From Dr Roy Spencer
January 31st, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It’s much easier to devise and promote a climate change theory than it is to falsify it. Falsification requires a lot of data over a long period of time, something we don’t usually have in climate research.
The “polar vortex” is the deep cyclonic flow around a cold air mass generally covering the Arctic, Canada, and Northern Asia during winter. It is irregularly shaped, following the far-northern land masses, unlike it’s stratospheric cousin, which is often quite symmetric and centered on the North and South Poles.
For as long as we have had weather records (extending back into the 1800s), lobes of cold air rotating generally from west to east around the polar vortex sometimes extend down into the U.S. causing wild winter weather and general unpleasantness.
We used to call this process “weather”. Now it’s called “climate change”.
When these cold air outbreaks continued to menace the United States even as global warming has caused global average temperatures to creep upward, an explanation had to be found. After all, snow was supposed to be a thing of the past by now.
Enter the theory that decreasing wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic (down about 15% over the last 40 years) has tended to displace the polar vortex in the general direction of southern Canuckistan and Yankeeland.
In other words, as the theory goes, global warming sometimes causes colder winters. This is what makes global warming theory so marvelously adaptable — it can explain anything.
In the wake of the current cold wave, John Christy skated into my office this morning with a plot of U.S. winter cold waves since the late 1800s. He grouped the results by region, and examined cold waves lasting a minimum of 2 days at a station, and 5 days at a station. The results were basically the same.
As can be seen in the plot below, there is no evidence in the data supporting the claim that decreasing Arctic sea ice in recent decades is causing more frequent displacement of cold winter air masses into the eastern U.S., at least through the winter of 2017-18:

The trend is markedly downward in the most recent 40 years (since 1979) which is the earliest we have reliable measurements of Arctic sea ice from satellite microwave radiometers (my specialty).
Now, I suppose that Arctic sea ice decline could have some influence. But weather is immensely complex. Cause and effect is often difficult to ascertain.
At a minimum we should demand good observational support for any specific claim. In this case I would say that the connection between Eastern U.S. cold waves and Arctic sea ice is speculative, at best.
Just like most theories of climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How much could these stations be affected by UHI?
Expressing uncertainties about theories is the mark of good science and opposite the debate-has-ended Green New Deal push.
It is fun to play with this:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=78.47,74.73,721
Examine different pressures.
Just eye-balling the graph, the estimated uncertainty in the slope is greater than the slope. The global warming people rarely show an uncertainty level, but we should be more responsible and plot that as well. Then we can state with confidence that the data show no statistically significant trend. I don’t think they will begin to improve their graphs by adding this important information, but we should.
Joe Bastardi got it right by looking backwards at historical data, not by peering into a virtual-reality-simulator crystal ball. He’s predicting that this instability will continue through Feb. into March
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/60728-who-or-what-is-to-blame-for-coldmageddon
In hit and run advocacy and agenda-driven media tactics, it depends.
The whole reason for the discussion is that accompanying every extreme weather event is prattle from alarmists that “These are exactly the type of extreme weather events we can expect more of in the future with global warming.” It can be a flood, rain, drought, storm, or anything. It’s tiring. So when the weather event is a shift in the polar winds to bring sub-zero weather to the US, Trump trolls the alarmists with a joke.
Shifting warmth from one part of the globe to another part of the globe based on a diversion of a jet stream, or a change in a typical wind pattern is mere weather, and has nothing to do with long-term global climate patterns. We know it. The alarmists know it. Everyone knows it.
But we argue about it anyway. Alarmists pretend that Trump isn’t making a joke and that this is what we believe. Instead of arguing against strawman arguments that they make up, they can now argue against a joke.
It appears to me that the sun and the earth’s revolving and orbital properties explain most of things related to the climate change. Anyone one other thing i.e. CO2 that is used to explain everything else, in reality explais nothing at all.
vukcevic – You nailed it:
“…CO2 that is used to explain everything else, in reality explains nothing at all.”
