Pet Peeve Watch: Snow storms don’t disprove global warming

February 14, 2007

I’ve noticed that a few conservative sites are excited about this Drudge item from last night:

House Hearing On ‘Warming Of The Planet’ Canceled After Ice Storm

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

DC WEATHER REPORT: Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s.

To add to the hilarity, Drudge also noted, “Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area canceling [sic] screening of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ because of a snowstorm.”

I’m not sure how the right came to settle on this as an effective denial strategy, but isn’t it time for the right to realize that winter storms do not disprove global warming?

This has been going on for far too long now.

* In late December, professional blowhard Bill Bennett mocked Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, claiming that “half the people in the country” will “have to fight through snowstorms to watch this global warming thing.”

* In January, NBC’s Willard Scott, who purports to be a weatherman, said a snowstorm in Colorado cast doubt on global warming. The validity of the science “all depends on which side of the Mississippi [River] you’re hanging your hat,” Scott said.

* A few weeks later, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto began a segment by noting freezing temperatures in Texas, Arizona, and California and asking if these temperatures were “[p]roof that all this hype over global warming could be just that — hype?”

We apparently don’t need to try and make these folks look foolish; they’re doing a fine job of it on their own. They genuinely seem to believe that a winter storm, during the winter, is enough to cast doubt on all available climatology science.

For what’s it’s worth…

As Media Matters for America has noted, weather in a portion of the United States is not indicative of whether the Earth is warming. As the National Climatic Data Center noted in its preliminary 2006 report, “[f]ollowing the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880.” That report also noted that “the 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) will likely be 2 [degrees] F (1.1 [degrees] C) above the 20th Century mean, which would make 2006 the third warmest year on record.”

Is it me, or do you sometimes get the sense that policy debates with our conservative friends just can’t work?

That’s why global warming is a misnomer. It’s allowed a semantic argument which is a distraction from the real issue.

Climate change, climate change, climate change.

  • It could even be argued that global warming is in fact the CAUSE of the heavy snowfall, particularly in Western New York. When low pressure storm fronts move over the Great Lakes, they pick up moisture. Warmer water temps (caused by a warmer summer/fall/early winter) allow the storm front to pick up more moisture, much like Katrina did in the Gulf. More moisture eventually means participation will occur and when it occurs over colder land masses, heavier snows.

  • I’ve mentioned this before, but I’d like to add that Rush Limbaugh was eager to teach how the weather does not equal the climate — back when temperatures were unseasonably high. Back then, the argument ran: “Environmentalist whackos are saying that warm weather is because of climate change. That’s just wrong (it really is). Therefore, the whackos are wrong about global warming, which doesn’t exist.”

  • Yup, because they don’t get that Global Warming is a misnomer.

    They think that warming means hot. It does not. Basically, the heat trapped by CO2 increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere or humidity. Water Vapor is a direct function of the energy state of the air.

    As we have seen, increased humidity causes weather systems to become more intense as anyone who has experienced with a muggy heatwave or a humid winter (biting cold and loads of snow) should realize. 38C in the Desert is nothing compared to 30C at 100% humidity.

    Like Hurricane Katrina and the insanely stormy weather in the MidWest and East. It means storms get worse and extremes become more common. But trying to explain that to them becomes moot. Also they conveniently forget that Nov, Dec and January were unseasonably warm.

    They just say that it shouldn’t be cold…

  • It is obvious that global warming could not be real if it all of America does not turn into Phoenix overnight.

    “Is it me, or do you sometimes get the sense that policy debates with our conservative friends just can’t work?” – CB

    That is a given. You cannot win an argument about religion with a monkey when all he does is continually throw his own feces at you. The real trick is to beat them in the rhetorical battle without looking like total idiots. We need to throw more of this Global Climate Change as opposed to Global Warming language at them. If we said “increased severe weather (Katrina, snow storms, tornados, floods will ensue” as opposed to giving the impression winter will be relegated to hisotry the simple people (read GOP) could understand. Science was never their thing.

