[A, sort of]California is desiccating![A, sort of]

[MAKG1]

No idea, but the possibility exists, and Neil Armstrong as well as a lot of other astronauts are believers, so there is some potential to the reality of them actually monitoring us.

Why would astronauts have any extra authority over the existence of earth-visiting aliens than others, such as, say, astronomers?

I suppose if one had snapped a picture, it might be important, but speculation from astronauts is worth exactly as much as speculation from yacht drivers.

Good luck finding any astronomer who claims aliens have visited the earth, outside the Weekly World News.

 

[Henning]

Why would astronauts have any extra authority over the existence of earth-visiting aliens than others, such as, say, astronomers?

I suppose if one had snapped a picture, it might be important, but speculation from astronauts is worth exactly as much as speculation from yacht drivers.

Good luck finding any astronomer who claims aliens have visited the earth, outside the Weekly World News.

Depends on who personally is looking at them. Armstrong made some very interesting, cryptic, comments through his life, especially near the end.

 

[MAKG1]

Depends on who personally is looking at them. Armstrong made some very interesting, cryptic, comments through his life, especially near the end.

Lots of people go bat**** crazy near the end of their lives.

And why would Armstrong be an authority? It's not like no one else ever looks up.

 

[Silvaire]

... In the post-Cold War era, with all we know today about the paths that lead to and the consequences of nuclear war, I think we will probably avoid that fate..

There's a documentary called "Countdown to Zero" which details just how easily it can, and on a few occasions almost did, happen. The fact is that if one ICBM were to get loose, for any reason, our world probably has about 28 minutes left. Then there is the situation of all of the highly enriched nuclear material missing from the former Soviet Union states. Who's got it? Nobody knows.

Listen to Oppenheimer and look at the expressions on his face after he finished developing the A-bomb. He knew the cat was out of the bag and there's no way to put it back.

 

[Henning]

Lots of people go bat**** crazy near the end of their lives.

And why would Armstrong be an authority? It's not like no one else ever looks up.

Not many people have been in space, much less on the moon. Some people get less afraid of punishment for speaking their minds when they get older too. Check out the "medical channel" stuff surrounding Apollo 11.

 

[MAKG1]

Not many people have been in space, much less on the moon. Some people get less afraid of punishment for speaking their minds when they get older too. Check out the "medical channel" stuff surrounding Apollo 11.

Why is being in space a qualification for talking about aliens? Unless they took him there, it's irrelevant.

You can see space just as well from the ground. The distances are shorter. ISS is only ~250 miles away when it passes overhead.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

No idea, but the possibility exists, and Neil Armstrong as well as a lot of other astronauts are believers, so there is some potential to the reality of them actually monitoring us.

Yeah, the possibility exists, and I even consider it likely, just because the universe is so vast. Just because anyone believes doesn't make it so though. The astronauts probably believe in aliens for the reason I posited- the universe is so vast that intelligent life is probably elsewhere as well.

There's no reason we can't be the first intelligent life either to show up in the universe either; the only reason I say that is someone has to be the first.

The only evidence we have about aliens is negative- no evidence they exist, the evidence is negative for a variety of reasons.

 

[docmirror]

I don't worry about Californians so much as puzzle about them.

Everything about California's natural history, geology, geography, and hydrology suggest that most of the state is unsuitable for human habitation and should never have been settled (other than for a small number of farmers to work the land).
Rich

Not to be a noodge, but in CA historically ag/ranch has used about 70-80% of all fresh water(different metrics give diff results), industry and residential comprise the other segment.

One study done by some vegetarian place from back in the 80s calculated it was 40,000 gals of fresh water for each McD 1/4 pounder hamburger meat. I can't recall the study, but there's others.

So, settlers, in the form of city folk aren't really the culprit here. CA is the worlds produce generator. The locals only consume a small fraction of all the water-intensive crops and livestock.

I'm not being judgmental here, I appreciate the value of the market and their production but to blame the water shortage on settlers and town folk is disingenuous.

 

[1RTK1]

150 gallons for a 1/4 pound of hamburger according to the usgs. I haven't crunched the numbers but it sounds believable.

 

[Henning]

Why is being in space a qualification for talking about aliens? Unless they took him there, it's irrelevant.

You can see space just as well from the ground. The distances are shorter. ISS is only ~250 miles away when it passes overhead.

