Claim: Climate change is making extreme cold much less likely, despite the UK plummeting to -23°C

Braemar, Aberdeenshire, which recorded the UK’s lowest temperature since 1995. Jane Barlow/PA

Simon Lee, University of Reading

The UK, along with large parts of northern Europe, is in the grip of an unusually cold period of weather thanks to a flow of cold easterly winds from Siberia. On the morning of February 11, the village of Braemar in the Scottish Highlands recorded -23.0°C, the UK’s coldest temperature since 1995 and coldest February temperature since the 1950s.

The cold air outbreak has been dubbed “The Beast from the East Two”, the sequel to another extremely cold spell in late February-early March 2018 (although it should be noted that outbreaks of cold easterly winds have occurred more than twice, and indeed much more severely).

These two cold spells bookend a volatile four years of winter weather. In February 2019, the UK experienced a “winter heatwave” when the temperature reached 21.2°C at Kew Gardens in London. The following year saw the country’s wettest February in a record stretching back to 1862, with winter storms Ciara and Dennis producing some of the rainiest individual days on record.

Extreme cold, a heatwave, a deluge, and another cold snap: the succession of different extremes raises questions about climate variability and climate change.

Why the UK’s weather varies so much

Western Europe is at the mercy of the Atlantic jet stream – a band of westerly winds which steer powerful weather systems, flanked by cold air to its north and warmer air to its south. The jet stream is extremely variable and fluctuations in its strength and position are the main reason why the region can have such varied weather.

In both 2021 and 2018, the jet stream was unusually weak and shifted southward, allowing cold air to flood out of the Arctic. In early 2020, the jet stream was supercharged, keeping colder air locked up and instead pushing in mild, moisture-laden air and storm systems from the Atlantic. In 2019, it buckled northwards, allowing a dome of high pressure to develop over the UK under which the temperature skyrocketed.

West-to-east winds at a pressure level of 250 hPa (around 11 km) for the first eight days of February 2020 (left) and 2021 (right), with the approximate core of the jet stream shown by a red arrow. Data from NOAA PSL via https://psl.noaa.gov/data/composites/day/

These different patterns all fall within natural climate variability. The weakened jet stream in 2018 and this year, as well as the strengthened jet stream in 2020, are all linked to variability in the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex – effectively a vast low-pressure system around 30km above the surface, which fluctuates in strength from year to year.

But we do know that climate change is likely to make winters milder and wetter in the UK, largely because warmer air can hold much more water. This is supported by recent observations: the winters of 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2019-20 all rank in the top five wettest on record. Recent research has shown that climate change has also made exceptionally warm winter days – such the 20°C heatwave in February 2019 – around 300 times more likely, although they remain rare because the specific atmospheric configuration required is so unlikely.

So there is evidence to support climate change having amplified the extreme heat of 2019 and the rain of 2020. But what about cold weather and climate change? It is important to remember that extremely cold weather can still happen in a warming climate. If climate change is like loading a die, then rolling a one is still possible. Just because you roll a one every so often does not tell you that the die is not loaded. For that, you need to look at longer periods of time, to see if you are rolling more sixes and fewer ones.

The Central England Temperature (CET) is the world’s longest-running continuous instrumental temperature record, with data from 1659. It gives a clear indication of how even the coldest winters in recent times pale in comparison with those of the past. A winter with an average temperature below 2°C used to occur about once per decade. Central England has now not had a winter that cold since 1978-79 – a never-before-observed gap of four consecutive decades and counting.

Despite plenty of cold spells in the past few decades, no one under the age of 42 has lived through what could be considered a historically cold winter season in central England.

Number of winters each decade with an average Central England Temperature below 2°C, which has occurred on average once per decade since the dataset began but has not occurred since the 1970s. Data from Met Office Hadley Centre via https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Thus, while weather extremes will continue to occur at both ends of the spectrum as part of a natural, jet stream-driven rollercoaster, the evidence supports the projections that warmer, wetter winter weather is winning.

