Finally A Real Scientific Consensus – Everyone Agrees That The Recent Displaced Polar Vortex Wasn’t Caused By Global Warming

Image Credits: Soft Pixelclker.comCagel.com

By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

For anyone who was witness to the absurdity of the recent warming makes it cold meme, it should come as no surprise that even ardent Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming believers are trying to distance themselves from the meme before it causes more damage. After the White House took a run at it, and the willfully gullible media, e.g. Bloomberg Businessweek, BBC and NPR lapped it up, now everyone, including the scientist credited with starting it, are walking away. Let us start with this Washington Post – Capital Weather Gang article yesterday, “Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument“:

“It’s an intriguing theory – that recently has gotten legs: the melting Arctic – spurred by global warming – is causing the weather’s steering flow, the jet stream, to become more extreme. This extreme jet stream – rather than zipping around the world in a straight circle (right below) – is more frequently meandering off course (left below) and getting stuck in place, sending bitter, prolonged blasts of cold southward and conversely, see-sawing strong heat domes northward. It’s a fascinating paradox: global warming as the culprit for bone-chilling cold.

But more and more scientists are expressing reservations about this hypothesis, first proposed by Rutgers climate scientist Jennifer Francis and collaborators.

“It’s an interesting idea, but alternative observational analyses and simulations with climate models have not confirmed the hypothesis, and we do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compelling,” write five preeminent climate scientists (John Wallace, Isaac Held, David Thompson, Kevin Trenberth, and John Walsh) in a recent letter published in Science Magazine.

Elizabeth Barnes, an atmospheric scientists from Colorado State University, after an attempt to dismantle Francis’ theory last summer, published a second challenge in January.

“…the link between recent Arctic warming and increased Northern Hemisphere blocking is currently not supported by observations,” Barnes’ study concludes.”

Funny stuff and it gets even better, from this Princetonian article from two days ago, “U. lecturer argues global warming doesn’t cause polar vortex

“The polar vortex is a ring of Westerlies, prevailing winds that blow from west to east around the poles that are strongest in the winter, Wallace explained. Wallace is a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington.

Wallace noted that the vortex continually changes its shape, and when its lobes sweep down over temperate areas, those regions get periods of cold weather.

“I don’t think the slowing down of the polar vortex is enough to really affect behavior of the vortex very much,” he said.

He also noted that the belief that human-induced climate change could cause more extreme cold was, in fact, held by only a small minority of researchers.”

“Like Held, University Physics professor William Happer said this year’s weather is not anomalous.

“It’s exactly the same as weather we’ve had in my own lifetime many times,” Happer said. “Why should it suddenly be climate change?”

Happer explained that this year’s record lows have been emphasized in order to support the climate change “myth.”

“You know, for years we were told we’re going to fry, and the earth refused to cooperate. And so they desperately look for something else to hang their hat on,” he said, referring to supporters of the global warming theory.

Held also said this year’s extreme cold is most likely part of natural fluctuations in global climate.”

And then, to top it all off, Jennifer Francis, who first proposed the warming causes cold meme, and had previously blessed us with pearls of wisdom like;

“‘It’s basically the jet stream on a drunken path going around the Northern Hemisphere,’ explains Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis.” Grist

“Scientists tend to call the jet stream a “polar vortex,” Francis says.” Bloomberg Businessweek

has now has seen the light:

“The media certainly had a field day with the “attack of the polar vortex” in early January, and in their hyping of the story, some misquoted me (and others) by saying that climate change caused the unusual cold spell. Of course this sort of event has happened before, and this one wasn’t unprecedented.

I also agree that greenhouse-gas induced warming will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of breaking cold temperature records — the data already show this.” New York Times – Dot Earth

Gotta love when we can all agree on something. If you would like to learn more about what might actually have caused the recent “weak vortex event” and associated “cold-air outbreaks”, this article and associated comments offers a reasonably detailed analysis.

About these ads

134 thoughts on “Finally A Real Scientific Consensus – Everyone Agrees That The Recent Displaced Polar Vortex Wasn’t Caused By Global Warming

  1. @Rhoda R

    What the heck is a “sever cramp”? Is that a cramp so severe that it makes one of your arms or legs fall off?

  2. Well, they had their headlines. The walkback will not be reported. Advanced Climate Communication, from an old handbook of The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs.

  3. They really had to climb down, the average Joe in the street is laughing at them.
    The average Joe was their believers, and they are losing them at a rapid rate.
    Decades of propaganda down the tubes.

  4. One of the True Believers I argue against where I post climate change articles, claims in her own article that the ‘polar vortex’ was ‘invented by journalists.’ And where does she get her information? From [snip][snip][snippety-snippety-snip!]s like the ones currently running from their own statements on the polar vortex.

    And people wonder why I get pissed off….

  5. A winter that just never ends … reminds me of how the winters were back in the 50s & 60s, when I loved the cold. Now that I’m no longer young and stupid, I can’t stand this stroll down memory lane. Perhaps, when I start pushing the century mark, we’ll get milder winters again for a spell.

  6. For those who actually believed that the cause of such a polar vortex at low latitudes was as a result of so-called “global warming”….. wow, you’re in need of some serious enlightenment. Take a look around you; observe nature.

    I wonder how that 250 year old red oak 5 minutes from home handled -30C with 70km/h winds for two days. Duh! I those temps have been here before- 1000’s of times.

    Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Ontario all have forests well adapted for those conditions should they ever occur.

    propaganda’s worst enemy is personal observation

  7. DirkH says: February 21, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Well, they had their headlines. The walkback will not be reported. Advanced Climate Communication, from an old handbook of The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs.

    Good point, how about the BBC? “The BBC exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain.” BBC Trust

    The BBC clearly failed in their obligation to serve, educate and inform the public, though they did entertain in dry sad sorta way. Perhaps we have some of our UK readers to submit some complaints on the top right of this page;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/#anchor

    to see if they will publish a correction?

    PBS is also publicly funded and they have an Ombudsman who should be embarrassed that PBS published such drivel, complaints can be submitted on the right side of this page:

    http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2012/10/complaints_welcomed_but_so_are_the_programs.html

    Bloomberg Businessweek is probably a lost cause as Mayor Bloomberg appears to have set the editorial controls to pure alarmism, but you can try to request a correction here:

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-05/corrections-and-clarifications-from-prior-issues

  8. Do all the alarmists read WUWT and BishopHill? If not then they should begin.

    Crow served on a bed of greens is still crow.

  9. Can you imagine what a consensus on warming-makes-it cold there would have been today if scientific and mathematical skeptics hadn’t been pressuring non-stop. Like UAH satellite temperature measurements, rigorous scrutiny by skeptics has constrained the latitude available to the more zealous CAGW warmers and has even made the majority of papers that used to get a pass in formerly prestigious journals, more obviously flawed even to many of those whose careers have been made with CAGW theory and whose critical faculties had been eroded.

    The stress put on former science-is-settled proponents by the dismantling by skeptics of formerly-tolerated bad statistics and high school physics, notably by mild mannered, polite Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, revelation of the email secrets of climategate, grey literature (Greenpeace and WWF propaganda pieces) relied upon by IPCC, and the last straw: a 17yr+ and growing hiatus in warming has contributed immeasurably to improved science. Those up to the task know the old slap dash won’t do. They know they have to look over their shoulder when putting out their work (work now much harder than when the cats were away and the mice could play) . Those whose training, knowledge and talent is little beyond the median high school teacher level have suddenly stopped their once prolific output of peer reviewed science and have taken to op eds, tv appearances, twitter sniping, and group play. Much of the recent stuff is put out by a huge oversupply of PhD candidates – woe to them a few years from now when the job market shrinks by about 97%. They will be looking for jobs as grade 9 science teachers.

    Anyway, this is a seminal moment when, for the first time, the central climategate team is not silent on bad science that supports their meme. I think I should have added the Ship of Fools fiasco to the list of stressors above. It must have been hard for those now tentatively coming out to remain quiet while Turney sat in the ice bound ship looking for global warming, screwing up a season’s Antarctic research plans for international expeditions and then going home to get an award. The desperation, the hollow feeling of having spent a whole career building a false theory, will now have them scrambling and me-tooing when they get a chance to criticize CO2-climate theory. I wondered how the whole thing was going to end, but I did know there would be great throwing of colleagues under the bus in the offing.

  10. Surly it has to be a human driven climate! if the earths climate is not driven by people then why was it so rainy and floody last weak?

    hahaha!

  11. I wonder if the President’s “Science Advisor” Holdren has forsaken his claim of a connection. Of coure, it was obvious after he first attempted to explain polar vortexes that he was totally
    ignorant of same.

