Huge Nor'easter And Frigid Arctic Blast Obnoxiously Heated Up Climate Change Debate

Huge expanses of coastal New England ocean water froze over
during last week's record cold spell. The Arctic outbreak did not
prove or disprove climate change, but activists on either side
seized on this big time, facts be damned 

The long Arctic siege that gripped much of the eastern half of the country finally ended Sunday, and the cleanup is well underway from that super powerful nor'easter last week.

Although the Arctic wasteland spell is over, the heat that the cold blast generated in the climate change activist wars show few signs of abating, though.

The brutal stretch of winter weather proved to be a sort of climate Rorschach test of sorts between climate activists on one hand, the climate change denialists and skeptics on the other.

I think the climate change activists did have the intellectual upper hand in this latest battle, but there was still over the top claims on either side.

SILLY DENIALISTS

Surprise, surprise, Donald Trump was the most simplistic of the denialist bunch. We were barely one day into the Arctic siege when he declared global climate change a hoax. Hey, it was cold on the U.S. East Coast, so that's the only indicator of whether the world was hot or cold, right?

Yeah, or something like that. Trump is a real friggin'  climate scientist. (If you didn't notice, my snark font is on.)

Then there was the familiar trope that came roaring back along with the Arctic winds that activists had somehow "rebranded" global warming into climate change, so that they could allegedly blame every kind of weather on fossil fuel emissions.  Hey, now they're saying any weird weather is humans' fault! Silly climate activists! (Ugh.)

For instance, Rex Murphy in Canada's National Post had his sarcasm font on in full blast as he wrote about all those silly little people worried about global warming, er, climate change:

"During the most savage Hyperborean blasts and numbing cold even the little ones busy themselves with exercises to remind themselves of the truth of things. Children in schools hang up posters of the Amazon rainforest, check the temperature in Tanzania, have revivalist reruns of "An Inconvenient Truth" to keep the sense of global peril fresh in their anxious empty little heads."

Cripes, Murphy's prose is as purple as my frostbitten fingers were during the worst of the Arctic blast.

NUANCES, NUANCES, NUANCES

I suppose was a faint glimmer of a point in Murphy's rant about "branding."

Here's why I think that: A number of climate scientists and other activists during the winter siege pointed out that the extreme weather was "consistent" with climate change.

Notice the careful wording. They weren't drawing much of a direct line between the frigid weather pattern and climate change. The climate change crowd was more accurately saying the spell of weather was paradoxically "consistent." with global warming. No proof, but the weird weather pattern might, just might, have had something to do with climate change.

A few activists did flatly say that the cold wave and nor'easter were definitive signs of climate change. Those activists were wrong. A single weather event is proof of nothing. Weather is variable. A world that's overall warmer than it used to be can still have cold weather. It can still have winters. Life goes on, after all.

However, back to that careful working, and the crux of why I said Murphy had a slight point about branding.

The basic science of climate change is simple: Put more carbon dioxide in the air, and more of the sun's heat gets trapped in that atmosphere. So all things being equal, the world warms up.

Then mix in all the nuances of the many ways climate change can affect how things are where you live. And then consider the  million different ways it can affect conditions at all other points of the world. On top of that, add in the complexities that exists with or without global warming. Examples include local effects, natural ocean and air circulation cycles, and factors we might not even know about yet.

Which means you get the simple, if incorrect arguments: "It's cold out where we are, therefore there's no global warming." say the climate denial crowd.

That, versus the scientists: "The weather pattern we are in is consistent with climate change, but it's hard to blame one weather event on climate change. Plus, there are many factors involved that may or not be influenced by climate change, and scientists are still studying these aspects. Melting sea ice in the Arctic might be screwing around with the jet stream and might be bending it in ways that make these Arctic outbreaks in the eastern United States. However, there are winters that aren't so cold because..........."

See the problem? Us humans crave simple explanations for what's going on around us. I know I do. Explanations of how climate change might be affecting us are often not simple at all. We tune out. That's why Donald Trump's tweet got so much attention. It was a simple if wrong sales/con job. He's a great marketer. Simple messages sell.

It's hard to market climate change in ways the public easily understands.

Under climate change, weather extremes will probably continue to get, well, more extreme. You get into the weeds arguing with climate deniers and skeptics on this point, too.

One example is Accuweather Meteorologist Joe Bastardi, among others. Now, I respect Bastardi as a talented meteorologist. He's one smart cookie, and my snark font is definitely OFF when I say that. Where I have a problem with Bastardi is his climate change skepticism. He's not a denialist, but he is very skeptical.   His argument often goes as follows:

Yes, the weather here is exceptionally cold/hot/wet/dry/windy ---- whatever, but it's happened before, so there's nothing going on that's out of the ordinary so there's no human caused climate change. (I'm oversimplifying his argument a bit here.)

And of course, Bastardi is right on one aspect of his argument. There have been cold snaps as bad or worse than the one we just had. There have been nor'easters as bad or worse than the one that socked New England and Atlantic Canada last week. There have been bigger heat waves than the ones that we've had in recent years. All these historic weather events happened without human-induced global warming.

However, Bastardi is missing the most on point of these questions.

Of course these weather patterns have happened before. But are they becoming more frequent than they used to, and if so, why? Are floods getting more frequent and worse in some parts ofthe country than decades ago? Are weather patterns that cause these long lasting cold outbreaks like the one we just had happening more often? again, f so, why? Those are the pertinent questions here.

I'm not sure I have the answer to these questions, but those queries are the ones most worth examining.

Another trope among denialists is to try and discredit all science, as way of trying to convince the public to not believe anything based on scientific fact.

For instance, on Sunday, the climate denial site Watts Up With That mocked NOAA for a winter forecast they put out last fall that said chances were greater than even that the southern and eastern United States would, overall, have a warmer than average winter.

Watts Up With That crowed about the cold weather in the East and parts of the South. Never mind that the winter is less than half over, and, despite the cold spell, these areas could, on the whole, have a milder than average winter. (Notice the January thaw that's now creeping into many of these areas.)

As many, including, to his credit, Bastardi pointed out, it's possible we could have warm weather the rest of the winter, which would make the season a bit on the mild side. We just don't know yet.

NOR'EASTER AS CLIMATE POSTER CHILD

The nor'easter that struck the U.S. and Canada east coasts last weekend strengthened at almost a record pace, and brought near record and even record storm surges to many coastal communities in New England and Canada, especially in Massachusetts.

Waves and coastal flooding batter Scituate, Massachusetts during
last week's epic nor'easter. The storm was huge, and inflated the
arguments over climate change. But it was just one storm, so I'm
counseling that everybody relax. 

The denialists claimed that it was a bitter cold storm, so no global warming. Yeah, it was cold on the western side of the storm, over eastern North America.

But it was super warm on the eastern side of the storm, over the Atlantic Ocean. Nobody lives in the middle of the ocean though, so that warm side of the storm was ignored.

Meanwhile, the climate change activists were a little more careful, but still emphasized that the unusually high tides that flooded Boston and other communtiies were the hallmarks of climate change.

Climate change might have had an influence on all that high water, but it wasn't the principal reason for the flooding. The storm struck when astronomical tides were higher than average, due to the position of the moon.

The worst of the storm also struck just when high tide was scheduled to come in during the early afternoon Thursday. Bad timing, to say the least.

Sea levels have risen due to climate change over the past several decades. Which means climate change did add to the strength and height of the storm tide, It was probably worse than it would have been without climat echange, but it wasn't the main reason for it.

Again, nuance strikes again, and we humans have little patience for that.

This keeps going around and around of course. The always obnoxious Brietbart News, among others, tried to stake the claim that climatologists automatically blamed global warming on the first signs of heat waves last summer, but pooh-poohed the idea that a cold wave on one sliver the globe -namely the eastern U.S., canceled out global warming.

Of course, no reputable climatologists said any such thing.

As long as the denialists have allies in government, sustained by huge campaign contributions by the oil industry and conservative bazillonaires, the science, details and nuances will be as lost in the public discourse as the stuff that floated out to sea when the storm surge hit Scituate, Massachusetts last week.

There will be other exreme weather events. They'll come fast and furiously. (Witness the fatal flash floods, debris flows and mudslides in California on Tuesday)

If you are interested in climate change, and you should be, here's my advice: Don't listen to the shrill public false "debate" when there's a big storm. Seek out the experts, the sober scientists, the politicians that resist hype, the media outlets that don't have much of an agenda, but just want you to know what's really going on.

Doing all these things can be difficult.  But at least you'll know what's really going on. And maybe, just maybe, you'll retain your sanity.