Skip to content

Katharine’s Imaginary Extreme Rainfall & Droughts

July 5, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

Let’s look at some more pearls of wisdom from Katharine Hayhoe, in her interview with Yale 360:

Our weather is becoming much more extreme, where it’s either feast or famine. I’ve been here [Lubbock]  for five years and in five years we’ve had the longest dry period on record, we’ve had the record drought that we’re in right now, and we’ve had two 100-year rain events.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/how-talk-climate-sceptic

Crosbyton is the nearest USHCN station to Lubbock, just 33 miles away.

Below is the whisker plot for daily rainfall there:

broker

 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_daily.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=412121&_DEBUG=0

Extreme rainfall events are randomly distributed, and there is no evidence whatsoever that extreme rainfall is either becoming greater or more common.

And droughts?

image

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=412121&_DEBUG=0#gplot_totalclim_mon_yr

The story is the same for Texas as a whole, apart from that one outlier year of 2011, rainfall has actually been increasing. Previous droughts, notably in the 1950s, were far worse than anything Katharine has experienced.

multigraph

   

It is difficult to trust anything Hayhoe says.

Advertisements
25 Comments
  1. Simon from Ashby permalink
    July 5, 2017 11:32 am

    What I find extraordinary is that the Precipitation graph is clear evidence of warming. A warmer world will result in increased evaporation, increased water content in the atmosphere and thereby increased precipitation.

    Yet it is drought that the warmist’s threaten most, playing on the general population’s conflation of warm dry days with a warmer atmosphere. It is either gross ignorance and incompetence or cruel deception.

  2. July 5, 2017 11:45 am

    After Tim Ball and Mark Steyn have finished with MM, then maybe they could sue her scientific fraud.

  3. July 5, 2017 11:54 am

    Wonder if she has empirical non-climate-model evidence that cutting emissions will change anything.
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420

  4. tom0mason permalink
    July 5, 2017 11:55 am

    Katharine has been yapping the same nonsense for at least 10 years (possibly much longer), it’s her main message to the faithful of the holey church of AGW BS.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 5, 2017 12:50 pm

      The trouble is her drivel and that of her fellow warmists influences government policy and has outcomes where buildings are wrapped in dangerous thermal cladding in order to reduce emissions. These decisions have consequences. I hope the inquiry doesn’t turn out to be yet another whitewash job.

  5. July 5, 2017 12:08 pm

    So Texas is hot, Texas can by dry and Texas can be wet. Your point?

  6. July 5, 2017 12:17 pm

    Not just Katharine. Here’s Ben Santer today in a pompous self-righteous article in the Washinton Post.

    “we can’t ignore the reality of a warming planet, rising seas, retreating snow and ice, and changes in the severity and frequency of droughts and floods. ”

    Compare what the IPCC says:

    “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

    Hayhoe and Santer are knowingly misleading the public.

    • dave permalink
      July 5, 2017 1:24 pm

      “…can’t ignore the reality…”

      I certainly did not get to be moderately succesful, and retire quite young, by ignoring reality. But, equally important was ignoring people who thought to trick me with fake news.

      I did go out of my way to talk to people in their seventies, whom everybody else ignored. Going though Modernisation, two World wars, the triumphs of crazy ideas*, awful cruelty, and a Great Depression gave them a perspective which is lost now.

      *always old ideas, rising up out of shallow graves; ugly skeletons with borrowed flesh on them.

    • fretslider permalink
      July 5, 2017 2:13 pm

      “On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

      —Dr. Stephen Schneider, former IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, APS Online, Aug./Sep. 1996

      • bea permalink
        July 5, 2017 4:45 pm

        They have no right whatsoever to “be effective”! That evil man was simply saying, “When I am in court I will take an oath to tell the truth and then commit perjury l if I feel like it.” No better than a bent cop!

      • dave permalink
        July 6, 2017 7:38 am

        “Ethically bound to the scientific method.”

        Forsooth. What a dummkopf the man was. As a philosopher of ethics – 0/100.

        There are no institutions whose rules supersede, or even extend, the ordinary common ethics of upright citizens and gentlemen. If they pretend to do so, they must be exposed as public enemies.

        There is a specific rule of law, “No man may defend himself by denying his complete subjection to the law.”

    • CheshireRed permalink
      July 5, 2017 2:39 pm

      Remember it was Santer who shifted the entire conclusion of IPCC AR1 (iirc?) He changed the original conclusion from ‘no human impact’ to ‘a definite human impact’. (I paraphrase, but the gist is right) In turn that altered the entire political landscape for ‘tackling climate change’.
      Didn’t he also arbitrarily up Phil Jones’ 15 years no warming requirement to 17 for pretty-much no reason at all? It didn’t matter as the Pause went gaily sailing past both benchmarks.
      I have my opinion of Mr Santer but I’ll keep it to myself so as not to be moderated.

