Climate change deniers cite snowstorm – completely wrong

26

An intense blizzard, appropriately named Hercules, has blanketed the Northeast. Antarctic ice locked in a Russian ship containing a team of scientists—en route, no less, to do climate research. Record low temperatures have been seen in parts of the United States, and in Winnipeg, Manitoba, temperatures on Dec. 31, 2013 were as cold as temperatures on … Mars.

So as is their seasonal wont, here come the climate skeptics. Exhibit A:

This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice – Donald Trump

Rush Limbaugh also weighed in, noting that the Green Bay Packers may face the San Francisco 49ers in subzero temperatures at home this weekend:

I would love to see Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary sitting outside on the 50 yard line of Green Bay the whole game, and then afterwards do a presentation for us all on global warming. Sit there the whole game outside.

 
 
 

Written By: Chris Mooney
continue to source article at slate.com

26 COMMENTS

  1. I heard someone the other day on the radio say that the icebound ship was evidence that there’s no global warming; it was pointed out to them that the ship was trapped in ice that had unseasonably melted and fallen away from the glaciers.

    Such individuals look out of the window and say oooh, look it’s snowing! So much for global warming; unfortunately, they can’t distinguish between the weather and the climate.

  2. “Models solve mystery, but suggest South Pole sea ice melt will soon accelerate.” “The data show that Antarctic sea ice growth in the 20th century might be mostly dictated by natural processes, Liu noted. But that won’t be the case for the 21st century, since human-caused global warming is predicted to dominate the Antarctic climate and trigger faster melting of sea ice, he said.”
    National Geographic 2010

    Oh dear. Maybe the models aren’t that good after all? Real scientists will of course rush to point out that indeed the models don’t appear to be that good at predicting real life…

  3. Donald Trump – Rush Limbaugh also weighed in, … . . . .

    With bullshit-for brains!

    Meanwhile here in the UK the exceptionally energised jet-stream (predicted as a feature of a warmed climate is piling in storms, warm wet air, heavy rain, tidal surges and causing floods. … and YES! A greater contrast between equatorial and polar temperatures makes snow-storms more intense where the warmed and cold air-masses meet – such as over N America at present!

    Fancy that??? LOCAL WEATHER DOES NOT EQUAL GLOBAL CLIMATE! Who would have thunk it? -
    Certainly not these ignorant deniers who cannot tell short-term weather from long term climate and cannot recognise more energised weather systems even when those systems land on top of them!

  4. flamenco, models are actually very successful: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

    The key here is to distinguish between predictions and projections, “what will happen” and “what will happen if we do X”. Models don’ predict what happens during anthropogenic influence; they project by calculating the outcomes of each of several possible decisions we make. It’s a way of informing policy. In the case you mentioned, the point is that empirical data (a) tells us what fraction of the trend is natural (which can be negative if the natural effects are weaker than and opposed to our effects so run against the overall trend), (b) says one thing about what happened in the 20th century and (c) says something else about the far more CO2-generating futures most likely ahead of us in the 21st century.

    • In reply to #9 by David W:

      Meanwhile here in Australia 2013 was the hottest year on record.

      And “Globally, each of the past 13 years since 2001 have ranked among the 14 warmest on record.”

      All time record last two day where I live.

  5. What these idiots are not asking is the simple question anyone with a kettle can…How exactly did those thousands of tonnes of water end up in the air in the first place? Yes, guys for it to snow water has to get hot enough to evaporate, then cool then freeze. Therefore higher ocean temps in one area can lead to record snowfalls in another. Climate change denial of this sort is denial of physics.

  6. Please forgive me for being so ignorant but I don’t know the difference between climate and the weather. The climate seems to change about 4 times a year here. it gets cold and then it warms up things melt and then it gets warmer and then hot, then then cools down and the whole process repeats itself and has since time immemorial. Maybe one of you geniuses out there could explain this to me.

    • In reply to #12 by Dneyer:

      Please forgive me for being so ignorant but I don’t know the difference between climate and the weather. The climate seems to change about 4 times a year here. it gets cold and then it warms up things melt and then it gets warmer and then hot, then then cools down and the whole process repeats itself and has since time immemorial. Maybe one of you geniuses out there could explain this to me.

      No one here claims to be genius (to my knowledge) just perhaps well read to a greater or lesser extend. I can assure you I fall in the latter category not the former but I think I can answer your question.

