Friday, January 20, 2017

California's Drought is Over

After a period of intense precipitation, with more on the way, it is clear that California's multi-year drought it over.

Let's begin with the percentage of normal precipitation for the last two months (below).  Nearly the entire state is above normal, with many of the mountain areas receiving 200-400% of normal.
Soil moisture measured by the GRACE satellite?   Above normal (blue colors)!

Streamflow?  Nearly all the state is above normal, with most of it much above normal.
Snowpack in the Sierra?  WAY above normal...nearly 200%

The famous Palmer Drought Index?  Most of the state is well above normal...extremely wet.


California reservoir levels?   Total reservoir storage is above normal....and remember California has multi-year storage capacity (see below)


Strangely enough, the official U.S. drought monitor (see below) suggests that half of the state is still in drought, with nearly quarter of the area in extreme drought.  Does not seem to fit the observations.


This drought monitor has a history of exaggerating drought or not dropping drought fast enough--so the current situation is not unusual.   A few small reservoirs in southern California are still low (like the Cachuma reservoir that supplies Santa Barbara).   And the water table in the Central Valley has been dropping for decades---but that is mainly from the "mining" of ancient water to irrigate the vast and expanded agriculture of the central valley of CA.

So by any reasonable measure (rainfall, snowpack, soil moisture, reservoir level), the CA drought of the past few years is over.  Furthermore, the latest model forecasts suggest ALL of California is going to be hammered with precipitation during the next three days (see 72h total below), with 3-10 inches along the coast and in the Sierra.


In fact, heavy rain has hit the last dry area of the state:  southern CA, resulting in flooding and mudslides.  The map below shows the amounts over the past 48h--some locations received more than 4 inches.


________________________
Want some free weather fun on Sunday?  Go to the American Meteorological Society WeatherFest (see information here and below)



42 comments:

Xeifrank said...

Not even close to over in many SoCal regions. Lake levels are still pathetic.

Ricky Poole said...

Why is all of the moisture going to Cali? Washington has been dry for the most part this month. Not much new snow in the mountains. What is the explanation behind this? Thanks.

DEORTMAN said...

Prof. Mass: It is not helpful to declare a drought over and ignore drought's impacts on groundwater. See:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/01/20/california-rain-welcome-but-not-enough-to-keep-up-with-groundwater-demand/

David E. Ortman
Seattle, WA

sunsnow12 said...

"Washington has been dry for the most part this month."

Seatac as of 1/20/17: Precip actual 4.04"; Precip mtd avg: 3.78" 107% of avg.

Snowpack as of 1/20/17 water equiv (SWE) is +90% or above across the Cascades, 116% in the Olympics

How is that "dry"?

Don Stern said...

It's California's turn.

tipo158 said...

I am not sure SoCal region lake levels are "pathetic" or that the drought isn't even close to being over. SoCal is an arid place. It is hardly a drought because there isn't much water as what people have managed to divert and store there in the past.

Many SoCal reservoirs are looking OK -
http://www.bewaterwise.com/reservoir-water-storage/2.2.4_reservoir_storage.pdf

Not listed on that report is Castaic (85% of average for this date, 70% capacity), Perris (not-so-good, 47% of average, 38% of capacity), Silverwood (couldn't find numbers, just a "good" characterization). Elsinore has been getting water for the first time in years.

Cliff, how do you determine drought in a place where there originally wasn't much water, like SoCal?

Frank Blau said...

I am glad you put in a caveat for Lake Cachuma, but you can't ignore the fact that it is the primary source of water for one of the largest cities in the central CA coast area, and it still only at 9% capacity.

I'm going with "drought not over yet" for Santa Barbara.

Eric Blair said...

I don't wish to sound like a broken record, but if CA had built the additional reservoirs that had been requested back in the 70's, this entire conversation would be moot. Responsible infrastructure planning for population growth takes decades to implement, so that constant carping about groundwater supplies being depleted is the entirely expected result of short - sighted measures. CA needs to reopen the planning for additional water storage immediately, or else these kinds of events will eventually repeat themselves, over and over again. When the first Spanish settlers came to CA the first thing they noticed was how few Indigenous peoples were living there, until they realized that the paucity of fresh water throughout the state dictated the lack of population over such a huge area of land. Almost the entire population of CA since statehood has been determined by artificial water supplies, and it always will be.

Frank Blau said...

Not really over for Santa Barbara.

http://cosb.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/pwd/Water/Cachuma%20Storage%2025%20yrs%201986-2011.pdf

John Marshall said...

