Even more troubling, why does a waste of time study like this get funded by the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program? I don’t want defense money going to modeling studies on fish and streams that tell us the obvious, especially when some of the worst droughts in the Southwestern United States occurred before “climate change” was even in the lexicon, as seen below:
From the Ohio State University:
Climate Change Will Threaten Fish by Drying Out Southwest U.S. Streams, Study Predicts
Modeling suggests fish will lose habitat as steady flow of surface water is depleted
By: Emily Caldwell
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Fish species native to a major Arizona watershed may lose access to important segments of their habitat by 2050 as surface water flow is reduced by the effects of climate warming, new research suggests.
Most of these fish species, found in the Verde River Basin, are already threatened or endangered. Their survival relies on easy access to various resources throughout the river and its tributary streams. The species include the speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), roundtail chub (Gila robusta) and Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis).
A key component of these streams is hydrologic connectivity – a steady flow of surface water throughout the system that enables fish to make use of the entire watershed as needed for eating, spawning and raising offspring.
Models that researchers produced to gauge the effects of climate change on the watershed suggest that by the mid 21st century, the network will experience a 17 percent increase in the frequency of stream drying events and a 27 percent increase in the frequency of zero-flow days.
“We have portions of the channel that are going to dry more frequently and for longer periods of time,” said lead author Kristin Jaeger, assistant professor in The Ohio State University School of Environment and Natural Resources. “As a result, the network will become fragmented, contracting into isolated, separated pools.
“If water is flowing throughout the network, fish are able to access all parts of it and make use of whatever resources are there. But when systems dry down, temporary fragmented systems develop that force fish into smaller, sometimes isolated channel reaches or pools until dry channels wet up again.”
This study covers climate change’s effects on surface water availability from precipitation and temperature changes. It does not take into account any withdrawals of groundwater that will be needed during droughts to support the estimated 50 percent or more increase in Arizona’s population by 2050.
“These estimates are conservative,” said Jaeger, who conducted the study with co-authors Julian Olden and Noel Pelland of the University of Washington. The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers used a rainfall runoff model, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), which incorporates the study basin’s elevation, terrain, soil, land use, vegetation coverage, and both current and future climate data, including precipitation and temperature.
“It’s a hydrological model that routes water received from precipitation through the landscape, a portion of which eventually becomes streamflow in the river,” Jaeger said. “We partitioned the watershed into many smaller pieces all linked to each other, with nodes placed 2 kilometers apart throughout the entire river network to evaluate if that portion of the river channel at an individual node supported streamflow for a given day.”
Jaeger describes the river network, as envisioned by this model, as a mosaic of wet and dry patches. Piecing data from all of those nodes together, the researchers established an index of connectivity for the entire watershed, which predicts that the mid-century and late-century climate will reduce connectivity by 6 to 9 percent over the course of a year and by up to 12 to 18 percent during spring spawning months.
“The index decreases that are predicted by the model will affect spawning the most,” said Jaeger, who also holds an appointment with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. “During the spring spawning period, fish are more mobile, traveling longer distances to access necessary habitat. Projected decreased connectivity compromises access to different parts of the network.”
Flowing portions of the system will diminish between 8 and 20 percent in spring and early summer, producing lengthier channels that will dry more frequently and over longer periods of time. These changes will reduce available habitat for fish and force them to travel longer distances for resources once channels rewet, Jaeger said.
The fish are already subject to stressors on the system, including both surface and groundwater extraction for irrigation and drinking water, loss of habitat and the introduction of nonnative species that prey on the native fish, Jaeger noted. The overall system’s connectivity is also already compromised, as well, because of existing dry conditions in the American Southwest.
“These fish are important cogs in the wheel of this greater ecosystem,” Jaeger said. “Loss of endemic species is a big deal in and of itself, and native species evaluated in this study are particularly evolved to this watershed. In this river network that currently supports a relatively high level of biodiversity, the suite of endemic fish species are filling different niches in the ecosystem, which allows the system to be more resilient to disturbances such as drought.
“If species are pushed over the edge to extinction, then what they bring to the ecosystem will be lost and potentially very difficult to replace.”
This project was funded by the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.
So which is it? Will man-made global warming make the world wetter or drier? Or both, based upon whichever is scarier at the time?
‘Even more troubling, why does a waste of time study like this get funded ‘
Because those handing out the funding knew they get the ‘result ‘ they needed
And let’s face it the ‘researcher’ was more than willing to take it knowing that with ‘models’ they would easily be able to supply this need. and its only Joe public cash after all !
Their survival relies on easy access to various resources throughout the river and its tributary streams
===
At one time these streams did not exist….then they did…and something colonized them
…..and now it’s changing again
That’s known as a bad evolutionary choice…but part of the game
I think they got this idea from Revelations in the Bible. It sounds in that area.
