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.
Bublhead,
Professor David Evans was head of the Greenhouse Gas Commission in Australia for 10 years.
The AGW hypothesis was that the warming signal would start in the trophosphere first and then spread.
Despite measuring the trophosphere with air balloons and satellite, the warming could not be found.
Therefore the hypothesis was wrong, Evans decided.
The graphs above show the trophosphere cooling while CO2 is rising.
They used to laugh at the idea that every company needed qualified computer geeks.
Today people laugh at the importance of unbiased and objective meteorologists, still. With the state of the globality of the global world, and it’s only going to get more “global”, but would anyone, today, really want to invest in even a single shipment of goods if we didn’t have objectively interpreted weather data for the shipping time? But who would you trust: The unbiased weather man working for whom ever or the “insurance company’s own weather man”?
Bublhead said: “I watched that clip twice and still can’t find any thing resembling a refutation of the science behind global warming.”
It’s a case of guilt by association. Gore’s latest book cover directly blames tornadoes on AGW by Photoshopping in a bunch of them at once:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_r1AxIJszWSA/SwdTDeZkJII/AAAAAAAAEnU/UKDHxGl5Qzo/s1600/gore+book.jpg
However tornado numbers are “up” only because of better detection by satellites. That’s not a controversial statement. Strong tornadoes which do not suffer from a lack of detection (!) have been declining in number for decades according to the NOAA’s own official plot:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
“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.”
He did mention one thing about that, in fact: it’s cooling outside despite claims that rising CO2 is now driving everything! The oceans are an order of magnitude more important in terms of heat capacity and they too are cooling according to ARGO buoy results that have now been data embargoed as far as I can tell.
Please explain why the recent big dip (1940-1970) and surge in T exactly matches the dip and surge that happened prior to it?
http://oi45.tinypic.com/5obajo.jpg
Better yet, explain why there is no explanation offered for this. I made that a year or two ago and posted it far and wide on AGW enthusiast blogs and never got a straight answer. The best they offered was that the past simply did not matter since now CO2 is in charge, seemingly by dictate alone. Then they link bombed me with primary literature articles that did not robustly support the claims they assumed they did. All the while they did a victory dance, claiming I must not be a scientist. When I pointed out that I was trained by the best in the business, they went on and on about how funny it was that even idiots could sneak into grad school. Then I was asked to speak for scientific academies I have no contact with, though both the Royal Society and the APS (Am. Phys. Soc.) have both experienced internal rebellions concerning their public statements on AGW, the first having had 45 of about 1300 members revolt, and the later having 800 of 47K involved. Also a recent poll of sorts was made of hard science (chemistry/physics) Nobelists: of the 137 that are still living a mere 10 signed up for a petition to support AGW theory, leaving 93% of them who declined to sign on the dotted line of what amounted to an AGW activist manifesto.
You are a history major. Consider what history has to tell us about dominant scientific theory. There is an ether that pervades space. Continents don’t move (despite an obvious jigsaw puzzle match between them)! Dirty hands don’t kill surgical patients! Children are a blank slate, personality wise with no genetic influence! The best therapy is to treat human beings as if we were shocking pigeons and ringing bells for dogs. Non-coding DNA is just “junk”. Man will never fly. Viruses have nothing to do with ulcers or certain cancers. Bacterial spontaneously generate. Dietary cholesterol dominates heart disease occurrence just as CO2 dominates the latest warming trend.
-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
thereisnofear says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:31 am
You are right. Any structural engineer will tell you that no office or hydrocarbon fire can melt steel alone. Given that the tower fires were oxygen poor (i.e. lots of black smoke), the temperature of the flames were no where close to weakening and even less close to melting structural steel.
Because science teaches us not to trust the government about Climate Change, the same science also tells us not to believe their fairy tale report on the way those towers collapsed. You can’t cherry-pick science.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/
David Evans has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He helped build the carbon accounting model for the Australian Government that tracks carbon in plants, debris, soils, and agricultural and forest products. He researches mathematics — Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials. While valuable, this activity pays nothing. So David has been investing on the stock market, and doing the odd consulting job, since 1990. David also has a keen interest in monetary history, banking, and detecting scams.
Read and weep for your theory Bublhead
thereisnofear says:
Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.
Do you know what a cupola furnace is? It is a vertical shaft that is filled with layers with wood charcoal and iron fragments. After the charcoal is lit and allowed to heat up, a taphole is opened up and *molten* iron flows out. That’s right, iron is melted wood fire – pretty much common knowledge since the dawn of the iron age. With regards to the melting of steel, the difference between a small cupola filled with charcoal, and skyscraper filled with jet fuel is only a matter of scale.
http://www.sciencespeak.com/SimpleHotspot.pdf
With pictures.
I have it under excellent authority that Rosie O’Donnell breathes out over 40,000 PPM of CO2 with every breath. Perhaps she could do something to contribute to her perceived need to decrease global atmospheric CO2 levels and stop breathing out so much.
MarkW,
Some have tried to argue that the material was aluminum. However, aluminum does not effervesce in the same way that molten iron does. It remains silvery, while the many eyewitnesses of this material have reported orange-red material. Consult the research of Stephen Jones.
Gray Monk:
The melting point of steel is 1510 deg. C. A hydrocarbon fire (jet fuel), under optimum atmospheric conditions, burns at about 815 deg. C. Office materials are similar. There were no other conditions present that could have doubled the available temperature to produce rivers of molten steel.
If office fires could melt (not just weaken) steel, it would NEVER be used as a structural material.
