Consider today's breathless dispatch from Time Magazine concerning how Global Warming is causing the string of snowstorms that has crippled the Eastern seaboard:
Brace yourselves now - this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter - in December and during the first weekend of February - are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.
But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming - hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.
Okay, let's hold that thought. Do you remember other recent winters and the effect that Global Warming was ostensibly causing? Tell you what -- see for yourself, based on the testimony of various people who spend a lot of time in the Washington, D.C. area. Click the link and come back: I'll wait.
Hey, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein and Jay Inslee were quite worried about the lack of snow, which Global Warming was causing then. Now, apparently, it causes massive snow. It's a regular Perpetual Motion Machine of a theory. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!
I suppose I'm just being provincial or close-minded here. After all, we've been able to share in the fun, too -- the 5-foot tall snowbanks from this year's snowfall (which the local meteorologists have assured me are just at the yearly averages) have turned my driveway into a luge run. This is the 13th winter we've lived in this house and the snowbanks are higher now than they've ever been. Then again, I remember 1979, which was snowier than this year by rather a lot and significantly colder, too. I think one thing is clear -- average doesn't mean much.
There is good news for Amy K. -- the ice fishermen have had no trouble getting their ice houses out on lakes this year. That Global Warming will kill us all and solve all our problems. I just wish everything was as efficient.
13 comments:
i'm reminded of a movie i saw, where the 'hero' befreinds a whore, and in part of the conversation she says to him 'i am who ever you want me to be'.
this is the way the statists treat the weather. its is their whore, who is whatever they need her to be, in order to serve their needs.
its pretty good when you can pimp out something as uncontrolable as the weather and make it work for you.
Yes, it's about increased extreme and erratic weather.
So...with what part of this theory to you object?
*do, not to
What part of the theory do I object to? The "A" part of "AGW." There isn't any serious dispute that climate changes over time, but the changes are cyclical. Thousands of years ago Minnesota was covered by glaciers. At other times it has been tropical.
The reason I brought up 1979 is that it was a worse winter throughout the country than this one. And the reason I mentioned this year's snow totals is that, by historical data, they are "normal" in Minnesota. But based on my experience, there's been nothing normal about this winter's snow totals.
The point is, it changes and the changes that have been documented either (a) haven't been documented, or (b) are based on very flimsy data points. I've been taking a break from the AGW stories lately, but the British press continues to move the story forward and now the American press is finally starting to catch up a little. Still, the primary story we hear from the American media is drivel like this Time article.
Gino's description of what is happening is spot-on.
Amanda, Global Climate Change isn't about saving the planet. It's about imposing things like Cap & Trade, creating vast new taxing mechanisms, vast redistribution of wealth,and vast increases in government control of the lives of it's constiuents. With facts swirling and premises constantly changing, aren't you becoming at least a bit skeptical of the whole thing. You seem to be an intelligent person. Extreme & erratic weather has been happening since the beginning of time. Wasn't the ice age extreme and erratic weather?
Then you've got the Strib which will attribute any negative anomaly to either AGW or Pawlenty's unallotments. A couple of days ago, under the juicy headline "What's Killing Minnesota's Moose", they ran an article repeatedly suggesting that global warming was stressing the heat-sensitive moose. While some might suggest that the decline in the number of moose might have something to do with the increase in the number of wolves, the reporter diligently sought out a DNR spokesman to say "No, it can't be the wolves" (overlooking that the DNR is heavily invested in repopulating the timberwolf in Northern Minnesota).
Perhaps if the reporter had expended a similar amount of effort on Google he may have discovered the multiple articles about moose populations increasing in other states (perhaps those are Minnesota moose leaving our state because of the taxes?). Powerline did do the Googling and subsequently blew up the Strib article: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025557.php
In the unlikely event that the Strib takes Powerline's fact-checking to heart I'm sure we'll see another article about the threatened moose, but hanging the blame on Pawlenty.
In the words of one moose, "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"
This just in: Global Warming is going to ruin the Winter Olympics. Erratic weather patterns have caused unusual warmth in Vancouver, and vast amouts of snow on the East Coast.
I saw that, NW. Highly amusing and totally typical of the Strib's MO.
Anon,
That ain't all. Global Warming shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. And Global Warming makes Baby Jesus cry.
Northeastern Minnesota is well below average for snow fall this year. Grrrrrrrrr
What part of the "theory" do I object to?
The part where you say the science is settled and the debate is over and the part where you won't provide all the original data and the part where you want to over burden taxpayers...
Sorry, girl, your hypothesis doesn't hold water.
In God We Trust, all others must bring data
Amanda, the best way of explaining the objection we have is this;
1. Computer models--the ones the IPCC and Algore are using to justify implementing carbon taxes and Kyoto--have yet to match significant amounts of historical data.
2. In public pronouncements, the climatologists confidently assert that just about every anomaly (the ones they failed to predict) is due to one factor.
See the problem there? They can't predict these events using the data they have, but they're utterly confident that these events are due to the human factor.
Put gently, Steve Milloy and Fred Singer belong on EVERY peer review board in climatology until these clowns get their act together.
AGW = Keyser Soze!
AGW = Keyser Soze!
Heh. Back in the Bush days, I used to think Harriet Miers was Keyser Sose, but this theory makes a lot more sense, NW.
BB,
Thank you for a very succint answer to Amanda's question. Spot on, as always.
thanks, Mark, but I dare suggest that K-Rod summarizes it even better in light of NASA's refusal (and others') to honor FOIA requests: "In God we trust, all others must bring data."
More or less, global climate change is not even a theory (hypothesis + evidence), but rather a mere hypothesis, as long as the original data and actual models are not shared with third parties. It is a profoundly un-scientific endeavor.
Post a Comment