Video: MS-NBC’s Brewer claims heavy snowfall proves global warming

posted at 3:07 pm on February 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Give credit to MS-NBC’s meteorologist, who does his best to play this one down the middle. When Contessa Brewer attempts to refute Senator Jim DeMint’s humorous Twitter entry that the snow would continue “until Al Gore cries uncle,” he gives both sides of the argument. Brewer insists that the heavy snowstorm that has frozen the mid-Atlantic region and shut down Washington DC in a deep freeze just shows that “more severe weather” proves AGW theory (via Greg Hengler):

It might prove it except that the world isn’t actually warming. The theory about creating more precipitation is one hypothesis in AGW, but it’s supposed to come down as rain because, well, the Earth is supposed to get warmer, not colder.  Seasoned skeptics will recall the dire warnings of  more violent hurricane and tornado seasons after 2005′s dual hits of Katrina and Rita, which have gone utterly unfulfilled.

Usually, though, the rebuttal to DeMint’s jibe would be that skeptics don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.  Funny, but that distinction seems to get lost among AGW hysterics when temperatures spike upwards in the summer, as they always do.

Update: Time tries to make the same argument.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Mars has an atmosphere about 1% as thick as Earth’s, plus it only receives half the sunlight Earth does. With an atmosphere that thin at those distances, Mars should, by rights, be much much colder than it is. Mars does have a greenhouse effect and CO2 is the cause.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM

The temperature on Mars surface is identical to the temperature on the earth at the 0.01atmosphere level.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM

It’s called science. About as cold as the moon (-230C). It never gets colder than -130C on Mars.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Wow … -130 C? That CO2 is some pretty potent stuff. You do know that the moon has a permanent dark side right?

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Because Mars has an atmosphere that is much much thinner than Earth’s.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 9:09 AM

So you admit that it’s the amount of atmosphere, not the amount of CO2 that is critical. Mars has much more CO2 in it’s atmosphere then the earth does.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Wow … -130 C? That CO2 is some pretty potent stuff. You do know that the moon has a permanent dark side right?

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM

No it doesn’t.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 10:12 AM

These lefty idiots have finally become a caricature of themselves. It’s actually getting fun to watch.

rollthedice on February 11, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Wow … -130 C? That CO2 is some pretty potent stuff. You do know that the moon has a permanent dark side right?

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM

No, parts of the moon (sides of craters in the poles) are permanently in shadows, but the rest of the moon has a regular day like we do; albeit much longer.

txaggie on February 11, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Global warming? Really?!? Tell that to my back, legs, and arms right about now. Having studied the spotter reports from the NWS, I think I got more snow out of this storm than anyone else in NJ. My driveway had a cool 20″ from Snowmageddon v. 2.0, and, since it rained and sleeted for a few hours in the middle of the storm (warming?), it was particularly well-packed and freaking heavy. Between the 14″ I got last week from the first Snowmageddon and this one, I have snow piles higher than the top of my mailbox. There’s a fair chance of at least another plowable snow on Monday, too. Tell me, Algore, Hadley CRU, et al, where will I put all of this global warming?

I think I’m with Demint and Inhofe on this matter. I wonder if this report you’ve linked just guaranteed that we’ll get smacked for a foot-plus storm for a fourth time this winter. Somewhat sarcastically but also starting to seem somewhat seriously, there could be a reason why winter seems to have a focus on Washington D.C. this year: to shut up this scientific fraud once and for all.

flutejpl on February 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM

You do know that the moon has a permanent dark side right?

You’re like the Homer Simpson of science.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM

You’re like the Homer Simpson of science.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I was wrong, and I admit it. That does not however, lend any credence to the nonsense you’ve posted. AGW is a farce and it’s out in the open. Only denialist cult members as yourself refuse to see the real science that’s destroyed your religion.

The true climate change deniers are the climate nuts like you. Any deviation from straight line temperatures and perpetual glacier growth is seen as “proof” that man has somehow influenced the earth’s climate.

You are in reality, a climate change denier.

darwin on February 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM

You’re like the Homer Simpson of science.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Why do you come here to pick fights, say insulting things and generally be obnoxious?

You lost all creds when you fabricated a comment by mis-pasting something you were quoting from someone else to make it sound like their comment was more over the top than what it was.

You…

1. Prove nothing…
2. Sway no ones opinion…
3. And you’re not very good at making friends.

Why don’t you come here one night and try to engage in a bit of civility in your conversation and see if you can’t make your point without pissing anyone off? If the most they can say is that they disagree with you, then it’s at least a fair exchange.

hawkdriver on February 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM

The temperature on Mars surface is identical to the temperature on the earth at the 0.01atmosphere level.

MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Been awhile since highschool Physics and Chemistry but I’d seriously reckon that if you increase Atmospheric mass and Pressure of Mars to that of Earth you’d see Martian surface temps very close to Earth surface temps. I forgot totally how to figure it.

Holger on February 11, 2010 at 12:00 PM

It’s absolutely true that no individual piece of anecdotal evidence constitutes evidence for any kind of change in the climate. So, if DeMint were making an actual argument (which he wasn’t) rather than a joke (which he was), Contessa might have a point. Of course, I’m willing to conjecture she’d be quick to leap on various heatwaves, tropical storms, or even granted her intellectual depth earthquakes as anecdotal evidence for global warming (if she hasn’t done so already). So I’m not sure she’s the right one to be throwing stones.

Blacklake on February 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Holger on February 11, 2010 at 12:00 PM

pv=nrt
p=pressure
v=volume
n=moles of molecules
r=constant
t=temperature
.: t=pv/nr

Ideal gas law

daesleeper on February 11, 2010 at 12:07 PM

When I opined above that:

No self-respecting scientist — including any who are convinced that anthropogenic warming is a fact — nor any scientifically-minded person, would point to one or two severe snowstorms occurring right in the middle of a particularly cold winter and conclude that there’s your proof of global warming!

perhaps I was a bit hasty.

Note the inherent inconsistency in the following two short grafs contained in the same New York Times article published yesterday — “Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze” — on the subject of the recent dead of winter snowstorms in the East and their possible link to global warming, written by reporter James M. Broder:

First he says:

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

Then later he says:

Climate scientists say that no individual episode of severe weather can be attributed to global climate trends, though there is evidence that such events will probably become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

Of course, in an attempt to belittle the views of climate change skeptics, Broder couches all statements attributable to them in terms of their real motivation, which he claims is to tweak or poke fun at anthropogenic warmists. He utterly ignores the views of top climate scientists like M.I.T.’s Richard S. Lindzen, who has often debunked the basis of the wild climate change assertions. Said he just this past fall in the Wall Street Journal:

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre.”

But even though in his NYT article, James Broder somehow later managed to conflate government predictions of more severe hurricanes, with the suggestion that this somehow means we should therefore expect more snowfall here in the East, he neglected to point out that following Katrina back in 2005, wild-eyed warmists grasped on to it as proof of “climate change” on steroids, and they made dire predictions of horrid hurricane for several years afterward, none of which ever occurred.

So, I suppose that it is possible that a few scientists are capable of making short-term predictions or statements that are close to being as idiotic as the one Contessa Brewer made.

After all, James Hansen apparently still has access to the HuffPo!

Trochilus on February 11, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Meanwhile back at the ranch…..and the snow snow snow snow keeps falling down. 5 inches and still dropping, which for Texas is a lot. My dog is loving it. I certainly hope this storm does not turn into yet another blizzard for the Mid-Atlantic states. My uncle in Philly said 48 inches so far in his back yard. He’s not going anywhere.

Annietxgrl on February 11, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Here is another excellent Richard S. Lindzen piece touching on a host of issues related to global warming and the climate change agenda, written in Quadrant back in July, before Climategate broke.

It must drive the warmists crazy that the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at M.I.T. so regularly puts their feet to the fire!

Trochilus on February 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I’m in Dallas and I’ve got your global warming right here. The snow has been falling since about 2am with 4+ inches of snow already (for a place that barely gets a dusting most winters, if that) and at least two more inches expected today, plus all the slush on the roads is expected to freeze tonight when the temps drop into the 20s tonight.

We just got an e-mail that work is closing early today, so I’m going home and I’m going to enjoy all this *global warming* from the safety of my couch.

Alia on February 11, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Cambridge Mass- green police – right now

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/green_police_arent_just_in_sup.html

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 11, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Oh and to all the trolls out there, two words:

El Nino

Thank you and have a nice day!

Annietxgrl on February 11, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Thank you Contessa for your words of wisdom!

MCGIRV on February 11, 2010 at 4:21 PM

You’re like the Homer Simpson of science.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM

You’re like the John Edwards of integrity.

Doorgunner on February 11, 2010 at 4:58 PM

This is for all those pointing to the east coast storms as proof CLIMATE CHANGE isn’t happening.
Well right back at ya!
With seven years to prepare and a budget of about $2 billion, organizers have nearly everything in place for next month’s Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Except snow.

You can’t pick and chose individual events as proof that Climate Change is or isn‘t happening.

Bill Blizzard on February 11, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Didn’t Don Imus call her “An empty-headed Ho”?

joe btfsplk on February 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM

The theory about creating more precipitation is one hypothesis………

It is neither theory or hypothesis but a fact that warmer air can hold more moisture and warmer air increases evaporation from the oceans.

but it’s supposed to come down as rain because, well, the Earth is supposed to get warmer, not colder.

That’s your opinion and not stated by any scientist that think climate change is for real. What they say is the weather will be more chaotic as we see on the east coast and my post above about the lack of snow in Vancouver.

Bill Blizzard on February 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Bill Blizzard on February 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Good luck with your nonsense, which is obviously based on zip. The fact is that many leading climate scientists, including Richard S. Lindzen at M.I.T. think that the so-called “science” underscoring the predictions of “alarming” climate change, is just so much bunk.

Thanks, Bill, but I’ll take his word for it — not yours!

Here are a few key portions of another piece by a Lindzen (in addition to the link to the 2009 general piece I posted above) addressing the basic theory, and one of the recent difficulties that arise underscoring the publishing of refutations of the alarmists:

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less–hardly a case for more storminess with global warming

. . .

When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.” Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.”

Good luck with your comment, which is based on absolutely nothing more than your idle conjecture about two snowstorms on the East Coast — both occurring in the dead of winter — and the lack of snow at a western coastal ski area in Canada!

Say, Blizzard . . . do you play poker? I really enjoy playing with a guy who I know is willing to go “all in” with absolutely zero in his hand!

I’d like to get together with you some time. Bring a big wad along, will ya?

Trochilus on February 11, 2010 at 9:17 PM

You are seeing “tells” that aren’t there. And missing sarcasm that is there. Some poker player! I pointed out that anyone can take anecdotal evidence and try to make the case but that‘s not proof one way or another. I used Vancouver as an example to counter those claiming the storms on the east coast and snow in Texas prove climate change isn’t happening. Would you make the unscientific claim that the east coast storms and snow in Texas disprove climate change?

No where did I say Vancouver proves climate change is happening.

I did state as a fact that warm air has the capability to hold more moisture then cold air and that warmer air will cause more evaporation from oceans. Am I wrong?

And if you read it again, you will see that I didn’t say it, > “That’s your opinion and not stated by any scientist that think climate change is for real. What THEY say is the weather will be more chaotic”. The snow in Texas, the east coast storms and lack of snow in Vancouver is chaotic.

But I still won’t make the claim and never have that climate change is for real or not.

RE: “The fact is that many leading climate scientists, including Richard S. Lindzen at M.I.T. think that the so-called “science” underscoring the predictions of “alarming” climate change, is just so much bunk.”

Many is not the majority!

RE: “Bring a big wad along, will ya?”

I won’t have to if you are there.

