Global cooling – and global totalitarian socialism – are the catastrophes we should fear most
Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris
What do heat waves, floods, droughts, rising sea levels, forest fires, hurricanes, African wars, mass extinctions, disease outbreaks, and human and animal migrations from South America and the Middle East have in common?
According to climate activists, they are all caused by dangerous man-made global warming. And this, in turn, is supposedly caused by rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels resulting from our use of fossil fuels.
They might as well add alien invasions to the list, because it is all nonsense. Indeed, the climate scare industry has achieved such a level of absurdity that, on February 1, journalist Andrew Revkin reported in a National Geographic article that, “Many stories in recent days highlighted studies concluding that global warming is boosting the odds of cold [weather] outbreaks.”
(As we delve into the realm of absurdity, however, let us not forget that, in 2011, scientists from NASA’s Planetary Science Division and Michael Mann’s Penn State University actually presented a report speculating that extraterrestrial environmentalists could be so appalled by our planet-polluting, climate-changing ways that they could view humans as a threat to the entire intergalactic ecosystem and decide to destroy humanity!)
Among the most absurd of recent climate alarm statements is the one attributing recent cold spells to manmade global warming came from University of Michigan professor emeritus of environment and sustainability Donald Scavia, who said: “In the past there was a very strong gradient of cold air at the poles and warmer air south of the poles. That gradient kept the cold where it is…. As the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet, that gradient weakens, allowing the cold air currents to dip south.”
Dr. Tim Ball, an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, said that Scavia’s statement “is utter rubbish.” Ball explained, “It’s wrong in every aspect, from the basic assumption to the interpretation. In fact, a gradient makes things move. It doesn’t ‘keep the cold where it is.’”
It’s also a mistake to think that, if human-produced CO2 is actually causing global warming, the poles will warm first. “There is no evidence of that; they just are assuming it to be the case,” Dr. Ball emphasized.
And, if the poles did warm first, Ball explained, the reduced temperature difference between the poles and lower latitude regions would reduce extreme weather events, not intensify them, as climate campaigners claim. After all, weather and extreme weather events are driven by the temperature gradient between latitudes. A warming Arctic would result in less intense cold outbreaks and a lesser intrusion of cold artic air colliding with warm moist air in warmer regions. Climate alarmists have their science backwards.
Ball noted that the real cause of the severe cold outbreaks in the United States is a wavy Jet Stream.
The Jet Stream is a thin band of strong winds that flow rapidly around the planet from west to east at approximately 10 km altitude. The Jet Stream divides warm air masses, typically found at low latitudes towards the tropics, from cold air masses, usually found at high latitudes near the poles.
However, a very wavy jet stream, as we are experiencing now (and have many times in the past), allows frigid Arctic air to move south to normally warmer latitudes and warm tropical air to push into Polar latitudes. The result is an increase in extreme weather events, including the cold outbreaks in the USA. It has nothing to do with global warming. In fact, the most common cause of a wavy Jet Stream is global cooling. History shows that severe weather increases with a cooling world, not a warming one.
As to fears of more cold outbreaks due to global warming, Ball laughed, “They’re making it all up!”
Clearly, there is no end to the deceptions that the climate lobby will tell the public in order to deprive the world of reliable, inexpensive fossil fuel-based energy, the foundation of modern living standards. Perhaps the greatest deception of all is what real scientists call cherry picking – highlighting data that advance their theory and agenda, while ignoring data that do not support their politics.
The graph below explains how they do it. The overall trend of the data is obvious: as variable “A” declines, variable “B” increases. But if you choose only a small portion of the data (or just a few years out of 100 or 1,000), you can declare the trend to be anything you want – including having “A” stay the same as “B” increases, and even having “A” increase as “B” increases.
This is the sleight-of-hand used by global warming alarmists who want the public to believe that burning fossil fuels and increasing the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide must be stopped at all costs. They want to run the nation and the world on expensive, inconvenient, unreliable wind and solar energy. They ignore the fact that those energy must be totally backed up by dependable energy sources like fossil fuel or nuclear in order to stop the grid from collapsing. It has been calculated that, were the Midwest to be dependent only on wind and solar power, at least one million people would have died of hypothermia during the recent minus-50 degrees F cold spell.
As demonstrated by Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, the latest report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the impact of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) has been overwhelmingly positive. The report’s Summary for Policymakers states:
“Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that occurred since the first Industrial Revolution…. Fossil fuels also power the technologies that reduce the environmental impact of a growing human population, saving space for wildlife…. Nearly all the impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are net positive (benefits minus costs), near zero (no net benefit or cost), or are simply unknown.”
Besides raising living standards across the world, fossil fuel use has helped elevate CO2 in our atmosphere from a level dangerously close to the point at which plants start to die – to where we are today, with the Earth once again “greening,” as crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better.
The global warming scare has never been about science, or even climate for that matter. The long-term goal of many activists is to unite the world under a single socialistic government in which there is no capitalism, no democracy and no freedom. After all, personal freedom is fueled largely by access to affordable energy.
An intermediate goal of climate alarmism is thus to limit the amount of energy that is available and place it under tight government control. Inexpensive fossil fuels remain an obstacle to their vision, and so must be done away with entirely, climate campaigners maintain. We must not let them succeed.
Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.
“Global cooling – and global totalitarian socialism – are the catastrophes we should fear most”
I’ll say…how could so few mainstream climate alarmists not understand this? A little bit of warming as we have seen since 1850 is an insurance policy on some Black Swan weather event, in case we have a temporary cooling event enough to damage global grain crops in the mid and northerly latitudes. This is the real threat humanity faces.
I´m pretty sure that global totalitarian greensocialism is their goal. Every greenalarmist are following the same principles with the same ideology what we witnessed not so far in history.
The same brainwash and the methods are exactly same which were used in third reich.
1. Keep the dogma simple. Make only 1 or 2 points.
2. Be forthright and powerfully direct. Speak only in the telling or ordering mode.
That is our future. Climate is just perfect cover up.
Excerpt from this very good article:
“Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that occurred since the first Industrial Revolution…. Fossil fuels also power the technologies that reduce the environmental impact of a growing human population, saving space for wildlife…. Nearly all the impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are net positive (benefits minus costs), near zero (no net benefit or cost), or are simply unknown.”
Besides raising living standards across the world, fossil fuel use has helped elevate CO2 in our atmosphere from a level dangerously close to the point at which plants start to die – to where we are today, with the Earth once again “greening,” as crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better.
The global warming scare has never been about science, or even climate for that matter. The long-term goal of many activists is to unite the world under a single socialistic government in which there is no capitalism, no democracy and no freedom. After all, personal freedom is fueled largely by access to affordable energy.
{end of excerpt}
All true, all said many times before.
There is no real global warming crisis – it is a false fabrication created for political purposes, and it is the greatest fraud in dollar terms in human history.
“In the past there was a very strong gradient of cold air at the poles and warmer air south of the poles. That gradient kept the cold where it is….
..and explains the series of devastating freezes..one after the other….that destroyed the Florida citrus groves in the 1800’s
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/31/elizabeth-warren-uses-coldest-polar-vortex-in-decades-to-call-for-green-new-deal-to-fight-global-warming/#comment-2611774
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation wrote this gem:
“The fact is, it’s climate change, or global warming, that’s behind this extreme cold.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820
NOAA is saying something similar. Yes, really! I did not believe it either until I read it – twice.
This is what happens when certain types of people get their predictions all wrong – they make up more nonsense to say they really were correct – but note that none of them actually came up with this excuse BEFORE the unexpected event happened – it always surfaces afterwards, as a rationalization of their failed prediction, like “This cold is really hot!”.
Maybe I can use this tactic if my 2002 prediction of “natural global cooling starting by 2020-2030” fails to materialize – this is quite new to me so I have to practice – if global warming resumes and even if it accelerates in the 2020’s, how about this trick: “You see, I was right all along! This warming is really cooling!”
[I suppose I must say “sarc/off] 🙂
Alan, please see my comment in the solar tadpoles post. Solar panels steal electricity from the sun – that sort of thing. I’m sure you can come up with something about warming steals heat from the atmosphere and that’s why we have cold weather – something that sounds logical but is nonsense. They’d believe it.
I do think you’re on to something Sara. Those rascally panels collect wayward photons from the sun, enticing them to give up the goods. That exchange steals their heat, bingo! cold. Hmm, is that why they works so much better in the cold?
The CBC is a disgusting propaganda network not an information channel. Their censorship is rampant.
It is interesting to look at the history of north american cold waves with no correlation to CO2 levels. Here is a review from Weather.com starting with the #1 chillout in 1899.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/cold-waves-and-co2/
Clearly CO2 neither causes nor prevents outbreaks of arctic cold invading North America. Concerning ourselves with GHGs is no substitute for ensuring reliable, affordable energy and robust infrastructure.
There were also big 1884 and 1895 outbreaks too:
The Forgotten Significant Arctic Outbreak of 1884
The legendary, historic Arctic outbreaks that have crippled the Midwest & Ohio Valleys to the Deep South (even Florida) are known for the intensity, but also duration, expanse & penetration deep into the South.
Major winter Arctic outbreaks have frequent mention in local & nation weather history. Since 1850, the 1852, 1856, 1857, 1864, 1873, 1894, 1895, 1899 outbreaks are all usually regarded. Since 1900, the 1905, 1918, 1936, 1951, 1963, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1994 outbreaks are all regarded as significant in the annals of weather history.
However, there is often less mention of the great early January 1884 outbreak that is comparable to the 1899 event.
http://44news.wevv.com/forgotten-significant-arctic-outbreak-1884/
Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!
Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s CO2!
Yes, it’s CO2, strange gas from our planet, which appeared on Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of noble gases. CO2, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as soda pop bubbles in a mild-mannered refreshment for a great metropolitan bottling company, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way.
Neo – Belly-laughs
Weakling!
I am Water Vapour. I am your Nemesis!
ROTFL!!
The same people back in the 1970s argued that all problems in the world were caused by Capitalism!
They are arguing against Capitalism again now in the 2010s.
They are very consistent with the message.
Well, Rolf, they’re almost right. Without capitalism, we would probably still be slaving away (and probably still as actual slaves, or serfs) 16 hours a day, at least 6 days a week, and wouldn’t have time to complain about less important things than getting enough food and warmth to survive.
Capitalism didn’t cause the problems per se, it gave us the luxury of enough time and communications to complain about less important problems than mere survival. So capitalism actually caused the complaints, not the things complained about. Close, yet so far….
South of the Poles? You can go south of the north pole, but it is a difficult trick to go south of the south pole.
The provided link is to the Detroit Free Press. It’s a direct quote. Either University of Michigan professor emeritus of environment and sustainability Donald Scavia said those words, or the reporter, Keith Matheny, misquoted him. I’m betting that the reporter got it right. Reporters, stupid as they might otherwise be, are pretty darn good at direct quotes.
I’m not sure what conclusion to reach but I can’t think of any case which is, in any way, flattering to Dr. Scavia. At very least, we have to conclude that he wasn’t paying sufficient attention to the words emanating from his mouth.
Nah. It’s just latent hemispherism. We in the atipodes see it all the time. Northern hemispereists seem blind to the other hemisphere, saying things like “go south” to refer to going somewhere warmer, or “south-facing” to indicate greater sunshine.
Don’t forget the Left Pole inhabited by SJWs. In the same way as every direction from the North Pole is South, and from the South Pole is North, then every direction from the Left Pole is Right wing!
The problem is that what the “warmists” are selling many people are buying if one believes the polls. Normally if a poll is fifty fifty I ignore them but once the numbers from a reasonably good pollster get over 50+, especially into the 60% then that means public opinion, at least at the time of the polling, was pretty definitive.
Many politicians depend on the lack of math, science and history education/ knowledge in the general public to advance their agenda. Democrats in the USA most especially.
Socialists and the far Left somehow imagine that the golden goose, free market capitalism, will somehow continue to create wealth even as they have the goose’s neck in a stranglehold. They truly believe government can make money without capitalism.
” They truly believe government can make money without capitalism.”
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged:
‘There was the goal of all those con men of library and classroom, who sold their revelations as reason, their “instinct” as science, their cravings as knowledge, the goal of all of the savages of the non-objective, the non-absolute, the relative, the tentative, the probable–the savages who, seeing a farmer gather a harvest, can consider it only a mystic phenomenon unbound by the law of causality and created by the farmer’s omnipotent whim, who proceed to seize the farm, to chain him, to deprive him of tools, of seeds, of water, of soil, to push him out on barren rock and to command “Now grow a harvest and feed us!”‘
And that paragraph, which is one individual sentence, may be why it’s so hard to read.
She could employ the run-on sentence, almost as well as Douglas Adams!
Like this one:
Douglas Adams, So Long And Thanks For All The Fish
Now there’s a run-on sentence to be proud of!
Ayn Rand might have had some interesting thought but she strangled them at birth in her turgid prose.
That has a lot to do with putting it on the curriculum in public schools.
Seriously – how long was it before you questioned something your teacher taught you in grade school? Some people NEVER do. See AOC.
Another thing to thank Obama for.
The laughable space alien contact paper is here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576510003917
(paywalled).
An earlier free-access version on arxiv.org is here:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf
For those who want to go down that rabbit hole of speculative mush, the authors do offer a discussion of the Fermi Paradox. I would caution anyone who reads this paper to read it like they were reading a science fiction short-story. Completely fabricated.
There is a term for these kinds of evidence-less papers: “Negative Learning”
Good science fiction takes the time to imagine aliens that are not anthropomorphized. In other words, advanced interstellar travelers are not going to have the same ‘world-view’, as short-sighted, arrogant, fear-mongering, whacko-environmentalists. Good science fiction is both rare and much more realistic.
Bad science fiction imagines aliens to be pretty much humans in weird bodies. In a sense, the Fermi paradox is also bad science fiction, because it assumes that interstellar civilizations will be leaving signs identical to the ones we humans are currently leaving. That is one very broad and highly unlikely assumption.
I am not at all surprised that Micheal Mann would not be able to think this through beyond the level of a Star Trek episode or a Star Wars movie, but I would have expected more from the folks at NASA.
It is the height of arrogance to believe that ones opinions will be identical the opinions of a far more advanced and knowledgeable race of beings, with a completely different awareness and experience of reality. It is just as likely that a more advance race might find our release of CO2 back into our atmosphere as one of the signs of a species worth appreciating, but it is most likely that such an alien race would have very little interest in us at all!
I could not agree more. I recently read a great story where they accidentally found a group of gas giant planet sized beings communicating using radio waves. They turn out to be the likely ‘dark matter’ hypothesized, and also to have shaped our spiral galaxies because they like the way they look. In doing so, they inadvertently created the conditions whereby life as we know it could flourish.
Proper imagination for a change!
“the Fermi paradox is also bad science fiction, because it assumes that interstellar civilizations will be leaving signs identical to the ones we humans are currently leaving.”
People were assuming space-faring aliens would communicate via radio – until we began using fiber optics. Now it is assumed the way to communicate over long distances through space is by modulated laser beam. Kinda hard to eaves drop on a directed laser beam.
Any assumption about space aliens is likely to not just be wrong, but to be way wrong.
SR
One of John W. Campbell’s challenges to the writers was: “Show me a creature who thinks as well as a man, but not like a man.” Damned hard to do. Very few have even gotten into the ballpark.
A lot of the “climate scientists” are not scientists at all, and “climate science” is not much of a science. A scientist is supposed to look at all the evidence and formulate a theory or hypothesis, and then see if the theory can predict things in real life – a scientist is not supposed to alter data to fit the theory. A scientist is supposedly seeking the truth – and not trying always to prove his theory right, but trying always to prove it WRONG, so the theory can be refined or scrapped as necessary, to be able to come to a closer approximation of the truth!
“Climate scientists” do not seek the truth – they seek taxpayer dollars. Any way they can get them, and the more easily they can get them the better.
:…the more easily they can get them the better.”
Like falsifying data instead of making theories that actually work.
As I like to say, “Pick your period, pick your trend.”
Without evidence of CAUSATION, any “trend” is MEANINGLESS. And they have NO empirical evidence that CO2 “drives” temperature. NONE.
They don´t need evidence. All what is need is believe. And believe is what they have achieved.
They have created religion which is stronger than any other in this planet. It´s worldwide and very strong religion.
And as you can see, we are the heretics. So when persecution of witches begin?
” . . As the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet . .
Note to sanity . . the South Pole is not warming. N. Pole is going through another cycle just like earlier in the 20th Century.
And still bitterly, bitterly cold. Calling it “polar amplification” is just propaganda.
In fact us aliens are here to assess whether there is sufficient intelligence being shown by humans to justify welcoming you into the inter-galactic league of civilisations. So far, studying your climate scientists and their work, I am sorry to tell you that you are on course for an epic fail.
The good news is that several zoos around the local galactic group are in the market for some new exhibits – the demand for Gore and a few others looks like being competitive.
The Heartland Institute is a fantastic resource for science and public policy.
Personally I am happy that socialism through climate has come into focus as the context that we will fight political battles on in the USA. Most Americans still understand the obvious failures of socialism and most can be convinced that they are being fear mongered on climate. President Trump may experience a 1972 moment where the Left thought the American people were behind them only to suffer a historic defeat. They misread the mood of the people. GND and AOC have given us the tool we needed to make our case beyond the media and college campuses.
Thank You AOC you are a timely gift
But I would argue that the jet stream isn’t even undulating anonymously right now. Not every cold outbreak is a “polar vortex”, sometimes it’s just due to this thing called the axial tilt of Earth and the phenomenon it causes called WINTER.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XunCyKNJdA
If anything, this winter jet stream has been following an El Nino pattern with a straighter W-E orientation, yet it is still cold; it’s been about 10-20 degrees F below average most days for the past several months in central North America.
Further proof, the DMI data has not shown any large warm spikes in the Arctic caused by air filling in behind the split vortex.
“jet stream isn’t even undulating anonymously”
If the jet stream doesn’t feel like identifying itself, it shouldn’t have to.
You seem to be reasoning anomalously Mark.
If the Jet Stream doesn’t choose to have a pseudonym, it shouldn’t have to.
RWT said that it isn’t even undulating anonymously, which means that it isn’t anonymous and if it isn’t anonymous then it must be identifying itself with its real name.
Most so-called ‘environmentalists’ don’t seem to realize that 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is totally normal. It is the CO2 that is taken up each year and released each year. The additional 5% that is attributed to humans is therefore responsible for ALL of the ailments of good old earth… So, only 1/20th of the CO2 is responsible for everything!!
Clearly, the poles warm faster than the equator given the same forcing. Owing to the T^4 relationship between net W/m^2 of emissions and degrees and that in the steady state, the net W/m^2 of input to the surface must be equal to its net W/m^2 emissions, 1 W/m^2 of incremental forcing at the poles will increase the temperature by more than it will at the equator.
