“This is what global warming looks like” turned out to be nothing but incorrect opinionated hype by AP Science correspondent Seth Borenstein and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer.
From the “we told you so department” and NOAA’s Drought Task Force, which makes it pretty clear all the hype about last summer’s drought was nothing but that: hype.
NOAA asks: What caused the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought?
NOAA’s answer: The central Great Plains drought during May-August of 2012 resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.
• Moist Gulf of Mexico air failed to stream northward in late spring as cyclone and frontal activity were shunted unusually northward.
• Summertime thunderstorms were infrequent and when they did occur produced little rainfall.
• Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains.
Downloads available:
Click here for more information about the report, the Drought Task Force, or the Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) Program
========================================================
UPDATE: here’s Seth’s latest: (h/t Sam)
By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year’s huge drought was a freak of nature that wasn’t caused by man-made global warming, a new federal science study finds.
Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation’s midsection.
Thursday’s report by dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies looked into why forecasters didn’t see the drought coming. The researchers concluded that it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn’t have been forecast.
“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event.”
http://news.yahoo.com/report-global-warming-didnt-cause-big-us-drought-211545586.html
Is Borenstein answerable to anybody for his violation of journalistic principles and his blatant advocacy?
“This is what global warming looks like” turned out to be nothing but an incorrect opinon by AP Science correspondent Seth Borenstein.
—————————————
Actually Anthony you are being too kind.
Borenstein was speaking as men have done since time immortal…
from bias and ignorance.
It’s not like they check for the facts…
They just make them up or run with whatever they are told with no need or desire to question, review or verify the truth.
cn
Borenstein has made a living off the global warming hype. It’s time he found a new career.
John W. Garrett says:
April 11, 2013 at 8:21 pm
not too anyone that will do something about it.
@ Jesie, as long as it does not involve writing!
so sorry 🙁 , @ Jesse of course
I’m not going to say anything and Anthony knows why.
It’s the dumbing-down, as ever, anthropogenic process.
Nothing to see here, move on………………Downdates available every second Tuesday of each month etc etcetera
We expect comments like Borenstein’s from folks such as Al Gore, who never set foot inside a science classroom, but folks with credentials in the scientific arena who make such blunders
look almost criminal. Borenstein can’t really be this stupid, now can He? He has all the makings of a NY Times journalist, all of whom are scientifically illiterate.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Keep this in mind, fellow Sooners. Despite the wonderful precipitation we have had recently, the drought is probably not over. Weather tends to cycle, and this cycle probably isn’t half through. So, stay prepared, and pray for rain.
Seth Borenstein should quit writing and become a fertilizer salesman. Few people are as full of it as he is.
Krugman and Thomas Homer-Dixon will have to issue a correction to their fearmongering articles… LOL we can wait for a while…
Kevin Trenberth (shocker!) is blasting the study and is saying the natural variations were caused by man made global warming.
arthur4563 says: April 11, 2013 at 8:58 pm “We expect comments like Borenstein’s from folks such as Al Gore, who never set foot inside a science classroom, but folks with credentials in the scientific arena who make such blunders look almost criminal. Borenstein can’t really be this stupid, now can He? He has all the makings of a NY Times journalist, all of whom are scientifically illiterate.”
But, but, but, he has a BS from Boston University…….in journalism.
Oh well, got caught on that one so lets make another one up.The New York Times April 11, beats up a story about Heatwaves and Hotter Wildfires in Australia based on a story from NASA which is itself grossly misleading.The NASA writer has obviously written the article without contacting anyone in Australia. Apart from mixing up Victoria with Australia he uses plumes of smoke photographed from space and a DSE website to paint a picture to suggest that everything is going up in smoke here. I can assure him it is not.Most of the smoke he mentions is comng from the slow burning fire up in Kosiosko territory with other smoke coming from a series of burn offs. I suppose anything to support warming but NASA looks pretty foolish! link [url=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-04/nsfc-fiv041113.php]here[/url]
Or, they’re just not nearly as good at forecasting as they think they are. Can’t get the weather right 2 days out, you’re not going to get it right a year out.
