GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Is Global Warming Always to Blame for Severe Weather?

February 10, 2010 by B. Daniel Blatt

Just as Obama Democrats blame everything on Bush, seems global warmists attribute all weather phenomenon to global warming.  Just caught this on Yahoo!’s home page: D.C. Snowstorm: How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse.

Can’t these folks just acknowledge that they might be wrong?

UPDATE:  Doug Ross “the text of the article is something out of a rejected SNL skit: it’s just too preposterous.”  Read the whole thing!

Filed Under: Arrogance of the Liberal Elites, Bush-hatred, Climate Change (Global Warming), Liberals

Comments

  1. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 2:31 pm - February 10, 2010

    Up next: A Yahoo! article entitled “How Taxes Create Jobs”, followed by “How Higher Deficits Shrink Our National Debt”.

  2. Neptune says

    February 10, 2010 at 2:59 pm - February 10, 2010

    My favorite headline from the past couple of days, courtesy of the AP on Yahoo yesterday:

    “Snow shuts down federal government; Life goes on”

  3. ThatGayConservative says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:08 pm - February 10, 2010

    Remember back in the 90s when it was fashionable to blame all our problems on El Niño? What happened to that?

  4. ThatGayConservative says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:09 pm - February 10, 2010

    Oh and Y2K was gonna kill us all too.

    I’m sure folks “more experienced in life” than I can think of many similar examples of death du jour.

  5. Sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:11 pm - February 10, 2010

    This is also from Time magazine:

    Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

    OK. I cheated. That was from Time magazine via 1974, when we had another round of cold weather. And even though we apparently caused that too, I find it sad that that explanation makes more scientific sense than the one they’re currently giving.

  6. heliotrope says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:11 pm - February 10, 2010

    Al Gore could not be reached for comment. Al Gore could not be found. Did Al Gore see his shadow or something?

  7. Tano says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:13 pm - February 10, 2010

    Your title is misleading. You make it sound like the argument laid out in the article was claiming that global warming caused this storm. In fact, it simply argued, correctly, and with good reasons laid out, that with a warming world, storms like this are more likely to occur. And that is, as was pointed out, the pattern that we are seeing, at least this year.

    Also, your last line seems to be a non sequitor. Why should they acknowledge they are wrong? Where does that come from? Wrong about what?

  8. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:22 pm - February 10, 2010

    See it’s this kind of mumbo jumbo that conservatives knew from the start didn’t make sense.
    If it snows heavily it’s global warming. If it’s dry it’s GW, if it’s wet it’s GW, if it’s windy GW. Earthquake…GW.
    I’m no fool.
    It’s ridiculous. Especially since the researchers
    are getting rich on the “studies”.

  9. Man says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm - February 10, 2010

    Hey according to my ex-wife, who seems to know what she’s talking about, the real cause of global warming is all the baby-boomer women who have entered menopause at the same time, causing instant global warming!

  10. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm - February 10, 2010

    Oh man to politics…..
    What on earth did the liberal Democrats do to the Gods to get this kind of back handed treatment?
    Now not only are they almost certain to lose Senate seats in …
    NV
    DE
    PA
    ILL
    AR
    CO
    ND
    WI
    Now it looks like faux moderate E Bayh may lose to Dan Coats who just jumped into the race in INDIANA!!!
    NINE loses…..
    let’s hope for more surprises, maybe one of the NY seats or CA. hehe

  11. Tano says

    February 10, 2010 at 3:40 pm - February 10, 2010

    Gene,

    Temperature and precipitation are not the same thing. The argument in the article is the same that I made here a few days ago. Warmer air holds more moisture. You can expect more precipitation as a result. No one is claiming that the world has warmed to such an extent that it will no longer snow in the mid-Atlantic states. So these extra large snow falls are perfectly consistent with a warming world.

    Of course the local weather in any particular place is affected by lots of variables. No one has claimed that this specific storm was an inevitable result of global warming. It is, however, consistent with the predictions of the model.

    As the article pointed out, it was Republicans in Virginia (and posts here at GP) that tried to make the case that this specific storm was an argument against global warming. Which is not only wrong in the sense that the large scale global models are not meant to predict local weather events, but also it reveals a lack of basic understanding of temperature and humidity – things that most people in northern climates understand perfectly well. This is not even climate science…

  12. TnnsNE1 says

    February 10, 2010 at 4:01 pm - February 10, 2010

    “Climate models also suggest that while global warming may not make hurricanes more common, it could well intensify the storms that do occur and make them more destructive.”

    If memory serves me, not too long ago we were told that GW would cause 4-5 massive hurricanes per season in the USA. Now that has yet to happen. When if didn’t happen, they corrected their models. Mother nature has a great system of checks and balances.

    I will agree though, that Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have added to the masses of warm, wet air. They need to keep theirs mouths closed more.

  13. Levi says

    February 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm - February 10, 2010

    Well it looks like Tano has taken care of this quite capably. There aren’t scientists running around claiming that winter is going extinct or that it’s not going to snow in February anymore.

  14. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 4:42 pm - February 10, 2010

    Can’t these folks just acknowledge that they might be wrong?

    Or, as Powerline puts it:

    You know you’re not dealing in the realm of science when *anything that happens is adopted as confirmation* of a hypothesis. A scientific theory is one that generates predictions that can be verified or falsified. Global warming doesn’t qualify.

    Emphasis added. What we see here is Tano, Levi, etc. operating in the realm of religious faith. And not admitting it.

  15. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 4:46 pm - February 10, 2010

    with a warming world, storms like this are more likely to occur

    Sure, Tano. Suuuuurrrrrrrre.

    And, if storms like this weren’t occurring – that is, if we were having a nice mild winter – that would also be evidence of AGW, right? “Anything that happens is adopted as confirmation”… when you are a wacko nutcase believer in AGW.

  16. The_Livewire says

    February 10, 2010 at 4:57 pm - February 10, 2010

    So Levi, found those people who are going to help drag us kicking and screaming into your re-education camps for your own good?

    2007 mild winter is from global warming

    Jan 2010 Maine’s global warming

    So when it’s warm it’s global warming, when it’s cold a week later it’s… Global warming.

  17. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 4:59 pm - February 10, 2010

    Warmer air holds more moisture.

    And those giant freezing snowstorms involve *warm* air? The air in the northeastern seaboard has been *warm* these last few weeks or months? What an explanation.

    It is, however, consistent with the predictions of the model.

    …because *anything and everything* is consistent with the predictions of the non-existent AGW “model”. Um, except for the atmospheric temperature/layer signatures that science has actually observed. Those are notably inconsistent with what a ‘greenhouse’ (as opposed to solar-driven) model of warming would predict. So, naturally, Tano never talks about those findings. If it even knows about them.

  18. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 5:10 pm - February 10, 2010

    Bad news for Tano and Levi,……
    THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS now say because of the horrific snow storms any global warming and cap n trade legislation is virtually DEAD.
    Guess they’re all stupid too.
    It’s all collapsing!

  19. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm - February 10, 2010

    Oh wow, new research. This explains a lot….
    Twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe in …..
    GHOSTS
    PALM READING
    FORTUNE TELLING
    TALKING WITH THE DEAD

    I guess we can add to the list
    GLOBAL WARMING and
    LYING UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES
    (who’s having fun now??)
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-study-More-Democrats-than-Republicans-believe-in-ghosts-talking-with-the-dead-fortunetellers-79162197.html

  20. North Dallas Thirty says

    February 10, 2010 at 5:40 pm - February 10, 2010

    And we should also remember, again, what Barack Obama and his supporters are claiming now.

    ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn’t believe in global warming is bizarre.
    BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in it.
    ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.
    BEHAR: Right.
    ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it.

    Again: Barack Obama and his supporters are claiming that global warming is not only causing weather events, but causing earthquakes and tsunamis.

    This is what Tano and Levi deem “science”.

  21. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 5:53 pm - February 10, 2010

    Personally I believe in long-term global warming trends… because they have been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, you name it in the Solar System.

    Whether that GW is AGW – that is, caused by Anthropos – is another question entirely. It probably isn’t. It is up to AGW advocates to prove that it is, and there are far from having done so.

  22. Rosalie says

    February 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm - February 10, 2010

    How can we believe anything they say? They lied! I think I believe the scientists who said we’re headed for a mini ice age because I belileve that our weather is cyclical.

  23. John says

    February 10, 2010 at 5:57 pm - February 10, 2010

    What I always like to do is examine how the story is reported. Let’s look at some of the language in this article, which I find typical in repots on global warming:

    “There is some evidence” Ok. How much? How reliable is it? Is it convincing evidence that can be scientifically proven or simply data used to fit a particular pet theory?

