Skip to main content

Greg Laden of ScienceBlogs now has a good article, and image macro meme that you can use on your Limbaughtomized Facebook frienemies and in-laws when they repeat that usual derp talking point "It's snowing, therefore global warming is a hoax!"

Below the fold, I'll mention some of the science that explains why the age of global climate change may bring more blizzards.

In short, because the Arctic has warmed (warmed is a relative term - we're talking about going from -40 to -35), the forces that keep the Arctic air in the Arctic aren't nearly as strong. The jet stream, which is a river of air that's the boundary between the warmer air of temperate-to-tropic climes, and the colder air of temperate-to-arctic regions, thus meanders a lot more, or as the analogy goes, staggers around drunkenly. And when the jet stream staggers south, cold Arctic air comes with it. No, the Arctic cold air masses are not expanding. They're moving around more, and visiting us more.

So, if you're wondering why the temperatures have dropped below zero, and there's feet of snow on the ground all of the sudden, yes, you can blame man-made global warming. Not every scientist agrees that global warming may be causing more blizzards, but a lot of them think this theory has merit.

From Laden's article:

...

What is happening instead is the cold air mass that usually sits up on the Arctic during the northern Winter has moved, drooped, shifted, gone off center, to engulf part of the temperate region. Here in the Twin Cities, it is about 8 below zero F as I write this. If I go north towards the famous locality of International Falls (famous for its cold temperature readings often mentioned on the national news) it will in fact be colder. If I go even farther north, at some point it will start to get warm again, as we leave the giant blob of cold air that has engulfed us. In fact, it is relatively warm up on the North Pole right now. Alaska and Europe are relatively warm as well.

The graphic above from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts shows what is happening. The Polar Vortex, a huge system of swirling air that normally contains the polar cold air has shifted so it is not sitting right on the pole as it usually does. We are not seeing an expansion of cold, an ice age, or an anti-global warming phenomenon. We are seeing the usual cold polar air taking an excursion.

So, this cold weather we are having does not disprove global warming.

In fact, the cold snap we are experiencing in the middle of the US and adjoining Canada may be because of global warming. The Polar Vortex can go off center any given winter, but we have been having some strange large scale weather activity over the last few years that is thought to be related to global warming and that may have contributed to this particular weather event (explained here). This may be an effect of this strangeness, though the jury is still probably out on this particular weather event.

Chris Mooney, writing for Mother Jones, elaborates:
To understand how it works, it first helps to think of the jet stream as a river of air that flows from west to east in the Northern Hemisphere, bringing with it much of our weather. Its motion—sometimes in a relatively straight path, sometimes in a more loopy one—is driven by a difference in temperatures between the equator and the north pole. Southern temperatures are of course warmer, and because warm air takes up more space than cold air, this leads to taller columns of air in the atmosphere. "If you were sitting on top of a layer of atmosphere and you were in DC, looking northward, it would be like looking down a hill, because it's warmer where you are," explains Francis.

The jet stream then flows "downhill," so to speak, in a northward direction. But it's also bent by the rotation of the Earth, leading to its continual wavy, eastward motion.

As the Arctic rapidly heats up, however, there's less of a temperature difference between the equator and the poles, and the downhill slope in the atmosphere is accordingly less steep. This creates a weaker jet stream, a jet stream that meanders more or, if you prefer the new analogy, staggers around drunkenly. "As the Arctic continues to warm, we expect the jet stream to take these wild swings northward and southward more often," says Francis. "And when it does, that's when we get these particularly wild temperature and precipitation patterns, and they tend to stay in place a long time." (For a more thorough explanation, see here.)

That's not to say the jet stream never staggered around drunkenly in the past. It did. But Francis thinks this is happening more often, and the result is all manner of weather extremes, including both cold snaps and also record heat. (Not every scientist agrees; for the debate over Francis's work, see here.)

