An Inconvenient Truth
-
Bagoas (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:35 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
My choice of "Mediterranean" for the climate of the "Climatic Optimum" was ill-chosen. I was thinking mainly in terms of average temperatures and latitude. However, I cannot help wondering whether such a short period of time is long enough for such a major change in the flora to occur.
-
A-1 (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 5593
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2001 4:44 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
gareth19 (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:22 pm If you are referring to the second coming of Jesus, orthodox Christian belief holds that Jesus was celibate, therefore, He never came the first time, and won't come a second time.
Cum (s)he told me, pahrump a pum pum
Let's see your eyes roll back pahrump pa pum pum...
... Christmas is CUMMING ...
-
Kortpeel (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 12:11 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
gareth19 (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:22 pm If you are referring to the second coming of Jesus, orthodox Christian belief holds that Jesus was celibate, therefore, He never came the first time, and won't come a second time.
You mean to say He never came at all? Not even a wet dream? What sort of a man is that? Can you really trust such idealism? Would you want to be like that?
And it's going to be terribly disappointing for all those Brides of Christ who've been looking forward to the second coming for centuries.
Apart from that, this thread is about global warming and nothing to do with celibacy and religion.
I personally welcome global warming. This planet is not warm enough. I live in Africa and most of the time I still feel cold.
Kortpeel
-
nullorchis (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:03 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Data, from verifiable and repetitive independent sources, can not be denied.
What the data indicates, in theoretical situations, can be open to debate.
Non-theoretical situation:
My 401k. Dollar value is way down over 50%. My retirement is in chaos. I have no discretionary money at all to spend, can't travel, can't do any of the things I had hoped to do in retirement. While I am getting by, I am quite displeased.
Theoretical situation:
Stock market has been going up. My retirement will be OK at some point in time and the future will be rosey and I will be able to travel and do other things in retirement that I had hoped to do. (HA!)
The data can not be denied, but the end result is open to conjecture.
What the data indicates, in theoretical situations, can be open to debate.
Non-theoretical situation:
My 401k. Dollar value is way down over 50%. My retirement is in chaos. I have no discretionary money at all to spend, can't travel, can't do any of the things I had hoped to do in retirement. While I am getting by, I am quite displeased.
Theoretical situation:
Stock market has been going up. My retirement will be OK at some point in time and the future will be rosey and I will be able to travel and do other things in retirement that I had hoped to do. (HA!)
The data can not be denied, but the end result is open to conjecture.
-
jemagirl (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:02 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I'm not a climate scientist, but I watched one on TV 
I am just throwing this article in without comment for the sake of balance.
AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_ ... al_cooling)
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 1 hr 7 mins ago
WASHINGTON Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.
Only one problem: It's not true, according to several independent statisticians who analyzed temperature data for The Associated Press.
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.
Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.
It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.
"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.
"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."
That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.
Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."
The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.
Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."
A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."
That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concern Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."
Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it a "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policy-makers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.
President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."
Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.
Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.
"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.
Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.
El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.
Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.
The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."
I am just throwing this article in without comment for the sake of balance.AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_ ... al_cooling)
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 1 hr 7 mins ago
WASHINGTON Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.
Only one problem: It's not true, according to several independent statisticians who analyzed temperature data for The Associated Press.
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.
Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.
It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.
"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.
"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."
That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.
Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."
The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.
Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."
A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."
That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concern Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."
Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it a "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policy-makers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.
President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."
Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.
Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.
"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.
Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.
El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.
Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.
The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."
-
moi621 (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:23 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
"...
Right, sure, uh-huh, count on it, take it to the bank, hurricane free zone of Florida on the shoreline -
"They" said the El Nino would bring rain to California.
Has not happened. We remain parched.
"They" have become faith believers in the Religion of Science.
Follow the Gospel rather then seek the scientific truth.
Example: When some guy found that there existed RNA viruses and that these viruses, when inside a cell, make DNA out of RNA.
Oh, NO! The established doctrine was questioned and the scientist was laughed at by persons claiming to be, scientific.
