Post #417,263
2/21/17 3:32:55 PM
2/21/17 3:32:55 PM
|
There's a good SciAm article about the 1861-62 flood.
California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten CatastropheA 43-day storm that began in December 1861 put central and southern California underwater for up to six months, and it could happen again But there's no reason to be sanguine and say it's just natural and won't get worse going forward... SkepticalScience: Posted on 20 February 2017 by dana1981
The evacuation of nearly 200,000 people near Oroville Dam is the kind of event that makes climate change personal. A co-worker of mine was forced out of his home for several days by the emergency evacuation, and another friend was visiting Lake Oroville and happened to leave 15 minutes before the evacuation order was issued.
Like many extreme events, the Oroville emergency is a combination of natural weather likely intensified by climate change. California regularly sees “atmospheric rivers” that deluge the state with rainfall, but in a hotter world, scientists anticipate that they’ll be amplified by an increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Northern California is in the midst of its wettest rainy season on record – twice as wet as the 20th century average, and 35% wetter than the previous record year. It proved to be almost too much for America’s tallest dam to handle. Water managers were forced to use Oroville Dam’s emergency spillway for the first time ever, which then began to erode, posing the threat of a failure and catastrophic flooding of nearby towns.
Northern California Sierra precipitation - average, previous wettest year, and 2016-2017. Illustration: California Department of Water Resources
While studies haven’t yet connected this extreme wetness to climate change (there are still several months remaining in California’s rainy season), what we’re seeing is consistent with climate scientists’ expectations of a hotter world.
Dams in the United States were built 50 years ago, on average. Since then, the Earth’s surface temperature has warmed about 0.75°C, and there’s now more than 5% more water vapor in the atmosphere as a result, which intensifies storms. With hotter temperatures, more precipitation falls as rain and less as snow, and California’s Sierra snowpack also melts earlier in the year. Climate change stresses California’s water infrastructure through all of these mechanisms.
[...] Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #417,265
2/21/17 4:14:57 PM
2/21/17 4:14:57 PM
|
scientists anticipate, thats the issue right there
last year "scientists anticipate" unimaginable drought in California. They are like sports bookies, covering all bets "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #417,266
2/21/17 4:21:35 PM
2/21/17 4:21:35 PM
|
Hardly.
Weather isn't climate.
Hot air holds more water than cold air. More moisture means more rain. This is basic environmental physics, and one can easily check it by comparing, say, Tibet and the Amazon rain forest.
Of course that doesn't mean that every day it will rain next year, or that there will never be droughts again. Global Climate is different from weather in a particular location.
You know this. ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #417,279
2/21/17 11:18:37 PM
2/21/17 11:18:37 PM
|
*cough* Hadn't heard..?
An early test of the veracity of a theorem is exactly That: that following the outlined method, one Can indeed Anticipate "an outcome"
(quite better than a Control like, say random-coin-toss data.)
You seem to think it's a Bad-thing, (less'n yer bein a pesky Trollin Trollop again)
;^>
|
Post #417,284
2/22/17 9:33:11 AM
2/22/17 9:33:11 AM
|
test and verify. When every conceivable outcome is considered proof
that is religion, not science "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #417,285
2/22/17 10:15:50 AM
2/22/17 10:15:50 AM
|
Strawman.
|
Post #417,286
2/22/17 10:21:46 AM
2/22/17 10:21:46 AM
|
goalposts on wheels
Deliberate conflation of the word "proof" with the actual concept of "evidence".
Mathematicians and logicians do "proof". Everyone else does "evidence".
|
Post #417,287
2/22/17 1:00:37 PM
2/22/17 1:00:38 PM
|
exactly that is what you have in todays climatology goalposts on wheels
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #417,289
2/22/17 1:24:45 PM
2/22/17 1:24:45 PM
|
Should we expect you to be changing your mind, too?
|
Post #417,290
2/22/17 2:02:52 PM
2/22/17 2:02:52 PM
|
who said I am a skeptic?
My statement is that the scientists have little or no fucking clue predicting what the end result of global climate change will be. I also know if you shut off every human method of causing c02 immediately half the world population would likely die in short thrift and it would not slow down climate change at all. Mitigation is what we need to be looking at. Crop distribution. Population shifts etc. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #417,291
2/22/17 2:33:51 PM
2/22/17 2:33:51 PM
|
Re: who said I am a skeptic?
Why do you argue this way? My statement is that the scientists have little or no fucking clue predicting what the end result of global climate change will be. Link with some scientist saying what the "end result of climate change will be." please. One doesn't have to be The Amazing Karnac to know what will happen, overall, to the planet if CO2 levels keep rising at the rate they've been rising - even if one can't predict whether California in 2027 will be in flood or drought. I also know if you shut off every human method of causing c02 immediately half the world population would likely die in short thrift and it would not slow down climate change at all. Who is arguing that "every human method of causing CO2" should or could be stopped immediately? Define "not slow down climate change at all", please. There are huge lags in the system - science tells us that (e.g. the multi-hundred year average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere). That's why it's important to quit delaying implementing sensible policies. What we do now will affect what the planet looks like in 20, 50, 100 years. Mitigation is what we need to be looking at. Crop distribution. Population shifts etc. 1) We can do many things at once. 2) Mitigation is easier when the problem is smaller - meaning we need to dramatically cut our emissions before thinking about things like dumping SO4 in the atmosphere to counteract CO2. 3) Taxing carbon to have it reflect its real impacts (with sensible rebates to people who have no choice) is a much simpler and smarter way to approach the problem rather than, say, invading Canada to take over their farmland. 4) If you think the proposals thus far are expensive, tell me about your plans to replace Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Norfolk, etc., etc. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #417,300
2/23/17 2:51:40 AM
2/23/17 2:51:40 AM
|
Re: who said I am a skeptic?
4) If you think the proposals thus far are expensive, tell me about your plans to replace Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Norfolk, etc., etc. If you're on about our Norfolk, I have no plans to replace it. Nothing of value was lost, etc. Plus the residents will be fine; they've all got six webbed fingers and toes on each appendage anyway.
|
Post #417,301
2/23/17 8:08:11 AM
2/23/17 8:08:11 AM
|
:-) The other one.
|
Post #417,302
2/23/17 10:14:31 AM
2/23/17 10:14:31 AM
|
you are not really worried about a naval station flooding are you?
feckem, they can move to roanoke if they dont like the water "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #417,305
2/23/17 4:47:18 PM
2/23/17 4:47:18 PM
|
Yep. "We don't drink, we don't smoke, Norfolk, Norfolk, Norfolk!"
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