Originally posted to ApostleOfCarlin on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:22 PM PST.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  my wife is from st. petersburg (25+ / 0-)

    in Russia. It is 34f $ rainy. They should be up to their frozen asses in snow. Not this year and it is getting more common.

    When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

    by kaminpdx on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:05:09 PM PST

    •  I don't doubt it. (10+ / 0-)

      Like the article says, the cold air in the Arctic is moving around. Right now, it's not in St. Petersburg. It's hitting the U.S.

      Someone call the Russians, and tell them they can have their bad weather back!

      •  Warmer in Alaska than Alabama (6+ / 0-)

        I live in the Alaska Interior, and you guys down south are getting our weather.  I had an email from a friend yesterday, who said they had +16 F in Alabama, while we had +23 here.  Our normal weather for this time of year is about -20.  Cold weather is anything below about -30.  

        That happens a lot--if it's warm there, we get the cold.  

        Same sorta thing last summer--we got rain, California had a drought.  

        Weather all happens somewhere.  

        How many wrongs does it take to make a right?

        by pdknz on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:25:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Parts of Siberia have been very warm (13+ / 0-)

      Not sure if the rivers have frozen yet, but I recall seeing a picture of ducks swimming in some Siberian town in December.

      Those rivers normally would freeze in November, I guess.

      Oh yeah, and the winter Olympics start in a month and there is no snow in Sochi.

      But we're cold.  Must mean the rest of the world is.

      •  Isn't the permafrost thawing? n/t (6+ / 0-)

        Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. Marx

        by Marihilda on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:31:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  Report 5 is out from the IPCC (5+ / 0-)

            Sea ice is a dead man walking, rising sea levels will be measured in meters rather than feet by 2050, more than 100 East coast cities in the US with populations over 100,000 won't be able to build high enough sea walls or levees and have the choice either to relocate back to the Appalachians, or slip beneath the waves like Atlantis, the Hurricane Katrina's and Sandy's will become 10 year rather than 100 years storms and we could be looking at global temperatures going into the range where global nuclear war or a meteor strike like the one that took out the dinosaurs would be a relief.

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:54:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The full report has a lot more nuance (0+ / 0-)

              than the summary for policy makers.

              This is as you might expect - the summary for policy makers is a political document whereas the full report is a scientific document.

              One of the things I am finding frustrating about the whole global warming debate is that global warming is becoming unfalsifiable.  If we have hotter than usual weather, it is due to global warming.  If we have colder than usual weather it is because of global warming.

              If this crazy cold is because of global warming, does that mean that a warm winter next year would be evidence against global warming?  Or is any kind of winter next year evidence for global warming?

              Sea ice is a dead man walking, rising sea levels will be measured in meters rather than feet by 2050, more than 100 East coast cities in the US with populations over 100,000 won't be able to build high enough sea walls or levees and have the choice either to relocate back to the Appalachians, or slip beneath the waves like Atlantis,
              These are measurable predictions that are supposed to happen within the lifetime of many existing financial instruments.  For example, Walt Disney and Coca Cola have both issued 100 year bonds.

              Maybe it's time to issue climate change bonds.  For example, what about a bond that pays out in 2050 $1,000 for every centimeter that sea level is above -5cm from current level up to 200cm above current level measured at a specific point (ie. the tip of Manhattan)?  And another bond that pays out $1,000 for every centimeter that sea level is below 2 meters above current sea level up to 205cm below 2 meters above current level at that point?

              These bonds form a perfect hedge - for example, if Goldman Sachs issues one of each bond then if the sea level is 50cm above current sea level then the first bond will pay out $55,000 and the second bond will pay out $150,000.  If the sea level is 150 cm above current sea level then the first bond will pay out $155,000 and the second bond will pay out $50,000.  Total is always $205,000.  So you have an SPV with no other activities that issues the exactly offsetting bonds, puts the money it raises into Treasuries, and pays out in 2050.  It is as safe as US Treasuries.

              This would let people put their money where their mouths are - let the skeptics buy bonds that pay off if sea levels are low and the believers buy bonds that pay off if sea levels are high.

