Climate explainers are struggling trying to tell us why it is all our fault that bitter cold is gripping the USA this winter, our fault that winters have grown colder in Europe and the USA over the last 25 years.
Why So Cold? Climate Change May Be Part of the Answer
By HENRY FOUNTAINJAN. 3, 2018
As bitter cold continues to grip much of North America and helps spawn the fierce storm along the East Coast, the question arises: What’s the influence of climate change?
…
The reason a direct connection between cold weather and global warming is still up for debate, scientists say, is that there are many other factors involved. Ocean temperatures in the tropics, soil moisture, snow cover, even the long-term natural variability of large ocean systems all can influence the jet stream.
“I think everyone would agree that potentially the warming Arctic could have impacts on the lower latitudes,” said Rick Thoman, climate services manager with the National Weather Service in Fairbanks, Alaska. “But the exact connection on the climate scale is an area of active research.”
But scientists have been puzzled by data that at first seems counterintuitive: Despite an undeniable overall year-round warming trend, winters in North America and Europe have trended cooler over the past quarter-century.
“We’re trying to understand these dynamic processes that lead to cold winters,” Ms. Kretschmer said
She is the lead author of a study published last fall that looked at four decades of climate data and concluded that the jet stream — usually referred to as the polar vortex this time of year — is weakening more frequently and staying weaker for longer periods of time. That allows cold air to escape the Arctic and move to lower latitudes. But the study focused on Europe and Russia.
“The changes in very persistent weak states actually contributed to cold outbreaks in Eurasia,” Ms. Kretschmer said. “The bigger question is how this is related to climate change.”
…
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/climate/cold-climate-change.html
Settled science anyone?
My biggest problem with these in my opinion nonsensical explanations is that they require belief that we used to inhabit a perfect magic optimum.
This theory falls apart with any kind of close examination. Pre-industrial winters, especially during the Little Ice Age, were often brutally cold.
The current trend to colder winters could simply be a fluctuation of natural forcings. But if natural forcings can so easily overwhelm the alleged anthropogenic CO2 climate control knob, is the CO2 forcing really that powerful? Questions might be asked about whether the science really is as settled as proponents claim.
So climate explainers try to relate every unexpected temperature excursion back to our sinful industrial emissions.
If winters continue to cool, as they have cooled for the last 25 years, my guess is climate explainers will have to work ever harder to maintain the confidence of their dwindling audience of true believers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Meanwhile, back in the land of reality, Greenland’s Land Ice Mass INCREASED by 44 billion tons this year, (which NASA says is a first in 100 years–doubtful), Europe and Asia winters have been getting colder for the past 25 years, The US is suffering one of its most brutal winters in 40 years, NASA finally admitted in 2015 that Antarctic Land Mass has been GAINING ice mass at 80 BILLION tons per year since 1992 (not losing 100+ billion tons of ice mass as they advocated for decades), sea-level rise has been STUCK at 7 INCHES PER CENTURY since 1800 (regardless of CO2 levels), no long-term trends of frequency or intensity of severe weather in 50~100 years (depending on weather phenomenon), etc….
From 2020, a 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum event will occur, which ALWAYS causes global temps to fall, and from 2022, both the Pacific and Atlantic will be in their respective 30-year cool cycles, which ALWAYS cause global temps to fall…. When BOTH these phenomena occur concurrently: global temp trends will fall, Greenland’s Ice Mass will increase, Arctic Ice Extents will increase, Antarctic Land Ice Mass will continue to increase, and Sea Levels may actually start to FALL as ocean temps begin to trend downward and Greenland and Antarctica continue to gain ice mass.
This insane Manmade Gloooooooobal Waaaaarming ho@x is dead, dead, dead…
The blowback against the Left who perpetrated this hoax on the world for 30 years and wasted $trillions to “fix” a non-existent “catastrophe” will be epic….
In about 5 years, the Glooooooooooobal Waaaaaaaarming ho@x will be laughed at.
CAGW advocates can try all the Mann-splaining (I can’t take credit for that hilariously accurate term) they like, but soon they’ll run out of both time and excuses…
Samurai; you are wasting your time and effort on the warmists. They are not rational, they are religious. All the proof to the contrary in the world will not sway them any more that talking will convince a true-believer to renounce their god. Find something better to do than rail against them.
No it will not. This notion that a GSM is about to happen is silly. The Sun is going through a centennial extended minimum, that happens about every 100 years. It started around 2006 and is expected to last for just two solar cycles, so it should be over by ~ 2035. It should put the brakes on global warming for about 3 decades at most. No intense cooling can be expected for such small reduction in solar activity.
And a reasonable solar prediction based on solar cyclic activity
GSM are entirely different beasts and a thousand years might pass from the last before a new one takes place.
“Javier January 4, 2018 at 3:01 am
It should put the brakes on global warming for about 3 decades at most. No intense cooling can be expected for such small reduction in solar activity.”
We won’t have long to wait then.
Not really. If I am correct, sometime around 2019-21 a similar temperature anomaly to the 2003-14 period will be reached (back to the pause). By 2025 it should be clear to almost everybody that alarmist models and scenarios are wrong and that climate, albeit warming, is dominated by multidecadal variability.
