This concept is understood by all children, but some in the climate community are incapable of grasping it.
February, 2010 was one of the snowiest months on record.
And it had a large amount of excess snow.
Some exceptionally clueless climate scientists argue that “global temperatures” were above normal during February.
Had they taken the time to compare notes, they would have realized that all of the excess snow actually occurred in areas which had far below normal temperatures.
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story 🙂
Maybe you could ‘splain how the second paragraph supports the first one. The temp map pretty clearly shows that the average global temp was above normal. The excess snow was in the much smaller areas where the temps were below normal.
How does accurately stating facts make scientists “exceptionally clueless”?
If you’re trying to say that this somehow disproves that warmer temps can lead to more snow through increased evaporation, I would remind you that air moves. Where it snowed ain’t where the moisture got into the air.
Furthermore, I know of no scientist who said that AGW was responsible for this particular snow. All I ever heard them say was (a) that the snow didn’t in any way, shape, or form show that global warming isn’t happening, and (b) that warming can actually lead to increased snowfall in some areas.
This will help ‘Splain’ thangs…
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/10/report_details_warm_arctic-col.html
Male cow dung…
No, that doesn’t ‘splain this post; it really doesn’t address any of my points:
1. The average global temp was warmer, so how are the scientists clueless?
2. Snow doesn’t usually occur in the same place where the evaporation occurred.
3. Nobody blamed this specific snow event on AGW.
ChrisD
And this is why (suddenly) we are supposed to get a warm, ice free arctic and cold, buried in snow, winters in mid-latitude areas………. vs snow being a thing of the past. You and I and everyone else know that little nuances in words make great blogging fodder but mean nothing. In government circles it is called `word smithing’, i.e. cover the BS with plausable(sp) denibility.
I remember that one of the theories for aiding in the onset of glaciation was the availability of moisture in the arctic. The theory being that it is cold enough in the arctic to support year around ice on land, but, as is recognized in both cold and hot deserts, there is a fundamental lack of moisture for snow. The theory went that when their was an ice free arctic it provided sufficient moisture to allow for ice accumulation on land. Thus leading to a raised albedo, numerous feed backs, and negative forcing, thus spinning downward into the abyss of global climate disruption.
Man, I can spin as good a line of BS as the Hansens of the world. Somebody republish that and claim it as a new theory. I think they even threw in a little continental drift, conveyor belt stuff, Labrador Current, Gulf stream, etc…. Since I’m only a young pup (all being relative) that was probably in the 70’s when we were all going to die in a mini ice age.
I’m asking about what in this post specifically demonstrates clueless scientists. Was the average global temp not warmer? Does the fact that it snowed where it was cold disprove anything? Who blamed the snow specifically on AGW, or did they just say what I said, i.e., that a lot of snow doesn’t disprove AGW in any way and that AGW can in fact increase snowfall in some places?
And, very specifically, I asked how the second paragraph I quoted supports the first one.
Actually, I answered your question quite specifically.
“You and I and everyone else know that little nuances in words make great blogging fodder but mean nothing. In government circles it is called `word smithing’, i.e. cover the BS with plausable(sp) denibility.”
And you answered your own question quite well with another example.
“Who blamed the snow specifically on AGW, or did they just say what I said, i.e., that a lot of snow doesn’t disprove AGW in any way and that AGW can in fact increase snowfall in some places?”
Very clearly, in your mind, you should not be using AGW, you should use global climate disruption, as anything goes.
Hey. Last time I caused global climate disruption was when I was driving my car and it wasn’t the CO2 emissions that caused it.
It was when my wife yelled at me and rolled down the window. 🙂
If A =/ B
B = C
Unfortunately, it’s Steve who’s doing the “wordsmithing.”
And noting that AGW can increase snowfall in some places is a far, far cry from blaming a specific event on AGW. So, no, I did not answer my own question. So far, nobody has answered the questions.
Ignor the A B crap on the end of my post. Or just ignor my post. 🙂
AGW has the power to do anything! That is why it is part of the Pseudo sciences. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere at birth also can lead to mental myopia. Or was it that excessive concern about CO2 leads to mental myopia?
AGW is no longer an “IN PHRASE”. It was changed to ACC and recently to ACD because the global warming stopped a few years ago due to Natural Climate Variation.
There is no real world evidence that any weather that has been experienced is outside of NCV that has been experienced, I am going to Cherry Pick here, over the last 20 thousand years.
