Study: Climate Change May Lead to Bigger Atmospheric Rivers

WASHINGTON — A new study shows that climate change is likely to intensify extreme weather events known as atmospheric rivers across most of the globe by the end of this century, while slightly reducing their number.

The new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, projects atmospheric rivers will be significantly longer and wider than the ones we observe today, leading to more frequent atmospheric river conditions in affected areas.

“The results project that in a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, there will be about 10 percent fewer atmospheric rivers globally by the end of the 21st century,” said the study’s lead author, Duane Waliser, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “However, because the findings project that the atmospheric rivers will be, on average, about 25 percent wider and longer, the global frequency of atmospheric river conditions — like heavy rain and strong winds — will actually increase by about 50 percent.”

The results also show that the frequency of the most intense atmospheric river storms is projected to nearly double.

Atmospheric rivers are long, narrow jets of air that carry huge amounts of water vapor from the tropics to Earth’s continents and polar regions. These “rivers in the sky” typically range from 250 to 375 miles (400 to 600 kilometers) wide and carry as much water — in the form of water vapor — as about 25 Mississippi Rivers. When an atmospheric river makes landfall, particularly against mountainous terrain (such as the Sierra Nevada and the Andes), it releases much of that water vapor in the form of rain or snow.

These storm systems are common — on average, there are about 11 present on Earth at any time. In many areas of the globe, they bring much-needed precipitation and are an important contribution to annual freshwater supplies. However, stronger atmospheric rivers — especially those that stall at landfall or that produce rain on top of snowpack — can cause disastrous flooding.

Atmospheric rivers show up on satellite imagery, including in data from a series of actual atmospheric river storms that drenched the U.S. West Coast and caused severe flooding in early 2017.

In early 2017, the Western United States experienced rain and flooding from a series of storms flowing to America on multiple streams of moist air, each individually known as an atmospheric river. These atmospheric rivers are visible in satellite imagery taken by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite. This imagery shows several distinct plumes of moisture in the atmosphere and their movement across the Pacific Ocean to the U.S. where much of it fell as rain or snow. Credit: NASA

The Study

Climate change studies on atmospheric rivers to date have been mostly limited to two specific regions, the western United States and Europe. They have typically used different methodologies for identifying atmospheric rivers and different climate projection models — meaning results from one are not quantitatively comparable to another.

The team sought to provide a more streamlined and global approach to evaluating the effects of climate change on atmospheric river storms.

The study relied on two resources — a set of commonly used global climate model projections for the 21st century developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report, and a global atmospheric river detection algorithm that can be applied to climate model output. The algorithm, developed earlier by members of the study team, identifies atmospheric river events from every day of the model simulations, quantifying their length, width and how much water vapor they transport.

The team applied the atmospheric river detection algorithm to both actual observations and model simulations for the late 20th century. Comparing the data showed that the models produced a relatively realistic representation of atmospheric rivers for the late 20th century climate.

They then applied the algorithm to model projections of climate in the late 21st century. In doing this, they were able to compare the frequency and characteristics of atmospheric rivers for the current climate with the projections for future climate.

The team also tested the algorithm with a different climate model scenario that assumed more conservative increases in the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. They found similar, though less drastic changes. Together, the consideration of the two climate scenarios indicates a direct link between the extent of warming and the frequency and severity of atmospheric river conditions.

What does this mean?

The significance of the study is two-fold.

First, “knowing the nature of how these atmospheric river events might change with future climate conditions allows for scientists, water managers, stakeholders and citizens living in atmospheric river-prone regions [e.g. western N. America, western S. America, S. Africa, New Zealand, western Europe]  to consider the potential implications that might come with a change to these extreme precipitation events,” said Vicky Espinoza, postdoctoral fellow at the University of California-Merced and first author of the study.

And secondly, the study and its approach provide a much-needed, uniform way to research atmospheric rivers on a global level — illustrating a foundation to analyze and compare them that did not previously exist.

Limitations

Data across the models are generally consistent — all support the projection that atmospheric river conditions are linked to warming and will increase in the future; however, co-author Marty Ralph of the University of California, San Diego, points out that there is still work to be done.

“While all the models project increases in the frequency of atmospheric river conditions, the results also illustrate uncertainties in the details of the climate projections of this key phenomenon,” he said. “This highlights the need to better understand why the models’ representations of atmospheric rivers vary.”

