Hayhoe Denies The Science
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/hayhoe-denies-the-science/
By Paul Homewood
It seems as if Katharine Hayhoe has been at it again. In the documentary “Years of Living Dangerously”, she tries to persuade viewers that the Texas drought of 2011 was brought about by rising levels of CO2.
Only one slight problem, Katharine, droughts have occurred regularly in the past in Texas, and sometimes more severely. In particular, the drought years of the 1950’s were both longer lasting , and more severe than the recent drought, as NOAA’s drought index shows.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us
And there is a very well understood reason for these regular occurrences – ocean cycles.
With regards to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, NOAA themselves tell us that:
Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dustbowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php
And currently, surprise, surprise, we are in the warm phase of the AMO.
And then there’s the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. You will not be surprised to learn that:
Positive PDO values are usually associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern United States, while negative PDO values are suggestive of persistent drought in the Southwest.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html
Or that we are currently in the negative phase of the PDO, just as we were in the 1950’s. (Note that the 1930’s were in the positive PDO phase, which helped to ameliorate the 1930’s droughts in Texas – this was not the case further north, over the Great Plains and Mid West; there is a useful map of this here.)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=20&tstype2=0&year1=1900&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results
The blatant dishonesty of all of this is breathtaking. Katharine Hayhoe must surely know all of this, that is what she is paid to do.
So why is she trying to convince the public otherwise?
Sent by gReader Pro