Connect the Dots

The 'connect the dots' idea originated at the 350.org web site. "On 5/5/12 people from around the world highlighted the effects of recent severe weather and climate change." Or so they say.

But extreme weather has always been with us and happens less frequently than in the past. This project could have been done in almost any year that you care to investigate.  1911, 1927, 1936 are some examples of years of severe weather that occurred prior to CO2 concentration crossing the ominous 350ppm boundary between so called increasing severe weather times and the idyllic(sarc) weather of the past.

These facts betray the 'Connect the Dots' campaign as a publicity stunt run by people who want to 'win' on the issue of climate change and who have no interest in informing the public about contradictory facts. They seek to fill their minds with confirmation bias and to ignore the cognitive dissonance created by weather history. And yet, it is always the interplay between the two that allows the truth to be distilled. At 350.org they have failed to 'connect the dots' to advance human knowledge and prefer instead to live in their delusional world. They do a disservice to themselves and their readers by purveying the nonsense that the severe weather of today is a result of climate change caused by the human burning of fossil fuels. Their actions are shameful. They are true deniers.

Politics and religion are filled with emotional drivers that often lead us into dark alleys. The people of 350.org will remain in the dark until they realize they must turn around in order to find the light of reason. Darkness envelopes willful ignorance. It is difficult to  say what will lead the members of 350.org to the realization that they are backing the wrong horse. No matter how they twist no matter how they turn no matter how they flip no matter how they flop sooner or later reality will slap them in the face and they will experience the embarrassment and shame that comes with the final admission that they were wrong. Don't expect it any time soon. And they will probably just hop aboard the next apocalyptic issue to come along completely oblivious to their habit.

How do you tell the difference between low CO2 snow and high CO2 snow? They are both white.

Low CO2 tornadoes kill people. But tornado deaths are trending down since 1880. CO2 exonerated.

Bad weather happens. Much of it was more severe in the past especially in terms of lives lost. Modern technology provides early warnings which allows us to take protective action.

How about 1847? Does any of this sound familiar?

1847: Hurricane Blasts Havana and Key West, Florida
1847: Bitter Cold & Snow Cause Miserable Winter In France, Spain & Switzerland
1847: Severe Drought In Holland Dried Up Most Of The Wells
1847: Heat & Drought Cause Famine and Food Riots In France
1847: New South Wales, Australia Again Hit With Bad Drought
1847: Australia's Aborigines Say White Man Has Changed The Climate
1847: Winter Cold Brings -34F Temperatures To Dartmouth College Campus

Hot and cold. Famine. Hurricanes. White men blamed for climate change. Where have we heard that before? 

In more primitive times we blamed bad weather on angry gods or witches. Now we blame CO2. 

CO2 is the modern witch of climate change. And just as innocent.

When 350.org connect the dots they create a muddled picture. For clarity we need to remove the emotion and carefully consider reality.  They prefer the bogeymen of their imagination.


We do not have to buy into their delusion. 



Connect the dots below and you get a decreasing trend.

Climate observations 2012

How do the observations measure up to the predictions and expectations of IPCC and other warmist champions? Randall Hoven takes a look and CAGW is MIA.

Global Weirding

On any day at any time somewhere in the world the weather is weird. Somewhere the weather is not behaving as people in that part of the world would expect for the time of year. This is normal. We live in a dynamic atmosphere that is subject to varying forces such as tidal, solar, cosmic, volcanic, tectonic and human. Their interplay will create unique conditions at different places at different times around the earth. Variability and 'weirdness' are to be expected. What would be unusual is stasis - an idyllic unchanging weather pattern for an area. Stasis cannot be frozen into the atmosphere for change is what the climate does. What would be the idyllic climate where you are? When has it happened for more than a few days at a time? Conditions put into motion other variables thus upsetting the idyllic state. This is normal for our planet. How could it be otherwise?

Would your 'normal' be the same as 'normal' for someone else in another location?

To what year should we return? What year had idyllic weather? Why do you consider that year to be idyllic?

Is there anything that would convince you that humans are not the main driver of climate change?

Did you know that most instances of severe weather have been on the decrease with rising atmospheric CO2 concentration? Surprised?

