So does this huge blizzard disprove climate change?

Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 27, 2015 | by Jessica Mendoza

[21twelve]

I was flipping through the channels to see how bad the storm was. One guy was talking about the “European model”, and how it was predicting the large snowfalls in NYC. Then he mentioned the “American model” that was used for first time(?), and it predicted 11” in Manhattan - which is pretty close. (Although areas outside of Boston were getting 30+ inches of snow and 40mph winds).

The “American model” is based on millions (billions?) of dollars worth of equipment and research, and will be used in the future.

Or - at least until it fails and the other model works better. ;)

Weather forecasting has gotten a lot better over the years. But to somehow look at a single storm or even current data to forecast long-range climate change is stupid. Although I think looking at the sun-spot number for long-term climate change has some merit. (Of course predicing sun-spots can be difficult too!)

[broken_arrow1]

“As the climate continues to change, we can expect more weather”

[The Great RJ]

The earth’s climate is always changing, but man has nothing to do with it and neither can human intervention alter it. This snowstorm is a weather event...unusual but not unprecedented. Obama can no more change the climate with his EPA regulations than King Canute could stop the tides.

[hadaclueonce]

city of Austin Texas over paid for a bio electric generator on the promise of carbon tax credits.

One billion dollars.

They don’t want to talk about it.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Your premise is that there is climate change (that needs to be disproved). It does not need to be disproved, do not accept the premise of its existence.

[Ken H]

I wonder how much they got from fedgov for the purchase.

[kvanbrunt2]

weatherbell.com likes the european model joe bastardi

[Intolerant in NJ]

But here's one thing we do know: As the climate continues to change, we can expect more weather like this...the real trouble for the global warmists is that they won't and can't specify any condition which would allow us to say that their theory was not true - real scientists understand that the only reliable way to actually prove a theory is to show that conditions contrary to it are very unlikely to exist - since the warmists claim via tortured logic that any weather that comes along actully results from global warming, they in effect preclude any chance of ever proving their own theory valid......

[Kickass Conservative]

Channeling an old SNL skit, Jessica, you ignorant Bitch.

[RinaseaofDs]

Perhaps not, but it did raise the following question:

If you have a weather system so close to shore you can fly a hurricane chaser through it, you use five - 5 - different satellite based prediction models on it and you use land based radar prior to it making landfall, and you screw up the prediction this bad, how can you trust anything to make any sort of call out beyond 30 minutes from now, let alone 10, 20, and 30 years from now?