Serially warm reporter Dan Vergano of USA today wrote an article on the “Current Extreme Weather and Climate Change” report, released this week that says it’s all our fault. With a peer review team like this one, what other conclusion could they possibly come to?
Expert Reviewers:
- Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
- Jerry Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research
- Jeff Masters, Weather Underground
- Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
May as well just turbo rubber stamp it and be done with it like we saw with Dessler’s recent GRL paper, which is now being revised due to its haste makes waste set of mistakes in it that Dessler is admitting to.
But this quote, is the real weather wackiness:
“There’s really no such thing as natural weather anymore,” says climate scientist Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois, who was not involved with the report, but said he largely agreed with its conclusions. “Anything that takes place today in the weather system has been affected by the changes we’ve made to the climate system. That’s just the background situation and it’s good for people to know that,” Wuebbles says. Although scientists cannot immediately tie what percentage of an extreme weather event relies on global warming to make it more severe, he says. “It’s always a factor in today’s world.”
Source here
No natural weather anymore? So weather is “permanently polluted” by “changes we’ve made to the climate system”?
Gee, we’re worse than we thought! /sarc
This sort of thinking isn’t new. Consider history:
—
The chief god of the Babylonians was Marduk. Marduk was initially the god of thunderstorms but at some point grew to become the god of the ambiance. 1 of the most crucial gods of the Vedic religion of ancient India was Indra, the god of rain and storms.
Source: http://ican-planet.com/god-of-ra/weather-gods-and-ancient-meteorology/
—
Zeus (Roman name: Jupiter)
The most powerful of all, Zeus was god of the sky and the king of Olympus. His temper affected the weather, and he threw thunderbolts when he was unhappy. So it was important for humans to keep him happy.
Source: The Olympian Gods and Goddesses — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0881990.html#ixzz1XT66JKzb
A paper by Emily Oster reports that in medieval times superstition blamed witches for weather disasters and crop failures – “Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”
Source: http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2010/08/witcheswarlocks-and-weather.html
—
Wireless Changing Climate
That the far-famed climate of Southern California is undergoing a change that will ultimately cause a complete reversal of form is the belief of climate experts who have been making a study of conditions on the Pacific Coast. These experts declare the change is being caused by jolts of electric currents loose in the atmosphere. – Clarence and Richmond Examiner (Grafton, NSW : 1889 – 1915) Thursday 5 October 1911
Source: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/61617803?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=
(h/t to Steve Goddard)
—
That seems like the forerunner of the ridiculous HAARP claims we hear today. The sanity test is power; compare the amount of watts emitted by the most powerful radio station to the power in a single thunderstorm or extratropical cyclone. Sandgrains impacting on the windshield don’t measurably change the path of an automobile either.
Yet we are asked to believe man is influencing severe weather this year in spite of the data:
A few months ago USA Today asked this question:
Can we do anything about vicious bad weather?
Unless we want to start praying to the weather gods again, or give up all our wireless communications, and given there doesn’t seem to be any signal in severe weather or ocean heat content, probably not.
Humans can and have had a huge impact on local weather patterns.
Consider a boreal forest. The soil will be several feet thick and highly pourus. It will absorb water like a sponge. Water will fill in underground chambers and eventually bust out onto land forming brooks and streams, feeding rivers. The land will go through a cycle. It will dry until monsoon rains come when it will refill. As the heavy rains pass evaporation will draw water from the soil, and that water will rain nearby. If monsoons were to stop the cycle would break down and the forest would die.
Now humans arrive. They cut down every tree and mono-cultivate the land until the soil has been used up. The dirt dries, loses porousity, and forms a thick top layer. Now when the monsoon comes there is no soil to suck it up, so it just runs along the ground, the flooding is immense. And all the water simply washes into the sea, it does not stay in the ground to evaporate later. So there is no longer regular rainfall around the now dead forest.
This is the simple little story about how Queensland, Austrailia and countless other locals around the world went from being lush forests to “lands of droughts and floods.”
I get a little angry when, in the course of a climate debate, some alarmist says “oh you denier, you really think humans *can’t* affect the climate? Come on.” The ignorance is just offensive. They’re not refering to the plainly obvious and massive effects humans have on climate, they’re referring to the “somewhere between zero and a hundred percent” contribution of greenhouse gas heat to a hurricane.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman
Lest anyone forget, this big push to ram global warming = extreme weather down everybody’s throats is a 15-year old talking point by the same guy I describe in my online articles as the epicenter of the smear of skeptic scientists. Back in a late 1997 NPR radio interview (beginning around the 3/4 point of this MP3 file http://ia600300.us.archive.org/4/items/dn1997-0807/dn1997-0807-1_64kb.mp3 ), the host’s closing remarks were these:
“And just ending on this comment, that Ross points out in his book The Heat is On, the relentless stream of news reports about record setting weather extremes in the last several years reflects the new period of climatic instability we’ve entered. Unfortunately the media doesn’t talk about these natural disasters as related to global warming. For example, in the summer of 1995, the Midwest experienced its second 100 year flood in just three years, and shortly thereafter, at least 300 people died in a brutal heat wave in Chicago. We gotta rethink these things and talk about them, put them in the context they should be put.”
She was interviewing book author Ross Gelbspan, the person who has long insisted that skeptic scientists falsely put out fabricated climate assessments directed and funded by big coal & oil. Practically all the accusations you see on this ultimately source back to Gelbspan.
When you have a decidedly anti-skeptic book author spearheading a non-stop 15 year push to connect AGW to extreme weather connection, then you have a sizable problem, which is why I hammer so hard on the need for people to start taking a much harder look at this guy and all the folks in politics and the media that he influences.
Isn’t the discussion now about how were are in the “anthropogene” or whatever they call it? So, it seems to me Wuebbles is just going along with this new techocratic narrative.
*Wuebbles Wobbles… And Falls Down.
“There’s really no such thing as natural weather anymore,” says climate scientist Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois…. “Anything that takes place today in the weather system has been affected by the changes we’ve made to the climate system. That’s just the background situation and it’s good for people to know that,”
Anything? Really??? Uhhmmmmm…. Has man changed the fundamental nature of solar radiation? Has the rotation of the earth and its effects on planetary wind patterns been altered by ‘bad’ man? Have the moon’s orbit and the corresponding oceanic tides been altered, changing the sea circulation patterns and the corresponding effects on weather and climate?
Is it good for people to know that your asinine statements have no merit?
* From ‘Weebles Wobble But They Don’t Fall Down’ line of toys
Ever since Anthony started his “Quote of the Week” feature, I’ve tried to compose something witty that might get consideration. However, I’ve come to two conclusions. First, the AGW alarmists have cornered the market on “ridiculous proclamations”. Second, it’s impossible to “out-ridiculous” the ridiculous.
Gary Swift says:
September 9, 2011 at 12:21 pm
To Lucy and Tony,
“Curiously it started warming up IMMEDIATELY the last witches in England were hung”
No doubt some witches were hung, at least the male ones.
The correct usage is “hanged”
Regards
DW
I find it funny. Copernicus displaced earth as being at the center of the universe. Now scientists have placed mankind at the center of the universe, capable of changing weather and bringing down the ire of alien races for our misdeeds. What’s next? Are we doing things that cause or hinder sun spots? Maybe earthquakes and volcanoes are caused by human activity?
I’m more interested in whether the Arctic sea ice is continuing its recovery this year.
I get a little angry
when they say I am to blame
Where’s the evidence it’s me
They don’t even know my name.
I get even more angry
When I read the things they say
It’s not just now and then
But every single day.
They fill me full of anger
When they say it’s all my fault
It’s totally unfair of them
It feels like an assault.
My anger knows no bounds
When they try and prove their case
With flimsy bits of evidence
That they want me to embrace.
My anger is frenetic
When they tell me black is white
The science is quite settled
Now I know that that ain’t right.
My anger turns to outrage
When they call me a denier
It makes me want to get my spade
and bury them in the mire.
My anger cannot be described
I think you might agree
When a hockey stick that caused this mess
was based on the rings of a single tree.
This bit of nonsense was inspired by RYAN who used the phrase “I get a little angry”
“Although scientists cannot immediately tie what percentage of an extreme weather event relies on global warming to make it more severe”
OBJECTION! (can’t find the clip…)
A clear logical possibility has been excluded here: that a weather event was made somewhat less severe by AGW. Surely we have less harsh winters due to warming especially since most of the recent (30 years) warming in the US took place in the month of January (and winter dominates trends in much of the rest of the world, too), less severe/numerous extratropical storms due to weakened equator to pole temperature differential? Surely the long term trend in the US toward more precipitation has translated into less severe droughts? So why is it actually said that the weather has only been made “more severe” when in many cases the opposite appears to be true?
Yes, power. That is the point so often missed. It takes two things to do anything, time and energy. (Ask my kids. They will tell you.) Without enough of either, it doesn’t happen.
Obviously, burning the witches was the beginning of the entire CO2 mess:-)
So if natural weather no longer exists, that holds massive implications on the insurance industry. No longer can they weasel their way out of paying up after storms, floods, etc, because they are no longer “an act of God”.
Also, if weather is now man-made, who can I sue for this crappy weather down here this weekend? I asked for warm and sunny, not cold and rainy!
The statement:
“No natural weather anymore? So weather is “permanently polluted” by “changes we’ve made to the climate system”?
