Note to GOP: Yes, the Polar Vortex Could be Global Warming

7 Responses

1. 

   I always feel that the term “global warming” is used as derisory term when #climatechange events are of a rain/snow/cooling nature.

2. 

   “Could be global warming”? This is too weak.

   1) We should make a habit of calling it “climate disruption”, not “global warming” (but it’s cold!) or “climate change” (ho-hum, and apparently preferred by Frank Luntz).

   2) Say that (warming, change, disruption) “Makes extreme weather events like this more frequent, and worse.” It turns out that this is true of just about every kind of extreme event, hot or cold, drought or flood. Attributing specific weather events to climate may not make sense, but we can say something definite about the pattern.

   • 

     I prefer climate instability. I said “could” because you can’t tell without a few decades of serial evidence whether an extreme weather event told you something about climate, or was just weather. You can have your suspicions.

     • 

       Ah, but it’s not the weather that makes the climate, or the climate that makes specific weather events, but the climate instability/disruption that makes extreme weather events (of various kinds) “more frequent, and worse.”

       Both theoretical predictions and observations support this expectation. See, for example, link to pnas.org

3. […] For more see “Note to GOP: Yes, the Polar Vortex can be Global Warming […]

4. […] although the Great Polar Vortex of 2014 may be waning already, it seems likely the future will hold many more of these rifts in continental temperature […]

5. 

   I like to use the words”Global Warming: bec the warming causes all the problems and I do not like letting deniers define the terms used…

Comments are closed.