If between now and 2025 we see strong warming and annual temperature anomaly reaches values of 2015-2017 average outside El Niño conditions I will realize that I have it wrong and solar variability doesn’t have the strong effect on climate that I think based on past climate changes.
In science the conditions for a hypothesis to be correct or wrong should be clear and prior to the test. If global warming continues as it has done in the 1975-2000 period through this extended solar minimum, then the Sun cannot be an important factor in global warming. However if global warming stops or greatly decreases I would like to hear who has better alternatives.
And let’s be clear that CO₂-hypothesis supporters have declared the pause dead and a return to accelerating global warming. That is their prediction and is absolutely opposite to mine. They cannot claim to still be right if the opposite happens.
“Meanwhile, back in the land of reality, Greenland’s Land Ice Mass INCREASED by 44 billion tons this year”
No the accumulation at the top did – as is expected with more WV in a warming climate.
Meanwhile glacier melt/carving exceded that …..
“Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”
https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
“Antarctic Land Mass has been GAINING ice mass at 80 BILLION tons per year since 1992 ”
Again not a surprise similarly because of the above.
BTW the ave height of the Antarctica is ~8000ft. Plenty cold up there for many many decades/centuries yet.
The PV is very strong and warm air just cannot penetrate the interior.
” sea-level rise has been STUCK at 7 INCHES PER CENTURY since 1800 (regardless of CO2 levels)”
No it has been accelerating …..
(do you expect century long trends to show a change?
Really?
“From 2020, a 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum event will occur, which ALWAYS causes global temps to fall”
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082
“We conclude that winters in which the Thames froze are not at all good indicators of the hemispheric or global mean temperatures, although well-correlated with the lowest temperatures in the local observational record, the CET. The often-quoted result that they were enhanced during the solar Maunder minimum is false. Thames freeze years are slightly more frequent before the Maunder minimum began and also considerably more common 65 years after it ended. The association of the solar Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age is also not supported by proper inspection and ignores the role of other factors such as volcanoes. Together these mean that, although the LIA covers both the Spörer and Maunder solar minima, it also persisted and deepened during the active solar period between these two minima. The latest science indicates that low solar activity could indeed increase the frequency of cold winters in Europe, but that it is a phenomenon that is restricted to winter and is just one of a complex mix of factors.
It is vital to avoid semantic arguments based on the name the Little Ice Age: ice ages proper are a lot more than a period in which the frequency of somewhat colder winters is somewhat elevated. Lastly, if we must use the name Little Ice Age, we should know it for what it really was and our best insight into that comes not from anecdotal reports influenced by a great many factors, nor from speculation about the inspiration for a few artists 450 years ago, but from the truly colossal number of objective datapoints, derived by many scientists using a huge variety of sources and techniques, that have gone into the construction of figure 3b.
The reduction in TSI at a solar Min is around 0.1%
“lsvalgaard April 2, 2017 at 10:42 am
NASA recently stated there had been a 1% increase of heat output from the Sun
No, they have not done so.
The changes in the output are of the order of 0.1% [ten times less]. And that surely will have an effect, namely about 0.07 degrees, so you are correct: “I will say I AGREE our Sun affects our Weather”. The question is HOW MUCH? and the answer is “not so much”.”
And no, a greater reduction in UV levels only affects the NH Polar Strat in winter to stir the trop’s heat around a tad (as part of a range of influences coming together).
“In about 5 years, the Glooooooooooobal Waaaaaaaarming ho@x will be laughed at.”
If you say so.
I suggest you submit that statement for a Nobel my friend.
Excellent bit of Apologetics, Toneb. I especially like the way you apply exegesis to explain what the holy writ says in regards to AGW.
You are becoming a good evangelist and I wish I could attend one of your homiletical sermons in person. I bet you get many to confess their sins and convert by accepting holy gaia into their heart.
I am looking forward to reading more of your writing. After all I do have a thing for religion.
Those satellites in 1900 were something weren’t they? Oh that us unless you are stitching two different methodologies together. Since the satellites went up there has been no significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, neither have the tide gauges shown any acceleration in the same period. The two methods do output different figures though, which you have used to try and show a large increase in the rate.
Have you thought of getting a job as a climate scientist?
Things have gone a bit quiet on the satellite measurements for the last six months, why do you think that is? Do you reckon they want to hide the fact that things are ‘worse than we thought’, as we know they don’t like to be seen as alarmist?
Can’t be any other reason surely!
“Excellent bit of Apologetics, Toneb. I especially like the way you apply exegesis to explain what the holy writ says in regards to AGW.”
No it’s called linking to the science my friend.
That you and most on here don’t like it is a tad unfortuante I admit, but that’s life.
Your response to SAMURAI’s “… Greenland’s Land Ice Mass INCREASED by 44 billion tons this year”” is disingenuous, Toneb. Rather than deal with “this year,” you jump to “… Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.””
A particularly nasty form of misdirection.
What the sheet is that? The two sea level diagrams are both linear, but have a different calibration. Stop telling what satellite says about the depth of the ocean, and answer how much sea level is higher compared to land, now, based on acceleration.
You won’t find that number because it is so ridiculously small. Toneb, stop being so gullible.
I agree Samurai. Naturally-caused global cooling seems highly probable, starting in the next few years, if it has not already started.
Furthermore, regarding the squandering of scarce global resources on false crises costs many lives.
Radical environmentalists are the great killers of our time, ranking with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
One example of this criminal malfeasance is the banning of DDT, which has greatly increased malaria in the tropics – a global-scale holocaust based on false environmental alarmism.
A more recent example is global warming hysteria and the war against cheap, reliable, abundant energy, which is the lifeblood of society.
Global warming alarmism is the greatest fraud in human history, in dollar terms. Tens of trillions of dollars have been squandered on this proven falsehood – funds that were more-than-adequate to install clean water and sanitation systems in every village on Earth, and operate them forever. In the 30+ years that global warming hysteria has been promoted by radicals, about 60 million kids below the age of five have died from contaminated water. These child deaths exceed the total deaths in WW2, or Stalin’s purges, and are only exceeded by Mao’s Great Leap Backwards.
Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote this article in 1994. It still rings true today. Read “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”.
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
I should clarify that I have no opinion on an imminent Grand Solar Minimum – I expect moderate global cooling, similar of somewhat more severe than the natural cooling that occurred form ~1940 to 1975.
I wrote this prediction in an article published in 2002. I hope to be wrong – humanity suffers in a cooling world.
The change to a more wavy jet stream didn’t occur until around 2000 which is when the warming trend effectively stopped.
If it were caused by AGW it would have been apparent right through the 80s and 90s,
I have been drawing attention to that change since 2007.
Until the 1940’s we did not know jet stream even existed, and like a great deal in this area good quality data is ‘limited’ .
Not that those types of facts ever get in the way of grand claims from all powerful climate’science’ .
Here in the UK we had a very clear explanation from the BBC yesterday, it went like this..
The planet is warming up due to global warming but it doesn’t warm up uniformly in every place. Melting polar ice will send a lot of very cold water into the oceans which will flow into areas nearer the equator and affect the weather there making it colder.
I nearly choked on my biscuit! However you can see the convoluted logic. The places where humans live will be colder but the oceans and polar region will be hotter. Do the sums and average it out, Earth warms by 2 or 3 degrees, human habitats cool by 1 or 2 degrees. Superb! No fudging of temperature records required, most measuring stations on land showing cooling trend is now ENTIRELY consistent with Global Warming.
This is an even better trick than “hide the decline”.
Great comments, thank you Rev. Badger.
Warming equals Cooling = Up equals Down
Fraudsters and Tricksters = Hide the Decline
Global Warming = Climate Change = NOT HAPPENING = The Old Shell Game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
[excerpt]
In the shell game, three or more identical containers (which may be cups, shells, bottle caps, or anything else) are placed face-down on a surface. A small ball is placed beneath one of these containers so that it cannot be seen, and they are then shuffled by the operator in plain view. One or more players are invited to bet on which container holds the ball – typically, the operator offers to double the player’s stake if they guess right. Where the game is played honestly, the operator can win if he shuffles the containers in a way which the player cannot follow.
In practice, however, the shell game is notorious for its use by confidence tricksters who will typically rig the game using sleight of hand to move or hide the ball during play and replace it as required. Fraudulent shell games are also known for the use of psychological tricks to convince potential players of the legitimacy of the game – for example, by using shills or by allowing a player to win a few times before beginning the scam.
The shell game dates back at least to Ancient Greece It can be seen in several paintings of the European Middle Ages. A book published in England in 1670 (Hull Elections–Richard Perry and his fiddler wife) mentions the thimblerig game. In the 1790s, it was called “thimblerig” as it was originally played using sewing thimbles. Later, walnut shells were used, and today the use of bottle caps or matchboxes is common.
The swindle became very popular throughout the nineteenth century, and games were often set up in or around traveling fairs. A thimblerig team (comprising operator and confederates) was depicted in William Powell Frith’s 1858 painting, The Derby Day. In Frith’s 1895, My Autobiography and Reminiscences the painter-turned-memorialist leaves an account of his encounter with a thimble-rig team (operator and accomplices):
“My first visit to Epsom was in the May of 1856 — Blink Bonnie’s year. My first Derby had no interest for me as a race, but as giving me the opportunity of studying life and character it is ever to be gratefully remembered. Gambling-tents and thimble-rigging, prick in the garter and the three-card trick, had not then been stopped by the police. So convinced was I that I could find the pea under the thimble that I was on the point of backing my guess rather heavily, when I was stopped by Augustus Egg, whose interference was resented by a clerical-looking personage, in language much opposed to what would have been anticipated from one of his cloth. ‘You,’ said Egg, addressing the divine, ‘you are a confederate, you know; my friend is not to be taken in.’ ‘Look here,’ said the clergyman, ‘don’t you call names, and don’t call me names, or I shall knock your d — d head off.’ ‘Will you?’ said Egg, his courage rising as he saw two policemen approaching. ‘Then I call the lot of you — the Quaker there, no more a Quaker than I am, and that fellow that thinks he looks like a farmer — you are a parcel of thieves!’ ‘So they are, sir,’ said a meek-looking lad who joined us; ‘they have cleaned me out.’ ‘Now move off; clear out of this!’ said the police; and the gang walked away, the clergyman turning and extending his arms in the act of blessing me and Egg.”
Fear of jail and the need to find new “flats” (victims) kept these “sharps” (shell men or “operators”) traveling from one town to the next, never staying in one place very long. One of the most infamous confidence men of the nineteenth century, Jefferson Randolph Smith, known as Soapy Smith, led organized gangs of shell men throughout the mid-western United States, and later in Alaska.
*************************************************************************************************************
The article under discussion keeps referring to the stratospheric polar vortex when they mean the tropospheric circumpolar vortex.
The stratospheric version is a different phenomenon.
How could professionals get that so wrong?
Colder temperatures will be easy to explain, “Oops, we put the hockey stick the wrong way up, sorry about that”.
The stratospheric version is a different phenomenon.
How could professionals get that so wrong?
They didn’t (and how could your mind concieve that as a possibility even??)
This is the abstract from the paper…..
“The extra-tropical stratosphere in boreal winter is characterized by a strong circumpolar westerly jet, confining the coldest temperatures at high latitudes. The jet, referred to as the stratospheric polar vortex, is predominantly zonal and centered around the pole; however, it does exhibit large variability in wind speed and location. Previous studies showed that a weak stratospheric polar vortex can lead to cold-air outbreaks in the mid-latitudes but the exact relationships and mechanisms are unclear. Particularly, it is unclear whether stratospheric variability has contributed to the observed anomalous cooling trends in mid-latitude Eurasia. Using hierarchical clustering, we show that over the last 37 years, the frequency of weak vortex states in mid to late winter (January and February) has increased which were accompanied by subsequent cold extremes in mid-latitude Eurasia. For this region 60% of the observed cooling in the era of Arctic amplification, i.e. since 1990, can be explained by the increased frequency of weak stratospheric polar vortex states, a number which increases to almost 80% when El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability is included as well.”
There can be a downwelling effect from the Strat PV that causes a -AO to develop and hence a disruption of the Trop PV, leading to cold plunges south and warm advection north round the NH. A large scale planetary (Rossby) wave
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00212.1
That ametsoc link describes the two features in accordance with my understanding but the authors of the paper under discussion are clearly referring to the larger, circumpolar tropospheric feature and not the smaller, descending stratospheric feature.
It is correct as per my hypothesis that the behaviour of the stratospheric descending vortex does alter the behaviour of the tropospheric circumpolar vortex in which case that abstract should read as follows:
“The extra-tropical TROPOSPHERE in boreal winter is characterized by a strong circumpolar westerly jet, confining the coldest temperatures at high latitudes. The jet, referred to as the TROPOSPHERIC polar vortex, is predominantly zonal and centered around the pole; however, it does exhibit large variability in wind speed and location. Previous studies showed that a weak STRATOSPHERIC polar vortex can lead to cold-air outbreaks in the mid-latitudes but the exact relationships and mechanisms are unclear”
What happens is that when the sun is quiet the descending STRATOSPHERIC vortex is stronger, pushes tropopause height downwards and thereby forces more extensive distortions of the TROPOSPHERIC polar vortex out across the middle latitudes.
When the sun is active the descending STRATOSPHERIC vortex is weaker, allows tropopause height to rise and thereby allows the TROPOSPHERIC polar vortex to become more zonal and move poleward with less extensive distortions across the middle latitudes.
As it stands the article is hopelessly confused.
“Previous studies showed that a weak stratospheric polar vortex can lead to cold-air outbreaks in the mid-latitudes but the exact relationships and mechanisms are unclear”
There are studies showing that arctic warming is the cause of that weakening polar vortex.
That weakening polar vortex is what’s allowing the cold air in that’s freezing the US right now.
“Griff January 4, 2018 at 2:41 am
There are studies showing that arctic warming is the cause of that weakening polar vortex.”
There are? References, not Guardian links please.
Those studies don’t distinguish between cause and effect. A weak stratospheric vortex is associated to stratospheric warming.
Lots of influences on that, but this year low solar activity and an easterly Quasi-Biennial Oscillation appear to be mostly responsible. A strong November snowpack in Eurasia might have contributed too.
“That weakening polar vortex is what’s allowing the cold air in that’s freezing the US right now.”
Actually no Griff, though it is no doubt hidden in the mix as an influence.
The cold plunge over N America is actually Tropospherically lead. In that a strong east Pacific ridge is driving warm air north with a downstream extension (formation of a Rossby wave trough (PV extension) over north America.
This warms the PV from the Pacific side and pushes it south and east, this in turn driving marked cyclo-genesis over the e seaboard.
This is quite common BTW due the “bending” influence of the Rockies on the PJS.
A consequence of this would be a stalling trough near he UK and a developing ridge over Scandinavia which similarly will push warm air north there and warm the PV from that side.
It is this effect that can “pinch” the PV into 2 lobes and the longer range foreasts show that as a possibility.
There can be other direct “attacks on the strat PV – on id from E-Asian mountain-torque events that push air up over the Himalayan plateau to be entrained into the vortex and warm it’s edges.
These effects have drivers:
Easterly QBO: Reflects planetary waves more effectively north.
MJO in the E Pacific is most conducive for an amplified Rossby wave and a -AO. However it is at present in the Indian ocean progressing slowly east.
Low Solar: yes it weakens the Strat PV jet by virtue of less UV led destruction of O3 in the mid-latitudes.
See the current science here ….
http://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation
One slight problem!
According to the heavily adjusted NOAA data, US winters have been getting milder, not colder, in the last 25 years.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tavg/3/2/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
It might be a visit to the re-education camp for Ms Kretschmer!
And the same applies to the Northeast:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/101/0/tavg/3/2/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
So the question is – are winters getting colder, or are NOAA’s adjustments correct?
Paul, that is the problem with right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
They might have looked at the real temperatures by mistake.
‘Climate change’ cannot cause unusual weather for a particular region for the time of year. The climate of a region is constituted by the range of weather conditions usually experienced in that region in season. My height is not caused by the distance of my head from the ground when standing upright.
Yes, you got it… Colder Winters – Because Climate Change, that is exactly what is happening.
climate change does not mean that all that happens is temps rise everywhere by a few degrees. It also means changes in the jetstream/air circulation CAN dump freezing arctic air over the US, due to arctic warming, changes in the air circulation around the arctic, reduction in arctic sea ice.
why can’t climate change cause the current US cold?
“Griff January 4, 2018 at 2:39 am
Yes, you got it… Colder Winters…”
So climate change explains the cooling in the US in the 1930’s? And, “globally”, cooling from 1941 to the mid 1970’s? And cooling in the 1980’s?
Climate change, sure, I can accept that. aCO2 *DRIVEN* climate change, no. Unless you have evidence of that?
What is missing is coherence, consistency and predictive skill Griff. Some scientists saying snowfalls will soon be a thing of the past, others saying climate is causing colder winters.
To put this into perspective, if you asked two astronomers to predict where in their orbits the planets of our solar system will be in 5 years, both answers would be consistent with each other. Does “settled” climate science exhibit anything like this level of consistency?
The snowfall comment was I believe UK related – and indeed there has been a change in UK snowfall patterns.
You are generalising different areas of the evidence
“Griff. Some scientists saying snowfalls will soon be a thing of the past, others saying climate is causing colder winters.”
Please give the quotes form other than the idiot who we know said it.
Coz you know there are those on both “sides”. Eh?
It is what the IPCC SAY that is the consensus.
Also snow is not a measure of temperatures given than it can do so between (roughly) -40 and +2C.
You can indeed have less snow and colder winters as we are talking REGIONALLY, not globally.
The IPCC says there was a pause, Toneb. Agreed?
Yes, it’s what we’ve been saying all along. Unlike the original script, where the only possibility was warming. Now, hopefully it is obvious, that cold is also going to be part of Climate in the future too. Climate will continue to do what it has always done. Change. Nothing unusual, nothing unprecedented. No doubt, some will want to cling to the the insanity that Anthro CO2 is what drives temps. upwards only. Then again, if the warm causes cold, then we must accept that CO2 can cause cold too. You can’t have it one way and both ways at the same time. Not without asking serious questions of the CAGW hypothesis. I wonder how much consideration was given to that possibility, before they shrugged shoulders and jumped to their foregone conclusion.
Negrodamus, could you explain how global warming causes colder winters?
Icisil,
You are not Dave Chappelle and I find your comment to be highly offensive.
We had the same Polar Express, what is now labeled Polar Vortex 45 years ago. Displacing the Arctic cold by shifting it south can only warm the Arctic as air from the south moves in. It isn’t caused by warming.
Next year there will be warm winter eventually – look: climate change, AGW and so on . I’m tired of it, Its all hot fudge!
Griff said…
‘why can’t climate change cause the current US cold?’
Dunno, mate. You tell us why or why not.
I would have thought if the climate had changed it was probably due to a changing climate.
Hmmnnn…
In the meantime think of all those poor kiddies in the UK who will only ever experience “virtual” snow
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/oct/22/theobserver.climatechange
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/global-warming-hysteria-2000-english-children-will-not-know-snow-2010-oops-nevermind
It’s amazing how embedded this narrative has become embedded in people’s minds by relentless propaganda. After just about every weather event here in Ireland some local useful idiots in the affected area are produced by the media to declare the event “unprecedented”. As people like Paul Homewood repeatedly discover such claims hardly ever survive even a cursory examination of weather history – yet such specious assertions are never subjected to any critical analysis by the mass media.
Hi Chris
Happy New year. I always ask what major weather event in the past was not in some way unique. The idea that a storm, flood etc. should be a (pardon the pun) carbon copy of a previous event, is nonsense. Either they’re all the same or they’re all unprecedented.
Prof. Sweeney, Maynooth, declared it is becoming less likely that we will see snow on Christmas, here in Ireland. Such a statement is meaningless in so many ways. First off, we don’t get many white christmasses anyway. But there is plenty of arse covering in saying ”less likely” because it doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen either. As we know, no sooner had he the words out of his mouth and it dumped down.
Must say, I chuckled at Met Eireann’s ”Yellow snow warnings” I don’t think they even realised they were taking the pis*.
Cheers, Eamon.
Very funny Éamon, – I always enjoy your interventions! I agree with your point that no two weather events are going to be the same – and indeed it is perfectly natural for all kinds of records to continue to be set. What annoys me is the repeated hyperbole about every completely normal Atlantic winter gale and the deliberately dishonest pretence that they are unprecedented in both intensity and frequency when they clearly are not. Some winters are stormy some are not – the period from 1998 – 2014 was noteworthy for the lack of stormy winters in Ireland for example but was the subject of no comment in the media, presumably because it was not helpful to the narrative, but the few stormy winters recently have spawned a blizzard of hysterical commentary – just witness the fact free scaremongering in reaction to Storm Eleanor in today’s Irish newspapers as an example.
Incidentally I’ve often wondered if there is any connection between you and the famous Irish nature broadcaster Éamon de Buitléir?
The BBC also had “yellow snow warnings”. Someone should tell them.
About time that the Irish started speaking-up about “climate change”.
Ah, thanks Chris Lynch,
It’s good to know that the whole country hasn’t gone totally daft on the Climate change sc*m.
I think the only way I can deal with the lunacy, is with a touch of humour.
The late great Eamon De Buitleir, was not related to me, though he has been my claim to fame since I was a kid (about 200 years ago) in early school days. I did meet him once and we had a brief chat. A lovely guy and a gent. I also knew Geret Van Geldren back in the day and subsequently his son.
Pity my other (partial) namesake, Eamonn Ryan, is letting the side down.
Only a short few years ago, you never heard a mention of G.W. or C.C. Now it’s promoted in every news paper and T.V. news bulletin. You get a very distinct impression that there is a directive from on high, that every opportunity must be taken advantage of. I don’t know about you, but some of the weather presenters seem decidedly uncomfortable with their delivery. Before, they used to give a weather forecast. Now they must deliver drama. It can be very subtle, but the choice of terminology or how something is phrased, can imply a ”scary” message without specifically saying so.
Anyway, we’ll keep after them. Fortunately, they don’t get it all their way from everyone.
Best regards, Eamon.
The propaganda tell: “scientists say…”
” Ms. Kretschmer said. “The bigger question is how this is related to climate change.”
============
define “climate change”. what about changes in climate such as ice ages. is this climate change or not?
how can a change in climate such as ice age not be climate change? it makes no sense. since when was science in the business of using imprecise terms?
Well, gee whizzikers! I went through this whole column of comments and saw an awful lot of snorting and pawing the ground, challenges, “I’m right-you’re wrong” — stuff like that.
I could care far less than I do about what cycle the planet is in right now, because the prediction stuff seems to be a game of one -upmanship, more than anything else.
It’s almost like watching a game of tag football played by people who don’t understand the Number One Rule: the planet we live on has its own agenda and we are simply along for the ride. I thought Late Great George Carlin explained that quite clearly to anyone who was paying attention.
If it’s more important to make predictions and do a little victory dance in the dry sand dunes or the snowdrifts or whatever, then the REAL importance of this is escaping all those whose predictive skills are on display. And just what IS the REAL importance?
Okay, here’s a list:
1 – The only things that the majority of 7.5 billion of us care about is crop production, water availability and food resources.
2 – Accurate weather forecasting, which is SHORT TERM, takes precedence over climate change predictions, because those are LONG term.
3 – a) Politicians and greedy people who are nothing but carney barkers looking to line their pockets at your expense are trying to control all of this, BUT —
3 – b) humans have ZERO, ZIP, NO CONTROL, NADA over what this planet does with itself. Never did have it, never will.
4 – Turning an innocuous branch of science into a pseudo-religion has corrupted the entire process because it gets cash into researchers’ pockets. If the cash flow were shut off, how quickly would this BS game die away?
5 – Weather is short term. Climate is long term. Most of the people making these dire predictions won’t live to see whether or not they were right. If they’re using altered statistics for them, they’ll be wrong anyway, so who cares?
Saying this planet is going to turn into a desert, as in the world of Mad Max or Ceti Alpha Six is ludicrous. It never has been a desert. Mars is a desert, but only because its magnetic core was blown out somehow and sits on the surface. And it’s a cold desert. But if anything, tectonic movement – another thing these prediction wizards can’t control – will reshape the planet’s surface enormously LONG AFTER we are all gone.
None of this is anything more than an ego trip, a cash grab, and a chance to get attention, and the media condone it by putting the wackos on TV to get some panic-attack stuff out of them. It’s wearing thin. They just don’t see it yet. All I care about is accurate weather forecasting, which seems to be beyond the skill set of Accuweather, and they change their minds with the way the wind blows.
Just make sure your pantry is stocked and you’re paid up on utilities. And have another listen to George Carlin. He was smarter than the entire population group of climate science peeps combined.
Sara, you missed the second most important factor after Food& Water, which is life giving and that is Cheap Energy, to keep warm or cool or make things with.
I think that, historically, finding food came ahead of cooking it, and the discovery of cooking/heating fuels was mostly accidental. Pyrrhus got his liver eaten for giving the secret of Fire to Man. Not sure which actually came first – food or fire – but yes, fuel was/is important. Didn’t mean to leave that out.
Sara;
The fact is that our freedom is being threatened by charlatans who claim scientific proof while being under the control of state oligarchs; and so the problem is not science but oligarchy, since science requires freedom rather than sub rosa politics.
” If the cash flow were shut off, how quickly would this BS game die away?”
The gate keepers in the government and educational institutions who have seen to it that grants require mention of CAGW to be issued need to be broomed or their minds changed. This may take some time as even Trump cannot do this over night since previous administrations have been accepting the man caused global warming premise for decades now. Here’s hoping he has the time to do it.
@Sara: >Pyrrhus got his liver eaten for giving the secret of Fire to Man< Its actually "Prometeus". If I remember right.
