California drought

Cyclo, we must talk. Slowly growing trees can be found in any biome (I suppose), but the medians reveal that tropical trees grow fast, die fast and decay fast. Boreal trees, the opposite in all ways. I am ALL OVER this data.

Bob, individual species that got whacked (Chestnut, Elm, etc.) are no problem to exclude from dendrochronology. Them guys ain't dumb. It appears however that older dendro is not a steaming pile of you know what, because of its concordance with stable isotope ratios in speleotherms and sediments. And pollen community analyses, etc.

I agree that instrumental records have ended our reliance on such indirect measures, but we'd still better try to understand why trees are 'diverging' because trees dominate terrestrial ecosystems. Along with food crops of course.

While having no desire to stop collecting MSU AMSU satellite 'temperatures', I stress again that they are looking at a -40 oC 'layer' on high. That is not where the human enterprise is conducted.

 

Perhaps a little over the top, I was trying to point out there are more variables and risks in the biological based, paleo-records. Just I was amused that the "climategate" issue of divergence was cited as the definitive proof of past droughts. Had there been additional proxies in the justification, the chart would not seem like a 'one trick pony.'

I am happy that with modern DNA technologies some of these questions may be figured out. More importantly, GMO may lead to food-stuffs that will survive the future climate. Perhaps even the next intelligent species:


Bob Wilson

 

I remember seeing an article several years ago, on carbon dating of Amazon rainforest. Amazon produces some of the finest wood used in music instrument building, but it is really hard to date as due to constant conditions trees do not produce rings when they grow. The shocking part was that trees about 20cm thick turned out to be several hundred years old. They speculated this to be a result of poor soils and constant cloud cover blocking sunlight. You can probably find the original study online, but there are many references to this all over the place.

Now not sure what is influencing tree growth divergence since 1960s, perhaps there are some other things at work

 

In any forest type, a wide range of growth rates can be found. Slow in the tropics gets peoples' attention because it seems counter intuitive. It's not though, there is just always a wide range.

'Proving' something (anything) by referring to extreme values within a distribution is not a profitable enterprise. Only works if your audience comes from the lower end of their distributions, if you get my point.

What is perplexing about tree-growth divergence is that the dendro people find slowdown, but forest dynamics people find increasing tree growth rates. We have +CO2 everywhere and hot/dry in some areas. I suppose it must matter where we look, and would be bad if somebody finds a 'pattern' based on inadequate sampling.

 

Well the spruce coming from bavarian forest has narrower rings than the one harvested in north corolina. Not as much due to differences in species, but more so due to different practices. Germans plant trees closer to each other, which results in slower growth rates, denser wood, straighter trees with less knots. And the harvesting interval twice longer, but the wood is stronger and better quality. Amount of wood produces per square / by time is about the same.

Similar conifers on west coast grow alot taller than their dwarf counterparts from east coast. Is it b/c of lack surface moisture? lack of competition? genetic differences? amount of sunlight? What if you take say Douglas fir and plant it on east coast? is it going to grow as tall?

It is interesting to see a study which looked if climatic changes can change ecosystems enough to produce similar results in forest density/growth rates. I would suspect no paleo studies actually looked at and take into consideration this aspect, so the calibration may be off here and there.

 

Here is the thing, not all of the tree ring data can be reconstructed or follow normal logic. Or can reflect short term changes.

From archeological point of view we know that inhabitants of Mesa Verde lived in surface dwellings for generations, then they moved to cliff dwellings which btw do not have the same structure as normal surface dwellings and do not look like had been all year around. Then just 30 years later they spent several years to build the sun temple, and then they abandoned the site.

There will be no tree records from that period, as mesa had been cleared or burned from natural causes many times over.

Building sun temple and then abandoning the site could be explained by drought, but why did they moved from surface dwellings to cliffs? and why the cliff dwellings look like winter quarters? Too much space dedicated to storage, big rooms designed to be heated, etc? and really hard to get in/out since there is no evidence of natives using ropes.

Of cause if you apply conventional logic you could speculate that prior to onset of megadrought there was a short wet period with abundance of deep winter snow, which made the surface dwellings unusable in winter. From what archeologist can say they might have been used in summer, after the move to cliff dwelling had happened.

Tree ring data tell good story, but they in many cases can't tell the whole story. You cannot dissect what pressure was when, which way wind was blowing and many things which you get with direct measurements.

During it's relatively resent history, Yellowstone lake had drained to Pacific, Atlantic and presently to Gulf of Mexico. The longest river in the world Nile is about 80,000 old. It was created out of 5 different basins, captured by Nile. The level of lake Mono was going down since 2nd half of 19th century, during "wet" period. Earthquakes are not uncommon and can alter water flow.

The tree stumps alone body of water indicate the water level, but not necessarily why the level was lower/higher. Wild fires wiped out whole area periodically leaving no tree records. Short term flood during otherwise dry period can destroy trees. And in case of moisture where does it come from? Pacific or Gulf of Mexico? north from Arctic?

Is there any evidence high pressure ridge over Pacific to leave behind?

Asking questions does not automatically equals to doubting. Just b/c you wanna know how it happens not necessarily means you doubt it happened - just saying.