Bill Blizzard on February 11, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I used Vancouver as an example to counter those claiming the storms on the east coast and snow in Texas prove climate change isn’t happening.

don’t think anyone is denying climate change as a matter of fact I think the phrase some of the people used was like climate change has occurred, climate change is occurring, and climate change will occur, what everyone is saying is agw is a hoax. By the way I think Vancouver is going to be going through a drought.

RonK on February 12, 2010 at 3:43 AM

With seven years to prepare and a budget of about $2 billion, organizers have nearly everything in place for next month’s Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Except snow.

Bill Blizzard on February 11, 2010 at 6:47 PM

The big difference is that there is nothing unusual about a winter with little to no snow in Vancouver. The east coast storms are breaking records right and left.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:15 AM

Many is not the majority!

Bill Blizzard on February 11, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Many is a lot more than you have.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:18 AM

Many is a lot more than you have

The evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming is very substantial. Could this be why such claims are made, in panic?

One or two weather events (or lack thereof) indicate what?
What about long-term climatic trends. Is not a rise in global temperatures and chaotic weather (such as exceptional heat and cold, precipitation and dryness) precisely what global warming proponents have been indicating for decades now? So, what logic is there in asserting that a few (record) snowstorms are “proof” that AGW is nonexistant?

The science of climate is best left to those who have extensive training and understanding of complex interactions, about which climate models deal. How can anyone who doesn’t have a grasp of these complexities with credibility proclaim that AGW is a dead concept? Quite the contrary, it is front and center within the scientific community, bad behavior among some scientists notwithstanding.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:21 AM

The big difference is that there is nothing unusual about a winter with little to no snow in Vancouver. The east coast storms are breaking records right and left

This is why they are holding the Winter Olympics there – because Vancouver has little snow in winter? Is that claim not quite a stretch?

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:23 AM

The true climate change deniers are the climate nuts like you. Any deviation from straight line temperatures and perpetual glacier growth is seen as “proof” that man has somehow influenced the earth’s climate.

On the contrary, global warming deniers seem to think that if the global temperature (average) doesn’t rise in a straight line fashion, then all assertions of AGW are false. I suggest that one take a good look at what scientists are saying about the statistical nature of weather in the context of climatic trends. Getting a grasp on the statistics takes some doing to wrap one’s mind around. For this reason, many don’t bother to try; rather they dismiss AGW theories as bunk (i.e., the path of least resistance).

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM

For this reason, many don’t bother to try; rather they dismiss AGW theories as bunk (i.e., the path of least resistance).

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM

The Path of Least Resistance?

Disbelief in Anthropogenic Global Warming (now called Anthropogenic Climate Change) is akin to being an Atheist in Dark Age Europe.

You get ridiculed by the establishment, your potential grant pool is a hell of a lot lower and you get locked out of lots of publications which is damn important for Scientists.

Astrophysicists will let the nutjob who tries to disprove Einstein be a Scientist because Einstein may very well be wrong. That thought never crosses the mind of Warmists.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 10:58 AM

The evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming is very substantial.

Try non-existant.
The only evidence that has ever existed are a couple of deeply flawed computer models. Models that have failed every real world test they have been put to.

What about long-term climatic trends.

In the history of the world, there has never been a “long term climatic trend, until now? The very minor warming that has occurred over the last year are smaller than 4 events over the last 5000 years.

Is not a rise in global temperatures and chaotic weather (such as exceptional heat and cold, precipitation and dryness) precisely what global warming proponents have been indicating for decades now?

The globe has been cooling for the last 11 years. Directly in contradictio to predictions.
There has been no increase in chaotic weather.

The science of climate is best left to those who have extensive training and understanding of complex interactions, about which climate models deal.

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:21 AM

How can the models deal with the chaotic interactions, when the scientists admit that they have no understanding of how those same interactions work.
As to leaving the work to those trained in it. There are none that are trained in it. The ones you cite as your experts have no degrees in anything related to climate.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM

This is why they are holding the Winter Olympics there – because Vancouver has little snow in winter? Is that claim not quite a stretch?

oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Their skiing down the main street of Vancouver?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM

On the contrary, global warming deniers seem to think that if the global temperature (average) doesn’t rise in a straight line fashion, then all assertions of AGW are false.
oakland on February 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM

We’re just taking you alarmists at your word. Back in the 1990′s, Hansen was assuring everyone that CO2 was so powerfull, that it had swamped out every other trend.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Many is not the majority!
Bill Blizzard on February 11, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Many is a lot more than you have.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:18 AM

Right. In fact, ONE — and a highly prestigious one at that — trumps anything or anyone who Mr. Blizzard has got.

From the start of this shrill, politics-laden left wing “movement” back in the late 1980s, back when the great demagogue Al Gore was declaring the American automobile engine “a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront” some have recognized the essentially fraudulent nature of his efforts. Since then, making the case has involved a concerted effort by those on the left to push anthropogenic global warming theory, and to simultaneously and actively work to undercut and in some instances try to suppress the views of any scientists who did not fall in line, either through lack of funding or refusal of publication.

Whether it is Lindzen or some other scientist(s) who someday details that anti-knowledge and anti-science case over the years, remains to be seen. As for the so-called consensus on global warming, here is what he said a few years back:

“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky.”

Well . . . maybe we did get lucky! The AGW and chaotic climate change clowns finally got caught last fall with the hack/leak from East Anglia. And since then, at least the British press has begun to detail the additional deceptive and dishonest practices many of the inner group have been employing all along, including the intentional destruction of primary data, repeatedly citing patently false information about glacier melts other looming catastrophes, apparently in an effort to induce panic, utterly over-stating famine potentials in northern Africa, sea levels in the Netherlands, and on and on.

None of this means that there have been no periods of warming, or that climate would suddenly and sweetly go unchanged if we just stopped driving cars.

Part of the difficulty of detailing the case is that scientists are inherently not historians. But when a few of the Goreans actually got caught intentionally destroying primary data – data that was actively (and through official process) being sought by other scientists and statisticians – well, that was when even the dimmest bulb could see that something was very wrong with their behavior.

As for Mr. Blizzard, he might want to get his head out of the clouds and recognize a good old-fashioned winter storm when he sees one. I can remember several of them over the years. We here in the East experienced a less-than-average amount of snowfall in January, and a greater than average amount in February. Yawn. When I was a kid, I remember that we used to make fun of the old wheeze about the “blizzard of ’88″ – 1888, that is.

Our climate will no doubt change, and which will largely be due to dynamic forces that we did not cause. We know, for instance, that over the past significant climatic changes have occurred, some perhaps attributable in significant measure to changes in the activity on the surface of the sun – e.g., the seeming confluence of the “Maunder Minimum” with the “Little Ice Age.”

Who knows, maybe one of the Gorean enthusiasts will suddenly recognize that telling the truth might lay a much better foundation for encouraging greater efficiency and developing strategies for cleaner and more sustainable technologies.

Trochilus on February 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Today is the first day in modern history for all 50 states to have snow simultaneously. I keep waiting for Al Gore to hold a press conference announcing his victory over Global Warming. It’s the only exit strategy that will save what little credibility he has remaining.

jediwebdude on February 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Today is the first day in modern history for all 50 states to have snow simultaneously.

jediwebdude on February 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Hmmm . . . . and that snowfall in Hawaii today took place exactly where?

How about Delaware? (Pretty much 34 and sunny, statewide, according to NOAA).

Even Wisconsin looks pretty clear today, according to NOAA.

I think what you meant was that some meteorology student from the University of Oklahoma is trying to document photos of snow on the ground in all fifty states over the course of the recent past, with photos collected as of this afternoon, not that it was snowing simultaneously in all fifty states today!

And he still needed Florida as of the time of the story.

Trochilus on February 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Trochilus on February 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Owned by your own link:

Patrick Marsh said it’s likely by the end of the week snow will be on the ground in all 50 states.

Forecasters said currently there is snow on the ground in some part of every state except Florida, which is expected to get a couple of inches in the panhandle on Friday.

Holger on February 12, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6