![Snow-Israel-Massive-Storm-Jerusalem-2-DM[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/snow-israel-massive-storm-jerusalem-2-dm1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Remember all the recent press about the mild winter, how the bears were waking up early, flowers blooming in December, all a sign of the coming global warming apocalypse?
Now that winter has turned cold and snowy, this is also being seen in some quarters, as irrefutable proof of our unnatural tampering with the balance of nature.
Sorry! Winter Storm Jonas doesn’t make climate change a liberal hoax
Good news, folks! It turns out that climate change is a big ol’ liberal hoax after all. Need proof? Just look out your window: If you’re anywhere east of Tupelo, you’re probably seeing a bunch of white stuff falling from the sky, compliments of Winter Storm Jonas. We call that “snow,” and it proves once and for all that “global warming” is a conspiracy dreamed up by known communist Al Gore to bring down the world economy. Guess we can just pack up our desks and go home.
…
But what is the connection between climate change and snow storms? First, it’s important to remember that weather and climate are two different things: Weather is the rain falling on your head as you walk to work; climate is the very long-term forecast. NASA puts it this way: “An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.”
And, according to actual scientists and not conspiracy-addled politicians, climate change could actually make snow storms worse. ThinkProgress spoke to Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist, about Winter Storm Jonas, which is currently blanketing the eastern seaboard in feet of snow. He said this is not a fluke. “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easter,” according to Mann. This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now.
…
Read more: http://grist.org/article/sorry-winter-storm-jonas-doesnt-make-climate-change-a-liberal-hoax/
When you have a theory which covers anything from 1.5c to 4.5c (or more!) temperature rise per doubling of CO2, and when you can claim with a straight face, that the utter failure of your theory, on terms which you yourself defined, doesn’t invalidate it, when you have to massively adjust the data to get the result you want, your faith in the climate religion is not going to be troubled by the odd flurry of snow.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry without Question
Interesting Info. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
The true horror of it all is quite impossible to describe with words. If January for the eastern US was balmy, with little snow, that would also be evidence for AGW. There is indeed no evidence, no scientific reasoning, measurement or argument that can even make a small dent in the ironclad global warming/climate change “it’s-just-a-fact” belief.
The facts are simply the last thing that will matter.
It’s state controlled Lysenko climate/weather.
IPCC Working Group II in 2001 on North American impacts
Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. The ice storm of January 1998 (see Section 15.3.2.6) left 45 people dead and nearly 5 million people without heat or electricity in Ontario, Quebec, and New York (CDC, 1998; Francis and Hengeveld, 1998; Kerry et al., 1999).
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=569#1524122
Never forget, guys, this science is settled.
compare the cost of a snowstorm with the cost of a heat wave. which has the most consequences?
I’m hesitant to jump in with a comment, but Joelobryan posted a comment that included this link: “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative GHE in Antarctica.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
In this article the authors claim that their TOA data is from the TES instrument on the AURA satellite. What caught my eye were the Figure 2 graphs. In both graphs the amount of energy emitted by CO2 at TOA was the same for the standard atmosphere and over Antarctica. On the standard graph the CO2 emissions at 15 microns is shown as a depression in outgoing LWIR profile. Since the surface of Antarctica is so cold -60ºC, the amount of outgoing radiation from the surface is greatly reduced at all wavelengths except for 15 microns, where CO2 emits energy and it appears as a peak. But the energy emitted is the same.
A post from 2011 at http://cosmoscon.com/2011/12/27/a-graph-on-co2-absorption/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-3, “A Graph of CO2 Emissions,” very clearly explains that at the current levels of CO2 all the LW radiation at 15 microns is being 100% absorbed. Any increase in CO2 will have little or no effect. Their graph is self explanatory showing the LW radiation distribution from earth. In the last paragraph of their article they state:
“If the Earth were to get warmer then the upgoing radiation distribution would shift to the LEFT (per Wein’s displacement law). That would mean the intensity of the upgoing radiation wavelengths that CO2 thoroughly absorbs would be LESS so the greenhouse warming contribution of CO2 for a warmer Earth would be less than a cooler Earth. Conversely if the Earth were to get cooler (i.e. a little ice age) then CO2 would be a stabilizing factor since the upgoing radiation curve would shift RIGHT and there would be more photons for this molecule to absorb and help bring Earth back into a warmer climate.”
CO2’s contributing factor to the greenhouse effect is saturated and even if the Earth warms, CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect will only diminish.”
I think the first article about Antarctica clearly supports the conclusions in the second article. Hopefully, I’ve not misinterpreted things.
Dr. Mann needs to brush up on his weather. The blizzard of 2016 was not a nor’easter. A nor’easter is a colloquial name for a tropical cyclone or near hurricane starting down south and heading up the coast. It dumps snow on land against a cold high pressure area to the west. If he doesn’t know the weather he can’t study climate.
The latest blizzard blew in over California courtesy of El ‘Nino winds, traveled across the southwest, pulled more moisture in from the Gulf and turned northeast, dumping snow as it went. Then it drifted off into the Atlantic to harass shipping.
Totally different types of storms and definitely different weather! The blizzard of 1978 was definitely a nor’easter with winds to match, peaking at over 110mph.
If Dr. Mann bothered to watch Joe Bastardi’s Saturday weekly summary, he would know this. Bastardi called this months ago, and tweaked it in late November.
IIRC, the NWS doesn’t define nor’easter. (They do define bombogenesis, a feature of many nor’easters. Sigh.)
From all the reading and writing I’ve done, I’ve never seen a nor’easter include a tropical cyclone. If it has an eye, its described as a tropical system. Of course, most tropical cyclones have turned extratropical by the time the reach New England, but even those are generally acknowledged as tropical systems.
Nor’easters don’t have to generate snow! (Tropical systems rarely generate snow – yes, Sandy is a major exception!) They generally are referred to by their marine impacts on shipping over the last couple hundred years. These days nor’easters are generally storms that form along the southeast seaboard, often triggered by another storm coming in, and develop quickly as they come up the coast to New England.
Blizzard of 66-67 (can’t remember the month) 30+ inches snow shut down Chicago. Poor weather forecasting back then. Almost could not get home from high school that afternoon. Took my uncle 2 days to get home out to a suburb.
Blizzards are a fact of life in the northern hemisphere.
A couple above have picked up on Asia’s cold snap. This one is pretty historic, not just another snowstorm. Some all time records are dropping, and many “coldest in 50 years” kind of records.
Man,s Fault look at the graffiti ! ! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3414438/Tragic-pictures-three-dead-sperm-whales-washed-UK-beach-hours-caught-low-tide-died.html
“Researchers at the University of St Andrews have previously said that the noise made by offshore wind farms can interfere with a whale’s sonar, and can in tragic cases see them driven onto beaches where they often die. “
Maybe that should be ” Mann’s ” fault ?
Weather manifests the path fro one equilibrium state to another while climate quantifies what the equilibrium states were, are now and will be in the future.
Flux is additive and will increase temperature at the surface. Consider a one-way mirror surrounding the earth such that solar radiation can get in but not out. The surface will warm.
Janice wrote “FYI: the non-falsifiable conjecture that you have presented so far is NOT even a scientifically valid, falsifiable, “hypothesis” as so many gratuitously describe your feeble flaylings. That is, the phrase “AGW hypothesis” is nonsense.”
This unfalsifiability is, for my money, the most bizarre feature of alarmism as espoused by supposed physical scientists. Looking back a way we find ‘gobal warming’ hypotheses about the effects of anthro co2 encoded into models which made predictions about climatic evolution. All fine enough and we watched with due fascination as those predictions were shown to be resoundingly wrong. In the full knowledge that the scam was finished if they continued to make falsifable predictions they executed the quite staggeringly fraudulent branding switch to ‘climate change’. Now that of course simply claims that any change whatsoever is caused by anthro co2 and each and every weather event is attributable to co2. That is a claim at a monstrously and eternally unfalsifiable level which makes poor Russell’s teapot look like something you could get reasonable odds on from a reputable bookmaker.
Whenever I raise this most fundamental of scientific issues with any scientist in my acquaintance who belongs to the church of carbon dioxide they generally just go all coy on me and want to talk about polar bears or something. The most honest response I ever get is “well we know it isn’t perfect but it’s the best that the best of science can currently do and we’re therefore obliged to go with it”. When I respond that if the best we currently had was astrology would you go with that also, once again I get the ‘oh look, is that a mighty ice cliff tumbling into the ocean?’ treatment. It isn’t science any more than a claim that Shangri-La lies just outside of our light cone is science because it cannot ever even in principle be falsified.
