Remember when Joe Romm said the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis was related to”climate change”?
And again…
The truth, never reported on Climate Progress, is far different:
In fact if you search for the keywords: “heat, weather, climate” as a factor for collapse in the NTSB press release here: http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/081114.html or in the full report here: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/ntsb/finalreport.pdf
You won’t find them. That’s because the failure is completely unrelated to them.
Well now another structure in Minneapolis has collapsed. 21 inches of snow in a short period was a factor.
The snowfall that ended Saturday night was one of the five biggest in Twin Cities history, National Weather Service meteorologist James McQuirter said. (source)
Fortunately it appears no one was killed or injured. Was it Weather, not Climate? Or “climate disruption? Climate blamers, get your game on. Watch the video below of the actual collapse.
Inside:
Outside:
The Vikings were displaced:
It appears Viking history has repeated itself:
The Viking Hvalsey Church in Greenland, abandoned when it became too cold to live there anymore.
Wade @ur momisugly 4:04
The idea is that the roof wasn’t designed to support snow. They expected it to slide off. They need to install a “huffer-puffer” (my term) to cause it to flex out about once every 10 minutes and shake snow off.
———-OTHERS———–
The connection (or mechanism) for AGW on a continuing (more of this, more of that) trend has not been demonstrated. Recall the skepticism regarding continents floating around until sea floor spreading (and the rest) was demonstrated. So, remain skeptical until the mechanism is shown. Whether the temperature goes up or down or sidewise means very little. Why does it do that?
This proves beyond all doubt that global warming is really heavy stuff…
R. Gates says:
December 12, 2010 at 10:40 am
I would think that because the Metrodome roof did not collapse during MWP or even during the warming period of the 1920′s-1940′s, proves that the current warming period is more intense and causing greater climate disruption.
REPLY: I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or just your usual ridiculous self. If making sarcasm, please use a /sarc tag afterwards. -Anthony
______
C’mon Anthony, did you need to tack on the ad hominem…really? I think I generally am quite polite around here, and pay you and WUWT many sincere and well deserved compliments, I would think you’d could at least be courteous enough to refrain from the insults even if you disagree with my perspectives.
REPLY: And the question remains. /sarc or silly ? – Anthony
R. Gates,
re: “…your usual ridiculous self.”
Claiming to be 75% true believer and 25% skeptic is pretty ridiculous.☺
Addendum to R Gates:
You ask for the c02 increase being a factor in *Global warming*. Thats a subject covered many times on WUWT in the past year. c02 is thermally excited at 15 microns, which correspond to subzero temperatures – typically minus 37C . C02 captures (for a billionth of a second) radiation at this temperature. It then thermalises with oxygen and nitrogen, which receives radiation at its peaks where c02 emits radiation.
These temperatures correspond to the poles and the upper part of the troposphere. There is no physical mechanism by which subzero temperatures can cause global warming above the average global temperature, which is thought to be around 15C. Where c02 is at its most active – in the troposphere where these temperatures are found, there is no physical mechanism by which subzero temperature radiation is sent back down to the earth surface, to heat up the ground and oceans. Analogy-wise, its tantamount to saying that eggs will cook if you put them in the freezer.
this is in essence the ratiocination that is accepted by the IPCC.
No serious physicist could accept it.
Essentially, most heat is invisible to c02, and it is around 6% long wave that isn’t invisible regardless of its quantity. If its 15micron saturation point is reached, then no additional c02 will capture more heat. Even I find some sceptic arguments of a doubling of c02= marginally higher temperature hard to reason, given the radiative physics of c02.
It is something like a piece of tissue paper. Once it is saturated in a bath full of water more water will not make it absorb more, and become wetter. similarly with your sunblock. A factor 10 sunblock doesn’t become factor 40 by doubling how much you put on your face
oops. correction: factor 20. It will block a fixed amount of UV, regardless of a doubling or putting thrice fold, since its composition fixes it for its purposes at factor 10.
C02, or any gas has fixed wavelengths of radiative absorbtion, which don’t change with quantity
R. Gates says:
December 12, 2010 at 3:52 pm:
“I would ask AGW skeptics this: If the decade from 2010 to 2019 turns out to be warmer than 2000-2009, (which was the warmest on instrument record), to what will you personally attribute this phenomenon?”
You’ve got it completely backwards. It’s up to the CAGWarmers to prove that their CO2 theory is correct.
A dood says:
December 12, 2010 at 7:25 pm
R. Gates says:
December 12, 2010 at 3:52 pm:
“I would ask AGW skeptics this: If the decade from 2010 to 2019 turns out to be warmer than 2000-2009, (which was the warmest on instrument record), to what will you personally attribute this phenomenon?”
You’ve got it completely backwards. It’s up to the CAGWarmers to prove that their CO2 theory is correct.
_____
GCM’s would model that 8 out of the next 10 decades will be warmer than the preceeding, and so with each passing decade that is warmer you can only simply say that the liklihood that CO2 induced AGW is happening is greater. On the flip side, if we get several decades in a row where we see the average global temperature decrease during that decade, it would be a serious blow to the core of the AGW hypothesis.
