Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.
It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real
Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017
This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.
…
Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.
The Arctic is warming much faster than most of the planet, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of sea ice that covers the region each winter. That loss of ice has allowed more heat to transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, causing a weakening of the polar vortex winds over the Arctic. Those winds usually “insulate the rest of the Northern Hemisphere” from freezing Arctic temperatures, Overpeck said. But as the winds have weakened, it’s gotten easier for freezing Arctic air to swoop further south, he said.
“That is due to the warming of the Arctic, which in turn is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and primarily burning of fossil fuels,” Overpeck said in an interview.
Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest, although the science on that front is less certain, Overpeck said. Unlike most of the rest of North America, the Southwest is warmer than usual right now, and 2017 will “without a doubt” go down as one of the region’s hottest years ever measured, Overpeck said.
“This is contributing to our record wildfires in California, and the drying out of vegetation that’s leading to those wildfires, and the drying out of the Southwest’s water,” he said.
…
So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future (see the graph at the top of the page).
… Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.
Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.
Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …
Read more: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf
Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.
…
1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable
Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.
Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable.
Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.
This difficulty doesn’t mean that climate models or climate science are invalid or untrustworthy. Climate models are carefully developed and evaluatedbased on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes. This is why climatologists have confidence in them as scientific tools, not because of ideas around falsifiability.
The Conversation: Climate change has changed the way I think about science. Here’s why
No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle.
Whatever the observation, the climate explainers have their theory – their infinitely adaptable theory, which they claim is science. Warm weather confirms their worst fears. Cold weather is waved away. Whatever the observation, the explainers shamelessly adapt their theory to provide an explanation, based on their “scientific” theory which cannot be falsified by any conceivable observations, event an abrupt plunge into a new ice age.
NSIDC: ice extent Dec.28, 2000 = 13.065 km2, Dec. 28, 2017 = 12.421 km2, about 5% < ice extent, this is supposed to be a big climate changing condition?
“The more it Melts, the more it Freezes”. Must be some significant cause and effect to saltier brine water melting and re-freezing every year and sinking into the thermocline that affects ocean currents over long term time scales.
Say what you will but I’m completely sure that Global Warming is increasing the number of hairballs my cat hacks up!
Consider me Warmsplained lol
This is the perfect lie. Nothing can possibly or impossibly disprove what has been deemed absolute truth.
As a degreed man of science, I have both used and ascribe to the scientific method on a frequent if not daily basis. Knowing what I know about climate “science” and this sort of assertion by the gatekeepers of the discipline, it churns my stomach to think that actual science—and the importance of falsifiability—is seen with such disregard as to be prevented from even being discussed.
Religious dogma is not falsifiable. Which is where the climateers are now.
Climate Change – The new religion of the Left.
Absolutely.
+100!
Exactly the way I feel about this anti-science deceit.
I am terribly confused here. They say that the Arctic is warming at an unprecedented rate, but the cold now being experienced by the Northern US is from freezing Arctic winds. Warm or Cold, which is it?? Are they suggesting there are warm parts of the Arctic and cold parts. Where are they, specifically?
AussieBear.
They are at the part where they have to change their lies.
Same place they have always been.
There are warmer and colder areas in the arctic. At present, there is a large cold air mass covering parts of eastern Canada and the U.S., with warmer areas to the west.
This whole conglomeration will slowly rotate from west to east around the Northern Hemisphere. A big glob of cold air moves slowly.
Well, you see, all of the heat hiding in the ocean forces the cold to pool in the water around the North Pole. If there were more Arctic ice, that would trap the cold under it and the Northern Hemisphere would have mild, Spring-like Winters, thanks to AGW-er-AGCCC. However, since the ice isn’t there, all that cold jumps out of the ocean and rushes Southward, cackling and crackling, finally free of the oppressive heat that’s hiding in the oceans.
Or, something.
CAGW is falsifiable only by complete denial of research funding.
It really is like a Hydra beast… a many-headed beast. Cut-off one head, another pops-up somewhere else. The funding cut-off must happen at the source. The NSF. Our tax dollars being thrown away for bad science.
Climate is however (IMO) worthy of scientific study, and thus some public funding. But much, much less than current. The current state encourages alarmists claims to garner ever more funding. This must stop.
We aren’t getting climate studies. We’re getting rationalization masquerading as science as an excuse to keep the money train rolling.
Sadly, like Marvel’s Hydra, they have agents, infiltrators and True Believers in every organiztion that should be opposing and stopping them. I’m beginning to think that the only way to stop the Climastrologists is with US DOJ RICO charges.
The Santa Ana winds are caused by cold dry high pressure / very dense air in the interior of the US getting funnelled out the valleys in California as it loses elevation and like a chinook it warms up and gets insanely dry that dries out everything very very fast causing the wildfire problems, it’s air that travels from the interior to the ocean. So the wildfire problem is because of the cold dense air in the interior.
It’s hard to think this person shouldn’t understand this.
It seems to me as if the author is applying Temperate logic to an Arid/Desert region.
The presumed sensitivity of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2 is indeed falsifiable as both data and theory tell us that the last average W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun increased the average temperature by no more than 0.3C. The presumed linearity between temperature and forcing gets in the way of seeing why this falsifies the consensus sensitivity as it obscures the theoretical and measured linear relationship between forcing and incremental W/m^2 of surface emissions.
Given that all Joules are equivalent and all 240 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing from the Sun must on average contribute equally to the emissions of the surface, each W/m^2 contributes about 1.6 W/m^2 to the surface emissions where the next 1.6 W/m^2 of emissions from another W/m^2 of forcing would arise from a surface temperature increase from 288K to 288.3K. The prediction of the IPCC sensitivity that the last W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun increased the surface temperature by 0.8C +/- 0.4C is clearly falsified. Moreover; a sensitivity metric expressed as degrees per W/m^2 has a non linear 1/T^3 dependence as T (the temperature) increases.
If as the IPCC suggests, the last W/m^2 of forcing increased the average temperature from 287.2K to 288K, the average surface emissions must have increased by about 4.3 W/m^2. If all Joules contribute equally, then each of the 240 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing must also contributes 4.3 W/m^2 to surface emissions adding up to over 1000 W/m^2 corresponding to an average surface temperature close to the boiling point of water. The prediction of the IPCC sensitivity that the surface temperature should be close to the boiling point of water is clearly falsified by the causal observer.
Interestingly enough, I had a discussion tonight with someone on ECS. Their counter question was on EBCS. Equilibrium Biological Climate Sensitivity. Quite the question in the end.
Where is Mosher on this item anyhow? Steven?
Of course, by this logic, the warmest period of the last 1000 years was The Little ice Age.
Humanity’s greatest advancements have largely come from the times of necessity for adaptation and invention to counter extreme adversity and change.
We will make advances on nuclear power (and other energy sources not envisioned) and energy efficiencies when the pressing need comes again.
Currently we are in the Age of Abundance. The pressing needs of necessity are not here right now. So we squabble rather than invent.
The “Age of Abundance” applies only to a small percentage of the world’s population. There is always and everywhere “pressing needs of necessity” in the human experience, Joel.
@Dave Fair
And why is that Dave? Couldn’t be due to greed and corruption now, could it?
Inventing goes hand in hand with revolution.
Think about it.
Greed and corruption are facts of human existence, Yirgach. It is only where individual freedoms and the rule of law prevail that they are minimized.
Massive society-wide corruption is a hallmark of socialist systems. Name me any exceptions.
Additionally, over time invention goes hand in hand with individual possession of property, not some undefined “revolution.”
A down home person might reasonably ask, “If the Arctic has warmed so much, where is the cold air coming from?”
Of course, it is just small anomaly justifying all that red coloring up there, and it is still bloody cold. That doesn’t play well down home either. If you are going to make like palm trees will be growing in the Yukon soon, don’t tell country folks climate change is why they are freezing their butts.
Nobody really knows why the amplitude of the Rossby waves sloshing out of the Arctic changes. The Russians have kept an Arctic Oscillation Index since the fifties. It gauges zonal vs meridional flow. Zonal flow (the kind the missionaries would have you believe keeps the cold corralled) actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.
“Nobody really knows why the amplitude of the Rossby waves sloshing out of the Arctic changes. The Russians have kept an Arctic Oscillation Index since the fifties. It gauges zonal vs meridional flow. Zonal flow (the kind the missionaries would have you believe keeps the cold corralled) actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.”
They do know but the causes/effects are complex with chaos coming to play.
ENSO state (even where coldest waters are exactly re the current LaNina).
QBO: an easterly quasi-tropical oscillation, as now, favours more reflction of Planetary (Rossby) waves into the Arctic in the first part of winter. An El Nino, the second half.
Low solar – yes reduced UV does reduce the strengnth of the Stratospheric PV, and can tip the balance re formation of a -ve AO.
The speed of formation of the Eurasian snowfield is correlated with a stronger winter Siberian high and migration into the Arctic.
Sorry but your – zonal flow “actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.” is an oxymoron as by definition if cold air moves south then warm air must move north replace it. Basic meteorology has it that easterly winds surrounding an area of HP (a -ve AO) develop if wamer air is at it’s core (in the NH the thermal flow aloft is from warm to cold and deflected to the right) and thus decends/warms as a result of convergence aloft and subsidence (leading to divergence at the surface).
Cold plunges into the USA are neither unusual, nor are they likely to become so any decade soon.
It is simply a meander that the PJS takes as to meteorology of the N Pacific and the Rockies favours. Look at where the last ice sheet limit was FI.
Meanwhile the 96% of the NH that is not the good ol’ US of A (excluding the west) is overwhelmingly warmer than average.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat2_t2anom_1-day.png
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat3_t2anom_1-day.png
Isn’t it nice for NE Russia to get a nice warm -30ºC instead of -45ºC 🙂
Should have, of course , included Canada in the cold plunge.
Ah “good ol temperature anomalies ” and climate nationalism which makes meteorology more of a social science than a pure science.
“Climate Change Institute”? At least they are honest about their bias.
Klyastorin and Lyubushin (2007)
Further from the above:
As goes the Arctic, so goes the globe.
High pressure is “warm core” in both hemispheres, and I’m glad you brought that up. Go to nullschool, set it to air, surface, with an overlay of MSLP (surface pressure). Spin it to the Antarctic and you can see it is totally hogging the planetary surface low pressure right now. Zoom up to the stratosphere at 10hpa. You see hemispheric ANTIcyclonic flow.
Do the same exercise in the Arctic. You see predominantly CYCLONIC flow aiding and abetting the “dipole”.
Tightening a screw in the northern hemisphere is an apt analogy for anticyclonic high pressure at the surface. The southern hemisphere has left hand threads.
Ever notice how curiously hot it is where there are no thermometers?
It’s no wonder proper scientists are worried about the damage that so-called “climate scientists” are doing to the field of science. These charlatans should all be put to work shoveling snow.
This global warming scam has to last at least for another 15 to 20 years until the last “climate scientist” has retired. Until then there has at least enough money for the salary. So if temperature rises or falls, nothing can be a sign of cooling – its only a temporary event.
The North Pole is really hot now……:
https://www.yr.no/place/North_Pole/Other/North_Pole/long.html?spr=eng
/sarc (as if needed).
Arctic warming seems to be causing massive ice mass growth in Greenland.
Eeeeeeeek!
This ‘heads you lose, tails I win approach’ is a sign of many things. One of which is how climate ‘science’ offers a happy and comfortable home to third rate academics that otherwise would find it hard to get work in an high school.
