Today on Blogcritics
Home » Enjoying the Cold Weather? Thank Global Warming!

Enjoying the Cold Weather? Thank Global Warming!

The biggest winter storm in decades is crawling across the heartland of America…and conservatives are using it to “prove” that “global warming” is a fake, a liberal conspiracy, bad science, et cetera, ad nauseum.

But the winter storm is very much due to global warming, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Let’s make it simple by going through a few questions:

#1 – Which region on the planet has had the greatest increase in temperature over the past couple of decades?

Answer – the Arctic, as is shown here, here, and here; when the earth’s overall temperature rises, the Arctic’s rises significantly more.

#2 – So what happens when the Arctic temperature rises so much more than the temperature on most of the rest of the planet?

Answer – Easy. Ask yourself what happens when any gaseous substance is heated. Its local pressure increases and as a result the gaseous substance EXPANDS. In the case of the Arctic, we’ve got several million cubic miles where the temperature has risen significantly more than it has in the sub-arctic areas…and as a result, the warmer Arctic (which is STILL very cold to us, mind you) is expanding, pushing colder sub-Arctic and even Arctic air down to lower latitudes. That’s why, people, that we’re getting historically-bad winter weather not only here in America but also in the rest of the world that shares our general latitude, i.e. Europe and Russia.

I first saw this forecast by climatologists this past summer (and I lost the link to it). And you know what? It’s going to continue this way for most winters for the foreseeable future, all thanks to global warming.

But I don’t expect this to change the mind of a single conservative reader. Why? Because anything a liberal says or supports must be wrong, so anything a conservative says, no matter how silly or nonsensical—like “Global warming’s false because God wouldn’t allow it!”—is more patriotic and better for America than anything that 98% of the world’s climatologists say is proven by hard data year after year after year.

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • STM

    Classic Strine:

    With air chew (I can’t live, if living is …)

    Afferbeck Lorder

    Gloria Soame

    Terror Souse

    D’ya goada (tennis yesterday?)

    Air fridge (kinda bloke)

    Aorta (fix them fu.kin roads)

    How about some Merrikan egg-samples??

    Airman cheese semmitch

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Occasional condescension would be acceptable if it were grounded in the venerable English tradition of common sense, proper usage and proper attention to ordinary language philosophy. It loses, however, some of its bite when used as a trump card on behalf of a rather vulgar, positivistic view of natural and social sciences.

  • STM

    Forgot the best one of all:

    Emma Chisitt?

  • STM

    Come again, Rog … what was that?

    We’ll all need a gobbler mince to work that out.

  • STM

    Geez it’s ‘ot ‘ere. Me egg nishner’s not working.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Condescension now…

    Old habits die hard.

  • STM

    Doc, how’s the hembairg going?

    Also, gobbler mince is wrong. It means compliments.

    Should be: gahbla mince = Coupla minutes. Lol. Gahbla’s appropriate too.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Gahbla?

    Poor old you, mate. Country’s waterlogged at one end and a giant sauna at the other. No wonder you’re going ga-ga.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    You’re gonna have to unpack my thought, Stanley baby; it’s part of the fun. But then again, since you’ve found it a puzzler, you’re only guilty of naive rather than rabid realism. You’re not as deep (in the rabbit hole … hell, chose your own metaphor) as you might have been.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Ga-ga. There you go, Stanley, Queen’s English for you. Dreadful has become incorrigible.

  • STM

    Doc: “Gahbla?”

    I’ll deal with you in a gahbla mince, Doc. First I have to work out what Rog’s saying.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Forget it, Stan. It was but a note on the margin, destination “Dreadful.”

  • STM

    Rog, you have to watch out for Doc. He’s dreadful.

  • Dan

    “So, no peer-reviewed paper supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change has ever been published? Okaaay.”

    You’re confusing the argument. (seems to happen a lot) It wasn’t a contest between which side had the most peer-reviewed papers. The author of the blog you posted claimed that “oddly almost no peer reviewed work is published to support their thesis”. To which a commentor linked to 850 peer reviewed papers supporting their thesis.

    “It’s also news to me that atheists must also by default be Bad Scientists”

    not atheists. As I said, atheist zealots. Some atheists make fine scientists. zealots of any stripe often do not.

    I understand your analogy. Tree rings as temperature proxies worked well for about 80 years but post 1960, diverged from instrumentally recorded temperatures.

    But since no one can explain why this modern divergence occurs, there can be no real confidence that these proxy measurements did not diverge from what instruments would have measured in the distant past.

    That is what is being “hidden”. Splicing out inconvienient data but relying on unconfirmed data from centuries past because it fits your hypothesis of sudden unprecedented warming is not good science.

    It’s not as egregious as some make it out to be, but this one example is not the only excess exposed in the climategate scandal either.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Doing my best to keep him honest and true to form. We can’t let the proper English upbringing – shoot, he’s part Welsh – go to waste.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    The following example, illustrating the emergence of astrophysics in the 20th century, may be of help trying to understand the status of present-day climate science in terms of its observational and theoretical components.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    But since no one can explain why this modern divergence occurs, there can be no real confidence that these proxy measurements did not diverge from what instruments would have measured in the distant past.

    Say instead that no one YOU will accept can explain it…because the scientists that aren’t bought off by Big Oil are explaining very well what happened. You are just determined not to believe them no matter how much evidence they bring.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    You’re confusing the argument. (seems to happen a lot) It wasn’t a contest between which side had the most peer-reviewed papers. The author of the blog you posted claimed that “oddly almost no peer reviewed work is published to support their thesis”. To which a commentor linked to 850 peer reviewed papers supporting their thesis.

    I see what you meant now. I think you could have been a bit clearer: the claim was not that no peer-reviewed skeptical papers had been published, but very few. 800-odd papers out of several million is, by any statistical measure, “very few”. So my original point stands.

    not atheists. As I said, atheist zealots.

    I’m still waiting for your explanation of why Piltdown Man is an example of atheist zealotry. Since it’s never been discovered who was responsible for the hoax, you’re going to have to demonstrate (1) who did it, (2) that they were an atheist and (3) that they were motivated by zeal.

    On top of that, you also claimed that the hoax was an example of “ID denial”. You’ll have to show your reasoning (if any) behind that as well.

    But since no one can explain why this modern divergence occurs…

    Actually, they can (PDF). Also, the divergence does not occur in all trees, but only those in high northern latitudes: in other words, trees located near the planet’s biggest industrial centers. Hmmm…

    That is what is being “hidden”. Splicing out inconvenient data but relying on unconfirmed data from centuries past because it fits your hypothesis of sudden unprecedented warming is not good science.

    Since this was a private e-mail discussing raw data that only other climate scientists were looking at, and that the “spliced out” data was readily available to all of them, what exactly was being hidden?

    It’s not as egregious as some make it out to be

    It’s not egregious at all. Multiple independent investigations have cleared those involved of anything more egregious than not being as open as they could have. Their scientific integrity is not in question.

    this one example is not the only excess exposed in the climategate scandal either.

    Of the thousands of e-mails stolen, only a few cherry-picked lines have been presented, out of context, as evidence of supposed “excess”.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I’m not familiar with this Ice Pilots thing…where can I find it?

  • Boeke

    Andy,

    Google “ice pilots”.

    For the more advanced:

    Google “Torrent ice pilots”

  • Clavos

    For the more advanced:

    Cute.

    meh.

  • El Bicho

    just checking, anyone change their mind yet?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Sent your e-mail to Technorati recommending that we get rid of comments yet?

  • Dan

    “So my original point stands”

    You mean your unsolicited, unchallenged point? I guess if you are just throwing out the random boast that warmers have more peer-reviewed published papers than skeptics and want me to comment on it then OK, I concur. “several million” sounds kind of on the heavy side though.

    “I’m still waiting for your explanation of why Piltdown Man is an example of atheist zealotry.”

    I’m waiting for you to explain how you know Piltdown Man was a “practical joke”. Where’s your inside information coming from?

    “Actually, they can (PDF).” (explain divergence of tree ring proxy from recorded temperatures)

    Once again, you should read your evidence before you link to it. Much theorizing, very little certainty, lots of co-variants.

    My favorite one was “drought stress”. I guess droughts never occured prior to 1960.

    If there were any scientific certainty to the theories they could have recalibrated the stubborn data and included it. (with proper documentation of the supporting principles). But there is no scientific certainty.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    “Scientific certainty” is no different than any other kind of certainty; consequently, according it a privileged status is a misconception.

  • Dan

    Not sure what you’re driving at roger. Certainly there are degrees of certainty where privilege status is confered according to confidence level.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    No doubt, and it has all got to do with evidence and so forth. The point is that so-called “scientific certainty,” your term, is subject to rules of evidence as any other field of inquiry. Consequently, “scientific certainty,” ipso facto, is on par with the kind of certainty that’s available in other fields – psychology, linguistic analysis, even everyday personal insights or accounts of one’s experiences (hallucinations excluded).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I’m waiting for you to explain how you know Piltdown Man was a “practical joke”.

    Tu quoque won’t fly. On further reflection, it’s unlikely that it was a practical joke, but you made the original claim. Ball’s in your court.

    Once again, you should read your evidence before you link to it. Much theorizing, very little certainty, lots of co-variants.

    Dan – you claimed that no-one could explain the variations. That’s not so. There are several possible explanations in that paper. Rather than simply accept, as you seem content to do, that the divergence is because there’s no warming, the authors decided to do some actual research.

    This is actually just the point I originally made: that ‘skeptics’ tend to pick at single small details in the hope that somehow they’ll disprove the entire theory.

    It’s a bit like saying that because Humphrey Bogart never said “Play it again, Sam”, the movie Casablanca doesn’t exist.

    I guess droughts never occured prior to 1960.

    Not to the extent they do now, thanks to climate change.

    If there were any scientific certainty to the theories they could have recalibrated the stubborn data and included it.

    The paper hadn’t been written when Jones’s e-mail was sent.

  • Dan

    “Tu quoque won’t fly. On further reflection…”

    “further reflection” made it fly.

    “Dan – you claimed that no-one could explain the variations.”

    Yes. poor word choice. I didn’t intend to include the obvious guess response that automatically just comes from first realisation of a problem

    “Not to the extent they do now, thanks to climate change”

    Circular logic, or time machine?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    “further reflection” made it fly.

    Harumph. OK. If you’re happy now, perhaps we can discuss El Señor de Piltdown…

    the obvious guess response

    Known to civilized society as a hypothesis.

    Circular logic, or time machine?

    It’s not circular logic if you don’t ignore the evidence.

  • STM

    Dan: “My favorite one was “drought stress”. I guess droughts never occured prior to 1960.”

    I’m in Australia … drought, fire, flood, storm, severe weather (cyclones and heatwaves) are a fact of life here and have been since the continent was first settled many thousands of years ago. Scientic study shows that to be the case. Since weather data was first recorded after the first white settlers arrived, the data appears to back up the cyclical nature of it.

    In other words, it doesn’t appear to be doing anything different. Extreme conditions are part of living here. The leader of the Greens Party recently blamed climate change for our terrible floods and the cyclone in Queensland.

    Oh, hang on … what about the cyclone that demolished Darwin and the floods that inundated Brisbane in the early 70s?

    All of which might explain my scepticism, since every generation has had a similar tale to tell in my family stretching way back to the turn of the 20th century. So far, scientific studies appear only to support that extreme weather continues in this country. So is the climate changing?

    Quite possibly. Is it man made, or cyclical? Who knows. Where’s the definitive answer either way … free of the agenda-driven hot air and bullsh.t, that is.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Well, exactly, Stan. You live in a country of extremes. Australia isn’t that great of a yardstick when it comes to measuring changes in climate.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Yeah Stan, the US has no extreme areas of weather anywhere within her borders. No places like International Falls or Death Valley. How can you possibly compare??!??!?

  • Clavos

    I don’t know about Death Valley, but International Falls’ only claim to fame is that it’s often the coldest place in the USA (but not the continent), and that phenomenon has more to do with the topography of its location than the climate or weather.

    It’s only an “extreme” in a very provincial (and limited) sense.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And Stan, you’re conflating weather with climate. Extreme weather events like the Queensland floods, Cyclone Yasi and your recent ten-year drought may be routine Down Under, but they’ve got little to do with whether parts of the continent are getting gradually hotter and dryer, or hotter and wetter, which they are.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    International Falls’ only claim to fame is that it’s often the coldest place in the USA

    Not true, Clav. Tammy Faye Bakker also hails from the town, a fact of which I’m sure they’re even more immensely proud…

  • Dan

    “Harumph. OK. If you’re happy now, perhaps we can discuss El Señor de Piltdown…”

    OK sure, on further reflection, I guess I would still have to say that it seems most likely the culprit was a proponent of macro-evolution.

