Time Magazine blizzard science sets low standard for green journalism

Image awesomeness

“The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!”

Bryan Walsh deserves a giant watermelon for his journalistic efforts this Time around in his annual piece on global warming causing blizzards.

He comes out swinging right away:  “A big winter snowstorm provides more fodder for the global-warming skeptics. But they’re wrong

Oh really?  Bryan, if you can find any (credible) scientist that wants to go on record supporting your contortionist logic with respect to this holiday blizzard, please quote them directly on the record, and do not cherry-pick their blog postings or opinion-editorials.  Is this the type of new “green journalism” expertise that we can expect from the vaunted and much lauded Climate Science Rapid Response Team?  Preemptive straw man arguments that would make the master blush?  This article is just another in a long line of really speculative pieces that reek of scientific ignorance.   Enough of it, please!

Before getting to this year’s Time Life installment of “blizzards gone wild”, let’s go back to February 10, 2010 and Snowmageddon when Bryan Walsh authored this gem:

As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven’t we bothered to invest in a snow blower, and what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer — and the past decade was the hottest on record — major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like PalmPilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that’s what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend that attacked two Democratic members of Congress for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming.

 
Indeed, what happened to that climate change — perhaps a follow up on that Virginia state GOP campaign strategy (Tsunami warning).

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.

 
We’re braced. Semi-interested readers will see from that February Time piece that Bryan Walsh relies on Dr. Jeff Masters‘ blog posting to rationalize the blizzard and global warming saying that warmer air carries more moisture — true. However, intense baroclinic cyclones such as blizzards also rely on Arctic-cold air for their fuel which is usually provided behind dynamically-positioned midlatitude troughs. I haven’t read any peer-reviewed literature lately linking an increase in moisture being responsible for that blizzard’s intensity or existence, specifically.  That reasoning is essentially a thought experiment extrapolated to the situation at hand. Walsh finishes up:  

Ultimately, however, it’s a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season’s worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate. Of course, that doesn’t help you much when you’re trying to locate your car under a foot of powder.

 
We are in agreement on that.  Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. says the same thing over at his Climate Science blog in reaction to the woeful Dr. Judah Cohen opinion editorial.

Fast forward to December 28, 2010 and the most recent blizzard.  Everyone that participated in our sarcastic peremptory analysis of the blizzard journalism-to-come had some jolly holiday laughs conjuring up what was expected to be written by the liberal media.  Time Magazine does not disappoint!  

But while piles of snow blocking your driveway hardly conjure images of a dangerously warming world, it doesn’t mean that climate change is a myth. The World Meteorological Organization recently reported that 2010 is almost certainly going to be one of the three warmest years on record, while 2001 to 2010 is already the hottest decade in recorded history. Indeed, according to some scientists, all of these events may actually be connected.

 
First off, let’s get our time-scales right. Decadal-time-scale, mean-global warming on the order of tenths of a degree is not an event. The blizzard is an event. Who is coming out saying that “climate change” is a myth? The climate is always changing — I’d be surprised and alarmed if it stayed the same. Alas, I thought you weren’t supposed to conflate a singular weather event to climate change/global warming/disruption/something. There are two main arguments that are cobbled together to form a scientific thesis:

(1) A warmer Arctic will lead to colder and snowier winters in the middle-latitudes  due to the “continued Arctic sea-ice meltdown”. The loss of ice will make the surface darker, absorb more heat, and change pressure patterns leading to a weakening of the jet stream, which allows cold-air to seep into Europe. This is called the Warm Arctic – Cold Continents theory by NOAA and operates exclusively in the fall months.  Dr. Jeff Masters’ calls it “leaving the refrigerator door open” to cool your house.

(2) Dr. Judah Cohen’s theory about Siberian snow-cover early in the fall leading to a dome of cold air forming near the mountains which in turn “bends the passing jet stream”. This affects the middle-latitude waveguide and results in a highly amplified pattern. Thus, more meridional flow exchanges of cold-air equatorward.  This is an appeal to the negative Arctic Oscillation phase.

Okay, these theories are not in dispute but their applicability to the current blizzard is.  Dr. Cohen’s scholarship on Arctic climate dynamics is top-notch.  Conversely, his recent NY Times op-ed was not received well.  But, what does this have to do with a singular event like a blizzard which has happened many, many times in the past?  The Arctic Oscillation has been negative before.  Look at this time-series graphic.  To establish a causal chain that links these theories to the situation at hand requires a leap of faith:

How are autumn sea-ice or snow-cover changes supposed to affect the winter circulation three-months later when the troposphere has such a short memory?

See the aforementioned Pielke, Sr. posting for additional science reasoning.  I’m just going to throw something out there that the Climate Rapid Response Team might want to discover:  El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) in that potentially important body of water known as the Pacific Ocean.  Have you heard anything about this driving our current climate/weather in the media lately?  Crickets…

No objective person will disagree that Time Magazine or the NY Times’ “green journalism” is liberal in nature and fits perfectly in with the political agenda of the Democrat party.   So, why did Bryan Walsh go from correctly stating in February that one storm or event isn’t proof of anything to unabashedly blaming global warming for the most recent blizzard?  Open question…

While Dr. Oppenheimer talks about “loaded dice” with respect to global warming and extreme events, Walsh and the drive-by media are putting their cards down too soon, and are in effect overplaying their hand in a reflexive manner.  They are looking for theories hidden in the tapestry to make the world’s weather fit a narrative. In doing this, “green journalism” ends up being science fiction, unsupportable, reflexive, and only worthy of watermelons.

In the meantime, the line is drawn here, no more of this type of article, please. Blow up the damn ship!

About these ads

119 thoughts on “Time Magazine blizzard science sets low standard for green journalism

  1. “There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.”

    I’ll repeat what I said before. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that the quoted thesis is correct: A warming climate causes more massive snowstorms. That would mean that snowcover in the winter increases. Snow, especially on lower latitudes, will greatly enhance albedo, which in turn will cause cooling. Increasing snow cover will perform as a strong negative feedback mechanism.

  2. Why respond in an agitated manner? You’re only putting yourself way down at their non-credible level of discussion and dignifying their bogus assertions.
    Nobody listens to them anymore. I don’t even bother debating them. The best is to ridicule or ignore their junk. It’s worthy of nothing more.

  3. “Increasing snow cover will perform as a strong negative feedback mechanism.”

    By the way. While that feedback mechanisme may work as a negative feedback on warming, it works as a positive feedback on cooling. I have always wondered how climate science apparently (correct me if I am wrong) considers “the” feedback of Earths climate as some sort of a constant.

  4. Respond by parading all their past predictions of warm, snowless winters – again, and again, and again. and again…
    It indeed effectively shuts these charlatans up.

  5. The thesis just boils down to “it’s cold because it’s hot” and that is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

    BTW, I find that I’m hearing “Yellow journalism” now when reading “Green”… I think you’re on to something with that… “Green Journalism”… hey, it’s right next to it on the rainbow ;-) (And if they don’t ask, I won’t tell ;-)

  6. Yep, I’ve had enough !

    Just tonight, on “Our ABC” 7.00 PM news here in Australia, I get this,

    CSIRO claims the cold in the northern hemisphere does not mean the end of global warming.

