NY Times: Global Warming Causes Record-Breaking Snow
The New York Times is asserting that global warming may be the cause for the recent snowfall that has smashed previous records in Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia.
The previous record for Washington D.C. was set in the 1860′s winter of 1898-99, which prompts a question. Does the New York Times also believe that the previous record snowfall was caused by global warming?
If not, then their story falls apart, because if global warming did not directly cause heavier precipitation in 1860, then it cannot be said to have directly caused it in 2010. If we look at the history, global warming cannot be the culprit because of the cooler temperatures commonly seen in the historic record for that period of time.
The New York Times attempts to justify it’s position by saying that heavy snowfall and global warming are “compatible.” But heavy snowfall is also compatible with the cooler temperatures extant during the 1860′s, nullifying the Times’ argument.
Simply put, the recent record snowfall in the eastern states is not evidence of global warming.
Subscribe to blog feed.
About the Author:
February 12th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Of course, the columnist didn’t say that snowstorms are “evidence of global warming.” Just that climate change means weather is going to be more variable between extremes. In Vancouver, they are having the opposite problem, which is why they’re talking about the “Spring Olympics.”
February 12th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Your argument doesn’t carry any water whatsoever (no pun intended). “Climate Change” involves a pattern of increasing extremes of weather over a long period of time. As the oceans grow warmer, there is more moisture taken into the atmosphere. The resulting weather temperature extremes generate energy causing more violent storms.
Just because natural weather conditions created a large snow storm in the 1860′s in DC without increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not prove that the current warming of the oceans did not contribute to the extreme weather this year. That is just plain nonsense.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Of course, you missed the gist of the article, which was headlined “Blame Global Warming for the Blizzard.”
Is that why you use the term “climate change” instead of “global warming?” Vancouver’s snow troubles are the result of the strong El Nino this year. Same thing is happening in Utah.
By the way, it snowed in Vancouver yesterday.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Unfortunately, newspaper writers don’t get to write their own headlines. The headline contradicts the article.
FYI, global warming refers to the overall increase in atmospheric temperature worldwide. Climate change refers to the effects of global warming.
You’re right about El Nino. That’s a cycle within a cycle. You may have heard that British Columbia winters have been getting milder. One effect of this is the proliferation of pine bark beetles, which are able to go through two generations a year instead of one due to warmer temperatures.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Trenton, you are right. Change the name to climate change, and then it doesn’t matter if it gets warmer or colder, you are correct. The whole global warming farce is being turned on it’s head, and it is about time.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Sorry JBT, but I was referring to the snowfall over the entire winter of 1898-9, not just one storm. It was not some weird anomaly; it was the overall weather pattern that year–pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and heavy snowfall.
Climate change may be the culprit, but I have serious doubt about the definition of “climate change” as used by the green movement and its supporters. rmwarnick says it means the effects of global warming, which assumes an increase of atmospheric GHGs, including CO2, which is allegedly caused by human activity. But does that mean that if there were no global warming, there would be no climate change? No, because the climate changes naturally in cycles.
And that’s all we’re seeing.