Left-wing nutters love to stuff the defense budget with anything and everything. Then they turn around and claim all we do is spend money on defense. Its perfect win-win for them as they get all the pork and great talking points to go along with it. Its been a problem for decades and the media is as always in coverup mode about the whole thing.
Of course this is based on assumptions in the models that cause them to project increases in global drought, especially areas that have historically had numerous lengthy droughts.
Let me see how the models have been doing the past 15 years or so.
1. Extreme weather increasing……..wrong
2. Strong/violent tornadoes increasing…….wrong
3. Tropical cyclone energy increasing……..wrong
4. Rate of global temperature increase……wrong
5. Global drought increasing…………wrong
6. Equations to represent increase in vegetative health’s and evapotranspiration……wrong
7. Cloud height and changes…….wrong
For now, I think I’ll wait for the global climate modelers to catch on that they need to make some big changes before placing any weight on model projections that go out decades and even a century from now.
My money is riding on the observations.
They probably read the cheat sheet when LA stole the Owens River and put it in a pipe. Next up: The Colorado River. Oh look – already stolen by SoCal. That theft has draconian implications for the ecosystem of the Sea of Cortez.
It’s gonna be wetter and dryer at the same time. Hence, much worse than we thought /sarc
BTW, you can build those graphs for anything related to global warming. CO2 levels, temperature, etc. and they all show the same thing. Natural variation has been both below and above where we are at now. Hence, nothing related to climate is unprecedented. False alarm. Everyone can go back home.
17 percent! Why not 18.8%? 19%? 16.3? BOLLOCKS TO ALL THAT.
Talk about stating the bleedlingly obvious. Of course fish die when they don’t have enough water. this has happened many times in the past and will happen again. sheesh!!!!
“Even more troubling, why does a waste of time study like this get funded by the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program? I don’t want defense money going to modeling studies on fish and streams that tell us the obvious, especially when some of the worst droughts in the Southwestern United States occurred before “climate change” was even in the lexicon, as seen below:”
Anthony, good point.
Meanwhile while we are fattening up the Universities wee a dismembering our military at time where the world is being threatened to a level exceeding 911. Military officers are getting pink slips while they are deployed in Combat situations. Think of all the $$$ wasted to train these officers.and the cost to replace them when we wake up to reality.
OMG, if those streams don’t run to the sea, the oceans could dry out too.
Oh well. Don’t invest in floating norovirus restaurants just in case.
8. However, global climate models have been correct on projecting more extreme rain events, which does make sense from the beneficial 1 degree of warming over the last 150 years since warmer(more humid) air does hold more moisture.
dp says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:05 pm
Puts CA envirowhackos in a bind:
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/19/a-sacred-reunion-the-colorado-river-returns-to-the-sea/
For decades, CA has coveted the water resources of the Pacific NW. But we have eight senators to their two. Yet if CA splits into five states, it would be harder for Democrats to keep the presidency, as 15 of its 53 US House representatives are currently Republicans. The number is kept low by gerrymandering in the CA Assembly.
But the survived the US mega-droughts during the Holocene.
Even if the above modelled result is wrong, they could claim they are right, but maybe for the wrong reasons. See below.
But let’s blame all FUTURE droughts in the US on carbon dioxide. Kerrrrching. More funding please.
Pointless Ohio State study predicts the obvious with models – fish will die as streams dry out
————
Pointless? Not at all! It is crafted to further the warmunist agenda.
If/when a stream dries up and poor fishies die, they will shriek that they predicted this end-time event and are owed more money and control.
To elaborate on the “more humidity” that would be absolute humidity or dew point temperatures not relative humidity that we commonly use.
An additional note is that global warming has been greatest at higher latitudes. Extreme rain events are rare in high latitudes but they have increased slightly in mid latitudes and occur at a higher latitude than previously.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the drought corresponds to the Medieval Warm Period since all good AGW true believers know that the Medieval Warm Period was just a local climate phenomena that only impacted Europe and the North Atlantic.
When it stops raining, what is the remaining humidity level of the air? If after raining the air is warmer, hasn’t it stopped raining sooner than it would if the air was colder, as you say that warmer air holds more moisture. The net result being just as much rain as if the air was colder.
It rains a lot where i live in the coldest months and very little rain in the hottest months even seeing no rain over a 55 day period once in summer.
@sturgis. Like gerrymandering is a only California phenomenon? In the last election for the House of Representatives, 53. 9 million people voted for a Democrat and only 53.4 million voted for a Republican; but the Republicans hold 33 more seats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/house-candidates-votes_n_2096978.html
Jimbo says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:22 pm
===
Jim, they probably didn’t even survive the dust bowl……….