Scientist follow the Science Gospel of the time.
Few really "think", as Scientist should, but rather behave more like Priests.
And of course, many say what their income says they should say.
Especially the pharmaceutical research scientist.
Maybe in the 1950's giant ant movies programed me to believe scientist.
Obviously, they are not to be believed with out, proof. But, then y'gotta see if they did not organize their proof in a convenient manner. What is a person to believe? Personally, I believe truth is elegant and simple.
better sign off now blah blah blah
Moi
"jemagirl (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:54 am The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say ...
Right, sure, uh-huh, count on it, take it to the bank, hurricane free zone of Florida on the shoreline -
"They" said the El Nino would bring rain to California.
Has not happened. We remain parched.
"They" have become faith believers in the Religion of Science.
Follow the Gospel rather then seek the scientific truth.
Example: When some guy found that there existed RNA viruses and that these viruses, when inside a cell, make DNA out of RNA.
Oh, NO! The established doctrine was questioned and the scientist was laughed at by persons claiming to be, scientific.
Scientist follow the Science Gospel of the time.
Few really "think", as Scientist should, but rather behave more like Priests.
And of course, many say what their income says they should say.
Especially the pharmaceutical research scientist.
Maybe in the 1950's giant ant movies programed me to believe scientist.
Obviously, they are not to be believed with out, proof. But, then y'gotta see if they did not organize their proof in a convenient manner. What is a person to believe? Personally, I believe truth is elegant and simple.
better sign off now blah blah blah
Moi-
theGelded1 (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:47 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Global warming, or the Greenhouse effect, or whatever name this debatable concept goes by is rife with issues. Sure the weather patterns are shifting, they always have. How much these current changes are a result of human activity remains to be seen. In my opinion it seems we have a high opinion of ourselves thinking ourselves capable of disrupting an entire planetary weather system. Sure we do harm to the ecosystems we inhabit. Sure we can be a rather destructive and messy species, but I somehow doubt we have that much influence yet.
Should we develop cleaner fuels and more efficient technologies ?
I think we should. Only we it's best done in a manner that carefully thinks things through, not in a mad rush with no consideration of future viability, disposal, or even how toxic it may end up being at the end of its lifespan.
Consider the electric car and hybrids. Fine in warmer climes, likely not a bad partial solution. However not a complete solution to the current ICE. For one we have yet to develop a battery that doesn't go flat in colder temps. Where I live even a regular engine needs a boost somedays due to the cold. Even if that problems solved you have to consider generating heat to keep the passengers warm and the windows clear. That in itself puts a huge demand for power on a limited supply. Then there is the disposal of said batteries. With an estimated lifespan of five years, how is said toxic material to be handled ?
I could say the same about CFL's. In Ontario you can't get the regular old lightbulbs. Having been banned you can't by a decent one anymore. Big push for using CFL's. I've found they use the same power as the traditional bulbs did, yet how much more toxic are they ? How much more power goes into making one ?
Heck I started getting headaches in my own home from those things, so now I'm converting to hallogens.
Proof in my mind at least that efforts to change things seem to be ill thought out by government at least. Especially considering its our Premier that said he wanted 50% of cars on Ontario roads to be electric, and banned the incandescent bulb.
Should we develop cleaner fuels and more efficient technologies ?
I think we should. Only we it's best done in a manner that carefully thinks things through, not in a mad rush with no consideration of future viability, disposal, or even how toxic it may end up being at the end of its lifespan.
Consider the electric car and hybrids. Fine in warmer climes, likely not a bad partial solution. However not a complete solution to the current ICE. For one we have yet to develop a battery that doesn't go flat in colder temps. Where I live even a regular engine needs a boost somedays due to the cold. Even if that problems solved you have to consider generating heat to keep the passengers warm and the windows clear. That in itself puts a huge demand for power on a limited supply. Then there is the disposal of said batteries. With an estimated lifespan of five years, how is said toxic material to be handled ?
