By P Gosselin
Disconnected from reality: Despite heavy winter rains, flooding and DWD data, Germany’s Helmholtz Institute insists parts of Germany are “extremely dry”.
The “climate change-induced drought” in January 2024
By Frank Bosse
We already reported several times (here and here) on the Helmholtz Institute’s Drought Monitor.
In the meantime, there have been major floods, especially in north-western Germany, and also a lot of precipitation elsewhere. In Saxony, the DWD German national weather service recorded some 107 mm of precipitation in December, 2023, which is 78% more than the long-term mean. There was also an increase of 10% over the whole 2023 year.
Now let’s take a look at the drought monitor in the region and, as of January 5, 2024, it still shows areas in northeastern Saxony with extreme (dark red) and exceptional drought (red) in the total soil to a depth of 1.80 m.
We have compared this in detail with the soil profiles available from the DWD, up to January 5, 2024. Here is the result:
At the bottom left is the Helmholtz Drought Monitor image for Saxony, along with the DWD profiles for the respective locations: top left, top right, and bottom right. Clearly the DWD results are contrary to the Helmholtz Frought Monitir depiction, which by the way is based on models.
At the top left near Elsterheide, the Helmholtz Drought Monitor shows “extreme drought” of the entire soil as of January 5, 2024 and the corresponding DWD profile reveals 90-100% moisture penetration throughout. At Boxberg (top right), down to 1.3m is over 90% moisture, between 40 and 100 cm depth there is oversaturation, below 130 cm down to a depth of 2m there is still 50-60%.
Is this what “extreme drought” looks like, according to Helmholtz?
The Neisse floodplain (bottom right) tops it all off: Helmholtz also indicates “extreme drought” here. But the DWD shows there’s 100% moisture in the soil profile down to a depth of 1.8 m. Between 80 cm and 140 cm, the soil is in fact saturated with water.
If drought is understood as a lack of water, then the “Drought Monitor” must be representing something else! It has nothing to do with reality and everyone should be warned not to take the depictions at face value.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m surprised the Germans haven’t shriveled up and blown away with those drought conditions… I mean 4+” of drought in December alone they must be parched.
They usually get between 2″ and 6″ of drought in December as an average so 4″ of drought is right down the middle
We’re having freezing warming conditions here in Colorado. Single digit highs in Fahrenheit are not pleasant but at least it’s better than -40 where C and F cross.
That’s some serious warming cold right there.
The computer model is always correct. That is how climate science works .Climate science is not one of the branches of natural science. Climate science is the mutant child of political science and theology closer to science fiction. Actual data measurement has no place in Climate Science. Actual data measurements are for dinosaurs and old people. No sense trying to convince the CAGW crowd, they live in a different universe.
no wonder that university in Finland gave Greta Thunberg an honorary PhD in theology
That’s better than herpes.
I hope that is based on what you have read.
All the poor girl could manage. A minute’s silence for all abused children…
That’s because they were looking at the wrong end……
With how many CC sects there are I might be tempted to label the CC Cult as Science Faction
More BS from the No Tricks Zone. The anti-consensus bias is so strong at that website that yesterday I deleted the website from my bookmark list of 50 climate and energy websites that I scan every week. The main problem there is “Anything But CO2” author Kenneth Richard.
A quick scan of the data for Germant shows that on January 10, 2024, only very tiny portions of the nation had droughts. There is nothing in the data to suggest any science fraud. That’s what this article implies. And that’s why it is BS.
Source of Chart
German Drought Monitor – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (ufz.de)
The daily chart:
You present the discussed wrong chart as proof to show it’s correct ?? 😀 😀
What is your drug, prescibed ? 😀
I showed a chart of all of Germany to show how small the drought areas were. The implication that the drought data is corrupt can not be made honestly. Your drug appears to be an overdose of stupid pills.
dickie.. you have taken so many “stupid” pills .. how can there possibly be any left for anyone else. !!
No sign of intelligence in this bNasty2000 comment, as expected
poor petulant dickie-boy.
You should read that
Hi Krishna, the title of the article only understand Germans I’afraid because the English version should be translated with “The climate groundhog day” which is too complicated for Google Translate. The film classic has a totaly different title in German and English.
best Frank
😀
Sometimes NI ( natural) is the winner over AI…
Talking about climate issues NI wins 😀
Ah, an immediate resort to ad hominems.
Greene loses the entire debate.
The current DWZ map shows perhaps 3% of Germany in drought.
Any attempt to refute the data HONESTLY would require a study of quite a few areas, selected at random, to verify the accuracy of the drought data
This author is NOT honest or scientific
He selects only one area and claims the drought data are wrong ONLY because it appears to contradict the soil moisture data for the same small area from the same organization.
No honest scientific conclusion is possible from one small sample.
It is not possible to know if the drought indicator is correct and the soil moisture indicator is wrong, or vice versa, or both are wrong. It does not seem possible that both are right.
When data are insufficient to make a scientific conclusion, the conclusion implied is science fraud. This article implies the drought indicators is no good. That implied claim is science fraud.
The goal of the article was to trash the official German organization, by cherry picking data. and not with a good, thorough scientific investigation.
Even if the article was correct, that leaves 97% (my guess) of Germany’s drought map unsampled — no idea if it is correct or not.
The problems with the No Trick Zone wenbsite is a strong bias against the government data and a strong CO2 does nothing bias when selecting and writing articles.
That problem infests the comments here too.
If climate science is a Government is 100% correct argument by the leftists versus a Government is 100% wrong by conservatives, debate — the us or them fallacy — then we conservatives lose the climate propaganda war.
Leftists get away with junk scince and wild predictions
Conservatives must respond with better science and no jumping to conclusions because they are popular among conservatives.
Sampling one small area of a drought chart is not good enough to imply the German organization that compiled the chart is corrupt. They may be corrupt and incompetent, but the author jumped to that conclusion, with far too little analysis. And he made no attempt to prove the same organization’s soil moisture data were accurate, before using them as the gold standard for analysis of their drought data.
This author is NOT honest or scientific
But you are ? 😀 😀 😀
What do you dream at night ?
Hi Richard, my understanding of honest science is, that it should match on EVERY datapoint the reality. If it doesn’t there remain questions it the used method is valid. It’s a principle that a theory is falsified if it doesen’t match any feature of the known reality. Therefore I think the Helmholtz map in question is falsified because real data of the DWD on at least 3 areas contradict the used model.
best Frank
“It is not possible to know if the drought indicator is correct and the soil moisture indicator is wrong, or vice versa, or both are wrong.”
Richard seems to think that both are reporting observations. Did he actually read Frank’s post?
Frank Bosse claims that the drought monitor depiction is based on MODELS:
“Clearly the DWD results are contrary to the Helmholtz Frought Monitir depiction, which by the way is based on models.”
The reasonable critique of Mr. Bosse is that the drought monitor model just seems to have not yet been updated/calibrated with the latest observational data.
By putting a date on the recent model estimate, the Monitir depiction is implying that it has been updated with data up to that point, when the observational data says it isn’t.
It is perfectly appropriate to call that out, but if the Monitir is really just a month behind that could be due just to shoddiness, instead of any alarmist intent.
In any case, the situation is NOT what Richard suggests: that there are competing observations and we don’t know which is right.
No, the recent observations show no drought, and the model depiction fails to account that latest information.
NTZ doesn’t claim that the Helmholtz Institute’s Drought Monitor shows the whole of Germany to be suffering from drought. The article refers to a particular part of Saxony. It is the situation in the “very tiny portions” where the HIDM is shown to be wrong. Do you deny that?
Mr. Greene: I tried to defend your posts, but then you admitted that you want to gaslight commenters here, so I stopped. Here, we see you are lousy at gaslighting! But you got to remove NTZ from your “list”, and nobody noticed. Hopeless.
But you see, the chart from the head of the article is an enlarged section ?
And not to compare with what you mean to be a proof of the contrast.
As usual you… i shut better up 😀
The CONSENSUS BIAS is so strong with dickie-boy that he follows every fallacy of the AGW scam.
You are absolutely correct, bnice2000.
Germany is flooding, the ground is drowning, but somehow there is still drought and not enough rain… A specious argument from the ad hominem thrower.
Riigghht.
I believe there is a strong consensus that you never posts science thoughts or even science delusions. Only insults from bnasty2000
Poor dickie-boy, after following the CONSENSUS on basically everything to do with CO2…
.. he now thinks it is an insult to point that out !
Victim status is a far-left trait !
““Anything But CO2””
No evidence it is CO2.
Why are you STILL following that unproven fallacy ??
It is inbuilt need to be part of the fake consensus, so you can feel “needed “?
I hope you enjoy this comment from one of the world’s foremost atmospheric physicists.
…. although, you have made it clear that DENIAL of science is your “thing” !
Many Ph.D.’s spread the BS Piled High and Deep
The entire climate scaremongering propaganda is built on the backs of
To the point that I prefer articles and studies by people who are NOT government bureaucrat Ph.D. scientists and can not break through the consensus peer review process to get published in scientific journals
You are a sucker for any “CO2 does nothing
claim” even though you have no idea what the study says.
The entire climate scaremongering propaganda is built on the backs of Ph.D.’s, usually government funded.
Poor dickie.. so TOTALLY BEREFT of scientific understanding.
It really is becoming very comical.
Noted, dickie-boy was TOTALLY INCAPABLE of arguing the actual science
… so he did the normal far-left trollette thing of attempting to slime.
Now just needs a very big towel to remove it all from his own face.
“only very tiny portions of the nation had droughts”
Doesn’t match soil moisture in the area.. did you miss that part…??.
But then, nobody expects you to understand soil moisture. (or much at all)
Probably best if you don’t comment on things you don’t understand.
Then… we will never hear from you again !!
One tiny sample of drought map
Almost all of Germany not sampled
No proof soil moisture data were correct
Could have been a tiny mistake rather than deliberate science fraud
Incompetent science analysis used to condemn an entire government organization
And you remain just like a typical leftist — you know nothing about everything.
The NoTrickszone article doesn’t talk about Germany, try to understand that, it’s easy, even for you !
As I said.. dickie-boy has zero comprehension of soil moisture.
Not unexpected at all. !
“Incompetent science analysis”
Have you ever visited that blog by the “Honest” whateveritcallsitself..
Now there is lay-down case of Incompetent science analysis.
You make the unjustified assumption the soil moisture data are correct and the drought data are wrong.
Because that’s what you want to believe
And you assume if a tiny portion of the drought map is really wrong, them the whole drought map must be wrong too
Because that is what you want to believe
After you assume the whole drought map is wrong, based on a tiny sample, you then assume the organization that made the drought map is corrupt … except for their moisture data, which you believe are perfectly accurate, in spite of coming from an allegedly corrupt organization. Your logic is tied in knots. And that explains why the author has committed science fraud too.
You believe what you want to believe
and disregard the rest
You skipped many steps climbing up an assumption ladder, and fell off.
Your Three Stooges lack of logic, and Don Rickles insults, bNasty2000, don’t work with me.
Mr. Greene: You say “drought data,” but others point out that it’s a model, not data. The article shows that data disagrees with the model, thus the model is wrong. Most of us who think AGW is a hoax recognize that when data doesn’t match the model, the model is wrong. Don’t you agree?
You’re so determined to gaslight us that you are blind.
so hilarious ,
little dickie-boy STILL hasn’t picked up on the FACT that the soil moisture is measured.. and the drought index is a model.
He must be one of those AGW climate apostles that thinks the model must be correct and the measured data wrong.
NEVER a scientist, were you dickie !!
Amazing how often we see drought areas.. under floods !! 😉
Hi Richard, the shown map in the main post from Helmholtz is the map of Saxony, Germany. You find the link via the hompage. And the figure looks still almost the same:
There’s nothing wrong with the content of the mainpost where Saxony is mentioned.
best Frank
Is that single alleged error sufficient to trash the entire government organization? it is if you are a very biased author.
It shows, they don’t work correctly.
Is that single
allegedPROVEN error sufficient to trash the entire government organization? it is if you are a very biased author.And for me as well. And if they cannot even input the actual correct data, how can they produce such a map.
Oh, the DEEP STATE can do anything they want without being held to account. How many of the deep state incompetents lost their jobs over the failure to properly prepare for those floods in Germany a couple of years back?
How could you know the drought indicator was wrong and the soil moisture indicator was right?
Models never are right in contrast to observations
You really are a true AGW BELIEVER, aren’t you dickie-boy!
Taking model output as sacrosanct, especially when it says something different from actual measurements.
The AGW stall-wart way. !!
You keep outing yourself with every comment… and are too dumb to realise it.
