Guest essay by Eric Worrall
ON the 24th December this year, Montreal was a poster child for the “new normal” – mild weather, no snow in sight. All that came to an abrupt end on the 29th, when Montreal strayed off narrative with a record breaking snowfall.
From the 24th;
Montreal’s Christmas Eve record-breaking temperature matches Los Angeles
Dec. 24 high of 16 C matches cities synonymous with sunny, warm weather at this time of year
…
The balmy temperature was the last thing Anaum and Muhammed Sajanlal were expecting when the siblings arrived in Montreal from Kuwait recently.
They had big plans for winter fun.
“I was looking forward to building a snowman because we see in the movies and cartoons that they build lots of snowmen. We can’t do that in Kuwait,” said Anaum, 11, on CBC Montreal’s Daybreak.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-green-christmas-temperatures-warm-record-1.3380104
Fast forward to December 29th;
Montreal saw a record snowfall for a Dec. 29 on Tuesday after 39.2 centimetres of snow blanketed the city and caused delays at the airport and left streets a mess for motorists and pedestrians.
Environment Canada confirmed the record, which eclipsed the 30.5 cm of snow that fell on Dec. 29 in 1954.
A few more centimetres were expected Wednesday, but no other major accumulations are in the forecast for the moment, Environment Canada told the Montreal Gazette.
City crews and contractors began the lengthy cleanup process at 7 a.m. on Wednesday, with all of the city’s boroughs getting to work by 7 p.m. to clear as much snow as possible before a pause for New Year’s Eve kicks in at 7 p.m. on Dec. 31.
Clearing operations are to resume Jan. 2 at 7 a.m.
Read more: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-sets-new-snowfall-record-after-tuesdays-storm
No doubt all that snow was due to CO2 causing climate alarmists to make fools of themselves. Thankfully civic authorities in Montreal ignored the hype; Mayor Denis Coderre’s new snow clearing programme appears to be a resounding success.
My wife and I just finished our morning walk around the lake re Notre Dame De ill Perrot. All the roadways are now clear.25K from downtown Montreal. Please add 5cm more that fell over night.
This is what God does to those who complain about the unusually good weather. Just be thankful!
No snow is a problem. Yes, as a Montrealer, that problem ranks right up there with too much sex, too many holidays, a Christmas bonus that is too big and an extended golf season that is too long.
“Too much sex”? Well, surely it’s not the frequency but the quality and duration that counts.
I was rather concerned with the recent discovery that Americans are rushing the job.
Hopefully in Montreal, the french influence has given people a more relaxed attitude to intimate affairs.
Anyway, it’s a great way to keep warm and exercised, when your snow-bound.
http://www.nerve.com/love-sex/which-states-have-the-longest-and-shortest-sex
Now I understand the “indefatigable” part.
Ha ha!!
I’m just a nerd who prefers to find out about the world via graphs.
That’s how I ended up here at WUWT.
And also how I figured out that women prefer a long-term low positive trend with little or no acceleration and no rapid fluctuations!!!
Having said that, occasionally things can escalate sudden – leading to catastrophic runaway phenomena!!! 🙂
http://biohacks.net/file:///C:/Users/stephan/Desktop/Biohacks.net//57865d702d7a290b2fc100b6d40afd48.jpg.
The Ice Age is coming . . .
not if, but when.
100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years? from now.
I would not skip 10 years as a possibility, and 10,000 is very likely too long. Other than that, as a geologist, i say your prognostication is spot on …. and important for our species.
The iceman cometh and he only knocks once. (or was that the postman?)
I thought the postman only rings twice.:-)
BWAHAHA!!! Did ALGORE show up there between the 24th and 29th??
Matthew W http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/07/09/climate-depot-factsheet-on-the-gore-effect-phenomenon/
You know, if I were an AGW party planner I think I would have learned to hold the events in mid summer and jump hemispheres when needed. Why risk some cold weather upsetting the hotening climate narrative. I guess climate realists should be thankful for incompetence in the warmists ranks. Or maybe the warmists are simply believing their own press releases which is never a good idea.
Can’t do Summer, they’re all on their extended holidays. But even holding events in warm parts of the world doesn’t always work out 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/
Thanks Eric,
We’re actually a bit familiar with the effect; We get tales of endless woe when FL gets a cold snap during spring break. It is February after all. FL is resistant but not immune to cold weather.
I presume that Anaum and Muhammed are happy now…?
Indeed they are. As are Pierre, Jean-Paul, Andrew, Karl, Ivan, Hiro, and Ralph.
One of the pleasures of living in a modern cosmopolitan multicultural city with a great history and exciting future.
Multicultural cities are going to be especially exciting this new year.
I love Montreal – a beautiful, charming, lively city.
For two years running, ‘Muhammed’ is the most popular boys’ name here in Britain.
looking forward to building a snowman because we see in the movies and cartoons that they build lots of snowmen. We can’t do that in Kuwait,
Can build lots of sandmen, but that just puts you to sleep.
They build dreams.
Can they build sandcastles in the air?
high of 16 C matches cities synonymous with sunny, warm weather at this time of year….
I guess anything for the narrative……where I live we would be freezing our rears off at 60F which is definitely not sunny, warm for us
I would think that the Hawaiian Islands would be a great area to monitor for climate change, since the climate is quite stable there and the lack of extreme temperatures should put the global warming narrative to rest. Are extreme temperatures occurring there?
I lived in Hawaii for the previous 6 winters and 5 summers, and everything seemed to be within natural constraints. No one on the streets (or beaches!) talked of extraordinary heat. The one thing there is Mauna Kea is where the best measurement of CO2 rise on the planet is recorded … so everyone wants even more to be on the AGW narrative, and constantly harping the rise in CO2.
Eric Worrall – can I suggest that the headline “Montreal Record Busting Snow Sours the Mild Winter Climate Narrative” could alternatively have been “…snow puts the Mild Winter Climate Narrative on ice”.
Then we could reserve “sours” for headlines relating to purported “ocean acidification” – or “de-alkalinisation”. Although, I suppose that in the days of acid-rain, we can also have sour-snow.
These days anything is possible – and climate change/capitalism is definitely to blame.
He’s just bucking the scientific trend of using positive hyperbole. He likes his hyperbole negative. Eric is a rebel! 🙂
When I lived in Montreal back in the late sixties this would not have been unusual other than coming so late. We used to get first snow in November most years. And 39cm would not have been that unusual. I well remember one snowfall, 1968 I think, in November that gave us 18 inches of snow, we weren’t using centimeters back then. That may have been a record but I doubt it.
18 inches per my calculator gives a value of ~45cm so where does 30.5cm in 1954 come from as a “record”? Shoot that’s only 12 inches – a not excessive amount of snow fall for any Quebec winter storm. More Environment Canada BS!!
Anyway my sister in law from Saguenay will be happy, she loves snow. And now the below ground pipes won’t freeze one hopes.
This is from the new Ice Age Coming http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montrealers-take-snow-in-stride-as-storm-smashes-1971-record/article6758046/
Russell,that’s a great article that no self respecting news paper or show will bring up!But the pablum they put out only goes to show show they have No Respect for themselves.Liars are have to convince they are wrong.PERIOD>
I don’t get very excited over daily rainfall or snowfalls. Most days have none and the frequency of notable storms is much lower. OTOH, every day has a low and high temperature, and there are a lot more possibilities to set records, and a lot less variance in the records compared with neighboring dates.
Chris
It is a daily record, not most ever.
well that 18 inches was in one day. The rest fell over the next couple of days for a total over 60 hours of 70cm or so.
chris, did Canada switch to metric so that you all can boast of your snowfall totals in larger numeric values?
Possibly, but the narrative back when the system was adopted in the early 70s was the coming ice age. Snow accumulation in cm always sounds like more.
Actually, Canada switched because the US said they were going to. Then the US backed out. So now we have people of my generation who switch the measurements back and forth in our heads, and our kids have no idea what “Fahrenheit” or an “ounce” is. 🙂
Not really. The rest of the world went metric – even the brits to a degree. Then the USA backed out of it. I tell you when the US did that it hit me like 1018 Kilograms of bricks.
Metric – phah!
Numbers should be base 12: the dozen, gross (12^2) and great gross (12^3)!
Volumes should be measured in firkins, or preferably in hogsheads, especially for beer or wine!
Weights in stones, or if you prefer, in fotmals.
Distances in shaftments (6.5 inches), cubits, or Scottish miles (of course)!
Conversion tables at http://hemyockcastle.co.uk/measure.htm#imperial
Allan
I’ve always thought that flow measurements should be in firkins per fortnight. Not very useful since it’s such a small amount. Maybe it could be used for groundwater flow. But it does have a certain ring to it,
Mona, I read somewhere that the USA had their 200th annual conference on metric conversion last year or the year before. I am ozzie now metric but prefer the old system. I would be more happy to have the old system from Sumer with a counting system based on 60, much easier to use big numbers. The hang over from way back then is 360 in a circle. Regards Wayne
Eric Worrall,
Let me un-mix the metaphors in you post’s title.
‘Montreal Record Busting Snow
SoursBuries the Mild Winter Climate Narrative’Happy New Years Eve!
John
Edit of above comment:
youyour post’s titleJohn
He he – I thought about that, but I was just talking about Montreal 🙂
correction – it was 1969 not 1968. 70cm of snow in 60 hours. see:
http://www.climat-quebec.qc.ca/home.php?id=p24&mpn=ev_mto_sig&lg=en
Was in Canada December 1969 when the Niagara Falls froze solid and in Quebec city there was ice floes and soft ice for the canoe portage across the St Lawrence.
Oh yes, but the North Pole is melting. It’s 50 degrees above normal. There’s nothing left for anyone else. Enjoy your Starbucks in its polluting cup, and pollution producing manufacturing process done by slave labor. DRINK IT! while driving in your mass co2 monster, down your environment destroying asphalt, while you can, you wasteful, mass consuming, selfish pig Westerner! Leave your horror carbon footprint on our beautiful Mother!
You need to be taxed more!
(hehe, yes, sarcasm)
Seriously… 40 cm a Montreal record? That’s roughly 16 inches… that’s just another winter day in the western UP. We’ve had very little snow thus far this winter, but the previous two winters our local NWS volunteer “weather watcher” had us pegged at over 340 inches for each season… 367 inches on the Lake Superior shoreline, just east of the Porcupine Mountains, was our total snowfall for last winter. And they get more snow than we do further up the Keweenaw Peninsula.
Houghton-Hancock in Winter, good times, good times … I lived in Utah for 7 years, but one of the best powder skiing experiences was at Mt.Ripley, late February, can’t recall the year, but MacInnes was still coaching at Tech and the original Library Bar was still in downtown Houghton.
I wish
peoplethe media would chill on this story. It’s a non-story around the Great Lakes, and a DAY record only where it was officially measured. Southern Ontario And Quebec regularly and consistently get snow dump days like this. And NOBODY has an adequate method to accurately assess snowfall. Snow drop is an extremely local effect, and combined with wind drift, evaporation and a host of others things makes “39cm” absolutely meaningless. Everybody who has lived in the lee of the Great Lakes knows if the wind is right, the air is cold and the water warm, you’ll need a shovel, maybe a big one. It’s why we gangplow 6 lane highways in one pass and the kids get snow days.Tech has a Mt. Ripley snow cam set up you can check out. I think if you Google Michigan Tech Alum cams you can find it. Some snow there now but not near normal yet. Much nicer in Santiago with 90 F today !
Montreal doesn’t have Great Lakes nearby. You should understand that by now.
Even in New England we see related effects. For each month of the winter Concord NH’s record snowstorm is less than those at the NWS sites of Portland ME, Boston MA, Worcester MA, Hartford CT,and Providence RI. Those are all closer to the coast. However, we generally (not always!) have more snow over the season, especially when we get some of our bigger storms. Those coastal sites generally are on the other side of the rain/snow line then.
I bet Montreal has sunnier winter weather than you do!
Lake Ontario is close enough to have this effect on Montreal if it’s not frozen, and the St. Lawrence is so wide at one point it’s called St-Pierre Lac(lake) just immediately east of Montreal . No sunnier in Montreal than in Sudbury during Nov-Feb. I lived in Nova Scotia for a few years and they can get huge dumps of snow, but they also get winters with very little snow where the rest of eastern Canada is covered in snow. My spouse if from Mtl and I’m from northern ON -been living east side of the GL’s most of my life – eastern Can doesn’t get a lot of ‘sunny winter’ days until about mid Feb….bloom of winter time as I call it. Western Can, may be a different story but I’ve never spent winters there myself.
Nonsense. A west wind down the fetch of Lake Ontario will do it to Montreal, as will a Nor’easter.
The country around the Great Lakes doesn’t get sunny weather until the lakes substantially freeze, and that’s usually some time in February.
I was there for the winter of ’79. It was fun and the wolves and moose got exit visas off Isle Royale too.
It will be a mild winter in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as there is currently a strong El Nino. It’s normal.
Just waiting for the story that this abrupt change is just another example of extreme weather events caused by humans adding CO2 into the system…….I can almost guess which news outlets will run with it.
I wonder if it occurred to anyone here that blogging about a late December snowfall *in Montreal* speaks volumes about just how unusual the autumn weather had been up to that point.
Leo that is way we should stop all the crap with Climate Change and call it what it is WEATHER.
Russell, you seem to think that local weather change and global climate change are the same thing. They are not interchangable.
The warm fall in New England was notable for three things:
1) No one was complaining about global warming or any of its aliases.
2) The TV Mets never referred to “Indian Summer” which we define as warm weather that occurs after the first freeze. Days in the 60s, no insectss, and sometimes glorious foliage. I think some Power-That-Be decreed that the term is politically incorrect. Maybe I’ll start calling it Swedish Summer and take credit for the best weather of the year.
3) And it was pretty warm. Not enough to make forsythia bloom, which happens once in a while.
Leo…people used to celebrate the warm weather….go out enjoy it, talk about how lucky they were
What’s unusual……is now claiming that’s unusual
Of course I don’t see them all, but I haven’t seen an “Enjoying a warm start to winter” headline all I see is “unprecedented warm”. Apparently we’re not supposed to enjoy anything that warming might do.
Funny thing about unusual weather; it has always occurred, and always will. That’s unpredictable and fickle Mother Nature for ya. Praying to the carbon gods won’t help a bit.
Unusual, yes. Unheard of, no. I live about 150km S of Montreal (95 miles in American). I distinctly remember a year about 15 years ago when dandelions were blooming during the week between Christmas and New Years. This year – warm, but no dandelions.
And no, 40 cm of snow isn’t that big a deal around here. Enough to close schools for the day, not much else.
That was the Big El Nino winter. I finished building my house and it was a delightful time until the New Year when we moved rapidly in right before a blizzard hit.
And no, 40 cm of snow isn’t that big a deal around here. Enough to close schools for the day, not much else.
Here in Blighty complaining about the weather is a national pass time but 40cm of snow would close the entire place until it melted.
No one here views unusual weather in a specific location as anything more than unusual weather in that location. We don’t conflate local weather anomalies with global climate. This post is just one more lesson for people who DO conflate the two.
