Bummer: Nature Refuses To Cooperate With Dryer/Wetter Warmist Prognostication

Darned nature, just doing it’s own thing

Rules of thumb for climate change turned upside down

With a new analysis of land regions, ETH climate researcher are challenging the general climate change paradigm that dry regions are getting drier and wet regions are getting wetter. In some regions they are encountering divergent trends.

Based on models and observations, have devised a simplified formula to describe one of the consequences of : regions already marked by droughts will continue to dry out in the future . Regions that already have a moist climate will experience additional rainfall. In short: dry gets drier; wet gets wetter (DDWW).

However, this formula is less universally valid than previously assumed.

The hell you say!

The evaluation shows no obvious trend towards a drier or wetter climate across three-quarters of the land are. There are solid trends for the remaining quarter. However, only half of this surface area follows the DDWW principle, i.e. one-eighth of the total landmass, while the trends seem to contradict this rule over the other half.

Some regions which should have become wetter according to the simple DDWW formula have actually become drier in the past – this includes parts of the Amazon, Central America, tropical Africa and Asia. On the other hand, there are dry areas that have become wetter: parts of Patagonia, central Australia and the Midwestern United States.

In some areas it cooperates, in others, not so much. Sounds like mostly natural variability to me.

I do see one problem in the study, which should be noted. The “researchers compared data from between 1948 and 1968 and 1984 to 2004.” That is not a great comparison, since the former was a period of cooling and the latter was a period of warming. At least till 1998, but we have still have had elevated temperatures. At the end of the day, though, this highlights how climahysterics rely on computer models spitting out preconceived notions to uphold their far far left policies.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Bummer: Nature Refuses To Cooperate With Dryer/Wetter Warmist Prognostication”

  1. Jeffery says:

    You inadvertently missed cutting and pasting this sentence: “However, the DDWW principle does still applies (sic) to the oceans.” The oceans make up 72% of the Earth’s surface.

    It’s clear you don’t understand how the scientific process works. If the goal of those you slur as “warmists” was to take away your pick-up truck and make you worship Al Gore, wouldn’t they have suppressed this report in Nature Geoscience, one of the best scientific journals? Yet, climate scientists will evaluate the quality of the evidence and incorporate these findings into their climate models. It’s how science operates.

    Political partisans such as yourself use “science” as another tool to lobby your preconceived belief systems.

  2. Hello mates, its fantastic piece of writing regarding cultureand
    completely explained, keep it up all the time.

  3. david7134 says:

    I can’t stop laughing. You are really taking someone to school on the “scientific process”. My God, you have no idea of the concept and somehow believe that you know what science is. That is rich.

  4. Jeffery says:


    No discussion, just ridicule? It’s what I expect.

    The NIH, the FDA, the US Patent Office and two of the largest biotech venture funds in the world think I know a little something about the scientific process. For decades, the then largest drug company in the world paid me a bunch because they thought I knew a little something about the scientific process. Right now, the current largest drug maker pays me for inventions licensed to them many years ago.

    Your complaint is really just that I disagree with your beliefs. And you’re a bonafide science denier.

    So excuse me if I don’t put much stock in your pronouncements.

  5. jl says:

    J-“No discussion, just ridicule? That’s what I’d expect.” This is several sentences before J states: “And your a bonafide science denier.” Next to “hypocrisy” in the dictionary is a picture of J.

  6. Jeffery says:


    You’re so dumb and funny! Don’t ever change!

    Note I said to dave, “… No discussion, just ridicule?”. You had to have seen that since you cut and pasted it. You should know by now that I enjoy the joust as much as the next person, but please add a little discussion of the topic please.

    Next to “ass” in the dictionary is a picture of you.

  7. Dink Newcomb says:

    Just exactly what were those inventions? Was it the Bass-O-Matic, the Frisbee with the big hole in the center or maybe that aluminum foil hat you worked on in your Mother’s basement for so many years.
    Take your meds now pard, you’re getting excited!

  8. Jeffery says:


    Thanks for asking. It’s a chimeric human protein used as a drug.

  9. david7134 says:

    So, in addition to having a corporation or two that reduces your tax burden, you also work for one of the worst corporate offenders in the form of big pharma. My God man, the next thing we will learn is that you are a Nazi. No wonder you have so much guilt and self hate.

Pirate's Cove