Hi Richard, i read the article once more and I didn’t find any hint that it “trashes the entire goverment organization”. I find it critizies the drought monitor and the unerlying model, not an organzation. Perhaps we saw two different pieces?
best Frank
The article implies the organization is incompetent or corrupt, and it may be both, but one small sample from the entire nation of Germany is data mining and does not prove t what the articles implies … which is why it was at No Tricks Zone and here.
A good study would have far more samples and conclude that more investigation needs to be done on the accuracy of BOTH the drought monitor and the soil moisture indicator.
“The article implies the organization is incompetent or corrupt,”
Simple answer: NO!
You need to learn comprehensive reading, better start immediately.
Your comment implies that the article implied something more deeply than it does. When looking at both data and models the article highlighted contradictions between the two. Your inferences are your own and you then go on to attack the authors by namecalling which is a clear indication of bad faith. You should keep that for the commenting section. There is a difference and you pretend there is none. One further point: it is often the media who highlight articles that supports a narrative. But increasingly official bodies step into the political realm because of some activist head honcho in the organisation often put in place by politicians. It happens quite a bit. It did in the Netherlands w the KNMI and in the UK by the Met Office. State political appointees.
Talk about bias…
🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣 😂
“only very tiny portions of the nation had droughts”
Interesting that those small areas have droughts when all around them don’t. Maybe you can translate the German for us.
Many US states in the 1930s did not have droughts during the Dust Bowl,
https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/united-states/germany
M@r@n
The dust bowl was more about bad land mgt. than the weather.
It was hot and dry in many US states.
How could you manage that in the 1930s?
It was hot and dry in the high plains- and the farmers were incorrectly deep plowing the soil which was the primary cause of the dust bowl.
That land was previously unusable for agriculture. Due to local climate change that land became cheaply available and used (wrongly) for the fastest and highest output possible. When the local climate changed back to the mean the damage became apparent, the land made useless. The dust bowl blues. Enter Steinbeck and Woody Guthrie..
It is a classic case of making a quick buck and using bad agricultural practises.
Speaking of Guthrie- I can do some name dropping as I’ve been to Arlo’s house twice. Not as a friend or guest- but he owns something like 600 acres in Berkshire County (western Wokeachusetts). I went there to discuss this mostly forested land as I was a forestry consultant.
Convinced of your own intellectual superiority and with an ego to match, you eagerly rush to criticise a website you don’t like, and in doing so completely miss the point and make yourself look like an idiot… again.
Insults are not science and do not refute anything I have written, insults do not win a debate — they are used to avoid a debate.
Did you ever hear about writing shorter sentences for better communication?
You have problems with longer sentences ? 😀
Your comments are insulting the intelligence of the readers here.
Do you mean to say any comment that does not agree with an article or another comment should be censored or banne?. Because all debate is insulting, in your opinion?
Do you want this comment sections to be a conservative echo chamber?
A echo chamber where all comments are favorable concerning the article and nothing any commenter claims should ever be challenged or even questioned?
An echo chamber where every comment includes at least one anti-government diatribe?
Maybe we should all sing Kumbaya here?
Many of the replies to my comments contain no science and no attempt to refute anything I have written. Many are short childish insults. Where is the intelligence in such comments?
I say you talk about Germanys drought, the article about a part of Saxonia, a part of Germany, and you will make us believe it’s about Germany, it’s about gouvernement organizations, that’s insulting the readers intelligence.
No-one wants an echochamber but valuable arguments, unfortunatly you don’t present any.
Mr. Greene: And other comments refute you, with science, and you run on. Nobody here calls for you to be banned, why do you project that?
Most of YOUR comment are full of ZERO science and make no attempt to refute anything with anything remotely related to science.
They are basically just self-aggrandizing scientifically baseless opinion.
But you, not being a scientist, wouldn’t understand that.
Where is the intelligence in any of your comments??
Nada, empty.. ZIP !!
“Do you want this comment sections to be a conservative echo chamber?”
So basically ADMITTING you are a far-left stooge.
Thanks, but had all picked up on that. !
There’s nothing to refute, there is no debate, as I said you’ve completely missed the point of the article.
You seem to be trolling for the sake of it.
And just what point would that be that I missed — it appears you stopped typing before the reveal — perhaps a cramp in your finger?
For the sake of it.
Seem you started, and stopped, without engaging your brain.
Maybe it just isn’t possible for you. !
You haven’t written anything that requires refuting
Your biased, ignorant opinions mean nothing.
Ever thought of not writing anything…. to avoid exposing your AGW gullibility
I’ve made that very suggestion, and I conclude that he can’t help himself.
please study
Do you get a commission every time you post that chart?
If you read it several times maybe you understand it 😀
But will think it doesn’t apply to him. 😉
Mr Greene,
I don’t really see your point. Both your map and the one at the top of the article display the same info for the area discussed. The map at the.top is just a blow up of a specific region while you’re is the entire country. The regional information displayed in both images is identical though
Do you realize you haven’t proved anything? The article author showed close-ups of the modelled “drought” areas and then actual data showing that the area is drenched.
You point out that the modelled drought area is very small, thanks – but it’s still very wrong, not even close to the real situation. I don’t understand why you think banging on about “the drought” would be OK, when there obviously isn’t any.
I read elsewhere some days ago, the Deought Monitor is based on model calculation.
#facepalm#
Duh, they’re “extremely dry” because the sea level has risen enough to flood them yet! That darn sea level isn’t cooperating.
Hasn’t, obviously.
Nobody is ever going to understand drought until:
They put or imagine themselves as A Plant.
This may be a tree, some grass, some invasive species, a weed or a pretty little thing with flowers
Location and timing are critical and for this story location is central Europe.
For plants, timing is important and that is ‘when the sun shines’ = spring, summer and early fall.
To function properly (absorb CO₂) you need water.
This is where it starts to unravel because in that part of the world at that time you will be:
For a plant, any plant, that is your worst nightmare come true.
Oh wait, we have climate science, we have rain gauges, we have spreadsheets, we have Sputniks & computer models and they have detected that because a bucketful of icy cold water is dumped upon you once every 2 weeks in a vicious thunderstorm, you are in an aquatic rose garden.
That everything is fine because The Average Rainfall is (supposedly) is as it always was.
So just stop complaining and absorb that CO₂ – so in my superior intelligence I can chop you down, poison you, burn or eat you as I think fit.
But CO₂ levels are ramping up, low levels of absorption are patently happening
Surely Shirley: There must be ‘something wrong’ with the initial premise
And while you’re asleep during winter, having a tidal-wave tsunami of icy cold water hit you so as to apply a thorough colonic irrigation, clear your stomach and the food store you’d set aside for spring compounds the nightmare immensely – it could even be – The Final Straw.
But no, the Faerie Counters imagine that that is the very best thing to happen to you.
The Computer Average says so.
Computers destroy people too, just look at the UK Post Office ‘Horizon‘ scandal going on right now.
<everything is wrong now in this world. everything>
Is there a magic gibberish decoder ring I can buy to understand your comments?
You have to use a computer to vosot this website. I hope that computer did not destroy you. Those EMF waves can be deadly.
If you compare the DWD charts with these from DM you can see the DM charts are corrupt.
Äh no, you can’t, as you are 97% blinkered.
😀
Answer to
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/11/germanys-soaking-wet-droughthelmholtz-drought-monitor-insists-drought-persists/#comment-3846526
It is possible everyone is right. I’ve attached another graphic.
As you can see the surface is currently beyond saturated. If the deeper layers were very dry (I have no idea, but that’s the claim) it’s easy to believe they would not rehydrate instantly. The fact the dry spots are shown to be small and scattered hints they’ll soon be moist though.
Let’s take another look in a couple of weeks.
No, it’s not possible that everyone is right. In the main post is a comparison of the soil down to 1.8m where the droughtmonitor claims “extreme drought” and the profiles of the DWD show something totaly different. One of the maps must be wrong.
I’d bet on both the drought map and soil moisy ture data to be wrong. Wouldn’t surprse me coming from a government gabization.
Would probably be more accurate to do a phone survey by calling some farmers in each area.
Hi Richard, sorry I don’t know the wording “gabization”. However it’s not clear for me what a farmer in the area in question could tell about the soil moisture in a depth of 1.80 m. Perhaps he can speak about plant conditions, this reflects the upper 20…30 cm and there is no drought of course as you can see in the monitor. This is the wrong way to check the data. The difference between the DWD soil moisture and the drought monitor is, that DWD reflects measured data and the DM reflects a model. Sorry when there is more trust in measurements if they are available.
best Frank
gabization seems to be a typo and should be read as organization.
Guessed following the context.
