Chicago, Chicago, That Toddlin' Town

Nice weather makes President Obama nervous. "When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On  the other hand, I really have enjoyed nice weather.” See, President Obama prefers warm to cold too. But let's see if it should make anyone nervous let alone the president of the United States.

Let's say we go find days in the past when temperatures were over 80 in March in Chicago. And here are some, compliments of Marc Morano over at ClimateDepot.com.

'Chicago has had seventeen March days over 80 degrees, including two in 1907, five in 1910, 1928, 1938, two in 1939, 1945, 1981 and three in 1986. All of those years had CO2 below 350 ppm'

Hmmm. Two days in March 1907 that were over 80 in Chicago. Then is it not difficult to claim that the March temperatures in 2012 were unprecedented? This was also at a time when CO2 concentration was much less than it is now. So it is possible to have warm temperatures at differing levels of CO2. Would you not conclude from this information that CO2 probably has very little to do with influencing temperature?

Does anyone see a trend toward more March days with temperatures over 80 in Chicago? Even without plotting those numbers on a graph it is easy to see that there is no accelerating trend.  So we can't find evidence of accelerated warming in Chicago in March. But  according to CAGW theory, shouldn't we?

Humans keep records because our memories are so poor. How could Obama know these facts?  Rather than saying “It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures", in his leadership role, he might have expressed his ignorance by pondering questions that most of us might have had and wondered how unusual this was for Chicago. Then, people who do know or who are able to find out, could provide the president with an update.

One of the items provided in the above 'update' is the story of the blooming cherry trees in Washington which are showing their resplendent beauty early this year due to the mild winter in the Capitol. However, at the same time, Japan's cherry trees will be blooming later this year because of the cold winter experienced in that country. Is it not difficult to explain these two opposing conditions in terms of a human induced CO2 driven climate change model? Surely, at the very least, we would have to conclude that influences other than CO2 must be at work in temperature determination. Winters are supposed to be getting warmer as CO2 increases in our atmosphere are they not? And if we look hard enough will we not find that somewhere in the past that Japan's cherry trees bloomed earlier than those of Washington because Japan had a milder winter than Washington? Just to quell the panic that we are about to spontaneously combust if we don't stop putting CO2 into our atmosphere in 1946 the cherry trees bloomed earlier than in 2012. See the update above. That also happened in 1941.

If a Montreal reporter, who, while observing the early blooming of the tulips at Churchill Downs where the Kentucky Derby is run, can ask: Can you say global warming?, then is it not also a valid to point out the late blooming of the cherry blossoms in Japan and ask : Can you say global cooling? If one is valid so is the other. But, of course, neither proves either warming or cooling. In fact, these opposing observations for the same time of year in the same hemisphere suggest that CO2 has nothing to do with either situation.

If CO2 concentration is so important to temperature determination then how come we don't have a CO2 index to tell us important weather information? We have a humidex. We have a UV index. Why no CO2 index? Could it be that that index would not tell us anything useful about what the day's temperature will be?

Could it be that CO2 is a rather anemic contributor to temperature? Could it be that all the hoopla over human induced CO2 is just a red herring for the implementation of Agenda 21? 

Pinky: What are we going to do tonight, Brain?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world.

While North America basks in balmy weather we talk as if the whole world were experiencing what we are experiencing. We need to look around.

So if CO2 has nothing to do with our mild weather what caused it? Here is what a meteorologist says. Which explanation makes more sense to you? Well documented movements of the Jet Stream or wild speculation about CO2? To quell the hysteria, here is some more history on warm winters in the US.

What will convince you that CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature?

What will convince the MSM and CAGW crowd? Nothing? Then it is not a scientific theory; it is a religion.