Over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA this past week

Compare to 98 high temperature records, and 141 high minimum temperature records

Quite an imbalance in weather records this week. Even the AGU fall meeting in San Francisco where the best and brightest global warming scientists were meeting was surrounded by record (such as 25F in San Jose Dec 9th) and near record setting low temperatures, though the irony was lost on many of them.

See the map:

CONUS_records_12-13-13

Source: NOAA National Weather Service and HamWeather records center

Low Temp: 606 + Low Max temp 1234 + Snowfall 385 = 2225

In other cold and snowy news, the Egyptian capital of Cairo sees snowfall for the first time in 112 YEARS

Here are some other nearby temperatures for December 9th, the first full day of the AGU Fall Meeting:


:REGIONAL TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION TABLE
:NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
:430 PM PST MON DEC 09 2013
:
:HIGH AND LOW TEMPERATURES PAST 18 HOURS AS OF 4 PM TODAY.
:PRECIPITATION PAST 24 HOURS.     M=MISSING   T=TRACE.
.BR SFO 1209 P DH16/TX/TN/PPDRZZ
:
: ID :   LOCATION          ELEV :     HIGH/ LOW / PP24HR /
:
:...NORTH BAY...
KENC1:   KENTFIELD          145 :      46 /  25 /  0.00 /
NSHC1:   NAPA                35 :      50 /  24 /  0.00 /
APC  :   NAPA ARPT           33 :      49 /  19 /  0.00 /
SARC1:   SAN RAFAEL         120 :      49 /  29 /  0.00 /
STS  :   SONOMA CNTY ARPT   125 :      35 /  19 /  0.00 /
:
:...SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA...
HMBC1:   HALF MOON BAY       27 :      52 /  34 /  0.00 /
RWCC1:   REDWOOD CITY       145 :      52 /  27 /  0.00 /
SFOC1:   SAN FRANCISCO      150 :      51 /  36 /  0.00 /
SFO  :   SAN FRANCISCO ARPT   8 :      52 /  36 /  0.00 /
:
:...EAST BAY...
CWPC1:   CONCORD             23 :      48 /  34 /  0.00 /
CCR  :   CONCORD ARPT        23 :      47 /  28 /  0.00 /
FETC1:   FREMONT             38 :       M /   M /     M /
HWD  :   HAYWARD ARPT        47 :      52 /  28 /  0.00 /
LVK  :   LIVERMORE ARPT     393 :      48 /  27 /  0.00 /
OAMC1:   OAKLAND             30 :      56 /  34 /  0.00 /
OAK  :   OAKLAND ARPT        86 :      54 /  30 /  0.00 /
RICC1:   RICHMOND            20 :      51 /  31 /  0.00 /
:
:...SOUTH BAY AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY...
GILC1:   GILROY             194 :      53 /  29 /  0.00 /
NUQ  :   MOFFETT FIELD       34 :      51 /  29 /  0.00 /
MGNC1:   MORGAN HILL        350 :      52 /  27 /  0.00 /
SJC  :   SAN JOSE ARPT       51 :      51 /  25 /  0.00 /
:
:...MONTEREY BAY AND BIG SUR...
BISC1:   BIG SUR STATION    200 :       M /   M /     M /
MTR  :   MONTEREY NWS       122 :      52 /  29 /  0.00 /
MRY  :   MONTEREY ARPT      165 :      54 /  28 /  0.00 /
SCRC1:   SANTA CRUZ         130 :      57 /  25 /  0.00 /
WVI  :   WATSONVILLE ARPT   160 :      56 /  25 /  0.00 /
:
:...INTERIOR MONTEREY COUNTY/SAN BENITO COUNTY...
CVVC1:   CARMEL VALLEY      480 :      54 /  24 /  0.00 /
HOLC1:   HOLLISTER          275 :      53 /  29 /  0.00 /
KICC1:   KING CITY          320 :      55 /  19 /  0.00 /
SNSC1:   SALINAS             85 :      55 /  26 /  0.00 /
SNS  :   SALINAS ARPT        84 :      55 /  26 /  0.00 /
.ENDTODAY`S HIGH AND LOW TEMPERATURES.
* = ESTIMATED HIGH TEMPERATURE.
+ = ESTIMATED LOW TEMPERATURE.
# = ESTIMATED HIGH AND LOW TEMPERATURE.
About these ads

220 thoughts on “Over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA this past week

  1. They will say, “It’s only weather”. But then call it climate change when it suits their narrative/meme.

  2. Lol,

    Extract,

    The Arctic will be granted the highest ice class – 9, meaning the ship will be able to break ice in the Arctic area all year round.

  3. Here in Colorado, the meteorologists are predicting a another wave of extreme cold next weekend, right before Christmas.

  4. This is feeling like a repeat of 2008, So happy I am not in the US or Canada. It is cooler in the Bahamas also but when cool is a low of 72 F, I am okay with it.

  5. Eve says:
    December 13, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Well, thanks, Eve. I guess. We can dream.

    Here in my temporary station in Virginia we have had January weather since Thanksgiving. Not good. Reminds me of 1977.

  6. Meanwhile, Israel is experiencing snow with heavy accumulation and Cairo has had its first snow in over 100 years.

    But the cold is either (a) just weather and not climate or (b) exactly as predicted because AGW causes more extremes.

  7. Theo Goodwin says:
    December 13, 2013 at 9:32 am
    Eve says:
    December 13, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Well, thanks, Eve. I guess. We can dream.

    Here in my temporary station in Virginia we have had January weather since Thanksgiving. Not good. Reminds me of 1977.

    Funny I was thinking around 1975 that was a bad winter here in Alberta.

  8. What effect do icebreakers have on the long term ice? Has constant breaking impacted the ability to keep older ice?

  9. Thank God that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has brought us such a rare event as massive cold and snows everywhere. Perhaps if we pump 1000 more ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, I we’ll see some snow here in San Diego.

  10. Google snow-ified your post’s graphic image when I posted it on G+ Anthony. It’s kinda fun. Feel free to use if you wish, or not. Seasons Greetings! Keep up the awesome work.

  11. This is just weather you know. If the map showed mostly record highs, it would be called climate change, aka, global warming.

    As for the unprecedented cold record temperature in the Antarctic – that was just a regional anomaly; and as for the unprecedented Antarctic record sea ice extent, that was caused by global warming you know – the winds done did it.

    Everything is global warming, other than the weather and regional anomalies. (/sarc)

  12. Quote from letter to editor in this morning’s Gazette-Times, Corvallis, OR :”Because of global warming, this snow storm will be coming more often than every 20 years.” Shows that folks can be persuaded that global warming causes colder weather!

  13. lorne50 says:
    December 13, 2013 at 9:39 am

    1975 was bad. I happened to be in St. Louis during those years. 1977 sticks in my mind as the total nightmare.

  14. Here in NE England it is a balmy 11 Celsius, we must have all the worlds AGW. The BBC propaganda machine is in full swing with every hourly news bulletin mentioning the mild weather and gleefully reporting the temperatures, funny they didn’t mention them when they were sub-zero last week.
    Still time for a white Christmas though, oops I forgot “Snow will be a very rare and exciting event”

  15. I have to thank this site for making me finally do something. I realized that the politians will not stop until everyone in Canada and the nothern US have no money left and die of cold like they are doing in the UK. So I got out of the refrigerator I was living in and moved to a place with a civilized climate.

  16. Neo says:
    It’s snowed in Cairo for the first time in 112 years

    Yes, and there were no sun spots at about that time 112 years ago. And as I noticed in viewing a TV documentary of Beethoven he wrote that in the summer of 1794 it was oppressively hot in Vienna and there was no ice supply in the city (from the Alps). I immediately turned off the documentary to go look up sun spots around the time of 1794 and it does show a spike around then before the onset of the Dalton. These things just keep popping up at me, for something that supposedly has no correlation to global temps. Perhaps regional temps matter and probabilities of strong winter storm fronts.

  17. “This is feeling like a repeat of 2008, So happy I am not in the US or Canada. It is cooler in the Bahamas also but when cool is a low of 72 F, I am okay with it.”

    Wife and I are spending winter in Venice Florida (just south of Sarasota). It’s actually been above normal down here in the main. ONly one or two days in the low 70’s. Nothing wrong with a little restrained schadenfreude….

  18. So the UN says we must redistribute wealth from the developed countries to less developed in the name of global warming. Once the funds are released no doubt it will be hard to track the actual uses of the funds, such as to purchase heaters and heating fuels for the shivering masses.

  19. The sun is waning for the next 20 years or so, best to buy those places in Florida real soon. Big houses going up all over the place down there now….

  20. Theo Goodwin says:

    “Here in my temporary station in Virginia we have had January weather since Thanksgiving. Not good. Reminds me of 1977.”

    ’77-’78 in SW Virginia was brutal. Even worse in the Ohio Valley.

  21. What per-cent of talks at AGU meeting involve AGW or climate change? Is there any sense of turning of focus? What is the hot topic there?

  22. The world economy/carbon based energy control freaks. a.k.a the “warmers” will boo-hoo this too. No matter what happens, too cold, too hot, to much/little rain, no hurricanes/too many, its all somehow due to Global Warming according to these corrupt and self deluded frauds who come up with BS reasons to explain away the lack of empirical evidence of MMGW. They need some kind of boogeyman to scare the sheeple into accepting wealth redistribution and the control of carbon based energy.

  23. OMG! Climate change is happening now! We’ve reached the tipping point! We must immediately inject more CFC’s into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of ozone and therefore increase the amount of UV light reaching the earth. We must increase the use of fossil fuels, especially coal, to increase the greenhouse house gas content of the atmosphere. If we don’t do these things immediately, most of the human race will disappear and the last few breeding pairs of humans will be found only at the equator. It will be humanity’s great tragedy and humanity’s fault if we don’t act now to avert certain disaster on a global scale. Please send me truckloads of money and I will develop models and compile data to prove these facts. Act now for the future of our children and all of humanity.

    (This should be read with a very heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and amusement… for those of you apt to take this seriously)

  24. “…In other cold and snowy news, the Egyptian capital of Cairo sees snowfall for the first time in 112 YEARS…”

    That means there have been almost 3 generations of children in Egypt that never knew what snow was.

    Unfortunately, it means that Dr. Viner was right (sorta): “…According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”…”

    He just didn’t say where this “rare and exciting event” would happen. But now children in Israel and Egypt have experienced a very rare “snow day”. Imagine their joy and wonder…

  25. Resourceguy says: “So the UN says we must redistribute wealth from the developed countries to less developed in the name of global warming. Once the funds are released no doubt it will be hard to track the actual uses of the funds, [..]“.

    “[Foreign aid is] what poor people in rich countries pay to the rich people in poor countries.” – Joseph Luns, Netherlands Foreign Minister, 1969.

  26. Here in Israel the most severe snow storm since the 19th century for the month of December (as one of the IMS (Israeli Meteorology Service) said today.
    Jerusalem under a 40cm of snow and the upper Gallilee over 50 cm.
    Torrential rain all around the country and it seems the main rout in Tel Aviv is about to be closed due to overflow of a tiny stream in its center…
    Global Warming is a bitch.

  27. I wonder how many of these yellows and reds are broken records as opposed to just ties. The closest ones to me, in Florida, appear to be mostly ties.

  28. SMC @ December 13, 2013 at 10:42 am

    Well… when you put it that way, it sounds absolutely silly. Oh, wait. It has always sounded absolutely silly, and yet most of the world fell for it.

  29. I’m tell you all it is because of GLOBAL WARMING that is the drum they have been beating for 20 years now. Good thing we don’t have GLOBAL COOLING we would all roast like a chicken on a bbq spit.

  30. Eyal Porat says:
    December 13, 2013 at 11:02 am
    “Here in Israel the most severe snow storm since the 19th century for the month of December (as one of the IMS (Israeli Meteorology Service) said today. Jerusalem under a 40cm of snow and the upper Gallilee over 50 cm.”

    I am from Missouri (where we are expecting a measly 4″ of snow tonight), which is the show-me state. So when Eyal reported 40cm of snow in Jerusalem, I had to see it to believe it. Here it is on a live webcam:

    http://www.inbalhotel.com/jerusalem-live-camera-old-city-view

    Wow!

  31. Dr. David Viner…call your Cairo office…

    Speaking of which…

    “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

    By Charles Onians
    Monday 20 March 2000

    Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

    Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

    However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    Climate science is just chocked full of bright people…/sarc

  32. These extreme temperatures are due to AGW. George W.Bush has has been burning brush on his Texas ranch which has warmed the planet which then causes these cold temperatures. This is why we all need to be taxed more. I buildt a climate model in my basement that consists of a mason jar, a bean shoot and a frog and it comes out “AGW ” every time I look down there so I know my model is correct. Where do I get my million dollar grant to study this further?

  33. Here in the northern reaches of the Repubilc of Texas we enjoyed about 3″ of global warming this week…. now where are my sunglasses… and parka…?

  34. The global warming crowd are much like the doctors of medieval times who applied leeches for medical purposes. No matter what the symptoms, they will have the same prescription.

    There are no scientists involved in this, only grant whores. If the price is right they will find whatever you want them too. I just imagine a scientist standing on a street corner saying “Hey, for a million dollars in grant money, I’ll show you my hockey stick.”. What a bunch of arrogant losers, bowing at the feet of the king of all losers, Al Gore.

  35. littlepeaks says:
    December 13, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Here in Colorado, the meteorologists are predicting a another wave of extreme cold next weekend, right before Christmas.

    Let’s hope it’ll kill off most of those bark beetles.

  36. But wait! They told me my American grandchildren would never experience snow! When did AGW morph into AGEW (Anthropological Global Extreme Weather)? Oh! Let me guess; it was about the time back in 1998 when warming ceased, or paused or reversed or started slyly hiding in the oceans, depending on your preferred “spin”.

  37. And in winter related news just in………..Brrrrr.

    Friday 13 December 2013
    Rare December Snow Blankets Jerusalem (PHOTOS)
    The heaviest December snowstorm in at least 50 years blanketed parts of Israel, including Jerusalem into Friday, cutting power, stranding travelers, and putting the Holy City on lockdown.

    Israelis were told over media and public broadcasts on Friday not to enter or leave Jerusalem and some 1,500 people were evacuated from stranded vehicles overnight, said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.

    http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/jerusalem-snow-photos-december-2013-20131212

    ——————
    Friday 13 December 2013
    Snow In Egypt For The First Time In 100 Years, Reports Say

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/13/snow-egypt-middle-east_n_4438571.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

    This is a sure sign of dangerous global cooling. We must act now!! :-)

  38. The article mentioned “where the best and brightest global warming scientists were meeting” . .
    That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.

  39. Yeah. We got about 2 inches of global warming in our front yard and it didn’t get above freezing for 7 days!

  40. Michael Moore and Al Gore are standing in front of the Sun – blocking it!

    An ugly fat man named Moore
    And his brother the crooked Al Gore,
    Have fooled lots of folks
    With their Climate Change joke
    God is laughing His Head off I’m sure!
    (c) G Lamont 2013

  41. Closer to home…

    Snowstorm to Hit Central States, Northeast This Weekend

    Accuweather
    December 12, 2013; 12:18 AM

    The punches just keep on coming from Old Man Winter. A new storm is poised to impact parts of the South, Midwest and Northeast this weekend and threatens to bring travel and shipping delays, as well as disruptions to outdoor activities.

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snowstorm-to-hit-central-state/20848981

    Pssst…warmists…snow storms iare perfectly NORMAL in December! (err…except in the Middle East).

  42. Brrrrr. It’s colder than we thought!

    13 Dec 2013
    In Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley – where there are an estimated one million Syrian refugees are crowded into 250 camps – relief agencies handed out warm clothing, blankets, bedding, heating equipment in refugee camps as snow fell relentlessly for the second day running.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10516498/Historic-snow-storms-spread-havoc-and-misery-across-the-Middle-East.html

  43. Remember when James Lovelock said “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” I suspect the left will soon find another vehicle with which to separate us from out money and freedom. Candidates currently up for consideration are “income inequality”, “sexist men looking at women” and “open borders.” Take your pick.

  44. Just imagine…how cold it would be if it were not for Global Warming! 4 feet of snow in Israel instead of 3 feet …?

  45. global warming, gun control, obamacare……all lies…..a government that lies to its citizens is no government at all. this government has lost its legal legitimacy. we have been without a government for years now. but we have a country of cowards.

  46. BTW, congratulations Anthony! You got a good link on Drudge, that’ll drive some site traffic. And undoubtedly expose some people to your site that never knew about it, hopefully they’ll browse around and learn something while they’re here.

  47. The map doesn’t show a new low in New Jersey but I believe (based on Weather Underground’s WunderMap) that Mt Holly (weather station ID KVAY) set a record of 16°F on Dec.12th. I wonder how many others aren’t shown on the map.

  48. Learned something new about the Nobel Prize yesterday.
    Gore was awarded the prize for his brilliant support of the AGW agenda. They probably now believe he invented it himself.
    Obama got the prize because he is such a peace loving person and was gonna withdraw US troops from everywhere in the world. Still waiting to see that one!
    The guy who invented the Lobotomy won the prize also because it helped so many people.
    Who makes these decisions???

  49. “war is peace
    freedom is slavery
    ignorance is strength
    George Orwell 1984″

    “Cold is warm”
    The warmistas

  50. I agree with the poster that thinks this Arctic cold blast was early..long lasting low.. Here in Wisconsin were used to cold snaps, but more like in the teens, twentys and thirties for first part of December. Long lasting single digit and sub zero more like January. Mother natures seasonal flow patterns are mucked up, somewhat for the year around here.

  51. “77-’78 in SW Virginia was brutal. Even worse in the Ohio Valley.”

    Recall those winters fondly, late 70s in New England. Blizzard of ’78 is the “big one” we still talk about. I was young, and full of beans, and in my element. Now I say, “No thank you.”

  52. Yeah, it was brutal in ’78 up in Michigan – I remember we had ice that we could skate on well into the spring…

    @ pokerguy – always like your comments over at Climate, Etc.

  53. Please don’t publish any more stories like this. It makes the Global Warming crowd look even dumber than we thought.

  54. A friend sent a FB picture of a family of Bedouins in the West Bank outside their makeshift tent dressed only in the lightest of clothes. Clearly for some, warm is better than cold.

  55. Eustace Cranch says:
    December 13, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Thanks for confirming my suspicions. That is just what I expect. Oh, the pain.

  56. Resourceguy says:
    December 13, 2013 at 10:22 am

    So the UN says we must redistribute wealth from the developed countries to less developed in the name of global warming. Once the funds are released no doubt it will be hard to track the actual uses of the funds, such as to purchase heaters and heating fuels for the shivering masses.
    ——————————
    Yes, they also need to buy snow shovels.

  57. “Matthew W says:

    December 13, 2013 at 10:17 am

    Since the science is settled that man made global warming causes hotcoldwetdry, theses records are expected.”

    The hocus-pocus science of climate change – ‘Hocostocalwetdry’
    (See – ‘abracadabra’)

    (sarc)

  58. Dave-0 says:
    December 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    Remember when James Lovelock said “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” I suspect the left will soon find another vehicle with which to separate us from out money and freedom. Candidates currently up for consideration are “income inequality”, “sexist men looking at women” and “open borders.” Take your pick.
    ===========================================================================
    Or women sexually assaulting men? Like this…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10516155/Female-protester-pictured-kissing-policeman-accused-of-sexual-assault.html

    The world turned upside down…

  59. That’s an interesting correlation between the weakest solar cycle in a century and these heavy snowfalls and record freezing temperatures occurring throughout the world, and not just in the northern hemisphere.
    Interesting still, there have also been small changes in earths orbital parameters, which are ongoing as a result of a major astronomical event that occurred in 1999.
    But I suppose correlation does not imply causation, and then again, sometimes it does. or does it?

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    December 13, 2013 at 10:10 am

    “BTW a first snowfall in Cairo in over 100 years is climate, not weather.”

    Well, it only took 10 years for the 1970’s ice age scare to turn into the 1980’s man made global warming scam and another 10 years or so for man made global warming to turn into man made climate change. So I think a sensible bet is to think these so-called experts are full of [self snip] and prepare for global cooling again.

  60. I’m an AGW skeptic, but I’ve never seen a skeptic blog post or article announcing a number of cold-temperature records broken which offers any indication of how common or uncommon it is to see various numbers of broken cold-temperature records, or even commentary on that question. This makes me suspicious, and actually, it makes me feel contempt for such announcements.

  61. Smoking Frog says:
    December 13, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    I’m an AGW skeptic, but I’ve never seen a skeptic blog post or article announcing a number of cold-temperature records broken which offers any indication of how common or uncommon it is to see various numbers of broken cold-temperature records, or even commentary on that question. This makes me suspicious, and actually, it makes me feel contempt for such announcements.
    ===========================================================================
    HI !!!
    You must be new here.

  62. Resourceguy says:
    December 13, 2013 at 10:18 am
    “”It’s snowed in Cairo for the first time in 112 years”

    Yes, and there were no sun spots at about that time 112 years ago. And as I noticed in viewing a TV documentary of Beethoven he wrote that in the summer of 1794 it was oppressively hot in Vienna and there was no ice supply in the city (from the Alps). I immediately turned off the documentary to go look up sun spots around the time of 1794 and it does show a spike around then before the onset of the Dalton. These things just keep popping up at me, for something that supposedly has no correlation to global temps.”

    Indeed. Solar variation, including indirect effect, is the explanation for both the Little Ice Age’s onset and recovery, the pattern in sea level rise rate variation in the past century, and much more (as illustrated in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg for example). As Dergachev et al 2004 noted, the prime indirect effect of it relates to “the main factor affecting the weather and climate during tens of thousand years” (Russian paper translated into English, online at http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm ).

    As a solar Grand Minimum appears to approach, later this decade and beyond should see substantial cooling. This year is still a local solar cycle maximum, but, after this cycle’s maximum diminishes over the next several years, then really serious cooling can occur. People today haven’t seen anything yet compared to what is coming later, so to speak.

  63. edit:
    “still a local solar cycle maximum” (add: albeit an unusually weak one compared to the late 20th century)

  64. Matthew W says:
    December 13, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    Smoking Frog says:
    December 13, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    I’m an AGW skeptic, but I’ve never seen a skeptic blog post or article announcing a number of cold-temperature records broken which offers any indication of how common or uncommon it is to see various numbers of broken cold-temperature records, or even commentary on that question. This makes me suspicious, and actually, it makes me feel contempt for such announcements.
    ===========================================================================
    HI !!!
    You must be new here.
    +++++++++
    Mathew: Welcome. I’m not sure that there is an argument here as you feel. This post is informational and hopefully will spark comments and debate. Not everything is posted as a pure one sided argument, and most of us here would call this post of the cold snap “Weather” and not proof of anything other than ironic considering the AGU Fall Meeting this week in SF, where they are there to promote a one sided argument. If you’re looking for a one sided argument, this is not the site to find it. We enjoy all sides of a debate in general and seek truth above all. All points of view are respected. Dishonesty or sloppy work is called out. That’s one unique aspect of WUWT, in my opinion. A statement like yours at SKS might get you banned forever.

  65. Smoking Frog says:
    December 13, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    I’m an AGW skeptic, but I’ve never seen a skeptic blog post or article announcing a number of cold-temperature records broken which offers any indication of how common or uncommon it is to see various numbers of broken cold-temperature records, or even commentary on that question. This makes me suspicious, and actually, it makes me feel contempt for such announcements.

    By itself, a report of so-and-so cold records broken, without random sampling in the weeks chosen to highlight, would mean next to nothing without further analysis (although already amusing compared to how many warmists like to cite about any bit of warm weather). However, once put into context, such as http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg including the global average temperature plots mid-way down there far beyond just local cherry-picking, then it gets more interesting.

  66. Interesting that the good book says: (regarding
    Jerusalem) ‘pray that your flight be not in the winter.’ No, God is not speaking of a Delta 573 or an El Al trip; he is speaking of actually fleeing on foot the surrounding area.

    God has this so called climate fraud under wraps, but as these winter records are falling like dominoes, He still is in control.

  67. The following are charts of 850mb/5000ft temp and anomaly (from ave).
    They are the best measure of surface temp to be obtained from this analysis/forecast suite….

    http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf.php?ech=0&mode=0&map=1&type=0&archive=0

    http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf.php?ech=0&mode=0&map=1&type=0&archive=0

    Can you see that the cold pool of air over Canada/N+E States is balanced by a warm pools over Siberia, much of Europe and Greenland?

    The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth.
    It’s called the natural variability of weather. And the ave temp over the hemisphere will be near normal.

  68. @TB
    Well, in Madrid, Spain for example, yes it’s about 10 (C) degrees (50 F) at noon, but it is freezing in the early morning, around -4 (C) (24 F)… And that is below average, because freezing temperatures is not normal in Madrid. So even that it seems ‘relatively warm’ for Europe, it is even there still below average… 4 years ago we were having drinks outside at a terrace in december. In the evening you would have a stunning 20 (C) degrees plus (70 F).

    And look at the middle east, that blob of cold weather near Egypt/Israel is extremely cold. So no, there is no spot, even in Europe, where the temperature at the moment is above average.

  69. On a separate note northern Scotland is currently experiencing freak nice weather with temperatures touching 14C and unfrozen precipitation. The extreme weather is forcing inhabitants to abandon heavy coats and remove wooly hats. If present climate trends continue heavy plaid and tweed will die out by 2050 and by 2080 people may be forced to don casual sportswear and perhaps even sandals when venturing outdoors.

  70. Smoking Frog – rather obvious false flag. try again, I’m sure you can do better. Question – did you inhale?

    TB – yes, we’re well aware of variability. Hence all the sarcastic comments regarding record highs being warming but record lows being weather.

    FWIW, this is the 3rd year in a row for snow in Jerusalem. Only 27 more years until it is climate.

  71. While I can relish the comedic element of the Mid East awash in snow, I fear we are just seeing the “tip of the iceberg” so to speak. My house is a lot closer to the next Laurentian Ice Shield than most here. I’m keeping my eyes open to see if I find armadillos fleeing to the south. Dang, it has been COLD here in the UP.

  72. My natural gas usage for the previous Novembers ….

    Nov, 2009: 69 CCF
    Nov, 2010: 65 CCF
    Nov, 2011: 69 CCF
    Nov, 2012: 71 CCF
    Nov, 2013: 143 CCF !!!

    It has gotten very, very cold, very early this year.

  73. thisisnotgoodtogo asked:

    “What effect do icebreakers have on the long term ice? Has constant breaking impacted the ability to keep older ice?”

    The effect of breaking up the artic ice cap is to allow more heat from the open waters to radiate to space thereby adding to global cooling – hence thicker ice in the long run, (if the ice-breakers could break up a significant portion of the ice cap.)

