{"id":362047,"date":"2025-01-14T14:34:43","date_gmt":"2025-01-14T13:34:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362047"},"modified":"2025-01-14T14:34:46","modified_gmt":"2025-01-14T13:34:46","slug":"hydroclimate-whiplash-alarmism-uncertainty-and-suspicious-timing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362047","title":{"rendered":"Hydroclimate Whiplash: Alarmism, Uncertainty, and Suspicious Timing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Charles Rotter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0Nature Reviews Earth & Environment<\/em>\u00a0paper on hydroclimate volatility represents yet another example of speculative science dressed up as crisis-level evidence. Its central claim is that so-called \u201chydroclimate whiplash\u201d\u2014sharp transitions between wet and dry conditions\u2014will become far more frequent and intense as the planet warms. The authors predict that subseasonal whiplash events (three-month shifts) will increase by\u00a0113% under 3\u00b0C warming<\/strong>, while interannual whiplash events (year-long shifts) will rise by\u00a052%.<\/strong>\u00a0These figures, dramatic as they may sound, are derived from models riddled with uncertainties and based on poorly defined baselines, making their real-world implications highly suspect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s43017-024-00624-z<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Hydroclimate volatility refers to sudden, large and\/or frequent transitions between very dry and very wet conditions. In this Review, we examine how hydroclimate volatility is anticipated to evolve with anthropogenic warming. Using a metric of \u2018hydroclimate whiplash\u2019 based on the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, global-averaged subseasonal (3-month) and interannual (12-month) whiplash have increased by 31\u201366% and 8\u201331%, respectively, since the mid-twentieth century. Further increases are anticipated with ongoing warming, including subseasonal increases of 113% and interannual increases of 52% over land areas with 3\u2009\u00b0C of warming; these changes are largest at high latitudes and from northern Africa eastward into South Asia. Extensive evidence links these increases primarily to thermodynamics, namely the rising water-vapour-holding capacity and potential evaporative demand of the atmosphere. Increases in hydroclimate volatility will amplify hazards associated with rapid swings between wet and dry states (including flash floods, wildfires, landslides and disease outbreaks), and could accelerate a water management shift towards co-management of drought and flood risks. A clearer understanding of plausible future trajectories of hydroclimate volatility requires expanded focus on the response of atmospheric circulation to regional and global forcings, as well as land\u2013ocean\u2013atmosphere feedbacks, using large ensemble climate model simulations, storm-resolving high-resolution models and emerging machine learning methods.

https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s43017-024-00624-z<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

But the bigger story here isn\u2019t the paper\u2019s shaky science\u2014it\u2019s the timing of its publication.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Released on January 9, 2025<\/strong>, just two days after the Palisades and Eaton Fires broke out in Los Angeles<\/strong> and while they were still raging, the paper appears to have been rushed out to provide the media with a ready-made link between the fires and climate change. The fires, which have already caused 24 fatalities<\/strong>, destroyed thousands of homes, and inflicted $50 billion in economic losses<\/strong>, dominated global headlines.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
https:\/\/x.com\/RyanMaue\/status\/1878829056097128875<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n

For the marketing to work blaming climate change for the fires, the media needs some authoritative scientific experts and research papers, preferably with numbers that can easily fool busy readers or at least satisfy a bare minimum standard. pic.twitter.com\/KUU5BPtBLc<\/a><\/p>— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) January 13, 2025<\/a><\/blockquote>