UPDATE: Graph added below per request from Joe Bastardi.
But first, let’s listen to expert on all things public, scientific, and climatic, Rosie O’Donnell
From Fox News:
Living in an era when pop culture celebrities can assert “expert” opinions on any subject, why wait for science to catch up with pesky facts?
If Rosie O’Donnell says global warming caused Joplin’s destruction, then it must be true, right? As Hollywood knows best, there’s no need for lab research, instant proclamations are good enough. It worked for claiming fire hadn’t melted steel before 9/11, so why not weather can’t cause deadly tornadoes outbreaks before this? Must be global warming then. Yeah that’s the ticket.
Alright, now having weathered that, here’s Joe Bastardi on Fox News talking the science.
UPDATE: Joe Bastardi writes in and asks this graphic to be included (which apparently never made it into the interview). Click for a very large version.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Global (or nearly global) cooling is one of the root causes.
Viva la Edad del Hielo!
http://www.dgcs.unam.mx/boletin/bdboletin/2011_085.html
“It could snow cheese in New York and they would say it was global warming” – lmao
If that item had run another minute or two, I am certain that Joe would have “lost it” completely, and delivered an anti-warmist rant for the ages.
Maybe, next time (:-
Anthony, watch out for Senate Bill 978. You might have to forego YouTube in the near future: http://www.infowars.com/embedding-youtube-videos-may-soon-be-a-felony/
Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos.
According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.
Read Masnick’s article here. He explains how the new law would expand copyright violations from reproducing and distributing to performing – including streaming video over the internet.
Everyone here, must identify, with the obvious frustration, emoted by JB. All skeptics have this one thing in common! We vary in everything else. GK
Snow cheese? I’ll have to borrow that one.
Seeing how 1970 thru 2000 was the warming cycle and that the cooling cycle 2000 thru 2030 is here, what else can you expect. Here in Western Oregon I expect to start shoveling snow in about ten years or so in the good old winter time. It will seem like old times just like in the 1960’s removing snow from the sidewalks in front of the family drug store.
I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.
The fact that mid level atmospheric temperatures has dropped recently neither proves nor disproves global warming.
Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing.
Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.
Nothing that he said contradicts the essential element of global warming, that the volume of human created green house gases (mostly CO2) is trapping more energy in the atmosphere and that additional trapped energy is the principal driver behind the current warming trend.
The think about snowing cheese might be clever, but it isn’t really a scientific statement. And nothing even vaguely scientific that he did say in any way refutes the basic premises of Global Warming.
Bublhead says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.
———————————-
I’ve read reviews of all the papers if not the papers themselves on global warming, read the IPCC reports and followed the debate closely for four years now and I’ve never seen affirmation of the theory of global warming.
I am not alone.
Bublhead says:
“Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing. Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.”
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Rosie is certainly incorrect about global warming causing tornadoes. However, she is absolutely correct when she states that fires cannot melt steel, so that they flow like rivers, as noted by WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson:
Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.
I have it on good authority that global warming caused Rosie O’Donnell.
Bulbhead
He wont even click on them sorry that’s the way da AGW brain works
Bublhead says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
“And nothing even vaguely scientific that he did say in any way refutes the basic premises of Global Warming”.
Maybe if the 2 minute interview had been about the science of Global Warming then he would have refuted it (scientifically,of course) to your liking.
Given the limited time available to him, I think he did an excellent job explaining the atmospheric conditions which caused these horrendous storms, which was in fact,the point of the interview.
Bublhead says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
===================================
Anyone that can read a chart knows that sea level rise has slowed, it’s obvious that temperatures have declined since 1998, there is no tropospheric hot spot…etc etc
All the while CO2 levels have increased (saying they are historically high is just hysterics) but they are Hansen’s A.
How do you explain it without refuting the basic premises of Global Warming.
Bublhead says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
“The fact that mid level atmospheric temperatures has dropped recently neither proves nor disproves global warming.”
Warmista have always claimed that one effect of increased CO2 would be higher temperatures in the mid-level atmosphere. In this case, “higher temperatures” means higher minimum night-time temperatures. All the evidence has contradicted this Warmista claim.
“Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing.”
