Interesting to see this thread.
I'm setting in the middle of a drought in the US state of NC. I was just going to ask if this could be a new pattern. There was a similar drought in 1933, or at least it will be similar if this one does not break till early next spring. If we have thrown a switch in the climate, a switch in ocean patterns I guess, then it does not matter if we had a drought before in 1933. Its kind of like when you have a flakey light bulb that goes out but comes back on if you move it a little. Then one day it goes off a stays off. The claim that we have gone from a flakey state to a more permanent bad state can't be refuted with a historical observation. Or, it takes more observations. Anyway, is there any reason to believe that North Carolina and the South in general is going to stay arid? On Sep 10, 8:55 pm, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is another "No SUVs on Mars" herring. Just because A is a claimed > cause of B does not mean all incidents of B are claimed to be due to > A. > > Anyway... > > I don't think increased incidence of drought is considered a reliable > prediction by IPCC. It happens I was just reading the USGCRP 2000 > report on climate impacts on water resources. > > Peter Gleick (owner of globalchange.com, by the way) is the lead > author. "Water: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and > Change for the Water Resources of the United States" > > Here's what that report said then: > > "Research results suggest that drought frequencies in some areas are > likely to change. ... Models predict that the frequency and severity > of droughts in some areas could increase as a result of regional > decreases in total rainfall, more frequent dry spells, and higher > evaporation. Models suggest with equal confidence that the frequency > and severity of some regions would decrease as a result of regional > increases in total rainfall and less frequent dry spells." > > Even if this becomes a more sturdy prediction, saying there have been > droughts in the past is completely beside the point. > > mt > > PS: Fergus, it's time you learned abouthttp://tinyurl.com > > On 9/10/07, Fergus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > No droughts? What about this?: > >http://drought.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/drought.html?map=%2Fwww%2Fdrought%2Fweb... > > sorry, that a hell of a line; look up 'global drought monitor'. > > > On 10 Sep, 21:50, Tony Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My question is this: Is the relative lack of droughts an indication > > > that the models are flawed? How to explain this dip in frequency?- Hide > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
