"It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'"

|

The headline is a tweet from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) who is using the Snowpocalypse to poke fun at those concerned about global warming. But it's no laughing matter to some. Left-leaning Media Matters huffed:

Conservative media figures have used the recent snowstorms in the Washington, D.C., area to level more science-free attacks on global warming. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, scientists agree that short-term localized weather patterns are not relevant to global warming.

Well, yes. That's right. But people who fear man-made global warming are not completely above citing weather events to suggest that climate catastrophe is impending. For example, consider this article on Hurricane Katrina by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:

…can science tell us whether Katrina's destructiveness was related to global warming? Not directly: science, as a method, is not good at assigning causation for uncontrolled events, and no single weather event can be linked directly to a long-term driver, such as global warming.

So far, so good. But the article continues:

…although we cannot be certain global warming intensified Katrina per se, it clearly has created circumstances under which powerful storms are more likely to occur at this point in history (and in the future) than they were in the past. Moreover, it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that Katrina was not intensified by global warming.

Of course, the article doesn't flat out say that global warming is responsible for Hurricane Katrina, but it is suggestive.

Then there was the summer 2006 heat wave. The Washington Post cited Kevin Trenberth, chief of the climate-analysis branch of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, as saying:

"There are very good reasons to believe that the current U.S. heat wave is at least partly caused by global warming."

While it is true that weather is not climate, I don't expect that either global warming alarmists or deniers (using the epithets they call each other) will stop using weather events to make rhetorical points in support of their views.

Although Washington, D.C. and much of the eastern U.S. coast is buried in snow, the satellite data do find that globally this past January was the warmest in the past 32 years of the record. Below is a map showing areas of the globe that were warmer than normal (much of Canada, Greenland, and the eastern Pacific Ocean) and areas that were cooler (eastern U.S. and western Europe).

Jan 2010 temp anomalies

Finally, I note that the left-leaning Center for American Progress' climate change blogger Joe Romm asserts that…

…heavier, more frequent snowstorms and other extreme weather events are consistent with the predictions of leading climate scientists throughout the world that global warming is occurring.

Fair enough. But are there any kind of weather events that would be inconsistent with man-made global warming? Just wondering. Let's just stick with long-term trends as evidence for or against man-made climate change, why don't we?

Finally, for what it's worth, I think DeMint's quip is mildly amusing in that mean-spirited way we all enjoy when pricking self-important pomposity.

Advertisement

NEXT: The GOP's Medicare Problem

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Where the heck is Al Gore anyway? He’s like the human groundhog: every time there’s a big snowstorm, he disappears from sight for another six weeks.

    1. His private jet is stuck on the tarmac somewhere after he decided that de-icing equipment would no longer be necessary.

    2. Al is in Arizona collecting snakes. He’s running low on oil.

  2. Who made this post? It’s not signed.

  3. just curious, is there any reliable evidence for global warming anymore? I realize that the satellite data is reliable. However it only shows twenty years of warming and ten years of stability. All of the ground station data has been either suspiciously adjusted or outright made-up.

  4. Wait: Global warming causes a massive snowstorm that shuts down government, and folks think its a BAD thing?

  5. OK, the places I was at (Western Europe and the US) were cooler than normal, even though global temps were warmer than normal. OK, that chart clears some stuff up for me.
    Hint: I am not an AGW denier, so quit jumping all over me for my weather observations. I also know the difference between climate and weather.

    1. Oops…I’m so defensive, but it’s because of some stuff people said to me in the last temperature thread. Chad actually said something to me about the weather that was grossly oversimplistic.

      1. It was pretty brainy for him. He’s just lucky Playdoh is non-toxic.

        1. The green tastes like floor.

      2. Rain is WET, Art. Get that through your head!

    2. Global temps weren’t significantly warmer than normal. Parts of the globe were warmer than average, and parts of the globe were cooler. There were about equal areas of much warmer and much cooler areas. There was a band around the equator that was a little bit warmer than average that was bigger than the areas that were somewhat cooler than average.

      Trying to conclude that that picture demonstrates climate rather than weather is a heck of a stretch.

      1. Calculus much?

    3. I am not an AGW denier

      What? You wanna have Al Gore’s baby?

      1. Ha ha, but seriously, I’m unsure of how large an impact anthropogenic CO2 emissions are have, but I won’t dismiss the whole theory because of East Anglia shenanigans and because some politicians won’t let facts get in the way of their agendas.