As gerrymandered as the house is, it is nothing like the Senate, which, unfortunately is gerrymandered by the constitution itself. I don’t think rural America has any right to complain about representation, as about 40 states out of 50 hold only 20% of the population. The most highly populated American states (most of their population being urban), which have about 80% of the population, only control about 20% of the senate. Which helps explain why the senate is the arguably the worst legislative body on the planet.
Were they able to determine in this study, if the swimming ability of the fishes, deteriorated substantially due to the climate change, or do they just up and die, for no apparent reason ??
Hey! Wait a minute! What about the polar bears? Where will they get a drink of water? Don’t they eat fish? This might further reduce the growing polar bear population!
(note: the above might contain some about of sarcasm)
Maybe fishes should get smarter; like frogs, and crawdads.
When the water district turns off the water, in the irrigation canal that runs along my front yard, like a moat, the frogs, and crawdads, just bury themselves in the mud in the bottom, and wait till the next time they turn the water back on. I usually try to net the crawdads with the swimming pool net, before all the water is gone, so I can put them back in some other water. Well it’s in a pot on my stove.
And the Asian catfish, just up and walk out of the drying streams, and walk across the road to some other water.
These Ohio State researchers, must be stupider, than the Asian catfish, and the crawdads.
Damn. “about” should be “amount” … I really need to get my eyes examined … or is that my head examined? Hmmmmm. Depends on who you ask I guess.
Next…. the kangaroos of Australia! Water shortage depletes numbers. Let is be known that much channelled and dam water is now being placed in plastic pipes and plastic tank. The government says this is the best way to save water. Then you can put it back into the ocean then retrieve same and run it through a delsal plant. Next, pipe it back to humans. Ever wondered why the water bill is rising rapidly!? Quicker than sea-level.
“dp says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:05 pm”
Watched a documentary about The Colorado and if I recall correctly, there is so mutch water drawn from it it no longer reaches the sea. Is that right?
ShrNfr says:
OMG, if those streams don’t run to the sea, the oceans could dry out too.
hmmmm,… that sort of put the kibosh on sea level rise, doesn’t it. 🙂
Patrick says:
August 18, 2014 at 3:27 pm
See my link above. Normally, it no longer does reach the sea, which has devastated anadromous fisheries in the Sea of Cortez.
This is Ministry of Silly Walks stuff.
garymount says:
“When it stops raining, what is the remaining humidity level of the air? If after raining the air is warmer, hasn’t it stopped raining sooner than it would if the air was colder, as you say that warmer air holds more moisture. The net result being just as much rain as if the air was colder.
It rains a lot where i live in the coldest months and very little rain in the hottest months even seeing no rain over a 55 day period once in summer”
Gary,
First of all, I would like to know where you live as seasonal variations in precipitation are determined by numerous factors, with geography being at the top.
The warmer an air mass is, the more water vapor it can hold potentially. All things being equal(which they never are) let’s take a mid latitude cyclone in the central United States during Spring that has access to moisture from the Gulf of Mexico.
If we measured the amount of precipitable water in a vertical column of air that has become saturated at X degrees, then compare it to the water that the same column of air would hold at X+1 degree, you will get more water.
If you warmed the lower levels(that have the greatest capacity to hold water) by 1 degree and left everything the same, that cyclone would be capable of holding more water.
If you had a sponge completely saturated with water and another slightly bigger sponge, using the same amount of wronging effort, would yield more water with the slightly bigger one.
We wish the atmosphere was that simple. There are a dozen other elements to consider. I think I understand your point that warmer air can hold more moisture so maybe it would hold on to more moisture(stay suspended) because the warmer air mass does not get saturated as quickly as when it was colder and the additional moisture condenses out.
Let’s say the source region of the air mass is the the Gulf of Mexico and the storm is 1,000 miles north. . If that air mass is X+1 degrees, it will be capable of delivering more moisture to the storm than one that is X degrees.
Is this always a bad thing? When it comes to flooding and extreme rain events yes. However, only a small amount of rain events and precipitation falls that way. The vast majority are beneficial. When it comes to growing conditions(whether crops or other plants) the biggest limiting factor regarding moisture is not enough of it vs too much.
Precipitation and soil moisture has increased in the US Cornbelt over the last several decades. This has been a good thing. Flooding and excessive rain events have increased slightly too but the benefits greatly outweigh the negatives.
Many places in the world get much of their rains at a rate that is too much at once(naturally), then have to suffer with extended dry periods.
California is a perfect and somewhat extreme example. This drought will break and when it does, they will likely get bombed with way too much rain, with flooding and mud slides. That’s the way their climate has always been and always will be……..naturally.
Ask them if they wouldn’t mind some excessive rain right now (:
Of course most of the area in the severe drought gets their rains seasonally too.
