We’ve just been waiting for this predictable headline to emerge somewhere, and it happened to pop up in Canada’s CBC News:
h/t to Ron Christie in WUWT Tips and Notes
That “new study” from Rutgers? Not even new. They write:
The 2012 paper says melting Arctic ice is weakening the jet stream. This weakening causes the jet stream to dip further south, which in Canada brings severe cold temperatures for prolonged periods of time.
Um, no. The 2012 study by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers they allude to (but don’t mention) is titled:
Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract
Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere – is evident in lower-tropospheric temperatures and in 1000-to-500 hPa thicknesses. Daily fields of 500 hPa heights from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Reanalysis are analyzed over N. America and the N. Atlantic to assess changes in north-south (Rossby) wave characteristics associated with AA and the relaxation of poleward thickness gradients. Two effects are identified that each contribute to a slower eastward progression of Rossby waves in the upper-level flow: 1) weakened zonal winds, and 2) increased wave amplitude. These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss, but are also apparent in summer, possibly related to earlier snow melt on high-latitude land. Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.
So what is being argued is that somehow, Arctic Amplification (making the Arctic warm faster than the rest of the planet) results is bitterly cold air masses that protrude southward from the circumpolar vortex and linger longer. Note in this forecast panel for the next few days, the cold air outbreak is a regional issue. Would CBC care to say that the warm outbreak over Alaska and the North Atlantic (giving some very nice weather to the UK) is also caused by the same mechanism? If they do, then of course it becomes an unfalsifiable belief, essentially a religion.
Dr. Judith Curry has already taken on this nonsense back in January and writes:
Is global warming causing the polar vortex?
by Judith Curry
In a word, no.
And now for the 2nd question: Does the massive cold air outbreak blanketing much of the U.S. disprove global warming?
Same word: no.
The media are mostly in stupid mode over this one.
Cliff Mass provides a good overview, the punch lines:
The bottom line: the claims that greenhouse warming causes more cold waves like we have seen this week really seems to be without any basis in observational evidence or in theory. The media needs to stop pushing this unsupported argument.
It is SO frustrating that every major weather event causes such claims and counterclaims to be aired, with many media outlets unable to do the minimal research that would allow them to give the public more dependable information.
All this bogus reporting has done substantial damage, with many American’s believing that global warming is already causing our winter weather to become more extreme, while the observational evidence suggests no such thing. One day some sociologists will study this situation and the psychological elements that drove it.
The arguments in favor of an AGW impact on the cold air in the U.S. come from Jennifer Francis (see this previous post).
The bitter winter of 1976-77 in the U.S. with its large polar excursions certainly didn’t have anything to do with global warming then, and it would have been absurd then to make such a claim, it is no less absurd now.
Read the whole paper: 1977v002no04-Wagner (PDF)
The “blocking high” slowed down the progression of the jet stream much like Ms. Francis suggests in her 2012 paper, see this pictorial for what happened in January 2014, much like the pattern of 1977:
Except in 1977, “global warming” was the furthest thing from most scientists and journalists minds at the time.
At times like these, I am ashamed to be a Canadian.
Climates can get colder, right? Or do these Climateers only think it will get warmer?
Of course warming causes cooling. During the winter when my furnace kicks on, some rooms get boiling hot while other rooms dip below zero F. That’s because Maxwell’s demon is opening and shutting doors furiously, allowing all the hot air to go one way and the cold air to go the other way.
/sarc? You mean that’s not how it works?
Commenting is closed at CBC – how odd that seems to happen on so many occasions…
Jim Cripwell, we as Canadians already know the publicly funded CBC is a national embarrassment. The only thing that comes close is the Toronto Star. Cheers from the north shore of Lake Erie.
I’ve been using the 1976/77 Winter weather maps to show this for 3 months now. I’ll post those again later this morning.
With few exceptions, I have rarely seen a competent scientist speak truth in plain language.
With that one sentence, Dr. Curry recaptures the English language for all the laymen! Her honesty both in her profession and her writings are why I love to read her and trust her over most everyone else on the subject.
I’m waiting for the “new study” that shows manmade CO2 is causing the Sun to weaken.
(Hey, you know it’s coming!)
Does anybody remember how the movie The Day After Tomorrow ended? Hint: It wasn’t very warm in New York City.
Jennifer Francis appears clearly & thoroughly untrustworthy.
(Why? One can only speculate…)
The Day After Tomorrow is one of the most egregious examples of violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics ever to come out of Hollywood. And that includes the movie about the giant killer rabbits. And the bulldozer that had an evil mind of its own. At least the “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” was ‘believable’.
Anthony: “giving some very nice weather to the UK”
Scotland (which is part of the UK you know) might disagree slightly about the warm bit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26339994
“Most snow in hills in 69 years, says Hamish MacInnes”
I think CTV had this a few days ago:
Via Small Dead Animals:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/your-moral-and-156.html
CTV:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/experts-quiet-climate-change-skeptics-warming-leads-to-longer-cold-snaps-1.1727176#comments
Solar it the Reason, Increased activity warmed Western Pacific placing Ridge over the west and Trough in the east.