  12. I,d say the cause for the jet steam misbehaving has more to do with whatever created that spiral in Norway . What is a ionospheric heater and what does it create ??? I would supply links but they only get deleted. One thing Russia needs while the winter games are on is good weather. How many microwave links are beaming pictures and commentary around the world via satalite ?? How many watts of power is beamed skywards?

  13. Long-range models have the polar vortex making a return late next week. What will they say now?
    huh, oh, ooooooo, look at that, did you see that…ahhhhhhhhhhh. its the vortex!

  14. jmorpuss says: February 21, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    I,d say the cause for the jet steam misbehaving has more to do with whatever created that spiral in Norway . What is a ionospheric heater and what does it create ??? I would supply links but they only get deleted. One thing Russia needs while the winter games are on is good weather. How many microwave links are beaming pictures and commentary around the world via satalite ?? How many watts of power is beamed skywards?

    There is no evidence to support your assertions and your assertions are no different than those trying to ascribe CO2 based human influences on natural occurrences, still Anthropomorphism at its core. Regardless, the Polar Vortex occurs in the mesosphere and stratosphere, explain how heat, convection or otherwise in the ionosphere propagates downward into the mesosphere, when atmospheric pressure in the ionosphere is essentially nil.

  15. Further to Gary Pearse’s observation: can you imagine how this whole issue would have gone without the internet, which has allowed the skeptics a voice? I shudder to think.

  16. To give y’all a sense of what folks that are students of climate science truly believe, one of the regular contributors to a CBC forum was discussing the concept of a polar vortex a while back. This contributor is, apparently, studying climate science. His argument, spoken with much conviction, was that a weakening of the polar jet from the lack of a strong north-south temperature gradient causes a meandering jet. Therefore, this kind of event is a classic symptom of global warming. Accordingly, this is yet another piece of evidence that the warming predictions are coming true! This was, of course, followed by the obligatory “we must shut down the tar sands in Alberta”.

    So, as we all know, this is the party line on the matter. My challenge, right away, based entirely on common sense, is that a meandering jet means, by definition, that its shape should change rapidly and its position should shift often, which of course, has not happened this winter. In other words, the consistency of the cold air is exactly the opposite symptom a weakened polar jet, at least according to their own theory. Of course, I was dismissed as a denier.

    My point is that, regardless of the facts (or common sense), everything that lines up with predictions of AGW will become evidence to most climate scientists, irrespective of whether or not the original hypothesis is true. These folks have long since passed the point of practicing rational science. I wish that Barnes’ study would be considered. But it won’t be. Because, to be quite honest, I don’t think that the practitioners of AGW driven climate science are conducting any science – at least not in any way that I am familiar with.

  17. John Francis says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    Further to Gary Pearse’s observation: can you imagine how this whole issue would have gone without the internet, which has allowed the skeptics a voice? I shudder to think.

    You must be new to the matrix, welcome! lol

  18. Nice summary; thanks.
    My first university semester included the text book by Arthur N. Strahler called “Physical Geography” – the first editions were in black and white with minor color and published in 1951. Mine was a few years later and then my mother threw it out. Anyway, very cold “Polar Air” and “Polar Outbreaks” were covered and my teacher was a WWII era pilot and told stories about flying into and out of different air currents. [Strahler was a geoscience professor at Columbia University.]

  19. Maybe they are starting to realize they just can’t say any old shxt and have the public lap it up.

  20. You don’t get it. The AGW opinion leaders never cared about the facts. The President and his team are still going to claim that this cold was caused by AGW. In the UK, they are still going to falsely blame their floods on AGW. The IPCC, if it came out and said that there is no significant danger from CO2, would simply be ignored.

  21. This seems like a thinly veiled reason to say global warming, therefore, isn’t happening. Which it is. We just choose to argue other subjects to bolster our false beliefs as humans prefer to do. Artic ice melting way too fast. Seas storing up immense heat. Let’s debate those and watch. The disbelief of humans too.

  22. The current weather patterns in the UK and USA are typical of those developed by the more meridional path of the jet stream on a cooling earth. The Fagan book “The Little Ice Age ” is a useful guide from the past to the future. The frequency of these weather patterns, e.g. for the USA the PDO related drought in California and the Polar Vortex excursions to the South will increase as cooling continues
    The views of the establishment scientists in the USA and the UK Met office’s publicity in this matter reveals their continued refusal to recognize and admit the total failure of the climate models in the face of the empirical data of the last 15 years. It is time for the climate community to move to another approach based on pattern recognition in the temperature and driver data and also on the recognition of the different frequencies of different regional weather patterns on a cooling ( more meridional jet stream ) and warming (more latitudinal jet stream ) world.
    For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the 60 year (PDO) and the 1000 year quasi-periodicities seen in the temperature data and the neutron count as a proxy for solar activity in general see several posts at
    climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    For a review of a 3 year update of a 30 year forecast see
    climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html
    For an estimate of future NH temperature trends see the latest post at
    climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  23. justthefactswuwt says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    “the Polar Vortex occurs in the mesosphere and stratosphere, explain how heat, convection or otherwise in the ionosphere propagates downward into the mesosphere, when atmospheric pressure in the ionosphere is essentially nil.”

    Well, since you asked, the interaction may take place lower down in the atmosphere, where the aurorae are seen and the electrons and protons traversing the D layer between the poles intersect with the descending Brewer-Dobson circulation, transferring their energy to and warming the descending gas This changes the vertical temperature profile, producing the well-known polar temperature inversions. This effect acts in parallel with stratospheric heating induced by UV absorption in the ozone layer. When present and strong, temperature inversions are stable as anyone who has experienced LA smog can attest. The return flow from the Brewer-Dobson circulation is diverted from the surface to the altitude of the radiating zone, where by warming the upper troposphere it warms the surface as well, by increasing the temperature in the region that anchors the lapse rate. The polar vortex is strengthened, sealing the arctic cold inside the so-called ozone hole. And we get Global Warming, only CO2 has nothing to do with it.

    There is tons of evidence for all of the aspects I have mentioned, except that the behavior of the return flow of the Brewer-Dobson circulation is speculative.

  24. Bill says: February 21, 2014 at 7:55 pm

    This seems like a thinly veiled reason to say global warming, therefore, isn’t happening. Which it is.

    There has been no “Global Warming” since the late 1990s or early 2000s, The Pause, which has been acknowledged by all loosely credible news sources, i.e.:

    “Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.” The Economist “But climate sceptics have focused their attention on the references to a pause or hiatus in the increase in global temperatures since 1998″ BBC “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it.” Daily Mail “Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.” The Australian “Has the rise in temperatures ‘paused’?” Guardian “RSS global satellite temperatures confirm hiatus of global warming, while the general public and mainstream press are now recognizing the AWOL truth that skeptics long ago identified…global temperatures are trending towards cooling, not accelerating higher” C3 Headlines

    In fact, looking at the Werner Broznak’s recent article, the Pause in each major temperature data set is as follows:
    For GISS, the slope is flat since July 2001 or 12 years, 6 months.
    For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since July 1997 or 16 years, 6 months.
    For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month.
    For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month.
    For UAH, the slope is flat since October 2004 or 9 years, 3 months. (goes to December using version 5.5)
    For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 4 months.”

    Shown graphically, that looks like this:

    WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

    Are you familiar with the Pause?

    We just choose to argue other subjects to bolster our false beliefs as humans prefer to do.

    Speak for yourself…

    Artic ice melting way too fast.

    Actually;

    “The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year.

    In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice – a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.”

    “About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice – which survives through more than one summer without melting – with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.

    This year’s multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year. ”

    “‘One of the things we’d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent – at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012,’ said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study.

    ‘We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.'” European Space Agency

    This animation demonstrates the increase in ice thickness measured by CryoSat over the last four Octobers:

    European Space Agency – CryoSat – Click the pic to view at source

    Also, Arctic Sea Ice Extent recently dropped below 2 standard deviations after remaining within two standard deviations of the 1981 – 2010 average for the entirety of 2013;

    National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

    and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area saw its smallest decline in 2013 since 2006, with a decline less than half of the prior year:

    Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

    And regardless there is ample evidence that the earlier decline in Arctic Sea Ice was primarily associated with wind and atmospheric oscillations.

    Seas storing up immense heat.

