Skip to comments.Will Happer’s WSJ rebuttal to NOAA’s Lubchenco and Karl (RE: Managing Weather Event...?)
Posted on 03/27/2012 6:28:00 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Readers may recall seeing this article in Physics Today titled Predicting and managing extreme weather events by Jane Lubchenco and Thomas R. Karl
I had to laugh when I saw the managing part of extreme weather events. Id love to see Tom Karl try to manage an F5. From what I hear, he has enough trouble just managing NCDC.
Heres what Dr. Will Happer had to say in the WSJ:
I particularly liked this part:
There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warmingmuch of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciablysuggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.
Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that extreme weather has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.
Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of General Frost in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
The battle rages on...the AGW crowd is not giving up!
Heres my 2/24 wuwt comment:
Lindzen [MIT professor], aside from saying AGW is science in the service of politics, and that warming would reduce rather than increase tropical storms, says: Claims
that mans activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.
Piers Corbyn, in a comment, takes it further: Observational evidence gives the possibility that the net effect of CO2 increases on World temperatures may not be only trivial but in fact miniscule, zero, or even negative due to errors in some of the science some claim or I would suggest hitherto not understood feed-back and competing processes
I say that the effect of CO2 doesnt amount to a hill of beans. Or, to put it another way, I have two main points: 1. there is nothing wrong with the climate (no hockey stick), and 2. CO2 has nothing, or effectively nothing, to do with it (see this 3 minute video that exposes the key ipcc deception and also shows Al Gore to be full of it):
And the band played on....
The drowning man paddles hardest just before he goes under. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.