Ideologues in the Senate keep pushing the anti-scientific disinformation that big snow storms are evidence against human-caused global warming. That’s a tweet Tuesday by Sen. DeMint (R-SC).
Think Progress reported yesterday, Inhofe’s Grandchildren Build Igloo To Mock Killer Snow Storm: ‘Al Gore’s New Home’, which noted “the Virginia GOP launched a web ad mocking “12 inches of global warming,” attacking Democrats who had voted in favor of climate and clean energy legislation.”
But MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan “busted” this nonsense:
As Ratigan explains:
Here’s the problem – these ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.
Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature. And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming – thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year.
I tend to prefer “are consistent with human-caused global warming,” in place of the highlighted phrase, but the words “you could argue” gives Ratigan the necessary caveat for his statement. The science certainly backs up his assertions, as meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters and others have shown (see Massive moisture-driven extreme precipitation during warmest winter in the satellite record).
Ratigan was pushing back against the anti-science ideologues in Virginia, but the right-wing blogs went apoplectic. Here’s Newsbusters:
With Washington, D.C. buried beneath at least 20 inches of snow, and with more in the forecast, common sense would suggest global warming alarmists look elsewhere to make the argument to raise awareness for their concerns.
But no, Dylan Ratigan thinks it’s ridiculous to suggest all the snowfall totals could cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
I’ve got to resend that Memo to anti-science crowd: Precipitation isn’t temperature!
And the first recipients should be Inhofe’s family, which built an igloo on the National Mall and called it “Al Gore’s New Home“:
The Oklahoma Republican’s daughter, Molly Rapert; her husband, Jimmy; and their four children built an igloo — roomy enough to fit several people inside — at Third Street and Independence Avenue Southeast. They officially dedicated the humble abode in honor of global-warming crusader Gore, even posting a cardboard sign on the igloo’s roof reading “AL GORE’S NEW HOME” on one side and “HONK IF YOU [HEART] GLOBAL WARMING” on the other. Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is famously one of Congress’ most vocal critics of global warming. And he told HOH that he found his family’s ironic tribute to Gore — which came during one of Washington’s snowiest winters on record — “really humorous.”
In response to TP’s post explaining how inane this was, “Inhofe’s press secretary, Matt Dempsey, told CNSNews.com that ThinkProgress needs to lighten up about global warming”:
“It’s just disappointing that more of the liberal blogs don’t seem to have a sense of humor about this,” he said. “This was done in good fun.”
Yeah, it’s such good fun that Inhofe is using his grandchildren to help promote disinformation aimed at blocking action on climate — action that might prevent Oklahoma from being turned into a permanent dustbowl post-2040, that might prevent all of the grandchildren in the world from being left with a ruined climate.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
We’ve been out helping people shovel out over the week and I can say that most people we meet out at the ends of their driveways are making jokes about global warming. Sometimes I say something about stronger storms, but the moment now is really about service and leaving room for humor might be the best policy for now. But, it would be worth the time to get an estimate from insurance companies how much rates will be going up owing to structural damage from extreme weather. Roof collapses are becoming more numerous today. Electric rates also have to cover repairs to restore power and taxes have to cover snow removal. And, of course, Inhofe is getting extra paid vacation at our expense as a result of the storms. Maybe that is a good thing, considering.
My take on the NUT CASES espousing the global cooling view of the world is they actually help the Democratic Party in 2012.
American voters now have the *baggers* the *birthers* and the (climate) *bozos* to merely entertain us. They all compete for the attention of voters who are quickly sizing up that crowd as so out of touch with reasoned thinking people they are becoming a self-destructive novelty.
The opinion of the political judges regarding the Palin audition in Nashville is becoming clearer… she is not GOING TO HOLLYWOOD. That is to say the serious voices in politics and honest pundits are already writing her off as candidate for president. She may dominate the national scene as a female Homer Simpson but not anyone to be taken seriously. Her FOX followers picked the wrong horse. They cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
DeMint and his demented views on important issues the public follows closely will harden as he is dragged along by the baggers to go harder right than he already has.