    Prior to the completion deployment of Argo in 2007 our deep ocean measurement capabilities were very limited, i.e.:

    “But new technology, the vertically profiling ARGO float (Figure 4.), promises to give us the data we need to begin to understandWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    And even if the claimed deep ocean warming isn’t a measurement or adjustment artifact, I have seen no plausible mechanism whereby CO2 greenhouse warming can cause deep ocean warming. Can you please share with us how you think this process works?

    Let’s debate those and watch.

    Sure, I await your responses with bated breath.

  25. Francis theory as explained by her on YouTube is simply great… for a good laugh. She manages to pack so much meteorological misunderstanding that she should deserve some medal for that.

  26. Jeff F @ 7:09p.m.: The argument from your true CAGW believer was the exact argument parrotted by Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren. This is utter nonsense. All the great arctic outbreaks of the past featured a meridional jet stream that brought Siberian air over the Pole and drove it southward into North America. The great winters of 1936, 1963, 1977 and 1979 all had this happen repeatedly.

  27. @Dr Norman Page

    “drought in California”

    Pet peeve: 3/4ths of the state of California, including both of it’s megalopolises is officially desert. The “drought” in California is more than 10000 years old. The only reason California has water problems is that the Federal government built massive water projects to bring CA water from out of state and gives that water to Californians at 1/10th of the real cost of delivery, encouraging massive over development and farming of water intensive crops in a desert.

  28. @Bill: It doesn’t seem like you are interested in the merits of the science that is being discussed herein. Even if you are given the fact that the earth is warming and that the deep ocean is somehow accumulating massive amounts of heat (which many here would fundamentally disagree with), there is still little to no direct evidence that these would be caused by the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by mankind’s activities. Note that a well established causal link, shown through the use of prediction and validation is mandatory in science.

    All that you are describing are the effects of a heretofore unproven hypothesis. You are very simply confusing evidence with establishing cause and effect. Put another way, there are a great many ways that the effects (if they are in fact occurring) that you discussed could have arisen. Human knowledge of the behavior of the atmosphere over long time scales is insufficient to pinpoint a cause for these effects. Any other conclusion that comes from climate science on this matter at this time is just hubris.

  29. hunter says: February 21, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    You don’t get it. The AGW opinion leaders never cared about the facts.

    I disagree. I think the “AGW opinion leaders” care very much about the facts, they are afraid of them.

    The President and his team are still going to claim that this cold was caused by AGW. In the UK, they are still going to falsely blame their floods on AGW.

    I doubt it, they probably read that Washington Post article too and got the message that the warming causes cooling meme isn’t polling well in the frozen tundra that is a decent part of the US right now.

    The IPCC, if it came out and said that there is no significant danger from CO2, would simply be ignored.

    Probably, but more and more people are learning that Global Warming stopped in the late 1990s or early 2000s, and in the US a growing majority of the electorate are becoming skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative and associated increased energy costs, taxes and regulation. Eventually this will be reflected in politicians positions and future legislative actions.

  30. The cyclical nature of climate, not global warming, is what’s at play here. We’ve got a neighborhood that got flooded last month for the first time in over 35 years … folks had paid off their mortgages and let flood insurance lapse when the nearby creek flooded the area as a result of an ice dam. Over time, institutional memories fade and hard lessons are unlearned. It’s not just the Great Lakes that are frozen … so too are the creeks and streams that drain into the lakes. The last couple days, as temps went above freezing again and rain fell, everyone’s attention turned again to frozen creeks and streams … this time acting to break up the ice to prevent the build up of ice dams and the resulting flooding. Wish this global warming religion was for real because this cold really sucks.

  31. @Karl: It is precisely this notion of “driving” the cold air south that makes me, intuitively, align with the argument that you presented – due to the persistence of the pattern and the distance that the cold air penetrated southward. What amazed me is that some can be presented an argument like the “meandering jet” concept and accept that it causes a persistent pattern when there is a fundamental flaw in the logic.

  32. Well when you guys erase my comments and then wright me a comment telling me there is no causal link to co2 and the atmosphere then it is suspect. Especially since science has shown over and over the link between co2 and ozone depletion.

  33. The link between the polar vortex and solar activity is much more complex than suggested. When solar activity is weak the occasional Earth directed CME can be far more influential than when solar activity is strong. It depends on the timing. If the sun’s magnetic field strength is weak at the time that the CME hits Earth then according to NASA the sun’s magnetic field lines and Earth’s magnetic field lines combine and channel greatly increased amounts of charged particles into the ionosphere and then later into the mesosphere and stratosphere above the North Pole. Two days after the CME of March 15, 2013 the solar magnetic field strength was very weak and the resultant combined magnetic field lines caused so much plasma to be absorbed that the stratosphere above the north pole warmed by some 50 deg C. The AO went below -5 for 3 days (March 20-22) and this has happened only 4 other times since the AO has been recorded (Feb 1969, March 1970, Dec 2009 and Feb 2010). This indicates that the polar vortex had basically stopped and the near polar jet streams then weakened substantially leaving cold air to flow over many parts of the northern hemisphere. An enormous high pressure system also formed over Greenland. It was biggest high ever recorded over Greenland and only very slightly less than a highest high pressure system ever recorded (Siberia Dec 31, 1968).
    I think there is much more to learn about the mechanisms that influence polar vortexes before we will understand them.

  34. What may be over looked here is as the Earth cools from the lack of sunspot activity, no real observations spring the first post mini-Ice Age; minimum of the 1800s; and the preceding period period to the Mini-Ice Age, is the atmospheric events that took place to absorb heat out of the winter months and strengthen the impact of Global Cooling.

    What events lead up to a Mini-Ice Age? Increased glacier activity. Reduced Topography capture of abundance carbons in the atmosphere by the oceans and Polar Ice Caps to name a few.

    This moving Vortex may become a common characteristic of global cooling through out the next two decades.

    Paul

  35. Gary Pearse states: “The desperation, the hollow feeling of having spent a whole career building a false theory, will now have them scrambling and me-tooing when they get a chance to criticize CO2-climate theory.”

    Is there a counter document to that which many of us signed against AGW? If not, there should be a central repository built somewhere where the names of the “97%” are associated with their pro AGW statements / articles / documentaries / inane blathering / etc. so that they can’t get away with “me-tooing” their way back to reality.

  36. “I think there is much more to learn about the mechanisms that influence polar vortexes before we will understand them”. Truer words were never spoken. In fact, they should be spoken about many more elements of climatology. Once the idea that CO2 was the global thermostat was entrenched by Lacis et. al., a lot of lazy scholarship ensued.

  37. pochas says: February 21, 2014 at 8:33 pm

    Well, since you asked, the interaction may take place lower down in the atmosphere, where the aurorae are seen and the electrons and protons traversing the D layer between the poles intersect with the descending Brewer-Dobson circulation, transferring their energy to and warming the descending gas

    Aurora occur:

    in the upper mesosphere and the lower thermosphere, gas particles become electrically charged. Because these charged particles are called ions, this part of the thermosphere is called the ionosphere. In polar regions these ions radiate energy as shimmering lights called auroras, usually in latitudes above 50 degrees.

    The Aurora Borealis and its southern counterpart the Aurora Australis are formed high in the atmosphere in the ionosphere, which is sometimes considered as part of the thermosphere, the outermost actual atmosphere. Above this layer, the exosphere has so few molecules that they can escape into space. Wiki Answers

    Whereas:

    “The simple circulation model suggested by Brewer (1949) and Dobson (1956) consists of three basic parts. The first part is rising tropical motion from the troposphere into the stratosphere. The second part is poleward transport in the stratosphere. The third part is descending motion in both the stratospheric middle and polar latitudes, though there are important differences. The middle latitude descending air is transported back into the troposphere, while the polar latitude descending air is transported into the polar lower stratosphere, where it accumulates.”

    “The air that is slowly lifted out of the tropical troposphere into the stratosphere (see Figure 6.02 and 6.03) is very dry, with low ozone, and high CFC levels (see Figure 1.07 of Chapter 1). This tropical lifting circulation out of the lower stratosphere is quite slow, on the order of 20-30 meters per day. Most of the air rising into the stratosphere at the tropopause never makes it into the upper stratosphere. Between 16 and 32 km, the air density decreases by about 90%. This means that of the mass coming into the stratosphere at 16 km, approximately 90% of that mass will move towards the middle latitudes rather than be carried up to 32 km.”Center For Coastal Physical Oceanography

    The two phenomena occur, at closest, within ~40 km of each other:

    kowoma.de- Click the pic to view at source

    How does the energy from the ionosphere and upper mesosphere propagate downward at least ~40 km when atmospheric pressure above 50 km is essentially nil?

