ABC agenda Sir David getting all nazi like

Originally posted by jopo ↑

A piece from the Conservation. Not BOM
Published in Nature Communications. Has been rubbished many times by Climate nazis everytime an opposing view is submitted via Nature Communication. You need to make your mind up as to whether your kind endorse Nature Communications or not.

So the CONSERVATION article states in a nutshell

These rainfall disruptions are primarily driven by the El Niño/La Niña cycle, a naturally occurring phenomenon centred on the tropical Pacific. This climate variability can profoundly change rainfall patterns and intensity over the Pacific Ocean from year to year.

......Recent research concluded that unabated growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the 21st century will increase the frequency of such disruptions to Pacific rainfall.

So to rephrase and not in contradiction to their statements they have stated

My comments
......Recent research concluded that unabated growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the 21st century will increase the frequency of ocean oscillations which disrupts Pacific rainfall.

Wow tell us something new. Oscillation patterns changing. Hello El nino and La nina disrupt rainfalls. So when it is dry here it is pissing down in West USA. Yep that is what a oscillation does.

A climate model has predicted that the ocean cycles will become more erratic. Mate science does not even understand what drives these cycles.

Meanwhile a 101 papers on solar activity and ocean cycles exist. From the Solar variations showing up in Polar cells variations and the Walker cells responding.

You are cashing in on what nature does without the help of CO2

Lets not even discuss how climate Nazis are now claiming CO2 will cause a increase in the Negative Indian ocean dipole which will cause more droughts in Australia.
And simultaneously cause more droughts in East Africa. You guys are full of it and are forever contradicting yourselves. It cannot do that!

Just goes to show you can produce whatever you want in a climate model. Pick a result. Just adjust the inputs and here is your pal reviewed paper that delivers the desired result. Custom made to order.

You Nazis cannot make up your mind!

Expand

I should clarify the deception employed by these sharks.

They say recent research.

As a general rule people assume that recent research means recent real world observations. (empirical observations).

This paper from Nature Comms you referenced is based on modeling where different inputs are used and they observed the following which is not from not real world observations. Their choice of words is also deceptive as disruptions to cycles is exactly that a cycle change. Their is no known cycle length.

Your reference would have been less DISHONEST if it had stated below because this is really what they are saying is coming from their models after tweaking parameters.

Recent research modeling concluded that unabated growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the 21st century will increase the frequency of such disruptions ocean oscillations to Pacific rainfall.