It is also possible that Human Induced Climate Change (HICC) has reduced the climate extremes that were experienced before humans contributed to regional conditions by LULC and the release of GHGs!
1. You can easily find research papers from the 1940s with “Climate change” in the title.
2. What does the “CC” in “IPCC” stand for? IPCC was organized in 1988. How does that work with “because the global warming stopped a few years ago”?
4. For the final nail in the coffin, read point 1 on page 142 (“Redefining labels”) of this report, which was written by Republican consultant Frank Luntz and distributed to senior Republicans in Congress and the Bush White House.
So now, who redefined “global warming” as “climate change”, when, and why?
talk about cherry picking.
“1. You can easily find research papers from the 1940s with “Climate change” in the title.”
So? what does that have to do with ACC? (youve conviently cherry picked out the CC leaving behind the A)
“2. What does the “CC” in “IPCC” stand for?”
It doesn’t stand for “ACC” because then it would be “IPACC” (youve conviently cherry picked out the CC leaving behind the A)
So, you’re trying to say that because there’s no “A” in it, the IPCC had nothing to do with AGW/ACC? It was formed because the UN was just fascinated by climate change in general, and that it had nothing to do with the possible anthropogenic nature of recent changes?
If that’s not what you’re trying to say, then what difference does it make whether there’s an “A” in the name or not?
And I do notice that you had no comment on Frank Luntz’s report.
You and I and everyone else knows what you were saying:
That the greenies changed “global warming” to “climate change” (“because the global warming stopped”). A or null-A, your point was clear–and wrong. Trying to spin it differently now is transparent.
ChrisD says:
So, you’re trying to say that because there’s no “A” in it, the IPCC had nothing to do with AGW/ACC?
—–
What I am saying is that you are cherry picking your response. The poster you are responding to specifically said AGW gave way to ACC and your response was example of CC being used prior to that. That’s great and Dandy but where is the examples of ACC being used prior to that.
ChrisD says:
And I do notice that you had no comment on Frank Luntz’s report
Well indeed i had no comment because it’s a non sequetier, what a policitian decides should have no bearing on what terms the scientific community in prior to that has or has not used. Well that is for those of us who believe there is no room for politics in science. For those of a different belief (such as political active Hansen, for just one example) that may not be the case. So of which belief are you? (I ask as if we all didn’t already know).
Well indeed i had no comment because it’s a non sequetier, what a policitian decides should have no bearing on what terms the scientific community in prior to that has or has not used.
It didn’t. As I noted, the scientific community was already using the term “climate change.” The alleged cooling obviously had nothing to do with it. The claim that “global warming” was changed to “climate change” because it supposedly cooled is provably wrong: IPCC was formed a decade before the supposed cooling supposedly began.
“A” or no “A” doesn’t make any difference. It’s just a modifier. This nonsense of “It’s all about the ‘A'” is completely transparent. That wasn’t the point and you know it.
So of which belief are you? (I ask as if we all didn’t already know).
Well, in point of fact, you don’t already know.
What I think is driven by what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe to be true. Period. Politics has nothing to do with that. I would be absolutely delighted if somebody could deliver the proof tomorrow that they’re all wrong.
But nobody will.
ChrisD says:
“A” or no “A” doesn’t make any difference. It’s just a modifier.
And if you were to state that you were not a child molester it would make no difference if I said that you said you were a child molestor because “not” is just a modifier, it makes no difference.
really now?
ChrisD says:
What I think is driven by what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe to be true. Period.
—–
Science isn’t a democracy. It makes no differenc how many people believe something to be true nor should one base ones scientific understanding on what the “majority” believe (particularily since it’s highly debateable that that is what the “majority” believe – but that’s a post for another day) If it did Geocentricism would never have been replaced by Heliocentricism and the Earth would still be flat.
ChrisD says:
I would be absolutely delighted if somebody could deliver the proof tomorrow that they’re all wrong.
————————
And again you get it backwards. They need to deliver their proof that they are right *FIRST* before the process of proving them wrong can seriously begin and that starts with releasing all your data to anyone who wants it rather than withholding it from people because “Why should I give you my data, when you are just trying to find something wrong with it?”. So far they’ve failed to provide that (hiding data and declines, declaring the debate is over before it’s begun, decalring mythical consensus as if science was based on what the majority believes, attempting to prevent papers that dispute their claims from being published and other bully-boy and good-old-boy network tactics as revealed in the cru-emails, etc does not constitute proof).
