Greenspace

Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

'Snowmaggedon' in Washington spurs climate change doubters

Imhofegloo

Mark Twain had it right: Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get.

So, is the massive dumping of snow from the Mid-Atlantic to New England proof positive that climate change is untrue, as doubters such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) have taken the opportunity to trumpet? (His family built an igloo, declared it Al Gore's new home and put up signs asking people to honk if they liked global warming).

Not if you read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report carefully.

First, the cold weather spells in the East have been linked with an "El Nino" year and a shift in the arctic oscillation that sent a jet of cold air down into the Eastern United States and elsewhere, all cyclically occurring events regardless of the overall trend in average planetary temperature, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pointed out recently.

Lost in the hype over the East Coast cold snap around the Christmas holidays was the fact that at the same time, parts of Alaska were unseasonably warm. And the record cold that descended as far south as Florida in January? Globally, January 2010 was the warmest January on record, based on satellite data that date to 1979, according to AccuWeather.com.

As for East Coast getting snow in February, the IPCC scientists, citing peer-reviewed studies, concluded that the severity of precipitation events (and snow is one of them) would increase in a warming global climate.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, in a new backgrounder addressing recent controversies over the IPCC report, offers this:

"Between 1958 and 2007, New England saw a 67 percent increase in heavy precipitation events and the Midwest experienced a 31 percent increase, according to the 2009 federal report "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States." The report documented a 20 percent average increase for the entire country.

To be sure, the IPCC has been forced to acknowledge errors and unsubstantiated statements in one of its landmark 2007 reports. The irregularities had to do with predictions of the expected effects of warming. None of them, however, undermined the report's consensus that the planet has warmed and that man's activities have contributed to the warming.

For instance, buried in the report was an unsubstantiated assertion that it was highly likely the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The summary of the report was far less assertive. It said that "if current warming rates are maintained, Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates."

Some science on what's going on in Central Asia:

"Glacier retreat was dominant in the 20th century, except for a decade or two around 1970, when some glaciers gained mass and even reacted with re-advances of a few hundred metres. After 1980, ice loss and glacier retreat was dominant again. In Bhutan, Eastern
Himalaya, an eight per cent glacier area loss was observed between 1963 and 1993 (Karma et al. 2003). Berthier et al. (2007) used remote sensing data to investigate glacier thickness changes in the Himachal Pradesh, Western Himalaya. They found an annual ice thickness loss of about 0.8 m w.e. per year between 1999 and 2004 – about twice the long-term rate of the period 1977–1999."

That's from the United Nations Environmental Program's report on glaciers, based on the World Glacier Monitoring Service, participants in the IPCC process.

The doubters on global climate change, however, are not retreating like the majority of the globe's glaciers. Utah's House of Representatives on Monday passed a nonbinding resolution expressing its doubt about climate change. (The Beehive State, incidentally, also is considering opening up another radioactive waste site.)

-- Geoff Mohan

Photo: The Inhofe family igloo in Washington. Credit: Courtesy of Sen. Inhofe's office

 
Comments () | Archives (45)

The comments to this entry are closed.

I just finished reading . I liked it. I’m glad I saw this post on ; and that I am adding it as my favourite. This blog on has helped me in getting additional information about & also helped me see big picture context, which is valuable. It gave me a feel, and a long term view of

Climate Change sceptics certainly do have a field day when there is lots of snow and cold winds.

However, people forget that the amount of HEAT stored in the oceans is huge, compared with all the ice, cold air, snow on the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere.

The rise in the ocean's temperatures has been inexorable, and that is the REAL global warming, not what we see above the sea!

Has it come as any surprise that the larger great lakes did not freeze over this winter, nor was their ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or indeed, around Newfoundland, this winter?

Climate Change sceptics have managed to delay action for 40 years, since the early '70's when climate change was brought to the fore. I hope that they will put their money where there mouths are.

Just watch. Global warming is going to destroy us just like the Y2K computer bug did (didn't it?). If anyone survives, the Y3K computer bug will get them later.

