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

Image Credits: Soft Pixelclker.comCagel.com

By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

has now has seen the light:

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

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

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

0 0 vote
Article Rating
134 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. Ramirez
February 21, 2014 5:06 pm

It must have given them a stomach cramp to have to come off the cold = warming theme.

Rhoda R
February 21, 2014 5:07 pm

It must have given them a sever cramp in the ego to have to come off the warm makes cold position.

February 21, 2014 5:21 pm

I guess there’s a first time for everything.

MattS
February 21, 2014 5:27 pm

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

DirkH
February 21, 2014 5:28 pm

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

wayne Job
February 21, 2014 5:45 pm

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

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
February 21, 2014 5:50 pm

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

Leon Brozyna
February 21, 2014 5:50 pm

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

MattS
February 21, 2014 5:52 pm

@Otter,
“And people wonder why I get pissed off….”
No, we don’t. 🙂

kenin
February 21, 2014 5:55 pm

For those who actually believed that the cause of such a polar vortex at low latitudes was as a result of so-called “global warming”….. wow, you’re in need of some serious enlightenment. Take a look around you; observe nature.
I wonder how that 250 year old red oak 5 minutes from home handled -30C with 70km/h winds for two days. Duh! I those temps have been here before- 1000’s of times.
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Ontario all have forests well adapted for those conditions should they ever occur.
propaganda’s worst enemy is personal observation

eyesonu
February 21, 2014 6:01 pm

Do all the alarmists read WUWT and BishopHill? If not then they should begin.
Crow served on a bed of greens is still crow.

Gary Pearse
February 21, 2014 6:05 pm

Can you imagine what a consensus on warming-makes-it cold there would have been today if scientific and mathematical skeptics hadn’t been pressuring non-stop. Like UAH satellite temperature measurements, rigorous scrutiny by skeptics has constrained the latitude available to the more zealous CAGW warmers and has even made the majority of papers that used to get a pass in formerly prestigious journals, more obviously flawed even to many of those whose careers have been made with CAGW theory and whose critical faculties had been eroded.
The stress put on former science-is-settled proponents by the dismantling by skeptics of formerly-tolerated bad statistics and high school physics, notably by mild mannered, polite Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, revelation of the email secrets of climategate, grey literature (Greenpeace and WWF propaganda pieces) relied upon by IPCC, and the last straw: a 17yr+ and growing hiatus in warming has contributed immeasurably to improved science. Those up to the task know the old slap dash won’t do. They know they have to look over their shoulder when putting out their work (work now much harder than when the cats were away and the mice could play) . Those whose training, knowledge and talent is little beyond the median high school teacher level have suddenly stopped their once prolific output of peer reviewed science and have taken to op eds, tv appearances, twitter sniping, and group play. Much of the recent stuff is put out by a huge oversupply of PhD candidates – woe to them a few years from now when the job market shrinks by about 97%. They will be looking for jobs as grade 9 science teachers.
Anyway, this is a seminal moment when, for the first time, the central climategate team is not silent on bad science that supports their meme. I think I should have added the Ship of Fools fiasco to the list of stressors above. It must have been hard for those now tentatively coming out to remain quiet while Turney sat in the ice bound ship looking for global warming, screwing up a season’s Antarctic research plans for international expeditions and then going home to get an award. The desperation, the hollow feeling of having spent a whole career building a false theory, will now have them scrambling and me-tooing when they get a chance to criticize CO2-climate theory. I wondered how the whole thing was going to end, but I did know there would be great throwing of colleagues under the bus in the offing.

February 21, 2014 6:06 pm

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

February 21, 2014 6:17 pm

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

jmorpuss
February 21, 2014 6:19 pm

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

kenin
February 21, 2014 6:22 pm

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

Sweet Old Bob
February 21, 2014 6:36 pm

Gary P. at 6:05 PM…when the cat’s away the mice act like RATS…and it’s a travesty…(;p)

February 21, 2014 6:38 pm

Nice to know that they actually recognized a ploy not working.

John Francis
February 21, 2014 7:09 pm

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

Jeff F
February 21, 2014 7:09 pm

To give y’all a sense of what folks that are students of climate science truly believe, one of the regular contributors to a CBC forum was discussing the concept of a polar vortex a while back. This contributor is, apparently, studying climate science. His argument, spoken with much conviction, was that a weakening of the polar jet from the lack of a strong north-south temperature gradient causes a meandering jet. Therefore, this kind of event is a classic symptom of global warming. Accordingly, this is yet another piece of evidence that the warming predictions are coming true! This was, of course, followed by the obligatory “we must shut down the tar sands in Alberta”.
So, as we all know, this is the party line on the matter. My challenge, right away, based entirely on common sense, is that a meandering jet means, by definition, that its shape should change rapidly and its position should shift often, which of course, has not happened this winter. In other words, the consistency of the cold air is exactly the opposite symptom a weakened polar jet, at least according to their own theory. Of course, I was dismissed as a denier.
My point is that, regardless of the facts (or common sense), everything that lines up with predictions of AGW will become evidence to most climate scientists, irrespective of whether or not the original hypothesis is true. These folks have long since passed the point of practicing rational science. I wish that Barnes’ study would be considered. But it won’t be. Because, to be quite honest, I don’t think that the practitioners of AGW driven climate science are conducting any science – at least not in any way that I am familiar with.

February 21, 2014 7:14 pm

John Francis says:
February 21, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Further to Gary Pearse’s observation: can you imagine how this whole issue would have gone without the internet, which has allowed the skeptics a voice? I shudder to think.
You must be new to the matrix, welcome! lol

John F. Hultquist
February 21, 2014 7:16 pm

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

Walt Allensworth
February 21, 2014 7:28 pm

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

hunter
February 21, 2014 7:43 pm

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

Bill
February 21, 2014 7:55 pm

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

February 21, 2014 8:14 pm

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

pochas
February 21, 2014 8:33 pm

justthefactswuwt says:
February 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm
“the Polar Vortex occurs in the mesosphere and stratosphere, explain how heat, convection or otherwise in the ionosphere propagates downward into the mesosphere, when atmospheric pressure in the ionosphere is essentially nil.”
Well, since you asked, the interaction may take place lower down in the atmosphere, where the aurorae are seen and the electrons and protons traversing the D layer between the poles intersect with the descending Brewer-Dobson circulation, transferring their energy to and warming the descending gas This changes the vertical temperature profile, producing the well-known polar temperature inversions. This effect acts in parallel with stratospheric heating induced by UV absorption in the ozone layer. When present and strong, temperature inversions are stable as anyone who has experienced LA smog can attest. The return flow from the Brewer-Dobson circulation is diverted from the surface to the altitude of the radiating zone, where by warming the upper troposphere it warms the surface as well, by increasing the temperature in the region that anchors the lapse rate. The polar vortex is strengthened, sealing the arctic cold inside the so-called ozone hole. And we get Global Warming, only CO2 has nothing to do with it.
There is tons of evidence for all of the aspects I have mentioned, except that the behavior of the return flow of the Brewer-Dobson circulation is speculative.

February 21, 2014 8:37 pm

Polar vortex controlled by Magnetosphere activity and solar wind…

TomRude
February 21, 2014 8:54 pm

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

Karl
February 21, 2014 8:54 pm

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

MattS
February 21, 2014 8:54 pm

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

Jeff F
February 21, 2014 9:09 pm

@Bill: It doesn’t seem like you are interested in the merits of the science that is being discussed herein. Even if you are given the fact that the earth is warming and that the deep ocean is somehow accumulating massive amounts of heat (which many here would fundamentally disagree with), there is still little to no direct evidence that these would be caused by the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by mankind’s activities. Note that a well established causal link, shown through the use of prediction and validation is mandatory in science.
All that you are describing are the effects of a heretofore unproven hypothesis. You are very simply confusing evidence with establishing cause and effect. Put another way, there are a great many ways that the effects (if they are in fact occurring) that you discussed could have arisen. Human knowledge of the behavior of the atmosphere over long time scales is insufficient to pinpoint a cause for these effects. Any other conclusion that comes from climate science on this matter at this time is just hubris.

Leon Brozyna
February 21, 2014 9:24 pm

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

Jeff F
February 21, 2014 9:28 pm

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

Bill
February 21, 2014 9:38 pm

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

February 21, 2014 9:38 pm

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

ren
February 21, 2014 9:58 pm

Winter returns to Europe. Polar vortex will be inhibited over North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f72.gif

February 21, 2014 10:01 pm

What may be over looked here is as the Earth cools from the lack of sunspot activity, no real observations spring the first post mini-Ice Age; minimum of the 1800s; and the preceding period period to the Mini-Ice Age, is the atmospheric events that took place to absorb heat out of the winter months and strengthen the impact of Global Cooling.
What events lead up to a Mini-Ice Age? Increased glacier activity. Reduced Topography capture of abundance carbons in the atmosphere by the oceans and Polar Ice Caps to name a few.
This moving Vortex may become a common characteristic of global cooling through out the next two decades.
Paul

noaaprogrammer
February 21, 2014 10:11 pm

Gary Pearse states: “The desperation, the hollow feeling of having spent a whole career building a false theory, will now have them scrambling and me-tooing when they get a chance to criticize CO2-climate theory.”
Is there a counter document to that which many of us signed against AGW? If not, there should be a central repository built somewhere where the names of the “97%” are associated with their pro AGW statements / articles / documentaries / inane blathering / etc. so that they can’t get away with “me-tooing” their way back to reality.

Jeff F
February 21, 2014 10:12 pm

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

February 21, 2014 11:11 pm

One is left to wonder what an end-extreme interglacial glacial-inception looks like……?

