Super Nova wrote on May 3
rd, 2018 at 7:54pm:
It is scientific to declare their ajustments in their findings and the projection models. So I don't see your point. if you declare it, not hide it, it is an assumption like any other. That doesn't mean it is to be dismissed because you want a degree of clarity on a chaotic system that is not possible.
It simply doesn't reflect reality.
"And so, the study begs the question: how has growing season precipitation changed in this 100th meridian zone? Using NOAA’s own official statewide average precipitation statistics, this is how the rainfall observations for the primary agricultural states in the zone (North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma) have fared every year between 1900 and 2017:"
"What we see is that there has been, so far, no evidence of decreasing precipitation amounts exactly where the authors claim it will occur (and according to press reports, has already occurred).
To the authors’ credit, in their final “Discussion and Conclusions” section of the research paper they admit:
“First, we have shown that state-of-the-art models simulate the aridity gradient across North America poorly.”
“Second, while current Earth system models predict widespread declines in soil moisture and increases in continental aridity, they also simulate increases in net primary productivity. This is because, within the models, the beneficial effects on photosynthesis and water-use efficiency of increased CO2 overwhelm the effects of increased temperature and vapor pressure deficit.” (emphasis added) "
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/the-100th-meridian-agricultural-scare-anothe...
Forum
Pages: 