    “Climate models also suggest”

    A computer-generated “suggestion” is hardly science. As we’ve seen far too often with these climate models: garbage in = garbage out.

    “it could well intensify”

    Pretty vague analysis. And this conclusion is based upon what exactly? A computer-generated “suggestion”?

    “The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.”

    And this conclusion is based upon what exactly? An analysis of past weather patterns of the region over period of a few decades? That hardly seems conclusive.

    “we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall”

    Why? Because it doesn’t fit your pet theory? That’s not science. Come back when you have some hard evidence to make your case.

    “Eventually that is likely to happen – but probably not for a while.”

    Oh really? Since when did astrology regain its former place among the sciences? Science isn’t supposed to be in the business of such vague predictions. We save that for the old crones with crystal balls at carnivals.

  24. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 6:45 pm - February 10, 2010

    Also keep in mind REPORTERS are LAZY. If anyone gives them a soundbite that supports their bias they run with it.

  25. Sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2010 at 7:08 pm - February 10, 2010

    Personally I believe in long-term global warming trends… because they have been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, you name it in the Solar System.

    ILC, gotta call you on this. What is your source for this info? The oldest version of these claims can be traced back to this conspiracy website run by the always accurate Michael Savage clone Alex Jones. Jupiter has its own volatile heat engine, Pluto is very far from the Sun. Any change in Solar output that could affect the temps on Pluto would absolutely fry us here on Earth. This is simply a bad argument and makes your position look weak, unthinking, uncritical, and talking point-ish.

  26. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 7:11 pm - February 10, 2010

    Frog I think I’ve heard someone say Mars was experiencing global warming as well. I’ll try to find a link.

  27. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 7:12 pm - February 10, 2010

    #26 yeah it was NAT GEO circa 2007

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

  28. Oh, bother says

    February 10, 2010 at 7:18 pm - February 10, 2010

    “Can’t these folks just acknowledge they might be wrong?”

    Where’s the money in that?

  29. ThatGayConservative says

    February 10, 2010 at 7:26 pm - February 10, 2010

    with a warming world, storms like this are more likely to occur

    Yeah, we were told the same thing about hurricanes 5 YEARS ago. Didn’t happen.

  30. North Dallas Thirty says

    February 10, 2010 at 7:34 pm - February 10, 2010

    And while we’re dealing with Levi and Tano, latest news; liberals and Obama Party members support and endorse the Taliban.

  31. Scott Lassiter says

    February 10, 2010 at 7:52 pm - February 10, 2010

    The interesting thing is to watch someone (like the commenter Tano) – who has such a remarkable devotion to a cause and a particular group – pour his last remaining dignity into the issue. It is now just intellectual blindness that is sustaining his apparent need to be accepted by his identity group. The complete disregard for critical thinking and a simple following of others creates considerably less cognitive dissonance for such individuals. And this is why many people make such poor decisions in the world. Losing out to groupthink is a sad way to spend valuable time. It will be hard for him – and he may be too stubborn and have too much invested at this point – to turn the corner and understand his error in thought. In fact, his likely comment to the dilemma will be defensive and an attempt to explain the “nuance” of the issue, which eludes all of us with an intact cerebrum. Sadly as well, groupthink is about groups, and sometimes very large groups. Tano has a lot of company with others that have invested their self-esteem in the issue.
    The best studies that will come out of this whole fiasco will be the psychological research focusing on the group phenomenon we are all witnessing……and in the cognitive therapy that will be required to rehabilitate all these believers. Damn, maybe I should have become a cognitive therapist…..looks like that will be the next best area for job growth!

  32. John in Dublin CA says

    February 10, 2010 at 8:49 pm - February 10, 2010

    And just months ago Obama declared a national emergency over H1N1. Duh, I still haven’t met a single person who has or had it. Some national emergency. As for the global warming BS, when people like Algore start living like they believe the garbage they’re selling, I might begin to take it seriously.

  33. SoCalRobert says

    February 10, 2010 at 9:11 pm - February 10, 2010

    John in Dublin – I just thought it was me not getting out much… I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s had the flu and neither has my other half.

    The climate change nonsense every time there is (or isn’t) unusual weather is getting tiresome.

    Next thing you know, they’ll be claiming that climate change, nee global warming, causes earthquakes. What? They have? Oh, never mind.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/07/guardian-global-warming-to-trigger-earthquakes-tsunamis-avalanches-and-volcanic-eruptions/

  34. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 9:17 pm - February 10, 2010

    All the mechanization and industrialzation
    helped cause the earthquake in Haiti…….
    …..oh ….never mind.

  35. Sonicfrog says

    February 10, 2010 at 9:18 pm - February 10, 2010

    Here’s the problem with using Mars as proof that AGW is wrong.

    Yes, there have been observations that the polar ice cap on Mars has been melting for the last three years, but three years is a very short time. We have not, however, been measuring the actual temps with any accuracy on that planet. So we don’t actually know if the temps on the planet have actually risen, but we can confirm the wobble that has positioned the ice into a more favorable angle to the Sun to induce melting. In the mean time, we have been measuring the output from the Sun for about thirty years, and the TSI (total solar irradiance) i.e. heat from the Sun has remained fairly constant. Mars has about 1/3rd the atmosphere of Earth, and again, like Pluto, the changes in the Suns output, in order to have an effect on Mars, would have an even greater effect on the Earth. During the period where the Mars ice cap was melting, Earths temps seemed to be stabilizing.

    All this make the “wobble” explanation the most likely to explain the Mars ice cap melt.

    Now you could bring up the cosmic rays theory of global warming, with I find quite fascinating, to explain the Mars phenomenon…. except that depends on the formation of clouds, and since there are no clouds on Mars….

  36. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 9:49 pm - February 10, 2010

    Here’s the problem with using Mars as proof that AGW is wrong.

    Who said “proof”? How about, “evidence”? (difference)

    Please note, the burden of proof is on the AGW folks. Their burden is made that much greater by the existence of *evidence* (not absolute proof) for alternative causes.

    In the mean time, we have been measuring the output from the Sun for about thirty years

    Which isn’t much. And it could easily take awhile for increased Sun output to melt Martian ice caps, i.e., there could easily be a lag involved of multiple decades.

  37. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 9:51 pm - February 10, 2010

    ILC, gotta call you on this

    I’ve seen several reports… Gene’s link was find. (Thanks Gene)

  38. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 9:52 pm - February 10, 2010

    sorry, “fine” (heh)

  39. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 9:57 pm - February 10, 2010

    This is simply a bad argument and makes your position look weak, unthinking, uncritical, and talking point-ish.

    “look” that way – to whom? You, I guess. But you may remember from past encounters that I don’t really care how things look to you 😉 Only about the relevant facts of the matter.

  40. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 10:20 pm - February 10, 2010

    Hey I admit my bias about global warming. Someone telling me running my lawn mower on the same day as my neighbor, and filling my gas tank the same day as my partner is going to kill mother earth just doesn’t compute. I KNOW that man can’t predict hurricanes more than a few days out. We can’t predict drought until after it happens. We know when we are harming the envirnment and it is capitalists societies that have done wonders cleaning up our messes. You can’t say the same for socialists and communists.

  41. Tano says

    February 10, 2010 at 10:21 pm - February 10, 2010

    “And those giant freezing snowstorms involve *warm* air? The air in the northeastern seaboard has been *warm* these last few weeks or months? What an explanation.”

    ILC,

    You claim to be such a rational guy, so why don’t you actually think about some of the things you say. Surely you are literate enough, and aware of the world enough, to know that the argument from global warming scientists is that the globe has already warmed, over the past half century or so by 0.7 degrees Celsius. Now this may have a noticeable effect on a global scale, but no, it does not mean that winter no longer will happen. It does not mean that snow will not fall.

    And IF this storm were a direct confirmation of global warming (which I already have denied that it is), then how are you going to argue that it refutes a 0.7degree temperature rise?

    Was there warm air in the recent storm? It is relative of course. Warm compared to what? Was it 0.7 degrees warmer than it was on this day 50 years ago? Or a tad warmer than it was in the last big snowstorm?

    I don’t know, and the question is rhetorical, because I already said, twice, that I am not using this specific storm as evidence for warming – nor is anyone. The argument in the article, and that I am making is AGAINST the stupid notion that the storm is evidence AGAINST global warming.

    As I stated earlier – this is not even an explanation that needs to call on climate science, or climate models or any of that controversial (to you) stuff. This is basic meteorology, basic chemistry. Increase temperature and more water evaporates from the oceans. Increase the temperature of air, and the atmosphere can hold more water. The result is more precipitation, all other things being equal. Why is this such a difficult concept. AS I also said earlier, ask anyone who lives in snowy regions of the country – this is grade school level knowledge.

    “It is, however, consistent with the predictions of the model.
    …because *anything and everything* is consistent with the predictions of the non-existent AGW “model”.”

    I will do you the favor of passing over the absolute incoherence of this sentence (a model that does not exist predicts everything?) and assume that you are just giving the standard mindless response we hear from wingnuts all the time.

    Have you ever tried to get an actual understanding of the field and the arguments, outside of your political mindset? There are many specific predictions that arise from the models, that take into account how the extra heat is distributed around the world. One way of understanding climate is, of course, as a heat distribution system, since so much of the dynamism of our weather patterns are driven by the unequal warming of the globe, and how an equilibrium is achieved on a rotating globe.

    The models predict more warmth in some places, a cooling in others, and a host of specific precipitation predictions for various places, based on how those places will be affected by currents, jet streams and the like. This is most certainly not an example of having any event be consistent with the model. If the Amazon freezes over, it will contradict the models.

    But even all this is a bit off the main point – because these models are of what will happen, given global warming. What you and the loonies on the right are trying to argue is that global warming is not happening (those who admit that it is happening but deny human agency don’t really have a dog in this fight over the current storm). And so lets look at your argument in all its naked beauty (and sorry if I am repeating myself on some of this, but some of you guys are bit slow….)

    The global warming scientists have argued that the average global temperature has increased 0.7 degrees over the last half century or so. It has snowed this week in Washington DC – a record amount. You think that is evidence of “cold” to such a significant level that it argues against the possibility that the average global temperature has increased 0.7 degrees over 50 years.
    I say your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, 2009 was the second warmest year in measured history.

  42. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 10:32 pm - February 10, 2010

    Tano, why did scientists on your side of the argument lie about their data. Fudge their data, and destroy evidence of the original temperatures? Why did some of these scientists resign in disgrace?
    Why don’t liberals just do what it takes to cool the earth themselves?
    Don’t drive, don’t use A/C, don’t fly, do your laundry by hand, don’t use TP. Get on with it. If 40% of the world are socialists or liberals you all should do wonders in controlling climate change or global warming. You and the nutts ALGORE, Olbermann, Schultz….just go ahead, start. No need to wait for us conservatives, just start. Geez.

  43. Tano says

    February 10, 2010 at 10:36 pm - February 10, 2010

    As for the Mars nonsense, here is a basic explanation of the non-global warming on Mars. LINK

    apologies if you find it bothersome to read scientists, rather than Drudge…

  44. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 10:37 pm - February 10, 2010

    By the way, global warming czar ALGORE predicted a little more than 4 years ago that we had 10 years to prevent armageddon. We have just 5 years 11 months left. Then poof, we’ re all dead. ALGORE said it.
    Any other liberal nutts agree that we have less than 6 years left?
    If so why the hell are we repairing roads bridges and worrying about shoring up soc security? Live Love Screw, the clock is running……

  45. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 10, 2010 at 10:41 pm - February 10, 2010

    Thanks for the link Tano….this was in the comments

    “I have been trying to identify a measurement that says how much the climate has changed over a time frame that might represent human induced change. As hard as I try the answers are so variable as to be meaningless. It seems like the numbers selected are done more for political reason than science.
    Now comes a report that the sun’s output is having a significant effect on the temps we see. It makes me wonder if the rest of the changes we think we see are also caused by natural conditions much like what causes the end of an ice age and the warming that follows.”

  46. North Dallas Thirty says

    February 10, 2010 at 10:44 pm - February 10, 2010

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, 2009 was the second warmest year in measured history.

    Gee, I wonder why Tano didn’t provide a link?

    Probably because it would have pointed this out.

    2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

    Yes, because, as we know, nothing happened prior to 1880. Certainly no warming or cooling trends, say like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

    But it gets better. Anyone know how GISS gets data?

    They make it up.

    And you know what they do when they’re called on it?

    They try to shut up the people who pointed out the error.

  47. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 11:01 pm - February 10, 2010

    Global warming on Jupiter:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm

    Summary of the state of global warming in 2006 throughout the Solar System (not just Jupiter):
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

    Again, this is suggestive *EVIDENCE* for a natural cyclical explanation for GW. **THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGW ALARMISTS TO PROVE AGW**. They are far indeed from having proven their case. And what the suggestive evidence for alternate explanations does is, further raise the bar that they must meet.

  48. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 10, 2010 at 11:25 pm - February 10, 2010

    And NDT, so what if 2009 was the second warmest year on record? It does nothing whatever to prove the *Anthropogenic* in AGW.

    Apparently, Tano still does not grasp the (pretty straightforward) position I outlined at #21, in favor of global warming being real (whilst AGW is a religion).

    I am not using this specific storm as evidence for warming – nor is anyone

    Tano, how dumb do you think we are? Did you READ Dan’s original post AT ALL? Let me quote it for you:

    D.C. Snowstorm: How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse.

    And from Dan’s more recent post:

    Eve Ensler tells Joy Behar that tsunamis and earthquakes help prove global warming.

    Golly, look at that. Not only are some of your fellow AGW religionists, in fact, trying to use “this specific storm” as “evidence for warming” in their blaring headlines (never mind the weaselly backtracking in the fine print); some of your fellow AGW religionists are even trying to use tsunamis and earthquakes as evidence for it! LOL 🙂

    a model that does not exist predicts everything?

    Show me a model that is shoddy and incoherent, and that is therefore (or, not to mention) *incapable of applying to what exists in reality*, and I will show you “a non-existent ‘model'”. Scare quotes around ‘model’, i.e., it is unworthy of the word. “Anti-model” might be the proper term.

    The key, Tano, is epistemology, like I tried to tell you about before. Concepts and models which are as weak, incoherent, ignorant, and otherwise false as AGW is, (1) barely have an existence as models, and (2) have NO existence as real phenomena, i.e. as something describing or depicting real phenomena. Lies do not exist (except as lies). Contradictions do not exist (except as, again, lies). Anti-concepts / Anti-theories / Anti-models do not exist.

    The models predict more warmth in some places

    Indeed, they would predict a specific atmosphere heating signature… that scientists have failed to find, or even found evidence against.

  49. American Elephant says

    February 10, 2010 at 11:46 pm - February 10, 2010

    48 comments already? Wow! must be a “Global Warming” post!

    …fanatics always get so riled up when you attack their religion! Which is all it is, and all it ever was.

    The “scientific formula” for global warming:

    (science – skepticism – honesty + greed + powerlust)hysteria = “global warming”

  50. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 1:03 am - February 11, 2010

    “Global warming on Jupiter:”

    Jeez ILC. I realize you are not a scientist, but ferchrissakes, could you at least use your command of the English language, and logic, to read carefully the articles you like – not just headlines. Is this the level at which you think all the time, about everything?

    The link was to some rather odd looking personal website of some guy who in turn links to a USA Today article, and to “many other sources” – that link actually turning up nothing. The USAToday link is to an article about storms of Jupiter, and how they may be indicative of a change in climate that can modify temperatures around the globe. Nowhere in the article does it mention global WARMING. It does mention warming IN SOME AREAS, near the storms and around the equator, while the poles will experience cooling.

    As I mentioned in my long comment above – climate can be seen as a process of heat distribution on an unevenly cooled, spinning globe. This article is about just that -changing the mode by which heat is distributed – nothing about overall warming.

    I do think (I am not sure why…) that you are intelligent enough to have figured that out for yourself, if you had read the article carefully, with the goal of better understanding, rather than fishing for soundbites to throw from a predetermined and unshakable position.

    Neptune.

    The only reference is to a paper which shows a change in Neptune’s brightness that the authors cannot fully explain – and they _speculate_ might be driven by solar variability, and that if that were true, then maybe there would be a correlation with Earth’s temperature anomalies, but there isn’t, at least not to a statistically significant extent.

    Triton

    A moon of Neptune, has apparently experience warming of such a magnitude that if a proportional warming happened on earth, our temperature would increase 22 degreesF in 9 years (for reference, AGW is predicting between 2-11 degreesF over 100 years. If true, then obviously something unique to Triton is happening.

    I am not going to bother to go throughout the universe here for you.

    “Again, this is suggestive *EVIDENCE* for a natural cyclical explanation for GW”

    It is ZERO evidence for a common causal factor.

  51. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 1:15 am - February 11, 2010

    “Tano, how dumb do you think we are? Did you READ Dan’s original post AT ALL? Let me quote it for you:

    D.C. Snowstorm: How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse.”

