By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotJanuary 29, 2022 9:01 AM
By Rachel Koning Beals
A warmer Earth will increase weather extremes, even if overall snowfall declines … That’s not the sound of a howling wind — it’s thousands of climate-change scientists clapping back at the idea that the nor’easter about to blanket several states refutes global-warming warnings. A powerful winter storm was forecast for the mid-Atlantic and Northeast from Friday night into Saturday, encasing Virginia to Maine in blizzard conditions. Heavy snowfall and its accompanying chilly conditions often spark remarks to the tune of “so much for global warming” or other collective shoulder-shrugging that frustrates environmental groups and the scientific community. Scientists offer some clarity on a blizzards and global warming paradox.
Although climate change is expected to lower the amount of overall snow the U.S. receives on an annual basis, it’s going to increase the number of nor’easters we see annually, according to a recent report from the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research’s nonprofit arm, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, or UCAR.
Flashback 2021: Climate activists blame record cold/snow on warming! – ‘How global warming also brings colder weather’ – Climate Depot RebuttalReality Check:Record Cold/Snow caused by ‘global warming’?! Climate activists predict both outcomes — more snow, less snow — so they are never wrong – Book excerpt
More climate nonsense from the @nytimes . During the 1970’s, the identical weather patterns were blamed by climate scientists on global cooling and expanding sea ice. We have always had extreme weather and @khayhoe has been consistently wrong about everything. @Revkin pic.twitter.com/pkMHL6lfnM
— Tony Heller (@Tony__Heller) February 16, 2021
Record Cold/Snow caused by ‘global warming’?! Climate activists predict both outcomes — more snow, less snow — so they are never wrong – Book excerpt
Book excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change
“Predictions of less snow were ubiquitous by global warming scientists. But once that prediction failed to come true, the opposite of what they predicted instead became—what they expected. How did global warming scientists explain record snow after prediction less snow? Easy. More snow is now caused by global warming. ‘Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists’ blared a UK Telegraph headline in 2009. The Financial Times tried to explain “Why global warming means…more snow” in 2012…
So no matter what happens, the activists can claim with confidence the event was a predicted consequence of global warming. There is now no way to ever falsify global warming claims.”
Excerpted from the new Amazon ‘best seller’ ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” By Marc Morano – Regnery Publishing – See: Wash Times front page feature: Morano’s ‘Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ uses humor to battle alarmists – Available at Amazon & Barnes & Noble & Walmart
Order Your Book Copy Now! ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ By Marc Morano
Book Excerpt: Back in 2000, when it was still “global warming,” David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (the institution that would be at the epicenter of Climategate), was featured in a news article in the UK newspaper the Independent with the headline, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Viner predicted that within a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” See: Flashback 2000: ‘Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past’ – ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is’ – UK Independent
Another researcher, David Parker, of the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, even went as far as to predict that British children would have only “virtual” experience of snow via films and the Internet.
The predictions of less snow by global warming scientists were ubiquitous—and dead wrong. The current decade, from 2010 forward, is now the snowiest decade ever recorded for the U.S. East Coast, according to meteorologist Joe D’Aleo. Talk about an inconvenient truth.
How did the warmist scientists explain record snow after they had predicted less snow? Easy. More snow is now caused by “climate change.” By 2013, after “global warming” had become “climate change,” snow at unusual times was evidence for the supposed man-made crisis. Senator Barbara Boxer, the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee claimed. “Yeah, it’s gonna get hot, but you’re also gonna to have snow in the summer in some places.”
Boxer seems to think any weather event can be made to fit the climate change narrative.Environmentalist George Monbiot had already tried to explain away the then record cold and snow in a column titled, “That snow outside is what global warming looks like.” Monbiot did his best to square the circle: “I can already hear the howls of execration: now you’re claiming that this cooling is the result of warming! Well, yes, it could be.” Monbiot asked, “So why wasn’t this predicted by climate scientists? Actually, it was, and we missed it.”
We missed it? Predictions of less snow were ubiquitous by global warming scientists. But once that prediction failed to come true, the opposite of what they predicted instead became—what they expected. How did global warming scientists explain record snow after prediction less snow? Easy. More snow is now caused by global warming.“Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists” blared a UK Telegraph headline in 2009. The FinancialTimes tried to explain “Why global warming means…more snow” in 2012.