###

This paper is free for 30 days. Journalists and public information officers (PIOs) can download a PDF copy of the article by clicking on this link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2017GL076968

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Study: Climate Change May Lead to Bigger Atmospheric Rivers

    • That would make it the perfect opportunity to “Drain the Swamp” of California politics

  1. Are we to assume that the phrase, “climate change” automatically means “human-caused climate change” ?
    If no, then so what ? — we deal with it.
    If yes, then the implied “human” part is unproven. Thus, if “atmospheric river” changes are not proven to be the fault of humans, then, again, so what? — we deal with it.

    • You’re expected to translate in your head the impossible-to-deny “climate change” into “human-caused-global-warming” but never actually say it out loud for fear of exposing the lie behind that conflation

      • This only adds to the confusion, of course. People could be talking about “climate change” rather innocently to someone who is convinced that it now means ONLY “human-caused climate change”.
        Let us, then, strike up a conversation about “crop failure”, where, of course, I automatically expect you to understand “crop failure” to mean “human-caused crop failure”. It’s all our fault, so just rewrite the definition accordingly.
        Other expectations that I automatically have include the following:
        * “cloudy day” = “human-caused cloudy day”
        * “rotten apple” = “human-caused rotten apple”
        * “risky situation” = “human-caused risky situation”
        * “muddy water” = “human-caused muddy water”
        * “planetary procession” = “human-caused planetary procession”
        * “spectral radiance” = “human-caused spectral radiance”
        * “galactic motion” = “human-caused galactic motion”
        In other words, anything and everything conceivable is automatically attributed to human causation, without even having to say so. This paradigmatic shift in human perception surely will serve as the benchmark of the “anthropocene”, … or “egocene”, as I would prefer to label it.

    • And they have verified the ability of their algorithm to predict the atmospheric river conditions in the near term to validate them, or are they just assuming they are good by hindcasting?

    • ” …. atmospheric rivers will be significantly longer and wider than the ones we observe today, leading to more frequent atmospheric river conditions in affected areas. …”
      —-
      Yeah, I thought the Obama cali drought catastrophe was supposed to never end?
      But now all the models have conferred, and ‘agree’ that there will be cali mega-floods way often?
      Who to believe?

    • Old. It’s also a moving goal, because both projections/doom-mongerings and measurements tend to change in retrospect.
      But the old good is ‘there’s no tropospheric hot spot’ for which the answer is ‘we don’t live there and besides, it is there’ in desparation when models didn’t and won’t predict what will happen.
      I remember when the media was still skeptic and they required predictions and evidence, now they’ll happily print any ‘could’ and ‘may’ as it happened already.

  2. It means nothing because what they are predicting (global warming) is not going to happen.

  3. Am I reading this right? They used outputs from selected “commonly used” UN-IPPC models to feed their model. Geez! Can this all get any crazier. Next they will create models that create models. They will claim they are using Artificial Intelligence.

    • Well it certainly isn’t real intelligence. In this instance “artificial” is more like the difference between real plants and “artificial” ones.

