Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
[Update: New York City got more snow in October 2011 than ever before in recorded history, according to the NY Daily News (including some good photos). Special thanks to WUWT commenter NikFromNYC who posted this photo link of Snow near GISS HQ last evening.]
If the forecasts hold up, New York City, home to NASA-Goddard Institute of Space Studies, will get up to a few inches of snow, unprecedented for October.
Yes, I know “weather isn’t climate”, but every time there is a heat wave anywhere in the world, that weather event is put forth as “proof” of Global Warming, with the implication that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. So now, it is the turn for us Skeptics to show how silly such claims are. And, what is more foolish (in a healthy enjoyable way :^) than Seinfeld? We never discovered how Kramer supported himself – perhaps he was one of the climate scientists at GISS?
NOTE: The above image is a file photo from Google images. If any WUWT reader has a link to a photo of the GISS building taken during the current snowstorm, please post it and we will replace the image. It would also be nice to have a contemporary photo of the Occupy Wall Street folks coping with a little snow.
For background on the Seinfeld link, see this WUWT article:
NASA GISS, a division of Vandelay Industries?
Kev-in-Uk says:
October 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm
For those of you in the good ole US of A – please keep hold of your share of global warming (akak Snow) for as long as possible – as we really don’t fancy it over here in the UK
Thanks in anticipation!
My old Ma used to say when she was alive, “Snow in America that means we will get it in three weeks time!”
“ARMY PUT ON SNOW ALERT”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/280599/Army-put-on-snow-alert
“Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will unveil the country’s first co-ordinated Cold Weather Plan on Tuesday.”
Hot dry summers, mild wet winters.
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 29, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Nick Stokes says:
October 29, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“Odd reporting here. The headline “Inches of “Global Warming” Get Dumped on NASA-GISS HQ”. And sure enough, photo of snow, But the only actual fact is a weather forecast.”
Now you know how we feel.”
……Spot On!!!!!!!!!!
davidmhoffer: “Arguably, there was a ten year time period in the 1930′s to 40′s that was warmer”
Not in any global temperature record you could care to dig up. I think perhaps you got the United States and the entire planet confused. Funny how that mistake, which I can’t imagine anyone making in any other context, seems to crop up so often here.
James Sexton: “my arbitrary time constraint is every bit as valid as your arbitrary time constraint”
Nope. Statistics tells us that 10 years is not useful but that 30 years is useful. Nothing arbitrary about it. Like I say, this whole business of needing a certain amount of data before you can determine a trend is very, very simple, but evidently much, much too difficult for you. When did you last study any maths?
These early snow falls … in October! Crikey! But I’ve worked out why this is happening!
It’s all to do with Dr David Viner, that infamous senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia… yes, the ‘climategate university’!!!
Anyone remember this…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
In March 2000, when Viner uttered those fateful words , “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” it seems that was the day ‘Mother Nature’ decided, “Right… that’s it! I’ve had enough of this catastrophic man-made global warming crap!”
And things have never been the same again for the climate change charlatans. Mother Nature called their bluff! Ever since, everything seems to have gone wrong for them. Quite hilarious, really!
They’re expecting the total from this storm to be 5 to 8 inches which doesn’t just break it shatters into smithereens the former October snowfall record set 150 years ago.
Doesn’t matter whether the storm is early, if it dumps 10 feet of snow, snarls traffic and freezes countless numbers. Remember this sort of thing has been completely anticipated by global warming theory.
New York was right on the snow-rain line — UHI certainly pushed that line north some: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_usa.gif
Image changes each day…..
Not as bad as freezing rain. Had a heavy one of those in Oklahoma where I lived in a wooded area a few years ago and literally every 30 sec to a minute you could hear a limb crack and snap. Made quite a mess. So in this way NE types might be a bit luckier (this time).
Wow. Even my 10 year old knows that global temperature would be measured by a thermometer, not a rain or snow gauge.
This guy has a PhD? In what exactly?
And, for those with even a little bit of knowledge on the subject, higher temperatures = greater ability to hold water…which leads to more rain and snow.
Seriously, anyone know what this guy’s PhD is in? I’m guessing something like Culinary Science…
stevo;
Nope. Statistics tells us that 10 years is not useful but that 30 years is useful. Nothing arbitrary about it. Like I say, this whole business of needing a certain amount of data before you can determine a trend is very, very simple, but evidently much, much too difficult for you. When did you last study any maths?>>>
Oh is it? Then why did BEST publish ten years of data and draw conclusions from them?
But I agree. It is a complex system, and it will take decades for any change in forcing to play itself out in all the complexities imposed by feedback systems. On the other hand, if we speak only of the DIRECT effects of CO2, they happen at…the speed of light.
Where are they?
stevo says:
October 30, 2011 at 5:21 am
“Nope. Statistics tells us that 10 years is not useful but that 30 years is useful.”
Please define “useful”, and deliver a proof – this should be easy for someone like you with advanced knowledge about statistics and mathematics. Your proof should begin with “We define “useful” as…”
This American “No Child Left Behind” thing produces funny results, I must say.
unbound says:
October 30, 2011 at 8:39 am
“And, for those with even a little bit of knowledge on the subject, higher temperatures = greater ability to hold water…which leads to more rain and snow.”
