“This is what global warming looks like” turned out to be nothing but incorrect opinionated hype by AP Science correspondent Seth Borenstein and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer.
From the “we told you so department” and NOAA’s Drought Task Force, which makes it pretty clear all the hype about last summer’s drought was nothing but that: hype.
NOAA asks: What caused the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought?
NOAA’s answer: The central Great Plains drought during May-August of 2012 resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.
• Moist Gulf of Mexico air failed to stream northward in late spring as cyclone and frontal activity were shunted unusually northward.
• Summertime thunderstorms were infrequent and when they did occur produced little rainfall.
• Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains.
Downloads available:
Click here for more information about the report, the Drought Task Force, or the Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) Program
========================================================
UPDATE: here’s Seth’s latest: (h/t Sam)
By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year’s huge drought was a freak of nature that wasn’t caused by man-made global warming, a new federal science study finds.
Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation’s midsection.
Thursday’s report by dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies looked into why forecasters didn’t see the drought coming. The researchers concluded that it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn’t have been forecast.
“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event.”
http://news.yahoo.com/report-global-warming-didnt-cause-big-us-drought-211545586.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
higley7 says:
April 12, 2013 at 5:18 am
Drought is difficult to quantify. My farmer friend near Atlanta, GA tells me that he agrees with news reports that the region was in a drought last year. He also tells me that his crop yield declined not at all and that he used no irrigation.
Theo Goodwin says:
April 12, 2013 at 6:53 am
…………..In other words, the upward swings in temperature will have a fraction added by CO2 forcing and that fraction will be detectable because it exceeds natural variation
——————————-
From a layman:
Don’t we need to know what will happen before we know it didn’t?
cn
Cont’d
Or do we at least know the end-to-end magnitude of natural variation?
It seems it get hidden so often.
cn
Given Trenberth’s reaction to NOAA’s explanation for the drought and the claims by Mann and associates discussed in “Michael Mann says climate models cannot explain the Medieval Warming Period – I say they can’t even explain the present,” it seems that the Alarmists have begun arguing that all of natural variation must be explained by the forcings, CO2 and such, that are found in their Alarmist climate “theory.” They are trying to get rid of natural variation. Extraordinary!
Chuck Nolan says:
April 12, 2013 at 7:12 am
Cont’d
“Or do we at least know the end-to-end magnitude of natural variation?”
I did not quite understand your first question. Probably my fault as my wording was not clear.
Natural Variation is simply the range of our reliable data points. Those data points change constantly. Germany recorded record low temperatures this winter. Those data points extend what we know about natural variation. If someone creates a sound scientific explanation of how CO2 contributed to those low temperatures then they would not be credited to natural variation.
There is no end-to-end magnitude of natural variation because climate is dynamic.
Trenberth has nailed his colors to the mast of Global Warming. With any luck, he’ll go down with his ship and the rest of the Hockey Team.
I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.
http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/
>Anny says:
April 12, 2013 at 8:23 am
Uh, translation requested, please..?
Here in Southcentral Montana, the drought continues, though we got some decent snow this week. Cow herds that have been cultivated for generations were sold last fall, and hay has been imported from as far away as Saskatchewan. A guy at work just sold off 150 cow/calf pairs at the worst time to do so because he has no grass for them. On Wednesday morning it was only 4 degrees F. here, so nothing is growing yet.
Anny says:
April 12, 2013 at 8:23 am
I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.
http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/
———————
(my bold and italic)
Sorry Anny but you cannot prevent global warming.
“Wen asserts greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to affect China’s climate for years to come, regardless of mitigation measures taken to reduce future emissions. As a result, we expect warming in China will continue into the future, and consequently warming in extreme temperatures will also continue,”
The real question is why you would be willing to put your boot on the neck of the poorest of the world just when civilization is in a position provide them a life almost as good as yours.
This type of mindless cruelty amazes me. Do you not comprehend how truly poor they are?
Do alarmists really believe if they force the other people of the world to live with much less energy it will help the poor in places like Bangladesh or Sao Paulo. Energy for heat, air conditioning, cooking, refrigeration, clean water and sanitary systems is what they need, not sanctimoniousness.
The rich politicians, scientists and Hollywood elites don’t even believe it and my guess is you don’t either. If you did you would move into a cave tomorrow and eliminate your carbon footprint…..for the children.
cn
Village Idiot says:
April 12, 2013 at 1:45 am
“…Help me out here. So we argue that climate models are OK when they give us what we’re looking for?
——————-
We’ve said all along models have a function but they are not being used correctly.
This is more evidence climate science is not ready for prime time to redirect the worlds people and resources.
cn
Mkelly,
Sorry to hear about the problem in central Montana. But according to this map, 1961-1990, you folks just don’t get much rain there. A little bit minus a little bit equals zero. Hopefully you’ll get more moisture soon. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/images/westom.gif
Too bad scribe Borenstein didn’t remind his readers of this statement from his “This is what global warming looks like” article, linked in the main post above.
“While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot U.S. summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He’s a global warming skeptic who says, “The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature.””
Borenstein tries to dismiss the skeptic as being the crazy minority by comparing him to “at least 15 climate scientists”, and intentionally omits the fact that John Christy is a professor of atmospheric science (and probably one of the most qualified people to speak on this issue). Every other person quoted by Borenstein is tagged with their credentials as if to bolster their credibility, yet…they ALL got it wrong!!!
Theo Goodwin says:
April 12, 2013 at 7:29 am
Chuck Nolan says:
April 12, 2013 at 7:12 am
Cont’d
“Or do we at least know the end-to-end magnitude of natural variation?”
I did not quite understand your first question. Probably my fault as my wording was not clear.
————-
Sorry Theo, after posting I see how I made it confusing. I was referring to the historical temperature swings and what caused climate to change in the past.
Short answer….I agree with you about natural variation.
imho
I don’t believe they comprehend enough about our climate’s operation at this point to completely change direction and stop improving life on earth.
What caused the many significant natural climate changes in the past? What are the impacts of future climate changes? These are two important pieces of the puzzle to solve and I think they just don’t know.
You could call me a ,
doubtingskeptical Thomas.cn
“geran says:
April 12, 2013 at 5:18 am
From the article: “Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation’s midsection.”
>>>>>>
Interesting timing–I happened to be in the Dallas-Fort Worth area early this week. I watched for three days as massive cloud cover, driven by 20-30 mph southerly winds, moved rapidly northward. Each day, mega tons of moisture was being pulled off the Gulf of Mexico, and was headed North to fuel the record snows that were reported yesterday.”
You can have that moisture back, if you’d like. I just spent the last 7 hours pumping it out of my basement and $100 to a plumber to make sure it stays out.
Wow, this new report is actually being carried by CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/12/us/drought-study/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Technically, it’s a drought when you have an extended period of below-average precipitation. However, using average precipitation as your yardstick has some caveats as the natural variation in precipitation can be a pretty broad range.
Here’s the Kansas City Annual Precipitation 1889-2010 from NOAA
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/localclimate/seasrank/annualpcpn.php
Notice the first column of numbers is year ranked by total precipitation. The range goes from a high of 60.25″ in 1961 to a low of 20.93″ in 1953. Neither the high or low occurred during years where human activities are alleged to have altered the natural climate.
The key part of the Borenstein article that wasn’t included here:
“Another scientist though, blasted the report.
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a federally funded university-run research center, said the report didn’t take into account the lack of snowfall in the Rockies the previous winter and how that affected overall moisture in the air. Nor did the study look at the how global warming exacerbated the high pressure system that kept the jet stream north and the rainfall away, he said.
“This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming,” Trenberth said in an email. “That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia.””
The drought was “exacerbated”, as if we can say what a non-exacerbated drought would have been.
The non-global-warming-drought, drought is another Negative Trenberth Event (Negative TE):
Global warming was supposed to cause ‘much’ of the drought, but is said by others not to do so, a non-observation when one was expected. So Trenberth, in keeping with the psychological defense mechanisms of the TE, says we just haven’t measured the PART of it that was global warming. Data that we didn’t collect but he knows exists, like the missing heat hidden in the depths of the oceans.
More soylent green!: Over at the Guardian website right now, I saw a couple of people are ACTUALLY saying that…without a hint of irony!
I was referring to your earlier comment, sorry should have mentioned that…
@ur momisugly people from Oklahoma. Back in the Dust Bowl there were signs, no Okies or dogs allowed. No transient Arkies either. Hope that never happens again.
10 Things You May Not Know About the Dust Bowl — History in the Headlines
http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-dust-bowl
I have concluded that this exposure does not matter very much in the public arena since the Main Stream Media have already mislead and misinformed the public on the matter, and will not issue a correction anyway.
They have moved on to yet another false or questionable claim and do not care one bit about being accurate since it suits their agenda to have the government control our lives through the global warming exaggerations. They can publish false claims faster than honest scientists can evaluate them and issue corrections. It is consistent with the overall plan to push through “change”.
So, like, this is all consensus, right?
I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Borenstein is the worst!
I had this figured out by simple observation of the radar pattern every day. Our rain comes from the Gulf. Last year most of the moisture reaching us was coming from the northern Pacific, or the Sea of Cortez. Most of it was gone before the system got here. The meteorologists could have noticed the pattern, too, but I never heard any of them mention it.