Forecast: Back-to-back storms to hit Bay Area this week

Wake up and smell the coffee people!

These anticipated storms have nothing to do with global warming (which I believe is a real and serious occurrence). April and May storms are not that unusual in the Bay Area, if you look back at long term (many decades) data. Stating (or at least implying) that these anticipated storms are related to global warming is wrong and misleading and does not serve the cause of educating the public and politicians on real global warming concerns.

Will global warming affect future retail sales at North Face and Patagonia in CA?

If the weather is gradually getting warmer, then people won't have to dress as heavily and can spend less on winter wear. This is a good sign.

On the other hand, places like Minnesota, the Dakotas and the mid-west as well as back east will still continue to have cold and stormy winters.

Things have a way of balancing out regardless of global warming. Our acquaintances from eastern Russia have told us there's is no such thing. Just periodic changes in weather patterns.

> If the weather is gradually getting warmer...

You clearly have not read about Climate Change. Please see either the IPCC or our 4th national Climate Assessment.

> Things have a way of balancing out regardless of global warming

Trolling or ignorant of facts? If the latter, please read these two reports representing consensus of the scientific community:

Web Link

Web Link

Your attitude and lack of knowledge regarding Climate Change is woeful.


> These anticipated storms have nothing to do with global warming

Atmospheric Rivers in May? They probably do. From today's NYT, digital CA edition about this week's storm:

"As Daniel Swain, a climate researcher and the author of the Weather West blog, put it: “Enjoy the upcoming 10 days of ‘Mayuary.’”

In March, I wrote about how Mr. Swain and other experts predict that such storms are part of increasingly extreme, climate change-driven weather whiplash."

Web Link


There's three links - perhaps the Deniers can share the source of their mistaken claims?

Posted by Climate Change, a resident of Charleston Meadows

>> There's three links - perhaps the Deniers can share the source of their mistaken claims?

The Deniers are mistaken. Climate Change is here. But, you should not attribute one "unusual" weather event to climate change.

"Forecast: Back-to-back development storms to hit Bay Area"

Seeing all the construction, planned growth, and pending legislation,
it looks to me like climate change is a back-burner problem.

> But, you should not attribute one "unusual" weather event to climate change.

I didn't. The climate experts at that links are the ones to read. Hence my: "They probably do".

But I am curious: what's the number of strange or extreme weather events that it will take for you to "attribute (them) to climate change"?

I honestly do not know.

> it looks to me like climate change is a back-burner problem.

Yes, clearly understandable as we all fight our day to day schedules, issues, problems, demons, etc..

Except...

The most recent IPCC highlights why Climate Change is an IMMEDIATE issue for our world. A degree and a half will make all the difference. We have to start fighting now.

Web Link

Looking at one facet alone - refugees and migration due to water shortages, as well as cereal crop failure, will be unlike any previous event.

Refugee waves numbering in the tens or hundreds of millions will destabilize not just individual governments, but entire regions. In short order, that will even effect Palo Alto elite.

Think the Taliban in Afghanistan are a threat to us now? Imagine whole populations moving and the resulting effects.

So my lack of humor with posters that concern-troll about clothing companies is justified, imo.

If you think we have construction, growth, and litigation now, just wait to see what happens in a few decades if we don't ASAP start to mitigate the impact of climate change. And I do mean ASAP. We have no time to waste.

"Refugee waves numbering in the tens or hundreds of millions will destabilize not just individual governments, but entire regions. In short order, that will even effect Palo Alto elite."

"Think the Taliban in Afghanistan are a threat to us now? Imagine whole populations moving and the resulting effects."


As long as they don't migrate into the United States. OK if they go to other places.

Not our problem unless they cross the US borders.

Afghanistan is not our problem. It's just a political ploy. Besides the Afghanis won't be coming to America. Too far away and there are no charter airlines to accommodate them.

"The question is no longer whether someone will leave but when"

See "How climate change is fueling the US border crisis". Web Link

That is just one example.

Time to re-read On The Beach by Nevil Shute.

Posted by Climate Change, a resident of Charleston Meadows

>> But I am curious: what's the number of strange or extreme weather events that it will take for you to "attribute (them) to climate change"?

>> I honestly do not know.

One used to read "30 years" as being a good interval over which to determine the "climate" of a particular area, but, because the global climate is now changing so rapidly, it looks like 10 years is more appropriate to establish "the new normal". See the graph of "Annual Temperature vs. 1951-1980 Average" in the discussion of El Nino on this NASA webpage:

Web Link

But notice also that one year is not long enough: 2010 was hotter than 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Deniers be like: 200 global million climate refugees won't effect Americans.

Who says that's a stupid opinion?

The Department of Defense, the State Department, and every thinking person.

Why are they so afraid of reading those reports? They're hiding in a safe space called Fox.

> 2010 was hotter than 2011, 2012, and 2013

And the last five years were hotter.


"The past five years have each now ranked among the five warmest on record. According to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2000.

The warming of the planet is unambiguous and irrefutable."