    “Known to civilized society as a hypothesis.”

    Actually it’s merely inference.

  • Dan

    “It’s not circular logic if you don’t ignore the evidence.”

    The climategate scandal offered some evidence that shouldn’t be ignored.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    OK sure, on further reflection, I guess I would still have to say that it seems most likely the culprit was a proponent of macro-evolution.

    I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledged.

    Whether the culprit believed in macroevolution or not, I think it’s likely that they badly wanted there to have been a British-based human ancestor. It fit in with the cultural narrative of the times.

    Just so we’re clear, though, “proponent of macro-evolution” =/= “ID denier” =/= “atheist zealot”.

    The climategate scandal offered some evidence that shouldn’t be ignored.

    As I pointed out before, multiple investigations cleared those involved of any scientific misconduct.

  • Dan

    “I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledge.”

    It wasn’t intended as any kind of retraction. In fact it was simply restating my original thesis in a way that cannot be misinterpreted; honestly or intentionally.

    “Just so we’re clear, though, “proponent of macro-evolution” =/= “ID denier” =/= “atheist zealot”.”

    Just as clear though, is that all 3 subsets intersect.

    “As I pointed out before, multiple investigations cleared those involved of any scientific misconduct.”

    Not exactly. There were some admonitions about openness and sloppiness. But even so, not many have complete confidence in the smooth over.

    The good news is that the curtain was lifted, if only momentarily, so that everyone can see the sort of scientific sausage making that is at the heart of the huge scam unethical politicians were having wet dreams over.

    As a result, public confidence has eroded and the politicians have pulled back.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    it was simply restating my original thesis in a way that cannot be misinterpreted; honestly or intentionally.

    If you say so…

    Just as clear though, is that all 3 subsets intersect.

    Which is meaningless, as it proves nothing one way or the other about evolution, whether there is/was an intelligent designer and whether God exists.

    There were some admonitions about openness and sloppiness.

    But none about the soundness of the actual science.

    But even so, not many have complete confidence in the smooth over.

    So if one of the inquiries had found that their had been scientific fraud, it would have been a free, fair and open investigation, but since none of them did, it’s all been “smoothed over”?

    so that everyone can see the sort of scientific sausage making that is at the heart of the huge scam

    If that’s what they wanted to see. (See my previous posts re cherry-picking and confirmation bias.) Plenty of people just saw what was actually going on: ordinary scientists going about and discussing their work – and occasionally and justifiably pissed off at being harrassed and called liars.

    the politicians have pulled back.

    Probably good news. Politicians just bugger things up.

  • Clavos

    the politicians have pulled back.

    So has the public.

  • Dan

    “If you say so…”

    I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledged.

    “Which is meaningless, as it proves nothing one way or the other…”

    As is your statement I responded to.

    “So if one of the inquiries had found that their had been scientific fraud, it would have been a free, fair and open investigation, but since none of them did, it’s all been “smoothed over”?”

    Well is seems to have been an attempt to smooth it over, but it doesn’t seem to have had the desired effect. Momentum for policy change has been disrupted, and AGW scientists will likely be under more scrutiny from now on.

    Both good things in my estimation.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I will take that as a grudging retraction. Appreciated and acknowledged.

    Take it as whatever you like. (It tastes better with salt.)

    As is your statement I responded to.

    My statement was a mathematical expression. It was a sorting-out of your original one, which was an unholy conjunction of innuendo and ad hominem.

    Well is seems to have been an attempt to smooth it over, but it doesn’t seem to have had the desired effect.

    If you’ve already made up your mind about AGW, I don’t imagine that anything short of idly striking a match and realizing that you’ve inadvertently set the atmosphere on fire is going to convince you otherwise.

    Both good things in my estimation.

    I agree with you as to the second. As to the first, momentum for policy change, given that it’s in the hands of politicians, pretty much peters out after one election cycle anyway.