What? No hockey stick for Hydrological Climate Change???

[flacaltenn]

You win a few with proxy studies -- you lose a few with proxy studies. THIS TIME -- those old tree rings and mud bug shells and ice cores are telling the tales of the Earth's Hydro cycles for the past 1200 years.

So you think you're seeing GW fingerprints on droughts and floods and redistribution of precipt? Nope.. Says this studies. The instrumented modern record doesn't seem to support the support the modeling assertion that Globally hotter -- means exaggerations of wet/dry experiences across the globe..

Projections of global drought and flood patterns may not be accurate

A changing climate may not necessarily lead to more floods and droughts according to Swedish researchers who have reconstructed weather patterns over the past 1,200 years.
Scientists used data collected from tree rings, marine sediments, ice cores and mineral deposits to examine the interaction between water and climate in the northern hemisphere over the centuries.
Using this to create a 'spatial reconstruction of hydroclimate variability', they found no evidence to support simulations that showed wet regions getting wetter and dry regions drier during the 20th century.

Dr Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, a medieval historian and palaeoclimatologist at Stockholm University, explains the climate reconstruction showed a prominent seesaw pattern of alternating moisture regimes has been consistent over the past twelve centuries.


Climate anomalies such as medieval 'megadroughts' in the western US, and monsoon failures in east Asia during the 15th to 19th centuries, have occurred in this period and are larger than anything recorded with modern instruments.

HISTORICAL CLIMATE VARIATION
Researchers at Stockholm University say climate reconstructions showed a prominent see-saw pattern of alternating moisture regimes has been consistent over the past twelve centuries.
They used proxy data collected from tree rings, marine sediments, ice cores and mineral deposits to examine the interaction between water and climate in the northern hemisphere over the centuries.
Using multiple data sources to create a 'spatial reconstruction of hydroclimate variability', they found no evidence to support simulations which showed wet regions getting wetter and dry regions drier during the 20th century.

'This strongly suggests that the instrumental period is too short to capture the full range of natural hydroclimate variability', he writes in the journal Nature.

 

[flacaltenn]

Full paper (in Letter style) at Nature..

Northern Hemisphere hydroclimate variability over the past twelve centuries : Nature

Looks like the minders and black-ballers have opened up "climate science" to operate normally again.. Without all the back-room deals and horse-pucky.. MAYBE -- the science is "just beginning"..

 

[Kosh]

I thought posting facts and science was against the rules here..

As we know the religion known as AGW proves that incorrect computer models are to be norm and not actual observations.

 

[flacaltenn]

I thought posting facts and science was against the rules here..

As we know the religion known as AGW proves that incorrect computer models are to be norm and not actual observations.

Hey -- give our warmer buds time to go panting to skepscience to see what to say about this..
I'm thrilled the literature seems to have opened up.. You wouldn't see papers like this in Nature 10 years ago.
It would have been rejected for certain..

 

[Kosh]

I thought posting facts and science was against the rules here..

As we know the religion known as AGW proves that incorrect computer models are to be norm and not actual observations.

Hey -- give our warmer buds time to go panting to skepscience to see what to say about this..
I'm thrilled the literature seems to have opened up.. You wouldn't see papers like this in Nature 10 years ago.
It would have been rejected for certain..

It still states that the models can not explain the "human" influence as relates to the 20th Century and beyond.

That is why they were able to get it published as they appeased the AGW hierarchy by still blaming "Humans"..

 

[flacaltenn]

I thought posting facts and science was against the rules here..

As we know the religion known as AGW proves that incorrect computer models are to be norm and not actual observations.

Hey -- give our warmer buds time to go panting to skepscience to see what to say about this..
I'm thrilled the literature seems to have opened up.. You wouldn't see papers like this in Nature 10 years ago.
It would have been rejected for certain..

It still states that the models can not explain the "human" influence as relates to the 20th Century and beyond.

That is why they were able to get it published as they appeased the AGW hierarchy by still blaming "Humans"..

Think they are actually saying the modeling of water cycle effects in the 20th century sucks.. So what else is new?
But you're right. They left opened the POSSIBILITY that CO2 emissions and man MIGHT affect the hydro cycle in the future.

They wouldn't want to be labeled as deniers.......

Speaking of denial -- can't wait for our "deniers" to get through with their skepscience "talking points" on Lundquivst.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Crick]

From your article

"The findings from the new study don’t disprove that the Earth’s climate is changing or that certain regions are experiencing more extreme localised climates – desertification or localised flooding – but they do question some of the modelling and simulations which have been used to link climate and the water cycle."

Including, of course, Ljungqvist's model which failed to reproduce the 20th century's observed behavior. Might I suggest that his model is failing to properly handle the warming rates which, over the period he studied, are absolutely unprecedented.

 

[flacaltenn]

From your article

"The findings from the new study don’t disprove that the Earth’s climate is changing or that certain regions are experiencing more extreme localised climates – desertification or localised flooding – but they do question some of the modelling and simulations which have been used to link climate and the water cycle."

Including, of course, Ljungqvist's model which failed to reproduce the 20th century's observed behavior. Might I suggest that his model is failing to properly handle the warming rates which, over the period he studied, are absolutely unprecedented.

LJungqvist HAD no model.. Failed or otherwise. He did a historical proxy study over 1200 years. Found what is claimed to be a rather large NATURAL "see saw" variation on the hydro cycle. As with all treering/mudbug/ice proxy studies --- THEY FALL APART for the past couple hundred period because they are not ACCURATE in that short time span..

They also compared the INSTRUMENTED record of variation and saw no differences outside of the Historical record. They didn't just slap some scary looking modern age data on the right side and make it a hockey stick.

They did comparisons to a proxy record the correct way..
Now that I've wasted my time trying to read all that for you ----- Let me give you the Cliff Note summary..

There are areas of the planet that have not even SEEN the NATURAL historical variation in the Hydro cycle because the modern period of observation is too SHORT to experience them. AND GoldyRocks cannot look his window and WITNESS weather events that should be instinctively attributed to 1 deg of atmos change..

Isn't it amazing how trees and mudbugs and ice are not only RELIABLE THERMOMETERS..

But they are also amazing instruments for measuring Moisture and humidity as well? Is there anything that you cannot divine from a tree ring? I'll bet -- if you looked hard enough -- you could find a proxy set for earthquakes and wind speed also.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Full paper (in Letter style) at Nature..

Northern Hemisphere hydroclimate variability over the past twelve centuries : Nature

Looks like the minders and black-ballers have opened up "climate science" to operate normally again.. Without all the back-room deals and horse-pucky.. MAYBE -- the science is "just beginning"..

Don't be too sure. The journals in general have lost all scientific credibility. This could be a ruse... LOL.. but it is nice to see an ETHICAL and ACCURATE description of what they found.

 

[Crick]

And it doesn't surprise us in the least to find you accuse anyone who disagrees with your position, with deception and incompetence but find someone putting out stuff with which you do agree to be "ethical and accurate". You have absolutely no way to know any of that and your claims are based SOLELY on the fact that you prefer their results.

What a scientist.

 

[mamooth]

I especially liked his preemptive excuse to handwave away contrary evidence. If Flac doesn't like the data, he'll just auto-declare it came from Skeptical Science, and therefore must be propaganda.

And that's why they're called deniers.

 

[flacaltenn]

I especially liked his preemptive excuse to handwave away contrary evidence. If Flac doesn't like the data, he'll just auto-declare it came from Skeptical Science, and therefore must be propaganda.

And that's why they're called deniers.

If it comes from you -- the counter-points will have SkepScience all over them. I'm smart enough to figure out where you get your mind on GW. So ----- any comments on this proxy study??

 

[flacaltenn]

And it doesn't surprise us in the least to find you accuse anyone who disagrees with your position, with deception and incompetence but find someone putting out stuff with which you do agree to be "ethical and accurate". You have absolutely no way to know any of that and your claims are based SOLELY on the fact that you prefer their results.

What a scientist.

It either IS "ethical and accurate" or it isn't.. Was there a claim made in the study that is NOT backed up by their data? That's the kind of thing that determines "ethical and accurate" doesn't it?

Go find me the unsupported hysteria in this work and quit bitching about my "standards"....

Is that an honest replication of the Historical Hydro cycle? Or isn't it? I DON"T KNOW. If it IS --- then the simple ass presumption that temperature alone determines the variance of the hydro cycle --- which is embedded in all the "climate models" is highly suspect..

 

[Wyatt earp]

And it doesn't surprise us in the least to find you accuse anyone who disagrees with your position, with deception and incompetence but find someone putting out stuff with which you do agree to be "ethical and accurate". You have absolutely no way to know any of that and your claims are based SOLELY on the fact that you prefer their results.

What a scientist.

It either IS "ethical and accurate" or it isn't.. Was there a claim made in the study that is NOT backed up by their data? That's the kind of thing that determines "ethical and accurate" doesn't it?

Go find me the unsupported hysteria in this work and quit bitching about my "standards"....

Is that an honest replication of the Historical Hydro cycle? Or isn't it? I DON"T KNOW. If it IS --- then the simple ass presumption that temperature alone determines the variance of the hydro cycle --- which is embedded in all the "climate models" is highly suspect..

Please read this article from last months huffpost, I read it three times and I still don't know what they are saying?


Global Warming Will Drive 'Extreme Rain' And Flooding, Study Finds

As global temperatures continue to rise, more “extreme rain“ events — intense, cats-and-dogs downpours — can be expected, said the study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

And that, scientists said, means an increased flood risk, particularly for the world’s driest regions.