Leo,
Excellent!
Blogging about snowfall is evidence of global warming. Last year, it was just the snowfall that was proof of global warming.
The autumn weather hasn’t been all that unusual. In my nearly 70 years of living here, warm Decemebers are not at all uncommon. Snow at Christmas has always been iffy at best.
Global warming is the primary cause of everything whether it gets too hot or too cold.
Uh-oh, “record breaking snowfall” = “extreme weather” = “climate change”. It’s “just science”, and 99.44% of “scientists” agree. It’s pure, mostly. I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Mild winter? It has been above freezing here for almost 2 weeks.
First, 39cm may be a record for that specific date, it may be a record for the first storm of the season, but it’s far FAR from being a record snow fall… it’s actually pretty mundane as far as snow storms go.
Second, snow does not equal cold… Technically, we COULD have a record month for snow AND a record month for warm…
Specific date I think, from the second article.
Quick, let’s have the courts sue mother nature for not getting with the program!
Mother Nature was just following the lead to keep from being called ‘Racist’. See,
College Students Sign ‘Petition’ to Ban ‘White Christmas’ Because It’s Racist
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428920/white-christmas-racist-petition-college-kids
Now that Christmas is over, she can spread the white.
Also note that Dr David Viner, a scientist at CRU has now been proven right when he said “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
Of course he was thinking that there would be no snow, not that the children could not distinguish that snow was white and non-racist.
Here’s one for the alarmists:
I’m dreaming of a wet Christmas
Unlike the ones we used to get
With the treetops dripping
Their points all tipping
And all CMIP models met
I’m dreaming of a wet X-Mas
With every Christmas card i get
So may all your feedbacks be net
And may all your Christmases be wet
You can’t win with warmists, though. Much like 911 Troofers, whatever logic you bring out is swatted back with a “but what about”.
I once pointed out that here in Toronto the annual rainfall amounts haven’t much changed, but was hit with a “but what about the number of EXTREEEEEEME rainfall EVENTS?” (and notice that weather has now become and “event”).
For a group that actually thinks that there can actually be an accurate average global temperature, they seem to love their specifics when it suits them.
CaligulaJones,
Yabbut … there’s been a pause in weather events according to Google ngram viewer …
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ASLMSDgeR3o/VoV5Zl1gYiI/AAAAAAAAAiM/CaukQmXcOWY/s1600/ngram%2Bweather%2Bevent%2Bvs%2BCO2.png
… dunno what the satellites have to say though.
“… dunno what the satellites have to say though. ”
Down thread, you just claimed they were wrong.
Down thread I was being serious.
What does your chart have to do with what Caligula said?
Brandon Gates has been shown to be a troll a la Slandering Sou.
Aphan: it proves that CO2 rise is the result of hyperventilating about “weather events”.
Steele: careful that you keep that ball out of your own goal.
BG said “Aphan: it proves that CO2 rise is the result of hyperventilating about “weather events”.
It does? How does it prove that?
Jim Steele-
“Brandon Gates has been shown to be a troll a la Slandering Sou.”
Has he? If the mods determine that he’s behaving in a trollish manner, I’m sure they’ll take care of it. Doesn’t really matter to me either way.
Aphan,
Because the R-squared value is 0.76, meaning the fraction of unexplained variance is 0.24.
That was a “robust” snowfall – more climate disruption.
Off topic but was there a comment on the California methane leak some where?
nope…and several people have tried to draw attention to it
Especially those living nearby.
I wish there was more information about this as well.
“winter is coming”….
I’ll raise you the growth of the Antarctic ice pack 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/31/ooops-new-nasa-study-antarctica-isnt-losing-ice-mass-after-all/
And I’ll raise you here: https://beyondtheice.rutgers.edu. Note the difference between your post, Eric and mine; my post references a link to a real university, RUTGERS, yours references a blog.
lundasoid-
FYI, Sockpuppets are prohibited on WUWT.
T Madigan-
Eric linked to a blog post that highlights and links directly to the NASA study in question. Your link leads to a website about a MOVIE done by a the very real university RUTGERS. Now, would you like to actually discuss the NASA study and/or the movie or did you just drop by to insinuate something childish like “my link is better than your link”?
Mason Gross School Of The Arts?
Wack-A-Mole Alarmism,
It is warm here!…no… over here… nope now it is over there…too slow….What is wrong with you? It is warm where you aren’t looking! Cold Cold Cold… warm! Whack! You missed.
Warm- cold warm…
It is always warm somewhere. and cold.
LOL, Like a shot of liquid spirits, the ice helps with the gullet burn! Happy New Years!
The rest of the winter is forecast to be colder-than-average in eastern North America.
February is forecast to be especially cold down the eastern half of the USA.
Bundle up, good people.
[All together now: “I blame global warming!”]
“The rest of the winter is forecast to be colder-than-average in eastern North America”
Considering that the Great Lakes aren’t frozen…all that cold air pouring over all (relatively) warm water is going to make for some major snow…just sayin’.
Ayup, and be certain that the blip of 67 in NY in DEC will be played up as the Warmest December on Record EVAH
WeatherBell Public Winter 15-16 Forecast
August 2015
•Overall, a snowy, colder than normal winter is expected in the South and East
•Core of winter will be later rather than earlier
•December could be very warm with February very cold
•El Niño is a big influence but not the only factor
*********
Note the good people at WeatherBell accurately forecast the past two very cold winters (2013-14 and 2014-15) in the eastern USA. In contrast, the US National Weather Service and Environment Canada got both winters forecasts utterly wrong. predicting warmer-than-average winters. [Note to file: It helps if you do nor start with a warmist bias.]
The WeatherBell forecast for this winter 2015-16 is accurate to date – note their “very warm” December.
Note also that this winter forecast was done last August.
For details, see
http://www.weatherbell.com/public-winter-15-16-forecast
Note I am not a part of WeatherBell and the above is not an advertisement.
Rather it is to demonstrate that (generally) accurate long-range weather forecasts are achievable IF you use the proper techniques, and do not allow yourself to be influenced by global warming mania.
One can disregard the long-range forecasts of the US National Weather Service, Environment Canada and the UK Met Office, because they are so wedded to global warming nonsense that they have lost the ability to forecast the weather with any accuracy.
The BBC has fired the Met as its weather consultant. Is it now time for the US and Canadian governments to contract out their weather forecasting services to groups that can actually forecast the weather?
Totally agree with you Allan, sites like this help restores my faith in the real professionals in this field. Happy New Year!
Funny how, even when they admit that it’s the El Nino which is causing the unusually-warm weather, they always have to throw in something to the effect that “climate change” is exacerbating it.
That is a fabrication. The closest buoy to NP was below zero and even so it could not melt away the ice, as some articles suggested. (And by the way, it’s currently dark at the NP. All those photos showing polar bears and melting ice are from a different time of year.)
The storm’s millibars were indeed record breaking, and not all of the temperatures recorded “near” the pole were exactly the same. The “freezing point” of ocean water is -2C, so any bouy reading higher than that, but under 0, is technically above freezing, and thus not a fabrication. (Plus the obvious..if a bouy is floating freely on/in liquid water, and not frozen in place, then you don’t even need to know the temperature of the water to know it’s still above it’s freezing point.)
Well this may be somewhat off topic here – especially coming from the southern end of the south pacific where it is ‘pretending’ to be summer but if I can be forgiven I just want to wish Anthony and all the folk here at WUWT a great new year.
I now know why no one with any real understanding of what’s going on (real scientists without an agenda) posts anything here or tries to have an intelligent discussion, because it’s pointless and a waste of time. This blog is like an AA meeting where everyone sits around the coffee table and exchanges the same sad story over and over again, about how alcohol ruined their lives and how we’re all just one big family supporting each other. It reminds of some of these pathetic, obsessed ball-team fans who do nothing else but put on the same colors week after week, pile into the same van and go to watch the same loser ball team lose again.
Eric and Anthony, you two need to get a life. I write a blog (https://astronomytopicoftheday.wordpress.com) and for every one of my blog posts, there have been no less than 5 posted on WUWT; really, you need to get a life. It’s as though you wouldn’t have any purpose (in life) if you weren’t fixated on the next theme, how next to criticize or attack real climate scientists or what to write about next. Do you lie awake at night thinking of new variations on the same theme or a new spin or a another blog post where the only difference from the previous one is the date?
Regarding the topic of this blog post, I’ll post the accepted reason which I’m sure you’ve already heard before.
Because of atmospheric warming, the following occurs:
In the Northern Hemisphere, the polar jet stream is shifting northward, also described as “poleward” movement (although the shift may differ by season).
In the Southern Hemisphere, the polar jet stream is shifting southward too, but this shift may be partially counteracted by the restoration of the Ozone hole, which pushes the opposite way.
These shifts are consistent with IPCC climate model simulations, which predict a poleward shift of the jet streams as the planet warms.
Slowing and weakening:
In the Northern Hemisphere the west-to-east wind flow in the polar jet is slowing and weakening.
In the Southern Hemisphere the sub-tropical jet has weakened, whereas the polar jet has strengthened.
Weakening jet streams tend to have larger north-south waves. When these waves get larger, they move more slowly from west to east, which can cause weather systems to also move more slowly and even become stuck in place. This in turn increases the likelihood of disasters caused by persistent weather conditions, including droughts, heat waves, floods, long cold spells, and heavy snows.
The upshot is that the northern, cold polar jetstream is weakening and meandering southward in waves, causing a change from the normal, sometimes warmer and sometimes colder. The weather they’re experiencing in Montreal is consistent with this model: the higher-than-normal temperatures followed by a heavy snowfall.
Eric, I did a little digging and found this: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/denier-drumbeat-eric-worrall-on.html. But I guess you’ve seen it already.
Mods-troll here.
“T. Madigan”, Thanks for your illuminating yet pointless comments. See here’s the thing, and there’s really no way of getting around this.
I actually don’t give a shit what you think.
Happy New Year. Anthony
I love you Anthony. 🙂
(Snip. Take your anti-social comments to an appropriate blog. This isn’t it. -mod)
Brilliant response!
Pointless, really? Is that what you do, Anthony? Dismiss something as pointless when confronted with a line of reasoning contrary to your own? Just wondering; did you see my “pointless post” to Eric: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/31/montreal-record-busting-snow-sours-the-mild-winter-climate-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-2110418. Umm, just in case, Eric referred to a post in this blog to support his argument and I referred to a documentary produced at a real university, you know, a place where they teach real science and investigate reality: https://beyondtheice.rutgers.edu.
Shocker, what if you actually considered that maybe 98% of the world’s scientists are on to something? Would you “give a $41t” then? If not, then you’re consistent; if so, then there’s hope for you.
Cheers!
Madigan,
Your link goes to a trailer for a MOVIE. That is hardly science; it is public relations and propaganda.
For the mouth-breathers in the public, maybe it is effective. But here, we need fact, evidence, observations, data, and measurements. Not movie trailers. So Anthony was right, your comments are pointless.
Further: if you actually believe that “98% of the world’s scientists” march in lockstep on anything, then you are just another mouth-breather, getting your ‘science’ from movie trailers. You represent the ignorance this site is trying to overcome. But you really make it a Sisyphean effort.
To criticize something without actually observing or watching it is the most blatant form of intellectual dishonesty. It’s quite a compelling documentary on this precise topic. Question: did *you* watch the “trailer”? It is a trailer for a documentary. Film is just another medium, like this one, a written forum. You childishly refer to it as a “movie”; it’s a documentary based on hard science, produced at a real university, unlike this self-described college of denialism with its resident self-proclaimed experts and pseudo-scientists. The one constant on this blog and forum is that if you disagree you become the object of insults, vitriol, and language unbecoming of scientists (as you claim you are) or, at least, individuals who are purporting to represent science. Your response here, as well as Anthony’s, speaks volumes about your respective characters and training as scientists.
Madigan,
What is “quite compelling” to you, is just propaganda to others. And just because someone doesn’t want to waste their time on your movie trailers, that doesn’t make them ‘intellectually dishonest’.
Next, you wrote that this site is a “self-described college of denialism”. Really? Self-described by whom? Name them. Name just one.
You continue with your psychological projection:
“if you disagree you become the object of insults, vitriol, and language unbecoming of scientists…” …&etc.
And if you really believe that “98%” of all scientists believe the same thing, you’re living in your own bubble. Scientists disagree all the time. Go find another unanswered question like: “Does dangerous AGW exist?” Then show us 98% agreement. See, if you believe that preposterous number, you’re fooling no one but yourself.
And despite your complaining, it seems that you are the one doing the insulting here:
“I now know why no one with any real understanding of what’s going on (real scientists without an agenda) posts anything here or tries to have an intelligent discussion, because it’s pointless and a waste of time.”
Hey, you just posted, didn’t you? And compared with your blog with its pathetically low traffic, WUWT is doing great. Maybe that’s why you’re hating on everyone here:
“This blog is like an AA meeting where everyone sits around the coffee table and exchanges the same sad story over and over again, about how alcohol ruined their lives and how we’re all just one big family supporting each other. It reminds of some of these pathetic, obsessed ball-team fans who do nothing else but put on the same colors week after week, pile into the same van and go to watch the same loser ball team lose again.”
Earth to Madigan… this site has won the internet’s BEST SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Weblog Awards for the past three years running, among other awards. Check out the sidebar. It is read daily by thousands of highly educated professionals, including full professors (I note that you’re a mere ‘associate’ prof). That hardly equates with your insulting description above. Face it Madigan, you’re just a hater, watching life passing you by. It’s passing your blog by, too: it’s too low for Alexa to even rank. Looks like a little green-eyed envy in your writing there. So, who’s the real ‘loser’ …Madigan?
More info: in less than a decade WUWT has skyrocketed from zero to a fourth of a billion unique views. There have been more than 1.68 million reader comments to date. (And here’s some good advice: maybe your thinly-trafficked blog would do better if you didn’t have a picture of Albert Einstein on your “About the author” page… because you’re no Einstein.)
You call yourself a ‘progressively-minded Free Thinker’. Well, Madigan, there’s your problem right there! In reality you’re just another drone living high off the taxpaying public. If you had to actually work for a living it would give you a much needed attitude adjustment. But that won’t happen, will it? You’re ensconced, like lots of other “dangerous man-made global warming” parrots in your .edu propaganda factory. Funny thing, though, none of you will engage in an honest, fair, public debate about your man-made global warming beliefs. Maybe it’s because your side has lost every debate with skeptics, and now hides out. But who knows? We’d get to see what the public really thinks about your pseudo-science, if you would man-up and debate your beliefs…
…but I won’t hold my carbon-saturated breath. ☺
+ .. Priceless
Happy new year Anthony 🙂
You know, I think that comment was about as blunt as I’ve ever seen you make (and I’ve been here for a long time).
