Not good, says Lower Colorado River Authority meteorologist Bob Rose, and not likely to get better soon:
"Year to date rainfall at Austin-Camp Mabry through Tuesday total[ed] only 15.61 inches, over 15 inches below normal. As of today, 2008 is the 4th driest year on record, dating back to 1856 and is the driest year since 1956! This is a very intense drought, rivaling some of the terrible drought years of the 1950s. And long-range forecasts are not very encouraging for rain going into early 2009."
It is worth pointing out, for Global Warmists and other hysterics, that 1856, when reliable weather records began being kept in the central city, was only one hundred fifty-two years ago. A lot of droughts certainly occurred before then, and some of them undoubtedly were worse than this one.
THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER 
Oh, I see you changed your view of the AGW.Not going to call me GW-denier anymore, hopefully.
Uh, you have me mixed up with someone else. My view of AGW hasn’t altered. I still think it’s bunk.
Yes, it did. I thought I remembered your remark – and I found it: http://creakypavillion.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/chi-chi-chi-chi-chicago/#comment-451
You said (in re: Palin’ interview):
“She didn’t agree on the cause of global warming, but the fact of it, which, I think, is undeniable. The planet is warming. The question is why.[…]”
Okay, point for your side. Does that make you happy? You really like you to argue, don’t you?
When I write “Global Warmists,” I mean the Gorebots, et al. I haven’t seen a persuasive argument that ALL of the warming data is wrong. If you know of any, show me where to find it.
No, I like people to be honest and being able to admit they were wrong.
You’re the one who’s always arguing when you come to my blog.
[Text removed by author]
I’m not wrong. I still don’t agree with AGW and your “proof” only reinforces that. You misinterpreted my phrase “global warmists.”
You might not agree with AGW now, but in your comment that I quoted you said that fact of global warming is undeniable, the plamet is warming and that question is why.
In that same comment you also called opponents of GW theory “AGW naysayers”. My proof (no quotations) is your own words.
I did not misinterpret you then and I don’t now.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. It also has nothing to do with this post. So I’m closing the comments on this one.