The study challenges the idea that global warming is causing dry areas to become drier and wet areas wetter.

“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” lead author Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, told Nature.

Donat and his team collected data from 1951 to 2010 on extreme precipitation events from 11,000 weather stations around the world, Nature reported.

 

[flacaltenn]

And it doesn't surprise us in the least to find you accuse anyone who disagrees with your position, with deception and incompetence but find someone putting out stuff with which you do agree to be "ethical and accurate". You have absolutely no way to know any of that and your claims are based SOLELY on the fact that you prefer their results.

What a scientist.

It either IS "ethical and accurate" or it isn't.. Was there a claim made in the study that is NOT backed up by their data? That's the kind of thing that determines "ethical and accurate" doesn't it?

Go find me the unsupported hysteria in this work and quit bitching about my "standards"....

Is that an honest replication of the Historical Hydro cycle? Or isn't it? I DON"T KNOW. If it IS --- then the simple ass presumption that temperature alone determines the variance of the hydro cycle --- which is embedded in all the "climate models" is highly suspect..

Please read this article from last months huffpost, I read it three times and I still don't know what they are saying?


Global Warming Will Drive 'Extreme Rain' And Flooding, Study Finds

As global temperatures continue to rise, more “extreme rain“ events — intense, cats-and-dogs downpours — can be expected, said the study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

And that, scientists said, means an increased flood risk, particularly for the world’s driest regions.


The study challenges the idea that global warming is causing dry areas to become drier and wet areas wetter.

“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” lead author Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, told Nature.

Donat and his team collected data from 1951 to 2010 on extreme precipitation events from 11,000 weather stations around the world, Nature reported.

EXACTLY -- my man. That's the kind of horseshit that this study seems to refute.

You have a majority of studies claiming "dry areas to become drier and wet areas wetter. " and these guy you found saying "ALL areas will become wetter". Typical "settled science" from the Climate camp.,.

Meanwhile --- some group pulls out a proxy history of the global distribution of wet/dry over 1200 years and says
"we are seeing GREATER variation in HISTORICAL hydro swings than we can see in the recent instrumented record". So if the "recent" 1 or 1.5 deg doesn't solve the argument in the above paragraph -- perhaps TEMPERATURE is not the driving factor.... And their "modeling" for GW effects on Hydro cycle predictions is just garbage..

 

[Wyatt earp]

And it doesn't surprise us in the least to find you accuse anyone who disagrees with your position, with deception and incompetence but find someone putting out stuff with which you do agree to be "ethical and accurate". You have absolutely no way to know any of that and your claims are based SOLELY on the fact that you prefer their results.

What a scientist.

It either IS "ethical and accurate" or it isn't.. Was there a claim made in the study that is NOT backed up by their data? That's the kind of thing that determines "ethical and accurate" doesn't it?

Go find me the unsupported hysteria in this work and quit bitching about my "standards"....

Is that an honest replication of the Historical Hydro cycle? Or isn't it? I DON"T KNOW. If it IS --- then the simple ass presumption that temperature alone determines the variance of the hydro cycle --- which is embedded in all the "climate models" is highly suspect..

Please read this article from last months huffpost, I read it three times and I still don't know what they are saying?


Global Warming Will Drive 'Extreme Rain' And Flooding, Study Finds

As global temperatures continue to rise, more “extreme rain“ events — intense, cats-and-dogs downpours — can be expected, said the study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

And that, scientists said, means an increased flood risk, particularly for the world’s driest regions.


The study challenges the idea that global warming is causing dry areas to become drier and wet areas wetter.

“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” lead author Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, told Nature.

Donat and his team collected data from 1951 to 2010 on extreme precipitation events from 11,000 weather stations around the world, Nature reported.

Oh crap I finally get it lmao....


Global cooling>global warming >climate change


The wet areas going to get more wet, dry areas more dry>>>> the wet areas going to get dry, the dry areas going to get wet..



Why again are these guys getting paid for again????



.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And it doesn't surprise us in the least to find you accuse anyone who disagrees with your position, with deception and incompetence but find someone putting out stuff with which you do agree to be "ethical and accurate". You have absolutely no way to know any of that and your claims are based SOLELY on the fact that you prefer their results.

What a scientist.

It either IS "ethical and accurate" or it isn't.. Was there a claim made in the study that is NOT backed up by their data? That's the kind of thing that determines "ethical and accurate" doesn't it?

Go find me the unsupported hysteria in this work and quit bitching about my "standards"....

Is that an honest replication of the Historical Hydro cycle? Or isn't it? I DON"T KNOW. If it IS --- then the simple ass presumption that temperature alone determines the variance of the hydro cycle --- which is embedded in all the "climate models" is highly suspect..

Please read this article from last months huffpost, I read it three times and I still don't know what they are saying?