Several months in the WInter(when it’s cooler) most of it falls. Then it has to last thru the Summer
because it never rains, even when there isn’t a drought.
Maybe this is why you are thinking cold causes more rain. This is more related to the seasonal storm track/jet stream and large scale weather features in the atmosphere. Some places, like India and Brazil have their rainy seasons or monsoons in the Summer and it’s cool and dry in their Winter.
There are many other factors, like the meridional temperature disparity. If you increase that, you get more extreme storms and fronts with more extreme precipitation. Warming the higher latitudes in the 1980’s/90’s decreased that which was a factor for decreasing mid latitude cyclone intensity as well as strong to violent tornadoes going down.
“Spot the portion of California drought caused by ‘climate change’”
I see it — it’s a hockey tick!
Another “Given global warming, . . .” study.
“The researchers used a rainfall runoff model, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), which incorporates the study basin’s elevation, terrain, soil, land use, vegetation coverage, and both current and future climate data, including precipitation and temperature.”
Future data. Ha ha ha ha !!!
*** from the perspective of alarmists like the Sierra Club, everything comes down to CAGW, even tho they are talking about a possible El Nino:
5 Aug: OwenSoundSunTimes, Ontario: Lakes rising but group warns it won’t last
by Scott Dunn
***Lake levels have risen more than 30 centimetres above those seen this time last year, thanks largely to a memorably cold winter which froze lakes, limited evaporation and let snow pile up…
But Mary Muter, chair of the Great Lakes section of Sierra Club Canada, said don’t be fooled by unusually high precipitation over the past 1 1/2 years and by last winter’s cold stretches which froze the lakes and minimized evaporation. “This is temporary relief,” she said.
“We are about to be hit with the next cycle of warm weather,” she said, referring to an El Nino weather pattern which is setting up, causing forecasters to predict next winter will be warmer than average…
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2014/08/05/lakes-rising-but-group-warns-it-wont-last
Gamecock says:
Future data. Ha ha ha ha !!!
Thanks for the laugh! It’s clear they don’t understand what data means.
questionassumptions says:
“I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the drought corresponds to the Medieval Warm Period since all good AGW true believers know that the Medieval Warm Period was just a local climate phenomena that only impacted Europe and the North Atlantic.”
I noticed that too — and this coincidence in time comes from data, not modeling. It could easily turn out that good, warm weather for Europe tends to be associated with mega-droughts in the American West. What about the Roman climatic optimum in Europe, was that also associated with mega-droughts in the American West?
These useless studies are endless.
Here’s a current example over here.
$1.8 million & $2.3 million study to ponder what plants will do under climate scenarios.
What good is the pondering?
Climate change study’s results show Northwest prairie plants struggle with warming
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/climate_change_studys_early_re.html#lf_comment=202114251
Preliminary results from a four-year, $1.8 million, U.S. Department of Energy-funded study show that plants grown in experimental plots under current-range conditions struggled to germinate with warming temperatures. Plants grown under conditions that they would experience beyond their present ranges (e.g. if populations shifted their ranges over time) experienced no negative effects from warming.
Scott Bridgham, a professor of biology at the University of Oregon, is leading the research, which has received a new $2.3 million, five-year grant from the National Science Foundation to continue collecting data.
Infrared lamps boost the temperatures, and an irrigation system increases rainfall. The equipment is used to mimic future climate conditions that are expected in the Northwest.
Gamecock referenced their claim of “future climate data”.
So, they made a time machine and can travel to the future and return with data… who knew? This is stunning news.
The Progressives will be horrified at the prospect of the public finally finding out what their schemes will really cost our children and grandchildren.
Next up, a study complete with super-computer models, which shows that 7.62% more trees will fall over in very high winds. Supported by funding from the Federal Department of the Bleeding Obvious.Grrrrrrrrr!
Mark and two Cats says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Nearly right – this paper is set up t be resurrected by the EPA in its next set of regulations which will put in place UN Agenda 21: Chapter 18: “Protection Of The Quality And Supply Of Freshwater Resources: Application Of Integrated Approaches To The Development, Management And Use Of Water Resources” Coming to a muddy puddle near you, an EPA swat team preserving ‘protected wetlands’.
Anthony,
The California graphic at the top, in my opinion seems to tell so much. Yet, I know my information is anecdotal. My question is: how fragile is California? The graphic depicts a brief interval in the 1850 to 1860. It is my understanding that, this brief interlude changed California history. Specifically, California land value plummeted. The Spanish elite were forced to sell off their large land holdings as a result. In essence, Central and Southern California morphed into a dessert.
I ask what best describes the climate of California?
D. Cohen says:
August 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Yes. Prolonged first century AD drought in the US West:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/11/ancient-megadrought-american-west-.html
Good thing that the West is blessed with such long-lived trees.