  7. tom0mason permalink
    July 5, 2017 12:23 pm

    To see how alarmist Katharine Hayhoe is, look at her slide from a 2007ish lecture….
    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/climate_overview_katharine_hayhoe.pdf
    I understand this is still in use for lecture!

    or her 2006ish paper ‘Regional Climate Change Projections for the Northeast U.S. ‘
    for her model uber alarmist predictions of future climate in NW USA (yes she still yaps on & on about heat drought and extreme weather)
    http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/pdf/miti/hayhoe_et_al.pdf

    • nigel permalink
      July 5, 2017 1:27 pm

      Yikes! I wouldn’t want to be tied-up in HER cellar!

      • CheshireRed permalink
        July 5, 2017 2:40 pm

        ‘Hey, Paul, I’m your number one fan….’

    • gallopingcamel permalink
      July 6, 2017 5:18 am

      I think you aced it. There is a lot of stoopid going around especially among our moral superiors.

  8. July 5, 2017 12:37 pm

    Thats not a drought – here in Australia our droughts are much bigger – can last upto 12 years before and after AGW

  9. CheshireRed permalink
    July 5, 2017 2:45 pm

    Here it is. ‘God I love you’. LOL.

  10. July 5, 2017 2:51 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  11. AlecM permalink
    July 5, 2017 4:40 pm

    How to become rich and famous: claim to be a climatologist and tell politicians what they want to know. It’s an old trick in science.

    Nobel Laureate Stephen Hawkins allegedly made at least two basic mistakes and provided cover for the pro-IPCC claque in UK science. He allegedly admitted this 20 years ago.

    Cambridge colleagues allegedly kept quiet about it. Brian Cox has since made his career at the BBC and is providing cover for non-scientist presenters, now being allowed to hang themselves.

    It’s great when a Good Plan comes together.

  12. July 5, 2017 4:41 pm

    I can see only two possible explanations:

    1. Fraud / Dishonesty
    2. Insanity

    Number 2 really cannot be ruled out. Google “Hansen” and “Boiling Oceans”.

    Madness.

  13. July 5, 2017 7:18 pm

    What is she doing there, apart from dragging the home of Buddy Holly into disrepute?

  14. July 5, 2017 8:34 pm

    ” [Lubbock] for five years and in five years we’ve had the longest dry period on record. .”

    Wow – that was from Aug of 2011, which was a very dry year for Lubbock (TX). According to CAG, precipitation for the entire year of 2011 was 12.24″ below the mean of the 1947-2000 base period (don’t know why the records here only start in 1947). Anyway, 2011 was the worst year for this supposed 5 year historic drought period for Lubbock – let’s let her use the entire year.

    The sum of the 5 years departure from the mean is a positive 6.70 inches. Now, there is an extended drought for you!!

    Looking back in time – before there could be any potentially measurable ACC – we find the 5-year stretch from 1950 – 1954.

    Drum roll for Ms Katharine, pls. . .

    The departure for the 1950 – 1954 drought cycle is, a whopping negative 19.92 inches below the mean.

    And, it continued for the next two years; 1955 was 1.25 in below, and 1956 was 7.26 below the mean.

  15. Athelstan permalink
    July 5, 2017 9:45 pm

    I’ve been here in lil ole Lubbock for the best part of, oh golly jeepers all of five minutes, that gives me the grasp, to make all sorts of farcical assuptive bollocks.

    Cripes has she no self awareness, no sense of perspective? And yet………….. studied Physics and Astronomy!! an’ ……….all about da the universe innit? Where time is measured in light years let me remind you, ie the distance light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year………….that’s a fekkin lot of distance and time and MACS0647-JD is calculated at approx 13.3 billion light years! yon from our tiny but luverly little piece of rock.

    Give it a break Katy or better still: get real.

  16. Europeanonion permalink
    July 6, 2017 6:31 am

    You may regard this as a non sequitur but I think it is relevant. Talking to a friend the other day she asserted that our society was ‘hideously white’ (in echo of what Greg Dyke mea culpa). I thought the comment to be significant in that it demonstrated how the psyche of the masses is attenuated by the outlandish issuing forth from the seemingly responsible. A verbatim regurgitation from a BBC that so many trust as ‘Auntie’.

    As the corporation is the fountainhead of all that is good and truthful how can we deal with the likes of Roger Harrabin whose word is gospel and whose actual accountability is zero? That so much can be pivotal on the imaginings of one individual (in the public eye at least) no other view can sustain. How can we account for the fact that the BBC seems to have all the experts and that their expostulations are the undeniable?

    When the national broadcaster is a purveyor of some unaccountable authority what is to be done? This one, small, oddly named and anorak fuelled sect, led by Paul, speaking against that which is the first on the dial and self-styled as your lovely and straightforward relative.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: