Week in Review
Droughts are a sign of global warming. Excessive rains are a sign of global warming. Little snow fall is a sign of global warming. Powerful blizzards are a sign of global warming. Let’s see, what else? Meteorites threatening the planet are a sign of global warming. Gun violence is a sign of global warming. Obesity is a sign of global warming. And pretty much anything else is a sign of global warming. Because climate ‘scientists’ and journalists say so (see Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards by Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, posted 2/18/2013 on The Detroit News).
Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.
“Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature — warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Increasingly, it seems that we’re on that ragged edge.”
The ragged edge of temperature? So what this climate ‘scientist’ is telling us is that if it’s too warm it won’t snow. It will just rain. They’ve been telling us for DECADES that rising temperatures will melt the Arctic icecap. Raising the ocean levels. Swamping our coastal areas. Causing our farmlands to turn into deserts. And moving our warmer climes further north. Keeping the snow further north. So if temperatures have been rising and pushing the collisions of these hot and cold air masses further north we should be getting less snow in the mid latitudes and more snow in the higher latitudes. Burying them in snow. Especially in Canada around the Great Lakes. Because it’s the same amount of snow but in a smaller area. Building huge snow masses to provide a long snowmelt to fill those Great Lakes all spring and summer. Raising their levels to record highs. It’s a sound theory. Only one problem. The Great Lakes are at record lows.
But wait a minute, you say. What about rain? The reason it didn’t snow as much in the higher latitudes is because all that moisture fell out of the sky as rain before it got to those higher latitudes. An excellent point. Only one problem. North America suffered one of the worst droughts on record. Devastating our corn crops. And raising the price of food across the board.
But wait a minute, you say. That doesn’t prove anything. Because of rising temperatures it’s just not precipitating as much. Less moisture in the air because of higher temperatures means less rain AND less snow. Another excellent point. Only one problem. It has been raining. A lot. The UK suffered above average rainfalls this past year. Sending her rivers over their banks. And causing some of the worst flooding the UK has ever seen.
But wait a minute, you say. And I say, enough. Everything cannot be the result of global warming. Warmer temperatures and cooler temperatures cannot both be the result of global warming. Droughts and flooding cannot both be the result of global warming. Less snowfall and greater blizzards cannot both be the result of global warming. Every contradictory piece of empirical evidence cannot prove global warming. Real science doesn’t work that way. Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius. And boils at 100 degrees Celsius. These are distinct states of matter. And they cannot exist at the same time. For there are rules in science. And you can’t keep changing them to prove a theory.
Scientists won’t blame a specific event or even a specific seasonal change on global warming without doing intricate and time-consuming studies. And they say they are just now getting a better picture of the complex intersection of man-made climate change and extreme snowfall.
Then why have we been listening to you for close to three decades now? Why do we have laws that change the way we live going back decades when you’re only now understanding man-made climate change? If you were wrong decades ago how do we know you’re right now?
Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann points to the recent Northeast storm that dumped more than 30 inches in some places. He said it was the result of a perfect set of conditions for such an event: Arctic air colliding with unusually warm oceans that produced extra large amounts of moisture and big temperature contrasts, which drive storms. Those all meant more energy, more moisture and thus more snow, he said.
Do you know who Michael Mann is? He’s the guy that created the ‘hockey stick graph’ that supposedly proved global warming. Temperatures were relatively constant for 900 years. Then rose. Giving the shape of a hockey stick. He took data from tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores and calculated temperatures for the past 1,000 years. Giving us the hockey stick graph. But in 2010 some emails came to light showing other climate scientists, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others, were not all on board with the hockey stick graph. Despite the powers that be in climate ‘science’ adopting Mann’s hockey stick (see Controversy behind climate science’s ‘hockey stick’ graph by Fred Pearce posted 2/2/2010 on the guardian).
…Briffa…sent a long and passionate email. “It should not be taken as read that Mike’s series is THE CORRECT ONE,” he warned. “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’, but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”
What’s this? If you take the data beyond the starting point of Michael Mann’s data, back before man was creating any global warming, there was a matching rise in temperature? Or so said the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit. So Michael Mann is a guy that likes to look at limited ranges of data. Just enough to support his hypothesis. And not too much so it doesn’t refute his hypothesis. So one cannot help but to take whatever he says with a grain of salt.
So what does all of this mean? Global warming is more politics than science. Most of the accepted research was done by people funded by governments that want to take ever more control over the private sector economy. To increase the size of government. And to increase tax revenues. If you don’t believe this consider the volcano. When they erupt they tend to cool the climate. Because they put smoke, soot, ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The same things coal-fired power plants put into the atmosphere. Yet volcanoes cool the planet. While coal-fired power plants warm the planet. Go figure. Two things doing the same thing. Yet each producing completely opposite results. To understand this you have to enter the world where there are square circles. And intersecting parallel lines. A place where there are no scientific laws. Only wild imagination. For it is a wacky world when it comes to the field of climate ‘science’.
Tags: ash, blizzard, carbon dioxide, climate scientists, coal-fired power plants, cooler temperatures, drought, flooding, Global Warming, Great Lakes, higher latitudes, hockey stick graph, hypothesis, man-made climate change, melt, Michael Mann, mid latitudes, ragged edge of temperature, rain, smoke, snow, soot, sulfur dioxide, temperatures, volcano, warmer temperatures