Snow -- Could this be global warming?
It may well be, says a Drexel University biology professor.
Snow -- Could this be global warming?
Intuitively, the atmosphere over Philadelphia appears to making an argument against global warming. Quite the contrary, counters Jim Spotila, a biology professor at Drexel University.
While he stops short of saying the two mega-storms this season represent smoking ice cubes, increased storm intensity is "consistent" with higher worldwide temperatures. Increased greenhouse gases would mean more water vapor to fuel storms, something he attributes to "simple physics."
The people who forecast the weather are more reluctant to bring global warming into the discussion; they have enough problems with tomorrow's weather.
Wes Junker, a former chief forecaster at National Weather Service headquarters and an expert in precipitation, cautioned that it one cannot draw conclusions from what happens in one season on one dot of the planet.
A few other cautionary notes:
The folks in snow-starved New York and southern New England are not complaining about increased storminess. (Although they might be by Wednesday.)
The mega-snowstorms this season have been extreme and unprecedented around here, and the region has never had two giant snowfalls within four days, as the forecasts are suggesting.
However, other winters have had a special pick on certain parts of the country. The winter of 1977-78, for example, hammered Boston; and two winters later, Norfolk, Va., got its turn.
Speaking of January 1978, the region had three substantial snowfall from the 13th to the 20th and two months' worth of precipitation in that week.
All that duly noted, Spotila says that at the very least the heightened storminess is "consistent" with what would be expected from a warming world.
"That's the key," he said.
@mwm, I understand that there is a warming trend these past few decades, and I understand that it's part of a cyclical trend of global warming and cooling that goes on (and not a graph looking like a hockey stick). I doubt that most, or all, of the warming trend can be explained solely by human causes, especially considering phenomena that we barely understand, like Pacific and Atlantic decadal oscillations. How does this equal denying science?— bryancti
Comment removed.- Very entertaining how the pro-global warming crowd chooses to ignore any data that contradicts their crackpot theory, yet accuses those who rely on long-term climate data as "science denying." The truth is, it is global warming skeptics who have been relying on scientific data, and global warming proponents who have been relying on "theory" (you know, stuff like, well if the earth gets warmer, theoretically it could cause extreme cold and lots of snow. Really, it could.) BTW, amc312, you are aware there are hundreds of scientists who actually study climatology and meteorology for a living who disagree with you, right? Typical of someone on your side though to drag politics (i.e. Sarah Palin, who I am not a big fan of) into a supposedly scientific debate. Just shows this global warming concept is driven by politics, not science. Thanks for proving that point.— realisticobserver
- It comes down to this. Big business has lots of reasons to deny global warming, but what exactly do the world's scientists have to gain from promoting fears of global warming? Did they all just come up with this big conspiracy because they don't like heating, air conditioning and transportation?— dartvader
- GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What DOESN'T prove global warming these days?— tjm333126
Man-made global warming is a religion, not science. Anyone with common sense knows this. Ice ages and warming periods come and go. But blaming it on man can make you rich and powerful.— Mr. Underhill- amc312, you remind me of one of those Boston know-it alls wearing a bow-tie and telling us what is good for us. As a kid in the 1960's, I remember huge storms, and that was before SUV's and China. All you know it alls stop and leave us alone!!— chak06880
- teksys, your post was so stupid its easy to see who the real dope is. Some countries and companies will get very rich off of alternative energy, the ball is already rolling and will not stop. Republicans like you have insured the money will go elsewhere. Your hatred for Obama just continues to harm America. Great job dimbo.— JonKap
- On one side we have Al Gore, on the other we have Exxon-Mobil and trillion dollar business interests. So of course it must be Gore who is evil, you know, being a Democrat and all. We should agree with Exxon and its buddies science with no questions asked. How dumb are right wingers?— JonKap
- I think the dramatically increasing stupidity level among philly.com comments is proof of global Foxing. Yikes!— jpb
- All I know is that I would rather have my kids deal with "Global Warming" than another Ice Age.— charladan
- "Quite the contrary, counters Jim Spotila, a biology professor " Why would a biology professor be your lead quote on an article discussing atmospheric science. With all due respect to Mr. Spotila, this is akin to asking a dentist to offer his professional opinion on whether a patient should have heart surgery.— UCityGardener
- We really need to help this global warming cause because, I'm sick of this cold weather. Lets heat this planet up and rid it of all its cold places!— Jborg10
- If there's no such thing as global warming, how is it that they are sailing cargo ships in open waters that never were open before? I love the way that you look out your window and see what's 10 feet in front of you, and ignore the rest of the world!
- why a comet from a biology teacher and not a meteorologist???? if you looked at the "scientists" that signed the original letter of gw most were unrelated specialty's and HS teachers with unrelated degrees— jr23
Tony Wood has been writing about the atmosphere for The Inquirer for 26 years. E-mail Tony here. And read all his columns here.