Or it was a myth based on lighting starting a fire, and a primate picked up a burning stick, and a myth was born. But Ben Franklin set it right… right before he f’ed up the Constitution, to give us our CURRENT government that allows chimpoliticians to influence science.
Was this the group of “chimpoliticians” elected in 2006, 2008, or 2012?
It is the adult who was elected in fall 2016 who selected the group of adults selected in 2016 and 2017 who are correcting the propaganda and exaggerations from those who came before. Including the errors of those working between 1994 and 2000, and 2000 – 2008 as well.
Sara: you mean Ceti Alpha FIVE. Ceti Alpha six exploded… aka planet Krypton, trapping General Khan in the Phantom Zone. Or something.
The point is that only a short-bus reject could believe AGW catastrophizing, thinking that sci-fi movies are real.
Climate change has been vigorously discussed in the last few decades by scientist and experts of different variety.
Despite all the efforts and money invested:
– no one has conclusively proved that the CO2 is the main or even noteworthy driver
– no one has conclusively proved that the solar input is not major if not the main cause.
Either way, climate has always changed subtly or abruptly in the past, and will be doing so in the future.
er… yes they have…
climate has always changed… now the main driver is human CO2
According to Griff, models trump reality.
There have been much bigger temperature swings in the past, when CO2 levels weren’t changing. We don’t know what caused them.
But for today, CO2 controls the climate. We know that because the models that were written to show that CO2 controls the climate show it to be so.
“According to Griff, models trump reality……….”
No models’ projections depend on the carbon path we take and the implications are largely decades away.
We do know what caused the majority of past warming look up “Milankovitch cycles” with the +ve feedback of CO2 concentration added.
And no, models have the empirical physics of GHG’s in them and are not written to show anything.
That would be daft, and so of course it would be likewise to think that.
“… models have the empirical physics of GHG’s in them and are not written to show anything.” Do you even bother to read what you comment here, Toneb?
Why did IPCC AR5 have to “cool off” the models arbitrarily, then?
Only because it carries the most carbon tax revenue potential.
Griff January 4, 2018 at 6:29 am
“er… yes they have…
climate has always changed… now the main driver is human CO2”
And what has made you so convinced of this?
“Griff January 4, 2018 at 6:29 am
climate has always changed… now the main driver is human CO2”
Evidence please?
Driving the short-bus. Human CO2-emissions, by the IPCC’s own figures, cannot account for more than 0.006% of global temperature.
vukecevic: Let’s be scientifically accurate. AGW is an alternative hypothesis, (or Ha– appropriately), that human CO2-emissions significantly (and harmfully) affect the Earth’s climate. This has never been scientifically established against the Null hypothesis that human CO2-emissions do NOT significantly or harmfully affect the environment.
And by “scientifically,” I mean by the scientific method of statistical pragmatic demonstration beyond specific error-margins in double-blind studies, and in a manner that can be reproduced repeatedly to created a “theory–” which then requires intense further study to be able to proclaim it a scientifically proved.
AGW has done NONE of this, but has simply been established by underhanded fearmongering charlatans; and therefore it is 100% JUNK SCIENCE.
Statistically, human CO2 cannot account for more than a whopping 0.006% of global temperatures. Yes, you read that right: PERCENT.
The latest arctic sea ice news from the NSIDC has a few points relevant to the warming arctic/displaced air discussion
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Looking at the link, I notice the orange line represents the MEDIAN of ice extent and coverage. That means half of the data is greater in extent and coverage and half is less. What is needed is a line for MAXIMUM and MINIMUM extent and coverage for a true yearly comparison.
Well before humans crossed into North America, it was locked in ice from Alaska to Arkansas, and The Great Thaw took place about 14,000 years ago to allow it.
So I think it’s a good thing Eastern Hemisphere-dwellers used all that fire to warm things up ;D
DIDN’T NATURAL FORCING
during the Late Ordovician Period (444 million years ago) so overwhelm the heat trapping CO2 rich (4000 ppm) atmosphere that it plunged the world into an ice age lasting tens and thousands of years? And doesn’t this seem, as the article suggests, to be happening again on a seasonal basis going back 25 years?
CO2’s only mechanism for affecting climate change is through trapping outgoing IR between 13 and 18 microns. There is no mechanism by which it could cause both warming and cooling. It can cause warming by trapping heat. You can not cause cooling by thermalizing outgoing radiation.
Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/climate-science-pillars-of-sand-eroding-the-foundation-of-the-hoax/
co2is life “There is no mechanism by which it could cause both warming and cooling. ”
TECHNICALLY there is: atmospheric CO2 can absorb those wavelengths directly from sunlight, allowing it to radiate into space before striking the Earth’s surface. AGW concerns, however, pertain to CO2 that traps IR radiation FROM the Earth’s surface in response to HIGHER frequencies that pass through atmospheric CO2, which then traps the radiated IR.
So in areas with low cloud-cover, or low IR radiation from sunlight (like oceans at higher latitudes) then it’s quite possible that CO2 could cool more than it warms.
However this amount, like the warming from human CO2 emissions, is infinitesmally teensy.