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/445887235288596480/photo/1
And warm snaps are a result of global cooling …….?
Also Solar has direct effect on PDO not like the AMO that has a lag time.
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/445885731332833280/photo/1
Does this mean I can sleep comfortably at night in full knowledge that the “National Centers for Environmental Prediction Reanalysis” are looking over the shoulders of those dolts at the “National Centers for Environmental Prediction Analysis”? I hope so.
I tweeted this the other day 1976 Arctic temps and Solar Activity. Arctic same temps then and Solar TSI.
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/444789605053648897/photo/1
When POTUS makes speeches about shutting down the nation’s carbon- polluting power plants and then urges everyone to spread the message of climate doom, it is no surprise to see such propaganda in print.
http://leftcall.com/17113/quotes-president-obama-climate-change-speech-at-georgetown-university/
So, to sum up: Every weather event that happen is because of man-made global warming/climate change and so you need to pay up and surrender your rights.
If this Global Warming keeps up, the Arctic will become a bubbling cauldron surrounded by a doughnut of snow.
AGW, The amazing belief system:
Its proponents can’t debate it in public
When it is dry, it is AGW
When it is wet, it is AGW
When it hot, it is AGW
When it is cold, it is AGW
And those who dare doubt are the most dangerous people in the world.
Well. Are they really trying to say that we can only have cold winters in a warming world? What caused the cold US winters in the 1930s, 1960s and 1970s then? What caused the little ice age? Like many here like to say, “the stupid, it burns.”
Jetstream is in the tropopause, at the border of the stratosphere as a result of the polar vortex, which is located in the stratosphere. The state of the polar vortex determines the direction of the wind.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=24.02,72.07,318
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=24.02,72.07,318
When Chicago is covered with 100′ of ice, there’ll still be some who’ll say it’s caused by global warming.
Add another peer reviewed paper to the 98%……
The Francis abstract you post says this–“These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss,…”, and while the theory is conceivably correct, this is the wrong year to bring it up, since the later part of 2013 saw a large Arctic ice gain.
AS a matter of record, 1976/77 was an incredibly mild one in the SE of England.
Does seem that there may be a teleconnection between brutal US winter and mild winter in UK?
Don’t get too worked up about the CBC. The Canadian state-owned broadcaster is firmly in the CAGW camp along with the BBC, the Australian ABC, and the rest of the consensus, bobblehead media.
Jetstream is at a height of 300-250 hPa, it is 8 km. The temperature there is almost constant and is currently -60 to degrees C. The air movement is caused by so in the stratosphere, through the polar vortex.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2014.gif
Someone is trying to cheat, without giving any justification.
And the solar stupid, it burns too. Possibly more.
$$$ and the unfalsifiable science of global warming = gravy train.
“The media are mostly in stupid mode over this one.”
Change “this one” to “CAGW” and you’ve got a more encompassing statement.
Can’t correlate a stupid media to global warming however, since the main stream media (in the US anyway) appears to embrace “stupid mode” no matter what the climate does.
Just an observation.
Yes. The global warming, which hasn’t been happening for the past 17 years or so is now suddenly causing these massive polar incursions to the south. Of course.
Pull the other one, CBC.
Far more likely is that, although still “just weather”, it is a further indication that we are, in fact cooling.
Falsifiable? It’s a good thing we can go back in time and see jet stream activity. No? Perhaps there is still a need at Rutgers for Michael Mann and another tree ring study to prove definitively that jet streams have never behaved like this before.
So if AGW makes some places hotter and some places colder, and those places can vary, there is no weather phenomenon that can possibly disprove AGW. Everything proves Global Warming – yeah, lecture me some more about science.
when they predict it rather than hindsight forecasting then they might have a handle on the processes. Till then its just another disaster movie headline for the media who never let facts [like the co2ers never predicted it but they did predict warming and above av drier winter] get in the way of a good story
Reminds me of all such religious arguments. Its “basic tenant” explains everything. And only those that accept it will be saved.
How in the heck did we get here?!?!?!?!? I used to say “save me from religion. Now I have to add “science” and “scientists” to it! And I used to be one!!!
The media is as confused as the rest of us as to what is really real in CC. If the conclusions of scientific data is widely debated by the experts, lay people have no chance of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.
I thought this philosophical look at Climate Change would be of interest here. CC is a complex issue, and this article “An Ontology of Climate Change, Integral pluralism and the enactment of multiple objects” by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, was helpful to me in understanding the how, what, why that seems to be blocking collaborative agreement and action. It is about 20 pages, but worth the time, IMO. take good care…..
https://foundation.metaintegral.org/sites/default/files/Esbjorn-Hargens_Ontology.pdf
[I]f ontology is multiple, then it is also political. Ecological debates are becoming both more complex and epistemologically distant. The days of environmental crises that can be easily seen and quickly contained are rapidly becoming distant memory. The global environmental problems of the twenty-fi rst century are thus likely to become increasingly multiple as they move further and further beyond our epis- temological reach. What, then, are we to do? With people ultimately talking about different objects, how can we ever hope for consensus and cooperation?….there is still hope. Remember, multiplicity does not necessarily mean fragmentation. All that is solid does not melt into thin air. – Michael Carolan1 So what is the ontological status of climate change (CC)? Is it real or not? Is it happening at an alarm- ing apocalyptic rate or is it environmental hype driven by special eco-interests? Or is it somewhere in- between or some mix thereof? Or might it be something altogether different than what this common binary framing can allow? What if it was very real but not real in the way that we typically think (or feel) about “things out there” in the external world?
This article is about ontology and CC.2 It presents what I feel is a unique view on the topic—at least unique in the context of CC discourse. Although many have presented the many-sidedness of CC—Mike Hulme’s
Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(1), pp. 143–174
ABSTRACT Climate change is a complex phenomenon that is enacted by multi ple methodologies from various disciplines. No single method by itself can “see” or reveal climate change in its enti rety. This raises the issue of the ontological status of climate change and to what degree are the data from these methodological traditi ons pointi ng to a singular or multi ple object. This arti cle explores the ontology of climate change. First, the noti on of ontological pluralism is introduced and linked to climate change. Next, the role of enactment and performati vity is explored in the context of climate change. As a result of this analysis, climate change is presented as a multi ple object with overlapping and divergent dimensions. Issues of hybridity and multi plicity are linked to climate change acti on. Lastly, a framework of Integral Pluralism is presented that addresses the relati onship between epis- temological distance (the Who), methodological variety (the How), and ontological complexity (the What). In conclusion, this arti cle presents fi ve reasons why it is advantageous—philosophically and pragmati cally—to relate to climate change as an ontological plurality.
Follow the above link for more…..
@Pamela Gray
Climate works in mysterious ways.
🙂
I am now confused as to what constitutes natural weather for the US as the US has had longer droughts, hotter decades, colder weather…
Attack of Carbonzilla, coming to a theater near you. Nothing can prepare you for the terror to come, as Carbonzilla rolls out of the tropics into the artic and brings total death and destruction across North America. The horror of the frozen deniers will more than you can handle, no place to run, no place to hide from Carbonzilla.
Try getting this through the media: “The last Australian summer was plagued by killer heat waves, wild fires and drought, all caused by global cooling.”
@Sister Michelle,
The first thing you need to do is distinguish climate change, which is real and always happening from the mythical “manmade climate change”, which I assume is what you mean when you say “CC”.
Beyond that, yes, we know that manmade climate change and religion have many similarities. Perhaps you could discuss those.
“And the bulldozer that had an evil mind of its own.”
Killdozer was actually a decent short story, written by Theodore Sturgeon, I believe (going from memory).
JimS
in the hottest year ever for Australia-
17 September 2013
Australia’s gross value of farm production is expected to achieve a record of $49 billion* in 2013-14, according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES).
Releasing the September edition of Agricultural Commodities today, Executive Director of ABARES, Paul Morris, said the value of farm production was expected to exceed $46 billion for the fourth year in a row.
“This continues the recovery in the farm sector from the drought-affected decade of the 2000s.
ok- so if we have a warm streak- global warming, a cold snap- global warming- what exactly would the weather have to look like for “not” global warming? Global warming- what a joke!
Among other absurdities, this illustrates the meaninglessness of a “global average temperature”. If the rest of the planet stayed at a constant temp & the arctic were to “warm” 10 deg (it hasn’t , this is just for illustration) , the net planetary temp would show “warming”.
Yet, even with that “warming”, this arctic air would still be extremely cold & if that cold air gets displaced, the mid latitude areas effected by those air masses will also be extremely cold, despite the warming. In this situation, there are always compensating ridges (as noted in this post with ridges over Alaska & the North Atlantic, either side of the deep low over eastern North America) either side so the mid latitude temps are net neutral, yet the “global temperature” would up because the arctic was up.
So how meaningful was that measurement of increased global temperature ? Not very.
Furthermore, see this post by Willis :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/should-we-be-worried/
Although not as extreme as the above example, the above link essentially shows that this is what is happening.
Good luck for Canadians, nobody with any sense believes the CBC. Between hockey games they just air filler, Coranation Street, commie propaganda and fluff pieces on Olivia Chow. There is a pocket of gullibility called Toronto that may in fact eat this crap up, but for the most part the CBC is regarded as a joke, just like the Maple Leafs.
[Snip – I’m sorry Jai, this is just too stupid to print, especially in lieu of what Nature and IPCC SREX has to say about extreme weather linkage. It’s just another thread hijack by you, which are becoming tiresome. – Anthony]
Richard,
http://www.ibtimes.com/australias-heat-wave-threatening-agricultural-production-1543730
Australia’s Heat Wave Threatening Agricultural Production
January 17 2014 3:31 PM
Australia is the world’s second-largest wheat exporter, the third-largest sugar exporter and the world’s third-largest beef exporter. Already in the last month, beef prices on the benchmark Eastern Cattle Indicator dropped nearly 10 percent as farmers send more animals to the slaughter.
