The Nature Reviews Earth & Environment paper on hydroclimate volatility represents yet another example of speculative science dressed up as crisis-level evidence. Its central claim is that so-called “hydroclimate whiplash”—sharp transitions between wet and dry conditions—will become far more frequent and intense as the planet warms. The authors predict that subseasonal whiplash events (three-month shifts) will increase by 113% under 3°C warming, while interannual whiplash events (year-long shifts) will rise by 52%. These 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.

Abstract

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 ‘hydroclimate whiplash’ based on the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, global-averaged subseasonal (3-month) and interannual (12-month) whiplash have increased by 31–66% and 8–31%, 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 °C 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–ocean–atmosphere 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

But the bigger story here isn’t the paper’s shaky science—it’s the timing of its publication.

Released on January 9, 2025, just two days after the Palisades and Eaton Fires broke out in Los Angeles 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, destroyed thousands of homes, and inflicted $50 billion in economic losses, dominated global headlines.

As if on cue, the media pounced on the paper to frame the LA fires as evidence of escalating climate volatility. It’s hard to imagine the journal’s editors weren’t aware of how perfectly their publication would align with the news cycle. Whether intentional or opportunistic, this timing seems far too convenient to be coincidental.

Newsweek: Why a Rain ‘Whiplash’ Is to Blame for Los Angeles Fires

Earth.com: Hydroclimate whiplash’ is wreaking havoc across the U.S.

Grist: Weather whiplash’ is fueling the Los Angeles fires

KQED: Climate Scientists Warn of Growing Whiplash Effect on Weather Patterns

Let’s examine why this paper’s conclusions are deeply flawed and how its suspicious timing highlights the growing interplay between speculative climate science and media-driven alarmism.

The Los Angeles Fires: A Manufactured Narrative

The Palisades and Eaton Fires, which began on January 7, 2025, have caused destruction on an unprecedented scale. The Palisades Fire has destroyed over 420 homes, while the Eaton Fire has devastated more than 7,000 structures. The fires have claimed at least 24 lives combined, making them some of the deadliest in California’s history. Predictably, the media seized the moment to blame climate change, framing these disasters as yet another example of a warming world spiraling out of control.

The Nature paper on hydroclimate whiplash provided the perfect scientific veneer to reinforce this narrative. Though the paper itself does not explicitly link whiplash events to wildfires, its release during the fires gave journalists just enough material to connect the dots. Headlines proclaimed that increasing “whiplash” was driving extreme weather patterns and fueling events like the LA fires.

However, the reality is far less dramatic. Wildfires in California, including the Palisades and Eaton Fires, are driven by far more immediate and well-understood factors, including:

1. Fuel Accumulation: Decades of poor forest management have allowed dangerous amounts of dry vegetation to build up. This is a far bigger driver of wildfire risk than climate change.
2. Ignition Sources: Investigators believe the Eaton Fire may have been started by electrical infrastructure failures—an all-too-common ignition source in California. Human activity (including arson and accidental ignitions) remains the leading cause of wildfires globally.
3. Weather Variability: California’s Santa Ana winds, with gusts reaching 70 mph during these fires, are a long-standing feature of its climate and have fueled fires for centuries, long before industrial emissions.

While climate change might influence background conditions, such as slightly lengthening fire seasons, it is far from the primary culprit in these disasters. Yet, thanks to the convenient timing of the Nature paper, the media has doubled down on the narrative that climate change is the driving force behind California’s fires.

Hydroclimate Whiplash: A Crisis Built on Speculation

The term “hydroclimate whiplash,” coined by the paper’s authors, refers to abrupt shifts between wet and dry periods. The authors claim that these events will increase dramatically under global warming scenarios, using projections from the CESM2-LE climate model. The numbers they cite are eye-catching:

• A 113% increase in subseasonal whiplash events by 2100 under 3°C warming.
• A 52% increase in interannual whiplash events over the same period.

But these projections crumble under scrutiny. As Roger Pielke Jr. would say, this is a classic example of the “percent of a percentage problem.” By expressing changes as percentages without providing clear baseline context, the authors obscure the real-world significance of their findings.

If subseasonal whiplash events currently occur, say, once every five years, then doubling their frequency means they would still happen only every 2.5 years. Such increases, while statistically interesting, hardly warrant the apocalyptic tone of the paper.

More importantly, “hydroclimate whiplash” itself is poorly defined and highly dependent on arbitrary thresholds. California’s climate, for instance, has always experienced sharp shifts between wet and dry conditions. Atmospheric rivers bring heavy rains during wet seasons, followed by dry summers. This variability is a natural feature of California’s Mediterranean climate, not a harbinger of climate catastrophe.

Shaky Science: Flaws in the Paper’s Approach

Even if we accept the concept of hydroclimate whiplash, the Nature paper’s conclusions are undermined by significant flaws in its methodology:

1. Unreliable Models: The CESM2-LE climate model, which the study relies on, struggles to accurately simulate extreme events in today’s climate. If the model can’t capture current conditions, its projections of future trends are little more than guesswork. The authors even admit that the model underestimates extreme events, yet they proceed to base their conclusions on it.
2. Baseline Ambiguity: The paper provides no clear explanation of how frequently whiplash events occur today. Are they once-in-a-decade events? Once-a-year events? Without a baseline, the dramatic percentage increases cited in the paper are meaningless.
3. Natural Variability Ignored: The study attributes most of the projected increases in whiplash events to anthropogenic warming while downplaying the role of natural drivers like the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). ENSO alone has a massive influence on precipitation variability in regions like California.
4. Rare Events Amplify Uncertainty: Modeling changes in rare phenomena is inherently difficult. Small errors in the model’s input parameters can lead to massive variability in the results, making the projections highly unreliable.

Taken together, these flaws render the paper’s findings speculative at best. Yet its timing and dramatic conclusions have elevated it to a level of media prominence that far outweighs its actual scientific rigor.

Suspicious Timing: A Case Study in Opportunism

The timing of the Nature paper’s release—just two days after the Palisades and Eaton Fires erupted—raises serious questions about the journal’s motives. Peer-reviewed studies typically spend months, if not years, in review and revision. The decision to publish this paper while the fires were still raging appears calculated to maximize its media impact.

Journals like Nature are well aware of how their publications influence public discourse. By releasing this paper during an ongoing disaster, the editors ensured that it would dominate headlines and reinforce the narrative that climate change is the primary driver of extreme weather and disasters. This isn’t merely a coincidence—it’s opportunism.

The media, predictably, ran with the story. Headlines conflated the fires with hydroclimate whiplash, portraying the LA disaster as an inevitable consequence of climate change. The result is a media-science feedback loop where speculative studies are treated as definitive evidence, fueling public fear and bolstering calls for sweeping, costly policies.

The Danger of Alarmism

The consequences of this kind of alarmism are profound. By framing hydroclimate whiplash as an urgent climate crisis, the Nature paper distracts from more immediate and solvable problems. California’s wildfire risk could be significantly reduced through better forest management, infrastructure upgrades, and targeted fire prevention strategies.

Instead, resources are often diverted to climate mitigation policies that do little to address the root causes of wildfires. The public, meanwhile, is left fearful and misinformed, believing that climate change is solely responsible for disasters like the Palisades and Eaton Fires.

Conclusion: Alarmism Dressed as Science

The Nature Reviews Earth & Environment paper on hydroclimate whiplash is a textbook case of speculative science weaponized for alarmism. Its dramatic projections, built on flawed models and vague baselines, lack the rigor needed to justify its conclusions.

But the timing of its release—just two days after the LA fires began and while they were still raging—casts an even darker shadow. Whether by design or opportunism, the paper was strategically published to align with the media narrative surrounding the fires. This is not science informing policy; it is science feeding fear.

The public deserves better. Policymakers need transparent, robust science—not alarmist studies timed to exploit tragedy. Hydroclimate whiplash may make for a compelling headline, but it’s a poor foundation for sound policy or meaningful action. Let’s focus on solving real problems, not amplifying manufactured crises.

Roger Pielke Jr. and Ryan Maue’s X thread are well worth reading for more information.

https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1878130793211404701

https://x.com/RyanMaue/status/1878817340823069145

Related