    And then an interview with Alan Stokes, a rep. from the National Sea Change Task Force, (supposedly set up to help the “baby boomers” who have / will retire by the sea) help people living near the sea cope with rising sea levels.

    I’m a “baby boomer” and retired, and I live 100 meters from the sea, and I don’t need any help !

    I am just so sick of hearing this BS every day I happen to watch the news on TV. Thank God for WUWT, where I get reassured that there is a few left with some brains.

    If it stops raining tomorrow, I’ll take the boat for a run and escape this madness.

  7. Warming equals more snow blizzards in a warming world. Eventually it will be so hot we will be covered in snow. Heh? Wha…

  8. Someone needs to go back to 5th grade and review some basic science. In the winter the Earth tilts AWAY from the sun on it axis. That’s why it gets cold. Add less solar activity and you get an even colder winter. Do they even teach that in public schools these days? They did in 1960.

  9. Place me in P Gosselin’s corner. I value the rebuttal, the links to responsible sources, the reminders of failed predictions. But I won’t send readers from other sites to posts here so long as the tone is so weighted toward ridicule. I read this site almost daily, but find it impossible to cite, much as I value the information.

  10. Ryan, I heard a person described as a representative of the CSIRO on Australian ABC radio this morning, when I was only half awake.
    What he said made sense I think, although I do not agree with him for other reasons.

    He simply said that there are two forces at work, CO2 emissions causing a long term linear rise in temperature and cyclic, directionless influences such as the PDO, which override the CO2 effect in the short term but do not influence the long term direction.

    Now I wont go into what he did not say, about the dublious accuracy of the global indexes, the impact of UHI on the data, the uncertainty in the direction of net feedbacks, the influence of the magnetic flux between sun, planets and moons etc etc etc.

    But I take it he is a practicing scientist from a very reputable organisantion and he did make a reasonable case that it could be getting colder and colder within a longer term upward moving trend. It’s just, as I’ve said, he’s left so much other stuff out.

    We’ll just have to wait and see who’s right – me, an ignorant member of the general public; or him – an experienced scientist who (presumably) has studied all the above and much much more, and can explain it all away.

  11. Ryan – I should have said that it is really clear that the science is settled and has been settled for more than 100 years. Adding CO2 to an enclosed vessel raises the temperature of the gasses inside, all other things being the same and held constant, as the economists always say.

    Economic theory is never wrong by the way.
    It is always clear and certain.
    It’s just that it cannot describe the complexity of the real world and its forecasts are always wrong, except occasionally in the very short term.

    Does that sound at all familiar?

  12. Warmest decade ever.

    Well, of course. Since they used a new algorithm for this decade and it shows it is the warmest ever decade of this decade it is in fact the warmest decade of the single decade measured.

    This day is the coldest day ever of all of this one day that was measured. :p

  13. For a theory to hold up it must be tested, the Warm Arctic Cold Continent theory has already failed the test. 2007 was the lowest arctic ice extent. That year the AO and NAO was positive. Also the prevailing temperature readings that influence the AO and NAO are in the stratosphere. Warm stratosphere temps are associated with the weak polar vortex as we have now. The ever so strong CO2 layer at the tropopause is surely shielding us from any stratospheric warming?

  14. The jet stream is not looking good in the first week of 2011. There is a good chance of another round of major cold and snow in the UK, Europe, Russia and the top end of North America.

  15. I fear that Bryan Walsh does not need to be correct to influence people. As a Science teacher of long standing, Ignorance of simple Science is Rampant in our society. Bryan needs only a wide audience to be affective, and vastly more people read Time than read WUWT.

  16. Even religions like global warming need to be consistent in their internal logic otherwise they just look naff.

    These eco-journalists give proper religious nutters a bad name!

  17. Yes, its funny. Here is the AGW nightmare scenario; As the years go by now RSS and UAH shows a further decline in global temperatures. GISS shows an ever increasing temperature.

    Strange noone drops temperature sensors with GPS transponders over the pole area?

  18. Perhaps the “Climate Rapid Response Team” should change its name to the Climate Response Action Panel.

  19. As basic physics says, when heating a pot of water, in one part it will boil and in other part it will freeze, extremes will increase but overall it will keep warming. Or something.

    One detail, future colder winters mean that annual averages will fall down. Will be this commented as a) models predicted exactly that, b) but it is warming elsewhere, c) green police on you!

  20. Stockholm Sweden has broken all cold records since 1788 ( 222 years ago ) over the period of the 4 weeks before christmas. That means that we are already back in Little ICE age conditions here . The Baltic sea is freezing over fast and is now already frozen at the state it use to be in the end of January. At this rate the Baltic will freeze down to Poland and Germany in the end March.
    Live Long and Prosper.

  21. With respect to Cohen’s recent opinion piece in the NYT’s, and now that I think of it any of the numerous pro-AGW articles they’ve run in the last couple of years: is it my imagination or am I right that one just about never finds a critical letter to the editor in response? PLenty of letters in support of course. It’s pretty difficult to believe that no one’s writing them. If I’m correct, it speaks for itself of course.

  22. “There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.”

    This may be true. Who knows. But it’s irrelevant.

    The problem we face is the warmist agenda is based on the false premise that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and that it’s significant as a greenhouse gas. Both of these are scientifically incorrect.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s the Sun that’s causing any warming, and the snow and storms, or if it’s humanity. What’s important is that the warmists have dragged the world’s politicians into a self-sustaining carbon-is-evil delusion that’s compounding the financial troubles left by the banks.

    We, the sceptics, need to highlight the most basic aspects of REAL science in order to make it clear to politicians and members of the public that the propagandist claims of the warmists are factually incorrect.

    * CO2 is not a pollutant.
    * CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas.
    * CO2 is one of the two main building blocks of ALL plant life on Earth.
    * CO2 concentration is historically at a low level.
    * CO2 concentration has been ten times higher during ice ages.
    * CO2 is good.

    Keep it simple. Maybe then they will listen.

  23. AusieDan says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Ryan, I heard a person described as a representative of the CSIRO on Australian ABC radio this morning, when I was only half awake.

    Dan you heard honorary research fellow of the CSIROs marine and Atmospheric Researc Unit Barry Hunt. The transcript is here

    burnside says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:37 am

    …But I won’t send readers from other sites to posts here so long as the tone is so weighted toward ridicule. I read this site almost daily, but find it impossible to cite, much as I value the information.

    Hmmm what a shame your friends aren’t as smart as you and they wouldn’t “value” the information WUWT provides as you do.
    Your friends are lucky they have a good friend like you who decides for them what is worthy of doing.

    My advice? get new friends, the current ones are obviously not as smart or discerning as you.

  24. Wouldn’t more snow cover further South of the Arctic end up creating cooler temps because of the suns rays reflecting off of a larger white mass? Does Global Warming project this too? Or do temps go up and up while snow increases to 4 ft, 5 ft, 6 ft?

    Last couple of years where I live snow cover has been all winter. Back in the 1990’s we’d get snow, then it would melt a couple days later, and repeat that cycle all winter. Shouldn’t that then create lower temps since more of the suns rays are being reflected than they were in the 1990’s?

