As the snow piles up over the Northeast, it is clear that global warming or climate change has caused this storm. Please take the opportunity to write up a prospective/perspective article as comments and I will combine them into the most coherent narrative for the folks at the New York Times or Washington Post to use in their newspapers. Note, you may use anonymous sources or experts in the field to come up with testimony. You may/should probably include anecdotes from storm-weary travelers who have never experienced anything like this before. Also, bonus points will be awarded to those that incorporate climate model predictions, which are almost always spot on when it comes to “forecasting” these “extreme events”. We will compare our efforts to what the elites ensconced in Washington, New York City, Boston, and London come up with.
Note to the blog police: this exercise is meant to be illustrative of the contortions that the media on both sides of the Atlantic have undergone to rationalize “winter weather”.
So far, Wade has set the standard for best journalism.
Update December 29, 2010: Time Magazine does not disappoint: blizzard is a sign of global warming!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The squirrel did it.
Here’s my stab at it: 🙂
“Enjoy it while it lasts, kids!” This was the advice of George Smith to his two children yesterday as he shoveled snow from his driveway. His kids were building a snowman in front of a house decorated with tinsel and silver snowflakes. By the time these children are adults, those painted, cardboard snowflakes will be the only snow that George’s grandchildren will know.
Professor Dennis Harmon expains: “It’s the sun,” he says. Sitting behind a desk piled high with journals, computer printouts, and Sudoku magazines in his basement office at the university of West Fisherman in Altoga, Texas, he pulls out a chart. It is impressive, packed with charts, tables, and diagrams.
“The sun is in a deep funk right now, and that is allowing cosmic rays to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere.” he said. “These rays traps heat below the surface of the earth, and in the deepest parts of the ocean, places where we can’t feel it or measure it.” Scientists have known for a long time that the solar wind protects us from cosmic rays, but during extended solar minima like we’re experiencing now, that protection is reduced. “Cosmic rays act as a catalyst, effectively ‘hiding heat’ in otherwise cold elements. You take it’s temperature and it appears to be cold, but science now knows that in fact it is quite warm. This is all very fascinating stuff.” said the multidisciplinary professor, recipient of numerous industry awards and winnner of Nobel Prizes in Experimental Dendrochronology and Forensic Theology.
“My work began with tree rings,” he says. “The models we created based on our ideas about dendrochronology were in turn confirmed by the tree-rings we used to create the models. You can’t argue with science.”
George Smith would agree. “The only thing that bothers me,” he said, putting his snow shovel away, “is that this little cool spell will give the doubters one more thing to crow about. They acted like the heat wave we got last July was nothing special, even though it made headlines around the world. But they’ll probably point at this like it was evidence of something. This? It’s just weather.”
For as long as those warming types point at the “unusual” things keeping temperatures down while the underlying trend is up and the skeptics keep on pointing out that things are cold, really really cold, I will assume nothing out of the ordinary is going on with the climate. AGW types need to understand that you can’t claim to be continually right “but”. That’s just ridiculous.
Yes the climate is changing but in the same way it always has.
This faith based nonsense has just gone too far now. Don’t keep on lying about CO2 and the stupid hippie dream. We here in Zimbabwe have just had nearly a week of butterfly migration from East to West over a wide swath of the country. It is a phenomenon that only a few old timers can remember happening before but nobody is yet blaming global warming although I am sure that the MSM will when it finds out.
Saying ‘i don’t know” is not an admission of failure. “Believing ” is because faith stops inquiry and leads to the sacrifice of virgins ( and we have far too few of those to waste in this way these days ). The climate is important and an interesting topic for research but assuming that because nothing else fits the frame of culprit as good as CO2 then CO2 must be it.
That’s lazy and impatient at the same time.
“A” Train Riders Stranded in Seven-Hour Ordeal
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/A-Train-Riders-Stranded-in-Seven-Hour-Ordeal–112498574.html
In an amazing story out of NYC we read about the horror of 400 or so people who nearly froze to death when the temperatures when up so high that the subway train engines could not work. MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said, “unfortunately, we could not use the computer model by NASA that predicted this even because it will be unavailable until early next week.” Anonymous NASA spokes man James Hansen told this reporter that Anthropomorphic Heat Related Engine Failure (AHREF) was a well known principle in the climatology community and he was surprised that the NYC subway authorities needed to actually see the prediction in advance of the event; especially since official NASA predictions are normally made after an event.
Breaking News.
Hell freezes over.
Scientist soothsayers from the Climate Research Unit [CRU] of the University of Fallen Angels report that millennia of CO2 emissions from the flaming tar pits of Hell have lead to DHW – Demonogenic Hellish Warming so strong that it has impacted the Clouds of Heaven paradoxically leading to increased snowfall. Satan is currently unavailable for comment as He is stuck in the ice and snow in the Ninth Circle of Hell along with many other demons who had planned a busy travel schedule this time of year.
Judah Cohen’s op-ed piece is complete garbage (I know the link appears several times in these comments, but here it is again).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
It is the best example I think I have ever read, illustrating how any weather phenomena can be linked to global warming, no matter how flawed the logic is. First Dr. Cohen states (emphasis added):
“And though it is well documented that THE EARTH’S FROZEN AREAS ARE IN RETREAT, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice DOES NOT EXPLAIN why the world’s major cities are having colder winters.” Then in the very next paragraph, he contradicts himself:
“But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover HAS CONTINUED TO INCREASE even as other frozen areas are shrinking.”
So, Arctic sea ice is shrinking (since 1979), but NH snow cover extent is increasing and Antarctic sea ice is increasing…that doesn’t sound like earth’s frozen areas are in retreat. But we can’t say that 1/3 frozen areas on Earth are shrinking, can we!?
Then, Dr. Cohen amazingly makes the link between changes in Arctic sea ice and the cold we are experiencing now, after saying it “DOES NOT EXPLAIN” it! Apparently the lack of sea ice in the Fall leads to more snowfall in Siberia, and this influences the jet stream making it less zonal and more meridional. Wow, every winter I have experienced in my 31 years have had periods of one type of flow or the other! I guess before I was born, according to Dr. Cohen, winters were much less cold and snowy, since there were no deep mid/upper level troughs to bring down cold arctic air!
And now that we’re talking about less Arctic sea ice causing more snow in Siberia, let us analyze and compare both the sea ice extent and snow cover from Sept./Oct./Nov. of 2009 and 2010. Well, it appears that there was MUCH less ice in the Barents and Kara Seas during the fall of 2009, than in 2010. According to Dr. Cohen, that means there should have been more snow in Siberia. However, is that the case? Look at some NOAA National Ice Center Interactive Snow Map (IMS) images. Oct 15 2009 vs. Oct 15 2010.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/NHem/2009/ims2009288.gif
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/NHem/2010/ims2010288.gif
Of course these are just snap shots, but you see the trend. Less ice in the Kara and Barents Seas in 2009, less snow, not more. Pick any other date, especially later in the Fall. You sea comparable ice extent, but the snow cover is much different. Where’s the correlation?
Okay, let’s look at 2007 also. We had record sea ice minimums:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007.html#17October
How’s the Fall snow cover doing in Siberia?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2007&ui_month=10&ui_set=2
Huh, the anomalies suggest that there is below average snow in Asia/Siberia. Anthony, what’s up with that!?
Dr. Cohen also states:
“however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, WHICH HAVE BEEN WARMING even as winters have grown chillier.”
REALLY? Warmer? http://www.jisao.washington.edu/datasets/global_sstanomts/
All of this data was found spending about 20 minutes researching. Obviously much more analysis would need to be done, over much longer time periods. But at least I am not just typing opinion without any references or facts to support my claims. To the average greenie, these articles must sound so convincing. Unfortunately none of them are intelligent enough to think for themselves and look at the data. The warmists continue to have it both ways – and somehow all WEATHER, stormy, calm, flood, drought, hurricanes, snow storms, heat waves, cold spells, are all due to CLIMATE CHANGE. The weather/climate distinction has completely evaporated.
CAGW is the theory of everything.
Animal behaviour, plant growth, weather, you name it.
That Noble Prize was well deserved.
It wasn’t for Physics? You’re kidding me!
How could it not have been?
It’s brilliant in all its simplicity!
As noted above, the New York Times already had an op-ed on Christmas Day, by Judah Cohen, explaining how the cold in Northern Hemisphere is being caused by global warming.
But what did the AR4 predict would be the consequences of global warming for the areas now beset by serial harsh winters?
North America: “For most combinations of model, scenario, season and region, warming in the 2010 to 2039 time slice will be in the range of 1 to 3ºC…The projected warming is greatest in winter at high latitudes and greatest in the summer in the south-west U.S. Warm extremes across North America are projected to become both more frequent and longer (Christensen et al., 2007: Section 11.5.3.3). ” (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-3.html#14-3-1)
Europe: “The warming is greatest over eastern Europe in winter (December to February: DJF) and over western and southern Europe in summer (June to August: JJA) (Giorgi et al., 2004). Results using two regional climate models under the PRUDENCE project (Christensen and Christensen, 2007) showed a larger warming in winter than in summer in northern Europe and the reverse in southern and central Europe.” (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-3.html#12-3-1)
So far so good?
Is Jim Cole (at 8:32 pm above) a successful novelist or comedy writer? If not, some literary agent needs to snap him up fast!
Leif Svalgaard says: December 27, 2010 at 5:09 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 26, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Current EUV figures are not far above the minimum figures that were recorded 2 years ago at cycle min and they are still dropping since February this year.
The height of the Thermosphere is at the lowest measured which supports the instrumental data. There is no doubting that EUV levels are very low right now.
The height of the thermosphere is the combined effect of EUV and geomagnetic activity and the latter was low. EUV levels ‘right now’ are on par with what they were in 2007 and larger than at the previous minimum. The error in EUV level is between 6 and 20%.
Leif are you contradicting Geoff’s comment, saying we can’t tell because of error magnitude, or what? I find your message often inscrutable, in what you assert as fact. This AGU paper from Aug/2010 seems to support his position.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-28.shtml
Joe Bftzlk says:
December 27, 2010 at 6:28 am
“I don’t understand the sneering at the agw crew because the local weather is cold. Isn’t everyone agreed that the planet as a whole was warmer in 2010 than it has been since whenever?”
No. That’s a conjecture spread by GISS and the WMO, two very partial players.
Joe Bftzlk says:
December 27, 2010 at 6:28 am
I don’t understand the sneering at the agw crew because the local weather is cold. Isn’t everyone agreed that the planet as a whole was warmer in 2010 than it has been since whenever?
There may be other reasons for sneering at them, but a blizzard in the Northeast US isn’t one of them.
Yes, it was warmer in 2010 than whenever, we’re all agreed on that. It was also cooler than another time whenever. And indeed for the last 10 or 11 years there has been no warming (inexplicable by the AGW hypothesis, which is a travesty).
But the reason we are – to use your word – “sneering” at the alarmist crowd – is because said crowd is now claiming that heavy snow blizzards and 3 cold winters in a row are supportive of the AGW hypothesis, when only a few years earlier the very same people were saying that the mild winters were evidence of their hypothesis. It is pretty obvious now that whatever the state of winters to come, anywhere in the world – mild or cold – they will claim it as evidence of their hypothesis. And this just seems like insanity to the rest of us.
Now do you get it, or should I draw you a picture?
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 27, 2010 at 4:02 am
“My goodness, Pamela. I wrote my little snippet out of complete sarcasm and yet it is almost word for word in that article you link to.”
That means you are a natural born science reporter. Go for it!
“Also, bonus points will be awarded to those that incorporate climate model predictions, which are almost always spot on when it comes to “forecasting” these “extreme events”. ”
Forecasting??? Not!!
They are good at hindcasting though.
Steve Keohane says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:04 am
Leif are you contradicting Geoff’s comment, saying we can’t tell because of error magnitude, or what? I find your message often inscrutable, in what you assert as fact. This AGU paper from Aug/2010 seems to support his position.
The comment was that EUV is ‘right now’ MUCH lower. It was a bit [15%] lower back in 2008. It is difficult to be sure of the accuracy of the EUV measurements. The observers themselves quote an uncertainty of 6-20%. The density of the thermosphere was lower [no doubt] but is influenced by other factors too, such as geomagnetic activity [which was low too, but caused by EUV] and even by the CO2 concentration. My objection was really that a blanket statements that “EUV is right now much lower” is simplistic and not even correct. In addition, the thermosphere is way up there and has hardly any effect on weather or climate. Things have to be viewed with the right perspective.
Judah Cohen’s discussion gives up the ghost. The micro-climate phenomena are the drives of the macro-climate statistics. Consider it as a baseball game. In each game, a player starts with a blank sheet of statistics. Now, you can look at the player’s previous game statistics, and try to deduce a trend for how this player is hitting. What’s that? He has hit only 13% of the time in April? Well, this player is going to be awful today! Of course, you could be completely wrong, and this player could hit 3 home runs this day. It’s just a fluke you say, and you would initially be right, but in the month of May, this player hits .500. All of a sudden, it’s time to say he is shaping up to have a really great June. Of course, there is an opposite way to look at it, which has helped me in choosing players for my fantasy baseball team (yes, I play it). Usually a guy who has a bad month follows it up with a month that returns him, more or less, to his long term normal for batting average. Same goes for WHIP. Earth has an equilibrium, and it is only out of phase with the equilibrium because water changes states based on incoming energy. Expanding areas where water is solidified is not an indication of warming, just as a bad April is not a predictor of a bad May. It is an indication that some people, in their mission to explain the depth of the seas to the cores of the stars, have been overlooking some of the more detailed nuances of the Earth.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:39 am
Things have to be viewed with the right perspective.