I often think that you are far too nice to such people. Having said that, if I ran WUWT (being a much less polite individual) then I wouldn’t get 42 million ‘hits’ from 237 countries. Most ‘bloggers’ couldn’t get 237 hits from 42 million countries and yes that includes ‘astronomytopicoftheday’ and our ‘favorite read’ ‘hotwhopper’. (who only gets any hits at all because her crap gets posted here)
Happy New Year to all (including clueless net trolls/Guardian readers/FoE PR people … the list goes on)
Ahh yes. I see by your blog you are a self described ‘Progressively free thinker’ whatever that means. Posted by a picture of Albert Einstein, no less. Congratulations! Based on your childish post I guess you free thinkers are narrow minded morons so I won’t bother with your amateurish blog. How do you free thinkers deal with being so gullible in regards to global alarmism? Just wondering, Mr.Einstein.
This statement of his should be in the running for the Prix de Triomphe Extraordinaire: “…causing a change from the normal, sometimes warmer and sometimes colder.”
How can you top that?
@chilemike: actually my bio, in part, reads: “a progressively-minded Free Thinker who loves to read”, not what you quoted (yes, you quoted it in error). Part of my bio suggests that I like to read; reading, you should try it sometime. It might help you understand what’s actually happening instead of listening and reading the same half-truths and nonsense day in and day out on forums like this. Question: how do you know my blog is “amateurish” if you’re not bothering to visit? Just wondering.
Cheers!
Wonder no more. Your posts here pretty much seal the deal. BTW, “Progressive free thinker” is just PCspeak for “not bounded by logic or truth” .Have a great 2016….
So Mr. Madigan, your college degree is in what? I assume that you have a degree that would illuminate your theory against that of a degreed meteorologist, and not lead us readers to the conclusion that you are a talking head.
More to the point, moving a jet stream is quite the feat and requires a very strong agent that would overwhelm nature’s own forces that move such a gigantic entity. The anthropogenic portion of rising CO2 is only a fraction of a fraction of parts per million increase in the atmosphere. Have you the calculations to back up your theory? Or maybe that portion of CO2 was bitten by a radioactive spider?
Pamela,
Not that it’s anyone business, but I hold a BS in Physics (1983) from Stony Brook University (SUNY), a MSc in Astronomy (2011) from JCU and I’m in the final phase of my Ph.D in Astrophysics, also from Stony Brook (final edits to thesis in progress and dissertation and defense to be scheduled pending approval of my adviser).
I’m not a talking head. To your points, 1) the jet stream is moving, drifting and becoming unstable all by itself due to increased atmospheric warming; the “weird” and anomalous weather that’s observed (killer tornadoes last week at the *end of December* in Texas (EF4), Missouri and now, the heavy snow in Montreal where the previous week the temps were in the 50s) is consistent with this new instability and modeling and
2) Starting with the industrial age, the anthropogenic input of CO2 has been meteoric and, over the previous 5 decades has been almost asymptotic, culminating in a 2013 concentration over 400 ppm: http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24 : “If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of the order of 1500 ppm.” What concerns me, as represented in your comments, is this flagrant disregard for anything that contradicts the assertions of those who hold your point of view or, said differently, the willful ignorance of so many. That you can state “The anthropogenic portion of rising CO2 is only a fraction of a fraction of parts per million increase in the atmosphere” when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary is quite troubling! I have done my research and every article and author that opposes AGW, without exception, was from a politically conservative organization so, from my standpoint, there is a certain agenda in play.
Madigan,
So you take up space in class? It shows.
Anyway, here is the whole debunking of the “dangerous AGW” scare in a nutshell. CO2 up. Temperature down. Alarmists debunked.
You’re debunked and you don’t even know it. Here’s the satellite data:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
And here, my misguided friend, is what your wild-eyed panic is all about:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
The harmless, beneficial CO2 that terrifies you to the point of Depends has risen — from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over the past century and a half.
Yes, the same CO2 that has been up to around 20X higher in the past without causing any climate problems has gone up only one part in 10,000. In more than a century. I have to LOL at the nonsense parroted by the climate alarmist crowd.
Hey, you want the global T in ºK? Here ’tis:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
And look here, the planet is close to its coldest extreme of the past 4+ billion years:
http://www.kogagrove.org/sams/agw/images/paleomap.png
You want a shorter time frame? OK then, here’s most of the Holocene:
http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
[click in charts to embiggen]
Keep taking up space in class, Madigan. Because here, you’re out-classed by the average reader.
Do you have a point or a positive addition to make to the conversation or did you just come over to go “Neener neener nanny pants” and make unsubstantiated assertions about dbstealey?
I find it nauseating and embarrassing when adults act like playground children. If you and T. Boon Pickens are any representation of the quality of folks that hang out on T. Boon’s blog, then you all deserve a stern whopping by your mothers (or fathers) and a lengthy grounding from your online gaming buddies or perhaps something along the lines of having to pay your own cell phone or mountain dew bills for a month.
What university was he trying to impress with a dissertation? I wonder if they’d frown on or celebrate this childish behavior from a grad student/associate professor?
Terri Jackson says:
(Snip)
Dear Terri, umm-m… so do you.
But that’s not all I do — which you wouldn’t know, Terri, because you don’t know any more about me than some screen pixels that got you so spun up that you had to try and defend someone else — who’s also just some pixels to you (…must… resist… get-a-life comment…). How do you know that ‘T. Madigan’ isn’t just a 23 year old unemployed busboy?
And yes, I reject any alarmist talking points that are not based on verifiable facts, evidence, observations, and measurements. That includes just about all of them. So instead of your amusing ad-hom criticism, why don’t you comment on some of the science links I posted? For example:
• Explain why a minuscule 0.7ºC wiggle over the past century and a half (see the NASA/GISS chart I posted) is any reason to panic.
• Explain why global temperature is declining, contrary to all alarmist predictions, while CO2 steadily rises.
• Explain why the planet has been up to 10ºC hotter in the past, before any industrial CO2 emissions.
• Explain why we should be alarmed at the rise in CO2, which has gone from 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in 10,000, over the past century; a change of only one (1) part in 10,000.
• Explain why the Holocene (the 10,000+ year long climate regime we’re in right now) has had at least twenty similar or even faster global warming episodes, again before any human CO2 emissions.
I could also ask you to explain why the climate alarmist crowd has been 100.0% wrong in every alarming, scary prediction they’ve ever made. But I think there’s already plenty on your plate with the bullet points above.
Show us some real science, Terri. Give us answers… if you’ve got ’em.
If not, thanx for playing.
Oh, that has nothing to do with how I got to this point in this forum tonight. That only occurred because you, and T. Madigan (whose positions are so oddly, strikingly different than those you post on YOUR blog) came in here kicking and screaming and flinging false and totally irrelevant crap into the conversation going on here.
If this WAS a childhood playground, I’d pull your dress up over your head and show your frilly, overstuffed pantaloons to everyone Nelly Olsen, cuz I’d be the Laura Ingalls Wilder of your nightmares. But it’s not, so behave like a grown woman who actually has a brain in her head and some kind of self respect.
Ok, fair enough in terms of background. Then explain how natural geophysical fluid dynamics, a well-researched, powerful, “been in charge”, but as yet not entirely understood mechanism for Earth’s climate and its variations, has been overcome by a fraction of a fraction amount in ppm of CO2 put in the atmosphere by anthropogenic sources (400 ppm is not all human-sourced). You should be able to elucidate me with more than just statements. An astrophysicist is well schooled in maths so please, feel free.
Tell me how a fraction of a fraction of all the molecules in the atmosphere is capable of moving the jet stream hither and yonder in weird ways, and is not simply the normal extremes of natural geophysical fluid dynamic processes?
My new BFF Terri Jackson sez:
(Comment deleted.)
And may I ask: who are you to judge? Post your CV, please.
Next:
(Comment deleted.)
BFF, you make it too easy:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
That’s Dr. Phil Jones’ data. He’s an arch-alarmist, so go argue with him if you don’t like it. Me, I like it.
And:
(Comment deleted.)
I posted satellite data — the most accurate global T data there is. It’s corroborated by thousands of radiosonde balloon measurements. So, your assertion doesn’t cut it. And I gotta say, Terri, you’re a chihuahua trying to run with the big dogs here. Your cherry-picked graph covers 2011 – 2015. Let’s look at Dr. Phil Jones’ official time frame:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:2011/trend
See your blip at the end? You aren’t clever enough to pull that one off.
Next:
And wait until El Nino kicks in!!!!
You need to get up to speed. This el nino is almost over.
And:
(Comment deleted.)
It was much hotter then, your comment effectively admits that fact.
Next:
(Comment deleted.)
You make this too easy. I do look at ice core evidence, among lots of other evidence. Did you ever wonder why alarmists use ‘800K ybp’? It’s because it was hotter before that. 800,000 years is just more cherry-picking.
And then:
(Comment deleted.)
That’s your psychological ‘projection’. You make this fun! Now, look at the chart my comment referred to. I said ’20 or more’ warming episodes. Count ’em. While you’re counting, keep in mind that you’re viewing a “credible source”. If you don’t like that one, I have more. Just say, “Pretty please.” ☺
Next:
(Comment deleted.)
Ah. Assertion time again. OK then… post any alarming predictions made in the past that you believe have come true. We’ll see about that, won’t we?
And finally:
(Comment deleted.)
Tut, tut. Your personal attacks come from your frustration at your inability to defend your position. If you notice, I’m not attacking you, I am demolishing every argument you make. None of them can withstand even the mildest scrutiny.
But please, try again, BFF. I really do enjoy this — just like I enjoy pulling the wings off flies. But this is even more fun. ☺
Cherry picker-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/to:2016
Oh hey, by the way, the name you use here links to the webblog of a Terri Jackson, from which “we” can find out a lot of information about “you”. Such as-
“About me
Graduate physicist working in various areas; physics, energy, climate, exposing the green movement deception. My e-mail address is physics.services@gmail.com Feel free to contact me!”
Now, oddly, your webblog is very, VERY against what you call “the green movement”, and you link to other websites like CFACT, and the NIPCC, and the No Trick Zone. Since much of what dbstealy posts here is featured on those same sites, why is it that you endorse and encourage them on your site, and then come here and disparage them as “lacking in basic science”?
I’ll send an email to the address from the website. If YOU get that email, you can let me know you got it by posting the secret code I’ll include in it here. If you get it, then we can discuss why you are such a raging hypocrite. If you don’t, then we can discuss why you stole Terri Jackson’s identity and pretended to be her. Either way, FUN TIMES ahead!
TJ says-“The idiot that spent his whole life as a bench technician screwing with thermometers asks….”
…
(dbstealey) “Post your CV, please.”
…
TJ-“Don’t have to, if you can’t figure it out, I’ll leave you guessing.”
Oh ouch Terri. Not. That attack poodle” that “spent his whole life as a bench technician screwing with thermometers” is kicking your (and T. MadAgain’s) rear end all over the place with actual citations and much more clever insults. Do you have any scientific citations Terri? db likes a good citation bone to chew on. If not, you’d better get used to the barking.
*rubs db’s tummy and whispers “Who’s a good boy? YOU are! 🙂 *
Aphan is on-target. That isn’t the real Terri Jackson, and my apologies for not immediately suspecting it was Appell. Dr. Jackson wrote last year:
All true scientists are skeptics. A scientist who says he is not a skeptic is not a true scientist.
The identity thief is gambling that the mods won’t shut him down. Will they?
Re: the fake “Terri J”, now it’s crystal clear why it was so simple to absolutely destroy that site pest in this argument. ☺
Actually it still fits with the “narrative”. Not believing in facts doesn’t mean they cease to exist. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-3.html
Facts? What facts are you talking about? Looks like the usual Alarmist hype and blather.
There are no facts in your link – just propaganda “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” same o same o alarmist BS.
This story is a perfect example of the compulsive intellectual dishonesty of CAGW propagators and followers. Over the last decade Montreal and much of North America has been beset by a series of prolonged and bitter winters and with two months of mild weather in this area they are now pronouncing this the “new normal”. Risible and utterly predictable.
Ironically, The Québec Government is at the front of the battle against global warming. Québec is nothing but noise, as its total CO2 emissions amount to .04% of world emissions. Québec is shooting itself in the foot with a carbon market and green taxes. As a left-leaning, semi-closed society, because of the french languaqe barrier, the climate skeptics have virtually no voice in Quebec.
Captive audience!
Wikipedia: LaPresse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Presse_(Canadian_newspaper), French language.
Now owned by Groupe Gesca a subsidiary of Power Corp. Canada.and other French papers in Quebec.
Le Droit, Ottawa, owned by Power Corp.Canada and published by Gesca.
In other weather news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/30/freak-storm-has-pushed-north-pole-to-freezing-point-50-degrees-above-normal/
let’s try that image link again …
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-86.34,74.39,371 So which is lying? The ground temp numbers or the Sat numbers?
ldd,
Both are wrong.
@ Brandon Gates: Just like the IPCC, LSM and all the CAGW alarmists….they are wrong as well.
To err is human.
To err is human. Without a doubt Brandon, but to lie and profit from it is exceedingly immoral and in this case, should be criminal. Costs also includes harming real science and driving MEDIA(LSM) into promoting hyperbolic hatred against ‘those who question or don’t believe” in the CAGW lie.
ldd,
Somehow I mis-threaded my response to you, see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/31/montreal-record-busting-snow-sours-the-mild-winter-climate-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-2110476
Just curious Brandon, You did read the article you posted?
If you did, your faith in computer modelled weather is touching.
John Robertson,
Have you ever on a commercial airliner? If so, your faith in computer modelled weather is touching.
BG “Have you ever on a commercial airliner? If so, your faith in computer modelled weather is touching.”
“Noun. (plural computer models) (software engineering) a computer program, or network of computers, that attempts to simulate an abstract model of a particular system.”
Commercial airliners use real-time radar readings, real-time satellite observations, and weather station data about actual conditions on the ground. They do not use a “computer program, or network of computers, that attempts to simulate an abstract model of the weather system.”
Commercial airliners don’t use “computer modeled weather”, so your comment to John Robertson makes no sense.
Showing your trolls skills once again.
Did you read the idiotic material you referenced?
Or do your comprehension skills match your ability to answer a question?
How was the temperature at the north pole estimated?
According to the material you supplied?
Go ahead change the subject, attack some straw man argument that only you can perceive.
You post like an internet troll, ergo you most likely are going to type; “But.. Squirrel”.
John Robertson,
Are you still beating your wife?
I read every word of that article before posting the link to it.
I don’t know enough about how those models work to give you a detailed answer.
I repeat my earlier question to you, which you failed to answer: Have you ever [flown] on a commercial airliner?
Yep Brandon, that is weather news.
Pretty pictures, though – you gotta give him that.
Did he get a new box of crayons for Christmas?
No, lump of coal. Same as always.
Aphan:
“Commercial airliners use real-time radar readings, real-time satellite observations, and weather station data about actual conditions on the ground. They do not use a “computer program, or network of computers, that attempts to simulate an abstract model of the weather system.”
Commercial airliners don’t use “computer modeled weather”, so your comment to John Robertson makes no sense.”
Nope – epic fail my friend…..
You really think that the world’s aviation industry does not use forecast products?
That is staggering my friend.
They use flight planning data which comprises data from NWP models sourced from …..
“There are only two World Area Forecast Centres, each providing a backup for the other. These are the UK Met Office and Washington NOAA, working in duplicate so it would be possible to replace each other in a case of failure. Each of these two services operates its own satellite-based broadcast system to distribute data to airports all over the world. The UK Met Office is called SADIS (SAtellite DIstribution System) and mainly covers Europe, Asia, Indian Ocean and Africa. The U.S. NOAA broadcast system is ISCS (International Satellite Communications System) and mainly covers America and the Pacific Ocean.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Area_Forecast_Center
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/international_responsibilities
PS: In my career I was a participant in the above process.
Try not to let your ignorance show … though I do realise your fellow cheer-leaders fail to correct you, leaving scarce, knowledgeable people such as Brandon to correct you.
i await the attack-dogs.
Nope – epic fail my friend…..
You really think that the world’s aviation industry does not use forecast products?
That is staggering my friend.
They use flight planning data which comprises data from NWP models sourced from …..
What is staggering “my friend” is that you could possibly have taken the time to read back through the thread to the actual comment I was responding to, and then extrapolated what I said about a commercial aircraft in flight, to the entire aviation industry and it’s forecasting products! That is what is truly staggering-especially from someone who asserts they are a “friend”.
The very specific point I was addressing, was the assertion that anyone who has been on a commercial airplane, MUST have “faith in computer modeled weather”. My response makes the point that I don’t HAVE to have faith in “computer modeled weather” when I step onto that plane. The ONLY thing that I have to have faith in is the ACTUAL, real time weather data being transmitted to that plane while I’m on it. PERIOD. No commercial or private pilots actually take off and fly based upon the forecast produced by a computer weather model at some earlier point. They take off and fly based on the ACTUAL, REAL TIME data fed to them LIVE from radar, satellites and weather stations. DO YOU AGREE?
Of COURSE the aviation industry uses forecasting products for so many things! But I don’t have to have one ounce of faith in those computer modeled forecasts for anything other than booking my flight and traveling to the airport. Once I’m on the plane, the data becomes real time, live fed and forecasts go out the window.
Do give Brandon my best. Do all the irrational, illogical people have a club somewhere or did you two meet online?
@ Tonyb: From your link first paragraph states: A World Area Forecast Centre (WAFC) is a meteorological centre that provides real-time meteorological information broadcasts for aviation purposes.
I’m not a dog and I’m not attacking you.
Toneb,
Your answer is far more detailed than I would have been able to easily achieve. Thanks.
You take off on a forecast. You fly and land on radar.
@ toneb: From your other link I find this gem: All the wind and temperature plots are for forecasts for 24 hours ahead at 00 and 12 UTC for various pressure levels. The levels provided with their approximate equivalent Flight Levels are 850 hPa (FL050), 700 hPa (FL100), 600 hPa (FL140), 500 hPa (FL180), 400 hPa (FL240), 300 hPa (FL300), 250 hPa (FL340), 200 hPa (FL390), 150hPa (FL450), 100 hPa (FL530).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/aviation-wafc/#?tab=wafcPerformance
If computer model forecasts were so good why do commercial flights have to re-direct for bad weather on occasion? Shouldn’t these wonderful computer models know that already? That’s what … 8-11 hours max prediction to do?
You don’t take off at all if the weather model calls for conditions at the destination to be below minimums at the estimated time of arrival. Fuel calculations rely on knowing conditions aloft. Etc.
Sit back, relax, and enjoy your flight, the models have you covered.
ldd,
Because they’re not PERFECT, and nobody who uses them AND is rational argues otherwise.
Brandon, your own logical failures are bad enough, you didn’t have to invite your friend/sock puppet Toneb to pile on with you!
Paul Coppin-
“You take off on a forecast. You fly and land on radar.”
Um. no. You don’t take off because a model FORECASTED at some prior point that that the weather in that location would be conducive to take off. You take off based on the actual, real time conditions in that location, and fly and land based on the real time radar, satellite, and weather station data you get LIVE.
Here’s your logic-
Pilot-“The forecast for today at this time was for 50 C and westerly winds at 17 miles an hour. But in reality it is actually 75 C and the winds are Southern at 24 miles an hour. I’m going to take off based upon the forecast instead of the actual, current, weather conditions. ”
For extra fun, I just called my favorite commercial airline pilot, and am reading to him, verbatim, what you and Brandon, and Toneb are saying. He’s laughing his “ascot” off. His favorite part was Toneb saying “PS: In my career I was a participant in the above process.” He told me “You can’t fix stupid hon” and then forecasted that the “stupid” would continue. Can’t wait to see how accurate his forecasting skills are!
Aphan,
http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapter%2026/03_026_002_CHG_253A.htm
3-2074 REGULATORY SOURCES OF WEATHER FORECASTS.
A. Weather Forecasts—Part 91K Operations. Part 91K does not contain specific regulatory requirements governing a part 91K program manager’s use of weather forecasts to control flight operations; however, there are regulatory requirements contained in § 91.1039 for pilots operating program aircraft under IFR to use weather reports prepared by the NWS, a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the Administrator. Also, Volume 3, Chapter 26, Section 1 outlines certain regulatory requirements for part 91K program managers that indicate a need to have a method of obtaining forecasts (and reports) of adverse weather phenomena. It is therefore FAA policy that part 91K program managers and pilots operating program aircraft under IFR only use forecasts prepared from weather reports issued by the sources outlined in subparagraphs 3-2073A and 3-2073C.
B. Weather Forecasts—Part 121 Domestic and Flag Operations Inside the 48 Contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. In accordance with § 121.101(c), a certificate holder conducting domestic and flag operations may only use forecasts to control flight movements (operations) within the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia if those forecasts are prepared using the following:
· Weather reports issued by the NWS or a source approved by the NWS (§ 121.101(b)(1)). The sources approved by the NWS can be found in subparagraph 3-2073A.
· A source approved in a certificate holder’s FAA-approved system of obtaining forecasts and reports of adverse weather phenomena (§ 121.101(d)). Approved sources of reports of adverse weather phenomena are contained in subparagraph 3-2073C. These same sources are approvable for weather forecasts, with the exception of PIREPs and AIREPs.
C. Weather Forecasts—Part 121 Domestic and Flag Operations Outside the 48 Contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. In accordance with § 121.101(c), a certificate holder conducting domestic and flag operations may only use forecasts to control flight operations outside the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia if those forecasts are prepared using the following:
· Weather reports issued by a source approved by the Administrator (§ 121.101(b)(2)). Weather sources approved by the Administrator are contained in subparagraph 3-2073C.
· Any source approved in a certificate holder’s FAA-approved system of obtaining forecasts and reports of adverse weather phenomena (§ 121.101(d)). Approved sources of adverse weather phenomena are contained in subparagraph 3-2073C.
It goes on a bit, but that should be enough do demonstrate how fabulously wrong your statement above is.
Aphan,
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/chapter_4.pdf
Weather Requirements and Part 135 Operators
Unlike Part 91 operators, Part 135 operators may not depart for a destination unless the forecast weather there will allow an instrument approach and landing. According to 14 CFR Part 135, section 135.219, flight crews and dispatchers may only designate an airport as a destination if the latest weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above IFR landing minimums at the estimated time of arrival (ETA). This ensures that Part 135 flight crews consider weather forecasts when determining the suitability of destinations. Departures for airports can be made when the forecast weather shows the airport will be at or above IFR minimums at the ETA, even if current conditions indicate the airport to be below minimums. Conversely, 14 CFR Part 135, section 135.219 prevents departures when the first airport of intended landing is currently above IFR landing minimums, but the forecast weather is below those minimums at the ETA.
[…]
Weather Requirements and Part 121 Operators Like Part 135 operators, flight crews and dispatchers operating under Part 121 must ensure that the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather will be at or above the authorized minimums at the ETA at the airport to which the flight is dispatched (14 CFR Part 121, section 121.613). This regulation attempts to ensure that flight crews will always be able to execute an instrument approach at the destination airport. Of course, weather forecasts are occasionally inaccurate; therefore, a thorough review of current weather is required prior to conducting an approach. Like Part 135 operators, Part 121 operators are restricted from proceeding past the FAF of an instrument approach unless the appropriate IFR landing minimums exist for the procedure. In addition, descent below the minimum descent altitude (MDA), decision altitude (DA), or decision height (DH) is governed, with one exception, by the same rules that apply to Part 91 operators. The exception is that during Part 121 and 135 operations, the airplane is also required to land within the touchdown zone (TDZ). Refer to the section titled Minimum Descent Altitude, Decision Altitude, and Decision Height later in this chapter for more information regarding MDA, DA, and DH.
Compare my previous statment: You don’t take off at all if the weather model calls for conditions at the destination to be below minimums at the estimated time of arrival.
If your pilot friend is flying Part 135 or Part 121 commercial air operations in the United States without checking weather forecasts prior to departure, he is in violation of FAA regulations.
eyjafjallajökull
In 2010 the Volcanic Ash Advisory Center’s model prompted closure of much European airspace.
The airlines were not happy with the model results and KLM and Lufthansa did some test flights to satisfy themselves, as did several national military planes. Damage to F-18 and F-16 engines was reported.
Point is; they didn’t just believe in the model.
Tonyb.
That is staggering my friend.
Airlines use flight planning data which comprises data from NWP models sourced from …..
____________________________
Yes, but a max of 24 hours ahead. Models can manage 24 hrs, sometimes, but I would not plan a flight any further ahead than that.
And as Aphan says, what often matters the most is the actual conditions. If the destination weather is cr@p, do you think we do not fly? Perhaps once every three or four years that may happen. Passengers sitting on the ground cost money, lots of money, so we select a reasonable alternate and give it a go. Think of the cost of 300 people in a hotel, and then not being able to fly the next day’s passengers too.
Experience has taught us that meteorologists and their stupid models always exaggerate to cover their arses so they do not get sued – the Michael Fish defence mechanism – so the weather at destination is never as bad as they say. Any you would look pretty foolish and receive a stern memo from managenment, if you delayed, cost tens of thousands of dollars, and the weather was actually ok.
So in reality, I never look at their stupid forecasts. I check the METARs and work out for myself the likely change in weather, and then give it a go. And you check enroute, to make sure your hunch is correct. And if the weather is cr@ppo, well so what? – you divert. The main problem is not the weather, it is management not allowing us to carry the fuel we want.
Ralph
mebbe,
Careful now, you’re dangerously close to admitting that models are sometimes useful …
… AND that they’re [gasp] validated.
I never once said airline operations don’t rely on real time weather observations from the ground, from the aircraft’s own instruments, on reports from other aircraft along the same route, etc. I did make the point that the ONLY thing route planners can rely on is models when it comes to forecasting what the weather is expected to be at the destination airfield. Hence, when we fly on a commercial airliner, we are — among many many other things — relying on weather models.
ralfellis,
… which implies that they can manage a hindcast, yes? So here’s the plot that started this subthread …
… to which John Robertson replied, … your faith in computer modelled weather is touching.
I gather that he was actually saying that my faith in computer modelled weather is misplaced. I’d like to know what you think. Did the model which generated that plot manage to represent reality well enough for us to reliably conclude that it was ~50 F above normal around the N. Pole on Wednesday?
I would hope not.
Not at all to disparage your skills at a pilot, nor to argue that I wouldn’t fly with you because you eschew weather models, but it occurs to me that scheduled commercial operations — the topic of this subthread — involve the kind of logistics required for safety and profitability which aren’t a factor in non-scheduled general aviation.
ldd,
I consider alleging malfeasance without evidence to be immoral, and in this case, potentially illegal. Were I to falsely accuse you of being a damn liar and therefore a criminal, I’m guessing you’d have more than a few choice words for me — and rightfully so.
Well I don’t mince my words, alarmists and promoters of this CAGW lie are damn liars and therefor are criminals to me. And I’ve been called a lot worse by ‘CAGW alarmists’ for daring to question their lies.
ldd,
Fair enough. I wasn’t privvy to those conversations, so it would be foolish to attempt defending their response to you. My point is simply this; if you accuse someone of lying they’re probably going to get pissed off and rightfully so if they’re not lying. There is a big difference between saying “I don’t believe what you say because …” followed by a list of logical reasons and contrary evidence and, “you’re a damn liar [because I said so]”.
The words in [brackets] are there because until you provide examples of a particular statement, some compelling evidence that it is wrong AND that the person who said it knew it was wrong AND intended to deceive, it’s my opinion that you are effectively making an unfounded accusation.
And again, I’m suggesting that making such statements is going to tend to provoke a vitriolic response. Just sayin’.
And again, I’m suggesting that making such statements is going to tend to provoke a vitriolic response. Just sayin’.
You should know, seems to be your specialty/objective around here, now I’m done with this silly nonsense of yours- just noise.
“If computer model forecasts were so good why do commercial flights have to re-direct for bad weather on occasion? Shouldn’t these wonderful computer models know that already? That’s what … 8-11 hours max prediction to do?”
Err no.
You expect models to pick out individual thunderstorms?
It is primarily winds that aviation is interested in.
Fuel efficiency and shortage of flight-time depend on flying with the most advantageous tail-wind.
Of course aircraft on occasion have to divert around “weather” – most notably large CB/thunderstorms – not least because flying through the tops of them is a tad uncomfortable for their customers.
They are appraised of the areas of TS and turbulence but a local look-out is (obviously?) necessary in order to avoid.
There are certain areas related to the entrances and exits of jet-streams and wind sheer that are also highlighted along with possible air-frame icing to avoid..
Now, get real – NWP models daily make the world work better.
They are mostly amazingly good up to T+120 hours.
In military aviation forecasting, with the RAF at least, vis/cloud conditions also are imperative (my main experience) in low flying training areas.
Look, get real – NWP is very successful and plays a big part in the way humans stay informed and therefore safe in the skies and on the ground.
I hope I read that wrong. Are you saying that the UK Met office that got canned by the BBC for being woefully inaccurate is responsible for flight safety?
“Some off topic comments may get deleted, don’t take it personally, it happens. Commenters that routinely lead threads astray in areas that are not relevant or are of personal interest only to them may find these posts deleted.”
Mods, please delete everything BG posts that routinely leads threads astray in areas not relevant or are of personal interest to only him. Feel free to delete EVERYTHING I have said in response to his irrelevant/personal interested comments as well. New Years Eve is a great time to clean out the clutter….don’t you think?My apologies for contributing to the idiotic environmental pollution of WUWT going on. 🙂
Aphan amusingly writes:
Yes mods, please especially be sure to delete this comment by the same author …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/31/montreal-record-busting-snow-sours-the-mild-winter-climate-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-2110569
… because we don’t need to clutter up the Internet with that sort of off-topic AND patently false misinformation.
Thanks, and [sarc off] Happy New Year.
Nope, your blathering and mine is just off topic and against forum policy.
BG-“computer modeled weather”.
A weather computer model is a program built to SIMULATE the atmosphere. Numerical weather prediction models (NWPMs) are computer simulations of the atmosphere that “predict” future weather based on mathematical programming. Computer MODELED weather is known to be inaccurate and flawed because we cannot fully SIMULATE the weather accurately yet.
