Wednesday
Mar022011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill US cold caused by warming
Mar 2, 2011 Climate: Surface It looks as though they just couldn't resist the urge to link every known weather event to climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists has apparently said that this winter's crazy weather in the USA was caused by global warming:
This winter's heavy snowfalls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in the air due to global climate change, a panel of scientists said on Tuesday. This extra moisture is likely to bring on extraordinary flooding with the onset of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, as deep snowpack melts and expected heavy rains add to seasonal run-off, the scientists said in a telephone briefing.
Reader Comments (33)
I note their use of the words "could well be related". So, this is idle speculation post event? Peer-reviewed? I think not.
On first impressions, is this such an unreasonable suggestion? It doesn't immediately strike me as a load of baloney. More heat, then more water vapour in the atmosphere. Need I add - more water vapour available for condensation as snow where approprropriate temperatures apply. I await correction on this.
Disregarding the tendency of the AWG camp to cite any and all evidence as support for warming, this is nevertheless a pretty basic observation. Of course it may be a false relationship on detailed examination because as we know, climate is complicated.
I happen to be anti-AGW but that of course is totally irrelevant.
Can any one ever understand how the likes of the Royal Society can exist in this day and age never mind the "Union of Concerned Scientists" whom I have never even heard of!
They simply do not seem to understand that we now live in an age of near immediate dissemination of their thoughts, theories and (sorry Bish) bulsh** political money grabbing!
The last line is a peach! "the scientists said in a telephone briefing"!
They still use that old fashioned method of communication? Then again, it must be near impossible to FOI a phone call! I wonder if they all have Skype accounts....or do they just bill the U.E.A., they would appear to not have to account for costs!
Their use of language is remarkably similar to that found in the astrology column of my local newspaper.
Sarc off! oops!
I wouldn't dispute that a season with high snowfall is more likely to result in flooding -- indeed that seems almost tautological. But, from the same article:
Now this may be merely sloppy reporting/editing* in giving an incomplete argument, but why should an earlier melt imply a faster one? Or is it the case that "could be" is used to describe speculation?
*I note that the panel in the lede was never identified. So we already know that the editing leaves something to be desired.
I guess I should put the tea kettle on when I want to make ice?
Another suggestion for Josh.
One would think, reading Serreze's words, that this is the first occurrence ever of a negative Arctic Oscillation, or of decreasing sea ice. The very word "oscillation" in the name should give one a clue that this is not so.
NASA teleconference today at 2pm EST. http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio
Post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/02/nasa-will-try-to-explain-the-missing-sunspots/#more-35111
Anyone for a Grand Minimum!
Climate scientists claim that the steam used to make coffee, actually cools the drink
Are they using telephone briefings because they can no longer keep a straight face?
Just asking...
It could also be that they're finding space too limited for face to face briefings in the Ministry of Truth bunker
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2011/02/joe-bastardi-explains-why-the-cold-miser-is-winning-the-climate-change-showdown.html
It looks like Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters Environment Correspondent, Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground and Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center have all been guilty of mis-speaking.
I just read this and am glad you posted about it. C'mon, does this make sense? I thought moister air was warmer air. How come the counter-intuitive logic applies to warming, but not colling?
I'm confused, that is to say, I am confused.
Premise 1: Warmer air leads to moister air.
Premise 2: Moister air leads to heavy snow fall.
Conclusion: Heavy snow fall leads to warmer air.
BTW, I know I've said it before...this winter my locale has been experience heavy snow fall and very cold temps.
The 'Union of Concerned Scientists' has, in scientific matters, all the credibility of my border collie.
Perhaps less, as the dog has far better senses than these clowns.
And yes, I do mean 'clowns'. They're always in the forefront of everything that is nonsensical.
alleagra: "On first impressions, is this such an unreasonable suggestion? It doesn't immediately strike me as a load of baloney. More heat, then more water vapour in the atmosphere. Need I add - more water vapour available for condensation as snow where approprropriate temperatures apply. I await correction on this. "
It's reasonable enough if you could make predictions about non-linear chaotic systems, but it does leave us with a problem to solve. You see most mountains in the Himalayas are above 8000 feet, which as a rough guide is the point at which the temperatures never rise above zero. Now it's indisputable that a number of glaciers above that level are receding. The only way they can recede is through ablation, however the reason there is ablation is that there is no snowfall, or precipitation if you like. So by what mechanism is the increased global precipitation failing to fall over the world's mountain ranges when it has snarled up the Northern Hemisphere for a good part of the winter?
Me? I think they're making it up as they go along, but who knows that's just one man's opinion.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/record_hemispheric_snow_but_moisture_content_below_normal/
The Reuters story is an example of AGW pseudo-science. To be that ignorant of the data is truly amazing.
The reason the NH experiencing such extreme weather is due to the extreme cold and not increasing levels of atmospheric moisture.
From NASA Earth Observatory:
"January 2011 was the ninth-driest January in the United States in 117 years."
This statement combined with charts showing the coastal water temp. being at the coldest level since 1971 has me wondering how the warm moist air, caused by AGW, colliding with cold air scenario caused the winter we just had
Spoken like a true believer. I think he needs a little more scourging.
It was all explained here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/noaas-csi-explains-record-snows-global-warming-not-involved/
And here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/regarding-thermodynamics-and-heat-transfer-why-al-gore%E2%80%99s-comments-to-bill-o%E2%80%99reilly-at-fox-news-are-wrong/
@ JEM (Mar 2, 2011 at 4:15 PM):
"The 'Union of Concerned Scientists' has, in scientific matters, all the credibility of my border collie.
Perhaps less, as the dog has far better senses than these clowns."
No 'perhaps' about it, any Border Collie would have these 'Concerned Scientists' totally befuddled in no time - that is, even more than they already are.
Everybody who shares their house with a Border Collie or two can attest to that.
The headline of this thread, "US cold caused by warming" does not match the Reuters story which talks about snowfall and extreme storms. It would clearly be somewhat counter-intuiutive to suggest that warming causes cooling.
The "Union of Concerned Scientists" nowadays is simply a general purpose left-wing US advocacy group.
In their membership they make no distinction between qualified scientists and activists.
Their website describes them as :-
Their President Kevin Knobloch (steady!) is described thus:-
I think JEM's collie is probably streets ahead of this lot in both scientific comprehension and honesty.
Let me get this straight. We are really worried about unprecedented warming caused by CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions, that we predicted would cause unprecendented warming are in fact causing record snowfalls and record low temperatures. In view of these facts, the science is settled and anyone who cannot see that is a denier or a numpty.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/scientists_pull_a_snow_job_on_reporters_in_teleconference/
It would appear we have a concerted effort to mislead the public by the Union of Concerned Scientists
Viv Evans
No 'perhaps' about it, any Border Collie would have these 'Concerned Scientists' totally befuddled in no time - that is, even more than they already are.
I assume that the Border Collie is on par with the Irish Sheep Dog, which isn't really a formal breed, but just dogs that have shown that they have enough brains to herd sheep. Sorta have to prove themselves -- none of this being born to the manor crap for them dogs.
In any case, I have noticed that on windy days, particularly up in Donegal, that the Irish Sheep Dogs up there have enough sense to point their heads into the wind when relieving themselves out in the field.
I wonder what the Concerned Scientists would do? It would be an interesting experiment. An alternative would be to take them out on a sail boat. There is an old saying, you know.
So - Mr Knoblock (Oh - sorry - may have misspelt that) has a Masters Degree in Public Administration - and has worked for hillbillies...
Don't it just give y'all a real good feelin' about his knowledge of climate stuff..??
Oh, well ... it seems that "global warming" has morphed into the ultimate activist's "scare for all seasons".
Anything goes, it would appear, when it comes to avoiding the elephant in the climate change room: the "climate science" models just cannot cut the mustard - and they simply have no empirical evidence whatsoever in support of the claim that increased human-generated CO2 is the primary cause of "global warming", "climate change" or whatever the rebranding flavour of the week might be.
Perhaps they need to learn that not only does correlation (even if found) != causation, but (perhaps even more importantly) invisible conflation != causation, either ;-)
These scientists must not have been around in the 70's. Also as Steve Tracton explained at CWG (DC weather blog), AO is an effect, not a cause. So while lack of ice might have caused negative AO measurements (doubtful), negative AO measurements didn't cause anything.
This seems relevant:
Doublethink:
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”
George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty Four"
The announcement by these (unknown but obviously) very knowledgeable, well trained, educated scientists may be possibly, certainly (Pr<> 50% give or take 100% or so) ..... yes this announcement has been caused by concern that the union of concerned (what was the word now?) is concerned that ..... oh yes, they are concerned that the global warming scam is becoming a laughing stock and that they maye be seen to be, well how shall I put it ...... concerned; full stop. Or at least, definitely, maybe ....................................could it possibly be?
At least over on John Bull's island you have a Union of Concerned scientists spouting about global warming, Climate Change. And getting things twisted
Over to your west on our Green-free island, we have an Architect!!
Yep, an ARCHITECT!
Ain't that correct Don Pablo
Perhaps we will soon have the Mpemba effect quoted at us, where counter-intuitively it is sometimes possible for warm water to freeze faster than cooler water. And sometimes not. So every weather change becomes consistent with global warming.