The December 26, 2010, New York Times featured an op-ed with the headline “Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming,” claiming, “Overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.” Even former Vice President Al Gore, who had claimed in his Oscar-winning film in 2006 that all the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro would melt “within the decade,” got into the act. Never once in An Inconvenient Truth had Gore warned of record cold and increasing snowfalls as a consequence of man-made global warming. As late as 2009, the Environmental News Service was reporting on Gore’s hyping the lack of snow as evidence for man-made global warming: “Gore Reports Snow and Ice Across the World Vanishing Quickly.”
But then, after massive snowstorms hit the United States in 2010, Gore claimed that “increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with…man-made global warming.” UN IPCC lead author and Princeton University physicist Michael Oppenheimer had also exploited years of low snowfall totals to drive home the global warming narrative. He was quoted in a 2000 New York Times article: “‘I bought a sled in ’96 for my daughter,’ said Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. ‘It’s been sitting in the stairwell and hasn’t been used. I used to go sledding all the time. It’s one of my most vivid and pleasant memories as a kid, hauling the sled out to Cunningham Park in Queens.’… Dr. Oppenheimer, among other ecologists, points to global warming as perhaps the most significant long-term factor” explaining why, in the words of the New York Times reporter, “Sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling.”
When I confronted Oppenheimer about his sled comment following his appearance at a 2014 Congressional hearing, my interview was cut short. I asked, “In 2000 New York Times, you mentioned you bought your daughter a sled, but she hadn’t been able to use it…”
Oppenheimer’s aide intervened to say, “I’m sorry, but Dr. Oppenheimer has to testify.” ★★★★★He Got the MemoNBC weatherman Al Roker obviously got the “climate change” memo. “This is global warming even though it’s freezing?” Larry King asked Roker in 2015.“Right, well, that’s why I don’t like the phrase ‘Global Warming.’ I like ‘Climate Change,’” the weatherman explained.The message went from global warming causes less snow to climate change causes more snow.“So Boston at this point, is in number two snowiest winter,” Larry King asked just before Boston broke the record for it snowiest winter on record, in 2015. “Is this all part of Climate change?” Roker did not flinch. “I think it is,” he answered.…So no matter what happens, the activists can claim with confidence the event was a predicted consequence of global warming. There is now no way to ever falsify global warming claims. #https://realclimatescience.com/2021/02/washington-post-explains-cold-winters/Tony Heller of Real Climate Science explains:
The Washington Post says cold winters are caused by disrupted Polar Vortex, which is caused by global warming. And three weeks ago they said Americans are “winter starved.”
Here is their diagram showing what global warming has done to the Polar Vortex.
What a ‘wrecked’ polar vortex means for winter-starved Americans
Here is the same diagram from Science News in 1975, which showed what global cooling did to the Polar Vortex.
The Washington Post said colder winters indicated a disastrous new ice age which would begin as early as 2021.
washingtonpost.com – search nation, world, technology and Washington area news archives.
U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming
“Winter starved Americans” are facing the coldest February since 1936.
Remember: If the Green New Deal had been implemented when AOC came to Congress in 2019, the snow totals would have be much lower for this snowstorm!
A top snowfall report of 30.9 inches in Stoughton, Massachusetts. | AccuWeather – https://t.co/BX1GkCEhnb
— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) January 30, 2022
The Minnesotans are really getting tired of this stuff … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNV1-VJeeqs
I’m a Minnesotan. I’d rather have plenty of snow than the kind of droughts we had last summer.
Ditto. I’m WAY south of Minnesota, and we did not have enough rain in April through June to keep the grasses and other plants a proper green, so that meant that May began to look like late July. And now our winter is chilly, but lacking enough snow to melt into the subsurface layers, which will make a very real difference come Spring.
This is just part of a cycle that occurs every now and then, and while I do not want a repeat of the 2011 blizzard that left people stranded in their cars (get OFF the roads at the next gas station or restaurant and STAY THERE!), I do not want a drought to occur at all. It doesn’t just affect the plants. It also hits the beneficial insects and the wildlife.
One Iota of Global Warming is Good Thing!
And let’s not forget this classic from M4GW:
Given that the same social and technological remedies were proposed for both global warming and global cooling, what did it matter? It was “pollution” related to technological society, and we needed some sort of Luddite Arcadian Socialism to deal with the dread threat.
The northeast blizzard was accompanied with terrific winds. With a warming Arctic shouldn’t we be seeing less wind since the temp gradient isn’t as large. It doesn’t seem like the AGW alarmists can get *anything* right.
The world is a giant heat pump after all.
Before climate change was required to make everything worse, they used to say AGW would make high latitudes warm faster, decreasing the gradient and therefore decreasing the strength of storms.
It should also lead to less wind (can we say European wind drought?).
So, there is a lot of people on here that say CO2 has zero effect
I’m not a scientist so I’m not able to parse the details of the science.
But it seems like reality is favoring the lukewarmers?
That the true ECS from observations will be ~1-1.5c, entirely benign, therefore jiving with observed temp rises in the higher latitudes and what we know from data is flat or decreasing extreme weather, all of which matches what used to be the theory of AGW before the hockey team corrupted everything 2 decades ago?
And then the Scientology modelers go off the rails as they assume a pile of positive feedbacks that accelerate the temperature rise.
Which isn’t happening.
I asked this question a week ago.
Doesn’t the observations support the lukewarmer version of classical AGW theory?
I mean, it’s entirely possible it’s all natural and the last 4 decades is correlation.
But doesn’t classic coke (original AGW theory) line up exactly with lukewarming? And new coke (hockey team AGW) is crap?
The current trends fit perfectly well with orbital changes and solar variation.
Any theory that involves CO2 in warming the planet is unphysical nonsense. There would need to be enough CO2 added to make an appreciable difference to the atmospheric mass to alter the upper temperature limiting process that constrains open ocean temperature to 30C.
“That the true ECS from observations will be ~1-1.5c, entirely benign”
What makes you think this is benign? We’ve already had about 1 C warming, and it is far from benign.
You might want to play around with these sites before suggesting we are seeing “flat or decreasing extreme weather”
Suggest to do more research again. Noaa like nasa are junk promoters now.
explain why temperature change always proceeds co2 change?
you need to watch some Tony Heller videos- he’s more believable than those sites: https://www.youtube.com/c/TonyHeller/videos
The warming we have seen has been benign. In addition, it now appears this was due to cloud thinning reducing the planet’s albedo which allow more solar energy to reach the surface.
The CERES data shows some of this increase in solar energy.
So recent warming is due to less clouds? Great. What causes the cloud coverage to shrink? It’s not as if clouds have a mind of their own and decided, quite independently, to start vanishing. Cloud thinning must be in response to some other change, and as yet we have no clear idea what that something else is.
Climate is complicated! Anyone claiming to have all the answers is full of it.
Explain why nothing untoward happened during the Medieval or Roman Warm Periods. In fact, these warm periods corresponded with cultural and technological high points.
Thanks Kristi, i look at all kinds of information. I look at the claim here of flat or reducing tornadoes, then i look at the claims of Mike Mann for increasing tornadoes and how he takes no account of new technology like doppler radar allowing us to see every little shortlived F0 twist in the clouds and that most of those were missed in the past. If you compare the bigger tornadoes, the ones that would have been spotted and recorded in the past, the trend is down.
Same goes with hurricanes, the only trend that is up is “named storms” and that is because satellites allow them to see every short lived spin that never would have been counted.
Everything you believe is wrong, but thanks for responding.
Every journey begins with a single step, 10 years ago i believed exactly as you do.
Then i started reading and thinking for myself
There has been no weather that has been in any way outside of normal for the last 1000 years or so.
Of course the self declared “climate scientists” like to start history in 1979 so that they can pretend that everything old is new again.
I can’t find where these sites tell us if Tmax is increasing or if Tmin is increasing thus causing a rise in in Tmid.
Without know this how do we know if 1.5C is benign or not? If it caused by a rise in Tmin it is pretty likely to be benign with increased growing season lengths and increased food supplies. If it is Tmax can you tell the difference between 20C and 21C when you are outside? I can’t. Most plants can’t either.
