Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Some claim the entire notion that human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is causing global warming is a deliberately created myth, that it was produced to isolate CO2 as a serious environmental problem that required curtailing the economies of developed countries. To enhance the threat required endangerment to plants, animals, and humans. The list of threats is endless because proponents of AGW can take everyday natural events and say they are not ‘normal.’ They know that most don’t know what is normal, as I discussed in a previous article, and that what is a ‘normal’ climate, changes with time. Many people use these interchangeably with natural and unnatural. The list of myths attributed to global warming is endless, but one started a few years ago titled, “A complete list of things caused by global warming” keeps expanding.
There is added confusion in the climate debates because proponents continually interchange ‘natural’ and ‘normal.’ It is a reflection of the philosophical and intellectual confusions and contradictions that result from the deception. It probably also reflects the underlying anti-humanity of many extreme environmentalists. For example, in Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report (1990), edited by Jeremy Leggett, says CO2 is added to the atmosphere naturally and unnaturally. By unnatural they mean the portion comes from humans. Is it reasonable to assume that if what we do as animals is unnatural, then we are unnatural? Goethe confronted the dilemma when he said,
“The unnatural – that too is natural.”
Ironically, the marketplace passed judgment on Leggett’s work. A paperback edition is available for one (1) cent assuming you are prepared to pay the $3.99 shipping. By comparison, a 2004 second edition of a true work of science, Jean Grove’s The Little Ice Age, originally published in 1988, is available in hardcover discounted at $657.82 with free shipping.
Combine these confusions of natural and unnatural, normal and abnormal with incorrect science and you create myths such as the claim that with global warming storms will become more frequent and severe.
The most frequent type of storms, which probably kill far more people over time than hurricanes or any other extreme weather phenomenon, is Mid-Latitude Cyclones. Figure 1 shows a map of the Low-Pressure Center and the wave that forms to create Cold and Warm Fronts.
The Mid-Latitude Cyclones form along the Polar Front and track from west to east usually going through a sequence called Cyclogenesis (Figure 2).
The critical thing is not the cold air per se, but what it does when it moves. The focus on warm air created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their political agenda means that most people don’t know that the cold air dictates what happens in the atmosphere. As Low Pressure intensifies the Cold air advances creating the Cold Front. This advancing air adds further instability to the warm moist air creating the potential for tornadoes. Cold air retreating creates the Warm Front.
The (IPCC) predict that with global warming these Mid-Latitude Cyclones will increase in frequency and severity. The problem is this is scientifically incorrect, which creates the dilemma that either they are incompetent or intend to deceive: either way it is an indictment.
Figure 3
Figure 3 is a simple schematic of the two major air masses that separate the atmosphere. It is almost the same in the Southern Hemisphere, except with latitudinal and intensity differences due to land/water ratios. The Polar Front is coincident with the line of Zero Energy Balance (ZEB) shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Figure 4 shows the average position of the ZEB and therefore the Polar Front. Figure 5 shows the average summer and winter positions.
Figure 5
The tracks of the storms vary seasonally as the ZEB/Polar front migrates. A second factor that influences the storm tracks are the Rossby Waves that form in the Polar Front. There are two basic patterns, Zonal (Figure 6) and Meridional (Figure 7).
Figure 6 Figure 7
The strength of the Circumpolar Vortex (Jet Stream) and intensity of the storms created are a function of the temperature difference across the Polar Front known as the Zonal Index. It is defined as;
A measure of strength of the middle-latitude westerlies, expressed as the horizontal pressure difference between 35° and 55° latitude, or as the corresponding geostrophic wind.
The pressure difference is a function of the temperature difference, the greater the temperature difference, the greater the pressure difference the stronger the winds and the potential for more severe storms. The IPCC say that global warming will occur more in the cold polar air than in the tropical air. The result of this reduces the Zonal Index and the energy potential for Mid-Latitude Cyclones.
