From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
If were Ben Rich, I would stick to weather forecasting!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/videos/cr5494qjgeyo
Does not the clown realise what a fool he has just made of himself?
If global warming caused this downpour, what caused the previous one 30 years ago?
And if this is the first such downpour for 30 or 50 years, they clearly are not becoming more frequent!
50 years ago was the midst of the “Ice Age Commeth” era sooo, obviously caused by Climate Change™
The last great Glaciation 120,000 ybp was also caused by Climate Change™
The last great thaw and decimation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet AND subsequent 450′ sea level rise was also caused by Climate Change™
Yeah, but this time we caused it.
We know the Sahara was a much greener place 5,000 years ago. The current warming trend in the NH started 500 years ago. The Mediterranean is one of the fastest warming bodies of water due to its latitudinal constraint. It is getting warm enough to reach the 30C sustainable limit and the ensuing monsoon. It is only a matter of time before the Sahara begins to flourish like history informs us.
It is the precession cycle doing its thing. All natural climate change. I agree that monsoonal rains become more common over the Sahara.
Except for the fact that the precession of Earth’s spin axis takes approximately 26,000 for one full cycle. Intervals of 500 to 5,000 years ago are less than 20% of a precessional period.
So what? Northern Hemisphere Ice advancement lasts 90,000 years and retreats for 10,000 years. And there used to be Hippos in the Thames river.
“Northern Hemisphere Ice advancement lasts 90,000 years and retreats for 10,000 years. And there used to be Hippos in the Thames river.”
As you say, so what?
Yep, the deep freeze takes 90,000 years to build and maintain ice sheets 1.5 miles thick while the interglacial completely removes that in just 10-12,000
That is the average period for the full cycle. Take a look at the current cycle.
The last peak was 11,000 years ago. The current NH warming trend only runs for another 9,000 years. It reached the very bottom 500 years ago. And the increase in summer solstice sunlight is already significant. In 9000 years at 35N (mid Med), it will be 23W/m^2 higher than the bottom.
The Sahara greening was apparent well past the peak of the last down cycle and will be green again well before the peak of the present upswing. Greening is already apparent but it is not solely due to the increased rainfall. Increasing CO2 means the biomass can use water more efficiently.
Boy, that really flies in the face of paleoclimatology data and research!
Earth exited the last glacial period about 12,000 years ago and entered the current interglacial period known as the Holocene, which so far had its peak temperatures (“The Holocene Climatic Optimum”) from 10,000 to 6,200 years ago.
And there is just no way to reasonably predict that the “NH warming trend only runs for another 9,000 years” because past glacial-interglacial cycles have not had very repeatable splits of warm/versus cold intervals
The current ~100,000 year period between exiting glacial intervals does not correlate to the 26,000 year precession period of Earth’s spin axis.
Moreover, there is the huge “100,000 year problem”—the cause of which climate scientists still hotly debate—related to the fact that previous to about a million years ago, the period of glacial-interglacial cycles was repeatably around 41,000 years, NOT 100,000 years. (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem ), and there has been no significant shift in Earth’s precession period for many millions of years that could explain this rather abrupt change.
Finally, as the attached graph shows, temperatures at “the very bottom 500 years ago” did NOT get near the low temperatures experienced over about the first 2000 years of the Holocene.
There would seem to be evidence of much, much larger volumes of water in the Sahara millennia ago:
50 years ago we were in the cooling period that led to fears of an impending new ice age.
This event suggests that we are drifting back to cooling conditions with wavier jet stream tracks and those tracks shifting more towards the equator.
The cause would be the less active sun compared to the late 20th century.
“This event suggests”
How?
I understand that journalists are unschooled in science – most can’t count past 10 without taking their socks off.
I do expect them to be schooled in the use of language – so how do you explain instances of “unprecedented weather” being breathlessly reported – shortly followed (sometimes even in the same breath or sentence) by “that last happened x years ago”.
Liberal arts and drama students posing as journalists that don’t even see what fools they are making of themselves – the illogical use of “unprecedented” escapes them.
Perhaps they don’t know the meaning or are plain ignorant, stupid or both.
More likely their pay cheque depends on fitting any event into the alarmist narrative.
In which case they are corrupt.
Either way it’s a bad look for journalism.
Unprecedented means it never happened before.
Climate Change Alarmists use the description “unprecedented” all the time and claim the only reason the unprecedented weather event happened was because humans are putting CO2 into the air.
The problem for Climate Change Alarmists is they can’t find an unprecedented weather event, even in the short time that humans have been recording weather events. It was just as stormy in the past as it is today.
That doesn’t stop the Climate Change Alarmists from declaring every major weather event as being unprecedented and caused by CO2.
Ignorant, stupid or corrupt? I think all of the above. Some are ignorant, some are stupid, and some are corrupt. None of them are correct about CO2 and the Earth’s climate and weather.
Weather history refutes the “unprecedented” claims of the Climate Change Alarmists, and refutes the claim that CO2 is making things worse.
Sensationalism to garner ad clicks.
Media is no longer independent having become profit centers for rich elites with an agenda to control humanity.
Where does it say “unprecedented”?
I generally like your comments even if i disagree, but this one is just stupid. Read the comments again. they weren’t saying “unprecedented” was stated in the article. they were just general comments about the overuse and misuse of “unprecedented” as an alarmist scare tactic by climate alarmists.
There are certainly countless documented references of climate alarmists using “unprecedented” to refer to just about anything they consider an unusual weather event. Please note that rare and unusual are not synonymous with “unprecedented”.
