By Jeffrey Jolson
Republicans in Washington DC are calling the severe snowstorm proof that there is no Global Warming, but in fact it is proof that there is. The warming refers to warming of the oceans, which causes all manner of extreme weather from hurricanes to snowstorms. 67 percent of the U.S. is under snow, and every state except Hawaii has been affected.
In the middle of this week’s storm, Senator James Inhofe constructed an “igloo” in Washington, DC and posted a sign reading “Honk if you heart global warming.” Senator Jim DeMint tweeted “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries uncle.” Rush Limbaugh and Fox News chimed in with story after story distorting the facts to fit their dishonest narrative.
Call it “Snowpocalypse” or “Snowageddon,” the mid-Atlantic and Northwestern U.S. have seen winter storms this year that rival anything in decades. Scientists agree that this kind of extreme weather is not just consistent with climate change research, it’s the direct result of rising temperatures in our oceans.
Fact: Climate change causes more frequent and severe snowstorms, according to Repower America.
Record snowstorms need two things: temperatures below freezing, and very high humidity. On a planet warmer by a few degrees on average, the Northeast US will still have plenty of days below freezing; the big difference will be warmer seas producing higher levels of moisture in the air — and therefore more severe cold-season storms.1,2
Fact: We can expect more extreme weather
Scientists tell us that climate change has already led to more extreme weather in the United States and we can expect stronger hurricanes, more wildfires, heatwaves and droughts, to name a few.3 The cost of inaction could reach half a trillion dollars a year.4
Fact: The world is warming at a quickening pace
Weather in one region over days or months should not be confused with climate or the patterns of weather over decades and centuries. And the science is clear here: the last decade was the hottest on record.5 And to put this year’s weather in perspective, January was warmer than average for the continental United States.6
“Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events… will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.” – Jeff Masters, meteorologist
12 responses so far ↓
1 pablo // Feb 13, 2010 at 1:59 am
fact: the earth has been cooling for the last 10 years
2 Propagandist // Feb 13, 2010 at 2:00 am
I would be interested to read the sources of your “facts”. I understand that there are more then 30’000 scientist with over 9,000 of them having PHD’s that disagree with your facts.
3 henry // Feb 13, 2010 at 2:14 am
1. Some climate-change predictions are very general and have nearly universal applicability, such as, “there will be very severe weather events.”
2. These predictions tend to be accepted as valid by individuals when confirmed by observing a relatively small number of weather events.
3. Validation of a global climate model or of a global climate model’s predictions by means of short-term weather observations is a fallacious procedure.
4. Based on short-term weather observations, a subset of predictions attributed to a global climate model can easily deceive persons into approving the global climate model, even when there is incomplete acceptance of all of the model’s predictions. A minimum degree of correspondence between the global model’s predictions and observed weather events appears to engender an attitude of acceptance of all the model’s predictions and this attitude of acceptance is carried uncritically to the global climate model.
5. Short-term weather observations are likely to yield more fallacious results in the case of overall evaluations of a climate model’s reliability than when specific predictions are evaluated individually.
6. Climatologists and others who make inferences about future climate characteristics may be led into ascribing an excessively high degree of significance to these inferences.
7. There is a pressing need for climatologists to submit their own procedures, presuppositions, data, models, and projections to experimental scrutiny.
(Paraphrased from “The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility”, by Bertram R. Forer, originally published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1949)
4 Paul // Feb 13, 2010 at 2:17 am
Just more proof the Republicans just don’t get it.
5 bob // Feb 13, 2010 at 2:57 am
Fact: the recorded science here is faulty; Fact: if science is honest you don’t have to fight Freedom of Information requests for years–Yes I mean you NASA-science doesn’t lie -grant receiving so called scientistsDO.
6 Ohreally // Feb 13, 2010 at 3:10 am
Quoting:
“Weather in one region over days or months should not be confused with climate or the patterns of weather over decades and centuries. ”
the very technologys that are blamed for global warming haven’t been around for “centuries.”
Indeed the Earths climate does hange and has changed over the past millions of years. We can see that in ice cores. Man made global warming is a lie. It’s the height of hubris to think that we can influence climate in one direction or another.
7 Kerry // Feb 13, 2010 at 4:47 am
When the only thing you believe is what FOX news or Palin / Limbough spits out of their mouths, what do you expect? It’s the same type of people who read the National Star who reports such stories as batboy found in a cave or Elvis is alive in Vegas…We really do have an ignorant class of people in this country who literally live in the dark ages…
8 Brian // Feb 13, 2010 at 5:55 am
Not all scietists agree. In the 1960′s some “experts” were predicting a global “freezeout”. Today it is a global “meltdown”.
I’m not getting too excited about either debate.