R. Gates says:
December 12, 2010 at 8:08 pm
and the scientific explanation of CAGW, with scentific calculations?
R. Gates
I would ask AGW skeptics this: If the decade from 2010 to 2019 turns out to be warmer than 2000-2009, (which was the warmest on instrument record), to what will you personally attribute this phenomenon?>>
Since the earth has been warming since the last ice age, that’s a pretty much meaningless question. If you asked HOW MUCH of the warming would I personally attribute this, that would be meaningful.
And the answer would be, for CO2… less than natural variability, and CO2 being logarithmic, anything over and above what we have now is… meaningless.
addendum. An explanation of C02 induced AGW that contradicts the explantion given at 6.28am.
Its true that in the stretching mode, c02 could elevate the temperature, but this doesn’t happen below50C, and the air doesn’t support such temperatures where c02 is at its active state. In a given volume of air there are 4,000 other molescules that are not c02, making such thermally exited transfers between c02 very unlikely
GCM’s would model that 8 out of the next 10 decades will be warmer than the preceeding, and so with each passing decade that is warmer you can only simply say that the liklihood that CO2 induced AGW is happening is greater.
its a spurious correlation. Even if it were warmer than the last 10 years, the reason would not be conclusive as to the earth’s heat capacity and temperature. At the moment, we are at the same temperature as the 1730’s, according to CET.
I’m sure new explanations and discoveries will be found as to the earth’s physical response during the next 10 years, regardless of whether the average global temperature increases, decreases, or remains around level
R Gates>
“if some new information comes to light that shows that the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s makes not a knat’s ass bit of difference in the climate,”
Sorry to appear to be piling on… But I just thought I’d suggest another possibility. CO2 increases may cause a warming influence, but I rather suspect it will have an effect much like poking a spinning gyroscope: a brief wobble, followed by the natural feedbacks restoring equilibrium.
Gaia is telling the Vikings to stop being a bunch of wussies and play outside! Vikings gave away their best home field advantage when they built that ugly ass dome.
R. Gates says:
December 12, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Despite his track record, I have to side with RG on this one. The MWP reference put this well on the side of silly for me. It’s clearly something that couldn’t have happened, and there was nothing to imply that the “Flat Earthers” here would believe it.
It’s on a par with my “Polar Bears went extinct during the Roman Warm Period and again during the Medieval Warm Period.” Silly in general, sarcastic toward people wringing their hands over the fate of PB.
RG: “I’m am still a 75/25 warmist vs skeptic, but perhaps I’ve been spending a bit more time looking at that 25% side of things”
Perhaps 25% silly, 75% true sarcasm, but I’m not sure to whom. Maybe his 25% is talking to his 75%.
Pull My Finger says:
December 13, 2010 at 5:46 am
> Gaia is telling the Vikings to stop being a bunch of wussies and play outside! Vikings gave away their best home field advantage when they built that ugly ass dome.
Except when the Patriots come. The home field snow and cold didn’t help Chicago!
Part of a UK store roof collapsed under the weight of “Global Climate Disruption” last week. This story also mentions some other casualties of the recent cold snap.
http://news1.capitalbay.com/news/uk_snow_roof_at_tesco.html
I have lived in Minnesota since I was in 1st grade [1972] and I remember seeing all sorts of “climate disruption” every year. Very persistent too. They’ve even named them.
Spring.
Summer.
Fall.
Winter.
I’ve seen it snowing in May…I’ve seen 65 degrees in January…I’ve seen 103 degrees in June…I’ve seen thunderstorms in February.
But the weirdest one was back in the 90s, in western Minnesota one spring. Ran into a flood during a blizzard and heard some thunder from the sky at the same time. I was thinking to myself all that is missing is a tornado 🙂
Whether it’s manmade global warming, or natural global warming … there is a lot of crazy climate changes going on – even for Minnesota.
My point was Minnesota always has had extreme weather. Nothing new under the sun.
Check out this link…
http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/winter_storms.htm
Famous blizzards in Minnesota. From 1866 to 1896, a string of horrendous blizzards nailed the state…notice the pattern, nothing new. Weather patterns of the nice & extreme have been going on for a long time. I was 12 yrs. old and remember this one vividly.
“Jan 10-12, 1975 perhaps one of the worst blizzards and strongest storms.
Closed most roads in the state, some for 11 days, 20 ft drifts. One to two
feet of snow, train stuck at Willmar, 15,000 head of livestock lost. Many
low barometric pressure records set (28.55 at Duluth), winds to 80 mph,
storm intensified over the state, 14 people died in blizzard, and 21 more
from heart attacks.”
We lived 7 miles north of Willmar, MN then, we could not get into town for a 5 days. My father rode one of his snowmobiles into town for groceries and other supplies. I remember the snow plows getting stuck time after time a mile south. I would ride snowmobile to the spot and watch them try to pull each other out.
I don’t see how it could be any more clear that Global Warming is to blame for this.
The video clearly shows the roof buckling, and then tons of Global Warming pouring into the interior.
That’s what they mean by Global Warming, isn’t it? White fluffy stuff that falls from the sky? Isn’t that what the whole Gore Effect is about?