Mac the Knife
February 21, 2014 11:22 pm

Climatologist acknowledge reality, admit that warming has stopped and is not responsible for 17 years of cooling….
Wow! Wow!!!! I’m shocked… shocked, I tell you! Scientist acknowledge reality and challenge climate model’s irrational outputs.
A thin ray of hope has lanced through the national/global consciousness…… a sharp piercing of mann’s false dogma! Pray that this trend of rational thought continues…

Richard111
February 21, 2014 11:58 pm

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

Will Nelson
February 22, 2014 12:06 am

justthefactswuwt says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:22 pm
Nice diagram of the atmospheric layers. I think the Anatov AN2 is a nice touch.
So this polar bear vortex takes our nice winter weather and sends it off to where no one understands or appreciates it. Florida says, “For six hours a couple weeks ago we were colder than you”. How does that make us who put up with all day sun for most of the summer so we can finally get back to a nice winter in the fall make us feel any better?

Steven Devijver
February 22, 2014 12:12 am

So:
Heat-related blocking events: caused by global warming.Cold-related blocking events: not caused by global warming.
Got to love science.

Will Nelson
February 22, 2014 12:12 am

Mac the Knife says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Or perhaps the lack of warming/slight cooling is caused by warming? Or they keep using that word but I do not think it means what they think it means.

February 22, 2014 12:13 am

MattS says:
February 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm
@Rhoda R
What the heck is a “sever cramp”? Is that a cramp so severe that it makes one of your arms or legs fall off?
——————————————————
A ‘sever cramp’ is where your ass falls off in front of everyone.

Mac the Knife
February 22, 2014 12:17 am

ren says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:05 pm
ren,
What are you trying to say, by the link you provided? Are you proposing that the latest winters are ‘unprecedented’ effects? Cut the crap and speak clearly. Your cryptic mysticism no longer can be excused as a product of language translation. Are you a naive youngster? Or just a sly troll?
Mayhap, I’ve lived a few more winters than you. I’ve lived through a number of ‘unprecedented’ winters before, specifically the winters of ’78-’79 and the winters of the early ’60s. In Wisconsin, these were brutally cold and snowy winters, much like the last several that Wisconsin has been experiencing. I’ve chiseled through 2.5 feet of ice on Big Green Lake back in the ’60s and 70s, just to catch some fresh lake perch, walleye, or lake trout. I know first hand the reality of normal climate variation in the northern US of A.
Are you a mere stripling, of limited years and experience? I’ve found the younger generations are more easily mislead, given their shorter experience base and indoctrination to not believe anyone over 30. They lack the timeline… the hard winter, ‘cold to your marrow and kill your grandma’ experiences that a generation of longer perspective has directly experienced. Your comments reflect a naivete of lack of experience …. or deliberate obfuscation. Which is it?
Mac

Mac the Knife
February 22, 2014 12:23 am

Will Nelson says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:12 am
Will,
I don’t understand the point you were trying to make. Please elucidate.
Mac

richardscourtney
February 22, 2014 12:26 am

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

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

Your post I am answering was not erased and your previous post (at February 21, 2014 at 7:55 pm) was not erased.
In reality, at justthefactswuwt provided a point-by-point rebuttal of your post at February 21, 2014 at 8:50 pm. And Jeff F quoted your post and refuted it in principle at February 21, 2014 at 9:09 pm.
But reality is not your strong point, Bill. For example, there is no “link between co2 and ozone depletion”. I think you may be confusing CO2 with CFCs.
Your assertions are so divorced from reality that either you are a deluded idiot or you are yet another anonymous troll posting nonsense with the intent of disrupting the thread. I suspect the latter.
Richard

jmorpuss
February 22, 2014 12:27 am

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

Will Nelson
February 22, 2014 12:37 am

Mac the Knife says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:23 am
Obtuse sarcasm. Your italicized quote is funny if parsed so that it sounds like the climatologist blamed global warming, up until recently, as the cause of global cooling… until said climatologist had to admit global warming has stopped and therefore cannot, after all, be blamed for global cooling.

Mac the Knife
February 22, 2014 12:39 am

Bill says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Well when you guys erase my comments and then wright(sic) me a comment telling me there is no causal link to co2 and the atmosphere then it is suspect. Especially since science has shown over and over the link between co2 and ozone depletion.
Bill,
If you are confident of your case, please state it with references. You will not be ‘erased’ here. As long as you are moderately respectful and stay on topic, your voice has the same value as anyone else. State your case clearly and succinctly.
Mac

Mac the Knife
February 22, 2014 12:53 am

Will Nelson says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:37 am
Will,
I understand our mutual misunderstanding now. My comment was not ‘obtuse sarcasm’. It was direct sarcasm. Climatologist are trying to claim that ‘global warming’ is the cause of ‘extreme cold winter weather’. The declaration is ludicrous. The irrational meme of ‘Cold is Hot’ is unsupportable, by either physical data or model projections. How can I help your understanding of reality?
Mac

Sasha
February 22, 2014 1:11 am

The BBC, the Guardian and the Independent all gave up their predictable stance of man-made extreme weather after being deluged with ribald comments from their readers, and demands from their readers for proven links between man-made CO2 and the weather events they were reporting; links that they could not provide. It should also be noted how often the comments section at the bottom of these articles are disabled; it’s now routine for “global warming” stories to have their Readers’ Comments section disabled – especially when the author is well-known, such as Chris Huhne or James Lovelock.
This situation won’t last. It’s just too difficult for these organizations to explain how the climate really works and how local weather is formed. It’s much easier to just dump every weather event onto the “man-made global warming” propaganda and carry on worshiping at the altar of the almighty carbon dioxide religion – not forgetting to disable the Readers Comments section first.

Will Nelson
February 22, 2014 1:21 am

Mac the Knife says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:53 am
Ah, I did miss your sarcasm and took your post to mean “good news commeth”. It was my own sarcasm that was of the obtuse persuasion. Anyway, up to this point I cannot see any daylight between your understanding of reality and mine.

Mac the Knife
February 22, 2014 1:24 am

Will Nelson says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:21 am
Will,
‘No harm, no foul!’
Mac

Hari Seldon
February 22, 2014 1:28 am

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

Stephen Richards
February 22, 2014 1:33 am

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

Stephen Richards
February 22, 2014 1:33 am

poles was sucked souf
Spelling error. Don’t like to point these out but souf should be sarf.

Stephen Richards
February 22, 2014 1:36 am

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

Mac the Knife
February 22, 2014 1:40 am

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

Man Bearpig
February 22, 2014 1:49 am

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

You mean like the AGW Believer Deniers ?

Mac the Knife
February 22, 2014 1:56 am

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

February 22, 2014 2:00 am

Mac the Knife says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:17 am
ren says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:05 pm
———————————————
I think it is a language barrier with ren. This is the best English he can muster.

February 22, 2014 2:06 am

UK storms and floods – a post-mortem
The main human impact on recent flooding is UK government incompetence.
So Foul a Day and the Jet Stream
Alastair Dawson’s book chronicles 300 years of climate hell in Scotland (1600 – 1900) most probably extending to the whole of the UK, that was followed by the quiescent 20th Century

peter
February 22, 2014 2:17 am

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

anticlimactic
February 22, 2014 2:18 am

It is interesting that the Farmers Almanac correctly predicted a bitterly cold winter in the States back in August. This is not the first time that the Almanac has predicted weather at odds with all the usual weather bureaus, and been proved correct. But then they use sunspots, tidal action, lunar cycles, and planetary positions to make their predictions. Given their [claimed] 80% success rate it is an area climate science should be investigating.
By ignoring almost all possible influences on climate the climate ‘science’ can never hope to successfully predict the climate. I look forward to the day that climate science studies the climate and tries to understand it rather than thinking up propaganda to support a false idea.
If the central belief is wrong [such as the Earth being at the centre of the universe] then there can never be any understanding [such as the motion of the planets] – everything becomes unexplainable except by a mystical force. Much of climate science is the science of the dark ages.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/20/feds-failed-with-winter-forecast-but-farmers-almanac-predicted-a-bitterly-cold-winter/

richardscourtney
February 22, 2014 2:26 am

Euan Mearns:
I write to draw attention to the links in your post at February 22, 2014 at 2:06 am.
Your articles are good and the discussions in the threads – especially on the jet stream- are very good, so I am writing to commend them to others who otherwise may not have bothered to read them.
Richard

February 22, 2014 3:36 am

There is some confusion arising in relation to the Polar Vortex which is a column of descending air in the stratosphere above each pole and entirely separate to the jet stream which flows around the polar air masses from west to east. It does not descend below the tropopause.
The effect of the stratospheric Polar Vortex on atmospheric pressure AT THE SURFACE is manifested by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in the northern hemisphere and the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) in the southern hemisphere. They are both measures of the surface pressure distribution between specified locations.
The Polar Vortex itself is limited to the stratosphere and therefore it can only affect the surface pressure distribution by altering tropopause height. It is those changes in tropopause height which force a change in the surface pressure distribution and thus the degree to which the AO and AAO can be regarded as positive or negative.
A positive AO and AAO appear to occur most often when the sun is active and it is when they are positive that the polar air masses contract and the jets and climate zones shift poleward.
What seems to happen is that an active sun depletes ozone above 45km in the mesosphere for a cooling effect (the opposite of the effect below 45km) and then the colder (reduced ozone) air in the mesosphere sinks towards the tropopause within the Polar Vortex and reduces the temperature of the stratosphere above the polar tropopause to lower than it otherwise would have been
The interesting thing is that a colder stratosphere lifts tropopause height upward so the heights rise above the poles relative to the heights above the requator and the entire global air circulation is drawn poleward AT A TIME OF ACTIVE SUN.
When the sun is less active the opposite occurs, the tropopause height over the poles falls relative to that over the equator, the AO and AAO become more negative and the entire global air circulation is pushed equatorward.
Note that zonal jets can occur either in a poleward scenario (a warm interglacial) or in an equatorward scenario (ice ages) and so meridionality is a function of variations between the two extremes. Such variations are driven by the interplay between the solar effect from the top down towards the poles and the oceanic effect (from ocean cycles) from the bottom up towards the equator.
However, whilst between those two astronomically induced extremes of zonality (via the Milankovitch Cycles) it is the degree of meridionality which serves as the most powerful climate forcing mechanism because that degree of meridionality affects total global cloudiness and albedo so as to vary the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans to drive the system.
Basic summary here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