Everybody knows a broken clock is accurate twice a day. Such is the situation with the AGW proponents claims of increased storminess, which will occur, but not because of warming but cooling. The current situation is problematic because the world is cooling as all the evidence of changing solar activity indicates. Historical evidence shows that storminess increases during cooling. Lamb identified the periods of significant cooling in the overall cooling trend from the apex of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA). He identified nine distinctive features on page 452 in Climate: Present, Past, and Future. Item (6) reads,
Evidence of increasing severity of the windstorms and resulting sea floods and disasters by shifting sand in latitudes 50 – 60°N, particularly in the 13th century, and between about 1400 and 1450 and about 1530 – 1700 (the great North Sea storms of 1530, 1570, 1634 and 1694, the Hebridean storm of 1697 and the storm described by Daniel Defoe which passed across southern England in December 1703 seem to have been of a severity unmatched in the records from other times except by those mentioned above between 1212 and 1362).
Defoe traveled across England and sought input on the nature and intensity of the storm, the loss of lives and extent of the damage. He published his findings (Figure 8).
Figure 8
The particular cold spell that pushed the ZEB and Polar Front further toward the Equator at that time caused considerable difficulties. In 1695 the Reverend John Shower published a sermon titled, “Winter meditations: or, a Sermon concerning Frost, and Snow, and Winds, &c (sic).” It culminated in the exceptionally cold year of 1709. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society reported,
People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken’s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.
You need lesser myths to support a big myth. Such is the history of the global warming deception. In science, as Einstein said,
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment completely wrong.
The problem is when you are dealing with myths it is the opposite.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me wrong; a single experiment completely right.
The fact that storms increase with global cooling will appear to support the myth that they are due to warming. Sadly, you only need one apparently substantiated myth to keep the entire mythology alive.
‘Normal’ for the last three million years is Ice Age super cold weather. Interglacials are short and abnormal.
Tim Ball is spot on. It drives meteorologists crazy to repeatedly hear climate blather as he describes that runs contrary to everything that is taught in atmospheric science about severe weather and storm behavior.
The climate establishment is incompetent and has everything backwards with respect to meteorology and atmospheric science. It is actually the practice of environmental religion that is tied to left wing politics that use it to advance destructive political policies to control energy and create a new slew of regulations and taxes that will accomplish nothing except destroy the economy and job opportunities.
And if we look at the political circles that want to prosecute and silence dissent on this subject using the RICO statutes, it appears to me that academia, who is advancing this nonsense, would also like to insulate itself from ever having to accept any responsibility for the gross deceptions and incompetence they are placing upon the public. In their minds, I’m sure they feel if this continues as they would like the government to make it do, then their future funding would become free of any future scrutiny regardless of accuracy or incompetence. Just as some politicians would like so as to assist them in continuing to advance their destructive, controlling policies and taxes upon the public. It appears new and rich sources of revenue to government are more important than the truth.
Excellent! Spot on Chuck Wiese!
Mike Macray
Agree totally.
My observations are that many climate scientists have limited training or not up to speed on the basics of meteorology, but rather have a PhD in maths or physics and then just specialise in one or two climate related topics.
Most meteorologists have an in-depth broad knowledge of weather, climate and computer model flaws and strengths. We know instantly when we hear exagerated claims from climate scientists because we are working with weather and climate everyday.
I am an independent UK Met Office trained Met with 22 years experience.
Some of the claims from the AGW side are just made up or if I were to be generous il-informed.
Climate scientists are hired only if they believe in the climate change fantasy, and then they make scary predictions because that’s what they are paid for.
Governments get the “science” they pay for … just like the cigarette companies did.
In other words, Political Correctness goes hand in hand with Scientific Incorrectness.
“Rapid changes in sea level and associated destabilization of climate at the turbulent close of the last interglacial maximum appear to be recorded directly in the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary structures of carbonate platform islands in the Bahamas. Considered together, the observations presented here suggest a rapid rise, short crest, and rapid fall of sea level at the close of 5e.
“The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!
conclude Neuman and Hearty (1996) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Hearty/publication/249518169_Neumann_A_C_Hearty_P_J_Rapid_sea-level_changes_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_substage_5e_recorded_in_Bahamian_island_geology_Geology_24_775-778/links/0c96051c6e66749912000000.pdf
We have to define the word ‘rapid’.
A period of 14000 years is a mere blink in geological time so, yes, rapid is the right word to use … as long as we don’t lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with geological time.
Of course Global Warming or CO2 is the universal cause for everything: cooling, the shooting in Orlando, Trump, Clinton, the sink hole in Ottawa…
Strangely, I think global warming may be partly the cause of Donald Trump.
Folks realize that they have been lied to by both party establishments. CAGW is one of the bigger lies. No matter who they vote for, things don’t improve. Thus they will support Trump who hasn’t betrayed them … yet.
commieB,
That choice is far more rational than trusting someone who has betrayed people around her, no? I would suggest asking Ambassador Chris Stevens if she’s trustworthy, but he’s unavailable for comment… ☹
As you said, both parties lie, and CAGW is one of their bigger lies. But when we cut through the incessant ad hominem deflection (which we’ll be subjected to ad nauseum from now until November), the choice is really between a successful builder (122+ skyscrapers, plus many other projects), versus someone who would be a complete unknown (and more likely than not, with a criminal record) if she had not married an ex-prez. The luck of the draw, I guess.
Can you name one outstanding accomplishment acheived by Mrs. C as Secretary of State, or anything else?
Neither can I.
…Oh, wait. She accomplished being born a woman. So she gets that bragging right. ☺
The paradigm is that the only thing we should look at is the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface but there is also the temperature of the earth’s surface to consider. The temperature of the actual earth’s surface seems to depend mostly on solar radiation as is agreed when it is stated that the earth heats up during northern hemisphere summer. How ice ages begin and end becomes confused when we can only look at surface atmosphere temperature as solar radiation declines then the temperature of the earth’s surface declines we see this happen during northern hemisphere winter but this also happens over the longer time scale. I live in Lincoln England which during the last ice age had glaciers running down our rivers instead of water, it was on the edge of this glaciation, on average we do not see the ground being frozen even at the coldest time of the year but if we did then glaciers would start to grow as we saw during the little ice age. I measured a ground temperature of 5 degrees last winter (internal unheated flat temperature) even though we were constantly told how mild it was by weather forecasters. How close does that put us to the start of the next ice age?
70+% of the earth’s surface is water (H2O) and when its average yearly temperature starts to DECREASE then for sure, the current interglacial period is in jeopardy of terminating.
I read that here was virtually no frost in southern Minnesota this past winter,late winter, end of Feb, but I drove by a pile of sand in NW Iowa that clearly showed 2 feet of frozen aggregate atop where they were digging to get the loose stuff, at that same time, late Feb. FYI, Iowa is south of Minnesota,,, Moving on….Did you hear? Going to the Sun Road, Glacier park Montana had their earliest open ever?! Never mind, it is closed again…due to June Snow… https://home.nps.gov/applications/glac/roadstatus/roadstatus.cfm
And with myths come the witches and the witchfinders general.
Ach, an’ me wi’oot me steel pin, ken ye!
^_^
Tim Ball’s posts are consistently good, and usually include some politics of climate change scaremongering, which I believe is more important than the (bad) science of predicting a coming climate catastrophe.
I do not agree with Mr. Ball’s prediction of cooling, since I do not believe anyone can predict the future climate, beyond a lucky guess.
We had a flat average temperature trend between the 1998 and 2015 El Nino peaks, that no one predicted, and the only thing I know about the future climate is there will be warming, or cooling, or a flat trend.
Climate change physics is not understood well enough to make accurate predictions, so I wish skeptics would stop making predictions — leave predictions to the warmunists.
The primary problem with government employee climate “science” is demonstrated by 40 years of wrong predictions — how many decades of wrong predictions are required before the obvious conclusion is reached: ‘We can’t predict the climate” ?
We have had 40 years of scary climate predictions — starting with a coming global cooling disaster, and quickly morphing to a coming global warming disaster.
