The American MSM will ignore this just like they ignored Climategate. And they wonder why the're losing market share to Fox News.

Then again:

As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven't we bothered to invest in a snow blower and, also, what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer - and the past decade was the hottest on record - major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like Palm Pilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that's what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend attacking two Democratic Congressmen for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, and using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming. (See pictures of a massive blizzard hitting Washington, D.C.)

Brace yourselves now - this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter - in December and during the first weekend of February - are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.

But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming - hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)

It's a good read /news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400">link here

Steveie...di you happen to READ the sloopy piece of shit Time put out??

This is in the piece you pasted above:
There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.

Except, of course, the world has been COOLING for at least a decade...and the "science" showing it was warming before that has been shown to be total horseshit!

I suppose the world COOLING is evidence of the world WARMING...right?

The IPCC Party is over..

All You algore believin fools enjoying the warmlike blizzards out east?

Steve,

If You ever happen to get a case of frostbite dont worry.. It's really just a slight 2nd degree burn and You should run the affected areas under cold water until the blister's disappear..

Geeze!

Keep drinkin' that Kool Aid Stevie!

At least Steve and me are getting paid for this, and thanks to Stimulus 1, we're getting paid with your tax dollars, suckers.

You neocon cabin boys are filth. FILTH!

Peace.

Why do I get the feeling we'll be seeing more of John Edwards than we will of Al Gore in the coming weeks?

this is almost news...it's just more explicit. when the 'report' first came out a lot of the scientists 'involved' were distancing themselves from the way their research was used.

No one doubts that politics has co-opted the issues of climate change.

As for real science, there is no doubt that climate change does occur and is occurring right now. It has been occurring for billions of years.

To what degree have our activities influenced or changed the climate? The answer is not a simple one. There are very definite cases where man made activities have altered the climate on a local scale. Urban heat islands for example. The desertification of the Aral Sea is another.

Are greenhouse gasses accumulating in the atmosphere. Yes, there is no dispute of that.

What will the effect of this be? No one knows. Climate is chaotic and individual oscillation in local climate changes will occur. For instance, there is a very real possibility that if the Earth gets warmer as a whole, northern Europe will get colder.

Pointing to a single snow storm as proof that climate change is not happening is simply foolish and stupid.

"Pointing to a single snow storm as proof that climate change is not happening is simply foolish and stupid."

Did I miss something? Who said that climate change is not happening?

From the article: "There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common,even as the world continues to warm."

Wow.

There is "some" evidence!

Define "some".

"could" make "massive snowstorms" "more common".

"could". What does this mean in terms of the scientific method?

Define "massive snowstorm".

What is meant by "more common"? What is the baseline? Why was that baseline chosen? What evidence exists that that is the correct baseline?

No data provided.

No formulas provided.

No methodology defined.

In other words, it's a dream-article for Stevie and the gang.

Hey, I know!

Let's reorder the entire economy of the globe to satisfy the global political ambitions of steve's pals at the UN!!!

As a rule, snowfall patterns have high variability by decades and by regions. there have been some trends however that show changes in extreme weather patterns.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-Chapter2.pdf

in any case, like I said, those that point to specific weather events as proof that AGW exists or doesn't exist have no idea what they are talking about.

I love it. The AGW idiots always complain about so-called "deniers" confusing weather for climate.

It has been demonstrated that they have no real data. What little data they do have was cherry picked to demonstrate a pre-decided conclusion and much of that is seriously, if not fatally, flawed. Now they are making the same error and perversely pointing to the weather and saying that contrary weather supports their claims.

If it were not for the FACT that the average temperature has declined over the last decade and that every prediction they have made has proven false this crap would be funny.

This is just part of the dying gasps of failed pseudo-scientists who decided that political action was more profitable than intellectual integrity.

They shut their eyes and put their hands over their ears, and still claim that the 'science is settled', even though the 'science' has been proven to have been totally made up 'evidence' or worse, the 'science' has been shown to have been musings by ideologues which were used in the IPCC reports, and then considered 'proof' of man-made 'global warming', 'climate change' or whatever Al Gore wants to call it today.

chilidog:
Pointing to a single snow storm as proof that climate change is not happening is simply foolish and stupid.

...except that it's multiple snowstorms, all over the entire northern hemisphere, coupled with lots of cases of record low temperatures. This contradicts the last few years of global warming predictions (which were mostly predicting "an end to snow" in many regions).

...and the article in question (along with many of the leftover die-hard AGW fans) is suggesting that this "single snowstorm" is possible PROOF of global warming. Oops.

I've been following AGW predictions for over 20 years now, and the lack of accuracy is bordering on the hilarious. They've got almost NOTHING right since the start of the "science," and it's getting worse as time goes by.

I think that it is more than appropriate to refuse to call AGW science from here on out.

AGW proponents have violated virtually every tenet of science and the scientific method.

This is pseudoscience at best and these are charlatans.

These idiots have shouted "the science is settled!" for so long that at his point I am inclined to say that unless they can start ponying up some really good, serious science that uses complete data sets from reliable data collection sources I will not listen to their BS.

For a long time now this has not been about science but about political control of people's lives.

I don't know. Walking Target Chris Matthews (and others) every few weeks pronounces the last decade the warmest ever. He did so again today. Fox News demurs to "correct" the record in any sort of direct way.

Like the neoconservative Snopes site, the subject, it seems, is not a favorite, at all, with the front offices at conservative bastions who pull the strings and cut the checks.

Subject seems to be treated as peanut ration for tamed elephants. Just to keep a "conversation" going, if talking past the subject can be called conversing.

Is there a site that says the last decade was NOT the warmest since recording began?

Thanks in advance.

BryanD

How about the National Climatic Data Center at NOAA

Since 1998, according to NCDC's own figures, temperatures in the US have been dropping at a rate of more than 10 degrees F per century.

Of course they don't talk about it much.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/sanity-check-2008-2009-were-the-coolest-years-since-1998-in-the-usa/#more-15539

Jim M.,

Your link appears to confirm that the last decade was the warmest on record.

Do you agree?

Bryan -

You phrase your question oddly. "The warmest since recording began" Climate science when properly practiced can estimate mean temperatures through various methods. Criticism of the AGW crowd has centered on their cherry picking of data and inappropriate use of climate surrogates in ways that are not generally accepted by the scientific community.

Also I would direct you to http://www.surfacestations.org/
where they have done a remarkable job of surveying the weather stations throughout the US and demonstrating quite convincingly that these stations are not properly sited or maintained. The error that they estimate comes not out of their supposition but from weather recording standards and direct examination of historical records.

The medieval warm period was warmer than today. Go look it up. That is why in the CRU emails there were a number of them discussing how to make it go away.

Yes it has been warmer recently, but the trend is toward cooling. If AGW is true there should not be any such trend. ALL of their supposed 'science' says that temperature should be going up up up.

Oddly enough, the dirty secret of climate science is that all the vaunted models of climate and temperature have been wrong since the sixties. The models did not predict an increase in temperature, but a decrease. That is the meaning by the "hide the decline" statements. The AGW crowd didn't want it know n that these models they are using to predict the end of the world and melting of he polar ice caps have not been able to correctly predict the temperature over the last 20 to 40 years. So they lied about what their models said in order to make themselves sound more credible.

Bryan - the surface stations data is critical to any understanding of the recent temperature data.

If you look at the many, many sites that show inappropriate siting of the temperature recording instrumentation then you have to realize that part of the increase in temperature over the last 20 years may very well be due to poor placement and maintenance of the weather stations.

The truth is that we don't know how much it really has warmed, but since the stations are biased toward warmer readings the fact that temperatures are going down should be even more significant.

Jim M., I'm familiar with the odd placements of surface stations and with various minor ice ages.

But the concern is within a paradigm of new industrial factors such as China and India arising only as recently as the 1990s.

If the parallel temp rise is only a coincidence, it's an extremely unfortunate one.

jim m is dead-on.

GISS and NOAA are a mockery of intelligent data collection and reporting. 6000 surface stations down to 1500; 90% of those left are out of compliance with data collection standards resulting in >= 1 degree C temp error.

So, you'd like an upward trend in temp? Let's play the full game - reduce the number of surface stations to 1 (Phoenix), and extrapolate all other station temps from there.

What a fuckin' fraud.

"But the concern is within a paradigm of new industrial factors such as China and India arising only as recently as the 1990s."

Meanwhile AGW proponents have been saying that man has been making the earth warm for more than the last 60 years. China and India have not been able to impact that record unless you consider that in the last decade when their industrial production has grown the global temperatures have declined.

Bryan

Remember that CO2 is 0.3% of the atmosphere and man's contribution is only a tiny fraction of that.

AGW advocates never talk about water vapor which is far more influential as a green house gas. Little is mentioned about methane, but it is also a more significant green house gas than CO2.

Astronomers have no problem attributing warming on Mars and other planets to solar activity, yet AGW advocates deny that it has any impact here. it's foolish.

Algore? Paging snakeskin hustler Algore? Where are You? Mother Nature want's to whip some sense into Your haughty ass!

media silence...... ......

"I think that it is more than appropriate to refuse to call AGW science from here on out. "

Call it Climate Scientology or AGW Scientology.

hey gave it to JIMMY CARTER and he didnt bring peace,They gave it to YASIR ARAFAT and he didnt bring peace,They gave it to AL GORE and he didnt bring peace, And they gave it to BARACK OBAMA and he certianly hasnt brough peace HE PEACE PRIZE COMMITY SHOULD BE SENT TO THE SPICEMINES OF KESSEL