Simon Lee, PhD Student in Atmospheric Science, University of Reading

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

2.4 12 votes
Article Rating
258 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Giordano Milton
February 13, 2021 2:01 pm

Is anyone keeping track of all these predictions?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Giordano Milton
February 13, 2021 2:39 pm

Yep, there certainly are. So far they’ve maintained a perfect record … 100% wrong, to date.

Loydo
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 3:33 pm

This is based on observations you numbat. Did you see the ‘Central England Temperature below 2°C’ graph above? Go and have another look, a close one. Then completely ignore it again because it doesn’t confirm your bias, ’cause, ’cause y’know, there’s ice and what about that Braemar…

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 3:54 pm

I read it
300 times more likely, and yet still not likely to happen often. Terrifying

But are you really saying that winters being a little less cold is bad?
Regardless of the cause?

Most sane people are giving thanks

Why don’t you come here to Saskatchewan where it has averaged -34C at night for a week and tell people how lucky they are?

Loydo
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
February 13, 2021 4:37 pm

I’m pointing out to Giordano and Rory this post is about observations not predictions, you could’ve just agreed with me about that obvious point.

Instead, you changed the subject and assumed I’m insane because I’m disagreeing with whatever you wrote and recalcitrant because I won’t come to Saskatchewan to see how bad you’ve got it.

John Tillman
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 4:40 pm

CET since the ’80s hasn’t been about observations, but supporting an agenda. It’s advocacy, not science. Just as NOAA’s UHI correction algorithm warms rather than cools, so too have the adjustments to the CET been made with not just the thumb but whole hot hand on the scale.

whiten
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 4:17 am

John.

Regardless of what Loydo and the rest of that kind says about observations,
it is quite clear that observations at this point in time clearly show that;
climate change
aka man-made climate change or
man-made global warming
is not happening
and the hypothesis of such is simply a garbage.

Loydo does not seem to understand that in science as per scientific method, if a hypothesis or a conclusion is falsified, nullified and therefore cancelled the rest of the persistence of the argument down that line is simply silly for not saying stupid.

The observations clearly show a clear departure, decoupling of the temperature trend from CO2 trend.
Falsification clause complete for man-made global warming.

In the models, the so called the AGW models,
the experiment, the CO2 does not decouple
from temperatures.
CO2 flux does not decouple from thermal flux, contrary to reality and nature.

The observations clearly show,
contrary to the claim and expectation of AGW madness,
that there is no any runaway global warming that happened, happening or going to happen.
(the main expected signature of man-made climate)
(or as in Loydo’s terms, snow a thing of the past)
Nullification clause complete for
man-made global warming.

And as there in this given matter of climate is only two options either natural or
man-made, as per scientific approach,
the rest of innuendo never stopping
bizarro arguments in favor of man-made climate are simply silly or stupid at the very least,
and offer only more jeopardizing and confusion towards a better understanding of climate.
Cancellation complete also.

On top of it all, the data and observations tells a story that the Earth System is actually in a period of shedding energy externally to space.

The clear departure of CO2 trend from the temperature trend is a signature of such.

High or “excessive” and steady CO2 concentration increase,
in a decoupling from thermal content trend happens only when the system sheds energy externally above the board.
(above the normal, highly or “excessively”).

Earth system periodically and continually sheds energy but does not shed matter,
matter like CO2 that has mass.
CO2 flux decouples from the thermal flux only when Earth system sheds energy to space, at the TOA.

Which gives a very different meaning to the; “unprecedented atmospheric CO2 concentration”.

That is what the data and the observations clearly show about climate.
Well there is weather data too!!!

But hey, who really cares anymore about science or scientific method!

cheers

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 3:24 pm

That’s right. The CET is not pure as the driven snow. Let’s not act like it is something special because it has been modified for what appear to be political purposes. Just like all the other official records. The Climategate Charlatans did a comprehensive job. Of course, they should have done a comprehensive job since they were in charge of the records.

Big Lies everywhere you look in the climate change scam.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 5:18 pm

It’s all about altering real, measured data to fit the GCM algorithms designed to puke out endless PC projections. If AGW hysterics were to start using observed data, there’d be no scary story and no fraudulent revenue stream.