              Lets look at what they actually buy - if Al Gore doesn't put a big chunk of his money into the high sea level bonds I want to know why not... and the same for the Kochs if they don't buy low sea level bonds.

              I would also be very interested in seeing what the market price of these bonds ended up being - what does Wall Street think is really going to happen with global warming?

              I also think it is time for both sides to make some falsifiable predictions.

              What kinds of weather patterns does the IPCC predict over the next 10 years?  What kinds of weather patterns would support their long term predictions?  What kinds of weather patterns would indicate that we need to take a step back, do more research, and investigate whether or not they have made a mistake?  For example, should the next 10 years northern hemisphere winters be warmer or colder than the average for the last 10 years?  Or do they want to get more granular and just talk about North America or what?

              •  The final draft of Report 5 came out in June (0+ / 0-)

                restricted so you can't quote from it

                You might want to go have a look for yourself

                Full Report

                Its labeled to different degrees of confidence for all the various parts of the different scenarios, and if you go have a look at it there is such a range of opinion that it can be very hard to point to any conclusions, and I absolutely hate their cross hatched graphics which supposedly show where they express confidence

                I thought the graphic above expressed it pretty well. You can look at predictions that range from 1 to 9 or from safe don't worry about it to its way past time to panic.

                RCP 8.5 is looking at 9 degrees C by 2150 and no slowdown because at plus 9 degrees C Antarctica has melted and wall street is 300 feet under the sea.

                For someone like me who considers the IPCC to be expressing the consensus of over 1000 scientists who are trying to be conservative in their assessments I'm going to have more confidence in the left side of RCP 8.5.

                For the IPCC itself you are probably looking at the dark grey area. By 2050 they expect the temperature to have risen one degree.

                Your plan to have people put their money where their mouth is wouldn't really solve the problem if say for example by 2050 the sea level has been raised a foot because by then wall street is  flooded and 100 East Coast cities with populations of 100,000 or more are desperately trying to relocate back to the Appalachians. Actual IPCC projections range from 5 to 10 meters by 2100 for their worst case analysis.

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 02:19:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, financial bets don't solve real world (0+ / 0-)

                  problems.

                  Your plan to have people put their money where their mouth is wouldn't really solve the problem if say for example by 2050 the sea level has been raised a foot because by then wall street is  flooded and 100 East Coast cities with populations of 100,000 or more are desperately trying to relocate back to the Appalachians. Actual IPCC projections range from 5 to 10 meters by 2100 for their worst case analysis.
                  What a financial bet will do is force people to be much more realistic with their predictions.

                  For example, how much of their retirement funds are the IPCC scientists willing to invest in an instrument that will pay off in 2100 if sea levels have increased more than 5 meters?  (This can be adjusted based on atmospheric CO2 levels so the trigger drops if CO2 levels drop.)

                  The IPCC is suggesting that the world spend trillions of dollars to avoid these outcomes.  That is the equivalent of investing trillions of dollars in one of these instruments - if anthropogenic warming has been seriously overestimated then the money is lost, otherwise the payoff is very high.  If the scientists themselves are not willing to make similar investments that's got to be a red flag.

                  •  Please stop lying. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rube Goldberg
                    The IPCC is suggesting that the world spend trillions of dollars to avoid these outcomes.
                    No it isn't. The IPCC is an advisory body that is making scientific assessments. The notion that scientists should make financial bets on their predictions and that this would make their predictions more realistic is stupid and vile and is some radical right wing conspiracy mongering.  The fact is that scientists, and the IPCC in particular, have been overly conservative in their estimates.
                    •  The IPCC is advocating drastic measures to (0+ / 0-)

                      cut CO2 emissions that will cost trillions of dollars.  That's a fact.

