Moreless Finally Connected To Wetdry Causing Droughtfloods!!!


Did melting Arctic sea ice cause wet summers?

Between 2007 and 2012 the UK and north-western Europe experienced six summers that were wetter than average. Now James Screen at the University of Exeter, UK, says the phenomenon may be due to melting Arctic sea ice.

Oh, wow, I didn’t know!!!  But, to the question in the title  …….

Worldwide Drought Linked to Melting Ice Caps

…. Much of the northern hemisphere is currently experiencing extreme drought conditions, with many of the affected areas being major food producing regions. Prime crop growing regions in the USA, Russia, China, Europe, and North Africa are experiencing some level of drought, with much of the affected area experiencing extreme to exceptional drought.

Well, which is it, you pinheads?

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Moreless Finally Connected To Wetdry Causing Droughtfloods!!!

  1. Latitude says:

    wait…..I thought we had a record corn crop this year?

  2. kim2ooo says:

    My Obamacare Dr said.. I can’t be reading this stuff.

    Cause when he asks me, “How are you?” I answer, ‘ “moreless”, but I was “wetdry” after I had a bout with the dreaded “droughtfloods”.’

  3. R7 Rocket says:

    This is textbook pseudoscience. Put out a “hypothesis” that cannot be falsified, then dress it up in fancy sciency sounding names.

    • suyts says:

      That’s the way they roll!

    • Jim Masterson says:

      You mean like ID? (Sorry James, I couldn’t help myself.)


      • Scott says:

        I would argue the same for evolution, but I don’t have the time (new baby). That said, I really don’t want to argue with Jim, who actually know things, and the debate would go on and on. tPhDS was much easier, b/c it was obvious he/she didn’t know anything.


        • suyts says:

          Congrats Scott!!

        • HankH says:

          Congratulations, Scott!

        • Scott says:

          Hi James,

          Since I’m taking two weeks off, I was considering writing up a guest post on the divergence of the US surface records vs RSS and UAH. As I pointed out at both Steve’s and here almost a year ago, the oft-quoted “their trends aren’t statistically different” (one of DA’s favorites) is actually wrong. They’re looking at the difference of the trends for their comparison whereas the trends in the differences is the proper way to look at it and shows a very statistically significant result. My writeup would be like Hank’s in that it would be longer and detailed. Mine would be almost tutorial/review-like. We’ll see if I get the time…


        • suyts says:

          Scott, I’d love to have it! Do you need my email, or will you just holler when you have it ready?

        • Scott says:

          I’m sure I can contact you if I get it together.


        • HankH says:

          Scott, I’ve read your comments in the past and always learned from them. Try to find the time and do it. 😉

        • Jim Masterson says:

          Congratulations Scott. New babies are a lot of work. Have fun, and they grow up fast–too fast. However, grand-babies are fun too.

          I would like to do that evolution argument some time. I’m not as motivated as I once was, so you might get the upper hand.


        • philjourdan says:

          Congratulations! How many will that make for you?

        • Scott says:

          Phil – This is #2 for me.

          Jim – I’m not too motivated anymore either. Honestly, if someone puts their trust in Jesus then I don’t really worry about their origins views (usually). I’ve also found that internet discussions don’t seem to have much impact either way…only impact might be readers that stop by that never jumped into the debate.

          Others – I’ll see what I can do about writing up the guest post. Stuff is still pretty crazy here and then will be crazy at work once I get back. Should be a fun post though…


        • philjourdan says:

          Scott, well congratulations on #2. From an old fart who had 5, here is what to expect. You and your wife will have your hands full. And a lot of joy! But the odds will still be on your side! it will be 2 to 2! Now should you decide to go on, and have 3 or more, watch out! 3 means they take sides (shifting faster than European alliances). But most of all, it means they will outnumber you!

          The wonder and joy will still be there. But they will be a LOT harder to keep up with. 😉

        • suyts says:

          Scott, keep your ID points sharpened. I’ve seen them, and they’re pretty good.

          People young in faith need to see your arguments from time to time.

          I don’t bother with it here, much, because of the reasons stated and other reasons. But, it is important for some that reason and logic be applied. While it isn’t falsifiable, it is reasonable to assume the existence of a Higher Power, a Creator. It’s important to let people know a theory of evolution isn’t a substitute or an argument against a Creator.

          Keep that sword honed. brother. While there is no “proof”, I do understand that Thomas went on to be a formidable Christian voice.

        • kim2ooo says:


          I usually give them this UTUBE …if I think they are serious debaters. Then I wait 🙂

          Billions of experiments done for hundreds of years.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        Intelligent Design is quite similar to Global Warming Catastrophism in that it puts out a vague “hypothesis” that is unfalsifiable. You are certainly correct Jim.

      • suyts says:

        I freely and openly admit ID is not falsifiable. As I stated in one of my earlier posts, today, I’d be a lot less critical of the lunatics if they just admitted that they’re operating from religious beliefs rather than anything else.

        Still, in all things, one must have faith.

        • Scott says:

          From what I can tell, evolution, ID, YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution are all pretty much unfalsifiable. That seems to be the trait for any type of “historical science”. And it’s why I stick with operational science. CAGW should theoretically be falsifiable, but it seems to be like the above and just morph whenever needed to keep from being falsified (15 years of no warming to 17 years, changing the starting points on their trendlines, multiple and contradictory predictions where they choose the correct one post hoc, etc.)


        • suyts says:

          Yeh, it took me a couple of years to realize they didn’t like to get pinned down on anything. It’s some of the things which make posting about climate so much fun.

  4. philjourdan says:

    No, there is a direct correlation with the reduction in Somalia pirates and the Wet English summers.

  5. Scott says:

    Compared to the first half of the to-date millennium sea ice, the May/June/July sea ice extents haven’t been much lower. I’m thinking they’ve been maybe 10% less, if that? I’d have to read what they’re claiming specifically, but it’s hard to believe unless they’re looking at just a specific region that might’ve been more effected.

    If what they were saying is true, wouldn’t one expected the bulk of the effects to be seen in Sept/Oct/Nov since the big deficits have been in Aug/Sept/Oct and one would expect a few weeks lag? Also, shouldn’t 2007 and 2012 stick out as far extremes given how those two years were so much lower in extent than the years surrounding them? In all honesty, I’d expect that causes of the two phenomena (the ice loss and the drought/flood/etc) to be similar before figuring that the ice extent caused the said effects…that makes much more sense and would solve the lack-of-lag issue.


    • suyts says:

      My bust, Scott ….
      The take away statement in the conclusions? …..“It is worth noting that these simulations should not be expected to mimic reality, for a number of reasons.”

      • Scott says:

        So they used models and changed sea-ice extent without changing other variables and found a slight increase in precipitation that was small relative to interannual variability. I don’t see any way for sea-ice extent to lower in real life unless other variables changed to induce such a decrease in extent…even if that variable is just temperature. And small relative to natural variability? Given that the GCMs can’t get regional variability right for pretty much anything, I think we can safely ignore this study.


      • suyts says:

        Yes, there are a couple of other studies out there using very similar methods and models to show the increase of chances of drought and heatwaves.

        The instruction to not to expect it to mimic reality is what I thought was funny.

        • Scott says:

          At least they’re sort of learning! My problem with this is that these kind of studies get published in all sorts of high-end journals when they’re really just playing computer games. Real, empirical, science done in the lab appears to be relegated to low-tier journals nowadays.


        • suyts says:

          Right, you can make the computer spit out whatever results you wish. They seem to despise empirical data, or even a good foundation for their thoughts.

  6. Bruce says:

    I especially like the reason cited today for the increase in Antarctic ice area:

    as continental ice and icebergs melt, they may be lowering ocean temperatures, helping the layer of ice form on the sea’s frigid surface.

    So because the ice is melting it is freezing even more. Oh.

    Can’t possibly because it is colder, now can it? That would be against our religion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s