Paleoclimate evidence affirms warmth reduces drought frequency and intensity.
A new study utilizes Asian tree pollen records to affirm that for the last 8000 years centennial-scale warming periods were associated with reductions in drought, famines, crop failures.
“…warm periods were associated with increased precipitation along with relatively short-lived drought events.”
In contrast, centuries of cooling (e.g., the Little Ice Age) induced “extreme drought conditions,” or megadrought, and thus widespread ecological hardship.
“…a cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere may result in persistent extreme drought conditions in arid tropical regions.”
Since warming is associated with more rainfall, and cooling induces drought, it is interesting that the modern trends are the opposite of what would be anticipated with a warming climate. Despite lower CO2 levels in the first half of the 20th century there was more precipitation (warmer) from 1900-1960s and less precipitation (cooling) from the 1970s to 1990s.
“…relatively high annual precipitation before 1970 which was linked to relatively high tree pollen percentages. However, from the 1970s to the mid-1990s, both the tree pollen percentages and annual precipitation decreased”
The authors conclude that there should not be an emphasis on the dangers of global warming, but, considering the environmental consequences, “it is also important to address the potential hazards associated with cooling.”
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] From NoTrickZone […]
High school science: in cool evironments less evaporation; less evaporation means less condensation, so…….
The original paper says that 3 of 6 megadroughts were associated with cooling. So, based on that evidence, there doesn’t seem to be much of a relation one way or the other. So I don’t think you can rely on “high school science” for your deductions in this case.
Kenneth Richard wrote:
“Since warming is associated with more rainfall, and cooling induces drought, it is interesting that the modern trends are the opposite of what would be anticipated with a warming climate.”
That’s because AGW / CAGW describes a physical process which is physically impossible. AGW / CAGW comes about due to the climatologists misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models, said misuse which assumes emission to 0 K, which artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects and thus conjures “backradiation” out of thin air; which they claim causes the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”; which they use to designate polyatomics as “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”; which they use to claim certain of those polyatomics cause AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2); which they use to claim we must curtail CO2 emission; from which springs all of the AGW / CAGW offshoots: carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, carbon taxes, banning ICE vehicles, replacing reliable baseload electrical generation with intermittent ‘renewables’, etc.
It is all based upon that basal physical impossibility which conjures “backradiation” out of thin air.
https://i.imgur.com/V2lWC3f.png
There is no CO2-induced “global warming”… the change in surface temperature due to a change in the concentration of any constituent atomic or molecular species of the atmosphere depends upon that species’ effect upon the adiabatic lapse rate, and whether that species is a radiative polyatomic capable of radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it.
Thus, the climatologists are (yet again) diametrically opposite to reality… CO2 has a tiny effect upon the lapse rate (0.0000596438906607385 K ppm-1), and it does indeed radiatively cool the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it.
A higher concentration of radiative polyatomics means more emitters per parcel of air, thus a greater propensity to radiatively emit per parcel of air, thus a greater radiant exitance per parcel of air down the energy density gradient and out to space, which represents a loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’, which is de facto a cooling process.
Thus, for an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ‘starting point’ of the lapse rate (that altitude at which radiative processes dominate over convective processes) starts out at a cooler temperature, which translates down through the lapse rate to a cooler surface.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
I’ve derived the Specific Lapse Rate for 17 common atmospheric gases, and provided the equations so anyone can calculate the resultant change in lapse rate for any given change in any given atomic or molecular species of the atmosphere.
I haven’t found a way to mathematically quantify the upper-atmospheric radiative cooling due to a higher concentration of polyatomics radiatively cooling the atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it, which sets the ‘starting point’ of the lapse rate lower, which translates down through the lapse rate to a cooler surface.
But that’s not all the climate alarmists are diametrically opposite to reality about:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1gsv82i/corals_and_mollusks_were_being_lied_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1h93i15/the_paradox_of_co2_sequestration/
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1h7aijs/comment/m0l4mju/
As usual, anyone is free to use any of what I write and the graphics I’ve created however they wish. Attribution is neither required nor desired. Rip it off wholesale, I don’t care. If someone writes an article or book based upon what I’ve written and makes a buck from it, more power to them. Just work to destroy the AGW / CAGW scam before it destroys our way of life.
You can tell which images are mine… they are of low aesthetic quality. I’m no artist. LOL