NY Times writer Tatiana Schlossberg goes full bore Cultist (via Eric Worrell at Watts Up With That?)
Feeling a Chill? Blame the Polar Vortex. And Global Warming.
On Thursday, temperatures on the East Coast are expected to plummet, and some people — fellow journalists and weather broadcasters, we’re looking at you — may start talking about a “polar vortex.â€
We thought you might want to know what the polar vortex is, and what it’s not.
(And we wanted to pre-empt the inevitable chatter about climate changethat usually crops up when the thermometer drops — “It’s bone-shakingly cold, how could the Earth be warming?†We’ll tell you how.)
When these cold snaps come, you may hear other people asking,†If global warming is supposed to be warming the globe, then why is it so cold?â€
Well, for starters, there is a difference between weather and climate. Climate refers to the long-term averages and trends in atmospheric conditions over large areas, while weather deals with short-term variations, which is what happens when the polar vortex visits your hometown.
Interesting. Because she’s saying the cold weather, something we get during, get this, winter, is now climate change.
And the earth is definitely warming: Temperature records show that, by the end of last year, the earth’s surface had warmed by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. But even though the earth’s surface is warming, scientists say that winter will still exist.
Warming doesn’t prove causation: just that it has warmed. Like it has done numerous times during the Holocene, not too mention the rest of the Earth’s history. And that, my dear Tatiana, is the argument: causation.
And even if parts of the United States are experiencing unusually cold temperatures, it represents such a small portion of the earth’s surface — about 2 percent — that it does not mean much in terms of average global temperatures.
So, when there is a little warming in one place Warmists will use that to proclaim doom. When there’s contradictory weather, or even climate, they trot out the “2 percent” argument. Regardless, Eric Worrell noted “New York Times published similar articles blaming global warming for extreme winter weather in 2014, 2013, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008…”
And, my dear Teach, what is your argument for causation?
This spectacularly unusual period of rapid warming is caused by what?
“This spectacularly unusual period of rapid warming is caused by what?”
There’s a new thing all the cool kids have heard about. It’s called the sun. This “spectacularly unusual period of rapid warming” you speak of is neither spectacular nor unusual for the planet, unless you are only looking at the incredibly narrow time frame of the last 150 years – not even the blink of an eye on a geological scale. About 200 years ago, the sun began a period of increased activity, which followed a period of lesser activity (called the Maunder Minimum), which followed a period of increased activity, which was preceded by a period of lesser activity (Sporer Minimum) and so on, over and over for the last several billion years.
And once again, this logical fallacy becomes the crux of Jeffery’s “argument.”
In essence, he is saying “because you admit you don’t know the answer, my answer must be right.”
It doesn’t matter that a non-answer is based on complexity or unknown factors; his answer must be right.
Such lack of logic is why the AGW people get so many converts into their cult. They offer an “answer” when there is none and rely on the ignorance of people to make them feel good about being “all knowing” when in fact, they don’t know as much as they think they do.
It is hubris in action.
When I first read that ridiculous question/challenge my first thought was the sun too, CavalierX. Or maybe Mother Nature or just to screw with Jeffery: GOD! I am not a scientist and unlike our leftist friends I do not attempt to play one on the internet therefore, I am not up to arguing ADW on a blog. I will say one thing: I don’t think AGW is the type of subject that can be effectively argued on a blog. At least when I’ve seen it done it becomes too deep and detailed in short order and frankly, boring. I have my degree in economics and if we start talking deep economic policy on a blog I switch off. Boring. The problem with AGW specifically is it can’t be proven so far and therefore remains a theory. I don’t believe in investing trillions in a theory. Then it gets bogged down in this period and that period and co2 and h2o and CFC’s and fossil and heat and thermal and…and..and. Oy Vey, already.
Teach is searching for the “cause” but refuses to accept the most obvious, a known “cause” supported by overwhelming data from thousands of scientists – and why? – because the potential “cures” do not fit his ideological bent. He’s a member of the Cult of Clima-deniers (CoC).
