Paper finds droughts & floods due to natural variability, not man-made greenhouse gas

Discussion in 'Environment' started by SSDD, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,936
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,546
    In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

    An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

    This paper, recently published in the Journal of climate examined regional precipitation between 1979 and 2006 and found that the trends were related to the natural variability of sea surface temperatures, not a trace gas in the atmosphere.
     
  2. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,913
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    Granny bought her a gas mask so the greenhouse gases don't get her...

    Greenhouse gas levels rising at fastest rate since 1984
    8 September 2014 ~ A surge in atmospheric CO2 saw levels of greenhouse gases reach record levels in 2013, according to new figures.
     
  3. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,209
    Thanks Received:
    4,681
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,470
    The BBC mangled the CO2 increase since 1750.. Technically correct, but misleading. CO2 levels are 42% higher than were in 1750. That's a TOTAL of 142% of the 1750 level. That's an old statistician trick to get a bigger number without being called a liar..

    Good thing Grannie's wearing a mask -- because what she's breathing out is 6 times more toxic than the CO2 level in our fresh air !!!!

    Good for Granny. Good for us.. More MASKS !! And don't look at the USA for that increase. OUR CO2 footprint has shrunk to 1990's levels.
     
  4. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    10,212
    Thanks Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +2,747
    Abstract from the OP's article

    In this study, the nature and causes for observed regional precipitation trends during 1977–2006 are diagnosed. It is found that major features of regional trends in annual precipitation during 1977–2006 are consistent with an atmospheric response to observed sea surface temperature (SST) variability. This includes drying over the eastern Pacific Ocean that extends into western portions of the Americas related to a cooling of eastern Pacific SSTs, and broad increases in rainfall over the tropical Eastern Hemisphere, including a Sahelian rainfall recovery and increased wetness over the Indo–West Pacific related to North Atlantic and Indo–West Pacific ocean warming. It is further determined that these relationships between SST and rainfall change are generally not symptomatic of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols. The intensity of regional trends simulated in climate models using observed time variability in greenhouse gases, tropospheric sulfate aerosol, and solar and volcanic aerosol forcing are appreciably weaker than those observed and also weaker than those simulated in atmospheric models using only observed SST forcing. The pattern of rainfall trends occurring in response to such external radiative forcing also departs significantly from observations, especially a simulated increase in rainfall over the tropical Pacific and southeastern Australia that are opposite in sign to the actual drying in these areas.

    Additional experiments illustrate that the discrepancy between observed and GHG-forced rainfall changes during 1977–2006 results mostly from the differences between observed and externally forced SST trends. Only weak rainfall sensitivity is found to occur in response to the uniform distribution of SST warming that is induced by GHG and aerosol forcing, whereas the particular pattern of the observed SST change that includes an increased SST contrast between the east Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and strong regional warming of the North Atlantic Ocean, was a key driver of regional rainfall trends. The results of this attribution study on the causes for 1977–2006 regional rainfall changes are used to discuss prediction challenges including the likelihood that recent rainfall trends might persist
    ******************************************************************************************
    No one has been contending that AGW is responsible for the link between ENSO-driven SST trends and droughts in the American southwest. The claim has been that AGW is driving ENSO changes which are resulting in those drought conditions.

    My participation in this thread has only been concerned with whether or not a drought is taking place. I have posted nothing about links with AGW. So I assume SSDD was talking about someone else in the OP.

    I have no serious disagreement with the findings of this paper. I don't know how accurate it is to say that AGW only creates uniformly distributed SST warming. The subduction of large amounts of heated surface water into the deep ocean has not led to a uniform distribution of that heat energy in the depths or at the surface. But that's all above my paygrade. I'll let the scientists figure it out and let us know.
     
  5. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,209
    Thanks Received:
    4,681
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,470
    But yet you've repeatedly alledged exactly that. That droughts and storms are TODAY enhanced or caused by GWarming.. Just nailed you last week on a DENIAL where you STATED THAT in the same thread..

    Did ya notice the OP is over a year old?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. jc456
    Offline

    jc456 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    23,878
    Thanks Received:
    1,553
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,748
    Seems like he's doin some double talkin, eh?
     
  7. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    10,212
    Thanks Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +2,747

    I had not noticed its age.

    You did not understand my statement. Let me repeat. Or you could scroll back up and read it again.

    Paraphrased rom my previous post
    No one has been contending that AGW is responsible for the link between ENSO-driven SST trends and droughts in the American southwest. The claim has been that AGW is driving ENSO changes and it is those changes which are resulting in those drought conditions.

    So, a link exists between ENSO affects climate changes that produce droughts and flooding in different regions. The link was not created or altered by rising CO2 or the resultant AGW. Rising temperatures (from greenhouse warming or other sources) affect ENSO cycles and amplitudes. They thus, via the existing link, affect the occurrence and duration of the resultant floods and droughts.
     
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,209
    Thanks Received:
    4,681
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,470
    Nope.. No evidence that the 0.5degC change in Mean Global Temp in your lifetime is affecting floods and droughts. Natural cycles predominant. Otherwise -- you'd have to explain why the AMO has been CRUSHED in past years and Atlantic hurricanes have been virtually dormant. TEMPERATURE is one of nearly a dozen REQUIRED conditions for weather. Not sufficient to amplify weather by itself.
     
  9. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    10,212
    Thanks Received:
    752
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +2,747
    I, and several thousand atmospheric scientists, disagree.
     
  10. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,209
    Thanks Received:
    4,681
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,470
    Several thousand huh?? :lmao: Well go ask ONE of those several thousand what 0.5deg at the surface means to a SuperCell thunderstorm and get back to me. Chances of formation? Intensity of peak winds? Highest development height? Amount of hail? Formation of tornadoes?

    You are full of shit.. NONE of that changes with JUST temperature alone. ESPECIALLY IF the warming is not JUST at the surface as in Global Warming heating..

    Hansen showed his desperation and lack of humility with that one silly paper pushing temperature as a SUFFICIENT condition for extreme weather events. You notice that not a lot of real announcements coming in follow-up work on that farce. Probably heard those thousands of atmos scientists laughing behind his back..

    In fact BullWink -- when's the last time you saw a scary exponential temperature projection come out in the press from your "consensus"? That's deader than the petrified forest son.. Your "thousands" have taken to hiding out and disguises for AT LEAST 2 years now..
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2014

Share This Page