The real headline might read If it is Hot, It needs a Carbon Tax and If it is Cold, It needs a Carbon Tax. It is revenue greed that drives the mania and it is more powerful than any short term storm event.
When trying to sell AGW to the public, the warmers have to deal in perceptions. If a weather event is perceived to be bad by the public, then it’s due to GW, and if the weather is perceived to be good, it’s not even talked about.
Some people find comfort and assurance in having an instant explanation for anything. Today, global warming provides this certainty, and deceitfully addresses the uncertainties by claiming no harm done if it’s wrong.
Well since “climate change” seems to cover everything in the way of weather or climate that looks bad and it is then all blamed on human fossil fuel emissions, we might as well start calling it Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Accounting or CACA for short, instead of CAGW.
“CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times”
I would place my bet on it being Aerosols. We have witnessed with a great deal of certainty how one volcanic eruption can notably reduce the readings. Back to work guys
Cold and snowy? In Rockford it is going to be a high of 38 F today. It is not usually that warm here in the middle of winter. Forecast is for at least 10 more days of unseasonable warmth.
Climate change is taking place according to the laws that affect the mutual relations of the planets and the sun. It’s very complicated to explain and can not be proven to those who do not know how the planets to each other, “communicate” with each other and with the sun, forming the various cycles of change and the sun and the planets. These changes have cycles of various duration and intensity of activity. Basic indicators of these changes are the sunspot cycle of about 11.2 years, which is multiplied by the time and intensity, depending on the relationship of the planet.
It is very interesting that science is so incompetent that this phenomenon can not be connected with logical cause. Even worse fact, it is today impossible to prove anything if that evidence, the author himself does not pay. But so ignorant in this area manipulate billions of dollars, and since then no one benefits except themselves, which are as much as 97% of scientists “rolled up” with politics or some other magical means to destroy truth and logic.
Michael Mann a “preeminent climatologist? ROTLFLMAO . Grist isn’t fit to be digital bird-cage liner.
Lordy. I woke up with lint in my belly button. Anthropogenic climate change MUST BE THE CAUSE! Ignore the flannel sheets behind the current.
You are one lucky girl, flannel sheets no less! (btw I need a mirror to find my belly button and by god IT has lint in it!)
Atmospheric Physicist,
Very convincing. Even though skeptics of a conjecture have nothing to prove, your comments and plenty of others have demolished what I call the “dangerous AGW” conjecture (DAGW).
It amazes me that this issue has become an ‘us versus them’ battle — which tells us that it’s not science, it’s politics. In science, ideas are proposed and disposed of. Only those ideas that remain standing after the smoke clears are considered to be the curent state of science.
Nothing credible remains of the DAGW conjecture. It has been repeatedly falsified. If any non-Physicist is still worried about ‘man-made global warming’, it might be helpful to point out a fact or two.
Rather than the scary sounding “CO2 has ramped up from 280 ppm, to FOUR HUNDRED ppm!!”, they could have said “…from 280,000 ppb, to 400,000 ppb!!”
They mised their chance. Now I remind them that CO2 has risen by just one (1) part in 10,000, over a century. And human CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the annual total.
Another thing that amazes me is the fact that the alarmist crowd has started to lie outright. Before, they would leave a little wiggle room by being vague. Now they falsely assert things like, “Global warming is accelerating! Every year is the hottest EVAH!! And satellite data is wrong, surface stations are more accurate.” Appell has always been less than truthful, but now prevarication has gone mainstream.
Anyway, good comment. I’ll bet you either don’t hear from Appell, or he obfuscates, deflects, and changes the subject. He’s that kinda guy.
I would like to add that in the science is settled category about the math used to prove AGW based on retained heat w/m^2 that when they first presented it that the retained heat was 240 w/m^2. I’ve inquired often but CAGW doesn’t answer what the retained heat is now. However, it is strange that if with all the additional co2, that doing the formula with 260 w/m^2 results in in a lower number in K and a lower number like 220 w/m^2 results in a higher K in increased temperature. In any math it should be a higher retained w/m^2 should result in a higher temperature not a lower one.
A website Earth Radiation Budget has the outgoing and incoming as nearly equal.
There are too many inconsistencies in CAGW.