Re Smokey says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:29 am
Many thanks for the “clicks”. I can use the charts to good effect – well, show /discuss them anyway, but warmista are very resistant. Gotta keep on keeping on tho.
Will send to my MP (Member of Parliament). inter alios. UK Govt. quite nuts on Climate Change, unfortunately, and on windmills as one of the key solutions.
thereisnofear says: “Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.”
Oh dear, you don’t get it, do you? God I hope they moderate this out since I’m showing all our cards now, since I can’t bear the weight of it any more. We skeptics are the conspiracy of which you bespeak! Via massive influx of ExxonMobile money, in between champagne fueled gentleman’s parties in black Hummer limos, we intend, by hook or crook, to make caring tree huggers who support selfishly heroic scientists to look like addle minded conspiracy theorists. Now you, dear soldier, have fallen into our spider web, too. Confusing is our only game, not truth. That’s what the secret encoded cell phone rays from Koch’s Industries that are bounced off the flat moon moon tell us. It’s flat because we put it there. Have you never noticed that it never rotates?!
Note to Bublhead: this is how skeptics deal with junk science. We smash it to pieces.
Rosie is a poster child for stupidity. You can go on youtube and see a tanker truck fire melt the steel support structure on the roadway above where it crashed. video
Now that I have stumbled upon the how . . . . for anyone who wants to refer to a prior post all you have to day is put the cursor over the date under the commenters name it will turn red click once and the link to that comment will show up in the URL (address bar??) you highlight that Ctrl C for copy and Ctrl P for paste in your Comment as is demonstrated for:
The Gray Monk says:
June 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/03/bastardi-on-the-non-existent-climate-tornado-linkage/#comment-673192
SOOOO. . . . Anywho . . . . Not on subject . . . But hopefully helpful!
You expected scientific statements of fact on a 24-hour televised news channel? Did you just get off the alien spacecraft?
Ah. What you really needed was a link to Onion Network News.
Tucker Hope will clarify the “science” for you
She is such an expert, I wonder what her views are on Halloween.
I like the interviewer’s grasp of the subject: “this, err, cold-warm thing you were talking about …..” That is the trouble with the media, they are mostly brain-dead, and more than happy to pass on something sensationalist – because sensationalist sells.
.
However, there’s been a big change at the BBC, folks. We have just had the warmest spring on record in the UK – and not one BBC reporter has mentioned Global Warming. So what do they know that we don’t?? Are they just hedging their bets? Are they jumping on the anti-AGW bandwagon? Have they been told something we have not? Are they going back to being a neutral reporting agency?
One thing is for certain. An executive order has come from the top of the BBC – the very top – to not get involved in the AGW debate, but to just report the facts. That is what the BBC should have been doing from day one, of course, but this is one hell of a change in attitude and policy. A US equivalent, would be Fox News arguing that communism would be good for America.
.
The only temperature that’s relevant to tornado formation is the contiguous US Average Surface Temperature. It’s down about 3% over the past 15 years, iirc.
Good yer Joe,tell it like it is.Seems celebrity rules over the truth/science.
perhaps Anthony could aske Rosie to do a guest post on here,now that would be comedy.Anthony you could start a new page called “Celebrity Science”where Hollywoods great and good could express there versions of climate science and tell us mere mortals how to save the planet,whilst they leave carbon footprints that would make Al Gore blush,
You could award a prize at the end of the year like the Oscar.and call it the Michael..
OT.
Hathaway’s june SSN prediction
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
***If office fires could melt (not just weaken) steel, it would NEVER be used as a structural material.***
Bullspit. That’s what FIREPROOFING steel columns is for.
Go away, troll, and take your spoonfed soundbits with you.
Bublhead says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
So Joe did not refute Global warming in a two minute explanation of how and why there are tornadoes now (as there have been in the past).
But I am so glad that you did not find anything strange about Rosie O’Donnell, explaining how Global Warming is the only reason for having the tornadoes.
sarc And obviously she is all knowing and can prove that tornadoes like these never happened before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere a little over 100 years ago. /sarc
thereisnofear: You said that the molten metal was found in the basement. If that was in fact a true statement, then we have in hand, the metal in question and there should be no question as to what it is.
Now if you are going to change the subject to the liquid seen leaking from the fire zone, then in truth nobody has any idea what it was. On the other hand there is no possible way it could have been structural steel. If that much steel had already melted, then the buildings would have collapsed long before that point.
Gunny says:
June 3, 2011 at 12:37 pm
thereisnofear says:
Office fires, even those induced by jet fuel, cannot produce these results.
“Do you know what a cupola furnace is? It is a vertical shaft that is filled with layers with wood charcoal and iron fragments. After the charcoal is lit and allowed to heat up, a taphole is opened up and *molten* iron flows out. That’s right, iron is melted by wood fire – pretty much common knowledge since the dawn of the iron age. With regards to the melting of steel, the difference between a small cupola filled with charcoal, and skyscraper filled with jet fuel is only a matter of scale.”
No! This can’t be true! No one melted iron before there were acetylene torches! /sarc 🙂
Ray: You declare that any fire with a lot of smoke is defacto oxygen poor, and you then have the gall to criticize other people for not following science?
Have you ever seen gasoline burn in an open pit? Lots of smoke.
As someone else pointed out, there is a youtube video of a tanker crash under a bridge. Guess what, lots of smoke. Guess what else, the bridge collapsed, the fire got hot enough to soften the metal girders holding it up. And those girders were not carrying anywhere near the weight that Twin Towers girders were.