Posted on 07/11/2012 4:11:02 PM PDT by Kaslin
Wednesday's CBS This Morning hyped a "groundbreaking" new report from federal government scientists that claims "the first-ever statistical connection between extreme weather and man-made climate change." Correspondent Wyatt Andrews spotlighted how the study "found that man-made heat made the Texas drought roughly 20 times more likely."
Andrews also hinted a connection between climate change and a recent heat wave, even as he explained that "the biggest reason for the record heat is the transition...from the La Nina weather pattern...to this year's warmer pattern, El Nino."
Anchor Erica Hill introduced the correspondent's report by noting how "the first six months of 2012 were the hottest ever recorded. Well, this morning, much of the country is now facing a severe drought." Fill-in anchor Lee Cowan added that "it's leaving crops withered and farmers worried. Now, in a groundbreaking report, though, government scientists say that climate change explains at least some of the weather changes."
Andrews led the segment by highlighting the plight of Jeff Fisher, a farmer in Illinois whose crops are threatened due the recent heat. After outlining the La Nina/El Nino connection to the high temperatures, the CBS journalist turned to the results of the recent study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
ANDREWS: Scientists at NOAA have also announced the first scientific connection between extreme weather events, like last year's drought in Texas, and man-made climate change. A new study found that man-made heat made the Texas drought roughly 20 times more likely.
Moments later, the correspondent added that "every day in this record-setting heat takes more of Jeff Fisher's crop and his livelihood away."
Even as he tried to tie the Midwest drought to the climate change apparently pointed to in the government study, Andrews strangely concluded his report by stating that "NOAA scientists, meanwhile, are not saying that climate change causes any one specific drought, like the one in Illinois. They are saying the science is good enough now, they can lay odds on the connection."
The CBS correspondent also hyped the NOAA study during a report on Tuesday's CBS Evening News. Both times, Andrews omitted mentioning another recent study published in Nature that indicated a cooling trend during the past centuries.
The full transcript of the report from Wyatt Andrews on Wednesday's CBS This Morning, which aired 13 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour:
ERICA HILL: We told you yesterday how the first six months of 2012 were the hottest ever recorded. Well, this morning, much of the country is now facing a severe drought.>LEE COWAN: It's leaving crops withered and farmers worried. Now, in a groundbreaking report, though, government scientists say that climate change explains at least some of the weather changes.
Wyatt Andrews has the story now from Washington. Good morning, Wyatt.
[CBS News Graphic: "Going To Extremes: Report: Global Warming Factor In Severe Weather"]
WYATT ANDREWS: Lee, good morning. Good morning, Erica. The official report on this is due out any day now. But already, 2012 is shaping up as a record year for heat. Government scientists have also made the first-ever statistical connection between extreme weather and man-made climate change.
ANDREWS: Jeff Fisher was expecting his corn crop to yield more than 150,000 bushels of corn this year. But he was also expecting more rain and a lot loss heat. Central Illinois, instead, is in a serious drought, and the state set more than 200 records for high temperatures just in June and July.
JEFF FISHER, FARMER: We've had temperatures in the 90s for as many days as I can remember.
ANDREWS: The biggest reason for the record heat is the transition in the Pacific from the La Nina weather pattern, which is typically cooler, to this year's warmer pattern, El Nino.
Tom Karl is the chief of the climate office at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
TOM KARL, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION: Now, this year, we have a growing El Nino, the warm phase, and we're already seeing all-time temperature records being broken for global temperatures. That's because the Pacific waters now are warming.
ANDREWS: Scientists at NOAA have also announced the first scientific connection between extreme weather events, like last year's drought in Texas, and man-made climate change. A new study found that man-made heat made the Texas drought roughly 20 times more likely.
KARL: There definitely is a connection between greenhouse gases and extreme weather. We're seeing very strong evidence to suggest that not all, but many of the extremes that we're seeing around the planet are being enhanced by greenhouse gases.
ANDREWS: And every day in this record-setting heat takes more of Jeff Fisher's crop and his livelihood away.
FISHER: It's stressful. It's stressful on myself and my family - my father and I. This is a family farm, and we've watched it go down and down and down.
ANDREWS: NOAA scientists, meanwhile, are not saying that climate change causes any one specific drought, like the one in Illinois. They are saying the science is good enough now, they can lay odds on the connection. Lee and Erica?
HILL: Wyatt Andrews, thank you.
They’re trying to figure out how to make 1934, 1921, and 1931 go away go away.
