Friday, December 17, 2010

More evidence for Global Warming

This just in from England's The Daily Mail:
The Big Freeze will hold us in its grip for at least another month, forecasters warn.

Arctic conditions are expected to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond.

With temperatures expected to fall to -15c (5f), the Met Office said this is ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest December since records began in 1910.

Yesterday’s snowfall was largely in the South and West, and in Wales while the South was braced last night for another 10in of snow accompanied by treacherous ice.
Now we go back to Global War ..., er, I mean Climate Change alarmists to explain why this is evidence for Global Warming...

HT: Anthony Watts


Singring said...


More evidence your scientific knowledge and curiosity did not progress after second grade.

I know its hard Martin. Its so hard to understand why they call it GLOBAL warming and not LOCAL warming. I'll help you out:

Just a week ago I posted these two links to the latest data from the US and...wait for it...UK metereological services which both predict 2010 will be one of the hottest 3 and possibly the hottest year ever recorded.

Read for yourself:

So in fact the UK weather service you trumpet as evidence against global warming is predicting one of the warmest years since records began. Go back to school Martin.


On the same thread I posted the above articles I also posted one about the slowing of the Gulf Stream, a knock-on effect of GW. This cools temperatures in th UK in Ireland, so the cold winters over here are in fact evidence FOR GW, not against it.

Those books on logic you write must be hilarious if this is the quality of research that went into them...

Martin Cothran said...


I was simply reporting a weather event, and you were interpreting it as a statement about climate.

Why do you Warmers keep confusing weather and climate?

One Brow said...


Since this type of cooling in Europe was something Al Gore predicted in An Inconvenient Truth as a result of global warming, we don't really need to explain, right?

Martin Cothran said...

Global warming threatens Northwest snowpack:

Singring said...

Good grief.

I hope - I really do hope for your sake that this last post was not intended to contradict Gore on his predictions that European winters will grow cooler.

You ARE aware that Oregon is not in Europe, Martin.

Please, tell me you are...

But then again, if you are that geographically confused, that would explain things.

Martin Cothran said...


So Global Warming predicts less snow in North American and more in Europe?

Singring said...

'So Global Warming predicts less snow in North American and more in Europe?'


I know its a complete shocker, seeing as it rains as much in London as it does in Kairo and its as warm in Vladiwostok as it is in Las Vegas - I mean, climate and geography obviously is identlical across the globe so we shouldn't expect GW to have different effects in different places. That would be INSANE!

Your comment tells me the following:

- You don't have the first clue about the predicted effects of GW on regional scales

- You have never heard of the Gulf Stream and its effect on European climate

- You haven't bothered reading the articles I lonked to even though they are short, easy to understand and readily available.

All of these facts show me that you are not only illiterate when it comes to GW but refuse to check references that counter your position even when you are provided with them. Classic denial behaviour.

Martin Cothran said...


'So Global Warming predicts less snow in North American and more in Europe?'


That's interesting:

Record-breaking snow buries Northwest:,2933,473980,00.html

Two northwest cities dig out from record December snow:

Spokane breaks record for most snow in November:

April 2, 2009 in City
Record snowfall blankets Inland Northwest:

Brrr: Thanksgiving record cold:

All time record snowfall Northwest:

Quite a theory you got yourself there.

One Brow said...

Global warming predicts more overall precipitation (although changing weather patterns will cause a few previously lush areas to dry up). In cold months of cold years, that willmean more snow.

You should remeber this from last year.

Singring said...

Martin, the inaccuracies and misconceptions in your posts have grown so numerous it is hard to spot them all.

Let's list all of the basic errors you have made in your latest diluge of scientific blunders:

1.) I quote the article on the study you cite - the FIRST line, mind you:

'Global warming in coming decades may cause the disappearance of large areas of the low-elevation snowpack in the Cascade Range of the Pacific Northwest'


'For their study, Nolin and Chris Daly, an associate professor of geosciences, used widely accepted global climate models which, on average, suggest this region may warm about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 40 years.'

The study was published in 06. Four years. Counting to ten is not one of your talents, apparently. Neither do the terms 'average' or 'trend' appear to have any place in your vocabulary.

2.) As OneBrow has pointed out (again), peaks of precipitation, whether as snow or as rain, are different from peaks or lows in temperature.

So yet again you think that pointing to a short-term weather extreme somehow invalidates ong-term, overarching trends or predictions. It is one of the most basic errors in science and one that undergraduate students get knocked out of their system pretty quick when they fail to reproduce the resuts of their first experiment.

You seem to be immune from this realization.

At the expense of our grandchildren.

Martin Cothran said...


So the lack of snow in the short term is to be accepted as evidence of Global Warming ( ( ( ...

AND excess of snow short term is to be accepted as evidence of Global Warming ( (,8599,1962294,00.html) ( ...


Singring said...

Maybe you should actually read the articles you link to, Martin. Always a good idea.

First article cites only one GW prediction, I quote:

'Climatologists, however, say the warming trend will become dramatic by 2020'


'“If you ask people whether they are interested in the climate in 50 years, they say no.”'

This is what climate science is about. Trends, long-term predictions, comparison of climate records over decades. It is at best ignorant and at worst deceitful to point to single weather extremes (some of the articles you link to refer to 24h period records, for crying out loud!) as if they invalidate the predictions. If you don't realize this you simply lack even the most basic understanding of science.

Second article:

It only reports weather anomalies and contains exactly ONE reference to GW:

'Many believe global warming is to blame for the lack of snow. '

The article makes no claims about predictions of GW at all!

Third article:

I quote:

'It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years'

'Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.'

(The articler is from 2000). Priceless! In all my time on internet forms I've never seen anyone shoot themselves so spectacularly into both feet as you have just done, Martin. Bravo!

Singring said...

But wait - there's more in this comedy of errors!

Fourth article:

'A study by the Met Office which went back 350 years shows that such extreme weather now only occurs every 20 years. Back in the pre-industrial days of Charles Dickens, it was a much more regular occurrence - hitting the country on average every five years or so.'

'What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.'

I think at this stage we can elevate Dr Viner to the level of 'prophet'. Ouch, Martin, this is getting more embarassing by the minute. But I sense there is more fun to come!

'This winter seems so bad precisely because it is now so unusual.'

This is once again where you illiteracy regarding trends is stumbling block.

I'll let Dr Britton explain it:

'Scientists point out that the people must distinguish between climate and weather. Weather is what happens in the short term whereas climate is the long term trend.'

There's that naughty little word again...

Maybe Mr. Ward (an Economist) can convince you:

'"What is important to do is look at the long term global trends and they are still up.'

Oh - and by the way, the articles corrects me. I was suggesting the Gulf Stream was a factor in the current weather in the UK - turns out this is wrong. Thanks for the correction.

Fifth article:

'While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased.'

See, Martin - the trend is down, but extremes occur more frequently. This is what GW generally predicts in most areas.

'But as far as winter storms go, shouldn't climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen — but probably not for a while.'

'Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries.'

All you seem to have read is the titles of the articles. I can't believe you were capable of getting teh meaning of six articles so totally wrong.

The sixth article is the ultimate clincher:

It doesn't even MENTION climate change or GW! You simply seem to have read the headline on some conservative tool's blog (complete with the epithet 'Frenchies') and thought it was a good idea to post this here without reading the source article.

At this point you are heaping embarassment upon embarassment, Martin.

I am no climate science expert, but the fact that I was able to point out that each and every of the artciles you link to either makes the complete opposite point of what you think it does or doesn;t apply at all should tell you that GW is not something you should be talking about publicly if you want to preserve any kind of respectability.

Singring said...


All of the articles you cite merely state that the weather events they are reporting are consistent with GW, they do not claim that it is evidence for GW. This is another common but fundamental misunderstanding of science.

For example:

Some have advanced the hypothesis that there is bacterial life on Mars. Telescopes and probes have detected methane in its atmosphere that is being replenished. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis. However, because methane may also form via chemical processes and released via vulcanism, it is not necessarily evidence for life on Mars, it may just be evidence for volcanic activity. If, however, we were able to detect, say, DNA on the surface of Mars, that would not only be consistent with the hypothesis, it would actually be strong evidence for the hypothesis.

So citing articles that say 'X is consistent with GW' does you no good when you are claiming that X is 'evidence' for GW.

Martin Cothran said...


I'm trying to figure out of there is another language besides English that would be useful in making a point with you. I have seldom seen someone not only misunderstand a point, but put so much effort into doing it.

I literally took six articles at random (it literally doesn't matter what they said or whether they are correct--I didn't even read them, didn't have to) to make the point that people use both warm weather and decreased snowfall AND cold weather and increased snowfall as confirming Global Warming.

In other words, since the Global Warming thesis can be confirmed by any evidence whatsoever, there literally is no evidence that would disconfirm it. It is therefore, practically speaking, unfalsifiable.

Whether any of the articles I referenced is true in its assertions is completely irrelevant to that point (I suspect they are all wrong on a lot of points). They could all be false and in every point they make and it wouldn't matter.

So you can go right ahead and write another long-winded post that completely avoids addressing the point--in the meantime I'm checking out of this discussion to make this point on the larger post, where you can avoid the subject and try to misdirect readers there.

Singring said...

'people use both warm weather and decreased snowfall AND cold weather and increased snowfall as confirming Global Warming.'

This is what you originally stated when posting those articles:

'So the lack of snow in the short term is to be accepted as evidence of Global Warming'

'AND excess of snow short term is to be accepted as evidence of Global Warming'

I pointed out in detail why none of the articles was arguing that excess snow or absence of snow in any given year in and of itself is evidence for anything! ALL of the articles talk about trends. You were simply false to claim that any of the mentioned weather phenomena were being used as evidence for global warming! I challenge you to cite any sentence, passage or paragraph from any of those articles that claims that the reported weather phenomenon is direct evidence for GW.

Moreover, my last post explained the difference between something being consistent with a hypothesis and being evidence for a hypothesis.

'In other words, since the Global Warming thesis can be confirmed'

See my last post. Where in any of the articles does it say any one weather event 'confirms' GW predictions? They all stress that you CANNOT do that!

'there literally is no evidence that would disconfirm it. '

I already gave you tow: No correlation between C02 and climate (but there is) and a decrease in global temperature over the span of one or two decades (so far there isn't). Your understanding of science is woeful, Martin and all your arm waving is not covering that fact.

'in the meantime I'm checking out of this discussion'

I would recommend you do so to spare yourself further embarassment.

Singring said...


'I didn't even read them, didn't have to'

Next time Thomas gives me a dressing down for not having read Plato's Republic I'm just going to quote you as my esxcuse.