I’m not quite sure how this helps the “climate change” narrative, as hyper-Warmist Seth Borenstein pushes the cult
(AP) We’ve become weather wimps.
As the world warms, the United States is getting fewer bitter cold spells like the one that gripped much of the nation this week. So when a deep freeze strikes, scientists say, it seems more unprecedented than it really is. An Associated Press analysis of the daily national winter temperature shows that cold extremes have happened about once every four years since 1900.
When computer models estimated that the national average daily temperature for the Lower 48 states dropped to 17.9 degrees on Monday, it was the first deep freeze of that magnitude in 17 years, according to Greg Carbin, warning meteorologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
That stretch — from Jan. 13, 1997 to Monday — is by far the longest the U.S. has gone without the national average plunging below 18 degrees, according to a database of daytime winter temperatures starting in January 1900.
According to lots of data, the cold snaps occurred more frequently before 1990, of which only two have occurred since (not including the recent one), and none since 1997 (an El Nino year), so, obviously that means man-caused “climate change”, and we’re all doomed or something.
Said Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private firm Weather Underground: “It’s become a lot harder to get these extreme (cold) outbreaks in a planet that’s warming.”
Except, around much of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in Europe and western Asia, they have had brutal winters 4 out of the last 5, and this winter looks to be the same.
Here’s the thing: none of the warming since 1850 proves mostly or solely anthropogenic causation. Nor do weather events. What’s happening is what would be expected as happened during the numerous warm periods, most of which were warmer, during the Holocene period. That’s not to say Mankind has no influence: we do. But it is small, and is mostly from agriculture, landfills, land use, and the urban heat island effect. The last two being localized, not global. So, perhaps 10-20% of the warming/appearance of warming is Man related.
In the same way, the 17 year pause, and 13 year dip, are no proof of a coming cool period. We could end with a slight dip similar to the 40’s through the 70’s. We could kick into a little ice age type climate. We could kick into a big uptick of warming. Nature will do what nature does. But Warmists want to destroy economies, increase unemployment, and increase Big Government control of individuals and private entities for their insane cultish beliefs, which they themselves don’t hold strong enough to change their own lives. Because this is political, an attempt to implement far left Progressive governance.
As far as being a nation of wimps, well, at least the Warmists are, since they freak out over ever weather related event.
The pirate typed: “I’m not quite sure how this helps the “climate change†narrative… ”
What a strange thing for you to type. Since you are such a hyper-partisan advocate, do you assume that all typists are? The gist of the article was that there are data that show there is NO increase in winter extremes as claimed by those you slur as “warmists”. The writer further asserted that Dr. Francis’ hypothesis of drifting jet streams is challenged by other scientists.
So why would a “hyper-warmist” report data that challenges his own position? It’s called intellectual honesty. You view everything through your hyper-partisan lens and assume that everyone else does. You should try honesty – you may like it.
The “hyper-warmist” also quoted a NOAA scientist, Greg Carbin, who explicitly OPPOSED the position of global warming activists who claimed specific tornado outbreaks resulted from global warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/28/noaa-scientist-rejects-global-warming-link-tornadoes/
So this NOAA scientist, who absolutely recognizes that man-made global warming is occurring, follows the evidence and data regardless of where is leads. Shouldn’t we all do that?
Now, the pirate will suggest that Dr. Carbin has a nefarious, hidden motive for rejecting the global warming-tornado link – since it does not further the “warmist” cause to enable the gov’t takeover of everything.
But to a scientist (but not to a hyper-partisan, advocate typist), the data are everything. Dr. Carbin accepts the data supporting AGW but does not accept the argument that there is a link between AGW and tornadoes, or a link between AGW and the wanderings of the polar vortices. What name would you call him? A “luke-warminst”?
very nice!