As the degenerate case, consider starting from 0K. The first W/m^2 of forcing results in a surface temperature of about 65K, for a ‘sensitivity’ of 65K per W/m^2. The second W/m^2 of forcing increases the surface temperature to 77K, for a ‘sensitivity’ of 12K per W/m^2 and so on and so forth until at 300K, the next W/m^2 of forcing increases the temperature by 0.16C, for a sensitivity of only 0.16C per W/m^2.
Note that the nominal sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC can only occur at an equivalent temperature of about 177K, -96C or -141F.
So, integrated over the course of a year, what’s the sum of the forcings at, say 87° north versus the equator due to axial tilt? I’ll wager that it’s pretty low. While the effect may be as you say, I think net-net it’s hotter at the equator.
You beat me to it. Dr Tim Ball was correct that Scavia’s statement was rubbish, and that a smaller Equator-Pole temperature gradient would lead to LESS extreme weather events, but the point about the poles not showing greater temperature change was wrong.
If greenhouse gases were evenly spread around the world, they would have roughly the same wattage effect, day or night.
The average temperature of the Earth is about 15 C = 288 K, but that’s just an overall average. Some places average 5 C= 278 K, Some places average 288 K, others average 298 K.
A black body at 288 K would radiate at a 390.72 watt per square meter rate.
A black body at 298 K would radiate at (298/288)^4 *390.72 watts= 447.88 watts
A black body at 278 K would radiate at (278/288)^4*390.72 watts= 339.21 watts.
Now leave everything else the same , and double CO2. That would theoretically block 3.7 watts of radiation, and each of those ground temperatures would have to increase radiation by 3.7 watts to offset the additional greenhouse effect.
[(447.88 + 3.7)/390.72}^0.25 *288 K = 298.614 K
[(390.72+3.7)/390.72]^0.25*288 K = 288.679 K
[(339.21+3.7)/390.72]^0.25*288 K= 278.754 K.
So with the additional wattage thanks to the additional greenhouse effect, and everything else remaining unchanged,
the area at 278 K, 10 degrees below average, would increase 0.754 K,
the area at 288 K, average, would increase by 0.679 K
the area at 298 K, 10 degrees above average, would increase by 0.614 K
Of course, in THEORY, the results would be reversed with global cooling- temperatures would drop more in cooler areas than in warmer areas with a constant drop in wattage. In real life there are other factors messing up the neat results: albedo changes, changes in latent heat of convection and evaporation, changes in Hadley Circulation, etc.
“Now leave everything else the same , and double CO2. That would theoretically block 3.7 watts of radiation, and each of those ground temperatures would have to increase radiation by 3.7 watts to offset the additional greenhouse effect.”
That is not correct,
CO2 blocks radiation a a very specific wave length, near 15 microns, if my memory is correct. This means the effect of a homogeneus concentration of CO2 is not a uniform forcing. he forcing is stronger on the poles because it is colder and more energy is emited at the critical wevelength (which corresponds to the peak emision at arond -90ºC=183K
True, a larger PERCENTAGE of radiation is blocked at lower temperatures, but think about it. Your statement doesn’t counter what I said- There’s a smaller effect from CO2 at higher temperatures/wattage outputs.
The situation might be different IF the radiation blocked were at ultraviolet or near ultraviolet frequencies. In that case, there would be increased greenhouse effect with increased warming over a range of temperatures.
Scavia is a widespread expert, at least on alleged crises.
Scavia, D. , et al. 2002. Climate change impact on United States coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25(2):149-164. In abstract, “Increased ocean temperatures are expected to increase coral bleaching… etc…..Increasing rates of sea level change… etc. ” IPCC, 2001, only authority for temperature. 12 other authors from various disciplines. Multiple stressors, most effects bad.
Scavia, D., et al., 2003. Predicting the response of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia to variations in Mississippi River nitrogen load. Limnology and Oceanography. 48(3):951-956. Devotion to single item nitrogen, but hypoxia stratification event, modified by weather and nutrient(s) distributions, recent article concluded that it was not certain whether it harmed or helped the shrimp industry.
“However, a very wavy jet stream, as we are experiencing now (and have many times in the past), allows frigid Arctic air to move south to normally warmer latitudes and warm tropical air to push into Polar latitudes”
I thought it was the other way around. The convergence of the cold and warm air masses where as which ever air mass is stronger pushes the other either north or south and that is what determines the path of the jet stream.
“I thought it was the other way around. The convergence of the cold and warm air masses where as which ever air mass is stronger pushes the other either north or south and that is what determines the path of the jet stream.”
In the case of the western U.S., this nullschool representation shows the polar jet dipping down almost to the Mexico border where it bumps up against the subtropical jet (Pinapple Express) that is coming from Hawaii and into the southwestern U.S. I marked the lower extent of the polar jet.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-99.49,42.26,401/loc=-109.396,34.181
But what is the cause of the jet going so far south? Wasn’t it a very strong mass of cold air that pushed it there or are you saying that the jet just wandered down that way?