This report has deprived Borenstein and the Warmistas of yet another of their Climate toys and they will be very sulky for a while. I just love the idea that Kevin Trenberth says that the study is wrong and that the natural variations were caused by man made Global Warming. Clearly there is nothing that Global warming does not cause: hot, cold, wet dry it’s all the same, it’s in their game..
“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
===========
Don’t tempt Her.
We’ve seen very little, of Her proclivity to stir the pot.
Borenstein is absolutely typical of AP reporters: he is a left-wing activist.
This would have been a super drought at the start of 1000AD that must have lasted for 300+ years in western USA and Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg The user here used NOAA data to construct the graph of 1000 years of the PDO.
Of course in eastern Australia we would have been drowned during that period with many super cyclones as well.
What you’d call real extreme NATURAL climate change and then came a very long warm phase of the PDO.
In the journal Nature Climate Change, University of East Anglia “climate expert” Manoj Joshi predicts increased turbulence over the North Atlantic will affect air travelers as carbon dioxide levels rise. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22993115/study-more-pollution-means-more-air-turbulence
In the article, the following is stated as fact: “The aviation industry is the world’s fastest-growing source of carbon dioxide emissions, a major factor in human-driven climate change. Solutions including plant-based jet fuels and carbon offsets have been considered, but politicians, aviation companies and international travelers have so far failed to significantly blunt the environmental impact of air travel.”
So much of the article begs comment, but the mention of plant-based jet fuels as a solution popped the top off the “ridiculous” meter. Just as Nancy Pelosi displayed ignorance that natural gas is a fossil fuel, the scientists or science writers responsible for this article appear to think that burning fuel made from contemporary green plants is fundamentally different than from ancient green plants. Will they be shocked to find that the combustion of both produces carbon dioxide? Come to think of it, there are fundamental differences. Fuel derived from oil made by Nature from ancient plants does not require natural gas to make fertilizer, huge quantities of land and water for its growth, farm equipment to plant it, weed it, harvest it, and transport it to refineries, where more energy is needed to transform it to fuel. Oil does not take food and water from the troughs of animals, or from the tables of families, nor does its production disturb ground that then results in release of dreaded carbon dioxide.
Another article predicted huge dislocations of West Coast vineyards by 2050 because of global warming (they didn’t use the climate change weasel words).
The spasm of recent doomsday articles reminds me of the death throes of great beast, lashing out in all directions without aim or purpose, not knowing what its problem is or how to remedy it, only knowing something terrible is being experienced.
So it was that bad without CO2 being implicated?
Gosh, think how bad it’s going to be WITH?
It’s even worse than we thought…
These guys are hilarious!
On one hand we have this:
i.e. my model is perfect, and if I couldn’t find a reason for it, it must be random.
Then along comes Kevin:
i.e. global warming is true, I tell you, so everything must be caused by it!
hype = lies
Not a “mistake”. Not a “misjudgement”. Not “misinterpretation”. Not “misspeaking”
Lies.
Last summer California current was ‘cooler’ than normal, hence less evaporation. There ara number of reasons why that could happen, I would suspect the Kuroshio-Oyashio and Alaskan currents system. NOAA itself states:
“The Kuroshio Current (red arrow) runs off the coast of Japan. It is a strong and very large warm surface oceanic current travelling 40 to 121 km/day at 1.6 to 4.8 km/h. At latitude of. about 35N it divides to form an eastern branch flowing nearly to the Hawaiian Islands and a northern branch that skirts the coast of Asia and merges with the waters of the cold Oyashio Current to form the North Pacific Current.
The Oyashio Current (green arrow) is a cold subarctic current that flows south and circulates counter-clockwise along the western North Pacific Ocean. The two currents collide near eastern shores of Japan forming the North Pacific Current.”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/np/images/maps/KuroshioOyashio.jpg
Any change in the balance of these currents of the coast of Japan will reach Canada in just over a year and California few months later.
It is likely that the current systems was temporarily disturbed by tectonic movements during earthquake magnitude 9 of Japanese island of Honshu in March of 2011.
.Wikipedia lists seven strong earthquakes of M8+ in the area since 1920s (I added coincidental major US droughts, occuring a year or so later) :
01 September 1, 1923 M8.3
March 2, 1933 M8.4 – Major drought 1934
December 20, 1946 M8.1
March 4, 1952 M8.1 – Major drought 1953-4
May 16, 1968 M8.2
September 25, 2003 M8.3
March 11, 2011 M9.0 – Major drought 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan
Any March (spring equinox time) Japan’s major earthquake ( 3 out of 3) has a high probability of causing major drought in the USA 16 months latter, the time required for cold currents to reach California coast. This could be just a coincidence, but NOAA could do well to imitate a further research, since the US could get a year + warning, for the farming communities of possible impending drought.
“…dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies…..concluded that it was…..the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation’s midsection.”
Well dah. Think it’s time for a career switch for me.
“Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn’t. So that means it was a random event.”
Help me out here. So we argue that climate models are OK when they give us what we’re looking for?
I do have a concern with this report- it claims the 2012 drought was ‘worse than’ the Dust Bowl. I find that extremely difficult to believe. Thoughts, anyone?
Correction to my earlier post:
This could be just a coincidence, but NOAA could do well to initiate a further research, since the US could get a year + warning, for the farming communities of possible impending drought.
According to the warmists, two hundred year events will occur every decade with global warming. Or as Terry Pratchett would say, ‘million to one shots turn up nine times out of ten’.
Black Sunday, April 14, 1935….”horrible darkness that was darker than night”…..
when the term Dust Bowl was coined….from noaa:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=blacksunday
don’t recall a 2012 repeat of this….
“• Moist Gulf of Mexico air failed to stream northward in late spring as cyclone and frontal activity were shunted unusually northward.”
How come?
“• Summertime thunderstorms were infrequent and when they did occur produced little rainfall.”
How come?
“• Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains.”
Yeah, let’s all remain clueless 🙂
James Lovelock showed that deforestation in the Amazon will reduce precipitation in the US corn belt. Also known as the Kilimanjaro Effect. You cut down a tree, you cut down a raincloud.
Hallelujah!
Finally SOMETHING that isn’t caused by global warming!!!
After all the giant spiders, carnivorous lambs, iridescent green electric killer-wombats I ever thought I would hear the like!
In March, 2012, I asked our local meteorologist what the summer weather would be like and he said it would be hot and dry because of the La Niña conditions…the drought was NOT an unpredicted event. I live in Iowa and we knew it was likely.
Do those idiots at NOAA not know that the state abbreviation for Iowa is IA, not IO! Numb nuts, all.
THe drought was also a bit spotty andmoved around. My wife went back to Iowa in late July and the corn and farmers were doing just fine. The overall harvest would have been a bumper crop from the 1980s. ‘Still not a small yield by any measure.
It is the idiotic biofuels program that sucks up and wastes a huge percentage of the crop, insisting on the same amount and not a proportion of the yield, such that a smaller crop means less food for people while the biofuels programs gets preference over feeding people.
From the article: “Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation’s midsection.”
>>>>>>
Interesting timing–I happened to be in the Dallas-Fort Worth area early this week. I watched for three days as massive cloud cover, driven by 20-30 mph southerly winds, moved rapidly northward. Each day, mega tons of moisture was being pulled off the Gulf of Mexico, and was headed North to fuel the record snows that were reported yesterday.
I kinda think the Midwest drought is over??
Looks like Mann and Nuticeli have taken on the Economist for their realistic article of AGW they don’t know what there in for haha This is REALLY going awaken the sleeping giant of MSN to the fact how badly they’ve been had for years.
Seems like this deserves to be enshrined in the Climate FAIL files. Indeed, that whole portion of your web site seems like it needs some attention. Not a criticism, just an observation that the number of fails seems to be mounting regularly and if a curious fence sitter visits, this might be the first place they go.
The Guardian carried this story and the comment section has a lot of activity. Should go check it out.
So Trenbarth’s “missing heat” must have come out of hiding last summer and then, not liking what it saw, retreated back to its “secret place.”
geran says:
April 12, 2013 at 5:18 am
I kinda think the Midwest drought is over??
_______________________
Not yet. The drought in the Central and Southern Central Plains and Southwest is not over yet. I think you were referring to this area, but called us the Midwest. There are definitely wide swaths catching up to normal, but large areas are still severely affected. Prior to a rain in last few days, areas of SW Oklahoma are so dry that many country roads are dried powder to depth and give a perception of driving on sand and are just as treacherous. NE Oklahoma has the ponds full, while Central areas of the state (OKC) still have low reservoirs and face a summer of rationing.
I see “Big Oil” has finally gotten to the NOAA, too.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Distinct improvement (finally) over the week up to 9th of April. Precipitation worth billions, of course. Corn futured responded with a price drop of almost 15%.
Been unlucky with those irritating 100+ yr events recently:
“This is one of those events [drought in the nation’s midsection] that comes along once every couple hundreds of years”
Feb. 2012: “Irene [Aug 2011] was a “100-year event…..Today, a “100-year storm” means a surge flood of about two meters, on average, in New York. Roughly every 500 years, the region experiences towering, three-meter-high surge floods”
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-climate-today-year-years.html
Oct. 2012: “At Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan, the water level rose to a record-breaking 13.88 feet. The previous record was 11.2 feet, set in 1821”
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/29/14789362-water-surges-into-lower-manhattan-as-superstorm-sandy-blasts-through?lite
The droughts in IA, IL, IN, MO, and Midwest areas seem to have been alleviated for the moment. The drought in the SE US also has been reduced. While the drought in the southern plains is still prevalent the total area of the US in drought is far smaller than it was last year. Now, this doesn’t mean the drought couldn’t come back. Another summer like the last one would put all those areas right back into severe drought.
Okay, clearly this is counterfactual ideation of the nefarious kind; President Obama said people claiming this would ‘deny the overwhelming judgement of science’ and I think it obvious he knows more about it than Martin Hoerling as he’s got more teleprompters than Martin does. /sarc
ntesdorf says:
April 11, 2013 at 10:15 pm
“I just love the idea that Kevin Trenberth says that the study is wrong and that the natural variations were caused by man made Global Warming.”
Did he say exactly that? He, too, completely misunderstands the concept of natural variation. There are some who post here who share this misunderstanding. They treat natural variation as if it were another cause of climate and fully parallel, conceptually, to something like CO2. Natural variation is not a cause. Rather, natural variation is simply the range, top to bottom, of our reliable historical data. To say that something is best explained by natural variation is simply to say that these data points have been seen in the past. It is to say that nature has done this, produced these data points, but that we do not know what caused these data points.
Approaching Trenberth’s statement from the concept of CO2 forcing reveals an equally untenable belief. If CO2 causes increased average global temperatures, that increase must be in addition to what is caused by natural variation. It cannot be the cause of natural variation. In other words, the upward swings in temperature will have a fraction added by CO2 forcing and that fraction will be detectable because it exceeds natural variation.
cRR Kampen says:
April 12, 2013 at 3:05 am
“Yeah, let’s all remain clueless :)”
Among scientists, humility is the most important virtue.
Richard Carlson says:
April 11, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Kevin Trenberth (shocker!) is blasting the study and is saying the natural variations were caused by man made global warming.
——————————
Borenstein needs to make a decision.
Listen to Kevin or “dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies.”
fwiw
With Jimmy – the – Hat gone, Phil – the – Prognosticator on the other side of the pond and Mikie – the – Magician in hiding from his lawsuits and disclosure could Kelvin-The-Missing Heat be keeping folks in line as the new Team leader?
Trenberth is mentioned as a main Team player in numerous CG emails.
I don’t know the pecking order.
Lew, could you get my survey back to me?
cn
higley7 says:
April 12, 2013 at 5:18 am
Drought is difficult to quantify. My farmer friend near Atlanta, GA tells me that he agrees with news reports that the region was in a drought last year. He also tells me that his crop yield declined not at all and that he used no irrigation.
Theo Goodwin says:
April 12, 2013 at 6:53 am
…………..In other words, the upward swings in temperature will have a fraction added by CO2 forcing and that fraction will be detectable because it exceeds natural variation
——————————-
From a layman:
Don’t we need to know what will happen before we know it didn’t?
cn
Cont’d
Or do we at least know the end-to-end magnitude of natural variation?