9 Steve // Feb 13, 2010 at 8:37 am
Fact: The editor of this article spent the first 3 paragraphs acknowledging his discord with the Republican party.
Fact: Climate change causes more frequent and severe snowstorms, according to Repower America. – Repower America Co-founded by Al Gore exists to make money and is not a scientific based organization. The statement suggest that “Record snowstorms need two things: temperatures below freezing, and very high humidity” while true fails to account for any Record snow fall. I live in the northeast were 2 feet of show a year is common. By this logic I should have 4 feet of snow this year but I don’t. the only thing that’s happened is the weather patterns have shifted for my area to the south of us.
Fact: We can expect more extreme weather
followed by darken sky’s in the evening given way to widely scatter light in the morning. Extreme weather (however you term extreme) will always happen. The statement that “we can expect stronger hurricanes, more wildfires, heatwaves and droughts, to name a few” falls short if you uses up to date information, when was the last hurricane we had and how much stronger was it, How many more acres did we lose last year over the year before to wildfires. And my favorite “The cost of inaction could reach half a trillion dollars a year” as if we have the power to stop all hurricanes, wildfires, heatwaves and droughts.
Fact: The world is warming at a quickening pace
Actually if you had looked up any information on this subject matter at all you would have seen that the last decade 2001 – 2010 temperatures have been steady which is baffeling sciencsites at the moment. Overall Co2 admission have decreased over the last 8 to 10 years in the US which maybe the reason why.
Fact: This was a poorly written article offering very little insight other than the editors lack of knowledge on this subject matter A more persuasive article would have used a common sense logic against the statement made by the GOP.
FYI: It is no longer referred to as Global Warming, It’s now called Global Climate Change. Since Global Cooling failed in the 70′s and now it appears Global warming will fail to be recognized. Changing the name to Global Climate Change will help ensure the flow of grant money for another 10 years.
10 catchesthewind // Feb 13, 2010 at 8:04 pm
It has been a long time since I have read such drivel and jibberish. To classify the article one would call it grey propaganda. It is a series of lies wrapped around a nugget of truth. This guy should write for the CIA.
11 Jonathan // Feb 15, 2010 at 9:48 pm
I have yet to see a conservative argument on global climate change that has not been based on scientific ignorance. For instance, Brian, with his false “Global Cooling” comparison, is comparing apples and oranges, or, more to the point, orange seeds with orange trees. He obviously doesn’t know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a “grown-up”scientific theory. He is confused because the every day definitions of hypothesis and theory are the same. In science, however, they are totally different. A scientific hypothesis is a good guess, while a scientific theory is a summary of everything science knows about a major area of the natural world.
Every year has it’s hot new hypotheses. Some of these later become theories, some are added to existing theories, and some fail altogether, like the failed cold fusion hypotheses of the mid-’80′s or the “Global Cooling” hypothesis, (which was disproved the following year when the original temperature readings were proven false.) Global Warming, decades ago, was just a hypothesis, but today it has grown up to be a proven Scientific Theory. Decades of evidence proved the theory.
Brian, next time learn the basics of science before you decide you know more than every scientist in the world who has passed the scientific peer review process about climate change and the eighty-something Nobel Prize Lauriates in the sciences who also disagree with you. Science is what the greatest scientists in the world say it is, not what Exxon’s scientists say it is. Only a conservative believes he kn0ws more about science than the greatest scientists in the world.
12 Joseph G. Gallagher Jr. PhD. // Mar 1, 2010 at 4:00 pm
There has been a changing warming trend in out global climate for the last 30 to 40 years. I do not think anyone will debate that fact. Will that trend continue to occur remains to seen. Today’s numerical models used to predict climate change while very sophisticated are performed at very low grid resolutions, e.g. 1 to 5 degrees for latitude and longitude. Data used in these models are therefore sparse with the grid geometry at the poles difficult to approximate accurately. Thus, to think that these low resolution models can capture the variations of pressure, temperature, heat transfer, wind, radiation effects, relative humidity, etc. at higher resolution by one average value in these upscaled grids is difficult to comprehend. Furthermore, various processes in these models have to be parameterized (lookup tables), e.g. variations in convention, albedo, hydrology and cloud cover since there are no closed form solutions to characterize them. Thus, when these global climate models can predict actual changes in climate, e.g. circulation reversals seen in the Arctic Ocean triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales (NASA 2007), it is time to consider that maybe there is some prediction capability in these simulation models. Climate simulation scientist do themselves a disservice by not looking at short term prediction consequences of these global climate models and, furthermore, by associating one effect with one cause when more than one effect can be contributing either linearly or non-linearly to a change in regional climate, e.g. the cooler winter in 2009 – 2010 in the northern hemisphere .
Leave a Comment