Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 02/ 3/2011

Code White

By Tom Toles

c_02032011.gif

***

Cloudy thinking

Now we have monster storms of astonishing proportions in the U.S. and Australia, simultaneously. I know! Let's talk about scientists' e-mails! Because if we can keep the conversation focused on e-mails and other extraneous talking points, then climate physics doesn't happen! You see, it's a POLITICAL argument, just like any other! If the deniers browbeat the public and politicians into submission, then the storms won't happen!

Keep it up! You've just about won the argument! Good work!

Buy plywood. --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_02032011.gif

By Tom Toles  | February 3, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  DC  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A stretch
Next: Sequel

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

Sure, the climate is changing. The climate is ALWAYS changing. It was changing long before humans appeared. But now we are supposed to believe that the climate is changing because of human activity. We are supposed to believe that climate change is not due to solar activity, changes in ocean currents, etc. Of course, that is absurd, and demonstrates the absurdity of the alarmist arguments put forward by the likes of Mr. Toles.

Posted by: DirtFarmer1 | February 4, 2011 4:16 AM | Report abuse

fbrewer1

How about the veracity of these two guy's from my posting ??

First Google these two and then come back to trade insults !!

Mike Halpert, deputy director of the federal Climate Prediction Center.

Louis Uccellini, director of the government's National Centers for Environmental Prediction.

I have read a bit of the net, most of it is repeats of a few studies in different wrappers. Read the IPCC reports and compare to the summery. Compare IPCC over the years. Read the IPCC on carbon capture.

Look past the media. My info does NOT come from Rush or Sara. Or Toles

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

fbrewer1

I really do not believe the soon to be head of NOAA is a contrarian.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet - If you read the comprehensive overview of climate issues that is readily available on the internet, you will find hundreds of scientists discussing the actual facts. You can always find a couple of contrarians who take delight in throwing up distorted, misinformed irrelevancies aimed at discrediting some trivial aspect of the overall issue, then claiming, "See? It's all some great hoax, some vast conspiracy."

The harder you try to rely on "argumentum ad verecundiam", the more obvious it becomes that your head is somewhere......presumably in the sand.

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 3, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Pdog I would say

-Again, you've missed the point.

There are huge temp differentials in a typhoon or hurricane and lots of water in the air.

Water not air is what drives storms. Densities of air allow water to move ie low pressure. Water is dense and has an interesting quality, latent heat. Changing from vapor to liquid to ice and back stores or gives off energy. This is what drives storms. Water will influence the air temp not the other way around. The sun and cloud cover influences water temp.

There are several ways to transfer heat, radiation, convection, and conduction. Convection is the method to transfer heat from air to water and is proportional to the difference in temp. Global air temp is only a degree or less warmer than 100 years ago so the transfer of extra heat to the ocean is small. The sun radiates heat to the ocean and is a bigger influence.

(Ocean currents, water vapor, and the sun) drive (the weather, air movement, and temperature), not the other way around.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

daly,

You said "Real weather scientists do not agree and actually state the opposite. Temperature differentials cause storms so as there are smaller differentials there are less intense storms. This is one of the themes of AGW that does not hold up to real science."

-This may be somewhat true for storms that pop up along drastic fronts, where warm air meets cold, but in general, warm, moist air feeds storms and precipitation events. Why do you think hurricanes and typhoons that form in the tropics (where there is little temperature differential) intensify when they roll over warmer waters?

-Regarding your paragraph about carbon, you're missing the point. Getting OFF fossil fuels is what I was talking about. Carbon is not an issue if you're not making it via combustion. No, there haven't been any great solutions posed in congress. Why? Because one party shoots down anything that could be remotely effective in transferring us to a renewable energy economy, always falling back on the ridiculous "it will hurt the economy" arguement. So, what gets proposed are softball "market-based" solutions in an effort to keep Republicans happy. But then they won't even acknowledge THOSE as something needed.

You said, "What would you rather carry for 5 miles, a five gallon bucket of water or a five gallon bucket of air. Air I would assume. Water is much more dense than air and slight alteration of atmosphere composition has very little effect on ocean currents. Oceans drive our weather patterns. Solar gain is the driver of ocean currents not a minor increase in greenhouse effect from CO2. You all need to study the science rather than just accepting the chatter as delivered."

-Again, you've missed the point. Ocean temperatures (which DO play a role in oscillations and currents) rise as atmospheric temperatures rise. It has nothing to do with the density of air versus water. If you raise atmospheric temperatures, you will raise ocean temperatures. Connect the dots...more CO2 leads to more atmospheric heat, which leads to altered ocean temperatures, which leads to altered current and oscillation patterns. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that more fresh water coming off melting glaciers is also altering our oceans, and has the potential to completely disrupt thermohaline circulation.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | February 3, 2011 3:35 PM | Report abuse

If I say it is warmer but we still need to be ready for an ice age, I may be something other than a denier. I may be wrong. But I deny nothing. I just want to add to our conversation.

Consider that.

Posted by: GaryEMasters

This may be reality !!! or at least a little ice age !!!

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

: fbrewer1

If you read from the start of this thread you will see a post of true experts discussing your non factual statements as there is not increasing magnitude in the recent storms. They are La Nina pattern events. The harder you allege otherwise the more it appears your head is in the sand.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Just wondering, how many "storms of the century" do we get to have in a single decade? When "millenial events" are occurring every couple of years, do we acknowledge an increasing CLIMATOLOGICAL effect, or do we just keep pretending "normal weather cycles".

@dalyplanet - El Nino and La Nina ARE climatological cycles that AFFECT weather. And, in case you hadn't made the connection, they're now affecting the weather in ever-increasing magnitude.

Mr Toles recommends, "buy plywood." I would add the question from Bill Cosby's "Noah". God asks Noah, "How long can you tread water?"

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 3, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

posted by pdog

~~~But, what we CAN say, is that increasing atmospheric temperatures WILL lead to a general uptick in the intensity and frequency of storms due to the increased heat and moisture (the fuels for storms) in the atmosphere.~~~

Real weather scientists do not agree and actually state the opposite. Temperature differentials cause storms so as there are smaller differentials there are less intense storms. This is one of the themes of AGW that does not hold up to real science.

~~~why, even if you don't believe the science of climate change, do you fight so hard against getting off fossil fuels anyway? ~~~

The currently proposed solutions are not very good. Large scale solutions involve bury CO2 that has not been done for a powerplant and is real expensive consumption wise and not really a good idea on many levels. Carbon offsets are a joke and do nothing to reduce CO2. Nuclear power may be worse than having CO2 in the air. Renewables from a producer point of view have limited capacity as they are for the most part periodic and these will be implemented to capacity in 25 years as it is easy. Conservation is somewhat benificial but drastic conservation measures are not popular and harm the economy. Small scale grid tie installations are not popular with any of the current energy producers or players. Look at s2191 to see the US plan for CO2 reduction. It is not a real solution. Real solutions require a major shift in energy production and there is no possibility for this kind of change in the near future.

~~~El Nino and La Nina are affected by atmospheric and oceanic currents. These currents, in turn, are affected by changes in temperature, pressure and moisture in the atmosphere. The biggest aspects of climate change deal with temperature and moisture. To say that El Nino or La Nina contribute to weather patterns is true. But to say that neither of these phenomena are affected by our modification of atmospheric chemistry through the continual belching of CO2 into the air, is a flawed conclusion. ~~~

What would you rather carry for 5 miles, a five gallon bucket of water or a five gallon bucket of air. Air I would assume. Water is much more dense than air and slight alteration of atmosphere composition has very little effect on ocean currents. Oceans drive our weather patterns. Solar gain is the driver of ocean currents not a minor increase in greenhouse effect from CO2. You all need to study the science rather than just accepting the chatter as delivered.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

No, Tom... you got it wrong. Don't buy plywood, buy stocks in plywood making companies--that's how you get rich in America!
Posted by: jwelchwitt

My Reply...
HHMMM!
Both of the above solutions address the effect, not the cause.
Mother Nature specializes in protecting her interests. If we are a threat; we will be eliminated.
The "band aid" solutions remind me of the conservative political solutions like instead of making more money available to provide jobs to improve the exchange of goods and services; they want to reduce government spending to put more people out of work.
When do people learn that they need to do what is necessary to fix the problem at its source, not what makes it worse. The best solution to any problem is to fix the source of the problem.
Why do conservatives want to wait until the problem is no longer fixable to do anything about it?
Why would a doctor want to wait until the patient's arm fell off instead of remove the gangrene in the patients arm while it is still savable?
If we are supposed to be more intelligent than Mother Nature; then why do we self-destruct?
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | February 3, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Ask an AGW (anthropogenic global warming) denier/skeptic to name the source they trust who could turn them around and convince them AGW is really happening and see what they say. Would that source be Limbaugh? Fox News? Sarah Palin? They can't answer because

a) such a basic, rational question never occurred to them

and

b) after pondering the question for a bit they realize their answer actually is Limbaugh/Fox News/Sarah Palin and they're too embarrassed to tell you.

Just to show I'm not being unfair or a hypocrite, I can, as a liberal and an AGW affirmer, answer the question for myself. The source I trust on climatology is, oddly enough, climatologists and so an overturning of their consensus would convince me AGW isn't really happening. That seems very unlikely at this point though given the strength, duration, and technological modernity of said scientific consensus.

Posted by: PawnTakesQueen | February 3, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Gas is $8.50 a gallon in the UK. We'll come talk to you soon.

Posted by: pararanger22

Not sure of your point ranger. Gas hit $4 a gallon here in 2008, and the ripple effects were huge. Gas has always been more expensive in Europe than here. They're a bit more adapted to it. The US is not. Even $5 a gallon gas would drive trucking companies, tourist businesses and others out of business, not to mention what it would do to farmers and food prices in the US.

The price is kept artificially low here precisely because of these things. If Americans paid what Europe, Japan, and others pay for gasoline, it would devistate the US economy, and those ripple effects would move through the rest of the world in a hurry.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | February 3, 2011 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I could go on. But you stick with your two.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr

---------------------

Yes, but...

The scientists can prove that mankind is producing more carbon.

They cannot prove that it has a causal effect on the climate.

Their opinions are interesting but irrelevant. You don't have to be a scientist to read their material and come away with an equally logical, but contradictory conclusion. I've seen debate after debate over here about it at Chatham House, RUSI, RCDS, you name it and the theory cannot, in historical terms, stand up to hard questioning.

On a practical level, it would be useful if the WH would put together a compromise energy plan acceptable to the GOP. Stated another way, I don't have to 'believe' in climate change to know that the less carbon monoxide from automobiles, etc., makes for cleaner air. A perfectly built solar car that doesn't require me to buy gas is useful. Preserving mountain tops so I don't have to mine them for coal is a meaningful step for future generations. All of these vignettes are useful for both sides of the aisle.

The problem remains, is that the Left wants to keep climate change as a political issue in their quiver.

We need leadership in energy policy more than we need any more rhetoric from either side. Put out a recommendation Mr. President and let's get on with it.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 3, 2011 11:20 AM | Report abuse

When gas gets to be $10 or $20 a gallon, come talk to me about economics.

Posted by: PrairieDog60

---------------------

Gas is $8.50 a gallon in the UK. We'll come talk to you soon.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 3, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

El Nino and La Nina are affected by atmospheric and oceanic currents. These currents, in turn, are affected by changes in temperature, pressure and moisture in the atmosphere. The biggest aspects of climate change deal with temperature and moisture. To say that El Nino or La Nina contribute to weather patterns is true. But to say that neither of these phenomena are affected by our modification of atmospheric chemistry through the continual belching of CO2 into the air, is a flawed conclusion.

CO2 modifies the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs. If you look at much of the research into climate change, what scientists continually try to do is determine whether or not this fact of atmospheric chemistry (yes, I sad "fact"), is contributing to the rapid trend in warming we've seen in the last several decades. What the research finds over and over, is that this warming appears to be tied precisely to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, climate has warmed and cooled in the past, but what is being seen now seems to be more rapid and more exaggerated than most observable history (and "observable" means the entire collection of source material including ice cores, tree rings, paleolimnological studies of lake sediments, the 60 or 70 years of reliable atmospheric measurements, etc). It is true that you can't say one storm, or one hot day, or one cooling trend, are caused by climate change. We will never be able to say that. But, what we CAN say, is that increasing atmospheric temperatures WILL lead to a general uptick in the intensity and frequency of storms due to the increased heat and moisture (the fuels for storms) in the atmosphere.

The other comment I make in here often on this topic, that I've never really heard a good response to, is this; why, even if you don't believe the science of climate change, do you fight so hard against getting off fossil fuels anyway? They are finite, they pollute (Gulf, Prudhoe Bay, Canadian tar sands, etc), we engage in military operations (read "killing people") in order to secure them, and they will get increasingly more expensive as they become harder to get. So...why NOT get off them as soon as possible? Why NOT start pushing hard for a sustainable energy economy? The technology is there, so don't give me the "renewables will never provide enough" arguement. A combination of sources plus conservation will provide all the energy we need. It merely takes political will. One party more than the other, seems to fight this tooth and nail, and I don't get it. The economic arguement is a joke. When gas gets to be $10 or $20 a gallon, come talk to me about economics.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | February 3, 2011 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles:

With all due respect, it was in fact the CAGW "believers" who politicized the matter almost right from the start. They made a decision, conscious or not, to go the political route by making / allowing Al Gore to be their de facto spokesperson. They couched their proposed solutions to the threat of CAGW in the most political way possible, and labeled anyone who did not agree whole-heartedly with both their hypothesis and remedy as a "denier", which quickly became code for "selfish ignoramus" and/or "Republican".

This does not absolve the opponents of those who subscribe to CAGW of their faults and mistakes, of which there are many.

As another poster has noted, making something a political issue in this day and age, when our democracy and culture seems to be growing more dysfunctional rather than less, almost guarantees that there will be no rational discussion or debate. It will devolve into name-calling and shrieking, an "us versus them" mentality. And this is exactly what has transpired with GW. You yourself seem to allow for no room debate, for nuance of opinion. Just as your opponents would characterize you as being a delusional, dangerous acolyte of the "CAGW cult", you seem to view "opponents" as being a bunch of melon-heads who must be crushed because we need to DO SOMETHING NOW!

In other words, you're not helping when you post screeds like the above.

Posted by: Claudius2 | February 3, 2011 10:49 AM | Report abuse

If there were a god (i'm not talking about zeus, apollo, thor, krishna, but the current, local, popular one) the business-as-usualers would have to suffer all the consequences of ACC and the lets-fix-thisers would live happily ever after. QED

Posted by: greenneck | February 3, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

jhnnywalkr

The past record speaks for itself. The forward predictions are open to debate.

The point today is that the claim of a causality link from a slightly warmer earth today than 100 years ago, and weather events today is false. NO LINK according to leading weather experts. I believe the science and polls are opinion.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

How about the veracity of these two guy's from my posting ??

Posted by: dalyplanet

How about:

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.
[edit] Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC.

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.

Bray and von Storch, 2008

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[107] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%.
...
In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
-----
I could go on. But you stick with your two.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 3, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Did you see where Al Gore quoted information from the great scientist Clarence Paige as proof that manmade global warming is causing the colder temperatures and mountains of snow across the country this winter? These warmers can't even figure out how stupid they look, and know they will even look dumber once their bogus science is exposed. Why do you think UVA is fighting so hard to keep Mann's data suppressed?

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 3, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Another bit from science,

Pasadena (CA) - NASA reported on Tuesday that after years of research, a team of scientists have assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents are largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years. These periodic reversals in the ocean currents move warmer and cooler water around to new places, greatly affecting the climate. While they are not ruling out the possibility of a continual warming trend, the rate at which the Earth is warming seems to be far more stable than the Arctic would indicate.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

It is interesting to see an editorial from George Soros in the Wa Po today. George has an 'interest' in proving calamity from AGW.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 9:07 AM | Report abuse

~~~~While a majority of scientists believes weather will become more extreme (as opposed to less) as the global climate changes~~~~

Posted by: jonroesler

Louis Uccellini, soon to be head of NOAA and probably the worlds leading expert on storms, states the opposite. I believe he is correct.

~~~~When it comes to climate change, really, who better to trust than economists, except possibly the business community? ~~~

You forgot the polititians, and media.

I trust the scientists, some more than others. There are many that do not buy into the 'story' as being told by Gore, Toles and others. Agenda still trumps science in this debate as demonstrated by this current discussion of weather events as proof\caused by warming.


Posted by: dalyplanet | February 3, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

And BTW, anyone posting who talks about scientists "proving" anything doesn't understand science. Science can't PROVE because you can never test all alternatives or all possible scenarios. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal standard for criminal conviction and is generally not possible in actual science. When the increasing frequency and severity of storms matches the predictive climate models better than it matches what's happened in the past, then that suggests that climate change may be having an effect.
At any rate, the debate is over economically, if not politically. Insurance companies are already taking climate change-based risk into account in pricing insurance policies. If they're doing it because it's in their economic best interest, then you might start considering that it's real, no matter what George Will tells you. That's the free market at work.

Posted by: jwelchwitt | February 3, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

No, Tom... you got it wrong. Don't buy plywood, buy stocks in plywood making companies--that's how you get rich in America!

Posted by: jwelchwitt | February 3, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

" You see, it's a POLITICAL argument, just like any other!"

Now Mr. Toles, I have been saying this for nearly ten years. But it has some implications you may want to review. Most political arguments have two and only two sides. Apply that to weather and if you are a "warmer" anyone who wants to differ with you HAS to be a "denier."

Your mind has no room for a person who wants to say "Yes, but ..." and get you to a wider comprehension of the facts.

That is what you need to know now.

If I say it is warmer but we still need to be ready for an ice age, I may be something other than a denier. I may be wrong. But I deny nothing. I just want to add to our conversation.

Consider that.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | February 3, 2011 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Ah, a series of out-of-context headlines no doubt copied and pasted from some blog is FAR more reliable than some silly "scientists."

Posted by: jhnnywalkr

----------------------

jhnnywalkr,

You make a sound point. However, the scientific community and all their wisdom have been pretty awful in developing their narrative and acting...like scientists in the traditional sense. A few examples:

1 - The science community cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that man-made activities equal climate change. They CAN prove there is more carbon being produced by mankind than in the past, much more. The theory that the x-tra carbon = change is where the science theory steps in and where we have a dispute. The scientific community has not proven that changes in our climate aren't due to natural processes. The ice ages weren't due to mankind but imagine if we lived back when the ice began to recede. Toles would be screaming at us that the end of the world was coming.
2 - Scientists and climate change believers and how they convey their message. Not good; not convincing. Here are some reasons why:

a - Yep, the emails. The emails from Scotland proved that key scientists in this ongoing drama were actively trying to shut down debate on the subject. Those emails raised suspicion that the climate change group were asserting their position for their own personal gain vice the truth.
b - The hockey stick theory is not beyond protestation and was never meant to be the inviolate evidence. Many propped it up as such, ultimately leading to more suspicion.
c - The Scientist Club. No, jhnnywalker, this isn't my only argument; you're right to make fun of it...but facts are facts. The climate change immortals continue to meet in the world's most plush resorts to discuss climate change, year after year. Governments and universities and climate change organizations all pay for it. The message comes across: 'Hello liliputians. Here is your climate change message you must accept completely and with enthusiasm. We wish you could discuss it with us but here at our Swiss resort on high, it would be too expensive for you. Please remember to remember we are right and you are stupid. That will be all.'
d - Lack of an economically feasible WW energy plan, presented by scientists/not politicians, that offers a long-term offramp from current fossil fuel use to cleaner fuels. They won't do it - its just stop use of fossil fuels; start clean energy (yes I accept that some scientists are willing to discuss feasible options but that is not/not the general message). The fact is we need more oil, more coal, for a long time. These facts are undisputed but ignored by the climate change mafia.

