Climate models failed to simulate the observed 1970-2014 Pacific Ocean cooling. The 21st century southwestern US megadrought has been linked to this cooling, which “may have been caused by a forced response to greenhouse gas emissions.”
A new study provides a fresh look at the circular, self-contradictory reasoning that proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative routinely employ.
The authors acknowledge that the Central and East Pacific region has been cooling since 1970, and that climate models failed to simulate this cooling. The modeling failure stems from the assumption that rising greenhouse gas emissions lead to warming, not over four decades of cooling.
“While AO-GCMs [climate models] predicted a warming SST trend in the Central and East Pacific, the region instead experienced a cooling SST trend from 1970 to 2014…”
After insisting that “internal atmospheric variability has a larger role than SST forcing in explaining SWUS [Southwestern United States] precipitation variance,” and that “most historical droughts are unrelated to SST [sea surface temperature] forcing,” the authors nonetheless pivot, explaining that only during recent decades is the SWUS megadrought causally linked to SST forcing.
“In this study, we confirmed the connection between the Equatorial Pacific SST trend pattern and SWUS precipitation trends with Green’s function approach, which allows us to establish a causal link between SST and precipitation.”
But the SST forcing that suddenly explains recent SWUS drought trends (after not explaining these trends historically) is not the sign expected with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. No, drought has not been caused by warmer SSTs, but cooler SSTs. They say warmer SSTs will lead to a wetter climate, or less drought.
“…a cooling SST trend from 1970 to 2014…which potentially led to the observed megadrought in the SWUS due to a decrease in precipitation.”
“If the Central and East Pacific continue cooling, a prolonged period of drought is more likely to continue in the SWUS.”
However, in the future, warmer East and Central Pacific SSTs due to rising GHGs are expected (according to modeling) to cause less precipitation, or more SWUS drought. So over 40 years of cooling explains drought now, but sometime in the future warming will explain drought…even though neither warming or cooling SSTs explained SWUS drought historically.
“At least part of the megadrought was related to a lack of precipitation from the cooling Central and East Pacific, rather than due to a significant increase in evapotranspiration from global warming, which will likely cause droughts in the future as anthropogenic climate change worsens.”
But it’s worse than we thought. The authors assert the cooling SSTs causally linked to the 1970s-to-present SWUS megadrought – but that may not be the cause of drought in the future – may be explained by – yes, indeed – rising GHG concentrations. GHG forcing leads to warming SSTs – which, again, may not cause drought now, but may in the future. And yet the recent decades of cooling SSTs may be a response to the rising GHGs too. Rising GHG concentrations may simultaneously cause warming SSTs and cooling SSTs.
“The cooling of the Central and East Pacific not simulated by AO-GCMs [climate models] may have been caused by a forced response to greenhouse gas emissions.”
So let’s review what the authors found with a “Plain Language Summary” of own.
Until recent decades, internal atmospheric variability explained historical trends in drought. Warming or cooling SST trends did not. Then, in recent decades, a cooling SST trend (1970-2014) has been “confirmed” as the causal link to the SWUS megadrought. In the future, however, warming SSTs may cause SWUS megadrought. And both the warming and cooling trends in the SWUS are (and have been) caused by the same mechanism: rising GHGs.
It would appear the modern version of what constitutes peer-reviewed “climate science” has devolved into something resembling more of a creative writing exercise than actual science.
In the paper introduction (first 5 words) :
“As anthropogenic climate change continues, …”
Meanwhile the authors have no clue what is “anthropogenic climate change” since they find it could do one thing or the opposite in an umpredictable, unstable way.
It’s therefore impossible to establish any causal link between this “thing” and observed climate variations and thus the “thing” has no scientific nor observational basis and worse, not even a possible consistent definition.
But nevermind, the authors still know for sure that the “thing” exists and even that it continues (when did it appear ?) … a claim supported by no observation, no established causal link, no observed correlation, not even a proper definition, but who cares in climate junk science ?
One of the best Monty Python’s revival so far.
99.5% of the energy GHGs absorb is thermalized in the lower troposphere, leaving, 0.5% to radiate, half down. Thus the GHE is 1/200th of its consensus effect. The GHE is in reality a conductive effect, conducting via collisions before enough time to radiate almost all the GHG absorbed IR into the non-radiating non-GHGs.’
AGW is built on the GHE and is thus a fraud (if you eat 99.5% of my pie, I say you ate all my pie)>
“It would appear the modern version of what constitutes peer-reviewed “climate science” has devolved into something resembling more of a creative writing exercise than actual science.”
A very apt summary indeed.
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/msm-climate-alarmists-stumped-after-boiling-oceans-result-very-quiet-hurricane-season
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
[…] Fonte: NoTricks Zone […]