Loydo
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 14, 2021 1:16 am

So show us the real measured data you rely on?

D Cage
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 10:21 am

Since we only have max and min data there are no measurements useful for energy comparisons surely as they need the mean value unless conditions do not vary throughout the day and cloud cover is constant.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 10:30 am

So show us the real measured data you rely on?

You don’t have to go any further than this site to see the comparison between raw and “adjusted” data. However if you want to get adventurous spend a few ours on Tony Heller’s realclimatescience.com (not that I think you actually want real data). You’re just being disingenuous, as usual. You know very well where to find the measured data.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 5:48 pm

I’m pointing out to Giordano and Rory this post is about observations not predictions”

From the article: “Thus, while weather extremes will continue to occur at both ends of the spectrum as part of a natural, jet stream-driven rollercoaster, the evidence supports the projections that warmer, wetter winter weather is winning.”

I suppose you’re going to roll out the canard that “projections” aren’t “predictions”. Hair-splitting.

Loydo
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 13, 2021 6:20 pm

Down the rabbit hole we go. ffs.

Number of winters each decade with an average Central England Temperature below 2°C, which has occurred on average once per decade since the dataset began but has not occurred since the 1970s.”

What is it about “the evidence supports” you can’t grasp?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:46 pm

Yep, you are deep in your self-dug rabbit hole.

You have taken the magic mushroom, and you STILL keep digging deeper and deeping into your abyss of ignorance.

Now, where is your evidence that the slight but highly beneficial warming is caused by human CO2 and not by URBAN warming.

Still waiting for you produce some EVIDENCE, rather than mindless evidence-free blathering.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:54 pm

I wasn’t the one making claims that there were no projections/predictions involved.

And I’m still trying to figure out why you want it colder.

Apparently your rabbit hole is full of it.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jeff Alberts
Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:58 pm

Loydo an honest question…
How far above the 2C margin is required to Not Be Indicated?
2C isn’t “Below 2C”, 2.1C isn’t “Below 2C” and neither are very warm either

Loydo
Reply to  Bryan A
February 13, 2021 11:17 pm

Are you talking about the “Number of winters each decade with an average Central England Temperature below 2°C“?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 11:15 pm

The Ten warmest winters in CET are, in order….

1869 6.8
2016 6.7
1834 6.5
1989 6.5
2007 6.4
1975 6.4
1686 6.3
1990 6.2
1796 6.2
2020 6.2

Linear trend in winter averages is a steady 0.04ºC/decade, since 1660, with no sign of any acceleration.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of any human CO2 warming in the CET winter temperatures.

And yes, most of the winters that averaged below 2ºC were during the Little Ice Age, COLDEST period in 10,000 years. !

Everybody in the UK should be CHEERING that those brutally cold winters are not occurring much any more.

—–

The 10 warmest Summer averages in CET are…

1977 17.8
1827 17.6
1996 17.4
2004 17.3
2019 17.3
2007 17.2
1847 17.1
1984 17.1
1948 17.0
1934 17.0

The Trend in the summer averages is 0.01ºC/decade since 1660 with no sign of any acceleration.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of any human CO2 warming in the CET summer temperatures.

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 7:52 am

Linear trend in winter averages is a steady 0.04ºC/decade, since 1660, with no sign of any acceleration.

The Trend in the summer averages is 0.01ºC/decade since 1660 with no sign of any acceleration.

How are you testing for acceleration?

Trend for Winter, up to 1900 is 0.028°C / decade.
After 1900 is 0.062°C / decade

Trend for Summer, up to 1900: 0.001°C / decade.
After 1900: 0.09°C / decade.

Not saying this is definitive prove of anything, but there is some evidence of accelerated warming.

For completeness:

Spring up to 1900: 0.018°C / decade
After 1900: 0.093°C / decade

Autumn up to 1900: 0.003°C / decade
After 1900: 0.126°C / decade

Annual up to 1900: 0.012°C / decade
After 1900: 0.092°C / decade

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 14, 2021 11:39 am

The bellhop yaps when it should stay quite.