Oops. Meant second century AD, ie AD 101-200.
OK – check out this link (from IPCC , 1990 – before it got completely political & before the hockey stick) :
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/an-insiders-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/medivevalwarmperiodinipcc1990/#main
and compare to the graph at the top of this post. Obviously, the “dry” periods tie to the Medieval Warm Period & the wet periods tie to the Little Ice Age.
So several thoughts come to mind :
1) I am not sure how the initial graph in this post was created, but could it be a temperature effect & not a precipitation effect they are measuring ?
2) if it is in fact a precipitation effect that is being measured, then there is a strong correlation with “global ” temperature. Given that, is it any surprise that the west is dry, given the general increase in temps over the last 100 years? But that does nothing to address the cause of the warming.
3) On an even bigger picture, there is good data to support that very cold periods (ie – the true ice ages) were even wetter in the west – think about the glaciers throughout the west, the huge fluvial deposits & pluvial lake deposits, so maybe there is something to this correlation of colder = wetter & vice versa for the West.
I find the glaciers in the West, especially the in the Sierra’s to be especially interesting. Because of the low latitude, in the summer, the sun angle is very high. I have seen in these settings that it really doesn’t matter how cold it is – the high sun angle will melt snow efficiently – even when the air temp is below freezing. Similarly, for those who live in high latitudes, you have probably noticed that in the winter, with low sun angles, even if it gets well above freezing, the snow doesn’t necessarily melt that much. Based on those observations, it is hard to see how glaciers could have grown to the extent they did in the Sierras without having much more snow than they do now – you needed a huge volume of snow in the winter to allow some snow to remain through the summer, given the high angle of the sun, regardless of temperature. Anyway, just anecdotal observation that I think supports the colder = wetter & vice versa hypothesis for the west.
Jeff L says:
August 18, 2014 at 6:41 pm
IMO the thinking is that the globally warmer periods tend to produce more La Niñas, which means drought in much of North America. There could be other causes & effects, as well, but the relationship is pretty well established. I’m not sure if it holds up as well earlier in the Holocene, however, when there was still substantial ice in the Northern Hemisphere.
Jeff L says:
August 18, 2014 at 6:41 pm
OK – check out this link (from IPCC , 1990 – before it got completely political & before the hockey stick)
That may have been before the hockey stick, but not before it got completely political since it’s purpose is completely political.
Just sayin’.
Happy Birthday, Anthony! http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/08/18/happy-second-birthday-to-watts-paper/
knr says:
August 18, 2014 at 1:34 pm
‘Even more troubling, why does a waste of time study like this get funded ‘
—————
I wonder how many Vets that money might have saved if not pissed away.
I am working on a study that uses a model to prove that deserts in the southwest of the US are dry. Global warming is involved in some way we are still investigating. Additionally the model will show deserts tend to be sandy and not good for growing maple trees, potentially causing millions of pancakes to not have maple syrup by the year 2025.
A related study claims being close to having the answer to the compelling question “What gets wetter the more it dries?”. The 4.1 million dollar study after being stymied for 2 years are said to be close to an answer after having entered the question into Google.
davidgmills says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:59 pm
… Which helps explain why the senate is the arguably the worst legislative body on the planet.
——————————————————
Personally, I give that credit to Harry Reid.
Mike Maguire says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:14 pm
8. However, global climate models have been correct on projecting more extreme rain events, which does make sense from the beneficial 1 degree of warming over the last 150 years since warmer(more humid) air does hold more moisture.
Please source your data.
Thanks.
Thanks for the link sturgishooper. Interesting!
On general principles — yes, in theory — you might expect a warmer world to be a wetter world because not so much water would be permanently locked up inside glaciers. And I have read accounts of how vast deserts existed during the glacials when ice sheets covered much of N. American and Europe. I have also come across accounts of how the Sahara was much wetter 5000 or so years ago during the Holocene optimum, when the earth’s climate was significantly warmer than it is now. However, that doesn’t mean that, thinking on a global scale of course, regional pockets of land — like the American southwest — couldn’t lose out during the changing weather patterns brought on by a globally warmer climate, ending up much drier than before.
Data and simple physics show evaporation increases with temperature even if water vapor increases to maintain constant relative humidity. Global precipitation will equal global evaporation, but not at a local level which depends on many things. I understand that climate models predict that with global warming present wetter area rainfall will increase more than the global average and present drier areas will actually lose rainfall and get drier yet. Looks like faulty climate models at work again. Sounds familiar. Everthing gets worse. If you get too much rain now, it will get worse. If you don’t get enough now, it will get worse.
Um, it’s only with great reservations that I inform you that the reason the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program is actually funding a study concerning fish is because these are actually top secret warrior fish, highly trained in underwater covert operations, marksmanship utilizing minnow bullets, and the martial arts. They can literally break bones with lethal ventral fin snaps, and their lightning fast dorsal fin erections can flip opponents. Their tail fin wallops are said to be deadly. Most importantly they are masters of disguise passing themselves off as harmless frogs, tadpoles, and salamanders. It has been leaked (maybe not the best word to use in this context) that aquariums filled with these special ops fish are always present on Air Force One (sometimes affectionately referred to as Air Fish One) to accompany the President and that they provide better security than the Secret Service. They also provide good filets if the situation demands but their security classification does not extend to provide them prior knowledge of that important function.
Anyway, I hope I’ve adequately explained that however mind-bendingly stupid US government grant programs may seem to appear that there obviously must be great genius behind them after all. It’s just that you have to really, and I mean really, use your imagination to figure it out.
Abedee abedee abedee abedee
That’s all folks!
Tom J says:
August 18, 2014 at 7:53 pm
Dolphins, yes. Sea lions, yes.
Fish, not so much.
But then, my clearance for both Area 51 & the Navy’s Marine Mammal Weaponization Institute in San Diego have been revoked.
Tom J, you have forgotten the US Deprtment of the Navy and its trained seagulls and porpoises. The seagulls were trained by smearing edible fish on dummy periscopes. The intent was that these trained seagulls would search out the periscopes of enemy submarines, and when they did not find the desired edible fish smears, they would emit a loud squark, and poop over the lens of the periscope, thus blinding the submarine. Unfortunately the Navy boffins were misled by the term “seagull” into thinking that seagulls actually go to sea. They are in fact land birds, and spend much time around restaurants waiting for scraps, and sitting on lawns, hoping for worms. As a result the project was cancelled.
The other project tried to train porpoises to search out for submarines. It was hoped to train them to go to submarines, and then USN subs would provide them with a bucket of fish offal if they pressed their snouts against the sub’s rudder. It ws intended that in combat situations, they would be fitted with a back pack containing dynamite and fulminate. On arriving at the submarine, a pole extending from the front of the backpack would hit the rudder as the porpoise tried to press its snout against the rudder, set off the fuolminate, which would detonate the dynamite. Unfortuantely the porpoises were were trained on US submarines, which they happily exploded, ignoring the Japanese and German subs which they did not recognize.
Boffins rule!
Hee, hee, hee. Love the warrior fish bit. But not to worry, they will come back when there is more rain to fill the rivers. Possibly, someone is diverting water that would normally fill these natural resources.
Thought of that? Maybe a nuclear plant or some military adventure.
Doesn’t that chart look like it runs along with the Gleissberg cycle?
Need to institute Global Warming Tennis, just lob the paper back over the net with a strong recommendation that both Arizona and California must immediately institute zero population growth, none of the airy fairy 50% expected increase stuff the paper concedes, cut taxes, too and of course absolute zero migration unless the person wants to leave for “someplace else”
I guess that should fix the paper, the models and the University funders that dreamed it up!!
Not a bad method of gaming the gamers, could be called Global Warming Ping Pong, you load the garbage and we bat it back with some alarming extras and a healthy side salad of thinking material!! [smile]
davidgmills says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:59 pm
… Which helps explain why the senate is the arguably the worst legislative body on the planet.
That is, of course why it was designed that way, so that those sparsely populated states would not be run over rough shod by the majority. That’s why it might be the best legislative body in the world.
Jeff L @ 6:41 pm.
My observational experience with California has been cooler equals drier and warmer equals wetter. This is probably a regional effect.
In the winter, cold air can settle into the Great Basin like a giant pool and when the wind picks up from the NNE, it drives the cold air into California and coming from land, has a lower moisture content, leaving us cooler/drier. We also get atmospheric rivers of moisture from the Pacific that contain warm air with a higher moisture content, leaving us warmer/wetter.
When it gets real exciting is when these two features get together and gives amazing snow dumps of 10-20 feet from a single system. At times a series of these systems can come through, with cold air intrusions ebbing and flowing into them. This causes heavy snow followed by warm rains substantially increasing the water flows from the mountains.
In the 19th century they had these events, with the winter of 1861-1862 causing the most damage and lesser events in the winter of 1849-1850 and 1846-1847.
But didn’t they read their own paper? The answer is right there.
They say that the water will be needed to service the expected increase in population of 50%. So they just need to make living there so unappealing that people won’t come; maybe they could make things so bad that people and businesses might actually leave.
Problem fixed.
@ Ms Jaeger, it is called “evolution” and “adaptation”. Sad to see all these millions wasted, it could go to real education like writing, reading and arithmetic.
I’m in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, essentially near Vancouver.
I think the term we are looking for is the hydrological cycle. Warmer means more energy in the system but keep in mind that you need to use Kelvin not celsius when calculating energy. 1 K ( or C ) of warming is only about 0.35% more energy at an average global temperature of 288 K.
