Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Brain Freeze: Conservative media still using winter weather to attack global warming

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:13 AM
Original message
Brain Freeze: Conservative media still using winter weather to attack global warming
Edited on Wed Feb-10-10 11:15 AM by RedEarth
Conservative media figures have used the recent snowstorms in the Washington, D.C., area to level more science-free attacks on global warming. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, scientists agree that short-term localized weather patterns are not relevant to global warming.

If at first you don't deceive ... Conservative media again use winter snow to deny global warming
Limbaugh: It's "absurd" that Obama admin proposed global warming agency amidst "record-setting cold weather." On the February 9 broadcast of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated: "The Obama administration yesterday, amidst all this record-setting cold weather, proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, also known as global warming." He added: "They're having to delay setting up the office because they're expecting another 16 to 20 inches in Washington. I mean, this is absurd."

Fox & Friends asserts "dichotomy" between "those big snowstorms" and proposed "federal office to study global warming." On the February 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said she wanted to talk about the "dichotomy" created by "big snowstorms" occurring while "the Obama administration talking about creating a new federal office to study global warming." Co-host Steve Doocy added: "It's interesting, though, given the fact that the weather is so rotten right now that people are going, 'how can there be global warming if it's snowing and it's fairly cold?' "

Washington Times: D.C.'s "Snowmageddon" is "undermining the case for global warming one flake at a time." In a February 8 editorial headlined, "Snowmageddon is nigh," The Washington Times wrote that reports of more snow blanketing Washington, D.C., "must send chills up the spines of global warming adherents, for whom this winter has been marked by discontent." The editorial later added: "Those who value freedom should thank Mother Nature for her sense of humor, undermining the case for global warming one flake at a time. So although we're quite tired of shoveling, we say, 'Bring on the blizzard.' "

Hannity: "I'm sure the Climate Service will do a lot to ... help with the snow." From the February 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

.....

Reality: Snow in winter does not disprove global warming
FACT: Cold weather has no relevance to the climate debate. In a March 2, 2008, article, The New York Times reported that climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather bear any relevance to the climate debate. The article quoted Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA saying: "It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change."

FACT: 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. In January, major meteorological organizations throughout the world -- including NASA -- released reports showing that the past decade, 2000-2009, was the warmest on record. The reports undermine the right-wing media's numerous claims that recent snow and cold weather show climate change does not exist or has slowed over the past 10 years.


http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. And, of course they ignore the VERY OBVIOUS issue in Vancouver
:eyes:

Fuckstains are so antithetical to being human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. That is a foreign country
So the repubes think it doesn't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Bird Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. And isn't that the point?
A lack of snow in part of Canada means what? Is that proof of climate change or just another weather event? Isn't making reference to Vancouver just as bogus as pointing to the east coast snow storm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. You don't see how it matters?
If they're gonna cherry pick the snow in the DC area as proof that climate warming isn't happening because the snow there is an anomaly in the direction of cold, then they also have to look at *ALL* anomalous weather patterns happening, including the Vancouver anomaly in the direction of too warm.

But they're conservatives and Republicans, so they won't. Intellectual honesty is not their strong point. Hell, it's not even something they consider worth seeking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. Gretchen Carlson had to google "ignoramus" because she didn't know what it meant,
but she's tossing out words like "dichotomy"? Yeah, OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prolesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. Spread this link around
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. They were handed it on a silver platter.
Recent years have seen an increase in how AGW is described to the public. Scientists (and politicians) who are upset over lack of sufficient action make hyperbolic claims about what the future looks like, but they're far too short-sighted and extreme. "Glaciers will be gone by" or "DC simply doesn't get snow any longer" or similar are not statements backed up by the science. When reality shows this to be the case... you can expect the opposition to jump on it (and the public to buy it).

Same thing happened after Katrina/Rita. Some scientists shifted from the more reasonable position that AGW could result in more (and more powerful) storms and instead started to make specific predictions about the next year being worse... that this was the new normal. Go through a few years of unusually low hurricane activity along the Gulf and Atlantic coastlines and they look like they don't know what they're talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Bird Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. It really has gotten to the point that many people,
Edited on Wed Feb-10-10 11:41 AM by Snow Bird
including myself, don't know what to believe anymore. Every weather event has become proof of or the repudiation of whatever either side is arguing.

Even whoever was sitting in for Randi Rhodes yesterday said that Randi was snowbound because of the blizzard and that was proof of climate change! I just cringed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. If we really wanted to know whether the average temperature of the world is rising...
We'd need special thermometers located all around the globe.

They should be thermometers that ignore small, day-to-day fluctuations but respond to large gradual changes.

They should be at the poles as well as various points all over the earth.

Maybe huge packs of ice that will melt if the temp continues to rise...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Snow does not necessarily mean the temperature is colder in the
region. It does reflect that the precipitation is higher and an increase in precipitation is a symptom of global weather change.

... an increase in the average global temperature is very likely to lead to changes in precipitation and atmospheric moisture because of changes in atmospheric circulation and increases in evaporation and water vapor.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurepsc.html

If I am not mistaken, the temperatures in these regions are not above normal, the snowfall/blizzards are caused by an increase in precipitation in the regions. If it weren't freezing the areas would be experiencing higher than normal rainfall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's what I understand as well....... here's more from Climate Progress
Massive moisture-driven extreme precipitation during warmest winter in the satellite record — and the deniers say it disproves (!) climate science

Posted By Joe On February 8, 2010 @ 3:08 pm In Extreme Weather | 42 Comments

Memo to anti-science crowd: Precipitation isn’t temperature <1>!

Yes, for the anti-science crowd, the kind of extreme precipitation event the mid-Atlantic states just experienced somehow weighs against the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change — even though it is entirely consistent with the predictions of climate science (see Was the “Blizzard of 2009″ a “global warming type” of record snowfall — or an opportunity for the media to blow the extreme weather story (again)? <4> and analysis by uber-meteorologist, Dr. Jeff Masters below).

Heavy snow events–a contradiction to global warming theory?
Global warming skeptics regularly have a field day whenever a record snow storm pounds the U.S., claiming that such events are inconsistent with a globe that is warming. If the globe is warming, there should, on average, be fewer days when it snows, and thus fewer snow storms. However, it is possible that if climate change is simultaneously causing an increase in ratio of snowstorms with very heavy snow to storms with ordinary amounts of snow, we could actually see an increase in very heavy snowstorms in some portions of the world. There is evidence that this is happening for winter storms in the Northeast U.S.–the mighty Nor’easters like the “Snowmageddon” storm of February 5-6 and “Snowpocalypse” of December 19, 2009. Let’s take a look at the evidence. There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.

It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, <12> the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.4°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory <13> predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events–the ones most likely to cause flash flooding–will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, <12> water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S. This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006) <14>, who found, “The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity.”

The strongest cold-season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent for the U.S.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) <15> began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which called for “a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.” This program has put out some excellent peer-reviewed science on climate change that, in my view, is as authoritative as the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In 2009, the USGCRP put out its excellent U.S. Climate Impacts Report <16>, summarizing the observed and forecast impacts of climate change on the U.S. The report’s main conclusion about cold season storms was “ Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent”.

The report’s more detailed analysis: “Large-scale storm systems are the dominant weather phenomenon during the cold season in the United States. Although the analysis of these storms is complicated by a relatively short length of most observational records and by the highly variable nature of strong storms, some clear patterns have emerged (Kunkel et al., 2008).

Storm tracks have shifted northward over the last 50 years as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of storms in mid-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, while high-latitude activity has increased. There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes (Kunkel et al., 2008). The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights”. The study also noted that we should expect an increase in lake-effect snowstorms over the next few decades. Lake-effect snow is produced by the strong flow of cold air across large areas of relatively warmer ice-free water. The report says, “As the climate has warmed, ice coverage on the Great Lakes has fallen. The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage. This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus heavier snowstorms. Among recent extreme lake-effect snow events was a February 2007 10-day storm total of over 10 feet of snow in western New York state. Climate models suggest that lake-effect snowfalls are likely to increase over the next few decades. In the longer term, lake-effect snows are likely to decrease as temperatures continue to rise, with the precipitation then falling as rain”.


http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/08/climate-science-extreme-weather-moisture-precipitation-warmest-winter-satellite-record-deniers-jeff-masters/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. The right is anti-anything progressive or anti-democratic party
Facts don't matter, understanding the science is not important. They are very simple minded (like Palin's cheat notes on her palm). "There cannot be global warming if we have snow" is the extent of their group think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
8. when I hear "global warming" I correct them with RAPID GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
or sometimes I add MAN-MADE RAPID.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
11. Perhaps Comprehension is limited?? They Don't / Can't get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC