“NOAA’s Brilliant Response To Trumps Climate Tweet” Was a Red Herring Fallacy

Guest logic by David Middleton

Jan 30, 2019, 10:24am

NOAA’s Brilliant Response To Trumps Climate Tweet

Trevor Nace
Contributor
Science

[…]

 

[…]

The president tweeted on Monday “In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!”

[…]

Forbes

 

Warmer SST’s leading  to more precipitation have Jack Schist to do with President Trump’s Tweet…

 

Young Trevor and the NOAA brain-trust are correct about one thing… The polar vortex does not disprove the global warming that has been occurring since the coldest temperatures of the Holocene: The Little Ice Age (LIA).

Andy May, WUWT Older is to the right.

In Central Greenland, one of Gorebal Warming’s many canaries in the coal mine, The LIA was just about as cold as the final Pleistocene glacial interstadial.

Data from Alley, 2000. Younger is to the right.
0 0 vote
Article Rating
127 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
February 1, 2019 6:12 pm

The NOAA’s post could explain heavy snow being consistent with global warming, but that is irrelevant to severe cold.

jtom
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 1, 2019 7:16 pm

No, NOAA’s post could explain that more precipitation could be consistent with global warming. Snow also requires cold. If this explanation is to be acceptable, then the snowfall must be in a smaller area; i.e., less area would see temperatures falling sufficiently for the precipitation to be snow.

Similar cold weather extending over a similar size area is evidence of no warming. In that event, more precipitation means that the weather is getting wetter, not colder.

jtom
Reply to  jtom
February 1, 2019 7:22 pm

Last word should be warmer, unless you believe it is evidence we are slipping into an ice age.

Tom Halla
Reply to  jtom
February 1, 2019 7:27 pm

One could have heavier snow and warming, depending on the starting point. If the weather was in the 20 F range, rather than 5 F, it would be warmer, but still cold enough to snow.

Latitude
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 2, 2019 7:45 am

Prevailing winds were blowing west to east….had nothing to do with ocean temps or moisture

Bill
Reply to  Latitude
February 2, 2019 9:28 am

Finally, someone gets it right! Thank you!

Mark Luhman
Reply to  jtom
February 2, 2019 12:37 am

We are getting more snowfall across the nation, not less, the worst part it falling earlier and later, somehow that does not fit into a warming earth. When I was young it did not snow in Minnesota in late April, early and mid yes late no, now it falls in May.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  jtom
February 2, 2019 2:36 pm

condensed:

No, Snow requires cold. the snowfall must be in a smaller area; less area for the precipitation to be snow.

cold weather is evidence of no warming. more precipitation means that the weather is not colder.

SLC Dave
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 1, 2019 8:01 pm

Actually…this recent cold outbreak is related to the breakdown of the stratospheric polar vortex over the north pole. These breakdowns are caused by waves of energy from convection over the tropics crashing into the stratosphere and imparting enough energy to reverse the motion of the polar vortex. So I guess the NOAA post wasn’t so crazy afterall…

LdB
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 1, 2019 8:27 pm

I think that is probably one of those thoughts that should have stayed inside the head.

Charles Nelson
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 2, 2019 1:17 am

So Warm air moving over the poles where it can only cool rapidly…is also…Global Warming?
Got it.

Hugs
Reply to  Charles Nelson
February 2, 2019 3:31 am

Your reaction is a bit tense, yes, that is according to some, one of the things AGW /might cause/.

The problem in here is it might cause this and that and opposite, which is no longer a scientific theory but just a Menckenian tool of politics.

Ian W
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 2, 2019 2:58 am

And these ‘waves of energy’ are orographically uplifted latitudinal jetstreams – usually over the Tibetan plateau. Jetstreams become latitudinal with Rossby waves when the input solar energy is weak and the convective Hadley cells either side of the equator are reduced in extent.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Ian W
February 2, 2019 8:16 am

Please define the meaning of “latitudinal jetstreams”.

Is this different than NH west-to-east flowing jetstreams, and does this imply there are “longitudinal jetstreams”? Google has been of no help to me in running this to ground, pardon the pun.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 2, 2019 1:15 pm

There is zonal flow with low amplitude Rossby waves, and there is meridional flow with high amplitude Rossby waves. I *think* latitudinal jetstreams would be zonal flow where the jet stream generally follow the lines of latitude. High zonal flow does not produce polar outbreaks. Low zonal (high meridional) flow produces polar outbreaks, it also produces very strong mid-level ridges under which the subtropical high strengthens. Ian W is getting his terminology all mixed up. He may want to re-post to make it clearer, I don’t understand what he is saying.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 2, 2019 8:07 am

“. . . imparting enough energy to reverse the motion of the polar vortex.”

Therefore, these so-called “energy waves” reverse the basic physics associated with Coriolis “force” acting on the polar cell of vertical air circulation over the north pole. You should write a scientific paper on this discovery.

LdB
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 1, 2019 8:29 pm

Pretty sure most commented the same .. the only real suggestion thrown up was the jet stream driving it theory but it has little to no evidence.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 4, 2019 11:09 am

In any case, it’s rationalization working backwards from a conclusion.