America may be a conservative public but we have a low tolerance for truly stupid people unless they can merely entertain us.
The more the repubs and their clowns show up in print and on the cables the better the contrast between them and cool, smart President Obama. He needs to set up more of those *rope-a-dope* settings where he is in a live debate with birthers and baggers about some of the most troubling problems we are facing.
If the yahoos keep up this political strategy of cursing the President, hog-tying the Congress and making fools of themselves in such obvious ways, I would say the 2012 election of President Obama is IN THE BAG.
John McCormick
I wish you guys would make up your minds. When it is hot in summer it has to be global warming. When there’s a drought its global warming. When it rains heavily its global warming. When its warm in winter its global warming. When there is no snowfall its global warming. When there’s a blizzard its global warming. My only problem is that NOAA’s own temperature records show that 1932 was the hottest year on record, not 1998. It revised the data. There’s also the problem that NOAA shows global temperatures have been dropping for the past 11 years.
John Paul Stevens
[JR: These are outright falsehoods. NOAA shows 2005 was the hottest year on record. NOAA shows global temps rising steadily over the past decade (see here). You apparently don't know the difference between U.S. temps and global. Come back when you learn some basic facts.]
Yes, and the Arctic has been very warm lately. Here are some maps from NASA GISS:
November 2009:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ cgi-bin/ gistemp/ do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=11&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
December 2009:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ cgi-bin/ gistemp/ do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=12&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
More water vapor in the air means more precipitation, no?
I know it’s more complex than that, and weather is very complex, but to me this looks like a correlation.
John Paul #3
You’re most likely looking at records for USA only temps… Global records tell a different story.
Clarification:
My above comment is on your 1932 highest temp post. As far as temps dropping from 1998? Um… not the way I’m reading the graphs.
Bravo to Dylan!
I’m usually not watching TV at the time Dylan comes on, and I certainly don’t know his views on many matters. But, I’ve seen him recently, a few times, and I applaud what I’ve heard. And of course, I applaud the present piece, shown above.
Bravo to Dylan! Keep it up.
(Can you help get Chris Matthews more up-to-speed on global warming too?)
Cheers,
Jeff
Meanwhile it’s too warm in Vancouver for the winter olympics, they’re having to import it by the truckload. The meteorologists talk about a “strong negative Arctic Oscillation” being responsible for the shifted weather.
Okay, I’m cooped up with a stir-crazed 1 1/2 year old.
Vancouver, you can have this! Take it away, please!
Chicago has a snow record broken yesteerday that was set in 1908. How can we explain a snow record caused by global warming back then? It is too cold to move the goalposts.
“Yes, and the Arctic has been very warm lately.”
But the arctic sea ice has recovered! I’ve heard it in the blogosphere!
Oh, heck, they’ve lied again!
It’s going to be an interesting melt season up there.
I’m not denying the existence of climate warming-associated effects upon available global water vapor, air mass moisture capacity, the impact of snowstorms, and atmospheric circulation patterns, but I’m surprised there hasn’t been any commentary on this year being a moderate El Nino year. Can we get some information on that and how it relates to “record” snowfall events throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern U.S.? Is there a strong link between these record snowfalls and moderate El Nino years throughout the instrumental climate record for those regions of the U.S.?
By the way, keep up the great work here at CP!
Matt
John Stevens, & ilk: The average world temperature rise is ~0.5+C or ~1+F. Google it. That means that if your “today” winter temperature in DC is 25F without the effects of greenhouse gas increase it would be 24F! See, still cold. Guess why? It is winter! And guess what? It snows in the winter! The kicker is that the extra energy evaporates a LOT more water vapor and that warmer atmosphere can hold a LOT more water vapor to fall as rain or floods in the spring, summer or fall and even SNOW in the WINTER. Perhaps you have noticed that if you have a pot of water on the stove with the heat low your windows might “steam” lightly or not at all. Raise the heat a bit however and those same windows can become saturated and even drip moisture.
Notice as well that that small stove flame did very little to raise your house temperature. In fact a colder house temperature would INCREASE the condensation. (Snow in winter?)
WTOP, our local all-news radio station, is running numerous adds from insurance companies telling customers to call in storm damage.
I have been saying to my family all week that these storms might be evidence of what Tom Friedman calls “global weirding.” I decided that I needed to find some informaation on the subject, and I figured that your blog was a good place to start my research. And, Joe, you did not disappoint me. Thanks!
Once again, the temperatures in northern New England and southern Canada are much warmer than in most previous similar situations. Rather than well below zero, they’re in the 20s and teens. That’s a huge 20-30 degree warmer difference.
Another Blizzard: Where’s Global Warming?
http://www.time.com/ time/ health/ article/ 0,8599,1962294,00.html
Mistakes in effects of soil impact only makes things worse.
http://www.abc.net.au/ science/ articles/ 2010/ 02/ 09/ 2814540.htm
Here on the 48 parallel my plumb trees are starting to bloom. First flowers yesterday.
#9: Records are weather and not climate.
Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S. « Climate Progress
climateprogress.org
See, record cold still happens. Just half as often as record warm. I wonder why?
Are you kidding me over 4000 record colds this year in the US – barely any record heat.
Everyone I know kept asking when was summer coming and then it was fall. We never had one
I get it that everyone likes to have a cause to follow and I also really get it that people hate admitting that they are wrong.
But that is what you guys and girls need to do and get on with your lives.
People are not changing the weather – it is natural and will happen with or without us
@Debra Jacobson
Please tell me that you did not just decide to take the ramblings of one person and say “Oh OK that musst be true” and then walk away.
This is how you all got into this jam to begin with. “Oh did you see what Al Gore said in his movie. He was VP so he must know the truth. Let’s believe him and go buy some mountain top property and wait for the sea levels to rise.
1 month later
“Wow that mountaintop property sure was expensive. And it was really weird buying it from a company named Gore Realty, Inc. I am sure it is just a coincidence.”
Please people you are killing me. Figure things out for yourself.
LibFreeorDie needs to get some facts. Last years cool summer was influenced by the La Nina – now an El Nino has started which gives us more snow in winter and hot summer. This summer should be significantly warmer than last (in the US).
They are correct ‘people aren’t changing the weather’ – people are changing the climate. Climate does not equal weather.
Libfreeordie, #49, 49: Good for you, You have just contradicted the majority of world Climate Scientists. Publish and you are a shoe in for a Nobel Prize. Clap, Clap.
Along the lines of keeping the record straight, SkepticalScience launches iPhone app:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ skeptical-science-iphone-app.html
Very cool. Er, hot. Warm. Whatever, it’s a nifty tool.
John Stevens: 1998 and 2006 were the two hottest years in the U.S. while 1934 (not 1932) was ranked third in the U.S. 1934 was hot out west, but it was cold in the northeast and that is why 1934 is behind ‘98 and ‘06. If you use the 5-year running average, then it turns out from 1998 and onwards has been the hottest 12-year period in the U.S. recorded history.
NOAA updated the U.S. temperature record back in November:
“USHCN_V2 is now used rather than the older version 1. The only visible effect is a slight increase of the US trend after year 2000 due to the fact that NOAA extended the TOBS and other adjustment to those years.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ oa/ climate/ research/ cag3/ cag3.html
BTW, NCDC just released the U.S. climate data for January:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ oa/ climate/ research/ 2010/ jan/ currentmonth.html
Michael
Leif
First of based on who I would be in compnay with and what the symbolism of the Award is these days you can keep it. As apparently you do not have to do anything to get one
Secondly, you have your facts way wrong. A little over 2000 scientists think global warming is real while the vast majority do not
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Please we can do this all day but I implore you do not.
Go on with your lives. Feel liberated and free. Go outside and make a global warming man if you are up to you eyeballs in it like most of the east coast of the US.
Libfree or Die
You are so incredibly far out of your league. Please return after you have had time to do some “real” research. Specifically…for starters -spend some time reading the right side tabs.
Joe, with all due respect to your preference for the usage “consistent with”, that’s the safe course to take—what statistical researchers have been taking all the time, myself as well.
At this critical juncture, I think what we need to explain and stress is that thinking about causality in the context of AGW as an either/or, yes/no concept is not only incorrect but I believe it will always be counter-productive, allowing us, likely a critical number of us, to delude ourselves until it’s way past the time when we can avert the worst consequences of AGW.
Clearly we need to assert, by easily understood example, that causality is best thought of as changes in probabilities of events occurring. Now I understand that a shockingly large segment of American society cannot get their heads easily around the notion of random events, much less changes in the rates of occurrence of these random events. But I think for this purpose it would probably be best to initially step back from using AGW exclusively for this educational process and take the case of cigarette smoking as causally related to lung cancer.
It’s a ready-made example, as others have commented here and on other climate blogs. For any given case of lung cancer, even in a person who has smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years, his or her lung cancer diagnosis can never be attributed with 100% certainty to their cigarette smoking. And it can’t be since we see cases of lung cancer in those who have never smoked, never been in environments where others have smoked, or never even had exposure to known carcinogens.
What’s perfect about this argument—perfect for all the public except those pathetically still ignoring the evidence and smoking—is that this notion of causality as changing probabilities is so easily made and grasped, even to the point of giving us an example of the villainous role of an industry whose economic self-interests made it spew forth all kinds of dis-information.
The 7 Easy Steps for showing Causality as Changing the Rate at which Things Happen:
1. Start by freely acknowledging that even in a person who has smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years, his or her lung cancer diagnosis can never be attributed with 100% certainty to their cigarette smoking. Not even with the advanced medical technology we have at our disposal today can we make that causal attribution.
2. Note that the Tobacco industry used this undeniable fact, circa the 1950’s, to say: See, we don’t really know that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. Everyone admits that you can’t pin actual cases of lung cancer directly to their smoking.
3. But guess what? If you go back far enough, to the 1940’s say, women smoked at very low rates relative to men. It’s also readily documented that the rate of lung cancer in women back then was much lower than the rates for men.
4. And then look what happened when women began to take up cigarette smoking at rates comparable to men! After a time, their rates of lung cancer began to increase dramatically, becoming much closer to those of men.
5. Here we have the perfect parallel to AGW. Individuals are still getting lung cancer who don’t smoke and never have. We still can’t pin smoking on any given case. But look at that jump in the chances that a woman would get lung cancer as the rate of smoking of women increased dramatically. Bottom line, you can have forces causing events that show up only as increasing the chance of those events occurring. But these forces are still just impacting chances, they’re not sure bets: not every smoker will come down with lung cancer and not every case of lung cancer is found among smokers. But these forces are still very much at the root of—they are causing—the increases in these events.
6. Emphasize that as a society we long ago got over the confusion surrounding the fact that cigarettes cause lung cancer by increasing the chances of lung cancer if you smoke. No really sane person doubts that anymore. And they don’t because they just don’t like the odds. By now we are comfortable saying that the overwhelming proportion of lung cancers is indeed caused by smoking without worrying about exactly what high proportion that actually is.
7. With our current attitudes and endless arguments about whether AGW is causing individual extreme weather events, it’s like we’re back in the early 1960’s with women just beginning to significantly increase their rate of smoking and wondering if any woman’s heavy smoking can be fingered definitively for her lung cancer diagnosis. Same-old, same-old. We desperately need to stop that endless argumentation and say: Let’s start counting—and seriously paying attention to—how these chances of extreme weather events are changing. That’s causality folks.
Gestur
[JR: All good points, but you still have to decide how you're gonna refer to individual extreme events. I prefer "consistent" for extreme snow. But I should have said I also like the language "global-warming type" extreme weather event.]
If it was really cold (like -40), those kids would not have been outside. No, they were outside playing in nice “warm” snow.
darth: I believe that the “cool phase” of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and “negative phase” of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) was largely responsible for the U.S. cool summer. I don’t believe the La Nina in early 2009 was the cause for this. According to NOAA it was the 2nd warmest summer globally so in that case, since La Nina has a global effect, I’m positive La Nina Did not play a role since it was the 2nd warmest summer globally.