I could say the same about CFL's. In Ontario you can't get the regular old lightbulbs. Having been banned you can't by a decent one anymore. Big push for using CFL's. I've found they use the same power as the traditional bulbs did, yet how much more toxic are they ? How much more power goes into making one ?
Heck I started getting headaches in my own home from those things, so now I'm converting to hallogens.
Proof in my mind at least that efforts to change things seem to be ill thought out by government at least. Especially considering its our Premier that said he wanted 50% of cars on Ontario roads to be electric, and banned the incandescent bulb.
-
Old Greebo (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:29 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
All very interesting.
But should we givadam?
The Earth will no doubt continue to be The Earth for a few more billion years.
Temperatures will go up, and down.
If the ups and downs remain within certain limits, the human race might survive for a while. If they go outside those limits, other organisms might become dominant. Maybe spiders will become an intelligent top-of-the-food-chain species, and they'll dominate the Earth for a while.
Think about it. USS Enterprise, roaming the universe at warp factor threnty-floo, manned (spidered?) by an eight-legged crew. Funnel-Web Ohuru! Scottie with an integral, organic set of bagpipes! Geordi with eight eyes behind that adapted-oil-filter thingie he had to wear.
Actually I give the human race 500 years. But what do I care? I'll be dead some time in the next twenty. Thirty if I'm unlucky. I look at my grandkids - all 9 of them, seven gorgeous granddaughters plus the 2 grandsons - and I hope they have an enjoyable life. But they won't. Their lives will be hit with the Global Warming thing. If the world hasn't already become unliveable because of GW, they will nevertheless be struggling to justify their very existence. Oh, and various mad (or daft) religious 'powers' will have let off some anti-humanity horrible weapons, rendering large areas of the currently fertile world useless for sustaining human life.
500 years? Am I being optimistic?
But should we givadam?
The Earth will no doubt continue to be The Earth for a few more billion years.
Temperatures will go up, and down.
If the ups and downs remain within certain limits, the human race might survive for a while. If they go outside those limits, other organisms might become dominant. Maybe spiders will become an intelligent top-of-the-food-chain species, and they'll dominate the Earth for a while.
Think about it. USS Enterprise, roaming the universe at warp factor threnty-floo, manned (spidered?) by an eight-legged crew. Funnel-Web Ohuru! Scottie with an integral, organic set of bagpipes! Geordi with eight eyes behind that adapted-oil-filter thingie he had to wear.
Actually I give the human race 500 years. But what do I care? I'll be dead some time in the next twenty. Thirty if I'm unlucky. I look at my grandkids - all 9 of them, seven gorgeous granddaughters plus the 2 grandsons - and I hope they have an enjoyable life. But they won't. Their lives will be hit with the Global Warming thing. If the world hasn't already become unliveable because of GW, they will nevertheless be struggling to justify their very existence. Oh, and various mad (or daft) religious 'powers' will have let off some anti-humanity horrible weapons, rendering large areas of the currently fertile world useless for sustaining human life.
500 years? Am I being optimistic?
-
jemagirl (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:02 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
moi621 (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:21 pm "They" said the El Nino would bring rain to California.
Has not happened. We remain parched.
Moi
It is fairly early in the season to say how much extra rainfall there is from El Niño just yet, but it does seem to be a bit warmer and wetter than it was at this time last year.
In any case I guess the storm that passed through California on 10/13/09 must have missed you. We were drenched up here
-
moi621 (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:23 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
jemagirl (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:46 pm It is fairly early in the season to say how much extra rainfall there is from El Niño just yet, but it does seem to be a bit warmer and wetter than it was at this time last year.
In any case I guess the storm that passed through California on 10/13/09 must have missed you. We were drenched up here
Only about half an inch then dry, dry wind, and some hours of heavy fog.
From the coastal plains of Southern California - No difference from the last drought years.
Stay tuned, we have until May for rain.
Ah, the year of the March Miracle.
Light rains all March as to create water for storing and not flowing into the ocean. If the rain comes too late is melts the snow pack relied on for water storage.
Moifrom California one can look out at the whole universe