Another Global Warming Oops Moment

[Chris]

Now were this heat to continue at the present rate above normal through the summer, we would lose the American Breadbasket for at least this year. Hope that doesn't happen, don't expect it to. However, no one expected this continued heat right up to the Canadian border for the last month or so.

And your model shows how AGW changes the Jet Stream? Yeah?

Give it up, Frank.

You were wrong.

Just admit it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now were this heat to continue at the present rate above normal through the summer, we would lose the American Breadbasket for at least this year. Hope that doesn't happen, don't expect it to. However, no one expected this continued heat right up to the Canadian border for the last month or so.

And your model shows how AGW changes the Jet Stream? Yeah?

Give it up, Frank.

You were wrong.

Just admit it.

Sure Chris, that's science, right?

 

[Chris]

And your model shows how AGW changes the Jet Stream? Yeah?

Give it up, Frank.

You were wrong.

Just admit it.

Sure Chris, that's science, right?

That's reality, Frank.

CO2 warms the earth. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

You know that.

You are just being a contrarian.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Post one model that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp of CO2 does any of that and I'mm join the AGW crowd

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Give it up, Frank.

You were wrong.

Just admit it.

Sure Chris, that's science, right?

That's reality, Frank.

CO2 warms the earth. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

You know that.

You are just being a contrarian.

No, Chris, what I'm doing is called "Thinking"

 

[Chris]

Post one model that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp of CO@ does any of that and I'mm join the AGW crowd

The boys at MIT believe AGW will raise the temperature 4-7 degrees in the next century.

I think they are being conservative because the feedback effects will push it to the high side of that.

It's already happening.

This winter is the warmest I can ever remember.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Post one model that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp of CO@ does any of that and I'mm join the AGW crowd

The boys at MIT believe AGW will raise the temperature 4-7 degrees in the next century.

I think they are being conservative because the feedback effects will push it to the high side of that.

It's already happening.

This winter is the warmest I can ever remember.

The boys at MIT should be booted off campus next to Venkman and Spengler

IS there a repeatable lab experiment showing how that works of all you have is "Wheel of Climate Change"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Record Events for Sun Mar 25, 2012 through Sat Mar 31, 2012

High Temperatures: 959
Low Temperatures: 16

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

And do you have one repeatable lab experiment that show how a .01% change in atmospheric composition does any of that?

 

[Chris]

Post one model that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp of CO@ does any of that and I'mm join the AGW crowd

The boys at MIT believe AGW will raise the temperature 4-7 degrees in the next century.

I think they are being conservative because the feedback effects will push it to the high side of that.

It's already happening.

This winter is the warmest I can ever remember.

The boys at MIT should be booted off campus next to Venkman and Spengler

IS there a repeatable lab experiment showing how that works of all you have is "Wheel of Climate Change"?

Who cares?

MIT is our best and brightest. You can make fun of them all you want, but they are smarter than you or I.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The boys at MIT believe AGW will raise the temperature 4-7 degrees in the next century.

I think they are being conservative because the feedback effects will push it to the high side of that.

It's already happening.

This winter is the warmest I can ever remember.

The boys at MIT should be booted off campus next to Venkman and Spengler

IS there a repeatable lab experiment showing how that works of all you have is "Wheel of Climate Change"?

Who cares?

MIT is our best and brightest. You can make fun of them all you want, but they are smarter than you or I.

Smarter than you for sure.

 

[saveliberty]

Give it up, Frank.

You were wrong.

Just admit it.

Sure Chris, that's science, right?

That's reality, Frank.

CO2 warms the earth. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

You know that.

You are just being a contrarian.

The 1859 experiment was a closed system experiment.

 

[bripat9643]

Now were this heat to continue at the present rate above normal through the summer, we would lose the American Breadbasket for at least this year. Hope that doesn't happen, don't expect it to. However, no one expected this continued heat right up to the Canadian border for the last month or so.

If the temperature trend from March to July continued on until December, we would all be cooked alive.

Scary, isn't it?

 

[StevenC]

Post one model that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp of CO@ does any of that and I'mm join the AGW crowd

The boys at MIT believe AGW will raise the temperature 4-7 degrees in the next century.

I think they are being conservative because the feedback effects will push it to the high side of that.

It's already happening.

This winter is the warmest I can ever remember.

And how old are you?
I saw somewhere that the scientists went back a whole 2000 years looking at weather patterns. I thought the eath was billions of years old.

 

[Dragon]

Another Global Warming Oops Moment - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

Today we have yet another example of what was unintended, but probably could have been seen coming had our government know-it-alls not been blinded by their ideological mission. We call these Global Warming Oops Moments. There’s no shortage of them. “While President Barack Obama is touting clean energy such as wind farms, a group of American scientists are raising alarm bells that wind turbines increase the effects of global warming, as well as killing birds that fall prey to the deadly spinning blades,” says an item from Dallasblog.com.

Setting aside for the moment (until I have a chance to look into it) the highly dubious assertion that wind power worsens global warming, I feel it's important to point out that this idea is completely incompatible with the idea that global warming does not have a cause in human behavior, or that it is not occurring.

Don't know about "oops moments," but it's long seemed to me that global warming denialism is characterized by lawyer-thinking. That's the type of reasoning pursued by a trial lawyer: everything oriented towards a desired outcome, two beliefs may be advocated that logically cannot co-exist with each other as long as they both lead to the same result, e.g.:

"My client was not present when the murder took place. But if he was, the murder weapon was not in his possession. But if it was, the gun was never fired and the victim actually died of a heart attack. But if my client did fatally shoot the victim, it was in self-defense."

Similarly with the arguments against anthropogenic global warming. "The earth is not warming. But if it is, then there is a natural cause outside human activity. But if it is due to human activity, then global warming will actually benefit us. But if it will be a bad thing, then we can't trust scientists because a few of them have been shown to be less than perfect. But if we can trust scientists in spite of that, then the changes to combat it would be worse than global warming itself. But if not, then alternative energy would itself cause global warming, too."

There is no logical connection among these frequently-incompatible ideas except that all of them, like the trial lawyer's fallback positions, are aimed at one common goal: maintain the burning of fossil fuels without letup.

That and the sources of funding for the entire opposition, taken together, are quite revealing.

EDIT: Pursuing the links presented in the OP, I find absolutely no evidence at all for the assertion that wind power causes global warming. All I find are localized changes in temperature that, between day and night, cancel each other out anyway.

 

[candycorn]

Another Global Warming Oops Moment - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

Today we have yet another example of what was unintended, but probably could have been seen coming had our government know-it-alls not been blinded by their ideological mission. We call these Global Warming Oops Moments. There’s no shortage of them. “While President Barack Obama is touting clean energy such as wind farms, a group of American scientists are raising alarm bells that wind turbines increase the effects of global warming, as well as killing birds that fall prey to the deadly spinning blades,” says an item from Dallasblog.com.

Ah come on, a Goddamned blog? No link to the supposed science article? Do you understand why hearsay evidence has no standing in court, and even less in science?

He quoted a blog that told him soldiers had to be "shot at" to get combat pay. It was a lie then, it's a lie now. Bripat scours blogs then posts them here in step 1. Step 2 is disavowing the blog.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another Global Warming Oops Moment - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

Today we have yet another example of what was unintended, but probably could have been seen coming had our government know-it-alls not been blinded by their ideological mission. We call these Global Warming Oops Moments. There’s no shortage of them. “While President Barack Obama is touting clean energy such as wind farms, a group of American scientists are raising alarm bells that wind turbines increase the effects of global warming, as well as killing birds that fall prey to the deadly spinning blades,” says an item from Dallasblog.com.

Setting aside for the moment (until I have a chance to look into it) the highly dubious assertion that wind power worsens global warming, I feel it's important to point out that this idea is completely incompatible with the idea that global warming does not have a cause in human behavior, or that it is not occurring.

Don't know about "oops moments," but it's long seemed to me that global warming denialism is characterized by lawyer-thinking. That's the type of reasoning pursued by a trial lawyer: everything oriented towards a desired outcome, two beliefs may be advocated that logically cannot co-exist with each other as long as they both lead to the same result, e.g.:

"My client was not present when the murder took place. But if he was, the murder weapon was not in his possession. But if it was, the gun was never fired and the victim actually died of a heart attack. But if my client did fatally shoot the victim, it was in self-defense."

Similarly with the arguments against anthropogenic global warming. "The earth is not warming. But if it is, then there is a natural cause outside human activity. But if it is due to human activity, then global warming will actually benefit us. But if it will be a bad thing, then we can't trust scientists because a few of them have been shown to be less than perfect. But if we can trust scientists in spite of that, then the changes to combat it would be worse than global warming itself. But if not, then alternative energy would itself cause global warming, too."

