The Amazing Power Of Global Warming

During the run-up to Wednesday’s debate, I remember seeing kids in the background of live shots wearing shorts and thinking, “Huh. Looks pretty nice in Denver.” Friday morning, it snowed there.

Actually, it turned cold in Colorado  as soon as Michelle landed – and hasn’t recovered yet.

It snowed this week in Minnesota and North Dakota, too, in some places, more than a foot deep. The New York Times notes that such a snowfall is rare.  Well, then so much for global warming, right? Nope.  For one thing, it’s not snowing all that early for these places. For another, as we constantly note, isolated weather extremes are different from the long-term trend. And, third, some scientists are expecting a bad winter — thanks in part to global warming.

Does early snow disprove global warming? | Grist

It is all very simple as they explain it. The Arctic is the earth’s refrigerator. A warming Arctic means less cold air for the rest of the planet.

So as soon as it turns unusually cold, the same flaming imbeciles immediately blame the cold on the non-existent cold air caused by global warming.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Amazing Power Of Global Warming

  1. “Does early snow disprove global warming?”

    Notice how the questions are posed… AGW is a scientific claim that does not need to be proven (difficult in itself) but rather disproven…

    Disproving any sort of claim is actually impossible… Try to disprove the existence of God, or black swans for that matter, and you’ll realise the task is logical impossibility.

  2. Sparks says:

    Lets sit in wonder around this fire-sale of thought to keep us warm this winter. “some scientists are expecting a bad winter — thanks in part to global warming.” hmm… Comforting, but insulting! how many people died last year in Europe as direct cause of it being a cold winter? How many died from man made global warming?

  3. kbray in california says:

    Now the “scientists” are saying Global Warming started over 2,000 years ago in the Roman Empire and the Chinese Han Dynasty from wood burning and cattle poop:

    Why not go way back to all those dinosaur droppings millions of years ago ?
    Or the buffalo pies that used to cover the plains ?

    These “scientists” make me laugh. They only want more grant funding.

    But by blaming warming on man would logically convince me that the ultimate solution to Global Warming would be to eliminate man. Is that the “scientists” ultimate goal here ?

  4. “For another, as we constantly note, isolated weather extremes are different from the long-term trend”

    I thought weather extremes were due to global warming

  5. Stephen Richards says:

    Oh Oh Physicist has reappeared. The name is just a dream for this poor clown.

  6. slimething says:

    The book ‘Merchants of Despair’ has several references to satisfy physicist’s thirst for knowledge.

    Of course, if a scientist only proposed 90% of humans to disappear that wouldn’t qualify for “elimination”.

  7. Andy DC says:

    Nice weather for Michigan in March, lack of hurricanes, lack of tornadoes, few forest fires and widespread drought breaking rains are apparently consistent with a warming planet. But those aren’t as sexy as all the grade D comic book disaster scenarios floating around in the drug rotted brains of alarmists.

  8. tckev says:

    Nearly all the warming happened in a step change in 1977. CO2 has been rising continuously, and utterly in step with the increase in human population.

    From this it is obvious to all AGW alarmist that the global warming, and all climatic variations, must be caused by man and his filthy dependance on CO2 generators.

  9. Art Powell says:

    My ignorant basic understanding of Science is that to prove or disprove a theory you must create a hypothesis (based on observations) and then test the hypothesis. The hypothesis must be disprovable. The current theory is that man made activity is raising the amount of carbon in the air, creating a greenhouse effect and causing the world to warm. So if there is no evidence of rising temperatures, or if there is a cooling off, then doesn’t this disprove the theory of global warming?

    Setting up a test for a hypothesis that says no matter what the outcome the hypothesis is true is called something else isn’t it? There is a word for it I am searching for……..wait, I got it. Faith! Yea, that’s it! Faith.

  10. jimash1 says:

    The cold is coming right now.
    Today I stacked firewood and closed the swimmy pool.
    We won’t see 70º for a while here.
    I hope it doesn’t snow too much for halloween.
    Two weeks a year in July.
    They are going to have to do better than that.

  11. Shooter says:

    I wonder when post-modern scientists will learn chemistry. A warmer world (which first implies that the world is warming, which it is not) would cause more rain, not snow. This is evident by countries close to the equator that have more wet winters instead of cold ones due to extra heat.

    But, what can you do, eh? Less snow = AGW. More snow = AGW. Not enough = AGW. Right on schedule = AGW.

    Us Canucks don’t care. What about you Yanks?

  12. physicist says:

    you are correct. the earth’s climate has gone through several glacial/interglacial periods over the last 800,000 to 1,000,000 years.

    the earth is an isolated body in space. it gets it’s energy from the sun, and it loses energy by radiating some back into space. its temperature can only increase if it gets more energy in and/or less energy out.

    a major contributing factor to the occurrence of the glacial/interglacial periods are Milankovich cycles:

    the tilt of the earth’s axis changes with a 41,000 year period.

    the axis of the eath precesses (think of a sinning top) with a 26,000 year period,

    the shpae of the earth’s orbit changes (think of gravity from the other planets) with a 100,000 period.

    those changes change the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth at different times of the year. those are ‘natural’ causes of climate change.

    there is absolutely no possible way that those natural effects with 10s of thousands of years time constants could change the climate over 150 years or less.

    another natural cause could be if the output of the sun changes. the sun’s out put has remained constant over the last 34-40 years,

    therefore the only way the temperature could change upwards is for less energy to go out – simple physics, physics rules.

    the greenhouse gas effect from man-made co2 in the atmosphere is causing the temperture to rise by causing less radiated energy from the earth to escape to space.

    this effect has been known since the 1800s, and in the 1890s Arrhenius did the first calculation (without the help of a computer) of how much the temperature would rise if the concentration of co2 were to double. and he a number (6 deg c) very close to the commonly accepted value now.

    oh, by the way we must have some amount the greenhouse gas effect. if the effect were zero (0), the earth would be a frozen rock and none of us would be hear. it’s called the goldilock’s effect, not too much, not too little, not too hot, not too cold.

    so the physics of this has been known for over 100 years, the denier community needs to get up to speed on the physics.

    • A sudden and unexpected tilt of the earth’s axis in the 1930s caused the Dust Bowl.

    • LLAP says:


      1) You are funny. You think you are all high and mighty, lecturing us on Milankovitch cycles? I teach that stuff to my grade 10 students … it is climate 101.

      2) “and he a number (6 deg c) very close to the commonly accepted value now.”

      Commonly accepted value? A doubling of CO2 without feedbacks gives a 1.2C rise. Even the IPCC, with positive feedbacks, is in the range of 2 to 4.5C. Where you are getting 6C as “very close” is ridiculous.

      3) You leave no room for internal variablity in climate. Roy W Spencer’s work has shown that up to 75% of climate variability can be attributed to the PDO alone.

      4) You leave no room for alternative theories, like that of Henrik Svensmark. It is entirely possible that our effect on climate is minimal.

      Does this mean Spencer and/or Svensmark are correct? No. But science is supposed to be open-minded, and the proponents of AGW are among the most closed-mined people I have ever encountered.

    • Andy OZ says:

      Are we talking Newtonian or Quantum Physics?
      Physics can’t yet explain, with certainty, a lot of things in the physical world.
      While it’s likely that AGW Climate Change Theory will one day be proven or disproven,
      It’s unlikely that any of us alive today will see that. My skepticism is healthy enough to see an evangelical movement for what it is, especially when it asks for money, more and more and more money.

  13. philjourdan says:

    The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe – C.S. Lewis

    We know one character.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s