Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 2:47 pm 
Quote:
As I recall that very good year had snowpack depths that the state of California showed to be 60-40% of normal as you moved south of Mammoth.
Your recollection is inferior. The 2016 to 2017 winter had 200 to 300% at most sierra snotel stations.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 2:54 pm 
Wernt you just arguing that personal memory is better than the scientific record? And here you are, completely wrong, about a significant climate event from a mere year and a half ago. Lol.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 2:54 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
They dont get much precip outside that period.
Do you have any facts to support than opinion? Looking at some California SNOTEL data -- April and May are months that can receive considerable precipitation. -- 15% of annual this year on this site. And small amounts of rain during April/May is likely more significant agriculturally than larger amounts in December. https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/view?intervalType=View+Current+&report=WYGRAPH×eries=Daily&format=plot&interval=WATERYEAR&sitenum=834&wateryear=

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:01 pm 
Randy your graph shows about 80% of the years precip at that spot is expected during the period i posted, and i have no complaints. 20% counts as not much when compared with 80%. A better plot of mine would have been preferred but i was unwilling to devote the effort to it for such a trivial argument.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:03 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
Valid point randy. I looked briefly for a better graph that included the whole year AND was as up to date as possible, and that was the best i found after a brief search. Theres only so much effort (about 45 seconds) that i am willing to devote to finding data for gb that he probably wont understand or pay attention to. That is the wet season in cali so its quite close to yearly totals, but is not perfect. They dont get much precip outside that period.
If I didn't understand your data, how come I corrected you on it. As to the wet season that is not entirely accurate. Northwestern California can still get substantial precipitation into early May but depends on the year. And this year the Owens Valley and extreme Southern California has been kept out of drought thus far because a very active SAM nosed into California for a good part of the summer. You can look up Howard Sheckter who is a very good blogger on Sierra Nevada weather and climate. His previous blogs that summarize this summer's Sierra Weather is still available online. Even Bishop got heavy rains at least a couple of times this summer. Granted this is not normal although summer thunderstorms in the Sierra are not unusual.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:06 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
Theres only so much effort (about 45 seconds) that i am willing to devote to finding data
Not exactly a convincing argument. I found something than used annual precip for the last 107 years without too much effort, it seems to show a trend.
https://www.ntotank.com/blog/annual-rainfall-trends

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:11 pm 
That ends in 2007.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:17 pm 
Up to 45 seconds yet? biggrin.gif

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:18 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
That ends in 2007.
Sure -- so it doesn't include the recent dought -- but we are talking about long term climate change. How about you spend more than 45 seconds searching for 12 month long term precipitation data to support your position.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:21 pm 
Oh i have. You can find any number of california precip datasets that show no significant change over the years that i have previously posted in the dozens of prior pages. 45 seconds is what repeat graphs rate.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:22 pm 
Also your graph looks nothing like the other composite cali graphs. Hmmmmm.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:22 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
As I recall that very good year had snowpack depths that the state of California showed to be 60-40% of normal as you moved south of Mammoth.
Your recollection is inferior. The 2016 to 2017 winter had 200 to 300% at most sierra snotel stations.
Again you BS by placing the word "most" in your rambling dialog. Snowpacks in the Central to Southern Sierra on this "good" California winter were not good south of Mammoth. The farthest south I skied was Lake Sabrina which is in a wet area. South of that snowpacks were 60% of normal around Rock Creek but decreased to 50% or so in the Palisades and further to around 40% at Whitney. I looked at the data many times. We never skied south of Sabrina but I visited Death Valley for a few days, and as I drove back, my images of Whitney show almost no snow below 9800' and even bare rocks exposed on the NE slope of Thor Peak - there wasn't much snow. The snowline was also very high on average and this would obviously be true west of the Sierra Crest as well. What that means is that the snowpack west of the crest would have melted back very fast as there are not many high peaks to the west. And with the snow goes the water. The Great Divide and Sierra Crests are such higher. Where the snowpack of California was above average was north of Bridgeport, towards Sonora Pass and Tahoe, and north to Lassen and Shasta.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:27 pm 
Thats straight from the horses mouth at ncdc, but its 4 years old so it will confuse gb.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:35 pm 
Gb perhaps you should look at the actual data rather than your faulty memory. Cali, lead by the sierra, was way above normal snowfall during the 2016 to 17 winter. This is indisputable.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Aug 14, 2018 3:42 pm 
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/webmap/#version=80.2&elements=W,R&networks=!&states=!&counties=!&hucs=&minElevation=&maxElevation=&elementSelectType=all&activeOnly=true&activeForecastPointsOnly=false&hucLabels=false&hucParameterLabels=false&stationLabels=&overlays=&hucOverlays=&mode=data&openSections=dataElement,parameter,date,basin,elements,location,networks&controlsOpen=true&popup=&popupMulti=&base=esriNgwm&displayType=station&basinType=6&dataElement=WTEQ¶meter=PCTPORAVG&frequency=DAILY&duration=I&customDuration=&dayPart=E&year=2017&month=3&day=1&monthPart=E&forecastPubMonth=6&forecastPubDay=1&forecastExceedance=50&seqColor=1&divColor=3&scaleType=D&scaleMin=&scaleMax=&referencePeriodType=POR&referenceBegin=1981&referenceEnd=2010&minimumYears=20&hucAssociations=true&lat=38.168&lon=-122.305&zoom=6.5 Here is the actual data. As you can see at the end of the 2016-2017 winter the sierra are way above normal.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum