From Warren Meyer, who was discussing the recent announcement from the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.
If one wonders why the climate alarmist movement is suffering from a credibility problem, one only needs to read some of the claims:
Climate change is already having “pervasive, wide-ranging” effects on “nearly every aspect of our society,” a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday.
Here are some of the devastating non-trends in US Climate:
The stat that 80% of the US population now lives in cities is possibly one of the reasons for alarmism to get such a foothold. People who stay in touch with the land are a tad harder to convince that the weather is doing other than what it has always done – swung about a resonably steady mean for temp, rainfall, snowfall and wind.
Apropos UHI, I live in an ’80s housing development near Heathrow in London, UK. The development was the site of a Victorian brewery, complete with large stables for the large Shire horses, a dray yard and a feild for the horses to browse. In what was a semi-rural industrial site is now a large number of two-storied terraced houses, all centrally heated with gas-powered hot water supply, with asphalt roadways, footpaths, etc. Each household has only a small enclosed rear garden, which is the only grass/planted area in the development. Each household has at least one car, many have two, which are parked in front of the houses at night and in the weekends. Considering these changes, which are not uncommon around the Western world, how can Prof Jones maintain his assertion that UHI will not have increased over the past 100 years?
The chickens are coming home to roost:
Robust predictions of climate “disasters” and “catastrophe” increasing in number & intensity per climate models based on increased CO2 HAS NOT HAPPENED!
This is primary falsification of the computer models.
Falsification is a fatal blow — if the Scientific Method is respected.
How does CO2 behave differently than O2 or N2, which make up roughly 99% of the atmosphere.
In fact CO2 has a lower specific heat than O2 or N2.
— Biggest hoax in history —
R Shearer (09:11:02) :
The OtherDan, just wait! Or, you could have moved to Florida.
Been waiting-Thats what I’m saying-that ‘s the mantra here-just wait till next year. Nothing happens. Just warm winters in Vt
I’ll pass on Florida. Opressively warm-even when “cold”.
Recent summers in the corn belt have been cool, with the past summer being the coolest on record.
We have proof now that AGW causes Environmentalists to issue extreme statements that are full of crap and come from the “we just make sh*t up” category of their fellow travelers in the journalistic and scientific professions.
The co-relation is almost perfect.
Joe Romm’s greatest fear. As the oceans rise, the freeboard on oil tankers will be gone and they will be swamped with water polluting the planet.
More seriously, we do have hundreds of “Climate scientists” now ducking reality and offering conspiracy theory accusations and other wild projections.
How did the “conspiracy theory” defense work for Enton leaders?
We are just lucky the current trend is flat or nearly. Any trend positive or negative will be seized upon by the liberal bureaucrats.
Their whole purpose is to MAKE the world a better place. They don’t want to Allow the world to be a better place, they use their own social filter and try to FORCE the world into their own world view.
Conservatives are much less likely to force a minority view on society or toss blood/paint/oil/etc on their opponents.
It’s about control and they aren’t making compromises.
It looks like:
1) Drought and Wet weather have a bit of an inverse relationship (makes sense). Those two graphs are not independent of each other.
2) There seems to be a oscillatory relationship to those two curves as well (El Nino/La Nina related? If so, that makes sense as well).
3) It would be nice if there was good hurricane/tropical storm data going back to at least 1950, so as to include the entire cool period of the 1960’s/1970’s. Instead the graph starts in 1979 (is that when good satellite monitoring started?). It looks like there might have been peaks in the 1990’s (1993 and 1998) that would have coincided with warming.
James F. Evans (09:19:49) BTW computer models didn’t work in the recent Chilean quake and tsunami…still waiting in Hawaii for the tsunami and the telltale of the Nazca plate “subduction” under SA ended in the contrary, a “streching out” of more than 10 feet:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308132043.htm
BTW that’s bad news for Al Gore, an island near the epicenter “grew up” 7 feet above sea level.
You know, the six page interim report, which everyone should read, is available here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation
They’ve ALSO instituted a 60 day comment period and are inviting comments from the public and providing a link to do so. I think we should take them up on that… but politely, people, politely. You are not required to like the current occupant of the White House, but you ARE required to respect the office he holds.
Scott Covert (09:31:51) :
While liberals seem to have been the ones taken in this go-around, I don’t believe that a liberal-conservative view is appropriate. This AGW scam has progressed through Democratic and Republican administrations and been endorsed by both Big Business and Big Environment. We are witnessing a convergence of the interests of elitists and statists.
“Corn likes it cool … Hotter fields mean lower yields for corn ” Timothy Telleen-Lawton.
Where’s this guy from? New York City?
You get those really toasty days in Iowa, you can hear the corn growing.
@Patrick Guinness (09:05:35) :
“The non trends prove AGW. Al Gore.”
Pat: check your spelling.
The man who used to be the next POTUS is spelled “AlGaW” .
Actually, we have 3 distinct drought events in the US in the past.
First one was 1840’s Columbia River Basin. Columbia River went to near dry and Forks of the Trinity went dry.
