Global cooling

[techno900]

mac said:

[mac]

Shooting fish in a barrel. There are two different subjects here, and Techno's point was pretty obscure, and seemed to link the two. There is the drought, and the question of whether or not there is a relationship between the drought and climate change. The second question is whether or not climate change is affecting storage of water in the snow pack in California.

Let me deal with the second first. Among the things about water that I have forgotten is that apologists for carbon pollution do not understand hydrology or geography. But first let me remind you of mrgybe's mistaken "gotcha":

[mrgybe]

Can't trust Stanford climate studies.........they are carbon funded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

He loves the carbon funded Stanford climate studies, but dismisses NOAA as a credible climate source in his failing attempts to wriggle out of this......

"Missing from most people's understanding is that, for the last 80 years, the snow pack in the Sierra's has been the most efficient and cheapest reservoir. We are losing that to climate change".

Couldn't be clearer. But no, he protests, he was misrepresented entirely. Perhaps he misspoke. No wonder he supports Hillary.

[mac]

The serial liar again avoids or mis-states the bulk of my statement, and then attempts to put words in my mouth. Where exactly did I "dismiss NOAA as a credible climate source?" Oh, right, I did not. What uwindsurf said, and I agree with, and you keep avoiding, is that NOAA said that climate change has probably made the drought worse. Nothing I said disagreed with or dismissed that.

What I did say, and you haven't bothered to consider, is that there is a new study--and I gave you the citation--that draws the conclusion I quoted in my original posting. It is newer than the NOAA study, and may, or may not, be right. That, of course, is what scientific journals and peer review is about. Of course, you paid no attention to it--or to the distinction.

What is hysterically funny about this is that you guys have conflated three distinct lines of reasoning--what to do about the drought and water in California, what is happening to the snow pack, and whether there is a link between the drought (either frequency or severity) and climate change. NW cites an article written by an urban social scientist with no credentials or background in water policy or climate, Joel Kotkin, who trots out the conservative talking points that enviros have hurt farming in the Central Valley by asking for water for endangered species. In the process Kotkin proposes immensely expensive solutions, in particular desalinization, that would put water far outside of the capacity of agriculture to buy. But you guys love this silliness--and particularly his sideways shot at climate science, and think you have a credible source to refute climate science.

Then Techno posts snowfall levels at high elevations and says that means there is no trend to reduced snowpack, Right--for a portion of the watershed that remains cold enough to freeze. You jump in and confuse drought causation and climate change. Somehow this all comes back to a gotcha that your e-mail source, never cited, has refuted global warming.

Then to top it off, you ignore the refuttal of your argument and make up things that I am supposed to have said. I can't figure out if you are simply too stupid to comprehend a train of reasoning, or too dishonest to study the facts. Carry on.

[swchandler]

techno900, perhaps you are confusing me with mac. Did I make any reference to climate change or global warming? No, my point was that snowfall at Mammoth Mountain isn't necessarily representative of snowfall in other parts of the Sierra. Seemingly on that point, you agree with me, so what's so silly about what I said?

[isobars]

[uwindsurf]

Well Master Gybe, either you believe the NOAA experts or you do not. By my reading, the NOAA experts have opined that climate change is responsible for significant weather related events. Do you disagree with their conclusions in this regard, yet promote their conclusions that support your position? What a pickle for you. A large dill pickle.

I eagerly await your self-righteous and smugly superior reply. Oh, how I yearn for it. Give it to me Master! Tell me how you are right and I am wrong. Better yet, tell me how the NOAA experts that support climate change are wrong on one hand yet correct when they support your position. I suspect that you believe that you are far more intelligent then any of the NOAA experts or anyone posting on this forum. What say you Master?

[mrgybe]

[mac]

Unlike mrgybe's sources--denier outfits and junk science. I didn't refer to NOAA--you disparage them unless you cherry-pick, out of context--which you did again. Pants on fire. But then you think you are clear, and informed. Carry on.

No comment on the paper, or how the paper and NOAA both seem to agree that there is a relationship between the drought and climate change, whether it is causal or simply made it worse? Waiting for your peer review.

[techno900]

swchandler, here is your post that I responded to: