Falling temperatures are giving climate alarmists chills
Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States.
At the end of the first week in January, a brutal spell of cold weather settled over most of the country. Multiple cold-temperature records were shattered across the country. Some sites experienced frigid conditions not seen since the 19th century. Chicago and New York City broke temperature records set in 1894 and 1896, respectively. These extremes were not singular, but exemplary of conditions throughout much of the continent. Temperatures in Chicago were so cold that a polar bear at the Lincoln Park Zoo had to be taken inside.
The onset of polar conditions over the United States was also a reminder that cold weather in general is more inimical to human welfare than warm weather. The operation of power grids, gas pipelines and oil refineries was disrupted. Passengers on Amtrak trains were left stranded, and thousands of flights were delayed or canceled. By Jan. 7, the media were reporting at least 21 deaths directly related to the cold.
Weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe. Of course, when we’re discussing global warming, it’s difficult to tell where the mainstream stops and the fringe begins. We were subjected to the oxymoronic explanation that frigid weather was, in fact, caused by global warming. According to Time magazine, cold temperatures in the United States were a result of global warming forcing the polar vortex southward. But in 1974, the same Time informed us that descent of the polar vortex into temperate zones was a harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2qfjDI7Pv
Related:
NOAA “state of the climate” report: Contiguous US average temperature plummeted 2.9F in 2013
Gail Combs says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:41 am
Males don’t fight much past the teenage years and are willing to cooperate.
Unless they have PTSD.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
As a fellow central Oklahoma resident, I’m reblogging Dr. Deming’s article to encourage and support him. Boomer Sooner
MikeB on January 18, 2014 at 3:39 am
January 18, 2014 at 2:25 am
Every 11,500 years this world we live on has an Ice Age. It has been nearly 12,000 years since the last Ice Age.
We are still in an ice age now. Technically, an ice age is whenever there is permanent ice on the planet. We have been in this current ice age for millions of years. What you refer to as ‘ice ages’ are in fact periods of maximum glaciation.For the past 3 million years, the glaciation has followed a regular pattern of glaciers advancing and receding. This cycle is repeated about every 100, 000 years and the last glacial maximum on this planet was about 20,000 years ago.
That’s an improvement on “an ice age every 11, 500 years. But just to be pedantic, interglacials have indeed occurred roughly every 100, 000 yeays for the last million or so years, but for 2 million years before that, interglacials were spaced by about 40, 000 years. This transition is called the mid pleistocene revolution or MPR. The glacial cycle changed from following the obliquity to the eccentricity Milankovich cycle.
This means – its worse than we thought! Not only are we in a glacial period, we are in a slowly deepening glacial period. If it continues the next transition will be to permanent deep glaciation with no interglacial respite.
Martin says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm
“It’s been quite warm in the U.S. the past week where there was 454 warm records compared to 4 cold records, a ratio of 113 to 1.”
Seems you haven’t learned that it is never a clever argument to base your best reasoning on the state of the current weather. The now famous and scary “polar vortex” is headed south once again. See one of the weather dot com sites for GA and north FL for next Tuesday night. Valdosta, GA will do. Pittsburgh, PA – even better.
Brad (Griff):
Parts of Australia, let alone the rest of the southern hemisphere, are not ALL of the southern hemisphere. Some parts of Australia have had a spell or two of very hot weather…this is pretty normal actually. What you are not being told is that a lot of southern australia has had quite a lot of rather cool weather. Since moving back here I have been living in country Victoria and after 4/5 days of heat we are now a bit on the cool side again. It’s very pleasant today (19th) if a bit windy (normal for this valley). I was wearing a gilet today and felt COLD under a tree! I’ve also noticed that Alice Springs seems to be remarkably cool this summer…at least, when I’ve checked the temps there.
I’ve noticed that the MSM ignore cold spells and only emphasise any warm ones in the southern hemisphere.
While the UK is having a mildish wet winter this year we had some very cold ones recently and last year we had days and days on end of snowy showers where I was living and a very late cold spring. It was freezing walking to the local shop to get the paper. We followed this with a very pleasant sunny warm, but not hot, summer.
milodonharlani says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:52 am
welovemountains says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:10 am
Milodon,
Welovemountains told you to forget about statistics! Don’t confuse her with facts, data, and (shudder) …. statistics.
/sarc
Mac
PS: I’m a frequent visitor into the mountainous back country of the US west…. with about half of my back country time solo hunting and hiking/camping. You could say I ‘love’ mountains…. but I do not let emotional appeal cause me to lose sight of reality. Even fools can survive many warm days and nights in the back country…but sudden icing and snow can be lethal to the ill prepared.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:49 pm
Martin says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm
“It’s been quite warm in the U.S. the past week where there was 454 warm records compared to 4 cold records, a ratio of 113 to 1.”
