I see you eating your breakfast sandwich with its horrible sausage from evil carbon pollution pigs, that you picked up while commuting to work in your evil fossil fueled vehicle: this is all your fault, and you should be forced to pay a tax to solve this whole thing, according to the people that use vast amounts of energy and fossil fuels to distribute their dead tree edition newspapers (this originally appeared in the Washington Post, and reprinted at Syracuse.com)
Climate change may mean more spring snowstorms (Commentary)
Another week, another nor’easter — the fourth powerful coastal storm of March 2018 has the big Northeast cities in its crosshairs. The region is notorious for vicious winter tempests, but four bomb cyclones in one month seems a bit much, especially when one comes on the first day of spring. March roared in like a lion. What happened to the lamb?
My New England neighborhood is usually peaceful this time of year; the quiet interrupted only by honks of Canada geese, wind in the towering white pines and the occasional hoot of a great horned owl. Not so much this winter. Rumbling generators, whining chain saws and rattling snowplows lasted many days after each pasting by Mother Nature.
We New Englanders love to talk about weather, and we revel in our toughness, but even that is different this year. After comparing stories of fallen trees and property damage, the conversation increasingly shifts to “Why?” Is there an explanation for this relentless, persistent parade of destructive cyclones, storms so strong that if you didn’t check the calendar you’d easily mistake them for hurricanes on the weather map? Perhaps.
Some climate-change skeptics always use snowstorms to argue that the planet is not actually warming. President Donald Trump, during a sharp December cold snap on the East Coast, suggested that“perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming,” which he has called a hoax. Last April, conservative news outlets rejoiced when snow canceled a march in Colorado to protest Trump’s climate policies. But rather than being evidence that climate change isn’t happening, the extreme weather the United States has seen this month should be viewed as a sign that it is.
Although the atmosphere is a complex beast, researchers are fingerprinting a variety of ways that those increasing greenhouse gases are making winter storms more powerful and more likely. It’s clear that this spate of nor’easters is being juiced by inordinately warm ocean temperatures along the East Coast, one of the key ingredients in the recipe for a good bomb cyclone. Less intuitive, though, is the increasingly clear role being played by the rapidly warming and melting Arctic.
Of course they’re finding ways to link cold, snow, and ice from storms that have always happened to the beliefs of their cult, because this is what cultists do. And when we have a mild spring, they’ll blame that on ‘climate change’. In their world, everything is linked to/caused by ‘climate change’, and this can all be solved with a tax on Other People.
As a scientist, what is your hypothesis to account for the changes in the path of jet stream? Sh!t happens?
At least Dr. Francis proposed a scientific hypothesis and is testing it, along with openly inviting others to test it.
TEACH conspiratorally typed: Of course they’re finding ways to link cold, snow, and ice from storms that have always happened to the beliefs of their cult, because this is what cultists do.
You’re being intellectually lazy.
“They” didn’t write the editorial, Dr. Francis did. Not that you would know, but her hypothesis was not widely accepted at first. Now, with further evidence, many more climate scientists are willing to entertain the concept and test and challenge the underpinnings.
This is how actual science works, not that you would know. If you had any experience you would understand that “they” do not move in lockstep, individual scientists propose hypotheses to explain observed phenomena, and then they argue, propose alternatives, experiment, talk, share data, write and discuss. What can emerge is a consensus theory based on evidence; a theory that is never “proven” but is generally accepted based on the overall evidence. And there is always room for contrarians to challenge the theory, but it takes evidence, not just vitriol.
It helps if your “evidence” is available, verifiable, and not changed or ignored to support the narrative.
It helps too, if your scientists down include phrases like “hide the decline”.
It would really help, as well, if the Theory of AGW, (or now, Theory of ACC) were falsifiable in any way.
It would really be a great help to your cause, if just 1 of your models predicted the climate in 5 years say.
Otherwise, it just looks like a huge Global Socialist Wealth Redistribution Scam.
Anyway, what does someone who apparently is rich and owns a corporation, (you Jeffery), know about science anyway?
And yet the Earth continues to warm rapidly, unless you deny that too.
My small company is a science-based corporation. We employ 8 PhDs, 2 MDs and numerous PhD, DVM, DDS and MD consultants. Granted, not one climate scientist in the group. It’s clear that I know more about science than you.
The wealth redistribution scam is all around and started in earnest in 1980. Cut taxes on the rich, shift the tax burden to the working classes, cut societal benefits (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), enact laws that protect the rich (patents, copyrights), keep wages low to benefit corporations. US citizens pay about $300 BILLION over free market prices for pharmaceuticals and devices. That’s $300 billion redistributed from the working classes to the rich. And all legal because the wealthy make our laws.
We make it difficult for foreign physicians to practice here, but encourage trade policies that put our manufacturers in direct competition with foreign competitors. The Fed raised rates this week to stave off imaginary inflation – why? – because working class wages are rising, finally. They plan more raises.
Our tax, labor, trade, immigration, monetary and fiscal policies all are designed to benefit the rich and corporations, and we’re seeing the results today.
How have middle class wages done since 1980? How have the rich fared?
Jeff,
No you are not that accomplished in science. May in giving doctors money and parties to buy your drugs, but that is it. And most everything you throw out is a lie.
Of course the alarmists can’t explain away this early century Arctic warming, because it would reck their latest theory du jour on the polar vortex
https://realclimatescience.com/disappearing-glaciers/
Good one, J, except cutting taxes on the rich doesn’t shift the tax burden to the working classes. First of all, because not just the rich had their taxes cut. This required hours of researching to find this simple fact out but somehow I did it….. And of course there’s not one bit of “wealth redistributionâ€, either, because there’s no money changing hands with a tax cut. This, too, required hours of tedious research to find out…..
And still there is no proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere like the one we have here on Earth.
