More despicable climate hype from Noah Diffenbaugh (press release follows) who is ignoring the obvious: California has had far worse droughts before “global warming” was a glimmer in a scientist’s eye, and these were driven by changes in weather patterns that happened long before CO2 became an issue. For example the worst drought of the past century doesn’t even make the top ten. And as this graph shows, our current California drought is but a blip in the larger historical scheme of things:
UPDATE: WUWT reader Jimbo adds in comments that the models are about a 50/50 split over wetter/drier:
To more directly address the question of whether climate change played a role in the probability of the 2013 event, the team collaborated with scientist Bala Rajaratnam, also of Stanford.
Rajaratnam applied advanced statistical techniques to a large suite of climate model simulations.
It’s called the weather and GIGO. Climate computer simulations are a pile of crap.
Abstract
The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California
Climate model simulations disagree on whether future precipitation will increase or decrease over California, which has impeded efforts to anticipate and adapt to human-induced climate change……..Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter. These results are obtained from 16 global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods…
From NSF: Press Release 14-129
Extreme atmospheric conditions responsible for drought more likely to occur in current global warming
![California_Drought_Dry_Riverbed_NOAA_f[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/california_drought_dry_riverbed_noaa_f1.jpg?quality=83)
The drought crippling California is by some measures the worst in the state’s history.
September 29, 2014
The atmospheric conditions associated with the unprecedented drought in California are very likely linked to human-caused climate change, researchers report.
Climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh of Stanford University and colleagues used a novel combination of computer simulations and statistical techniques to show that a persistent region of high atmospheric pressure over the Pacific Ocean–one that diverted storms away from California–was much more likely to form in the presence of modern greenhouse gas concentrations.
The result, published today in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is one of the most comprehensive studies to investigate the link between climate change and California’s ongoing drought.
“Our research finds that extreme atmospheric high pressure in this region–which is strongly linked to unusually low precipitation in California–is much more likely to occur today than prior to the emission of greenhouse gases that began during the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s,” says Diffenbaugh.
The exceptional drought crippling California is by some measures the worst in state history.
Combined with unusually warm temperatures and stagnant air conditions, the lack of precipitation has triggered a dangerous increase in wildfires and incidents of air pollution across the state.
The water shortage could result in direct and indirect agricultural losses of at least $2.2 billion and lead to the loss of more than 17,000 seasonal and part-time jobs in 2014 alone.
Such effects have prompted a drought emergency in the state; the federal government has designated all 58 California counties as natural disaster areas.
“In the face of severe drought, decision-makers are facing tough choices about the allocation of water resources for urban, agricultural and other crucial needs,” says Anjuli Bamzai, program director in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.
“This study places the current drought in historical perspective and provides valuable scientific information for dealing with this grave situation. ”
Scientists agree that the immediate cause of the drought is a particularly tenacious “blocking ridge” over the northeastern Pacific–popularly known as the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge, or “Triple R”–that prevented winter storms from reaching California during the 2013 and 2014 rainy seasons.
Blocking ridges are regions of high atmospheric pressure that disrupt typical wind patterns in the atmosphere.
“Winds respond to the spatial distribution of atmospheric pressure,” says Daniel Swain of Stanford, lead author of the paper.
“We have seen this amazingly persistent region of high pressure over the northeastern Pacific for many months, which has substantially altered atmospheric flow and kept California largely dry.”
The Triple R was exceptional for both its size and longevity.
While it dissipated briefly during the summer months of 2013, it returned by fall 2013 and persisted through much of the winter, California’s wet season.
“At its peak in January 2014, the Triple R extended from the subtropical Pacific between California and Hawaii to the coast of the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska,” says Swain, who coined the term “ridiculously resilient ridge” to highlight the persistent nature of the blocking ridge.
Like a large boulder that has tumbled into a narrow stream, the Triple R diverted the flow of high-speed air currents known as the jet stream far to the north, causing Pacific storms to bypass not only California, but also Oregon and Washington.
As a result, rain and snow that would normally fall on the West Coast were instead re-routed to Alaska and as far north as the Arctic Circle.
An important question for scientists and decision-makers has been whether human-caused climate change has influenced the conditions responsible for California’s drought.
Given the important role of the Triple R, Diffenbaugh and colleagues set out to measure the probability of such extreme ridging events.
The team first assessed the rarity of the Triple R in the context of the 20th century historical record.
Analyzing the period since 1948, for which comprehensive atmospheric data are available, the researchers found that the persistence and intensity of the Triple R in 2013 were unrivaled by any previous event.
To more directly address the question of whether climate change played a role in the probability of the 2013 event, the team collaborated with scientist Bala Rajaratnam, also of Stanford.