        1. Actually, those sound like very good reasons to dismiss the AGW theory.

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

          1. But it’s not an extraordinary claim. The greenhouse characteristics of CO2 have been recognized since the 19th century. Svante Arrhenius speculated about the buildup of CO2 from the industrial revolution eventually causing warming. He was criticized by others who just didn’t begin to conceive of how many people we’d eventually wind up with and how much CO2 we could produce. I don’t think they dreamed of what we now call the developing world growing and moving forward the way it has.

        2. I’m unsure of how large an impact anthropogenic CO2 emissions are have

          Anybody who’s sure about that should be questioned for their proof.

      2. You wanna have Al Gore’s baby?

        “It would be like a hail of birdshit drenching the neck of your womb.”

    4. It answers my question from the last thread too, as I spent a week early last month in Florida, and it was record cold. Now I know who offset it. Stupid Canada, stealing the warmth.

      1. Before you get all “Blame Canada” on us, please keep in mind.

        6 degrees Celsius above January norms in Iqaluit is still 20 degrees below freezing.

        1. I dont care. Those 6 degrees would have made south Florida almost not quite sucky.

  6. Moreover, it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that Katrina was not intensified by global warming.

    It would be scientifically unsound to conclude that the pyramids were not built by time-traveling cast members of Jersey Shore II: V.D. Bugaloo.

    See how that works?

    1. I thought the scientific consensus was that Katrina was sent by the Earth Goddess to punish the U.S. for electing George W. Bush.

      1. Wrong. Halliburton weather machine. Look it up.

  7. Conservative media figures have used the recent snowstorms in the Washington, D.C., area to level more science-free attacks on global warming.

    It’s always been science free. Hasn’t Media Matters read the email?

  8. While it is true that weather is not climate, I don’t expect that either global warming alarmists or deniers (using the epithets they call each other) will stop using weather events to make rhetorical points in support of their views.

    You think????

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02…..imate.html

    “Climate scientists say that no individual episode of severe weather can be attributed to global climate trends, though there is evidence that such events will probably become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

    Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

    But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture.”

    See? Tails, I Win, Heads, You Lose. Before, it was the LACK of snow that demonstrated AGW. Now it is the EXCESS of snow that demonstrates the “severity” of the even, ergo: Global Warming!

    I tell you, climate science is looking more and more like a religion – you can explain ANYTHING away, that easily!

    1. You’re misunderstanding the very quotes you posted.

      Global warming causes an increase in extreme weather activity (both hot and cold ones). But it’s not possible to attribute one weather event exclusively to global warming. I’m not sure whether it was science or reading classes you missed in 5th grade.

      1. “Global warming causes an increase in extreme weather activity (both hot and cold ones)”

        This is has not been demonstrated. Climate is also not weather remember? That includes “extreme” weather. You can’t have it both ways.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Global warming causes an increase in extreme weather activity (both hot and cold ones).

        Tony, you seemed to miss your logic and reason classes. What’s “extreme” weather activity? The author of the article assumes that just by the use of this very subjective term he (and the Warmists) can get away with what amounts to question begging.

  9. Of course, the article doesn’t flat out say that global warming is responsible for Hurricane Katrina, but it is suggestive.

    It is just as “suggestive” as the pick up line: “Hey, baby, I would really like to screw your brains out this very moment – figuratively speaking, of course: not that I am really going to knock your brains out just by fucking you.”

    You have a knack for understatement.

  10. …heavier, more frequent snowstorms and other extreme weather events including, say, a mile thick layer of ice age precipitation covering Chicago are consistent with the predictions of leading climate scientists throughout the world that global warming is occurring.

    Fixed.

  11. Of course, the article doesn’t flat out say that global warming is responsible for Hurricane Katrina, but it is suggestive.

    Its the ultimate in CYA. “Hey, I only suggested something. I never flat out said it was real. But if I’m right in the end, remember that i totally suggested it 1st.”

    1. Ah yes, the Glenn Beck technique.

  12. Although Washington, D.C. and much of the eastern U.S. coast is buried in snow, the satellite data do find that globally this past January was the warmest in the past 32 years of the record. Below is a map showing areas of the globe that were warmer than normal (much of Canada, Greenland, and the eastern Pacific Ocean) and areas that were cooler (eastern U.S. and western Europe).

    A rather MEANINGLESS statement without context – because a temperature of -30 degrees Celsius IS GOING TO BE MUCH WARMER than -30.84 degrees Celsius . . . does it matter???

  13. The important thing is that the snow has shut down the federal government for a few days.

  14. But are there any kind of weather events that would be inconsistent with man-made global warming?

    No matter what you point to, “God did it.”

    See how that works?

    1. Stop looking at weather events to confirm or deny what’s already established scientific fact, and this isn’t a problem.

      1. Stop looking at data that don’t confirm the hypothesis and science is a fucking breeze.

      2. Lets all just ignore the weather and let the climate models tell us what is going on outside. If the models don’t predict it then it obviously isn’t happening!

      3. Interesting but I don’t believe any reputable scientists state AWG is an “established scientific fact”.

  15. because warmer air carries more moisture.

    Where did you think those Himalayan glaciers disappeared to?

  16. “it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that Katrina was not intensified by global warming.”

    “it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that missing underwear was not stolen by gnomes.”

    1. In other words, it is scientifically unsound to fail to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, the evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis must be sound. So what’s the evidence?

    2. It would be scientifically unsound to conclude that what’s keeping space aliens from invading our planet is not my overpowering virility.

      1. ^virility^virginity

        FTFY

  17. The Alabama-Huntsville climatologists that are referenced in this post mention the current Pacific El Nino when they talk about the significantly warmer January 2010…The same El Nino phenomenon that was going on in 1998 when global temps spiked and I first heard that global warming was going to wreak untold devastation.

    1. Yup. It’s like global warming fans have heard of El Nino. It’s just an inconvenient truth for them.

    2. El Nino is spanish for… the Nino

  18. South Carolina conservatives: the opposite of self-important pomposity.

    1. DeMint is the most “libertarian” Senator.

  19. We live inside a crappy remake of Carnival of Souls. We’re all already dead and we don’t know it. Snowed-in D.C. is that scary abandoned circus. Its dark minions are sent to Ghost Whisper the deniers, so our souls can be freed.

    From money and cars and stuff.

  20. But are there any kind of weather events that would be inconsistent with man-made global warming?

    No, everything is evidence of global warming.

  21. But are there any kind of weather events that would be inconsistent with man-made global warming?

    I can’t remember where I read this, but it was in the comments section of a climate blog years ago. Anyway, someone was recounting an exchange he was having with a pro-AGW scientist regarding error bars. The scientist basically said that even if global temperatures decreased by 13 degrees F, and stayed that way for decades, that would still be consistent with AGW. So yes, as noted above a mile thick layer of ice age precipitation covering Chicago are consistent with the predictions of leading climate scientists throughout the world that global warming is occurring.

    1. Wow, an unnamed commenter at an unnamed blog speaking with an unnamed scientists. What a source!

      This guy at my gym knows this other guy that heard of a dude that took so many steroids, his neck veins exploded.

      1. It was years ago and I don’t remember where I saw this so I couldn’t provide a link. It may have been on Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog, but I’m not sure.

      2. Citation that global warming supporting climate models are consistent with the near term glaciation of upper 40% of North America

  22. “But are there any kind of weather events that would be inconsistent with man-made global warming?”

    According to CAP, snowless winters.

  23. Using the latest snowstorms to debunk global warming is like using Sen. Jim DeMint to debunk evolution.

    1. Expecting alarmists to come clean about their unscientific practices is like expecting Dawkins to admit that atheism is bullshit.

  24. “Global warming” is a misnomer, a simplicity, perpetuated by the media. The term is CLIMATE CHANGE and represents a trend in more volatile weather patterns (as well as the widely-accepted theory that this trend will continue). This includes global warming, but also includes more extreme weather patterns in general (i.e., colder, more extreme winters). The current snowpacolypse thus fits this theory perfectly.

    1. More volatile as compared to what?

    2. “Scientists” only changed the terminology in the past ten years, once they realized that they can never be wrong under such a vague and self-conflicting term.

      1. Wrong. Republican message guru Frank Luntz changed the term to make it sound less scary. It just so happens that “climate change” is more descriptive, and scientists tended to go with it.

    3. I KNOW! It’s like Mt Shasta! I saw it last January, and it was covered in snow, and then last June, THERE was NO SNOW! What is up with that? How can you not see that something is going on?
      Glaciers are melting, PEOPLE!