The wavy jet stream seems to do both. Cold air down migrates to lower latitudes at some longitudes and at others, warm air migrates to higher latitudes. The region of polar cold is like a balloon, where if it’s pushed in one place, it spreads out in another. When one region is anomalously cold, another is anomalously warm.
I believe that is what I said, it is the cold and warm air pushing against each other that creates the jet stream with the stronger of the two determining whether the jet stream moves north or south. Understanding that there are several masses of air working at the same time in different locations. I took issue with the statement I quoted that the wavy jet stream was the cause of the cold air moving south and the warmer air moving north rather than the air masses themselves being the cause of the wavy jet stream.
The jet stream attempts to move air from west to east and if a blocking high pressure system prevents that then the stream behind the blocking system undulates more than usual. Like pushing a stiff rope, it will stay straight until it is blocked, then it will undulate.
Not only do they cook data to support an anti civilization theory, but they are revising history daily. For an eample of the zealous application of creating the history they want to have, shock yourself by googling CAGW. This transformation has taken place only over the past few months! Wiki called “CAGW” a “snarl” by sceptics wanting to degrade CC. They argued that catastrophic is an exaggeration used in sceptic rhetoric, although they then say we are toast in 12 years!
They have created an organization and a bunch of articles and meetings on “CAGW” which is the new Citizens Against Government Waste! Can we trust such low integrity people to manage honest data sets and do hon3st science!! This is first grade Minister of Truth stuff.
1984
The kids won’t know what the real meaning of CAGW is!
I guess I shouldn’t laugh, even though this is a new degree of stupid. This is just another example of the efforts being made to promote a particular narrative by underhanded means. We are not dealing with honest people when it comes to the CAGW narrative.
Of course cold outbreaks aren’t caused by global warming. They are caused by climate change. Sheesh.
Bruce, It’s more like this:
Global Warming causes Climate Change which could result in Bad Weather of Any Type.
How’s that for science?
Andrew
Yes, Orwellian newspeak.
How about a minor change from:
Besides raising living standards across the world, fossil fuel use has helped elevate CO2 in our atmosphere from a level dangerously close to the point at which plants start to die – to where we are today, with the Earth once again “greening,” as crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better.
To:
Besides raising living standards across the world, fossil fuel use has helped elevate CO2, by a small 0.01%, in our atmosphere from a level dangerously close to the point at which plants start to die (<200ppm) to where we are today (around 400ppm with International Space Station, ISS currently at 1,200ppm to help their plants grow), with the Earth once again “greening,” as crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better.
No need to contradict the CAGW crowd. Don’t be divisive! Support them! Their premise is so elegantly straightforward:
THE HOTTER IT GETS, THE COLDER IT GETS.
Nor are they caused by global cooling. They are caused by weather.
No, see, when the heat sees the cold coming, it jumps into the ocean and hides.
A tangential thought related to how easy it is to influence the opinions of others with false arguments. I have followed the Jussie Smollett story about a claimed racist/homophobic attack against the actor. Over the last 2 days it has become obvious that the story was false. Yet many lefty/liberals still are hanging on to hope that this new turn of events will be proven wrong. While a portion of true believers are actually claiming that the police are twisting the story to frame Smollett.
The moral to the above story points to how easily people can be fooled, and to how hard (next to impossible) it is to change the opinions of true believers despite clear proof that their opinions were wrong. Thus global warming causes global cooling in the minds of some, and those people will likely believe that until the day they die. No matter what turn the climate takes.
Look at how many believe “Hands up don’t shoot” actually happened or who believe that Trayvon Martin was shot down in cold blood.
And then ask yourself, ‘why would anyone WANT people to believe that?’
Let alone a US president.
I can’t think of any GOOD reason.
Mostly because it aligns with what they already want to believe.
I kept track of the Zimmerman trial. Every single prosecution, when under cross examination ended up supporting the defenses version of events.
The defense could have rested when the prosecution did.
“prosecution witness”
The shorter answer is to promote anger and hate.
Set the population against targeted demographics.
Leaders to follow, enemies to hate.
I think Jussie Smollett received a letter before the alledged attack which contained racial slurs and threats, and now it appears that Jussie Smollett was involved in mailing that hate-filled letter to himself.
Obviously Jussie Smollett is trying to stir up racial divisions in the nation with his lies. His letter failed to get the reaction he wanted, so he planned this attack upon himself to rachet up the racist narrative.
This kind of activity is extremely damaging to everyone in the United States. If this hadn’t been shown to be a hoax, I think we could have expected widespread blowback. They ought to put Jussie Smollett in jail for what he has done as an example to any other race-baiters out there.
When I first heard this story and heard Jussie Smollett say his attackers were wearing MAGA hats and saying “this is MAGA country” I knew there was something fishy about it.