There is no logical connection among these frequently-incompatible ideas except that all of them, like the trial lawyer's fallback positions, are aimed at one common goal: maintain the burning of fossil fuels without letup.

That and the sources of funding for the entire opposition, taken together, are quite revealing.

EDIT: Pursuing the links presented in the OP, I find absolutely no evidence at all for the assertion that wind power causes global warming. All I find are localized changes in temperature that, between day and night, cancel each other out anyway.

Post one repeatable experiment demonstrating how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes "Global Warming" and you win

 

[Dragon]

Post one repeatable experiment demonstrating how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes "Global Warming" and you win

I forgot to include above, "But if all else fails, the evidence for AGW fails to meet my own completely ignorant misunderstanding of proper scientific method."

(Repeatable experiments are a good thing, but there are many sciences -- including geology, astronomy, and climate science -- in which it is impossible to conduct ANY controlled experiments AT ALL, and science must proceed on pure observation.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Post one repeatable experiment demonstrating how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes "Global Warming" and you win

I forgot to include above, "But if all else fails, the evidence for AGW fails to meet my own completely ignorant misunderstanding of proper scientific method."

(Repeatable experiments are a good thing, but there are many sciences -- including geology, astronomy, and climate science -- in which it is impossible to conduct ANY controlled experiments AT ALL, and science must proceed on pure observation.)

How can it be "impossible" to conduct an experiment if you've eliminated all the variables except for the increase in CO2?

Are you saying the system is too complex?

Are you saying you don't get the results described by holding everything constant except the additional wisp of CO2?

 

[BlindBoo]

Felt more like May...

'Astonishing' heat in March set records for the month
1 Apr.`12 - For tens of millions of Americans, last month was the warmest March in their lifetimes.

Meteorologists used the terms "staggering," "astonishing" and "incredible" to describe the heat across the eastern two-thirds of the nation that set thousands of temperature records for March in cities and towns from the Dakotas to Maine to Florida. "It's almost like science fiction," weather historian Christopher Burt of the private forecasting company Weather Underground reported last month. Several large cities — including Atlanta, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Nashville, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Tampa and Washington — had their warmest March since records started being kept.

It was nearly a record warm March for New York City, Philadelphia and Denver, too. But temperature marks fell just short, and March will be recorded as a second-place finish, the Weather Channel reported. Although nationwide figures won't be available for a few days, it's likely that March 2012 will go down as the warmest March on record in the USA. "Across the nation, over 7,500 daily record high temperatures were set in March 2012," Weather Channel meteorologist Chris Dolce reported. In one week, from March 12-18, 3,125 daily record highs were set, which Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton said "is the most I have seen for a one-week period since tabulations began" in January 2000.

The warm month came on the heels of the fourth-warmest winter on record across the lower 48 states. According to meteorologist Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground, the unusual warmth was caused by a loop in the jet stream that created a large upper-level ridge of high pressure. That ridge stuck over the Eastern USA — a phenomenon known as a "blocking pattern." The bizarre warm spell has spilled into early April: Sunday in Plains states, temperatures soared into the 80s as far north as South Dakota. The heat will continue Monday in parts of the Midwest , where a record high of 91 degrees is forecast for St. Louis by the Weather Channel. The latest forecast from the Climate Prediction Center shows continued warmth expected over much of the central USA for the next week to 10 days.

The heat confused plants and insects in March, leading to an unusually early blooming of the cherry trees in Washington. Apple and peach trees are already blooming in the Midwest. "The last year fruit trees bloomed this early in the Midwest was in 2007, which resulted in a late freeze on Easter weekend, an event that is now leaving orchard owners nervous that a similar freeze could happen again this year," the Midwestern Regional Climate Center reported. The only part of the nation that experienced a cooler-than-average month was the West Coast. Seattle residents had a particularly dismal month: Chilly temperatures seldom rose out of the dreary 40s and 50s. The city also had 24 of 31 days with measurable rain.

Source

It all those damn windmills heating the place up dude!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Post one repeatable experiment demonstrating how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes "Global Warming" and you win

I forgot to include above, "But if all else fails, the evidence for AGW fails to meet my own completely ignorant misunderstanding of proper scientific method."

(Repeatable experiments are a good thing, but there are many sciences -- including geology, astronomy, and climate science -- in which it is impossible to conduct ANY controlled experiments AT ALL, and science must proceed on pure observation.)

I've observed that the AGW crowd is full of crap