    Nordian Aviation Training Systems – Click the pic to view at source

  38. Climatologist acknowledge reality, admit that warming has stopped and is not responsible for 17 years of cooling….

    Wow! Wow!!!! I’m shocked… shocked, I tell you! Scientist acknowledge reality and challenge climate model’s irrational outputs.

    A thin ray of hope has lanced through the national/global consciousness…… a sharp piercing of mann’s false dogma! Pray that this trend of rational thought continues…

  39. When I read the first claim I wondered what was the climate like in the USA last time the North West Passage was open?

  40. justthefactswuwt says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:22 pm

    Nice diagram of the atmospheric layers. I think the Anatov AN2 is a nice touch.

    So this polar bear vortex takes our nice winter weather and sends it off to where no one understands or appreciates it. Florida says, “For six hours a couple weeks ago we were colder than you”. How does that make us who put up with all day sun for most of the summer so we can finally get back to a nice winter in the fall make us feel any better?

  41. So:

    Heat-related blocking events: caused by global warming.Cold-related blocking events: not caused by global warming.

    Got to love science.

  42. Mac the Knife says:
    February 21, 2014 at 11:22 pm

    Or perhaps the lack of warming/slight cooling is caused by warming? Or they keep using that word but I do not think it means what they think it means.

  43. MattS says:
    February 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    @Rhoda R

    What the heck is a “sever cramp”? Is that a cramp so severe that it makes one of your arms or legs fall off?
    ——————————————————
    A ‘sever cramp’ is where your ass falls off in front of everyone.

  44. ren says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    ren,
    What are you trying to say, by the link you provided? Are you proposing that the latest winters are ‘unprecedented’ effects? Cut the crap and speak clearly. Your cryptic mysticism no longer can be excused as a product of language translation. Are you a naive youngster? Or just a sly troll?

    Mayhap, I’ve lived a few more winters than you. I’ve lived through a number of ‘unprecedented’ winters before, specifically the winters of ’78-’79 and the winters of the early ’60s. In Wisconsin, these were brutally cold and snowy winters, much like the last several that Wisconsin has been experiencing. I’ve chiseled through 2.5 feet of ice on Big Green Lake back in the ’60s and 70s, just to catch some fresh lake perch, walleye, or lake trout. I know first hand the reality of normal climate variation in the northern US of A.

    Are you a mere stripling, of limited years and experience? I’ve found the younger generations are more easily mislead, given their shorter experience base and indoctrination to not believe anyone over 30. They lack the timeline… the hard winter, ‘cold to your marrow and kill your grandma’ experiences that a generation of longer perspective has directly experienced. Your comments reflect a naivete of lack of experience …. or deliberate obfuscation. Which is it?
    Mac

  45. Will Nelson says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:12 am

    Will,
    I don’t understand the point you were trying to make. Please elucidate.
    Mac

  46. Brent Walker says: February 21, 2014 at 9:38 pm

    Two days after the CME of March 15, 2013 the solar magnetic field strength was very weak and the resultant combined magnetic field lines caused so much plasma to be absorbed that the stratosphere above the north pole warmed by some 50 deg C.

    As such:

    On March 15, 2013, at 2:54 a.m. EDT, the sun erupted with an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection (CME), a solar phenomenon that can send billions of tons of solar particles into space and can reach Earth one to three days later and affect electronic systems in satellites and on the ground. Experimental NASA research models, based on observations from the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) and ESA/NASA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, show that the CME left the sun at speeds of around 900 miles per second, which is a fairly fast speed for CMEs. Historically, CMEs at this speed have caused mild to moderate effects at Earth.

    Update: On March 17, 2013, at 1:28 a.m. EDT, the coronal mass ejection (CME) from March 15 passed by NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) as it approached Earth. Upon interacting with the giant magnetic bubble surrounding Earth, the magnetosphere, the CME caused a kind of solar storm known as a geomagnetic storm. The storm initially caused a mild storm rated on NOAA’s geomagnetic storm scales as a G2 on a scale from G1 to G5, and subsequently subsided to a G1. In the past, storms of this strength have caused auroras near the poles but have not disrupted electrical systems on Earth or interfered with GPS or satellite-based communications systems. NASA

    And here is a significant warming over the north pole at 50 hPa / mb in January 2013:

    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    According to;

    NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (http://swpc.noaa.gov) is the United States Government official source for space weather forecasts. For this storm, they predict:

    “Potential Impacts: Area of impact primarily poleward of 60 degrees Geomagnetic Latitude.
    Induced Currents – Weak power grid fluctuations can occur.
    Spacecraft – Minor impact on satellite operations possible.
    Aurora – Aurora may be visible at high latitudes, i.e., northern tier of the U.S. such as northern Michigan and Maine.” NASA

    It is true that CMEs are a potential factor in Polar Vortex behavior as

    “geomagnetic activity (used as a measure of solar wind parameters)” plays a role in the “variability of large-scale climate patterns and on changes in the global temperature.”, i.e.: “We have found positive statistically significant correlations between global temperature and the distribution of surface temperature over Eurasia, the East and Equatorial Pacific and over the North Atlantic for the period 1966-2009 correspond to large-scale climate patterns defined by climate indices. We found very similar positive correlations between geomagnetic activity and the distribution of surface temperature in the mentioned regions. As an effect of geomagnetic storms, energetic particles penetrate from the magnetosphere into the region of the stratospheric polar vortex. The increase of temperature and pressure can be observed over northern Canada. The vortex shifts towards Europe, rotates counter-clockwise and the wind blows from the polar region over Greenland southwards. It diverts the warm flow proceeding northward over the Atlantic, eastward along the deep Icelandic low extending as far as the Barents Sea and takes part in warming Eurasia. The strengthened zonal flow from Siberia cools the western Pacific with the impact on the warming of the equatorial and eastern Pacific when also a distinct 1976-78 climate shift occurred. Processes in the Atlantic and Pacific play a significant role and a time delay (wind forcing over the previous 1-4 yr) appears to be the most important for the relocation of the oceanic gyres. Results showing statistically significant relations between time series for geomagnetic activity, for the sum of climate indices and for the global temperature help to verify findings concerning the chain of processes from the magnetosphere to the troposphere.” Studia Geophysica & Geodaetica, Bucha 2012

    In relation to our recent weak vortex event, a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME); hit Earth around January 1st;

    NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source

    and the Magnetosphere was rocking and rolling:

    NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source

    Certainly interesting, but I have not seen evidence that sufficient energy can be transported low enough in the atmosphere to influence Earth’s climate.

    The AO went below -5 for 3 days (March 20-22) and this has happened only 4 other times since the AO has been recorded (Feb 1969, March 1970, Dec 2009 and Feb 2010).

    This could be happenstance, CMEs are reasonably common, especially during solar max, i.e.:

    Coronal mass ejections are often associated with solar flares and prominence eruptions but they can also occur in the absence of either of these processes. The frequency of CMEs varies with the sunspot cycle. At solar minimum we observe about one CME a week. Near solar maximum we observe an average of 2 to 3 CMEs per day (3.4 MB MPEG movie from the SOHO/LASCO instrument showing a month of CMEs from 1998). NASA

    I think there is much more to learn about the mechanisms that influence polar vortexes before we will understand them.

    I could not agree more.

  47. Bill:

    Your post at February 21, 2014 at 9:38 pm says in total

    Well when you guys erase my comments and then wright me a comment telling me there is no causal link to co2 and the atmosphere then it is suspect. Especially since science has shown over and over the link between co2 and ozone depletion.

    Your post I am answering was not erased and your previous post (at February 21, 2014 at 7:55 pm) was not erased.

    In reality, at justthefactswuwt provided a point-by-point rebuttal of your post at February 21, 2014 at 8:50 pm. And Jeff F quoted your post and refuted it in principle at February 21, 2014 at 9:09 pm.

    But reality is not your strong point, Bill. For example, there is no “link between co2 and ozone depletion”. I think you may be confusing CO2 with CFCs.

    Your assertions are so divorced from reality that either you are a deluded idiot or you are yet another anonymous troll posting nonsense with the intent of disrupting the thread. I suspect the latter.

    Richard

  48. Mac the Knife says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:23 am

    Obtuse sarcasm. Your italicized quote is funny if parsed so that it sounds like the climatologist blamed global warming, up until recently, as the cause of global cooling… until said climatologist had to admit global warming has stopped and therefore cannot, after all, be blamed for global cooling.

  49. Bill says:
    February 21, 2014 at 9:38 pm
    Well when you guys erase my comments and then wright(sic) me a comment telling me there is no causal link to co2 and the atmosphere then it is suspect. Especially since science has shown over and over the link between co2 and ozone depletion.

    Bill,
    If you are confident of your case, please state it with references. You will not be ‘erased’ here. As long as you are moderately respectful and stay on topic, your voice has the same value as anyone else. State your case clearly and succinctly.
    Mac

  50. Will Nelson says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:37 am

    Will,
    I understand our mutual misunderstanding now. My comment was not ‘obtuse sarcasm’. It was direct sarcasm. Climatologist are trying to claim that ‘global warming’ is the cause of ‘extreme cold winter weather’. The declaration is ludicrous. The irrational meme of ‘Cold is Hot’ is unsupportable, by either physical data or model projections. How can I help your understanding of reality?
    Mac

  51. The BBC, the Guardian and the Independent all gave up their predictable stance of man-made extreme weather after being deluged with ribald comments from their readers, and demands from their readers for proven links between man-made CO2 and the weather events they were reporting; links that they could not provide. It should also be noted how often the comments section at the bottom of these articles are disabled; it’s now routine for “global warming” stories to have their Readers’ Comments section disabled – especially when the author is well-known, such as Chris Huhne or James Lovelock.

    This situation won’t last. It’s just too difficult for these organizations to explain how the climate really works and how local weather is formed. It’s much easier to just dump every weather event onto the “man-made global warming” propaganda and carry on worshiping at the altar of the almighty carbon dioxide religion – not forgetting to disable the Readers Comments section first.

  52. Mac the Knife says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:53 am

    Ah, I did miss your sarcasm and took your post to mean “good news commeth”. It was my own sarcasm that was of the obtuse persuasion. Anyway, up to this point I cannot see any daylight between your understanding of reality and mine.

  53. Look you all got it wrong. We pumped out carbon dioxide which is a heavy gas. As the earf spins it throws this gas outwoods like a spining top. This created a vacummm into wich the poler vertex was suked. As natur dont like a vacum. So to fill the vacum the aire in the poles was sucked souf. So you got a cold winter in the states.
    Easy peesy this scince init!
    I did science i did

  54. write five preeminent climate scientists

    Where? There are no pre-eminent climate scientist that I am aware of.

  55. Bill,
    If you are confident of your case, please state it with references. You will not be ‘erased’ here. As long as you are moderately respectful and stay on topic, your voice has the same value as anyone else. State your case clearly and succinctly.
    Mac

    I can’t wait to see it, Bill. Over to you.

  56. Hari Seldon says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:28 am
    Hari,
    I’m sure your claim of “Easy peesy (sic) this scince (sic) init (sic)” is accurate.
    Congratulations on your edumacation…./sarc
    Mac

  57. He also noted that the belief that human-induced climate change could cause more extreme cold was, in fact, held by only a small minority of researchers.”

    You mean like the AGW Believer Deniers ?

  58. Stephen Richards says:
    February 22, 20morning 14 at 1:36 am
    Good morning Stephen!
    How are things in your bit of the world? I’m ‘restless in Seattle’ and feeling a bit peckish with the late night trolls. They usually don’t elicit my ire but I’ve bloody well had my fill of them, of late.
    Mac

  59. Mac the Knife says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:17 am

    ren says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:05 pm
    ———————————————
    I think it is a language barrier with ren. This is the best English he can muster.

  60. This is an old trick. Get the idea out there, let your loyal followers lap it up without reservations, and then mumble something about it not being true to make yourself seem reasonable. In the meantime it has been fully embraced by the true-believers who will sneer at anyone who questions the idea that GW causes extreme cold.

  61. It is interesting that the Farmers Almanac correctly predicted a bitterly cold winter in the States back in August. This is not the first time that the Almanac has predicted weather at odds with all the usual weather bureaus, and been proved correct. But then they use sunspots, tidal action, lunar cycles, and planetary positions to make their predictions. Given their [claimed] 80% success rate it is an area climate science should be investigating.

    By ignoring almost all possible influences on climate the climate ‘science’ can never hope to successfully predict the climate. I look forward to the day that climate science studies the climate and tries to understand it rather than thinking up propaganda to support a false idea.

    If the central belief is wrong [such as the Earth being at the centre of the universe] then there can never be any understanding [such as the motion of the planets] – everything becomes unexplainable except by a mystical force. Much of climate science is the science of the dark ages.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/20/feds-failed-with-winter-forecast-but-farmers-almanac-predicted-a-bitterly-cold-winter/

  62. Euan Mearns:

    I write to draw attention to the links in your post at February 22, 2014 at 2:06 am.

    Your articles are good and the discussions in the threads – especially on the jet stream- are very good, so I am writing to commend them to others who otherwise may not have bothered to read them.

    Richard

  63. There is some confusion arising in relation to the Polar Vortex which is a column of descending air in the stratosphere above each pole and entirely separate to the jet stream which flows around the polar air masses from west to east. It does not descend below the tropopause.

    The effect of the stratospheric Polar Vortex on atmospheric pressure AT THE SURFACE is manifested by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in the northern hemisphere and the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) in the southern hemisphere. They are both measures of the surface pressure distribution between specified locations.

    The Polar Vortex itself is limited to the stratosphere and therefore it can only affect the surface pressure distribution by altering tropopause height. It is those changes in tropopause height which force a change in the surface pressure distribution and thus the degree to which the AO and AAO can be regarded as positive or negative.

    A positive AO and AAO appear to occur most often when the sun is active and it is when they are positive that the polar air masses contract and the jets and climate zones shift poleward.

    What seems to happen is that an active sun depletes ozone above 45km in the mesosphere for a cooling effect (the opposite of the effect below 45km) and then the colder (reduced ozone) air in the mesosphere sinks towards the tropopause within the Polar Vortex and reduces the temperature of the stratosphere above the polar tropopause to lower than it otherwise would have been

    The interesting thing is that a colder stratosphere lifts tropopause height upward so the heights rise above the poles relative to the heights above the requator and the entire global air circulation is drawn poleward AT A TIME OF ACTIVE SUN.

    When the sun is less active the opposite occurs, the tropopause height over the poles falls relative to that over the equator, the AO and AAO become more negative and the entire global air circulation is pushed equatorward.

    Note that zonal jets can occur either in a poleward scenario (a warm interglacial) or in an equatorward scenario (ice ages) and so meridionality is a function of variations between the two extremes. Such variations are driven by the interplay between the solar effect from the top down towards the poles and the oceanic effect (from ocean cycles) from the bottom up towards the equator.

    However, whilst between those two astronomically induced extremes of zonality (via the Milankovitch Cycles) it is the degree of meridionality which serves as the most powerful climate forcing mechanism because that degree of meridionality affects total global cloudiness and albedo so as to vary the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans to drive the system.

    Basic summary here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

  64. *Our old teachers agree ….*

    _peter_ : February 22, 2014 at 2:17 am :-
    _…by the true-believers who will sneer at anyone who questions the idea that GW causes extreme cold._
    “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.” – Aldous Huxley
    “The important thing is not to stop questioning.” – Albert Einstein

    _anticlimactic_ : February 22, 2014 at 2:18 am :-
    _Much of climate science is the science of the dark ages._
    “The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it’s just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age.” -

  65. good to check on the Alexa stats that skeptic sites are increasing viewers and alarmist are declining.

    An instant look website of these stats , Skeptic Vs alarmists would be mighty fun.

  66. or do this,

    “In today’s MLM blogging post, I want to discuss something called Alexa Rank.

    Before I jump into it though, I recommend all online marketers use Firefox for their web browser of choice.

    (If you don’t already, click here to install it).

    The main reason I’m encouraging my peeps to use Firefox is because it allows for handy dandy little add-ons, or plugins.

    As you can imagine, there’s pretty much an add-on for anything and everything.

    But the one I’d like you to install is called SearchStatus (install it here).

    By using Firefox and adding the SearchStatus plugin, you’ll be able to quickly and effortlessly view the Alexa Rank (and Page Rank) for any website you visit.

    After the one-click install of each, you should see the blue SearchStatus icon somewhere on the top or bottom of Firefox.

    If you right-click the icon, you can set the “Options.”