Skeptics are dismissed because they don’t have a theory that explains the observations. The reality is that the other side’s theory doesn’t explain the observations either. In fact, it is worse to say that you know when you obviously don’t, than it is to admit that do not have all the answers. The ladder is science. The former is politics and activism.
Polar Vortex, I remember when they were just called a Arctic Air Inversion. But I guess Vortex sounds scarier.
But how can an overheated arctic bring extreme cold air north.
(should be south of course)
Superhot. It was superhot.
Falsification requires a lot of data over a long period of time
≠========
Only in the pseudo sciences. In physics, math, chemistry it only takes a single contrary example to falsify a theory.
In point of fact, it is the falsification problem that separates true science from pseudo science. That and the need to add “science” to the name. Like The Peoples Democratic Republic. If you nèed to add Democratic to the name, you can be sure it is not a democracy. Political science, climate science. Non science, nonsense. Sounds the same because they are the same.
If this winter was abnormally warm all the news services and all the scientists would be shouting that this proves global warming is real.
But instead it is cold so they are shouting that this proves nothing. In point of fact it proves they are too embarrassed to admit they don’t really know what is going on.
Many of them are inanely claiming that so far, 2019 has twice as many record highs as record lows.
I am guessing they had to cherry pick some places and time periods.
But in fact, every time cold air moves south, some warm air has to move north in equal quantity.
Arctic outbreaks move cold air southward and then eastward to the ocean, warming it up.
And warm air surges northward, where it’s heat is radiated off into space.
Just like always, the result is a net poleward movement of heat from the tropics.
About five years ago and earlier (old-timers here may recall) warmists said that insect damage to trees in the Rockies would worsen because AGW would ensure that no brutal cold snaps would kill them off. Falsified now, I guess.
Yes, and see also: permanent drought, “our children won’t know what snow is”, etc.
Trends…what are they?
“This is what makes global warming theory so marvelously adaptable — it can explain anything.”
Karl Popper: A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.
“If the Polar Vortex is due to Global Warming, Why are U.S. Cold Waves Decreasing?”
I know I know! Because it’s not due to global warming!
Talking of things cold. You’re gonna love this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973
AND
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/01/31/little-ice-age-cased-thames-freeze-caused-americas-genocide/
Cause and effect are reversed in these pieces of fiction. Cold periods are associated with a much higher prevalence of plagues as peasants huddled together along with with favorite flea-infested rodents for warmth, for example.
“WEATHER IS IMMENSELY COMPLEX.”
Those who speak of climate change and say the science is either simple or settled are displaying their shameful arrogance or ignorance. If they claim to be climate scientists, they are deceiving themselves and those who follow them.
You can rightfully claim to be a biologist or mathematician, chemist or statistician, physicist or meteorologist, because you are someone who is very knowledgeable and an expert within this field. However, this cannot be the case with a “climate scientist” who has to depend on inputs from geography and meteorology, from mathematics and statistics, from physics and chemistry, as well as inputs from a number of other disciplines. Very few involved in climate science have PhDs in even two of these disciplines. And even among these, many display a woeful weakness in logical reasoning.
Certainly, we need to make an efforts to better understand weather and climate. However, we can ill afford to waste considerable resources on trying to change the climate. We should focus rather on adapting to changes which innovative man has done throughout all of recorded history.
Nothing has changed.
Devil’s advocate here. With it generally accepted that we have polar amplification with warming, and even if it isn’t anthropo, this would predict that we have some decline in the coldness and severity of cold waves.
In the blurb on Elizabeth Warrmin going for presidency, I argued the point that given polar amplification, and the NASA image of this outbreak covering much of the two land masses making up the NH, where is all this cold air coming from?
Shouldn’t it under the circumstances be only -5°C by the time it spreads itself so broadly. If its -30C in Chicago, it must have been -60C in Alert, Nunavut! WUWT?
One has to look carefully at just exactly what is being claimed when someone says “record cold”.
Most often, it is a record for that date only, in that place only.
But the way these stories are framed by the “If it bleeds, it leads” media, one might suppose it has never ever been this cold in these places or anywhere nearby, on any date, at any time.
I have seen stories that headline with the words “record setting cold”, but then say in the article than it is the coldest in some place…since the last time it happened! When it was colder.
How many credulous worrywarts stop and consider what the implication is, if Chicago just had the coldest January 30th in a hundred year? Do they think “It was colder 100 years ago on this date, so obviously this is not caused by 400 ppm of CO2”?
Nope!
Do they do some checking and find out it may have been as cold on January 25, or February 8, many times in that period?
Nope!
Looking at a graph of the means and extremes of temperature in any place on any date, and what is found is a roughly continuous curved line, with some notable peaks and valleys, indicating that a longer record will surely smooth out these peaks into a smoothly curving line.
Here is an example:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/weather/1975146-daily-temp-normals-extremes-graphs.html
Here is a discussion of some of the BS spewed by media:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-completely-engineered-extremes-in-weather-temperature-probability-charts.t3146/
They routinely get stuff not even wrong, and in fact have no idea what they are reporting on or looking at when it comes to anything even slightly technical or factual.
Pardon the layperson’s question, but does the decline in cold waves lend observational support to global warming?
Depends on what you mean by “global warming”. If you mean its evidence that the world has been warming since the little ice age, well we already knew that, so additional observational evidence of that doesn’t change anything. If you mean it’s evidence that the world has been warming due to man’s emissions of CO2, then no it doesn’t support that because it says nothing about the attribution of cause (man vs nature).
Okay – thanks. One of the reasons I ask is because of the so-called warming pause. I’m not familiar with the details of the data in the chart in this article, but it looks like the trend continues to decline even during the years of the pause. I’m wondering what would explain that continued trend.
No.
The term “Polar Vortex” has been around since 1853. Now recovered by left wing activist mdia to suit their cause. Excellent post here:
http://notrickszone.com/2019/02/01/veteran-swiss-meteorologist-slams-media-for-making-it-up-noaa-polar-vortex-term-nothing-new-appeared-in-1853/
And without naming it, even before.
In 1709 was no ordinary cold snap. Dawn broke the next morning on a continent that had frozen over from Italy to Scandinavia and from England to Russia, and would not warm up again for the next three months. Even Venice canals froze.
If anyone was wondering where and when the next Coldwave will hit…
Bundle up Anthony and Willis.
There is a long article on 1709 at
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/01-02/1709-deep-freeze-europe-winter/
polar vortex usually last about a month it might have triggered some other processes since cold ‘snap’ lasted about three months.
Offered explanation
“Various theories for the event have been put forward. In previous years, a number of volcanoes around Europe had erupted, including Teide (on the Canary Islands), Santorini (in the eastern Mediterranean), and Vesuvius (near Naples). Huge quantities of dust and ash in the atmosphere reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. The year 1709 also falls within the period known by climatologists as the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715)”
Isn’t weather one of the most complex multicriteria systems ?
James Clark, an d many others say the same thing, its the Oceans stupid.
Another way to consider this matter of what causes what, is t say that as the “Warmer ” say, its all about CO2, then lets go back to about 1750, the beginning of the Industrial revolution”, steam power had just been invented, a very crude form, .So back then there had to be very little so called “Man made CO2.
So lets note, no models please, Hi. the weather patterns since then. “There had to be some connection with the rise of the CO2 in the vast atmosphere with the actual weather. Unless of course its all about the heat capacity of the vast Oceans.
MJE
“It’s much easier to devise and promote a climate change theory than it is to falsify it.”
__________________________________________________
It is also easy to claim that we have two times five toes because the mathematics decadal base is 10.
Anyone who claims the opposite is laughed at as fantasizing decadal denier.
__________________________________________________
Living is easy for convinced 10toers.
Funny, I can remember back in the 1980s when they blamed polar vortex excursions on global cooling.
Re. the base of 10, what about way back in the days of the Babalonians, when the base was 60, from where we get the 60 minutes and seconds, plus the 360 degrees of the compass.
What would the warmers do with such a wide base to play with ?
MJE
Michael MJE- good question:
https://www.google.com/search?q=astrology+zodiac+60&oq=astrology+zodiac+60&aqs=chrome.