13.7k
13.7k

EnvironmentClimate scientists now expect California to experience more rain in the coming decades, contrary to the predictions of previous climate models. Researchers analyzed 38 new climate models and projected that California will get on average 12% more precipitation through 2100. (ucrtoday.ucr.edu)

drewiepoodle が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]WhendidIgethere 1025 ポイント1026 ポイント  (143子コメント)

I thought models where saying weather will become so unpredictable it'll be difficult at best to predict this kind of trend.

Edit: Leaving the spelling error as I'm tired of dealing with my phone deciding which words to use and were. :)Otherwise, thanks for all the replies. Very enlightening.

[–]AngryData 442 ポイント443 ポイント  (33子コメント)

It is, and this prediction is just that, a prediction. We don't have enough understanding/datapoints/computing power predict local changes in climate with any conventional meaning of certainty. There are many models and research to support specific local changes but I wouldn't bet my life on them being really accurate. Land features, plant cover and human constructions all have large effects on local weather patterns which also can change rapidly. California may be even more susceptible than most for inaccurate climate predictions due to Chinese particulate pollution and how it changes over the next 50 years.

[–]BornUnderPunches 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To what degree does this uncertainty extend to global climate forcasts? I would imagine some type of effects (future CO2 levels, sea rise) are easier to predict than others those that have more to do with the weather behavior itsself (sun/rain/storms etc)

コメントをもっと表示する (21 返事)

    [–]ValorPhoenix 186 ポイント187 ポイント  (81子コメント)

    Also, mentioning the overall rainfall level is nice, but I would be more concerned whether that rainfall comes in the form of droughts punctuated by flash floods.

    [–]Freeballa 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Mix in a few wild fires to clean out any way of reliably keeping slopes from coming down and you got the makings of some good landslides.

    [–]CaptainUnusual 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Eventually the whole state will become flat and then there won't be any problems.

    [–]factbasedorGTFO 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    For those who don't know, a potential for flodding more serious and extensive than what happened in New Orleans exists in Central California.

    California has hundreds of miles of vulnerable levees, and most folks, even Californians, don't know that. http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fas/risknotification//

    Very few folks know Central California was an area of extensive wetlands and had the largest fresh water lake west of the Mississippi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake

    [–]ThisTooShallPass14 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This last winter was pretty rough. In Santa Cruz the San Lorenzo river runs parallel to the downtown shopping/restaurant strip, such as it is. This year was the highest I've ever seen it, enough to flood out some low neighborhoods that haven't flooded in at least a decade and get the river within a foot or two of jumping its banks and just trashing that strip I mentioned. The kind of increase this projection is theorizing would be crippling. But...people here (generally speaking) don't care because it's California and they're more worried about earthquakes and fires.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

        [–]slightlyoffkilter_7 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        And my California-born boyfriend wonders why I think he's batshit crazy to want to buy a house "with a view" (read: perched on the side of a hill in Silicon Valley)

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]misterludwig 71 ポイント72 ポイント  (66子コメント)

          This is exactly what I'd be worried about in California. I was reading somewhere that farmers are trying to figure out ways to adapt to these swinging extremes in precipitation.

          [–]thiosk 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (20子コメント)

          pump the water at the mouth of the delta back to the cascades? :)

          [–]misterludwig 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I think they were talking about plants that can hold the soil together during flash floods, but giant tubes dumping water on mountains would be cool, too.

          [–]SlitScan 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          think about how much electricity is generated by hydroelectric dams.

          now spend at least that much going the other way.

          that said a few small dams to slow the water a bit before it all runs off might have some merrit

          コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

            [–]SenorPuff 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (41子コメント)

            As a farmer affected by California's water troubles: the state needs to do a better job of managing it's water from the top down, full stop.

            There are a ton of avenues open to look at but the state government just will not be proactive on this issue. They were way behind the ball and then made drastic cuts to usage during the depths of the drought instead of actually addressing the issue of water management.

            [–]rustvendor 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (38子コメント)

            I'm a former California farmer and I also have a geology degree, it's my understanding that there simply isn't enough water since groundwater aquifers are drying up and groundwater makes up 40 percent of water usage in California. We use more water every year than can be collected from the sky. So im curious what the state could possibly do to increase water availability? And please don't just say decrease flow to the Sacramento river, those fish are federally protected.

            [–]SenorPuff 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (32子コメント)

            It's not like they can make more water fall, that's true. But they can manage what falls better. We do use more and more water every year, that's true. The solution isn't to just tighten our belts when the shit hits the fan, it's to see that we can't keep using this much water year over year when it's long been known that the area has cyclical droughts that we need to be prepared for. The solution isn't to turn all the spigots back on again because 'hooray we're out of the drought now' it's to say 'look, we don't want it to get that bad again, so we're going to make some reforms on this shit so we can be ahead of the ball for the next time this happens and have some banked for the future.' It's to look at what's happening and get some work done on alternative energy sourced desal plants.

            [–]rustvendor 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (22子コメント)

            I agree with you to a point, but heres where I have to dust off the ol geology degree and say that unfortunately we can't really store the water. You can't just dig a big hole and on wet years shoot the water into the ground to use for next year, the pore space is just too small and water infiltrates very slow. On dry years they have to keep water flowing down from the reservoirs to keep fish alive. So even this year with lake shasta full it's just a matter of time before it's used up, and it's not really something that can be legislated around, as far as I've seen. I would love to be proven wrong. It would be neat if desalination could be figured out , in fact it's probably the only way that ag can stay in California long term.

            [–]SenorPuff 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (10子コメント)

            The fact of the matter is if California cant support an ag sector it really can't support a lot of other things, either. That agricultural need wont just go away. And yeah, we farmers can do a better job, and should, but we have to and everyone else does, too. Its all interconnected. We need to re-find that balance.

            [–]rustvendor 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

            Well considering California grows 80 percent of the nation's produce, obviously there will be a need. But that doesn't mean that much if the water just isn't there. Short of telling almond farmers to plant greens or root vegetables instead of almonds, i don't see that there is much progress to be made. And if you are actually a farmer in California you know that you would have riots if you went around telling farmers what to grow. Have you ever met a group that liked to be told what to do less than farmers?? Unless desal is ready in the next five years then there will be a lot less farming here. Again, I would love to be proved wrong. Just the other day my buddy saw the top of a well here in the central valley that was 40 feet in the air, the ground had subsided that much around it.

            [–]ironantiquer 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Well, step number one, does anybody REALLY NEED a nice green lawn?

            コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

              コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                        コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                          [–]fishsticks40 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                          Trends in precipitation are particularly uncertain; however I believe (citation needed) that uncertainty in coastal areas like CA is somewhat lower than many other places (such as the upper midwest, where my expertise lies), as it's weather is driven much more by large-scale ocean/atmosphere interactions. The uncertainty estimates are highly spatially and temporally variable, so certain places and seasons we have a pretty good handle on, and others are a big shrug.

                          I'd call this tentatively reasonable, with the caveat that water resources in CA are highly temperature-sensitive, as well - so more water, while likely a good thing overall, has to be balanced against a loss of snowpack and shifts in timing of rainfalls.

                          Basically the error bars on precip predictions are quite high, and higher in some places than others, but the paper finds that while the uncertainty is high, the direction of change is reasonably clear.

                          [–]dsfoxPhD | Computer Science 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          How can a model predict unpredictability?

                          コメントをもっと表示する (21 返事)

                            [–]aClimateScientistGrad Student | Ocean Circulation and Climate Modelling 224 ポイント225 ポイント  (57子コメント)

                            Abstract:

                            Future California (CA) precipitation projections, including those from the most recent Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), remain uncertain. This uncertainty is related to several factors, including relatively large internal climate variability, model shortcomings, and because CA lies within a transition zone, where mid-latitude regions are expected to become wetter and subtropical regions drier. Here, we use a multitude of models to show CA may receive more precipitation in the future under a business-as-usual scenario. The boreal winter season-when most of the CA precipitation increase occurs-is associated with robust changes in the mean circulation reminiscent of an El Niño teleconnection. Using idealized simulations with two different models, we further show that warming of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures accounts for these changes. Models that better simulate the observed El Niño-CA precipitation teleconnection yield larger, and more consistent increases in CA precipitation through the twenty-first century.

                            From the paper:

                            In response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) versions 3 and 5 indicate decreases in precipitation in the subtropics and increases in middle to high latitudes. California lies near this transition zone, which contributes to the relatively large uncertainty in future projections of CA precipitation. Significant differences between CMIP3 and CMIP5 twenty-first century precipitation projections in central and southern California exist, with CMIP5 models tending to yield a more consistent increase. This was related to an eastward extension of the upper level winds in the east Pacific, which was suggested to shift the storm track towards the California coast, promoting an increase in precipitation.

                            The study compares suites of global climate models from 2007 (CMIP3) and 2014 (CMIP5). They attribute the increase in CA precipitation to a permanent-El-Niño-like trend in Pacific Ocean temperatures that changes the winter weather patterns in CA through teleconections (Rossby waves?).

                            [–]SchrodingersHairball 157 ポイント158 ポイント  (42子コメント)

                            I'll say it again.. California, you need to plant native erosion prevention vegetation on the slopes now. Really. Now..... It can't hurt.

                            [–]awesomerob 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                            I don't know if you've never been here or what but practically every hillside in SC has iceplant for ground cover. It's not perfect but it works.

                            [–]1493186748683 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Actually near SD they seem to be increasingly planting native chaparral vegetation on hillsides instead of iceplant (thank goodness, what a waste to plant an invasive when natives will do).

                            A lot of times at roadcuts you see these ziggurat-like steps cut into the hillside, then plantings of endemic flora. It's great!

                            [–]MegaGrimer 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            It's very common along the California coast between Monterey and San Francisco. Don't know about the rest of CA, but it's very common there.

                            [–]alebro112 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Ice Plants are destroying native plant populations throughout So Cal, yeah it does its job, but parks and rec are removing it because though it may be preventing erosion its practically destroying local plant life. (At least in Santa Barbara)

                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                              [–]Anjin 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                              There are tons of native plants that will do the job, the problem in the past has been that the intermittent rainfall means that they die off in lean years. It's really hard to build solid soil stability when 90% of the rain falls in just a few months out of the year.

                              [–]BobCox 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                              Native may not do the job

                              [–]1493186748683 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              There's a number of native water-liking trees and plants in California. California bay laurel, tanoak, madrone, chinquapin, Catalina ironwood, etc. They are what's left of the species of ancestral forests e.g., whose constituent species have retreated to refugia in CA mountains, northern (wet) CA, or gone extinct in CA due to the Pleistocene cooling and drying of California.

                              [–]1493186748683 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              I forgot to mention that the coastal fog in northern CA plays a role in reducing soil moisture loss/providing direct moisture addition- thus coastal north CA is another refugia for these species, and others like the Monterrey cypress, Monterey pine, coast redwood, and so on. In fact there are a number of California coniferous trees with very restricted, often coastal distributions, such as the Torrey pine, Bishop pine, and Port Orford cedar. Near the coast, temperatures are mild year-round and it doesn't get as hot/dry in the summer due to fog and cool sea air, even if it doesn't rain.

                              The Catalina Ironwood is a special case- once found across California and elsewhere during the Miocene/Pliocene, it is now only found on a couple of the Channel Islands off SoCal, and is the only remaining species of its genus. Weather is still cool and somewhat foggy there in the summer, though not like NorCal- but an Ice Age refugium nonetheless it seems.

                              [–]SchrodingersHairball 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (10子コメント)

                              As long as it doesn't disrupt the local balance, non- native could do. But you don't want a kudzu type of situation. I hope the local EPA and horticultural community may have a solution.

                              [–]Get_Buckets 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                              I work for the Waterboard which is part of the CalEPA. My experience is if its not an urgent problem there usually isn't really funding to do much.

                              [–]SchrodingersHairball 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              I wish that urgency could be measured in future decades. Preventative measures such as planting to prevent slope erosion may have more than one positive outcome for the Southern California area. Solar absorption, o2 production/carbon filtering , humidity and airflow stabilization could be a few.

                              [–]doesntgeddit 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              And not just a lack of funding. It's easy to figure the costs of constructing new facilities and systems. What's not easy is figuring the costs of litigation that will arise from environmental lawsuits.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                  [–]camazoa 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Natives are more likely to take care of themselves and deal with droughts better, no to mention the unforeseen consequences of introducing exotics

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                                      [–]PianoplunksterGrad Student| Atmospheric Science 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                      Eh.... I guess Rossby waves could be a part of it. There's a couple of big factors at play, the sea ice extent and sea surface temperatures, both of which will affect the pole to equator temperature gradient. The reduction in the gradient would reduce wave propagation, which would certainly lead to an increase in extreme weather. (judging by your username I assume that you're at least moderately familiar with what I'm talking about 😉)

                                      I'm more interested in the changes between the models, though. What parameterizations changed in between the new and old intercomparisons? (I will maybe edit this after I've actually read the papers).

                                      EDIT for some additional comments:

                                      This part seems to be the most relevant:

                                      ...models simulate robust changes in the mean circulation reminiscent of an El Niño teleconnection. This includes weakening of the Walker circulation, a poleward propagating Rossby wave that originates in the tropical central/eastern Pacific, a southeastward shift of the upper level winds and an increase in storm track activity in the east Pacific, and an increase in CA moisture convergence.

                                      The Walker circulation bit is tied to warmer SSTs, which are generally seen during the warm phase of ENSO and would explain the increase in precipitation. I wonder in the increased storm track activity in the east Pacific is also associated with that.

                                      [–]1493186748683 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                      California was wetter and warmer in the Pliocene, and even wetter in the Miocene. There actually used to be broadleaf evergreen forests where now there's chaparral

                                      I imagine the difference is SST off the west coast, that is implicated in Pliocene/Miocene warmer/wetter climates in California.

                                      Role of warmer SSTs in an intensified summertime Rocky Mountain Monsoon is mentioned here and here (pdf warning on the second); see also Haug et al. 2005 (pdf warning) for more on the role warmer SST would have played in increased precipitation (in this case, precipitation in the winter, and it is suggested to have triggered the Pleistocene glaciations, but same idea)

                                      edit: The Haug et al. paper is kind of subtle and confusing, so I'll offer some additional summary. Basically, salinity and cold both work to increase the density of water, but once you near freezing, temperature ceases to be an important factor in seawater density. The Haug et al. paper suggests that a cooling of the deep ocean (due to processes happening in places other than the subarctic Pacific) at leading up to 2.7 million years ago increased the stability of the Subarctic Pacific surface ocean water column, due to the preexisting salinity gradient. Before 2.7 mya, this surface water column was fresher than the deep, but by cooling in winter it could become dense enough to mix down below the photic zone in winter. By 2.7 mya, the deep ocean had cooled enough so that this could no longer happen- the preexisting salinity gradient prevented this mixing.

                                      This had the effect of actually dramatically reducing the productivity of the Subarctic, due to decreased nutrient input (less deepwater mixing into the surface).

                                      It also meant that the surface ocean would stay warmer longer into the winter, because it could no longer get cool enough to mix with the deep ocean. This meant a greater winter supply of snow to North America. Conversely, it would stay cool later in the spring, because again it would no longer have the deep ocean to mix with it and buffer the extreme cold air temps. Cooler springs meant winter snows stayed later in the year. More snow that melts less means the conditions are ripe for glaciation, when the next orbital variation reduces summer insolation in the northern hemisphere.

                                      Bottom line, a cooling of the deep ocean resulted in warmer SSTs later in the year, increasing snow in North America. They would have the same effect now, although whether or not it triggers glaciation depends on the other forcings that would have to work in favor of glaciation(i.e.,a Milankovitch orbital forcing or a low CO2 forcing), which currently there is not (in fact it's the opposite).

                                      Feedback/discussion welcome..

                                      edit2: hopefully made it a bit clearer!

                                      [–]PianoplunksterGrad Student| Atmospheric Science 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      Oh, wow! Thanks for the links, those were fascinating! I have barely dipped my toes into paleoclimatology (except for when I tell people that California's had megadroughts in the past and could theoretically experience one again in the future), so this wasn't something that I was aware of.

                                      Is this potentially something that could happen again in the future, given the melting of the polar ice caps? After all, I'd assume that the melt, being colder and denser, would sink into the deep ocean and create that same sort of stabilization of the ocean layers...

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                            [–]squidbillie 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                            Wasn't that also the projection before the changes eventually, at least partially, blamed on the forming of the ridiculously resilient ridge? Is the noted jet stream now predicted to move south partially the same as it was blamed for blocking?

                                            [–]Waramaug 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. it was always that way.

                                            -- john Steinbeck

                                            [–]Laughterjones 37 ポイント38 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            Almost as if the climate is hard to predict. I wonder what other models will change.

                                            [–]strug_breakfast 88 ポイント89 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                            Annnnnd this will be as wrong as the earlier predictions. Can we just admit we have no idea how its gonna play out?

                                            [–]Rivka333 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            I haven't read the full paper, but the abstract basically does admit that.

                                            Future California (CA) precipitation projections, including those from the most recent Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), remain uncertain. This uncertainty is related to several factors, including relatively large internal climate variability, model shortcomings, and because CA lies within a transition zone, where mid-latitude regions are expected to become wetter and subtropical regions drier. Here, we use a multitude of models to show CA may receive more precipitation in the future under a business-as-usual scenario.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                              [–]drewiepoodle[S] 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              Link to abstract:- El Niño-like teleconnection increases California precipitation in response to warming

                                              [–]superseriousbusiness 531 ポイント532 ポイント  (172子コメント)

                                              Somewhat disturbing that there is this much margin of error in climate science.

                                              [–]cerbero17alt 152 ポイント153 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                              As the age old saying with models goes: "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

                                              [–]deusset 271 ポイント272 ポイント  (36子コメント)

                                              Precipitation is a lot more difficult to project compared to average global temperatures, if that's what you're conflating.

                                              [–]Sinai 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              Well, average global precipitation is pretty easy to predict too, although it's probably a fair statement to say it's somewhat more difficult to accurately predict than average global temperatures.

                                              It is, however, also somewhat more difficult to predict local precipitation than local temperatures.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (35 返事)

                                                [–]aClimateScientistGrad Student | Ocean Circulation and Climate Modelling 68 ポイント69 ポイント  (27子コメント)

                                                Climate scientists have made a lot of progress in the 7 years between the two sets of models. Also, California is a very small area -- climate scientists are still very wary of their projections of 21st century trends over such small regions (especially for precipitation, which is particularly tricky).

                                                [–]sply1 54 ポイント55 ポイント  (23子コメント)

                                                progress in the 7 years between the two sets of models

                                                Might we 'progress' enough in the next 7 to make this prediction obsolete?

                                                [–]aClimateScientistGrad Student | Ocean Circulation and Climate Modelling 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                I wouldn't put too much stock in this one prediction (or the one it's contradicting) because they are just one paper looking at one single region. At least the projection is based on a physical mechanism and it seems like they now have faith that the mechanism is working (at least in some of the models) which means that it should be a robust result.

                                                [–]TyphoonOne 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                This is the abstract of the paper:

                                                Future California (CA) precipitation projections, including those from the most recent Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), remain uncertain. This uncertainty is related to several factors, including relatively large internal climate variability, model shortcomings, and because CA lies within a transition zone, where mid-latitude regions are expected to become wetter and subtropical regions drier. Here, we use a multitude of models to show CA may receive more precipitation in the future under a business-as-usual scenario.

                                                No, because this isn't really that kind of prediction. This paper, like almost all in any scientific field, is simply showing the results from a specific model, and saying that they've found an increased (read: non-random) likelihood of a previously unstudied effect playing more of a role they thought.

                                                There seems to be very little consensus in modern climate science on regional and sub-regional predictions, because only recently has the field begun to be able to model the climate on such small scales with any accuracy. When you say that research would make this prediction "obsolete," you're kind of implying that this prediction is the current opinion of the entire field, who will subsequently be proved wrong. It dosen't work that way – this is the result of one lab which ran one multi-study analysis. Another lab may have a different conclusion based on another analysis, and only with time will we begin to see a consensus form on what the most probable scientific truth is. This is how all of science works.

                                                [–]JoeLiar 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                Yes. Obsolete meaning that more data and more precision will be available. We should expect a more detailed prediction.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                    [–]nickab956 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                    Smaller area predictions is different than global average predictions

                                                    [–]effyochicken 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                    Also, does more rain definitively mean cooler average temperatures? Or just Wilder/bigger storms dropping more liquid during certain months of the year..

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (85 返事)

                                                        [–]burtonmadness 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                        A serious answered buried lower down.

                                                        Does that mean glaciers for some higher NorCal regions like mammoth and Shasta?

                                                        [–]AyclimateProfessor of Climate Change 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        Although more precipitation is expected in NorCal, the Sierras in that region aren't quite high enough to be insulated against the kind of warming that'll turn the snow to rain.

                                                        https://mavensnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Pages-from-Panel1-2-Cayan_Page_07.jpg

                                                        [–]DrEnter 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                                        Since California seems to be as flammable as a kerosene heater propped-up on boxes of oily rags, this seems like a good thing.

                                                        [–]Xenphenik 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                        Gee, who could have seen this coming?

                                                        [–]tibburtz 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                        Older models have predicted this, and I would know since the 20+ page term paper I wrote now needs to be changed accordingly for the new models.. well that's why we love science I suppose, always changing!

                                                        [–]Pap_down 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                                        Can someone please explain to me how global warming is to blame for this?

                                                        [–]Kuhnaydeein 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                        "...contrary to the predictions of previous climate models."

                                                        So climate change science is the only science that gets to guess what happens?

                                                        Yes and no: It's nothing to be ashamed or suspicious of. The weather is determined by a billion little factors, and those factors change for no good reason all the time. So guessing, based on previous cases and weather behavior is to be expected.

                                                        But trying to prove a point with new predictions, when the old ones being wrong were the point of the article… All to push a political agenda? You seem to be chasing your own tail.

                                                        [–]gigozira 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        So can we expect changes in vegetation in that vicinity?

                                                        [–]jimmyappendix 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        Changes in precipitation are very difficult to predict. As the climate warms up, the average precipitation of the whole world rises because of increased evaporation. However much of this extra precipitation might just fall straight back to the oceans and other already wet/humid areas. Then again some areas like East Africa (and California) might get some needed extra rain.

                                                        [–]Chxo 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        Environmental science isn't my area of expertise, but I swear when I was taking classes years ago I read about warmer temperatures increasing precipitation in California. Maybe it was just a minority view at the time but it makes sense with stronger storms, more ocean evaporation, warmer air holding more moisture.

                                                        [–]Yearne 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                        Honestly I feel like there's been credible, peer reviewed research in every direction of climate science. At this point it just seems like there's nothing to really believe anymore because it all might as well be pure speculation.

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (564 返事)