    Here’s how I’ve set mine up:

    Next, right-click on the blue icon once again, then hover your mouse over “Enable” and make sure Page Rank and Alexa Rank are ticked:

    After doing all that, it should look similar to this:

    See how, as you click between different websites or blogs, the green and blue bars change? Also, note that you can hover your mouse over either bar to get the actual score or rank for each”

  67. People seem to be missing the fundamental fact that this is Science (Scientific Method) vs Religion (Global Warming). If ALL of the Climate Scientists were to say that new evidence has come to light and the Models are completely wrong, they were mistaken, and the world is cooling. The Believers will merely write it of as those scientists IPCC and all were bought off. Using the scientific method to prove or disprove a theory is part of science. If light didn’t bend around the sun as observed during a Eclipse on May 29, 1919 when the observers could see known stars while the sun as blocked by the moon, Einstein may not have been proven wrong, but his theories would have been in doubt. The Global Warming crowd wont debate you scientists v Scientist, they must discredit you as a person and as a heretic, regardless of the science. Bring someone that studies cults into the debate and they will recognize the actions of the Global Warming crowd almost immediately, the members of the cult will refuse to recognize that they are wrong at all costs. They will give their time and money to the cult and any outsiders must be made believers or their influence expelled from the group. Disproving Global Warming scientifically to them is almost impossible under these circumstances.

  68. ‘Unprecedented’…

    Means: ‘We haven’t had such bad weather for – oooooh – at least five years…’

  69. To me, this proves that this was a political argument from the start… you back down from political arguments if they are not working to convince people… you don’t back down from scientific arguments if you feel you have a solid basis for them…

  70. The BBC has a habit of checking scientists claims by talking to scientists with opposing / sceptical views. With the jet stream they just mainly let it slide as it is given. This is what happens when you hold secret seminars and take climate advice from advocates, PR folks, Church of England reps etc. There are many worried folk in the BBC but they will remain in their closets as they gnash their teeth at the global surface temperature hiatus. It serves them right.

  71. I should add that with climate science they also let too much slide. Investing your pension in climate schemes is a problematical thing indeed.

  72. Jennifer Francis digs a hole by trying to have her 15 minutes of climate voodoo fame.

    New York Times – 14 February 2014
    I also agree that greenhouse-gas induced warming will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of breaking cold temperature records — the data already show this. Not only will this occur via general global warming but also because enhanced Arctic warming will make any future southward excursions of Arctic airmasses warmer on average, reducing the contrast between them and mid-latitude airmasses. So when a deep trough like the one this winter happens in the future, the southward surge of cold air won’t be as extreme.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/global-warming-winter-weather-and-the-olympics-five-leading-climate-scientists-weigh-in/

    Here is something she prepared earlier.

    BBC
    According to Prof Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University in New Jersey: “This does seem to suggest that weather patterns are changing and people are noticing that the weather in their area is not what it used to be.”

    The meandering jet stream has accounted for the recent stormy weather over the UK and the bitter winter weather in the US Mid-West remaining longer than it otherwise would have.

    We can expect more of the same and we can expect it to happen more frequently,” says Prof Francis

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166

    Climate scientists are not what they used to be either.

  73. Fifty years ago, more or less, when the Jetstream acted up people used to blame it on HAARP experiments or some secret weapon the Soviets were supposed to have. Ignorance still rules!

  74. OK, here goes:

    “Green House Gasses” add to the warming of the atmosphere.

    CO2 is one of the “Green House Gasses”.

    CO2 then adds somewhat to a warming atmosphere (exact amount of warming not known).

    A warming atmosphere equals “Global Warming”.

    Global Warming equals “Climate Change” (the climate is becoming warmer)

    However, Global Cooling also equals “Climate Change”.

    Therefore, all Global Warming is Climate Change, but not all Climate Change is Global Warming.

    And all Global Cooling is Climate Change, but not all Climate Change is Global Cooling.

    Global Warming does not cause a cooling climate.

    Global Cooling does not cause a warming climate.

    Question: how’s my Eight grade education doing so far?

    :)

  75. So glad they dropped the warming creates cooling. The stupidity of it hurt my head and irritated me to no end. Unfortunately there are many who lapped it up.

  76. Sort of like “agreeing” that the oceans aren’t going to be boiling over anytime soon, but baby steps, I guess.

  77. @Dana Engle

    Yes, I agree.

    I was pondering the mentality of CAGW believers and it struck me that they are similar to UFO believers. Any report favourable to their cause is automatically true and incontrovertible, and anything against is a dark conspiracy of some sort. Of course that would suggest many climate ‘scientists’ are ‘Von Danikens’!

  78. As an example of why it is futile to get into a dialogue with opinion makers who don’t understand the basics:

    On FOX the other night Kirsten Powers, a liberal known for her levelheadedness and intelligence (in a segment on the Keystone Pipeline) declared “Even if we find that CO2 does not cause global warming, we can ALL agree that we should do all we can to curb CO2 because it is a pollutant” (a close paraphrase). The FOX host agreed!

    NO KIRSTEN, IF WE WERE TO AGREE THAT CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, THEN IT IS GAME OVER!! (Sorry for shouting.) Everything sprouts from that one assumption. We can shut down the IPCC, tell EPA to worry only about particulate matter from smokestacks, approve the Keystone pipeline, take down windmills and solar panels and open federal lands to drilling – just as a start.

    Having a global warming conversation with those folks would be like starting a conversation on English Literature by reviewing the alphabet!

    The reality, of course, is that all sane people accept that there is some warming due to CO2. The questions are whether the amount due to CO2 is catastrophic, what role natural variation plays (the earth has been covered by ice more frequently than it has been at current temperatures), are there natural “thermostats” like clouds, and whether the the “cure” is worse than the “disease”? (Devastation to western economies, higher fuel bills – 2 to 4 time current US prices per EU’s experience etc.)

    There is still a LOT to be learned about the subsystems that drive our climate. The Science is not Settled!

    /rant

  79. JohnWho: …Global Warming does not cause a cooling climate.

    Global Cooling does not cause a warming climate.

    Question: how’s my Eight grade education doing so far?

    :)

    Global Warming does cause Global Cooling because what goes up must come down, and Global Cooling does cause Global Warming because what goes down must come up. How’s my Seventh grade education doing?

  80. @ riahardscourtney

    Thank you! I have a new post up dissecting last weeks Met Office report called “Met Office storm final briefing – good, bad and ugly”, I’ll post a link later. The report actually has some commendable sections with good description of the global ocean – climate – jet stream picture. But spoiled by the irresistible temptation to put an AGW spin on. It doesn’t mention CO2 or carbon dioxide once. Nor does it mention “snow” once and these storms dumped huge amounts of the stuff on Scotland.

  81. Euan Mearns:

    Thankyou for your post to me at February 22, 2014 at 9:51 am.

    It seems you are building a blog which assesses climate-related UK institutions. So, in hope of helping, I mention an addendum to your flooding article. As you say, the Thames flooding was exacerbated by building a channel which transported water from a region which had a history of minor flooding to another region which had a history of minor flooding. The result was reduction to the minor flooding upstream and conversion of the minor flooding to catastrophe in the region downstream. However, you do not point out that the original scheme was for three channels which would transport excess water to the sea but funding was stopped after the first channel was completed and before the other channels were built.

    Richard

  82. Poor Jennifer Francis is complaining about being misquoted by some newspapers. Okay Jennifer, I’ll quote directly from an article you wrote:

    “The ice cover, only half of what it was only a few decades ago, is a stunning visual demonstration of the effects that increasing greenhouse gases…The loss of ice and snow in the far north may load the dice for “stuck” weather patterns, compounding potential risks for our economy, our health, and our security.”-Jennifer Francis

    but now she says…
    “some misquoted me (and others) by saying that climate change caused the unusual cold spell.”

    Her statement that she was misquoted is untrue. She is either lying or like a sociopath, unable to tell truth from lies.

  83. jmorpuss says: February 22, 2014 at 12:27 am

    All the pause lines are drawn back to the surface at or near the poles through electromagnetism http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html

    Yes, the magnetosphere looks like this, note the CME impact that occurs about 30 seconds into this video;

    which is referenced here:

    http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=03&month=08&year=2010

    This simulation provides a good visualization of how auroras occur:

    However, the structure of the magnetosphere does not change the fact that I have not seen evidence that sufficient energy can be transported low enough in the atmosphere to influence Earth’s climate.

  84. The “consensus” folks are covered. They say both cooling and warming are caused by warming! Also, Climate Change is caused by changing climate! White is green only when painted green.

  85. John F. Hultquist says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:32 am

    The Hari Seldon on exhibit here is not the one I once knew. Hari was one smart fellow

    I thought ‘ari nailed it.

    “As the earf spins…”

  86. @ richardscourtney

    My main interests are energy, energy policy and society. Since climate policy lies at the core of energy policy I am inclined to do whatever I can to bring “reality” whatever that is to the climate debate. I believe there is a serious risk in NW Europe over the next 30 years experinecing some serious winter cold events that are outside of the range considered normal and that a few windmills and depleting gas production will leave our electricity delivery systems wanting.

    I didn’t know about the cancelled Thames projects. The Jubilee River seems to follow the course of an abandoned channel. I’m not sure how they could build an artificial channel from Staines (?) to the sea through central London. If I were living down stream of the confluence of Jubilee River and River Thames and had been flooded – I’d be pissed off!

    E

  87. I listened to the NPR piece which included an interview with Dr Francis and she specifically referred to weather like this as being a result of climate change.

    Integrity – it’s optional.

  88. http://www.weatheraction.com/resource/data/wact1/docs/USA%201312DEC%2030d%20SLAT9A%20prod29Nov.pdf

    Piers Corbyn predicts the path of the polar vortex a month in advance .
    He presumes the Suns sunspot activity and surmises its effect on the Earths magnetosphere.
    This PDF contains his predictions for Dec 2013.Looks accurate to me.Extreme events are his forte.
    Anthony I hope you will take a look.

    REPLY: Meh, none of his forecasts are verifiable IMHO, as they are written like astrology in broad generalities. I’ve long since given up on him since he’s so into OTT self-promotion of “successes” – Anthony

  89. Mac the Knife says:

    February 22, 2014 at 1:56 am

    Stephen Richards says:
    February 22, 20morning 14 at 1:36 am
    Good morning Stephen!
    How are things in your bit of the world? I’m ‘restless in Seattle’ and feeling a bit peckish with the late night trolls. They usually don’t elicit my ire but I’ve bloody well had my fill of them, of late.
    Mac
    ——————————————————-

    Here are some of ren’s contributions brought forth to the endless pursuit of all things “Polar Vortex.”

    ren says: January 18, 2014 at 11:45 pm

    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

    Interesting, i.e. THE POLAR VORTEX EVOLUTION AS A POSSIBLE REASON FOR THE TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF SOLAR ACTIVITY EFFECTS ON THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE CIRCULATION S.V. Veretenenko:

    “It was revealed that the detected earlier ~60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere…
    ……
    ren says: January 19, 2014 at 11:39 pm

    Solar activity decreases. Grows cosmic rays. Winter will be long ..

    ………………..
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 31st ICRC, Ł ´ OD´Z 2009 1
    Dynamics of the ionizing particle fluxes in the Earth’s atmosphere

    http://icrc2009.uni.lodz.pl/proc/pdf/icrc0228.pdf

    …………………
    Modulation of galactic cosmic rays during the
    unusual solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24 2

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.7076.pdf

    etc..etc..etc..
    ………………
    But that’s not why I’m here today..
    How would vortices like the following found in Earths magnetosphere, finally dissipate. Wonder if they are vertical or horizontal? Another contribution of the energy and particle transportation system from the sun…

    “”””“These vortices were really huge structures, about six Earth radii across,” says Hiroshi Hasegawa, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire who has been analysing the data with help from an international team of colleagues. Their results place the size of the vortices at almost 40 000 kilometres each, and this is the first time such structures have been detected.”””””

    http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster_finds_giant_gas_vortices_at_the_edge_of_Earth_s_magnetic_bubble

    More good info Just the Facts, Wilde’s post was pretty good too..
    One of us should check for changes in Earth’s differential rotation rate over the last solar min, as compared with other solar min.. And what about the plasmasphere’s co-rotation to a more super rotational state anything new? Or changes in the cusp locations?

  90. How would vortices like the following found in Earths magnetosphere, finally dissipate. Wonder if they are vertical or horizontal? Another contribution of the energy and particle transportation system from the sun…

    “”””“These vortices were really huge structures, about six Earth radii across,” says Hiroshi Hasegawa, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire who has been analysing the data with help from an international team of colleagues. Their results place the size of the vortices at almost 40 000 kilometres each, and this is the first time such structures have been detected.”””””

    http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster_finds_giant_gas_vortices_at_the_edge_of_Earth_s_magnetic_bubble

    More good info Just the Facts, Wilde’s post was pretty good too..
    One of us should check for changes in Earth’s differential rotation rate over the last solar min, as compared with other solar min.. And what about the plasmasphere’s co-rotation to a more super rotational state anything new? Or changes in the cusp locations?

  91. Rabe says:

    February 23, 2014 at 3:06 am

    @JohnWho you forgot:

    Stirring your coffee with a spoon makes it hotter.

    I didn’t drink coffee when in the 8th Grade,

    But I believe you are correct – my spoon does get hotter when I stir hot coffee.

  92. noaaprogrammer says:

    February 22, 2014 at 9:33 am

    JohnWho: …Global Warming does not cause a cooling climate.

    Global Cooling does not cause a warming climate.

    Question: how’s my Eight grade education doing so far?

    :)

    Global Warming does cause Global Cooling because what goes up must come down, and Global Cooling does cause Global Warming because what goes down must come up. How’s my Seventh grade education doing?

    Dang, we may be candidates for honorary Climate Science PhDs!

    Although, I do believe it is not either Global Cooling or Global Warming that causes the opposite, it is the change in the underlying causes of either the Global Cooling or Global Warming that causes the climate to change.

    I’m saying that, just ’cause I can.

  93. justthefactswuwt says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:22 pm

    “How does the energy from the ionosphere and upper mesosphere propagate downward at least ~40 km when atmospheric pressure above 50 km is essentially nil?”

    Because mass flow downward transports energy downward, finally forming the temperature inversion of which I spoke, at a much lower altitude than your diagram would seem to indicate.

    http://createarcticscience.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/temperature-inversion-in-the-arctic/

    This inversion is sporadic and depends on solar activity. It puts a ceiling on convection in the lower troposphere, but at high altitude it becomes the high velocity steering wind of the polar vortex. The return flow (and there surely is a return flow) is an altitude of several km. This will result in surface warming because the lapse rate links the maximum adiabat (temperature corresponding to pressure altitude at constant entropy) to the surface temperature. When the vortex is disrupted as at present, the continents cool but the pole warms and polar sea ice melts, especially if influx of North Atlantic seawater is also a factor.

  94. ren says:

    February 23, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    Carla what do you think?
    —————————————–
    We could use more vertical columns of warm air moving towards the poles to raise that thing back up. The warm air seems to be lacking some power behind and is being kept at bay from making any major impact on the N. pole..

    Any predictions for how long this polar Vortex will continue on?

    Still very energetic at 70 hPa and 10 hPa on the Earth Wind Map.

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-89.71,86.40,381

    If you use the temperature with wind, you can still find it by temp at 250 hPa. Well by temp., all the way down..

  95. More flannel lined jeans and long underwear for me this week..
    And it wasn’t mild or pleasant, around these parts, but wind howling and cold..

    Another blast of cold air is expected in the central and eastern U.S. for the upcoming week

    “”After a mild and pleasant weekend for many, winter will make a harsh return to much of the central and eastern United States. Frigid air will first impact the northern Plains on Monday before diving south and east throughout the week. By Wednesday, most of the Great Lakes will have single digit high temperatures and parts of the Tennessee Valley will struggle to rise above freezing. ”’

  96. So many variables and so many different kinds of vortices impacting Earth parameters..
    Travelling Convection Vortices, yes sir, TCV.

    Simultaneous traveling convection vortex events and Pc1 wave bursts at cusp latitudes observed in Arctic Canada and Svalbard

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50604/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    J. L. Posch, M. J. Engebretson, A. J. Witte, D. L. Murr,
    M. R. Lessard, M. G. Johnsen, H. J. Singer, M. D. Hartinger
    Article first published online: 18 OCT 2013
    [1] Traveling convection vortices (TCVs), which appear in ground magnetometer records at near-cusp latitudes as solitary ~5 mHz pulses, are a signature of dynamical processes in the ion foreshock upstream of the Earth’s bow shock that can stimulate transient compressions of the dayside magnetosphere. These compressions can also increase the growth rate of electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves, which appear in ground records at these same latitudes as bursts of Pc1 pulsations. In this study we have identified TCVs and simultaneous Pc1 burst events in two regions, Eastern Arctic Canada and Svalbard, using a combination of fluxgate magnetometers and search coil magnetometers in each region. By looking for the presence of TCVs and Pc1 bursts in two different sequences, we have found that the distribution of Pc1 bursts was more tightly clustered near local noon than that of TCV events, that neither TCVs nor Pc1 bursts were always associated with the other, and even when they occurred simultaneously their amplitudes showed little correlation……….

  97. These TCV’s are interesting enough all by themselves..

    Multi-instrument observations from Svalbard of a traveling convection vortex, electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave burst, and proton precipitation associated with a bow shock instability
    6 June 2013

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50291/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    “””This burst was associated with one of a series of ~50 nT magnetic impulses observed at the northernmost stations of the IMAGE magnetometer array. Hankasalmi SuperDARN radar data showed a west-to-east (antisunward) propagating vortical ionospheric flow in a region of high spectral width ~ 1–2° north of Svalbard, confirming that this magnetic impulse was the signature of a traveling convection vortex”””

  98. Carla says: February 22, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

    Interesting, i.e. THE POLAR VORTEX EVOLUTION AS A POSSIBLE REASON FOR THE TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF SOLAR ACTIVITY EFFECTS ON THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE CIRCULATION S.V. Veretenenko:

    “It was revealed that the detected earlier ~60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere…

    Yes, I like that they at least took a shot at a mechanism versus just parsing correlations, i.e.:

    ” So, we can suggest that the mechanism of SA/GCR influence on the troposphere circulation involves changes of the vortex strength associated with changes of the heat-radiation balance in the stratosphere. These changes maybe caused by variations of atmosphere transparency in visible and infrared range associated with the effects of ionization and atmospheric electricity variations on cloudy and aerosol particle characteristics [Tinsley, 2008]. Indeed, a considerable increase of aerosol concentration at high latitudes which was most pronounced at the heights 10-12 km and accompanied by the temperature decrease in overlying stratospheric layers was
    detected during a series of powerful solar proton events on January 15-20, 2005 [Veretenenko et al., 2008]. In turn, the increase of the vortex strength intensifies temperature gradients at its edges (see Fig.4). At the stages of a strong vortex this increase of temperature gradients may be transferred to the troposphere via planetary waves and contribute to the increase of temperature contrasts in tropospheric frontal zones and the intensification of extratropical cyclogenesis.”

    How would vortices like the following found in Earths magnetosphere, finally dissipate.

    I am not sure that they ever “finally dissipate” per se, i.e.:

    “Magnetospheric vortex formation: self-organized confinement of charged particles.” “A magnetospheric configuration gives rise to various peculiar plasma phenomena that pose conundrums to astrophysical studies; at the same time, innovative technologies may draw on the rich physics of magnetospheric plasmas. We have created a “laboratory magnetosphere” with a levitating superconducting ring magnet. Here we show that charged particles (electrons) self-organize a stable vortex, in which particles diffuse inward to steepen the density gradient. The rotating electron cloud is sustained for more than 300 s. Because of its simple geometry and self-organization, this system will have wide applications in confining single- and multispecies charged particles.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20867249

    Wonder if they are vertical or horizontal?

    Vertical or horizontal in relation to what?

    Hasegawa et al.- Click the pic to view at source

    The following 2010 paper offers helpful background:

    “Here instead, the plasma density inside each vortex is nearly uniform and of “low-density”of the order of the magnetospheric initial value. The vortices also show the presence of a thin external ring of density n ring 0.6. By looking at the dynamics of passive tracers (not shown), we found that the plasma vortices are a mixing in equal share of both magnetospheric and magnetosheath plasma. As a results, during the vortex formation process, a strong rarefaction of the magnetosheath plasma occurred together with the formation of shock like structures inside the magnetosheath super-magnetosonic MRf >1 region. These shock structures will be discussed in a forthcoming paper. In Figure 3 we show, for the simulations with V0 = 2:5, the profiles of the velocity components Vx, Vy along an ideal straight trajectory that across a vortex of Figure 2 from (x =35, y =150) to (x = 50, y = 90). By comparing Figure 1 and Figure 3 we see a good qualitative correspondence between the simulations and the observations concerning the correlation of the velocity components inside the vortex observed by the probes (in particular, Vx changes sign when Vy assumes a maximum value). However, the observations show a Vph of vortices in the anti-sunward direction lower than that one observed in the simulation. This and other aspects will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.”

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIS/14/PDF/189.pdf

  99. pochas says: February 23, 2014 at 9:38 am

    Because mass flow downward transports energy downward, finally forming the temperature inversion of which I spoke, at a much lower altitude than your diagram would seem to indicate.

    http://createarcticscience.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/temperature-inversion-in-the-arctic/

    The inversion you are referring to occurs;

    “between the surface and 5 km during the winter, on 2 March 2013, and half a year earlier during the summer, on 30 August 2012. A strong inversion can be seen in the winter profile, where the temperature increases from the ground to almost 1 km in the winter by 20°C (from -50°C to -30°C).”

    The Mesosphere starts 45 km above that and has almost no mass, i.e.;

    “Mesosphere, the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere between about 50 km and 80 km (31 mi and 50 mi) above the surface. It lies above the stratosphere and below the thermosphere. The stratosphere and mesosphere together are sometimes called the middle atmosphere. The interface between the stratosphere and the mesosphere is called the stratopause, and the interface between the mesosphere and the thermosphere above is called the mesopause.

    Despite the fact that the mesosphere contains only about 0.1 per cent of the total mass of the atmosphere below 80 km (50 mi), it is important because of the ionization and chemistry which occur there. The middle atmosphere is made of the same constituents as the troposphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen), but also includes some minor, but very important, gas constituents-chiefly ozone which, although it reaches a maximum in concentration low in the stratosphere, causes a maximum of solar heating near the stratopause. The mesosphere differs from the stratosphere below. This is mainly because as the ozone heating falls with height from its maximum near the stratopause, so too does the mesospheric temperature. The consequent rapid decrease in temperature with altitude is the major defining characteristic of the mesosphere.”

    http://library.thinkquest.org/21418/spacee/Mesos.htm

    The closest to a transport mechanism I see is this;

    “The decrease in temperature coupled with the low density of the air in the mesosphere (about 1 gm-3; at the stratopause, or a thousandth of the density at sea-level, to 100 times less at the mesopause) means that the mesosphere includes both turbulence and atmospheric waves which have a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Such motions are important not only because of the mixing of chemicals that occur as a result, but also because the mesosphere is the region of the atmosphere where spacecraft on re-entry start to feel the background wind structure, rather than just aerodynamic drag. Some of the small-scale waves drive an average seasonal flow upwards from the lower summer polar mesosphere across the equator and down deep into the winter polar stratosphere.”

    http://library.thinkquest.org/21418/spacee/Mesos.htm

    though the flow is likely slow and would transport minimal energy over a period of months.

  100. Excuse me. There seems to be a consensus, or am I missing something, among the commenters above that the global warming/climate change crowd and its pseudoscientists have been silenced once and for all. Dream on my friends. When sheep have been convinced to run over the cliff you don’t stop them with words of truth and wisdom. They will continue to believe that the (pseudo) science of GW/CC is a done deal. After all our president (term used loosely) just recently stated without reservation that the California drought is caused by GW/CC. The VP agrees (loose again), not to mention the Secretary of State (omg). And don’t forget Al Gore. Where’s he hanging out these days? The sheep will simply dutifully follow their leaders. They will continue the charade with their bottomless bag of rationalizations, and big money will continue to pour into the coffers of sold out “scientists.”

  101. ” Sundownerdean says:
    February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    And don’t forget Al Gore. Where’s he hanging out these days?”
    Al Gore is making the speaking rounds as the political debate over Climate Change heats up.
    Last place was in Kansas City.

    And that darn Polar Vortex is expected to return, bringing down temps to as much as 30 degrees below average.

  102. Where did the warm air go that displaced the Polar Vortex?

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Looks like it came in waves to 80N.
    And what do you suppose happened to that heat energy in the Arctic night?
    My guess is that it radiated out to space. It surely didn’t pour forth down on Canada and the US.
    How’s the ocean temp anomaly doing these days?

    Looking rather on the cool side of things.
    What a year it’s been. Antarctica spent a full year in record high sea ice territory.
    I honestly don’t understand how anyone could logically conclude that the Earth is warming.
    Oh well, to each his own.

  103. ren says: February 25, 2014 at 9:07 am

    Ozone From January 30th, 2014 at 30 hPa/mb:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    Those magical CFCs must have been really busy that day…

  104. ren says: February 26, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    I suggest you to go back a little earlier and a little above the 6 January 2014 and a height of 45 km.

    http://oi59.tinypic.com/2la3m9h.jpg

    Ask and you shall receive, i.e. Ozone From January 6th, 2014 at 1 hPa/mb, looks like it’s got eyes, and a smile :):

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    And in fact, in looking for that, I realized that they actually go even higher, i.e. Ozone From January 6th, 2014 at .5 hPa/mb:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    All are available here for reference:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/archive/nh/

Comments are closed.