United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Global Warming Hysteria: Weather Has Not Grown More Extreme Due to Warming
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/se ... n-more-extreme-due-to-warming/
Published: Feb 11, 2011
Author: Wesley J Smith
Post Date: 2011-02-11 15:51:44 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 17287
Comments: 33
GWH is really wobbling now. This very cold winter–one expects Hanson to soon proclaim it the hottest year ever–has led to warming alarmists blaming global warming for the arctic blizzards and plunging temperatures. I had been thinking the weather seemed more like the kind the country experienced when I was a kid long before global warming was a fevered glint in Al Gore’s eye. And now, a new study by non Kool Aid drinking scientists–but also not “deniers”–shows that we are not experiencing more severe weather extremes. From a column in the WSJ by Anne Jolis: Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world. But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present. As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.” In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher. The column draws a lesson with which I totally agree–one promoted by global warming believer Bjorn Lomborg–that the way to deal with whatever might be coming isn’t to make us poorer, which severe restrictions carbon dioxide emissions and dampening oil and gas development would do, but more prosperous: There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas’s ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday. Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter… Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes. Weather ebbs and flows. Climate changes. GWH”s loss of credibility–now there was an extreme change in the (political) climate–was entirely self inflicted by eye-popping hyperbole, extreme over reaching, and a failed strategy of fear mongering to seize control of the international economy and redistribute wealth.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
you might want to read this: The reanalysis does primarily includes data from North American and Europe, it does not include data from the oceans or the poles, and only limited data from places such as South America, Asia and Africa (for those, scientists used data from models to fill in the blanks). Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
And you may want to realize these NASA and NOAA kooks really haven't presented anything here which contradicts the study results of these non-partisan scientists.
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
LOL
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
Hysteria is how the left works. Someone concocts a gloom and doom scenario based on little to no evidence. Hollywood makes a movie. Know-nothing politicians start clamoring for change. We all suffer in the long run. This is how they shut down the nuclear industry in the 1970s. They said that radiation from Hiroshima and Nagasaki would cause multiple generations of birth defects among the decedents of the survivors. Yet, the Japanese-American Radiation Effect Research Organization found "No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors." They said that it would take generations for life to return to Chernobyl. Less than 10 years after Chernobyl, the first people to go back found more plant and animal life than exists before the accident. How many people died in the largest nuclear disaster in U.S. history at 3 Mile Island????? ZERO. 3 Mile Island is not in the middle on nowhere. It's in suburban Harrisburg, which has a population of over 500,000 people. Every thirty or forty years, ignorant people who are afraid of the future concoct some imminent danger to life on earth and warn us that we have to immediately disrupt our way of life before it's too late. We just need to stop listening to this nonsense.
No matter what the evidence, global warming cannot be proven wrong. That's called religion, not science.
fixed. Remember, one side presents evidence, the other doesn't.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
The study which you keep referring to, The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project, was done by NOAA. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.20thC_Rean.html You sir, are a complete and total idiot.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Weatherman says -3. maybe. Wake up to -18. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -31 NW of Tulsa. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 2 ft of snow. Most ever. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA clueless. 392 ppm of CO2. Collapse the only thing to save us. Your prodigy will curse you. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We're colder in NW Arkansas than in Alaska/Canada. ;} Saturday, February 12, 2011 Eric Steig: West Antarctica: still warming. The temperature reconstruction of O’Donnell et al. (2010) confirms that West Antarctica is warming — but underestimates the rate West Antarctica: still warming The temperature reconstruction of O’Donnell et al. (2010) confirms that West Antarctica is warming — but underestimates the rate by Eric Steig, RealClimate, February 1, 2011
Most of the work done on the project had nothing to do with anyone at NOAA, you gay ass Communist fucktard. It was an international project that included NOAA resources. That doesn't keep the KOOKS at NOAA from qualifying the results that don't agree with you cock sucking pinkos warped world view. Fuck off.
