Sure, absolutely, but I was talking about the science not idle speculation. Do the models say that reduction in CO2 now would prevent a dustbowl? Do they actually say we will get conditions of a dustbowl. Lets look at a more recent article about the researcher. Dust Bowl 2: Drought detective predicts drier future for American Southwest | Meet the minds behind all that climate change data | Grist Man I don't buy that, but then again science and seager don't either. Its pure hyperbole. Let us take Seager's word that he doesn't have research for a new dust bowl. What he is talking about is a reduction in rainfall. This is a continuous pattern in the area, so let us go to my next objection, do the models say ghg are the primary mover or is it something else. The primary mechanism is hadley cells, so is this change caused by man made greenhouse gases. Fortunately there have been many peer reviewed studies here. They all have global warming moving the hadley cells in the direction they are going, but none of the tested models account for the degree of the movement. Some test the past reduction of the ozone and this reversed trend is also shows a small amount of responsability. So something else might be going on. Here a quick consult of the weather record of rainfalls (hadly cells have only been recorded in recent times) show that wet and dry patterns in the region have been going on for at least the last 2000 years and dry periods are not correlated with global temperatures (hadly cells in the much shorter period seem an indicator of global warming, but data is very short and models do not show causation). Drought: A Paleo Perspective -- Grissino-Mayer New Mexico Reconstruction I encourage you to look up figures and find correlations yourself. The Science Historical record shows wet, dry periods with dry periods that can last decades. Hadly cells are a likely mechanism of these periods. Then the next part of the theory that needs to be tested is does the level of atmospheric CO2 changes the hadly cells. Here we have the coorberating evidence. The generally accepted theory is that droughts including the dust bowl were caused by relatively cooler pacific surface temperatures. NASA - Top Story - SOURCE OF 1930s 'DUST BOWL' DROUGHT IN TROPICAL WATERS, NASA FINDS - March 18, 2004 So the hurdle is quite high to show reduction in man made CO2 in the short term will make the southwest weter. The final hurdle, Numerous climate studies have stated the global warming models do not account for local water temperature that have been hypothesised to be a cause. Now where are your models, tests, and results that show that the researchers idle speculation has been confirmed by science.
Well, all I can do is present the best available prediction. All this blazing discussion of 20th century droughts and how they were NOT caused by global warming would be really, really interesting, except for one thing. The author of that study said that ... wait for it ... the 20th century droughts weren't caused by global warming. So, you could read here, for example, for a plain-language description of the research, by the lead author. Transition to a more arid Southwest Please note that the author is an expert on US droughts, has published extensively on this topic, and is well aware of the linkage between sea surface conditions and US droughts. So, in his own words: "The dynamical causes of imminent subtropical drying appear distinct from the causes of historical North American droughts such as occurred in the 1950s and during the 1930s Dust Bowl. Climate modeling has led to those being related to small, naturally occurring, changes in tropical Pacific (and, to a lesser extent, tropical Atlantic) sea surface temperature that also drive a change in atmospheric circulation that places anomalous descent over Southwestern North America. See our Drought Research homepage and the page on the Causes and consequences of the nineteenth century droughts in North America." In short, yeah, we've has small, temporary droughts in the 20th. If you read this article, you'll see we've had larger, longer droughts as well. And yet, this guy says, we're going to see something new. And he explains exactly why this is a robust consequence of warming. It's in the cited article. And, I'll point out, he's not the only one to say it. You guys want to believe this isn't likely to happen, fine. But it's not related to 20th century drought, it's not related to the more severe droughts in the historical record. It's something new, as explained in the citation. Above. Posts a pretty picture, too, although precipitation is only half the story.
If you remember my points it was the original article had junk science in it. I already posted a later article by the author that agreed that my first example was junk. The second example that if we stop producing CO2 the weather pattern will change in the SW has also been debunked and the author would probably plug the numbers into his model and say the same thing today. Note that bad science is not on the web page you sited, and his other facts agree completely with the ones I've been putting forth. So then the only last part of disagreement between myself and the group is whether the current theory or the authors hypothesis is correct. Here let us try to use scientific method again, and not mindlessly say it must be global warming. From the article - OK so far so good, the author is establishing an hypothesis, and noting that those that tested this with mechanism found the warming mechanisms did not work, is not going to repeat this past failure. Ok also good. The studies so far have shown that anthropongenic models procede in the same dirrection but much less magnitude than what has been going on. There is a possibility that these models are missing something and we need a case where the current established science disagrees with the climate patterns. One should remember this is an untested theory. Likely by 2040 the conditions will provide data to support, reject, or modify the theory. There is nothing here that says the theory is currently supported by evidence only that it can be used to make predictions. When the model is actually tested is when we should accept or reject it. This is my last objection, accepting theories without mechanisms or evidence because they follow a political agenda. Nothing on the webpage makes me think that the author is a bad climate scientist.
