Warmist on NPR: Freak May snowstorm is weather, not climate — but global warming is to blame anyway

Warmist Paul Huttner can’t go three sentences without contradicting himself.

From Minnesota NPR:

The bizarre storm that dumped heavy snow in nearby suburbs but left nothing on the ground in downtown St. Paul has possible connections to climate change, says Paul Huttner. But he stops short of drawing conclusions from a single event.

In a conversation with The Daily Circuit’s Kerri Miller, Huttner said the storm might be connected to the “Arctic amplification” effect that he’s discussed on the show before. The disappearance of Arctic sea ice seems to be affecting the jet stream, which in turn has contributed to Minnesota’s seemingly endless winter.

Here’s an edited transcript of their conversation:

Miller: I think this late spring snow is a good opportunity to ask again as we have during our Climate Cast — weather or climate? How do we answer that?

Huttner: What’s happening today is weather, there’s no doubt about it. This is a very out of season event. All weather in a way seems to be colored or flavored by the climate changes we’re seeing. If you’re going to tie a link to today’s weather to climate change you would have to cite Arctic amplification. We’ve touched on that before. That’s where this slower jet stream gets stuck. It slows down and these blocking patterns set up and our weather patterns get stuck. That’s what’s been happening a lot in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest this spring. Some links that this may be tied to the warmer Arctic Ocean that we saw last summer. It’s not a slam dunk, but the clues all seem to be pointing in the same direction.

Read more at Minnesota NPR.

6 thoughts on “Warmist on NPR: Freak May snowstorm is weather, not climate — but global warming is to blame anyway”

  1. From my igloo here, north of Austin, I can only say “Please hurry up with that global warming!!”

  2. I am so effing tired of this false dichotomy between weather and climate. The distinction between the two has *never* clearly been made, except upon the most arbitrary criteria.

    Is it weather if it lasts only 24 hours? Maybe. But then some would say it’s only *climate* if it lasts 10 years or more. Or 20 years. Or ‘multi-decadal’, which of course could be millennia. So in most situations, that would leave you with the majority of phenomena being neither weather *nor* climate.


    Add in the fact that weather is what is relevant to humans and their activities, such as growing crops. In the US, our growing season this year is majorly effed up, and getting worse. If climatology can’t tell us about the weather, then climatology is flatly irrelevant to humans.

    Add in the fact that climatologists measure the weather. Sure, paleo measurements aren’t very high-resolution, but the instrument record is all made of *weather* data. If weather data are your sole input — and it has to be — then there’s no escape from the conclusion that modern climatology is *about the weather*. All of it. The only other data in the record are fudges and fakes that climatologists have added in on their own.

    The fact is, this weather is crap. The fact that they can’t predict or explain it shows climatology is crap. The fact that their predictions *fail* shows it’s crap.

    And giving a climatologist air time on a radio show makes the show a piece of crap, too. Irrelevant crap.

  3. After you get through reading this you have to ask yourself; “What in the world did he just say?”

  4. Perhaps he could explain the 39 degree low expected tonite here in Central Texas. Arctic amplification?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.