Global Warming Will Drive 'Extreme Rain' And Flooding, Study Finds

As global temperatures continue to rise, more “extreme rain“ events — intense, cats-and-dogs downpours — can be expected, said the study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

And that, scientists said, means an increased flood risk, particularly for the world’s driest regions.


The study challenges the idea that global warming is causing dry areas to become drier and wet areas wetter.

“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” lead author Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, told Nature.

Donat and his team collected data from 1951 to 2010 on extreme precipitation events from 11,000 weather stations around the world, Nature reported.

Oh crap I finally get it lmao....


Global cooling>global warming >climate change


The wet areas going to get more wet, dry areas more dry>>>> the wet areas going to get dry, the dry areas going to get wet..



Why again are these guys getting paid for again????



.

Circular logical fantasy or is it fallacy?

 

[flacaltenn]

And it doesn't surprise us in the least to find you accuse anyone who disagrees with your position, with deception and incompetence but find someone putting out stuff with which you do agree to be "ethical and accurate". You have absolutely no way to know any of that and your claims are based SOLELY on the fact that you prefer their results.

What a scientist.

It either IS "ethical and accurate" or it isn't.. Was there a claim made in the study that is NOT backed up by their data? That's the kind of thing that determines "ethical and accurate" doesn't it?

Go find me the unsupported hysteria in this work and quit bitching about my "standards"....

Is that an honest replication of the Historical Hydro cycle? Or isn't it? I DON"T KNOW. If it IS --- then the simple ass presumption that temperature alone determines the variance of the hydro cycle --- which is embedded in all the "climate models" is highly suspect..

Please read this article from last months huffpost, I read it three times and I still don't know what they are saying?


Global Warming Will Drive 'Extreme Rain' And Flooding, Study Finds

As global temperatures continue to rise, more “extreme rain“ events — intense, cats-and-dogs downpours — can be expected, said the study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

And that, scientists said, means an increased flood risk, particularly for the world’s driest regions.


The study challenges the idea that global warming is causing dry areas to become drier and wet areas wetter.

“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” lead author Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, told Nature.

Donat and his team collected data from 1951 to 2010 on extreme precipitation events from 11,000 weather stations around the world, Nature reported.

And here is the argument from the paper's Author that you posted..

“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust increases in heavy precipitation,” lead author Markus Donat, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, told Nature.

Donat and his team collected data from 1951 to 2010 on extreme precipitation events from 11,000 weather stations around the world, Nature reported.

In that time, the number of days with “extreme precipitation” increased 1 percent to 2 percent per decade. The trend is forecast to continue intensifying through the end of the century, likely leading to additional flooding.

“We found a strong relationship between global warming and an increase in rainfall, particularly in areas outside of the tropics,” Donat said in a statement.


This clown looks at just 60 years of rainfall -- notices a 1 or 2% increase per DECADE -- And IMMEDIATELY ASSUMES that trend will continue because OBVIOUSLY everything scary is caused by GW. He STARTED with the assumption that a small global uniform temperature rise was the cause.

That's witch-doctoring not science. Because first of all -- looking at a 50 year trend and forecasting that SAME TREND TO CONTINUE AND INTENSIFY -- is not based on a tangible physical basis for that happening. If one or two degrees could cause the Mojave to start blooming --- we'd all be shocked. YET -- he CLAIMS he saw "significant and robust increases in precipt" in dry (as well as wet) regions. I'd have to look at the paper, but color me skeptical.

Second of all -- if the paper in this OP is a correct HISTORICAL RECORD of what's been wet and what been dry ----- Then we aint even had the opportunity to MEASURE the "extreme events" that occurred over the past 1000 years with presumably a relatively CONSTANT surface temperature. So if this OP paper is correct we ain't even outside the bounds of NATURAL variance here yet..

So one of 3 things possible here. ..

1) Either temperature variations ARE an important driver of the hydro cycle EVERY WHERE --- and all the flat Hockey sticks that didn't quite measure ancient temperature grossly underestimated NATURAL temperature variability. OR

2) Temperature is NOT an important driver of the hydro cycle and the clowns making modeling predictions largely based on the GW temperature anomaly are witch-doctors. OR

3) Both types (temperature and moisture) of proxy studies are useless to replicate REAL variances in either variable and we HAVE NO valid Historical records to look at "extremes"...

Maybe a couple other possibilities in there. I choose ................................................ I don't know.

But I wouldn't bet the entire farm on the basis of tree-rings/mudbugs/icecores being equivalent to modern thermometers AND rain gauges so I'm leaning towards #3..

Let the "settled science" begin.....

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll go grab the Donat paper. Before I hurt myself imaging deserts globally gaining 1 or 2% per decade in precipt.

Somethings wrong with the definitions of WHERE this happens or what "dry" is...