I submit that there are at least three different camps in defining a drought.

The first is by rainfall and surface reservoir storage. Let's call this the meteorological drought. It's pretty easy to establish metrics and rain and snow are pretty easy to measure.

The second is drought as defined by planners and utilities people who have to deliver water to consumers indefinitely. Let's call this the policy drought. This group is highly vested in conservation policy as a way to help them deliver water during future droughts. They have good reason to keep people and their water usage habits focused on drought, as it may return. This grup is made up of medium to large cities with millions of customers in CA.

I guess a third group would be those who are dependent on wells, as many rural homesteads, smaller towns and agriculture are. All the rainful and reservoir storage in the world doesn't make a difference to them if their well aquifer is too low or drained. That's a huge issue in the central valley.

I suspect Cliff is mostly looking at this from the meteorological/climatic perspective.

Otherwise, to satisfy all groups, you need refilled aquifers, full reservoirs, good soil moisture and an expectation of more of the same to exit a drought. That might never happen in CA.

tabitha206 said...

There's a certain part of the population which, for whatever reason, get very upset when a problem either improves or ceases to exist. I mean, does anything think for a moment, that most climate change proponents would be GLAD were we to have 10 straight years of below-normal earth temperatures? My goodness, it would be depressing to no end for them.

And that's what makes this whole climate stuff unique. Any news that the threat is not so bad, is not met relief, it's met with outright hostility.

So what was "unhelpful" about Cliff's post?

Well, let's see what other sources have to say.

"The turnaround from a year ago is breathtaking. Shasta Lake, California’s biggest reservoir, near Redding, is at 118 percent of its historic average, up from 50 percent this time last year. And Lake Oroville in Butte County, the second largest in the state, is at 91 percent of historic capacity, up from 47 percent a year ago.

Because of the significantly different conditions around the state, the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to ease drought rules in the next two weeks, releasing new rules that will assign a water conservation target to each city, water company and water district, based on the amount of rainfall it has received, along with other factors, such as groundwater and reservoir levels."


Looks like a solid post to me.

Sorry to disappoint you. There's always next year. Maybe you'll luck out and it won't rain.

Michael DeMarco said...

The reason the drought index does not respond quickly to changes is that it was designed to be an index to determine the impacts of drought over the long term for economic reasons. It's tool of government used to respond to the results of drought. There is always a lag because of the way it is set up and how the tool is used for governing. Check out the regulations about how it was set up and how it is used in California and also how a few changes would separate the governing issues from the reporting of the statistical weather and climate information. Time to learn a little more on this issue. Please.

Erik Bateman said...

Some wonderful comments and certainly a plethora of information I think Tabatha's got it right though California and the conservationists have nothing to gain by saying the drought is over it is nonsensical in an arid climate that we live in here in Southern California to think that water isn't an extremely precious commodity but reality is almost by necessity trumped by what we need to do here in Southern California and that is always conserve water it is the pragmatic thing to do but saying the drought is over would fly in the face of needed conservation therefore I agree with those who say the use of the word drought is a tool of the government disingenuous but necessary

Erik Bateman said...

I think Tabatha's got it right it's nonsensical for the state of California and conservationist to admit that the drought man fact be over very disingenuous but unfortunately necessary we always need to conserve water in the arid climate we live in

Bruce Kay said...

Tabitha 206 - To paraphrase Shakespeare, I think you protest too much. While hyperbole and exaggeration
does occasionally exist with your opponents, you do yourself no favour by then doing it yourself.

There are plenty of reasonable responses here that address your concerns and should give you (and others) reason to pause. On the other hand and to cut you some slack, I must admit that there are some bizarre creatures that feel great when their prediction of disaster are validated, and when they are not, they wish they were. These people really do need to take a good hard look in the mirror.

However for you to suggest or imply that such people represents anything but a tiny aberrant minority is, in its own way, bizarre and aberrant. At the very least you should provide evidence that you are not just wildly guessing simply to hyperbolize your point.

Tom Butler said...

That's great news! Let's hope the Southern California reservoirs get recharged as well.
Insights as to why California is getting El Nino like weather during a La Nina (admittedly a weak one) after the opposite happened last year?

sunsnow12 said...

"Time to learn a little more on this issue. Please."

It is time to stop politicizing science. It is time to stop re-defining drought so that it has 3 - no make that 8 - no make that unlimited definitions to fit a political agenda.