Rajaratnam applied advanced statistical techniques to a large suite of climate model simulations.
Using the Triple R as a benchmark, Rajaratnam compared geopotential heights–an atmospheric property related to pressure–between two sets of climate model experiments.
One set mirrored the present climate, in which the atmosphere is growing increasingly warmer due to human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
In the other set of experiments, greenhouse gases were kept at a level similar to those that existed just prior to the Industrial Revolution.
The researchers found that the extreme heights of the Triple R in 2013 were at least three times as likely to occur in the present climate as in the preindustrial climate.
They also found that such extreme values are consistently tied to unusually low precipitation in California, and to the formation of atmospheric ridges over the northeastern Pacific.
“We’ve demonstrated with high statistical confidence that large-scale atmospheric conditions similar to those of the Triple R are far more likely to occur now than in the climate before we emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases,” Rajaratnam says.
“In using these advanced statistical techniques to combine climate observations with model simulations, we’ve been able to better understand the ongoing drought in California,” Diffenbaugh adds.
“This isn’t a projection of 100 years in the future. This is an event that is more extreme than any in the observed record, and our research suggests that global warming is playing a role right now.”
The research was also supported by the National Institutes of Health. Rajaratnam was also supported in part by DARPA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the UPS fund.
-NSF-
Are you guys absolutely CERTAIN that swearing is not allowed in comments?
Have at it, call up Noah Diffenbaugh and swear if you want. I’m tapped out today.
Hang in there, Anthony. We’re kicking ass!!
Get some rest. Put in an open thread. Sleep. Play with your family. You have worked enough. Time for a break. Siesta.
As someone once said….”The hits just keep on coming”!
It’s seems to be never-ending with this bunch. Thanks for the info Anthony….and thanks for the ammunition to use on a few friends when this is brought up!
They used computer simulations? I wonder if they are as accurate as the IPCC simulations?
That’s the model they used to feed their model. The GCMs that the IPCC uses.
The ones that guess wrong 111 out of 114 times
“an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
box 9.2
98% of the models were wrong, that makes them 97% certain they are right.
Actually – it’s 97.3%… or 97% if we use the nearest whole number, which makes it agree with the supposed consensus. Priceless!
“[they] used a novel combination of computer simulations and statistical techniques”
I think it’s become entirely safe to assume any conclusion following after this or other similar phrases is most likely a calculated lie to assure grant money continues to bleed the public purse.
The climate model results used by the 2014 National Climate Assessment revealed that models have totally failed to simulate past droughts even after they adjusted the results. The only thing the adjustments did were to increased the probability of a scary future scenario. Failed models of past climates should make us all wary that future scenarios are not so scary. See the model results here http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/95477064.png
“This is an event that is more extreme than any in the observed record . . .”
From an archaeological perspective I am sure the many early American peoples in centuries past who lived throughout the Southwest, and saw their societies collapse due to persistent drought conditions will be surprised to learn their the “observed record” shows that it really wasn’t that bad.
Obviously, they succumbed to some alarmist mumbo jumbo, and left for no good reason.
Do they really limit their observational record to 1948? So what if it’s the worst since then, it’s nothing close to the worst ever.
and of course it couldn’t have anything to do with over-development and lack of planning.
“California has had far worse droughts before “global warming” was a glimmer in a scientist’s eye”
Or a clinking of grant money flowing into the pockets of climate “scientists”.
Who needs integrity when you have bloated grants. I suppose this is easier than doing real science for a living!
This is the biggest line of bull from the AGW propagandists that is easily refuted by the facts of drought history in CA. These people won’t stop until they’ve taxed us for breathing… and they are willing to tell any lie to get control over us.
“…used a novel combination of computer simulations and statistical techniques…” Can I stop reading here?
I did.
Ditto
I’m surprised you made it that far.
The only reason I read that far was to find that line you were quoting. Otherwise I would have given up long before. That bit, “is by some measures”, was enough to make me stop.
I didn’t…but then again, I was looking for the punch line. I think that WAS the punch line.
Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. I just finished reading the comments section over at the New York times reporting that “Human-Made Climate Change Resulted in Extreme Heat” (this time referring to the heat waves in Australia).
Please don’t get me started. Here is the alpha and the omega of their “proof”:
“In the Australian case, computers were used to analyze what the climate would likely be in the absence of human emissions. They were simply unable to produce a year as extreme as 2013, and other analytical methods yielded similar answers.”
Translation: We couldn’t make our models conform with reality without adding the fudge-factor of “human impact on climate change”. So therefore that MUST be what caused it?
How about an HONEST response? “We don’t know a bunny’s-behind about modeling anything, and our inability to predict a damn thing is proof of the inadequacy of our modeling and content knowledge.”
Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. ClimateOtter, you said it!!
I certainly Thought it!
I posted this in Nick Stokes blog, moyhu. http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/01/heat-wave-in-victoria.html?showComment=1392022641684#c8319878326956569490 in February. Its a subjective way of quantifying heatwaves, as they all are, but it does clearly show that looking at data from 1950 will make it appear that SE Australia is getting more extreme.
The hot weather is due to weather patterns that have happened before and if its climate rather than weather that we are talking about, we need to prepare for more 40.6+ degree days.
This drought will end. The Sandy storm will become a distant memory. The climate alarmists will scour the earth looking for a weather event for their next climate alarmist mascot.
If I may…a very unscientific observation on my part. A 60-70 year cycle appears pretty obvious to these eyeballs.
Would it be fair to say:
“The drought crippling California is by some measures the worst in this century”?
No. It is just the most hyped.
Unless by “this century” you mean “from 2001 to date”….
I’ve lived in worse droughts in California ( I was born there 60+ years ago). The ancient record is even worse. Dramatically worse. No rain for 200 years worse. Trees growing to maturity in what are now lake bottoms worse.
IMHO, calling this the worst ever, or even the worse in the last couple of hundred years, is a bald faced lie.
BTW, news a day or two ago was rain in N. California…. Strange these modern rainy droughts. The old droughts ended when it rained….
Great post!
I enjoyed reading this one. It dramatically shows the con-artists in action. I say this because no one could be so stupid as to miss the fact that past droughts have been much worse and there is no way to blame those much worse past droughts on cAGW or the magic molecule CO2 and hence, by logic, these people knew full well what heifer dust they were spreading.
In addition, they ignored the well known idea that global warming would make it rain more. (or not … depends on the lie of the day I suppose)
In addition, they ignored the results of real science about the way the pacific ocean effects the climate of California. Talk about going against well known science!’
Yes, I enjoyed this little exercise in fertilizer spreading by a clown car full of buffoons. (no offense intended towards clowns or buffoons)
Experiments are done in the lab, or in Nature (1919 and Einstein’s gravitational lensing prediction is an example). There is no such thing as an experiment on climate models. GIGO.
The forthcoming book essay Models all the way Down explains some of the reasons why.
And essay False Alarms discusses the present California drought in historical context. A self inflicted wound. Since 1970, California’s population has increased 87%. Its water reservoir capacity has increaed 26%. Add in repeated dry spells from the published NOAA PDSI since 1900 for California, and you get the current situation. No matter what OBummer says, it is state government incompetence, not climate change.
Rud, I fail to see how State government incompetence is responsible for dry spells……
However you are fundamentally correct about population growth vs. storage capacity. It isn’t really a matter of incompetence but what is politically defensible. Politicians won’t risk their hides to tell communities that they shouldn’t grow, and they are also unwilling to fight for additional storage of almost any kind (surface or ground). Add to that the increased pressure for both good and bad environmental reasons to release water out of surface storage that otherwise would/could be used for municipal or agricultural needs and you drive an unsustainable situation.
Bingo, another crisis that they just can’t let go to waste.
The question is which freedom or liberty will they say justifies being destroyed because of climate change.
I think what Rud said is clear and cogent enough. Your opening sentence implies that he said the government is responsible for the dry spells. I am pretty sure he did not mean any such thing.
I live in northern California and I don’t believe we are having a dry spell at all.
The state has been telling us for most of the last 10 years that we’re in a drought. I translate that to mean, “Water is running short because it’s a government monopoly, we won’t let a market set prices, and most especially, we won’t build more dams to cope with our growing population because we’re eco-nuts!”
There’s your State government incompetence, Scott.
jdgalt September 30, 2014 at 9:11 pm
I live in northern California and I don’t believe we are having a dry spell at all.
++++++++
I’m not trying to be argumentative here, however, we have had precious little rain in several years. Not to take away from what you’re saying, but saying we’re not in a drought is a bit over the top.
Actually there is an experiment on climate models…the models themselves are experimental software.
The timing of papers like these are a crucial part of Warmist Recruiting Techniques.
It’s easy for the gullible and historically illiterate to believe in Thermageddon when they’re looking out at a brown, smoggy, scorched landscape.
Here in Australia you could set your clock to the flood of Warmist tosh that is unleashed every time there is a bush fire.
They’re good at propaganda.
“Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
-Saul Alinsky
You want to see propaganda? Check the latest National Geographic. You will find something relating to climate change about every 3rd page.
I don’t buy them, they just appear here at the office.
“Climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh of Stanford University and colleagues used a novel combination of computer simulations and statistical techniques to show that a persistent region of high atmospheric pressure over the Pacific Ocean–one that diverted storms away from California–was much more likely to form in the presence of modern greenhouse gas concentrations.”
I can write a computer simulation to do anything I want it to, regardless of the data fed into it. This looks like one of those sets of programs.
Aaargh!!!
While there has been no significant warming (or cooling) in 15 – 18 years, the “Global Warming” that isn’t happening is still able to cause draughts in California!
The models that are based on human CO2 emissions being the cause of global warming don’t show warming when human CO2 emissions are not included!
Well, duh!
I suspect any model that shows that the Sun’s radiation is the main driver of the Earth’s temperature will show that if you remove the Sun’s radiation the Earth will get cooler. But, that is just a guess – I don’t have access to the high-powered computers that are needed to run such a simulation.
(Insert image of person hitting head against brick wall here.)
Anthony: NOAA Diff… or Noah Diff… in the head paragraph. Heh. Is he a NOAA guy, or just another idiot from my favorite university?
Jimmy, fixed thanks, that was some autocorrect issue. I write about the modern day NOAA a lot, I’ve never written about the biblical name “Noah”, hence it assigned what it thought was most likely.
Since Noah did the study, I’ll assume California’s drought will end with biblical rainfalls. Kind of like the Gore effect but with rainfall instead of cold temperatures. If it occurs, it could be named the Noah effect.
This was raked over the coals on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/christy-on-sierra-snowfall-over-the-last-130-years-no-trend-no-effect-from-co2/
Scroll down to my comment to Dr. Christy, bringing up California rainfall records (not computer models) going back to 1769. The report covering the Mission records is available on-line at http://cepsym.info/history/RainfallStreamRunoffSoCA_since1769.pdf
and
http://books.google.com/books/about/Rainfall_and_stream_run_off_in_Southern.html?id=sJMJAQAAIAAJ
To summarize the rainfall records from 1769 to 2000, Department of Water Resources data (230 years) show an average annual rainfall of 15.02 inches. The maximum in 1884 was 38.18 inches. The minimum in 1790 was 1.49 inch.
I recall hearing that 2013 was the lowest evah. I guess that 1.49 inches in 1790 was a little inconvenient.
I guess they aren’t old enough to remember the 1976-1977 drought. Same deal. Different generation.
California’s biggest water problem is farmers who insist on using flood irrigation techniques in what amounts to a desert. It was a practice that wasn’t sustainable in the 1970s and it still isn’t sustainable, today. Some people just never learn and are condemned to repeat the same mistakes, twice.
Agree with droughts of earlier generations, but…I think that the biggest problem is that millions of people are trying to maintain their tropical paradise of swimming pools and water swilling lawns in the middle of the desert. Agriculture feeds us, lawns don’t
Also all that rice and cotton farming; both crops that use a lot of water; however, since the rice farming is all North of Sac, where the bulk of California water originates, try stopping that.
So are we to infer that the solution to the current drought is to reduce CO2 emissions? This falls into the “Global Warming is affecting you right now, take us seriously and do what we say!” PR category
Let me post this before I read any further.
Oh and this.
US droughts and mega-droughts during the Holocene caused by something or other.
And they still refuse to consider a new dam at Auburn. If this is the beginning of a 50-100 year drought cycle, we’re all going to pay a high price. Remember, Sacramento river water must be released in sufficient quantity to protect the Delta Smelt, a lousy 2″ bait fish. Unbelieveable!…..
“used a novel combination of computer simulations and statistical techniques to show…”
Yeah, I’m sure. We’ve become used to the use of novel stats to twist out the answers that they wanted. Now if it weren’t for the release of the climategate emails, probably there would be a few about this and Mikey’s nature trick. Or a new trick as the press release states. Do they release the thumb screws they used for this work for examination by McIntyre?
Sadly, California will have to be evacuated. Since India, China, Russia and many others are ramping up their CO2 emissions, I think we all have to face reality. California is toast. Businesses will have to relocate, and of course this will spark a bidding war from competing states and countries who want the new jobs and tax revenues. Homes and business infrastructure will be sold at a penny on the dollar. Farmers will have to sell out at 1 cent on the dollar, and relocate to northern Canada where tundra will soon yield to lush vegetable growing farm lands.
Get on the bandwagon skeptics! Promote the daylights out of this! We’re all going to get beachfront property in California for 1 cent on the dollar!
I find it rather funny that at the same time, this article appears in the LA Times,
“California drought and climate warming: Studies find no clear link”
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-california-drought-20140929-story.html