      Climate is typical weather in an area as measured over decades (at least 3) to obtain knowledge of likely weather trends over time. Weather is local and current (ie. look out your window). What you are describing is seasons which is due to seasonal changes in climate due to tilt of the Earth’s axis causing the sunlight to fall more directly to alternatively the northern then southern hemispheres.

      So climate measurements give you a history of weather averaged out over time, each year though will be hotter or colder, wetter or dryer etc. however there are always reasons for any change. Measuring climate allows us to understand this better. Ultimately all weather and therefore climate ultimately is driven by energy from the sun causing heat unevenly distributed due the spherical nature of the planet (hotter at equator colder at poles) to be re-distributed around the planet. The weather you are experiencing now is a direct result of this.

      Climate change is following trends in climate by measuring local weather over decades across the globe and looking back in time using numerous proxy weather data from such things as tree rings, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and corals, sediments etc. plus trapped CO2, and much much more. Certain factors effect how much sunlight is absorbed or reflected into space and what therefore we should expect the average temps to be. So the Moon which is the same average distance from the sun as earth is vastly hotter and colder on average vastly colder than earth. So the explanation for what our actual average temp is a result of factor like having oceans and polar ice caps which respectively absorb or reflect sunlight (albedo) and the fact that green house gases like water vapour, co2 and methane are opaque to heat (the sunlight coming in is higher energy and not effected by greenhouse gases) means the the proportion of this is the atmosphere determines the average temperature and keeps our temperature at a comfortable range for our survival.

      Here are some useful links for the uninitiated

      [Co2 and heat] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo)

      This is very good as it shows how CO2 traps IR radiation the heat is trapped in the C02 and therefore cannot get from one side of the tube to the other hence disappearing.

      [understanding climate change] (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/)

      Hope this helps.

      Cheers

    • In reply to #12 by Dneyer:

      Please forgive me for being so ignorant but I don’t know the difference between climate and the weather.

      There is nothing wrong in admitting honest ignorance in those who are willing to learn.

      The climate seems to change about 4 times a year here. it gets cold and then it warms up things melt and then it gets warmer and then hot, then then cools down and the whole process repeats itself and has since time immemorial.

      That is the simple pattern through one orbit of the Earth, resulting from the Earth spinning on its axis, and presenting each pole towards the Sun each summer.

      There are however other cyclical changes called Milankovitch cycles where the Earth’s axis changes over time, and summer occurs at different places in Earth’s elliptical orbit. There are also 11years and 22 year Sun-spot cycles where the radiation from the Sun varies. These cause variations in the climate, and ice ages.

      On top of these natural cycles there are secondary feed-back cycles because of changes in cloud-cover, areas of sea-ice and snow cover, and volcanic ash eruptions, which affect the reflection of Solar energy back into space.

      The other effect is the Greenhouse Effect, which governs how much heat from the Earth’s surface is emitted into space through the Earth’s atmosphere.

      The strength of this greenhouse effect depends on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, with increases of carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour retaining much more heat as their concentrations increase. The billions of tons per year of CO2 produced by humans burning carbon fuels has greatly increased the atmospheric CO2 levels which have caused heating which has increased water vapour levels increasing heating further. Measurements over decades, have shown that this is overloading the Earth’s capacity to recycle the CO2 and is increasing global average temperatures, moving climate belts towards the poles, massively melting ice-caps, moving the atmosphere around the planet more energetically, and increasing the ferocity of storms.

      The increased average global temperatures have been measured by meterologists all over the planet and by monitoring satellites. Recent survey of over 12,000 climate scientists and their research papers confirmed 97% of them conclude human carbon burning is the cause of the atmospheric and ocean heating and the consequential climate changes.

      Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

      Of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate study articles 1991 – 2012.
      24 reject global warming.

      The opinion of experts who have studied this science, made measurements, and done the calculations and published their results for independent scrutiny, is conclusive.

      There is a substantial increase in global temperatures, over and above the changes caused by natural cycles, which is changing the climate, increasing droughts and floods, expanding deserts, raising sea-levels, and greatly reducing ice-caps and sea ice.
      The future cost of damage to humans from these effects is enormous, with further escalation of this damage avoidable by using low-carbon technologies which are already available.

      Maybe one of you geniuses out there could explain this to me.

      The reports of expert investigations from universities, global weather stations, and the space agencies, are available in the scientific literature.

      Unfortunately, much of the information fed to the public is written by scientifically illiterate journalists and paid dishonest carbonaceous stooge propagandists.

  7. These ignorant, one-dimensional fools all have this idea that climate change means Canadians will be growing pineapples and tourists will be getting tans on Antarctic beaches. Their eyes just glaze over when you try to explain that “change” means climate instability. Some areas will be hotter or wetter or drier or colder. Storms will be more frequent or intense. Generally the polar regions are getting dramatically warmer on average, Equatorial regions are getting drier and hotter, and areas in between are getting more or less rain, snow, and intense storm systems. The oceans are warming and sea levels are rising measurably because warmer water expands; glacial melt in Greenland and Antarctica will dramatically contribute to that. But no, apparently this complexity messes with their heads too much and they just look at the weather day-to-day, shake their heads, and go out to warm up their gas-guzzling SUVs and fart out a few more tons of C02 and methane.

  8. I am in Sweden right now, near a small town to the north of Karlstad. Ten years ago the typical temperature at this time of year was about -15C to -30C with about 30cm to 60cm of snow. Over this Christmas and new year period the temperature has been between about -1 C to +5C.
    Clearly this whole issue is ‘climate change’ just as much as ‘warming’.
    The world climate is an incredibly complex system well beyond most of us to actually understand as a whole model in our head.

    Could it be that climate change deniers like the ones quoted are not really as stupid as it would appear, surely they understand this issue? Likewise I am sure many who say the world is only 6000 years old know this is blatantly untrue, but they have other reasons and motives for pursuing the argument.

    Perhaps we should really consider what those reasons might be?

    Maybe the same as the old religious favourites, political control, power, influence and money. In this case gained by just a few for a short period until we are back in the stone age, or the next dominant species has taken control of the planet. Of course it may be viewed by some of the powerful and wealthy that they will be the survivors and the remaining part of humanity will be easier to control after a good dose of floods, famine, disease and pestilence?

    • In reply to #17 by Tim Smith:
      >

      I am in Sweden right now, near a small town to the north of Karlstad. Ten years ago the typical temperature at this time of year was about -15C to -30C with about 30cm to 60cm of snow. Over this Christmas and new year period the temperature has been between about -1 C to +5C. Clearly this whole issue is ‘climate change’ just as much as ‘warming’. The world climate is an incredibly complex system well beyond most of us to actually understand as a whole model in our head.

      The world’s weather systems move heat from the the tropics to the poles with some atmospheric mixing circulation from the Coriolis effect. It should be no surprise, that if the Arctic air is heading south over N America, the balancing flow of warm air is heading north somewhere else – such as over western Europe at present.

      One of the effects of warming, shown in the climate models, is increased rainfall/snowfall in high latitudes, due to warmer air carrying more moisture before it becomes saturated, and also from greater evaporation from warmer tropical oceans. (These effects also power up bigger “better” hurricanes and cyclones.)

    • In reply to #17 by Tim Smith:

      Could it be that climate change deniers like the ones quoted are not really as stupid as it would appear, surely they understand this issue? Likewise I am sure many who say the world is only 6000 years old know this is blatantly untrue, but they have other reasons and motives for pursuing the argument.

      Hi Tim,
      I have had a lot of arguments with people that I otherwise consider smart capable people. I put it down to different drives. As social primates we have a complex set of needs to either lead or please leaders in the groups we exist in. Rationality I think is not our dominant trait, much more important not to piss off the monkey next to you or perhaps in others calculate how you can make those around you spin to your tune to gain power. As a high school teacher most of my life is spend dealing with the same behaviours you see displayed in the article above, only it’s more in the open because age brings experience and these kids can’t play the game as well as adults (in general). That’s why the grunt at their parents (their parents call them on it too often so it’s safer not to be play your hand-”whatever”, “grunt”, “yeah”, “I dunno”). Most just seem to side with the group leaders for fear of rejection, it’s easier to just go with the flow.

      On this site we often get pissed off at people refusing to think, however I suspect the social risk of doing so is very high for some people and they are often engrained young with behaviours that have been with us for many millions of years. All atheists on this site have this in common we have gone against the majority in our society by not believing in god/s. We have gone against our instincts or have some awareness of them through hard work, circumstance or need for personal integrity.