Cliff just presented a very clear case - based on multiple comprehensive facts and statistics - that there is no drought in California. He could have made that case months ago but I am glad he waited until now since the facts are irrefutable.

And yet we still have multiple comments here wanting to redefine what a drought is, or just flat out claiming "not even close to over". All backed up with exactly zero facts and statistics.

Why is that?

Cliff Mass is the only scientist I know that publicly takes a position that goes against the constant theme of drought perpetuated by political interests. He has done it for years. Go back to a year ago and the "wet drought" claims being seriously promoted as fact. It spins the mind that someone could actually say that seriously, and yet it was Cliff and Cliff alone that called it out for the ridiculousness that it was.

Hats off to you Cliff. It takes courage to make posts like this.

Harrison said...

Glad the drought is over...but we have a MUCH MORE pressing issue here. In reading the Wall Street Journal today, I just about fainted in reading who Trump has picked for Commerce Secretary...energy (EPA) is a whole other issue (Scott Pruitt not believing lead is a real pollutant)

RE:

Cliff...regarding the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (NWS/NOAA) blog earlier...great post. I'm greatly concerned with Trump's pick of WILBUR ROSS as Secretary of the Department of Commerce. Here's the history on this man, as you probably well know...but for others who don't...

This man in the mid 2000s was a true bottom-feeder, destroying American companies. This guy would go from company-to-company (coal mines/steel mills), would buy up struggling companies, and claim to be helping them out, that employed workers, and then striped the workers (human beings) of all benefits that these employees had (healthcare, pensions paid-time off), in order to CUT COSTS and increase the company's bottom line, then, they would all file for bankruptcy, and get to all of these bankruptcy protections (under the law-playing the game), then making money on the deal, then sell all those companies overseas, sending all those jobs overseas!...that what the Commerce Secretary has done and perfected. His job was to outsource American jobs, yet Trump is falsely claiming he and his picks have kept jobs here! He outsourced American jobs and made BILLIONS doing this and really screwing over American jobs. This is NOT OKAY.

SO...How in the heck is the National Weather Service (NWS) and funding for new modeling efforts or updating existing modeling efforts going to happen here? The NWS is already massively underfunded. I know, because I used to work for Commerce. If he gets in office, he'll do the same thing he did in the private sector. Cut costs, cut programs. The exact thing WE DO NOT NEED in the weather community!

What is your take here? Can you do a blog post on this, since NOAA and the NWS fall under the Department of Commerce? Wilbur Ross is a greedy, pigeonholed airhead. And that's the person who is supposed to help straighten out the Department of Commerce, that, in your previous blog, is certainly in need of major help? Oregon getting a coastal radar will never happen with this man in office. Wow...what Wilbur Ross did in the mid 2000s is the man who is suppose to be leading the Commerce team? How perverted.

strix27 said...

The deserts of the northern Hemisphere lie along 30ºN. In North and CEntral America land at least 15º north and south of that latitude is either desert or very dry except where there is a body of warm water nearby, e.g., the Gulf of Mexico. The southern half of California is a desert. It is in permanent drought. If it weren't for water from the Colorado R. and Owens L. plus aqueducts transfering melt water from the Sierra Nevadas, Los Angeles and San Diego could not exist in their present state. California west of the Sierras, close to sea level, is pretty dry up to the Oregon border. The Sacramento R. and some of the coastal rivers allows agriculture. California "enjoys" a monsoon climate, wet and coldish in the winter and hot and dry in the summer. Some droughts have lasted as long as 30 years based on tree ring data. It seems likely that winter snows will melt too rapidly to supply all summer water. Californians now use more water than is available naturally irrespective of wet or dry years. These are facts.

A few very wet years may fill reservoirs and provide surface soil moisture, but will not resupply ground water. Ground water from as deep as 600 ft is being pumped to supply fruit trees, the product of which are sold overseas. Many fields that formerly bore annual crops now lie fallow in the Central Valley. The drought is not over until all the reservoirs are filled and the ground water is replenished, if possible. Even then, California will be in water deficit due to population growth and the propensity to water lawns and gardens.

The "joke" is that California has four seasons: earthquake, rain, mudslide and fire. Expect more of the last.

John Marshall said...

It's pretty hard to have a discussion on drought without sharing a common definition. Based on Cliff's post and the various comments, we don't have that common definition.

But I think we can all agree on the definition of Meteorological Drought, which basically means a significant deficit in rainfall compared to historical norms for a given location. California is surely out of drought by that standard after this wet winter.

