Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The latest drought monitor released by the National Climatic Data Center this week shows that the entire state is under moderate drought conditions, but within that map, 76.6% of the state is experiencing extreme drought conditions, and for 24.7% of the state, the level of dryness is "exceptional."
What difference does it make whether you call it Global Warming or Climate Change? Weather is taking charge of things and, in spite of all the rhetoric, there doesn't seem a whole lot that we Humans can do to stop it in the short run.
It seems that the rain was delayed this year for Seattle. 2013 was the first time in recorded history that Seattle's wettest month of the year was September. This was the result of Oct-Dec being very dry by Seattle standards. Oct to Jan is normally the wettest stretch of the year, but the huge ridge delayed the inevitable. Now the wicked ridge is dead, they are getting their share of rain.
What difference does it make whether you call it Global Warming, Global Cooling or Climate Change?
Fixed/Added your comment...
Just wanted to comment on the comment... But back to topic, Sounds like Seattle got wet after the flow changed. Remember we were posting all about the split flow from the Pacific? Or maybe it was the ridge which broke down a little and the storms were moving along top of it.
What difference does it make whether you call it Global Warming or Climate Change? Weather is taking charge of things and, in spite of all the rhetoric, there doesn't seem a whole lot that we Humans can do to stop it in the short run.
Its cycles that have always occurred. they say pacific deep water temperatures indicate this just as they did in the late 90's. A far as man made global warming they will claim anything they can get research grants on;so not very believable.
Its cycles that have always occurred. they say pacific deep water temperatures indicate this just as they did in the late 90's. A far as man made global warming they will claim anything they can get research grants on;so not very believable.
You are two months behind. It has now been 17 years and 8 months with no warming.
You're cherrypicking a starting point to get a result. That's terrible statistics. If you used a different starting point (or a different data set) your result would be different:
You're cherrypicking a starting point to get a result. That's terrible statistics. If you used a different starting point (or a different data set) your result would be different:
I am most definitely not cherry picking. I am merely making the longest plot into the past that does not give a positive number. That's not cherry picking; it's creating a statistic. 17 years and 8 months is too short a time to draw conclusions, in my opinion.
You are two months behind. It has now been 17 years and 8 months with no warming.
Nonsense. (to be polite, always difficult with deniers).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