      So you raise an important question, how do we get people to think. I personally suspect we need to keep hammering with facts but do so in a way that brings others emotionally along with us and makes social pariahs out of those who deliberately try to mislead. We need to make AGW denial as anti-social as blowing cigarette smoke into a babies crib.

    • In reply to #21 by 78rpm:

      Could we step back for a moment and consider that what are called “models” are really extrapolations? Malthus did some of that.

      Confidence ratings are provided by the IPCC on their projected models.

      http://www.climate2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5SPM-brochure.pdf

      Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes

      Understanding recent changes in the climate system results from combining observations, studies of feedback processes, and model simulations. Evaluation of the ability of climate models to simulate recent changes requires consideration of the state of all modelled climate system components at the start of the simulation and the natural and anthropogenic forcing used to drive the models. Compared to AR4, more detailed and longer observations and improved climate models now enable the attribution of a human contribution to detected changes in more climate system components.

      Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.{2–14}

      D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models

      Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental- scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).{9.4, 9.6, 9.8}

      •The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}

      •The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there islow confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4,Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

      •On regional scales, the confidence in model capability to simulate surface temperature is less than for the larger scales. However, there is high confidence that regional-scale surface temperature is better simulated than at the time of the AR4.{9.4, 9.6}

      •There has been substantial progress in the assessment of extreme weather and climate events since AR4. Simulated global-mean trends in the frequency of extreme warm and cold days and nights over the second half of the 20th century are generally consistent with observations. {9.5}

      •There has been some improvement in the simulation of continental-scale patterns of precipitation since the AR4. At regional scales, precipitation is not simulated as well, and the assessment is hampered by observational uncertainties.{9.4, 9.6}

      •Some important climate phenomena are now better reproduced by models. There is high confidence that the statistics of monsoon and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) based on multi-model simulations have improved since AR4. {9.5}

      However key global trends are being confirmed by observations as time goes on.

  9. Well, it’s obviously stupid to say there’s no global warming due to a single storm or period of cold whether. There’s nothing more to say about that. Still, people who are not climate change deniers often make the same mistake. Every time there’s a heat wave, drought, flooding or some other strong natural phenomenon you see bloggers and news media talking about global warming. This is equally stupid.

  10. @alan

    So… Is the warming 100% manmade?

    Is the warming 50% manmade?

    Is the warming 10% manmade?

    Is the warming 1% manmade?

    Is the warming 0.00000001% manmade?

    If you don’t know, be honest and just say so.

    Thanks for reminding me, alan, than you still haven’t answered that question form the past. Not surprised, as you still seem to be utterly committed to your faith as is of course your right.

    To be clear I don’t deny climate change. I don’t deny humans have put stuff into the atmosphere that can have some effect on it.

    I do question the CAGW cult which looks more and more like a religion every time I hear a believer scream “BLASPHEMER” when they mean “denier”. You keep on about 97% of scientists, which is curious. You do know where that meme comes from do you? Surprised at your lack of interest in how that came about. Will find the relevant links if you can’t find them yourself.

  11. The media is also ranting and raving about this being the “worst cold EVER!!!!”, which is complete bullshit. I lived in Montana from 1978 to 1989, and I can vouch for the fact that temps of -40 degrees Fahrenheit in January were nothing to get excited about. And that was the actual temperature, not wind-chill. One December day in 1978 a temperature of 69 degrees below zero was recorded where I lived in Butte, Montana. The coldest still-air temperature ever recorded in the contiguous United States was at Rogers Pass, Montana, where it dropped to 79 degrees below zero. We had to either run our vehicles 24 hours a day, keep them in a heated garage, or plug in block and/or radiator heaters. As kids we used to amuse ourselves by going outside and spitting just to watch it freeze with a cracking sound. The below-zero temperatures in southwestern Montana seemed to become a thing of the past by the late 1990s and early 2000s, as did heavy snows. In fact, temperatures stayed so warm that the pine beetle, which is normally kept in check by savage winters, was able to proliferate and wipe out thousands of square miles of white pines. The evidence of global warming is written large across every mountain side in Montana and Idaho in mile after mile of rust-red dead pines. One winter of “normal” below-zero temps isn’t going to reverse that, and it’s not going to change the overall trend.

Leave a Reply