  • doubtful… “Climate change” was adopted by Republicans as a way of shifting the subject away from global warming. But you’re right — it’s a broader term, and therefore more applicable. I prefer it, especially since “global warming” has taken on too much baggage.

  • People seem to have forgotten that the East Coast had temperatures in the high sixties right in early January, that the cherry blossoms in Washington were blooming two months early and that bears in the area were having trouble figuring out when to hibernate. Go figure.

  • C’mon, you gotta remember you’re dealing with people who think that the earth is flat, 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs died in the Flood. And you expect these people to understand a chaotic phenomenon like global warming?!

  • By this logic, when the Kansas City Royals (who have sucked ass for about a decade) sweep three games from the New York Yankees (who have not) on a June weekend, it means they’re the best team in baseball that year (though that’s traditionally decided by something called, you know, *The* *World* *Series*).

    In short: an example does not disprove a rule.

  • Okay, here’s a simple explanation as to how global warming makes more winter weather.

    The air warms up a bit. Not a whole lot if you’re thinking along the lines of what your back-porch thermometer says; maybe just a degree or two on the global scale. But that wee bit of warmth takes out some of the earth’s ice (which reflects sunlight and its associated heat), and exposes water and land-mass (both of which absorb that heat energy). The earth begins to warm a bit more, while the resulting extra water-surface means more water exposed to atmospheric evaporation. More moisture in the air means more precipitation in the form of rain and—in the winter—snow and ice. So what should be a relatively “dry and cold” winter event becomes very snowy and icy.

    This, by the way, will be on your comprehensive final. Bill Bennett, Willard Scott, and Neil Cavuto—will not. This is Meteorology 101, not the Ringling Brothers Clown College Entrance Exams….

  • Al Gore does predict global warming to occur at an accelerating rate. The thing is that it is averages over time with lots of variations in the meantime.

    .

  • Dictionaries? The GOP don’t need no stinking dictionaries!

    Climate: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

    Weather: the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness

  • When I was seven, there was a local drought that got pretty serious. Lasted most of the summer and into the beginning of the school year. One day, we got a drizzle, and I got so excited! The drought MUST be over! Crops are saved! Problems are solved! There wasn’t enough rain to wash a VW Beetle, but as far as I was concerned, it was open up the fire hydrant and run through the stream time!

    The difference between me at age 7 and global warming skeptics today?

    I WAS EFFING SEVEN!

  • It’s like a doctor telling someone they have cancer and need immediate treatment. Then the person says, “But doc, I feel just find, I can’t have cancer.”

  • ….and that dinosaurs died in the Flood. -Susan

    Didn’t a Republican Congressman recently posit the dinosaurs died from excessive flatulence?

    Is it me, or do you sometimes get the sense that policy debates with our conservative friends just can’t work?

    I submit the above example concerning dinosaurs as a proof to your theory.

  • In January, NBC’s Willard Scott, who purports to be a weatherman, said a snowstorm in Colorado cast doubt on global warming. The validity of the science “all depends on which side of the Mississippi [River] you’re hanging your hat,” Scott said.

    As my good friend Former Dan points out in his post, the warming results in more moisture in the atmosphere. Then, when warming in the Pacific Northwest forces the jet stream into the arctic, where it picks up really cold air, when it comes back down into the far midwest (over Denver), the really cold jet stream finds all the warm moisture in the air over the Rockies (let’s remember that November and the first part of December were unseasonably warm in Denver) and – bam! – you have the Big Blizzard of Christmas, and then the Big Blizzard of New Year’s.

    Of course, since explaining this takes all sorts of big polysyllabic words and an attention span longer than that of a gnat, it’s no surprise that the homo sap line of hairless bipeds (the righties) can’t get it.

  • The way to get to these idiots is to work within their own “Authoritarian” framework. The way to get them to believe something is to find out who they recognize as authorities, and read what they say about the climate crisis (not climate change, that term is too lame for this crisis).

    Simple people have many authorities they trust. Doctors are the best example. And it is likely that almost every brain-dead wingnut has at least one authority who recognizes that the climate crisis is real. Of course there will be other authorities in their worldview who think it’s a hoax, but once you have two of their accepted authorities in conflict, that calls for a tie-breaker. The tie-breaker is a simple two-part question…

    What is the risk, and what do the scientific experts say?

    The risk is somewhat uncertain, but undeniably huge. And the science is very certain.

    I heartily recommend that everyone buy one or more copies of “An Inconvienient Truth” and loan them out to every wingnut you know. This really, REALLY works. The flood of data, the smackdown of the “tobacco science”, the video format, all make for a powerful presentation. Most wingnuts will never go out and buy or rent the movie, but they will watch it if you hand it to them. They’re curious. And the damn thing will turn them around.

    And the changes required to avert the worst effects of the climate crisis? Fairly minor when compared to the risk. Many of the changes required will have other benefits. I tell people “We do not need to go back to living in caves to save our grandchildren.”

  • Wingnut mentality:

    Reagan cut taxes, the economy improves by the mid-80s, therefore tax cuts improve the economy

    Reagan boosted military spending, then the Soviet Union collapsed. Therefore, increased defense spending caused the USSR to collapse.

    bin Laden attacked US embassies in Africa, Clinton didn’t try to kill him. Therefore, bin Laden saw the US as weak, and we have 9/11, Cliinton’s failure.

    Saddam was captured in December 2003, then Libya shut down its WMD program. Therefore, capturing Saddam scared Khaddafi into submission.

    See? Just oversimplify the world, and it’s easier for those with the mental capacity of a palm tree to understand stuff.

  • I have asked a bunch of people during the very warm weather earlier this winter the following question.

    How much of the unusually warm weather is due to global warming?

    Virtually everyone said that a significant portion was due to global warming.

    EVERYONE was WRONG.

    Virtually NONE of the heatwave was due to global warming UNLESS global warming is responsible for making the weather more extreme.

    If global warming has raised the average temp by 1 degree F, which it probably hasn’t, YET!!!!!

    Then when we were 20 degrees above normal that at least 95% of the hot weather was NOT caused by global warming.

    So now, with the weather being cold, the flip side (sort of) applies. Global warming has virtually nothing to do with daily weather. (unless global warming has already SIGNIFICANTLY increased the likelihood of extreme weather.

    Does anyone disagree?

  • Detroit’s local right-wing “Christian” talk show host utilizes the same tactic. Last week, during a cold snap, Bob declared it was “one global warming degree out” and the weather as “Al Gore cold”. Idiots…

  • This has been going on for far too long now.
    This has been going on for years and years. I remember, way back in 1994 when I was a stupid high school kid watching the Rush Limbaugh TV show, he was interviewing people on the street during a snow storm in Chicago about their belief in global warming; not surprisingly, most of them said something like, “It’s hard to take it seriously on a day like today,” which in Limbaugh-land was presumably intended to constitute valid scientific evidence.

  • Nothing the matter with the terms. It’s global warming, not Colorado warming. That it’s mainly been 20 degrees warmer in Nome, AK than Chicago, IL for the last couple weeks is not great news.

  • ***UNLESS global warming is responsible for making the weather more extreme.***

    …and…

    ***(unless global warming has already SIGNIFICANTLY increased the likelihood of extreme weather.***
    ————————-neil wilson

    Um…it is, and it has, respectively. Your point?

  • neil wilson – If global warming has raised the average temp by 1 degree F, which it probably hasn’t, YET!!!!!

    Then when we were 20 degrees above normal that at least 95% of the hot weather was NOT caused by global warming.

    So now, with the weather being cold, the flip side (sort of) applies. Global warming has virtually nothing to do with daily weather. (unless global warming has already SIGNIFICANTLY increased the likelihood of extreme weather.

    Does anyone disagree?

    Yes. Mostly because of the 1 degree/20 degree/95% construction…so wrong.

    Plus, “Global warming has virtually nothing to do with daily weather,” is problematic for me. What do you mean by “daily weather”? Are you implying it affects some other sort of “weather”, or saying that it has little effect on all weather?

  • Nothing the matter with the terms. It’s global warming, not Colorado warming. -JAG

    It’s actually the term warming that I have a problem with. The climate change that occurs if the polar caps melt is not a net warming effect. Europe will freeze because the ocean currents will stop.

    The changes will be dramatically different in different parts of the planet, so warming does a disservice to the severity of the problem.

    I’ll echo Racerx and say that climate change might not even be an appropriate name, as I stated earlier. Climate crisis is much more accurate.

  • Doubtful, #1 – totally agree

    Neil S.: You are right. Heatwaves occur with or without the greenhouse effect. An increase in average temperature caused by the greenhouse effect does not require that the warmest day in a particular area will be higher or that there will be more heatwaves. It does not mean that there are no cold days. So you are correct in saying that just because a particular day or string of days being hot or cold neither proves nor disproves the greenhouse effect.

    Even a single year being the warmest on record does not mean prove or disprove the greenhouse effect. There is significant variation that occurs from year to year.

    For example, look at this graph from the Nation Climatic Data Center which tracks average annual temperature in the US:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/jan/Reg110Dv00Elem02_01012007_pg.gif

    However, the fact that several of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years is consistent with the greenhouse effect causing warming.

    As doubtful pointed out in post #1, the most important aspect of the greenhouse effect is climate change, which will not be uniform throughout the globe. As climatic zones shift, different areas will experience different types of climate change. Regional changes could be much larger than the global or a national average. One of the biggest concerns is about water: either raising sea level in coastal regions or less precipitation in agricultural areas; changes in salinity, temperature, and current of the oceans, which might affect not only fish and other ocean life, but the cycle of water in coastal regions. Significant changes in the climate in areas that rely on subsistence farming will be very problematic for those populations. Even in the US, significant changes in the length of growing season, precipitation, or ave temp during the growing season in the middle of the country that lead to a 5% annual decease in grain yield would be serious for our economy.

  • Another consideration to the topic of climate change is the departure from what is expected and the increasing cycles of variability. One of the expected factors in climate change is the alteration or shut down of weather influencing systems. The weather in the northeast swinging radically from spring in January to now record snows in places and freezing temps could be indicating the sputtering of the climate engines, such as ocean cycles, that influence our weather and maintain historic climate conditions.

    In the West, the last half century in the Colorado River Basin has been marked by much higher variability in river flows as a direct result of the increasingly wild swings in precipitation from year to year. Long story short, climate is becoming increasingly weird and unreliable.

    If it rains in the desert, it doesn’t mean it’s not longer a desert. If we still get snow and biting cold during climate change, it doesn’t mean change isn’t happening.

  • It’s useless. None of these shortsighted idiots are going to admit they were ever wrong, even when America’s breadbasket looks like the Sahara and New York looks like Venice. Tell one of them that oil supplies are finite and will run out, and they immediately go out and buy the biggest goddamn SUV they can find. Tell them to conserve and recycle and they light up their houses like a Vegas casino at Christmas. They will continue to shriek in denial even as sea water creeps under the door, and the wheat and cornfields that feed them dry up and blow away, and finally, when everything really goes to hell, they will die blaming everyone but themselves.

    The only thing to do is not to be One of Them, and hope that smart people still outnumber stupid people. Thin hope, but better than none at all.

  • “Is it me, or do you sometimes get the sense that policy debates with our conservative friends just can’t work?” – CB

    “You can’t reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.”
    Oscar Wilde

    • Comments are closed.