It seems it get hidden so often.
cn
Given Trenberth’s reaction to NOAA’s explanation for the drought and the claims by Mann and associates discussed in “Michael Mann says climate models cannot explain the Medieval Warming Period – I say they can’t even explain the present,” it seems that the Alarmists have begun arguing that all of natural variation must be explained by the forcings, CO2 and such, that are found in their Alarmist climate “theory.” They are trying to get rid of natural variation. Extraordinary!
Chuck Nolan says:
April 12, 2013 at 7:12 am
Cont’d
“Or do we at least know the end-to-end magnitude of natural variation?”
I did not quite understand your first question. Probably my fault as my wording was not clear.
Natural Variation is simply the range of our reliable data points. Those data points change constantly. Germany recorded record low temperatures this winter. Those data points extend what we know about natural variation. If someone creates a sound scientific explanation of how CO2 contributed to those low temperatures then they would not be credited to natural variation.
There is no end-to-end magnitude of natural variation because climate is dynamic.
Trenberth has nailed his colors to the mast of Global Warming. With any luck, he’ll go down with his ship and the rest of the Hockey Team.
I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.
http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/
>Anny says:
April 12, 2013 at 8:23 am
Uh, translation requested, please..?
Here in Southcentral Montana, the drought continues, though we got some decent snow this week. Cow herds that have been cultivated for generations were sold last fall, and hay has been imported from as far away as Saskatchewan. A guy at work just sold off 150 cow/calf pairs at the worst time to do so because he has no grass for them. On Wednesday morning it was only 4 degrees F. here, so nothing is growing yet.
Anny says:
April 12, 2013 at 8:23 am
I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.
http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/
———————
(my bold and italic)
Sorry Anny but you cannot prevent global warming.
“Wen asserts greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to affect China’s climate for years to come, regardless of mitigation measures taken to reduce future emissions. As a result, we expect warming in China will continue into the future, and consequently warming in extreme temperatures will also continue,”
The real question is why you would be willing to put your boot on the neck of the poorest of the world just when civilization is in a position provide them a life almost as good as yours.
This type of mindless cruelty amazes me. Do you not comprehend how truly poor they are?
Do alarmists really believe if they force the other people of the world to live with much less energy it will help the poor in places like Bangladesh or Sao Paulo. Energy for heat, air conditioning, cooking, refrigeration, clean water and sanitary systems is what they need, not sanctimoniousness.
The rich politicians, scientists and Hollywood elites don’t even believe it and my guess is you don’t either. If you did you would move into a cave tomorrow and eliminate your carbon footprint…..for the children.
cn
Village Idiot says:
April 12, 2013 at 1:45 am
“…Help me out here. So we argue that climate models are OK when they give us what we’re looking for?
——————-
We’ve said all along models have a function but they are not being used correctly.
This is more evidence climate science is not ready for prime time to redirect the worlds people and resources.
cn
Mkelly,
Sorry to hear about the problem in central Montana. But according to this map, 1961-1990, you folks just don’t get much rain there. A little bit minus a little bit equals zero. Hopefully you’ll get more moisture soon. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/images/westom.gif
Too bad scribe Borenstein didn’t remind his readers of this statement from his “This is what global warming looks like” article, linked in the main post above.
“While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot U.S. summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He’s a global warming skeptic who says, “The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature.””
Borenstein tries to dismiss the skeptic as being the crazy minority by comparing him to “at least 15 climate scientists”, and intentionally omits the fact that John Christy is a professor of atmospheric science (and probably one of the most qualified people to speak on this issue). Every other person quoted by Borenstein is tagged with their credentials as if to bolster their credibility, yet…they ALL got it wrong!!!
Theo Goodwin says:
April 12, 2013 at 7:29 am
Chuck Nolan says:
April 12, 2013 at 7:12 am
Cont’d
“Or do we at least know the end-to-end magnitude of natural variation?”
I did not quite understand your first question. Probably my fault as my wording was not clear.
————-
Sorry Theo, after posting I see how I made it confusing. I was referring to the historical temperature swings and what caused climate to change in the past.