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
It was an international project that included NOAA resources. Bullsh**t. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.20thC_Rean.html You have exposed yourself as an absolute idiot. Good day.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
It is supposed to hit 65 in the D.C. area in the next few days, about 20-25 above normal.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Does Pielke work for NOAA, dumbass?
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
And it's supposed to go over 60 here today. I won't miss the snow. I'll tell you that for sure. Or torching water pipe in my pump house at -18. That'll be a memory I cherish until I die. I burned my hand and didn't know it. ;}
Chuckle. Did you not notice the list of authors at the top of that page? G P Compo: Research Scientist III, CIRES, University of Colorado, CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory J.S. Whitaker: Meteorologist, NOAA Physical Sciences Division, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/review/bios/jeffrey.s.whitaker.html Need I go on?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Nope, but do you see his name listed among the project's authors: Again, some friendly advice, when you have dug yourself into a hole, it's best to stop digging. You have exposed yourself once again as completely and totally clueless with respect to climate science. It's best that you move on to debating other topics, maybe cooking or ant farming?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Yes, do go on and try and demonstrate this was just a "NOAA" project. You are too stupid to realize that just because SOME NOAA resources were used does not make it a NOAA project at all, nor does the results reflect NOAA's official position. I know more about it than you do asshole.
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
Lying your way out of stupidity isn't the answer.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
if you guys ever wondered how dumb No Gnu Taxes could get, you have your answer in post 7 & 11.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
The guy is not only dumb, he's repulsive. That title he made up yesterday broke his own record for foulness. He really makes this site look like shit, but apparently that's what Stone wants the site to look like.
He thinks foul words make him look grown up and tough.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
He really makes this site look like shit, but apparently that's what Stone wants the site to look like. The title wasn't made up. I edited the title afterwords though. And no one complained about that for a change.
Why? Postings like that really give your site class. There is a reason why 100 screen names has been banned from sites all over the internet for posting crap like that. Looks like he's found a home here, though.
Yes, do go on and try and demonstrate this was just a "NOAA" project. You are too stupid to realize that just because SOME NOAA resources were used does not make it a NOAA project at all, nor does the results reflect NOAA's official position. I know more about it than you do asshole. Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
It could hit 70 in D.C. this Friday.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
A friend of mine had frozen water pipes this past Wednesday. This coming week will hit the 50s and maybe 60.
--
Back atchya --
Wow!
I never did.
Same here. we're about two days ahead of you. ;}
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/old-weather-is-shedding-new-light-on-climate/
“This reanalysis is a really important growth of the science, but there are growing pains that go along with it,” says John Fasullo, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Fasullo says that the reanalysis method of sampling and “filling in the blanks” with models comes with a lot of errors. His concern is that some won’t realize that the recreated maps always contain some amount of information that was not observed, but was recreated by a model of the climate.
Fasullo says another limitation is that the NOAA/CIRES reanalysis depends primarily on atmospheric pressure observations, which aren’t always well correlated to rain, clouds and wind speeds.
“This new reanalysis confirms that the primary component driving the NAO is simple natural variability,” says NOAA atmospheric scientist James Overland, who has independently studied changing patterns in the NAO.
Overland believes that in the future, if temperatures in the Arctic continue to warm as rapidly as they have in recent decades, there could be a noticeable influence on the NAO, but he says that most current observations indicate natural variation is still the major driver.
#2. To: go65 (#1)
you might want to read this:
#3. To: go65 (#1)
GWH is really wobbling now. This very cold winter–one expects Hanson to soon proclaim it the hottest year ever–has led to warming alarmists blaming global warming for the arctic blizzards and plunging temperatures.
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
Hysteria
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#3)
his very cold winter–one expects Hanson to soon proclaim it the hottest year ever–has led to warming alarmists blaming global warming for the arctic blizzards and plunging temperatures.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#6. To: jwpegler (#5)
No matter what the evidence, global warming cannot be proven right. That's called religion, not science.
#7. To: no gnu taxes, jwpegler, (#2)
(Edited)
And you may want to realize these NASA and NOAA kooks really haven't presented anything here which contradicts the study results of these non-partisan scientists.
