Free Markets, Free People

Another AGW myth … gone with the wind

We’ve seen it any number of times.  Whenever there is a weather event, well, the true believers come out of the woodwork to declare it to be the “worst” in umpteen thousand years and, of course, caused by man.  The “Chicken Little” contingent never looks for a more reasonable or scientific explanation, they’ve got their models and their junk science and that’s all they need.  So when California went into a state of extreme drought, what was the claim?  Yup, it was caused by man and his emissions.

One problem with the claim – it’s just not true:

Natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says a study out Monday from federal scientists.

“It’s important to note that California’s drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state,” said Richard Seager, the report’s lead author and professor with Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal but was reviewed by other NOAA scientists.

“In fact, multiyear droughts appear regularly in the state’s climate record, and it’s a safe bet that a similar event will happen again,” he said.

History!  Go figure. “Not uncommon”.

Not only that, but this important point:

The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern north Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.

The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is almost opposite to what computer models predict would result from human-caused climate change.

 

“Almost the opposite of what the computer models predict.”  There’s a surprise.

And the dissenters?

“The authors of the new report would really have us believe that is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the impact of human-caused climate change?” Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann wrote Monday in The Huffington Post. “Frankly, I don’t find that even remotely plausible.”

This, coming from the discredited author of the hockey stick effect and a false claim of a Nobel prize is something we should even consider?  His dissent is more “plausible” than the findings of the study? Yeah, not really.  Weather is weather.  Someone should clue Mann into how it works.

While the NOAA study easily refutes the alarmist claim, NOAA, being a government agency, isn’t immune to pushing the AGW myth itself, at least a little:

The NOAA report says midwinter precipitation is projected to increase because of human-caused climate change over most of the state. Seager said a low-pressure system, not a high-pressure system, would probably form off the California coast because of climate change.

Low pressure creates clouds and precipitation.

Yes, you see, “human-caused climate change” is now regional … er, global.  Tell me again how that high pressure ridge came to be there?  Oh, nevermind.  And note, even if you want to believe in AGW, in this case, it would actually be a “good thing”.  Oh, bother.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

26 Responses to Another AGW myth … gone with the wind

  • Are you trying to tell me industrialization, SUV’s, HARP, the Illuminati and CO2 production did NOT destroy the civilizations of the Anasazi or the Moche?

    Zounds! Say it ain’t so boss!

    “Frankly, I don’t find that even remotely plausible.””
    Coming from HockeyStick Mann, that’s hilarious.

  • When I was a little boy, we lived on Beverly Glen in LA. It was an ancient river, and it became a river again when it rained hard, which I remember it doing pretty often. Then we’d have a dry spell and the hills would burn. Weather…always some damn thing…

  • Notice how the AGW crowd always announces that “WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!” whenever skeptics point out that the observed weather does not support the theory, but then, whenever weather that they think supports the theory is happening, they crow, “SEE! SEE! GLOBAL WARMING!”

    • Squid, you realize that sort of ability takes many years of cultivation, preferably at “name” schools from the Ivy League, or, watching a season of Jersey Shore, or any amount of Honey Boo Boo, or all of those things.
      You can’t get to that level of…perception and….self reflection without a lot of coaching and training and observation.

      Take Erb for example…..

      please.

  • {giggle} You sterile, inbred righties really think you change the narrative on this, don’t you? Well, you simply won’t be allowed to. For the sake of my gender-neutral kids, who you clearly want to hurt, we enlightened pragmatic moderate leftists will carry the day on this grave threat to the power of wise experts our planet.

    I am totally confident of that. I’m completely calm about it, thanks to my brand new upgraded Obamacok 2.0 oral therapy device, now with patented Squirting Action (TM). Obamalumbadubagum. {squirt} Oh, yes, I feel fine now.

    I have seen the facts and the data on this. No, I don’t mean those charts and graphs you guys pull out that supposedly say there has been no warming in 18 years. So what? I mean data like 97% of scientists agree with me on climate change. 97%! And a few of them are not even social scientists – they actually took physics and chemistry and passed them both! So the science is settled.

    I also saw it all explained in this documentary I watched while I took some students to Italy, and don’t you even start about most of them being nubile females, and me looking like a malfunctioning assembly line robot trying to dance with them. I was just being nice. Anyway, this documentary (made by the wise pragmatic leftists in Europe, natch) completely explained why every extreme weather event of the past thirty years can be traced directly to the oil industry’s emissions. I thought of that while I was shoveling our earliest ever snowfall a couple of weeks back, taking solace in the fact that shoveling snow so early obviously proved global warming.

    Yes, I was watching a documentary that night in Europe, and definitely not some sleazy movie named Tammy Boffs the Prof, and I don’t know how that title ended up on my hotel bill. See, I have told you details about the documentary I was really watching, which proves my case.

    Just as I prove all my cases around here. So don’t drag out those charts and graphs. I’ll just handwave them away, as soon as I get over my hives.

    Plus, I’ll challenge those graphs with unassailable facts that prove climate change. For example, climate change is clearly the problem with the dramatic growth this year in magenta caterpillars with Sarah Palin’s face and ample bosom. Thanks to climate change, those bosoms are more ample than ever, and they’re so widespread I even saw some of them tunneling in the snow as I was shoveling it. Plus, they’re starting to wink at me from behind those naughty librarian glasses, as if to say, “Come here and ravish these ample bosoms, you handsome professor with godlike powers of political science.” Which isn’t either misplaced fantasizing about the nubile females in my class, so stop saying that. Even the ones with ample bosoms.

    • Well done.

    • +1

    • It’s as clear as

      This petition is a refinement of SSBG’s preceding petition [121]1), asking this Court to unmistak- ably clarify, to the whole patent community12), that its Mayo/Biosig/Alice decisions (“3 decisions”) ended the claim construction anomaly2) hampering especi- ally ET CIs1) – but meet, by their “ET proof” refined claim construction, all ET CI’s needs.

      By contrast, this petition – focusing on the groundbreaking advantages implied by the 3 deci- sions’ refined claim construction framework – asks this Court to convey to this community its determi- nation to get all courts short term taking into use these so implied enormous advantages.

      These advantages are e.g.: ●) the dramatic simplifications in construing a CI’s refined claim construction, ●) the latter’s substantially increased legal quality, and the ●) far reaching increases of professional efficiency of patent experts and users – being just the immediately visible advantages of the refined claim construction, e.g. not [60]).

      Not using short term such amazing advantages would create doubts as to the credibility of the 3 decisions’ [113, 121S.VII]3.a).

    • That is so very wrong and so very right. 🙂

    • ” For the sake of my gender-neutral kids,”

      You neutered your own children?!?! Disgraceful, even for you.

      On the other hand, hopefully your particular genetic deficiency won’t propagate.

    • +1^E99

      This needs “Scott Erb” attached to it so that the intarweb crawlers can push it into the top results. That the sooper sphincter takes taxpayer dollars to promulgate his pabulum is a problem. Alliteratively…or something.

  • You realize that Mann is going to sue you now, right?

  • Don’t forget … the science is settled

  • Most NOAA reports tend to indicate an increase in AGW because of human-caused data change