Human contribution to the current megadrought in the SW U.S. is 46%

Why should I waste my time chasing rabbits down holes? I can guarantee those papers - even IF they are peer reviewed from respected journals, will be cherry picked to a fare thee well. If this were not the case it would be a systematic review and worthy of publication itself . This is why I do not read blogs - if you find a published systematic review link to it but blogs have a profound cognitive bias from the authors so become bandwidth waste as far as academic sourcing goes

 

And your critique (not criticism) of the paper is??

 

Which merely proves you do not understand this science

 

It isn't science. It is basically poo poo.

 

This is the American equivalent of “just fill Lake Eyre”.

Question one

Who is going to pay for that?

 

Then by your own admission your comments are uninformed and may be dismissed.

 

Modeling is not data.

 

Which means you have not read the IOCC reports

 

Mate I HAVE a read the IPCC reports - when your blog gets to that academic standard I will read it - but feel free to prove me wrong by posting an excerpt

 

No it is an hypothesis derived from data and that is a criticism not a critique and a poor one at that

 

There is nothing you can do about this. Not one thing you try will solve the problem.

 

Perhaps you can show us the science and not what some scientist "says"?

 

A "hypothesis" lolz! Funny how fast scientific "fact" degrades when questioned.

 

Hear! Hear!

​

 

Nope. Read the peer-reviewed research presented, or withdraw into respectful silence. You have not earned a hearing.

 

It remains modeling, not data.

 

Let's get practical about climate.
Long before men were on the planet, there was climate. It varied. It was not one climate, but thousands of climates. Today there still are thousands of climates. Both ends of Earth are very cold. But that does not mean the climate at both ends is the same. All we know is both ends are cold. We know that the amount of glaciers on Greenland is about the same as in the year 1900. Very minute changes happened. At the Antarctic, the ice keeps increasing. So much so we see masses of ice break off creation those icebergs.

Anyway here is man, like an ant. What can the ant do about those massive storms. Nothing at all. So it wastes time to blame man for climate.
This is not the entire argument by a long ways. But so much is argued daily apparently to blame man that man really can only say, no I did not make climate different.

 

I went to the IPCC site to learn more about the Scientist leaders.
This leader, PhD Alex Ruane is very honest. He lectures in this video explaining why one must be skeptical. This kind of scientist is welcome here.

You do not hear the kind of certainty as one hears from the local Democrat type poster.

 

In other words, do not present science that is not totally in agreement with the woman in Australia or she will blast it as wrong.

Say how many Climate papers have you prepared woman of Australia?

 

You have not met the standard of discussion.

 

This person seems unaware of IPCC's whopper of errors where they had to back off when exposed as accepting white papers or junk papers that were exposed as garbage later on.

Examples:

The Himalayan melting ice Fiasco

The Hockey Stick paper

 

Let me put it this way

If any of you present appropriate critiques of the science I will definitely listen but jut posting some link to a blog that is either astroturf, someone’s unverified opinion or worse a QANON site then I will certainly dismiss it but I have yet to see that anyone on the denialist side know what I mean when I talk of critical analysis of research (critique) in fact most do not seem to know the difference between research and an unreferenced blog

 

Oooooh! A whole 2 errors in hundreds of papers across a multitude of reports - be still my beating heart! I am defeated! A whole 2 errors one of which is not actually an error just a load of BS claims by denialists. The “Hockey stick” theorem has been validated multiple times in the 17 years since this first “broke” so not an error as much as hokem from denialists

Which leaves ONE a “error” which the IPCC admitted was supposition based on less than pristine research. This was in 2010 and related to the fourth assessment report and was NOT a included in the fifth assessment report

https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction-intermediate.htm

So two “errors” in a document that has been fine toothed combed by the denialosphere over the last couple of decades - got any more?

 

A blog is NOT “peer reviewed research”. THAT I WILL READ. but I will not Wade through a blog a dig into the misrepresentations of science just because someone does not understand how academic standards work

 

Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains | Science Advances (sciencemag.org)

Part of Abstract:
"In the Southwest and Central Plains of Western North America, climate change is expected to increase drought severity in the coming decades
We use an empirical drought reconstruction and three soil moisture metrics from 17 state-of-the-art general circulation models to show that these models project significantly drier conditions in the later half of the 21st century compared to the 20th century and earlier paleoclimatic intervals. This desiccation is consistent across most of the models and moisture balance variables, indicating a coherent and robust drying response to warming despite the diversity of models and metrics analyzed. Notably, future drought risk will likely exceed even the driest centuries of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (1100–1300 CE) in both moderate (RCP 4.5) and high (RCP 8.5) future emissions scenarios, leading to unprecedented drought conditions during the last millennium."

2nd paragraph of the Discussion:

"Our results point to a remarkably drier future that falls far outside the contemporary experience of natural and human systems in Western North America, conditions that may present a substantial challenge to adaptation. Human populations in this region, and their associated water resources demands, have been increasing rapidly in recent decades, and these trends are expected to continue for years to come (29). Future droughts will occur in a significantly warmer world with higher temperatures than recent historical events, conditions that are likely to be a major added stress on both natural ecosystems (30) and agriculture (31). And, perhaps most importantly for adaptation, recent years have witnessed the widespread depletion of nonrenewable groundwater reservoirs (32, 33), resources that have allowed people to mitigate the impacts of naturally occurring droughts. In some cases, these losses have even exceeded the capacity of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the two major surface reservoirs in the region (34, 35). Combined with the likelihood of a much drier future and increased demand, the loss of groundwater and higher temperatures will likely exacerbate the impacts of future droughts, presenting a major adaptation challenge for managing ecological and anthropogenic water needsin the region.""

There is a high risk for a multidecadal drought (lasting 35 years) occurring for the SW U.S. during the 2050-2099 time frame. PDSI - Palmer drought severity
index

"Under RCP 8.5, however, there is ≥80% chance of a multidecadal drought during 2050–2099 for PDSI and SM-30cm in the Central Plains and for all three moisture metrics in the Southwest. Drought risk is reduced slightly in RCP 4.5 (fig. S13), with largest reductions in multidecadal drought risk over the Central Plains. Ultimately, the consistency of our results suggests an exceptionally high risk of a multidecadal megadrought occurring over the Central Plains and Southwest regions during the late 21st century, a level of aridity exceeding even the persistent megadroughts that characterized the Medieval era."