The Hoax of Global Warming

The balance of research is otherwise.

New Study: Drought In Western US Is 84% Driven By Internal Variability And 16% By Ocean Cooling

By Kenneth Richard on 1. March 2021

An assessment of the 1856-2012 drought frequency/intensity along the US West Coast leaves no role for human activity in hydroclimate. Across the globe, no clear precipitation trends have been observed in the last several decades (Nguyen et al., 201 Image Source: Nguyen et al., 2018 Instead of an intensification of the hydrological cycle projected by […]

Europe’s Post-2000 (Mini) Droughts Far Less Severe, Prolonged Than Little Ice Age Megadroughts

By Kenneth Richard on 8. November 2021

A new study affirms Europe’s worst one-year droughts of the 21st century (2003, 2015, and 201 have been far less severe than the 50+ consecutive years of “megadroughts” linked to the solar-minima-induced coldest decades of the 15th to 19th centuries. There is a clear link between cooler temperatures and aridity documented in the scientific literature […]

 

You're not even talking about the same drought there. Note it's some of the same authors that you were criticizing from the other article. It's not necessary for climate change to cause all climate issues to be real. Note that it calls the increased temperature "well-established" but apparently not affecting global precipitation levels, which isn't surprising.

Not looking into Europe right now. Otherwise, average precipitation doesn't need to change for weather to be more extreme. It also doesn't need to change for the water supply to be affected, as the snowpacks can be depleted and a larger proportion of water goes to the oceans than in areas of fresh water.

 

If AGW is claimed to be a global cause of drought then the effects should be global. If they are not, then . . .

 

It's obviously more complicated than that. The reason climate science is hard is the same reason that social science is hard. Many, many factors come into play, many natural, some not. All of the context matters. One area may be more resistant to the effects because, for example, the snowpack of a mountain is going to be more sensitive to temperature changes than the rainfall on the beach.

 

Excuses to justify groupthink.

"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
Groupthink in Academia: Majoritarian Departmental Politics ...
https://www.independent.org › TIR › article

by DB Klein · Cited by 93 — We analyze academic ideology in terms of groupthink. Groupthink analysis examines decision making presupposed to be defective. In that sense, groupthink ...

 

Does this mean you will now ignore the following warmist/alarmists scientists who blogs such as Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, Willliam Connolly, Dr. Dessler, Dr. Schmidt and more.

RealClimate is a BLOG

Wikipedia

As of July 2017 notable contributors to RealClimate included:[9]

• David Archer
• Rasmus Emil Benestad
• Raymond S. Bradley
• Michael E. Mann
• Raymond Pierrehumbert
• Stefan Rahmstorf
• Gavin Schmidt
• Eric Steig

Past contributors include:

• William Connolley

OOooops!

 

It is always amusing to see a person ignore numerous droughts of the region in the past as the chart he chose to ignore:

Based on Soil Moisture content.



They use the last 22 years as ANAMOLY but ignore the rest of the data at the same time which shows worse drought years and deeper drought than today.

Meanwhile parts of the desert Southwest was FLOODED this spring/summer:

Real Climate Science

New Mexico Permanent Drought Update

Posted on July 5, 2022 by tonyheller

Record streamflow this morning in the Jemez River, Santa Fe River, Rio Mora and Rio Nambe

LINK

===

Worst Megadrought In 1,200 Years
Posted on July 3, 2022 by tonyheller

Excerpt:

Experts say New Mexico is having the worst drought in 1,200 years. Streamflow is at a record high on Rio Nambe, the Santa Fe River and Rio Mora. The Pecos River is much above normal as it has been for the past week.

LINK

===

Record Streamflow In Arizona And New Mexico
Posted on July 2, 2022 by tonyheller

LINK

===

New Mexico Megadrought Update
Posted on June 27, 2022 by tonyheller
“Severe flooding in southeast New Mexico has caused multiple homes in Roswell to be lost.”

LINK

 

Reading comprehension would help you. I said blogger is a neutral term. My initial complaint about the blog was that it’s not the same as a peer reviewed study.

 

lol I am the furthest from groupthink one can get. It’s just obvious that human actions can affect the climate. If microorganisms can make the atmosphere rich in oxygen, we can release fossil fuels to make it warmer again. We are more capable of being impactful on our environment than any creature in this planets history. You’re getting bogged down in the details, listening to denier propaganda because they want to burn all the fuels we can find for profit. Just like tobacco companies denying cancer.

 

So your expert witness that climate change is a hoax is just a comedian. Are you actually joking right now? You also failed to listen to the second part of his skit where he said the real danger is not to the planet but to us humans. Even if we aren't holding China accountable, which is absolutely not true, that doesn't change the scientific facts.

 

Thanks, but I'll go with the Nobel Prize winner on this.

 

Okay, returning to this post because I have looked into the other criticism of high pressure events being the cause of the drought. I have not yet evaluated a paper for that position, but I found a compelling paper against that position.

The drought is not associated with a change in high-pressure events at all (no change in frequency of high pressure events from 1980 to 2018, but rather a decrease in low pressure events (decrease in frequency during same period). See figure 2. WT3 is low pressure events, WT4 is high pressure. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2021GL097089

"While it is well known that large, persistent areas of high pressure can trap heat in a region for an entire season, contributing to droughts, the impacts of day-to-day weather system changes at smaller scales have remained less studied. In this study, we learned that dry- and hot-weather-inducing ridge conditions did not significantly change during a period of generalized drying between 1980 and 2018. What did change during those years was the pattern of troughs, which are associated with wetter- and colder-than-normal conditions; these conditions became less common during those years. This trend is likely to have occurred in response to human-caused factors."

Furthermore, a smaller decrease in low pressure events has been observed overall since at least 1948 nationally, the paper notes.

When they control for pre-industrial models, the trend appears to be new and attributable to human causes. I don't fully understand the mechanism, but they say that increasing temperature can lead to a decrease in low pressure events.

I'm curious how another paper could conclude that high pressure events caused the drought when there was no change in high pressure events, but am out of time for that for now.

 

Meanwhile you forget the forum remembers your previous postings which clarifies your prejudice against bloggers since you were being dismissive of a man who is a well known democrat and strong supporter of the AGW hypothesis with numerous published science research.

You write at POST 11,

s.

First of all, his chart goes back to year 800 ad which supports his argument which you originally DELIBERATELY ignored which I showed at POST 15 with this following:


"A key aspect of this paper is its claim that the last 22 years were the driest over the southwest U.S. for the past 1200 years. Their measure of dryness was soil moisture and they secured this indirectly by relating tree ring chronologies to such moisture. Here is a plot of soil moisture from their paper:


Figure 1b from Williams et al. 2002. Nature Climate Change. The soil moisture
is expressed as standard deviations from the mean."

===

Then you respond with ZERO counterpoint just an opinion about his criticism of the use of only 22 years out of 1,200 years time frame which as Dr. Mass pointed is false since there have been DRIER years and deeper droughts in the past all of it being pushed aside for a measly last 22-year period that is dishonest and stupid.

Then you respond with this at POST 23,

What happens if you made it 50 years, 30 years...... BOOM! his paper quickly become nothing he made the ULTIMATE Cherrypick of a very short time frame, did you bother to read the published paper?

You also wrote this that hurts YOU badly since it came from the Williams paper you apparently never read:

You have been shown this several times now:


Figure 1b from Williams et al. 2002. Nature Climate Change. The soil moisture
is expressed as standard deviations from the mean."


The same Williams who published the paper Dr. Mass criticized.

You said it is a "shitty graph".......

OOooops!

Williams never made a case that it was caused by "global warming" as Dr. Mass pointed out why which you ignored so far, and the "shitty graph" shows a LOT of periodic droughts some are worse and deeper than the current one were, all of them... he he..... ha ha ha.. caused by "global warming" too.

===

There is one more thing you completely ignored why Dr. Mass and several others he brought up was this:

They make it clear it isn't caused by the nebulous phrase "global warming" a nonsense phrase for a small region.

You are going way too fast, and you still don't understand the problem of this paper.

 

Deliberatey ignored what? That chart is nearly useless visually. Too busy to interpret and I am not sure what point is being made by it other than variations happen a lot. Yes, they do, nobody disputed that. Need actual data with a statistical analysis, or a better graph which he did provide later in the blog, though it didn't go back to 800 CE.

I don't know how to help you if you don't get it. If you want to compare the current drought to the past, you start at the beginning of the current drought. That drought started 22 years prior.

Why would you study a drought by making your unit of analysis start before the drought? The point isn't that climate change causes an endless drought. The point is that droughts can be caused or exacerbated by climate change. To study the current drought, you start at the beginning of that drought, and then compare that to past droughts.

Dude, it IS A SHITTY GRAPH. But just because they made a shitty graph doesn't mean they're wrong. It means they would present their findings more clearly if they learned how to make graphs better.

No it doesn't show that. The negative soil moisture density looks higher at the end, but again, it's a shitty graph, so it's not clear from the graph, but it is clear from the actual data.