    4. the widely-accepted theory that this trend will continue

      88.3% of Gaia worshippers agree!

    5. Global climate has been changing for ~4.5 billion years and will continue change for the next ~5 billion years. After the sun consumes it Im going to stop keeping track.

      1. Hell, the climate changes four times every year, sometimes even more than that.

        And this is supposed to worry me?

      2. And how often in that time has the climate been suitable for human civilization?

        1. Most of it, primordial earth and the snowball earth period being the biggest exceptions.

        2. Re: Tony,

          And how often in that time has the climate been suitable for human civilization?

          Well, it seems that only the last 6,000 years, since that’s how much “civilization” has existed in this planet. BEFORE THAT, people did not even exist because of the extreme weather events that proved Global Warming.

          Did you even READ what you typed, Tony? Or do you happen to feel a morbid pleasure in making a fool of yourself?

          1. Golly gee OM I wonder what could be an explanation for the emergence of human civilization in the first place. Like maybe an extended period of climate stability?

            Personally I don’t want to be a hunter gatherer, even though I know that’s your idea of the perfect society.

  25. “Climate change” is an obsfucation, a duplicity, perpetuated by the media. The term is GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA and represents a trend in more rigid thought patterns (as well as the widely-accepted theory that this trend will continue). This includes screaming “The science is settled”, but also includes more extreme witch hunts to find deniers in general (i.e., harsher, more desperate rhetoric). The current snowpacolypse thus is an embarrassment to be elided.

    1. Sugarfree, your data on thought trends are riddled with errors and inconsistencies.

      Thought-balloon readings are open to interpretation depending on the language they are in, and surface thought data are susceptible to the effects of thinking hot- and cold-spots.

      GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA is just another media-perpetrated liberal myth.

      1. I was like donating my time at the free clinic because I just LOVE the candy striper uniforms. There were all kinds of nasty people, hippies, coming in and out through out the day getting treated because a shipment of antibiotics for syphilis just arrived that morning. One doctor mentioned to a nurse how the yeast cultures in the hippie’s crotches broke down starches coming from their sweat which increased the surrounding temperature and created a cesspool for all kinds of diseases and infections. He said it would not be such a big problem if they bothered with hygiene. Sounds like the hippie crotches are miniature little earths where human neglect is causing all kinds of destruction, rampant heat escalation and the spread of disease.

  26. …I don’t expect that either global warming alarmists or deniers (using the epithets they call each other)…

    Personally, I prefer the terms “climategate alarmists” and “climategate deniers”.

  27. I don’t know why y’all complains about global warming. I likes me some warm weather. Lot’s of young things in bikinis, and I don’t have to wear no pants. I was just named a mascot for the Vancouver Summer Olympics. Life’s good y’all.

    1. Hey, why did I never get to be anyone’s mascot!?

      Man, life just ain’t fair.

  28. It’s even worse in Europe. Right before it dumped snow on Copenhagen during the climate summit, Der Spiegel posted a pic of a melting snowman in southern Germany which suggested this was happening thanks to you know what.

    Der Spiegel also reported you know what was also responsible for the flooding in eastern Germany about 7 years ago, and the Guardian blamed you know what on flooding in England last year or the year before.

    So what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.

  29. Below is a map showing areas of the globe that were warmer than normal (much of Canada, Greenland, and the eastern Pacific Ocean)…

    Whoever called that frozen land mass “Greenland” all those centuries ago must have been a friggin prophetic genius.

  30. For those who remember the 1950s…we never had weird weather like this until they stopped testing them atom bombs in the atmosphere.

  31. We don’t know anything. Al Gore knows even less.

  32. I’m not a “warmist”, buT:

    “…heavier, more frequent snowstorms and other extreme weather events are consistent with the predictions of leading climate scientists throughout the world that global warming is occurring.

    “Fair enough. But are there any kind of weather events that would be inconsistent with man-made global warming?”

    Well, if the prediction was that global warming would cause “more frequent snowstorms and other extreme weather events” I’d say that observing less frequent snowstorms and other extreme weather events would be inconsistent with that claim.

  33. You can’t trust the ground data because temperature gages were removed in areas that showed cooling.

    All the raw data was conveniently destroyed. This is the biggest scam.

  34. All I have to do is read the comments section of “Reason” to be reminded that libertarianism is the philosophy of idiots.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.