  25. Snow. Surely it insulates? What, then, accounts for the current Northern Ireland water rationing and the tens of thousands of emergency calls to water services in Scotland and the North?

    When the disenfranchised of middle England realise that their national security, welfare and jobs have been sacrificed in an “austerity budget” that roughly equals, pound for pound, the spending on windmills and reparations to foreign countries for our climate crimes what will happen?

    We have “saved” nearly £7 billion yet spent that same amount, most of it outside of our own economy (Both our PM and his deputy have close family invested deeply in windmills and their sites) . The exchequer lost approximately the same amount because our councils didn’t do their sums correctly with regard to “weather” events this winter and many citizens could not report for work, spend their pittance at the shops or put fuel into their vehicles as the ice broke their bones, pipes and vehicle cooling systems.

  26. It sounds a little 1984ish – Ministry of Peace is actually the War Ministry. Cold is proof of warming! What we really have to fear is the build up of snow and ice followed by cold summer due to a volcanic eruption. We have far more to fear from an ice age than a return to Minoan, Roman or Midieval temperature levels! Althoughit is probably true that of all the countries in the world Australia has more to fear from any global warming – farming in Australia has always been a risky and marginal enterprise and any reduction in rainfall or increase in temps will have a significant impact on agriculture as I am sure it would have in any of the aforementioned warming periods if we were farming then.

  27. Climate science makes the kooky field of creation science look almost respectable!

    Problem: models fail to predict the future. Answer: backfit the models and voila! Instant accuracy.

    Problem: it’s as cold as heck. Answer: blame global warming and voila! Theory intact.

    Can someone please point out to me where in the IPCC AR4 (or 3 or 2 or 1) it says that one possibility (likely or even extremely unlikely) is that we have extreme cold spells?

  28. Juraj V. says:
    December 29, 2010 at 4:26 am

    As basic physics says, when heating a pot of water, in one part it will boil and in other part it will freeze, extremes will increase but overall it will keep warming. Or something.

    Would you please provide a reliable reference for your “basic physics says, when heating a pot of water, in one part it will boil and in other part it will freeze” statement. I really need to see it to believe it.

  29. My understanding of the differences in reflectiveness between sea ice and open sea was that the relationship was reversed at times when the Sun is low in the sky, that is during winter and close to the arctic circle. If this is in fact the case, that would mean that a smaller ice cap would reflect more solar energy at this time of year rather than less. Had this explanation been used I might have thought that it made some sense. This effect would also lead to a self correcting effect due to the negative feedback involved.

    I see a very strong argument against the warmists is that ten years ago they were confidently predicting the end of snowy winters. It is not so much the fact that they were proved so badly wrong, that happens to scientists all the time, it is the total lack of humility in the face of such a collossal error of judgement, still hurling the word denier at anyone who might disagree with them.

  30. Lars Tunkrans says:
    December 29, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Stockholm Sweden has broken all cold records since 1788 ( 222 years ago ) over the period of the 4 weeks before christmas

    Please, can you give links to all the articles and data for this?

  31. ot, but I’m studying Ohanian’s physics. Amazing how much he debunks in chapter 1…anyway, apparently the Earth slowed 1 second per year after 1900. This has to affect climate surely? Is anyone studying this?

    I’m guessing it would have a cooling effect?

  32. You should all expect to see more of this scrabbling around for anything that props up the AGW farce. Even the renaming of it to whatever it’s called now should have warned us all that the religion that is global warming is now having to stand in the light of real, measureable science. But they won’t go down without a fight. You can expect a big tussle over the 2010 temperatures and any more weather ‘events’ but it will be the recovery of Arctic ice that will be the nail in the coffin of AGW. Expect to hear more about Siberian snow cover, that’s another life raft that the psuedo-scientists are clinging to.
    Don’t forget, Winter has only just started!

  33. If Global Warming is causing the colder weather, then how many winters will it eventually take to make a summer?

  34. Ryan,
    Funny how scientists try to protect a bad theory by turning science upside down.
    Since obviously, they have no clue what weather is.
    Only the mathematics and formulas are important and not science.

    The weather pattern does have a name and NOT “mini-Ice Age”(hope?).

  35. Off topic Anthony, but did you read this? If ever there was a prime example of how some scientists are living in cloud-cuckoo land when it comes to their beloved models, this is probably it!

    An international group of scientists are aiming to create a simulator that can replicate everything happening on Earth – from global weather patterns and the spread of diseases to international financial transactions or congestion on Milton Keynes’ roads.

    Fail?

    [In the future please post such things in “Tips & Notes”. There is a link up in the header. …bl57~mod]

  36. I note with interest that the American Scientist has an article online which claims that Global Warming will cause more snow and wetter summers. Apparently this is because the higher temperatures in summer cause greater evaporation and this leads to increased precipitation…. Someone in the comments also claims that more snow cover traps the heat, causing a heat feedback that causes glaciers to melt from below.

    No; I don’t believe it either, but it seems in keeping with Time’s report.

    After six weeks of snow cover here in Germany, we are beginning to think that -X°C is normal and may even be warm enough for sunbathing. I confess I am getting tired of the constant battery of ‘facts’ about CO2 being to blame and in particular that the West is exclusively to blame for it all. The experiments on which CO2 ‘warming’ are founded involve enclosed environments that are anything but dynamic and levels of CO2 that would instantly exterminate all human life. No one has yet produced a demonstrably repeatable experiment in which atmospheric heating occurs in the manner the ‘models’ predict at the levels of CO2 it is supposed to occur at.

    As for this being the warmest decade ever – yes, since it is measured by means of an algorithm that is different to that used in any previous decade and therefore incomparable to anything else. That said, an anonymous troll in the UK Met Office (Think CRU with a supercomputer they have to justify!) announced that they only use the highest recorded temperatures and select the highest 15 of these in any three month period to calculate the “average” for the period. If that is true, then their figures are right – except they are ignoring the lowest temperatures recorded which would lower this figure considerably.

    As one of our funnier comedians summed up such statistics; “If you want the worst case, you include the Titanic; for the best case, exclude it.”

  37. Shona says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I have been extensively studying this and brought it to before evaporation was occuring and we were closer to the sun.
    Current physics LAWS collapse as with faster rotation, the laws of relativity change. The oceans were salter to generate more density as centrifugal force was greater as well.

  38. I’m babysitting the cutest little old man pug. Something I hadn’t realized but, small dogs have become the fashion during this last half of the previous century. Drawback: Very hard to pee and poop in snow passed their cute wittle ears. As soon as I set him down, he disappeared in a fluff of white. Good thing I had a leash on him, else I wouldn’t have been able to find him again.

  39. Aminoacids wants the links and articles:
    You need to be a reader of the obscure language spoken in these parts, Swedish …
    Anyhow from the official Swedish weather service SMHI:

    http://www.smhi.se/nyhetsarkiv/fyra-veckor-utan-tovader-1.14238

    The headline reads: Four weeks without thaw.