    • “The study relied on two resources — a set of commonly used global climate model projections for the 21st century developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report, and a global atmospheric river detection algorithm that can be applied to climate model output. The algorithm, developed earlier by members of the study team, identifies atmospheric river events from every day of the model simulations, quantifying their length, width and how much water vapor they transport.
      The team applied the atmospheric river detection algorithm to both actual observations and model simulations for the late 20th century. Comparing the data showed that the models produced a relatively realistic representation of atmospheric rivers for the late 20th century climate.”
      The real key here is ” actual observations” How does one compare actual observations of water vapour in the sky to climate model water vapour in the sky?
      well according to the study they said
      “……..a global atmospheric river detection algorithm that can be applied to climate model output. The algorithm, developed earlier by members of the study team, identifies atmospheric river events from every day of the model simulations, quantifying their length, width and how much water vapor they transport.”
      So the algorithm is simply code that makes a guess at how the rivers behave. Seeing that every actual atmospheric river will be a different length. How is that variable useful? Same goes for width. Same goes for the amount of water vapour they contain.
      Again a quote
      “Comparing the data showed that the models produced a relatively realistic representation of atmospheric rivers for the late 20th century climate.”
      Seeing that they could tune the models to represent past data in the 20th century by fine tuning only 3 variables, they are trying to convince us that they now can look 80 years into the future and realistically predict how these atmospheric rivers will behave BY FINE TUNING ONLY 3 VARIABLES? Don’t forget that every climate model had to be conservatively tuned for the far future because they all had runaway stochastic chaotic processes that gave ridiculous results. So they toned down many model parameters so that far future projections would level out the variances of each parameter. This is perhaps the biggest unsolvable problem of computer climate models besides the spatial problem of NOT being able to model any process down to 1mm wide ( that is needed but impossible to achieve).
      Climate scientists or meteorologists cannot tell you why an atmospheric river forms in the sky. They can tell you what happens when it does form and that strong winds push these columns of water vapor along, but as to exactly why the concentration of water, NO. Meteorologists also cannot predict when and where a new one will form so this science is a bit like predicting when we will have another hurricane. They seem to form along boundaries between large areas of divergent surface air flow (winds) including some frontal zones, but that is all they really know. So if we cant predict when a new one will form and there are an average of 11 of them in the earth’s atmosphere at any one time how would we be able to predict one 80 years from now? Just because you can hindcast a phenomenon by fine tuning some of the variables that duplicate a historical past data set doesn’t mean that you can forecast the phenomenon with any accuracy. As soon as you fine tune your knowable variables; that will affect the results of the unknowable variables when you forecast. The climate modellers make the same mistake when hindcasting and forecasting temperatures. If forecasted temperatures are bogus in climate models 80 years out why would forecasted atmospheric rivers be any different? THIS IS AGAIN JUNK SCIENCE.

  4. Climate change leads to…
    whatever is happening today.
    And it’s all your fault!

  5. Little over 3 years ago, we peanut gallery were presented with this:
    Geophysical Research Letters Volume 41, Issue 17
    Research Letter
    The role of atmospheric rivers in anomalous snow accumulation in East Antarctica
    “we find that it was four and five ARs reaching the coastal DML that contributed 74–80% of the outstanding SMB during 2009 and 2011 at PE [Prince Elisabeth station]. Therefore, accounting for ARs is crucial for understanding East Antarctic SMB.”
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19448007
    Here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/20/what-ice-loss-giant-atmospheric-rivers-add-mass-to-antarcticas-ice-sheet/
    “Our results should not be misinterpreted as evidence that the impacts of global warming will be small or reversed due to compensating effects. On the contrary, they confirm the potential of the Earth’s warming climate to manifest itself in anomalous regional responses. Thus, our understanding of climate change and its worldwide impact will strongly depend on climate models’ ability to capture extreme weather events, such as atmospheric rivers and the resulting anomalies in precipitation and temperature,” she concludes.
    Don’t confuse climate change with evidence.
    Got it?
    Really, the climate change industry continues to step into their own mess every few years.
    [From your quote of that article, what is SMB, DML? We assume AR is Atmospheric River. .mod]

  6. Oh My! Post Doc Vicky has certainly mastered the verbal and writing skills required of a modern climate seancetist scientist!
    Witness her own words:
    “First, “knowing the nature of how these atmospheric river events might change with future climate conditions allows for scientists, water managers, stakeholders and citizens living in atmospheric river-prone regions [e.g. western N. America, western S. America, S. Africa, New Zealand, western Europe] to consider the potential implications that might come with a change to these extreme precipitation events,” said Vicky Espinoza, postdoctoral fellow at the University of California-Merced and first author of the study.”
    That’s a really nice balance of non-specific nebulosity combined with scary tinges of extreme consequences, don’t you think?
    “And secondly, the study and its approach provide a much-needed, uniform way to research atmospheric rivers on a global level — illustrating a foundation to analyze and compare them that did not previously exist.”
    This is even better prose from Ms. Vicky! She states as a certainty that (her) paper and approach provide the way to ‘research atmospheric rivers’ globally. Further, by using the specific word ‘foundation’, she predisposes others up to accept her paper (and methods) as the foundation for further research. It ‘might’ even refer to her own ambition for a ‘potential’ Espinoza Climate Foundation in the future. There is more than one future climate Ms. Vicky is ‘potentially’ projecting here….

  7. “Data across the models are generally consistent — all support the projection that atmospheric river conditions are linked to warming and will increase in the future; ”
    They could use these heaters to warm things up.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater.
    I also found this abstract interesting.
    Abstract
    “Anthropogenic effects on the space environment started in the late 19th century and reached their peak in the 1960s when high-altitude nuclear explosions were carried out by the USA and the Soviet Union. These explosions created artificial radiation belts near Earth that resulted in major damages to several satellites. Another, unexpected impact of the high-altitude nuclear tests was the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that can have devastating effects over a large geographic area (as large as the continental United States). Other anthropogenic impacts on the space environment include chemical release experiments, high-frequency wave heating of the ionosphere and the interaction of VLF waves with the radiation belts. This paper reviews the fundamental physical process behind these phenomena and discusses the observations of their impacts.”
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-017-0357-5
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt

  8. ““The results project that in a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, there will be about 10 percent fewer atmospheric rivers globally by the end of the 21st century,” said the study’s lead author, Duane Waliser, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “However, because the findings project that the atmospheric rivers will be, on average, about 25 percent wider and longer”

    More model magic.
    This time proving (A³ equals <A X A X A)). Slide the data around a little, then claim the imaginary sde means disasters.
    All from people with zero experience and a proven inability to predict anything.

    • Remember that they are not predictions, only projections.
      It is their “get out of jail free” card.

      • Absurd!
        As soon as they use the “projections” to gin up scare stories, it becomes a full fledged prediction.
        It’s a “get out of jail free card”, only because of a complicit lazy academia.
        Defund that academia and bureaucracy, when they allow or promulgate shoddy research and empty papers; and that will change their focus from sloppy to rigorous science.
        Rewarding losers drags everyone down.

  9. “a set of commonly used global climate model projections for the 21st century developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report, and a global atmospheric river detection algorithm that can be applied to climate model output. ”
    Once again mathematical onanism is reported as if somebody had actually left the comfort of his office chair and gone outside to make a measurement, or something rather like that. No actual data were harmed in the manufacture of this meaningless glub.

    • No actual data were harmed in the manufacture of this meaningless glub.

      Unfortunately, many brain cells WERE harmed, or, at least, provided with insufficient exercise, which amounts to a form of harming.

  10. “The study relied on two resources — a set of commonly used global climate model projections for the 21st century developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report, and a global atmospheric river detection algorithm that can be applied to climate model output.”
    So they used a model as input to another model. What could go wrong with that? When is the scientific community going to call out this craziness?

    • Amazing, isn’t it?!
      Then again this is “climate science” – facts need not apply, they have models (which are nothing more than digitized varieties of manufactured “data,” poorly supported hypotheses, unsupported assumptions, circular logic, group-think, pre-conceived conclusions, and confirmation bias).
      Who could question THAT?!

  11. Not to worry–Tahoe will still have snow in the 22nd century, if this paper is correct.

  12. Time and again, we are told that the climate models can’t make regional predictions, they are only “accurate” when averaged over the entire earth.
    Yet they want us to believe they can predict a phenomena this small?

  13. Is Post-Doc Vicky even vaguely aware that the monsoonal flow out of the Indian Ocean has changed direction and instead of going northeast into northwest India and Pakistan as it used to do, is now flowing over the Saudi Arabian peninsula, and has been doing so consistently at this time of year since 2012?
    They have annual floods now in Oman and Yemen, because the ground has become super saturated and the rainwater has to go somewhere. Never used to have floods.
    Or does the real-world stuff not matter here?
    Seriously, if something useful can come out of that study, fine, but it appears to me to be pandering hoohah to get more grant money to do more grant-funded studies that will produce more grant-oriented results.
    If, on the other hand, there is an indication that the long-term drought in the American west/southwest may be coming to a slow but steady end, which has historic precedence, shouldn’t we be paying attention to that? If weather patterns change and produce more rain and snow for the southwest and western USA (east of the Rockies), what’s wrong with that?

    • SSSSSSSSSSSSSSHush Don’t tell them that. They will blame the changing monsoons on CO2. Mr/Mrs CO2 is in enough trouble already. Witness the long list of costs Mr CO2 has caused just because he came out of the soil in the guise of fossil fuels.
      Michael Mann lawsuits, carbon trading, carbon taxes, increased wind and solar doubling and tripling electricity prices, billions wasted on climate research, corruption of any related science to climate science, lawsuits from every corner of the globe against fossil fuel companies and governments, millions wasted on climate conferences and speeches extolling the doomsday scenario, millions wasted on developing computer climate models, untold resources wasted arguing about the science, corruption of government agencies, corruption of all climate journals and all National Academies of science, creation of an absolutely useless UN organization called the IPCC. Waste of senate and house of representative resources in all the countries of the world, poisoning the minds of all school children around the world of junk science including turning many of them into green zealots who have lost all sense of reality, vandalism of fossil fuel sites, time and money wasted on protests……… etc .
      *********************************************************************************************************
      On all these charges MR CO2 HOW DO YOU PLEAD?
      Not guilty your honour. It was Mr Hansen that committed these crimes. Immmmmmmmmm innocent.

    • Radishes, Alan. Radishes, peppers and lettuce require water (rain) to grow. Without water (rain) and increased precipitation in veggie farmlands, there will be no radishes, lettuces, or bell peppers, or cherry tomatoes or – GASP!!!! – SOYBEANS to provide the Vegan CAGWers with their meatless, lactose-free food and soy drinks laden with phytoestrogens.
      Climate change can go in both directions. We know that. Their refusal to accept a downward trending possibility is apostasy on their part. Someone should warn them about such things. It’s one of the first principles of physics, a hard science they don’t understand. (Science is H-A-R-D.) For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That should confuse them enormously.
      Maybe they would understand if it were put in simpler terms: the Sun has a cold. It sneezed good and hard back in 2006, putting out a massive outburst EMP (biggest one in absolutely ages), and it’s been dripping at the nose ever since then. So over the past 12 years, the Sun has gone from warm and happy, to chilled and chillier, and – well, the poor Sun has a cold that may last a while.
      If they’re Vegans, doesn’t that mean that they come from another planet? There IS a photo of a planet orbiting Vega, you know. I may still have that copy of Sky & Telescope.

  14. “Co-author Marty Ralph of the University of California, San Diego, points out that there is still work to be done.” #sendmoremoney

  15. This article is pointing to the upcoming dangers of our species continuing with AGW. It is very obvious that the rising levels of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is generating an increased warming effect across the planet. Countries are now experiencing unusually high temperatures at earlier times in the year – this being a typical case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/02/pakistani-city-breaks-april-record-with-day-of-50c-heat-nawabshah?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

    • So, ivankinsman, you ignore the fact that the MONSOON (weather) that normally goes to Pakistan and northwestern India is now targeting Oman and Yemen in the form of a cyclone (more weather), to wit: Cyclone Menunu, rising out of the Indian Ocean and supported by the waters of the Arabian Sea?
      And since this is NOT the first time this has happened, but is becoming a regular occurrence for THAT area, has it NOT occurred to you that this is possibly a permanent shift in the SEASONAL WEATHER for that area? And that Pakistan and northwestern India may suffer recurring droughts because of this SEASONAL WEATHER SHIFT?
      No, I guess that would NOT occur to you. It’s a shame that your nose is so long.
      Toodles, kiddo!!!

      • Yep and all can be put down to AGW affecting climate patterns around the world. The more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere the more these abberations will happen.

      • As usual your replies are lacking in scale. Has it occurred to you that most weather events have a cyclic nature?

      • Oh, Ivan, you silly, silly person. I just finished a supper that consisted of a nice chopped salad, made up of cukes, zukes, radishes, green onions, bell pepper, and chopped ham. Without CO2 to supply these PLANTS with the means of making a sugar – which is WHAT THEY LIVE ON, Tootsie – the plant population that supplies us with food will die off.
        Take a chill pill, Ivanski Tootsie Pie. You shut off the CO2 supply, you will have no food to eat. PERIOD.
        Oh, almost forgot: if YOU are so worried about CO2 levels, you could wear a clothespin on your nose or just stop talking… or both.
        Every breath you take
        Every move you make
        Every bond you break
        Every step you take
        I’ll be watching you
        Every single day
        Every word you say
        Every game you play
        Every night you stay
        I’ll be watching you
        Sometimes, Ivanski, you are more than just a silly, silly person. Toodles!!!
        What a maroon!

    • In Ivanski’s mind, any threat must be taken seriously. After all the Guardian has already proven that CO2 is going to kill us, we are just arguing over how.
      PS: Anytime something bad happens, it’s CO2. Any record warmth is CO2.
      If it’s good, or cold, it’s just weather and only fools pay attention to that.

      • Well, here’s my chopped salad recipe, so that you can have a nice supper:
        Cucumber
        Zucchini
        Radishes
        Green onion
        Bell pepper – any color
        Celery
        Fresh sweet corn if in season
        Uncooked sugar peas
        Some protein such as ham, chicken, cheese – whatever floats your boat
        Dressing is garlic salt, black pepper, extra virgin olive oil and lemon juice or wine vinegar (whichever you prefer) I prefer fresh squeezed lemons.
        Mix the stuff together, season to taste, give it a good toss, get some good crackers like Triscuits, and tuck in to it. And for afters, cheesecake and a good book.

  16. “This highlights the need to better understand why the models’ representations of atmospheric rivers vary.”
    because if you throw enough darts , even when wearing a blind fold, eventually one will hit the bullseye .

  17. “While all the models project increases in the frequency of atmospheric river conditions, the results also illustrate uncertainties in the details of the climate projections of this key phenomenon,” he said. “This highlights the need to better understand why the models’ representations of atmospheric rivers vary.”” — Basically it is work carried out using models. This relates to what they meant by climate change? If it is global warming, then this has no meaning as the global warming so far is far far less than 0.3 oC. This can not in any way impact global circulation pattern as the natural cyclic pattern is more than this and as well the daily and seasonal temperature, annual temperature variations and as as local to regional temperature variations are far far higher.
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  18. I suspect that behind just about all science related papers these days there lurks a viral algorithm as a bug, which automatically links any change with CO2 increase. Maybe it pops in without the scientists/nerds being aware of it; or maybe it lies in a Meme lodged in the human brain. I know not; but have noticed that it has now become ubiquitous across all the scientific disciplines. Quite boring really.
    However, that apart this paper is interesting as it indicates that more attention is now being given to the major influence of water in the climate; rather than being assigned to an also ran feedback role. (and erroneously at that).

  19. ‘A new study shows that climate change is likely to intensify extreme weather events known as atmospheric rivers across most of the globe by the end of this century, while slightly reducing their number.’
    Speculative and irrelevant. Junk science, published by Geophysical Research Letters. How do they stay in business?

  20. We keep hearing from alarmists that we are heading into worsening weather as the earth continues to warm. The fact that the data does not support these conclusions seems to be irrelevant to these campaigners. This atmospheric river paper is interesting from the standpoint of collecting and analyzing data from the entire world rather than only Europe and North America. The 2017 and 1998 atmospheric rivers which hit California were both much smaller and shorter than the 1861-1862 atmospheric river which flooded the Central Valley. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atmospheric-rivers-california-megaflood-lessons-from-forgotten-catastrophe/
    This atmospheric river “megaflood” occurred less than 20 years after the current warming period began in the 1840s. The Scientific American article notes that these megafloods hit California every 150 to 200 years. The GRL article seems to be another attempt to use computer models with limited predictive skill to forecast phenomena which we do not fully understand.

  21. ” the models produced a relatively realistic representation”
    What does that actually mean?

  22. It all seems simple. Start building more dams ASAP. Stop the eminent flooding to come. More people will need more water and electricity. Controlled water releases will reduce erosion and flood damage. Little fish will get needed flows for their survival. The newly formed reservoirs will provide fire control resources. Slow the increased use of plastics in building more kayaks. Build more and bigger dams now before it’s too late. It’s much worse than we thought!

  23. Also it rained last night here in NorCal, and it just started a steady rain about 30 minutes ago. It looks like more snow for the Sierras later on. Where is that hot weather we were supposed to be getting out here? More than that, take a look out over the Pacific. It is starting to look like winter has returned minus the colder temps, as there are multiple storms strung out all the way to Siberia which will then work their way east.. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-128.04,36.41,672/loc=-129.443,42.984

    • Oh, that hot weather? It landed on my front yard around noon today, and pounded me and the cable guy when he came to fix the linking issues on my internet cable. Bad fittings, they were. He replaced them all. Now my internet service is splendid!
      You can have the hot weather if you want it, goldminor. I think it has to go east from here, but it’ll get to you eventually… if you really want it.
      I’d prefer the chillier weather myself.

      • My tomatoes need the heat as does my lime tree. As for me, I grew up in San Francisco. So I am more inclined towards a cooler clime.

  24. These days the Media is only too happy to present ‘could be’, might be’ and ‘computer models show’ as being exactly the same as ‘it has already occurred that’.I can remember when Media did real reporting and was often sceptical.

  25. These are not studies! These are video games. To be a study we should see skill in predicting climate change using models.

Comments are closed.