Summer ‘09 was the 34th coolest on record in U.S.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ oa/ climate/ research/ 2009/ aug/ 3month.html
James Hansen talks about the AO and the U.S. cool summer in this article:
http://www.columbia.edu/ ~jeh1/ mailings/ 2010/ 20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
LibFreeorDie: “Please we can do this all day but I implore you do not.”
Translation: “I started this pointless urination-for-distance contest with my nonsensical babbling and now I’m getting my brains beat in, so why don’t you all just surrender to make it stop?”
Dream on.
#29, Michael: PDO, AO? It is all about energy and atmosphere’s attempt to equilibrate with a process known as weather. About a month ago on this site an attempt was made to visualize the amount of energy represented by the energy imbalance of ~0.5W/m2 as measured. A number of approximately 60,000 Nuclear warheads per day emerged. Clearly enough energy to melt numerous Olympic Swimming pools worth of water to fall as rain or flood in the summer or impressive amounts of SNOW in the winter. More than enough energy to pulsate the Arctic with increased vigor. (Recall most of the warming happening at the Poles.) (Ever been around a pulsing chimney fire?) Now with increased pulsing, oscillation if you prefer, you get stronger Arctic out flow over the cold land mass reaching a bit further south than normal, both summer and winter and if you squeeze something someplace it pops out someplace else. Where would that be. Why over the “warmer ocean waters. Bringing record warmth to the Pacific gateway to the Arctic. And guess what. January broke all time warm in Seattle.
Re #28 – Very thoughtful post re how to describe causation. I wonder if we can use the civil legal standard “more likely than not” to describe AGW’s contribution to the intensity of the current storms as a little stronger than “consistent with”?
- On media coverage, last night ABC network news did a short but strong piece on penguin population declines due to ocean warming because penguins had to swim farther to feed resulting in lower chick survival rates. ABC found no need to then find a denialist to debunk the story.
Re: #28
Joe, how about: “Do we know this snow storm was caused by AGW? Nope. Do we know that a case of lung cancer in a heavy smoker is caused by his smoking? Nope. Does that stop us from believing that smoking causes lung cancer? Nope.”
Snappy and gets the point across without being too heavy-handed, too off-putting, I think.
You’re right, of course, we each have to do/say what we’re comfortable with. But my larger point was that each of these extreme weather events should be thought of as a ‘teachable moment’ that we desperately need to make the most of. And we do that by showing people “the way around” the standard *you can’t say anything about this event* using material most people are familiar with and may therefore consider seriously.
Gestur
PS Keep up your fine work!
#32, Leif: I understand what you’re saying. I was simply giving the reason or explanation for the U.S. cool summer. I have to be clear that I am not a climate change denier. The oceans have had record warmth in 2009 due to AGW and the El Nino. So I agree, these extreme precipitation events are consistent with AGW and El Nino. These blizzards indeed have brought out the anti-science crowd who think that regional heavy snowfall means there is global cooling which is just foolish. The “cold snap” was a strong outbreak of arctic air (-ve AO) which led to abnormally warm arctic temperatures.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/ products/ precip/ CWlink/ daily_ao_index/ ao_index.html
You’re correct Seattle had record warmth in January:
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
Take a look at these warm temps in Greenland:
http://www.wunderground.com/ history/ airport/ BGBW/ 2010/ 2/ 9/ MonthlyHistory.html?MR=1
Here is the correct link for Seattle. Just select the options then click on “submit”.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ oa/ climate/ research/ cag3/ z7.html
Michael: I was unaware of the Greenland anomalies thank you. The corresponding “warm” Atlantic “gateway” to the Arctic. What goes up, must come down! And with more energy, water vapor is just another manifestation of energy, in the system, no one should be surprised at unusual vigor of weather systems.
If I were in the prophecy business I would say “get use to it.”
Senator Mikulski of Maryland was just on the radio saying the two storms together will be considered a Federal Disaster. Thus, another warming-like storm will impact the federal budget just like Katrina and Rita. Oh, and don’t forget Southern California fires and the resulting mudslides. At some point, we need a law that charges these costs to people like Inhofe and his political supporters.
Joe, might be worth looking at fig 3.3 of the AR4 summary report – http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig3-3.jpg – The left hand side shows predictions for Dec-Feb, with predicted 10-20%+ greater precipitation in North East America and Europe / North Asia. Often, precipitation in winter = snow… Seems pretty clear to me – the dreaded IPCC has been predicting MORE SNOW!!!
#37 Leif: It is 37 deg.F where I am right here in North Carolina and in the mid 50s in Greenland. I think that is remarkable. To the average person, it should be colder the farther north you go but in most cases it just isn’t. If I were there in Greenland I could literally be in a short sleeve shirt in the middle of winter at that high of a latitude. Simply amazing. It should come as no surprise to people that the ice will melt at those temperatures. I think this summer will be interesting to watch concerning the arctic sea ice.
Also I should mention, those 55 and 51 degree temps are record highs.
Indoctrinating kids to believe in the FAR-RIGHT thoughts of Inhofe is really a SHAME!
Inhofe is itself a shame, but pulling its family with itself inside his nonsense is inqualificable! (notice the “it”: Inhofe doens’t deserve be called with an “he”).
People like It-hofe (remember the Stephen King novel “It”?)should be melting like the snow in Greenland right now.
By the way, names like “snowapocalypse” or “snowmaggedon” are simply ridicolous. I could only guess that such names will be already used when a true super-storm hit the USA.
Finally, HALF PERU IS STILL UNDERWATER!
(and I am tired of seeing how the World ignores what happens in Peru. A lot of words for Washington D.C, Haiti,… but none about Peru)
Please, could you translate the temps in degrees Farenheit to the INTERNATIONAL Celsius scale?
Nobody outside the USA uses this scale(excluding Liberia and Myanmar).
See here the Gulf Current hitting South Greenland:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ sst/ ophi/ color_anomaly_NW_ophi0.png
(home site:http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/Welcome.html)
And winds:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ psd/ map/ images/ fnl/ sfcwnd_01.fnl.html
(home site:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/glbcir.quick.shtml )
What do yoyu think is more important in warming South Greenland, a strong Gulf Current or strong Southern warm Winds?
From Peru, #43: Thank you for the Gulf Stream chart. It looks as if there is a recent propensity for the Gulf Stream to go North into Davis Strait only to get backed out again. With stronger southern winds and warmer Arctic waters perhaps a NEW course for the Gulf Stream is in store. If so that would sure change the ice equations, don’t you think?
#42 From Peru:
51F = 11C
55F = 13C
http://www.texloc.com/closet/cl_cel_fah_chart.html
I fully agree with you about Inhofe or It-hofe. He makes America look bad. At least I am not one of his constituents and that is good enough for me.
So this year will be the year for the Insurance Industry to take on Global Warming. And that will mean a lot of people having a rude awakening to it, 2010.
With all the damage done within the last year due to heavy precipitation the insurance gurus, who have keyed in to GW, but have been lying low for obvious reasons (we haven’t event blown past 1C yet), are going to have to act now to save their asses.
Goodbye cold world were leaving you today, good bye!
Also, From Peru, 32F = 0C, 68F = 20C, that gives me two points that makes it fairly easy to estimate a conversion without going through the (degreeF – 32) * 5/9 conversion, or at least it does for me.
If you’re a mac user there’s a nice dashboard widget that does all sorts of conversions, too, including FC.
Eli Rabett has declared him the Climate McCarthy over on his blog … I like it.
Climate McCarthyist Inhofe has a nice ring to it. I suggest using the term widely.
From Peru,
Your comments and analysis are appreciated. Send us some links about the water innundation in Peru. I find it appalling how the US media ignores the rest of the world.