Short answer….I agree with you about natural variation.
imho
I don’t believe they comprehend enough about our climate’s operation at this point to completely change direction and stop improving life on earth.
What caused the many significant natural climate changes in the past? What are the impacts of future climate changes? These are two important pieces of the puzzle to solve and I think they just don’t know.
You could call me a ,
doubtingskeptical Thomas.cn
“geran says:
April 12, 2013 at 5:18 am
From the article: “Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation’s midsection.”
>>>>>>
Interesting timing–I happened to be in the Dallas-Fort Worth area early this week. I watched for three days as massive cloud cover, driven by 20-30 mph southerly winds, moved rapidly northward. Each day, mega tons of moisture was being pulled off the Gulf of Mexico, and was headed North to fuel the record snows that were reported yesterday.”
You can have that moisture back, if you’d like. I just spent the last 7 hours pumping it out of my basement and $100 to a plumber to make sure it stays out.
Wow, this new report is actually being carried by CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/12/us/drought-study/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Technically, it’s a drought when you have an extended period of below-average precipitation. However, using average precipitation as your yardstick has some caveats as the natural variation in precipitation can be a pretty broad range.
Here’s the Kansas City Annual Precipitation 1889-2010 from NOAA
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/localclimate/seasrank/annualpcpn.php
Notice the first column of numbers is year ranked by total precipitation. The range goes from a high of 60.25″ in 1961 to a low of 20.93″ in 1953. Neither the high or low occurred during years where human activities are alleged to have altered the natural climate.
The key part of the Borenstein article that wasn’t included here:
“Another scientist though, blasted the report.
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a federally funded university-run research center, said the report didn’t take into account the lack of snowfall in the Rockies the previous winter and how that affected overall moisture in the air. Nor did the study look at the how global warming exacerbated the high pressure system that kept the jet stream north and the rainfall away, he said.
“This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming,” Trenberth said in an email. “That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia.””
The drought was “exacerbated”, as if we can say what a non-exacerbated drought would have been.
The non-global-warming-drought, drought is another Negative Trenberth Event (Negative TE):
Global warming was supposed to cause ‘much’ of the drought, but is said by others not to do so, a non-observation when one was expected. So Trenberth, in keeping with the psychological defense mechanisms of the TE, says we just haven’t measured the PART of it that was global warming. Data that we didn’t collect but he knows exists, like the missing heat hidden in the depths of the oceans.
More soylent green!: Over at the Guardian website right now, I saw a couple of people are ACTUALLY saying that…without a hint of irony!
I was referring to your earlier comment, sorry should have mentioned that…
@ people from Oklahoma. Back in the Dust Bowl there were signs, no Okies or dogs allowed. No transient Arkies either. Hope that never happens again.
10 Things You May Not Know About the Dust Bowl — History in the Headlines
http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-dust-bowl
I have concluded that this exposure does not matter very much in the public arena since the Main Stream Media have already mislead and misinformed the public on the matter, and will not issue a correction anyway.
They have moved on to yet another false or questionable claim and do not care one bit about being accurate since it suits their agenda to have the government control our lives through the global warming exaggerations. They can publish false claims faster than honest scientists can evaluate them and issue corrections. It is consistent with the overall plan to push through “change”.
So, like, this is all consensus, right?
I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Borenstein is the worst!
I had this figured out by simple observation of the radar pattern every day. Our rain comes from the Gulf. Last year most of the moisture reaching us was coming from the northern Pacific, or the Sea of Cortez. Most of it was gone before the system got here. The meteorologists could have noticed the pattern, too, but I never heard any of them mention it.
Joe DaSilva says:
April 12, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Wow, this new report is actually being carried by CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/12/us/drought-study/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
My jaw dropped to the floor. Probably some assistant editor at CNN has been fired because of this.
Our local paper [which gave a whole page to global warming propaganda in the past and has hyped it since] gave a small space to this [here in South Dakota where this drought had major impact]. The small headline–Report: Global Warming Didn’t Cause Drought.
The AP story gave the last two paragraphs to Kevin Trenberth. The final one: “This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming,” Trenberth said in an email. “That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves of Australia.”