Or too easy. A polar excursion designed to draw attention the global warming has been called off because of . . . wait for it . . . extreme cold weather.
All explain-away-the-data global warming stories invariably contain this quote, or something like it:
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming . . . but one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Because, of course, warm means warming, cold means warming, dry means warming and wet means warming.
And, of course, nothing is as unpredictable as freezing cold weather at the North Pole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I sat in on a physics class once in which the professor was demonstrating something to do with electricity, and he GUARANTEED that if anyone saw a spark, he would give that person an A. Of course, the thing gave off such a huge spark that it was visible all the way in the back of the room. Every student raised his/her hand to ask for an A. Does that mean the laws of physics did not work? No. It meant that the professor did not account for the conditions in which the demonstration took place. (I don't remember what the culprit turned out to be, but I think it had to do with the humidity levels in the room.)
Just because local weather is hot or cold in a given short-range timeframe, that is not scientific evidence of long-term trends. Weather and climate are two very different things, and the interaction between the two is complex, which is partly why your local weather forecaster is wrong so often.
In this case, Atwood's explanation that "one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability" is somewhat simplistic, and she probably went on to explain what she meant; the reporter (or editor) just chose not to elaborate. Or maybe Atwood is just a spokesperson and is not qualified to speak on the nature of global warming.
A healthy dose of skepticism is necessary in any scientific endeavor. Automatically selecting only the data that seem to support your skepticism is not good science, either on the part of scientists who study global warming or on the part of conservatives who oppose it just because they don't like the "solutions" that liberals propose.
. . . all of which is precisely my point. Every time Hell freezes over, the Global Warming Crowd comes back with, "Yeah, unpredictability. Wow. Go figure."
And every time a warm spell blows through on Thanksgiving, the GWC is like, "See? See? GLOBAL WARMING."
Anecdotal evidence points both ways or no way--let's make up our minds. And let's stop (hello, Al Gore) seizing on flukes like Katrina (a relatively benign hurricane, as far as New Orleans was concerned--the damage had to do with the vulnerability of the levees) as an explanation for whatever we want.
You are about the twentieth person to write to me, "There's a difference between weather and climate," as if that were the period at the end of the sentence. I know. I know. I only wish your side behaved that way. For years, Al Gore famously began speech after speech by asking, "Wow, is it just me, or have we had some strange WEATHER lately?" And of course, unless it had been 71 degrees and sunny for the previous month, the crowd would invariably respond in the affirmative.
Are frezing cold temperatures at the North Pole, in and of themselves, proof of anything? Of course not. But neither is Katrina, and neither is a warm day in December on Sixth Avenue.
You are right about anecdotal evidence; that is why neither side should be using it to prove a point.
And incidentally, while Katrina may not have been the proving superstorm generated by the global warming monster, to call it relatively benign is not accurate, either. While it did make landfall "only" as a category 3 hurricane, 130 mph winds and the accompanying storm surges can be devastating even to areas less vulnerable than New Orleans. Katrina also did achieve category 5 status, putting it among the top 5 strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever recorded.
Re anecdote: Well, I'm glad we agree about something. This is the sole reason I keep unearthing these nuggets.
Re Katrina: "Benign" perhaps is too weak a word--I live in Houston, and I'm well familiar with the damage a mere tropical storm can do. I was comparing the NO damage compared to the coverage it received. I've heard reports than Katrina was no more than a lively Stage 2 by the time it reached landfall in NO. The brunt was felt by Mississippi. The story of Katrina was the ongoing criminal malfeasance of the Army Corps of Engineers and the curruption and sloth of the local NO government. (And no, I've no love for "Brownie.") Katrina was the story of the inefficiencies of government. Global Warming? Not so much.
Something that should be considered in disaster planning, however, is the fact that hurricanes do in fact gain strength from warm waters (it's a simple matter of energy). So if the oceans are measurably warmer, it's not unreasonable to expect effects on tropical storms. (Keep in mind that global warming is not the only factor or non-factor in storm strength/frequency due to warmer oceans. El Nino/Southern Oscillation effects contribute as well.)
Record highs possible this week
Joseph W. Cox
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 13, 2007 12:56 PM
"A high pressure system over Arizona could cause nearly record high temperatures.
Clear sunny skies with highs in the low 90s are expected today with lows dipping down this evening to the upper 50s below clear starry skies.
Much of the same is expected Wednesday, Thursday and into the weekend according to the National Weather Service.
Average temperatures for this week normally are around 75 degrees while the record temperatures for the next few days range from 90 to 95 degrees."
GREAT! NOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE.
I LOVE IT!!!
-Blue
Believe in good Scotch, Tom Brady, John Updike, death, taxes, and that every time Bill Clinton horse-laughs and slaps at his desk, a crime has been committed.
Everything else? Up for grabs.
Post a Comment