Many climate experts appear to have no background in science.
Boston’s snowy winter could point to weather patterns affected by global warming.
“The environment in which all storms form is now different than it was just 30 or 40 years ago because of global warming,”said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
Higher temperatures warm the oceans and allow the atmosphere to hold a greater amount of water vapor, said Brad Johnson, a meteorologist with the University of Georgia. “Both of these factors, among others, contribute to stronger storms in general,” he said.
If these people were actual scientists, they would have known that the Northeast had one of their coldest winters on record, and precipitation was far below normal.
The reason there was so much snow was because the collision of very cold Arctic air and less cold humid air caused lots of deep, dry snow to fall, which piled up to great depth.
Current Climate Summary Maps – Powered by ACIS – High Plains Regional Climate Center
Utah also receives very deep, dry snow – despite being far from the ocean, and having low humidity.
Dr. Ralph Cicerone is President of the US National Academy of Sciences that reviews budgets of feder research agencies for Congress.
Dr. Ralph Cicerone is the one climatologist that could end this nonsense overnight.
Correction: Dr. Ralph Cicerone is President of the US National Academy of Sciences that reviews budgets of federal research agencies for Congress.
Dr. Ralph Cicerone is very modest, staying in the background while less talented scientists like Al Gore and Michael Mann get credit for research made possible because the President of the US National Academy of Sciences reviews budgets of federal research agencies like NASA for Congress.
I met Dr. Ralph Cicerone at the 50th Anniversary of the US Space Program in 2008. I went to the microphone to tell the audience my appreciation of Dr. Cicerone’s efforts to convert NASA into an agency of climatology, but he was too modest to accept my praise in public.
Cicerone said, in a BBC interview, a couple years ago responding to a question about it being a catastrophe, ” there is no evidence for that.”
Excerpt from the 2012 interview:
“John Humphrys: You don’t sound – if I can use this word – apocalyptic. I
mean, you’re not saying “If we don’t do these things, we’re going to go to
hell in a handbasket, we’re going to fry, in a few years”.
Ralph Cicerone: Well, there are people who are saying those things – …”
John Humphrys: But not you.
Ralph Cicerone: No. I don’t think it’s useful, I don’t think it gets us
anywhere, and we don’t have that kind of evidence.
Thank you, gofer, for letting us know Dr. Ralph Ciscerone now wants no credit now for having directed BILLIONS of US dollars ($$$) through various federal agencies to support the fraudulent AGW fable.
Yes, Dr. Ciscerone knows he lost the global climate debate. He now wants to avoid responsibility for misappropriation of BILLIONS of US dollars.
Perhaps climate skeptics need to change strategies now and focus on helping the next US President rebuild the infra-structure of science.
Whether or not Ralph Ciscerone is punished for using federal research funds to defraud the public, constitutional limits on government science cannot be restored while a private, self-serving group like the current US National Academy of Sciences performs annual budget reviews of federal research agencies for Congress.
While the US National Academy of Sciences reviewed budgets of federal research agencies and directed public funds to deceive the public about the powerful forces that actually control the Earth’s climate – the pulsar creator and sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system – the basic rights of US citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been destroyed.
Certainly no scientist wants credit for using science to deceive and enslave the public. Dr. Ciscerone might avoid such criminal charges in the future by now engaging in a frank and open public discussion now of evidence the Sun’s pulsar core actually controls the climate of every planet in the solar system – the pulsar creator and sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system.
Steven Goddard deserves special credit for exposing fraudulent global climate science, but nothing will change if the US National Academy of Sciences US NAS) accepts no responsibility for deceiving the public with public funds and continues to review budgets of federal research agencies for Congress.
Forty to fifty-five years ago in 1960-1975, isotope analysis of meteorites indicated meteorites formed from fresh, poorly mixed supernova debris at the very birth of the solar system.
A NAS scientist claimed the data could be explained by super-heavy element (SHE) fission in meteorites.
Here is the SHE debate published in Science: “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle,” Science 195, 208-210 (1977):
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
NAS never admitted responsibility for deceiving the public with the SHE fable, but moved on to deceive with the AGW fable.
Winning the AGW debate will also be a waste of time and talent if NAS again walks away from responsibility for spending public funds to deceive the public.
Dr. Ralph Cicerone and his army of “scientists” need to tell the public why:
1. The internal composition of the Sun was changed from mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946, . . . (without discussion or debate)?
2. Physics textbooks replaced Nobel Laureate Francis W. Aston’s rigorously valid “nuclear packing fraction” with von Weizsacker’s convincing but deceptive
“nuclear binding energy” after the Second World War?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf
Geocentrism lasted 1400 years. Anyone who questioned it was a heritic. 1200 years after Ptolemy’s theory was accepted, an astronomer pronounced he had observed evidence of a solar-centric system. The priests of the Church refused to acknowledge Copernicus, and Ptolemaic geocentrism persisted for another 200 years.
Today, CO2-centrism is alive and well at the United Nations Church of Global Warming. Anyone who bucks the dogma, is treated as a heretic. If Dr. Cicerone is controlled and dictated by similar high priests in today’s highly-politically controlled scientific societies, which are controlled by government funding pressures, what could he possibly do to end the nonsense? What would be his motivation?
“If these people were actual scientists, they would have known that the Northeast had one of their coldest winters on record, and precipitation was far below normal.”
I think they know this, I think they are lying to the press.
With Dr. Ralph Cicerone serving as President of the US National Academy of Sciences and reviewing budgets of federal research agencies for Congress, a lot
of research funds intended for other purposes (DOE, NASA, EPA, etc) have been diverted to the climate scam.