But when it comes to Agricultural Drought, Hydrological Drought (if we include vital aquifers) and Socioeconomic drought (competition for water), California is undoubtedly still in a hard drought.

But given this is a meteorological blog, perhaps we should stick to Meteorological Drought.

Joel Kawahara said...

I think that it is true that California has received lots of moisture this year, and it is true that the reservoirs are for the most part at 80% full, leaving room for any more sudden flow. One outlier that is a little concerning is the Trinity where Trinity lake is at 58% full, even though there has been a lot of moisture going into northern California. This might be OK since the Upper Klamath Basin has 129% Snow Water Equivalent - hoping that the Trinity alps have the same kind of snow on the ground. All this is true.

California's drought is going to keep existing because there are just too many folks drawing off too small of a water supply. I do not think any statistical change in storage or rain/snow is going to change the fact that California requires more water than will normally fall there. They have to do extraordinary things we don't allow in Washington - like moving water between watersheds to satisfy demand. The diversion of the Eel into the Russian, the Trinity into the Sacramento, the Scott into LA and tapping into the Colorado are all projects that show you how California can never have sufficient water for the population and agriculture they have established.

Yes there has been a wonderful water year - but it is only one year and it still won't be enough when the next return to less than normal precipitation happens.

Moral Individual said...

Many, many great responses on this article. But I think it is unfair to bash on Cliff for proclaiming the drought might be over in California. I have family that lives in Southern California, Ventura area, and they claim it has not been this wet in years, almost too much in some places all at once. Also, as Cliff stated, Northern California has been pounded relentlessly by snow and rain; just look at pics of Truckee to see what I mean. If the drought is not over, it has just taken a punch to head from Mike Tyson or Ali in their prime and is reeling hard now. I just can't understand all the vitriol on Cliff, who writes very intelligent and interesting articles on our ever changing weather. Also please see this link http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/season_drought.png This just states that most of California is removed or will be removed from the drought monitor by the end of the wet season. I would say this is great news.

Fred Levitan said...

With regard to the discussion re whether the California drought is over or not, please read Peter Gleick's well-reasoned discussion of why it is not, and the reasons it may never be: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/wet-year-wont-beat-californias-never-ending-drought/

Candis Kiriajes said...

Cliff Mass has been right on with his discussions of weather and climate. I have followed his blog for years. Seems that many commenters ( not all) are virtue signaling and trying to be oh so politically correct. If the population of CA is too high then move out of the state and lower the water impact. Here in N.CA the rivers, lakes, reservoirs are beyond full or getting there. The ground is saturated. We have droughts in CA per records that go back thousands of years and we have huge rain cycles as well.
This has nothing to do with global warming. Just read the climate history and you can see that.
Mismanagement of water and allocating too much water to S.CA or other areas may have to be reevaluated for sure. But, we in the N. are out of drought. Why make up so many new definitions, scare tactics, and such. I want to thank Cliff for his sensible ways.

tracksdc89 said...

My guess is that he/she was observing the unusual number of precip-free days this month (thanks to our super-prolonged cold spell). As you astutely pointed out (and happily for everyone involved), we got "bailed out" by the heavy precip of last week which brought us back to normal.

JeffB said...

What Tabitha is suggesting is that there are far too many who enjoy their climate alarmism. And that is undeniable with statements like 97% consensus amongst scientists. It is definitely important for areas with infrequent rainfall like California to preserve and conserve water. However in sensationalizing drought and linking it to climate alarmism, officials have often crossed the line to an incredulous state with the general public. And that only serves to undermine reasonable efforts to address drought and other real climate issues. A more rational and cautious approach is always better and although anyone in a professional capacity with deep knowledge can get frustrated with a lack of understanding amongst the general public, infantililizing, scolding, lecturing and insulting the intelligence of the average Joe will almost always backfire. And that is exactly what the climate science commmunity has done by enlisting the media and Hollywood to over dramatize what is clearly not a catastrophic and immediate threat like a volcano or a large incoming meteor.

Joel Kawahara said...

Maybe I'll try to leave another perspective regarding drought, that of fish and wildlife.

Salmon have a variety of life cycle strategies. Chinook have two distinct life cycles, river type and ocean type. River type are the Sacramento Winter and Spring Chinook. These fish enter the river starting more or less in December through April. They will spend the summer in the Sacramento(Winters) and Feather River (Springs), spawn in the fall and emigrate as juveniles in March. They need 12 months of good cool clean river water. Ocean type Chinook are the Fall and late Fall runs in the Sacramento, Fall in Klamath and Coastal California Fall in Russian, Mad, Noyo et c. These fish need 4 or 5 months of good water, over the winter.

Coho need 16 months of good cool clean water in the rivers and streams they spawn in. Steelhead need 21/2 years to complete their freshwater lifecycle.

So yes it is wonderful news that there has been so much water in California. And because there are reservoirs like Trinity and Shasta, the big mainstem rivers can have some flow for salmon should precipitation become scarce again. But for small rivers without intact watersheds or reservoirs, this rain is at best transient for salmon. If next September is hot like normal, the Scott river will be really warm and pretty low and coho are not going to have a home, just like the last 4-5 years, as if there was still a drought going on.

I'll go back to my first post that said too many people trying to take too much water in California. Because so little water is left in the stream flow budget for fish, even a good year is still a low water year.

Steve said...

The california drought is as over as the Texas drought is over, all of the west is wet and it may be we are witnessing a return to the 70s-90s wet cycle when Lake Mead and Powell were filled.

Of course "Peak Water" has even been coughed up. Guess who?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water
"Peak water is defined in a 2010 peer-reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Peter Gleick"

Bruce Kay said...

JeffB ......

Other "real" climate issues?


OMG man please refrain from speaking in tongues! Yes we get it. In your skill and wisdom, you have decided that AGW is not a "real" climate issue.

Further to Tbitha comment: As I stated, there may well be people who gloat over any hint of validating disaster but you yourself devolve into baseless insinuation that there are "far too many".

Look at it this way. Are there far too many contrarian climate scientists? No of course not. There are only, by any skilled and substantive estimation, only 3% of total which certainly makes one wonder....

Why would anyone who lacks skill, listen to what they say?

Moral Individual said...

Now I am just downright shocked by comments lately. Are some of you really serious? The warning bell has been sounding loudly for quite a long time now about climate change. Yes there are normal patterns in nature and in our area, but when things are going on like tornado activity in January, 20 degrees above normal temps in the Ohio Valley, constant and unrelenting cold out here, logic would dictate something is very wrong. Alarmism about anything can be a danger for sure, but when scientists have been talking about this thing for years, and people continue to ignore what is right in front of their faces, that is a bigger problem. I put it look this. If somebody is standing in front of you with a loaded gun, saying they are going to shoot if you don't give them money, would you just stand there and get shot because you deny it is happening? That is what deniers are. The facts are staring you straight in the face, like a loaded gun, and yet you choose not to acknowledge it, even at the risk of being shot. That is insane and illogical behavior.

What if things are true? Why are some so scared to death of climate change? Is it because in order to correct things, all of our lives might have to change drastically? Is it fear and cowardice? I can't understand, I really can't. Yes it needs to be addressed and dealt with and I believe the changes are going to force the hand of government when things get bad enough. Bottom line. If any of you actually read Cliff regularly, you would know he also has many articles on climate change as well and they are very well put forth.

Steve said...

Moral Individual,
The only thing right in front of people's faces is the weather.
You are in the duped category who leap to equate weather observations to CO2 emissions induced catastrophe.
The drought is over just as it ended recently in Texas and in countless cycles before.
The 70s to 90s was a wetter period and we may be entering another one just like it.
And nobody need ask the CO2 boogeyman for permission.

TrueBlue said...

@Moral Individual

Your post is typical of the bitter "progressive" clinging to your climate change religion.

1. There are normally tornadoes in the South in January. Not very many, but some.

2. This is a big country. There is always non-average weather somewhere. Wasn't it your crowd that used to preach constantly about the difference between weather and climate?

3. Yes, alarmism is a danger. Go look in the mirror.

4. Stop it with your "deniers" shtick.

5. The only person "scared to death of climate change" is YOU.

JeffB said...

There is a reason for the word alarm. Alarm denotes an immediate urgency. Nothing in the current climate empirical data shows an alarm state. There's been virtually no change in climate in hundreds of years outside of a band well within human survival and especially given technology advances. And nothing with enough accuracy to show that climate will be drastically different than today on a timescale that denotes alarm rather than adaptation. Technology is also advancing rapidly and likely we will have much better energy sources within the same time periods suggested for climate alarm that would mitigate climate extremes for the majority of humans on earth.

And anyone can plainly see these as facts. For example there has been no perceptible change to the Puget Sound average water level that would denote any alarm for the average resident of Puget Sound of any appreciable age.

Alarm is a tough sell when there is nothing outside of scary predictions 50-100 years hence.

Eric Blair said...

Hi Moral - please explain why two of the leading scientists in the field of climatology have been constantly harangued and harassed for their alleged heresy of questioning not if the earth is warming, but the underlying reasons why. I refer to Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Judith Curry, both individuals who have quit due to unceasing harassment of their climate orthodoxy. This is not a good indication of any scientific "consensus," and is clearly not a valid representation of a scientific field that has any confidence in it's current assertions. Scientific inquiry is not supposed to resemble the Salem Witch Trials, is it?

I won't even bother to respond to Bruce Kay's comments, since he became increasingly unhinged awhile back, and can only respond now in the form of insults and character assassinations. Once again, he projects too much.

JeffB said...

So to riff on your analogy. If someone is going to point a gun at you sometime in the next 20-100 years, and the best facts show that it could be any gun from a squirt gun to a .45, do you panic today? No you don't, that would be illogical. You would want more info and you might find that within 20 years, you had other bigger problems.

Bruce Kay said...

no Jeff. Your comprehension of the need or not for alarm has nothing to do with current risk. There is no significant risk from our present or even near future climate. What we should be alarmed about is our inability to properly value future risk and comprehend that that risk is greatly predicated on PRESENT ACTION.

What happens later is largely and in all probability, determined by our ability to restrain global GHG emissions right now. The fact that we do not act is the perfectly valid justification for alarm.

If you can't comprehend this, it is likely because you can't comprehend this:

http://www.beinghuman.org/article/loss-aversion

Eric Blair said...

and as we all know, nothing convinces a skeptical audience more than via the use of ALL CAPS. Houston, we have a bad case of projection here.

Moral Individual said...

What we have here are a bunch of cowards who can't face truth! Bruce Kay and John Marshall write some very fair stuff here and I like their middle path approach. Everything wrote beneath what I wrote is full of logical fallacy and not full of any sources. Putting out conjecture without one, one source to back up your failed and stupid claims. If you have the courage why don't you actually open your eyes. Many reputable sources with this link http://www.environmentalsciencedegree.com/climate-change/

TrueBlue, EricBlair, JeffB, you guys are clueless, truly and utterly clueless. Not sure what the cause is: how you were raised, the school you went to or the lack of schooling, listening to the idiot sitting at the bar stool next to you, using disreputable sources for your information on the world, just scared to death of actually dealing with the world around, afraid of drastic change in your world, who really cares, you are wrong. Grow up! And why would you even be here when Cliff has written many articles on climate change and the potentials of climate change? I frankly doubt you would be talking so brashly if we were in the same room talking about this, in fact I know you wouldn't be.

JeffB said...

It will rankle Bruce and MI that anyone dare question their orthodoxy. But there are a wealth of scientists and other technical professionals who are not afraid to present information. For those who are open-minded, here is one such book you can read: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0986398306/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_U5NJybMJ1RGE0

I have found that when people offer ad hominem instead of argument or try to silence dissent, there is usually much more to be learned.


Bruce Kay said...

The only orthodoxy worth a pinch in science is the scientific process. I'm not sure why you are so confident assuming otherwise.

In that context, a few outliers of expert opinion ( the usual suspects - Curry, Spencer ., Lindzen, Lord Christopher Bunkton ....) is hardly any basis for the incompetent ( you, me, most anyone) to follow their yellow brick road to an illusion of skill.

Are you familiar with system 1 and System 2? If that draws a blank, that explains everything.

JeffB said...

Bruce it's telling that you again use ad hominem to try and argue and that your knee jerk is to attach names to science to try and credit or discredit. As anyone who knows the real scientific method knows, it's about the science and the method, and not the names. Appeal to authority is not necessary for good science.

Bruce Kay said...

What add Hominem? I use none other than mocking Lord Christopher Bunkton but then graciously including his name in with a list of actual scientists which if anything, is an honour he doesn't deserve.

As for an appeal to authority, no doubt you imply that such a thing is always a fallacious argument. This is false when the argument is who is competent and who is not. As I stated, in climate science I am not competent and I'd bet 100 bucks right now neither are you. That means your (and mine) opinion is crap while "authority" is better.

That is no logical fallacy and in the realm of the domain of climate science, entirely relevant to sorting out worthless opinion and good opinion.