Image Credits: Soft Pixel – clker.com – Cagel.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.
So:
Heat-related blocking events: caused by global warming.Cold-related blocking events: not caused by global warming.
Got to love science.
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.
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.
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
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
Brent Walker says: February 21, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Two days after the CME of March 15, 2013 the solar magnetic field strength was very weak and the resultant combined magnetic field lines caused so much plasma to be absorbed that the stratosphere above the north pole warmed by some 50 deg C.
As such:
And here is a significant warming over the north pole at 50 hPa / mb in January 2013:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="564"]
According to;
It is true that CMEs are a potential factor in Polar Vortex behavior as
In relation to our recent weak vortex event, a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME); hit Earth around January 1st;
NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="601"]
and the Magnetosphere was rocking and rolling:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="514"]
Certainly interesting, but I have not seen evidence that sufficient energy can be transported low enough in the atmosphere to influence Earth’s climate.
The AO went below -5 for 3 days (March 20-22) and this has happened only 4 other times since the AO has been recorded (Feb 1969, March 1970, Dec 2009 and Feb 2010).
This could be happenstance, CMEs are reasonably common, especially during solar max, i.e.:
I think there is much more to learn about the mechanisms that influence polar vortexes before we will understand them.
I could not agree more.
Bill:
Your post at February 21, 2014 at 9:38 pm says in total
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
@ur momisugly 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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Will Nelson says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:21 am
Will,
‘No harm, no foul!’
Mac
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
write five preeminent climate scientists
Where? There are no pre-eminent climate scientist that I am aware of.
poles was sucked souf
Spelling error. Don’t like to point these out but souf should be sarf.
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.
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
You mean like the AGW Believer Deniers ?
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
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.
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
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.
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/