Record snow is not proof of anything regarding climate.

And very few deny "climate change".

What's in question is:

1 Is climate currently warming or cooling
2 How significant is the anthropogenic contribution.

The gods have been angered by the believe in the false god of global warming. We must make a sacrifice to appease the gods and end the snow. I suggest we toss Al Gore into an active volcano.

I find it intersting that the obvious changes in the world climate seem to be ignored. During my 60 year lifetime I have observed earlier springs and later summers. Earlier and further northward bird migrations later and not as far south migrations. Sea leavel rises resulting in land loss for low laying Isalnds where I have lived. Insects living further north. These and other observations make it difficult for me to take seriously the arguments that warming is not happening.

I can not underrstand the failure of most of the people involved in this discussion to be concerned about what will happen to the millions or billions of people who will lose everything in the next 50 to 100 years if nothing changes.

I will simply say this - A few years back the Dems were all over the media bemoaning the ills we faced from global warming/climate change all because the winter was a mild one there in DC, no snow and very mild temperatures. Now its the gw/cc because they have so much snow... What I think is that these people have a high amount of hubris and ego to sit there and tell me that me and how I live are the cause of earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, rain, snow, wind, hurricanes, the locust, and every other calamity that befalls this planet (this was on Joy Beheart CNN Headline just the other night)! The truth is that the scientists that are true believers are just that - true believers in their theories. But until they can explain why temperatures spiked over the 4 days that the airplanes were grounded right after September 11th, 2001, or why there have been many events prior to our (humans) history on this planet much less before we started to keep records upon which the earth cooled and heated, or why they are not studying more on the possibilities of these changes being caused by the extreme solor activity thats been wittnessed in recent years, or why the magnetic poles of this planet are shifting... I really do not care nor do I want to listen to them blame me and the way I live for these natural occurences! I will tell you this much, polluting the air with the exhausts and human activity in very high concentations in very confined spaces (the LA Basin and surrounding areas) is not good for our health. Go ahead and switch to electric cars I am good with it but dont be telling me that it is causing the planet to change. We are far too insignificant to even be considered. And remember with the explosion of electric demand we will need Nuclear Energy...

I was surprised with senators comments when I saw the title of this article......snow and heat are factors of climate changes and therefore this extreme snow are one of the symptoms of global warming . You know people like this senator surprised me w/ his simplistic explanation of the existence of the snow ???? god helps us...we have people in office with this level of intelligence? I can see some of the comments made by some ignorant people here, explains why we are in this global warming situtation. All sorts of denials and stupidity. I would like to take this people right in the front of the global warming jsut so they can see firsthand the effects of global warming....right in front of a savage hurricane , tornadoes and in the middle of a snow blizzard? I have said my peace!

Human's have a god complex. We believe we're more responsible for major earth changes than in reality. The earth and universe rule over us, not the other way around. Hmm, here's a thought, move inland if the coast is getting flooded. Or maybe it's time to sell that beach house... or get a really good flood insurance policy. If we're getting more snow and rain due to evaporation, wouldn't that mean less drought, more food production, more hydro-electricity, etc? There's pros and cons. The earth will equalize regardless of our global warming negotiations and actions. I'm not saying lets be irresponsible, I'm saying it's not all our fault, as much as conservationists would lead us to believe. Global warming, particularly at the fault of mankind, is better job security.

Americans tend to be simultaneously (a) skeptical and (b) peer dependent. If everybody else's mother is jumping off a cliff, they'll usually jump too--but if they think you're trying to sell them something, they'll slam down the phone. The one-two punch of "Climategatte" and "Snowmageddon" has pushed public opinion past the tipping point. Peer-dependent people who used to nod solemnly at the invocation of "global warming" now join the crowd that laughs at it.

That's a problem, of course. Science doesn't depend on polls--but politics does. People who believe that global warming is real and man-made now find themselves in the unenviable position of Barack Obama and his health care bill. With 41 Republican Senators, the only hope for health care reform is a truly bipartisan bill. With Americans mocking global warming, the only chance to curb CO2 emissions is a shift to new approaches.

I've drafted a "Silicon for Carbon Bill" that uses tax relief to promote telecommuting, flex-time, and public transportation. It reduces traffic, smog, and petroleum use while encouraging cutting-edge 21st century offices. There's no reason we can't pass legislation like this in 2010--it's a bill that every incumbent would be proud to support, whether they believe in global warming or not.

Silicon for Carbon Bill: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=223649097106&1&index=1

How is radioactive waste incidental to global warming?


Kind've funny given the snow event now holding forth in Alabama.

But an honest question for the climate scientists, not the pundits. A commentary in the New Republic today, similar in vein to this article, says the larger snowfalls (like the bigger hurricanes?) are due to more water vapor caused by global warming (CO2). But has the science really sorted out the impact of more water vapor? Clouds, after all, reflect lots of sunlight back into space. And the H2O itself would seem to both reflect and capture heat. So is more water vapor really likely to cause warming or cooling? And how confident are we (you) of that answer?

Moreover, if the answer is that water vapor does indeed cause warming, could we not turn the whole story around and say that the increase in water vapor over the century is the cause of the warming, not the increase in CO2?

Climate "change" is a fact of life for humanity since man learned to record history in the past 6,000 years. Beyond that reasonably accurate climate records have been offered as provided by deciphering polar ice, ancient pollen-pond sediments, and stalgmite growth. Most of the observed change switching from "ice ball" earth to "hot house" earth is caused by external forces such as the sun. Henrik Svensmark, Physicist and Climatologist at the Danish Space Centre has done a very good job examining how the dynamic couple of background galactic Cosmic Rays and decreased solar activity have triggered "mini ice ages" on earth.

Given the fact that the earth has been in a prolonged solar minimum for several years and the fact that we experienced last year the coldest July on record in North America. And given the fact the reduced solar minimum also triggers higher levels of cosmic radiation able to reach earth that Svensmark has predicted causes harsher winters in the Northern Hemisphere why can't folks flogging "climate change" admit this science is at best a work in progress. What is needed now is to STOP the polemics and re-engage a full press court on the science of understanding the sun, galactic cosmic radiation, and Man's effect on the earth. Stop with the Man vs Nature debate and start Nature & Man will always effect the enviornment. Those combined effects are very clear given the huge heat islands consisting of 100's of square miles of concrete and tar roads in urban areas, and also in the form of black soot dumped by Chinese coal and steel plants that ends up spreading across your favorite Himalayan glacier that absorbs solar energy and melts faster. It also means that we have yet to understand how the sun's plasma solar wind inductively couples with the earth's magnetic field to drive the dynamo effect in the planet's core perhaps triggering not only more volcanic activity on land but also in the 1000's of active volcanic cones at the tectonic plate edges that also eject mass quantities of sulfur rich aerosols. In the end the real debate is this: How can we stop using all the earth's oil, natural gas and coal in the next few generations and develop a clean sustainable economy and environment for a human population that will double by the end of this century and likely wipe out a good portion of the species in the process (e.g. tigers, rhinos, tuna, whales, etc..). Soylent Green is NOT an option folks.

BEWARE THE PROPHET WHO SEEKS TO PROFIT

The winter storms are clear proof of Global Warming. The last decade was the warmest on record. Warm air holds more moisture. When more warm moist air hits cold air you get storms. The 2 biggest snow storms on record were in the last decade. I remember reading 2 decades ago that one of the signs of Global Warming would be storms getting stronger.

Peekabologist.

I hereby challenge the global warming deniers to put your money where your ignorance is. Let's set up a betting pool, sort of like a climate lottery. Climate scientists can make their best consensus predictions about what we can expect to see in 40 years if global warming is a fact. Deniers can make their own predictions based on their lie that the planet is not warming. Then on January 1, 2051 we see who's predictions were more accurate. The winners split the losers' money.

Global-warming "skeptics" need to learn the difference between temperature and precipitation. In regions that can expect snowfall at some point each winter, record snowfall amounts do *not* correspond to record low temperatures.

The heaviest snowfall occurs when temperatures are at freezing -- if temperatures drop well below freezing, the amount of moisture the air can hold is reduced -- the result is *less* snowfall at lower temperatures.

A 30F storm will drop a lot more snow than a 15F storm will.

In a place like Washington DC where occasional snowstorms are expected, the coldest storms will drop less snow -- it's the warmer snowstorms that really bury the place.



The first decade of the 21st century may be seen as the decade in which environmentalism peaked, and then failed from its own hubris and corruption. It has taken about a decade in a deluge of environmental proselytizing, marketing, hysterics and gratuitous lies to expose the greed and fear mongering of a movement that exists now as just another political special interest. Their shameful trade in scary green scenarios now falls on a deaf ear in the public mind. Except for those for whom environmentalism is a practiced religion or commercial enterprise, eco-themes and incentives have been largely exhausted, and now satirized, in our fickled popular culture.

What is clear, given recent climate frauds, is that partisan ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economic realities in climate policy. What is also clear is that environmentalism no longer offers any product or service in support of our future security and prosperity. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism” that we can no longer afford.

When oh when will these climate change deniers understand the simple concept that weather is not climate and climate is not weather. Two entirely different things.

So, 20 inches of snow in D.C. ISN'T climate change?

To all of you who doubt that the climate is changing and that humans are at least in part responsible, I have this message. Pray to whatever God that you believe in that you are right.

Because if you are wrong, you will be on your own. That is to say that you will NOT be welcomed at my door (turned away empty handed) nor should you be at any other.

Don't turn to anybody for water, food or shelter...

It will YOUR poor judgment and unwillingness to take steps to prevent catastrophe that will get you what you have coming to you. I firmly believe that the Universe has a unique way of giving you just exactly what you deserve.

I maintain that if the possibility even exists that through our activities, the livability of this planet is threatened. It is our responsibility, indeed our duty to to take steps to preserve the planet not only for ourselves, but for those who come after us as well.

Or do we care so little about anybody but ourselves that we don't concern ourselves with things until they are an insurmountable problem that affects everybody.

Wow. The oil companies must be shelling out millions to get this much astroturfing activity.

The Achilles Heel of the global weather system is the Gulf Stream and it is collapsing. When the Gulf Stream collapses it stops sending warm air north to the Eastern Seaboard and Europe. The Wood's Hole report "Climate Change Should We Be Worried" shows what happens when the Thermohaline Current (Gulf Stream) collapses and ice ages begin in as little as under 20 years. If you would like to watch the Gulf Stream go to http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/ and see for yourself. Yes, global warming is climate change but the earth has a counterintuitive response.

True, just because of high snowfall it cannot be linked to Global Warming. After all, if it's no snow, people would still blame it on Global Warming.

Nevertheless, why destroy the environment? Shouldn't it be our responsibility to protect our environment we live in??

I don't think it's just the snow, but rather that plus the fact that a bunch of the 'scientists' pushing global warming got busted lying and faking or manipulating their data, and all the other common sense data that completely discredits the idea of global warming.

If a bunch of scientists used this quality of information to suggest that God exists, that the world and everything that is, was created by God, or that human life begins at conception, you people would tear it to pieces, and that's all true. So why not tear this ridiculously BAD science up?

Really? Now we're doubting global warming because of a single season on a single continent that acted against the typical mold of the argument?

May I remind people that can't see the broad spectrum, such as Senator James Imhofe, we've only been accurately recording data relevant to the discussion for 100 years maximum. The earth cycles its ice age every ~40,000-100,000 years. The last estimated ice age cycle was about 10,000 years ago. Turbelances and changes aren't going to be directly scalable every single year and that over the last 50 years we've seen a steady increase in global temperatures (source - www.nasa.gov). This is partly due to the earth coming out of an ice age. The study of global warming is to determine how much pollutants are affecting that.

Also you must consider the fact that the sun just came out of the longest solar flare recession in recorded history for the last 200 years. While we can't summon conclusive studies to support the immediate impacts of the solar cycle, implications are abundantly clear. If it weren't, then one could argue we don't need the sun and that any changes in its output would be voided to the debate. Who's honestly dumb enough to state that?

If you can boldly say that global warming doesn't exist on any level, then you adjacently can accurately predict the weather - because those two are very much related. We all know how inaccurate meteorologists are. It's a guestimation game based on historical data and models.

I have a theory and I call it, "my bank account would be affected". It's based on those that choose to discredit global warming as some largely controversial conspiracy theory. It states that any primate willing to debase the intellect of their species and deny logical thought is doing so to further their individual revenue through support of aged fuel sources limiting their species' timeline available for existence.

Can anyone give me motives for why scientists would be falsifying data to support global warming? Poor logic need not apply.

SPEAK NO EVIL
Oh I see, it's a conspiracy involving NOAA et al. Let's dismiss any well thought out hypothesis that doesn't agree with today's weather report because we simply don't want to devote mental energy to a concept so complex and difficult to study. Rant because you think it's too expensive to work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but don't see any problem with building a fence that spans our border with Mexico. Illegal immigration is illegal and it snowed today, so global warming must be bunk 'cause it is really colder not warmer. Good luck with your GED.

Lots of snow does not necessarily mean colder weather. I can recall being stationed in Massachusetts with temperatures in the -10 -15 rang and just a foot or so of snow. I do not see these weather reports showing minus temperatures.
I have seen 20' or more of snow in the Sierra Nevada and the temperature was in the 20s. That is a warm spring day in North Dakota. I can show you glaciers that have retreated by over two miles since the 1930s. I used to cross the glacier on South fork of Big Pine Creek to South Fork Pass. It is now a tarn. The average temperature has increased in just my lifetime.
You get more snow fall at moderate temperatures, but it accumulates more at lower temperatures.

People such as Sen. Imhoff belong in the zoo. He is about as backward an individual that we have.

The Global Warming (nee "Climate Change") witch hunt continues unabated despite the critical flaws in their IPCC bible and the serious inconsistencies between their models and real world data. If you are a disbeliever in the gospel of Al Gore, the witch hunters will pile snow on you until you are either crushed to death or admit you are a denier.

How did this article make it to print? Great job Geoff! For your next article can you just post a link to a youtube video of you backflipping and landing on your face?

Video proof of global warming that even flat Earther's can't deny!!!

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

Watch that video if you have the guts? And then come back here and tell us again about how you think just about every climate scientist on the planet is a bald faced liar and are part of a grand international plot to dupe the rest of the world into believing in global warming (and for what???) bragging rights?

Every single data source & cliamte model that the AWG crowd is using is flawed in at its source or due to manipulation. From the cherry picked tree ring study and cherry picked weather station data, the improperly placed weather stations, the lack of adjustment for urban heat island effect, the disproven hockey stick analysis, the deliberate hiding of past warming trends, to the improper adjustment of NASA and NOAA data. The entire AWG theory is based on currepted data and flawed analysis. There is no longer a single substantive basis for any global warming theories to stand on.

LOL - you think we Okies are lacking in mental capabilities, take a look at the way you have spelled Senator James INHOFE'S name in this article. It is spelled with an "N", not an "M". May not be to bad of an idea to get your eyes check - it just might help you out some.

Oh yes, just for the heck of it, why is it that no one ever seems to mention anything about the solar cycle that we are going through right now let alone that the sun is the main sole source of heat for the earths climate to begin with? Hummm, could there possibly be any relation between the sun and the earths overall temperature levels? Now if that is the source of our "global warming" problem, well, go for it buddy, let's see you control the sun. Got any spare change?

I don't care - climate change, no climate change.... Let's see, take care of what we a given??!?!?!? We need the technology to move us away from foreign oil, and it doesn't mean go digging for more. It's time to move on. Everyone loves the cool stuff on Star Trek - and Star Wars. We can get there if we get our minds off of the oil!!!