    The paragraph on Stockholm reads:

    Stockholm has not been warmer than + 0,7 degrees centigrade since 24:th of November. Last time this occurred at this time a year was between 30:th November 1788 and 18:th of january 1789

    The paragraphs describing the other cold records for 6 Swedish cities ends with stating : This is a record since measurments began in 1859.

  40. The basic problem for warmist, with every shovelful of snow the hole gets deeper.

    We have lost danged near all our Florida tomato crop for the year now, as we are hitting record lows for all time. Well at least all known time — LOL. Daytime, when it’s in the 60s in Florida, it’s cold.

    BTW — I doubt any normal people are listening anymore to his drivel.

  41. The world’s top climate scientist produced the IPCC Apolyctic Revelations 4 in 2007, and said quite clearly that winters in the NH would be warmer and shorter with less weather events. We are told there were thousands of the world’s great minds that put this report together (although it was about 52 for WG1) and these thousands of great minds failed to note in AR4 that there would be more severe winters caused by global warming.

    Not only that what are the odds of the three worst winters in living memory would follow on directly from the pronouncements of these great minds of climate science telling us winters would be less severe and shorter?

  42. New dictionary entry:

    green journalism (noun) – yellow journalism written by blue state authors

    I like it.

  43. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Lars Tunkrans says:
    December 29, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Stockholm Sweden has broken all cold records since 1788 ( 222 years ago ) over the period of the 4 weeks before christmas

    Please, can you give links to all the articles and data for this?
    ================
    http://www.iceagenow.com had a list and some links to newspaper items.
    ===========
    and thanks to the 2 above for the CSIRO clowns comments, I was dozing when I heard it, thought it was a bad dream..should have known the corrupted CSIRO weather bods would be into as*cover mode pretty quick.
    didnt work! their removing the 30s heat and drought records from BoM site also didnt fool any , with a memory or brain who read them before they vanished.

  44. Somebody taught them : I did not have sex with the lady and his compadre claimed :
    This science is settled . Peters Sellers remark on the subject : What is new pussycat ?

  45. tarpon says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:53 am
    The basic problem for warmist, with every shovelful of snow the hole gets deeper.
    We have lost danged near all our Florida tomato crop for the year now, as we are hitting record lows for all time.
    =======================================================
    Don’t start
    I planted seed a little over three months ago.
    I should be eating tomatoes by now.
    It’s been so cold the plants are only about 5 inches tall………………..

  46. Why are some of you discussing solar reflection as part of the argument? Aren’t most of the snow capped areas, above the artic circle, completely dark right now. What sunlight is being reflected?

  47. P Gosselin says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:04 am

    “It indeed effectively shuts these charlatans up.”

    In your dreams. It’s a lucrative scam for intelligent but dishonest people, and they are heavily invested. If the scam goes bust they are all on the street.

  48. Ryan, fair enough to berate these idiots, but introducing party politics and hyperbole kinda brings WUWT down to the level of lesser sites. It has been Anthony’s great achievement to keep WUWT out of that swamp, despite great provocation.

    People who are buried in snow don’t need to be told that ‘global warming’ is the least of their concerns. They have worked it out for themselves.

    Thanks to a compliant and lazy mainstream media, the AGW alarmists have been given enough rope, and the inevitable result is before our eyes.

  49. Jack Lacton says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:11 am
    “Can someone please point out to me where in the IPCC AR4 (or 3 or 2 or 1) it says that one possibility (likely or even extremely unlikely) is that we have extreme cold spells?”

    I can’t but the funny thing is the AR4 mentions the French heatwave in 2002 (or so) where 3000 (or so) elderly people died as an example for what will happen more frequently in the future.

    Now they can (or must) add in AR5 the extreme cold spells we will experience in the future right next to the heatwaves.

    Alternatively, they could form a new Working Group that simply reprints the Book Of Revelations.

  50. AusieDan says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Ryan, I heard a person described as a representative of the CSIRO on Australian ABC radio this morning, when I was only half awake.
    What he said made sense I think, although I do not agree with him for other reasons.

    He simply said that there are two forces at work, CO2 emissions causing a long term linear rise in temperature and cyclic, directionless influences such as the PDO, which override the CO2 effect in the short term but do not influence the long term direction.

    But I take it he is a practicing scientist from a very reputable organisantion and he did make a reasonable case that it could be getting colder and colder within a longer term upward moving trend. It’s just, as I’ve said, he’s left so much other stuff out.

    BARRY HUNT: “Yes because the climate deniers think that unless you’ve got constant warming every year the greenhouse warming has gone away. And they forget about the natural variability.

    But we should expect now to see the global warming trend take over again.”

    AusieDan, I guess since you were not really awake yet, you might be excused for thinking what he said “made sense”. Hopefully you at least noticed the blatant straw man he trotted out, and attacked, plus the laughably absurd statement that we “forget about the natural variability”.

    The obvious tremendous leap in logic he made was that “greenhouse warming” aka CAGW/CC/CD etc. is a given, when in fact it is just a construct. “Scientists” like him live in hope that gullible people will continue to take on faith the idea of C02-induced warming. Unfortunately for him and his ilk, the curtain has been pulled away and revealed nothing but humbuggery.

  51. Shona says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:25 am
    “ot, but I’m studying Ohanian’s physics. Amazing how much he debunks in chapter 1…anyway, apparently the Earth slowed 1 second per year after 1900. This has to affect climate surely? Is anyone studying this?

    I’m guessing it would have a cooling effect?”

    Hi Shona, P.G. Sharrow over at Tallblokes Talkshop has some interesting ideas on this…

    “At times a freely rotating device [Earth] can act as a motor or a dynamo depending if it lags or leads in the local fields. Energy in or energy out as the magnetic fields try to remain in balance. Energy is stored as angular momentum (AM) or dissipated as heat ( LIR?)”

    Over the period you quote, LOD has both increased and decreased, often in rapid steps and these small changes correlate quite well with global temperature. Worth your while to have a closer look at this area I think.

  52. East coat winter storms draw their moisture from the ocean not a “warming atmosphere” due to global whatever the current term is.

  53. Having faced credible opposition the global warming crowd is going to sell global warming like the selling of Happy Holidays to replace Christmas, homosexuality as a civil right, the pet rock and socialism. They plan to beat us into acceptance by repeating it 24/7.
    They expect us to be like the guy in the movie Big Trouble who hit by a toxic spray from a frog resulted in hallucinations and crying make it stop, make it stop, God in Heaven make it stop. The question is who is hallucinating?

  54. Jack Lacton says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Can someone please point out to me where in the IPCC AR4 (or 3 or 2 or 1) it says that one possibility (likely or even extremely unlikely) is that we have extreme cold spells?

    Best I can do for you Jack is to point you to the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chp. 11 pp 872

    Assessments of projected climate change for Europe:
    Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to
    increase more than the global mean. The warming in
    northern Europe is likely to be largest in winter and
    that in the Mediterranean area largest in summer. The
    lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more
    than average winter temperature in northern Europe, and
    the highest summer temperatures are likely to increase
    more than average summer temperature in southern and
    central Europe.”

    And

    “The duration of the snow season is very likely to
    shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to
    decrease in at least most of Europe.”