Puts an interesting spin on this issue. The choice of the word “polluted” is especially loaded.
But to this essential issue: Human activity, in all forms and degrees affects the micro and macro environment of the planet…and yes, it is true, that you absolutely cannot dissect out the human fingerprint and look at any weather system or even the general climate without saying that there is some human fingerprint involved. What can be debated is the level of degree of influenc of that fingerprint. Of course, as human population and level and extent of technology have expanded, so too, this fingerprint has gotten more intense of pervasive. Unless you go deep underground, or under the ice caps, or at the deepest levels of the ocean it is hard not to find traces of human influence.
Most skeptics of course seem to reject the notion of this being the Anthropocene, and at the more extreme opposite end, some have argued that the Anthropocence actually began with widescale human agriculture many thousands of years ago, as this began to change the components of the atmosphere.
But the point is that this is now the Anthropocene, and regardless of how long it has lasted, or how short it may be, it will be a period that could be identified in the distant future as distinct from the early Holocene, both in the fossil record and atmospheric and ocean chemistry. Thus, any weather that occurs now, having the fingerprint of humans to one degree or another, is Anthropocene weather, as, at the very least, every raindrop or snowflake that falls has some traces of chemcial residue in one form or another that came from human activity.
Google ads just found the missing heat…on my browser, after the last paragraph a video ad of a couple enjoying a sunny swim in a pool under waterfall, titled “Mix it up in Darwin.”
The last cyclone that damaged Darwin was in the 1970’s, almost completely destroying the city, Cyclone Tracy. Yet Darwin had an unusually cool winter this year.
Roald says:
September 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I’m more interested in whether the Arctic sea ice is continuing its recovery this year.
_____
As it never really was in a “recovery” mode per se from the record low of 2007, it is hard for something that wasn’t happening to “continue”. The minor and inconsequential “blips” upward in 2008 and 2009 in sea ice extent at least (but certainly not in the more important sea ice volume) were hardly a recovery and were only characterized as such by the skeptical community in the hopes of putting some kind of smokescreen up to cover up the longer-term obvious trend of continued decline. 2010 proved the point of a “non-recovery” and now of course, 2011 drives the point home even more. 2007 was no “outlier” event…no “one off”, and the long-term prognosis of the Arctic sea ice is toward an ice-free summer condition, sooner, rather than later this century. This too, cand be considered as Anthropocene weather and climate, and only the overall degree of effect of the human fingerprint and associated feedbacks can be debated.
Sorry for posting here; it is right off topic but I don’t know my way around the website.
I have just subscribed.
I was forced to do so via paypal,
I have had bad experiences with paypal and I never want to use them again.
Next year can I please just use my Mastercard?
Getting Old
found an interesting parallel between the decline of rock music quality and the decline in US oil discovery and production
If increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have polluted ‘natural’ weather, then the blame should be placed on termites, with Man playing just a contributing role.
Clearly the first step should be to reduce the number of termites. Think environmentalists would go along with that?
You know, every time someone tries to make a point about the weather, you drag out your charts and data and graphs, and ruin everything. No wonder the warmist crowd is always so angry!
timetochooseagain says:
A clear logical possibility has been excluded here: that a weather event was made somewhat less severe by AGW. Surely we have less harsh winters due to warming especially since most of the recent (30 years) warming in the US took place in the month of January (and winter dominates trends in much of the rest of the world, too), less severe/numerous extratropical storms due to weakened equator to pole temperature differential?
++++
The problem with that idea is that the Continental US winter temperatures have been falling at quite a rate. It is not getting warmer in winter.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Enter:
First Year To Display: 1998
Last Year To Display: 2011
Check the Winter/Spring/Summer/Fall temperatures (from the drop down list).
The US is cooling in winter at >3 deg F per decade (1998-2011). If you take 1995-2011 in winter is it only cooling 1.9 deg F/decade.
Must be that anthropogenic weather pollution of the anthropocene that R Gates prattles about. How about that, RG? It is getting colder every year! Actual, model-free data! Probably going to melt the whole Arctic soon. I am looking forward to it. Its drifting back to its long term, temperate norm.
Thing is this.
We are now twelve years (don’t forget 2000) into the new millenium – which is one-eighth of the way to 2100 – by which time all the dire propheses about increased CO2, temperature, sea level etc were deemed to have taken place.
Shouldn’t we by now be seeing one-eighth of these rises/changes..? Or are the ‘warmists’ predicting ‘logarithmic’ changes..?
We must be told….
R. Gates Says it was never a recovery;
I have been wanting to comment on this sea ice business for a long time. Hasn’t anyone noticed that the sea ice extent graphs start in 1978. That was when the “scientists” were screaming coming ice age. It was the end of the 30 year cooling cycle and the beginning of the 30 year warming cycle.
Dick G