April 21st 2009
Hysterical Models
N
o, this isn’t a post about skinny girls so strung out on horse that they’re just not able to take one more photo shoot. It’s about climate change and computer models. Oh, and sell your shares in that Lake Meade houseboat rental business.
If the West continues to heat up and dry out, odds increase that the mighty Colorado River won’t be able to deliver all the water that’s been promised to millions who rely on it for their homes, farms and businesses, according to a new study.
Less runoff the snow and rain that fortify the 1,400-mile river caused by human-induced climate change could mean that by 2050 the Colorado won’t be able to provide all of its allocated water 60 percent to 90 percent of the time, according to two climate researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego.
The more parched the landscape, the more difficult the choices will be for those with dibs on the Colorado’s water and those in charge of divvying it up, said Tim Barnett, lead author of the study.
”The dry year scenarios in the future are going to be absolutely brutal,” he said.
Barnett and fellow Scripps scientist David Pierce made waves last year with a study saying there’s a 50 percent chance that Lake Mead, the reservoir created by the Hoover Dam, could run dry by 2021. (source)
The results were mistakenly published in a scientific journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The Colorado is a major water source for Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, so we obviously need to plan based on something. We also need to realize that the computer models favored by the Warmies did not predict the current cooling spell.
So let’s open up the science to all possibilities, run all sorts of models, admit errors in the models that fail, and see what we come up with. And here’s an idea: Let’s trying running the models backwards and see what sort of actual and prolonged weather events they miss. But, please, let’s not do this, from the same article:
Meanwhile, researchers will continue gathering information on climate change and looking for ways to keep the Colorado functioning albeit with a new set of climate-driven rules.
There are no climate-driven rules. There is just climate-driven speculation. Oh, wait. I do have one climate-driven rule: Build more water conveyance and water storage infrastructure. Whether it gets hotter or colder, we’re going to need it because our population is growing.
Of course, most Warmies, being Greenies, are earnestly seeking rules to make that impossible.
Posted in Global warming | 7 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
April 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I love your website and have it linked to my blog.This is a great article. It’s amazing how they keep shifting their computer models to adjust for what’s actually happening in real life. I personally think this cold cycle is going to continue for quite some time, and consequently heap additional embarrassment on the ‘climate change’ group more and more each year. I hope they have a good supply of preparation H so they can endure all the squirming they will be doing.By the way, that picture is stunning. I live in Utah and have been to many of the canyons carved by the Colorado River, including the Grand Canyon. The scenery is beautiful and breathtaking. The picture with this article is just amazing to look at.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 am
Politicization of the science of global warming goes both ways. Skeptics cannot continue to merely question the methods of the conclusions of alarmists.
There’s nothing wrong with continually updating and revising climate models so they better match climate observations. In fact, it’s an essential part of the scientific process.
More research of climate change is needed, especially research into the causes of climate change. And yes, we have to throw more dough at the alarmists that study the effects of climate change, too. Collectively, they may be wrong about the causes of global warming, but good government requires proper planning for climate change. We need to know what will happen to our population centers, to our water supplies and our food growing regions as the climate changes. It’s the only way we can properly plan and adapt to avoid the harmful effects of climate change and capture those that are beneficial.
Many look at “stopping global warming” as a panacea for all Earth’s ills. Conservatives need to recognize that fact when they discuss AGW.
I don’t believe that efforts to stop global warming will do anything to make the air cleaner, potable water more plentiful, alternative energy more affordable or energy independence achievable. But what do AGW skeptics offer to achieve those goals? Nothing! Until we argue that a conservative approach will achieve those goals with far less money and far less government intervention than, say, can-and-enslave, we aren’t addressing the issues that concern most that want to fight climate change.
So, on this Earth Day, let’s not ridicule those want the best for our planet just because they also want to confront global warming or climate change. Let’s be good conservatives and demonstrate how conservative principles can save our planet. We’ve got so much more to offer than simply saying “I don’t believe in AGW.”
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:13 am
I’m not sure they want the best for our planet, Frank, because as you acknowledge in your first line, AGW and even GW have been politicized. That means AGW activists want what they think is best for the planet politically, at least to some extent. And isn’t it convenient that the things they think would be best for the planet have been political targets for the eco-econ-left for ages: big corporations, big utilities, industrialization.
This particular critic of AGW does offer an alternative, and it was expressed in my piece:
1. Open up the science and stop shutting out the skeptics. Fund both sides equally.
2. Build infrastructure designed to handle the negative effects of global warming, should they occur. It is wiser to be prepared for the ongoing rise of the oceans, which has been going on for 20,000 years, than to think we can stop it.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:13 am
Thanks, Rees. I have an RSS feed from your site, so it’s a mutual admiration society.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Laer,
I don’t think we’re that far apart in our views on this matter. But.
Opening up the science is all good and well, but it doesn’t make sense that we should fund skeptics and alarmists alike. That isn’t the dividing line. Rather, the dividing line should be cause and effect. There has been plenty of research into the effects of climate change, but very little into its causes. Those “effects” researchers have learned they can make a pretty good living by becoming AGW alarmists. Skeptics should demand more funding for research into the causes of global warming. There is no better way to stifle the more absurd claims regarding causes made by those researching the effects of climate change.
As for building infrastructure designed to handle the effects of climate change, that is somewhat better than attempting to stop unstoppable climate change. But it too is a waste of time (and resources) if the change we anticipate doesn’t occur. How would you feel about shoreline protective devices up and down the California coast if sea levels actually started dropping as a result of global cooling?
So we still have fiscal, social and environmental conservatives without a political home. One way conservatives can provide a political home for these individuals is to acknowledge that there are many good things we can and should do for our environment that are far less costly, more effective and less intrusive into our daily lives than and porposal to stop climate change.
We don’t have to concede the environmental issue to the liberals. We can promote specific measures based on conservative principles to improve air and water quality, or develop alternative energy sources to achieve energy independence.
What won’t work politically is to continue opposing the liberals on environmental issues on their terms.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Your statement on what to fund is much better than mine – thanks for the clarity. I also agree with your closing paragraphs. We can start by stopping over-regulation in general, which can be done by recognizing the progress that’s been made to date by environmental regulation (and environmentalists), and recognizing that we have entered an era in the US of diminishing returns. And, it would be nice to stop cross-purposed regulation like the sand/water quality/beach conundrum.
But when you have regional water quality control boards doing things like declaring rain to be toxic the instant it hits the ground, there just is no reasonable way to solve water quality problems, costs go through the roof, and simpler, less expensive, regional solutions become illegal.
As for infrastructure, I wouldn’t start with shoreline protection – the ocean has been risisng consistently at about a half-inch a year and isn’t speeding up. Instead, I’d look at the Delta levees, more reservoirs so we can retain water from wet years, more canals to move water, and help to third world nations that have dismal flood control and water systems. All of these facilities are needed whether global warming changes weather or not.
I was sorry to read on your blog that you were happy the Gualala Festival Committee lost the first round of its lawsuit against the Coastal Commission. If we allow government to regulate in order to protect unlisted species that are not at risk, we venture into disaster. Ditto for allowing them to declare something as temporary as a fire works show “development.”
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
Laer,
You paint with too broad a brush when it comes to environmental laws. I’m happy to discuss specific issues, but to identify a single instance of excessive regulation and use that to characterize all environmental laws as “over regulation” is a real stretch.
That’s the problem with conservatism in California and across the country these days. They’re unwilling to address details in gray areas and prefer instead a one-size fits all approach when it comes to environmentalism. With an 1,100 mile long coastline comprised of numerous unique local coastal environments it is impossible to use such a regulatory approach in California. Unless you want to see the entire coast overdeveloped as it is in SoCal. B^]
The Gualala Fireworks. Members of the GFC seem to enjoy the fight over the fireworks more than the fireworks themselves. I know you had an opportunity to meet a few of its members. It’s too bad you didn’t take the opportunity to meet a few of those opposed to the fireworks. Had you done so I believe your take on the issue would be entirely different.
The Mendocino County Superior Court held that fireworks displays are “development” as defined under the Coastal, and that the Coastal Commission has the authority to regulate fireworks within the Coastal Zone, and that the Coastal Commission has the authority to regulate one-time events.
I don’t think the PLF will be able to “bust” the definition of development as used by the Coastal Commission because that definition is spelled out clearly in the Coastal Act. That’s why I think an appeal is a waste of time and why I think the PLF is misleading the GFC.
That’s why I challenge the GFC to put on their thinking caps and develop a celebration that would be both spectacular and unique to Gualala in way that can’t be duplicated elsewhere along the CA coast.
Hint: It involves water, lights, kayaks and high-head high-volume pumps. And an air bubble screen similar to what’s used to protect little fishies during pile driving for bridge building.
Seeds are being planted and I hope they’ll grow. There’s nothing like watching someone take it on the chin, dust themselves off, then go at it again in a more spectacular way.
I’m still hoping for the GFC to do that latter part.