Ferdberple
February 1, 2019 6:21 pm

Winter storms don’t prove that global warming isn’t happening.
======???
What you have here is a double negative. Something you were taught back in grade school was a big no-no.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
February 1, 2019 7:09 pm

I miss the ability to edit. 🙁

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  commieBob
February 2, 2019 7:32 am

“YES”, one noninfrequently has a need for editing their posted comment. 🙂

Ronald Ginzler
Reply to  commieBob
February 2, 2019 4:27 am

A double negative is not always not correct.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Ronald Ginzler
February 2, 2019 8:19 am

Ronald, what happens with a quadruple negative, such as yours?

Rich Davis
Reply to  commieBob
February 2, 2019 11:14 am

“Winter storms don’t prove that global warming isn’t happening.”

Winter storms don’t disprove global warming.

I’d say that is more succinct and avoids the double negative.

bernie1815
Reply to  Ferdberple
February 1, 2019 7:11 pm

I thought the same thing. When you remove the double negative, the statement appears to say: “Winter storms prove global warming is happening.” That really is going to take some explaining not to mention empirical evidence.

Reply to  bernie1815
February 1, 2019 9:05 pm

Weather events aren’t climate. An uptick or downtick of (insert name of weather event here) lasting much less than 30 years does not prove or disprove climate change.

Reply to  bernie1815
February 1, 2019 10:22 pm

no.
lack of facial bruising doesn’t prove you are not beating your wife.
bur it does not prove that you are either.

Hugs
Reply to  bernie1815
February 2, 2019 3:36 am

Agree. It’s effin moronic to think Trump tried to prove something. He trolled NOAA. Or rather, smacked the cake to the face. Here is some global warming to you, eat it.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  bernie1815
February 2, 2019 5:25 am

“I’d like to leave you on a positive note, but I can’t…… can you use two negatives ?”

Woody Allen

Ancient Wrench
Reply to  Ferdberple
February 1, 2019 9:26 pm

I think it’s actually the contrapositive of:
“Winter storms prove that global warming is happening”, which is what alarmists try to assert with some contorted arguments about jet stream meanderings.

Menicholas
Reply to  Ferdberple
February 2, 2019 7:48 am

I do not think we should hesitate to fail to misunderestimate exactly how confusing this might not be.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
February 2, 2019 7:51 am

Or the other way around.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ferdberple
February 2, 2019 3:07 pm

I read once the English language is the only one where a double positive isn’t a negative.
“Yeah, right!”
😎

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Ferdberple
February 2, 2019 5:26 pm

Not a double negative but the English equivalent of:
NOT(A IMPLIES (NOT B))
A is “winter storms”
B is “global warming”

It’s a perfectly reasonable statement, though I don’t 100% agree with its truthfulness.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 2, 2019 6:12 pm

Yeah I know it is proper logic, but it always messed with my brain when I tried to learn computer science. Maybe that is why I am not in computer science.

Yirgach
Reply to  Ferdberple
February 2, 2019 6:34 pm

Winter storms don’t prove that global warming isn’t happening.

Winter storms prove that global warming is happening.

What double negative?

Klohrn
Reply to  Yirgach
February 2, 2019 11:56 pm

Severe Local cold proves Global warming isn’t as global as nobody ever thought.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Ferdberple
February 3, 2019 2:14 pm

Winter storms also don’t prove that global warming is happening, either. In short, they prove nothing either way in that regard; they do disprove Viner’s position that heavy snow is a thing of the past, and our children will never see it.

TDBraun
February 1, 2019 6:25 pm

In 2006 when Inconvenient Truth came out and it was declared that the science was settled on this issue there was not anyone, Gore included, predicting that Global Warming was going to produce more and bigger winter cold storms. On the contrary, they were predicting warm winters, that young people would grow up never seeing snow, and that ski resorts would all go out of business.

Therefore, either the claim that the science is settled is clearly falsified, or the claim that these storms are due to global warming is a lie.

Brian
Reply to  TDBraun
February 1, 2019 7:17 pm

Excellent reply!

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  TDBraun
February 1, 2019 7:48 pm

Guess which one I voted for. The science is settled in that CAGW IS IMPOSSIBLE if 1 molecule of CO2 is supposed to heat up 2450 molecules of N2 and O2..

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 1, 2019 9:17 pm

Vapor of any of the alkali metals in a gas flame in a concentration of 1 part per million causes the emission spectrum of that gas flame to be heavily from that metal vapor. In a low pressure sodium vapor lamp, the sodium vapor is about 1/10 of 1% of the gas/vapor content, and produces about 99% of the spectral content from the gas/vapor. In a fluorescent lamp, mercury vapor accounting for about 1/10 of 1 % of the gas/vapor mixture accounts for over 95% often about 99% of the spectral content from the gas/vapor.

Also, arguments that spectral absorption by CO2 is already saturated and can’t increase from increase of CO2 (not quite fully true) can be used against arguments that CO2 can’t do anything because it accounts for 1/2450 of the atmosphere.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 2, 2019 12:44 am

However, it is also true that CO2 increases the emissivity of the upper atmosphere, and that actually might cause global cooling. We don’t really know what the net effect of back radiation and emission is.

The other important factor is that water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas by both spectral width and quantity, and two greenhouse gases working in parallel are not unlike two resistors in parallel – You cannot simply add the effects.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
February 2, 2019 6:43 am

…two greenhouse gases working in parallel are not unlike two resistors in parallel – You cannot simply add the effects.
Interesting analogy here. I don’t think it works, though. Both current through, and dissipated power in, paralleled resistors are obtained by simple addition. Casting about to salvage the analogy, perhaps parallel inductors in AC circuits would illustrate your point, but in that case the analogy itself is so complicated as to lose any rhetorical value.