  74. Global warming my a**

    I am more worried about the low temps and next years grape harvest for wine.

    Geez the folks in Napa Valley are hating life.

  75. So why did it snow in Cairo 100+ years ago? Global climate change caused by coal fired, steam powered SUV’s?

  76. Jimbo says:
    December 13, 2013 at 11:50 am
    This is a sure sign of dangerous global cooling. We must act now!! :-)
    —————————————————————————————
    I thought government policy making had a mandate to not act beforehand. Something about it is better to act right in the middle of a crisis so that they can wield greater powers.

    Personally, I have come to believe that it would be a very good idea to examine what affect a severe cooling would have on crops in the NH. Plus, making sure that utility infrastructure and energy supplies are in good shape. The descent into a colder pattern might get steeper as time goes by.

  77. Well, here in Southern VT, it’s a balmy 6.1F and 14″ of the white stuff on the way for the weekend.
    Nobody around here is surprised, the general comment being:
    “It’s about time, what took ya so long?”

  78. I will believe AGW is caused by man when Al Gore and Michael Moore fall on their sword to save the planet!

  79. RSS has dropped in November to extend its period with at least a very slightly negative slope to 17 years and 3 months.

  80. What about the 99.99999999% of “climate scientists” that say my lawnmower is warming Mother Earth?

    I guess the .000000001% was correct – man-made global warming is just Liberal BS……..

  81. Snow in Cairo!!!

    I’m sorry folks, I just CAN’T imagine this scene being played with piping hot cups of Cadbury’s cocoa.

    But it certainly would be worth waiting for.

  82. William McClenney December 13, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    Perhaps this will assuage your data-gaps:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    Not unless the assuagement is in the comments. I haven’t read the comments. The blog post itself isn’t even relevant. The fact that temperatures can change abruptly tells us nothing about how likely or unlikely it is set any given number of records in a single week. Do I really have to explain this?

  83. CORRECTION of Smoking Frog Dec 13 at 11:55 PM

    “… is set any given number …” should be “… is to set any given number …”

  84. IN July 2012, there was an article here about the Russians predicting a trend toward colder temps that was to last 200 years or so… In the discussion that followed two commenters went back and forth on whether the trend toward cooler weather would start that July or July 2013. It looks to me as if the guy for July 2012 was correct. And Yes it is colder here, but cold here is 30 degrees F. I am pleased to watch all the ice and snow passing north of us.

  85. But, but it was warm down ole Dixie, was not it? Let’s skip the rest and keep being focused on that region for a while…

  86. Interesting to read the comments on the LA Times. Any attempt to make a reasoned comment (as opposed to a “fun” throw away remark) seems to be met with the response – “you are a moron/stupid/doofus etc – you are a right wing conservative who cannot understand the difference between weather and climate and certainly can’t add up or do science.” All too typical a comment from those who will not engage their brains and critically examine the evidence in front of them.

    But taking the difference between weather and climate – how is this defined? I’ve seen climate defined as average weather over time but this is too woolly. We seem to have a situation where every weather event can or cannot be attributed to agw. Is there a simple metric that a doofus like me could understand?? In my ignorance I thought measuring temperature would be sensible but apparently not.

  87. Global warming hysteria, obamacare, and welfare/foodstamps/disability payments for lazy frauds–all pointing to an eventual REVERSAL of liberalism in the country and a REVERSAL of fortunes for the hucksters profiting from all ot them. [snip . . no, just no . . mod]

  88. @TB
    Well, in Madrid, Spain for example, yes it’s about 10 (C) degrees (50 F) at noon, but it is freezing in the early morning, around -4 (C) (24 F)… And that is below average, because freezing temperatures is not normal in Madrid. So even that it seems ‘relatively warm’ for Europe, it is even there still below average… 4 years ago we were having drinks outside at a terrace in december. In the evening you would have a stunning 20 (C) degrees plus (70 F).

    And look at the middle east, that blob of cold weather near Egypt/Israel is extremely cold. So no, there is no spot, even in Europe, where the temperature at the moment is above average.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Look, I’m sorry, this is not the film “The Day after Tomorrow” (in which there is ZERO physics applied BTW)

    We have basic physics to consider here – conservation of energy.
    The whole NH (or SH) – cannot turn markedly either warmer than or colder than the average (for the time of year).
    Hemispheric radiative balance ensures that along with the central heating system of the Oceans.

    Look at this again: http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf.php?ech=0&mode=100&map=1&archive=0

    Are you saying that there is more blue than red there? – they should be about even but may not be as this is just a 2D snapshot of a 3D domain.

    Also note that these are temp anomalies at ~5000ft and so in winter there will be boundary layer inversions in places that make surface temps colder than ave.

  89. marcjf says:
    December 14, 2013 at 1:16 am
    >snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    See my posts in this thread to see how “Climate” is defined in terms of calculating a long term temperature trend in GCM’s.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/on-the-futility-of-long-range-numerical-climate-prediction/#comment-1500839

    To you and I it is the weather we would expect at the place we go to on holiday.
    But scientifically this is actually weather – the noise overlying the signal of climate.

    Climate is not continually acting weather. As weather merely is the heat engine of the Earth acting to frantically get itself into thermodynamic balance twixt a overall source of solar heat at the equator up to about 45 deg N/S and the overall sinks from there to the Poles.

    What climate is, is the variation in the changes in the energy the Earth’s heat engine has available to create the “weather” as it attempts to get to thermodynamic balance.

    In the past (and now of course but it’s too slow to be a factor at human even generational time scales) is orbital changes. Then there are solar variations. Albedo changes (ice/snow fields giving SW reflection). Aerosols/volcanic activity …. And then we have GHG’s in the atmosphere.

    When it comes to attributing a particular weather event to AGW then it’s a matter of statistics. How often has it happened before. Imagine it as say a saw-blade. The teeth represent the “weather” and the blade the “climate”. When tilted you are adding a bias (climate) – now warming. Over time you can tell that the “teeth” successively climb higher but it takes time to spot it and in reality the teeth are not all the same length.

  90. Re-stating from 2002:

    We knew decades ago that global warming alarmism was wrong. We confidently stated in 2002:
    [PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    On global warming:
    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    On green energy:
    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    I suggest that our two above statements are now demonstrably true, within reasonable probabilities.

    I also wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, based on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson:

    On global cooling:
    “If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

    I expect that global cooling will be a reality by 2020, and may have already started. The Watermelons have already begun their retreat from global warming hysteria, and have moved on to “climate change” alarmism and “sustainability”, their new mantras to achieve greater political power.

    In fact, these disreputable people have discredited true environmentalism with their false alarm. There remain real environmental issues that need to be addressed. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is NOT one of them.

    Repeating from 2002:
    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    Regards to all, Allan

  91. This Global Warming is terrible! Gore was right after all. I’m sweating . . . err . . . freezing my balls off!

  92. Oh Al, fat Al – what say you? I don’t think he cares. He’s too busy preaching to the mind numb and flying around the world in his G VI.

  93. rogerknights says:
    December 13, 2013 at 11:40 am
    littlepeaks says:
    December 13, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Here in Colorado, the meteorologists are predicting a another wave of extreme cold next weekend, right before Christmas.

    Let’s hope it’ll kill off most of those bark beetles.

    Given that the Pine bark beetle is a result of man’s desire to limit fire in the mountains, me thinks the only way to clear the forest of the beetles and damaged trees is in fact – Fire.

    Too much damage over to large of an area.

  94. marcjf

    Someone had a good analogy: weather is like a baseball batter at the plate; climate is his batting average. Climate is statistical, weather is actual events. Weather drives climate, not the other way around.

  95. Everyone knows that Global Warming makes things COLDER…….IF we had GLOBAL COOLING, we would be seeing RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES, because eveyone knows when you put something in the freezer, it gets warmer…..right DEMOCRAT LIARS?

  96. Global warming scam, yet another violation of our rights. The gov’t constantly violates our rights.
    They violate the 1st Amendment by caging protesters and banning books like “America Deceived II”.
    They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by allowing TSA to grope you.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
    Impeach Obama.
    Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely banned:

    • Simple. In their quest to destroy the U.S. Economy so they can usher in their warped idea of a “progressive utopia,” they guessed wrong about what the climate was doing and now have to reverse gears (pretty hard on the transmission).

  97. The global warming freaks had a 50/50 chance that the earth would become warmer over the most recent period of time and got it wrong. Now they’re stacking the deck and calling it climate change as if the climate isn’t suppose to change from year to year. Just the democrats trying to steal more money from the American worker through taxation.

  98. I was listening to a report on the radio…I think FOX of all places and the reporter stated that, ‘while cold, this current outbreak was not setting many records’ or something to that extent. I am a meteorologist and just about threw the radio in the bathtub. What the H E double toothpick were they looking at?

  99. It is Bush’s fault for not fighting carbon sooner. Had Bush implemented the carbon tax we would not be in predicament of both carbon pollution and a high national debt. If we could only get behind ObamaCare that would solve most of our problems. Plus make all the people in the US without visas legal so we could broaden the tax base. Oh, I forgot what about reducing the interest deduction for those earning over the social security wage base and increasing the national tax on fuel by 15 cents. Or maybe add a flat tax on top of the income taxes. There are fees, raise fees by 50%, do not need anyone the approve raising fees. Most importantly we must redistribute income to those who really need it by just scraping off a couple of per cent from the most wealthy. If all these had of been accomplished in the first few years of the Obama administration we would not be in the mess we are in now and we would not be the United State of America.

  100. I know it’s been cold here…12.2* here last week…I don’t know much about weather and climate and all but before the mini ice age-besides the lack of sun spots-wasn’t there a lot of volcanism going on? Isn’t there a lot of volcanoes going off now-constantly? All the ash and gases going into the atmosphere…Some one help me out-it’s not us-it’s nature…Right?

    • “Extremes” caused by Global Warming? Are you REALLY this cognitively dissonant? Warmer weather? Global Warming. Cooler weather? Global Warming. Wetter weather? Global Warming. Drier weather? Global Warming. You people are simply AMAZING….amazingly obtuse.

  101. With intellectual fire power like this –

    ‘Huffpost super user…’

    SUPER USER·10,838 Fans·margaritas ante porcos
    Normally winds are predominantly either east or west because of the planet’s spin.

    The increase in global temperatures may cause an increase of north-south convection by introducing more energy into the system.
    13 DEC 15:17
    REPLY FAVE MORE

    No wonder we are screwed.

  102. Warmer sea surface temperatures which would be a result of climate change causes an atmospheric event called blocking. Blocking is when the flow of the jet stream is disrupted by high pressure usually over the northern Atlantic and pacific in the northern hemisphere. The CONUS was impacted by two blocking events in the pacific and Atlantic placing a trough of cooler air over most of the CONUS. So, climate change is happening and it alters the whole atmosphere so some places will be warmer than others and some cooler. Also, blocking is probably what is probably the result of cold and snowy conditions in the Mid East.

  103. RicHard December 14, 2013 at 8:54 am

    Ah smoking frog, It is you- BBD, your style of writing gives you away my friend.

    I don’t know who or what BBD is. Please tell me.

    Some of the replies I’ve received are remarkable for their bigotry, and this includes yours. There is nothing wrong with the idea that a given number of cold-temperature records in a single week tells us nothing about how likely or unlikely such an event is, but in case there is something wrong with it, this should be explained.

    As to the one or more commenters who told me that the point of announcing 2,000 records was irony, I say that this does not obviate my complaint, because the post sounds as though the writer (Mr. Watts, I guess) considers the record-breaking to be important. I myself find the misuse of high-temperature records by alarmists to be annoying but not worth bothering about except on occasion of such misuse.

    As to those who told me that I must be new here, I say no. I’ve been reading this blog several times a week for years, but I have only seldom commented because I only seldom have anything to say which I consider to be worth saying – and this is with knowing more about AGW than some of the commenters.

    As to those who think I’m not an AGW skeptic, they are wrong, but I find the yahoo character of many comments (not all, don’t get me wrong) disgusting. If I knew as little about AGW as some of these people seem to, I would never even make a peep.

    Very occasionally, I have succumbed to the temptation to argue. The main example would be arguments I had with the commenter Myrrh, whose comments I found so far out to lunch – that I did succumb.

    I think that yahoo comments are harmful to AGW skepticism. They’re just the mirror image of the crap that I see on alarmist blogs. I hate to argue with skeptics, because it can be seen as supporting alarmism, but unfortunately it is necessary to attack this mirror-image situation.

  104. Robin Hood says December 14, 2013 at 7:40 am

    It is Bush’s fault for not fighting carbon sooner.

    Yes, Robn, let’s just ban the element, along with that most DANGEROUS of compounds dihydrogen monoxide; people DROWN in that stuff all time *and* its been falling from the sky as of late and FREEZING on roadway surfaces! This causes accidents and loss of life and productivity!

    Sign the petition NOW!

    .

  105. What must Al Gore be thinking now? How to spin this massive cooling in to a side effect of global warming. If any wacko could do it and have his idiotic sycophants believe it, its him.

  106. Robin Hood, you have to be an unmitigated moron. You’ve got hutzpah for posting such garbage, I’ll give you that, but it’s still intellectually shallow and you’re a typical uninformed liberal.

  107. pokerguy (December 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm) “Recall those winters fondly, late 70s in New England. Blizzard of ’78 is the “big one” we still talk about. I was young, and full of beans, and in my element. Now I say, “No thank you.””

    Same here. I still don’t mind shoveling a foot, but 2-3 not so much (e.g. Shenandoah Valley winter of 2009-2010).

    I think about this: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png With apologies in advance to Leif for appropriating his chart for some speculation: the cold winters of the 70’s were about a decade after the drop in solar activity. That means around 2020 we will see some even more brutal winters. I am not looking forward to that, but I will be prepared unlike 97% of climate scientists.

  108. Sorry mr watts, delete if necessary, I just have an interest in following writing patterns of certain people.

    Mr frog, taking a closer watch I see you posted under the name of dumb scientist, you sure turn up in a lot of areas under different names.

    Going out on a long limb did you also post under the name your kids aren’t special on youtube.

  109. Jim,

    Anther chemical we might disband is NaCl. I bet ObamaCare could get behind that. No Dihydrogen monoxide nor Sodium Chloride ail our problems we be solved.

  110. TB (December 13, 2013 at 3:19 pm) :The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth.”

    That is true sometimes, but not always. When the polar jet pushes cold air south it might also push some north, but it might not. The average temperature of the earth doesn’t balance. There is no equilibrium anywhere never mind everywhere. When it gets warm. somewhere there is no balancing cold and vice versa.

    The lesson here is that the earth can cool off drastically and there’s not much we can do about it.

    The earth is warmed only by somewhat feeble sunlight which can be bounced back into space. The alleged increase in storminess also causes an increase in the earth’s net heat loss. Those effects can produce local cold that are not balanced by warmth somewhere else.

    • Generally true….however, you might remember that the original “computer model” upon which many in the IPCC relied in making their predictions completely FORGOT the increase in albedo that would occur, caused by higher heat evaporating more sea water and thus producing more cloud cover when it was making its “predictions.” Increased albedo would have the effect of COOLING the surface.

  111. TB (December 14, 2013 at 2:58 am) “We have basic physics to consider here – conservation of energy.”

    That is absolutely incorrect. The planet cannot conserve energy because it is not a closed system.

  112. I’m wondering why my reply to RicHard has not appeared, even though many other messages have appeared in the meantime.

  113. TB (December 14, 2013 at 3:23 am) “What climate is, is the variation in the changes in the energy the Earth’s heat engine has available to create the “weather” as it attempts to get to thermodynamic balance.”

    Climate is simply net heat loss. There is no “balance”, stored heat can be removed in a day or two equivalent to years of global warming from CO2. A decade or two of global warming can be lost in a week or two. Other weather can cause rapid planetary warming. There is a lot of thermal inertia that blunts the extreme swings and various negative feedbacks on the positive and negative side. All weather and feedbacks are local so weather, yet again, will determine exchanges of heat and the future climate.

  114. Robin Hood says December 14, 2013 at 10:04 am

    Anther chemical we might disband is NaCl. …

    Yes! I know! Chlorine is highly reactive! Imagine if everybody had access to something so reactive (notwithstanding DHS control efforts to the contrary)!

    And Sodium! Cited by the American Heart Association as THE cause for high blood pressure and a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases! One in three Americans is estimated to develop high blood pressure by consuming this silver-white metal!

    The Horror!

  115. Oops … formatting faux paus on my part …
    .

    Robin Hood says December 14, 2013 at 10:04 am

    Anther chemical we might disband is NaCl. …

    Yes! I know! Chlorine is highly reactive! Imagine if everybody had access to something so reactive (notwithstanding DHS control efforts to the contrary)!

    And Sodium! Cited by the American Heart Association as THE cause for high blood pressure and a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases! One in three Americans is estimated to develop high blood pressure by consuming this silver-white metal!

    The Horror!

  116. Coal Fired power plants in China and India are spewing massive amounts of sulfur compounds and very fine particulates into the air, which cause global cooling. Furthermore, there has been an increase in volcanic activity, which also causes global cooling. And, since the sun is now putting out less energy than it has in 100 years it’s no surprise that the earth is cooling down some. However, with continued increase in greenhouse gases over the next 20 or 30 years global warming will eventually overtake the current cooling effect with a vengeance.

    • There it is again! Global warming is (or will result in) Global Cooling…which will cause Global Warming…but sometime in the far-off future. One can only wonder just HOW someone becomes so delusional.

  117. The scientific understanding of the Sun’s role in climate is imperfect. Many respected scientists say the Sun does not vary enough to be a significant driver of global temperatures. I disagree, although my understanding, and that of the science community as a whole, is less than adequate.

    I (we) predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article published the Calgary Herald in 2002. That prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity has crashed.

    Current Solar Cycle 24 (SC24), predicted as recently as 2006 by NASA to be robust, is a dud, with a projected maximum Smoothed Sunspot Number (SSNmax) of ~65. It is still early in the prediction game, but SC25 is also projected to be very weak, so we will probably experience two consecutive very-weak Solar Cycles in SC24 and SC25.

    Here is what we may be able to infer at a macro level about the impact of the Sun on global temperatures:

    Very-weak solar activity, as estimated by peak Sunspot Numbers, coincided with two very cold periods called the Maunder Minimum (circa 1700) and the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800).

    I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 consecutive weak Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/

    The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html

    The Dalton Minimum had 2 consecutive weak SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815, one of the two largest volcanic eruptions in the past 2000 years.

    Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET). Note the slightly-colder of the two was pre-Tambora.

    Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well – so we probably anticipate two more consecutive very-weak SC’s.

    Here is my concern:

    IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm.

    They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind power schemes.

    I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe will get colder, possibly much colder.

    I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the Europe as cooling progresses.

    I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

    As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.

    Best regards to all, Allan MacRae

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…
    – Yeats

  118. Thanks for the replies to my question though it was intended to be rhetorical in a sense.

    Seems to me that there has been fluctuations in temperature over the last 100 years (and the history has been massaged) and it is a little warmer than before, but no measurable change for somewhere between 10 and 17 years. No real change in extreme weather events. Arctic ice getting smaller, opposite at the South pole. If you accept CO2 drives climate it will get hotter soon but if you consider things more holistically – it is more likely to get cooler. Which would be actually bad news.

    I expect to see more hype, more fixed numbers, more grant-driven faux science, more cries for action and little or no change in the basic situation except it will be a cooler place generally. But when the hidden heat emerges (???) – or say we have a natural warming cycle or El Nino event, the skeptics will have been proved wrong. Or maybe not.

    But this is a akin to a religion so belief is everything. We can’t possibly allow the null hypothesis. That would seriously upset some very well meaning folk.

  119. Box of Rocks says December 14, 2013 at 8:59 am

    With intellectual fire power like this –

    ‘Huffpost super user…’

    SUPER USER·10,838 Fans·margaritas ante porcos
    Normally winds are predominantly either east or west because of the planet’s spin.

    The increase in global temperatures may cause an increase of north-south convection by introducing more energy into the system.
    13 DEC 15:17
    REPLY FAVE MORE

    No wonder we are screwed.

    It has been said: “In the ‘land of the blind’ the one-eyed man is king

    Welcome to the ‘sump* (or bilge) of the internet’, the Huff and Puff Po.

    .

    .

    * Sump – a low space that collects any often-undesirable liquids such as water or chemicals, also,
    a pit, basin, cesspool, etc., in which liquid is collected or into which it drains, a chamber at the bottom of a machine, pump, etc., into which a fluid drains before recirculation or in which wastes gather before disposal.

    .

  120. Winter is still a week away and yet again millions of people are suffering through, and are endangered by, record cold. The recent widespread snow and ice storms dramatically demonstrate that the earth is profoundly threatened by a new weather phenomenon, “Global Cooling.” If left unchecked the earth will turn into a frozen, lifeless ice cube like Mars. This calamity is being caused by the atmospheric changes brought on by all the rich left wingers. By overheating their large mansions, flying around in their personal jets and spewing toxic waste from their mouths, they block the sunlight from reaching the earth. Fortunately, there is a solution. By imposing a 100% tax on left wingers we can save both civilization and the earth. Al Gore, we’re gonna get our money back.
    .

  121. Skip says:
    December 14, 2013 at 10:58 am

    with continued increase in greenhouse gases over the next 20 or 30 years global warming will eventually overtake the current cooling effect with a vengeance.

    That is the fervent hope and hype of Alarmists. It is all emotion-based, though. No science whatsoever. There is simply no evidence that our GHGs are warming the Earth. Whatever warming they do provide, if any, is therefor too small to be of any significance. They simply do not matter.

  122. Quite simply if it was to be believed how much the Arctic was suppose to be warming (DMI doesn’t support), there wouldn’t be these extremely cold pulses from the Arctic that rival hundreds of years ago (worldwide). The Arctic cant be much warmer than hundreds of years ago yet the same air source reaching further south rivals decades ago. The air doesn’t cool as it moves away from the pole it warms.

  123. Kayla says:
    December 14, 2013 at 8:54 am
    More evidence of CLIMATE CHANGE and the extremes that go with it.
    ++++++
    So Kayla. Please help me understand. Do you suggest that climate changes only due to humanity’s influence?

  124. @ Smoking Frog:
    you wrote: “As to the one or more commenters who told me that the point of announcing 2,000 records was irony, I say that this does not obviate my complaint, because the post sounds as though the writer (Mr. Watts, I guess) considers the record-breaking to be important.”
    +++++++++++
    The post says ironic, but you feel like even though the word used was irony, that it was meant to imply “important”. You say you frequent WUWT, however if you did, you would know clearly that skeptics believe weather is not climate. The irony is that the basic theme of warmists is that weather is in fact climate if it can be used as proof of AGW. If you do not understand irony, and if you do not understand the warmists beliefs because you feel rather than comprehend, then perhaps you should take your own advice and not make a peep.

  125. airbagmoments says:
    December 14, 2013 at 8:36 am
    Wow, this must be the largest echo chamber on planet Earth. Enjoy! Echo! Echoooo!
    ==============================

    The main difference between here and most “Alarmist” sites is that you can post something like this and it does not get deleted.

    As an experiment, create and account over at Skeptical Science and post something like that about them. Come to think about it, post something polite, on topic, that disagrees with the main alarmist thrust of the site.

    See if your post is deleted, changed. or your account is deleted.

    Enjoy!!

    Tom R.;

  126. dougjmiller says December 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    Winter is still a week …

    Brother, I have news for you: IT’S HERE! Check the low elevation angle of the sun, the thermometer, and the depth of the snow that’s fallen so far …

    Even Wiki says: “The winter solstice is the time at which the sun appears at noon at its lowest altitude above the horizon. … But it should not be confused with “the first day of winter” or “the start of winter” …

    .

  127. Even the BA guy would seem to agree on this (my previous) point:

    [Do] The seasons begin at the time of the solstice or equinox. [?]

    I think I will break from my usual format of Bad Astronomy/Good Astronomy by saying that the way we define seasons currently is not strictly bad, but I feel (in my opinion!) that it could be better. The definition of when the seasons begin is at the moment of solstice or equinox; that is, winter (in the north) starts on December 22nd and summer starts on June 22nd.

    I feel instead that the midpoint of the seasons are really at these times. The seasons themselves start a month and a half before then .

    As it happens, a lot of countries do actually think of the seasons this way; Japan for example. A lot of European countries do too; they have a Midsummers Day (made famous by William Shakespeare) on June 21 or so, and the days I claim should be the actual season starters are called “cross-quarter” days.

    Text within [..] added by me.

    .

  128. The Cross-Quarter Days
    These days marked the midpoint between a solstice and equinox. For the ancient Celts, these marked the beginning of each season, with the major two divisions being winter (Samhain), starting the dark half of the year, and summer (Beltane), starting the light half of the year.

    http://www.almanac.com/content/quarter-days-and-cross-quarter-days

    Samhain
    Samhain (pronounced /ˈsɑːwɪn/ sah-win or /ˈsaʊ.ɪn/ sow-in)[1] is a Gaelic festival marking the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter or the “darker half” of the year. It is celebrated from sunset on 31 October to sunset on 1 November, which is nearly halfway between the autumn equinox and the winter solstice.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain

    • If you’d like a fairly comprehensive explanation of the Celts’ four seasonal celebrations, I recommend you read John Ringo’s book “Kildar.” In it he discovers an insular community in the country of Georgia who turn out to be the remnants of the Byzantine Varangian Guards, who were Celts/Vikings who once guarded the Byzantian Emperors. This enclave had kept their seasonal celebrations and worship of the “Father of All,” old one-eyed Odin, more or less intact over more than a millennium.

  129. Biblical history documents every time a nation allies against Israel. God shows his disfavor with the leadership and the people, through drastic changes in the weather. No wonder the USA has been slammed by record cold and snow. The O administration and Sec of state need to leave Israel alone, and stop trying to divide the people of the covenant. This is only the beginning!!!

  130. eric1skeptic says:
    December 14, 2013 at 10:23 am
    TB (December 14, 2013 at 2:58 am) “We have basic physics to consider here – conservation of energy.”

    That is absolutely incorrect. The planet cannot conserve energy because it is not a closed system.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Eric I am not referring to the overall radiative balance between Sun-Earth-Space when I stated the above. The chart in the link is a snapshot of the temperature at 5000ft in the NH. That is all. It does not have anything to do with flow of energy to/from Earth – other than the fundamental truth behind Earth’s energy budget.
    What we have is a balance in total energy within the atmosphere at that instant. AND it must be conserved – in that the –ves and the +ves (ANOMALIES remember) sum to zero throughout the atmosphere. In reality they may not at the 850mb level taken on its own.

    AND

    “TB (December 13, 2013 at 3:19 pm) :The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth.”

    That is true sometimes, but not always. When the polar jet pushes cold air south it might also push some north, but it might not. The average temperature of the earth doesn’t balance. There is no equilibrium anywhere never mind everywhere. When it gets warm. somewhere there is no balancing cold and vice versa.

    The lesson here is that the earth can cool off drastically and there’s not much we can do about it.

    The earth is warmed only by somewhat feeble sunlight, which can be bounced back into space. The alleged increase in storminess also causes an increase in the earth’s net heat loss. Those effects can produce local cold that are not balanced by warmth somewhere else.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Eric, when the polar jet pushes cold air south, warm air MUST push north. If you do not understand the Meteorology then think of it as a draught through your living room. If cold air comes in from outside, ergo warm air inside will flow out. There is only some much energy and mass to be accommodated.

    The Earth can only “cool off drastically” if the Sun suddenly loses power. If the Earth suddenly moved (further away) in orbit, or favoured the SH more for its winter sunshine – ie the NH got less in its summer. (Greater land-mass means more sensible heating). Or (God-forbid) there is a nuclear winter/massive volcanic aerosol concentrations emitted high into the Strat.

    There is no extra heat loss via “alleged increased storminess” that is internal to the system and is just a vigorous mixing of air-masses in restoring (internal) thermodynamic equilibrium. The net Solar absorbed minus IR emitted will remain the same so long as the above external drivers do not change.

    • One thing to remember is that on the hottest day of any given year, the temperature DECREASES by 2 degrees C. for every 1000′ of altitude gained, which is why, at 30,000′, the temperature in the open air is ALWAYS well below zero C.

  131. If there were more than 2,000 heat records set, instead of 2,000+ cold and snow records set, prople like TB would be telling us: “I told you so!”

    Well, TB, we told you so: there is no more global warming. It has stopped. It stopped 17 years ago.

    You were wrong, plain and simple, and you would get some respect here by admitting that you were wrong, instead of incessantly nitpicking.

  132. Skip says:
    December 14, 2013 at 10:58 am

    “Coal Fired power plants in China and India are spewing massive amounts of sulfur compounds and very fine particulates into the air, which cause global cooling. Furthermore, there has been an increase in volcanic activity, which also causes global cooling. And, since the sun is now putting out less energy than it has in 100 years it’s no surprise that the earth is cooling down some. However, with continued increase in greenhouse gases over the next 20 or 30 years global warming will eventually overtake the current cooling effect with a vengeance.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Sulfur compounds from power plants never reach the lower stratosphere. These are washed out out of the atmosphere in just a matter of days and therefore don’t contribute to any global influence in temperature. There has been no notable volcanic activity over recent years that has had any unusual affect on SAOT levels. SAOT levels have been generally declining over recent years.

    All we have now is the change in the sun and therefore if you believe this was contributing to the recent cooling. Why are you not supporting that it contributed to the warming previously when it was in an active phase? That is known as cherry picking a favoured outcome of only part of the true mechanism/cycle. Hence, you cant be sure the next 20/30 years will eventually overtake when you cant rule out the possibility of the more active cycle before it.

    Finally if it takes 20/30 years just to show any warming, how is that rate ever going to even be a problem? We will not get to even a 1c rise by the end of century at this rate, never mind any more.
    .

  133. TB says December 14, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    Eric, when the polar jet pushes cold air south,

    ‘Pushes’?

    I’m having a little difficulty with this concept; is it your assertion that ‘jets’ are responsible for the movement of cold, polar air masses southward by ‘pushing’ them (the fronts)? I’ve yet to see them depicted that way on meteo charts or synopsis maps, in fact, they seem to run parallel to cold/warm fronts shown on meteo maps.

    Maybe this is why, from: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Jet_Stream

    The Polar Jet Stream is formed as a result of the temperature gradient between the cold polar air mass and the warmer sub-tropical air mass. Since the temperature difference is greatest in the winter, the speed of the Polar Jet Stream is at its highest also in the winter.

    Also, the graphic accompanying the text shows the ‘jet’ to be existing the warm air mass undercut by the colder air mass …

    This site has some good info concerning the formation of ‘jets’ as well:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/waskjet.htm

    .

  134. TB (December 14, 2013 at 3:57 pm)
    *****
    “What we have is a balance in total energy within the atmosphere at that instant. AND it must be conserved – in that the –ves and the +ves (ANOMALIES remember) sum to zero throughout the atmosphere. In reality they may not at the 850mb level taken on its own.”
    ++++
    “Eric, when the polar jet pushes cold air south, warm air MUST push north. If you do not understand the Meteorology then think of it as a draught through your living room. If cold air comes in from outside, ergo warm air inside will flow out. There is only some much energy and mass to be accommodated.”
    *****

    TB, you are correct that if cold aid is pushed south, then warm air must be pushed north since the global conservation of mass is a physical reality. Thus my statement above “When the polar jet pushes cold air south it might also push some north, but it might not.” was poorly worded and not really correct.

    You are also correct about the conservation of energy in the earth’s atmosphere at any instant in time. However that is irrelevant in this discussion since the cold air did not arrive in the continental US (last week for example) in an instant. Therefore your statement “The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth” argued as conservation of energy is incorrect.

    In the case of last week’s Arctic outbreak there were rapid rises in albedo and diurnal cloud cover acting as positive feedbacks as the cold air surged south and east. The fact that the initial outbreak was in the NW part of the continent coincidentally allowed most of the continent (thus a larger portion of the earth’s surface) to cool as the air masses moved south and east.

    Finally, here’s the data to look at: http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt I think that sensor broke earlier this year but there’s data from before it broke. Here’s an explanation of some of the source of fluctuations by Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/what-causes-the-large-swings-in-global-satellite-temperatures/

    The bottom line is there is no reason to expect or believe that cooling in one part of the world can cause warming in another or vice versa over any time interval.

    • Please try to remember that cold isn’t a CONDITION. It’s merely the ABSENCE of heat. Heat EXISTS in SOME degree (pardon the pun) as long as atoms are in motion. Thus, Absolute Zero…the point at which all atoms cease all motion.

  135. re: TB and eric1skeptic December 14, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    ++++++++
    “Eric, when the polar jet pushes cold air south, warm air MUST push north. If you do not understand the Meteorology then think of it as a draught through your living room. If cold air comes in from outside, ergo warm air inside will flow out. There is only some much energy and mass to be accommodated.”
    ************

    TB, you are correct that if cold aid is pushed south, then warm air must be pushed north since …

    Of course, you guys are familiar, or acquainted with, Hadley Cells, Mid-Latitude and Polar cells, and atmospheric circulation (the large-scale movement of air globally) overall-all?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

    .

  136. Regarding weather modification that has been bringing “snow” into unusual areas in the States, including Texas recently, it makes you wonder what kind of chemical agents [rest is trimmed per site policy. Mod]

  137. Joseph Cek says December 14, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Regarding weather modification that has been bringing “snow” into unusual areas in the States, including Texas recently, it makes you wonder what kind of chemical agents …

    RIGHT.

    Do you know what a cold front is?

    Do you understand what warm, moist air does when it over-runs cold air near the surface?

    Can explain using first principles how any kind of ‘spray’ would make a difference meteorology in a situation like this, or bring about the convergence of a cold front and over-running warm, moisture-laden air?

    Want to learn about actual meteorology? Start here: MedEd – https://www.meted.ucar.edu/

    What Is MetEd?

    MetEd is a free collection of hundreds of training modules intended for the geoscience community. Whether you’re an experienced meteorologist honing existing skills or a student looking for new topics of interest, we have something for you.

    .

  138. _Jim (December 14, 2013 at 5:37 pm) “I’m having a little difficulty with this concept; is it your assertion that ‘jets’ are responsible for the movement of cold, polar air masses southward by ‘pushing’ them (the fronts)? I’ve yet to see them depicted that way on meteo charts or synopsis maps, in fact, they seem to run parallel to cold/warm fronts shown on meteo maps.”

    _Jim, you are correct that the jet runs parallel to the isobars or in between the warm and cold air masses. That is due to the Coriolis force, otherwise the air motion at the altitude of the jet (aloft) would be from the high pressure over low latitudes to low pressure at high latitudes. The jet follows the polar front at the surface because that is the area of the highest horizontal temperature contrast and also the highest vertical contrast.

    Thus there is control from the surface temperature contrast to the jet. But there is also control from the jet to the surface. As the jet develops waves, those waves push cold air south. A surface storm can do the same thing, but a surface storm is more typically a result of the upper wave itself.

    There is often a Rossby wave over the North American continent due to the mountains along the west coast of the continent. However that wave, like all waves, eventually propagates east. But before it does it pushes cold air south into the US, so essentially it can be said that the Rockies can push cold air south.

    However my main point is not that cold air is pushed south (and thus warm air north) but that cold air can develop spontaneously from weather. When it does, there is no counterbalancing warm air somewhere else. Thus TB’s claim that “where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth” is not necessarily true and there are absolutely no constraints on global weather by the instantaneous conservation of energy in the earth’s atmosphere. The basic reason is that the net ocean and space fluxes can vary greatly over just a single day thanks to the coincidence of cooling or warming weather across the planet. That weather can average out but it does not have to.

  139. In fact, planetary conservation of energy is bad warmist physics. See for example http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html which claims to “present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy” (impossible) using “a massive ensemble of simulations” (a joke since they can’t simulate weather) to “demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming” (false, there is no such balance).

    We are lectured over and over that the AGW “fingerprint” only shows up in the long term data. Yet they propose proving AGW by using instantaneous conservation of energy.

  140. Here in New England (especially northern parts), as of this morning, I am happy to report that children will once again know what snow is, as about a foot or more of the white stuff has blanketed us. Looks to be a white Christmas.

  141. We should send some nucular bombs into the sun to get it stated again. And Obuma should fire up those coal burning power plants before this absence of heat turns into ALgore’s next crusade

    REPLY: The sum total of the nuclear arsenal on Earth wouldn’t even make a blip in the sun’s energy processes – Anthony

  142. TB (December 14, 2013 at 3:57 pm)
    *****
    “What we have is a balance in total energy within the atmosphere at that instant. AND it must be conserved – in that the –ves and the +ves (ANOMALIES remember) sum to zero throughout the atmosphere. In reality they may not at the 850mb level taken on its own.”
    ++++
    “Eric, when the polar jet pushes cold air south, warm air MUST push north. If you do not understand the Meteorology then think of it as a draught through your living room. If cold air comes in from outside, ergo warm air inside will flow out. There is only some much energy and mass to be accommodated.”
    *****

    TB, you are correct that if cold aid is pushed south, then warm air must be pushed north since the global conservation of mass is a physical reality. Thus my statement above “When the polar jet pushes cold air south it might also push some north, but it might not.” was poorly worded and not really correct.

    You are also correct about the conservation of energy in the earth’s atmosphere at any instant in time. However that is irrelevant in this discussion since the cold air did not arrive in the continental US (last week for example) in an instant. Therefore your statement “The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth” argued as conservation of energy is incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, indeed it did not Eric – while it was steadily advecting southwards over Canada into the US there was a equal/opposite warm air-mass moving northwards elsewhere in the atmosphere.
    Look, the NH is very effectively separated from the SH by the Hadley cells and mixing between the 2 hemispheres is very, very slow. You cannot have a situation where deep cold air pushes south and displaces warmer air OUT of the NH – therefore air has to move back northwards somewhere else.
    Also, there is not an inexhaustible supply of cold air at the Pole. If advected south the supply will cut-off and less colder air replace it, to in turn cool-off radiatively.
    Imagine an Earth that does NOT rotate – then a jet-stream would not form and air would flow cross contour from high to low at the surface (as it does in equatorial zones where Coriolis is weak) and importantly aloft, baroclinic discontinuities would mean air moving from warm to cold without (in NH) turning right. Therefore air would flow almost exclusively from south to north. Again not really mixing at all with the SH. The air is pretty much contained. However the rotating Earth creates Rossby waves within, resulting in meridional advection, and as the cold air flows S behind the Jet (or CF if you like) then due loss of absolute vorticity it slows and turns left to return N on the forward side of the digging long-wave trough. This proceeds until increasing vorticity makes it turn right etc. AT a certain wavelength this becomes self-reinforcing and often “retrogresses”. In other words the hemispheric air averages out it’s heat in that hemisphere. Greatest cooling occurs within the Arctic circle where the whole air-mass is in darkness – though it is true that over snow fields further south cold air is slow to warm. If you add up the NH surface temps for the winter then they will average out at near normal – every year. There will not be a case of a large variation from normal either way. That is not how the atmosphere works.

    Explanation of the mechanics of Rossby waves:

    http://www.met.wau.nl/education/MWS/waves/modules/module4/Chapter%204.pdf

    “In the case of last week’s Arctic outbreak there were rapid rises in albedo and diurnal cloud cover acting as positive feed-backs as the cold air surged south and east. The fact that the initial outbreak was in the NW part of the continent coincidentally allowed most of the continent (thus a larger portion of the earth’s surface) to cool as the air masses moved south and east.”

    Yes, that’s right Eric and that does cause the lower layers of the air-mass to remain very cold (and given radiation conditions, the air to get colder at the surface). However you neglect other effects on the air-mass. When cold advection takes place there is often a descent in the upper air it now being on the confluent region of the jet (Anticyclonic building area) and due descent it warms. There can also be advection over the top of the cold air by warm – making the average air-mass temp higher.
    Similarly, elsewhere in the hemisphere, warmer air moves north and moisture within it will condense into cloud preventing radiational cooling, especially if over a snow-field.

    Finally, here’s the data to look at: http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt I think that sensor broke earlier this year but there’s data from before it broke. Here’s an explanation of some of the source of fluctuations by Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/what-causes-the-large-swings-in-global-satellite-temperatures/

    Yes, yes the MJ Oscillation –one of many circulations that cause gravity waves to circulate the Earth.

    “The bottom line is there is no reason to expect or believe that cooling in one part of the world can cause warming in another or vice versa over any time interval.”

    No Eric, cold does NOT cause warming. You come at it backwards. It is a dual process. Think of the polar jet as a washing-line. Take hold of one end and whip it upwards – you see a wave travel along the line. Think of this as a partition between cold air above a warm air below. The area above will be the same as the area below. This generally what happens in the atmosphere.
    I am not saying that one 2d snapshot will be exactly in thermodynamic equilibrium BUT the whole depth of the hemispheric atmospheric will be. And most certainly averaged over a year.

    BTW: I have posted on Roy’s website (under a different username). Please note (some on here) that Roy is no skeptic of GHG theory.

  143. Mario Lento December 14, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    The post says ironic, but you feel like even though the word used was irony, that it was meant to imply “important”. You say you frequent WUWT, however if you did, you would know clearly that skeptics believe weather is not climate. The irony is that the basic theme of warmists is that weather is in fact climate if it can be used as proof of AGW. If you do not understand irony, and if you do not understand the warmists beliefs because you feel rather than comprehend, then perhaps you should take your own advice and not make a peep.

    I missed the word “irony” in the post. I apologize for this. Still, when numbers of cold-temperature records within a brief period are announced, I think this should be accompanied by some analysis discussion of how likely or unlikely this is, and what its significance, if any, for the global warming question. One reason I think so is that the analysis might show that it was significant in some way. To excuse the lack of analysis by saying that the announcement is mere irony is either to assume that a spate of records is not significant, or to encourage some people to assume that it is significant.

    Furthermore, it’s an interesting question. Czech physicist and AGW skeptic Lubos Motl (motls.blogspot.com), in the past, has posted at least twice on the question, and, not only this, but there are a priori determinations which anyone with a decent math background who bothered to think about the question could make, but I’ve never seen anyone bother, except that now I’ve seen a couple of WUWT posts which someone here pointed out for me in this thread, for which I thank him.

    As I said, I missed the word “irony,” and I apologize for this, but I think your message is about as bigoted as some others. I notice that you had to pick out one point in order to be sarcastic, ignoring all the others.

  144. TB (December 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm) “Think of the polar jet as a washing-line. Take hold of one end and whip it upwards – you see a wave travel along the line. Think of this as a partition between cold air above a warm air below. The area above will be the same as the area below. This generally what happens in the atmosphere. I am not saying that one 2d snapshot will be exactly in thermodynamic equilibrium BUT the whole depth of the hemispheric atmospheric will be. And most certainly averaged over a year.”

    I referred you to Roy Spencer because he is a knowledgable atmospheric physicist who keenly understands that the earth undergoes huge short term changes in net atmospheric energy, and he has some explanations that you should read (and apparently did not). All of his explanations rely on the fact that the atmosphere is an open system that easily loses and gains energy to the oceans on short and long term time scales without compensating effects in other locations or times. The earth also loses widely varying amounts to space that varies by the hour, day, week, month, year, or decades without any compensating gains. The only counteracting effect against those losses is thermal inertia.

    The area above the polar front is not the same as the area below. One notable example is warming events in the stratosphere that can push the mean latitude of the polar front south, as a whole. Not balanced northward excursions, but unbalanced. For the result see plate 6 here: http://www.nwra.com/resumes/baldwin/pubs/ThompsonLeeBaldwin_NAO_Chapter.pdf

    When you claim “BUT the whole depth of the hemispheric atmospheric will be [exactly in thermodynamic equilibrium]” You are exactly wrong since there is no such thing as equilibrium, not locally and not globally.

    Your seasonal claim “And most certainly averaged over a year”, is probably based on the rough return to seasonal averages each year after large seasonal excursions. However you are wrong again. If there is, for example, an extremely cold winter in one portion of the world, it is not “balanced” in any way by an unusually warm summer (or winter or anything else) anywhere else.

    Equilibrium is simply the warmist’s way of implying that there is a delicate planet balance being changed by CO2. Certainly increased CO2 causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere, but it does not result in a “new equilibrium” but rather a permanent change in a number of processes that are essentially negative feedbacks. As I pointed out above, the modest warming from a decade of CO2 warming can be zeroed or doubled globally in a week by terrestrial weather and/or side effects of solar activity (and not compensated by reverting to a mythical mean within a year as you claim).

  145. TB (December 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm) “However you neglect other effects on the air-mass. When cold advection takes place there is often a descent in the upper air it now being on the confluent region of the jet (Anticyclonic building area) and due descent it warms. There can also be advection over the top of the cold air by warm – making the average air-mass temp higher. Similarly, elsewhere in the hemisphere, warmer air moves north and moisture within it will condense into cloud preventing radiational cooling, especially if over a snow-field.”

    All those things are possible but they are all irrelevant. You admit it yourself, there is a possibility of radiational cooling (or in your example, a lack of radiational cooling). When there is radiational cooling where does the energy go?

  146. Smoking Frog says:
    December 15, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    Mario Lento December 14, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    The post says ironic, but you feel like even though the word used was irony, that it was meant to imply “important”. You say you frequent WUWT, however if you did, you would know clearly that skeptics believe weather is not climate. The irony is that the basic theme of warmists is that weather is in fact climate if it can be used as proof of AGW. If you do not understand irony, and if you do not understand the warmists beliefs because you feel rather than comprehend, then perhaps you should take your own advice and not make a peep.

    I missed the word “irony” in the post. I apologize for this. Still, when numbers of cold-temperature records within a brief period are announced, I think this should be accompanied by some analysis discussion of how likely or unlikely this is, and what its significance, if any, for the global warming question. One reason I think so is that the analysis might show that it was significant in some way. To excuse the lack of analysis by saying that the announcement is mere irony is either to assume that a spate of records is not significant, or to encourage some people to assume that it is significant.

    Furthermore, it’s an interesting question. Czech physicist and AGW skeptic Lubos Motl (motls.blogspot.com), in the past, has posted at least twice on the question, and, not only this, but there are a priori determinations which anyone with a decent math background who bothered to think about the question could make, but I’ve never seen anyone bother, except that now I’ve seen a couple of WUWT posts which someone here pointed out for me in this thread, for which I thank him.

    As I said, I missed the word “irony,” and I apologize for this, but I think your message is about as bigoted as some others. I notice that you had to pick out one point in order to be sarcastic, ignoring all the others.
    +++++++++++
    You’re correct, I made a negative remark. No excuse, I felt you were trolling and being condescending. Perhaps I was wrong. I apologize, sincerly.

    A few interesting points of irony: A scare tactic claims used by the warmists, was that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013… (this is ironic right?) Another claim was that seeing snow on the ground would be a rare event by now (ironic). The post stated irony. This post meets us regulars here as being ironic – and nothing more. Skeptics don’t believe that weather proof of climate change. We (I assume you too) know climate changes. The mere mention of “record cold” is enough to set some people off since we’re so accustomed now- a-days to hearing “climate change” or “global warming” after any record heat days are announced by the left stream media.

  147. Not a lot of bright sparks in this thread. AGW causes greater extremes – more intense rainfall, more intense droughts, more intense hurricanes, and heaven forbid, more intense snow storms. And no, a once in 112 year event is still weather, and not proof that climate change isn’t occurring. As a simple example, though not necessarily correct in explaining the snow in the Middle East: AGW melts the Arctic, the melted ice becomes cold water, that cold water travels south and interferes with weather patterns producing freak snow storms.

    Taking this further, one great risk of global warming is that the cold waters flowing south will interrupt the Gulf Stream, and do you know what you get from that? You get the relatively temperate UK and Europe dropping 10s of degrees to have similar climate to the coldest places in Canada. The world may have warmed, but those places will have dropped in temperature.

    I wish people would read and think more. The planet needs it.

    • What the planet “needs” is far fewer of you morons who think throwing good money after bad is going to “save” the planet.

  148. eric1skeptic says:
    December 15, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    “I referred you to Roy Spencer because he is a knowledgable atmospheric physicist who keenly understands that the earth undergoes huge short term changes in net atmospheric energy, and he has some explanations that you should read (and apparently did not). All of his explanations rely on the fact that the atmosphere is an open system that easily loses and gains energy to the oceans on short and long term time scales without compensating effects in other locations or times. The earth also loses widely varying amounts to space that varies by the hour, day, week, month, year, or decades without any compensating gains. The only counteracting effect against those losses is thermal inertia.+”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I did read it Eric. And I do not agree with him. There are changes in thermodynamic balance in spatial terms but the net energy in the climate system remains in balance (actually not quite unfortunately) with Solar absorbs and IR emitted.
    That’s it. Full stop. Anything that happens in the climate system merely redistributes the heat and does not alter its balance. The Earth is a big place and the air-masses are partitioned and balanced by the waving jet. The net energy within it does not alter significantly. Look at that link I gave – you will never find a situation where the reds/blues will be anything other than closely matched. You need to add all the energy within the depth of the atmosphere and meteorological/physical processes ensure that it gives up its heat (nearly) in proportion to it’s receipt. But of course there will be large magnitudes of variation.

    From Roy Spencer:
    “One of the most frequent questions I get pertains to the large amount of variability seen in the daily global-average temperature variations we make available on the Discover website.”

    He then shows a chart for 14000ft.
    With a variation of ~1C in the graph.
    This is just, as I’ve already said – a 2D snapshot – it’s like saying that if I heat a pan of water with a variable heat-source (in the sense of variability of energy take-up NOT TOA receipt of Solar) then, if it were possible, measure just a thin slice of the water in the pan. I should not expect NO average temp change over the space of a few seconds – there will, but slight ones. There will of course be changes in FLUX through that layer ( do you expect a constant temp?). Also this is a measure of absolute temp and not an anomaly from the average. The measurement is of temperature and not of stored energy (will miss energy stored by latent heat). Add up the “energy” content of the total atmosphere and the differences will be within experimental/instrumental error.

    “The earth also loses widely varying amounts to space that varies by the hour, day, week, month, year, or decades without any compensating gains. The only counteracting effect against those losses is thermal inertia.+””

    It does, but it is adds up to a near zero hemispherically averaged anomaly. Find me any data that says the Hemispheric average temp changed by more than tenths of a degree.
    See these graphs…

    The trends for ALL seasons shows remarkable inter-seasonal similarity, and furthermore follow the general warming trend for the annual global ave temp.

    “The area above the polar front is not the same as the area below. One notable example is warming events in the stratosphere that can push the mean latitude of the polar front south, as a whole. Not balanced northward excursions, but unbalanced. For the result see plate 6 here: http://www.nwra.com/resumes/baldwin/pubs/ThompsonLeeBaldwin_NAO_Chapter.pdf
    And
    “When you claim “BUT the whole depth of the hemispheric atmospheric will be [exactly in thermodynamic equilibrium]” You are exactly wrong since there is no such thing as equilibrium, not locally and not globally.”

    Re Plate 6.
    Eric they are charts of anomalies from the average temp (land only).
    They do not show any sort of averaged flux in the hemisphere.
    They are 2D measuring temp just on land surface and NOT heat content through the depth of that atmosphere.
    Yes, an Easterly QBO gives more SSW’s and higher likelihood of cold northern winters. And note – contours are at 0.5C (small changes). These are averages of averages.
    We know nothing of temps over the oceans or even over the Arctic ice – which in -AO years will be a good bit warmer than average. (cold air drains away continually).

    The Polar jet is NOT a definite article, it waxes/wanes, twists/turns/disrupts to form cold pools, is squeezed and widened. I used the waving washing-line to try to get over to you that atmospheric physics ensures that when deep cold air moves south (necessarily lead by a jet ) – that physically causes the jet to turn back north and push a warm front northward. Meteorology does not always fit the textbook and the air-masses will be overlain/lose identity by anticyclonic subsidence etc.

    “One notable example is warming events in the stratosphere that can push the mean latitude of the polar front south, as a whole. Not balanced northward excursions, but unbalanced.”

    Yes Eric, warming of the Stratospheric vortex in the NH winter, caused either from below by wave breaking from the Trop, or from warming due O3 depletion by CR’s at times of low solar activity – does often filter down to destroy the temp differential in the vortex, turn winds progressively easterly and cause the AO to turn negative. This higher pressure at the Arctic does then push Arctic air south – not everywhere – that cannot happen. Even if it were possible it would leave a vacuum behind! Aside from the fact that Coriolis won’t let it (would turn right, converge into a new PJ and then not go any further S because of that! Any mass flow out of somewhere has to be replaced by a flow from elsewhere. Coriolis and vorticity ensure that deviation north or south are reciprocated somewhere else. It’s just how Planetary atmospheres work.

    Here are animations of SSW’s (sudden Stratospheric warmings) – see how the cold/warm jostles and evens out.

    Click on charts and look at RH ones – also notice that at that level (10mb) the mean temp anomaly is around ~0 through the anim. (below right)
    The following is a chart from Dec’10 (notable –AO month). See the dispersion of warmth/cold due the HP predominating the Arctic (due warming aloft). BTW colours are contours of 500mb height and not temp.

    http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavnnh.html

    “Your seasonal claim “And most certainly averaged over a year”, is probably based on the rough return to seasonal averages each year after large seasonal excursions. However you are wrong again. If there is, for example, an extremely cold winter in one portion of the world, it is not “balanced” in any way by an unusually warm summer (or winter or anything else) anywhere else.”

    But it just is Eric. It has to be.
    The above seasonal temp graphs prove it so.
    For the whole hemisphere the anomaly from average is slight. Regionally of course variations can be very large.

    “Not balanced northward excursions, but unbalanced.”
    Eric, I’m sorry, it just is balanced (hemispherically and in the entirety of the atmosphere) – what comes in must go out and the physics of Meteorology ensure that the atmosphere moves air-masses “like shuffling cards” you can’t just get a majority of cold or a majority of warm air over the hemisphere (averaged out in 3D) in any meaningful sense. I’m sorry if you cannot understand that.

    “Equilibrium is simply the warmist’s way of implying that there is a delicate planet balance being changed by CO2. Certainly increased CO2 causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere, but it does not result in a “new equilibrium” but rather a permanent change in a number of processes that are essentially negative feedbacks. As I pointed out above, the modest warming from a decade of CO2 warming can be zeroed or doubled globally in a week by terrestrial weather and/or side effects of solar activity (and not compensated by reverting to a mythical mean within a year as you claim).”

    There is a delicate balance being changed by GHG’s. Because of the GHE (which Roy does not deny) nor anyone else who is credible. Of course the Planet is delicately balanced. It has to be, as the laws of thermodynamics make it so. Earth is merely an intermediary between an energy source (Sun) and a sink (Space). It must shed what it receives or else either heat up or cool down. The Milankovitch cycles prove that small variations in radiative balance in the NH change the balance to/from cold/warmth. Volcanism does too (temporarily).
    The climate system is exquisitely balanced, and any driver or feed-back change will alter that balance. I’m sorry, it’s just a basic.
    CO2 does create a new equilibrium – has to do – just as new orbital characteristics does. Because it alters the radiation balance of IN vs OUT. Which ultimately is what the climate responds too.
    Unfortunately there are few –ve feed-backs – they are overwhelmingly +ve (Abs WV content. Decreasing Albedo etc).

    “As I pointed out above, the modest warming from a decade of CO2 warming can be zeroed or doubled globally in a week by terrestrial weather and/or side effects of solar activity (and not compensated by reverting to a mythical mean within a year as you claim).”

    Eric, if you believe that then there is nothing I/anyone else can say to dissuade you. You are looking at weather as though it was long-term climate. If there is a radiative imbalance – it needs to be righted before weather will respond in a different way (bar overlying cycles such as ENSO). Any talk of “weather” righting temperature completely misses the basic science. It just does.
    Solar variation over human history has varied ~0.2%. it no doubt has contributed to some warming but not all.
    This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
    Shows solar decreasing and CO2 rising.

    Global temp does not revert “to a mythical mean within a year” – and I do not claim that. I’m saying the opposite. That a 30yr mean (typically 1951-80) will not revert to that until the radiative balance is restored.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    eric1skeptic says:
    December 15, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    TB (December 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm) “However you neglect other effects on the air-mass. When cold advection takes place there is often a descent in the upper air it now being on the confluent region of the jet (Anticyclonic building area) and due descent it warms. There can also be advection over the top of the cold air by warm – making the average air-mass temp higher. Similarly, elsewhere in the hemisphere, warmer air moves north and moisture within it will condense into cloud preventing radiational cooling, especially if over a snow-field.”

    All those things are possible but they are all irrelevant. You admit it yourself, there is a possibility of radiational cooling (or in your example, a lack of radiational cooling). When there is radiational cooling where does the energy go?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Not just possible but inevitable. And certainly not irrelevant – because they are a certainty.

    Eric, you are still looking at the climate system as a sum of separate parts. It is not. It is an integral whole. It is constantly desperately trying to attain thermodynamic balance (internal chaos) by the use of “weather” to get out the energy it has absorbed from the Sun. It is not in radiative balance at TOA but the flux through it averaged hemispherically (and over a period of time much less than seasonal) is in continuity. Such that as one study shows they differ by around 0.6W/m^2 +/-0.2 at TOA. Coming in (continually – not variably).
    Radiational fluxes will change regionally but we have a system that acts in precise ways, evens out these changes – and quickly. It just does. Has too or we’d be living on a very strange and chaotic “alternative Universe” kind of Earth.

    Look Eric – I think there is a problem here, in by me bringing explanations down to a layman’s level. You are taking the simplification too literally. Trying to read in intricacies of meteorology and misinterpreting. Look, I admire your attempts at trying to understand a very complicated science – but it really (and I know you’ll not like it me saying so) – does need to be put together over the course of a career. There are contrarian scientists out there. I don’t deny it – but much (not all) of what Dr Spencer says I disagree with. Along with many others.

  149. TB (December 16, 2013 at 11:29 am): “There are changes in thermodynamic balance in spatial terms but the net energy in the climate system remains in balance (actually not quite unfortunately) with Solar absorbs and IR emitted.”

    Sounds like you’ve decided to include the surface ocean, and IR to space fluctuates greatly in the short, medium and long term, so the “balance” means nothing.

    TB: “Look at that link I gave – you will never find a situation where the reds/blues will be anything other than closely matched.”

    Absolutely not justified by any physical principles, nor demonstrated by empirical data. There are plenty of predominantly red or predominantly blue frames from short term coincidental warming or cooling.

    TB: “He (Spencer) then shows a chart for 14000ft….measure just a thin slice of the water in the pan”

    Wrong, channel 5 measures a deep layer from the surface to about 500 mb, see the bell curve depiction here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

    TB: “…when deep cold air moves south (necessarily lead by a jet ) – that physically causes the jet to turn back north and push a warm front northward.”

    True. But that is complicated by surface feedback. For example the mountains on the N. American west coast cause a predominant trough over the continent in winter. That trough inevitably migrates to the east coast and the northerly component is enhanced by surface feedback from the warm waters in the Atlantic. We can have a mostly zonal flow across the US and still have a northerly turn in the jet due to feedback from east coast surface lows.

    TB: “For the whole hemisphere the anomaly from average is slight. Regionally of course variations can be very large.”

    Regional differences are larger than the worldwide average (or hemisphere if you like that better) but both have large swings in the short, medium and long term. These result in some simple facts such as the ability of the planet to cool or warm as much in two weeks as the global warming from a decade of CO2 increases. It is these swings that matter, not the long term benign warming from CO2. Only thermal inertia prevents short ice ages from being very common.

    TB “There is a delicate balance being changed by GHG’s. Because of the GHE (which Roy does not deny) nor anyone else who is credible. Of course the Planet is delicately balanced. It has to be, as the laws of thermodynamics make it so.”

    Your fig leaf of scientific credibility on GHE does not cover your wild claim that conservation of energy causes a “delicate” planetary balance. There is no such thing on this planet.

    TB: “The Milankovitch cycles prove that small variations in radiative balance in the NH change the balance to/from cold/warmth.”

    The onset and ending of the ice age comes from regional causes not global energy changes.

    TB: “CO2 does create a new equilibrium – has to do – just as new orbital characteristics does. Because it alters the radiation balance of IN vs OUT. Which ultimately is what the climate responds too.”

    Backwards. The climate is caused by fluctuations in weather and CO2 warming has a very slight effect on some weather, e.g. hotter temperatures in heat waves. But for the most part weather is unaffected by CO2 warming.

    TB: “Radiational fluxes will change regionally but we have a system that acts in precise ways, evens out these changes – and quickly. It just does. Has too or we’d be living on a very strange and chaotic “alternative Universe” kind of Earth.”

    The main physical mechanism that diminishes regional changes and prevents “strangeness” is thermal inertia. Pressure winds and weather reduce changes in and among regions. The jet has its smaller scale fluid dynamics to swing it in cold and warm directions but only roughly But there is no conservation of energy involved, nor a de facto conservation nor a balance.

    TB: “Unfortunately there are few –ve feed-backs – they are overwhelmingly +ve (Abs WV content. Decreasing Albedo etc).”

    Most widespread or global feedbacks are negative: blackbody radiation, convection and the water cycle. Positive feedbacks like albedo are not widespread especially in an interglacial. WV is widespread but is a wild card as you know since weather primarily controls the amount of WV (rather than warmth).

    You never answered where the energy goes during radiational cooling. To followup please explain the cause of the compensating warming dictated by your mythical conservation of energy. Also explain how the “radiative balance” limits the radiational cooling.

    TB: “Any talk of “weather” righting temperature completely misses the basic science. It just does.

    You have missed the point. Weather has effects in all directions: global warming, global cooling or nothing at all. Weather causes huge short term shifts in temperature globally as measured with the widest possible measurement (unlike surface thermometers). Weather does not balance in any way although pressure winds and jet dynamics may sometimes have that effect. Mostly weather is countered by thermal inertia and offset by strong local negative feedbacks (that are globally applicable).

    TB: “Solar variation over human history has varied ~0.2%. it no doubt has contributed to some warming but not all. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
    Shows solar decreasing and CO2 rising.”

    The high solar activity of the 20th century caused some warming as you are aware, but solar going from high to less high causes warming, not cooling. Solar activity has nonlinear effects especially when viewed as a smoothed quantity. The very highest activity causes global cooling as sunspots reduce irradiance and overwhelms the magnetic effects. The magnetic effects mostly kick in during low solar activity which have barely started. Finally, thermal inertia in the form of ocean convection causes a decade or so lag in those effects, so that lame wikipedia graphic is misleading (along with being an insult to the intelligence of this site’s readers)

  150. ohbrilliance says:
    December 16, 2013 at 4:39 am
    Not a lot of bright sparks in this thread. AGW causes greater extremes – more intense rainfall, more intense droughts, more intense hurricanes, and heaven forbid, more intense snow storms.
    … I wish people would read and think more. The planet needs it.
    ++++++
    Interesting: The brilliant one speaks of others’ lack of brightness all the while not understanding the basic science. Instead, a series of bumper sticker and poster slogans are reproduced as evidence of a belief. The brilliant one concludes by wishing others to read selective drivel so they can spare their own cognitive processes in place of willful implantation of media control. All to “save the planet”.

    • If anything, we humans need to be saved FROM THE PLANET….not vice versa. BTW, we’re NOT experiencing “heavier rainfall,” “worse droughts,” OR “more intense storms.” What we ARE experiencing is much better REPORTING of those things–rain, dought and storms.

  151. eric1skeptic says:
    December 16, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    TB (December 16, 2013 at 11:29 am): “There are changes in thermodynamic balance in spatial terms but the net energy in the climate system remains in balance (actually not quite unfortunately) with Solar absorbs and IR emitted.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Sounds like you’ve decided to include the surface ocean, and IR to space fluctuates greatly in the short, medium and long term, so the “balance” means nothing.”

    No it doesn’t, in quantitative terms at the required time-scale it’s a constant – IR photons don’t “stop” leaving to space on any meaningful times-scale (the 24 hour rotation being the greatest reduction in photon flow). We do not need to look at changes below that scale (surely obviously!) As we are working out changes over ~Century. You seem unable to appreciate the Solar in Vs IR out fundamental. The heat does NOT get trapped and refuse to leave, other than being stored in the Oceans (which IS where some of it is going). It’s radiation, and the Earth has an AVERAGE temp which requires it to emit IR to maintain it. If it can’t then it will heat. I’m sorry but you deny the basics of radiative theory, and that is a body MUST radiate constantly or ELSE heat up. The effect with GHG’s is small but very meaningful especially as it is building.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    “TB: “Look at that link I gave – you will never find a situation where the reds/blues will be anything other than closely matched.”
    “Absolutely not justified by any physical principles, nor demonstrated by empirical data. There are plenty of predominantly red or predominantly blue frames from short term coincidental warming or cooling.”

    Eric, you are LOOKING at empirical data – if you don’t like that, look for it elsewhere, it will show the same. There is NO significant change on a seasonal basis for a hemisphere to fluctuate from the norm. Regions do but the fluctuations add up to near zero. I’m sorry if that destroys your world-view but the “empirical data” says so. As well as basic meteorology. If you think it’s “absolutely not justified by any physical principles” then the only answer is you are not knowledgeable of the physical principles.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “He (Spencer) then shows a chart for 14000ft….measure just a thin slice of the water in the pan”

    “Wrong, channel 5 measures a deep layer from the surface to about 500 mb, see the bell curve depiction here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/”

    No I’m right, sorry – AMSU’s sample data over depth but use weightings so that the sounding (ch 5) picks up the lower Trop at 550- 600mb – hence the 14000ft level (says clearly at the top of the graph) The graph shows temps around –21C (to be expected at 600mb). It is NOT a thickness average. So it is not showing the energy across the whole system and there will be variations.

    http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “…when deep cold air moves south (necessarily lead by a jet ) – that physically causes the jet to turn back north and push a warm front northward.”

    “True. But that is complicated by surface feedback. For example the mountains on the N. American west coast cause a predominant trough over the continent in winter. That trough inevitably migrates to the east coast and the northerly component is enhanced by surface feedback from the warm waters in the Atlantic. We can have a mostly zonal flow across the US and still have a northerly turn in the jet due to feedback from east coast surface lows.”

    Mountain ranges do often start the train of events in the Rossby wave wavelength – especially the Canadian Rockies (the whip of the washing line) but it matters not to the meteorology as the jet is still be under the same physical constrains and will turn north again as it losses absolute vorticity. In short it’s the movement relative the Earths rotating surface that governs the jets movement. A trough will NOT inevitably “move to the E coast” at all – it depends on the wavelength of the Rossby wave-train. It often can retrogress – though this is most likely where the ridge does not have a mountain and on it’s western side. This process is common in Europe where a high either forming over Scandinavia , or even migrating there from Siberian will retrogress towards Greenland in response to a downstream wavelength change. Yes, there is often a “back-wash” behind Lows that will turn the surface flow to N or NE – but these are short-wave features that pass through quickly and are not driven by long-wave troughs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “For the whole hemisphere the anomaly from average is slight. Regionally of course variations can be very large.”

    “Regional differences are larger than the world-wide average (or hemisphere if you like that better) but both have large swings in the short, medium and long term. These result in some simple facts such as the ability of the planet to cool or warm as much in two weeks as the global warming from a decade of CO2 increases. It is these swings that matter, not the long term benign warming from CO2. Only thermal inertia prevents short ice ages from being very common.”

    Regional climate does have large swings, yes, as we all observe, but hemispherically there is not, as I have shown you, but you bizarrely refuse to accept as “empirical data”.
    No, the planet does not cool/warm as much in 2 weeks as a decade of CO2 increases. That is NOT happening because you are neglecting the full climate system – the temporary sinks or storage – ie the oceans ( which store >90% of climates heat). You are neglecting the main recipient of solar energy! Which will take every much longer to shed it. When we see these (atmospheric fluctuations) it is because either the heat is being stored or it is being reflected (given we KNOW it’s the Sun – we just do). The –ve PDO/ENSO cycle since ~2005 has taken much of the absorbed solar (as has the Arctic). Just because the atmospheric temp fluctuates does NOT mean that the absorbed energy does. It doesn’t and Temperature is not entirely a function of radiation which is what governs the balance (specific heat/mass oceans and LH uptake). It is that that is stable (radiative flux) – though out of balance at TOA. Look, things happening within ocean/atmosphere only moves temperature around the system it does NOT change Solar in V IR out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB “There is a delicate balance being changed by GHG’s. Because of the GHE (which Roy does not deny) nor anyone else who is credible. Of course the Planet is delicately balanced. It has to be, as the laws of thermodynamics make it so.”

    “Your fig leaf of scientific credibility on GHE does not cover your wild claim that conservation of energy causes a “delicate” planetary balance. There is no such thing on this planet.”

    The “fig leaf” of scientific credibility lies in your and your ilk’s minds my friend, and not in established science. The GHE is not new or controversial, it has been known of both empirically and mathematically for ~150 years. You don’t get to invent the wheel by waving your hands about. My car will still have round ones on it when I get in it tomorrow.
    Why is it not obvious to you that nature balances cause/effect? – It’s present everywhere you look. Predators/prey in an ecosystem balance out – introduce the cane toad FI in Ozz and the Crocks kill themselves. Etc. The whole universe is balanced. Try looking at it from “holistic” scientific perspective instead of looking into details and not understanding the fundamentals.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “The Milankovitch cycles prove that small variations in radiative balance in the NH change the balance to/from cold/warmth.”

    “The onset and ending of the ice age comes from regional causes not global energy changes.”

    You are part correct, in that the changes are for insolation at 65 Deg N where there if greatest land mass. Usually these changes are balanced by the opposite change in the SH. They are universally accepted as setting in train feed-backs that alter climate, through albedo. Snow field build/depletion that in turn drive GHG content further stengthening the cycle. Try and educate your self. Why on Earth wouldn’t the power of the Sun govern climate?

    The cycles cause a maximum variation in insolation of ~100W/m^2. Yes, obviously that wont cause changes in spring summer ice melt/resistance to melt. See Fig 1 to see both that and the correlation with ice volume (lock-tied but at a lower application on this scale).

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “CO2 does create a new equilibrium – has to do – just as new orbital characteristics does. Because it alters the radiation balance of IN vs OUT. Which ultimately is what the climate responds too.”

    Backwards. The climate is caused by fluctuations in weather and CO2 warming has a very slight effect on some weather, e.g. hotter temperatures in heat waves. But for the most part weather is unaffected by CO2 warming.

    Look, weather does not come about of thin air. It is the planets response to the energy transient twixt solar absorption and IR emittance. Full stop. Weather does not control anything save when some feed-backs occur ( snowfields/ice build up ). This no more than when a pan of water boils the movement of the alter dictates when it will reach boiling – Backwards – It ONLY depends on the energy INPUT to the pan (climate system). You’re hand waving my friend and it goes against established physics. Publish a paper and await a Nobel.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “Radiational fluxes will change regionally but we have a system that acts in precise ways, evens out these changes – and quickly. It just does. Has too or we’d be living on a very strange and chaotic “alternative Universe” kind of Earth.”

    “The main physical mechanism that diminishes regional changes and prevents “strangeness” is thermal inertia. Pressure winds and weather reduce changes in and among regions. The jet has its smaller scale fluid dynamics to swing it in cold and warm directions but only roughly But there is no conservation of energy involved, nor a de facto conservation nor a balance.”

    You are referring to weather – the internal chaos in the system that responds to the energy received from the Sun. What is it about the “boiling pan of water analogy that you cannot understand.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “Unfortunately there are few –ve feed-backs – they are overwhelmingly +ve (Abs WV content. Decreasing Albedo etc).”

    “Most widespread or global feedbacks are negative: blackbody radiation, convection and the water cycle. Positive feed-backs like albedo are not widespread especially in an interglacial. WV is widespread but is a wild card as you know since weather primarily controls the amount of WV (rather than warmth).”

    Rubbish my friend, they are NOT feed-backs you quote – just natural meteorological mechanisms to redistribute heat ( between absorption and emittance – irrelevant to that as it’s the TOA exchange where that is achieved. Feed-backs are things that do not “sum to zero” convection does (only transports heat in the system –as do winds and ocean currents). Hydrological cycle uses the take up of LH of evap and again transport it where the LH of cond returns it (result zero). A feedback is ONLY one which alters the radiation balance (reflection of SW or absorption of IR).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You never answered where the energy goes during radiational cooling. To followup please explain the cause of the compensating warming dictated by your mythical conservation of energy. Also explain how the “radiative balance” limits the radiational cooling.”

    It goes to space of course. The conservation of energy is not mythical it is a fundamental law – 1st Law of Thermodynamics. What it means is that what comes in will go out …. Eventually. It has NOTHING to do with weather. That is obviously NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium because it makes weather. (it is the equaling out follows temp differentials to density differentials to pressure differentials aided by Coriolis – that is weather It is a symptom of Climate not the cause of it. Without that imbalance in the climate system there would be NO weather. But it’s JUST NOT what you are thinking of as climate radiative balance. That … for the nth time is the Solar absorbed vs IR out equation which cannot … get that, again CANNOT be altered by “weather”.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    TB: “Any talk of “weather” righting temperature completely misses the basic science. It just does.

    “You have missed the point. Weather has effects in all directions: global warming, global cooling or nothing at all. Weather causes huge short term shifts in temperature globally as measured with the widest possible measurement (unlike surface thermometers). Weather does not balance in any way although pressure winds and jet dynamics may sometimes have that effect. Mostly weather is countered by thermal inertia and offset by strong local negative feedbacks (that are globally applicable).”

    This is the nth time this has gone around the cycle Scott. I have shown you real-world data that hemispherically (and therefore globally) there’s is NO significant variation from the mean temp on a seasonal, and therefore an annual cycle. If you don’t accept that – we can go nowhere. Research it please – from the science and not filtered through someone else. It is really not a surprise who understand science.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB: “Solar variation over human history has varied ~0.2%. it no doubt has contributed to some warming but not all. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
    Shows solar decreasing and CO2 rising.”

    “The high solar activity of the 20th century caused some warming as you are aware, but solar going from high to less high causes warming, not cooling. Solar activity has nonlinear effects especially when viewed as a smoothed quantity. The very highest activity causes global cooling as sunspots reduce irradiance and overwhelms the magnetic effects. The magnetic effects mostly kick in during low solar activity which have barely started. Finally, thermal inertia in the form of ocean convection causes a decade or so lag in those effects, so that lame wikipedia graphic is misleading (along with being an insult to the intelligence of this site’s readers)”

    What?????????????? Increased solar activity causes cooling! Wow you really are rewriting physics. This time you deny the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. When you point something hot at something cooler – it can ONLY heat, my friend.
    Just because sunspots are darker than the main solar surface does not mean the whole output of the Sun is less. Please Google basic Solar physics. Sunspots are a symptom of increased irradiance as all Googling will reveal. Lower solar irradiance (less sunspots) can affect the polar Stat vortex in winter (not Antarctica due O3 hole) by warming it out and down-welling into the Trop vortex, yes, to cause a –AO and allow greater southward movement of polar air. But the Arctic then will become warmer (it has divergence and so the cold will be exported and new air arriving from aloft will need to be radiationally cooled) – so again it’s weather and the hemispheric and radiative energy balance (in/out ) does not change.

    Look Eric I am terminating this discussion. It is frankly mind-numbing to converse with someone who “denies” – sorry it just is – not just established climate/radiative physics but seems unable to see the wood for the trees. No offence otherwise but we really have to “appeal to authority” for a reason. That reason is because it “almost universally” knows more than someone who “may” have come to some preconceived conclusion and bolstered it buy a bit of selective Googling and Blog reading.
    Finally if what you assert that what you say is true then even NWP weather forecast suites and charts that you see shown by you local TV Weatherman would be bollocks as the physics I discuss go into them
    Like I said, an alternative Universe my friend.

  152. TB says: (December 19, 2013 at 1:58 pm) >>>> It (radiated energy during radiational cooling) goes to space of course. The conservation of energy is not mythical it is a fundamental law – 1st Law of Thermodynamics. What it means is that what comes in will go out …. Eventually. It has NOTHING to do with weather. That is obviously NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium because it makes weather. (it is the equaling out follows temp differentials to density differentials to pressure differentials aided by Coriolis – that is weather It is a symptom of Climate not the cause of it. Without that imbalance in the climate system there would be NO weather. But it’s JUST NOT what you are thinking of as climate radiative balance. That … for the nth time is the Solar absorbed vs IR out equation which cannot … get that, again CANNOT be altered by “weather”.” <<<<

    Thanks for answering my question. "it goes to space of course". Radiational cooling is weather, yet you claim that radiation to space "CANNOT be altered by weather". My next question is do you consider diurnal cloudiness to be weather? Does it cause more albedo and allow more radiation at night? Do warm cloud tops, typical for diurnal cumulus, radiate more than cold cloud tops, typically not diurnal?

    TB: "The GHE is not new or controversial, it has been known of both empirically and mathematically for ~150 years."

    Bad reading comprehension on your part or just preconceived straw notions like the rest of your beliefs. I never argued against GHE, not here, not ever.

    TB: "Hydrological cycle uses the take up of LH of evap and again transport it where the LH of cond returns it (result zero)."

    Here's a paper written before people started denying that weather dictates climate: http://davidmlawrence.com/Woods_Hole/References/Chahine_1992_HydrologicalCycle_Climate.pdf

    TB: "Please Google basic Solar physics. Sunspots are a symptom of increased irradiance as all Googling will reveal."

    I generally don't google or read wikipedia if I want to understand some science in depth.

    TB: "Look Eric I am terminating this discussion. It is frankly mind-numbing to converse with someone who “denies” – sorry it just is – not just established climate/radiative physics but seems unable to see the wood for the trees."

    The discussion about "The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth." was terminated before it even started since you will obviously never admit your mistakes. Your mistake reflects your biased notions about climate: specifically that there is a delicate radiative balance being upset by increased CO2. While I agree there is a rough balance of absorbed SW and IR, the term "absorbed SW" means there is a connection from average weather to climate. Second, and apparently very difficult for you to comprehend: there are imbalances in climate created by weather. Those are obviously regional since weather is regional, but they do not cancel out in any way. There is no truth to your repeated claim that they do whether by 1st law, by coincidence, by jet dynamics, or for any other reason.

    You tried to justify it by 1st law principles. Those do not apply as I pointed out. Then you tried to justify it with "jet stream = clothes line". That is not necessarily true although there is a tendency to reverse swings. But here's unusual warmth without unusual cold in my area this weekend: http://shpud.com/unusual-warmth-850.jpg Here's the jet with a northward swing without a corresponding southward swing: http://shpud.com/unusual-warmth-300.jpg Finally you assert that "I have shown you real-world data that hemispherically (and therefore globally) there’s is NO significant variation from the mean temp on a seasonal, and therefore an annual cycle" That claim is wrong, the temperature varies significantly on all time scales including annually.

    The main reason why the planet does not experience sudden ice ages is thermal inertia. The reason we don't coincidentally turn into Venus is strong negative feedbacks and various reactive weather that we agree on like pressure winds. But points of agreement do not negate the fact that you entire basic notion of climate is wrong.

    Average weather dictates climate. For example, the fact that the Rocky mountains divert the jet south (which you admit) and it doesn't automatically go north again (except in your imagination) means that the Rocky mountains cause global cooling. The other affect of the mountains is a net increase in precipitation (and global cooling). The mountains are a constant. Weather is not. But weather controls warming and cooling the same way and results in short, medium and long term variation in global average temperature.

Comments are closed.