An intense blizzard, appropriately named Hercules, is about to blanket the Northeast. Antarctic ice locked in a Russian ship containing a team of scientists—en route, no less, to do climate research. Record low temperatures have been seen in parts of the US, and in Winnipeg, temperatures on December 31 were as cold as temperatures on…Mars. So as is their seasonal wont, here come the climate skeptics. Exhibit A: “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice” — Donald Trump.
Who could have possibly predicted a powerful snowstorm could ever strike the Northeast in the middle of winter? Clearly, that kind of rare fluke event is far beyond the ability of mere climate researchers and weather experts to see coming — they’re all baffled — and therefore stands as more irrefutable proof that Global Warming has ended! The fact that winter up here is summer down under doesn’t count: Ignore the blistering 120 degree fueled drought laying waste to Australia this week and pay no attention to the funny man behind the curtain with the bad toupee.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. … Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.
The first global warming models, written in the 1970s, predicted that winters would become shorter but more intense; in effect, winters would be two and a half months long but have three and a half months worth of snow, ice and cold. That is pretty much what we are seeing now.
I do sometime ask (jokingly) “Where’s global warm, now that we really need it?”
There have been winters like this for as long as I have been living here. The plain fact is that severe winters are noticeably less common now than they were only 20 years ago.
The problem with GW isn’t with the W part. It’s with the G part: Global. As in “Globe” (not the theatre). The Earth isn’t round. It’s a basically flat disc at the centre of the Universe. Therefore, GW is wrong, ‘cuz there ain’t no G to W !
</snark>Still waiting for Trump to provide that slam-dunk evidence that Obama isn’t a US citizen. Until he provides that, there is absolutely nothing he says that I care about. He promised, and he is one of those almighty job creators…so it *must* be coming soon…soon…
People who don’t understand Global Warming haven’t pushed a kid on a swing. The harder you push forward, the harder it swings back. Until the kid falls out and goes flying, of course…
@blf
There may be a kernel of truth hidden deep within your snark. I think there may indeed be a problem with the word “global”, in this sense: When climate scientists use the word, they mean simply that the globe is (on average) getting warmer. When denialists hear it, they seem to think it means that the warming is supposed to affect every point on the globe at the same time.
Meanwhile :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/brisbane-set-to-roast-as-heatwave-continues/5184242
&
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/2013-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-for-australia/5183040
And :
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Um, not quite. The interior regions of 2 states have drought conditions, while the remainder of Australia is either at or above average rainfall lately.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne, Good point. I concur, some of the denialism I’ve seen quite possibly is making that (always(?) unstated) absurd assumption.
There’s lots of other reasons for the denialism: Whilst GW is real its mostly / only natural variation and/or it’s been warmer in the past so what’s the problem; Cherry-picking the data and/or comparing “apples with oranges” (to use a common idiom); Distrust of models; Distrust of deduction and/or insistence on direct observation; and on and on and on. And on.
The particular set of denialists which get my goat are those who imagine something is the solution, don’t like their imagined solution, and hence decide AGW isn’t real. Other sets who also get my goat are by those who insist greedy scientists / “the elite” are making it all up for the money; Those who actually would be impacted by combating AGW and hence deny it (I’m looking at you, Koachroach brothers and E$$o…); and Those who deny it because it is part of some mythical sky faeries’s “plans” (which, of course, it is wrong for mere humans to interfere with).
One simple answer that I have for denialists is: So the with Global Warming it’s still 10 degreesF. Do you realize that without GW it would be 9 degrees???
Sequester carbon. Plants giant sequoias.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne:
That made me laugh out loud. I’m easily amused, but what a perfect way to distill the ignorance.