I think your greater point is that some folks are over simplifying the effects of atmospheric gases, and that certainly seems to be the case.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 2, 2019 1:13 am

EXTREMELY poor response! Yeah, I know – I’m only a High School graduate, but you’re equating a compound (CO2) with elements (sodium and mercury). An apples to oranges comparison. Rather an apples to orangatangs argument. Then, why go from fractions to percentages? You destroy your own argument in just the second sentence – and it goes downhill from there. I’ve had the pleasure to work with, and edit the writing of, illustrious scientists and engineers over my career and very few have been able to express themselves in writing with any skill. I suggest that you read what you wrote and decide if an unbiased audience could derive any meaning.

Flight Level
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 2, 2019 2:28 am

And the energy in a sodium lamp comes from ? Relatively low level solar radiation or an intense electric current carried by ionized gas ?

It’s like comparing thunder to sunlight.

Reply to  Flight Level
February 2, 2019 9:01 pm

Flight level: Regarding “Relatively low level solar radiation or an intense electric current carried by ionized gas ? It’s like comparing thunder to sunlight”:

In low pressure metal vapor lamps, the densities of electric current per unit area cross section, power per unit surface area and power per unit volume are low, despite the fact that some classify low pressure sodium vapor lamps as HID lamps. I see that mistaken classification by some as being because their ballasts are considered by some to resemble those of HID lamps (I think they’re closer to ballasts of 8-foot single-pin-per-end fluorescent lamps than anything else) – or because low pressure sodium vapor lamps are bright.

As for watts per square meter: Direct sunlight is, as year-round average, averaged throughout recent solar cycles, onto a plane perpendicular to the sunlight, just above the part of Earth’s atmosphere that changes this, is 1355 W/m^2. At Earth’s surface, sunlight + daylight is often 1,000 W/m^2 where solar panels are receiving full sunlight, and the optimistic figure is 1100 W/m^2. The watts of power input per surface area in the inner surface of the arc tubes of low pressure sodium lamps is not much more. In most 4-foor fluorescent lamps, where the metal vapor is responsible for about 99% of the radiation reaching the inner surface of what contains it and (both directly and after processing by a phosphor) about 99% of the light produced, this figure is around mid-300s watts per square meter.

Reply to  Flight Level
February 3, 2019 6:03 am

Oops, typo – sunlight year-round average just above Earth’s atmosphere is 1,366 W/m^2, not 1,355.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 2, 2019 8:10 am

Donald L. Klipstein – February 1, 2019 at 9:17 pm

Also, arguments that spectral absorption by CO2 is already saturated and can’t increase from increase of CO2 (not quite fully true) ………

“Not quite”, …… HUH?

And you are as serious as a “heart attack”, …… RIGHT?

Isn’t that kinda like “salting” your eggs to just the taste you like, …… but salting your eggs more n’ more will not make them taste “saltier”, ……. RIGHT?

So, Donald L, what are you telling me?

Is it, ….. iffen I “first” add the CO2 molecules that were added “last” in the above, they will not absorb any IR thermal (heat) radiation that is radiating through the atmosphere, ….. BUT, …. just as soon as I add the CO2 molecules that were added “first” in the above, …… they and only they will immediately begin absorbing the IR thermal (heat) radiation that is radiating through the atmosphere.,

Now that has just got to be the 1st actual, factual case of PFM.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
February 2, 2019 11:34 am

Infrared absorption of CO2 is partially saturated, enough to make the effect of increasing CO2 logarithmic instead of linear. Logarithmic not flat, that is. The effect is 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 according to IPCC, 3.35 (4.83 ln 2) W/m^2 per 2xCO2 according to Christopher Monckton in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/10/the-credibility-gap-between-predicted-and-observed-global-warming/

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
February 3, 2019 4:15 am

The effect is 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 according to IPCC,

And the IPCC is such a truthful and honest bunch that to question their commentary is a dastardly evil act.

Donald L, why don’tja get yourself a cylinder of CO2 and verify their claim?

It should be damn easy to do.

icisil
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 2, 2019 5:28 am

Alan, since you seem knowledgeable I’ll ask you what I asked another and got no response. Do you know the IR fluxes of N2, O2 and CO2? The W/m^2 values I have are 0.001, 0.018 and 0.134, respectively, but am not confident these are right.

Reply to  icisil
February 2, 2019 9:13 pm

Icisil: The fluxes are low for the diatomic gases, in the 10s of watts per square meter for CO2, and water vapor combined with clouds has a majority of the 324 W/m^2 of “back radiation” shown in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget “cartoon”.

Better known is how increasing CO2 changes this, for global average: The latest I have seen from IPCC and from Christopher Monckton agree that the effect of increase of CO2 is logarithmic, and Christopher Monckton’s latest figure that I saw is slightly over 90% of that of IPCC, 3.7 W/m^2 per 2x change of CO2 according to IPCC, 3.35 (IIRC 4.828 * ln 2) according to Christopher Monckton.

Reply to  TDBraun
February 1, 2019 9:38 pm

Manmade global warming is exaggerated, I think by a factor around 1.6-2 by “IPCC center track”. I think studies by Lewis & Curry and by Nick Lewis as sole top name are close to pinning down our planet’s actual climate sensitivity.