    And

    “Local thermodynamic factors also affect the European
    climate and are potentially important for its future changes. In
    those parts of Europe that are presently snow-covered in winter,
    a decrease in snow cover is likely to induce a positive feedback,
    further amplifying the warming.”

    Though I give them credit for the following…

    “Europe, particularly its north-western parts, owes its
    relatively mild climate partly to the northward heat transport
    by the Atlantic MOC (e.g., Stouffer et al., 2006). Most models
    suggest increased greenhouse gas concentrations will lead to
    a weakening of the MOC (see Section 10.3), which will act to
    reduce the warming in Europe. However, in the light of present
    understanding, it is very unlikely to reverse the warming to
    cooling (see Section 11.3.3.1).”

    All in all, the AR4 predicts warmer but wetter winters (they say more precipitation) for Northern Europe.

  55. This argument is so bad, so so bad.

    Let us presume that a warming world does indeed put more moisture into the air, and that with more water vapor in the atmosphere, there is more snow in the colder places on earth.

    -> Then why is the arctic losing ice? Cold/frozen precipitation is the major source of creating multi-year ice in the arctic. If the world is warming, and more water vapor is in the atmosphere as a result… how is it that none of this moisture is affecting the snow cover on the arctic ocean? Wouldn’t you expect that the coldest places would see snow increases?

    -> Then why is Kilamanjaro losing it’s snow cap? If moisture in the air is increasing, shouldn’t glaciers on high mountains at low/mid lattitudes (where it’s always colder) be increasing?

    -> Then why are we afraid of glacial losses in the Himalayas? More moisture in the air should certainly increase the precipitation in these areas, and thus increase the snowpack, should it not?

    -> Then why are we afraid of the loss of rain-forests due to global warming? Shouldn’t more moisture in the air create MORE rainfall in the areas predisposed to heavy rain? Why then has the IPCC itself lectured all of us on the possibility of the Amazon turning into a Savannah?

    The logic is so bad, they’re basically destroying their other precious appeal-to-emotion arguments in the process. This is now BLATANT cognitive dissonance.

  56. johanna says:
    December 29, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Ryan, fair enough to berate these idiots, but introducing party politics and hyperbole kinda brings WUWT down to the level of lesser sites. It has been Anthony’s great achievement to keep WUWT out of that swamp, despite great provocation.

    People who are buried in snow don’t need to be told that ‘global warming’ is the least of their concerns. They have worked it out for themselves.

    Thanks to a compliant and lazy mainstream media, the AGW alarmists have been given enough rope, and the inevitable result is before our eyes.

    I disagree, johanna. The Alarmists have always known that their “science” was not all it was cracked up to be, and that in order to succeed, they needed to exaggerate and even lie in order to convince what they regarded as their flock of sheeple, who would believe the moon was actually made of green cheese as long as enough “scientists” said it was, and the MSM dutifully went along.
    Fortunately, it didn’t quite work, but as has been pointed out, the war for the truth is not yet over. There are still plenty of sheeple out there to be shorn, and taxpayers to be fleeced. And yes, to their everlasting disgrace, it is the Democrats and/or Liberals who have primarily spearheaded this campaign against truth, against science, and against Humanity, and I say that as a former died-in-the-wool Democrat.

  57. Jeremy says:
    December 29, 2010 at 7:44 am
    The logic is so bad, they’re basically destroying their other precious appeal-to-emotion arguments in the process. This is now BLATANT cognitive dissonance.
    ==========================================================
    Jeremy, it actually makes good sense.
    A 1/2 degree increase in temperature has caused more snow.
    If the temperature had not risen 1/2 degree, we would have less snow and what little snow we did get would melt sooner.
    Just imagine how cold it would have been if the temperature had not risen 1/2 degree. Probably too cold to snow.
    And even though there’s no sun in the Arctic right now, it’s shorts and T-shirt weather, because that 1/2 degree rise in temperature caused all the cold air to fall out……….

    sarc/off………………………

  58. Now journalists and some scientists sound alike: one wonders if it is the scientists who parrot the journalists these days…

    Jeremy, the reason there is more moisture in the air comes from more intense confrontation between colder polar air masses and tropical ones, thus there is more moisture advected toward mid and high latitudes. The selective regional losses of arctic sea ice is located below the corridors of warm air advection where temperatures are rising as the intensity of advections is increasing.
    Kilimanjaro suffers from the southward displacement of isohyetes in tropical Africa, displacement that follows the rise in atmospheric pressure observed for a same location in both hemispheres. Alpine and Himalayin glaciers are affected by numerous anticyclonic agglutinations (high pressure) that prevent precipitations.
    The rain forest is threatened by deforestation and the fact that in a cooling scheme, as what we are seeing since the 1970s, the latitudinal range of the meteorological equator shrinks and thus as observed in the past the rain forest extent diminishes.
    I invite you to read two books by climatologist Marcel Leroux:
    [“The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa”, Springer Verlag, Springer-Praxis books in Environmental Sciences, London, NY, 548 pp + CD: 300 pp, 250 charts, 2001, ISBN 978-3-540-42636-3].
    And
    [“Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate Atmospheric Circulation, Perturbations, Climatic Evolution”, Springer-Praxis books in Environmental Sciences, 2nd ed., 2010, 440p., ISBN 978-3-642-04679-7 ]

    Knowledge of atmospheric circulation is critical to understanding sometimes seemingly contradictory observations and to weed out the warmist’s garbage. The 2010 book is the best start.

  59. This CO2 must be the most powerful gas in the universe, it causes more snow and less snow and lower temperatures and higher temperatures and droughts and floods and more rain and less rain and more storms and less storms and kills the oceans and melts the sea ice and glaciers and brings colder winters and warmer winters and drier summers?

    Is there nothing that CO2 cannot do? An apparently harmless trace gas plant food present in the minute quantity of 0.040% of Earths atmosphere can wreak such ‘omnihavoc’ ™ better warn Clark Kent AKA superman ™!

    I suppose those who support the idea of an all powerful and incredibly destructive trace gas can back up their claims with evidence can they? It seems the much hyped computer models that form the backbone of the IPCC reports did not see this coming so they are no help and BTW have you seen any of the IPCC approved super computer models doing the rounds of the compliant MSM lately? No, I have not seen any recently either, funny that eh? These models turn out to be less able to predict anything than the old grizzled carny woman you see in every town fair so they are quietly hidden away.

    The much vaunted computer modelled evidence seems to have disappeared now they have run into the concrete wall of observed reality, so its alarmist double down time at the tables, the gamblers disease we have all seen at Vegas, the loser tries to win back his poke by betting the farm. This is the last chance saloon, this is the last throw of the dice, all in and let the cards fall where they may? But dear reader of my poor prose, what other option does the CAGW cult have left? They either admit the models were rubbish and their projections utterly wrong or they hide them away and go for the big one. CO2 causes every damn thing and to hell with the supportive evidence, its go for broke time and pile everything in, from A to Z its CO2 that does it all. Its the newest and greatest Satan in town, George Bush must be relieved that he no longer bears that particular burden.

