MORE 'Global Warming' En Route to the Garden State
| February 9, 2010 See that pink oval in the middle of the snowfall map, Save Jerseyans?
That's where your Blogger-in-Chief lives. Another storm is expected to smack New Jersey later this afternoon, dumping another two feet on our storm-ravaged state. I'm all shoveled out.
I've never seen anything like this in 25 years of life! Clearly, the planet is entering some kind of sustained cooling cycle -- the complete opposite of 'global warming.' Atlantic City itself is on the verge of smashing a 40-year snowfall record. The City of Philadelphia is looking at the snowiest winter on record since they started keeping track way back in 1884 (Benjamin Harrison was president, folks). Thousands of South Jersey residents are still without power as of this writing. On Wednesday morning, if current projections are accurate, I'll have over 40-inches of snow in my backyard.
Naturally, some loons still can't let go of global warming mythology. The White House's rollout of a new climate change office was delayed by this weekend's record snowfall in Washington, D.C. One of the "Mother Gaia" worshipers over at Huffington Post recently warned her readers that "Sometimes as we go about our daily lives, climate change can seem abstract, and not something we think we are experiencing on a daily basis. However, our planet is rapidly being altered and the physical signs of this shift can't be ignored."
Abstract? Here's something tangible for you, Huffpo: there's TWO FEET of snow in my backyard!!! Global warming is officially a load of hooey, Save Jerseyans...
Anecdotal evidence?
Reply to this
That's the point... the flawed global warming theory is based entirely in anecdotal evidence!
Earth worshipers pick and choose evidence from the last 150 years to explain a complicated natural process on a planet that is billions of years old!
Reply to this
But your own denouncement of global warming is based on a few data points, much much less than 150 years worth of data. If your claim is that their logic is flawed in claiming global warming to be true, then your claim of debunking global warming is based on even faultier logic.
It is as if you watched the stock market rise two days in a row and declared the end of the recession and the beginning of a bull market.
Determining long term trends require a reasonable sampling of data within the time-scale in which the system can be changed. One needs to understand that fluctuations will occur and there will be deviations from what is expected. Global warming never claimed that the planet temperature was monotonically increasing.
Reply to this
Yes, global warming alarmists did claim that temperatures would continue to increase until the ice caps completely melted and giant waves washed away our cities. Clearly that's not the case.
Don't try to rewrite the talking points now!
Reply to this
Matt, there are many other indicators that a “global warming” phenomenon is occurring. That is one of the reasons that the term “global warming” is now used mainly by people who believe that it is not occurring; that way, they can say things like “Look, it’s snowing! Global warming can’t be true!” It is a lot easier to rail against “global warming” because it is a precise description – you don’t see many who deny “climate change” is occurring because there are numerous pieces of evidence that the climate is indeed changing. Those changes are more varied than the temperature going up, which must be frustrating for detractors.
I’m very much looking forward to your argument that the name was changed exactly because global warming has been proven false, and that the crazy environmentalists have been given no choice but to change the name of their vast conspiracy, or whatever your choice of phrase might be.
More to the point of your post: I have strong doubts that come August when there are three days in a row that are hotter than average you will accept a claim that “It’s hotter than usual! Proof that global warming exists!” You are smarter than that. Please don’t write things using logic that you would not accept if used by the opposing point of view.
Finally, on a technical note, snow (and even a large snow system such as the one striking the east coast) does not necessarily indicate lower temperatures. Snowfall increases and decreases in particular temperature profiles. Snowfall requires a combination of temperature and saturated air. Sometimes the air, though saturated, is so cold that there is too little water vapor in the air to snow; therefore, on some occasions, warmer air will actually result in more snowfall than colder air. The snow you’re getting is proof of nothing other than the presence of the right combination of factors to create snowfall. But those are just pesky details.
Reply to this
I'm running out of places to put all of that "global warming."
Reply to this
This is nothing new. The blizzard of '96 was pretty bad. We had a lot of snow in '98 and we had one REALLY heavy snow storm back in '03. I just think the pain of each snow storm sends a shock to the system telling us it's the worst ever.
Reply to this