#8. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Global Warming Hysteria: Weather Has Not Grown More Extreme Due to Warming
#9. To: go65 (#1)
#10. To: go65 (#7)
The study which you keep referring to, The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project, was done by NOAA.
#11. To: no gnu taxes (#10)
ost of the work done on the project had nothing to do with anyone at NOAA, you gay ass Communist fucktard.
#12. To: mcgowanjm (#9)
We're colder in NW Arkansas than in Alaska/Canada. ;}
#13. To: go65 (#11)
#14. To: go65 (#11)
#15. To: go65 (#12)
It is supposed to hit 65 in the D.C. area in the next few days, about 20-25 above normal.
#16. To: no gnu taxes (#14)
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#13)
Does Pielke work for NOAA, dumbass?
Compo GP,Whitaker JS, Sardeshmukh PD, Matsui N, Allan RJ, Yin X, Gleason Jr BE, Vose RS, Rutledge G, Bessemoulin P, Br¨onnimann S, Brunet M, Crouthamel RI, Grant AN, Groisman PY, Jones PD, Kruk MC, Kruger AC, Marshall GJ, Maugeri M, Mok HY, Nordli Ø, Ross TF, Trigo RM, Wang XL, Woodruff SD,Worley SJ. 2011. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137: 1–28. DOI:10.1002/qj.776
#18. To: go65 (#17)
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20CR) project is an international effort to produce a comprehensive global atmospheric circulation dataset spanning the twentieth century, assimilating only surface pressure reports and using observed monthly sea-surface temperature and sea-ice distributions as boundary conditions. It is chiefly motivated by a need to provide an observational dataset with quantified uncertainties for validations of climate model simulations of the twentieth century on all time-scales, with emphasis on the statistics of daily weather. It uses an Ensemble Kalman Filter data assimilation method with background ‘first guess’ fields supplied by an ensemble of forecasts from a global numerical weather prediction model. This directly yields a global analysis every 6 hours as the most likely state of the atmosphere, and also an uncertainty estimate of that analysis.
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#18)
Yes, do go on and try and demonstrate this was just a "NOAA" project.
#20. To: lucysmom, war, meguro, buckaroo, skip intro, fred mertz, calcon, godwinson (#11)
(Edited)
#21. To: go65, A K A Stone (#20)
#22. To: Skip Intro (#21)
That title he made up yesterday broke his own record for foulness.
#23. To: Skip Intro (#21)
The guy is not only dumb, he's repulsive. That title he made up yesterday broke his own record for foulness.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
The title wasn't made up. I edited the title afterwords though.
#25. To: go65 (#19)
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20CR) project is an international effort to produce a comprehensive global atmospheric circulation dataset spanning the twentieth century, assimilating only surface pressure reports and using observed monthly sea-surface temperature and sea-ice distributions as boundary conditions. It is chiefly motivated by a need to provide an observational dataset with quantified uncertainties for validations of climate model simulations of the twentieth century on all time-scales, with emphasis on the statistics of daily weather. It uses an Ensemble Kalman Filter data assimilation method with background ‘first guess’ fields supplied by an ensemble of forecasts from a global numerical weather prediction model. This directly yields a global analysis every 6 hours as the most likely state of the atmosphere, and also an uncertainty estimate of that analysis.
#26. To: no gnu taxes (#25)
And you may want to realize these NASA and NOAA kooks really haven't presented anything here which contradicts the study results of these non-partisan scientists.
You are too stupid to realize that just because SOME NOAA resources were used does not make it a NOAA project at all, nor does the results reflect NOAA's official position.
#27. To: mcgowanjm (#26)
#28. To: go65 (#27)
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#28)
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#31. To: go65 (#20)
To: lucysmom, war, meguro, buckaroo, skip intro, fred mertz, calcon, godwinson if you guys ever wondered how dumb No Gnu Taxes could get, you have your answer in post 7 & 11.
#32. To: go65 (#20)
#33. To: go65 (#27)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]