Drought In Argentina
By Paul Homewood
Another look back at one of the bad weather events which were blamed on climate change.
This one is from that Christian Aid report, and was the drought in Argentina.
https://mediacentre.christianaid.org.uk/download?id=4170&pn=21e38f435ea050ce63ac6b7e52c58d72-pdf
Here is what Christian Aid said:
The report was quite clear that the drought was linked to climate change:
Christian Aid provide this NOAA link, showing that the drought largely affected the northern part of the country:
https://climateimpactcompany.com/climate-cause-of-the-argentina-drought/
The claim that this drought was “climate-change driven” is, however, at odds with the Met Office’s international Climate Projections, which were originally published in 2011. These projections covered a number of countries, including one for Argentina.
The Met Office found that there had been a small increase in rainfall over the central and northern regions since 1960, and projected that, while the south might get drier, the north was expected to see more rain.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/uk/obs-projections-impacts
The Met Office do admit that their projections have a low degree of confidence, but they could find no evidence that droughts in Argentina would get worse. Indeed, they say that drought occurrence has actually decreased in recent decades:
The dishonest Christian Aid report does not actually present one iota of evidence to back up its “climate-driven” claims for the Argentina drought. The only relevant link it does give is for the Climate Impact Company, which according to its website is a leading provider of analysis and consultation to industry, mainly energy and agriculture deciphering model data and climate signals to produce our own products for the specific needs of our clientele.
The Climate Impact Company report, which Christian Aid link to, does not even mention climate change or global warming. It merely says:
Normally, the El Nino southern oscillation (ENSO) is considered the lead catalyst for the prevailing climate pattern across South America. During this past summer a La Nina episode was intact but with limited typical (wet northern Brazil/cool southeast Brazil) impact. Instead the prevailing climate in Argentina was driven by a semi-permanent upper trough of low pressure off the southeast coast of Brazil (Fig. 3).
Presence of the upper trough off the southeast coast of Brazil caused lower atmospheric wind direction to be from non-tropical sources such as across Brazil from the moist northwest South Atlantic or from the east where the subtropical South Atlantic is located. The 700 MB wind vector analysis indicates wind was mostly light from a (dry) land mass trajectory (Fig. 4).
The upper trough was linked to an area of cooler than normal sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTA) east-southeast of Brazil throughout the warm season
https://climateimpactcompany.com/climate-cause-of-the-argentina-drought/
So it was cooler than normal sea surface temperatures which set up drought conditions. Nothing to do with global warming.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Perhaps Christian Aid should get onto the Synod of the Church of England with its disinvestment of fossil fuels and discuss the WHO’s three million deaths by inhaling dung and twigs instead of using coal fired electricity for cooking. Who can virtue signal the most- the idiots.
Who can virtue signal the most- the idiots.”
Only because they have the largest audience.
I once believed in all that stuff. I no longer do.
I also have reservations about the climate change dogma.
If you are interested it is very easy to understand what really is going on by reading more widely and never accept anything on face value as you are being told to do by the BBC et al.. If numbers do not frighten you then learn a little about what CO2 is and how little effect it has as a greenhouse gas. Also you may be interested to just stand back and listen to the language of the Alarmist and compare and contrast that to those terrible “skeptics” ( Every scientist is by nature a skeptic, except it seems in the pantomime world of the Climate ideologists.
“Every scientist is by nature a skeptic,…”
In the sense of someone who denies the possibility of rational knowledge – a nihilistic troublemaker – he is not, and I would not want him to be.
In the sense of someone who questions authority, he should be, but after twenty years of taking tests in school, on crammed but not digested, material he usually is not.
Good for you, back in the ninties I was concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere. I have come away from that view point a long time ago.
I am all for looking after the place and I think that the focus on CO2 has allowed some real enviromental horror stories to take place.
One thing that does disgust me is the misanthropic view of a lot of the alarmists.
CLIMATE-WEATHER They couldn’t scare people with climate, so now, 100% every time, all the time, climate=weather. Weather is scary and lies sell.
Reblogged this on Roald J. Larsen.
Is it a coincidence that the PC BBC is giving ( incredibly) a high profile to any pronouncements by the chemist who is the Christian Aid climate “expert”? Could it be that they think with the word “Christian” in the title that gives any pronouncements they make reverence ? After all this is a religious movement that the BBC are flying a flag for….. and I am talking about the Climate Pantomime.
Christian is now a dirty word at the BBC, so in fact it is all the other words that tick all the right boxes, i.e. Aid, Climate and Scientist.
From the report:
“The amount of area that has burned in the western US has nearly doubled in the last 30 years because of human greenhouse gas emissions. These trends were a factor behind the fires this year: the Camp Fire would not have occurred if it had not been for the below- average rainfall this year, which reflects changes to the climate over recent decades.” ^58
Following the link to the note takes you to twitter, where one Daniel Swain, Climate Scientist, says this:
“If Northern California had received anywhere near the typical amount of autumn precipitation this year (around 4-5 in. of rain near #CampFire point of origin), explosive fire behavior & stunning tragedy in #Paradise would almost certainly not have occurred.”
A slightly different wording & an ipse dixit that would not be admissible in court.
(Leave aside the semi-literacy of the report: “The amount of area” is a redundancy. Also the landing page for the report is titled thusly:
https://mediacentre.christianaid.org.uk/dont-delete-this-thanks-joe/ )
Final point is that various media sources are reporting that the electricity utility, PG&E, could face murder charges over the Camp Fire. To paraphrase Christian Aid, “the Camp Fire would not have occurred if it had not been for a catastrophic failure in a 110,000 V power line.”
Perhaps if Jerry Brown and the environmental extremists had not criminally mismanaged the forests the fire could have been contained, I think Jerry Brown and those that promoted the very poor management of the “forest” should face Murder charges.
Sorry for being OT but I spotted this comment over at WUWT and thought that it was too good not to share.
“Belief in man-made climate change is like the 17th century belief in witches: once you believe you see it everywhere. Everything and anything ‘bad’ that happens is due to the malicious actions of witches, pardon, carbondioxide. And obviously those who claim that witches do not exist, say so because they themselves are witches too, or at least are in bed with the devil himself.”
It hits the alarmist nail on the head and explains so much.
Utterly dishonest. Even if climate change has played a part,mutbus only part and so only a percentage if the v OK St can be attributed to climate change. If the drought in Argentina was 10% worse than charge 10%.
This is like saying that after increasing the speed limit there were 1,000 deaths and so blaming the increase for all 1,000 – but ignoring the fact that there were 950 deaths at the old speed limit.
Put sImply, take the average annual cost of “extreme weather” and see by how much (if at all) the cost increased in 2018. Otherwise it is just lies.
I remember one of Gore’s speeches (I think it was publicity for his last flop film) – the entire US was at record low drought levels – he cited the unremarkable drought in the only place that was technically in drought – Florida – as an example of man-made climate change!