And if you were to state that you were not a child molester it would make no difference
Oh, please. Be serious.
Global warming -> Climate change
Anthro global warming -> Anthro climate change
The point is not that the modifier makes no difference ever, it’s that it makes no difference in this context.
The claim was made that AGW was changed to ACC because it was allegedly cooling. This is provably false. AGW->ACC or GW->CC, makes no difference, it’s false either way. This is nitpicking in the attempt to hide the original claim. It’s not working.
And again you get it backwards. They need to deliver their proof that they are right
You need to read a basic science textbook. Science doesn’t work like that. Hypotheses are never proved. They are only disproved. We are all waiting for someone to disprove it. We will all be very, very happy if that day comes.
ChrisD says:
Oh, please. Be serious.
——
I Am. I wish you would be.
ChrisD says:
Global warming -> Climate change
Anthro global warming -> Anthro climate change
————–
The two statements are not equivilant. Climate change ecompases more than just the Anthro variety. Since you purposedly refuse to get it from the last example, how about this: Say the Car manufactur Ford decided to make only Black cars (harking back to the days of Henry Ford and any color as long as it’s black) according to your logic the following two statements are the same thing (after all the modifer makes no difference)
All Ford cars are Black.
All Cars are Black.
Do you get it yet? or are you really as thick as your posts make you seem?
ChrisD says:
You need to read a basic science textbook. Science doesn’t work like that. Hypotheses are never proved. They are only disproved. We are all waiting for someone to disprove it. We will all be very, very happy if that day comes.
——————
And you need to learn basic reading comprehension before you even attempt to deal with books. You can’t disprove something when the data and the methods for that something are hidden IE “Why should I give you my data, when you are just trying to find something wrong with it?” (and all the other examples I listed that you ignored the last time I posted them).
Also for something to be science it has to be falsifiable. AGW/ACC is not science because it is not falsifiable. No matter what happens it’s AGW/ACC without a shred of evidence to support it. Hurricane Katrina – why that’s AGW (AGW is going to cause more frequent Hurricanes). Several years of low frequency of Hurricanes – why that’s AGW (AGW lessens the frequency of Hurricanes. winters in the UK not having much snow (“AGW means Snow in the UK will be a thing of the past”) That’s AGW. A lot of snow last winter – That’s AGW (AGW means more snow). Doughts – AGW. Floods – AGW. Hot – AGW. Cold – AGW. Someone in another thread posted a link to all the things that AGW is supposedly the cause of. I wish I’d saved that link so I could do a little spamming of my own 😉
This is pointless. We aren’t talking about whether there’s a difference between climate change and anthropogenic climate change. Of course there is.
But that isn’t the topic. The topic is whether or not someone changed the terminology because it was cooling. That did not happen. It is a standard denier meme, it is provably wrong, and it does not make any difference whether you stick an A in front of it or not.
Do you get it yet? or are you really as thick as your posts make you seem?
You can’t disprove something when the data and the methods for that something are hidden IE “Why should I give you my data, when you are just trying to find something wrong with it?”
Here’s the data. Knock yerself out.
I wish I’d saved that link so I could do a little spamming of my own
You’re repeating this accusation without responding to my request. I asked you to point out where I’ve “spammed” any links “ad nauseum”.
But of course you can’t, since I haven’t.
Hot Dog!!!!!!! Damn, you guys are funny. Glad ChrisD is here to get me off on a great humorous day. After reading his comments I can be assured that the AGW Pseudo science will surely die a cherry picked death.
Do you ever post a comment with any substance? I can’t remember ever seeing anything other than meaningless ad homs.
ChrisD,
I have been wondering if you could also provide anything on substance. I still am waiting for a real historic particulate plot, not a model (Models are the ones with Optical Density from 0.0-0.3 on the Y which NONE of the current measurement devices perform).
You have done nothing but track the nickels when you should be tracking the dollars, yet your hero, John Cook advocates the “big picture” (In his pathetic rebuttal against Peilke Sr).
So, if all of us heathens were to be convinced by your fantastic arguing skills, what then? Are we to run out and buy “Terra Pass” indulgences? Did you know that Terra Pass funds methane problems at waste sites by burning the gas and releasing the CO2? Stupid. I will pass.