'If' the scientists are right, they are, and their supporters (like TT) are, their own worst enemy. Their sarcasm and 'if-you-don't-believe-you're-a-dimwit' attitude is not helping.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 3, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

There are no roads that empty near the Washington monument.

Posted by: NoDonkey | February 3, 2011 6:59 AM | Report abuse

At least all of this "global warming" snow has brought us what the stimulus could not-shovel ready jobs!

Posted by: carolinadreams | February 3, 2011 6:00 AM | Report abuse

At least all of this "global warming" snow has brought us what the stimulus could not-shovel ready jobs!

Posted by: carolinadreams | February 3, 2011 5:39 AM | Report abuse

Mike Halpert, deputy director of the federal Climate Prediction Center:

"The storm is going where we would expect it, according to La Nina," added Halpert.

"Its related Arctic Oscillation has also pushed cold weather farther south in the United States than had been expected," explained Halpert.

"Where we would expect it," and yet, at the same time, "farther... than had been expected." No contradiction there?

The real point being that, again, this is NOT an exact science on the micro level, yet; but is very clear on the macro level.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 3, 2011 1:23 AM | Report abuse

This terrorist threat of weather control sounds like something devised by COBRA.

Posted by: Falling4Ever | February 3, 2011 1:18 AM | Report abuse

How about the veracity of these two guy's from my posting ??
Posted by: dalyplanet
--
Why is the veracity of these two more dependable than, say, the IPCC? NASA? NOAA?
--

Daly is absolutely correct, however: El Nino and La Nina events do and will continue to take place along with climate change. According to scientists at NOAA and elsewhere, the reality of climate change may or may not even enhance their effects. While a majority of scientists believes weather will become more extreme (as opposed to less) as the global climate changes, we simply haven't been studying it long enough to make hard and fast "micro" predictions on a yearly or monthly basis.

NASA has some pretty good charts at http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ but, as the people who run the world's economic system keep pointing out when their predictions go completely haywire (unlike the predictions of climate scientists, so far), past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Oh, and freedom. Freedom is in there someplace, too. There's a tie somewhere between elitist climate science and freedom.

When it comes to climate change, really, who better to trust than economists, except possibly the business community? If past performance really is no guarantee of future results, maybe climate change will suddenly reverse itself for reasons even the best and brightest economists and businessmen couldn't possibly have foreseen, and those silly climate scientists were just a bunch of nervous nellies all along.

And freedom.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 3, 2011 1:14 AM | Report abuse

All you incompetent DC drivers miss the point of this cartoon entirely.

It's not about climate change.

It's about the fact that the mere threat of a couple flakes sends our nation's capital into a hyperventilating panic attack.

Just get yourselves a paper bag and sign up for driving lessons.

Posted by: Itzajob | February 2, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

jhnnywalkr

How about the veracity of these two guy's from my posting ??

Mike Halpert, deputy director of the federal Climate Prediction Center.

Louis Uccellini, director of the government's National Centers for Environmental Prediction.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 2, 2011 10:43 PM | Report abuse

true word for word headlines from the NY Times...stop being so lazy and gullible break out of from your liberal indoctrination

Posted by: jornolibist | February 2, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Ah, a series of out-of-context headlines no doubt copied and pasted from some blog is FAR more reliable than some silly "scientists."

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 2, 2011 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I think it is funny that some dude that probably didn't take a math or science class after high school is absolutely convinced the science is right.

Posted by: sold2u | February 2, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Just read some of the below headlines and opening sentences of articles published in the NY Times since 1870 and you may get a clue why the majority of people don't believe thee latest climate change hoax.

Jan 1870 --The climate of New York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity the Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.

Dec 1934 --Nation is Held on Verge of Climate Shift; Experts See Old-Fashioned Winters Back. America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on verge of change of climate, with return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder Winters of grandfather's day.

Oct 1956 -- Warmer Climate on the Earth may Be Due to More Carbon Dioxide in the Air. The general warming of the climate that has occurred in the last sixty years has been variously explained.

Toles knows most Democrat voters think history just started yesterday.

Posted by: jornolibist | February 2, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

It's those darn scientists going for their fat government grants so they can drive away from their mansions in their Bentleys. Can't believe a word they say.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 2, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

From the AP wire science writer

WASHINGTON – Millions of Americans raised on tales of great storms past now have one of their own to talk about — and something to blame: La Nina.

"Mother Nature has decided to show us what winter is like again," said Mike Halpert, deputy director of the federal Climate Prediction Center.

Following a series of unusually mild winters, 'the last couple of winters have been more like what winter should be," Halpert said Wednesday.

The blizzard of 2011 "will be long remembered" because the snow and very strong winds created whiteout conditions in a wide swath of the country, including heavily populated cities, Louis Uccellini, director of the government's National Centers for Environmental Prediction.

Uccellini, a long-time winter storm expert, said it was following a classic pattern — from the Midwest to the Northeast and redeveloping off the coast.

The monster storm was leaving heavy snow and thick ice from Oklahoma and Missouri to the Great Lakes states and eastward. Chicago recorded one of its highest single-storm snow totals.

So can we blame climate change?

No, says Uccellini, "you can't relate climate change to individual storm systems. Clearly, there have been similar storms in previous decades. As intense as this storm is, it's equivalent to other major storms that they've seen in past decades."

But the La Nina (la NEEN-ya) condition currently affecting the tropical Pacific Ocean does share some of the blame. And it might be contributing to the floods and storm battering Australia.

La Nina is a periodic cooling of the surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific Ocean, the opposite of the better-known El Nino (el NEEN-yo) warming. Both can have significant impacts on weather around the world by changing the movement of winds and high and low pressure systems.

"We are linking the storm tracks to the La Nina pattern which dominates the flow coming off the Pacific," Uccellini explained in a telephone interview. "This follows the pattern we would expect through the Ohio Valley and with heavy precipitation to the Great Lakes."

"The storm is going where we would expect it, according to La Nina," added Halpert.

Contributing to the snowy season, the North Atlantic Oscillation has shifted into a negative phase, leaving La Nina in full control, Uccellini said.

The North Atlantic Oscillation is a shift in high and low pressure systems. In its positive phase it can force storms to the north, but when it relaxes, as currently, the U.S. East Coast tends to see more cold air and snow.

Its related Arctic Oscillation has also pushed cold weather farther south in the United States than had been expected, explained Halpert.

At the same time, half a world away, Australia is currently facing a major cyclone, and that follows serious flooding in parts of that country

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 2, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

These weather patterns are associated with a strong La Nina event and are predicted by NOAA. So yes science says colder in North America and a greater chance of Cyclones in the south Pacific. The last strong La Nina event according to NOAA was 1995 but there was a weaker La Nina around 2000. Weather scientists blame the weather in Australia on La Nina not Climate Change. Who is really in denial on the cause of weather here today and ignoring science ??

It is this type of distortion of causal relationships in weather patterns that when combined with the Mann Hockey Stick fabrications and Climategate email leaks really create a lot of doubt regarding Climate scientists predictions. There is real data from the 1970's world wide weather data that shows similar patterns as today's La Nina weather events.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 2, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: fostersm1 | February 2, 2011 8:18 PM
"Physics and chemistry don't care what any senators or congressmen think."

While I agree with the spirit of your comment, I must disagree with you. Scientist do care what politicians think. See those guys can fund our research/projects. You get too many clueless folks aimlessly commenting or denying the truth, and your funding dries up (that is unless your project/research has something to do with killing people).

Posted by: bushidollar | February 2, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Physics and chemistry don't care what any senators or congressmen think.

Posted by: fostersm1 | February 2, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Just curious, Tom... Do you launch into a tirade about climate change every time someone brings up the weather in your personal life?

Posted by: sold2u | February 2, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company