As for snowstorms: They aren’t going away soon from a degree or two of global warming; I expect minor shifts in their patterns after they get studied over a full period of the AMO. Another factor for measurements of American snowstorms is a change in the measurement method that was effectively implemented, I think a few years after 2000, when Bush II was President. Before that change, official snowfall measurements at airports with official National Weather Service weather stations was done by government employees according to two methods, one of them by the “climatology method”, the other by the “aviation method”. The change shifted this snowfall measurement duty to private contractors, who were only paid to do the measurements by the “aviation method”. When these two methods of snow measurement disagree with each other, generally the “aviation method” reports more snow than the “climatology method”. The “aviation method” works better than the “climatology method” for indicating effect on airport operations, but it puffs-up reported snowfall in comparison to the “climatology method” that was effectively discontinued after previously being used at many airports with weather stations officially considered by the National Weather Service.

Rich Davis
Reply to  TDBraun
February 2, 2019 11:18 am

We can’t rule out the possibility that it’s both

Cynthia
February 1, 2019 6:42 pm

I’ve seem many graphs interpreting temperature of last 12,000 years.
Most don’t exactly match up with each other.
Sources? Comparisons?
I’d like to be educated on this matter.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Cynthia
February 1, 2019 7:54 pm

Go to Heartland Institute and look up Chapter 5.7 of the 1000 page volume called Climate Change Reconsidered II

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 1, 2019 7:58 pm

It is in the Physical Science volume of Climate Change Reconsidered II.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 1, 2019 8:11 pm

I just realized why the Physical Science volume of Climate Change Reconsidered II is so important. It is the only magnum opus of climate science that can be trusted. It has all the references to any paper worth its salt in climate science . 97% of papers in climate science are garbage either because of groupthink assumptions of CO2 causing CAGW or because of drawing conclusions about reality based on climate models. Physical Science volume of Climate Change Reconsidered II has the real science.
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-physical-science

Hivemind
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 2, 2019 12:40 am

Thanks for the useful link.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Cynthia
February 2, 2019 8:57 am

Cynthia – February 1, 2019 at 6:42 pm

I’ve seem many graphs interpreting temperature of last 12,000 years.
Most don’t exactly match up with each other.
I’d like to be educated on this matter.

Cynthia, for a “crash” course for learning about past (pre 18th Century) near-surface temperature the 1st thing you need to learn is that they are “proxy” temperatures, not actual thermometer recorded temperatures.

Take a look-see at this Holocene Temperature Variation “proxy” graph ……. and you will see seven (7) thin multicolored lines which are the different temperature proxies …….. and one (1) heavy black line which is the “average” temperature for all said proxies.

And as you can see on the above graph, ….. none of those 7 proxies “exactly match up with each other” simply because the research was conducted via different criteria and at different locations & is solely the LEARNED OPINION of the author, …… and the same is true for ALL of the other temp proxies regardless of who authored the proxy.

Temperature proxies/graphs are for reference ONLY, ….. and are not actual, factual evidence of anything.

Bill
February 1, 2019 7:02 pm

A good start would be halving their budget and redirecting that money to social security. Will Democrats embrace what ought to be very popular amongst Americans? Will Democrats help to extend social security? Nope, nope, nope, nope…

Highflight56433
Reply to  Bill
February 1, 2019 7:16 pm

But they are the champions of raiding trust funds, high taxes, extremism bureaucracy, and the sky is always falling and it’s your fault and you must pay now!

We all know the point in climate fraud is to tax. The politicians could never stoop to setting the example of their rhetoric/rules/regulations/laws that they impose on others. More nope…

Rkp
Reply to  Bill
February 1, 2019 8:47 pm

If there is any extra cash in the social security lockbox, the congresscritters will spend it forthwith. Always have and probably will. They are addicted to spending. It applies to both sides of the political spectrum. What differs is what they want to spend it on.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rkp
February 2, 2019 5:27 am

“If there is any extra cash in the social security lockbox, the congresscritters will spend it forthwith.”

That was done a long time ago. That account is now empty of cash and full of IOU’s. The Congresscritters had a desire to spend that cash and now it’s all gone.

Yeah, that was a good one: Lockbox. Good for a laugh, and good as an example of a big political lie.

Not Chicken Little
February 1, 2019 7:19 pm

Summer heat waves don’t prove that Man-made climate change IS happening, either. But you’ll never hear or see NASA or NOAA tweeting that…

But I sure am glad the Magic Molecule CO2 gave us all the warming we’ve experienced since our last Ice Age started ending 10-12 K years ago, to melt the more than a mile thick glaciers and raise sea levels more than 400 feet! Oh wait, it isn’t responsible for THAT warming?

Denier Joe
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
February 2, 2019 4:24 pm

Good to see someone admitting any weather event in an hourly or weekly period has nothing to do with CAGW. I like to joke about the earths mean temperature being colder or warmer based on the weather at any given moment at work.

You got it. The earth cooling or warming when we’ve populated it more is always our fault. When there were no power plants or SUV’s, warming coincidentally had nothing to do with us.

SLC Dave
February 1, 2019 7:49 pm

The most recent data point in the GISP 2 data set is 1855, long before current warming would have been noticeable.

Michael Jankowski
February 1, 2019 7:58 pm

You can add “sense of humor” to the list of things that climate scientists are missing.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
February 2, 2019 3:21 am

Yep SLC.
See my post (when it appears).
Below.

Mike
February 1, 2019 8:00 pm

In Australia we are having a heat wave which is ”breaking records”. I don’t know about record breaking, but it’s certainly hotter this year than I can remember for a long time. Especially inland. It didn’t take long for the global warming enthusiasts to chime in and blame man made climate change which is of course nonsense. We had similar and longer lasting heat in the 20’s if memory serves. What caused that?????

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Mike
February 1, 2019 8:17 pm

Go see Tony Heller’s video in response to Potboiler for your answer.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 2, 2019 2:43 am

And this is Potholer54’s response to Heller’s response for your real answer ….

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2019 12:18 pm

And response #3…..

LdB
Reply to  Mike
February 1, 2019 10:02 pm

Mike please don’t speak for the whole of Australia, the lower half of Western Australia has been really mild because the way the weather patterns work. The Australian average is a record and given the East has had a massive drought hardly surprising. Meanwhile in WA we produced our second largest grain harvest.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/wa-s-summer-grain-harvest-the-second-biggest-on-record-20190201-p50v5y.html

Swampy
Reply to  LdB
February 2, 2019 4:30 pm

Shhhh!!! Don’t agree with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and mention how harvests are better down there too. We don’t want to let the deniers know that there is no food crisis. Gotta’ keep the masses in a state of panic at all times. Keep them giving till it kills them to save the holy mother Gaia. Blasphemy! and shame.

Hivemind
Reply to  Mike
February 2, 2019 12:42 am

The South-East has had the hottest summer in five years. Personally, I remember in the late 80’s to early 90’s when it got hotter for about three years in a row.

Mike From Au
February 1, 2019 8:22 pm

Nowhere near as brilliant as the massive, breathtaking discovery about the cause of the mini ice age.
Obviously now we are more sophisiticated and know the little icce age was caused by Americanhttps://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973 colonisation.
`

February 1, 2019 8:49 pm

.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . SkepticalScience jumps off a cliff . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.

SkepticalScience recently published a short article, by somebody called Evan. The article was called “SkS Analogy 18 – Cliff jumping and temperature changes.

The article starts with some “good” advice.

“Regardless of the height of a cliff, jumping from cliffs is deadly. Hang-gliding from cliffs thrills. Jumping from cliffs kills.”

I don’t like to nit-pick, but Evan, the author, doesn’t tell us how high the cliffs are. He said, “Regardless of the height of a cliff, jumping from cliffs is deadly.”

But what if the cliff was only 10 centimetres high. I think that most people could survive a fall of 10 centimetres.

Remember, that Evan said, “REGARDLESS of the height of a cliff”. So he didn’t specify a minimum height.

This is a typical Alarmist tactic. They try to “trick” you, by playing on your emotions.

They want you to picture yourself, crippled at the bottom of a 10 centimetre cliff, wishing that you had listened to their message about global warming.

https://agree-to-disagree.com/skepticalscience-jumps-off-a-cliff

Reply to  Sheldon Walker
February 2, 2019 1:39 am

In earth’s climate change terms:
Jumping of a cliff = Onset of an ice age
Icarus flight = Catastrophic global warming
One is repeating reality the other is flight of an unwise imagination.

Reply to  vukcevic
February 2, 2019 2:14 am

I meant ‘bungee jump’

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
February 2, 2019 5:47 am

I used to jump off a cliff called “Big Dady” that was 90 feet high. Feet first. I wasn’t brave/foolish enough to try to dive head first.

If you ever do that you should probably wear tennis shoes because it kind of stings your feet when you hit.

That cliff is now fenced off to prevent people from jumping off it.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
February 2, 2019 11:36 am

My daughter broke her femur and collar bone stepping off a curb wrong. Just five or six inches. The collar bone was due to the resulting fall. Jumping off a cliff CAN be deadly, with the probability of death increasing with increased height. Just a little precision in language helps reduce confusion with regard to boundary conditions.

February 1, 2019 8:58 pm

Although the winter storm cartoon (copied from a March 2015 article) was not a good response to a tweet about a cold snap, it is not all of the response. Ahead of the winter storm cartoon was:

Responding to Mr Trump on Twitter, Jonathan Foley, an environmental scientist at the California Academy of Sciences, said: “You knew this was going to happen. It’s cold in less than 1% of the planet for a few days, so the long term warming and destabilization of a planet’s entire climate system must not be true.

“In related news, Trump had a Big Mac today, so there is no such thing as global hunger.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/30/frantic-climate-scientist-response-to-president-trumps-latest-troll-tweet/

R Shearer
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 1, 2019 9:48 pm

It was definitely cold in more than 1% of the planet. In fact, it’s cold in more than half the planet all the time.

ATheoK
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 2, 2019 5:52 am

Foley’s response to Trump’s tweet is a red herring and baseless.

“Global Warming” as promoted by activists, alarmists and biased weather agencies is a promotion of endless dooms and disasters.

Trump’s tweet highlights the absurdities of those faux prophetic climate predictions.
Especially since the biased weather agencies and activists utterly failed to include severe cold weather in their impending dooms.