Live weather reports, the kind used by pilots, do not rely on simulations of the weather or the atmosphere. They contain real time weather conditions and real time updates (not predictions) on global, regional and local scales. They are accurate, up-to-the-minute weather information and “forecasts” are immediately updated in real time if the current, real time information changes.
Anyone interested in understanding the differences can google the term “nowcasting” (as opposed to “computer modeled weather” or “forecasting”) or see below:
https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/pwsp/Nowcasting.htm
“A forecaster using the latest radar, satellite and observational data is able to make analysis of the small-scale features present in a small area such as a city and make an accurate forecast for the following few hours.”
“In addition to using Nowcasting for warning the public of hazardous weather, it is also used for aviation weather forecasts in both the terminal and en-route environment”
“Extrapolating radar echoes is the mainstay of Nowcasting.”
http://www.nooly.com/technology/what-is-nowcasting/
“Nowcasting is particularly useful when forecasting complicated processes such as rainfall, clouds, and rapidly developing or changing storms. Nowcasting has been a viable method since the first radar and satellite data sets became available. For radar, this was roughly the late 1950s. For satellite, this was the early 1970s. Today nowcasting is as heavily supported in the research world as numerical prediction model development . The ultimate goal would be that both nowcasting and numerical weather prediction techniques will converge in terms of accuracy, but this is likely several decades away.”
Obviously “Nowcasting” and numerical prediction models are two different things, and have not “converged in terms of accuracy” yet.
That’s all very interesting, Aphan, but it’s not clear how any of that directly addresses why your statement …
No commercial or private pilots actually take off and fly based upon the forecast produced by a computer weather model at some earlier point.
… is not so apparently at odds with this regulation:
Weather Requirements and Part 121 Operators Like Part 135 operators, flight crews and dispatchers operating under Part 121 must ensure that the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather will be at or above the authorized minimums at the ETA at the airport to which the flight is dispatched (14 CFR Part 121, section 121.613).
“Weather Requirements and Part 121 Operators Like Part 135 operators, flight crews and dispatchers operating under Part 121 must ensure that the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof indicate that the weather will be at or above the authorized minimums at the ETA at the airport to which the flight is dispatched (14 CFR Part 121, section 121.613).”
“Computer modeled weather” is not mentioned anywhere in anything you’ve posted so far. It’s YOUR term and you’re the only one who uses it.
“indicate that the weather will be at or above the authorized minimums at the ETA at the airport to which the flight is dispatched (14 CFR Part 121, section 121.613).”
Computer modeled weather can only idicate what MIGHT be, or SHOULD be….it cannot indicate what the weather WILL be. Only current weather reports can do that.
Aphan,
Read the links that you yourself provided:
https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/pwsp/Nowcasting.htm
In order to extend the time period of Nowcasting beyond 6 hours, some Nowcasting systems use the combination of radar extrapolation techniques with satellite and Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model products to produce an extended short-period forecast.
http://www.nooly.com/technology/what-is-nowcasting/
The main challenges associated with nowcasting are the timeliness and resolution of data. Specifically, forecasting clouds and rainfall on scales less than 5 kilometers is key, yet this demands large, voluminous data sets transferred and processed very quickly (on the order of 2 – 5 minutes). Fortunately, the newest radar data are available at 5 minute time and less than 1 kilometer space resolution, whereas the forthcoming geostationary satellites will provide data at up to 30 second time and 1 kilometer spatial resolution. Computer processing speeds and storage capability resources are rapidly advancing, which makes processing terabytes of data quickly, as required for nowcasting, possible. Advanced algorithms are continually under development which can exploit these new data streams.
It’s YOUR term and you’re the only one who uses it.
John Robertson
December 31, 2015 at 11:36 am
Just curious Brandon, You did read the article you posted?
If you did, your faith in computer modelled weather is touching.
Brandon Gates
December 31, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Have you ever [flown] on a commercial airliner? If so, your faith in computer modelled weather is touching.
The numerate reader will note that December 31, 2015 at 11:36 am is less than December 31, 2015 at 12:43 pm.
?!?!?!
How on earth can a current weather report — by which I think you mean a report which gives weather conditions of the NOW, in the PRESENT (or near-past) — indicate what the weather WILL be some time in the FUTURE … which in the context of this discussion is defined by the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport?
Mark December 31, 2015 at 3:20 pm
“I hope I read that wrong. Are you saying that the UK Met office that got canned by the BBC for being woefully inaccurate is responsible for flight safety?”
Yep you did.
Best you stop stop flying then – because as we know here, all forecasts are wrong whether the GCM kind or the NWP kind.
I keep giving too much benefit of the doubt to the denizens that’s my trouble.
But the other provider is the NOAA….
Hey – do you think they are falsifying FL winds?
Increasing them?
And maybe there’s a whole worldwide scam to cheat us out of our tax dollars by inflating the cost of airline tickets, coz really they are less and it takes more fuel to get anywhere.
Just a thought.
Aphan
December 31, 2015 at 9:54 pm
Nope, your blathering and mine is just off topic and against forum policy. […]
Nope – Although I might disagree with much of what Brandon writes, this brings up an issue that, I feel, separates WUWT from other ‘places’. The ‘light touch’ moderation. All ‘points’ are valid and ‘allowed’ unless one turns out to be a true ‘Troll’.
Sometimes this ‘light touch’ allows comments through that, in my limited view, are ‘cringe worthy’ but the alternative is to head over to countless other ‘places’ where your perfectly reasonable comment is deleted before anyone ever reads it. Brandon is free to comment and you are free to reply – Simple really.
Oh I have no problem with him commenting in general, but under forum policy it states “Some off topic comments may get deleted, don’t take it personally, it happens. Commenters that routinely lead threads astray in areas that are not relevant or are of personal interest only to them may find these posts deleted.” Since the entire conversation between BG and I on commercial airlines is not relevant to this thread, is obviously only interesting to us, etc it could get deleted, and I wouldn’t take it personally. 🙂
It is my opinion that the evidence on WUWT shows that Brandon rarely stays on topic, and routinely leads threads astray in areas that are not relevant to the topic of the OP. My New Years resolution is to ignore him. 🙂
Oh I have no problem with him commenting in general, but under forum policy
How about we leave such decisions to ‘The Mods’. I often take issue with Brandon and his POV but he has never done anything that would have me ‘calling for his head’. I often get irritated by a certain individual and his one line cryptic comments here but I would never want him banned. Both are part of the WUWTsphere that, over the years, I have come to both love and hate.
One can’t have the Willis without the Brandon – Just wouldn’t be WUWT.
“How about we leave such decisions to ‘The Mods’.”
I never said otherwise.
“I often take issue with Brandon and his POV but he has never done anything that would have me ‘calling for his head’. ”
Did I call for his head? I don’t believe I did.
“I often get irritated by a certain individual and his one line cryptic comments here but I would never want him banned.”
I never suggested banning anyone.
“Both are part of the WUWTsphere that, over the years, I have come to both love and hate.”
Of course.
That “News” is astonishingly short on content.
Measuring from 300 km short of the pole, they extrapolate temperatures of zero to minus 2.
That must be “Environment Canada’s Science”.
As opposed to actual measurements.
North Pole, AK.
Not the actual North Pole.
Yes, there are two places on the planet that share the words North and Pole. One is North Pole, AK, and one is THE actual North Pole. ONE reporter inserted a temperature FROM North Pole, AK into her account of the TRUE STORY about something that DID occur this week in the area surrounding THE NORTH POLE. You can see what the reporter did, AND the actual story, here:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/12/30/timecom-writer-cites-temperature-north-pole-alaska-north-pole
Hint-the story is true. One reporter was not accurate in reporting it.
Dec 24th it was 74F at the North Pole Restaurant—-in Crozier, VA. I haven’t been there in over 30 years, but I’m hoping it’s still there; great little Mom and Pop eatery.
There is also the (ironically named) North Pole rock formation, near Marble Bar in Western Australia.
http://austhrutime.com/north_pole.htm
Personally I think weather stories like this “record busting snow” are just playing into the warmists narative of “extreme weather” and should be avoided here on WUWT. There is nothing abnormal about a lot of snow in Montreal and leave it at that.
Duncan I get so upset hour after hour all the propaganda Radio CBC, CTV, Weather channel and on and on Climate Change this and Climate Change that. I use WUWT as an outlet for my frustration. Please allow me to rant.
I feel your pain, but I look to WUWT to take the moral high ground. What’s said in the comments on the other hand….rant away.
You are right. Guy in the office here (who is smart enuf to know better) commented last week that the warm weather on the east cost is just what was predicted “by that guys’ model”.
In the past, Extreme Weather Events were an indicator that the Gods were angry (or at least a little miffed) at somebody. Today CO2 can take the place of the angry Gods for some.
So far this year it appears that, for lack of a larger & bigger extreme event, The Carbon is only miffed … but if you don’t watch your collective footprints something worse will definitely happen at some point in the future.
Talking about what the Gods might do, or are doing, only reinforces the concept that there are angry Gods.
Of course there is nothing abnormal about a lot of snow in Montreal. This story is about a record amount of snow falling on a specific day in a specific place. WUWT has no control over anyone else’s narrative.
Duncan,
I think a statistical analysis of extreme weather events over time which concluded that there is a discernable increase would better conform to the “warmists’ narrative” because it’s the statistical increase which is predicted in the consensus literature. The main problem I have with this article starts in the lede paragraph …
ON the 24th December this year, Montreal was a poster child for the “new normal” – mild weather, no snow in sight. All that came to an abrupt end on the 29th, when Montreal strayed off narrative with a record breaking snowfall.
… which uses anecdotal evidence from one location to “falsify” what I consider to be a strawman: “‘new normal’ – mild weather, no snow in sight“.
Brandon,
Do you have actual evidence which would verify this “predicted” statistical increase (of extreme weather events) as portrayed by the “consensus” literature?
Many here would point out that there have been some number of studies which indicate that there has been no increase in extreme weather events.
Their models were off for Christmas holiday period…likely in Vegas or FLA. 😉 Happy New Year Brandon.
Alan Robertson,
Not at my fingertips. Had it been central to my argument I would have provided citations.
Yes, apparently including studies cited by the IPCC itself:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf
Table SPM.1 indicates medium confidence for increases in intensity/duration of drought and LOW confidence for increases in intense tropical cyclones. Elsewhere I recall reading that there’s NO confidence of an increase in tornado activity.
“ON the 24th December this year, Montreal was a poster child for the “new normal” – mild weather, no snow in sight. All that came to an abrupt end on the 29th, when Montreal strayed off narrative with a record breaking snowfall.”
BG”… which uses anecdotal evidence from one location to “falsify” what I consider to be a strawman: “‘new normal’ – mild weather, no snow in sight“.
Your personal conclusion. Upon what premises did you base that conclusion?
Aphan,
The premise that I do not know of any predictions calling for Montreal to be without snow in this decade.
Eric Worall quote, selected by BG-“ON the 24th December this year, Montreal was a poster child for the “new normal” – mild weather, no snow in sight. All that came to an abrupt end on the 29th, when Montreal strayed off narrative with a record breaking snowfall.”
BG’s response to his selected EW quote”… which uses anecdotal evidence from one location to “falsify” what I consider to be a strawman: “‘new normal’ – mild weather, no snow in sight“.
Aphan-“Your personal conclusion. Upon what premises did you base that conclusion?”
BG-“The premise that I do not know of any predictions calling for Montreal to be without snow in this decade.”
And how exactly does the fact that you “do not know of any predictions calling for Montreal to be without snow in this decade” support the conclusion that Eric’s article “uses anecdotal evidence from one location to “falsify” what you consider to be a strawman: “new normal”-mild weather, no snow in sight”?
Aphan,
Until Eric substantiates his synthesized argument of “no snow in sight” for Montreal, my opinion that he has constructed a strawman stands.
BG-“Until Eric substantiates his synthesized argument of “no snow in sight” for Montreal, my opinion that he has constructed a strawman stands.”
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Burden of proof fallacy or, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: “(appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.”
If Eric didn’t say it, the claims become yours, not his.
I’m not claiming that no such forecast exists.
Having benefited myself from many a discussion here, this may interest those on the opposite end of the American continent. As I was growing up in Arizona the highest rainfall month split the state: January in Phoenix from what little was left in the southern tails of the typical northwest winter storms generated in the Gulf of Alaska; and August for Tucson just a bit closer to the Mexican border from the summer monsoonal thunderstorms coming north out of the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez).
What I was struck with at the end of this past January was an out of season monsoonal-direction precipitation event driving its way up the Colorado river to reach Idaho! This resulted from a stream of subtropical air originating from tropical storminess off the west coast of lower Mexico being diverted by a counter clockwise spinning low pressure center that at the time happened to be just off the southern California coast. Otherwise this river of warm moist air driven by a southerly branch of the jet stream (what we west coasters have taken to calling a “pineapple express” when sourced in waters nearer Hawaii) was typically headed northeast across Mexico headed for the Texas/Gulf coast. Indeed some months later this region of ocean would bring flooding rains to the Houston area, produce 3 strong hurricanes that were unusually all in satellite view at one time (and as usual headed westward to at last loop northward in the region of Hawaii and decompose over the cooler waters there), and then late in the hurricane season spawn hurricane Patricia (with the lowest core pressure “evah” recorded in such a Pacific storm) to make landfall south of Puerto Vallarta and follow that same track across Mexico.
What has been notable again this December (winter month) was that, while there was no nearby diverting low pressure to steer this robust warm water vapor flow toward Arizona’s Sonoran desert and southern California’s Mojave desert, this skyway was still very much in evidence in animations of eastern Pacific infrared satellite imagery. So that near mid-month subtropical poppin’ eastern Pacific storm activity from the same area was sending this flow of significant southerly precipitation into east Texas/Oklahoma and up the Mississipi river valley as far as the mid-west states north of the Ohio river along with daytime high temperatures reaching the 60s F.
Then a week ago well west of the usual eastern end of the subtropical storminess band a much larger warm moist blob lifted north from that latitude well to the west (nearly to Hawaii) and was clearly caught up in the same southerly jet stream branch in the satellite animation. This would be delivered once again in the same pattern to east Texas/Olkahoma and north (driving Dallas temperatures to 80 F.) but this time punctuated with tornadic storm energies, and with the arrival from the west of a more seasonal cold air mass such flooding rains (10 inches over 36 hours at one Missouri reporting site) that Mississippi river tributaries up to the Ohio river drainage approached flood stages and the consequences for the lower Mississippi river as that great fluid bulk moves downstream will take weeks to develop. Flood control gates may need to be opened to damaging effect on local farmlands in order to spare New Orleans region levees from the pressure.
These have been the roots of the recent mild winter conditions in the mid-west U.S. to date. And apart from the loss of life from the accompanying tornadoes further south, tragically there were vehicular drownings when motorists were tempted to cross a roadway with just a foot or two of rushing water, unaware of the full momentum packed in every 62.4 pound cubic foot of that fluid which would combine to sweep them away downstream. At least those of us raised amongst the desert washes of Arizona were well coached on this peril of flash floods.