They are among the top 6 or 7. Wonder how that happened? Where did all that CO2 come way back then?
They’re trying to figure out how to make 1934, 1921, and 1931 go away go away.
They are among the top 6 or 7. Wonder how that happened? Where did all that CO2 come way back then?
And her is PROOF! Pay no attention to the hotter than hell temps before 1990!
Austin:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/fitness/wxclimatology/daily/USTX0057:1?climoMonth=7
Dallas:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/fitness/wxclimatology/daily/USTX0327?climoMonth=7
*** I believe it was in the 1980’s the news media began using the terms (el Nino to describe the long known cyclical weather patterns of S. California.***
When the local weathermen began to use the term “El Nino” they used scare tactics to frighten people.
One fall an early snow storm hit part of West Kansas and Nebraska, which was common in that area.
The local weather chick said...”The question that is on everyone’s mind!”(Then she turned to the camera with a look of absolute terror on her face)”IS THIS EL NINO?”
I wanted to throw a boot at the TV for such fear mongering.
Linking extremely wet and cold summer to man-made climate change
Obviously, if a government is involved, it is not science, it is politics.
Frankly, I wouldn’t believe the pronouncement of any ‘government scientist’ at this juncture, about ANYTHING.
”(Then she turned to the camera with a look of absolute terror on her face)”IS THIS EL NINO?”
YES, Precisely what the intent of hijacking the ancient Peruvian description of the weather phenomenon was all about. They wanted something to use to terrorize the public, to scare the public, to create a crisis they could use to lead the people to safety, to draw the people to them as their saviors. Same purpose as this AGW crap.
They are still trying to use it as people still don’t understand it’s another Leftist fraud perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public.
Thanks for your excellent response.
My wife and sister-in-law were living in Plano TX with NO air conditioning back in 1954 when the temp was 110 degrees.
They said their mother would wet a sheet and spread it over the kids who were sleeping outside as it was too hot in the house.
I talked to locals here and they all remembered taking beds outside to sleep as it was so hot back then.
Anthropogenic global warming is NOT a significant player next to solar output (luminosity) and the natural fluctuations in planetary albedo (reflectiveness), fluctuations in absorptive versus reflective atmospheric constituents like water vapor, methane, CO2, and sulfur dioxide. Our contribution only "looks" big to people fascinated by mesoscale phenomena, who cannot wrap their heads around the scales necessary to achieve the changes they're talking about.
Sample scale-appropriate event: Compleat blowdown of the Yellowstone pluton. Try that on for size, Hansen.
If you are too stupid for the study of sciences and engineering, you read the news on TV.
Exactly.
Global temp proxy data from Greenland ice cores cited by the AAPG's Treatise on North American Geology (series) show interglacial temperature-curve shapes resembling cockscombs, very serrate with numbers of superimposed cyclical second-, third-, and fourth-order oscillations.
The interglacial proxy curves share an early loading of high temps in the early portion of the interglacial, followed by a longer, unsteady decline trend, followed by a final temperature crash in as little as 10 years into the next pleniglacial episode.
My own guess was that we have somewhere between 600 and 1800 years of the current interglacial, with temperatures gradually and irregularly cooling. Mode/best guess: 1200 years and out.
Global Warmers/Commie hustlers busted again.
Seems like the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were even warmer than previously thought ...... and that the large trend for the last 2000+ years has been flat to down .... cooling on the largest trendline, jus' like I posted up (which I did before seeing this new article).
Michael Mann's infamous temperature "hockey-stick" curve is starting to look more and more suspiciously ..... wrong.
Here’s the thing about the article and the study: it does the easy thing: links extreme weather conditions to changes in the climate. That’s really a “no sh*t, Sherlock” argument to make. We know the climate is changing ... because it is ALWAYS changing.
What this article/study doesn’t do is tackle the more difficult argument of whether climate change is man-made or not. It simply presents it as something that is an accepted fact.
Which it isn’t. There was another article last week or so, I can’t remember where unfortunately, that talked about the big uptick in sunspots, solar flares and other sun-related activity that has coincided with this years “extreme” weather. And article that actually mentioned (just one line tho) that the sun’s activity and cycles play a HUGE role in things like ... temperature, weather and climate.
20 times more likely than what? Normal rainfall? BS. 20 times more likely than a slightly less drought? Maybe, but who gives a crap if global warming adds a bit to a drought that was going to happen anyway? It doesn't change the length of the drought (that is strictly natural patterns).
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.