Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered

Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.
Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.

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.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/12/28/its-cold-outside-but-doesnt-mean-climate-change-isnt-real/987948001/

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
616 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
aki009
December 29, 2017 12:03 pm

Yup. The Church Of Man Made Global Warming is a cult with an explanation for everything. Presumably they’ll be able to even take credit for an ice age if were to happen to stumble into one.

Robert Bass
December 29, 2017 12:04 pm

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.

Marnof
December 29, 2017 12:11 pm

“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.”

As a layman who is fascinated by this subject, I look at that reasoning as complete obfuscation. From my perspective, models are tools built to attempt to mimic behavior, in this case a model of a system that it likely too complex to model with acceptable accuracy. The model output should have no bearing on, say, the falsifiability of CAGW theory — if it’s a poor model, it’s junk. If it’s a good model, it’s showing you that it runs correctly according to the parameters for which it was designed, nothing more. The author admits that models are simply tools for understanding, then sets models up as a straw man that shouldn’t be falsified — as if that was a skeptic’s agenda — then making the requisite leap to refuting falsification as passé.

Jonathan
Reply to  Marnof
December 29, 2017 12:29 pm

And what is so difficult about proposing a test of climate models that are falsifiable?

If one’s hypothesis is correct about man-made global warming, then X amount of CO2 over time period Y should result in temperature Z. If reality does not produce the predicted temperature, then the hypothesis has been falsified. Nothing difficult about it.

Marnof
Reply to  Jonathan
December 29, 2017 1:41 pm

I say it’s great to poke holes in CAGW hypotheses, which might lead to falsification over a long period of observation. Meanwhile, crackpots will push model after model to proclaim impending disaster. Focus on the observed measurements in our natural world and less on trying to “falsify” someone’s faulty rendition of how they expect climate to behave.

Bill Mack
December 29, 2017 12:16 pm

Seven or 8 years ago I remember reading that scientists were predicting warmer Pacific Ocean temperaures caused by Global Warming would lead to record El Ninjo’s occurring year after year. This in turn would lead to much more rainfall in California. Instead, California has experienced the worst draught in a century. Now scientists say the record draught is caused by Global Warming. Now they are sayibg record cold temperatures are caused by Global Warming. No wonder the public is so skeptical about it.

Jonathan
December 29, 2017 12:25 pm

From the article, on the issue of falsifiability: “Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.”

She’s saying that Karl Popper, one of the worlds greatest philosophers of science ever, advocated ideas which were childish since her notion of “science” doesn’t meet the standards that he so rationally identified for the realm of science. She’s indulging in name-calling, smearing, and looking down her nose at anyone who questions lesser standards as idiots adhering to a simplified version designed for children.

Such condescension is not much of a substitute for real science.

Infinite Being
December 29, 2017 12:34 pm

Notice they have changed from Global Warming, to Climate Change and now to Global Energy Imbalance. It’ll be the new sexy term to get more funding because it sounds impressive.

donald penman
December 29, 2017 12:46 pm

I don’t know what is going on with the polar vortex this winter unlike mostly everyone here who blames it in la Nina .Why not last year? It is easy to be wise after the event. Could the Arctic Oscillation be going negative early January.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index_ensm.shtml

Scott rothra
December 29, 2017 12:47 pm

The science behind this is a disaster. It fails to take into account of our solar systems Traverse around our own Galaxy. This is not a stagnant Force, but a robust system that exerts tremendous pressures on all that travel before it. For the last 60 millennium our solar system has been scrambling to get in front of the Milky Way galaxy while it hurdles through the universe. This caused an ever-increasing amount of energy to enter our system which produced higher wind speeds, more violent earthquakes, and even more frequent volcanic eruptions. It can even explain more drastic periods of drought, and more violent periods of tornadoes. These occurred continually until we reach the Apex in 2012, as evidenced by are having centered on the Milky Way galaxy. Since then we have reached a state of equilibrium, until now. Now we begin the decline. What happens when you start pulling energy out of a system? Not the least of which you can expect rapid cooling. We can expect this highly fluctuating weather until we reach an equilibrium as we Cruise along side the Galaxy. For now, our temperatures will continue to slowly decline until we reach the back end of the Galaxy, which will result in massive amounts of energy being drawn from our system and we enter another Ice Age. The rest of this reminds me of the rainmakers of old. This is simply about trying to get your money and gather power unto themselves. Such a sad use of science.

Bay Area Bob
December 29, 2017 12:53 pm

Blah, blah, blah, because ice, because (Insert technobabble to confuse and divert from truth). It’s the same story year after year after year. It’s always The Hottest Yeah On Record, “they” say. The seas are rising, “they” say.
Funny, but I haven’t noticed any change in the overall heat index, nor is the ocean anywhere near encroaching on my property—and I literally live within 1000 yards (914 meters for the Eurotrash) of the San Francisco Bay.

This article is nothing more than another desperate attempt to perpetuate the Big Lie; to perpetuate the money pouring in to prove the Big Lie; to perpetuate their Church of the Big Lie.

I’m not fooled.

looneytoonsindville
Reply to  Bay Area Bob
December 29, 2017 12:57 pm

Climate change is real; manmade global warming is a fraud. The three primary drivers of our climate are: 1. The sun (insolation); 2. Volcanism,; and 3. Ocean currents. Man’s impact on climate is miniscule compared to these three. The climate has been changing since creation and will continue to do so, driven primarily by solar maximums and minimums. Climate scientists who are not part of the global warming fraud say we are at the beginning of a 30 to 100 year global cooling cycle. The oceans have not risen significantly and the polar ice is growing, not receding. You have it right, Bay Area Bob – Believe your own eyes, not the propaganda!

looneytoonsindville
December 29, 2017 12:55 pm

Climate change is real; manmade global warming is a fraud. The three primary drivers of our climate are: 1. The sun (insolation); 2. Volcanism,; and 3. Ocean currents. Man’s impact on climate is miniscule compared to these three. The climate has been changing since creation and will continue to do so, driven primarily by solar maximums and minimums. Climate scientists who are not part of the global warming fraud say we are at the beginning of a 30 to 100 year global cooling cycle. The oceans have not risen significantly and the polar ice is growing, not receding. Believe your own eyes, not the propaganda!

Phaedrus
December 29, 2017 12:58 pm

“Baby it’s cold outside…..”

Two Finger
December 29, 2017 1:05 pm

This is a satirical article right?????

RIckR
December 29, 2017 1:07 pm

When this kind of thing happens I love watching
“Minnesotans for Global Warming” on You Tube

ksfirth
December 29, 2017 1:10 pm

who determined that weather or climate must remain a constant?

Dave Fair
Reply to  ksfirth
December 29, 2017 3:27 pm

Actually, ksfirth, even the IPCC admits the current climate is ‘berrie, berrie good’ for us. [See old SNL episodes for a reference.] Current weather event statistics are not different from 100 years ago, even with increased anthropogenic CO2.

A postulated 3.7 W/m^2 increase in CO2-related ‘forcings’ pales in comparison to documented changes in cloud, humidity, etc. net forcings. Hell, it’s less than 1%, even by Trenberth estimates.

Looking back from 2100, our distant children will marvel at our antiquated science. ‘Cause they will.

I marvel at how ignorant Sir Newton was, reading Einstein. How ignorant was Einstein?

Clowns that project 100+ years in the future are just that, clowns.

Global Wrench
December 29, 2017 1:20 pm

Artificial Ice Nucleation – Geoengineering

Jackson West
December 29, 2017 1:21 pm

Whether the climate is changing or not isn’t really the important question — it’s whether there is anything the population can to do to manipulate climate change — given the extraordary complexities of influences on climate, some man-made, many not, the latter is highly unlikely — only the very arrogant and very ignorant would conclude differently.

Andy Guzik
December 29, 2017 1:22 pm

Can someone please tell me who is paying these “scientists” and why?
Nothing they have predicted for the last 20 has come true.
Where is Al Gore? Did he fly his private jet to the Bahamas?

December 29, 2017 1:30 pm

Its called global weather and I have a few questions about your thermodynamic FEA models.

fredsconsulting
December 29, 2017 1:34 pm

I think all this talk of global warming just is to run us snow removal guys out of business. How are we suppose to work in the winter if there is no more snow.
There was record breaking snow in Erie Pa last week and now we are working there getting ice off roofs, I guess we should enjoy the cold while it last

RAH
Reply to  fredsconsulting
December 29, 2017 1:41 pm

Don’t worry, it’s starting to come down here in N. Central Indiana. Winter storm warnings for parts of Wyoming and Idaho. And next week it’s supposed to snow in N. Florida though I doubt there are any snow removal contractors down there.

fredsconsulting
Reply to  RAH
December 29, 2017 1:43 pm

I live in Indianapolis

RAH
Reply to  fredsconsulting
December 30, 2017 4:25 am

I live just south of Anderson, IN. We got 4″ here.

December 29, 2017 1:37 pm

Al Gore and “the scientists” claimed that NYC would be under water by 2015.

Climate Science Scam
Reply to  Kendo Lee
December 29, 2017 1:42 pm

If only they were right. Sigh….

Climate Science Scam
December 29, 2017 1:42 pm

How about forgetting about CO2 and sea ice and adopting a new theory…. “s-u-n”.

Jim
December 29, 2017 1:56 pm

I say we tax the cold away. It worked so well for the warming. Who’da thunk it?

GackHolio
December 29, 2017 1:57 pm

As a former religious zealot, Climate Believers seem over zealous. Just sayin’.
One other thing: The Science is SETTLED!!!!…except for Gravity…. yeah, that cannot be explained.

December 29, 2017 2:02 pm

at what point in earths history was climate stability a feature of this planet? or any planet??

Steve55
December 29, 2017 2:09 pm

So you have a frozen solid, 32 degree, turkey. You leave it out and over 26 years you warm it up, slowly. At the end of the 26 years of “warming” the turkey cant have a record temperature of 31 degrees. You can’t “warm” something and it comes out with a “record cold” can’t happen. EVER, never. Global warming fruitcakes.

1 7 8 9 10 11 14