The country’s cattle herd will fall to 25 million head this season, the lowest since the 2009-2010 season, according to the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics and Sciences.
“It will be much harder to maintain production if you have such extreme weather events,” Paul Deane, senior agricultural economist at ANZ Bank, told Eco-Business.com.
“Higher temperatures tend to lead to more evaporation of any rain, and all of sudden the water availability for crops is reduced, which will have a big impact on crops like wheat and sugar,” Deane said.
Over-confident over-reach is a key step along the way toward public and scientific fatigue with nut jobs. They become indefensible and predictable for both the short attention span types and concerned intellectuals. It is the double dose of skepticism that really thins the crowds.
Billboard:
Image: Big Brother (the well-known guy with the scowl and the crew cut)
Caption: Cool Is Warm!
Sub-caption: And Don’t You Forget It!
@Jeff Alberts
>>“And the bulldozer that had an evil mind of its own.”
>Killdozer was actually a decent short story, written by Theodore Sturgeon, I believe (going from memory).
Well done. Perhaps one way to look at the matter of AGW and CC is to compare how a real story that had legs, albeit they were short legs, is turned into Climate Godzilla by Hollywood, played in this version by the main stream media (MSM). Hollywood is renowned for having lots of ‘agendas’ including those forced on them by the government from time to time. Usually though, it is just self-serving materialism with lipstick.
On the bright side, however, once Hollywood determines that they have been misled and the public is not going to drink from the Green Kool-Aid Fountain™ for much longer, they will start portraying the self-serving industrialists and politicians behind the scam as targets of ridicule and scorn. That of course will lead to a new generation of young people who are at odds with the core beliefs of their parents.
*Yawn* Life goes on.
I’m surprised that no one has had a laugh at low information journalism’s expense yet, at this whopper
“Jet streams are ribbons of wind that blow from west to east in the northern hemisphere, and are formed when cold air from the Arctic comes in contact with warm air from the south.”
Are they stupid? Or do they just think everyone else is.
This says it all. It’s found at the bottom of the article in question:
Low inforrmation journalism. Welcome to the CBC.
They count on ignorance, and yet are available for the current analysis and forecasts.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/
Jai mitchel
Nah Australia will be fine,
MArch 4th 2014
http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/abares-2014-projections/2690128.aspx
“Would CBC care to say that the warm outbreak over Alaska and the North Atlantic (giving some very nice weather to the UK) is also caused by the same mechanism? If they do, then of course it becomes an unfalsifiable belief, essentially a religion.”
I’m on your side, but I think there’s a better way to express this. I can at least imagine how something like increased warmth in one part of the world could influence weather in different ways depending on location.
The trouble arises with the ad hoc nature of these papers. They’re obviously making it up as they go along.
The SUN’s magnetic field changes is the cause. This has allowed a shift in the earth’ magnetic field to a more disorganized arrangement. An increase in the strength is the local field along the North American west coast has densified the atmosphere over it. This semi permanent high pressure area is steering the Northern Jet in a loop that is dragging arctic air down over the northeast. Now you are getting a lesson in the creation of the Great Ice Mountains. They grew in place and did not slowly travel down from the north. pg
For some reason I am remembering a study that showed different views of the polar climate. Most of the time the boundary between the cold polar air and the warmer mid-latitude was fairly circular and well defined, but periodically you would instead see these long extrusions of polar weather stretching south, with corresponding lobes of warm air stretching north. This was presented as something that would occur every couple of decades and was not that big a deal regarding overall impact to the climate. The graphic I’m remembering in particular on the left has the boundary looking mostly like a circle, but on the right looking almost like a starfish plopped on top of the globe. I’m trying to remember other details of the study but I’m coming up blank.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
And by extension the climate change argument also explains snow birds and other migration patterns, including viewership decline.
Yeah, right. During the Brutal Winter of 1978-1979 weakening of the jet stream was caused by too much sea ice, which made it dip further south, only this time it was the other way around. Who dares say true science is not exciting?
To paraphrase the CBC caption: Is global warming a myth? No, climate change is not a myth. Calling it sleight of hand would be to do it too much credit.
I’m sorry it’s true and heat waves are caused by global cooling.
This must be all the rage with the global warming idiots in Canada. This is the third such story I have read from Canada in the past week or so. At least, unlike NOAA, they aren’t denying that it was cold.
To view the daily weather maps for the Winter of 1976/77 go to the following link:
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ncepreanal/
Plug in a starting date of 1976-year 11-month 15-day
This will get you started on November 15, 1976. Hit the + to advance by day thru December, January and February.
The Polar Vortex drops way south repeatedly, causing numerous, extreme cold outbreaks in the eastern half of the US and Canada during that Winter as you can plainly see.
1. California was also having an historical drought.
2. CO2 and greenhouse gas warming could not have caused this
3. This pattern happened much less frequently during the global warming years of the 1980’s/90’s while the Arctic was warming most and losing large amounts of ice. If Arctic ice loss causes this pattern, it should have been most evident with it increasing most during those years.
4. The PDO was negative in the 1970’s when we saw this pattern more frequently. When we had a +PDO in the 80’s/90’s, along with global warming, we saw the Polar Vortex dropping south LESS frequently.
5. The PDO has shifted back to negative in the last decade. Global warming has stalled and now we have the Polar Vortex dropping south again like it did more frequently during the 1970’s
This shows a strong correlation to this pattern and the PDO. No correlation to CO2, which has been increasing the entire time and the opposite correlation to global warming suggested by this study.
This obvious correlation (or lack of it) is not rocket science (or computer modeling)(or pet theories) it is plain and simple………..using observations of the actual weather that occurred.
I thought climate change was hiding in the deep oceans?………….
“Cold snaps result of global warming”
Good one from Canada’s CBC News. Perhaps next year they have the patience to wait the extra 15 days to make it perfect.
And what caused the cold in the late 1800’s and in the 1930’s?
They make it up as they go along.
They are not giving up.
They are not going away.
They are not taking their hand out of our wallets.
Ralph Kramdon says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:00 am
Are they stupid? Or do they just think everyone else is.
The latter and they know the vast majority of people are stupid; about 97%
John S. says:
March 18, 2014 at 4:31 am
“Does anybody remember how the movie The Day After Tomorrow ended? Hint: It wasn’t very warm in New York City.”
Yes, but the people froze to death due to a “tropospheric storm” that made very very cold air descend vertically. This is not what happened this winter in North America. Therefore, we can say that Roland Emmerich’s predictions have as of now not been confirmed. At least the ones in this particular work.
In 2008, global warming was making the jet stream go north…
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/jet-stream-moved-northwards-270-miles-in-22-years-climate-change-to-b
As usual…whatever happens, it’s global warming.
Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict, displace millions of people and devastate the global economy
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/official-prophecy-of-doom-global-warming-will-cause-widespread-conflict-displace-millions-of-people-and-devastate-the-global-economy-9198171.html
just one of a barrage of co2ers reports today. The articles have no balance. Its just one sided.
Journalism loves scary headlines, it is what drags eyeballs to pages, clicks to online media and all to look at advertising that generates their $revenues to pay salaries. Global Warming or Climate Change is a perfect never ending story of doom gloom and guilt. The International Green Industry just takes their fund raising marketing plan, literature and money to provide what Mass Media needs – doom, gloom and guilt.
Sooner or later they will move on. Reality, in the form of the ongoing computer models – data disconnects, will be noticed, the public will disconnect from the message track and a new scary meme will be adopted by the mass media.
Too bad about the $Trillions of public dollars wasted on Greenie instigated CO2 fairy tales.
Could have bought a lot of health care public education and infrastructure.
“Storm Threatens village!”
“Village Saved from Storm!”
James Strom says:
March 18, 2014 at 6:03 am
The Francis abstract you post says this–”These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss,…”, and while the theory is conceivably correct, this is the wrong year to bring it up, since the later part of 2013 saw a large Arctic ice gain.
Arctic sea ice extent has been near record lows for most of the winter. Whether this is a cause or an effect of the jet stream excursions is the issue. That is, is the sea ice affecting the weather or is the weather affecting the sea ice?
“Coach Springer says:
March 18, 2014 at 6:39 am
Falsifiable? It’s a good thing we can go back in time and see jet stream activity. No? Perhaps there is still a need at Rutgers for Michael Mann and another tree ring study to prove definitively that jet streams have never behaved like this before.”
#################
Thats not the argument.
1. The jet streams have always had loops.
2. These loops can cause certain weather patterns to persist
3. We’ve seen this in the past. It’s normal.
Along comes Global warming and arctic amplification and we Predict:
1. The normal loops may become larger in amplitude
2. If they become larger, you can expect more stuck weather than normal.
So the argument is NOT that arctic amplification causes this.
The argument is NOT we have never seen this before.
The argument is:
A) we’ve seen these loops before. they are normal.
B) Arctic amplification may cause the loops to have larger amplitudes than normal.
C) The weather extremes caused by the loops, become more frequent/intense.
Time will tell.
Its definitely falsifiable. Measure the mean amplitude of the loops over the last couple decades we have data. Wait 30 years for the arctic to warm and we hit ‘ice free” conditions in the arctic.
measure loop amplitude again.
What’s not falsifiable is the skeptical position
IF they had predicted this before it happened, I’d be impressed, but the game seems to be, “Whatever happens, it MUST BE proof of Global Warming”, is just foolish. It’s like saying,, “Heads I win, tails you lose!”
Steven Mosher says:
“Wait 30 years for the arctic to warm and we hit ‘ice free” conditions in the arctic.”
The Arctic has very likely been ice-free in the past, before CO2 began rising.
What were the jet streams doing then?
Here is another b.s. article from Canadian media on March 13th.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/experts-quiet-climate-change-skeptics-warming-leads-to-longer-cold-snaps-1.1727176#commentsField-494486
Just skip reading the article and go right to the 167 comments.
Who do the media and faux scientists think they are fooling? It seems not many Canadians. Yet this madness continues. Interesting and a little nervous how this will all play out as here in Ontario our world is governed on one alternate plane of existence and we the people live on another called the real world. With rising energy prices and another cold winter like the last, the masses will not be amused. In times past this difference is solved with revolutions. Hope it will not come to this.
The argument is:
A) we’ve seen these loops before. they are normal.
B) Arctic amplification may cause the loops to have larger amplitudes than normal.
C) The weather extremes caused by the loops, become more frequent/intense.
********
**IF** the earth is warming and the loop de loops produce larger amplitudes, because of the a ‘warmer earth, what if the purpose of the larger de loops is to cool the earth won’t the loop de loops end the long run get smaller.
What if grasshoppers had tail gunners, would birds eph with them?
What if the larger amplitude loop de loops are a sign of a colder atmosphere and we in fact have it sdrawkcab ssa?
This boils down to … “climate change causes climate change”.
Wow! In 24 hours two Nobel prize winning scientific discoveries are announced. First gravity waves are confirmed by microwave spin mapping from a south pole telescope (which despite global warming somehow still has cold clear air over it).
And now … climate change causes climate change! Pure genuis. A historic day for science!
\sarc off
What is it about paradoxical presentations do they not understand?
Its warmer up there so it must be global warming doing it? Right? Yet they do not follow the simple flow of heat and cold differential which every person who understand thermodynamics can tell you will cause greater air movement.
SO, which area is causing the increased movement? The tropics has remained nearly the same. Yet the poles have been cooling rapidly. If the arctic was warming the polar jet would be greatly reduced in size and the air movement minimized. The increased differential has caused wild swings of air movement which will pull heat to the poles in an attempt to warm them. This however is short lived and once the mid latitudes cool enough the real cooling in the arctic will be seen.
Would someone please slap these guys up side the head.
hmmm This is slightly different to what AGW were claiming only a few years ago ..
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/jet-stream-moved-northwards-270-miles-in-22-years-climate-change-to-b
Link to original paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL033614/abstract where the authors make the following disclaimer.
….. Continued…
I forgot this from Weather underground …
That explains a lot.
I’ve sat at a campfire where my front got warm (due to the CO2 released by the burning of the not-yet-fossil-fuel no doubt) and my back was cold. Now I understand why. If I had sat on a rotating stool powered by a windmill or a solar panel, I would have been warm all over.
Wait a minute…those things are supposed to keep me from getting warm.
Guess I’m confused again. 8-(
(I’m sure I had a sarc tag around here somewhere…..)
I want a movie that combines climate change with a homicidal bulldozer that has a mind of its own.
Sharknado vs Killdozer.
The warmists regularly cite the 2013 Australian temperatures as proof of CAGW however there is little real analysis of the underlying conditions. The BOM analysis is a mish mash of meaningless AGW propaganda. Even a cursory examination of the weather observations shows record levels of solar radiation, in many cases over 2Mj/M^2/day (anyone want to convert that to hiroshima bombs?). The BOM chart for solar radiation shows average levels but the chart bears no resemblance to the individual records. You have to wonder if that is shoddy workmanship or a deliberate attempt to hide an inconvenient truth. The record levels of radiation (data only goes back to 1991) coincide with very dry conditions. The regular heat waves in Eastern Australia were produced by a large blocking high over South Australia which forced the usual pattern of cold fronts south over Tasmania (relatively cold and very wet for a lot of the year.) This weather pattern is typical of a positive Antarctic Oscillation. Coupled with a neutral to slightly positive Indian Ocean Diode and a Neutral ENSO and you have all the ingredients for a hot dry year in Australia. Although the alarmists like to characterise this weather as unprecedented there are many instances where the late 19th century was hotter – just not enough coverage to create a truly national picture but it would be more accurate if they at least acknowledged the older records. Still think it is just weather.
Sorry, should have said “over 2MJ/M^2/day above the 1991-2013 average.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/18/climate-craziness-of-the-week-cold-snaps-result-of-global-warming/#comment-1593127
===========================================================
Hey!
I think that might be the first time I had a typo and a messed up blockquote in the same comment!
(Where’s my calendar…..)
(How I went from “with” to “wing” I’ll never know.)
If it’s not warming, it’s not global warming. What’s there to understand?
The CBC is an absolutely pathetic excuse for a news organization and i have noticed recently that they seem to no longer be allowing comments on articles concerning the climate. It wasn’t long ago that they did, maybe they got tired of the constant cavalcade of idiots proclaiming the end was neigh and being easily rebutted. Though i doubt that, more likely they are taking the ‘debate is over’ tact that some other alleged news outlets have taken.
Pat says:
In 2008, global warming was making the jet stream go north…
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/jet-stream-moved-northwards-270-miles-in-22-years-climate-change-to-b
As usual…whatever happens, it’s global warming.
Pat,
While attempting to pin this on humans, they have provided evidence of the complete opposite:
From this study:
“Climate change is forcing the jet stream higher and closer to the pole in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, according research published this April in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. In their paper, “Historical trends in the jet streams”, researchers Cristina Archer and Ken Caldeira of Stanford’s Carnegie Institution of Washington analyzed data from 1979-2001, and found that the Northern Hemisphere jet stream moved northward at approximately 125 miles per decade (270 miles during the 22-year period of the study)”
1. We had global warming during the period studied, 1979-2001, the jet stream shifted northward and CO2 went up every year.
2. Since then, global warming stopped, the jet stream is seeing extreme displacement south at times again(Polar Vortex) and CO2 is still going up every year.
3. This Winter, the jet stream acted like it did more frequently in the 1970’s. What do these recent colder and snowier Winters(2009/10 was also extremely cold/snowy) have in common with 1970’s Winters?
Is it CO2 levels………nope, they were not that high back then and we spent 25 years in between with a different pattern as CO2 went up in the 80’s/90’s.
Global warming? Can’t be that, since we had global cooling in the 70’s and no warming/stalled warming the last decade. In fact, the years when this DID NOT happen to the Polar Vortex as often, were the global warming years of the 80’s/90’s.
Climate change? Bingo, the PDO shifted back to negative a decade ago, like it was in the 1970’s after being positive during the 80’s/90’s. This is the smoking gun of climate change………NATURAL climate change!
“Time will tell.
Its definitely falsifiable. Measure the mean amplitude of the loops over the last couple decades we have data. Wait 30 years for the arctic to warm and we hit ‘ice free” conditions in the arctic.
measure loop amplitude again.
What’s not falsifiable is the skeptical position”
Steven,
Time has already told. It’s pretty dang clear to me from being an operational meteorologist, looking at global weather patterns every day the last 32 years and also comparing them to the 1970’s and prior years. (See my link earlier if you want to view these maps yourself)
The Arctic did warm and lots of ice did melt in the 80’s/90’s and we did NOT see any evidence of this when there should have been.
Why suddenly now? And also after we have one of the coldest Summer’s with year to year ice gains in the Arctic………………the complete opposite time when one should have seen the signal of it in the atmosphere………………..it’s happening after the warming stopped.
This pattern was more common in the 1970’s when the PDO was negative after having a positive PDO during the 80’s/90’s. When the PDO was positive, we also had global warming and we also saw the jet stream move north.
We can watch for another 30 years to see if this repeats again but all the proof has taken place right under our meteorological noses the past 30+ years………..that is to meteorologists that were watching.
Since that includes very few people, I will again, share the view with those that might actually care to look..
To view the daily weather maps for the Winter of 1976/77 go to the following link:
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ncepreanal/
Plug in a starting date of 1976-year 11-month 15-day
This will get you started on November 15, 1976. Hit the + to advance by day thru December, January and February.
The Polar Vortex drops way south repeatedly, causing numerous, extreme cold outbreaks in the eastern half of the US and Canada during that Winter as you can plainly see.
Other Winters in the 1970’s saw this occur much more frequently than the 80’s/90’s. 76/77 was chosen because it happened alot…………more than this Winter. Go ahead and use this link to look at all those Winters if you have the time. You will see it yourself.
@John S.
Now, that was a preposterously stupid movie. Three choppers over Scotland, on a rescue mission to Balmoral Castle to save the Royal Family, got into the eye of the storm, where temperature dropped to an astounding -150°F (-101°C), the bloody fuel lines were starting to freeze, come on, you bastard! Crashed to the ground spectacularly, exposing survivors to an instant freeze. The Royal Family, presumably, perished. Later on we were told satellite readings had shown a temperature drop of 10 degrees per second over New York, a mighty feat indeed, for it must had dropped well below absolute zero in less than a minute this way.
Of course, Professor Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), the Scientist-Father-Hero explained it unequivocally. “The storm’s rotation is pulling supercooled air all the way down from the upper troposphere” and, although the air should have warmed up before it reached ground level, it did not, “The air’s descending too rapidly.”
Yeah, sure. Adiabatic processes are supposed to be suppressed, if things are happening too fast. Or is it the other way around? Otherwise, temperature of the tropopause seldom drops below -60°F, therefore lack of adiabatic heating is not enough to explain the woeful fate of the Royal Family, the opposite process is needed. Unfortunately thermodynamics is ruthless enough to refuse to make such a solution available.
I suppose it was not abrupt climate change after all that cut the royal bloodline of Britain short, but a somewhat revenge of the Stone of Scone or something. It did not like to be addressed as ‘turd’ perhaps.
It’s called strange / odd / wild / weird weather. The only problem is that this was in 1935!. Here are some of the headlines on the link. It’s just the weather and not the climate, as I have been told over and over again (IN THE PAST), but now all weather is a sign of a changing climate. BS I call it.
Britain Has Winter Heat Wave [Jan.]
COLDEST WEATHER IN MEMORY. MOTOR CARS SNOWED UP. [Britain] [Jan.]
SNOW IN MAY. Unusual Weather in England. [May]
FREAK WEATHER Frosts in England HEAVY LOSSES [June]
INDIA UNDER FROST Record Low Temperatures Many Deaths from Pneumonia
Freak Weather:…….Niagara Freezes:
AMERICA’S WINTER 200 Deaths From Cold Frost Reaches Florida
SNOW IN SWELTERING SAHARA ALGIERS
ls the Weather Abnormal?
OUR CHANGING CLIMATE Scientists Talk of Post…..[ Australia’s climate is bad,..]
CLIMATIC ECCENTRICITIES [… more or less off what is regarded as the normal…]
And just to balance things out for my last comment here are the unprecedented heatwaves!!! It’s all about the BS.
HEATWAVE IN FRANCE HUNDREDS OF CASES OF SUNSTROKE
HEAT WAVE IN ITALY DEATHS FROM SUNSTROKE [“…100 deaths…”]
…Most Of Continent, In Heat Wave [Europe]
122 IN THE SHADE. Madras Suffers. Deaths From Heat Stroke. [India]
WHEAT ESTIMATE IN U.S. REDUCED Effect Of Rust, Heat, And Drought
WEATHER EXTREMES. COLD FOLLOWS HEAT WAVE. Hailstorm in Perth Suburbs
EXTREME HEAT THROUGHOUT STATE 113 DEGREES AT WHITE CLIFFS. SYDNEY
HEAT WAVE. High Temperatures in New Zealand
EXTREMES IN WEATHER FOR SOUTH AFRICANS Heat Wave For Match Against Yorkshire
HEAT WAVE IN SYDNEY MANY PERSONS COLLAPSE
DROUGHT CONDITIONS Anxiety in Europe Heat Wave in England
ENGLAND’S HEATWAVE. DROUGHT CONDITIONS. NO WATER SHORTAGE
Ooooops! Here is the 1935 link for strange / odd / wild / weird weather again.
You missed some out hunter.
When it is slightly dry, it is AGW
When it is slightly wet, it is AGW
When it’s a little hot, it is AGW
When it is slightly cold, it is AGW
When it’s warmcold, it is AGW
When there is more snow, it is AGW
When there is less snow, it is AGW
When there is average snow, it is AGW
When there is slightly more or less or a lot more or a lot less………………. Less can be more or less and it’s all our fault.
I bet they’d prefer if it was getting warmer. But by their logic, if it does get warmer, will that mean that Global Warming is over? I’ve got my coat ready.
John S. says:
March 18, 2014 at 4:31 am
The premise behind the anti-science fiction movie Day After Tomorrow was that melting polar ice cooled the Atlantic. But the cold spells this winter have occurred with expanding Arctic & Antarctic sea ice. Big surprise!
The idiotic movie also claimed that similar climate change caused the climate change that led to the Pleistocene ice ages. Wrong again. The disruption of oceanic circulation from the formation of the Isthmus of Panama was the proximate cause, combined with tens of millions of years of global cooling, which had long previously already iced over Antarctica.
The models didn’t predict either the plateau in global temperatures experienced since the late 1990s, nor the more recent global cooling, let alone the exceptional cold of the past northern winter or the frigid snowy southern winter which preceded it.
In the last ice ages, it did warm first, then plunged. Fresh water from the Arctic, diverted the Gulf stream, but that is not news. Some twits were suggesting a few years ago, that giant fans be put on the ocean floor to keep the gulf stream circulating? (Can you imagine?)
Steven says;
“Along comes Global warming and arctic amplification and we Predict:
1. The normal loops may become larger in amplitude
2. If they become larger, you can expect more stuck weather than normal.
So the argument is NOT that arctic amplification causes this.
The argument is NOT we have never seen this before.
The argument is:
A) we’ve seen these loops before. they are normal.
B) Arctic amplification may cause the loops to have larger amplitudes than normal.
C) The weather extremes caused by the loops, become more frequent/intense.”
I wonder; in what way does prediction 1 differ from “The normal loops may not become larger”?
And is this how ‘prediction’ 2 would read; “If they don’t become larger, you can’t expect more stuck weather than normal”?
“melting Arctic ice is weakening the jet stream”
Whoever wrote that should be forced to spend a winter season on the south west coast of the UK. This last winter had some of the strongest North Atlantic jet stream winds ever experienced. The coast of the UK took a brutal pummeling from a continuous succession of deep low pressure systems that charged across the Atlantic for weeks on end.
“Weak jet stream” – tell that to the residents of Dawlish.
How can you people deny global warming? If there’s no GW, what the hell caused all the sharknados on the West Coast? EVERY respected scientist agrees with that, not just 97.5%.
Jennifer Francis has no credibility, as she cravenly displayed at the Senate Energy and Environment Committee meeting last year. Anything coming out of the Rutgers Climate Institute is suspect. I’d like to know if those people are among those who convinced people to try to sail Canada’s Northwest Passage who then got stuck and had to be rescued, like those mollusks in the Antarctic.
These liars are not merely purveyors of misinformation. They may well be leading people to their deaths.
“Brain snaps the result of Global Warming!” They’re everywhere.