See post #37. They appear to be completely wrong about increased ridging, but I have more research to do, because what I've seen in other papers makes it mind-boggling they would make that claim so I have to evaluate the paper that makes the claim, if I have access to it.

 

Liveunhibited writes in the quotes:

The chart came from the WILLIAMS 2002 paper the one YOU call "shitty graph" it is THAT graph used to support his dishonest and stupid 22 year drought block.

LOL, it is just one of DOZENS of droughts some worse (9 of them at least) than the current one how come you can't read the chart?

No, the chart makes clear there is no relationship to Temperature and droughts and the late 1500's drought makes clear since that was around the bottom of the LIA and there were FIVE of them worse than the drought of today all during the LIA a world a lot cooler than today, you have a hard time reading the chart.

I never said it was wrong, lol, it was YOU who called it a "shitty graph" and no it is sufficient to show their drought claims of TODAY is false, how come you fail to see drier years in the chart outside of the cherrypicked 22 years?

You keep calling it a "shitty graph" yet it is good enough to show at least NINE droughts worse than the current one, it appears you can't read the chart and you NEVER made a case that it is a he he...'Shitty graph" anyway.

Your paper doesn't help you since it isn't global warming causing it, but the paper Dr. Mass referred to argues that its simply Natural Variability since circulation changes are the subject of the paper while yours is based on the contradictory and useless claim from the PNAS paper which doesn't even prove what is claims since it is based MODELING constructs!

The paper below is much better as they use real meteorological data for the region for their position. Now me and Dr. Mass lives in the State of Washington who sees that YOUR paper is a pile of bullshit!

Dr. Mass has covered the weather process of the region using the tools he has at hand which is why he favors the Johnstone and Mantua paper if you had been following his blog in recent years you would have learned at how well he understands the weather and climate of the West since he is professional Meteorologist with full access to all of the satellite data and its tools that comes with it and part of a team of Meteorologists who study the West weather and climate processes.

Johnstone and Mantua 2014 LINK

 

You should have read more closely. Your linked paper supports Professor Mass.

 

Elaborate. I quoted them as saying the SW drought is caused by fewer low pressure events, not more high pressure (ridges), and is caused by humans. Quite sure that's not what Mass said.

 

Um no, you have it backwards. Graphs are derived from data. Maybe you've never worked with data before. A graph is just meant to visually represent data so it's easier to interpret. The graph fails to do that. But that doesn't undercut their findings.

Quite convinced you don't know what you're talking about, but thanks for the link, will reply again when I review it.

How does that graph show you there were 9 worse droughts? Are you measuring the black lines below the zero versus above? Are you measuring the pink blocks and finding it's longer than the ongoing drought? Your claim is silly. Judging by the amount of red below the zero versus above, the current drought looks worse than the other highlighted droughts by my eye, other than maybe the one ending around 1300, but it's hard to judge, let alone measure. That's why it's a bad graph.

I should add, the models are used to help control for natural variability. But their data showing that ridges DID NOT increase during the drought seems indisputable.

 

Absence of troughs is merely the flip side of more ridges. And the attribution to human activity is nowhere in their research.

 

No. You can have one or neither, just not both at the same place and time. Think of a barometer. It can be high, low, or in between (neither ridge nor trough).

It is. Their terms are anthropogenic and external forcing and it's in there a lot. Can't say I have a full understanding of the mechanism so far, but it's there.

 

That's because there is no mechanism.

 

Absence of troughs has the same effect as ridges.

 

Ok, well, what is the point for Democrat Politicians to be in power at all, in the House, Senate, or Presidency, if they're not going to try and make deals with other countries to preserve, what they call our way of life?

To Help Save The Environment? It's because, they don't care! They only pretend like they do, while they do more things to destroy the Earth than help it, then blame it on the Republicans and Global Whining, I mean Warming. Go fly on another private jet Bill Clinton and Al Gore. and live in your mansions, that produce a lot more emissions that a lot of people combined.

 

He keeps ignoring what the Johnson/Manabe papers shows as pointed out by Dr. Mass here,

=====

It is normal to have persistent ridging off the coast of Washington/Oregon but usually for less than a week but sometimes longer during the year mostly in the SUMMER months while at times a Ridge does build up during the fall and wintertime that lasts for weeks as it did in the 1980's when it was endless fog and low clouds that didn't allow anyone see the sun at all for almost a month.

 

A ridge is building up in the Pacific Northwest generating a peak Heatwave for my area of 105-110 F for next week that will last for around 5 days but will be starting at 100-105 F on Monday.

LINK

My undersized swamp Cooler will be working hard next week!