                      The notion that scientists should make financial bets on their predictions and that this would make their predictions more realistic is stupid and vile
                      Why?  Seems very reasonable to me.  There is strong evidence that when people make financial bets they are much more realistic and much more likely to make accurate predictions.  For example, political prediction markets do much better than political analysts in predicting election results.  This is unsurprising.  Predicting a 10 meter rise in sea level by 2050 can get you a lot of newspaper headlines now, and by 2050 it is unlikely anyone will remember and anyway you will be dead or retired.  Betting your retirement and the financial legacy you leave to your children on that prediction is a whole different kettle of fish.

                      The same applies in reverse - let climate skeptics make similar bets in the opposite direction.

                      A great example of this was the Simon Ehrlich resource scarcity $1,000 bet.  Ehrlich and his colleagues, the environmentalists, lost decisively - 5 out of the 5 metals they picked decreased in price over 5 years as Simon had predicted, rather than increasing as Ehrlich and his colleagues predicted.  When Ehrlich claimed that "the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical indicators" and that "that the depletion of so-called renewable resources — environmental resources such as soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater — is much more indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support systems" Simon responded by offering to use any five resources Ehrlich chose and to increase the bet to $20,000.  Ehrlich refused.

                      I think that story indicates that the first bet actually taught Ehrlich more about resource economics than he wanted to admit.

                      Interestingly, Simon and Ehrlich were apparently debating a climate change bet when Simon died.  The primary area of disagreement was that Ehrlich wanted to use environmental measures (ie. CO2 levels in the atmosphere) whereas Simon demanded direct measures of human welfare (ie. life expectancies).  

                      I wouldn't take Ehrlich's bet either - I fully expect CO2 levels in the atmosphere to go up.  The real question is what the impact of that will be, how severe it will be, and how we will either adapt to a warming planet or take action to cool the planet.

              •  Intellectual dishonesty here. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rube Goldberg
                If we have hotter than usual weather, it is due to global warming.  If we have colder than usual weather it is because of global warming.
                No, that's not the argument at all. The actual arguments are based on overwhelming scientific evidence and physics, which is why there is not a single reputable scientific organization that rejects it. You apparently have no understanding whatsover of this science, and willfully misrepresent it.
                If this crazy cold is because of global warming
                The crazy cold is caused by displacement of the Polar Vortex. That displacement is caused by changes in the jet stream. Global warming contributes to such changes. Its contribution to this current event is unknown, but what is known is that it statistically increases the likelihood and severity of extreme weather events.
                does that mean that a warm winter next year would be evidence against global warming?
                No, not at all. Your reasoning is terribly shoddy and is based on gross ignorance. There is a warm winter, right now, in Alaska and other northern areas for the same reason that it is cold in Minnesota ... because the Polar Vortex moved. If not anything like "warm implies GW" or "cold implies GW", it all depends on specific mechanisms ... and there is overwhelming scientific evidence of the greenhouse mechanisms that cause GW. the notion that it's not falsifilable is absurd and ignorant, and arrogant because you don't know anything about climate science but imagine that your uninformed imaginings are worth anything.
                I also think it is time for both sides to make some falsifiable predictions.
                You're an ignoramus who knows nothing about climate science, which is chock full of falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed, not found false. And there aren't two sides, any more than there are two sides to evolution or whether the earth is flat ... there is science, and there is the ignorant, dishonest, and ideologically and financially motivated denialsphere.
          •  I read that wet winters mean hot, dry summers. (0+ / 0-)

            So snow and blizzards would be a symptom of global warming.

            Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

            by rebel ga on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:30:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Your title is offensive. (0+ / 0-)

    You make a joke of the real problem of substance abuse.

  •  Sitting in Germany, temps are 10-15 degrees up (6+ / 0-)

    on what we get normally this time. Today was something like 12 degrees C when the average for January is around 3 degrees C

    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

    by peterfallow on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:50:52 PM PST

  •  If these idiots think (5+ / 0-)

    that if the weather gets cold, that means that the globe isn't warming, this summer when it's really, really hot, will someone please ask one or all of these gasbags if that means the opposite?

    It's cold!  Ergo, no global warming!

    Then in the summertime, it's hot!  Ergo...?

    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

    by democracy inaction on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:01:10 PM PST

    •  Then they switch to their summer propaganda... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ice Blue, blueoasis, Naniboujou

      "The heat-wave's just part of the natural weather cycles..."

      "It's also getting warmer on Jupiter." (Pat Robertson just used that line.)

      "I thought you libruls were screaming about global cooling!"

    •  The problem for them is they think global warming (4+ / 0-)

      will be something bloody obvious, like 90°F in Duluth, MN for a week in January. What they're really saying is, "See?! It still gets cold, really cold, in winter. Therefore global warming isn't a big deal"

      Part of the problem is we're telling them the world is coming to an end (and in many ways that's going to happen) but until they see "fire and brimstone" it doesn't click for them. As long as we have winter and summer they don't get what the big deal is.

      This is the result of 30+ years of dumbing down science in education. One of the many "benefits" of the Reagan Revolution.

      There are lies, damn lies, and statistics but they all pale in comparison to conservative talking points.

      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:15:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, the problem is that they think that "global" (4+ / 0-)

        means "everywhere", rather than "pertaining to the planet". If the claim is that it's "warming everywhere", then that is obviously contradicted by your cat freezing to death (as one denier sadly tweeted me).

      •  here's some big deals; (6+ / 0-)

        I have seen the dates of first and last frosts expand by three weeks in either direction over the last fifteen years on this property. We had a hard freeze on Memorial Day, and another before Labor Day this year alone. So I can't do my spring planting with confidence, and can't count on everything ripening before it frosts in late summer. Neither can the commercial farms.
        Conversely, there are wild swings of freeze and thaw happening all winter, wreaking havoc with my sugaring, the overwintering ability of my  fruit trees and other perennial crops, and invasive pests and diseases. The same is happening to the local commercial farms.
        The local deer herd is stressed by the lack of consistency, and that will affect the forest ecosystem in untold but negative ways. Not to mention the ongoing wiping out of New England's bats, or the collapse of the bee colonies.

        People who decide this is no big deal might want to think through where their dinner comes from, and how many things besides the free market must function properly in order for them to eat. The utter lack of interest in thinking things through will be our undoing, it seems.

        Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

        by kamarvt on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:48:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And thus you see the problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Marti

          Until there isn't food on their plates they don't see it as a problem for them. Hell, they're getting told that global warming is a GOOD thing because it will increase the amount of land available for agriculture. Seriously, that crap is being peddled by the Koch Bros and others. So until they're starving or paying $74.99 for a bowl of oatmeal they'll just keep claiming it's not a problem.

          There are lies, damn lies, and statistics but they all pale in comparison to conservative talking points.

          by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:53:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and that's coming (4+ / 0-)

            sooner than many think. there's no reason to believe the constantly accelerating climate change forecasts won't accelerate the manifold food crises, too. Monoculture, when it goes bad, goes bad all at once. we're getting close with corn and drought right now. but to your point, awareness depending on widespread suffering and death is no way for a sentient species to behave.

            Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

            by kamarvt on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:06:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You've got the logic all wrong. (0+ / 0-)

      Cold weather means that global warming is false, hot weather means that global cooling is false ... neither implies global warming.

      This is a completely valid argument ... given a common mistaken understanding of "global warming" to mean "it's warm everywhere", rather than the reality that the planetary atmospheric system is gradually heating up.

    •  Talking to a sister (correction: talking to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Marti, Naniboujou, Little Lulu

      a half sister. This is one of those times reminding self of differing DNA streams helps) global warming came up.

      I know her thoughts on it. She sent me some multi-linked rant years ago about it being a Gore scam to get rich.  Did she remember who I was? Well she thought I might want to educate myself...
      dear lord.
      To relate at all it is best to avoid all such topics and be relate in a surface pleasant way when we do talk.

      But as we were talking about the cold and snow she did one of those sarcastic laughs and said "Global warming, huh"

      So I responded with a yes... and explaining the effects of temp on changes in jet stream.
      She interrupted to say she didn't believe in that scam, there are just fluctuations
      and I interrupted to say I know how she feels but since she started this with a joke about global warming I thought I'd throw in some truth.
      She was insulted, I didn't care.
      We changed topic and soon said our goodbyes.
      But it triggered an anger in me. Not really at her, she doesn't get to vote in congress, but that the stupid get to rule on this

      Still I wanted to take it out on her in silly ways. I didn't but every few minutes I wanted to send a new email saying "I don't believe in peanuts" then"I don't believe in fomites"... just spam her with them. Productive, right?

      She is college educated. And stupid.
      rude? Yes. There are things she is not stupid about but she does the right wing crazy on too many things.
      I am sick of stupid hurting the rest of us.

  •  Global warming still implies "global," right? (0+ / 0-)

    The fact that it's significantly colder in a portion of the US doesn't really provide much insight to global warming.  Given temps in Europe that have been warmer than usual, for example, that would seem to be a good counter to the latest right-wing lunacy.

    I mean, I get that there is a warming explanation for the polar vortex, but to the uneducated, there is a bit of Orwellian doublespeak to a "it's colder because it's warmer" explanation.  (Yes, giving the uneducated the benefit of the doubt that they have some passing knowledge of Orwell).

    But I'll never understand how or why conservatives - presumably believing themselves charged with maintaining the status quo - are so dead set against any evidence that the planet may not be hospitable to their future generations.  I mean, they'll believe any crazy thing about the Obamas, for example, but present hard, scientific evidence of global warming and all of a sudden, they're hard-headed skeptics.

    •  "global" doesn't mean "everywhere" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluesheep

      It refers to the planet -- its atmospheric system, which is warming.

    •  "I'll never understand" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      That's a serious problem for you, because it's obvious. a) The required response to global warming goes against their free market ideology. b) Liberals believe global warming is real, so it must not be.

      "so dead set against any evidence that the planet may not be hospitable to their future generations"

      Everyone is strongly emotionally inclined to believe otherwise. When righties are being fed propaganda that it's a liberal hoax, the denial comes readily.

  •  It's swollen, purple and dangling far too low. (4+ / 0-)

    Plus, it's very cold outside.

    Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

    by Terrapin on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:16:51 PM PST

  •  "Not every scientist" (0+ / 0-)

    That's not even remotely relevant. It's a fact that global warming contributes to the frequency and intensity of blizzards -- this is basic atmospheric science and anyone who denies it isn't competent.

    •  The climatologists are quibbling over details. (0+ / 0-)

      Some of them are saying that global climate change is contributing to the jet stream drunkenness, other are saying that other things cause it.

      Global warming itself is a fact, backed up by strong scientific consensus. The only thing the scientists are arguing about is the details of the effects.

      I'm personally 95% sure that yes, global climate change is causing Drunken Arctic weather.

      •  science isn't "quibbling", and why change the (0+ / 0-)

        subject? The topic was blizzards, and you changed to the jet stream drunkenness ... two different issues.

        "Global warming itself is a fact, backed up by strong scientific consensus."

        Duh.

        "The only thing the scientists are arguing about is the details of the effects. "

        Duh.

        "I'm personally 95% sure that yes, global climate change is causing Drunken Arctic weather."

        I don't care about what you're personally sure of, or that you seem to just like to hear yourself talk regardless of what is being discussed.

        Over and out.

        •  "the topic" -- that is, of MY COMMENT, (0+ / 0-)

          which was about something specific you wrote, namely blizzards. But you seem not to have been interested in responding to what I wrote, just what was in your own head. Oh well, this is DKos after all.

      •  Can you tell us your qualifications? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jqb
        I'm personally 95% sure that yes, global climate change is causing Drunken Arctic weather.
        Unless you are a climatologist it seems pretty strange that you could have this level of certainty unless it is based on religious faith.
        •  right.... (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          ApostleOfCarlin
          Hidden by:
          jqb

          agreeing with scientific consensus is the same as religious faith.

          It is pretty clear what your attitude is here- you want to roll in and mock us for not being skeptical enough about global warming.  Well, it is just basic physics that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the retention of heat.  How this will play out in a complex earth atmosphere is being modeled, and the models are not pinpoint accurate.  If you had a clue about science, you would understand that.  What is the model of the global warming denialists to explain these in any way phenomona?

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

          by murrayewv on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:13:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can you point me to the scientific consensus (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jqb
            I'm personally 95% sure that yes, global climate change is causing Drunken Arctic weather.
            Unless you are a climatologist it seems pretty strange that you could have this level of certainty unless it is based on religious faith.
            right....
            agreeing with scientific consensus is the same as religious faith
            that the current cold spell is caused by global warming?
            It is pretty clear what your attitude is here- you want to roll in and mock us for not being skeptical enough about global warming.  Well, it is just basic physics that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the retention of heat.  How this will play out in a complex earth atmosphere is being modeled, and the models are not pinpoint accurate.  If you had a clue about science, you would understand that.
            Anthropogenic warming is pretty much settled science.  The magnitude of the effect is still very much subject to debate and scientific opinion on that will change over the next few decades as the science advances and we get more data points.

            Whether the best response to whatever warming there is is to cut back on CO2 emissions or to engage in geoengineering has barely been discussed.  Given the magnitude of the economic and lifestyle changes that some people are saying will be required to prevent devastating warming and the infinitesimal likelihood that China, India, or Africa will agree to those changes I think anyone who is serious about global warming needs to also be serious about geoengineering.  The lack of such serious interest suggests to me that many of the people who are concerned about global warming see CO2 reduction as a way to achieve other desired environmental and social goals rather than to save the climate.

            •  I've HRed the previous comment for its (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Beelzebubs Brass Bs

              outrageous, absurd, and fallacious attack on you as a "global warming denialist". I suspect that murrayewv responded to you while making no attempt to read what you wrote or consider the context, but it still deserves hiding. OTOH, ApostleOfCarlin has excuse whatsoever for reccing it.

              •  Thanks... I've seen that on a lot of hot button (0+ / 0-)

                issues on this site (ie. anthropogenic climate change, same sex marriage, etc.) people seem to have major reading comprehension problems.

              •  the poster.... (0+ / 0-)

                Beelzebubs Brass Bs has a recent history that lead me to interpret that comment as sarcastic, not serious.  So you feel my "misreading" is troll worthy and should be hidden.  Fine.

                You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                by murrayewv on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 04:02:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's just dishonest. (0+ / 0-)

                  You jumped off the handle and totally misinterpreted him, you did not interpret it as sarcasm. You rashly accused him of being a GW denier based on nothing other than your own foolishness and ineptitude.  Here is the statement again that Beelzebubs responded to:

                  I'm personally 95% sure that yes, global climate change is causing Drunken Arctic weather.
                  You foolishly and stupidly took that as a claim about the existence of AGW -- for which there is a scientific consensus and an IPCC evaluation of 95% certainty -- rather than what it actually says, which is about the cause of Drunken Arctic weather, for which there is no scientific consensus and for which 95% surety is totally unwarranted. And now you're flat out lying about what happened and failing to take responsibility for your mistakes and bad behavior.
                •  FWIW, I read one of his posts on climate (0+ / 0-)

                  and recognized him as rather ignorant on the subject, making outrageously false claims that GW isn't falsifiable and completely misconstruing the arguments for it. I posted a sharp critical response.

                  That doesn't change the fact that he was right here ... there is no scientific consensus on the cause of Arctic Drunken weather and no basis for claiming 95% certainty that it was caused by GW.

            •  shoddy logic (0+ / 0-)
              I think anyone who is serious about global warming needs to also be serious about geoengineering.
              But most other people don't think that. Perhaps they just aren't aware of the practical safe geoengineering technologies that you have invented in your basement.
              The lack of such serious interest suggests to me that many of the people who are concerned about global warming see CO2 reduction as a way to achieve other desired environmental and social goals rather than to save the climate.
              This would only follow if everyone else were you, or like you in thinking that geoengineering is a practical solution. The fact is that your reasoning is actually irrational conspiratorial ideation.

              And it's not about saving "the climate", it's about avoiding or reducing ecological disaster and huge impacts of civilization. The notion that people aren't genuinely concerned with this verges on sociopathy, and your reasoning path to get there -- because people aren't talking about geoengineering -- is loony and grossly intellectually dishonest.

              As for other environmental goals ... of course; most people don't understand climate science and are confused about CO2 vs. particulates and other pollutants and tend to lump these things together, but there's nothing nefarious about that. As for "other social goals", this is a stock ad hominem argument by the lowest of low right wing slime, especially when it is directed at climate scientists, the IPCC, the UN, etc.

          •  What an extraordinarily dishonest intrepretation (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beelzebubs Brass Bs

            or sloppy reading. Look at the statement again:

            I'm personally 95% sure that yes, global climate change is causing Drunken Arctic weather.
            What scientific consensus do you see there?
  •  I'm headed for (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ice Blue, JayBat, NYFM, The Marti

    Oslo, Norway tonight. NYC this morning: 4F - Oslo this morning: 44F.

    As the vortex moves east, it will eventually hit northern Europe, yet the temperature in Oslo coming weekend will be a seasonable 20F, or thereabouts.

    Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

    by ask on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:56:46 PM PST

  •  My friend lives in the mountains of Virginia. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    too many people, JayBat, The Marti

    He poured a kettle of boiling water out the window and it TURNED TO SNOW.

    So I asked him to film it.

    FOR SCIENCE!!!

    Here it is:

    054

    He's also Kossack Pluto Cratt, a buddy of mine who I'm still working on convincing to write here.

    An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

    by OllieGarkey on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:33:10 PM PST

  •  Rec'd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, The Marti

    for Limbuagmitized, whatever..

  •  Checking in from the Bay Area (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Marti, Little Lulu, disrael

    to say the California Coast had a record-breaking dry year in 2013, due to a change in the jet stream's usual course. This is the air current that normally pushes storms in over the Pacific, to the mainland. And it's been absent, MIA, apparently well to the north of the lower 48. We are parched bone-dry, as never before in my lifetime (and I was born when LBJ was president).

    The days start out brisk and cool, sometimes with frost. Then the afternoons warm up to 65 F or so. It's the same, day after day. It is almost eerie.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:13:07 PM PST

  •   Dr. Francis, (3+ / 0-)

    from Rutgers University, explains the theory here:


    Jennifer Francis - Understanding the Jetstream (and Rossby Waves)


    link to clip

    Published on Feb 26, 2013 -- by rustneversleeps3

    A short review of how the jetstream and Rossby waves work, and some emerging indications that the dynamics may be changing in a warming world.
  •  Another frustrating thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waterstreet2013

    is that the global warming deniers here in the northeast all ignored the fact that the temperature here yesterday was 60 degrees F... on January 6th.  24 hours later it was 4 degrees F.  It is currently 10 where I am now.  The forecast high temperature for Saturday here is 57.  The average high temperature here for January 11th is 41.

    These temperatures will be ignored.  While the temperature in any particular place in the world on any given day is of course of no value as evidence one way or the other, only unseasonably cold weather is ever acknowledged by deniers.

    •  Deniers of GW, Darwin, Wall Street corruption, (0+ / 0-)

      Obama being born in Hawaii, Vietnam killing 2,600,000, Iraq killing 1,400,000, anything to do with Big Bang, modern physics, and 2+2=4.

      It has to do with "Straight Line" manipulation techniques. Started with Wall Street scams. Spread to politics. People have been hammered into submission.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site