The potential for being eyes on increases. You cannot see half of the moon, and there are a few anomalies on the mapping.

 

[Henning]

Yeah, the possibility exists, and I even consider it likely, just because the universe is so vast. Just because anyone believes doesn't make it so though. The astronauts probably believe in aliens for the reason I posited- the universe is so vast that intelligent life is probably elsewhere as well.

There's no reason we can't be the first intelligent life either to show up in the universe either; the only reason I say that is someone has to be the first.

The only evidence we have about aliens is negative- no evidence they exist, the evidence is negative for a variety of reasons.

Exactly negative evidence doesn't prove anything, and the pseudo evidence that exists cannot be discounted because those that control the evidence are not credible in the public opinion because the history of lies and secrecy. It just remains an open possibility where the odds cannot really be determined. That other sentient life exists in the universe is a statistical certainty. That some of these are older and further evolved than us is highly probable. That some of those have grasped the physics of the Dark Energy spectrum is very likely, since it's part of our next evolutionary step. First we have to evolve into a cooperative species, without we can't get off the planet and threaten creation. Then we learn how to travel across the universe instantly, outside of the influence of time.

 

[Norman]

There's a documentary called "Countdown to Zero" which details just how easily it can, and on a few occasions almost did, happen. The fact is that if one ICBM were to get loose, for any reason, our world probably has about 28 minutes left. Then there is the situation of all of the highly enriched nuclear material missing from the former Soviet Union states. Who's got it? Nobody knows.

Listen to Oppenheimer and look at the expressions on his face after he finished developing the A-bomb. He knew the cat was out of the bag and there's no way to put it back.

Oppenheimer:

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Much truth in that statement.

 

[docmirror]

150 gallons for a 1/4 pound of hamburger according to the usgs. I haven't crunched the numbers but it sounds believable.

Seems more realistic to me as well. We have a lot of beef on the hoof in TX, and I can't recall them using that much water.

Still - 150gal/1/4Lb ground beef works out to a big number for livestock.

 

[MAKG1]

The potential for being eyes on increases. You cannot see half of the moon, and there are a few anomalies on the mapping.

"Eyes on?"

You should be looking at astronomers. Every professional astronomer spends much more time looking at the night sky than any astronaut spent in space. That includes the guys spending months in ISS.

Heck, Hubble has been observing for 30 years without a break, and there has been someone monitoring it at all times. It can see things far fainter than any human eye could detect, even an astronaut, and has seen nothing resembling an alien.

So, again, what is so special about an astronaut and aliens? There are plenty of retired astronomers if you're going to go the "government secrecy" route, and some of them even make careers of looking for real evidence. So far, without success.

And I've said this to you before. Your idea of what the "dark energy spectrum" is is not related to reality.

 

[Henning]

"Eyes on?"

You should be looking at astronomers. Every professional astronomer spends much more time looking at the night sky than any astronaut spent in space. That includes the guys spending months in ISS.

Heck, Hubble has been observing for 30 years without a break, and there has been someone monitoring it at all times. It can see things far fainter than any human eye could detect, even an astronaut, and has seen nothing resembling an alien.

So, again, what is so special about an astronaut and aliens? There are plenty of retired astronomers if you're going to go the "government secrecy" route, and some of them even make careers of looking for real evidence. So far, without success.

And I've said this to you before. Your idea of what the "dark energy spectrum" is is not related to reality.

What you can see through a telescope millions of miles away is different that what you can observe with the naked eye hundreds of meters away.

 

[Morgan3820]

Why do so many people who don't live in California spend so much time worrying about us?

I don't. Although, I agree with Tom-D's comment. If the lower half of CA dried up and blew away into the Pacific, I would have a party.

California = New Jersey with a tan.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Exactly negative evidence doesn't prove anything, and the pseudo evidence that exists cannot be discounted because those that control the evidence are not credible in the public opinion because the history of lies and secrecy.

You mean the same government that faked the moon landings? They can't even keep spying on their own citizens secret, much less aliens!

It just remains an open possibility where the odds cannot really be determined. That other sentient life exists in the universe is a statistical certainty. That some of these are older and further evolved than us is highly probable.

That reads like a contradiction. The odds can't be determined, yet they are a statistical certainty?

