How global warming contributed to the snow
A warming world increases atmospheric moisture, which leads to massive snowstorms
By Mike Tidwell

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.warming0214,0,3544880.story

FR: Yep. That one qualifies. And The Sun sure made that easy for you. It qualifies, that is, if your definition of "alarmists" includes only filmmakers, travel authors and environmental activists making political hay, which is what Tidwell is. If you meant climate scientists, then I would repeat my request for citations.

Thanks so much for all your postings. They have been of the most help over these past couple of weeks. I know you have other things to do but please keep it up!

FR: Sorry. In fact, global warming "theory" is supported by overwhelming scientific data, and the overhwelming majority of the world's climate scientists, although they continue to debate the details. "Media reports" simply reflect that. And an increased frequency of extreme rain and drought events fall nicely into what climate scientists forecast for a warming planet.

http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/2009/11/storm_sits_and_spins_we_get_we.html

FR: Or, more precisely, this is consistent with the predictions of climate change theory. These individual weather events are the result of many factors, including climate, weather, and big and little cycles such as El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation and more. You can't, or shouldn't really point to climate change as the proximate "cause" of any of them. But the more frequent the weather extremes like this (droughts, too) we see around the globe, the more valid the theory would appear to be.

http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/2010/02/round_2_to_start_midafternoon.html

FR: Sorry, Lisa, I was responding to a string of comments on an earlier post, not yours. I apologize for the confusion.

Clipper type systems have to dive to our south and come up the coast just to our east in order to gather enough moisture to generate a warning level winter storm for our area. Rarely happens.

Initially there was a glimmer of hope for more than an inch or three, when models took the system through western KY and south of us through VA. As the models have all trended further north now, including the vaunted GFS, we will be lucky to see more than an inch or so in the metro areas. Maybe 1-3 in northern MD and 3-6 from Frederick west.

Frank,

Let me echo what Marion wrote. We love your blog. This iswhat newspapers should be in the 21st Century.

I hope your bosses feel the same.

enney, meeney, miney, moe. Nobody really seems to know. Whether it rain or will it snow.

According to this, the climate debate is NOT settled. And there has been no warming since 1995. It's not exactly peer reviewed but it is quoting the guy who gave us the "hockey stick graph" and he admits there has been no warming in 15 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

FR: A common argument, but specious. The year 1998 was, and remains, a record-warm year globally thanks to an extraordinary El Nino event. If you measure from that year, or any year around it, it would of course seem that global warming stopped since then because no year since then has been that warm. But it was an outlyer - a spike. And cherry-picking that period as your starting place ignores the much longer-term trend, which has been up for decades. The '00s were warmer on average globally than the '90s. As an aside, you may want to reconsider use of the Daily Mail as your science source.

Thirty -five years ago we heard dire warnings of global cooling, but now the scientific community can be enriched by switching their allegiance to global warming, especially when their "research" is bought through grants, tenured appointments, publication in scientific journals, and the support of powerful global institutions. But the gig is up, with climategate and other scientists who have the intellectual courage to challenge this fraud. Even someone like yourself cannot be totally oblivious to the fact that a global cooling wave has begun - or do you accept data that contradicts your cherished theories?

Frank, It's unfortunate (but not surprising) that anytime someone disputes or questions the validity of global warming and tries to engage in thoughtful debate on the topic, they are shouted down by the 'GW' fanatics as "uninformed", "fools", and "know-nothing ideologues who don't have the slightest clue" and whose "opinion doesn't matter". These are all quotes taken directly from a post by a 'GW' alarmist in response to an earlier post questioning the idea of 'Global Warming'. It's kind of ironic (and hypocritical) how these are usually the same people who preach 'diversity' and 'tolerance' as social causes...I guess that tolerance only applies to those that have the same beliefs as them.

By the way, here is a citation you've been looking for from the 'Alarmists'.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html

FR: Thanks. I couldn't agree more about the lack of civility in much of the public conversation about climate change. Unfortunately, both sides are guilty of bad manners and name-calling, as some of the comments on this blog make clear. I don't even post the most vile among them. Thanks, too, for the link. Not sure that I see where there's an "alarmist" here blaming the snow on global warming, however. I do see the author making the point I did - that an increase in extreme precipitation events is predicted by GW theory (and the computer models constructed to make such predictions). That makes such events "consistent" with that theory. But unless I missed it, I don't see anyone here drawing a cause-and-effect link between climate change and our blizzards. No reputable climate scientist would say that. As the last paragraph in the piece states, climate change is not measured storm by storm, but by statistics and trends over periods of decades. This winter, and these storms are mere data points in that scientific journey. The real debate is (or maybe should be) whether it makes more sense to do nothing and hope the "alarmists" are wrong, or to take some action and hope the skeptics are right.