Well, it isn’t uncommon for alarmists to misrepresent skeptics or facts, or science. And, HuffPo is at it again.
Even the title is facetious. We’ll get to that in a second….. here’s the article.
WASHINGTON (AP) — With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.
Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.
How can that be? It’s been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
Of course, that’s not what the lunatics have been saying. They’ve been saying we are suppose to have more snow and less snow simultaneously, depending upon what’s happening at the moment. Seth Borenstein did get one part right, it’s been a joke among skeptics. Then Seth elucidates…. on his bizarre, and dishonest mind.
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that’s likely to continue with man-made global warming.
I won’t bother with the never been proven “man-made global warming“. Regardless of what is stated, what the facts are, and what science really states, Seth simply accepts, as a matter of faith, that there is warming, and it is man caused. None of this has ever been proven. But, I would point out that even a journalist should know that projections haven’t demonstrated anything. If a projection demonstrates something, then it is no longer a projection. But, maybe Seth is too stupid to understand the distinction. He continues with his banal stupidity.
— The United States has been walloped by twice as many of the most extreme snowstorms in the past 50 years than in the previous 60 years, according to an upcoming study on extreme weather by leading federal and university climate scientists. This also fits with a dramatic upward trend in extreme winter precipitation — both rain and snow — in the Northeastern U.S. charted by the National Climatic Data Center.
Oh, okay, the Northeast is now the entire US, which, in turn, is the entire planet, according to the nutters. I thought Rubio lined them out on this? And, besides, I don’t know if Seth realizes this or not, but how the NCDC measure extremes is what is beyond a certain arbitrary conception of what is average. It could be more or less precipitation which would be labeled extreme. Seth continues….
— Yet the Global Snow Lab at Rutgers University says that spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has shrunk on average by 1 million square miles in the last 45 years.
Oh, so now spring snow is indicative of the cumulative yearly snow we have? Even is Seth is too stupid to understand the NCDC’s metrics or that projections don’t demonstrate anything, he can’t be this stupid. He’s being intentionally deceptive. It is true, spring snow has declined. It probably has more to do with astro-physics than it does atmospheric physics. But, where spring snow has declined, winter and fall snow has increased. This makes the amount of snow we get unchanged. Because Seth thinks the US is a planet, I’ll narrow this down to the North American continent….. here’s all of the less snow we’ve been getting for the past 30 years.
Yes, dramatic, I know. This graph was created by the same source Seth Borenstein quoted, Rutgers. Either Seth is too stupid to run numbers himself, or he’s being disingenuous. Given the length of time he’s been covering the climate issue and the interactions he’s had, I know he’s both.
Back to having demonstrated something……
And an upcoming study in the Journal of Climate says computer models predict annual global snowfall to shrink by more than a foot in the next 50 years.
Yep, those demonstrating models again. Seth even brings in the experts to back him up!
“Shorter snow season, less snow overall, but the occasional knockout punch,” Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. “That’s the new world we live in.”
Wouldn’t it be grand if the climate scientists actually looked at the real world and numbers instead of their computer games? But, from what I’ve read about Oppenheimer, he’s the mental equivalent to Borenstein, so there’s no point in have such lofty expectations. Numbers and their meaning don’t seem to hold their context or relevance with these people.
Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.
Oh, well, that settles it then! Ten whole climate scientists say so, so, it must be true regardless of what the numbers say. The story, and that’s what it is, goes on and on, but I’ll just add one more quote, then a small graph, and a short comment and leave it at that.
But when Serreze, Oppenheimer and others look at the last few years of less snow overall, punctuated by big storms, they say this is what they are expecting in the future.
Yep, the last few years have had less snow………..
Serreze, Oppenheimer and others ……
Sneazy, dOppey, and the rest of the mental dwarfs don’t know what the heck they’re babbling about. The are completely delusional and too stupid to understand numbers. Borenstein shouldn’t try to write about science and Sneazy and dOppey, shouldn’t be pretending to know anything about it.