    As I said, ILC, and as I guess I have to repeat,,,and I will type slowly for your benefit – Global warming theory postulates conditions that make storms like the recent one more likely, and stronger – by increasing the amount of moisture in the air, and also increasing the heat that drives storm intensity. That is why, if these storms are held up as some kind of evidence to confirm or refute alternative theories, then they do NOT refute global warming theory at all – they are, in fact, completely consistent with the type of events that the models say are more likely to happen. This does NOT mean that the particular storm itself is predicted by any model.

    This issue did NOT arise because AGW proponents pointed to the storm as evidence of anything. This issue arose because DeMint and Limbaugh, and the usual suspects, including Bruce and Dan here, tried to make the utterly false claim that the storms were evidence against GW theory.

    “Eve Ensler tells Joy Behar that tsunamis and earthquakes help prove global warming.”

    Eve Ensler is, apparently, as much of a moron as any GW denier – perhaps even more so. So what? What is she? Some playwright or something? Who cares what she thinks about issues like this? Yes, ILC, there are scientific illiterates in all walks of life, and on all sides of the political spectrum.

  52. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 1:29 am - February 11, 2010

    ILC, the Lubos link is a much better use of that info.

    Now, Tano, at the heart of the matter, the question is not whether the Earth is warming or not, it’s how much is it warming and how much is due to extra CO2 and how much is due to natural variation. The first half of the century warmed at the same pace as the latter half, with a slight cool down from about 1950 to the end of the 70’s. The warming in the later half, from 1980 to the present, has as we know been attributed to extra CO2 due to fossil fuel burning. Models are supposed to “prove” that it’s the extra CO2 that is causing the current warming. That’s fine, except there is no definitive cause for the warming for the first part of the century. It’s attributed to natural variation. Yet, the current warming MUST be due to CO2 because the models say so. You can’t rule out natural variation if you don’t even know what the limits of natural variation are.

    Uh Oh, must go. The Sonic-Mate is yelling at me to get off the computer now.

    I’ll continue tomorrow.

  53. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2010 at 2:08 am - February 11, 2010

    “The greenhouse signature is missing”:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

    Another general reminder: It is not up to rational people to prove some alternative to AGW. Rather, it is up to AGW believers to prove AGW. The greenhouse signature is just about the one real prediction that can be tortured out of the non-existent AGW ‘model’. No signature == AGW FAIL.

  54. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2010 at 2:12 am - February 11, 2010

    P.S. Since one must always spell stuff out for Tano… The import of what I just said is that it is not enough to respond with “Well the they haven’t proven the greenhouse signature isn’t there because of X, Y, and Z. It could still theoretically be someday found.” No, no, no. AGW believers have the task of proving – Proving – that the greenhouse signature *IS* there FOR SURE.

  55. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 2:25 am - February 11, 2010

    Sonic,

    “the question is not whether the Earth is warming or not, it’s how much is it warming and how much is due to extra CO2 and how much is due to natural variation.”

    That may be your question, but it is not everyone’s question. There are plenty of skeptics and deniers who question whether the Earth is warming at all.

    In fact, that is the theme of this thread, and the little kefluffle about these storms. People who accept warming, but just dispute the cause, would have no reason to argue that the snowstorms have any relevance to global warming issues. The storms cannot be evidence for or against human agency in climate change. The issue is raised only because some people want to argue that SNOW, lots of SNOW means that the Earth cannot be warming.

    That is the only meaning behind the comments from the pols and the entertainers, as well as Bruce and Dan’s posts.

  56. John in Dublin CA says

    February 11, 2010 at 2:44 am - February 11, 2010

    Tano, I don’t like calling anyone names, but you have proven yourself to be an absolute idiot tonight. I grew up in the Northeast, we had years when it was very cold and snowy, I remember one year in New Jersey where we never went above freezing for 38 day in a row, and years that were so warm that it never snowed. It’s called weather. I’m 58 years old, so I have some history on my side. You, sir, are an abject idiot. If its warm and mild in the winter, it’s global warming, if its cold and snowy, its global warming. If the earth moves and waves rage, its global warming. Once again sir, you are an abject idiot.

  57. Scott Lassiter says

    February 11, 2010 at 6:06 am - February 11, 2010

    I wake up and what do I see? You are all still arguing with Tano. He’s caught in a loop. Like a computer with a bad drive. I appreciate that you are all attempting some cognitive therapy for him. His case is extreme however, and these types of illnesses can often wear down the even the best of therapists. Just be aware so you do not compromise your own mental health. It’s nice to know there are still many good people out there wanting to help others.

  58. PatriotMom says

    February 11, 2010 at 8:20 am - February 11, 2010

    I am amazed that anyone tries to make reasonable comments back to Tano. She makes no sense and isn’t worth any answer whatsoever.

  59. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 8:25 am - February 11, 2010

    Global warming theory postulates conditions that make storms like the recent one more likely, and stronger – by increasing the amount of moisture in the air, and also increasing the heat that drives storm intensity.

    Don’t you need cool air for the condensation? Otherwise, you just have steam.

  60. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 8:31 am - February 11, 2010

    He’s caught in a loop. Like a computer with a bad drive.

    10 PRINT “GLOBAL WARMISM IS REAL!!!”
    20 GOTO 10
    RUN

    I’ve never seen somebody use so much bloviation to say “Nuh-uh!!”. It’s like a word problem on an exam. A whole lot of useless information designed to confuse and obfuscate.

  61. Pat says

    February 11, 2010 at 8:33 am - February 11, 2010

    I think Tano’s point is being missed here. First of all, I am a skeptic of global warming, i.e., whether this is just part of a natural warming cycle or something more. Tano seems fairly convinced that AGW is happening, and I disagree with that. But I do agree with the other point he is making.

    Unless the earth increases by 10 or 20 degrees or so, there is still going to be snow in the usual places during the winter. We haven’t reached that yet, and hopefully we won’t. However, with warming temperatures, there is going to be more precipitation. We still get weather that’s going to be below freezing. And when that happens, the precipitation is usually going to be snow. So there is nothing contradictory in the report about global warming makes blizzards worse.

    It seems like most skeptics of AGW believe that if AGW is happening, it will happen in some linear fashion with increase in temperatures and decrease in snowfall amounts.

    On the other hand, this snowstorm does not prove that AGW is happening, and it does not prove that AGW is not happening, no matter how you believe AGW would affect blizzards. But it’s no surprise that legislators are using this snowstorm to cloud their beliefs of AGW one way or the other. Typical. And idiots who claim that recent tsumanis are proof of AGW is not proof of AGW happening or not happening.

  62. Levi says

    February 11, 2010 at 9:20 am - February 11, 2010

    Lots of stupid in this thread. You idiots know that Vancouver has barely been getting snow this year, right? So if I were to follow your retard logic of MORE SNOW EQUALS NO GLOBAL WARMING, then doesn’t that mean LESS SNOW EQUALS MORE GLOBAL WARMING?

  63. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2010 at 9:41 am - February 11, 2010

    But Levi, you’ve already said that Weather != climate, so you’re now using the same arguements you debunked.

    What’s the matter, not finding enough brownshirts to fill your fascist desires to drag us in your direction weather we like it or not? (pun intended)

    What you have. going from “Doomed in 10 years” to “Eventually that is likely to happen — but probably not for a while.” Professors being investigated for fudging data. The IPCC downplaying their admission of mistakes. RFK claiming that cold winters are a thing of the past then calling anyone who points out he said this an ‘idiot’.

    Hey I even found a brownshirt for you here. I wish you’d buy a clue, you’d wish me dead like this guy does.

  64. heliotrope says

    February 11, 2010 at 10:04 am - February 11, 2010

    Tano (#41) gets all “intellectual” and I have highlighted his wiggle room:

    There are many specific predictions that arise from the models, that take into account how the extra heat is distributed around the world. One way of understanding climate is, of course, as a heat distribution system, since so much of the dynamism of our weather patterns are driven by the unequal warming of the globe, and how an equilibrium is achieved on a rotating globe.

    The models predict more warmth in some places, a cooling in others, and a host of specific precipitation predictions for various places, based on how those places will be affected by currents, jet streams and the like. This is most certainly not an example of having any event be consistent with the model.

    So, for whatever reason, Tano worships computer models. Let’s play along.

    1) There is no garbage in/garbage out problem.

    2) The earth is blanketed with meteorology stations that accurately measure all the precipitation events, wind, air pressure, humidity, cloud conditions, water temps, air temps, etc. These stations cover the surface of the land, mountains, oceans and ice caps of the earth. They are seamless and they get it all.

    3) Huge, unimaginatively huge, computer farms collect this constant inflow of ginormous data and run it through the “model.”

    4) The “predictions” of the model are measured against the reality of the data accumulated and are found to be within plus/minus “X” percent of accurate.

    OK, this isn’t what Tano is claiming.

    1) Tano has no idea of what is in the computer model, how it was constructed, or whether it is a set a probabilities based on best guess science that results from sketchy, but best available data.

    2) Tano ignores the Siberian tree rings science manipulation. Tano ignores the little goof up over the Tibetan glaciers. Tano isn’t particularly interested that the US is subject to extensive cap and trade punishment that India and China draw a pass on. Tano ignores that consensus science is not settled science. Tano ignores that peer review means openly available data.

    3) Tano shows up here to keep repeating the political talking points, because global warming, like Enron, is too good a plumb tree not to be harvested.

  65. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 10:19 am - February 11, 2010

    You idiots know that Vancouver has barely been getting snow this year, right?

    Lot’s of dumbassery in ASSuming that it’s global warmism.

  66. heliotrope says

    February 11, 2010 at 10:20 am - February 11, 2010

    PatriotMom (#58)

    Tano is professionally involved with belching the party line on this site. He is on a mission.

    I do not think we should feed a troll either. But when Tano reports back to the bunker, he is challenged with coming up with spin to overcome the lameness of his arguments. Often, he just disappears rather than even try to make an effort.

    But, like the Bozo punch toy that just bobs back up for another bop, Tano will be right back. Followed by Levi the Acolyte.

    Tano is actually short for Tanto. The masked man has sent his trusty scout out to track the GayPatriots and keep the pot stirred up.

    Actually, he provides a great service. He helps us develop and hone our responses to the idiocy of the left. We all drive better when we learn to keep our eyes open for people talking on their cell phones and not really trusting turn signals until we see the person making the turn. Tano delivers their boilerplate, their feints and their trial balloons. He is useful.

  67. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 10:31 am - February 11, 2010

    Levi, you just stepped in it.

    Newsflash – No snow in Vancouver IS NORMAL!!!!! Part of my family live in the Seattle area, which is in the same Marine West Coast Climate Zone. They don’t get much snow due to warmer air from the Pacific Ocean. Here is an article from The Vancouver Sun written in 2003:

    Winter Olympics all wet?: Vancouver has the mildest climate of any Winter Games host city
    Wed Jul 9 2003

    By Chad Skelton, Vancouver Sun

    When Vancouver plays host to the Olympic Games six-and-a-half years from now, it will mark a peculiar milestone — as the least wintery city ever to host the Winter Games.

    Statistics compiled by The Vancouver Sun indicate that no city with a climate as mild as Vancouver’s has ever hosted the Winter Games.

    Past Olympics have been held in picturesque, snowy towns full of residents bundled up in ski gear.

    But world sports fans who turn on their TVs in 2010 will probably see the kind of winter Vancouverites know all too well: a cloudy, rainy city full of people carrying umbrellas.

    In the month of February, when the Games will be held, Vancouver has an average temperature of 4.8 degrees Celsius. (Temperatures are obviously much lower on the mountains of Cypress and Whistler, where outdoor events will be held.)

    In comparison, the average February temperature for past Winter Games cities is a chilly minus 2.3 — ranging from a mild 3.1 in Grenoble, France (host of the Games in 1968) to a frigid minus 9.4 in Lake Placid, New York (1932 and 1980).

    “The typical view of a Winter Games is snow,” said Alex Carre, a professor of human kinetics at the University of B.C. and a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee. “It will be highly unusual [for athletes and spectators] to come to an environment where that isn’t the case… People will come here and say, ‘Gosh, where is the snow?'”

    Most Winter Games cities are buried in snow every winter.

    Calgary (1988) has an average annual snowfall of 135 centimetres. Salt Lake City (1992) clocks in at 163. And Nagano, Japan, (1998) gets an average dump of 175. Sapporo, Japan, (1972) gets 295 centimetres of snow per year and Lake Placid gets a whopping 420.

    But Vancouver has an average snowfall of just 48 centimetres and — as most Vancouverites know — it is rare for even that small amount to stay on the ground for more than a couple of days.

    Vancouver’s lack of snow will have no practical impact on the Games.

    All the ski and snowboard events will be held at Whistler and Cypress Bowl (although international ski events at Whistler have been cancelled in the past due to mild weather). Those sports taking place in Vancouver itself are all indoor events, like ice skating and curling.

    But Vancouver will be centre stage during the opening and closing ceremonies, and broadcasters are likely to use images of the city’s skyline as a backdrop between events.

    And that skyline will probably not look very wintery.

    The city’s peculiar weather could also come as a surprise to many of the athletes, media and spectators arriving here — most of whom likely won’t be warned about what kind of weather to expect.

    “I’ve seen a couple of the promo films that [the Vancouver bid committee] have, and I didn’t see any rain in Vancouver,” said Carre. “I saw beautiful sunshine and snow on the hills. That is what [people] will expect. They won’t be coming with rain jackets, because they won’t have been informed to that extent.”

    Vancouver is not the first Olympic city to face weather challenges.

    During the 1988 Games, Calgary — which has an average February temperature of minus 7.9 degrees — experienced a snap warming phenomenon known as a chinook that, at one point, pushed temperatures up to 18 degrees.

    The difference is that the warm weather in Calgary was an anomaly. Rainy, miserable weather in Vancouver is the norm.

    “We’re unique in that we know that it’s likely going to rain in Vancouver,” said Carre. “The chances are more likely it’s going to rain than not. So what has to happen is the city has to be prepared to present itself in that kind of environment.”

    Indeed, the biggest challenge the rainy weather could pose for Vancouver is how to promote the city as a tourist destination during what is one of the most miserable months of the year.

    While there are likely to be at least a couple of nice, sunny days during the two-week event, there could also be plenty of days of driving rain and cloudy skies.

    “It’s probably not the best time of year to showcase Vancouver in terms of the weather,” Carre said. “But you can certainly showcase the city in terms of the ocean, the mountains and the easy proximity to the snow.”

    Walt Judas, a spokesman with Tourism Vancouver, said that while rainy weather is a constant complaint of Vancouver residents, most winter tourists don’t complain.

    “Many folks from the U.S. expect us to be cold and blustery and snowed in. And they’re pleasantly surprised by the mild weather,” Judas said. “And this February, as an example, was a fabulous month. It was pretty beautiful.”

    Judas adds that Vancouver has never been a weather-specific destination.

    “If you want beautiful weather you go to Hawaii. If you want snow you got to Whistler.”

    And Vancouver’s mild climate might even be a nice break for Olympic spectators.

    “I think that is probably one of the attractive features of the Vancouver-Whistler bid,” Carre said. “That if you want to go for the snow you can drive [to Whistler] and be there in a short time period. And if you wish not to, you can stay in Vancouver with a mild temperature … I think there’s something to be said for having something different. We are unique.”

    If you’re going to counter the “more snow proves no global warming” by using a “less snow equals global warming” example, you might want to pick a better example.

  68. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 10:33 am - February 11, 2010

    And yess Levi, I do agree. There IS lots of stupid in this thread.

  69. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2010 at 10:47 am - February 11, 2010

    Unless the earth increases by 10 or 20 degrees or so, there is still going to be snow in the usual places during the winter. We haven’t reached that yet, and hopefully we won’t. However, with warming temperatures, there is going to be more precipitation. We still get weather that’s going to be below freezing. And when that happens, the precipitation is usually going to be snow. So there is nothing contradictory in the report about global warming makes blizzards worse.

    Pat, so in other words, and once again: If the snow isn’t heavy, it’s evidence of global warming; and if the snow is heavy, it’s evidence of global warming. Anything that happens, is evidence of global warming (and in Tano’s case, of anthropogenic global warming).

    Sorry, man. I call bullsh*t. When I was a kid, we called severe winters something else: “the weather”. (and severe/hot summer, mild days, etc.)

    What is the evidence, if any, that precipitation in general (or precipitation on average) has gone up? And if such evidence exists, what does it have to do with proving AGW given that it can be explained better and more easily by the natural global warming that we’ve been seeing for at least 200 years now?

  70. B. Daniel Blatt says

    February 11, 2010 at 10:54 am - February 11, 2010

    fascinating how a post I hacked out in about a minute’s time on a whim can spark so much discussion, a lot of it serious!

  71. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2010 at 11:08 am - February 11, 2010

    And who knew TGC could program? 🙂

  72. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2010 at 11:19 am - February 11, 2010

    Pat, if you or someone wanted to make the statement “Heavy blizzards are not inconsistent with early phases of global warming and can’t be used as evidence against it”, fine. I’ll give you that.

    But I for one have been dealing here with something different: dealing with quotes like “with a warming world, storms like this are more likely to occur” (i.e. the storm is somehow positive evidence for AGW) and what Dan quoted, “How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse” (ditto).

  73. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2010 at 11:24 am - February 11, 2010

    In other words: It may be wrong to try to cite heavy blizzards as evidence against global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise; but it is very definitely wrong to try to cite heavy blizzards as evidence in favor of AGW, as some have done in the media and even in this thread. I mean, sheesh!

  74. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 11:45 am - February 11, 2010

    And who knew TGC could program?

    That’s what we learned on the Apple IIe back in high school.

  75. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 11:48 am - February 11, 2010

    You idiots know that Vancouver has barely been getting snow this year, right?

    You know the snow is being trucked in from just the other side of the mountain, right?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021003825.html?hpid=topnews

    dumbass.

  76. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2010 at 11:59 am - February 11, 2010

    sonic, ILC,

    Guess Levi needs people like us to drag him kicking and screaming to facts.

  77. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm - February 11, 2010

    Dan, those are always the ones that sneak up on you. The one where I got into the blarguement with Patterico was also a one-off.

  78. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm - February 11, 2010

    ILC writes,

    “Pat, if you or someone wanted to make the statement “Heavy blizzards are not inconsistent with early phases of global warming and can’t be used as evidence against it”, fine. I’ll give you that.”

    Which is exactly what has been argued in this thread.

    I remind you, this all began with conservatives in the Senate, in the media, and also Bruce and Dan, trying to argue that these storms are inconsistent with global warming. That they are somehow a refutation. That is false. Heavy blizzards are not inconsistent with global warming, and cannot be used as evidence against it. That is precisely what I have been arguing here.

    “But I for one have been dealing here with something different: dealing with quotes like “with a warming world, storms like this are more likely to occur” (i.e. the storm is somehow positive evidence for AGW)”

    That is not different. The reason that heavy blizzards are not evidence against global warming is that heavy blizzards are more intense and have more precipitation compared to normal snowstorms. Intensity of storms scales with heat, and warmer air carries more moisture. So these heavy blizzards are more likely, not less likely, in a warming world. That is why heavy blizzards are not inconsistent with global warming and cannot be used as evidence against it.

    You seem willing to accept the conclusion but try to ignore the reason that the conclusion is valid.

  79. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2010 at 12:42 pm - February 11, 2010

    More Tano shredding here

    “And so the argument was trotted out again that mid-Atlantic storms can hold more moisture in a warmer world, and therefore can produce more snow. Anyone who would claim this surely does not understand the climatology of snow in Washington, D.C. “

  80. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 12:46 pm - February 11, 2010

    Live, you beat me to the punch.

  81. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm - February 11, 2010

    TGC and John in Dublin,

    I’ll try to answer both of you at once, since you both seem to be missing the same rather obvious point. John seems to be having some trouble with the concept of slightly warmer winters being snowier than really cold ones. And TGC seems to be forgetting really basic weather knowledge. I will directly answer TGC, and since the principle is the same, hope that John can see the light as well.

    TGC wirtes:
    “Don’t you need cool air for the condensation? Otherwise, you just have steam.”

    Yes TGC. This is how precipitation happens. Relatively warm air near the ground absorbs moisture from water that evaporates. Being warm, the air can hold that moisture. Being warm, the air tends to rise. As it rises it cools, and you start to get condensation. We can see that happen, we call it clouds. As the air cools sufficiently, it can no longer hold that moisture (as I said a few times already, warm air hold more moisture than cold) and so the water falls out, as rain, or snow – depending on the temperature.

    This is not complicated. If it is 50 degrees, then X amount of water evaporates into the air, and will eventually fall back to earth as precipitation. If it is 51 degrees, then X plus a little more water will evaporate. And the air will be able to hold that extra water. You end up with more precipitation.

    I think this should address your confusion as well John.

  82. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 1:01 pm - February 11, 2010

    Tano, what ever happened to “weather does not equal climate”???? Except when it does of course.

    This is one of the major stumbling blocks of this arm of science. Seems no matter what happens, whether it’s col or hot, whether it’s drought or downpour, it can’t be disproved. Lat year, when some climatologists were noting that, yes, warming has stalled in the last ten years, there was of course a reason….. natural variation was MASKING the global warming. Yes, the global warming IS STILL occurring, but we can’t feel it or even measure it.

    Why….

    Because it’s mysterious and hidden right now. It’s Masked!!!!!! How convenient.

  83. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm - February 11, 2010

    “And so the argument was trotted out again that mid-Atlantic storms can hold more moisture in a warmer world, and therefore can produce more snow. Anyone who would claim this surely does not understand the climatology of snow in Washington, D.C. “

    Wow. What a phony and dishonest argument this is.

    First off, the author misrepresents how the DC storms are being used. It is the rightwing politicians, media and bloggers who have tried to use these storms to speak to the global warming issue, not the global warming advocates. If he wants to make the valid point that these storms, as local events, do not speak to the global climate issue, then why doesn’t he attack the only people who are making that claim?

    No, he misrepresents what the “liberal media” is saying in response to the false claims of the right. These media outlets are NOT saying that the storms are evidence in favor of AGW – they are merely pointing out, correctly, that they are not inconsistent with AGW.

    Furthermore, his discussion of the “climatology of snow in DC” is utterly besides the point. He does not in any way offer any argument against the fact that storms can hold more moisture in a warmer world. He can’t – that is basic chemistry.

    He does not in any way offer any argument against the fact that this means storms can produce more snow in a warmer world. He can’t – that is basic meterology.

    But he does pretend that somehow he is refuting these points, by discussing the local conditions in DC. His argument is that usually storms in DC bring rain, not snow. How is this in any way an argument against the two facts that he claims to undermine? Does he demonstrate that usually there is a certain amount of rain, and compare that to the amount of precipitation in the snowstorm? No. He doesnt discuss the amounts of precipitation at all. And yet he thinks he is refuting the fact that the storms hold more moisture?

    His argument is that you need cold air to make snow. This is true. There was cold air – that is why it snowed. This is not unusual for DC. It does snow in DC – at least a few times every year. What made this storm unique was not the fact that it was below 32 degrees, it was the AMOUNT of moisture held in the air and released as snow.

    But you guys should realize that, in the end, Mr. Michaels is more on my side than yours – which is why this really is a bizarre political piece. He lashes out at perceived political enemies, but he isn’t really buying your nonsense. He writes:

    “Scientists have known for a long time that the modest greenhouse effect we have experienced will have a disproportionate effect on these cold-air masses. So, thanks to climate change, the cold air that’s needed for Washington snow is increasingly hard to come by.”

    So you see – he accepts that there is global warming. He accepts that it is caused by the greenhouse effect. He calls it modes, so far, which it is – as I pointed out several times in this thread – 0.7 degrees so far.

    In the end, his argument seems to be that DC could probably end up with more rain events and less snow events in a warming world, since DC sits in that zone between the really chilly north and the warmer south which rarely gets snow anyway. But the issue under discussion was the amount of precipitation – and here his argument falls apart.

    Yes, perhaps DC will get warmer in a warmer world and thus have more rain storms than snow storms. But the storms WILL be more intense and they WILL have more precipitation – which is what we have been arguing in this thread. And when they happen in winter and there is cold air around that means bigger snows.

  84. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm - February 11, 2010

    Sonic,

    I don’t really see stagnation, do you? – LINK

  85. North Dallas Thirty says

    February 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm - February 11, 2010

    These media outlets are NOT saying that the storms are evidence in favor of AGW – they are merely pointing out, correctly, that they are not inconsistent with AGW.

    Wow. What a phony and dishonest argument this is.

    First off, Tano misrepresents how the DC storms are being used. It is the leftwing politicians and media, such as Time, that are trying to claim that these storms are evidence of AGW.

    This is demonstrated by the fact that they insist that the only theory, the only thing that could explain the intensity of these storms, is AGW. No other theory, model, or practice is mentioned; only AGW. No other historical record, no explanation of how the other records were set in times when AGW supposedly didn’t exist. Indeed, the leftist media tries to argue that it is improbable that there could be two such heavy snowstorms, that there is no possible argument other than AGW.

    This is nothing more than the typical leftist rant about how “the science is settled”. If Tano and the Obama Party that it represents knew anything about science, they would realize that saying science is “settled” is in fact a wholly-unscientific statement. But their refusal to allow any analysis of their data, their attacks on people who dared question their conclusions, and their outright manipulation of information to reach their predetermined conclusions demonstrate, once and for all, that the truly phony and dishonest argument is the one they are making.

  86. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm - February 11, 2010

    I always love this when someone says “the warming trend has stalled in the last ten years” and someone comes back to try and disprove you by presenting a chart of the last 120 years. Note, those are two different time frames. And note, on chart (a) if you extend the 5 year trend line to the beginning of this year… the warming has flatlined. Here is a thirteen month average”.. Note, from 2001 to the present – no global warming

    You need not take my word. Here is a climatologist saying the same thing:

    “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

    “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

    PS. also note that in chart (a) the warming from 1900 to 1940 is not caused by man-made global warming, but from natural causes. Yet the slope of the warming, the quickness at which the world warmed, is just as quick as it has been from 1980 to 2001. So how do you actually PROVE that this warming wasn’t, at least in part, due to natural variation. And remember, the processes that caused the earlier warming has not been explained to any degree of certainty, the same certainty that you have for AGW.

  87. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm - February 11, 2010

    And I’ll point out, which Tano can’t, the article I linked is written by a climatologist. i.e. A scientist.

    So Tano admits he only agrees with the scientists that support him, no matter how much they have to lie and distort data to do so.

  88. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 11, 2010 at 3:04 pm - February 11, 2010

    Once again I quote none other than Tano:

    with a warming world, storms like this are more likely to occur

    In other words: If “storms like this” do seem to occur a bit more often, it’s evidence in favor of Tano’s version of global warming. Come on, Tano. That ridiculous claim is exactly what *your earlier words* in this thread meant. Fess up.

  89. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 3:44 pm - February 11, 2010

    “storms like this are more likely to occur”

    OK. Can you show that “storms like this” have been occurring more frequently in the last thirty years than in the previous 150… can you???

  90. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 4:04 pm - February 11, 2010

    “So how do you actually PROVE that this warming wasn’t, at least in part, due to natural variation. ”

    The argument for AGW has never been that there are no other factors that can contribute to warming. That is why there are so many factors in the climate models. Here is an article that is a pretty good summary of the forcings for the 20th century – PDF

  91. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 4:28 pm - February 11, 2010

    “storms like this are more likely to occur”

    ‘Can you show that “storms like this” have been occurring more frequently in the last thirty years than in the previous 150″

    No, I do not have data on that question. There is evidence for more precipitation – Here is a chart indicating about a 10% increase in precipitation in the mid-Atlantic states over the past century. LINK

    But once again, lets focus on the actual argument here.

    1 – Conservatives have argued that the DC storms disprove global warming.

    2- Global warming theory makes predictions based on basic meteorology, that with increased heat, there will be more evaporation and thus more precipitation, and increased intensity of storms.

    3. Thus the theory predicts – storms like this are more likely to occur in the future, not less likely – undermining the very premise of the conservative argument.

    Can you follow this simple logic? If I predict that things like “A” will happen in the future, and something like “A” does happen – then yes – I agree with you, I have not thereby *proven* I was correct. But that was never the issue here. What is certain is that when a rightwinger comes along and says “A” happened, therefore I am WRONG – well that is nonsensical. And that is the point I have been arguing througout this thread.

  92. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 5:28 pm - February 11, 2010

    From EPA page via your link:

    Precipitation has generally increased over land north of 30°N from 1900-2005, but has mostly declined over the tropics since the 1970s. Globally there has been no statistically significant overall trend in precipitation over the past century, although trends have varied widely by region and over time.

    That would be a global redistribution of precipitation, not an increase, which should be the case in a warmer world. So, if you say this:

    This is not complicated. If it is 50 degrees, then X amount of water evaporates into the air, and will eventually fall back to earth as precipitation. If it is 51 degrees, then X plus a little more water will evaporate. And the air will be able to hold that extra water. You end up with more precipitation.”

    Then how is it we don’t have a wetter world? I know that is simplistic, but it does make you think.

    You could argue that these variations in the climate also prove that we’re affecting the planet. Yet that would be ignoring the many times area climates have been shown to have changed in a very short period in the past. The Fertile Crescent is one example. In around 4 BC. started experiencing more drought conditions and consistently received less rainfall, and eventually became the semi arid desert it is today. I’ll have to find the source, but it has been proposed that this change happened within the span of a century. There are many more examples of this phenomenon happening before the advent of the internal combustion engine. But I have to go pick up the mate now. So I’ll have to continue later and touch on the PDF.

    Have a good lunch.

  93. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm - February 11, 2010

    2- Global warming theory makes predictions based on basic meteorology, that with increased heat, there will be more evaporation and thus more precipitation, and increased intensity of storms.

    3. Thus the theory predicts – storms like this are more likely to occur in the future, not less likely – undermining the very premise of the conservative argument.

    Can you follow this simple logic?

    What about the piece in Science magazine that water vapor has been decreasing over the last 10 years?

    http://tinyurl.com/yakpxbe

    Maybe you’re thinking of the moisture between your legs?

  94. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 11, 2010 at 5:33 pm - February 11, 2010

    I’m no educated climate scientists who fudges the data, but I’ve always wondered how comparisons can be made between temperatures now and temps 100 or 1000 years ago. When today we can measure with digital accuracy. Even some of my digital thermometers need “calibration”. How can we know why temps are .7 degrees warmer.
    Scientists looked and measured tree rings, but threw out the rings that didn’t fit their theory. I see this stuff as black and white .

  95. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 11, 2010 at 5:34 pm - February 11, 2010

    And to the lefties…I repeat from #42…….

    Why don’t liberals just do what it takes to cool the earth themselves?
    Don’t drive, don’t use A/C, don’t fly, do your laundry by hand, don’t use TP. Get on with it. If 40% of the world are socialists or liberals you all should do wonders in controlling climate change or global warming. You and the nutts ALGORE, Olbermann, Schultz….just go ahead, start. No need to wait for us conservatives, just start. Geez.

  96. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    February 11, 2010 at 5:34 pm - February 11, 2010

    and I wanted GP to get the clicker over 100….

  97. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 5:43 pm - February 11, 2010

    Tano sez:

    No one is claiming that the world has warmed to such an extent that it will no longer snow in the mid-Atlantic states. So these extra large snow falls are perfectly consistent with a warming world.

    Except that folks ARE claiming that there IS no longer snow in the mid-Atlantic states:

    In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sept. 2008

  98. ThatGayConservative says

    February 11, 2010 at 5:44 pm - February 11, 2010

    No doubt Tano is feverishly pouring over his copy of the Gorean so he can find more lying points to thrash about with.

  99. Pat says

    February 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm - February 11, 2010

    Pat, so in other words, and once again: If the snow isn’t heavy, it’s evidence of global warming; and if the snow is heavy, it’s evidence of global warming. Anything that happens, is evidence of global warming (and in Tano’s case, of anthropogenic global warming).

    Sorry, man. I call bullsh*t. When I was a kid, we called severe winters something else: “the weather”. (and severe/hot summer, mild days, etc.)

    ILC, I am making no such claim, especially since I am not an expert in climatology. However, it does make sense to me that, if global warming continues at the pace most of the scientists say, that, at least temporarily, there will be an increase in blizzards. If our temperatures increase by say, 20 degrees where I live, then we won’t be getting much more snow, if any.

    For example, my understanding is that Antarctica only averages about 6 inches per year. If the temperature increased by 20 degrees or so there, I’m betting there will be an increase in more snow.

    My belief also is that, if in fact, we are in the midst of global warming (beyond the usual warming and cooling cycles), that different things are going to happen to different areas. There’s not going to be a one-size fits all model. Some places will probably get more snow, and some places will get less snow. If we are in a cooling trend, as some are predicting, I think the same will also be true.

  100. Tano says

    February 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm - February 11, 2010

    Sonic and TGC,

    Seems that TGC has provided a helpful link in comment #93 that may address Sonic’s point. Unfortunatly the link is only to an abstract, not the actual paper, but it seems to indicate an increase in stratospheric vapor for 20 years, followed by a slight decline over the last 10. In other words, possibly tracking exactly the temperature record – as shown in the graphs I linked to in comment #84. We would really need to see the full paper though.

    Anyway Sonic, about those graphs in #84. Yes it is important to actually see how the last few years fit into the larger context. Its kinda silly to look only at the last decade without context. The longer view clearly shows that the “decline” of the last decade may well be nothing more than a normal cycle around an ever increasing baseline. In fact, the report from 2009 seems to indicate an end to that local downturn. We shall see what 2010 brings…

  101. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 7:03 pm - February 11, 2010

    But Tano, the point was Explicitly that the warming has stalled over the last ten years. so bringing in to the debate something beyond that scope, that has nothingto do with the fact that the warming has stalled, is pointless. It’s like saying “my car has been parked for ten minutes, therefore, it is motionless”. Then you come back and say “NO. you were driving around for the last hour, so, if you include that, then your car still has linear momentum”. (OK, angular, if you include the curvature of the Earth :-))

    And can you address the point I made about the worldwide precip not increasing as it should under the warmer = wetter theory.

  102. heliotrope says

    February 11, 2010 at 7:05 pm - February 11, 2010

    I never liked raising geese on the farm, because their rear ends dribbled ceaselessly like Tano’s global warming blather. However, you can cook a goose.

  103. Sonicfrog says

    February 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm - February 11, 2010

    BTW….
    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

    “Children [of England] just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

    The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.

    Another Global Warming problem cured

  104. The_Livewire says

    February 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm - February 11, 2010

    So in the additional moisture, once again the only thing that’s all wet are Tano and Levi.

  105. American Elephant says

    February 12, 2010 at 2:13 am - February 12, 2010

    And can you address the point I made about the worldwide precip not increasing as it should under the warmer = wetter theory.

    Oh yes please. I’d like to see that train wreck!

  106. ThatGayConservative says

    February 12, 2010 at 7:37 am - February 12, 2010

    So, in summation:

    Blizzards = Global warmism
    Lack of snow = Global warmism

    Heat waves, freezing temperatures, hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes, bad breath etc. or the lack of any of these can be attributed to global warmism.

    That’s not science, that’s a big fat CYA by those pushing to shake people down for more protection money.

  107. Pat says

    February 12, 2010 at 8:58 am - February 12, 2010

    106.So, in summation:

    Blizzards = Global warmism
    Lack of snow = Global warmism

    Heat waves, freezing temperatures, hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes, bad breath etc. or the lack of any of these can be attributed to global warmism.

    Well, I have seen many silly, simplistic claims on both sides of the issue for their own side, and what they attribute the argument is on the other side.

  108. The_Livewire says

    February 12, 2010 at 10:10 am - February 12, 2010

    President Obama helps dig out Washington.

  109. Tano says

    February 12, 2010 at 10:50 pm - February 12, 2010

    “And can you address the point I made about the worldwide precip not increasing as it should under the warmer = wetter theory.”

    Well, there is USGS review of literature that has found that precipitation has increased, and that there is an intensification of the water cycle as predicted under a warming world scenario. They did not find an increase in flooding or tropical storms though. At least not yet. LINK

  110. Sonicfrog says

    February 13, 2010 at 12:29 am - February 13, 2010

    Have you read the paper? I haven’t either,….

    Man, I HATE information and pay walls when it comes to scientific publications.

    …. but it already contains all sorts of caveats, just like the first one you linked to. The phrasing is always similar:

    “We have a problem quantifying this data, and that data is unclear, but our results are somewhat consistent with what we expect from global warming.”

    Not having read the paper, twenty to one says that one huge issue is determining the strength of previous storms, due of course to the less accurate technologies used to measure storm intensity in the earlier part of the century. This paper would also be subject to one of the weaknesses of meta-studies, that is the paper relies on the quality of the other papers surveyed within it.

    Here is a critique of the paper, that notes:

    Over the totality of earth’s land area, there appears to have been a slight intensification of the hydrologic cycle throughout the 20th century, which may or may not have been caused by the concomitant warming of the globe; but it also appears there was no intensification of deleterious weather phenomena such as tropical storms, floods and droughts. In addition, the study of Smith et al. (2006) demonstrates that over the period 1979 to 2004, when climate alarmists claim the planet experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past two millennia, there was no net change in global precipitation (over both land and water). Consequently, several of the most basic “theoretical expectations” of the climate modeling enterprise appear to have no real-world support in 20th-century hydrologic data.

    I know you won’t put much trust in the source of that critique, but that’s OK. The main point is, there is no increase in the amount of global precipitation, something that should be happening in the wake of a warmer world.

    I have to go now. Will chat sometime tomorrow.

    PS. I was offended by Bruce’s post denigrating you. I thought that was a low blow, and uncalled for. But it’s his blog, and he can post what he wishes. I didn’t see the post until a few days later, so I didn’t comment on my thoughts. I, for one, enjoy our chats. Check in tomorrow.

  111. Sonicfrog says

    February 13, 2010 at 9:14 am - February 13, 2010

    Just woke up.

    It’s 6 AM.

    The term I was fishing for in the last post was “confirmation bias”. It’s the same weakness that all paleo-temp constructions face.

    Since you can’t actually measure the intensity of a storm that happened 50 years ago with the same accuracy that you can now, thanks to Doppler Radar, there can be no certainty of this assertion, hence the caveats in these types of papers.

    It would be like doing a study of media reporting that shows that politicians are more partisan (or stupid) now than they were 50 years ago. Sure, you could write a paper that confirms it. But it would be impossible to confirm since the media reported on politics very differently than they do today. Much of the dirt that would create a scandal, even if widely known, would never have been reported. And because there were so fewer news outlets, there were less eyes looking at every minute detail of a politicians actions, therefore, the politicians of 50 years ago were less likely to pull a political stunt simply to get attention / approval from his or her constituents.

    I’m going to be pulling my engine today…. No that is not a euphemism for doing anything sexual…. I’m replacing my tired ol’ engine with a newer one. It will be fun,

    I’ll check in from time to time.

  112. Sonicfrog says

    February 13, 2010 at 9:16 am - February 13, 2010

    And yes. I recognize that the skeptical side of the AGW isle also can, and sometimes does suffer from confirmation bias.

  113. ThatGayConservative says

    February 13, 2010 at 12:52 pm - February 13, 2010

    No one is claiming that the world has warmed to such an extent that it will no longer snow in the mid-Atlantic states. So these extra large snow falls are perfectly consistent with a warming world.

    Except that they did:

    We need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we’ve had here in Washington. One snow, three inches? What can we expect for the spring and summer seasons? What’s going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I’ve lived a long time, 84 years. Something’s going wrong out there. I don’t need a scientist to tell me that. We had better do something about it. – Sen. Robert Byrd (D,KKK)

    And Barbara Boxer:

    He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear. Now, no wonder we have people visiting our offices who are just already hurting from the recreation industry in this nation. They see what’s happening. They see the handwriting on the wall. We have to act.

    And Klobuchar:

    I heard it from the head of our snowmobile association who testified at a forum that I had with our governor on climate change in January because they’ve seen decreasing snow levels. I hear about it from ice fishermen because they have seen that it takes longer for the ice to freeze and they can’t put their fish house out.

    Boxer again:

    Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snow pack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood.

    And Feinstein:

    The Sierra Nevada snow pack is the largest source of water. The snow pack equals about half the storage capacity of all of California’s man-made reservoirs. By the end of the century, the shrinking of the snow pack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people.

    Boxer again:

    The potential consequences will be devastating for our families in the future and for the world. Now we’re seeing the early warning signs. People can come down to this floor and say whatever they want. We’ve seen melting of snow, we have seen melting of permafrost, increased temperatures, warming of lakes, rivers, oceans, changes in the seasons.

    Inslee:

    The ski industry in the Cascade Mountains in Washington essentially was shut down this year. My son’s on ski patrol and he worked for three days this year, there was no snow. And having no snow is consistent with what the models will predict will become a significant problem for us in the future.

    So yes, liberals ARE saying (and have been) that global warmism would reduce and/or eliminate snow. Interested in reading your spin.

  114. ILoveCapitalism says

    February 14, 2010 at 2:15 am - February 14, 2010

    TGC, great comment there to end the thread with. Boy are lefties dumb. Seriously – we need carbon control right now to protect the jobs of American ski bums? How dumb are Boxer and Inslee?

    But my vote for “the dumbest” goes to Tano. In this one thread, we have seen Tano argue or (at least) imply multiple contradictory positions, including the position that no one would ever argue position X when, in fact, position X is an essential component of what Tano and its leaders have been arguing for years. Watching Tano in this thread has been like watching the Special Olympics of blog commenting. Simple example – in this thread alone, Tano has at different points said all of the following:

    with a warming world, [snow]storms like this are more likely to occur

    I am not using this specific storm as evidence for warming – nor is anyone

    No one is claiming that the world has warmed to such an extent that it will no longer snow in the mid-Atlantic states. So these extra large snow falls are perfectly consistent with a warming world.

    statements which have mutually contradictory implications, as well as being wrong on the facts. (Lefties *have* publicly tried to use this specific storm as evidence for AGW – including Tano by implication at statements 1 and 3. Leftie leaders *have* long suggested or implied that when mid-Atlantic states get less snowfall than average, it’s due to AGW – which in turn implies that “less snowfall” should, according to such leaders, be a prediction/confirmation of the so-called AGW ‘model’. Etc.)

Categories

Archives