So what is your “cause”, magic? Scientists dating back to at least the times of Svante Arrhenius have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 more heat retention. It would be surprising if the increased CO2 wasn’t warming the only Earth we have.
It’s not the Sun warming up; it’s not the center of Earth releasing energy to the surface; it’s not the cumulative body heat of several billion humans; it’s not the heat generated by internal combustion engines or heat escaping from our warmed homes. Humans have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm by burning fossil fuels. CO2 absorbs radiative energy and releases it into the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Makes perfect sense scientifically and the empirical data supports the theory and no one has offered a persuasive alternative. Now’s your chance, Teach: Falsify the Theory of AGW.
It’s clear from following some of the comments here that most deniers haven’t taken the time to even remotely understand the scientific underpinnings of the issue. One claims undersea vents are warming the Earth; another that the Sun is heating up (which would be an actual cause, but there’s no evidence to support the hypothesis); others deny the validity of the evidence, claiming hoaxes coordinated by many thousands of scientists, governments, China, leftist activists and the Pope; some claim it’s natural and undiscoverable; one is a reversetroll, feigning interest in the science but dismissing every bit of evidence.
Conservative: “If a scientist says it, I don’t believe it!”
The Earth would be -18C without CO2 – What makes you think increasing the amount over the past century wouldn’t cause the Earth to warm?
At least Cavalier makes an argument, wrong of course, but it least it’s an argument. The amount of insolation, solar energy delivered to the Earth, is not greater now.
Zachriel took the time to explain the gaps in your knowledge in a polite and concise manner. Re-read what he wrote.
If this were true the modeling would back up the observational data. It doesn’t. When the data and the predicted outcome don’t match, true scientists look for the reason instead of saying “everyone but us is wrong.”
Thank you for your ridiculous argument which only goes to show that you don’t know what you are talking about. CO2 is part of the atmosphere and was there before man was around, We don’t know how the the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere would have changed the planet because once again, science is repeatable, verifiable and observational – none of which support the AGW cultish beliefs.
Liberals – “Just believe us because we have such a track record on being right and stealing your money.”
https://g.co/kgs/4tqkbU
That is untrue.
We have a pretty good idea. Are you denying the so-called greenhouse effect. Do you not “believe” that radiation can interact with molecules?
Do you understand that an atmosphere can (depends on gases present) cause a planet to be warmer than the same planet with no atmosphere?
“Unusual rapid warming period.” Jeffery again tries his tired “rapid” hoax, with absolutely no proof it’s rapid. Or for that matter, that rapid is bad. The non-climate effects of CO2 are overwhelming favorable (see: greening), and are much more certain than the climate effects.
The Weather Channel forecast 4 to 8 inched of snow for us; we got 1¼ inches.
The scientists can’t seem to get the forecast right for just twelve hours in the future, and I’m s’posed to worry about their projections for the climate a hundred years from now?
Of course you understand that weather forecasting and climate science are two different disciplines, but you prefer to propagandize.
Yet, the Earth’s surface is warming consistent with the theory of AGW. TV weathermen such as Anthony Watts are not trained as climate scientists. Weather Underground predicted a St. Louis temperature of 32 degrees at 1 PM today but according to my home weather station it didn’t get down to 32 until almost 1:30, therefore the theory of AGW is a Chinese hoax.
j,
I was only making the connection between the geologically rapid increase in surface temperature being caused by the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2. It appears you finally agree with that premise and then move the goalposts to asking whether rapid warming is bad, “For that matter, that rapid is bad.”
Actually, it is true.
A “pretty good idea” is not scientific.
Secondly, are you saying that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas? Have we ever been able to measure the earth’s atmosphere without CO2 in it?
(That answer is “no” in case you don’t know.)
Once again, science is repeatable, verifiable and observational – none of which support the AGW cultish beliefs.
Yes. I understand that but that is not the question and most people know that.
So let’s start at that point. Absent of an atmosphere, what would the temperature of the earth be?