It doesn’t help that most weatherpersons often say things like “the temperature this week is expected to be 3 degrees above NORMAL”. They overuse that word- implying the weather is often abnormal, implying something is terrible wrong.
Fair enough – the claim wasn’t about this article in particular, so do you have any actual examples of,
OMG, you are so thick !!!
Only three days to come up with such an insightful response.
Where does Chasmsteed link the use of “unprecedented” specifically to the BBC article?
Not this article.
But eg
https://enterprise.news/climate/en/news/story/d88b13bf-1fac-438e-888d-ba4cb1f5ae39/unprecedented-rainfall-partially-floods-the-sahara-desert-in-morocco
It may normally be dry but it has to be called Lake Iriqui for a reason.
Yes it used to be a lake (second largest in Africa) until the wadi supplying it was dammed for irrigation.
… “30 to 50 years”…
… “such a short space of time”…
… “such a large amount” …
That’s the trouble with so called meteorologists these days – they are just plain vague about most everything about weather, their supposed specialty and profession, because that’s the only way they can pass the CAGW parcel around. Nature just isn’t having any of their nonsense and isn’t going to willingly cooperate – ever.
Meteorologists work on timeframes of hours and days.
50 years is not their baliwick.
The Tonga eruption caused it.
The scientific evidence for that statement is . . .?
Correlation—especially weak correlation—does not necessarily equal causation.
Maybe I am misinterpreting, but I read it as well-justified mocking sarcasm. Warmists blame everything on CO2, now they can be mocked by blaming everything on the Tonga eruption and watch their heads explode (just like your comment).
Phil R, have you noticed the large number of WUWT commenters that seriously attribute the “spike” in global warming—as evidenced by UAH GLAT trending since about May 2023 (see the graph in the right-side column)—directly to the January 2022 Hunga-Tonga volcano eruption injection of water vapor into the stratosphere?
No sarcasm there, well-justified or otherwise. And those disputing that particular meme do receive a large number of unjustified down-votes, IMHO.
It’s a better explanation than global warming. I suspect that it’s more a reflection of something else in the method than a change in a global average temperature.
My comment, to which you refer, has a net of three down votes so far . . . so the situation is that it is either the down-voters heads that are “exploding” or—more likely—those down-voters do believe that correlation necessarily equals causation . . . you know, like global warming being the cause of increasing numbers of UFO sightings over the last 75 years!
Bring on those additional down votes . . . love it!
Thank you.
“three down votes so far”
Try not to cry.. you still have a long way to catch luser
Not at all “crying”.
As I’ve previous posted, I take more pride in getting down votes than up votes for the simple reason that they reflect that I’ve upset some WUWT readers’ personal belief systems enough for them to at least take the action to register a down-vote.
But remember there is Justin Rowlatt, the BBC Climate Editor, who with his degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics must guide all things climatic at the BBC. It all must be true. So stop worrying!!! (sac)
“cre·den·tial·ism
/krəˈden(t)SHəˌlizəm/
noun
belief in or reliance on academic or other formal qualifications as the best measure of a person’s intelligence or ability to do a particular job.”
Short answer? No!
He is busy counting his bonus.
I think Homewood should look in the mirror!
“Does not the clown realise what a fool he has just made of himself?
If global warming caused this downpour, what caused the previous one 30 years ago?
And if this is the first such downpour for 30 or 50 years, they clearly are not becoming more frequent!”
It doesn’t say global warming ’caused this downpour’, it says rainfall patterns are becoming more erratic. That doesn’t mean such a pattern never occurred before. Also comparing two events, as Homewood does, doesn’t allow you to say anything about the frequency of the events.
patterns?
Yes that’s what Ben Rich was talking about, ‘rainfall patterns’.
““Does not the clown realise what a fool he has just made of himself?”
Yes, You did. !!
Seriously, rainfalls used to be predictable before climate change? Better off using my beard going grey as evidence of climate to e change.
“ it says rainfall patterns are becoming more erratic.”
Which in itself is a AGW meme. (and a lie)
You are as bad as luser.
Leave it to AGW nutcases to complain about rain in the desert.
Water, water everywhere
And all the boards did shrink.
Water, water everywhere
Nor any drop to drink.
— Rime of the Ancient Mariner
But we have to protect the deserts!
Greening? A crisis!
Water? A crisis!
Nothing on the earth can change or the greens will panic!
Everything is due to “climate change” and all of it is the fault of humankind.
I was taught in geography lessons at school 50 odd years ago about wadis, and how they became very dangerous places to be on the rare occasions they flooded.
That says that floods in deserts were already regarded as rare but well-known events 50 years ago, which says they have been happening for well over 100 years, if not well over 1000 years.
The lake in the image above– that’s the Great Big Flood in a desert of several million square miles? There’s probably 500 lakes that big in New England. It’s barely a lake- a modest pond.
The BBC story says, “Satellite pictures from Nasa show Lake Iriqui, which has been dry for 50 years, inundated with water.”
OMG, the lake was innudated with water!
I dont think they say in-nudated.
That sounds awfully rude.
It used to be the second largest lake in Africa (80km^2) until they built a dam to divert the incoming water for irrigation.
Weather is chaotic. End of.
Dang… son of mulder’s comment_should have been last, not this one.
It’s like using finger prints to convict someone of a crime when they were also found at a crime scene 100 years before. How much faith would you put in police who kept plodding on with the prosecution?