The total energy we receive from the EUV in the 26-34 nm band quoted is 0.0001 Watt/square meter.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:49 am
The total energy we receive from the EUV in the 26-34 nm band quoted is 0.0001 Watt/square meter.
It is hard to get numbers correct when there are so many zeroes. Should have been 0.001 Watt/square meter [almost all of it from the bright HeII line at 30.4 nm]. The band comprises about a quarter of the total EUV flux. You can compare this to the ~million times larger TSI, which is what our climate feeds off.
Leif Svalgaard says: December 27, 2010 at 8:39 am
Steve Keohane says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:04 am
Leif are you contradicting Geoff’s comment, saying we can’t tell because of error magnitude, or what? I find your message often inscrutable, in what you assert as fact. This AGU paper from Aug/2010 seems to support his position.
The comment was that EUV is ‘right now’ MUCH lower. It was a bit [15%] lower back in 2008. It is difficult to be sure of the accuracy of the EUV measurements. The observers themselves quote an uncertainty of 6-20%. The density of the thermosphere was lower [no doubt] but is influenced by other factors too, such as geomagnetic activity [which was low too, but caused by EUV] and even by the CO2 concentration. My objection was really that a blanket statements that “EUV is right now much lower” is simplistic and not even correct. In addition, the thermosphere is way up there and has hardly any effect on weather or climate. Things have to be viewed with the right perspective.
Thank you for your reply Leif. Granted, the thermosphere is way up there and engages little, if at all, in weather and climate. But, considering the thermosphere is the first interaction between the earth and the sole incoming energy source, to say it has ‘hardly any effect on weather or climate’, requires some substantiation.
As an average person, I find it hard to reconcile my stupidity increasing as an integral of CO2. Does this indicate that lowering CO2 will make me smarter, or that it will allow a smaller group of us to battle a half-wit? I think I have even read that the stupidity of an average person doesn’t even correlate with CO2 at all, but with rising postal rates. As AGW seems to be the answer to many conundrums, perhaps it can even be shown to be the cause of falling intelligence in our schools. Maybe the governments plan to raise the cost of soda pop can have a positive effect, by reducing the individuals direct exposure to CO2. 🙂
Its called a La Nina. Its happen before and it will happen again.
Please instruct the FCC to cut the NYT Internet service until they hire a qualified Science journalist. We don’t need any more unsubstantiated Science fantasy in the news or in our classrooms.
[ryanm: Please, no more sanity can be injected into the scientific discourse. La Nina has not yet been discovered by the hyper-alarmists. When it can be linked to a warming of the Pacific, then it shall be incorporated into the narrative. Until then, the hyper-alarmist-zealots (labels, labels) will wait for the next El Nino.]
@ur momisugly Joe Prins and Joanna: Two gems in a row. I especially liked Joanna’s inclusion of the appeal to the wisdom of little children. And Prins’s take on the cluelessness of journalists: ‘Reports from the University of Anglia in Scotland’….Priceless!
“I am the Great and Powerful OZZZZZZ!!! Pay NO ATTENTION to that light fluffy stuff outside your window!”
Steve Keohane says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:58 am
to say it has ‘hardly any effect on weather or climate’, requires some substantiation.
I think it should be the other way around. People who claim that 1/1000,000 of TSI has any effect should substantiate that. You often hear the skeptics ‘argument’ “how can a trace gas making up only 350 parts per million have any effect?”, yet they happily ascribe significant effect to a 1 part per million of TSI.
I read the Judah Cohen article, I see a self regulating pattern: the weather she gets warmer, the weather she gets cooler. Wonder if Judah really meant to tell us that.
This just in:
The Eastern seaboard found itself buried under the holy fire rained down by DPRK and Iran known as global warming. The global warming, or ‘holy fire’, was smuggled across the Eastern US border today disguised as snow, which caught most weather aficionados off guard. Unfortunately, capitalist imperialist pig dog greed has snarled air traffic from London to Boston, and the promised holy fire of global warming is now in the United States, showing clearly what a hot and bleak future of holy fire the world will now endure. Clearly, it is time to submit and find other ways to maintain our society and leave the making of global warming to the tolerant peoples of Iran and North Korea, who know how to use holy fire.