How about wind power? You okay with 2 million bird deaths a year and an equal amount of bat deaths? The greenie types have no problem fining a power company $10.6mil for ~300 deaths of birds flying into static transmission lines. The new generation of turbines (bigger/slower) are of no help. Stupid. I will pass.
Solar is cool, but the energy density and cost is ridiculous. Unsubsidized solar is NOWHERE near the cost curve of nuclear and there is that 15-25% operation productivity. Most places get cold at night. Stupid. I will pass.
If you wish to sell nuclear to us, I believe you would have a captive audience. But we know that you are afraid of “the nukes”.
So, I guess you are just stuck with your “nit-pickin”. So sad.
It’s sort of amusing. Steve is real picky about “us” staying on point. You guys staying on point, not so much. This post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Please go back to my comment and then tell me how bat death frequencies or anything else in your post is relevant.
When you’re done with that, read this one, too.
ChrisD says:
It’s sort of amusing. Steve is real picky about “us” staying on point
—————-
He’s only picky about you going off point by repeating the same nonsense over and over with the same links that have been posted ad nauseum (otherwise known as spamming). When you find an example of “you guys” doing the same be sure to let everybody know. So far you’re batting zero on that score.
Kindly point to my off-topic posts.
Kindly point to the links I’ve posted ad nauseum, otherwise known as spamming. (But be sure to avoid pointing to the 435,000 times Amino has embedded his GISTEMP video!)
Thanks.
IDGAF about who defined and named some “Phantom” condition that the InterGOVERMENTAL Panel on Climate Change was formed to provide evidence that humans were responsible for the majority of climate change by ignoring natural climate variations. If not Totally ignoring Natural climate change then down playing natural events and expanding human contributions.
Climate change was natural before (Pick your date) but nature changed (Magically) at some point and what is evident throughout geological and written history, Natural Climate Variation, ended and humans now control climate unless it cools. Do not let a few years of cooling concern you because the “High Priests” of AGW propaganda continue to tell us that warming will come back , Again pick your date some time in the future.
When politics becomes picking the one that has not provided evidence they are afflicted by CHIA or Mental Myopia no matter what party affiliation they claim labels of Republican and Democrat mean little. It becomes which consultant writes the most believable set of falsehoods for the candidate to proclaim. Most times it is just easier to see through the line of BS spouted by the Democrats.
You can easily find papers from the 70s claiming global glaciation is coming also.
Climate change and Global warming went hand in hand and were interchangeable until the the promoters could no longer hide the natural cooling that is happening. Some Myopic fools are still trying to claim warming is still happening or that the weather we are experiencing is somewhat outside of natural variations that have been recorded when we are experiencing some of the mildest climate variations of historic record.
If that thought bothers you, just wait because the climate will change. Global history provides evidence that climate always changes and the only way to stop Climate Change on this planet is to destroy the planet. Is that your goal?
Oh? Can you do that, please, and post the links? Not ones about far-off cooling from Milankovic cycles, which we all know will come to pass eventually, but papers predicting any sort of near-term glaciation. Real papers, not Newsweek articles. Thanks.
No matter how many times you guys repeat this ridiculous meme, it’s just not going to make Frank Luntz’s report to big-name Republicans go away:
“It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming.’ ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.'”
chrisd and brendan sure have a lot time on their hands.
i am not sure what it is that needs to be disproved, but if it is agw/acc/acd then virtually ALL of the evidence is to the contrary. along with all the real science.
said theory is prima facie ridiculous
“It Snows When It Is Cold”
Only if there’s enough moisture in the air. And it snows more when there’s more moisture.
Strawman argument anyway, no climatologist is saying it will never snow again.
We will all drive each other mad trying to figure this warming/Cooling thang out & I have come to the conclusion that mother nature Rules & there will never be a model sophisticated enough to factor in every action & reaction that this wunderful world can throw on us!
So now I will have to say..What do you want to do about it..what is it that we are trying to do something about??…
who knows but i’m with Intrepid the wanderer & agree that most of the lame Ideas coming from the left & far left are just a big waste of time & Mula. One thing I know for sure is that I don’t want any of my hard earned Mula going out on any of these futile attempts to control the uncontrolable…MOTHER EARTH..I’m just going to kick back & enjoy the ride..good luck y’all!
Some day global warming is going to make it so hot that the whole earth will be covered in snow.
;o)