  60. I’m surprised at the complaints of anger displayed in the OP. Anthony, inspiration for most posters hers, is the Prince of Snarkness in the climate blogosphere and I don’t mean that in a bad way. This site has a history of cleverly worded titles, biting criticism, and disassembling to a thin broth like a blender the sinew and gristle laced, watery claims and arguments of lesser pundits, naifs of post-grad science, and agenda scholars.

    To see true vein-popping rage one need only read Tamino or Romm. I can hear brain cells dieing when ever I read RealClimate. And can we forget who gave us death trains?

    I wouldn’t change a thing in this story – it is a good fit. If you need agonizing science detail and a gentle hand on the throttle then make a pot of coffee and read Dr. Curry’s excellent blog.

  61. WEATHER EXTREMES OF SUMMER 2010: GLOBAL WARMING
    OR NATURAL VARIABILITY?
    by
    Madhav L. Khandekar (Canada)

    Dr Madhav L Khandekar is a former research scientist from Environment Canada and was an Expert
    Reviewer for the IPCC 2007 climate change documents. Khandekar has been in weather & climate science
    for over 53 years and has published well over 130 papers, reports, book reviews and scientific
    commentaries. While at Environment Canada, Khandekar wrote a book Operational analysis and prediction
    of ocean wind waves published by Springer-Verlag in 1989. Khandekar continues his research at present on
    several issues re: global warming, extreme weather and monsoon inter-annual variability.

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/stories/pdf/mlk2010eegw-ew.pdf

  62. TomRude says:
    December 29, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I appreciate the reasoned direction there, but I was simply comparing layman arguments with other layman arguments. The public/political alarmists want us to fear the loss of rainforest, but when the weather turns to a blizzard three years in a row, it’s because of greater moisture being in the air? These people cry about losses of glaciers all over the place, which in many cases is directly tied to precipitation declines, and with the next breath they tell us we’re seeing more snow because warming means more precipitation. It’s like they’re all lobotomized.

    I accept that the system is complex. However I will not accept (and no one should accept) the complexity of the system as an excuse for claiming all possible outcomes are proof of a theory.

  63. Bruce Cobb said:

    I disagree, johanna. The Alarmists have always known that their “science” was not all it was cracked up to be, and that in order to succeed, they needed to exaggerate and even lie in order to convince what they regarded as their flock of sheeple, who would believe the moon was actually made of green cheese as long as enough “scientists” said it was, and the MSM dutifully went along.
    Fortunately, it didn’t quite work, but as has been pointed out, the war for the truth is not yet over. There are still plenty of sheeple out there to be shorn, and taxpayers to be fleeced. And yes, to their everlasting disgrace, it is the Democrats and/or Liberals who have primarily spearheaded this campaign against truth, against science, and against Humanity, and I say that as a former died-in-the-wool Democrat.
    ———————————————————————
    Bruce, I think we are at cross purposes here. The reason WUWT has gained the credibility it has is because it has avoided becoming a mouthpiece for any political party, other group, or individual. And, it is very much to Anthony’s credit that all of these traps have been avoided. There are thousands of blogs on both sides of the debate that are not as reputable as WUWT – and this is why.

    As I understand it, the purpose of WUWT is not to convert or frighten the ‘sheeple’, but to have a calm and civil discussion of the issues and latest scientific developments. That is its strength.

    Sorry if I’m talking about you as though you weren’t here, Anthony – but in keeping with your Christmas resolution, I really hope that you are not here!

  64. Filtering off all of the useless hyperpartisan anger in the article, this is what caught my attention:

    “This is called the Warm Arctic – Cold Continents theory by NOAA and operates exclusively in the fall months.”

    Let’s keep in mind that winter only started a week ago. Note the word “fall” in the quote. Many appear to have written their book on this winter before it began.

  65. I noticed that Bryan Walsh is recycling garbage. Unfortunately it isn’t the Earth friendly garbage recycling. It is the propaganda variety of garbage in the form of recycling the same garbage he wrote in his February 10, 2010 piece, “Another Blizzard: What Happened to Global Warming?” I see a pattern with Bryan (and several other climate journalists). They find a find a scientist (Jeff Masters?) who agrees with their chosen narrative, who is all too happy to create a link between weather and climate, and then write the narrative without doing a fact check or seeking opposing views in an effort to vet facts. Bryan in pre-programmed fashion (like Dr. Maue’s Borg reference) then has the red meat he needs to spin those comments into a predetermined narrative, global warming=> climate change=> climate chaos=> ?, to influence/pursuade his readers. Journalistic integrity+ fact checking + balance = good journalism, be damned. Once invested in the propaganda driven narrative there is no turning back. In for a penny (2/10/12) in for a pound (12/28/10).

    Take heart that not all Walsh’s readers have been assimilated as can be seen in the comments section of his articles. ;*) http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2039777,00.html#comments

  66. AusieDan says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:38 am
    Ryan, I heard a person described as a representative of the CSIRO on Australian ABC radio this morning, when I was only half awake.
    What he said made sense I think, although I do not agree with him for other reasons.
    He simply said that there are two forces at work, CO2 emissions causing a long term linear rise in temperature and cyclic, directionless influences such as the PDO, which override the CO2 effect in the short term but do not influence the long term direction.
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Yes and in the transcript the rep says:

    “I analysed one of our climatic experiments where we ran it out to 2100 with carbon dioxide increasing. I found that even up to 2040 and 2050 you can still get cold snaps under greenhouse warming.”

    The CSIRO computer climate model I presume. Sorry but predicting weather events (cold snaps) out to this time scale using a model is pure BS. And we know about the in-built CO2 “forcing” evident in these models

    He goes on:

    “Now the scientific reasons for global warming attributed to the carbon dioxide, the scientific basis is very sound. The basic long-term trend over the next 100 years is for a steady global warming and over most of Australia we can expect to see rainfall decline.”

    So far the CSIRO computer predictions of a “dry” continent has failed badly. Record wet season over most of the continent in 2010. When I mentioned this to another CSIRO scientist he just laughed and gave me a smirked look.

    My analysis over many years shows there is no correlation evident whatsoever between CO2 levels and the rainfall records from late 1800’s up to 2010.

  67. Baa Humbug says:
    December 29, 2010 at 4:58 am

    burnside says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:37 am

    …But I won’t send readers from other sites to posts here so long as the tone is so weighted toward ridicule. I read this site almost daily, but find it impossible to cite, much as I value the information.

    Baa, nice ridicule logical deconstruction in response! Instead of a “concern troll”, burnside should be an ipcc Climate Scientist, since they hardly ever seem to read or remember what they’ve said, too, at least when it involves some very important parts of their “science”. In fact, it seems to be a necessary component of their “method” [ = Propaganda Op.].

  68. In 2009, Bryan Walsh was still spreading the warmer-winters version of AGW:

    “Warming will make skiing, ice-skating and snowmobiling pastimes of the past in many areas of the Northeast, decimating the multibillion-dollar winter-sports industry. The center of maple-syrup production will shift from New England to Canada, and production of apples and other produce that depend on cooler winters will decline.”

