Warmists Continue Pushing Notion That Juno Was Proof Of “Climate Change”

If it is, I blame the Warmists for refusing to give up their own use of fossil fuels, hairdryers, ice makers, hair spray, refusing to unplug every appliance not in use, refusing to live in a tiny house, refusing to grow their own food, walk or bike to work, and only buy local

Here’s How We Know Global Warming Made the Blizzard Worse

Manhattan may have gotten the wimpy end of Juno, but the storm chin-checked New England. Boston is buried in snow. Hurricane-force winds buffeted Nantucket. The storm surge may have permanently altered shorelines from New Haven, Connecticut, to Portsmouth, Maine. Storms have always happened in winter, but the excessively violent ones? They’re getting more common, and that’s due to climate change.

“It’s winter, and we have storms, so that part is entirely natural,” says Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the federal government’s center for understanding weather and climate. “The global warming aspect relates to the fact that the oceans are warmer, and the air above them is more moist.”

So, does this mean that the oceans were super-duper warm during the Little Ice Age, the Dark Ages, and, heck, the last glacial age and Snowball Earth?

Also, weren’t we told that the heat was hiding in the deep oceans?

Trenberth’s expertise puts him in the potentially uncomfortable position of trying to use scientific data to answer what has become a politicized question. But he says that doesn’t bother him because the numbers speak for themselves. Climate models—heavy-lifting computation that simulates the fluid dynamics of the whole planet—show that oceans are like batteries, charging up with extra warmth as atmospheric carbon continues to warm the planet. But that energy storage isn’t free. What goes in must come out, feeding bigger, badder storms. In the case of Winter Storm Juno, extra warmth in the ocean possibly lowered air pressure by a few bars. That means more wind and bigger storm surges.

So this is all based on computer models? Good grief.

Not to be outdone, VICE News goes with

Climate Change Is Bringing More Extreme Precipitation Events to the Northeast

And Full Time Whistle

Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change

The contents of the fables pretty much mirror the excerpted one, the same as many, many other articles, so, it looks like Warmists received their marching orders. Then there’s the New Republic

It’s Time to Remind Climate Change Deniers That Weather and Climate Are Different

This myth is routinely debunked, but one more time doesn’t hurt: Weather is not climate. The weather is immediate conditions—rain, snow, sunshine, etc.—while the climate is long-term trends.

Perhaps they should be telling Warmists this, since they now blame every weather event on “climate change”.

A blizzard or a cold snap doesn’t disprove climate change. It doesn’t cancel the fact that ten of the hottest years on record have occured since 2000, with 2014 as the the warmest yet.

So, they set the condition that nothing can disprove their pet cult. And, they apparently haven’t gotten the info that 2014 is not necessarily the warmest yet. But, really, even if it was the warmest, even if they were right on snow being caused by heat, that in no way proves anthropogenic causation.

Weather forecasts are also not the same as climate projections, because weather predictions are short-term by nature. And despite improved forecasting over the last few decades, weather forecasts are only as accurate as meteorologists’ initial data, like atmospheric conditions, ocean surface temperatures, and how well real-world physics is represented in their models. Imperfect knowledge of those conditions makes weather predictions highly variable.

Climate models, on the other hand, can’t predict the weather on a specific day, but they do show trends and averages. They deal with different data, including conditions of the deep ocean, vegetation, and the sun, and how greenhouse gasses impact the system. “The ability (or not) of predicting a single storm on a given day in a specific portion of the U.S. has little relevance to skill in predicting long-term climate associated with long-lived greenhouse gases,” Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist with NASA, said in an email.

Which is interesting, because “climate models” have consistently failed. Remember when we were told that snow would be a thing of the past? Remember when we were told that the 2005 hurricane season would be “the new normal”? Then landfalling hurricanes dropped off. We were told that Superstorm Sandy would be the new normal. Nope.

Climate deniers upset that Tuesday’s blizzard skipped New York City can take comfort that the city will face more historic storms in the future.

Of course it will. That’s the way nature works. Of course, in Warmist World, they seem to forget that “weather is not climate.”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Warmists Continue Pushing Notion That Juno Was Proof Of “Climate Change””

  1. Jeffery says:

    Just remind yourself that the Earth is warming rapidly because of CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

    We will see a mixed bag of results from this warming, but almost all will be disruptive to human society and civilization. Why? Because it will represent significant changes from what we are used to. Can Chicagoans adjust to summertime Baton Rouge climate? Of course. Can Baton Rouge adjust to equatorial climate? Perhaps. Can New York, Boston, Miami adjust to higher sea levels and greater storm surges. Sure, but at a huge cost. How about New York in 2200? Too far away to worry about?

    And are you really so dumb to not understand how accumulating significant energy into the overall climate system can alter weather patterns? How changes in major ocean currents and the jet streams can make winters colder in some areas and warmer in others? Or are you just pandering to a low information and ideological audience?

    The Theory of AGW is easily refutable by evidence. Do you have evidence that the Earth isn’t warming? Do you have evidence that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation? Or that CO2 isn’t on the rise? Or that the increased CO2 comes from something other than burned fossil fuels?

    Climate scientists have presented overwhelming evidence to support these various hypotheses; so much, in fact, that it is now considered a scientific theory.

    I would guess top notch skeptical scientists such as Watts, Curry, Goddard, Hockey Schtick, Spencer, McIntyre, McKittrick, Christy, Eschenbach etc would have presented this contrary evidence if they had uncovered it. Why haven’t they?

    You use blurbs from interviews as evidence – Someone said we’ll have no snow. Someone said we’ll have stronger hurricanes. Someone said Chicago will be hotter in summer – yet you find actual scientific evidence from actual scientists unpersuasive – and YOU call climate scientists cultists?

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Ah yes, Kevin Trenberth, of Climategate fame, still tinkering with data to fit the computer models. And little Jeffery keeps buying it.

  3. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Jeffery;

    IPCC, and Goddard and Easterbrook have given evidence. No warmingin 15 years. (IPCC) earth warmed by 3/10th of a degree in 20 years.
    (Goddard) Warming trend ended in 1998 (Easterbrook)

    Why do you keep insisting that the earth is warming rapidly. You said yourelf that it has only warmed less thn .5 of a degree in 20 years.

    >”And are you really so dumb to not understand how accumulating significant energy into the overall climate system can alter weather patterns?”

    Maybe but the weather patterns have not been altered. They are no different than the past 60 years. C02 400PPB is not that significant.
    A full auditormium would measure 800PPB
    >”I would guess top notch skeptical scientists such as Watts, Curry, Goddard, Hockey Schtick, Spencer, McIntyre, McKittrick, Christy, Eschenbach etc would have presented this contrary evidence if they had uncovered it. Why haven’t they?”
    They have adnosium. Why do you say otherwise.
    >”The Theory of AGW is easily refutable by evidence.”
    It sure is… Why do keep believing it when the themomitor says different? Is it because you want to? Do you really wish to believe we are doomed. Did you watch that youtube I sent you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

  4. david7134 says:

    Don’t be so hard on old Jeff. Remember that Gruber described the liberals as being stupid and that they could very easily be lied to. Then add to the mix that Jeff and John clearly don’t have a deep well of knowledge and you have folks that view this so called “science” more like a religion than something that you can subject to scientific methods. Plus, for some reason, they desire to use climate to institute changes to our world that we normally call communism.

  5. jl says:

    “Do you have evidence the earth isn’t warming?” Yeh, the satellite data sets for one. Of course that’s not the real question- it’s what’s causing the alleged warming that’s stopped. The hoaxers think because it warms (well, used to), there can be only one reason. How simple-minded.

  6. JohnAllen says:

    If all the snow and storm action on the east coast is from global warming then the nice mild winter with little in the way of freezing arctic blasts in the Pacific Northwest must mean the glaciers are coming back.

    Is it lunacy or luddites masked as saviors of the world?

Pirate's Cove