 

The claim today's drought or weather "is natural" suggests a desire to ignore modern instruments and methods. Carried to an extreme are folks who claim all history is in Genesis (or some other 'holy text') and nothing more is needed. In reality, today we are writing the update to Genesis and paleo-records with facts and data not previously available.

Bob Wilson

 

You're making my point that this fascination with 'it is natural' means we can ignore modern facts and data. Let me give a simple example:

• June 1, 2015
• June 1, 1140

Can we find:

Source: Climate South Lake Tahoe - California and Weather averages South Lake Tahoe

• June 1, 2015
• 61.6 F / 38.4 F - high/low temperature
• 0.08 in precep.
• 30.83 in for year
• 0.2 in snow
• 277.91 in show for year

So what were the equivalent values June 1, 1140?

We have modern systems providing such obscure pieces of data not only locally at the weather observation stations but also over regions and even world wide. It means we can look at the detailed mechanisms. In contrast, the "it is natural" might as well cite Genesis and Noah's flood for all of the insight "is is natural" gives us.

I appreciate the paleo-records for what they can provide but the precise details, facts and data about why the climate was that way ~900 years ago is too often missing. "Natural" is not enough.

Bob Wilson

 

austin, this getting twisted in wrong way. Or you making baseless assumption that I am denying the existence of mega-droughts. This is definitely not the case.

What I am trying to get is the answers to how and why they happened, and what is the relation of these to other well known weather patterns, such as NAO, el Nino, Gulfstream slowdown, arctic ice conditions, Sahara conditions, etc.

Without this information on tree rings and droughts in the west is a wonderful quote, taken out of context. We may know "what" "where" and "when", but we do not know "who", "how" and "why". So in essence we only know half truth.

 

Here is the thing the GHG were steadily rising for last 150 years. The CO2 data had been collected since 1950s. If droughts had happened once a century, there aren't enough data to find correlation. You will need a few hundred years, perhaps millennia to draw the conclusion.

 

Must see link if you are interested in the truth about Ca drought.
In 1976 drought ,Ca weather and ocean patterns were identical.
The Symptoms Of Global Warming And Global Cooling Are Identical | Real Science

 

Why is this interesting?
Because in 1976 the California drought pattern could not have been caused by Arctic warming or lack of sea ice.

 

In August 1964 a Thor-Agena rocket put NIMBUS I into a sun synchronous orbit. A weather satellite, it was a non-spy satellite, one of the earliest earth observatories. Lessons learned led to better and better satellite systems including the Landsat series. In 1979 I switched from military to Landsat-D and later, Landsat-E. Satellite observations continue to today with orders of magnitude, greater resolution and coverage. For example, 15 years ago:


Now 15 years later:


In 1964, I was the geek kid with the slide rule who knew how to use it. One of my algebra teachers ask me not to use it on a test because I was solving quadratic equations . . . rapidly. Even today, I remain amazed how much is paid to play with computers. As for making math models, For fun, I once wrote a craps simulator to test betting strategies including a more advanced, random number generator. But today's models include CGI:


I knew about run-away CO{2} from the 1960s Venus probes. The planet is sterilized by the CO{2} induced heating. So it was easy to understand that fossil are heating our planet in two ways. Directly when burned and indirectly when the CO{2} gives us the 'Venus treatment.'


So I'm sorry, we are talking apples and oranges:

You have "jumped to a conclusion" that nothing has changed and needs no further study than your statistical analysis. I'm OK with that as much as I'm amused by 'liar-lar' mojo contributions. But we're really headed in different directions. I prefer modern observations and methods.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob what will it take to realize that you are brainwashed?
If the 2015 Arctic Passage isnt ice free as you predicted will you admit that you are wrong?

 

Source: Northern Sea Route Transit Applications Hit Record High in 2014 - gCaptain

The Northern Sea Route of the Northeast Passage saw a record number of applications for permits to sail the famed arctic route in 2014, while sea ice extent prevented the Northwest Passage from opening up for the first time in five years, according to new data from Weathernews Inc.’s Global Ice Center.

In their annual 2014 report, Weathernews notes that this year the Northeast Passage fully opened in late August and stayed open for six weeks until closing October 1. Russia’s Northern Sea Route Administration (NSRA) received over six hundred applications for permission to transit the Northeastern passage – or part of it – this year, the most on record, according to the report.
. . .​

Source: NSR - Ice Concentration | Northern Sea Route Information Office

• Northwest passage looks to be more and more passible.

We'll see the shipping numbers in December.

Bob Wilson

 

So if the shipping numbers are lower this year you will admit that you have been wrong ?

 

That isn't the way I'm reading it.

By insisting that it must be AGW, one throws away a lot of cooperation from folks with different viewpoints, similar to what happens here: To Increase Disaster Aid, Do Not Mention Global Warming

I'm seeing plenty of evidence that what is happening in CA now is well within the historic natural variation. CA's biggest water problem isn't the drought itself, but very poor management of the available resources. With better water management and allocation, to a level already practiced in some other dry regions and even now within portions of CA itself, they could get by quite well even with a permanent megadrought.

But this will require cooperation from a lot more people, including plenty of folks who also see this resource mismanagement but have conflicting views on AGW and other topics. There is a lot of common ground to cooperate on some serious matters. But holding a prerequisite that others most convert of views congruent to yours, is a very quick way to greatly shrink the cooperating audience.