Keeping the global warming fantasy alive is getting more difficult, as more people notice the climate they live in has not changed much, or is better than in past decades
The warmunists have had to make LOUDER predictions, more specific predictions (+2 degrees C. = doom) and more predictions, to keep the general public off balance, and scared.
This leads to every unfavorable weather event being blamed by someone on global warming, and every favorable weather event ignored, or blamed on natural variations.
The huge volume of false reports, “studies”, and predictions overwhelms skeptics, who get bogged down in details, such as average temperatures in tenths of a degree, and tiny adjustments to the data.
The character attacks and ridicule on skeptics are how leftists “debate” everything they believe in.
They treat climate change catastrophe skeptics just like they treat $15/hour minimum wage skeptics – ridicule and character attacks. That’s all they have to “debate” with — not facts, data and logic!
The climate change scam shows that a myth (a coming climate catastrophe) repeated enough times becomes a headline, and to most people the headlines they read are facts.
In general, a typical leftist you know personally will have almost no knowledge of Earth’s climate history, but will claim to “knows” the future climate of Earth in detail — and if you don’t believe in the same coming climate catastrophe, then you are a “climate science denier”.
Climate change seems to be a secular religion for people who reject conventional religions.
Beliefs, fantasies, fear of punishment for not following group norms, etc.
Climate change is 99% politics and 1% science, in my opinion — and the science is bad science, because whatever “science” fits the pre-existing conclusion is accepted … while the conclusion of a coming climate change catastrophe is nothing more than a 40-year old fantasy, cleverly used by left-wing politicians to gain political power over the general population.
Climate blog for non-scientists
Free
No Ads
No money for me
A public service to refute the climate change fantasy
Warmunists should stay away, or risk high blood pressure:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Richard Greene, “I do not agree with Mr. Ball’s prediction of cooling, since I do not believe anyone can predict the future climate, beyond a lucky guess.”
All fair except for the fact that Earth is cooling off constantly, else we’d have baked by now!
If the current Solar minimum continues, and extreme weather increases globally (based on the principles outlined by Mr. Ball), then you may have to reconsider. Already this year there are some record cold and snow in the S. Hem. at the same time as some record late season(almost early Summer) snow and cold in parts of the N. Hem. So, it gets down to predicting Sun Behavior. If it’s not already proveable through observation, I think we’ll know in a few short years whether Tim’s prediction is correct.
It is MHO that there is little to no difference between a “radicalized” Muslim terrorist, ……. a “radicalized” lefty liberal CAGW proponent …… or a “radicalized” lefty liberal highly partisan proponent of the Democrat Party
Such “radicalizations” do not result from a “one time” lecture, …. or a few weeks or several months of “brain washing” rhetoric, …….. but is the result of many years of piss-poor nurturing by parents, guardians, peers, public school teachers and/or false-prophets.
“You are what your environment nurtured you to be.”
“The IPCC say that global warming will occur more in the cold polar air than in the tropical air. The result of this reduces the Zonal Index and the energy potential for Mid-Latitude Cyclones.”
But they also say that increased greenhouse gases will increase positive NAO/AO, which would mean a more northerly and zonal jet flow, and a cooling AMO and Arctic.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Another excellent read from Dr. Tim Ball, demonstrating the ease at which the “global warming (hot)” aka “climate change (hot or cold)” scam proliferates, thrives and survives…
Excerpts:
“Everybody knows a broken clock is accurate twice a day. Such is the situation with the AGW proponents claims of increased storminess, which will occur, but not because of warming but cooling. The current situation is problematic because the world is cooling as all the evidence of changing solar activity indicates. Historical evidence shows that storminess increases during cooling.”
“The fact that storms increase with global cooling will appear to support the myth that they are due to warming. Sadly, you only need one apparently substantiated myth to keep the entire mythology alive.”
Read on…
i think the UNEP played a role in hyping both the ozone depletion scare and the climate change scare because scares serve their purpose.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991