This one is especially for you, unbound:
Brenda Ekwurzel, explaining the theory of turbocharged weather patterns.
stevo;
Not in any global temperature record you could care to dig up. I think perhaps you got the United States and the entire planet confused. Funny how that mistake, which I can’t imagine anyone making in any other context, seems to crop up so often here.>>>
Try NASA/GISS of HadCrut broken up by NH and SH. What you’ll find is that the NH has a very pronounced warming period in that time frame across the whole hemisphere, not just the United States, that is warmer than the rest of the record. The SH is in a cooling phase at that point, well below average, and the average of the two reduces the global number. If you fast forward to the last 20 years or so, you’ll see that there is an approximate 60 to 75 year warm/cool cycle in the NH and about a 90 to 105 year warm/cool cycle in the SH. The “warm” parts of the cycle for both coincide for the first time in a long time around 1990, giving rise to an “average” between the two that appears on the surface to support higher than normal global temperatures.
In fact, all it shows is NORMAL temperatures with the cycles between NH and SH coinciding to produce a misleading average between the two. This is no different than screaming that the ice is melting in the arctic as prood of global warming while ignoring the fact that ice is increasing even faster in the SH. The two hemispheres are very different, one being mostly land with an ocean cap and the other being mostly water with a land cap. It stands to reason that natural cycles will have different wave lengths, and a quick glance at the data shows they do. Drawing conclusions about what is happening when the cycles are in opposition to each other has no more value than drawing conclusions about what is happening when the cycles are complimenting each other. Everything needs to be in context.
Throw a ball into the air and you can say two things about it at the peak of its trajectory. First, you can say that it is higher than it ever has been before. Second, you could also say that it has a vertical velocity of zero. If we convert this to climate speak, it is the highest on record, but the increase in altitude has taken a hiatus. A few moments after the peak we could even say that the last few data points show a slight decrease, but there aren’t enough of them to say for certain that a falling trend has taken over, we need more data, all the models show its just a hiatus in the ball’s upward trend demonstrated very clearly by all the data points so far.
Nice, but the ball is going to fall, acclerating as it goes, and that’s just the way it is. The climate scientists gabbing on about the hottest decade on record remind me of Daffy Duck in that Bugs Bunny cartoon where Daffy walks off the edge of a cliff, looks down, and says in slight panic “gravity works”.
Jay Curtis says:
October 30, 2011 at 7:01 am
Doesn’t matter whether the storm is early, if it dumps 10 feet of snow, snarls traffic and freezes countless numbers. Remember this sort of thing has been completely anticipated by global warming theory.
Only after it had been adjusted to take account of increasing snowfall!
Of course, weather is not climate … unless, perhaps, it supports an inconvenient ‘Truth.’
Dear Americans.
Why on earth do you still have power delivered via cables over ground ?Thats just asking for trouble.
Why arn’t they underground like the u.k.
James ibbotson says:
October 30, 2011 at 10:51 am
Dear Americans.
Why on earth do you still have power delivered via cables over ground ?Thats just asking for trouble.
Why arn’t they underground like the u.k.
Peer review: Sorry James you are telling porkies. If you say things like this some people will believe you!
Regards Kelvin
Guess you got some snow over there:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Pic from http://www.arctic.io/observations/32/2011-10-30/7-N41.539468-W74.728396/Vereinigte-Staaten-Forestburgh
stevo says in response to David Hoffer’s statement about warming in the 1930’s:
“Not in any global temperature record you could care to dig up. I think perhaps you got the United States and the entire planet confused. Funny how that mistake, which I can’t imagine anyone making in any other context, seems to crop up so often here.”
stevo is wrong as
usualalways:http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1908%20DetrendedForLinearFit1908-2008%20C4Y.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1908%20DetrendedForLinearFit1908-2008%2061monthRunningAverage%20C4Y.gif
Is there a place for a term – warmmonger?
Also, we might want to modify Occupy Wall Street to Communists Occupy Wall Street, or COWS.
Alternatively, the group could be Sad Hopeless Economics Enervating People or SHEEP.
Nah. Why bother? “Idiots” does just as well. Perhaps, “Ignorant Democrats Insist On Trashing Success”. These are the same people who support CAGW. It’s not science. It’s about taking control.
Just to be “fair”, forget RINO when there could be RUMP – Republicans Utterly Mismanaging Politics (or Policy).
Now, back to trying to get this dang program to compile….
Well I woke up dis mo’nin
Can’t believe my eyes
Ground was white with Global Warmin
Birdbath covered in ice
We need more CO2s
I’ve got the global warming blues
stevo says:
October 30, 2011 at 5:21 am
“Nope. Statistics tells us that 10 years is not useful but that 30 years is useful.”
———————————————–
Ten years is long enough to refute a number of claims with statistically significantly (divergence ground based and tropospheric data, divergence measured and modelled temperatures),
but 30 yerars is fraudulent, when it goes along and matches exactly one of the major natural half cycles.
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 29, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Sh sh sh sh sh shadenfraud…..
————-
Don’t you mean “Sh sh sh sh sh schadenfroid”?
He unbound.
To freeze water, the air must lose about 100 times the heat that it takes to go from one degree to the next. That means it must be COLD for it to snow.
For all that snow to form, cold air has to fed into the storm. That cold air has to come from somewhere.