“gabization”. was supposed to be organization
Someone troublemaker obviously held a strong rare earth magnet next to their computer screen to garble o mess up my comment. Sabotage!
I meant the farmer to report wether there was a drought or not
I would not automatically trust government measurements and automatically not trust government models. that is wishful thinking.
I don’t trust the government so I don’t trust any government data that can not be verified with private data or an expected correlations with government data from different agencies
If data from the same agency do not correlate as expected (assuming they are supposed to correlate 100% of the time) we probably have a problem.
The global average temperature starts with measurements too. Then we get multiple adjustments and infilling.
The moisture measurements probably have infilling and adjustments too. They might be no more accurate than the computer model drought map.
Again, another post based on ignorance and baseless conjecture.
Go for it dickie-boy !! Its all you have.
Poor dickie-brain..
You STILL haven’t figured out that the modelled stuff.. IS NOT DATA. !!
It is model output.
If you don’t know the difference… it doesn’t surprise me the least.
Exactly what soil moisture sensors are in place throughout all of those places?
Or are volunteers going outside every day to probe a couple of meters deep taking moisture readings every centimeter? Through all of the many soil type substrates, e.g., clay, sand, mulch, various mixtures of the above, whatever.
Then there is the question exactly how do probes accurately test each depth? A saturated level will likely fill the entire probe hole with water?
Meaning, there is significant modeling to make that graph, using a heavily fudged model to make those drought predictions.
Yes, I really don’t think they’re out there sticking tensiometers in the ground, but the modelers seem convinced by their fantasies none the less.
I think the model that’s not working is here:
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/5137/2022/#section4
The mesoscale hydrological model is a grid-based, spatially distributed hydrological model driven by daily precipitation, temperature, and potential evapotranspiration (PET)
Great questions.
I’m wondering if the Drought declaration in Germany is due to the same problem as Oregon gas. In Oregon the Drought Conditions are Reality (rainfall and soil saturation) modified by Predicted Evaporative Index. Since the models have a Buring Hell On Earth future, whatever rain that falls will soon evaporate. Lane County, Oregon recently posted Extreme Drought Index and Flood Warnings on the same day. Looks like the term “drought” has been weaponized.
Now Germany has a chance to freeze.
Well h3ll, then all that water in the top layer of soil will freeze and NEVER get to the lower areas of the 1.8 meter soil column and the drought will HEVER end.
sarc?
Unless a snow cover forms, which is very likely.
The rues of Climate Alarmists maintain a simple principle. When the facts do not support the crisis simply lie and make up stories that do.
Talking of making stuff up. The Steyn versus Mann court case comes into play next week just ten years too late sadly. But who knows, maybe when Mann is in the dock attempting to explain his ‘research’ on bristle cone pine thermometers, we might finally be allowed to understand how his mind works…..or maybe doesn’t.
Steyn’s health has severely deteriorated and I’m sure this case did not help. Mann never pays off anyway. Ask the family of the late Tim Ball.
Sometimes I think that the only people with good and honest information about the climate we live in are farmers. The industry that is most dependent on a stable and predictable climate is agriculture — which has managed to increase both yield and output through all the Climate Change we have experienced to date.
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
I often get a lot of pushback from family and friends talking about crop yields/output. They state that, although that is the case, they care more about soil health and depletion through monoculture and using more and more fertilizer, poisoning the surrounding waterways etc. This is where my current knowledge is inadequate.
This will be one of the biggest snowstorms in recent years in the Great Lakes region.
So they have actual measurements, but they report model predictions/estimates instead? Sounds right. Climate alarmism is all about avoiding facts, reason, and evidence, that go against the narrative. The simplest way to do that is just to directly present the narrative (alarmist models) as fact.
It’s climate change either way comrade and you’ll be canceled if you question that.
I think I first saw this collection of maps, showing 12 views of the so-called “mega-drought” in the American Southwest, on WUWT last July. There was no way to tell if the drought was over or not:
Quite literally one can go shopping through this collection of maps, and pick whatever best suits your so-called “science.” I think it has a very bad effect on the general public. They are losing all respect for science, which, when handled with integrity, is actually a beautiful study of Truth.
We have simply got to show the politicians the door. Also anyone else who thinks they can buy a couple scientists in order to break every Truth-In-Advertising law in the books.
Highs in the Midwest.
Currently, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is divided into two vortices.