Oliver, calling Al Gore “a less talented scientist” is a hilarious turn of phrase that I will use henceforth to aggravate my Progressive acquaintances. Even the dimmer ones will recognize it as a sarcastic double insult. I promise to always credit you.
Got on a roll the other day and tossed this out in real time as I wrote, “There is exactly zero scientific evidence that human activities affect climate in any way.” Been thinking about this in retrospect and still can’t think of any evidence.
The surface temperature thermometers in boxes at airports and junkyards record weather, not climate. The satellites record weather, not climate. Even planetary warming is weather unless larger scale patterns can be found.
Climate may be poorly defined as what you expect from supposed trends in weather. I define climate on the scale of what distinguishes a glacial from an interglacial.
Freeman Dyson stated in a recent interview that “of course” humans are affecting climate. With all due respect to Freeman and granting that it is very reasonable to suspect some human effects, he did not present any scientific evidence for this.
This is the problem. Distinguished professors take license from their supposed authority even when the evidence is absent.
Gymno,
The only justification of the statement “Humans are affecting the climate” is to look at localised climate changes due to land use. Climate change in this context can be defined as changes in weather patterns over time. South-West corner of Australia is a good example.
Thanks Truth,
I’ll look into this. Not familiar with the goings on in SW Australia. I don’t want to just define “climate” so restrictively it ignores important effects, but to me the popular meme “climate change” begs a big definition. They are already suggesting changes in the Arctic Circulation Index.
Yes, we had a lot of ice and snow that DIDN’T MELT and it still is stubbornly hanging on here. But precipitation amounts are definitely lower which is always true when we have below zero weather storms.
These storms are very much drier than warm winter storms. Normally, much of the snow between storms melts to some degree. Not this year, it just piled higher and higher. We are having no spring floods this year, the melt has been slower than usual by a tremendous amount.
Do the climate scientists ever look at the data before open in their Heat Trap?
Data shows Relative Humidity (WV) in the Atmosphere not rising. http://www.climate4you
https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/585780581226586114
This is scientific malpractice and the two universities represented by these hacks (trenberth & johnson) should be ashamed. Amplification of snow by cold is a scientific fact. The same water content under very cold conditions causes dry snow and greater depth.
Boston measured the water content of the snow and it showed a slight increase over normal percipitation.
People cannot jump out of windows into wet moist snow, it would be like landing on pavement.
When you can’t get the basic processes of weather and physics correct, how is anyone going to believe the rest of the lie?
Climate scientists have ruined science. Very sad.
These dynamics are non sequitur for the Information Age.
I wonder how long will the ‘New’ Dark Ages will last.
Interesting view. In essence, one could say that we have the greatest percentage of “low information” voters as a result of the Information Age.
I’m not sure if it’s correlation or causation but in my experience the percentage of “low information voters” is higher among those who believe they actively participate in the Information Age. The internet made it easier to indulge in confirmation bias so that would point to causation but the original impetus to believe this kind of nonsense is as old as man.
It almost sounds like they are blaming their non-existent (modeled) positive feedback loops, that were supposed to cause warming, for the snow.
This date range shows Boston was wetter and colder than usual: http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/current/index.php?action=update_userdate&daterange=DJF&year=15
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/current/index.php?action=update_product&product=TDept
Boston had roughly 20% more than average precipitation during this blizzard season equating to about 1″ of rain, but the extreme cold squeezed all the moisture out of the air and amplified the snowfall depth.
These idiots claiming Global Warming caused the increased snowfall should have to turn in their academic credentials and go to a remedial school for meteorology.
Unlike climate science, weather folks up in Boston actually melted the snow down to determine its water content.
http://www.boston.com/news/weather/weather_wisdom/2015/02/squalls_mark_leading_edge_of_a.html
“Here are some other interesting tidbits about the Great Snow Of 2015. On average, in this part of the country, 10 inches of snow would melt down to about an inch of water. As you have likely learned this year, if it’s really cold, the snow is lighter and has much less water content when melted. Since January 23rd, the water content of the snow in Boston is about 4.83 inches. If it hadn’t been so cold during all these storms, we would have had about half as much snow.
While snowfall is running about 200% above normal, the amount of extra water we have seen this year is just over an inch more than average, even taking into account the obvious differences between snow and rain, it’s still an amazing statistic.”
Thus,
Global warming causing more moist warm air = FAIL
Extreme cold causing greater snowfall amounts = SUCCESS
100% correct.
The snow was like sand this winter, not fluffy but hard objects piled up in huge drifts. My snow plow broke TWICE this winter trying to shove this load around and I wasn’t alone, my snow plow mechanics were very busy all of February and March and saw me three times!
Really hard stuff to move around, this dry snow. Like cement.
And yes, we just had our melt and it wasn’t much water into the rivers and streams, either. The lower levels of the ground are still frozen solid so all the rain that is falling this week isn’t soaking in very much and my ponds are still dry, they usually fill when the underground springs pour water out usually during late March. Hasn’t happened yet!
FTOP,
Thanks for that. Quite informative. I learned something. See, I live in Phoenix, so snow is something foreign to me. And it is interesting to hear a complete take-down of the warmist baloney.
“Higher temperatures caused colder temperatures”. Sure makes perfect sense to me.
The unusually cold winter in the eastern 2/3 of the US was complemented by the unusually warm winter in the western US. It seems to have been caused by a strange jet stream pattern. I would be far more inclined to blame the goofy jet stream on windmills than on atmospheric CO2. Wind patterns are chaotic by nature, so it really isn’t possible to prove that idea. But then it also isn’t possible to disprove it.