We are lucky. The truth has come out about this dangerous attack on American society which sought to divide us one from the other.
“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Verified account
@AOC
Follow Follow @AOC
More
‘You say you love your children, but you are destroying our future.’
Our sea levels are rising.
Droughts are worsening.
Wildfires are spreading.
Storms are coming.
There’s precious little time left.
We must mobilize our economy around a #GreenNewDeal before it’s too late” On Twitter now
‘you are destroying our future.’
Is she including herself with ‘the children’?
“They are making it all up”.
And in that simple sentence the entire “global warming-climate change catastrophism steaming pile of ripe malarkey” is neatly summarized.
This is what it all comes down to, literally.
They make up fake adjustments, they make up fake models (not fit for purpose but claimed to be), they make up fake disaster scenarios of every flavor, color and stripe, they make up fake dates for action, they make up fake cut off points for disastrous consequences, they make up fake warnings of impending droughts, increasing floods, non-existent ocean acidification, melting ice caps, rising oceans, climate refugees…
Fake, fake…all completely fake!
They scare children with fake monsters that will kill us all, caused by their parents SUV.
They attempt to wrest control of the global economy and industrial infrastructures, based on fake reports and even faker interpretations thereof.
It is incredible!
We live in a world where what is real and true is scoffed at, and what is fake is given grave credence.
Fake experts, fake politicians, fake graphs, fake scenarios, fake crimes, fake weather reported by fake journalists with fake hair and fake boobies delivered by fake news channels.
And millions upon millions of people, brainwashed by years and years of fake education that was really propagandized political indoctrination, lap it all up, and declare it to be good!
Brief Introduction to Stratospheric Intrusions
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Climate change is caused by long-term changes in the strength of the solar dynamo and the Earth’s magnetic field.
?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Is it not interesting that when the northern hemisphere as an unusually cold winter, down south we have an unusually hot summer and vice versa. Massive change in temperature in one hemisphere yet the temperature of earth overall doesn’t change significantly. It strongly suggests that the contrary effects in both hemispheres are linked. But the main thing linking the two hemispheres climatically is the Hadley cell. This is the tropical circulation with air rising at the equator (or more accurately at the intertropical convergence zone ITCZ) and falling at around latitudes +-30 degrees. The Hadley cell moves north and south with the seasons and this movement is responsible for monsoonal climates, mediterranean climates (determined by latitude) and indeed is the dominant driver of climatic conditions on Earth. It seems to me the current conditions could be explained by the Hadley cell having been pushed too far south. Thus the northern hemisphere becomes more exposed to outflow of arctic air masses while at around 37 degrees south, southern Australia comes under the edge of the Hadley cell which is very dry warm falling air bringing hot and very dry weather. Meanwhile Queensland comes under the middle of the Hadley cell bringing torrential rain.
It does not look like a very warm southern hemisphere.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The SH was anonymously warm in January UAH data. I don’t put too much stock in NOAA’s flat earth polka dot anomaly map.
Australia is not the whole SH.
Yeah, but people rarely get that. A lot of maps don’t even show New Zealand! And as for tassie, “Show us your map of Tasmania” is what I say!
What a about the Professors who are on our side doing what the warmers have done since about 1995 but in reverse. Let s have a Global cooling campaign to highlight the dangers of a far to low a level of CO2.
Its been known for at least 100 years that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is at a dangerously low level, so low in fact that some plants are in danger of extinction .
So why is CO2 n at such a low level, well over millions of years CO2 has been used by many creatures to make their skelitons, we see this in such places as the White Cliffs of Dover, and opposite the same white cliffs of France.
We now consider that the World is indeed in grave danger of major changes as a result of this shortage, even to possible effects on the Worlds climate. In fact a survey of thousands of scientists stated that recent extreme weather events could be directly linked to this shortage of CO2.
Now while this idea of a possible connection of CO2 to the climate is just a theory , many scientists consider its a idea worth following up.
So most scientists are now saying that unless we drastically increase the amount of CO2 in the worlds atmosphere , we could suffer a severe shortage of food for the rapidly growing world population.
So what can be done to save the World from this potentially grave danger. Well we do have a means of bringing this shortage of CO2 back to the level that existed back some millions of years ago when it was much warmer and life on Earth flourished.
A study of history using records kept by various cultures over the last 4000 years clearly show that warmer times were good times, and communities flourished, the great catherdials of the 10th centuries were only possible during the good times, when r much wealth was available, whereas during the cold times we see only death and desese present. So its quite clear that warm is good and cold is bad.
So what should we do to stop Global Cooling. Well there is this theory, mind you its only a theory, but its just possible that if we produce lots and lots of CO2, then we can just keep this extreme danger of Global Cooling at bay.
Now there are many people who will tell you that we should not interfear
with the way things are, saying that God in his wisdom made the Earth as it is, and that we should not try to change things . That we should instead aim at a stable Earth, unchanged from the time the Creation by God.