That some of those have grasped the physics of the Dark Energy spectrum is very likely, since it's part of our next evolutionary step. First we have to evolve into a cooperative species, without we can't get off the planet and threaten creation. Then we learn how to travel across the universe instantly, outside of the influence of time.

What dark energy spectrum? Dark energy is just a hypothesis that to explain what we see as an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If one blows into a balloon, it expands too. What is the spectrum of the air being blown into it?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The potential for being eyes on increases. You cannot see half of the moon, and there are a few anomalies on the mapping.

Actually, we can see over half the moon due to nutation of the moons axis of rotation.

What anomalies in the mapping? Citation please? We just aren't going to take your word for it.

 

[Florida Cracker]

Seems more realistic to me as well. We have a lot of beef on the hoof in TX, and I can't recall them using that much water.

Still - 150gal/1/4Lb ground beef works out to a big number for livestock.

I'm trying to understand your point, here. Are you seriously claiming that the water 'used' by the cow, or in processing the cow was somehow a one way transaction? It's still water and it's still somewhere. It didn't disappear off the fave of the earth.

 

[azure]

There's a documentary called "Countdown to Zero" which details just how easily it can, and on a few occasions almost did, happen. The fact is that if one ICBM were to get loose, for any reason, our world probably has about 28 minutes left. Then there is the situation of all of the highly enriched nuclear material missing from the former Soviet Union states. Who's got it? Nobody knows.

Listen to Oppenheimer and look at the expressions on his face after he finished developing the A-bomb. He knew the cat was out of the bag and there's no way to put it back.

Yes, that is not news to me, in fact, it is what I was referring to. We are far more aware of how easily it can happen than in the '40s, and thus safeguards against it happening are all the more stringent. The problem of rogue countries acquiring the bomb is the wildcard, but I think that scenario is likelier to end up as a limited nuclear exchange than a world-ender. I can conceive of scenarios where the worst case could still happen, I just think they're unlikely enough today that if civilization falls, it will more likely be as a result of pandemic or even ecological disaster, though I suspect that latter possibility is still decades to centuries off.

None of this is to imply that we should be complacent, just the opposite: as long as we stay vigilant and aware of the consequences, I think we will probably avoid that fate, at least in the near future. A century and more beyond, who knows?

 

[redrum4me]

Granted I just read the beginning and the end of this thread, but I'm thinking the general synopsis is something like this: Aliens were stealing California's water, but bugged out right before a nuclear apocalypse.

 

[azure]

Exactly negative evidence doesn't prove anything, and the pseudo evidence that exists cannot be discounted because those that control the evidence are not credible in the public opinion because the history of lies and secrecy. It just remains an open possibility where the odds cannot really be determined. That other sentient life exists in the universe is a statistical certainty. That some of these are older and further evolved than us is highly probable. That some of those have grasped the physics of the Dark Energy spectrum is very likely, since it's part of our next evolutionary step. First we have to evolve into a cooperative species, without we can't get off the planet and threaten creation. Then we learn how to travel across the universe instantly, outside of the influence of time.

Define sentience. Define "further evolved". This smacks of the old anthropocentric assumption that human intelligence is somehow more highly evolved than other kinds of intelligence on Earth, and that either we or another species with greater technological prowess will eventually evolve. It's entirely possible that the development of technology happens rarely and inevitably causes a species to outstrip a planet's ability to sustain it when it does develop. Consider the difference the civilization lifetime factor makes in the Drake equation. The Universe could be teeming with life, and yet at any given time, the number of civilizations in existence might be of order unity.

BTW dark energy is not known to have a "spectrum". In fact it is not even known to exist at this point. It is no more than a hypothesis to explain the observed fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

 

[azure]

Granted I just read the beginning and the end of this thread, but I'm thinking the general synopsis is something like this: Aliens were stealing California's water, but bugged out right before a nuclear apocalypse.

Ha! I think you've caught on...

 

[RJM62]

Granted I just read the beginning and the end of this thread, but I'm thinking the general synopsis is something like this: Aliens were stealing California's water, but bugged out right before a nuclear apocalypse.

And took the cows with them.

Rich

 

[Henning]

You mean the same government that faked the moon landings? They can't even keep spying on their own citizens secret, much less aliens!

That reads like a contradiction. The odds can't be determined, yet they are a statistical certainty?

The statistic certainty is they exist in the universe, what you can't determine the odds on is if they are local.