So is there a relation here to additional El Nino heat energy in eastern Pacific surface waters evaporating more energetic water vapor into the atmosphere as has so prominently figured in speculative propects for drought relief in the arid southwest of the country? The remotely imaged visuals would seem to support that notion for this particular circulation pattern directed toward mid-continent. But we southern Californians need to be cautious about assuming much about our own region, recalling that Los Angeles’ 100 year record cumulative rainfall in 2005 (at the same time converting Death Valley salt flats into a shallow lake and producing a banner year for Mojave desert spring wildflowers) arrived in an unremarkable year for El Nino strength. And having experienced the 1997-98 El Nino deluge in the San Francisco bay area (which had my wife and I initially literally bucket brigading the standing water our of our sub-basement after the water table had risen high enough to alert us by extinguishing the burner of our hot water heater down there), I must also report that we were not at the time on the receiving end of a “pineapple express” to account for that precipitation, but the jet stream had parked itself at our latitude for over 2 weeks, driving relentlessly the seasonal Pacific storms straight at us from the west. Doc Chuck
I lived in Montreal for a couple of years in the sixties. I remember one week around Christmas where more than five feet of snow fell during the week. The snow removal workers were out on strike part of that wake which was a truly epic situation. Then a little later in January we had a Chlnook wind from the prairie for a couple of weeks and the snow melted, flowers bloomed and everything was lovely except for the ominous sense of foreboding that the good times couldn’t last, which they didn’t. I think the last serious snowfall that spring was May 24 and it was so warm that the snow all melted by lunchtime.
jealous only got 8-9 inches here in maine then 1/8 to 1/4 inch sleet/freezing rain on top of it.
crap is hard to snowblow.
Ouch! It sure is. I married a Texan who thought that “snow was snow”. I’ve spent 16 years teaching him that “snow” is a general definition that doesn’t reflect the nuances of very different situations. Sometimes it’s wet and heavy, sometimes it’s light and fluffy, sometimes the light and fluffy inches that fell one day, become a hard, compact, block of ice the next. Our snowblower however IS always the same, and it handles the light and fluffy stuff a lot easier than it does the hard and packed stuff.
I can tell you what type of snow is on the ground without looking….all I have to do is observe the grumpiness level of my husband as he prepares to go outside….:)
You want grumpy, try having the starter rope break while trying to get the damn thing started. Arghhhh!
Bruce Cobb- His initial level of grumpiness prior to engaging with the snow blower can definitely be enhanced if said engagement does not go well.
Make sure the next blower has electric start… never replaced the rope in mine… 🙂
I’m impressed. The real story here may be about Denis Coderre …
Quebec politics has been particularly smelly for a very long time. I had hoped that things had changed during the quiet revolution during the 1960s. But no, it’s been
business as usual recently.
Call me a blind optimistic fool but I do have hope that Denis Coderre will turn out to be an excellent mayor.
Yes, definitely someone to watch – seems unusually competent.
Eric, perhaps you should explain exactly what you meant to imply with every single word that you said in the article so Brandon Gates doesn’t waste his time, and ours, with his version of what he thinks you meant…but did not say yourself? 🙂
If you’re referring to Denis Coderre, he was an utter failure as a Federal politician, but he does seem to figured out Montreal politics…
“Eric, perhaps you should explain exactly what you meant to imply with every single word that you said in the article so Brandon Gates doesn’t waste his time, and ours, with his version of what he thinks you meant…but did not say yourself? :)”
Too late. I’m a very accurate predictor of future behavior apparently. 🙂
Alphan, don’t get too stressed about Brandon :-). Brandon likes to visit WUWT, to exercise his freedom to comment, on one of the few climate sites which allows divergent opinions, then reports back to the mothership when it all gets a bit much for him.
Eric Worrall,
I’m not exactly sure how my participation on other blogs makes me somehow nothing to worry about … but skip it, the salient point here is …
… where on God’s green Earth did you see a prediction that Montreal was going to be snow-free by 2015ish, and why are you not spamming that citation from the rooftops if it actually exists?? Enquiring minds want to know.
Brandon, this post is a laugh about the overexcitement and biased reporting of alarmists, when presented with a little warm weather.
There wasn’t any snow on the 24th – no snow in sight. There was a 6 day forecast for snow on the 29th, top temperature 0c – but hey, at the time that was a 6 day forecast.
http://web.archive.org/web/20151223142902/http://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/qc-147_metric_e.html
Fast forward a few days to the 28th, conditions were significantly worse than previously forecast;
http://web.archive.org/web/20151228083441/http://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/qc-147_metric_e.html
Record snowfall worse;
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-sets-new-snowfall-record-after-tuesdays-storm
I suspect the first forecast is why the CBC author waxed lyrical about poor Anaum and Muhammed not being able to build their snowman, during their stay in Montreal. The CBC article could have been more neutral, said something like “lets hope Annum and Muhammed get a chance to build their snowman”. Instead the CBC article made a big deal about how Montreal was unusually warm, and tried to pin the blame on climate change.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-green-christmas-temperatures-warm-record-1.3380104
Eric Worrall,
I’m still not 100% clear, but what I think you’re saying is that this statement …
ON the 24th December this year, Montreal was a poster child for the “new normal” – mild weather, no snow in sight.
… was not meant to be taken seriously? As in, you really do not know of such a prediction?
Oh bawwww, so a newspaper played up the human-interest angle to sell banner ads. Let’s get to the meat. Requoting your excerpt:
Um, no, it does not look to me like the CBC is attempting to pin Montreal’s unseasonably warm weather on climate change, it looks like they quoted the WMO saying that it’s a combination of El Nino and human-induced global warming. I do have a problem with this statement …
But El Niño only accounts for 16 to 20 per cent of the temperature rise, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
… because it doesn’t describe how that percentage was calculated. Temperature rise from when? Etc. Sloppy sound-bite reporting, no doubt about it, and the CBC is not the only outlet that passed on that “statistic” without context. I did find one that did a better job of it, however — Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-hottest-idUSKBN0TE10820151125
2015 to be hottest year on record – until next year: WMO
[…]
Global average surface temperatures in 2015 are likely to reach what the WMO called the “symbolic and significant milestone” of 1.0C above the pre-industrial 1880-1899 era, and around 0.73C above the 1961-1990 average.
[WMO director-general Michel] Jarraud said 16-20 percent of the 2015 rise may be due to El Niño, a natural weather pattern marked by warming sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. The current El Niño is one of the strongest on record.
But five-year averages showed temperatures were rising regardless of El Niño or its cooling counterpart La Niña, with eight of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2005.
The years 2011-2015 have been the hottest five-year period on record, with temperatures about 0.57C (1.01F) above the 1961-1990 reference period.
The WMO aren’t making a big deal out of a “little warm weather”, but rather that they are pointing out the reason we’re seeing record instrumental temperatures during warmer years (weather) is because the long-term mean temperature of the planet is rising (climate).
I don’t consider reporting on long-term global reality as best we understand it to be biased.
In 1975 (if memory serves), I was just north of Montreal visiting a friend when a storm brought more than 30 cm of snow (32.6 cm at Dorval Airport) between April 3–6.
This wasn’t a record-setting event except for a niggle little detail – the previous months had been so mild, with so little snow, that at the end of March all of the city’s snow machines had been taken in for annual maintenance.
By April 3, all the salters and snow plows were in pieces on the shop floor. Everything was at a standstill until they could put the essential humpty-dumpties back together again.
Oddities of weather – don’t you just love them?
Susan
Turning your back on Mother Nature is always foolish.
Mother Nature laughs at Climate Alarmists and their Fairy Dust !!!
By now we know that even if the planet became an ice block, it would have been caused by “catastrophic man made global warming horror”
If AGW=Anthropogenic Global Warming, then shouldn’t there be an AGC-Anthropogenic Global Cooling too? And an AGS= Anthropogenic Global Stasis?
Which are all of course different than NGW=Natural Global Warming, NGC=Natural Global Cooling, and NGS=Natural Global Stasis.
Early or late, it snows in Montreal. Of major cities, only Moscow gets more.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/settled-science-snowflakes/
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-31-03-13-43.png
Epic fail I’m afraid Rick:
See:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
And:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Now from from the website that you obtained that graph from.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Your error is explained thus….
“The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated.The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed “here” for a while.”
Now, I know it is difficult for the denizens on here – but do please occasionally try to get beyond your confirmation bias and actually open your eyes.
If you click on the image Rick posted, it shows the origin of the graph as-
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-31-03-13-43.png
Rick doesn’t explain why he posted it, or what he was implying by posting it. Lets not use our confirmation biases to make assumptions about people’s intentions….ok?
sigh-
realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-31-03-13-43.png
So I turned on only 2010 to 2015 and they all look pretty much the same to me. Of course I don’t like the damn ice anyway. I would really like to see an ice free north pole before I move on to the next life. I like warm and hate ice.
What is it with all the people and their ice cover fetish at the north pole? The ice floating on the sea will not raise the ocean level any if it melts. You people took physics right?
Toneb,
Did you get your screen name from the Onion? I always liked ToneB’s commentary.
The following graph ‘adjustments’ could also be from the Onion. NSIDC “adjusts” the raw data to make it look more alarming:
http://oi28.tinypic.com/2co31gi.jpg
(Of course, after they adjust it, it’s no longer ‘data’, is it?)
Here’s another example of NSIDC altering the temperature record:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/vnmhoo.jpg
Do you still believe them?
Yes Aphan the graph was posted there in response to an article in Atlantic titled:
The Terrifying Storm That Will Melt The North Pole This Week
And did the North Pole Melt This Week?
And will Atlantic offer a correction to the article?
Toneb your 1 link shows data that ends in 2008 but the one link does provide an interesting explanation as to why the graph was adjusted. Readers may not know this, but the reported area of Arctic Ice extent depends entirely on how the ice is measured.
From what I’ve seen over the course of the last few years, measuring Ice extent in the Arctic tells you nothing about the current state of the climate, especially in years like 2012 where storms had a dramatic affect on the area covered with ice.
Ahhh Epic fail I’m afraid Toneb-
Rick didn’t get that graph from where YOU got the graph. He got it from realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-31-03-13-43.png with the pretty red words and the arrow.
The graph itself IS an accurate graph. It’s a graph of the past decade of Arctic Sea ice in areas of the Arctic in which the sea ice concentration is OVER 30%. 2015 did in fact end with the highest concentration of sea ice over 30% than any other year in the past decade-which that graph shows.
But there’s more sea ice in the Arctic than just the places in which the concentration is 30% or higher. For example, the coastal zones in which sea ice is usually between 15% and 30%-but the nice people at
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
had been masking that part OUT of their chart. Doing so “implied that their previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated”. (note they said that it “implied” their previous estimates were incorrect…they in no way indicate that they actually WERE incorrect.) And so they created a “new” chart that “displays absolute sea ice extent estimates.”
I have no idea what the denizens here find difficult or not, but I personally understand that they are two different charts, that measured two different things, and “thus one would be in error” to think that either chart is incorrect, or that they can or should be compared to each other. I could do something incredibly insulting and ask you to “get beyond your confirmation bias and actually open your eyes”, but I fear that might be too difficult for you to actually accomplish, and so I shall refrain.
Cheers!
Rick,
Something else to consider is that sea ice extent may not say much about total volume:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=arctic+sea+ice+thinning&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_vis=1
This is entirely off topic-or maybe not. But it’s New Year’s Eve and I’m about to wander off into a spirit fueled fog so…..to all: ‘Lang may your lum reek’
( Long may your chimney smoke)
Wi’ other folk’s coal.
(This needs no explanation and should really upset a whole bunch of folks who’ve ‘blackened’ the reputation
of man’s best mineral friend)
It’s the traditional Scottish toast on New Year’s Eve and the Scots have always had a warm spot for the French except when we had ta fight ’em.
[Deleted. Anthony has warned you to use one screen name, Mr. Beeton. ~mod.]
So ‘ScienceRules’ was also ‘warrenlb’ and is now ‘SPQR’??
warrenlb is trying to form a ‘consensus’ of one! ☺
Do you think Sou kicked them all out, or did they just migrate here out of boredom?
But….. 97% of his other names agree with him !!!!
I have spent many years in Montreal and was there from the 26th and left today 31st. There was no snow predicted, none that is why I drove down from Toronto, surprises me that it was 39cm as it was no big deal for Montreal, I would have guessed 20cm where I was and surprised that this would be a record, I recall one year late in March in the early 70’s having approx 100cm fall in 30 hours, now that was a problem. That said I was staying in old Montreal and with the mountain there, precipitation can vary greatly over short distances.
But isn’t this “Global Weirding?”
/sarc.
El Nino finally getting in sync with the polar cold for the wet to turn to white out east? Let’s see how far down the east coast it makes it.
I do not like engaging in dialogue with warmist trolls, so instead I re-post the following, including two recent papers.
I do want to wish all of you a Happy New Year – even the trolls..
Regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/09/are-we-chasing-imaginary-numbers/#comment-2047103
On the subject of REAL numbers and real lives:
One’s predictive track record is an objective measure of one’s technical competence, and based on its negative predictive track record, the IPCC has NO credibility.
Since its first report (FAR, 1990) the IPCC has predicted catastrophic global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2. However, global temperatures in the Lower Troposphere (LT) have NOT warmed in more than 18 years despite significant increases in CO2, according to the most accurate temperature data measured by satellites. The Surface Temperature (ST) data claims some warming, but it is increasingly obvious that the ST data is inaccurate, due to its increasingly large divergence from the satellite data.
Despite claims of more extreme weather due to global warming, the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. The climate has been remarkably stable despite substantial increases in atmospheric CO2.
Over-hyped fears of global warming are utterly wrong. In fact, cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates. Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.
Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures. These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national Excess Winter Mortality statistics.
Excess Winter Mortality in the USA typically totals about 100,000 per year – that is, 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year during the cold months of December through March. Excess Winter Deaths range from about 5000 to 10,000 in Canada and up to 50,000 per year in the United Kingdom.
Despite our colder climate, Canada typically has slightly lower Excess Winter Mortality Rates than the USA and much lower than the UK. This is attributed to our better adaptation to cold weather, including better home insulation and home heating systems, and much lower energy costs than the UK, as a result of low-cost natural gas due to shale fracking and our lower implementation of inefficient and costly green energy schemes.
Global warming alarmists seeks to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of green energy. In Europe, where green energy schemes have been widely implemented, the result is higher energy costs that are unaffordable for the elderly and the poor, and increased winter deaths. European politicians are retreating from highly-subsidized green energy schemes and returning to fossil fuels.
The problem with green energy schemes is they are not green and they produce little useful energy, primarily because they are too intermittent and require almost 100% fossil-fueled (or other) backup.
The lessons are clear: When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, the costs are enormous – globally, trillions of dollars of scarce resources have been squandered, economies have been severely damaged, and innocent people have needlessly suffered and died.
Yours truly, Allan MacRae
The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility on Global Warming 6Sept2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/the-uns-ipcc-has-no-credibility-on-global-warming-6sept2015-final.pdf
Cold Weather Kills MacRae D’Aleo 4Sept2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
Way back in 2002, three of us predicted the current global warming fiasco with remarkable accuracy. A recent summary is here:
The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility On Global Warming September 6, 2015
by Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/the-uns-ipcc-has-no-credibility-on-global-warming-6sept2015-final.pdf
[excerpt]
Summarizing the IPCC’s track record: The IPCC has fabricated false projections of catastrophic global warming and extreme weather that have not materialized. The IPCC’s false claims are contradicted by two decades of credible data. The IPCC has negative credibility.
In contrast, the eight predictions we made on our 2002 PEGG rebuttal remain credible:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.” NO net global warming has occurred for more than 18 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
2. “Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.” Note the extreme pollution of air, water and soil that still occurs in China and the Former Soviet Union.
3. “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.” Since the start of global warming mania, about 50 million children below the age of five have died from contaminated water.
4. “Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.” Canada signed Kyoto but then most provinces wisely ignored it – the exception being now-depressed Ontario, where government adopted ineffective “green energy” schemes and drove up energy costs.
5. “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.” Note the huge manufacturing growth and extremely polluted air in the industrial regions of China.
6. “Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the Former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.” Our government did not pay the FSU, but other governments did, bribing them to sign Kyoto.
7. “Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.” IF one believed the false climate models, one would conclude that we must stop using fossil fuels.
8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.” Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.
IN SUMMARY:
All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the IPCC’s scary climate projections have materialized.
So what happens next? Will we see catastrophic humanmade global warming?
No, we predicted in 2002 that Earth will soon cool and that prediction is increasingly probable.
My paleoclimatologist colleague and I predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020 to 2030 in an article I wrote in 2002. This prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity in current Solar Cycle 24 (SC 24) has crashed. This prediction is still less than certain, but SC25 is also projected to be very weak, so we will probably experience two consecutive very-weak Solar Cycles in SC24 and SC25. IF the Sun does indeed primarily drive global temperature, as I believe, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm. They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind and solar power schemes. Global cooling will probably happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe and the world will get colder, possibly much colder. Winter deaths will increase as cooling progresses, especially harming the elderly and the poor. Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
Timing is difficult to estimate, but I now expect natural global cooling to be evident by 2020 or sooner.
…
I find Dan Pangburn’s Earth temperature (climate) model of interest.
http://agwunveiled.blogspot.ca/
See Figure 1.1.
Dan has built a simple Earth-temperature (climate?) model that has two significant inputs variables:
– solar intensity (the integral thereof, which makes sense) and
– a ~60year sawtooth (AMO/PDO?)
Normally I would redo Dan’s model from scratch but I have no time.
I suggest others should examine it – it is simple and sensible and does not require any fudging of data (such as the fabricated aerosol data used in the models cited by the IPCC to force-hindcast the natural global cooling from ~1940-1975).
I note that Dan’s model predicts imminent global cooling. This agrees with my (our) own opinion, which we first published in 2002. We now expect natural global cooling to be evident after the current El Nino runs its course, by 2020 or probably sooner – say as soon as 2017?.
Regards, Allan
Allan MacRae
I agree with you that a natural cooling cycle will be in the cards for the future as the current El Nino declines. In North America cooling has already been underway for at least a decade . Analysis of the climate events that led to the last cool cycle 1940-1980 shows that similar events are already happening again now . A return to a negative PDO will be the key.( it went negative in 2007 but briefly went positive the last 2 years due to the El Nino. It is again declining.
The pattern of global cooling changes during this past period progressed as follows:
• PDO pattern starts to decline from mostly warm( positive ) phase pattern after 1936
• Arctic temperatures peak in 1938 and 1943 and start to cool after 1944
• Cooler temperatures start in western North America after about 1935/1940
• PDO fluctuates near zero 1937-1939, but positive 1940-1941 due to an El Nino and finally goes mostly negative in 1944
• North Pacific stays warm 1940-1960 while PDO is in a negative pattern ( or cool mode)
• Cooler temperatures in Eastern North America after 1945/ 1950
• Eastern Canada starts to cool after 1950 ( almost 10 years after western Canada)
• AO goes mostly negative 1950
• Europe and Russia starts to cool by 1950 (except a brief cold period 1939/1942)
• Mexico temperatures start to decline after 1950
• AMO goes negative 1965-1995
• Cold temperatures trough in the 1970,s
• No net warming( A PAUSE) between 1940’s and 1980’s
Good response, thank you Herkimer.
Care to estimate when global cooling will be apparent in the satellite Lower Troposphere (LT) temperature data?
My best guess based on conversations with my knowledgeable friends, is some time in 2017.
That will, of course, require some time thereafter to confirm it is not just a downward blip – but I am guessing that 2017 will be the inflection year that clearly exhibits, in the satellite LT data, the start of a multi-decadal global cooling cycle.
Please look at Dan Pangburn’s temperature (climate?) model, which suggests that global cooling is overdue – except for the temporary effect of the current El Nino.
Best, Allan
Allan MacRae
I cannot predict what exact year cooling will be clearly detectable on satellite data as this cooling is a gradual process and will not be happening suddenly or to the same degree in all parts of the globe , but the signs may be similar to the 1940-1980 cool cycle . There were early cooling signs after 2007 which were subsequently overcome by the warming leading to the 2009/2010 El Nino. I think the general trend of the climate for the next 30 years will be one of cooling rather than warming( interrupted by warmer El Nino Years)
My analysis is that the cooling will increase and continue to show up first in the winters of North America and Asia. More frequent southerly shifts of the Polar vortex , jet stream patterns changes and AO have already been cooling these areas for the past decade. Then it may spread to cooler spring and fall and eventually to cooler summers. Europe and other parts of the globe will lag . Inner land or land locked areas will cool first and the most . Coastal areas will show cooling once ocean cooling becomes more significant ( like when the North Pacific PDO pattern stays consistently in the negative or cool mode with more colder water along the east side of Pacific than in the west or central Pacific) . The impact of negative AMO to eastern US and Canada will eventually follow to cool these areas as well . This cooler mode may not bottom until 2035 /2045 .
As others have noted, setting a new record for snow on a particular date is not such a big deal. What is a bigger deal is setting all-time records for monthly temperatures (and/or snowfall), particularly when the old records are not just beaten but beaten by a lot. Here, from the National Weather Service at Buffalo (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=NY&prodtype=discussion) is what happened here in Western New York:
You can also read what happened in Central New York according to the Binghampton office and, without going into as much gory detail, here is the summary sentence:
So, there is little doubt that this was a truly exceptionally-warm month in this region. This is, of course, likely due in large part to the strong El Nino conditions, but clearly over the last century or so over which data has been kept, there have been other strong El Nino years and they were not nearly this warm.
Those are the facts.
Ummm….you do realize we are just coming out of the LIA right ?? What did you think would happen ?? No one here says there is no warming, but how much is Man-Made and is it ” catastrophic ” is the main topic !!
This article discusses just how extensive the record warmth in December across the eastern U.S.: http://www.wunderground.com/news/christmas-week-forecast-warm-east
It notes:
There is a nice graphic illustrating this.
joelshore,
“December” is just a cherry-pick. Here’s the U.S. for the past decade:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/00cfc3dc0cdc552e62c2d2be2e31b025/tumblr_inline_nvhsnjKEiR1qij8k6_500.png
Declining temperatures. Sorry about your belief.
dbstealey said: “Declining temperatures. Sorry about your belief.”
Nope, you posted temperature anomaly data, not temperature data. You don’t plot a slope line through anomaly data. You look at the total area above the 0 line ( indicating positive or increasing temperatures) compared to the total area below it (negative or declining temperatures). In the graph you posted, the area above the 0 line is clearly greater than that below the 0 line, indicating rising temperatures. Thanks for providing additional data that supports joeldshore’s statement.
Chris-“You don’t plot a slope line through anomaly data. ”
Said no one ever.
You’d better get over to NSIDC and tell them they can’t do that!!
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
“In the graph you posted, the area above the 0 line is clearly greater than that below the 0 line, indicating rising temperatures. ”
Clearly? Clearly? Maybe you need an eye exam. But here…:
Here’s a link to a fun site at NOAA that puts that evil trend line right onto the screen for ya! (Make sure you stop at NOAA and chastise them for putting a slope line through anomaly data too!!!)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tavg/ytd/12/2005-2015?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2005&lasttrendyear=2015
-0.68F per decade baby! That is NOT a positive trend.
Aphan, I’ll be more explicit, perhaps that will help you understand. db plotted a line through temperature anomaly data and called that temperature. It’s not. You then send me a link to a site and cherry pick a short period just for the contiguous US, and then crow about -.68C/decade. Gosh, the last time I looked, we live on a planet that consists of more than the continental US. Let’s look at that, shall we?: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/12/11/1880-2015?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2005&lasttrendyear=2015
Oh dear, the site you have given me does not support your position. A clearly increasing trend in global temperatures, and over the last 10 years it is .16C/decade, or 1.6C per century.
Chris says:
db plotted a line through temperature anomaly data and called that temperature. It’s not.
Go complain to NOAA. It’s their chart, and they labeled it “temperature”. I just re-posted it.
Chris #1: “Nope, you posted temperature anomaly data, not temperature data. You don’t plot a slope line through anomaly data. You look at the total area above the 0 line ( indicating positive or increasing temperatures) compared to the total area below it (negative or declining temperatures). In the graph you posted, the area above the 0 line is clearly greater than that below the 0 line, indicating rising temperatures. Thanks for providing additional data that supports joeldshore’s statement.”
I responded to EXACTLY what you said. First off, dbstealey plotted a TREND line, not a slope line (there IS a difference…you know that right?) People DO plot a TREND line through anomaly data all the time.
Chris #2: “I’ll be more explicit, perhaps that will help you understand. db plotted a line through temperature anomaly data and called that temperature. It’s not. You then send me a link to a site and cherry pick a short period just for the contiguous US, and then crow about -.68C/decade.”
Wait…YOU, YOURSELF, said that “you look at the total area above the 0 line….compared to the total area below that line….in the graph you posted…indicating rising temperatures.”
So YOU, used a graph that showed “anomaly data” (only you LOOKED AT IT instead of drawing a trend line through it) and declared it to be “indicating TEMPERATURES!…not “rising anomalies”. (self-rebutted)
“You then send me a link to a site and cherry pick a short period just for the contiguous US, and then crow about -.68C/decade. Gosh, the last time I looked, we live on a planet that consists of more than the continental US”
Really? Maybe that’s because joeldshore’s comments were all about a “short period for the contiguous US”…oh wait….his posts were actually about an even SMALLER area…the EAST SIDE of the contiguous US….last time you looked did the planet we live on consist of more that just that?
joel was using the Eastern US temps as if THEY ALONE were indicative of global temperature increases. DB attempting to show him how stupid that is because they aren’t even indicative of US temperature increases, much less, the GLOBE. YOU stepped in with some irrelevant, and illogical points, then contradicted yourself, and in the end, the point you make about DB’s chart being lame only makes joel’s charts/temps look even more lame. Way to go!
If you go here, you can look at the graph over various time periods and have a good chuckle about how dbstealey should a cherrypicked time interval (way too small to see the trend on a regional scale) to produce a downward trend in a graph that shows a clear upward trend over longer time intervals: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=11
That’s what dbstealey does: He uncritically accepts graphs made by people who share his point of view., The antithesis of a REAL skeptic.
joelshore,
Chuckle away, joel. As usual, you’re desperately looking for any factoids that would support your belief in dangerous AGW. It’s just projection on your part when you accuse me of cherry-picking, because all I do is report what Planet Earth is telling us.
Unfortunately for your totally unskeptical alarmist narrative, there’s nothing worrisome happening. But keep looking, you need something to do and it’s harmless.
Don’t worry DB…
I had posted that “joel was using the Eastern US temps as if THEY ALONE were indicative of global temperature increases.”
He assured me, in his own words, that he was NOT doing that:
“I never made any claim here about global temperatures. Frankly, there are enough falsehoods flying around here that I don’t try to correct everything at once in every post. In another post, we could discuss global temperature trends. In this post, I was merely trying to correct any false impressions that the December weather in eastern North America was not that unusual. It was quite exceptional over the period that we have records.”
And we all know that changes in weather should not be extrapolated to mean changes in climate.Right? *wink*
“If you go here, you can look at the graph over various time periods and have a good chuckle about how dbstealey should a cherrypicked time interval (way too small to see the trend on a regional scale) to produce a downward trend in a graph that shows a clear upward trend over longer time intervals:”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=11
Well perhaps DB was making to Chris was that the trend in a REGION is not an indication of the trend on the whole continent. Maybe Chris needed to know that. Just because you and I and DB all know and admit that a regional trend can only logically apply to that region, doesn’t mean that Chris knows or admits that.
Alphan says:
That’s simply not true. I made no such claim. This article was about the weather in one city, Montreal. And, if you read it, you might be led to think that Montreal (and the general eastern part of North America) wasn’t having that mild a winter so far after all. I was merely pointing out that a huge swath of Eastern North America had a ridiculously mild December, with all-time records for the month not just being broken but broken by a wide margin.
I summarized the point with this paragraph:
I never made any claim here about global temperatures. Frankly, there are enough falsehoods flying around here that I don’t try to correct everything at once in every post. In another post, we could discuss global temperature trends. In this post, I was merely trying to correct any false impressions that the December weather in eastern North America was not that unusual. It was quite exceptional over the period that we have records.
joeldshore.
Pardon my incorrect assumption. 🙂 At least now Chris knows, directly from you, that using your post to attempt to discredit DB was the WRONG thing to do. Forgive me?
Chris, joelshore sez:
I never made any claim here about global temperatures.
So relax. There’s nothing unusual happening.
Chill, bro…
Alphan says:
Well, there is no doubt that dbstealey’s post was an embarrassing cherrypick of a limited time period of the U.S. temperature record…and a period so short that even if it were on a global scale, there would be huge errorbars on the underlying trend. Given that it is on a regional scale, the error bars over such a period are so large as to make what he showed completely meaningless. So, Chris was correct in the larger sense of calling dbstealey out on it although I would say that his argument about temperature anomaly vs temperature isn’t really the problem.
dbstealey says:
No…There was something very unusual happening. A large area of the Eastern U.S. had a December average that was not only a record over the entire instrumental period but a record by a wide margin. That is a very unusual event.
On the other hand, very unusual events do happen now and again. So, that alone is not proof of anything. To see if there is a pattern of such unusual events, it is necessary to look at this more carefully on a global scale. And, for this, we have the conclusions of the IPCC (http://www.climatechange2013.org/), endorsed by most of the major scientific societies in the world. These include such conclusions as:
and
and
Good post Anthony.
This latest short term record snowfall of 39.2 cm (almost 18% of the typical total winter snowfall for Montreal) is interesting particularly since back in 2010 the DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION predicted that the average cross-country ski season in Quebec will be cut in half in only 10 years. It just shows you how unrealistic and wild the alarmists climate predictions are. Montreal has an average winter snowfall of about 218 cm or 85.6 inches so this latest fall is consistent with the past snow . Cities like Quebec get over 300 cm of snow a winter and Saguenay, Quebec gets 342 cm . Expect a lot of more snow later this winter . We are heading for decades of colder and more snowier winters in my opinion . Winters in Canada and North America have been getting colder since 1998. PEI, Canada got 18.1 feet of snow last winter and there were cold temperature and snowfall records set all over Eastern Canada and Eastern United States )
joeldshore
“there have been other strong El Nino years and they were not nearly this warm.”
Have you looked into the 1877/78 El Nino.?
Ralphellis-
The fact is that both John Robertson and Brandon Gates make incorrect assumptions about the images in question. The images do NOT represent either a “forecast”, a “hindcast” or “modeled weather”.
The “plot” in question reflects 2 representations of the SAME image. The left representation shows the “actual” average “temperatures” that were OBSERVED/MEASURED/RECORDED during a 6 hour period on December 30th, 2015 (someone printed “Actual temperature” on it as well as “30-35F” to highlight this) The right representation, again, is the same image-same date, time period and location-with an overlay added to it to highlight the anomaly, or “departure” of the temperatures on that day from the NORMAL, OBSERVED, MEASURED, RECORDED, ACTUAL average temperatures on that date, at that location, in the past.
Not everything that gets spit out of a “computer weather model” can be considered “computer modeled weather”. Only the stuff produced BY that computer after it has been subjected to the simulated processes used by that computer, can be considered to be computer modeled weather. Let’s call it “computer simulated weather” (CSW) because it highlights my point. Actual real time data is recorded and fed INTO the model which then runs the REAL TIME DATA through a series of mathematical calculations based upon our current knowledge about how the weather works (a simulation process) that produces forecasts, projections, based on that real time data. But you can ASK the modeler for a snap shot of the “real time data” that is constantly being fed into that computer model and that modeler can generate that data for you in an image-which is exactly what the article contained. A snap shot of the actual real time data-not the result of a simulation that was run using that data. And the images in question are clearly a SNAP SHOT.
John was wrong about the image being “computer modeled weather” (or CSW) when he told Brandon “your faith in computer modeled weather is touching”. Brandon didn’t correct him; he merely replied “Have you ever been on a commercial airliner? If so, your faith in computer modeled weather (CSW) is touching.”
At that point, I responded that it wasn’t necessary to have faith in computer modeled weather to get on a commercial airliner. First, it’s a stupid presumption anyway since faith is something someone believes in and most people don’t have a clue about the technology used by airplanes anyway, so how could they “believe in” something they aren’t even aware of in the first place? And second, since Brandon likes to argue semantics for days, I gave one logical, fact based reason for why it isn’t necessary to have faith in CSW at all, …commercial pilots don’t fly the plane based on CSW, they fly it based on real time data.
Of course ToneB jumped in and made all kinds of wild allegations and insinuations as if what I’d said could be extrapolated across the whole of the aviation industry including route planning and flight scheduling or ANYTHING AT ALL outside of the parameters of Brandon and John’s comments-which only dealt with “computer modeled weather” and being on a “commercial airliner”. Brandon started cutting and pasting FAA regulation manuals…what a joke. And Brandon still seems to think that commercial flight schedules are dependent upon weather forecasts! We can only forecast “weather” accurately for something like 10-14 days (and the accuracy grows worse over time) but I can go online TODAY and find the scheduled flights to anywhere in the world during the entire year of 2016 posted already. Flight routes and times are already calculated a year in advance…so how can they possibly depend on future weather forecasts at all ?
Of course pilots use the output of software models that generate weather forecasts. Real time data alone is not sufficient, a pilot would never take off on a long commercial flight with that alone. On long flights major storms can form after take-off, without modeling tools to predict those, the risk factor would go up considerably. By using these modeling tools, pilots are able to make changes in flight plans (altitude, routing and speed) in order to avoid problems.
Major storm systems don’t just appear out of nowhere and they can be tracked days in advance, and on board radar gives them real time readings, along with live feeds from ground controls along the route. Pilots must also have real time information on where other airplanes are in order to avoid sharing airspace suddenly with them should changes be required for some rare, sudden reason.
Nobody is saying that pilots do not need real time data. But it is simply untrue to say that they do not use information from weather forecasting tools. They use both, and are required to use both.
From a summary of how flight planning works: “By agreement with the International Civil Aviation Organization, there are two national weather centres (in the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and in and the United Kingdom, the Met Office), which provide worldwide weather forecasts for civil aviation in a format known as GRIB weather. These forecasts are generally issued every 6 hours and cover the subsequent 36 hours. Each 6-hour forecast covers the whole world using grid points located at intervals of 75 nautical miles (139 km) or less. At each grid point, the weather (wind speed, wind direction, air temperature) is supplied at 9 different heights, ranging from about 4,500 feet (1,400 m) up to about 55,000 feet (17,000 m).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_planning
It’s just your imagination. Believe Imam Al Jazeera Goracle, not your lying eyes ….
I liked the part where the mayor said:
“The biggest change is the central city will now determine when a snow-removal operation is to begin. Once that decision has been made, which can occur even after a storm of only 10 centimetres, all boroughs will have 12 hours to begin removing snow.”
In other words they don’t bother clearing the snow if it is less than 10cm (about 4 inches).
Here in Vancouver (BC) the city practically grinds to a halt when we get 10 cm! We almost call out snow plows for flurries…
When I was growing up there were always pictures of Montreal’s snow falls – the city streets with the snow pushed higher than 1 story building.
Yeah…I think the rest of Canada regards you guys as a bunch of w*mps living in the tropics! 😉 Although one of the two winters I lived in Vancouver (1992-1994), we did get a lot of snow (about 30 cm or so, as I recall, depending on what part of the metro area)…I even cross-country skied in Stanley Park, apparently not something you can do very often.
Of course, the snow was also usually not far away as long as you were willing to drive up (in altitude) to it. I have pictures of hiking in shorts in about 2 feet of not-yet-melted snow in Garibaldi Park in July.
Sigh. The narrative is so directed as to be pathetic. A media report had David Phillips (Environment Canada’s official forecaster or something like that) on the 24th talking about the lack of snow in southern Ontario and Quebec. He openly stated that cities like Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City had a 95% chance of snow on the ground on Christmas day. Great, thanks, but sadly Environment Canada’s grasp of probability doesn’t seem to understand that 5% or 1 in 20 chance of no snow on the ground on Christmas day. It’s unlikely but not even remotely impossible. Especially in a year with a strong El Nino influence. Again, sigh.
dbstealey December 31, 2015 at 5:29 pm
Toneb,
The following graph ‘adjustments’ could also be from the Onion. NSIDC “adjusts” the raw data to make it look more alarming:
(Of course, after they adjust it, it’s no longer ‘data’, is it?)
Except of course as you’ve been told before they aren’t ‘adjusted’, just a 5-day smooth.
The daily data can be found at: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
Of course you will continue posting the graph because it fits your propaganda, just like you still continue to use graphs which have been documented as being incorrect, for example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
Phil.
People usually post graphs that they think support whatever point they are attempting to make at the time. That doesn’t make those graphs propaganda, nor does it prove that comments made using those graphs are propaganda either.
Do you have any charts that prove that the NCDIS does not “adjust” it’s data? Or did you just come here to make accusations about dbstealey—to post * “derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”*
* (definition of propaganda)*
Aphan January 6, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Phil.
People usually post graphs that they think support whatever point they are attempting to make at the time. That doesn’t make those graphs propaganda, nor does it prove that comments made using those graphs are propaganda either.
Do you have any charts that prove that the NCDIS does not “adjust” it’s data?
dbstealey showed the following graphs, claiming they were evidence that ‘NSIDC “adjusts” the raw data to make it look more alarming’. As has been pointed out to him before those graphs are the result of 5 day averaging, which is done to smooth the data to make it less alarming.
http://oi28.tinypic.com/2co31gi.jpg
Knowingly posting graphs you know to be wrong as he has done in this case and multiple times with the Alley data (the subject of the wuwt thread I linked to), is the mark of a propagandist. He knows that the graph he repeatedly posts is incorrect but he keeps doing so despite knowing where correct versions can be linked to. Anyone who does that can expect to be criticized.
Phil.-
Adjust-“alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result.,modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance”
Are you claiming that what the chart shows is NOT adjusting by the above definition?
Aphan January 7, 2016 at 5:42 pm
Phil.-
Adjust-“alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result.,modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance”
Are you claiming that what the chart shows is NOT adjusting by the above definition?
They are not “adjusting” the raw data to make it look more alarming which was what stealey claimed, it’s a systematic smoothing to make it less alarming. Also it works in the same way regardless of the direction of the change contrary to stealey’s assertion. Finally as I posted above the unsmoothed data is available.
Phil. sez:
…those graphs are the result of 5 day averaging, which is done to smooth the data to make it less alarming.
Except Phil. left out the essential fact: the “adjustments” always go in the direction of showing more scary global warming.
If the “adjustments” were 50/50, showing both warming and cooling, then Phil. would have a valid point. But he doesn’t — and he’s commenting on a post that’s more than a week old! Is this a slow week in the .edu industry, Phil.?
dbstealey January 7, 2016 at 9:40 am
Phil. sez:
“…those graphs are the result of 5 day averaging, which is done to smooth the data to make it less alarming.”
Except Phil. left out the essential fact: the “adjustments” always go in the direction of showing more scary global warming.
If the “adjustments” were 50/50, showing both warming and cooling, then Phil. would have a valid point.
That’s the point stealey, the graphs which you posted (which are of arctic sea ice extent not temperature) do show smoothing in both directions: a sudden drop in the spring is smoothed in the manner shown in the graph, a sudden rise in the fall shows an opposite smoothing. So yes I do have a valid point, you seize on a graph which you don’t understand because it matches your prejudices and make incorrect statements about it, and even when corrected post it again and again.
But he doesn’t — and he’s commenting on a post that’s more than a week old! Is this a slow week in the .edu industry, Phil.?
No, actually it’s a very busy one.
Phil., your assertions are no match for my evidence. I have plenty more. Just ask, and I’ll post it.
If you really believe that government agencies don’t artificially tilt toward the global warming scare, there’s nothing I can do to change that belief. But for others, the endless “adjustments” that fabricate more and more global warming are convincing.
And:
No, actually it’s a very busy one.
Then why are you commenting on a week old article that hardly anyone will read? Is that what you’re being paid to do?
(Deleted -mod)
Really? Based on the evidence…you arrived at THAT conclusion? Are you a sockpuppet? 🙂
[Reply: Correct, ‘Richard Molineux’ is a sockpuppet. Also posts under the name ‘Chaam Jamal’ and others (K. Pittman, etc.) As usual, his time writing comments has been wasted, as they are now deleted. –mod]
Mods, I love how his post was about someone else being “smarter” than someone else, and yet he wasn’t smart enough to remove his OWN telltale signature…
dbstealey January 7, 2016 at 12:54 pm
Phil., your assertions are no match for my evidence. I have plenty more. Just ask, and I’ll post it.
Actually they completely demolish your evidence, you claimed that the NSIDC curves you showed indicated they had been ‘adjusted’ to be in the direction of more scary global warming. Whereas what they showed was the application of a smoothing process which acts in the direction to make it less alarming!
If you really believe that government agencies don’t artificially tilt toward the global warming scare, there’s nothing I can do to change that belief. But for others, the endless “adjustments” that fabricate more and more global warming are convincing.
Which is not what is being discussed here, the example you gave was not such a case. You claimed that the ‘adjustments’ were in one direction only which is not true, the smoothing process works in exactly the same way regardless of the direction of the change. This has been pointed out to you before but you’ve chosen to repost the faulty material, if you have plenty more ‘evidence’ I suggest you use it instead.
“No, actually it’s a very busy one”
Then why are you commenting on a week old article that hardly anyone will read? Is that what you’re being paid to do?
Perhaps you should suggest to Anthony to have a shorter lifetime for posts if it bothers you, however some of us have work to do. With New Year, a birthday and a final exam to write, the last week was rather busy, answering your posts wasn’t a high priority, sorry.
No one pays me to post, does someone pay you to post all your ‘charts’?
Phil.,
Do you really believe that there’s no warming bias in gov’t agencies? If you do, then we’re too far apart to discuss it.
From all the solid evidence I’ve seen, they are taking their marching orders from a guy who can replace them at will — and that guy is a scientifically illiterate ‘community organizer’ who has a political agenda.
What other result would you expect?
dbstealey January 8, 2016 at 5:19 am
Phil.,
Do you really believe that there’s no warming bias in gov’t agencies? If you do, then we’re too far apart to discuss it.
Since you appear to be incapable of reading and understanding what’s posted you’re probably right. However, if you continue to post erroneous posts like the one above expect to be corrected.
Phil.,
If it weren’t for your assertions, you wouldn’t have much to say.
dbstealey January 8, 2016 at 8:09 am
Phil.,
If it weren’t for your assertions, you wouldn’t have much to say.
Just the facts stealey, something you’re unable to deal with!
Phil. sez:
Since you appear to be incapable of reading and understanding what’s posted…
…&etc.
Could you be any more juvenile? (Don’t answer that!)
Your response as usual has no facts, it’s just the equivalent of: “neener, neener.”
Phil., you are about the only one around who refuses to believe that gov’t agencies would “adjust” the record to artificially show scarier global warming.
Earth to Phil.: the heads of those departments are at-will appointees. When the Community Organizer wants results, he gets results.
We see those results. If you don’t, that’s because you see what you want to see and disregard the rest. In that, you’re very much like James McGinn, the elected President of ‘Solving Tornadoes’. ☺
dbstealey January 8, 2016 at 7:56 pm
Phil. sez:
“Since you appear to be incapable of reading and understanding what’s posted…
…&etc.”
Could you be any more juvenile? (Don’t answer that!)
Your response as usual has no facts, it’s just the equivalent of: “neener, neener.”
Phil., you are about the only one around who refuses to believe that gov’t agencies would “adjust” the record to artificially show scarier global warming.
Nice try at deflection stealey but anyone who has read this will see that you made a specific claim which I rebutted with facts. You have made no attempt to address the facts, just complained about the timing of my response and personal attacks and finally attempt to switch from the specific to the general.
Earth to Phil.: the heads of those departments are at-will appointees. When the Community Organizer wants results, he gets results.
The data you presented was from the NSIDC, which is not a government institution.
We see those results. If you don’t, that’s because you see what you want to see and disregard the rest.
I saw the results, unlike you I knew what I was looking at, you made an incorrect claim about the data. You saw what you wan’t to see and ignored the facts, and the rest of the data.
Phil.
“The data you presented was from the NSIDC, which is not a government institution.”
Might as well be- “NSIDC is entirely funded by competitive grants, with the largest share of funding from NASA, and smaller shares from NSF and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/news/energy/2010/11/101227-national-snow-and-ice-data-center-makeover/
So the sockpuppet is busted again!
This guy is so pathetic he’s pretending now to be an Islamic warrior! heh.
But in reality, he’s this:
http://orig03.deviantart.net/a8f1/f/2009/225/a/4/keyboard_commando_by_plognark.jpg
Hey I know that guy! I think he’s currently commenting in a Morano thread right now. 🙂 I didn’t know he had a brother….:P
Abe, just stop.