- The belief that human CO2 emissions are causing drastic, unprecedented global warming is the official establishment viewpoint in most places - at least in the West. It's not necessarily the stance that most people believe, but it's the only opinion that the people in charge will tolerate. In some places, such as Oregon, the schools have banned any challenges to the warming theory. Greta Thunburg recently showed that someone can be catapulted into widespread media adulation merely by expressing the warming dogma with vigor.
- The belief that the Earth is primarily operating within in its normal cycles, and any manmade influence is negligible, is perhaps the most commonly held belief, but not by the types that travel in private jets and tell us what to think. Surveys shows that this is actually the majority opinion in the US, but not in Europe.
- The belief that Earth is entering a new grand solar minimum is really a subset of #2, but the predictions are different enough to warrant its own category. They predict that the coming decades will come with weather patterns similar to those seen in previous grand solar minima.
All of those stances could encompass "climate change," but when used by the left the term always means global warming. A good example is a recent article by USAToday titled 'Historic' winter storm could bring up to 2 feet of snow to central and western USA.
Here, the terms global warming and climate change are used interchangeably. Global warming is the cause, climate change is the effect. Thus they take any evidence of climate change (which could be in line with any of the three climate stances) as evidence of the global warming theory.
If you watch the video from the screenshot, it explains that global warming causes increased snowfall in northern latitudes because warmer arctic air holds more moisture. Let's assume that is a plausible explanation. (It's probably not, but we'll get to that.) Even so, it doesn't account for the disparity between global warming predictions and climate change observations. In a warmer globe, snowfall should be pushed towards increasingly northern latitudes during increasingly narrow seasons of the year. Global temperatures should increase. Despite their claim that "climate change is making winters colder despite rising temperatures and hotter summers," there is no explanation for colder winters in their "warmer air holds more water vapor" explanation. In fact, if the air contains both more CO2 and more H2O (the real greenhouse gas) then that should only contribute to an increase in heat retention and thus milder winters. There is nothing in the global warming theory to explain colder winters. But they do, interestingly, admit that winters are indeed getting colder.
What they engage in is a slight of hand where they list the apparent shortcomings of the global warming theory, offer a plausible explanation for just one, and then act as if they've explained it all away and everything was predicted. And even their one explanation seems faulty. Does more humid arctic air cause more mid-latitude snowfall? I'm not sure, but I think it doesn't. Storm systems are created when fronts of cold air meet areas of warm, humid air. In the midwest, violent thunderstorms occur when cold, dry air races down the Great Plains and slams into hot, humid gulf air which is pushed upwards, cooling it and wringing it out like a sponge. What matters most to the precipitation is the humidity of the warmer body of air, plus the temperature gradient. Thus, more humid Arctic air probably doesn't lend to much more precipitation and - most importantly - if the Arctic is warming even faster than other areas, as they claim, then there will be a smaller temperature gradient between the polar cells and Ferrell cells, meaning storm systems should drop less precipitation, not more.
Headlines such as this are a degree of damage control for promoters of the official narrative, because the unusually early winter follows an unusually late winter. The upper midwest saw all kinds of delays in planting and destruction of stored grains because of multiple rounds of late snowfall. Now they will be struggling to remove crops and many may be destroyed by abnormally early snowfall. This year has been so bad that it has affected this year's harvest, last year's harvest, and - if many seed plant crops are lost - next year's harvest as well. No one in the global warming camp ever predicted that global warming would cause longer winters that squeeze down the growing seasons.
I've been expecting a cold winter, and early indications support that intuition. It will be fun to watch the media scramble to rationalize away the evidence if there is another deep winter that breaks yet more cold-weather records.
If you watch the video from the screenshot, it explains that global warming causes increased snowfall in northern latitudes because warmer arctic air holds more moisture. Let's assume that is a plausible explanation. (It's probably not, but we'll get to that.) Even so, it doesn't account for the disparity between global warming predictions and climate change observations. In a warmer globe, snowfall should be pushed towards increasingly northern latitudes during increasingly narrow seasons of the year. Global temperatures should increase. Despite their claim that "climate change is making winters colder despite rising temperatures and hotter summers," there is no explanation for colder winters in their "warmer air holds more water vapor" explanation. In fact, if the air contains both more CO2 and more H2O (the real greenhouse gas) then that should only contribute to an increase in heat retention and thus milder winters. There is nothing in the global warming theory to explain colder winters. But they do, interestingly, admit that winters are indeed getting colder.
What they engage in is a slight of hand where they list the apparent shortcomings of the global warming theory, offer a plausible explanation for just one, and then act as if they've explained it all away and everything was predicted. And even their one explanation seems faulty. Does more humid arctic air cause more mid-latitude snowfall? I'm not sure, but I think it doesn't. Storm systems are created when fronts of cold air meet areas of warm, humid air. In the midwest, violent thunderstorms occur when cold, dry air races down the Great Plains and slams into hot, humid gulf air which is pushed upwards, cooling it and wringing it out like a sponge. What matters most to the precipitation is the humidity of the warmer body of air, plus the temperature gradient. Thus, more humid Arctic air probably doesn't lend to much more precipitation and - most importantly - if the Arctic is warming even faster than other areas, as they claim, then there will be a smaller temperature gradient between the polar cells and Ferrell cells, meaning storm systems should drop less precipitation, not more.
Headlines such as this are a degree of damage control for promoters of the official narrative, because the unusually early winter follows an unusually late winter. The upper midwest saw all kinds of delays in planting and destruction of stored grains because of multiple rounds of late snowfall. Now they will be struggling to remove crops and many may be destroyed by abnormally early snowfall. This year has been so bad that it has affected this year's harvest, last year's harvest, and - if many seed plant crops are lost - next year's harvest as well. No one in the global warming camp ever predicted that global warming would cause longer winters that squeeze down the growing seasons.
I've been expecting a cold winter, and early indications support that intuition. It will be fun to watch the media scramble to rationalize away the evidence if there is another deep winter that breaks yet more cold-weather records.
No comments:
Post a Comment