Recent years and spells of cold weather sent those alarmists into overdrive to include severe cold weather into what “global warming” can cause.
Ignored are the records showing less severe weather episodic cycles. While alarmists hyperventilate about impossible climate dooms and desperate attempts to promote ordinary weather into catastrophic climate impacts.

Foley, NASA, NOAA and many others may understand the specific effects of 1.2 more molecules of CO₂ per ten thousand atmospheric molecules. Unfortunately, their promotion of dire climate effects are solely subjective imaginations running wild.
As is their responses using actual CO₂ science to statements caused by their dire, catastrophic or tipping point specious claims.

Allowing alarmists and activists like Foley, NASA and NOAA to look like right fools as their list of climate events caused by CO₂ levels to be a list of 180 degree opposition climate impacts.
e.g.
Disastrous droughts Disastrous floods
Disastrous heat Disastrous cold
Disastrous winds Disastrous calm
Lack of winter Disastrous winters
Lack of snow massive snow falls
Lack of sea ice (Arctic) Massive sea ice (Antarctic)
Disappearing glaciers glaciers are growing
Disastrous melting of land bound ice aggregating snow/ice on those same land bound ice
Open ocean causing precipitation lack of open water that can affect that precipitation
Etc. etc etc.

The publicity promoted by these activists and alarmist is exactly what Trump targeted. Falsely responding while pretending their own claims and promoted dooms did not exist, is utter falsehood.

Dan Steward
February 1, 2019 9:46 pm

Has anyone considered how many people would have actually died from this cold spell if God had not blessed the US with the shale gas revolution at this time? Due to the abundant cheap energy that resulted we had sufficient energy to get through this weather crisis.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Dan Steward
February 2, 2019 12:41 am

Dan how dare you ask such a question, after all don’t you know renewables are the answer, they could have handled the cold no problem and the add benefit is we would have less crowed old folks homes and schools. /sarc

DeLoss McKnight
February 1, 2019 10:13 pm

Trump is not trying to make a point about the validity of Climage Change. He’s just trolling those who believe in it, the majority of whom are his political opposition. I’m sure he doesn’t believe in Climage Change, but that’s besides the point. His tweet is just to drive his political opponents crazy and it is very effective at that.

Stephen Skinner
February 2, 2019 1:59 am

University College London is stating that the LIA was caused by European Colonization of the Americas:

“Colonisation of the Americas at the end of the 15th Century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth’s climate.
That’s the conclusion of scientists from University College London, UK.
The team says the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation.
This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet.
It’s a cooling period often referred to in the history books as the “Little Ice Age” – a time when winters in Europe would see the Thames in London regularly freeze over.

“The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas led to the abandonment of enough cleared land that the resulting terrestrial carbon uptake had a detectable impact on both atmospheric CO₂ and global surface air temperatures,” Alexander Koch and colleagues write in their paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews…”
“…It’s the UCL group’s estimate that 60 million people were living across the Americas at the end of the 15th Century (about 10% of the world’s total population), and that this was reduced to just five or six million within a hundred years.
The scientists calculated how much land previously cultivated by indigenous civilisations would have fallen into disuse, and what the impact would be if this ground was then repossessed by forest and savannah.
The area is in the order of 56 million hectares, close in size to a modern country like France.
This scale of regrowth is figured to have drawn down sufficient CO₂ that the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere eventually fell by 7-10ppm (that is 7-10 molecules of CO₂ in every one million molecules in the air).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
February 2, 2019 9:55 am

University College London is stating that the LIA was caused by European Colonization of the Americas:

The team says the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation.

This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet.

Me thinks those “dudes” at the University College London has INTENTIALLY got it “ass-backward”.

“DUH”, European settlement in/of North America resulted in huge swathes of forests and brush lands being “clear cut” and/or “cleared” and converted to productive agricultural land.

“The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas” over the course of 300 years, …… was more than just REPLACED by the hordes of European immigrants into America during those same 300 years.

Me also thinks that the majority of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas would be classified as “hunter-gathers”, ……. not farmers, herders, sailors, butchers, bakers or candle-stick makers.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
February 2, 2019 1:48 pm

Well the science is good because they calculated how much land had been cultivated by using an estimate of population. That should work? Shouldn’t there be lots of bones and evidence of widespread farming.
However, a previous study in 2006 linked the LIA to depopulation in Europe caused by the plague. Either way there is this fixation that CO2 is the main culprit because the increase in trees removed it from the atmosphere and so it got a lot colder. That must be why I feel cooler when I sit in the shade of a tree then? Or perhaps I’m mistaken in believing that a tree provides cool shade and prevents the ground from warming. It has to be CO2 what done it.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
February 2, 2019 2:33 pm

The problem is the dating. I’ve seen estimates that the climate turned cold around 1300, 48 years before the Black Death. And as the LIA started in the 1300’s, no way can the plagues in the Americas be the cause.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
February 3, 2019 4:23 am

Stephen Skinner, ……. that was pretty good satire. 🙂

Paramenter
February 2, 2019 2:48 am

NOAA ‘brilliant response’ basically says warmer means cooler. If you want to convince anyone with such a sublime logic – good luck with that!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Paramenter
February 2, 2019 3:00 am

No it doesn’t – it says that warmer means more atmospheric WV, which in the case of the US leads to more winter storm energy via LH release and also more precipitable water able to fall as snow in Nor’easters.

Paramenter
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 2, 2019 3:09 am

It’s not only about snow, it is also about chill. So, yes, essentially what you’re trying to say is that global warming leads to more snow and more cooling. And again – if you want to convince anyone with such sublime and delicate logic – good luck with that!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Paramenter
February 2, 2019 3:27 am

No.
I’m saying that more warming leads to more atmospheric WV – which can (dependent on the sourced air-mass) lead to more snow falling in a given meteorological set-up.
I said nothing about GW causing cooling.
However a change in local sources of energy into the atmosphere from the oceans, whether by latent or sensible heat input CAN cause changes to the movement of polar air-masses.
The SSW that it as the root of this particular event has happened many times before, indeed may well have been common during the LIA.
It cannot be pinned down to any one cause.

Paramenter
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 2, 2019 6:34 am

Your more elaborate response is only long-winded way of saying ‘warmer means cooler’.

From one side it is fun to watch scientists from NOAA behaving as someone put glowing hot iron stick into their ‘rear gateways’. From the other side however it is quite sad state of affairs. They use similar excuses as in the communists regimes. If capitalists get poorer and poorer that only confirms prediction of Marxists. If capitalists get richer and richer that also confirms predictions of Marxists. Whatever happens – theory is satisfied. Pity that climate science is degenerating into such kind of pseudoscience.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 2, 2019 8:00 am

“Your more elaborate response is only long-winded way of saying ‘warmer means cooler’.”

That is NOT what I’m saying.

There are sinks and sources of energy in the climate system
Heat has to flow between.
Is that simple enough for you?

“They use similar excuses as in the communists regimes. If capitalists get poorer and poorer that only confirms prediction of Marxists. ”

Yep, that explains where you’re coming from.
A reduction to polarisation of political viewpoint by way of confirming your worldview.

” Pity that climate science is degenerating into such kind of pseudoscience.”
Yes indeed, pseudoscience is promulgated everyday on here.
Trying to fit the world to it and explain away man’s hand in the warming world.
But …. if you say so.

Flight Level
February 2, 2019 3:00 am

Nothing new under the sun.

In 1504, Christopher Columbus convinced a group of Native Jamaicans that his god was angry with them for ceasing to provide his group with supplies and that god would show his anger with a sign from the heavens. The sign was a lunar eclipse that Columbus knew was imminent.

Today other entities seek continuation of their supplies by leveraging weather variability to their advantage.

Anthony Banton
February 2, 2019 3:12 am

David:

The “Alley” graph (as misrepresented by Easterbrook) ends in 1855.
Not (as it appears) – 1950
And as such misses ALL anthro GW.

There is plenty of info on this very site about it’s erroneous usage.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/

“They’re not disputed, they’re wrong. Any graph that claims to use Alley’s GISP2 data must either finish at 95 years Before Present (BP=1950) or AD1855 because that is the final date in his database which is on-line and freely available to us all. Lappi’s graph mistakes Present for 2000 as does Easterbrook, they should have a note added pointing out their error or be excluded.”

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/
https://washingtonlandscape.blogspot.com/2013/04/easterbrooks-messed-up-graphs-corrected.html
comment image

Javier
February 2, 2019 3:13 am

The worst thing that could happen to the global warming fight is to meet success. Luckily it is based on faulty science, so success is not an option. Still, money and resources are being wasted in the fight.

Flight Level
Reply to  Javier
February 2, 2019 3:46 am

Global warming is a cult.
We have numerous evidences of successfully established cults despite the absolute lack of scientific support.

We have equally evidences of violences related to the propagation of cult dogmas.
Cults are a proven method of ideological mass control and wealth gathering.

Will humanity let itself into one more intellectual misguidance will remain an open question as long as immense profits are involved in the process.

huls
Reply to  Flight Level
February 3, 2019 10:16 am

Global Warming behaves in some ways like a cult but is an outright lie and a means to an end. A very dark and dehumanizing end. Here it is from the lead author of the IPCC report that won a Nobel peace prize:

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.
Ottmar Edenhofer , UN IPCC official.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer

This is either the worlds most dangerous and evil man or a very strong contender for that title.

Anthony Banton
February 2, 2019 3:32 am

David:

The “Alley” graph (as misrepresented by Easterbrook) ends in 1855.
Not (as it appears) – 1950
And as such misses ALL anthro GW.

There is plenty of info on this very site about it’s erroneous usage.

from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/

“They’re not disputed, they’re wrong. Any graph that claims to use Alley’s GISP2 data must either finish at 95 years Before Present (BP=1950) or AD1855 because that is the final date in his database which is on-line and freely available to us all. Lappi’s graph mistakes Present for 2000 as does Easterbrook, they should have a note added pointing out their error or be excluded.”

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/
https://washingtonlandscape.blogspot.com/2013/04/easterbrooks-messed-up-graphs-corrected.html
comment image

rah
February 2, 2019 4:32 am

David
This is completely OT but I think you may be uniquely suited to answer my question.

How come so many of the oil producing sites in the US are located in meteor impact craters?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/see-15-incredible-meteor-impact-sites-in-the-us/ss-BBT2PHV?ocid=spartanntp

Hocus Locus
February 2, 2019 4:40 am

I just love it when two ‘years before present’ graphs with axes opposite one another, are presented together. It creates an awful grinding sound deep in my brain. Don’t these people know time marches on from left to right? Unless you are in Australia.

H.R.
Reply to  Hocus Locus
February 2, 2019 8:20 am

One graph is from a Greenland ice core. The other graph is from an Antarctic ice core.

Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2019 4:46 am

In addition to the red herring, NOAA, with their “cute” graphic provides typical Warmunist pseudoscience. Their implication is that, due to “warmer” SSTs, not just winter storms, but all storms are now bigger, wetter, and stronger, which is their classic “extreme weather” meme. Pure bunkum, which the drooling True Believers will happily lap up.

JCalvertN(UK)
February 2, 2019 5:27 am

Never trust anything or anyone described as “brilliant”, still less anyone who uses the word.

George Daddis
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
February 2, 2019 7:18 am

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” – H.L. Mecken

H.R.
Reply to  George Daddis
February 2, 2019 8:16 am

Brilliant!

PSU-EMS-Alum
February 2, 2019 6:19 am

Hey, NOAA, global warming happening doesn’t mean that man is the primary cause.

PaulH
February 2, 2019 7:03 am

James Delingpole’s article is causing the Green Blob’s collective heads to explode 🙂

“Delingpole: The Frozen Hell Outside Your Window Is What Global Warming Looks Like”

http://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/02/01/delingpole-the-frozen-hell-outside-your-window-is-what-global-warming-looks-like/

“Has the climate alarmism industry shown any contrition for its doomsday scaremongering about global warming? Absolutely none. Instead, it is doubling down…”

Dan Steward
February 2, 2019 7:12 am

Rah,
I’m not sure if your guestion was to me or a David, but I thought I would reply anyway. Actually most accumulations are not related to meteor impacts, but meteor impacts can be productive if they occur in a Basin with good mature source rock. Meteor impacts can create a lot of fracturing providing avenues for oil and gas to migrate upsection from the source rock. If it is large enough, ~2.0 mile crater, it will generally have a structural rebound high in the center of the crater and a crater rim that has rebounded creating a high. Subsequent deposition over these highs can form structural traps in porous rock for migrating hydrocarbons to accumulate in. I am by no means an expert, but this is a general description of what can happen.
The Ames hole in Oklahoma and the Chixalub (sp?) crater off of the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico are examples of this. The Mexican impact is credited by Walter Alvarez ( his book “ T Rex and the Crater of Doom” is excellent reading) for the Cretaceous/ Tertiary boundary. Sorry for the long response.
Dan
PS: I personally don’t believe in man made global warming, it is a natural occurrence and we just have to deal with it.

Curious George
February 2, 2019 7:18 am

Cold weather is not climate. Only hot weather qualifies as climate.

Hoyt Clagwell
February 2, 2019 8:32 am

NOAA’s tweet was not only a red herring, but a straw man as well. A sort of Red Straw Herring Man.
I can’t find any recent tweets from Donald Trump where he asserted that global warming isn’t happening. He merely made a joke that he would welcome a little higher temperature which is what alarmists have claimed would be the product of global warming.

Dipchip
February 2, 2019 9:24 am

I have been plotting avg annual Northern H. snow cover using Rutgers weekly snow data from 1972 thru 2018.

A linear trend line for the period shows a present day decrease in NH snow cover from 25.2 Million sq Km to 24.5 M sq Km.

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/wkcov.nhland.txt

Paramenter
February 2, 2019 1:02 pm

Hey Anthony,

That is NOT what I’m saying.

OK. NOAA is saying.

Yep, that explains where you’re coming from.

I’m writing from a bunker in Pyongyang laughing at Western ‘useful idiots’ who promote idea of global warming and subsequently radical de-industrialisation. Keep it going, fellas 😉

A reduction to polarisation of political viewpoint by way of confirming your worldview.

That was actually from Karl Popper. Unfortunately, more and more applicable to the current state of the climate science.

Yes indeed, pseudoscience is promulgated everyday on here.

Quite contrary – this blog is having humble input in demystifying climate science scare.

Pamela Gray
February 2, 2019 1:13 pm

Evidence of ice advance edges into North America appears to take on the shape of a polar vortex that rotates around repetitively enough within a shorter time span during the winter season and over decadal time scales to set up an interstadial cold period. Now all we have to do is figure out how it starts and stays stuck in that rapidly circulating pattern so as to create the ice advance pattern that mirrors this one time example of where the ice edge would be in addition to the cold and snow being reported.

Johann Wundersamer
February 2, 2019 2:50 pm

condensed:

No, Snow requires cold. the snowfall must be in a smaller area; less area for the precipitation to be snow.

cold weather is evidence of no warming. more precipitation means that the weather is not colder.

: 2 sense

mortimer zilch
February 3, 2019 5:37 am

MUST STOP the “global dimming project” funded by Bill Gates…it’s really designed to slow food production and reduce population… IT’S GENOCIDAL !! all in the name of environmentalism….

Gunga Din
February 3, 2019 6:14 pm

Hmmm…so hot air produces cold.
And that justifies subsidies for wind and solar and Solydra and Tesla?

PS IF that NY idiot”s “Green New Deal” had been in effect, hundreds if not thousands would have frozen to death.

Joel Snider
February 4, 2019 9:16 am

Whenever a reporter describes a comment as a ‘brilliant response’ it’s not journalism – it’s advocacy .

%d bloggers like this: