California Drought Natural?

[seer]

No, my background is most certainly not equal to his. Mann is one of the leading authorities on reconstructing the Earth's climate on the century-to-millenium scale.

As a result his understanding of the climate, he has concluded that the human addition of greenhouse gasses has driven climate change that is exceptional within the last 2,000 years (i.e., there are no other events like the present warming in the geological record). He accepts the view of mainstream science, namely that the warming will continue, and cause increasing damage over the coming century.

Do you accept Mann's conclusions due to his expertise in this area?

No, backup. If this bio of Mann is correct then back to my question - on what basis should I consider him wrong and you right on this NOAA issue?

[TheLurch]

No, backup. If this bio of Mann is correct then back to my question - on what basis should I consider him wrong and you right on this NOAA issue?

On my explanation of the differences i see among the relevant studies, and your ability to understand those differences. Since by your own admission you can't, then you have no reason to accept my conclusions over his.

Now, answer my question, please. Because if you refuse to trust any of Mann's other conclusions, you have no reason to accept his in this case.

[seer]

On my explanation of the differences i see among the relevant studies, and your ability to understand those differences. Since by your own admission you can't, then you have no reason to accept my conclusions over his.

Now, answer my question, please. Because if you refuse to trust any of Mann's other conclusions, you have no reason to accept his in this case.

Lurch, you again seem to be missing my point. I asked a while back - who does the layman believe? You have studies (three recent ones according to Mann) that do in fact deny that AGW had any influence on the California drought. And you have studies (one that I linked and others Mann referenced) that do in fact link AGW to the drought. Given this obvious dispute I'm not compelled to believe any side, as a matter of fact, I don't think any one has a good enough grasp on the subject to make any certain claims.

[shunyadragon]

No, backup. If this bio of Mann is correct then back to my question - on what basis should I consider him wrong and you right on this NOAA issue?

Lack of academic references to support his position with long term climate data.

[shunyadragon]

Are you daft? The American Meteorological Society study is quite comprehensive.

Where is the long term paleoclimate climate data to support their conclusions?

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/F...ull_Report.pdf

I agree with the data they cite around the world describing the human influence of human activities on the global climate. They go all over the world to cite evidence of global warming, ok good data, and by the way seer this worldwide data goes along way to justify the human influence causes global climate change. Do you agree with this extensive data justifying this? But that is not California nor the southwest USA. They focus too much on the only one extreme record nature of the 2013-14 drought. We need more data. They did not cite the long term data I referenced that showed a natural long term drying trend that I referenced. This may be evidence of human influence if we have more data and more years reflecting this trend and correlate this with the paleoclimate data trends.

The fact that they disagree between individual research projects and their conclusions is not unusual in science. Over time it happens all the time. My disagreements do not conclude they are wrong. I may be wrong too, but I do cite research to justify my disagreement, and it is not just an 'opinion.'

What is the problem with disagreements in the results between research projects an publications? This is how science advances. In reality this is inspiration for more research projects to resolve the controversies, differences and problems.

[TheLurch]

Lurch, you again seem to be missing my point. I asked a while back - who does the layman believe?

I'd say in the case of the California drought, withholding judgement is perfectly reasonable. The science here seems very unsettled.

But i'd like to make a point as well: if you are going to argue that Mann is an authority on things, and his voice is credible and definitive, you can't pick and choose which scientific conclusions he's reached that you accept.

[seer]

I'd say in the case of the California drought, withholding judgement is perfectly reasonable. The science here seems very unsettled.

Not only unsettled, but at odds.

But i'd like to make a point as well: if you are going to argue that Mann is an authority on things, and his voice is credible and definitive, you can't pick and choose which scientific conclusions he's reached that you accept.

Again, it doesn't matter who I accept or not. The point is that there is a real dispute among the "experts." And I suspect that none of them really understand weather patterns well enough to make such claims.

[shunyadragon]

Not only unsettled, but at odds.



Again, it doesn't matter who I accept or not. The point is that there is a real dispute among the "experts."

This is in reality how science often works, disagreements, controversy and differences is the inspiration for future research. Is this your only reason for this long conflated thread?

And I suspect that none of them really understand weather patterns well enough to make such claims.

. . . I suspect, big deal. What is your qualifications for your suspicions, other then your combative negative opinions toward science?