But of course the idea of a stable unchanged Earth is crazy , our whole present way of life has been to take advantage of all the good things about this Planet and to minimise those things we don’t like. The planet has always changed, and its up to us to accept the good changes, and to adapt top the not so good changes.
So how do we do this ? Well it s been clear for a very long that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere e is at a dangerously low level, so low in fact that all life on this Earth is in
grave danger , so immediate action is required.
And as we now understand that our present use of fossell fuel is one answer, and too those against change, we would point out that such fuels as coal and oil are the result of millions of years ago plant and animal life and was by its very growth, was removing the precious CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus by our consuming such fuel to produce energy, we are simply restoring to the atmosphere what was removed back then.
Some well qualified scientists are also considering the possibilities of converting the locked up minerals containing CO2. To some extent we do this now, but as we can produce lots of energy from the combustion of f both coal and oil, we can both produce more CO2, plus producing the energy needed for such Geo engerneering.
With Great confidence we can now say that our present method are indeed of a positive nature for the greater good of Planet Earth. As we are being told we only have one Earth, so nits up to us to look after it.
MJE
“Now there are many people who will tell you that we should not interfear
with the way things are, saying that God in his wisdom made the Earth as it is, and that we should not try to change things . That we should instead aim at a stable Earth, unchanged from the time the Creation by God.”
I know of no Christians believing God gave us a world unchanged from the time of creation. But we do believe God has not given us a world susceptible to runaway warming.
It is of cause a result of Global Warming. You see, a cold outbreak is a real climate change, maybe even a climate disruption, and that kind of change is because of GW. So the circle is closed, and the cold is caused by GW.
If you don’t understand that, you are not a climate scientist.
Apoligies for the spelling mistakes, but my 92 year eyes are not as good as they used to be. .
Perhaps someone could take up this idea of mounting a counter argument against the well organised properganda from the Green Blob, before its too late.
I satill think that there is far too much writing about this problem, and that we should start at the root of the problem, that being to convince the general public that CO2 is both a good gas, and is essential to all life on Earth.
Problem is that just like Enron, the Green Blob its now a very big business, far too big to be allowed to fail. Both economically and certainly politically .
MJE
“According to climate activists, they are all caused by dangerous man-made global warming. And this, in turn, is supposedly caused by rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels resulting from our use of fossil fuels”
Yes sir. It’s called confirmation bias – a known bug in how the human brain works. Please see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/03/confirmationbias/
It is my understanding that Cows eat grass, hay and other plant material that contain hard-to-digest cellulose. To cope with this they have a large stomach with four compartments, with the largest being the rumen. The rumen contains millions of tiny organisms that live and die inside the cow, and help to break down plant matter and release nutrients that the cow can digest.
If the cows do not eat the grass, have and other plant material this cellulose “rots” and decays on the land. This rotting and decaying takes place in a very similar process which also releases Methane.
So just what is the problem with cows? Isn’t the same amount of Methane, are very close to the same amount, maybe even more, released weather the cow generates it or the “decaying” generates it.
Creativity and the inventions it spawns always throw a spanner in the works for these totalitarians. They totally missed the importance of fracking. They will miss other energy breakthroughs as well. By time they catch up and try to ban it the horse is way out of the barn.
During periods of low solar activity, the ionization in the lower stratosphere over the polar circle increases as a result of the increase in galactic radiation. As a result, the temperature in the lower stratosphere increases over the polar circle. This results in the inhibition of circulation from west to east.
A snowstorm is developing in the Midwest and Northeast.
Tropical cyclone Oma approached eastern Australia. This is proof that El Niño is not working yet.
Cold outbreaks are caused by daily-weekly scale solar effects on the Arctic Oscillation, they are a driver of climate change and occur anytime with a warmer or a cooler Arctic. Given that low solar leads to negative AO and the wavy jet stream that drives Arctic warming, Arctic warming must be a negative feedback to low solar. If Arctic warming drove the wavy jet stream it would have a hard job ever cooling down. I’m sure that some of the best known Arctic doomsters are caught in that thought trap.
My solar based AO/NAO anomaly forecast for this cold season captured the cold shots in the second half of Nov and the last week of Jan into early Feb.
Lets see. Cold waves are fundamentally caused by, well, cold air!
Snowstorm in southern California and Arizona.
Since it seems likely that there is going to be some semblance of a ‘Green New Deal’ coming down the pike in one form or another, what aspects or policies can climate skeptics support that can apply to a warming or cooling world, regardless of whether it is humanity or the sun that is chiefly to blame? Building more grain/rice silos so more can be stockpiled for lean years? Supporting genetically modified crops that can handle climate change (whether it is warming or cooling)? I think you all need to start thinking about how to shape the conversation and policies so that when those policies are eventually implemented, you will not be left completely out, and it will give humanity better preparation for the climate changes ahead.