Perhaps the correct conclusion is that increases in CO2 calm the weather.

Funny comment by Alan the Brit

No, no, you are all wrong I tell you! The old crone next door spat into her tea cup & told me in truth, I guarantee that somewhere around the world, there will be freak weather, storms, hail, snow, thunder, lightening, heavy rain, drought, sunshine, cloudiness, unusual cold, unusual warmth, dust storms, light rain, mist, fog, low cloud, high cloud, freak waves, no waves, some waves, melting ice, freezing water, we must act now before it’s too late to stop these things happening it’s just so unnatural, weird & disruptive, it’s never happened in the past……………have I missed anything? Sarc off ;-)


Get a grip people. Weather happens and change is what the climate does.

Game is up! We ain't buyin' it no mo'

Global warming all politics, no science.

Home Run Rise?

Washington Post chief meteorologist Jason Samenow vouched for the validity of Fox Sports Major League Baseball announcer Tim McCarver’s weekend comment that there could be a correlation between the rise in home runs throughout the 20th century and the rise in global temperature.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/30/washington-post-backs-tim-mccarver-climate-change-home-run-connection/#ixzz1tlsoxPij

But what's this? 

Home runs = .95 per game in 2010, the first time the stat dropped below 1.00 since 1994. And 2010 was supposed to be one of the warmest years on record.

Home runs peaked in 2000 at 1.17 per game.

Sounds like Tim McCarver doesn't know what he is talking about nor does the Washington Post.

More for Tim from Real Science.

Maybe Mann is onto something. He says HRs should be down because air is more humid and therefore heavier. This makes no sense. Temperatures have been cooling over the last few years so the air show be cooler and therefore air pressure would be greater resulting in fewer homeruns. per game.

April 2012  The Prince fields snow.

Bamboozled

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the Bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The Bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge – even to ourselves – that we’ve been so credulous.”
-Carl Sagan

This describes the current climate change hysteria in the world to perfection. Scientists that have made their careers by warning of impending doom if we don't stop climate change, as if that were possible, are so entrenched in their myth that they have deluded themselves into discounting any contrary evidence and allowed the emotions  of their politics to lead them into dark alleys.

Kudos to James Lovelock for turning around and walking back into the light. He is a real scientist.

Don't expect it of Michael Mann whose arrogance blinds him to reality. He admits only confirming instances of reality and ignores all instances of cognitive dissonance. That is not how science is done.

Good Grief! Chill!

The planet is fine. It is resilient. Not so sure about some humans though. Some seem to love indulging in hysteria. Can they not live without FEAR and a sidedish of GUILT as motivators? Must there always be drama? We may need psychological programs to help them cope with the good news.

Change is what the climate does and somewhere everyday the weather is weird. It's normal. Nothing unusual is happening. Back in the 1920s people were worried about rising temperatures, a melting Arctic and rising sea levels. They speculated on what would happen if the trend continued just like we do. We're still waiting for the disaster. In the 1970s we were worried about a coming ice age because scientists detected a falling trend in temperatures. That should tell us that climate change is cyclical. It's a cycle, it's a cycle, it's a cycle!

There is reason to believe that temps have peaked and have started on the downside part of the cycle. Even James Lovelock, champion of the GAIA concept now admits temps have not risen for 15 years even as CO2 has continued its meteoric rise in our atmosphere. That's a disconnect between theory and reality and reality is always the final arbiter in deciding which human climate theory survives. Reality trumps theory!

Bye, Bye, CAGW.

Isn't this good news? It means that all of the 'green' policies that governments have pursued were completely unnecessary. We don't have to subsidize alternative forms of energy like solar, wind and biofuels, ban the incandescent bulb, use reusable bags, grow food to burn in our cars or live in FEAR and feel GUILTY for using fossil fuels. Except for the billions and billions of dollars wasted on climate research and these unnecessary programs we should rejoice at our good fortune of being liberated from the climate hysteria. We can continue to use the cheapest fuel available until the next cheapest fuel becomes necessary. And shale oil and gas has arrived to keep the standard of living on an upward trend for all the new people in the pipeline. Again, there is hope for the poor!