Second one was 1870’s Sierra Nevada. Rainfall at Bowman Res. went 9″, 6″ and 3″ sucessively and 2 rivers went dry, whole thing lasted 11 years.
Last one was Dust Bowl which went near nationwide.
But for every drought, there is a flood.
When you get no water in the West, you get too much in the East.
When it’s broiling in the West, it’s freezing in the East.
Those are the zero-sums that don’t show in global average.
Dr. Phil Jones had data in his hands for the 1870’s US, from which I see a heat event taking place in California. It couples with the severe lack of precip in the Sierras of the same period. He may have thought it was an anomaly, because it put the hockey stick on the wrong end.
None of this had anything to do with C02 or global warming.
Nature can and has really dished it out.
So, does anyone (Dr. Phil Jones included) have any idea where a source of the US Weather Bureau data from the 1870’s lies?
The seven page interim report refers to a June, 2009 document titled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” and issued over the signatures of John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco by the United States Global Change Research Program. That 196 page PDF is available here:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report
Roger Knights (08:29:57) :
“Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions.”
A mailman got hit by a snowball?
Nup — it’s because all the honchos are attending mandatory briefings on “How To Avoid Nausea During Presidential Press Briefings” and all the worker bees are surfing to WUWT…
Jim Clarke (06:21:26) :
“Can anyone name one negative impact they have personally suffered that can be attributed solely to climate change (natural or man made)?”
Loss of about 200 lives in bushfires last year after record heat waves (including family relations and friends), record temperatures following years of consistently higher temps each decade, and the longest recorded period of below average rainfall.
Major bushfires threatening my town in three of the past seven years – again unprecedented.
Multi-year water restrictions and locals having no water supply left for domestic use. Followed by unparalleled torrential rain and hail. Record floods covering huge areas of land.
That’s for starters – is it negative enough and personal enough? Or did you mean just those living in the USA?
Yeah, well the BS is piling up.
Gee…why can’t nature just do what the AGW’s want and make it easy for them?
I have been thinking about generating a website called “The Great Global
Warming Scandal Revealed in Pictures”
I can post pix of my grapes in NW Ontario. Five years ago nice blue large ones, then smalled and greener, and last fall just little pellets the size of BB’s before extremely early October winter froze them again. No global warmalist can fool vegetation.
Saipan
Pamela Gray (08:47:35) :
“The OtherDan, check out the position of the jet stream and the AO. They work in tandem to provide the broad strokes of seasonal weather for larger areas. Add pressure gradients and cold/warm fronts coming from the Gulf and Atlantic to your geographical climate zone parameters, and you get local weather variations.’
And this happens every winter?
The Task Farce is not speaking to the ordinary citizen. It is, rather, reapplying bags of propaganda to the fertile masses who have already fallen for the scam, with the intent of arousing their emotions.
Something wicked this way comes.
“Corn likes it cool…” — GW Advocate Timothy Telleen-Lawton.
Wrong. Corn requires warm weather. But what else would you expect from these jokers? Tell a lie and quickly move on.
The MET office already had a detailed Map of Disaster, courtesy of Madam Kirsty Lewis:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/effects/high-end.html
We should ask Dr.Piers Corbyn his version, antagonistic of course, of Met Office’s map of global disaster…perhaps an extrapolation of the Maunder Minimum would work.
Enneagram (09:46:43) :
Thank you for the heads up.
Computer models are no better than the assumptions & data inputted into the model. In Science empirical observations & measurements are filtered through the theoretical models used in analysis & interpretation.
Conclusions are model-dependant filtering of observational data. That is to say, more often than not, conclusions are inferred based on the particular model applied to the observations & measurements.
Isn’t that exactly what we have from AGW proponents?
Enneagram (09:46:43) wrote: “BTW computer models didn’t work in the recent Chilean quake and tsunami…still waiting in Hawaii for the tsunami and the telltale of the Nazca plate ‘subduction’ under SA ended in the contrary, a ‘streching out’ of more than 10 feet:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308132043.htm
BTW that’s bad news for Al Gore, an island near the epicenter ‘grew up’ 7 feet above sea level.”
The evidence you provided suggest a couple things: So-called “subduction” is a myth. Per the “subduction” hypothesis, the Pacific tectonic plate is pushing underneath the South American tectonic plate. Problem: This theoretically should push the South American plate EAST, if any direction, not West as was measured by as much as ten feet:
“ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2010) — The massive magnitude 8.8 earthquake that struck the west coast of Chile last month moved the entire city of Concepcion at least 10 feet to the west, and shifted other parts of South America as far apart as the Falkland Islands and Fortaleza, Brazil.”
And, Enneagram, pointed out that, “an island near the epicenter ‘grew up’ 7 feet above sea level.”
Filter the two observations & measurements through a different model and it is strong evidence that the Earth is growing.
Yes, I’m a heretic: The fundamental force of Electromagnetism is more powerful & decisive than gravity in many instances, the Earth is growing, and oil is abiotic.
But after careful research & analysis I subscribe to these theories because that’s where the observations & measurements lead me.