If you regard Global Average Surface Temperature as something other than an outrageous contrivance, then you still have to relate it to global warming. There is no such relationship in science.
“Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.”
Atmospheric CO2 levels are not global warming. You and other Warmista must produce a little science to show that they contribute to global warming. There is no such science.
“Nothing that he said contradicts the essential element of global warming, that the volume of human created green house gases (mostly CO2) is trapping more energy in the atmosphere and that additional trapped energy is the principal driver behind the current warming trend.”
Trapped energy, that’s a new one. I thought that the effect of CO2 was to serve as a blanket that slowed Earth’s warming, not that it trapped energy. Can we tap this trapped energy to power automobiles?
Your pseudonym is remarkably well-chosen. You have great insight into yourself. Now you need to learn what a Bublhead should do.
Bublehead! Nothing you have said shows anything more than your ability to toe the company line! And if CO2 is behind the CURRENT warming trend, please, oh please explain why it ISN’T behind other similar warming trends in the past, and why this “trend” is so, um, special. Please explain also why and how global warming is responsible for the twister outbreak this year, but (and this is a big but) not in previous years, especially seing how global warming has been getting worse since say, 2000 AD. Shouldn’t the twisters be steadily increasing? Oh…right, there’s that ‘tipping point’ thing…and when did that happen? The thing is, B’head, you cannot explain this, because you don’t grasp the physical significance of tornado formation. You assert that Bastardi hasn’t disproved anything, while in the same breath, you have not proved anything. “Creative” cut-and-paste is not going to win any arguments here. To assign the garbage-dump term “global warming” (in itself an effect) as a cause, is worthy of Rosie O’Donnell, but not a scientific forum.
Bublhead says:
“Nothing that he said indicates that the Global Average Surface Temperature is not increasing. Nothing that he said indicates the atmospheric CO2 levels are not historically high and still rising.”
—
When CO2 exceeds 5000ppm (not the trivial 390 we are enjoying today) it will finally reach “historic” levels. Until then, learn some science.
curious, that post really belonged in Tips and Notes, I think. But I note that the sponsors are notorious Democrats, from Feinstein to Franken. No way it passes the House.
thereisnofear: Was that metal structural steel, or one of the many other metals, with lower melting points, that are often found in buildings.
Bublhead says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.
Perhaps that could be because he was not trying to refute the entire concept of AGW in this interview, but merely to counter the absurd notion that this Spring’s tornado outbreaks were the result of AGW or any other kind of warming. It’s sometimes hard to refute a hypothesis, when its proponents claim every possible result as falling within their projections, but such an argument tends to leave them looking like Harold Camping after a while.
Bublhead says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming in what he said.
That’s because he wasn’t trying to say that: he was saying that global warming wasn’t what was causing the tornadoes, but the mid-level cooling and the change in wind patterns. He was also saying (or inferring, actually) that it is unsupportable to link every extreme or unusual weather (or cheese 😉 event to global warming. Simple enough to follow.
Fred from Canuckistan says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:39 am
“I have it on good authority that global warming caused Rosie O’Donnell.”
Fred,
As we all know correlation does not equal causation.
Pablo
Look at the North American snow cover on April 20th, in the middle of the mid-April Tornado outbreak. This snowcover is at least 3 weeks behind normal.
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/snow_model/images/full/National/nsm_depth/201104/nsm_depth_2011042005_National.jpg
As Joe Bastardi says, it is completely opposite to the proposition that global warming caused the outbreaks. Global cooling and the La Nina are the primary mechanisms.
Sorry to contradict you and the estimable Rosie Whoever, but steel can be melted like that in an office fire. It all depends on length of exposure, ventilation and the local heat feedbackplus the size of the fire and the structure, of course. Just because it is rare, does not mean it “can’t happen.” It is rare, but it was also noted after the fire storms that destroyed Hamburg and Dresden to name just two.
Let’s not get into the 9/11 was all an internal plot to justify the war on terror.
Look into the ‘models’ used to support the “Warming” panic – they use surface temperatures, but they also only model the lower atmosphere as far as I am aware and they don’t do anything with oceans (also part of the atmosphere) or the upper atmosphere and they certainly don’t predict tornadoes. Hollywood has a lot to answer for in clouding this debate.