“Seems you haven’t learned that it is never a clever argument to base your best reasoning on the state of the current weather. The now famous and scary “polar vortex” is headed south once again. See one of the weather dot com sites for GA and north FL for next Tuesday night. Valdosta, GA will do. Pittsburgh, PA – even better.”
During the last “polar vortex” there was a post here saying that there was a 6 to 1 ratio of cold records compared to warm records.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/08/usa-cold-weather-records-outnumber-warm-records-6-to-1/
Seems someone else hasn’t learnt that it is never a clever argument to base your best reasoning on the state of the current weather.
Now, compare that 6 to 1 ratio to a 113 to 1 ratio of warm records compared to cold records.
http://s24.postimg.org/t383qo3o5/temps.jpg
113 to 1 versus a measly itsy bitsy ratio of 6 to 1 during the “polar vortex”
Martin~ That is called the ‘January Thaw.’ I grew up with that in the 60s and 70s. And When did that period of rapid warming supposedly begin?
Martin says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:00 pm
Lets see
Suppose we had 113 warm events and 1 cold event in one week —- ooh scary 113:1
In another week we had 6000 cold events and 1000 warm events —- such a measly itsy bitsy ratio of 6 to 1
Then is it cold or hot – lets see
Total cold events 6001
Total Hot events 1113
Ratio Hot:Cold 1:5.39 Cold events outnumber hot by 5.39 to 1 – Now has the last 2 weeks been hot or cold?
Learn some math Martin!
Record high, record low, record floods, ect ect.
Things are not normal, scary in my opinion, to use this as an excuse to blame each other in terms of left v right. The extreme weather hurts a lot of people, would be better to focus on how to
minimize the damage, than the usual trowing dirt.
Brad (Griff) says:
January 18, 2014 at 3:28 am
I guess this a Northern hemisphere-centric group. All this talk about the Polar vortex negating the global warming argument, but I see you are silent on the record high temperatures in the Southern hemisphere.
==========
I beg to differ, while a couple of places might have made a record high..most of it was a normal summer stinker, and four days worth isnt a heatwave like I used to know them 7 to 10 days of 100F+ days and not much cooler at night in Adelaide in the late 60s. similar in rural areas in the late 90s/early2000s.
again most of the fires are lightning induced and able to burn so well n so hot n fast due to UNgrazed parks areas being overgrown woody bushy firetraps. thanks to the greentards banning grazing!
cant be too damn warm overall down here or the Antarctic wouldnt STILL be gaining ice volume in Summer!
tamijo2013:
Your post at January 19, 2014 at 2:13 am says in total
Congratulations! Well done!
Yours is among the best troll posts ever provided on WUWT.
Taking your points in turn.
Assuming climate never changed anywhere then it would be a rare day when no weather record were set somewhere.
The earliest weather recording only began 3 centuries ago and wide-spread weather recording has only existed for decades.
On its first day a new weather station takes its first measurements of maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure each which is a total of 8 records. Weather varies with the seasons and there are 365 days in a year so there are 365 x 8 = 2920 new daily records during the first year of that weather station. And there are 8 records for each of the 52 weeks; i.e 416 weekly records. And there are 8 records for each of the 12 months; i.e 96 monthly records. This is a total of 3432 records from that new weather station in its first year.
In the following year there are 3432 chances that a record will be broken at the new weather station, and about half of the records will be broken because few years are identical.
As each year passes the probability of setting a new record decreases. But it still exists. And there are thousands of weather stations all of different ages. So, if climate did not change then it would be a rare year which failed to provide “Record high, record low, record floods, ect ect. (sic).”
But climate does change. It always has and it always will, everywhere. So it is almost certain that each year provides “Record high, record low, record floods, ect ect. (sic).”
Secondly,
Floods are not primarily a function of climate change in urbanised areas because urbanisation affects propensity for flooding.
Thirdly,
There is no definition of “normal” so your claim that “Things are not normal,” cannot be true.
Fourthly,
The world has always been “scary”. You need to come to terms with it.
Most importantly,
Protecting people from extreme weather is essential whether or not climate changes.
People who live in mud huts lose everything in a storm. People suffer little if any storm damage when they live in modern houses and they have modern protection and evacuation systems. Reducing the frequency of extreme weather events – if that were possible – would not do much for the inhabitants of mud huts, but providing them with industrialisation and wealth would.
Finally,
Your attempt to start a fight is a good trolling ploy.
WUWT is infested with a few extreme right-wingers who take every opportunity to promote their politics while reviling the politics of others. Stopping them from disrupting WUWT threads is a problem, and you have invited them to do it in this thread. Your invitation is the best possible method you could have adopted to troll this thread.
So, in conclusion, I again congratulate you on one of the best troll posts ever posted on WUWT.
Richard
tamijo2013 says @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 2:13 am;
To say “extreme weather” seems a lot like saying “climate change”. They both appear to say nothing (baby puppies! filthy dirty! outrageously ridiculous!). By design?
The emptiness of the term “climate change” certainly does appear to be “by design”. Those who espoused “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) appeared to notice that, a.) the climate was no longer warming and, b.) that the contribution of CO2 in the computer simulations had probably been over-blown. So they created a new name that is without any meaning.
“Extreme weather” looks like very much the same gambit as “climate change”. It allows people claim an abnormality or danger, without the inconvenience of actually having said anything.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, snow, wind, rain, drought, heat, cold … they all happen, and sometimes in severe form. Does that make the weather “extreme”? Compared to what? Last year? A decade or 5 decades ago? It is pretty tough to prove this, or even informally show or illustrate it, convincingly.
It’s perfectly normal to have hurricanes, and tornadoes at certain times of the year, in certain places. Occasionally, but not often, the remnants or surge-tides of a hurricane make their way to New England, or even the Maritime coast of Canada. Does that make Sandy a superstorm, or legitmately “extreme”? No. What we saw with Sandy is a low-frequency but well-known event that happens as a part of normal weather-patterns, now & then. There are worse cases of the same thing, in the weather-records.
I got news for you, Tamijo (but it isn’t really ‘news’). “Records” are always being set … somewhere, with respect to one metric or condition, or another. But it is not unusual or new, to see & have “records” being set. No, not at all: It would indeed be an abnormality, if new records were not being set. Every day, every week, month & year.
We did have a mild warming-spell, during the late 20th C. It stopped, about 17 years ago.
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 7:13 am
Ted Clayton says: @ur momisugly January 19, 2014 at 7:24 am
It is so much fun to watch the little trolls fresh from Al Gore’s “Climate Reality” training projects come to WUWT ready to do battle with the Climate Den!ers” (how in heck can you deny reality? Unfortunately the warmist lemmings manage it.) and get politely and effectively taken apart with logic.
It really isn’t a fair fight but it is fun.
Not to mention many instrumental weather stations are recently in new locations or new (based at airports) and only cover 2 or 3 decades data. Daily records for them locations will occur regularly with such a sort period and even the odd all time record may likely will have only occurred because the same location didn’t provide data from 50 or 100 years ago.
Ted Clayton says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:24 am
“The emptiness of the term “climate change” certainly does appear to be “by design”. Those who espoused “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) appeared to notice that, a.) the climate was no longer warming and, b.) that the contribution of CO2 in the computer simulations had probably been over-blown. So they created a new name that is without any meaning.”
I think that you are mistaken that the new name is without any meaning.
I think that the new name means that our rulers intend to tax us anyway, regardless of whether any climate change or catastrophe occurs or does or does not occur.
Im not trolling at all, im not young, and when i was young, natural disasters, was at a diffrent level, than they are now. What im saying is, instead of debates about if its human or natural changes, lets look at the risks, and how to prepare for the next one.
Swizz Re, is not a left wing political party, or some grass roots. They are the worlds leading Reinsurance compagny, most likely only having one major agenda, paying as little insurance money back as possible. and tell me do they think there have been no growth in extreme weather accidents ?
their publication here : http://media.swissre.com/documents/ECA_New_York_Gov_Factsheet.pdf
May be they are just trolling ?
tamijo2013:
Your post at January 20, 2014 at 4:43 am is well below the standard of trolling you provided with your earlier post. Also, your spelling and grammar have declined. Are you sure you have not been replaced?
Anyway, your missive I am answering makes two assertions which are each wrong.
Firstly,
there is no evidence that natural disasters have increased; none, zilch, nada.
There is evidence that costs of natural disasters have increased because people have become more affluent. Rich people have more – and it is worth more – than the property of poorer people. So, the frequency of weather-related disasters has not changed, but the disasters have increased the amount and the value of damaged property.
Munich Re is a re-insurance company. It exists to make profits. Insurance companies can increase their premiums to make more money if there is acceptance of a claim that there is increased threat of future disaster.
But you knew that.
Richar
John says @ur momisugly January 20, 2014 at 2:43 am;
Hmm. You could have a point there. It might not be so bad, if the money is used to fund pilot-studies for aerial carbon-dusting of nascent perennial continental snowpack … in case of like, The Day After Tomorrow. 😉
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/