For has you can never be ‘wrong’ you never have to worry about being right beyond keeping to the dogma.
I would love to be able to ask these guys some follow-up questions. Global warming induced cooling would be a negative feedback. Then the “settled science” theory of runaway global warming is no longer considered valid? If temperatures cooled back to the 1970s (or whatever the ‘golden age of climate’ was), wouldn’t all effects of warming end, since there would no longer be any warming, and everyone be happy? And if that is the case, is there any reason to keep funding climate research? You are implying that global warming is a self-correcting problem.
#1 A pseudo linear progression statistical analysis is NOT a model
Wow, it is as if they make this shit up as needed. Notice how their model did not predict deeper, longer and more frequent blasts of arctic air? But a model must be able to predict events and not merely “explain” them away when they occur. This is exactly what intelligent skeptics point out. These models HAVE NO PREDICTION VALUE. Ad hoc jargon-choked SCIENCEY speculations replace predictability.
Since you are all going to be driving electric vehicles soon , I wondered what effect these temperatures would have on such a vehicle which is charging outside on the street at night.
I doubt if just a quick Google will provide the complete answer , but this might give some indication:
Battery type Charge temperature Discharge temperature Charge advisory
Lead acid –20°C to 50°C –20°C to 50°C Charge at 0.3C or lessbelow freezing.
NiCd, NiMH 0°C to 45°C –20°C to 65°C Charge at 0.1C between –18°C and 0°C.
Li-ion 0°C to 45°C –20°C to 60°C No charge permitted below freezing.
Table 1: Permissible temperature limits for various batteries. Batteries can be discharged over a large temperature range, but the charge temperature is limited. For best results, charge between 10°C and 30°C (50°F and 86°F). Lower the charge current when cold.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_low_temperatures
I have left out the F temperatures and simplified the text format slightly in the (probably forlorn ) hope that the posted comment does not mangle it up.
“no charge permitted below freezing” for Li ion batteries ? Is that correct ? Surely not . For what then is the future for the multitude of rapid charging TESLA outlets being installed along all the motorways in the UK in conditions such as we are currently experiencing?
Entirely true. Lithium-ion batteries cannot be charged below freezing. For applications where the battery is required to be charged in below-freezing temperatures, a battery heater is employed.
Climate science is based on hypothetical data aets hence why it is a hypothetical exercise. Pure science. It is not actionable. Hence all arguments are valid and invalid as they are all hypothetical. This is logic 101.
Hypothesis is only consistent within its argument frame. Climate science is only consistent if you ignore reality.
“The Arctic is warming much faster than most of the planet, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of sea ice that covers the region each winter. ”
Here is data from the only actual measurements (as opposed to models) of the amount of sea ice (from Cryosat):
http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html?show_cell_thk_ts_large=1&ts_area_or_point=all&basin_selected=0&show_basin_thickness=0&year=2017&season=Spring&thk_period=28
Do you see any “dramatic decline”? Note that measurements are not possible during the melting season since there is no way to distinguish melt pools on the ice from open sea.
I just looked at the NSIDC page and there’s an historical graph for the extent of arctic ice but not one for Antarctica ice extent? I’m sure they used to show both on the same page. Apologies if I’ve missed something.
To Anthony et al Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.
Is it too hot, asks Goldilocks? Global Warming (GW). Is it too cold? GW. Is it just right? GW. The answer to any weather related question is: GW. The sheer nonsense of it escapes the AGW adherents.
What the real big news is , is the overall cooling of the oceanic surface waters now down to +.155c from summer readings around +.34c.
If the oceans continue to cool so will the global temperatures and this should put an end to the global warming hype.
One of my big plays is very low solar would cause oceanic temperatures to cool. So far so good.
oceanic temperatures in the summer were as high as +.37c (often) above normal on this graph which does not go back that far.
Oceanic temperature changes are a big climatic deal.