But I thought that ”Climate Change” was supposed to increase rainfall. This would increase hydrologic connectivity.
these fish seemed to survive the past devastating drought periods without problem. They must have just swum downstream as it dried up.
I guess its politically incorrect to note that it seems most of the GW authors in the past few years have been female grad students. It used to be such a mann’s world.
For 420 out of the 470 years from AD 850 to 1320 (AD 850-1090 and 1140 to 1320), California suffered megadroughts. The state ain’t seen nuthin’ yet in its now only 163 year-old rainfall records.
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more
The treaty with Mexico ensures Mexico gets a piece of the Colorado – they have chosen to sequester their part in Lake Mead, so that allowed the Colorado River to essentially end in the US. The least dim bulbs in water management have chosen to release an occasional pulse of water into the delta to help sustain flora and fauna that have adapted to require a regular flow of river water into the Sea of Cortez. It is largely symbolic given they never expected and were surprised that the pulse of water actually reached the sea. The regenerative effects of silt deposits from the watershed that used to spill into the Sea of Cortez now spills into and remains in Lake Mead. The water from the “pulse” comes from the deeps of the lake and is very much colder and far less nutrient-rich that the natural river flow and so it is as likely to kill through thermal shock that which the least dim bulbs wish to save.
Whenever you take an area as large as the western U.S. the average is going to mask a lot of regional variability. From E.R. Cook et all check out the differences between the historic droughts of 1934 and 1956. Modeled palmer indices from 951 and 1380 also show significant regional variation, so those poor fish will likely still be swimming somewhere in the western U.S. even during an omegadrought.
http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2014/04/27/california-drought-update-4-14/
RayG says:
“Please source your data.”
Here’s one source:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_USGCRP_USVeryHeavyPrecipitation1958-2007.html
I find the game of picking papers and studies to support whatever point one wants to make as more often than not, using the unlimited sources to defend whatever cognitive bias exists in the users brain.
In my case, as an operational meteorologist for 33 years that uses global weather/models and observations to predict crop conditions and yields/supply and energy use/demand, my opinions are based on what I’ve observed the last 3 decades. I have weather maps going back to 1948 and data going back over a century.
As you know, the world is littered with papers and studies that are utterly absurd and contradict my own observations.
We have papers that will make a connection for you with today’s climate to 90,000,000 years ago or ones that absurdly project climate and weather a century from now about any aspect you want and everything in between.
The absurdity is that it’s almost never rooted with empirical data/observations in the real world.
I know because that’s what I do 12 hours a day.
I can produce more sources on this if you want, but to be honest, some of the same sources have a bunch of bs on other climate related information and especially their speculative projections.
How does one know what to pick and choose from?
You don’t.
Almost always, if you believe in CAGW, you believe all of it. If you don’t(are a denier of climate model skill, CAGW and increasing extreme weather) then you believe none of it.
………it’s usually all or nothing.
However, I get to pick and choose based on what makes sense meteorologically and backed up by over 30 years of comprehensive observations.
There has clearly been an increase in very heavy rain events over the last 3 decades.
As mentioned initially, in most other realms of weather, that has NOT been the case. Increasing CO2 has been the best thing humans have ever done for this planet, with the known law of photosynthesis and key role of CO2 causing a booming biosphere, increasing vegetative health and big crop yield/world food production increases.
Craig Idso has the “authentic” data from studies to show this if thats what you need:
http://www.co2science.org/
Go to “data”
Garymount,
“keep in mind that you need to use Kelvin not celsius when calculating energy. 1 K ( or C ) of warming is only about 0.35% more energy at an average global temperature of 288 K”
I’ll leave those actual calculations up to those, like the ones that use mathematical equations to represent the physics of a theory that they think can be processed by a super computer to project the next 100 years of climate.
However, my earlier point was not about absolute temperature/energy but about what happens when you create a disparity in temperature.
When you increase(decrease) the meridional temperature gradient, you increase(decrease) the potential energy for synoptic scale features.
When the high latitudes warmed in the 1980’s/90’s, many measures of extreme weather decreased along with the decrease in the meridional temperature gradient.
When the earth experiences global cooling(more at higher latitudes) things like violent tornadoes go up, as one would expect with a bigger “north to south” temperature contrast. This is one reason that the 1970’s was noted for some major tornado outbreaks, along with higher numbers for those kind of tornadoes.
Here is a nice link to show you the math.
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~isla/8_baroclinic.pdf
One problem, the Verde watershed would most likely have more water as global temps rise. This watershed is fed by Monsoon moister being squeezed out as its pushed against the Mogollon Rim. Another problem, I doubt periodic stream fragmentation will affect species evolved for such conditions. The have weathered much worse in the past. Even those those that do not specialize in desert habitat, like Rhinichthys osculus, are so wide spread and adaptable, that they would not have any problem either. The man REAL reason for current declines in native fish populations are introduced game fishes whose ability to out compete would be severely curtailed by more rigorous desert conditions.