What dark energy spectrum? Dark energy is just a hypothesis that to explain what we see as an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If one blows into a balloon, it expands too. What is the spectrum of the air being blown into it?

What secrets? UFOs are highly public, they are discredited by the media and "official channels". More people believe the earth is visited by UFOs than don't. It was learned long ago that the most effective way to hide something is in plain sight through the use of misinformation.

The dark energy spectrum is the energy of quantum creation itself. It carries information like electromagnetic energy carries light,and is the "spark of life' that everything in the multiverse shares, and the intelligence perceived as and referred to as "God"; the core intelligence we all share, of the organism we inhabit. It is what excites Dark Matter, the quanta of space, into matter with gravity as the byproduct. Sentient life is what makes the 'observations' that Bohr spoke of as required for existence.

We are not a random accident of chaos, we are a designed component of a system we call "The Universe" and a sentient species are a primary tool of creation on the quantum level. We were designed to go forth in the universe and observe it into existence as well as think and create new information (the reason we have to have free will) and more Dark Energy, the byproduct of metabolizing matter into thought.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

What secrets? UFOs are highly public, they are discredited by the media and "official channels". More people believe the earth is visited by UFOs than don't. It was learned long ago that the most effective way to hide something is in plain sight through the use of misinformation.

The dark energy spectrum is the energy of quantum creation itself. It carries information like electromagnetic energy carries light,and is the "spark of life' that everything in the multiverse shares, and the intelligence perceived as and referred to as "God"; the core intelligence we all share, of the organism we inhabit. It is what excites Dark Matter, the quanta of space, into matter with gravity as the byproduct. Sentient life is what makes the 'observations' that Bohr spoke of as required for existence.

We are not a random accident of chaos, we are a designed component of a system we call "The Universe" and a sentient species are a primary tool of creation on the quantum level. We were designed to go forth in the universe and observe it into existence as well as think and create new information (the reason we have to have free will) and more Dark Energy, the byproduct of metabolizing matter into thought.

Got any citations for all of this? Or are you making stuff up again?

Based on what I've seen of your knowledge of science, I'm sure you don't have any citations.

How do you know what dark energy is, when it is all just a theoretical construct to fit a model to the rest of science?

 

[Henning]

Got any citations for all of this? Or are you making stuff up again?

Based on what I've seen of your knowledge of science, I'm sure you don't have any citations.

How do you know what dark energy is, when it is all just a theoretical construct to fit a model to the rest of science?

How do you cite original thought? You limit your thought to what is known and what can be done with it, I take my thought to figure out the unknown from what is known. The measurement of intelligence is what you can figure out of the unknown from what is known. What is unknown about quantum physics is far more than what is known, however everything we need to know to understand it is already known, we just refuse to consider a model with a core intelligence and keep trying to prove how we are a random product of chaos.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

How do you cite original thought? You limit your thought to what is known and what can be done with it, I take my thought to figure out the unknown from what is known. The measurement of intelligence is what you can figure out of the unknown from what is known. What is unknown about quantum physics is far more than what is known, however everything we need to know to understand it is already known, we just refuse to consider a model with a core intelligence and keep trying to prove how we are a random product of chaos.

The problem is dark energy is just a construct now, we don't know it exists. No one know what is might be, it is just part of a model that explains what we think we observe. So you are building a house of reeds on a sand foundation.

You also don't have the scientific knowledge to understand the theoretical constructs of the universe, nor of quantum mechanics.

Some examples: you claim thorium is a fossil fuel here: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-75068.html

You made some incorrect statements about synthetic marijuana here: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83483&page=2

As for original, I've seen your writings before, but written by Heinlein, Clarke, and Sagan. Your last sentence in the quoted post is merely creationism wrapped up differently.

You have this habit of making stuff up and get defensive when questioned about it. A science fiction web board might appreciate your ramblings more.

 

[Henning]

The problem is dark energy is just a construct now, we don't know it exists. No one know what is might be, it is just part of a model that explains what we think we observe. So you are building a house of reeds on a sand foundation.

You also don't have the scientific knowledge to understand the theoretical constructs of the universe, nor of quantum mechanics.

Some examples: you claim thorium is a fossil fuel here: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-75068.html

You made some incorrect statements about synthetic marijuana here: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83483&page=2

As for original, I've seen your writings before, but written by Heinlein, Clarke, and Sagan. Your last sentence in the quoted post is merely creationism wrapped up differently.

