought has never happened before in California'. I read quite a bit on the subject, and I've never seen an article like that. To then use it as

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Many of the climate changer nutters are completely ignoring the fact that this has happened before.

would be an example of that. Whether it's your fallacy or not, it's still a fallacy.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You both show how rabid and ridiculous those of your ilk are.

I've never denied climate change.

I never said you did. Who's ridiculous again?

So, are you going to put up, or shut up?

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yup. That's your M.O. Make wild assumptions about what people say, then try to dig yourself out of the hole.

Yep, just wild assumptions. Nothing implied at all.

The only guy on here that has multiple people tell him his posts often lack clarity and context, but like I said, all a misunderstanding.

You know it's getting bad when even you don't understand what you've written.

What hole am I digging myself out of? Be careful with your answer here, it may lead to you admitting you were in fact, making assumptions.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

What hole am I digging myself out of? Be careful with your answer here, it may lead to you admitting you were in fact, making assumptions.

I am quite capable of writing what I think, I don't have to make implications.

Your 'hole' is assuming that I called you a 'denier'. My quotes show that I did not.

This is why no one wants to play with you anymore. Why should anyone try to expand on your thoughts when all they get is this kind of bullshit?

[BRAH]

[*]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BRAH BRAH:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Wow.

Yeah keep laughing, you're not the one who can't give their pet dog water because Kim Kardashian has to water her lawn.

Than you don't understand the water restriction rules.

You are allowed to water your lawn and give your dog water.

I understand the water restriction rules, this is good.

[BRAH]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BRAH BRAH:

Yeah keep laughing, you're not the one who can't give their pet dog water because Kim Kardashian has to water her lawn.

Yeah, lawn and dog watering are the cause of California's water problems. And you have some proof of this horrible dehydrated dogs crisis, right?

You heartless bastard!