NY Times is Unaware of Distinction Between Weather and Climate

Aftermath of Harvey, a hurricane that was less powerful than one that struck 100 years ago.

Eager to criticize President Trump in its news pages last week, the paper of record smugly noted, “It’s Cold Outside. Cue the Trump Global Warming Tweet.”

“With unusually frigid weather gripping much of the Eastern United States this week, President Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to cast doubt on the reality of climate change, but he appeared unaware of the distinction between weather and climate,” the Times wrote.

Leave it to the experts at the Times, who think it’s possible for scientists to predict the Earth’s temperature 100 years from now, to lecture us about the difference between weather and climate.

And these are serious matters, given that we should all be dead by now from global warming. And certainly not something we should joke about.

“Indeed, parts of the East Coast are bracing for record-breaking New Year’s Eve temperatures. New York City is forecast to experience its coldest New Year’s temperatures since the 1960s,” the Times writes, pointing out that Trump is correct.

The Times can’t have that.

“But Mr. Trump’s tweet made the common mistake of looking at local weather and making broader assumptions about the climate at large,” the Times wrote.

I wonder who makes “broad assumptions” about the weather?

Look no further than a day later in the Times. The Sunday Review opinion page declared “How We Know It Was Climate Change,” informing us that devastating weather is the direct result of climate change.

“This was a year of devastating weather, including historic hurricanes and wildfires here in the United States. Did climate change play a role?” wrote Noah S. Diffenbaugh, a professor at Stanford. “Increasingly, scientists are able to answer that question—and increasingly, the answer is yes.”

So I guess they have evidence that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change? Not exactly.

“Consider Hurricane Harvey, which caused enormous destruction along the Gulf Coast; it will cost an estimated $180 billion to recover from the hurricane’s storm surge, high winds and record-setting precipitation and flooding,” writes Diffenbaugh. “Did global warming contribute to this disaster?”

“The word ‘contribute’ is key,” he says. “This doesn’t mean that without global warming, there wouldn’t have been a hurricane. Rather, the question is whether changes in the climate raised the odds of producing extreme conditions.”

Diffenbaugh goes on to say that the “contributing factors” were elevated sea levels and the warm ocean, which he says was influenced by “human-generated warming.”

Never mind that a hurricane worse than Harvey hit Texas more than a century ago, long before Americans drove cars. Or that Geophysical Research Letters, a scientific journal where Diffenbaugh serves as editor in chief, published a paper the same day as Diffenbaugh’s editorial declaring, “Climate projections continue to be marred by large uncertainties.”

Last year his journal published another paper that found the climate models are wrong.

“Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling,” wrote Sergey Kravtsov of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of the observed variability and misrepresent its spatial pattern. Therefore, our ability to interpret the observed climate change using these models is limited.”

Diffenbaugh seems to agree. “Hurricanes are a complicated business,” he says. “While there is evidence that global warming should increase the frequency of very intense storms, their rarity and complexity make it difficult to detect climate change’s fingerprint.”

Someone should tell the Times: Don’t make the common mistake of looking at the weather to make broader assumptions about the climate at large (just to take a swipe at the president).

Read more at Free Beacon

Trackback from your site.

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    The New York Pravda this is the liberal rag that covered up for Stalin,Mao,Hitler,and Castro they same leftists rag Birdcage Liner/Parrots Toilet,Fish Wrap that has been lying to its readers for far too long All the Lies That,s Fit to Print

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    Willing suspension of disbelief (WSOD). It’s necessary to enjoy fiction, fantasy, art and computer generated animation. Children don’t even know about WSOD. No one trains them.
    We cynics don’t do WSOD. We flinch at weasel words. I just added ” contributes” to my collection. Contributes how much? I’m not convinced that CO2 is bad for Earth’s health. CO2 goes from .039 % to .041% of our atmosphere and that increase contributes how much to the average temperature which contributes how much to severe weather?
    Man! You REALLY have to want to believe if you enlist for the fight against AGW. Jihadi’s have WSOD, too.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    R. Johnson

    |

    The method of the left is to tell a big lie and use their cronies to support it in the face of contrary facts. It’s a central tenant in their “character” and is clearly evident in how HRC and her core cadre of violators were protected from prosecution under federal law for their handling of secret documents.

    The same thing is happening with the climate change scam. Real science is conducted by protocols, collection of empirical data and interpreting the data with rigid statistical methods. Then what has been learned can be applied to construct models that actually work. A true scientist welcomes challenges to their theory and relies of a community of scientists to test their work. They do not rely on the media or talking heads like Bill Nye to hawk their work.

    NOAA, NASA, EPA have repeatedly manipulated data and used secret algorithms to support their dire vision of future climate. The problem is their models are wrong and diverge drastically from observed data. Over and over current climate change dogma is insulated from analysis and criticism by a willing media and bureaucracy. It’s not science when you have to depend on the NYT to sell your lies.

    Reply

Leave a comment