Posted on 04/06/2018 6:44:00 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
It’s going to be very cold this weekend in the Northeast. That doesn’t mean the climate isn’t changing.
A record-cold “Arctic Blast” is set to hit the East Coast this weekend.
And undoubtedly, some people will point to it and say that it proves global warming isn’t for real.
That’s totally false: categorically, definitely, unequivocally, scientifically false. And yet it’s made over and over and over again by climate denialists and their paid-for politicians in Washington.
Here, then, is the definitive list of four reasons that cold winters do not disprove global warming.
1. Climate Is Personality, Weather Is a Mood.
The most important thing to remember, when it comes to climate change, is that it is never possible to trace any single weather event—hurricane, cold snap, dry spell—to climate change. As University of Georgia geography professor John Knox puts it, climate is personality; weather is mood.
2. There Is No ‘Global Warming.’ There’s Global Climate Disruption.
The Earth’s climatic system is extremely complicated. And so while the core feedback loop of climate change is simple—more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps more heat, like glass traps heat in a greenhouse—its effects are anything but. Some parts of the world get hotter, others get colder. And some are thrown into chaos.
3. Yes, in Fact, Climate Change Sometimes Makes Winter Worse.
In some cases, the changes caused by anthropogenic alterations to the atmosphere will cause more wintry effects.
4. The Northeastern United States Is Not the World.
Perhaps this is obvious, but a small swath of land from Maine to Georgia is not representative of the entire Earth’s surface. And as it happens, the warming effects of global climate disruption have not been as keenly felt there as elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Exactly. But don’t forget:
If it gets warmer, then it must be global warming.
If it stays the same, then it must be global warming.
Give us your Dam money!
Exactly. Since the media are centered in the New York/Washington axis, whatever the weather is there is considered to be evidence of worldwide trends.
They also work like CO2. The glass absorbs heat radiated inside the greenhouse. It radiates 1/2 of that heat back into the greenhouse, the rest outside the GH. The radiated heat is much smaller, but it can be proven fairly easily:
Mount a metallic tarp high above the ground. It won't stop any convection since rising air will go around it. Go out at night and stand under the tarp. It will feel warmer. It will actually be a little warmer.
Jay Michaelson, Climate Scientologist extraordinaire looks down his nose at us “deniers”.
Jay Michaelson in summer: "It’s going to be very hot this weekend in the Northeast. That means that the climate is changing."
“Four Reasons Snowy Springs Don’t Disprove Global Warming”
indeed. i’m pretty sure most of the climate models long ago predicted global warming would make things colder ..
Tornadoes in Oklahoma and Iowa only get 10 seconds of "Oh, by the way" when it rains in NYC..
The warmists are too committed to turn back now. Not even a descending ice age will change their tune.
If the whole world was one big chunk of ice, liberals would tell us it was caused by ‘global warming’.
Glaciers could return to cover the midwest and these morons would still be insisting it “doesn’t disprove global warming”.
Jay sounds all wee-weed up that our weather isn’t cooperating with his moonbat religion.
Snow was supposed to be gone years ago wasn’t it Jay?
The author bases his conclusions on multiple logical fallacies. First, he uses circular reasoning by assuming that just because a particular argument doesn’t prove his position is false, he concludes his argument must be true. That is circular reasoning because it begins with the assumption that the conclusion is true. Secondly, even if a particular argument(recent cooling) doesn’t prove that global warming is false, it does not mean that other argument don’t prove it is false. That is an appeal to ignorance.
It turns out, actually, that other arguments DO exist which prove that recent warming is NOT caused by greenhouse gas. This is simple.
Greenhouse gas theory predicts a warming trend in the tropical troposphere to be increasing at a rate 3 to 4 times higher than the surface rate. This is reasonable because if greenhouse gas warming exists, it must occur first in the atmosphere. However, both satellite and balloon data show the exact opposite. They show the *surface rate* to be 2 to 3 times higher that the atmospheric rate. Furthermore, greenhouse gas theory also predicts (and requires) that the rate of radiation into space must decrease as the surface temperature increases. This is based on the assumption that higher surface temperatures will cause more evaporation and more water vapor in the atmosphere, and water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas. However, satellite data shows the opposite. It shows, as surface temperature increases, the radiation rate into space also *increases* about three times faster that greenhouse gas theory says it should be decreasing.
In proper science, if a theory predicts an observable, and that observable turns out to be contrary to the prediction, the theory is false. So the author’s article is not logically sound, and sound logic refutes his argument.
Michaelson has also argued that Earth’s climate is changing in part to the explosion of the Klingon moon, Praxis.
Keep peddling that AGW snake oil!
I think that is their ultimate goal, but they want everyone else to step up first, then they will decide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.