
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.
Dear Global Anthropogentic Climate Change Alarmist;
Do not confuse…
What you wish to be true,
With…
What is actually true.
⬇️⬇️ Videos ⬇️⬇️
(This 1st one is hilarious!)
U.S. Senate Hearing:
Judiciary Subcommittee
Dr. Aaron Mair
[9 min.]
http://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw
U.S. Senate Hearing:
Energy, Environment & Telecom Committee
Dr. Don Easterbrook
[1 hr. 29 min.]
https://youtu.be/EHFfOOF-6Fs
Britain Channel 4 Documentary:
[1 hr. 15 min.]
http://youtu.be/3DpxP7R4aLw
Ninth International Conference
On Climate Change:
Dr. Patrick Moore / Greenpeace Co-Founder
[00:00 min. > 24:00 min.]
https://youtu.be/dIvLEwGS-70
The Origin Of The Global Warming Alarm:
Dr. John Coleman / Weather Channel Founder
[36 min.]
https://youtu.be/RrQxidb4xSQ
Global Warming & Climate Change:
Dr. Roy Spencer
[22 min.]
https://youtu.be/ExgKJpJyDXQ
⬇️⬇️ Text Articles ⬇️⬇️
Who & What Is The IPCC:
[text]
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-ipcc/
IPCC Report Of 4,000 Scientists
Is Actually Not 4,000 Scientists:
[text]
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
NIPCC Report:
Why Scientists Disagree On
Global Anthropogenic Climate Change
[text]
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf
Climate Change Physical Science:
Summary For Policy Makers
[text] 25 pages
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Complete Report
[text] 1,004 pages
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/10-17-2013_ccr-ii_entire_book.pdf
News Articles From The 1970’s:
“The Coming Ice Age”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/23/120-years-of-climate-scares-70s-ice-age-scare/
The Sky Is Falling… Tomorrow!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
crock of hooey. Last winter was very mild until late February early March. It seemed last winter was much more milder than this one. It’s cyclic, always has been, always will be. I remember Christmas, 1970 or 1971. It was warm and sunny outside and my brothers and I were running our new STP’s (race cars) on the street without our jackets on. Them the Christmas of 1972 we were out sledding in a foot of snow. Its all cylic. Climate Change is bull hockey, it’s a scam!!
About 10 years ago, during a cold winter, a co-worker of mine, who was a PhD, tried to explain to me that global cold was caused by global warming. I l listened to his logic then ask “what if global warming is caused by global cold?” He went off mumbling to himself very confused.
The narrow ranges of enthalpy of water molecules, from solid, liquid, gas account for weather patterns.
This basic thermodynamics explains the steam and water cycle, and also applies to the three phases found in the oceans, lakes, rivers…
But, becsuse it’s explanation is beyond the intellect of the average “thinker”, NEVER do the climate philosophers use the basic science to explain the obvious.
This allows the warming scam to go on snd on. Most are simply too lazy to learn the facts, which are not really so difficult to comprehend.
do you realize these same such “experts” on climate science have no reasoning on why we even had an Ice Age. Then, they offer zero tangible opinion on how the Ice Age collapsed. In fact, they can’t explain how the North American continent covered in a mile thick crust of glacial ice could melt so fast and NO EXPLANATION as to where the Heat came from to melt thousands and thousands of miles of one mile thick ice.
Yet, these same such blowhards can spew off all this double talk we are all gunna die “if” we don’t do what they tell us.
really folks believing on the liberal side. You are committing all of us, to follow along with Global Warming when clear evidence shows they manipulated their so called science to fit their ill fitting story.
What is clear in the historical records of the past 100,000 years plus, we are overdue for a hardline Ice Age. A BIG ONE at that… So how do you explain, where Quebec Canada is, turning into a massive frozen one mile deep thick crust of ice. Siberia being seasonally cold with wholly Mammoths grazing on the grasslands. But Canada from coast to coast, and a good portion of the USA covered in a mile of ice.
A new Ice Age is going to be here long before we all burn up according to the Climate Change goofballs predictions happen.
Please liberal climate change scientists, how do you melt tens of thousands of miles of mile thick glacial ice with 144 BTU’s per cubic foot of ice. Where did the heat come from?
after much research I have found the formula that explains globull warming: X times Y = Z (X being the number of dollars received in grants that “experts” need to survive, Y being the message they are told to find by said givers of monies, and Y being the “adjusted” results)
If you recall George Orwell’s book, “1984” he discussed the Three Paradoxes. War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. The Socialist AGW Zealots who worship in the Church of AGW believe in a Fourth Paradox. Cold is Warm.
Good one! “Cold is Warm”. Sort of makes you think that cold is warm sort fits all of the Three Paradoxes.
Remember boys & girls Extreme Heating caused Ice Ages – Hahahaha! These “Scientists” are All Prostitutes saying whatever their told by Governments to stay on the Funding Gravy train. Look at the Sun throughout History – when it’s Solar Maximum – it’s Hot, when it’s Solar Minimum we get Ice Ages & there have been several Before Humans – Hello?
“Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters?”
Of course not, indeed it’s just further PROOF of global warming.
After all, they saw the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”!
If a theory is not subject to proof or falsification, then not only does falsification not apply, but its veracity is cannot be shown either. We can view these global warming/climate change emanations as just the thoughts of these individuals or organizations as sometimes interesting speculation, but by no means a basis to determine the expenditure of government monies or for passing of restrictive laws.
Climate Hypers MUST explain fraud.
Why is it necessary to lie about data and deliberately change results which reveal their models and predictions to be inaccurate?
The canal is guilty of scientific misrepresentation of facts. This is a criminal act who h needs to be prosecuted.
Climate change believers are largely socialist, partly communist, certainly globalist, and dislike traditional religions. That’s all you need to know about climate change.
Will carbon tax funds now be used for snow removal assistance and warming centers for the homeless? The Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill would have handled that and many more discretionary uses of funds with the pot-o-money it would have bestowed into Party hands.
“Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.”
Sophie Lewis
“If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself”
Albert Einstein
…fake weather…
Crazy climate change screamers have done more damage to their political cause, acting crazy, screaming at doubters and behaving like communists has the opposite effect by turning people off. Acting stupid makes you look and sound stupid and people just stop listening.
The Weather Gussers can’t event get the forecast for the next day right, yet they can tell you how the weather will be and was for hundreds, thousands of years. I guess they all go to Hogwarts and take their classes from Professor Trelawney to get their degree.
25 years of collecting unreliable (at best) and ‘noisy’ temperature data from all over the face of the world, computer modeling over an even smaller span of years by people working on government grants and there you have it folks, predictions of gloom and doom for our planet with ‘information’ extrapolated from 1850 to 2300 with all sorts of ‘modeled’ graphs and pretty ‘manufactured’ pictures offered as proof.
In the High Tech, Space Industry Engineering Departments I worked in over a lifetime (you know, the people who designed and built the temperature sensors used around the world today) this technique or ‘argument’ is called ‘magic with numbers’ or more commonly ‘dry lab-ing the data’. The point is we still do not have the instantaneous ability to resolve the global temperature instantaneously at any point in time to one degree of repeatable accuracy much less .1, .01. or .001 that would be able to substantiate a mean rise or fall of the global temperature of .1 degrees over any meaningful span of time.
‘Magic with numbers’ is always accomplished by either inventing your data or massaging what data you have, unreliable at best given the time spans involved the equipment available, the precision, repeatable accuracy and calibration of the equipment used to collect the data along with the number of people doing the measurements, all of which are accomplished somewhat differently. Then the ‘meta data’ gathered is used to arrive at a very questionable conclusion using formulas that these charlatans passing themselves off as scientists have created, to produce the calculations that give them the numbers that they are looking for to prove their totally unsubstantiated theory as fact. This isn’t science nor even a small piece of the scientific method. What it is is junk science and done for the worst of reasons, namely money.
The fact is, all of the theories they have are based on observations of 25 years or so using technologies that were invented during that period of time. In the computer based technologies of today it’s wise to remember the old saying, ‘garbage in, garbage out.’
Sorry for the compound and run-on sentences but I just can’t spend much time writing something like this before becoming nauseous caused by my brain flipping around inside of my head.
Here’s my glowbull theory… the earth is a giant heat refrigerator. The sun heats one end and the other end gets cold… simple!
In an additional development, below freezing temperatures knock out temperature monitoring stations throughout the regions affected by the arctic blast. Thus the warming trend will be sustained as data is lost.
All these well thought out and literate responses to this guy’s take on how cold is related to man warning up the climate is a very nice effort but you are wasting your time trying to use common sense with liberals. Let’s just call it what it is, consumate leftist bullshit!
It’s because you’re too stupid to understand science and the difference between weather and climate. Stop trying to politicize every thing and letting other people tell you what to think.
Sorry, have I trampled on your religion? I know this about climate…at one time or another the earth was a. a ball of fire; b. a ball of ice; c. a vast desert; d. totally enveloped in water; and in all those cases completely uninhabited by humans. How do I know this? Your science tells me this. Stop with the demagoguery and find a real religion to follow.
“your science”– scary stuff. “You” have your science, I have my god. Im not sure if this is more scary or moronic
Go ask the Catholic Pope as to scientific truth. He’ll tell you.
The Climate quacks will never admit their wrong. As long as the billionaire globalist keep funding them, they will keep quacking.
Honest scientists have already confirmed we are heading into a 100-120 year cooling period based on decreased Sun spot activity and the variable orbit of the Earth. The dishonesty of the climate change religion is breathtaking to behold!!
The only constant in the weather is the constant naggers evangelizing the New Orthodoxy. I ain’t buying. In all things, I worship the Creator, not the creation.
I think it would be difficult to find a theory so vociferously touted that failed the rules of theory offered by Karl Popper more than does the CAGW meme.
“It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should only count if the are the result of risky predictions. That is to say if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory, an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: the more it forbids the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue but of any theory but is a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of ‘corroborating evidence’)
Some genuinely testable theories when found to be false are still upheld by their admirers, for example by introducing ad hoc some ancillary assumption or by re interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying or at least lowering its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a ‘conventionalist twist’ or a ‘conventialist stratagem.”
By these standards the alarmist hypothesis must be of the lowest scientific status in recent history.
Well explained and stated.