  69. From IOP arcticle released one year ago:
    “Despite of this change in the NAO index almost 15 years ago, we have not yet
    seen clear evidence of more frequent colder winter weather in Europe, a fact which we tentatively attribute to an increasing anthropogenic effect on the North Atlantic and European climate regime. This demonstrates that based on investigations of climate variability beyond the instrumental record it appears to be possible to distinguish between natural and human-induced climate change”
    So much for that theory.

  70. Newspaper journalists when they graduate are told their purpose is not to report the news, but to make the world a better place. If this means lying about global warming being manmade to accomplish this purpose, then so be it.

    The Editors of Time Magazine and other “news” outlets spewing this global warming baloney must not be allowed to continue without our comments. For every article published there must be a blizzard of letters sent to the Editors questioning the accuracy of their stories.

    Ask these Editors to explain two things. One: why is 2010 the 9,099th warmest year out of 10,500 years of GISP2 ice core data? Two: why do the CO2 increases come about 800 years after the temperature increases?

    We are not the deniers. We are the admitters. We know the data speaks volumes, and the IPCC computer projections rarely pan out.

    The Landscheidt Grand Solar Minimum is well underway. There will be severe crop failures and fuel shortages. We are in for increasingly brutal cold winters for decades to come. Reducing our carbon footprints will be futile. It is planetary mechanics that drives our weather and climate; CO2 drives nothing.

  71. Regarding snow storms and their natural pending increase resulting from global warming, the real issue is why it has been snowing in areas that have not seen snow for decades.
    In a warming world you cannot expect future snow storms in areas that haven’t seen snow for years – like Britain.
    In Atlantic Canada where terrible snow storms are common, this is just weather and not climate change.
    But explain to me how greater moisture in the air leads to snow storms in climates where the temperature has not been falling below freezing during the winter months?

  72. FrankK- I can’t comprehend how formerly respected institutions like BOM and CSIRO have transmuted from impartial collators and transmitters of information to advocates and propagandists. The BOM satellite maps of clouds and storms are better than ever, but why do we have to pay for spin, one way or the other?

    (BOM = Bureau of Meteorology, until lately an authoritative source of climate and weather information in Australia; CSIRO – Commonwealth Industrial and Research Organisation, see previous).

  73. ShrNfr says:
    December 29, 2010 at 6:02 am
    We push the button on our Time wayback machine and return to June 24, 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
    =============================================================

    Everyone should read this. The plot is familiar-“bizarre and unpredicatable weather pattern;” “record rains in Pakistan …caused some of the worst flooding in centuries;” “man too may be somewhat responsible;” ” …its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic.” Could have been writen yesterday, except that they are talking about the earth getting colder, not warmer.

    Apparently climatology has a long history of using the MSM to pronounce the coming catastrophe. And since catastrophe “sells newpapers” the MSM is happy to go along.

  74. For those that are upset about the injection of some politics into the post here is a little bit of information for you: the issue is political. Climate science is political. You need to be able to separate the partisanship from the scholarship, both in the media, and with climate scientists who have formed a “green journalism” nexus.

    The part of the post that is political in nature is 5%, the rest is science or commentary on the journalism. The politics is the context — and if you are dismissing the messenger because I am pointing out the obvious — then it clearly isn’t obvious to you. If you want 100% politics and no science, well Time magazine is for you.

  75. Ryan Maue says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    … the issue is political. Climate science is political.
    =============================================================
    I don’t think that the science of Climatology has to be political. But the issue of AGW certainly is political. For better-or-worse, most liberal Democrat politicians are currently AGW believers. But this has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican.

    When I was boy in the 1940’s and Israel was a new country, in the U.S. , unquestioning support of Israel was a litmus test for liberal Democrats. Now unquestioning support of Israel is a litmus test for conservative Republicans.

    It is those who say “I’m a liberal Democrat, therefore I believe in AGW” or “I’m a conservative Republican, therefore I don’t believe AGW” that should pay most attention to the issues that are so well discussed at this site. Don’t let your politics decide your science.

  76. I can’t think of any warmist prediction that has come to pass (I suspect that there must be one, but I can’t think of it save perhaps for the adulterated instrument record that I take with a pinch of salt ). Their explanations as to why matters are not panning out as predicted are becoming ever more desperate and unbelievable.
    Here in the UK we have had 3 very cold winters in a row. Last winter we were told was a 1 in 30 year event. Now we have this winter which we are being told is a 1 in 100 year event. What are the odds of having consecutively a 1 in 30 year winter followed by a 1 in 100 year winter?

    In fact, this winter (in the UK) is worse than a 1 in 100 year event since it appears that it may well be the coldest for 300 years. See the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342515/UK-snow-big-freeze-weather-means-winter-set-coldest-300-YEARS.html

    Last winter’s experience ought to have persuaded even the most die hard politician that wind energy has no place in the UK energy stratergy but unfortunately, there seems none dumber than a politician so we we are increasing our investment and dependence on these useless monstrosities. A couple of days ago, the Daily Mail ran a good article on this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1342032/You-dont-need-weatherman-know-way-wind-blows.html

    If in the future 30% of the UK’s electricity is generated by these wind turbines (and if there is not sufficient gas or coal powered stations to back up supply), last winter there would have been at least 3 weeks when there would have had to have been electrity rationing, ie., resultant power cuts of 8 to 10 hours a day. This year it may be an even longer period. If these winters are repeated (even if only once in 30 years) there will be hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the cold and lack of electricty/heating. It seems that the UK government has not thought of this unless there is some hidden agenda to deal with an ever aging population, ie., to permit for a natural cull of the oldest and most vulnerable thereby saving the tax payer money in having to look after the old in their old age. I hope that there is not such a hidden agenda.

    Winter has, of course, only just started. It certainly will be bleak if these cold temperatures go on until March.

    Some posters have commented on the depth of snow and albedo. The depth is not important, it is the area that is important (ie., the extent of cover) and in particular the retention, ie., how long the covering lasts for. The latter is important not simply because of the time that the reduced albedo remains but also as we head towards Spring (and into Summer), the days are loner and the the incident of sunlight is greater such that snow cover plays an ever increasing role.

  77. At one time, long ago, reporters tried to tell both sides of the story and stick to the facts, but today, many are proud to be an advocate for their cause. In reality, once they do that, they are no longer reporters, but have become speakers of propaganda and deceivers.

    News Credibility = ZERO!

  78. gerard – you mentioned farming in Australia.
    My family have had long experience of farming in this country.

    When it’s fine, it’s hot and when it’s hot it is very, very dry, not to mention bush fires and plagues of grasshoppers.
    When it’s wet, it’s cold and we have massive destructive floods.

    Farming is not fun.
    Most farmers eventually go broke if they keep at it long enough.
    Or if not broke, then they themselves are broken by continued disapointments.

    However, as a nation, looking at it from the macro scale.
    Farming in Australia is fruitful and bountiful.

    We must all read Dorethea MacKeller again.

  79. The linkage between (A)GW and consequent blizzards should have been obvious from the outset. After all, if someone is presenting you with a hockey stick, can ice be far away?

  80. Bruce Cobb – I may have not made myself quite clear.
    I do not agree with the same Mr. Hunt.
    But he at least made a sensible statement.

