A new post containing a cartoon from Josh will appear every hour. At the end of the 24 hours, everything will be collated on a single page.
Readers are encouraged to post skeptical arguments below. We are starting out slow, and will build as we go.
In the beginning there was Gore, and a skeptical polar bear.
Here’s a primer on what is to come:
Earth’s Climate System Is Ridiculously Complex – With Draft Link Tutorial
And, since Mr. Gore has made linking severe weather with climate a focus, may I present this from Joe D’Aleo’s ICECAP via GWPF:
James Marusek: A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events
By James Marusek
Over the centuries, mankind has experienced tremendous rainfalls and massive floods, monster hurricanes and typhoons, destructive tornadoes, parched-earth droughts, strong gales, flash floods, great snowfalls and killer blizzards, lightning storms sent down from the heavens, blind dense fogs, freezing rain, sleet, great hail, and bone-chilling cold and even an occasional mudstorm or two and in-between, periods of warm sunshine and tranquility.
And we are still here. We are perhaps a little battered and bruised from the wear. But there is nothing new in the weather to fear because we have been there before. We have learned to cope. We have developed knowledge, skills and tools to reduce the effects of weather extremes.
Today, every time a heat wave or a great flood occurs (such as those in Russia and Pakistan this year), voices arise claiming this is more proof of man-made global warming. I wonder to myself if these voices are intentionally ignorant of historical weather extremes or just dishonest.
Early meteorologist and historians have documented weather for many centuries. Recently, I have compiled several of these accounts into “A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events” and published this document on the Impact website. (PDF)
[Note: backup copy here early weather events (PDF) to prevent overloading his website, Anthony]
This chronology covers the years 0 to 1900 A.D. (When downloading the file, please be a little patient. This is a master resource and the 6.5 MB file may take a few minutes to access.)
Why is a chronological listing of weather events of value? If one wishes to peer into the future, then a firm grasp of the past events is a key to that gateway. This is intrinsically true for the scientific underpinnings of weather and climate.
——————–
A fascinating chronology that believes the Gorian, enviro and media claims that recent extremes are unprecedented. Even the Little Ice Age had brutal summer heat waves like we saw last year in Russia or this year in Texas. See many examples of brutal winters like the last 4 followed by significant floods, drought and heat waves in summer causing major crop and livestock issues and famine.
==========================
Josh put a lot of work into these, so if you like the work, drop by the tip jar. Unlike The CRP, he won’t spam you asking for more.
I copied them from underneath the u-stream video on the page.
Anthony Watts says:
September 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Oh great, now they are on with the smoking causes cancer comparisons
####################
Gee Anthony, the same professional doubters that worked with tobacco, worked with the oil companies. If you don’t have that by now, you haven’t been paying attention.
REPLY: Irrelevant to me, I’m not connected in any way, and both of my parents died from smoking related illness, but nobody in my family has died from climate change. – Anthony
OK well, I’m declaring this event a dud, time for dinner, moderators please help as we go along each hour steer people to the next event post
I just checked back and the stats have disappeared. They were at the top right of the page, below the u-stream vid.
Just The Facts says:
September 14, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Thus a portion of the warming that occurred during last century is likely due to lower levels of volcanic activity, versus increases in CO2 emissions. Does this make me a denier?…
#################
If the ignor the rest of the data YES.
Right on the presentation, humans put out 137 times co2 than volcanoes.
Anthony Watts reported @ur momisugly September 14, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Presenter said: “Wildfires threatened to burn nuclear material
All matter is nuclear, so they are not lying … being deceitfult, perhaps, but not lying. I actually don’t believe, or, rather, never heard of Uranium or Plutonium, actually “burning” in the old fashioned sense of the word.
cwon14 says:
September 14, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Earlier, did you pick up on; “More moisture causes droughts”?
######################
AGW just came crashing down. Congradulations
What a flop. Sorry I wasted my time watching.
_Jim says:
September 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm
BUT John it is not getting hotter … and hotter … and hotter … geesh.
####################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
below 2005 and 2010 are the warmest years on reocrd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
below 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_Decades
A lot of the same people who cried global cooling in the 70’s are now doing the same with global warming.
I can’t believe Hansen would state that none of those bad floods or weather would have happened if CO2 below 280. Deliberate distortion of climate history….some of the world’s worst events happened with low CO2. Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Coal…….attack…show bad weather pics….attack…..
It seems to be a “mutual admiration society”, a lot of tweeting and comments about how eco-conscious they are and everybody should do what they do…….
Rename “24 HOURS of STRAWMEN”
I will wager that after this event,the global warming believers will drop another 10 points. Even the congregation is complaining……”I’ve heard this before”, “nothing new”….
Gofer
I disappointed, but not surprised, that they are using “deniers” instead of “skeptics”…..just shows they have no class and very unprofessional. It should be called “24 Hours of Ad Hom”.
###############
Skeptics listen to facts, deniers don’t ever accept them.
Skeptics are able to accept 97% consensus of peer review writing scientists as credible.
Skeptics are able to seperate out Rush Limbaugh ideology from science fact.
Somebody ask them WHY they don’t state what the actual temp is when it’s the “hottest” on record”….like 2010, according to Hansen was 0.01, I believe. Probably not enough to scare people, huh??
renewable guy says: September 14, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Just The Facts says:
September 14, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Thus a portion of the warming that occurred during last century is likely due to lower levels of volcanic activity, versus increases in CO2 emissions. Does this make me a denier?…
#################
If the ignor the rest of the data YES.
Right on the presentation, humans put out 137 times co2 than volcanoes.
Try reading rather than spouting.
“The greatest volcanic impact upon the earth’s short term weather patterns is caused by sulfur dioxide gas;”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
“In the cold lower atmosphere, it is converted to Sulfuric Acid;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid
by the sun’s rays reacting with stratospheric water vapor to form sulfuric acid aerosol layers. The aerosol remains in suspension long after solid ash particles have fallen to earth and forms a layer of sulfuric acid droplets between 15 to 25 kilometers up. Fine ash particles from an eruption column fall out too quickly to significantly cool the atmosphere over an extended period of time, no matter how large the eruption.
Sulfur aerosols last many years, and several historic eruptions show a good correlation of sulfur dioxide layers in the atmosphere with a decrease in average temperature decrease of subsequent years. The close correlation was first established after the 1963 eruption of Agung volcano in Indonesia when it was found that sulfur dioxide reached the stratosphere and stayed as a sulfuric acid aerosol.
Without replenishment, the sulfuric acid aerosol layer around the earth is gradually depleted, but it is renewed by each eruption rich in sulfur dioxide. This was confirmed by data collected after the eruptions of El Chichon, Mexico (1982) and Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), both of which were high-sulfur compound carriers like Agung, Indonesia.”
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
Here’s the influence of sulfur dioxide gas from volcanic activity on the transmission of solar irradiance;
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.gif
no CO2 needed… Are you ignoring the data?
Lunar ice rainbows visible over the UK and Ireland tonight.
REPLY: Irrelevant to me, I’m not connected in any way, and both of my parents died from smoking related illness, but nobody in my family has died from climate change. – Anthony
################
Sorry for your parents passing.
Russia and Pakistan last were immense events accerbated by climate. So I take it climate change will be forever harmless?
Somehow all the science oraganizations in the world are wrong. Interesting.
That’s called denial.
Renew Guy
75 out of 77 = 97%….out of 10,159 surveys sent…..unnamed with no credentials, just accept what we say. BTW, nobody disagrees with them. The question was “Do you agree that the globe is warming and man has been a significant contributor?” I don’t know of any skeptic that would disagree. WHY wasn’t the question asked if it was going to be catastrophic….that’s where the disagreement lies. History shows that climate comes in cycles and to believe that has ceased is beyond reasonable and CO2 forcing of the climate “perpetual motion machine” has no evidence to support such a mechanism. You will not get 97% of scientists (even the 75) to back a catastrophic statement and do it openly. It took a lot of culling to get down to the 75 out of 77, since they started with over 2000 responses. Who are they?? What are their credentials? What did they publish and when??? It’s like the old commercial of 9 out of 10 doctors agree……There sure is a lot of appeals to authority with no facts or supporting info.
Surely you can do better than the ole Rush Limbaugh adhom.
Many could say the same about the Al Gore ideology…….the same ideology that told people they need to decide how much to “exaggerate”……huummm.
It shoud be embarrassing for the educated, in climate history, to talk about the weather events, because there is nothing unusual happening that hasn’t happened before. Severe tornados declining since the 70’s….hurricanes…well, you know…Drought….nothing new. That is a FACT.
How come they stopped talking about the required “tropical hot spot” that doesn’t exist??? That was supposed to be the signal that was the focal point of the global warming theory?? So many questions and so little time before it all collapses.
NOAA
March 9th, 2011
“The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study.
Pakistan – 1950
“Monsoon rain in 1950 killed an estimated 2,900 people across the country. Punjab Province, including the city of Lahore, was among the worst hit when the River Ravi flooded. Over 100,000 homes were destroyed, leaving around 900,000 people homeless”.
No scientific proof of Anthropogenic climate change at all what-so-ever, yet, even tho Anthropogenic climate change was mentioned there was no science, Over to you Anthony!!
And the flattest.
And 1,000,000,000 times less sulfur.
That 97% agreement question didn’t ask about whether the human-caused warming was going to be catastrophic. 97% of skeptics would agree that the globe is warming and that human ACTIVITY (not CO2–the question avoided that word) contributed significantly to it.
My suspicions are that they just went along with the PC crowd, not wanting to get into a wrestling match with a skunk. That they rarely really studied the subject–they just capitulated like dominoes because warmist activists pointed out that other big-name scientific societies had endorsed the warmist POV, so why shouldn’t they? Opposition was likely blunted by a desire to move to renewables as early as possible (viewed as a wise precaution, based on an acceptance of inflated claims of mid-term cost-effectiveness), regardless of the strength of the science.
They won’t debate the topic or allow debates on it at their meetings. That indicates to me that they have been captured by activists who are following the recommended warmist strategy of marginalizing skepticism by refusing to acknowledge its existence. It suggests that their understanding of the complexities and facets of the subject is limited.
‘renewable guy’ says on September 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm: “numerous irrelevancies”
Be careful you don’t get your azz handed to you on this site …
.