Wednesday, February 10, 2010


Irrefutable Anthropogenic Global Warming

Time magazine, seeking to speed its steady decline in readership, gives Warmie true believer Bryan Walsh a chance to respond to the real time refutation of their theory/hoax contained in the three feet of snow in the District of Columbia and enviorns. And, as expected, the WTB blame the huge snowstorm on, wait for it, global warming. He just didn't do it very convincingly.

But let me put out a quick question for the WTB at large--is there any meterological phenomenon which can refute the theory?

Here is what Mr. Walsh gets right:

Ultimately, however, it is a mistake to use one storm--or even a season's worth
of storms--to disprove climate change (or to prove it...). Weather is what will
happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and
centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably
reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate
projections about the future of the global climate.
But isn't the whole alarmist deal about AGW based on scientists' ability to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate?

I have an alternative definition of the difference between climate and weather--weather phenomenon which supports the AGW theory/hoax is indicative of climate, is, in fact, the climate and weather phenomenon which undermines AGW alarmism is just weather.

Here is what Mr. Walsh gets wrong.

He talks about a 50 year trend in winter storm tracks moving ever more north here in America. What has that got to do with a huge blizzard south of the Mason-Dixon line? Baffling.

He says it is global warming theory that warmer air will hold more water vapor and as long as the air temperature is below 32 degrees F, then the precipitation will be snow rather than sleet or frozen rain. OK, so is air less than 32 degrees F warm air or cold air? Is it usual for DC and enviorns to be really cold but just dusted with snow (because the really cold air can only hold a bit of powdery snow) or is it usual for DC to have air laden with moisture but it's too warm to snow? It's clearly the latter. An every warming air temperature would lead to less snow, not more.

He says the Great Lakes have been ever more ice free this past decade (well, except for last winter when the Great Lake ice was at a near record extent--and this winter when the ice over most of the 5 lakes is in a normal pattern, except for Erie). So, that decade of low ice extent, was it weather or climate?

Let's use Occam's razor: Is it more likely that warmer weather means less snow accumulation or more snow accumulation?

As the hoax unravels and people disbelieve, the explanations have to become ever more counterintuitive and fantastic.


"He just didn't do it very convincingly." - That's the only thing you got right in your post.

You demonstrate quite effectively that you don't know the difference between weather and climate. Thanks for clarifying.
You're welcome. So do you believe AGW causes big snowstorms in the mid Atlantic states?
I believe that cold air (around 32 degrees) plus lots of water vapor, and a dash of cyclonic lifting equals big snowstorms.

It's idiocy to draw any conclusions regarding the anthropogenic argument of the average-global temperature increase based on a big snowstorm.
So it is essentially long term rate of change in mean global temperature? Right? Nothing else really matters. Unfortunately, we don't have reliable ground based temperature records and the reliable satellite records are just over 30 years long. So why are there WTBs? Is it a leap of faith about the future? The big snowstorm was almost certainly "caused" by an El Nino shifting south the jet stream. Not global warming, nor its refutation. (But is sure is fun to taunt the annecdotalist with inconvenient weather--I know I couldn't resist).
Well, where to start. OK let's begin with El Nino. Agreed, it's the most likely "cause" of the big storm. And, yes, taunting anecdotalists = fun

Are you denying that you are a CTB? A Coldie True Believer? I've read through your past posts on this subject. It's pretty obsessive.

"we don't have reliable ground based temperature records". If you truly believe this, then it's what we call a "conversation ender". You use the word hoax. Is there any evidence that would change your mind on this? How about a relatively recent paper that refutes Anthony Watt and concludes that the data is in fact reliable? How about other physical evidence supporting global average warming?
I don't so much believe it's not getting warmer (even a 50% error in the ground based record shows warming in the 80s and early 90s) but that I deny anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (mainly CO2) has anything more than a tiny influence on the ever present climate change. I base this on the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, most of which is natural, the tiny effect CO2 doubling has on temperature after 280 ppm, and the overwhelming effect water vapor has on global temperature. I think we're noticing it getting warmer and colder, colder and warmer, but our burning fossil fuel has no measurable effect. If those beliefs stop the conversation, so be it. Hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?