P.S. - I am a Republican

Why is it when the weather is hot and breaking all types of records the climate change deniers are so quite? They only come out when the weather is cold or snowy and say: "See we told you it was a lie and here's the proof?" What crackers.

Now, I'm not going to argue whether global warming is true or not... But the amount of warming that has supposedly occurred is only about 1.5 degrees. So, if you would have been at 20 degrees at a given time, you would end up at 21.5 degrees. It can snow at both of those temperatures, so the presence of snow has little to do with whether there is global warming or not.

Gee, sorry to dispel a conspiracy theory in it's infancy, and all, but NOAA (and Colonel Sanders) are not the only organizations in on "the plot". How about a few other organizations I prefer to listen to:
American Geophysists Union
National Scientists Foundation
The Weather Channel
um... Australia
Penn State University (Biologists; studying algae...)
NASA (see: cryosphere, Shrinking Ice Cap, countless other articles)
On and on and on.
People actually had to eat dirt before acknowledging the Dust Bowl's existence. They didn't have smart folks like those listed here to warn them. What's your excuse?

In other words, heads I win, tails you lose.

I LOOK AT THE NATIONAL SEA AND ICE DATA SATILITE EVERY DAY .
I BELIEVE MY EYES.ICE CAPS ARE JUST ABOUT AT THEIR BIGGIST LEVELS EVER RECORDED.ALSO CANADA LETS YOU SHOOT A THOUSAND POLAR BEARS A YEAR BECAUSE THEY ARE AT THE LARGEST EVER RECORDED LEVELS. GLOBAL WARMING ERRRRRRRRRRRRR DAAAAAA

The main reason for the snow in DC is that Congress is not doing anything, hence no hot air.

If there is snow then there is indisputable proof of global warming. If there is no snow, once again this is indisputable proof of global warming. Heads we win, tails you lose. Like any good religion any occurrence that happens can be cited as a sign the global warming god exists.

Quote: The irregularities had to do with predictions of the expected effects of warming. None of them, however, undermined the report's consensus that the planet has warmed and that man's activities have contributed to the warming.

The whole crux of the issue is the IPCC IS NOT TRUSTED ANYMORE by allot of people!!!! SO STATEMENTS by ANYONE taking that position is not going to close the issue but rather do nothing but pour salt on the wound.

Until all the data that has been previously collected has been released and the peer review process in the scientific world is open to all then I highly doubt the " flat earthers" ( man calling names helps allot) public opinion will never be changed.

Is that really that tough of concept to understand?

Why should anybody read the almost criminally Maligned IPCC report carefully ??? What we know from their e-mails is they were trying desperately to 'cover' the drop in Global temperature. So this well crafted reasoning and the way it was come by are suspect..the reasoning for why it is 'really still getting warmer'...lol...furthermore it is a simple fact that NOAA answers among other things to the department of defense, the intelligence services, and that some of their imagery is questionable because of the fact that it has to pass through D.O.D filters before the 'real time data' can be assessed by the 'so called' Government scientists which is becoming an oxy-moron. Accuweather ? why don't you just say your crappy local weatherman told you he believes in global warming 'just because'... that would mean as much. Snow is no smug indicator of Global warming without the TEMPERATURE THAT PRODUCE IT and the prima-fascia case for the el-nino effect with this many variables is not just weak, it is reasoning like that ( peer reviewed ...lol ) that has us in a rightful societal mode of GREAT DOUBT. There are 35,000 scientists that oppose anthropogenic global warming given the lousy state of data collection, political positioning, and just plain bad science compared to 2,500 ( some of whom are mere journalists like this hack ) who constitute the unethical IPCC... Put down the kool aid folks.... Man made Global Warming is an implement to restructure human society and you will NOT LIKE what they have in mind... nor will it make a BIT of difference to the climate of this planet

FLASH!!

This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

Recent News
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |  December 12, 2013, 9:58 am »
New Cook Islands Shark Sanctuary proposed |  December 8, 2011, 8:00 am »

Categories


Archives