    It is plausable that,
    IF – CO2 causes warming on a net basis after feedbacks (let’s say for the sake of arguement),
    AND oscillations such as PDO and AMO etc go up and down but are directionless,
    AND you ignore all the other possible influences on the global temperature indexes,
    THEN you could get a cold spell temporarily overriding a long term secular up trend.

    BUT making a plausible statement (rather than an outrightly stupid one, as many of his friends have done) does not necessarily make his analysis correct.

    From what I know of science and the climate, my assessment is that he is wrong.
    I think that it more likely that when it is hot, it is hot, and when it is cold, then it’s just too darn cold.
    Which is why I keep switching the radiator on in the middle of the good old Ausie baking summer.
    (But that’s just weather, not climate and climate is not weather and xxxxxx)

  81. I think that I have just understood one of the major AGW claims, the one about this being the warmest decade of the century.

    Just define the decade as the calandar years 2001 to 2010 (assuming 2010 to be hot).
    And define the century to be this century, which is not as yet quite complete and merely covers the years from 2001 to 2010.

    Then you could claim without fear of correction, much less fear of being actually wrong; that this actually really, truely is “the warmest decade of the century”.

    Simple actually, when it is expalined properly.
    Nothing to see here, move on, move on.
    Next question.

  82. old engineer said: “Don’t let your politics decide your science.”

    Shouldn’t you say ‘don’t let your religion decide your science’?

    I think this is more about faith than it is about politics.

  83. Pamela Gray says:
    I’m babysitting the cutest little old man pug. Something I hadn’t realized but, small dogs have become the fashion during this last half of the previous century. Drawback: Very hard to pee and poop in snow passed their cute wittle ears. As soon as I set him down, he disappeared in a fluff of white.

    Oh Pamela! It’s hard to pee when your, ur, his, um, well, “The Spigot” has shrunk up to nothing from being suddenly thrust into, as you put it “fluff of white”! It’s got very wittle do do with wittle ears at all, and a lot to do with wittle, er, “Little Naughty Bits”….

    Good thing I had a leash on him, else I wouldn’t have been able to find him again.

    That’s what my spouse always says …
    ;-)

  84. Ryan muses
    ————-
    How are autumn sea-ice or snow-cover changes supposed to affect the winter circulation three-months later when the troposphere has such a short memory?
    ————–
    Just a wild guess. Well for the sea-ice changes I would expect the memory to be in the water not the air and water has a long memory.

  85. Shona says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:25 am

    “apparently the Earth slowed 1 second per year after 1900. This has to affect climate surely? Is anyone studying this?”

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_Ice_Caps_are_Growing.pdf

    I think It’s more a case of global climate effecting the rate of rotation, maybe. I read the link above a year or two ago and it still makes sense to me now I revisit it. Well, as long as he’s talking about ice on land anyway.

  86. I can’t help but wonder if any LEGAL action can be taken – wasn’t one of the big networks sued over their false reporting of exploding gas tanks? Does a magazine that purports to report factual news have any legal obligation to NOT manufacture it?

    Would be interesting to see this BS taken to court, very publicly.

  87. Excellent article. Almost as bad as our CBC, but at least you aren’t taxed to pay for Time.

    One small note though, ‘op-ed’ is short for ‘opposite of editorial’ meaning the opinion pieces on the editorial page’s facing page.

  88. AusieDan says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:38 am
    Ryan, I heard a person described as a representative of the CSIRO on Australian ABC radio this morning, when I was only half awake.
    What he said made sense I think, although I do not agree with him for other reasons.

    He simply said that there are two forces at work, CO2 emissions causing a long term linear rise in temperature and cyclic, directionless influences such as the PDO, which override the CO2 effect in the short term but do not influence the long term direction.

    We’ll just have to wait and see who’s right – me, an ignorant member of the general public; or him – an experienced scientist who (presumably) has studied all the above and much much more, and can explain it all away.

    Neither, since you accept the “CO2 emissions causing long term linear rise”. That thesis is patchy and flawed at every step. I won’t rehearse it all, but grab onto this: it requires retroactive causality, since CO2 rise trails warming.

  89. burnside says:
    December 29, 2010 at 3:37 am

    …But I won’t send readers from other sites to posts here so long as the tone is so weighted toward ridicule. I read this site almost daily, but find it impossible to cite, much as I value the information.

    Here’s a better strategy: petition the Climatological Warmists to stop making such ridicule-able pronouncements and projections, and the problem will go away! That’ll work!

    Possibly. Ya think?

  90. RockyRoad says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:13 am
    Juraj V. says:
    December 29, 2010 at 4:26 am

    As basic physics says, when heating a pot of water, in one part it will boil and in other part it will freeze, extremes will increase but overall it will keep warming. Or something.

    Would you please provide a reliable reference for your “basic physics says, when heating a pot of water, in one part it will boil and in other part it will freeze” statement. I really need to see it to believe it.

    Rockorama, sometimes irony and sarcasm is laid on so thick that the author doesn’t feel the need to close it with the /sarc tag, assuming no one’s dim enough to take it as serious.
    Apparently not so.

  91. TomRude says:
    December 29, 2010 at 8:34 am

    If you’re going to try to impress people by dropping obscure specialist vocabulary into a post, at least spell it right. It’s “isohyets”, not “isohyetes”. (Equal rainfall lines on a map.)
    Kilimanjaro is losing snow and ice by sublimation, as a side note. Temperatures haven’t risen, but snow and frost-fall have decreased.

  92. richard verney says:
    December 29, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    If in the future 30% of the UK’s electricity is generated by these wind turbines

    I’ve seen credible analyses saying that because of siting requirements, unreliability, etc., the most any region can hope to get from renewables is about 10%, and it will be the most expensive 10% you ever imagined in your worst nightmares. Possibly equivalent to 50-100% of the rest of the system combined.

    The UK is screwing itself into the ground so fast it’s becoming a blur.

  93. Tom in frozen Florida says:
    December 29, 2010 at 7:08 am
    East coat winter storms draw their moisture from the ocean not a “warming atmosphere” due to global whatever the current term is.

    Out here on the Pacific, our coats (west coats) mostly draw moisture from the rain that falls on them.
    ;)
    (Cute typo!)

  94. aurbo says:
    December 29, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    The linkage between (A)GW and consequent blizzards should have been obvious from the outset. After all, if someone is presenting you with a hockey stick, can ice be far away?

    Once he raised his hockey stick, Mann tried to skate past the MWP defenders while pucking around with the data. He never anticipated the severe cross-check that laid him low, though!

  95. hehe, I like that TIME is no longer publishing in Canada…I wasn’t even aware of that they did, LOL.

    https://secure.customersvc.com/wes/servlet/ShowTD

    “TIME is no longer publishing a Canadian edition. If you have questions about your
    TIME Canada account status, please call
    888-394-5837.”

    Can’t imagine paying for this rotten jounalism in the first place…
    A fool and his money are soon parted, just ask Al Gore and the carbon credit markets.

  96. Al Gore
    and the church of latter day enviro mental cases
    Al will combat the weather by taxing the air we breath
    or the co2 you exhaile
    he is sooo close to being the first green billionaire

Comments are closed.