While the global temperature has risen at about the level of lukewarmer predictions, it now appears that warming was driven by cloud thinning and could not have been due to increasing CO2.
“The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux. The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020). “
The timing of this cloud change aligns with the AMO phase change. Another cloud change also occurred around 2014 and aligns with a PDO phase change. Essentially, all the warming seen after the AMO change occurred during this change. No other warming is visible in the last 25 years.
As it turns out the physics behind greenhouse theory is incomplete and does not allow for kinetic energy compensation in the surface equilibrium layer. Once this is included the 3.7 W/m2 of claimed forcing disappears.
Yes i’ve read that too, another theory with some data, great.
I’m just saying as a non-scientist, “AGW classic” seems to match up with observations that temps should increase in higher latitudes, little or none at the equator.
Lowering the temp differential to the poles, thereby decreasing the strength of weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, wind) which also matches observations.
Not saying AGW classic is correct, but its also a good fit.
In either case, the punch line is that CO2 emissions arent an issue.
The most important point.
Pat considering that you’re taking flak from both extremes, I’d say that you’re right over the target.
This last little storm was totally meh. We got 9” after 18-24” predictions. That’s a little more than a typical ho-hum January storm. I’ve seen storms here where we got 3 feet.
The snow was dry since the temperature was far below freezing and there was some wind (also meh). As a result, the snow was all in drifts. Some places had 2 or more feet while other place had bare ground. Again, this is nothing we haven’t seen before, unless you’re a no-history kid.
I’m terrified if it is cooling again because i grew up in the 60’s and 70’s on the saskatchewan prairies and it was brutally cold with massive multi-day blizzards. My mom has photo albums of us year after year tunneling into drifts standing upright and creating massive snow forts. Not seen since the early 80’s.
That is the worst part, people on the prairies who say we need to reduce CO2, to get back to those wonderful 70’s?
All of them should be locked in a rubber building buried underground and forgotten.
Pat: I lived in Manitoba from birth ’till in my late 20’s. (1935-63) We also ‘tunnelled’, shovelled, and played outside in those freezing temps., and survived just fine, thanks. Didn’t create many sissies. Adjust, or not.
This is what my son in Somerville, MA saw. One side of his apartment building was snow free and the other side had a 4′ drift!
Again, since when physical and logical realities matter in this debate? It is purely religious cult we are seeing here, no common sense will do.
I’ll wait for Mann to wade in; quite sure that he won’t be able to help himself. There are those who will get frostbite and still maintain that the world is warming.
That’s okay; the people shovelling today will realize that it is not just the snow that needs the tool that they have in their hands.
Some people are buying the propaganda but many aren’t. Here’s a comment about a record snow fall in New Brunswick (Canada):
“Educated” people can be hoodwinked into believing anything and overlooking inconsistencies. Joe Lunchbox, on the other hand, notices such things.
The forgotten people helped elect President Trump. The people of Ontario (Canada) dumped the ideologically possessed Kathleen Wynne. There is a limit to what the left can get away with, believe it or not.
Let’s hope so
Awful lot of stupid people here in canada
Fewer here in AB (snark)
Now now, kerbobian:–you guys elected a Notely Crew into governance too, then gave David Suzuki an honorary degree after he crapped all over the oil sands, and have had both Edmonton and Calgary mayors declare a ‘climate emergency’. ‘Fewer in AB’ needs some clarification.
As a geologist colleague in Calgary noted after the 2015 election–‘Even Albertans have to periodically try to urinate on the electric fence just to be reminded of the hazards’.
(I know, from here we can’t point fingers eastward much.)
Fewer than Ontario or Quebec?
Or, we is slightly less stupid?
We fixed Notley, Suzuki isn’t welcome, and I voted against mayor bubblehead here in calgary
This isn’t a blue city where I can vote as many times as I need to
at least you have Dr. Jon Robson
Yes, he is excellent, he writes opinion pieces in the national post but i especially like his Climate Discussion Nexus website blog.
As far as i’m concerned there is no one better at mocking the climate scientologists and mockery is the biggest tool we have with….these tools.
Not as many as there were a couple of years back.. according to the amazing support we are witnessing for The Trucker Convoys.
I read somewhere that the Germans in the ’30s were the best educated/cultured people on the planet.
Germans are different, much more susceptible to the “madness of crowds”.
Various theories, one that goes back to Arminus going turncoat and butchering a few legions which kept the german tribes separated from the roman influence.
Again, another interesting subject of which i’m merely an interested observer.
I think it goes back to Freddy the Great
“Global warming is going to….Blah, blah, blah….” It’s warmed recently. Where’s the evidence that any one of these “horrors” is significantly changed? They won’t show any evidence, just “models”. “Pay no attention here, these aren’t the “droids” you’re looking for”.
Why do you depend on others to show you the evidence? Why don’t you look for the data yourself? There’s plenty out there. Here’s a start
Then you might want to read up a little about the water crisis facing much of the world’s population, including America’s.
Stop repeating yourself. Instead of showing junk links do a bit of your own thinking.
meanwhile explain this
There was a “water crisis” facing America in the 19th century – which is why the nation went on a damn-building binge through the middle of the 20th century so as to irrigate the vast wastelands of the very dry western states..
There was a water crisis facing America in the 13th century – which is why the ancestral Puebloans abandoned their vast stone cities and cliff houses in the four corners area to move to the Rio Grande valley to build what we now know as the pueblos.
There was a water crisis facing America 16 thousand years ago, when Asia and North America were joined by a land bridge due to the extreme arctic cold of the last glaciation era, and when Florida was four times the size it is today. What was left in America that wasn’t covered by 2 km thick glaciers was extremely cold and dry.
And your point is?
Who would have thought that land with an already arid climate would have periods of extended drought?
There’s dry, and then too dry to raise food crops such as corn, beans, and gourds. Currently the Four Corners area, below the mountain tops, receives generally an average of about 10 inches of precipitation per year. If that is only, say, 4 inches less than it was prior to the 13th century, that could make all the difference in the world in producing enough food to support the population.
There are also other factors that probably induced the Ancestral Puebloans to move out of the Four Corners area, such as deforestation, which resulted from harvest of the timbers they used in building roofs and floors in their stone apartment buildings. Deforestation causes loss of topsoil. Also, other peoples such as the Athabascans moved to the American southwest at around that time – these are the ancestors of the Navajo, Hope, and Utes who may have been launching raids on the Ancestral Puebloans.
Thanks for the info.
It’s been warming since 1850, and for the first 100 years of that time, it was not caused by CO2. Why should we accept your belief that the last 70 years of that warming was caused by CO2? BTW, models are not evidence. At best they are hypothesis.
As to your charts, scientists know that correlation is not causation. To bad “climate scientists” abandoned science.
I suggest that young people, yourself included, look into the recent past and recognize that the Malthusian end of the world proclamations du jour have been around since the 60’s without having come true.
Looking at the one NYTimes headline, it’s entirely possible the next ice age started in 2021
That would certainly explain pauses and more cold weather.
That could be sarc/
Oops, that was a Washington post headline
Not much difference these days.
The current cycle of glaciation actually began 400 years ago. That is when the boreal winter sunlight over land peaked. It has been in decline since. NH land is getting more summer sunlight but less winter sunlight. The latter is what leads to glaciation. The cycle will peak in 9,000 years when January sunlight over the NH land masses will average 6W/sq.m less than present time.
It’s been cooling for the last 5000 years or so.
That is correct but the conditions for ice to accumulate again did not begin till 400 years ago. That require boreal winters to be getting colder, which began 400 years ago.
Rick, yes i like your comments on this, not qualified to comment if you are right, for my descendant’s sakes i hope you are wrong.
I mean, i know we will eventually go back to glaciation, just hope not yet.
And yes, hope isn’t a strategy, except for renewables fanatics.
Glaciation has started but it is very early stages. It may not even be observable with ocean levels declining in the current millennium.
I believe it is possible for humans to intervene by increasing snow absorption. In fact, China’ output of atmospheric particulates may be already having an impact on snow melting faster than it otherwise would. There are claims this is contributing to snow melt on Greenland.
Dang! I thought I had cut enough firewood.
More snow less snow, the fact that there has been no net change in the NH snow cover in fifty years is spooky and must be due to climate change.
“‘Climate change can be linked to this nor’easter’”
It was only a matter of time before they blamed climate change on Easter.
Sorry. I’ll get me coat..
Easter is a “movable feast” , it is always held on a Sunday between March 22 and April 25, on the first full moon after Spring Equinox, at least in the West. Eastern Easters follow Julian. This explains why western ‘easters are so difficult to predict….
WRT all this snow caused by global warming, what are regular folks meant to expect if some miracle occurs and CO2 emissions drop to zero and the world cools back down? More snow, or less? Should glaciers grow, or shrink? Should it be windier, or calmer.
I just wonder if the experts are painting themselves into a corner. If everything is due to AGW then there’s no way to know when we’ve fixed it.
It’s fixed when all the money is gone and western civilization has collapsed
The last thing we would want is to fix the climate-crisis-catastrophe-emergency-disaster!
If we really believed that there was even a minor problem then we would have started building nuclear power plants 20 years ago instead of shutting them all down and relying on intermittent windmills and solar panels.
If someone solved the Climate Change ™ “problem”, the socialists would be forced to invent a new scam for destroying Western civilization.
No ‘corners’ for the experts.. they just go ’round and ’round.
If warming really leads to more snow, I would expect to see biggest snowfalls in summer.
the summers will become winters and the winters will become summers- the ultimate conclusion of the AGW logic
Also, there should be more snow at the foot of a mountain than at its summit.
The sun came up, blame climate change.
A cloud hides the sun, blame climate change.
The sun goes down, blame climate change.
Weather prediction model doesn’t work, blame climate change.
Science experiment doesn’t work, blame climate change.
”Here is the same diagram from Science News in 1975, which showed what global cooling did to the Polar Vortex.”
Yes but in 1975 they were wrong (I think) about the wobbly vortex but this time they are right (I think) about the wobbly vortex. (Unless of course they are wrong……)
It’s all quite simple.
I like when Willis asks people to describe “waviness” in units of measure
The units of waviness are jigglewiggles.
On the scale of the Polar Vortex, it’s Gigajigglewiggles. Someone here probably knows how to convert that to Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Oh, all right. I guess I’ll do it.
Since it’s waviness, everybody knows trigonometric functions are used.
The sine of an Olympic-sized swimming pool is:
No Lifeguard On Duty
The cosine of an Olympic-sized swimming pool is
Swim At Your Own Risk
(I was just leaving anyhow.)
The Tangent, you ask?
Unaccompanied Children Will Given A Double Shot Espresso And A Puppy And Remanded To Their Parents.
Unaccompanied Children Will Given A Double Shot Espresso And A Puppy With Fleas And Remanded To Their Parents.
“War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength, Snow is Global warming”
And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Looks like Biden and BoJo are on the same page in that Book…
Another fine example of, if we don’t have a crisis, that is not a problem. we can quickly invent one.
The climate alarmists adopting climate change, as their go to description of everything weather related, can now rest easy. Their desire to stop exponential growth by any weather means available, has a new helpful player, they have opened up a second fearmonger front. The new go ally much needed by the alarmist bedwetters and importantly, able to tread the world stage is called, Pandemic.
When the weather patterns stop providing the much needed evidence that something must be done, to stop progress and enjoyment of life. Well, then the opportunity to bring on stage “Virus Pandemic” is now standing by. Virus is there, ready to spook the audience. Old Virus can launch at any time with ever more horror stories and fear inducing images. For those worried you best stay locked in doors where the bogey man won’t get you.
For those in full on winter conditions, particularly those in America and Canada, don’t forget to open your windows every few minutes to avoid the Virus build up and let out all that unnecessary warmth along with old Virus, as it rushes to get out of your survival zone.
Also don’t forget to wear a completely pointless bit of cloth across your face, just to show you have fully accepted the wisdom of “experts”.
Here in the UK we have now gone into full on panic. When the wind blows we give it a name and find pictures (usually from Scotland) of dramatic waves and toppled trees. It used to be called stormy winter conditions, seemed normal for this time of year in the past, but these days it is called Climate Change. Excuse me a moment I must open the windows to let out some virus, its been ten minutes already…..
Big nor’easter = climate change.
No big nor’easter = climate change.
Something happens = climate change.
Nothing happens = climate change.
Anything ‘happens’ = climate change.
A warming planet has more intense storms and more moisture in the atmosphere, plus disrupted polar air circulation.
so yes, this is an effect of climate change.
As are the now frequent and damaging storms that the UK sees in winter. Our 3rd 80-100 mph storm today in 3 months. In 1987 that was a once in a century freak event.
“so yes, this is an effect of climate change.”
Garbage. There is no scientific evidence for that whatever.
“In 1987 that was a once in a century freak event.”
You have the attention span of a gnat. There have been plenty of major storms across the UK in the years both before and after the great 1987 storm. It has been pointed out to you before that there was anoother major storm on 25 January 1990, only marginally less powerful than the 1987 storm.
Of course, these are inconvenient facts so you choose to forget them and peddle falsehoods instead.
Griff is reliably wrong, as always. A warming planet has fewer and less intense storms than a cooling one, as the temperature gradient between the Poles and the Equator is smaller. Typhoons and hurricanes were more frequent and energetic during the LIA.
Global warming causes global cooling … who knew 🙂
Please follow the science Grifter…
Griff, physics is an English word, no a Swahili word, but reading your comment, for you it’s the letter, isn’t it ?
It’s all Greek to me 🙂
The root and origin yes, the word as spelled and in this context not.
There you go, spoiling a good pun
If this storm was caused by CO2, what caused all the other storms going back 1000 years or more?
A warming planet should have Iess intense storms because weather events are a function of temperature differentials.
We are all well aware that climate change makes it wetter, unless it doesn’t, and drier unless it doesn’t, and stormier unless it doesn’t.
Most days you really aren’t fun, its like throwing rocks at an annoying squirrel, tomorrow will be the same
Just before it rained in Germany for the first time in history last year, griffo was telling us about the severe drought in Germany. You can’t possibly guess what he said was responsible for that! Climate Change ™ of course, because warmer means drier. Then Climate Change ™ decided to make a change I guess. Now warmer means wetter. Until the next dry period.
The current cycle of glaciation began 400 years ago and the first dip in ocean level of about 10m will occur over the next 9,000 years without intervention.
Boreal summers are getting more sunlight while boreal winters less. The change over the last 400 years is slight – less than 1W/sq.m increase in June and decrease in December.
But the June increase will be 21W/sq.m when perihelion occurs at the boreal summer solstice. Expect to see more NH winter precipitation on land and arriving as snow. Eventually the NH glaciers will expand and new ice mountains form.
There is real climate change and measuring systems are likely good enough now to be picking up the early trends.
More heat retained in oceans as the net water cycle slows down, reducing upwelling of cool water. NH summer temperatures increasing. SH summer temperatures reducing. More snowfall in the NH. These changes are just perceptible but will accelerate for the next 9,000 years.
Why would anyone expect the science to remain static as more data are collected and models are improved?
Why rely on the media for one’s science? This article would be more convincing if it instead referred to scientific consensus, and took into account the certainty levels of predictions.
It also appears that this article is treating predictions for Western Europe and the east coast of North America as if they should be the same. There is no reason to assume that.
There is a big difference between global averages and regional averages. For example, in general, for the US, dry areas are predicted to be drier, and wet areas wetter.
But the most important issue is whether the average global temperature is rising at a rate that is having widespread direct and indirect negative effects (including through precipitation changes), and that it is mostly due to human influence. It’s really hard for me to believe that people are still debating this.
“Why would anyone expect the science to remain static as more data are collected and models are improved?”
Wait, isn’t ‘the Science’ settled?
Looks pretty unsettled, even in complete panic, to me.
“Why rely on the media for one’s science?”
Kristi was referring to herself there.
certaintyuncertainty levels of predictions”
there, fixed it
Ah yes, calling on the mythical consensus rather than actually relying on science. How typical of you.
We are relying on the science, and the data. You on the other hand are still relying on models that are unable to accurately hindcast.
BTW, if climate models have improved as much as you have been told to believe, why hasn’t the uncertainty around ECS been reduced any over the last 50 years?
“For example, in general, for the US, dry areas are predicted to be drier, and wet areas wetter.”
Who is predicting this and exactly where are the US dry areas? We have less area in the middle US under drought today than we’ve had for a long time. Texas to North Dakota certainty don’t seem to be getting drier. The High Plains are where the prairie grass developed root systems eight to nine FEET deep to withstand periodic droughts – i.e. DRY AREA. It’s why the high plains are classified as semi-arid deserts.
“Why would anyone expect the science to remain static…”
So what you are admitting is that the scientists who kicked off the climate change hysteria by predicting the end of snow were hopelessly, utterly, and completely wrong?
My, my, you’ll be thrown out of the climate cult if you’re not careful.
A strong geomagnetic storm is forecast for Wednesday, February second. It will affect the speed of the jet stream in the upper troposphere, and seismic and volcanic activity may increase.
Another Arctic front is falling south over Alabama. Heavy frost in the northeastern US.
“Heavy frost in the northeastern US.
minus 9 F here in north central Massachusetts
And frost 3 feet thick.
Not speaking from schadenfreud, but i’m sure glad the wavey jetstream waved away to the east at the beginning of january.
I know eventually the cold will return but its been a pretty warm january in Calgary
And warmer is always better (for Griffy)
There is a strong possibility that an Arctic front will again appear over Texas in February.
“There is a strong possibility that an Arctic front will again appear over Texas in February.”
Batten down the turbines!
I’m from the Joe Bastardi school that asks That since they claim it is caused by “climate change” then they should have been able to forecast it and explain the details of how and why it is going to happen.
No generalities. If meteorological changes are occurring due to increased atmospheric CO2 then the “experts” should be able to identify and explain the specific factors as they manifest to forecast how, when, where, and why an effect is about to occur.
Instead all we get are ambulance chasers spouting their climate change BS afterwards.Not a one of them having specifically forecasted the how, when, and why for any of these weather events that they claim are being caused by “climate change”.
Since winter weather is ruled by the stratospheric polar vortex and stratospheric temperatures, it is impossible to show the effect of CO2 on winter temperatures unless you are burning in a fireplace.
That’s funny! During a visit to the weather station at the top of Mt. Washington I learned they can forecast when the jet stream is dipping down as it does there sometimes, bringing their most severe winter weather.
But that is besides the point. The weather is in the Troposphere and Strat warming is a factor, especially for dropping the temp in the Troposphere, but not by any means the only one in a forecast.
If atmospheric CO2 is changing the meteorological conditions then they should be able to forecast what weather events are occurring due to those changed conditions and how much more severe it will be.
They should also be able to explain specifically how the increased atmospheric CO2 is going to make a specific weather event more severe than similar such events in the past according to the record.
Only large differences in atmospheric mass (pressure over the oceans) can affect significant changes in global temperature.
I am waiting for the hearing where idiots pushing the climate change meme are being told: why don’t you just eff off and grow up.
9 below zero F here in north central Massachusetts- obviously caused by global warming- only a Trump loving person funded by the coal companies would not agree /s
Yes! Climate change is the cause of everything! I guess it was climate change the cause of another catastrophic event: the socialist party won yesterday’s election in my country (Portugal). With absolute majority; i.e., they will have free hand to do everything they will want.
So Portuguese voters convinced themselves that socialism is going to work THIS time.
“Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome”.
Sorry to hear about that, but as Solzhenitsyn once said:
“Modern society is hypnotized by socialism.”
I love this quote too:
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” – Thomas Sowell
Sincerest condolances Joao.
Thanks. Four dark years to come…
We will walk with you for three of them
We got way less snow than predicted here, (about 5″) due, of course, to the fact that “climate change” steered the storm further out to sea. Climate is tricky that way.
Yeah, climate change is getting harder to measure. I just cleared 1-20 inches of it.
“Heads I win, tails you lose!”
“Global warming causes global cooling”
“Less snow causes more snow”
“Less rain causes more rain”
Famous sayings for idiots.
Surely that should be “less rain causes more floods (especially in Zambia)” 🙂
The wave of arctic air will now reach California.
What temperatures can California expect?
Who knows? The AGW alarmists certainty can’t tell you!
No one cares.
I care, I am getting old and snow sucks. Please everyone buy an SUV.