You have this habit of making stuff up and get defensive when questioned about it. A science fiction web board might appreciate your ramblings more.

Which is exactly how all scientific advances begin. You make observations and draw reasonable conclusions then test the ideas. If no one ever introduces ideas, nothing is ever gained because you have nowhere to go. Inspired thought is the foundation of all advances in learning.

I made no incorrect statements about 'spice, spark, incense, potpourri, bath salts...' whatever term is being used; you just don't know the industry.

 

[MAKG1]

Which is exactly how all scientific advances begin. You make observations and draw reasonable conclusions then test the ideas. If no one ever introduces ideas, nothing is ever gained because you have nowhere to go. Inspired thought is the foundation of all advances in learning.

I made no incorrect statements about 'spice, spark, incense, potpourri, bath salts...' whatever term is being used; you just don't know the industry.

Umm, no.

Every crackpot claims that, but real scientific change starts with data, not wild quasireligious conjecture.

For instance, Relativity is a straightforward application of the Michelson Morley null result, that the speed of light is constant. Einstein wrote a compelling argument in his 1905 paper, and it didn't contain any BS.

What you say about quantum physics is Deepak Chopra gibberish, and has no relation to actual quantum physics.

 

[Henning]

Umm, no.

Every crackpot claims that, but real scientific change starts with data, not wild quasireligious conjecture.

For instance, Relativity is a straightforward application of the Michelson Morley null result, that the speed of light is constant. Einstein wrote a compelling argument in his 1905 paper, and it didn't contain any BS.

What you say about quantum physics is Deepak Chopra gibberish, and has no relation to actual quantum physics.

That is your belief, but in 100 years of trying, no data has been presented that refutes it, and plenty of data has been produced that would accept it.

 

[MAKG1]

That is your belief, but in 100 years of trying, no data has been presented that refutes it, and plenty of data has been produced that would accept it.

Umm, no. That's true for real quantum physics, not the gibberish you're making up.

There is no evidence whatsoever for "exciting dark matter" nor any meaning for the phrase, for instance.

Sorry, Henning, you have it very wrong.

 

[Dav8or]

So is there a way we can coerce the aliens to beam some water down to California?? Can dark energy be converted into H2O ?? I get that the aliens don't trust us with their tech, but couldn't they just covertly add some water in the night when no one is looking?? We could use that a lot more than abductions and anal probes.

 

[1RTK1]

I'm trying to understand your point, here. Are you seriously claiming that the water 'used' by the cow, or in processing the cow was somehow a one way transaction? It's still water and it's still somewhere. It didn't disappear off the face of the earth.

That's pretty much it. We live in a closed system. Matter can't be created or destroyed only changed, it won't disappear. Again we don't have a water shortage problem we have a water storage problem

 

[Jim Logajan]

Civilization is fragile. Climate change has negatively impacted and probably brought down thriving civilizations before. It is the ultimate hubris to think that ours is immune.

Climate change is not the cause of the California drought; in fact models indicate that they should be getting more rain during the winter. The mountains may get more rain than snow, causing earlier depletion of the snow pack during summer, but that is a again not what has been happening. Here's what NOAA says:

http://cpo.noaa.gov/ClimatePrograms...orces/DroughtTaskForce/CaliforniaDrought.aspx


Is the California Drought a symptom of long term climate change?

The current drought is not part of a long-term change in California precipitation, which exhibits no appreciable trend since 1895. Key oceanic features that caused precipitation inhibiting atmospheric ridging off the West Coast during 2011-14 were symptomatic of natural internal atmosphere-ocean variability.

Model simulations indicate that human-induced climate change increases California precipitation in mid-winter, with a low-pressure circulation anomaly over the North Pacific, opposite to conditions of the last 3 winters. The same model simulations indicate a decrease in spring precipitation over California. However, precipitation deficits observed during the past three years are an order of magnitude greater than the model simulated changes related to human-induced forcing. Nonetheless, record setting high temperature that accompanied this recent drought was likely made more extreme due to human-induced global warming.

 

[Florida Cracker]

It rains.... A certain segment of whiners swear its mmgw.

It doesn't rain... The same whiners swear it's mmgw.

It is unseasonably warm in Ohio for a few days in February.... Some whiner academic swears it's mmgw.

It's unseasonably chilly in June... what a shock, same whiners swear it's mmgw.

Point out idiocy of the claims,get accused of being a Neanderthal that was killed off by mmgw.

Weather changes all the time. While cal-mexi-china is having a dearth of rain, Florida is having plenty. Over ten years ago NOAA pointed out that we were entering an expected fifty year wet cycle.

Weenies are claiming it's all because of mmgw.

A decade without hurricanes? No prob. Mmgw.

Hurricane? Yep. Mmgw.

I see a pattern.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Which is exactly how all scientific advances begin. You make observations and draw reasonable conclusions then test the ideas. If no one ever introduces ideas, nothing is ever gained because you have nowhere to go. Inspired thought is the foundation of all advances in learning.

I made no incorrect statements about 'spice, spark, incense, potpourri, bath salts...' whatever term is being used; you just don't know the industry.

Lets see...in this thread (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum...t=83483&page=2 ) you got the country of origin wrong, you got the chemistry wrong, you got the types of compounds wrong. Basically everything. I cited my information, you just made it up as you typed out your responses.

As for knowing the industry... what are you, a dealer? at least I worked with the people involved on the law enforcement side and wrote this: http://www.isco.com/WebProductFiles/Applications/101/Application_Notes/AN96_Cannabinoids.pdf

Where are your writings and citations?

That is your belief, but in 100 years of trying, no data has been presented that refutes it, and plenty of data has been produced that would accept it.

By it, do you mean relativity or quantum mechanics? Either is true, but there is nothing that supports your writings. Those theories made predictions that have so far been verified. Your writings make no predictions that can be tested.

Your science is very questionable at best; thorium as a fossil fuel: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-75068.html

 

[Fredbob711]

It rains.... A certain segment of whiners swear its mmgw.

It doesn't rain... The same whiners swear it's mmgw.

It is unseasonably warm in Ohio for a few days in February.... Some whiner academic swears it's mmgw.

It's unseasonably chilly in June... what a shock, same whiners swear it's mmgw.

Point out idiocy of the claims,get accused of being a Neanderthal that was killed off by mmgw.

Weather changes all the time. While cal-mexi-china is having a dearth of rain, Florida is having plenty. Over ten years ago NOAA pointed out that we were entering an expected fifty year wet cycle.

Weenies are claiming it's all because of mmgw.

A decade without hurricanes? No prob. Mmgw.

Hurricane? Yep. Mmgw.

I see a pattern.

There's a huge difference between weather and climate. Great little explainer by Neil deGrasse Tyson, pulled from his Cosmos series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

 

[azure]

Climate change is not the cause of the California drought; in fact models indicate that they should be getting more rain during the winter. The mountains may get more rain than snow, causing earlier depletion of the snow pack during summer, but that is a again not what has been happening.

No one has suggested that the specific weather patterns causing drought in California are a result of climate change. California has experienced many droughts in the past. However, the intensity of the drought and the increased probability of the concurrence of years that are both warm and dry HAVE been argued to be a consequence of climate change. See http://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931.full

Strange that you would say that earlier depletion of the snowpack is not what has been happening. From the data I've seen, early April snowpack in the Sierras has been lower each year since 2012, and a nearly absent snowpack was widely reported earlier this year. Hard to believe all those reports were in error.

 

[SoonerAviator]

No one has suggested that the specific weather patterns causing drought in California are a result of climate change. California has experienced many droughts in the past. However, the intensity of the drought and the increased probability of the concurrence of years that are both warm and dry HAVE been argued to be a consequence of climate change. See http://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931.full

Strange that you would say that earlier depletion of the snowpack is not what has been happening. From the data I've seen, early April snowpack in the Sierras has been lower each year since 2012, and a nearly absent snowpack was widely reported earlier this year. Hard to believe all those reports were in error.

The only thing I'd add, is that 3 years isn't much of a historical trend in the field of climate. While the snowpack levels may have reduced over that period, I can't imagine anyone (short of environmental extremists) would claim that they have causation for MMCG based off of a 3-yr period of info.

I believe the point Jim was making regarding the snowpack depletion was because of the rain itself causing some of the melting. If the same amount of moisture falls on the Sierras, but as rain and not snow . . . is it still a drought due to lack of snowpack? Sure, the snowpack delays the water from reaching Cali, but technically the same amount of water ends up there.