Here, north of Boston, the forecast blizzard failed to materialize due to warm marine air heading inland. The meterologists described a “warm ocean” causing a “December-like” storm; I call it evidence of global warming, and failure to factor global warming effects into their forecasts. So here we are in New England nearly devoid of snow, while Washington DC is buried. Definately climate disruption!
Mossy:
I have posted links about the flooding in Peru in previous posts.
Look to the ones in which appear the UAH temperatures graph!
Mossy, i forgot to thank you for your opinion.
Commenting here is nice.
Instead, once I tried to debate with the deniers at the WUWT site, and I received any kind of insults and accusations(I was equated to a terrorist, to be precise).
Don’t waste your time trying that:It is like debating with an anaconda(no offense to snakes intended)
Is “Climate McCarthy” Inhofe referencing Joe or Charlie*?
Somebody in the Inhofe family (or maybe an aide) knew how to build an igloo, which is the most impressive thing I’ve ever heard of from an Inhofe.
And From Peru you’re absolutely right about the metric system and Celsius scale. In my talks I say that “We’ve been measuring sea level rise in inches, but soon could be measuring it in feet or if Americans ever learn the metric system, in meters.”
*Charlie McCarthy was Edgar Bergen’s ventriloquist dummy who clearly and easily out-debated Inhofe on climate change, energy, social justice, discretionary wars and a host of other issues three decades after Bergen’s death.
The so called climate scientists are amazing — they actually are claiming that these snow storms are actually predicted by their models.
I know they fit data to match their “warming” theories, but now that COLD snow storms are happening, to claim snowstorms are ALSO predicted is just plain hypocritical.
They probably called up a local engineering firm
LibFreeorDie wrote: “First of based on who I would be in compnay with and what the symbolism of the Award is these days you can keep it. As apparently you do not have to do anything to get one
Secondly, you have your facts way wrong. A little over 2000 scientists think global warming is real while the vast majority do not”
Leif was referring to the Nobel Prizes for science. You have to do actual research to get one of those.
Earlier you urged us all to figure things out for ourselves. So how much investigation into climate science have you done? Judging by the fact that, in your reply to Leif, you cited the long debunked and dishonored OISM petition, the answer is not very much. I suggest you correct that.
Really, it amazes me how some people can, contrary to mountains of evidence, believe something is true solely because they want it to be true.
Girish, #53: Your comment does not make any real sense to me. Snowstorms, more often than not, occur when it’s cold. After a warm JAN, a lot of moisture found its way into the atmosphere, and it actually snowed, after having been predicted.
What actually is hypocritical about that?
Spend some more time learning how this actually all works, then try explaining it to LibFreeorDie, he doesn’t seem to be getting it.
“Really, it amazes me how some people can, contrary to mountains of evidence, believe something is true solely because they want it to be true.”
Include many reasonably smart people in the list of “some” people. I’ve been thinking about this a bit and think that it’s partly because “they want it to be true,” but it’s also:
1. A lack of due respect for those who have very specialized knowledge and their informed opinions. Many crackpot deniers have no awareness of the fact that their opinions are laughable and based on crap, but rather, have convictions about their opinions on these very technical matters being as valid and worthy of consideration as are the views of world class, working, publishing climate scientists.
2. If one doesn’t “get it”, it doesn’t really work to say to them “you are not getting it, I’m an expert on this topic so let me explain what is really going on” because they, most of the time, won’t or “get” that either. This is related to #1 in that it’s pretty much required for one to have a level of science literacy to then arrive at good answers using intuition and “common” sense. This is related to #1 in that the typical denier has little or no awareness of how little they know and that they haven’t done nearly enough homework to warrant expressing an opinion without qualifying it with “I haven’t really studied climate science or physics so it’s very likely that I’m probably wrong but I think, blah, blah, blah.”
So my answer would be to say “It’s clear that you haven’t done nearly enough homework on this topic to hold a strong opinion, one way or the other. You need to study x, y, z, and probably f-w too.” (This is something that for most of these folks (IF they are willing) would take a lot of time….)
Then you will be likely be thought of as condescending.
Good luck!