February 22, 2014 3:46 am

*Our old teachers agree ….*
_peter_ : February 22, 2014 at 2:17 am :-
_…by the true-believers who will sneer at anyone who questions the idea that GW causes extreme cold._
“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.” – Aldous Huxley
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.” – Albert Einstein
_anticlimactic_ : February 22, 2014 at 2:18 am :-
_Much of climate science is the science of the dark ages._
“The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it’s just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age.” –

richard
February 22, 2014 3:54 am

good to check on the Alexa stats that skeptic sites are increasing viewers and alarmist are declining.
An instant look website of these stats , Skeptic Vs alarmists would be mighty fun.

richard
February 22, 2014 3:59 am

or do this,
“In today’s MLM blogging post, I want to discuss something called Alexa Rank.
Before I jump into it though, I recommend all online marketers use Firefox for their web browser of choice.
(If you don’t already, click here to install it).
The main reason I’m encouraging my peeps to use Firefox is because it allows for handy dandy little add-ons, or plugins.
As you can imagine, there’s pretty much an add-on for anything and everything.
But the one I’d like you to install is called SearchStatus (install it here).
By using Firefox and adding the SearchStatus plugin, you’ll be able to quickly and effortlessly view the Alexa Rank (and Page Rank) for any website you visit.
After the one-click install of each, you should see the blue SearchStatus icon somewhere on the top or bottom of Firefox.
If you right-click the icon, you can set the “Options.”
Here’s how I’ve set mine up:
Next, right-click on the blue icon once again, then hover your mouse over “Enable” and make sure Page Rank and Alexa Rank are ticked:
After doing all that, it should look similar to this:
See how, as you click between different websites or blogs, the green and blue bars change? Also, note that you can hover your mouse over either bar to get the actual score or rank for each”

February 22, 2014 4:07 am

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

richard
February 22, 2014 4:24 am

oh dear,
trends – clmatechange.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=climatechange

richard
February 22, 2014 4:28 am

sorry for hogging the comments but you can have a lot of fun on the google trends,
Al Gore,
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=al%20gore

sherlock1
February 22, 2014 4:29 am

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

MikeP
February 22, 2014 5:22 am

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

Jimbo
February 22, 2014 5:48 am

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

Jimbo
February 22, 2014 5:49 am

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

Jimbo
February 22, 2014 6:02 am

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

New York Times – 14 February 2014
I also agree that greenhouse-gas induced warming will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of breaking cold temperature records — the data already show this. Not only will this occur via general global warming but also because enhanced Arctic warming will make any future southward excursions of Arctic airmasses warmer on average, reducing the contrast between them and mid-latitude airmasses. So when a deep trough like the one this winter happens in the future, the southward surge of cold air won’t be as extreme.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/global-warming-winter-weather-and-the-olympics-five-leading-climate-scientists-weigh-in/

Here is something she prepared earlier.

BBC
According to Prof Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University in New Jersey: “This does seem to suggest that weather patterns are changing and people are noticing that the weather in their area is not what it used to be.”
The meandering jet stream has accounted for the recent stormy weather over the UK and the bitter winter weather in the US Mid-West remaining longer than it otherwise would have.
We can expect more of the same and we can expect it to happen more frequently,” says Prof Francis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166

Climate scientists are not what they used to be either.

February 22, 2014 6:48 am

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

February 22, 2014 7:10 am

OK, here goes:
“Green House Gasses” add to the warming of the atmosphere.
CO2 is one of the “Green House Gasses”.
CO2 then adds somewhat to a warming atmosphere (exact amount of warming not known).
A warming atmosphere equals “Global Warming”.
Global Warming equals “Climate Change” (the climate is becoming warmer)
However, Global Cooling also equals “Climate Change”.
Therefore, all Global Warming is Climate Change, but not all Climate Change is Global Warming.
And all Global Cooling is Climate Change, but not all Climate Change is Global Cooling.
Global Warming does not cause a cooling climate.
Global Cooling does not cause a warming climate.
Question: how’s my Eight grade education doing so far?
🙂

Tim Walker
February 22, 2014 7:36 am

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

Bruce Cobb
February 22, 2014 7:50 am

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

anticlimactic
February 22, 2014 8:35 am

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

George Daddis
February 22, 2014 8:55 am

As an example of why it is futile to get into a dialogue with opinion makers who don’t understand the basics:
On FOX the other night Kirsten Powers, a liberal known for her levelheadedness and intelligence (in a segment on the Keystone Pipeline) declared “Even if we find that CO2 does not cause global warming, we can ALL agree that we should do all we can to curb CO2 because it is a pollutant” (a close paraphrase). The FOX host agreed!
NO KIRSTEN, IF WE WERE TO AGREE THAT CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, THEN IT IS GAME OVER!! (Sorry for shouting.) Everything sprouts from that one assumption. We can shut down the IPCC, tell EPA to worry only about particulate matter from smokestacks, approve the Keystone pipeline, take down windmills and solar panels and open federal lands to drilling – just as a start.
Having a global warming conversation with those folks would be like starting a conversation on English Literature by reviewing the alphabet!
The reality, of course, is that all sane people accept that there is some warming due to CO2. The questions are whether the amount due to CO2 is catastrophic, what role natural variation plays (the earth has been covered by ice more frequently than it has been at current temperatures), are there natural “thermostats” like clouds, and whether the the “cure” is worse than the “disease”? (Devastation to western economies, higher fuel bills – 2 to 4 time current US prices per EU’s experience etc.)
There is still a LOT to be learned about the subsystems that drive our climate. The Science is not Settled!
/rant

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

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

noaaprogrammer
February 22, 2014 9:33 am

JohnWho: …Global Warming does not cause a cooling climate.
Global Cooling does not cause a warming climate.
Question: how’s my Eight grade education doing so far?
🙂
Global Warming does cause Global Cooling because what goes up must come down, and Global Cooling does cause Global Warming because what goes down must come up. How’s my Seventh grade education doing?

February 22, 2014 9:51 am

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

richardscourtney
February 22, 2014 10:00 am

Euan Mearns:
Thankyou for your post to me at February 22, 2014 at 9:51 am.
It seems you are building a blog which assesses climate-related UK institutions. So, in hope of helping, I mention an addendum to your flooding article. As you say, the Thames flooding was exacerbated by building a channel which transported water from a region which had a history of minor flooding to another region which had a history of minor flooding. The result was reduction to the minor flooding upstream and conversion of the minor flooding to catastrophe in the region downstream. However, you do not point out that the original scheme was for three channels which would transport excess water to the sea but funding was stopped after the first channel was completed and before the other channels were built.
Richard

February 22, 2014 10:01 am

Poor Jennifer Francis is complaining about being misquoted by some newspapers. Okay Jennifer, I’ll quote directly from an article you wrote:
“The ice cover, only half of what it was only a few decades ago, is a stunning visual demonstration of the effects that increasing greenhouse gases…The loss of ice and snow in the far north may load the dice for “stuck” weather patterns, compounding potential risks for our economy, our health, and our security.”-Jennifer Francis
but now she says…
“some misquoted me (and others) by saying that climate change caused the unusual cold spell.”
Her statement that she was misquoted is untrue. She is either lying or like a sociopath, unable to tell truth from lies.

norah4you
February 22, 2014 10:07 am

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Well well well – something to agree on….. 😛

Jim
February 22, 2014 11:13 am

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

clipe
February 22, 2014 12:32 pm

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

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

I thought ‘ari nailed it.
“As the earf spins…”

euanmearns
February 22, 2014 2:07 pm

@ richardscourtney
My main interests are energy, energy policy and society. Since climate policy lies at the core of energy policy I am inclined to do whatever I can to bring “reality” whatever that is to the climate debate. I believe there is a serious risk in NW Europe over the next 30 years experinecing some serious winter cold events that are outside of the range considered normal and that a few windmills and depleting gas production will leave our electricity delivery systems wanting.
I didn’t know about the cancelled Thames projects. The Jubilee River seems to follow the course of an abandoned channel. I’m not sure how they could build an artificial channel from Staines (?) to the sea through central London. If I were living down stream of the confluence of Jubilee River and River Thames and had been flooded – I’d be pissed off!
E

timg56
February 22, 2014 2:29 pm

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

MojoMojo
February 22, 2014 3:28 pm

http://www.weatheraction.com/resource/data/wact1/docs/USA%201312DEC%2030d%20SLAT9A%20prod29Nov.pdf
Piers Corbyn predicts the path of the polar vortex a month in advance .
He presumes the Suns sunspot activity and surmises its effect on the Earths magnetosphere.
This PDF contains his predictions for Dec 2013.Looks accurate to me.Extreme events are his forte.
Anthony I hope you will take a look.
REPLY: Meh, none of his forecasts are verifiable IMHO, as they are written like astrology in broad generalities. I’ve long since given up on him since he’s so into OTT self-promotion of “successes” – Anthony

Carla
February 22, 2014 4:08 pm

Mac the Knife says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:56 am
Stephen Richards says:
February 22, 20morning 14 at 1:36 am
Good morning Stephen!
How are things in your bit of the world? I’m ‘restless in Seattle’ and feeling a bit peckish with the late night trolls. They usually don’t elicit my ire but I’ve bloody well had my fill of them, of late.
Mac
——————————————————-
Here are some of ren’s contributions brought forth to the endless pursuit of all things “Polar Vortex.”
ren says: January 18, 2014 at 11:45 pm
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf
Interesting, i.e. THE POLAR VORTEX EVOLUTION AS A POSSIBLE REASON FOR THE TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF SOLAR ACTIVITY EFFECTS ON THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE CIRCULATION S.V. Veretenenko:
“It was revealed that the detected earlier ~60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere…
……
ren says: January 19, 2014 at 11:39 pm
Solar activity decreases. Grows cosmic rays. Winter will be long ..
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
………………..
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 31st ICRC, Ł ´ OD´Z 2009 1
Dynamics of the ionizing particle fluxes in the Earth’s atmosphere
http://icrc2009.uni.lodz.pl/proc/pdf/icrc0228.pdf
…………………
Modulation of galactic cosmic rays during the
unusual solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24 2
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.7076.pdf
etc..etc..etc..
………………
But that’s not why I’m here today..
How would vortices like the following found in Earths magnetosphere, finally dissipate. Wonder if they are vertical or horizontal? Another contribution of the energy and particle transportation system from the sun…
“”””“These vortices were really huge structures, about six Earth radii across,” says Hiroshi Hasegawa, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire who has been analysing the data with help from an international team of colleagues. Their results place the size of the vortices at almost 40 000 kilometres each, and this is the first time such structures have been detected.”””””
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster_finds_giant_gas_vortices_at_the_edge_of_Earth_s_magnetic_bubble
More good info Just the Facts, Wilde’s post was pretty good too..
One of us should check for changes in Earth’s differential rotation rate over the last solar min, as compared with other solar min.. And what about the plasmasphere’s co-rotation to a more super rotational state anything new? Or changes in the cusp locations?

Carla
February 22, 2014 4:13 pm

How would vortices like the following found in Earths magnetosphere, finally dissipate. Wonder if they are vertical or horizontal? Another contribution of the energy and particle transportation system from the sun…
“”””“These vortices were really huge structures, about six Earth radii across,” says Hiroshi Hasegawa, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire who has been analysing the data with help from an international team of colleagues. Their results place the size of the vortices at almost 40 000 kilometres each, and this is the first time such structures have been detected.”””””
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster_finds_giant_gas_vortices_at_the_edge_of_Earth_s_magnetic_bubble
More good info Just the Facts, Wilde’s post was pretty good too..
One of us should check for changes in Earth’s differential rotation rate over the last solar min, as compared with other solar min.. And what about the plasmasphere’s co-rotation to a more super rotational state anything new? Or changes in the cusp locations?

Rabe
February 23, 2014 3:06 am

@JohnWho you forgot:
Stirring your coffee with a spoon makes it hotter.

February 23, 2014 6:41 am

Rabe says:
February 23, 2014 at 3:06 am
@JohnWho you forgot:
Stirring your coffee with a spoon makes it hotter.

I didn’t drink coffee when in the 8th Grade,
But I believe you are correct – my spoon does get hotter when I stir hot coffee.

February 23, 2014 6:45 am

noaaprogrammer says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:33 am
JohnWho: …Global Warming does not cause a cooling climate.
Global Cooling does not cause a warming climate.
Question: how’s my Eight grade education doing so far?
🙂
Global Warming does cause Global Cooling because what goes up must come down, and Global Cooling does cause Global Warming because what goes down must come up. How’s my Seventh grade education doing?

Dang, we may be candidates for honorary Climate Science PhDs!
Although, I do believe it is not either Global Cooling or Global Warming that causes the opposite, it is the change in the underlying causes of either the Global Cooling or Global Warming that causes the climate to change.
I’m saying that, just ’cause I can.

baart1980
February 23, 2014 7:14 am

so tell me why we have so warm February in Poland ? is it vortex ?

pochas
February 23, 2014 9:38 am

justthefactswuwt says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:22 pm
“How does the energy from the ionosphere and upper mesosphere propagate downward at least ~40 km when atmospheric pressure above 50 km is essentially nil?”
Because mass flow downward transports energy downward, finally forming the temperature inversion of which I spoke, at a much lower altitude than your diagram would seem to indicate.
http://createarcticscience.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/temperature-inversion-in-the-arctic/
This inversion is sporadic and depends on solar activity. It puts a ceiling on convection in the lower troposphere, but at high altitude it becomes the high velocity steering wind of the polar vortex. The return flow (and there surely is a return flow) is an altitude of several km. This will result in surface warming because the lapse rate links the maximum adiabat (temperature corresponding to pressure altitude at constant entropy) to the surface temperature. When the vortex is disrupted as at present, the continents cool but the pole warms and polar sea ice melts, especially if influx of North Atlantic seawater is also a factor.

Carla
February 23, 2014 3:33 pm

ren says:
February 23, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Carla what do you think?
—————————————–
We could use more vertical columns of warm air moving towards the poles to raise that thing back up. The warm air seems to be lacking some power behind and is being kept at bay from making any major impact on the N. pole..
Any predictions for how long this polar Vortex will continue on?
Still very energetic at 70 hPa and 10 hPa on the Earth Wind Map.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-89.71,86.40,381
If you use the temperature with wind, you can still find it by temp at 250 hPa. Well by temp., all the way down..

Carla
February 23, 2014 3:42 pm

More flannel lined jeans and long underwear for me this week..
And it wasn’t mild or pleasant, around these parts, but wind howling and cold..
Another blast of cold air is expected in the central and eastern U.S. for the upcoming week
“”After a mild and pleasant weekend for many, winter will make a harsh return to much of the central and eastern United States. Frigid air will first impact the northern Plains on Monday before diving south and east throughout the week. By Wednesday, most of the Great Lakes will have single digit high temperatures and parts of the Tennessee Valley will struggle to rise above freezing. ”’

Carla
February 23, 2014 4:27 pm

So many variables and so many different kinds of vortices impacting Earth parameters..
Travelling Convection Vortices, yes sir, TCV.
Simultaneous traveling convection vortex events and Pc1 wave bursts at cusp latitudes observed in Arctic Canada and Svalbard
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50604/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
J. L. Posch, M. J. Engebretson, A. J. Witte, D. L. Murr,
M. R. Lessard, M. G. Johnsen, H. J. Singer, M. D. Hartinger
Article first published online: 18 OCT 2013
[1] Traveling convection vortices (TCVs), which appear in ground magnetometer records at near-cusp latitudes as solitary ~5 mHz pulses, are a signature of dynamical processes in the ion foreshock upstream of the Earth’s bow shock that can stimulate transient compressions of the dayside magnetosphere. These compressions can also increase the growth rate of electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves, which appear in ground records at these same latitudes as bursts of Pc1 pulsations. In this study we have identified TCVs and simultaneous Pc1 burst events in two regions, Eastern Arctic Canada and Svalbard, using a combination of fluxgate magnetometers and search coil magnetometers in each region. By looking for the presence of TCVs and Pc1 bursts in two different sequences, we have found that the distribution of Pc1 bursts was more tightly clustered near local noon than that of TCV events, that neither TCVs nor Pc1 bursts were always associated with the other, and even when they occurred simultaneously their amplitudes showed little correlation……….

Carla
February 23, 2014 5:33 pm

These TCV’s are interesting enough all by themselves..
Multi-instrument observations from Svalbard of a traveling convection vortex, electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave burst, and proton precipitation associated with a bow shock instability
6 June 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50291/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
“””This burst was associated with one of a series of ~50 nT magnetic impulses observed at the northernmost stations of the IMAGE magnetometer array. Hankasalmi SuperDARN radar data showed a west-to-east (antisunward) propagating vortical ionospheric flow in a region of high spectral width ~ 1–2° north of Svalbard, confirming that this magnetic impulse was the signature of a traveling convection vortex”””

ren
February 23, 2014 10:00 pm

Carla will be now very cold in the U.S.. Clearly visible blockade over the Siberia.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-125.01,58.49,635

ren
February 24, 2014 12:00 am

Such is forecast Jetstreamu. You can see the impact of shifts polar vortex.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-125.01,58.49,635

Sundownerdean
February 24, 2014 2:31 pm

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

rbateman
February 24, 2014 10:03 pm

” Sundownerdean says:
February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm
And don’t forget Al Gore. Where’s he hanging out these days?”
Al Gore is making the speaking rounds as the political debate over Climate Change heats up.
Last place was in Kansas City.
And that darn Polar Vortex is expected to return, bringing down temps to as much as 30 degrees below average.

rbateman
February 24, 2014 10:22 pm

Where did the warm air go that displaced the Polar Vortex?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Looks like it came in waves to 80N.
And what do you suppose happened to that heat energy in the Arctic night?
My guess is that it radiated out to space. It surely didn’t pour forth down on Canada and the US.
How’s the ocean temp anomaly doing these days?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Looking rather on the cool side of things.
What a year it’s been. Antarctica spent a full year in record high sea ice territory.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone could logically conclude that the Earth is warming.
Oh well, to each his own.

ren
February 25, 2014 9:07 am

Current state of ozone.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2rpf90n.jpg

ren
February 26, 2014 12:01 pm

I suggest you to go back a little earlier and a little above the 6 January 2014 and a height of 45 km.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2la3m9h.jpg

ren
February 26, 2014 12:14 pm

This current polar vortex at 17 km. The real magic.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2vaxjwm.jpg

ren
February 26, 2014 9:00 pm

You can go back to December 7, 2013. Lock was already in December.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2iwaiag.jpg

ren
February 26, 2014 9:31 pm
March 1, 2014 11:27 pm

Wikipedia is citing research linking the polar vortex with global warming…
see… Possible role of anthropogenic climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2014_North_American_cold_wave

%d bloggers like this: