For the second time in a month, a bomb cyclone has hit Midwest. Parts of South Dakota experienced as much as 18 inches of snow. As many as 40,000 homes and businesses in Minnesota, South Dakota and Iowa lost power during the blizzard. The mainstream media, which is usually not shy about connecting any weather event to global warming, wisely chose to stick to straight reporting.
With the barrage of criticism leveled at President Trump whenever he mentions a weather phenomenon, it is worth pointing out that the lack of media attention paid to these cyclones exposes quite effectively that weather is far more important than climate.
A bomb cyclone is a rapid drop in air pressure followed by the explosive strengthening of a storm. In the olden days it was just called a sudden storm, but the term “bomb cyclone” makes for better headlines. Nevertheless, it is a relatively unusual weather phenomenon and one that doesn’t fit well with the narrative of global warming.
Bomb cyclones can form when freezing air meets hot air. The problem is that according to the theory of global warming, most atmospheric warming should occur at high latitudes, at night, during winter, in cold, dry air, and especially in a combination of these circumstances. Bomb cyclones are uncommon events, but in a greenhouse-warmed world, they should theoretically become even rarer. That may be why the mainstream media is not trying to pitch the event as an effect of global warming. Even when renaming the theory “climate change,” a manmade greenhouse blizzard is a hard sell. It’s difficult to convince any reasonable American that carbon emissions lead to spring snowstorms.
Weather Is Not Climate
Back in January, Trump sent out a tweet that had the press in a paroxysm. He stated:
“In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Warming? Please come back fast, we need you!”
The response was swift and mocking. Accusations that the president did not understand the difference between weather and climate came in fast and furious. To some degree, this is accurate; while blizzards in April do not support the greenhouse theory, they should not be taken as disproof of global warming either. As the media likes to repeat whenever the facts don’t fit the narrative: Weather is not climate. It’s a trope, but it’s true.
While atmospheric events that don’t fit the global warming narrative are dismissed as “only” weather, the correct interpretation is that weather is far more important than climate. It’s as if weather were a loud foreground noise, while the climate is like a background whisper. Imagine trying to hear birds chirping in the distance while standing in midtown Manhattan during rush hour. Even if you were lucky enough to be able to pick up the faint tweets, it still wouldn’t change the fact that they fade in comparison to the noise from the traffic.
Even if humans were rapidly changing the climate – and that’s a highly contentious and hotly debated claim – it would be difficult to notice the difference due to the natural variability of the weather. In fact, think about it: Would the thought that the climate could be changing even have crossed your mind if you had never read about it in the news?
Weather fluctuates so much that it typically overwhelms the effects of climate change. Noticing trends in the climate through all that atmospheric noise is exceptionally difficult, and a blizzard in April sends that message loud and clear.