With a warmer world, more water would evaporate from the oceans, and about 30% or so of this increased ocean evaporation would fall as rain on land. I suspect that the
study is referring to the “horse latitudes”- those bands around 30% north and south where it’s pretty dry- thanks to the effects of “Hadley” circulation- maybe they think the horse latitudes would shift poleward with global warming- so it would be an overall wetter climate with local shifts in precipitaiton.
Mike Maguire
The problem I have with the “warmer is wetter” and my experience with warmer is drier in my region is that the north and south hemispheres go through a large swing of temperature as it cycles through the 12 month solar year without a corresponding relationship to amount of precipitation. If the small amount of warming since the LIA can be detected in change of precipitation, why doesn’t the large change in temperature difference from winter to summer per hemisphere show up ?
“However, I get to pick and choose based on what makes sense meteorologically and backed up by over 30 years of comprehensive observations”
I didn’t mean to come off sounding arrogant as I consider myself extremely fortunate to be in a profession, where following the always interesting weather part of it is very enjoyable.
When predictions bust is stinks but at least meteorologists have more opportunities to be grounded in observations/empirical data that must be reconciled with model and forecaster predictions……..every day.
Unlike a 50 year climate model projection. That time frame is about as long as the entire career of a climate scientist. If he or she is convinced of a theory, they clearly can wait years and years or as we’ve found out, go well over a decade before having to reconcile the projection with reality.
Yeah, I’d like to know if alarmists are predicting drier or wetter, scare stories usually show parched earth but does that make sense/
Meanwhile it shaping up to be a good salmon fish season in SW BC.
A bit early to tell for sockeye into the long Fraser River system, but this is the year when offspring of the huge return in 2010 would return.
Chinook returns are surprisingly strong, those Darwin Candidates called “resident orcas” will be happy as they prefer that fish. I don’t have details, IIRC that was the fish affected by relatively drier conditions in streams on Vancouver Island.
Large springs being caught by individuals.
BTW, just reading more on the life cycle of salmon, at http://www.psf.ca/, adds to my understanding that salmon cycles are not exact – one type of salmon has two common return cycles. (Most salmon are on a shorter cycle than sockeye, one variable is how long they stay near spawning areas before going to the ocean.)
A recent study of salmon from one lake in the interior of BC showed that mortality of young salmon was very dependent on water clarity as predators found them by visual means, once past the area of clear water mortality rate was far lower.
Keith Sketchley says:
August 19, 2014 at 5:12 pm
The fish-eating orcas are the hang around the fort killer whales.
Those self-starting, peppy orcas with any self-respect hunt seals and other marine mammals, as God intended them to do.
Richard G says:
August 18, 2014 at 11:34 pm
When it gets real exciting is when these two features get together and gives amazing snow dumps of 10-20 feet from a single system.
========================================================================
I witnessed one of those huge dumps in the winter of 1970/71 in the Lake Tahoe area. First there was 12 feet in 3 days, and around 10 days after that there was 6 feet in one day. That was impressive. The snow that year rivaled the snow that impacted the Donner Party. The snow reached the top of the platform on which the statue of Donner Party members is shown. That depicts the height of the snow which they faced in that desperate winter, and it was equaled in the winter of 1970/71. Almost all of that snow fell in December of 1970 with a bit more in early January.
Mike Maguire says:
August 19, 2014 at 3:39 pm
====================================
Your words make sense to me. That is your intuitive thoughts being expressed from the library of information which you have stored within your mind. That can be a powerful tool at times.
I live in Columbus OH, and I can guarantee you that everyone in town other than Ms. Jaeger (who is kind of cute) was worried about Braxton Miller’s shoulder (it seems that he will need surgery and be out for the season) than about dried out streams, of which we don’t have any because rain has been up the past couple of years.
“garymount says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Mike Maguire
The problem I have with the “warmer is wetter” and my experience with warmer is drier in my region is that the north and south hemispheres go through a large swing of temperature as it cycles through the 12 month solar year without a corresponding relationship to amount of precipitation”
I had a difficult time finding any studies comparing worldwide precipitiation/ temperature as opposed to regional precipitation/temperature but here’s one.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD010536/pdf
For the earth as a whole, warmer is wetter- but there’s a negative correlation on land during much of the year.- thanks, I suspect, due to Hadley circulation and to the unbalanced distribution of land between Northern and Southern hemispheres.
When considering the earth as a whole, remember that 50% of the earth’s surface is tropical or subtropical- between 30 degrees north and south.