Yes, in your scenario there is a balance between blocking incoming and trapping outgoing radiation. If that is the case the upper atmosphere would be warming as incoming radiation would be thermalized. I would imagine even that however would result in warming because it is lowering the temperature gradient between lower and upper atmosphere. That would disrupt convection of heat upward. Anyway, interesting concept that I’ve never heard Michael Mann promote. It would be ironic however if CO2 did cause cooling, which is what I bet it does in the thin upper atmosphere by facilitating the radiation to outer space. Radiation is much faster than convection.
I was just being facetious. I consider it counterproductive to even talk against AGW, because it ignores the “elephant in the room” that AGW is an ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS that must be objectively, independently, statistically and consistently validated, before it can even be considered anything but a flight of pure fancy.
By discussing it scientifically, they are being allowed to not only skip the entire scientific method, but it puts the NULL hypothesis on trial rather than the alternative.
This is why I am concerned whenever anyone refutes AGW on any basis, but the fact is an unvalidated hypothesis; because this abandons the scientific method, and thus ceases to be a scientific discussion.
Rather, they’re treating it as if it IS a validated hypothesis, and taking the position of the alternative proponent, rather than simply defending the established Null hypothesis.
This is basic science, and I’m quite shocked to see so many so-called “scientists” so illiterate on its most fundamental basic principles, since it shows a general failure of professional protocol in the community at large.
It’s like a defense-lawyer who doesn’t even ask if there was probable cause for arrest, since that’s basically the same thing: i.e. the burden is on the proponent, not the defendant.
Brian, you are ignorant of what the “null hypothesis” is.
The null hypothesis is not a part of the scientific method. It lives within the domain of statistical inference. I would appreciate it if you would not confuse the two.
Yes there would be an increase in research indeed because they have to figure out a way to support this cold by CO2 caused warming without laughing their asses off. And their asses are better conditioned to staying on than mine over the last 20yrs. The whole research effort for 40 yrs has been a whack-a-moley game of defending the cast in stone theory.
If there has been no warming of the oceans over the last 50yrs (the hated Argot floats and soon to be hated Scripps noble gases similar finding) how big a contrast with the land can be tolerated? Physics, and at some point, common sense tells thinking people that land temperatures WILL level off at that level of tolerance of contrast going forward. With Boltzman’s irradiation varying with T^4, even that is a cap on land T.
I think that the weather history in the UK shows that it has cold and warm periods which is similar to the cold and warm periods which we believe the North Atlantic Ocean exhibits and which is said to control the climate in the UK. We have just gone through a mild run of winters and this is all many know of UK winters grey sky’s and mild temperatures , It may just be showing us its nice side at the moment and will show its nasty side in the future as it has done in the past and an indication of change in winter is the high pressure building close to the UK and frosts developing more often which I heard someone comment last year was a return to a more traditional UK winter.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
We are so fortunate to have the climatesplainers to climatesplain things for us. What on earth would we do without them? I mean besides actually looking at the science and the evidence ourselves. I mean, like, who are we to think we could even begin to understand any of it?
“She is the lead author of a study published last fall that looked at four decades of climate data and concluded that the jet stream — usually referred to as the polar vortex this time of year …”
Do all of you folks generally refer to the “jet stream” as the “polar vortex” this time of year?
“Do all of you folks generally refer to the “jet stream” as the “polar vortex” this time of year?”
I don’t know about anyone else, but I refer to the jet stream as the jet stream. I don’t know where “Polar Vortex” came from.
The cold in the US is not from a lack of ice in the Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/plots/satcon.arc.d-00.png
“The cold in the US is not from a lack of ice in the Arctic.”
However it apears to be at it’s lowest extent for this time of year since 1981 at least …..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2018/01/Figure2-1.png
And lots of above ave temp air around ….
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180102/warmer-in-alaska-than-florida-why-our-weather-is-upside-down
“After the fact therefore because of the fact” which is and act of Man.
Got it!
Toneb, hot air, that is what you are spouting.
You do realise that the +3.6 anomaly you show is currently representing a nice toasty warm -32.8C in that area.
You see how STUPID Anomalies are in the real world now?
Why is it so cold? Simple. The “settled science” behind CAGW missing just one “tipping point” so now theory is capsizing. Just like Guam.
https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/guamtip.asp
PS Yes, I know that what he said has nothing to do with CAGW but neither does Man’s CO2 have anything to do with Ma’ Gaia’s hot and cold flashes.
If their climate models were worth a damn they would have projected that cold spells were coming. They didn’t and now we have the ambulance chasers running in to “explain” why it has happened never referring to times past, before industry supposedly started effecting the climate, when such dips in the jet stream brought similar conditions.
Climate Change is something that we can all agree is real. Man-made climate change is a completely different ballgame, however. It seems like the global warming crowd is grasping at straws in an attempt to maintain their relevance. CO2 cannot cause warming which causes cooling, and the cooling then causes warming. It is circular reasoning, folks. The earth cycles.
They don’t HAVE to grasp at straws, because the scientific community has missed the boat on the Null Hypothesis, while giving AGW’ers a free ride by refuting them directly rather than making them prove a THEORY first out of their hypothesis.
The fact that scientists at large have NOT done this, shows that the entire community is incompetent, and the entire discussion has to be completely thrown out and started over– properly, with the Null Hypothesis firmly in place that humans are NOT contributing to the earth’s temperature to any significant AND harmful degree.
Rather, they have made it a neutral debate, where both sides are given equal consideration; and in doing so, they have left the field of science and gone clean over into forensics.