Irony can be so Ironic: Wyoming Joins Oklahoma
Irony is no stranger to our posts derived from the U.S. Drought Monitor, and again, this case is no exception.
The monitor reveals severe to extreme drought covering most of the state of Wyoming (for at least the last three months), the home of none other than Vice President Dick Cheney.
Cheney represented Wyoming for just over a decade on Capitol Hill (in the House) and his career is sturdily rooted in the coal and petroleum businesses he backed in Wyoming, before becoming CEO of Halliburton.
In some form or another, Cheney has contributed his share of greenhouse gases, to say the least. If only he would realize how his actions and policies have threatened his community with longer and stronger droughts.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:17 am
There is no proof that this drought is related to climate change. There have been droughts in the American midwest for eons. They were due to the normal fluctuations of climate. This particular drought cannot scientifically be linked to global warming, and you are wrong to insinuate it. It reveals that you have an agenda. You need to retract this claim.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Climate change is a new religion, how can you even argue, don’t you care about the children. Any sensible person would realize there are two sides to everything. Quit rapping yourself around feel good tree hugging and get educated here’s a great place to start. http://www.eurekalert.org/ pub_releases/ 2007-02/ osu-atd021207.php
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Climage change is a religion now?
How so?
Its a really nice talking point but it falls flat on its face when you try to actually back it up.
As for the drought… you guys are REALLY digging hard to “shut up” the scientists and thinkers who are warning people about global warming. What would it take to “prove” to you deniers that global warming is a scientific FACT and is based on the framework of a scientific THEORY? What will it take to get it through your thick skulls that in science a THEORY is more than just a blind guess - that it is supported by peer reviewed research as well as solid physics?
No SINGLE weather phenomenon can be directly traced to global warming… well DUH!
These phenomenon have been occuring without the increase in greenhouse gasses attributed to humans and will continue to do so.
HOWEVER, the inescapable conclusion is that IF humans are changing Earth’s climate by increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (which they are) then it WILL also increase the occurances of droughts and the severity of them. Its quite simple - increasing average temperatures around the planet = more drought!
That’s science, not religion.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
increasing temperatures = more drought
Let’s test RFC’s theory. Looking at this graph I don’t see an unusual trend in drought conditions or widespread increase in area of US in drought:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ img/ climate/ research/ 2006/ ann/ Reg110_wet-dry_bar01001206-mod_pg.gif
(Notice the drought that brought on the Dust Bowl in the 30’s was more widespread and severe)
Now let’s compare with drought conditions 3 years ago. Drought was more severe and widespread:
http://drought.unl.edu/dm/archive/2004/drmon0217.htm
http://drought.unl.edu/dm/archive/2003/drmon1230.htm
I’d say RFC’s “theory” has fallen flat.
Really what we have here is CP Joe using a cherry-picked graphic as a prop to overstate drought trends and place blame on political opponents. It has nothing to do with science. Science does not select the best and leave the rest.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
[…] purely an ironic coincidence that severe droughts (and wildfires) have hit Oklahoma and Texas, Wyoming, Australia, and China–states and countries with political leaders (or former leaders) opposed […]
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Interesting Hippie. The first graphic at least has some merit to support what you’re saying although its a bit simplistic, but the next two seem completely random and don’t really support anything.
Perhaps you can explain this:
http://www.livescience.com/ environment/ 060708_drought.html
and a quote from that link:
“Higher-than-normal temperatures, which have exacerbated drought conditions in part of the West and contributed to a busy wildfire season, are expected to persist this summer, NOAA officials said last month.”
So higher temperatures “exacerbate” drought conditions, IOW makes them WORSE.
Tell me what’s wrong with my basic premise?
Here in Colorado I know for a fact that higher temperatures will mean more drought. Why? Not just because I’ve seen it personally. Because higher temperatures melt snowpack in the mountains much more quickly, leading to water shortages later in the summer. Higher temperatures also evaporate water more quickly from reservoirs and soil.
I’m not saying its the ONLY factor for predicting droughts. The more important factor is precipitation from what I can tell. But higher temperatures will make existing drought cycles worse because of what I mentioned above.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Here’s more for you to explain to me:
http://www.ucar.edu/ news/ releases/ 2005/ drought_research.shtml
From the link:
“The percentage of Earth’s land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s, according to a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Widespread drying occurred over much of Europe and Asia, Canada, western and southern Africa, and eastern Australia. Rising global temperatures appear to be a major factor, says NCAR’s Aiguo Dai, lead author of the study.”
Percentage of Earth’s land area stricken by serious drought more than DOUBLED since the 1970s. I’m not an expert on the subject but the people putting these studies together ARE. So I’m afraid I have to defer to their authority in the subject.
More from the link:
“Dai and colleagues found that the fraction of global land experiencing very dry conditions (defined as -3 or less on the Palmer Drought Severity Index) rose from about 10-15% in the early 1970s to about 30% by 2002. Almost half of that change is due to rising temperatures rather than decreases in rainfall or snowfall, according to Dai.”
Due to RISING TEMPERATURES.
Looks like my “theory” isn’t so flat after all. Many experts on the subject agree.
But please, as I requested explain to me how higher temperatures won’t make existing drought cycles worse.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Hey RFC,
Ever spent any time in the San Juan’s? Silverton-Ouray-Lake City-Creede area? My summer home. God’s country!
I don’t have the time to respond completely. My apologies, but some links I would reference if I had time:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
and the wet conditions if the early 20th century may not be “normal” (why is reference point 1970’s? after the 1930’s and 1950’s severe droughts? Does that make current drought appear more severe?), severe and wide spread mega-droughts were typical, with articles by Overpeck et al.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought.html
Maybe I’ll get back here in several days. Busy weekend ahead. Peace.