Silly little bellhop starts cherry-picking dates.. SO DUMB.

comment image

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 1:04 pm

120 years is hardly a cherry-pick. I could have chosen more recent dates with much faster warming. As I said, I’m not claiming there’s definitive proof that Winters are warming quicker, but you made the claim there was “no sign of acceleration”.

Now for no reason you’re showing me a graph of increasing sunshine. I’m not sure if you are now saying there is accelerated warming and it’s caused by increasing sunshine, or if you are still saying there’s no accelerated warming.

taxed
Reply to  Bellman
February 14, 2021 1:41 pm

Bellman what is looks like fred250 is suggesting is that recent warming here in the UK is largely down to changes in the weather leading to a increase in sunshine amounts. Now l also believe that recent warming during the winter here in the UK is also down to changing weather patterns during the winter months,(ie) changes in the amount of northern blocking during the winter. My own weather records l kept between 1979-1982 point this out clearly.

December 1981 was one of the coldest December in England since 1890 with a mean temp around 3.3C. During that month this is the number of times l recorded where the wind was blowing from during that month
NE16 SE13 NW11 N9 E9 S3 W1.

While December 1980 was much milder month with a mean temp in England of around 8.0C. During that month this is was the number of times l recorded where the wind was blowing from.
W21 NW20 SW16 S1 SE1

So showing a strong between milder winters and a increase in the weather coming from the Atlantic rather then coming from the Arctic and Russia.

taxed
Reply to  taxed
February 14, 2021 1:46 pm

So showing a strong link between milder winters and a increase in the weather coming from the Atlantic.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 14, 2021 1:00 pm

No warming at all until 1970, then the sunshine effect .

Pretending CO2 didn’t have an effect until 1970 is dumb even for a lowly bellhop

Cherry-picking as you have done picks up the increased sunshine hours since 1970.

Slimy attempt… FAILED

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 1:38 pm

Linear trend in winter averages is a steady 0.04ºC/decade, since 1660, with no sign of any acceleration.

No warming at all until 1970, then the sunshine effect .

Which of these two statements do you think is true, as I don’t see how they both can.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 14, 2021 4:42 pm

Basic comprehension has always been one of your problems

Come on, bellhop, once you have taken your next load of bags to the wrong room….

Please explain how human CO2 causes extra sunshine,

…. with scientific evidence of course

Or remain an empty, evidence-free sock.

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 5:21 pm

Why are you always so keen for me to answer questions that are irrelevant to the question I’m asking you. Either you believe there was no warming in CET until 1970, or you think it was warming at a constant 0.04°C / decade up to today, with no acceleration.

I can see why you’d prefer to make the same lame jokes rather than address this slight inconsistency.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Bellman
February 15, 2021 5:49 am

I will say this for you and who you are replying to.

Both of you are throwing around values that were not possible to measure until well into the 20th century 😀

Those are not temperature values, those are statistical values that have a very loose relationship with actual temperatures (before adjustments) never mind (after adjustments)

Neither of you are arguing what temperatures are doing, but what statistical methods and adjustments are doing

But never mind 😀

Bellman
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
February 15, 2021 9:04 am

True to an extent. CET is only an approximation of Central England Temperatures, and some here do treat it with to much faith, especially when looking at the 17th century data, But it is the best evidence we have for changes prior to the 19th century.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 7:26 am

But Loydo when people bring up the evidence from many places around the world that the MWP happened you immediately say it was not a world wide event. Now you are saying evidence from the CET record in England proves that AGW is happening on a worldwide basis.

Loydo
Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 14, 2021 11:40 am

“you are saying”
No I didn’t.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 6:27 pm

So what if this particular article doesn’t mention the magic word prediction?
The point remains that the world simply isn’t warming up the way the models insist it should be.
It also remains a fact that every prediction that has been made by you alarmists has failed.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:42 pm

“Recent research has shown… yap, blah….”

.

Point us to this “recent research” that come up with this 300 time more likely BS, Loy-dumbass.

Your desperation is making you more and more GULLIBLE by the day

Its HILARIOUS

Waiting for you to produce some EVIDENCE, you poor addled-brained twerp.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 9:05 pm

“assumed I’m insane”

.

No assumption needed.

Only someone with deep mental issues does what you do.

Redge
Reply to  fred250
February 13, 2021 11:38 pm

Having lived with people who have had mental health issues, Fred, I can assure you being gullible doesn’t mean you have mental health issues

Mental health is a serious problem

fred250
Reply to  Redge
February 14, 2021 2:39 am

Yes, and Lot-dopey has many other symptoms.

He has a serious mental dis-functionality condition.

garboard
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 6:45 am

looks like a warming trend since the end of the little ice age . no big surprise there

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Loydo
February 15, 2021 5:42 am

“– around 300 times more likely, “

A probability based prediction is what it is.

Just because they hand wave hedge bet their own probability prediction with “although they remain rare because the specific atmospheric configuration required is so unlikely.” doesn’t mean it wasn’t made.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 4:09 pm

CET show the beneficial warming from the Little Ice Age. Do they show a strong correlation to CO2 concentrations? Should we root for going back to those cold times?

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 13, 2021 4:52 pm

Dave, the goal of the technology destroying, progress denying warmistas that Loydo defends is to reduce the world population to a tenth of what exists now, and have the survivors of the famines exist on a subsistence level in penury. Take the ideas from Malthus, the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth to their logical conclusion to see what is in store for your grandchildren. You have to get with the program!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
February 13, 2021 5:53 pm

I have always been with the program, Richard. My grandchildren are well armed. They are what the totalitarians fear most. The American voter will not put up with high-tax schemes for long. “You can fool some of the people …”

TonyG
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 14, 2021 9:23 am

The “American voter” has been putting up with this crap for years, and seems to keep asking for more. I don’t have much faith in that particular group.

Dave Fair
Reply to  TonyG
February 14, 2021 11:44 am

The “American voter” has been the only thing standing between totalitarians and the world for decades. “Sounds good” and “feels good” policies prevail only until people paying the bill get pissed.

Redge
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
February 13, 2021 11:40 pm

Plus David Attenborough and Population Matters AKA The Optimum Trust

fred250
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 14, 2021 3:01 am

“Do they show a strong correlation to CO2 concentrations?”

.

NO, they do not.

They have been climbing since 1660, way before human CO2 emissions could have had any effect, at the rate of 0.04ºC/decade in winter with NO acceleration, and 0.01ºC/decade in summer, with NO acceleration

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 5:11 pm

projections that warmer, wetter winter weather is winning.

You need to get either your brain or your glasses adjusted, son. Models produce “projections” and they have all been wrong. Science requires predictions. AGW pretends there is no difference between the two.

Loydo
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 6:26 pm

But observations produce evidence, like: ““Number of winters each decade with an average Central England Temperature below 2°C, which has occurred on average once per decade since the dataset began but has not occurred since the 1970s.”

“…no one under the age of 42 has lived through what could be considered a historically cold winter season in central England.

Ignore the observational evidence and instead keep repeating you models bad mantra.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:49 pm

“has lived through what could be considered a historically cold winter season in central England.”

.

Until NOW. !

Ignore the freezing, the snow, and keep up your mindless belief in unvalidated non-science agenda-drivel models based on absolutely nothing but erroneous assumption and anti-physic.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:15 pm

It has warmed a bit since the 70’s
Yes, we get it
The 70’s were a bottom point when polar ice was maximum after it cooled down from the thirties.

How warm is in in the last decade compared to 80 years ago?
It’s actually a little cooler now

Loydo
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
February 13, 2021 11:21 pm

How much “cooler”?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:40 pm

comment image

More sunshine.. explain how human CO2 causes that, moron.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:45 pm

Ignore the observational evidence and instead keep repeating you models bad mantra.

That certainly depends a great deal which data you’re going to use … the raw data, or the homogenized, blended, adjusted, filtered, interpolated data, milked out of our corrupted government agencies to bolster their AGW mantra.

Oh … and you should know that the models ARE bad, pathetic, really.

Doonman
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 10:10 pm

Interesting. How does one observe “average temperature”? You said its being observed. Tell us how its done. Is there an average thermometer available for researchers to observe somewhere?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 10:55 am

It has been warming for about 300 years … Check.

It is warmer today than it was in previous decades … Check.

Recent warming has been caused by man’s production of CO2 … Not Shown; Speculation. The late 20th Century correlation of temperatures with CO2 concentrations has not been shown over any other time period.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 11:49 am

Why do the “observational evidence” diverge from the models’ “projections?” Trivially true observations such as centennial warming do not support speculation about CO2 driving 3X H2O warming. You need better examples to support your fears.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 5:45 pm

Go and have another look, a close one. Then completely ignore it again because it doesn’t confirm your bias”

You probably won’t answer, but… Would you prefer the climate of the 1600s over the 2000s? If so, you really should move to Saskatchewan. Don’t forget to take your collection of dunce caps with you.

Loydo
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 13, 2021 6:42 pm

No, I’ll answer since you put it so politely.

Your Alice in Wonderland, reductio ad absurdum logic goes like this: Loydo is concerned about the global warming that has already occurred and shows no end in sight given atmospheric CO2 conc. is rising exponentially…so therefore he must want it to be colder.”

Let me put it this way Alice: I was happy with the Holocene the way it was before we started our radical, abrupt, unplanned geoengineering experiment. One day you will too.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 6:46 pm

Opp. CO2 does not cause global warming. You gave no proof as usual.

Mike
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:39 pm

Let me put it this way Alice: I was happy with the Holocene the way it was before we started our radical, abrupt, unplanned geoengineering experiment. One day you will too.”

Winner of the most meaningless comment today! Congrats!!

Loydo
Reply to  Mike
February 13, 2021 8:10 pm

Noenetheless you were inspired to reply.

Mike
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:20 pm

Noenetheless you were inspired to reply.”

Yes sometimes I take pity..

Loydo
Reply to  Mike
February 14, 2021 11:12 pm

No, that doesn’t seem likely. C’mon be honest, what’s the real reason?

fred250
Reply to  Mike
February 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Pretty sure Loy lives on a diet of Alice’s muchrooms

Only way one can explain such consistently ignorant cognitive non-functionality.

Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
February 13, 2021 9:11 pm

Perhaps though also likely that Alice Consumed and processed said mushrooms first

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:52 pm

Everything you type is reduced to the ABSURD.

It is all you are capable of, L’dumbass.

Keep taking those magic mushrooms so that you remain in your tiny little la-la fantasy land.

There is NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2

It is all in what is left of your feeble hallucinogen-driven little mind.

All you have is FAIRY-TALES.

Alice in Wonderland was SANE compared to you.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Loydo
Reply to  fred250
February 13, 2021 8:25 pm

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

Absolutely: its exactly the same empirical scientific evidence as for greening by atmospheric anthropogenic CO2. Only a completely moronic, dumbass twerp would think otherwise. Oh thats right, you’re a completely moronic, dumbass twerp. Wait, maybe a completely moronic, dumbass twerp would understand, but unfortunately you’re a brainwashed completely moronic, dumbass twerp, so alas no hope.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:47 pm

So .. YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE

Thanks for the confirmation, 🙂

You poor little ZERO-EVIDENCE , ZERO-SCIENCE non-entity.

You really are getting DESPERATE now, aren’t you little child.

Going off on a spittle-ridden rant with zero-evidence of rational thought.

Pertaining to absolutely nothing

Was only a matter of time, wasn’t it,

Maybe time for you to take a different mushroom combination

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:50 pm

Once again Loydo demonstrates that he knows nothing.
Instead of answering the question, he goes into a long, drawn out insult.
But then, that’s all he’s ever done.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2021 9:36 pm

Well no, its the first time; I thought I’d try Fred’s mod-approved method of refutation: angry shouted abuse. Alas, it just made me feel silly and cheap, but it did give me a deeper understanding and sympathy for sociopaths like Fred.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 11:04 pm

Poor Loy-dopey.. do you feel self-victimiased…

You could try actual EVIDENCE instead of continually spouting anti-science inanities and garbage.

Yes, your comments are stupid, and they are cheap.. worthless, actually.

Now, let’s try again.. squirm little worm !!!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 11:46 pm

I have to agree with Loydo on this point.

Loydo is completely off the mark most of the time and just off the mark the rest of the time but in fairness, I can’t recall a time when she resorted to the same type of insults and verbal abuse that she receives.

We all need to tone down the insults and verbal abuse.

JMHO

fred250
Reply to  Redge
February 14, 2021 2:41 am

Why???

He/she/it is supporting an agenda designed to bring down western civilisation.

Deserves all the contempt it bring on itself

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 1:38 pm

While the contempt may be deserved, I don’t think that it accomplishes much except make you feel superior. You certainly aren’t going to change Loydo’s mind with insults, and I doubt that any ‘fence sitters’ who might visit will be impressed or convinced that Loydo is wrong. Those of us who are regulars here hold our opinions based on the facts as we know them. Those who are not committed, aren’t going to be convinced by insults.

I agree that Loydo is almost always wrong. However, as frustrating as it is, I think the best response is to simply demonstrate how and why (s)he is wrong. As I have learned the hard way, it is easy to win a battle and still lose the war. It is best to take the long view.

Loydo
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 8:53 pm

While I thank Redge for his comment about abuse I can’t let “almost always wrong” pass without comment.
I’ve made a number of posts to this thread on topics ranging from “greening” to termites. Care to paste the one you consider most egregiously wrong and tell me why?

Camaalot
Reply to  fred250
February 15, 2021 3:04 am

This is what YOU think. Do you have EVIDENCE that this is his agenda?

garboard
Reply to  Redge
February 14, 2021 7:12 am

agreed ; all the ugly ad hominem attacks just cheapen the arguments

Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 1:38 am

Pot calling the kettle black.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:56 pm

I’ll ask again, because your incoherent tantrum-like response contained absolutely NOTHING remotely resembling science or logic or rational thought process.

Do at least try, just for once. !

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 1:45 pm

I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate and answer the question. I think that the best evidence for the warming effect of CO2 is that the extremely dry atmosphere of the Arctic is warming at roughly two or three times the rate of the places on Earth with lots of water vapor. I think that the best explanation is that CO2 doesn’t operate alone, but is log-additive with WV. That is, where WV is abundant, CO2 has little effect because the absorption bands are saturated. However, in deserts (both hot and cold) CO2 is causing warming because the absorption bands are not yet saturated.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 9:01 pm

A long harangue of picayune ad hominem still doesn’t qualify as either argument or evidence. Apart from that, the evidence for “CO2 greening” is easily observed and validated by experiment and has been repeated numerous times. No one has ever observed nor experimentally validated AGW caused by anthropogenic CO2. It’s still pure conjecture.

Loydo
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 9:55 pm

There is plenty of evidence that CO2 – being a radiative GHG like H2O – contributes to both warming and of course to greening to.

As far as the anthropogenic portion of CO2 in the atmoshphere goes…would you mind sharing the easily observed and validated by experiment evidence that human CO2 is the cause of the recent greening and not some other cause?

BTW, I don’t need a lecture about how plants love CO2, I know that. The stress here is on the human emitted portion of CO2.

Be aware though, as gets pointed out here about a hundred times a day… its easy to see corellations and jump to the wrong conclusion. Why, this modern greening could be caused by anything; it could be volcanoes, the sun, the AMO, El nino, recovery from a cold period – like the LIA for example, or a million other ‘anything but CO2’ reasons. But sure, nail it down to humans for me.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 10:16 pm

“There is plenty of evidence that CO2 –blah, blah “

.

THEN PRODUCE SOME, you incompetent fool !!

Your twisting and turning in a petulant and puerile attempt to AVOID PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE shows everyone that your remain a complete abyss.

A soggy empty sock.

Just because you are ignorant of basic biology of plants, nobody can help you if you CHOOSE to remain ignorant.

STILL WAITING….

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
.

“The stress here is on the human emitted portion of CO2.”

.

So you really think human emitted CO2 is treated any differently by plant life.. Really !!!

WOW.. you really are getting totally DESPERATE in your idiotic innuendos and baseless zero-science conjectures.

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Doonman
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 10:26 pm

How do you feel about termite emitted CO2? It’s estimated termites worldwide emit 10 times the CO2 that humans do. You’ve never mentioned anything about it. I think you’re missing out on a big CO2 player to demonize.

Loydo
Reply to  Doonman
February 13, 2021 11:07 pm

Termites are in the natural source ‘bucket’ Doonman. For a million years natural sources have been in quasi-equilibrium with natural sinks. Annual, human contributions are small, but they have steadily accumulated. CO2 concentrations rarely change quickly (over geological time periods) but our emissions have caused them to climb by 47% in 170 years.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 11:53 pm

Annual, human contributions are small, but they have steadily accumulated. CO2 concentrations rarely change quickly (over geological time periods) but our emissions have caused them to climb by 47% in 170 years.

Hog wash! You’re stating absolutely that all increases of CO2 can be attributed to humans sources. This makes the enormous presumption that the warming following the LIA is all anthropogenic even though, according to the Kealing curve, CO2 didn’t begin to rise rapidly until the ’50s. (70 years ago). So what caused the warming during the previous ~100 years?

It’s petty clear that temperatures have been rising since the end of the LIA and certainly aren’t tracking CO2. Hell, the current warming is far from remarkable … especially compared to the post Younger Dryas warming. There have been many spikes during the Holocene … all greater than the present.

Loydo
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 14, 2021 1:19 am

“Hogwash”. We’ve emitted twice as much CO2 as the increase. Where do think it went?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 2:50 am

Poor Loy-dopey,

Humans emit just a small percentage compared to the rest of the invigorated Carbon Cycle.

Human CO2 gets lost in the natural variability and natural increase due to the expanding biosphere.

The CARBON CYCLE, that all life on Earth DEPENDS ON is finally starting to RECOVER, after many hundreds or thousand of years at dangerously low levels for existence of life on the planet.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 3:25 am

“Where do think it went?”

.

Into biological sinks that NATURALLY EXPAND with a decent supply of CO2

just like the HUGE increase of NATURAL CO2 emissions due to NATURAL warming of frozen areas

Termites have SO MUCH MORE area to feast in now, so much more CO2 output… good little fellas 🙂

Humans release about 3% of CO2 emissions, nature the rest.

Nature takes back nearly all of that CO2, so there is basically no human released CO2 left.

The Biosphere gets the boost, and is LUVIN’ it. 🙂

Harde, Berry, etc , you know, actual SCIENTISTS, estimate humans may be responsible for some 15% of the emissions increase.

But DON’T PANIC, with China building huge numbers of COAL fired power stations around the world, there will be PLENTY of human CO2 emissions to FEED the biosphere for MANY, MANY years to come.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 10:24 am

“Hogwash”. We’ve emitted twice as much CO2 as the increase. Where do think it went?

Just keep digging, sooner or later it will occur to you that you’re in way over your head. You need to start with the basics. That’s what you’re disagreeing with. Good luck.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 1:57 pm

The point you are missing is that in the absence of anthropogenic CO2, the increase might still have occurred! It would be a stronger argument if the increase was 1:1 instead of about 0.4:1!

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 14, 2021 1:40 am

Loydo’s central belief, that CO2 controls temperature, is falsified by the observation that temperatures actually fell between 1940 and 1980, at a time when emissions of the gas were rising extremely rapidly. Then there are the ice-core data, which show unequivocally that temperature changes always precede changes in CO2.

How does Loydo explain away these Inconvenient Facts?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 14, 2021 9:56 am

All Loydo’s beliefs are falsified daily on this and numerous other sites.

The only reason they persist in pretending that CO2 is the control knob of temperature is because it’s written into their algorithms to do just that. Loydo knows that. They all know that. He just can’t let himself admit their filed science.

Like all globalist progressives, they explain away inconvenient facts with cancel culture, equivocation and other fallacies.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 2:46 am

“but our emissions have caused them to climb by 47% in 170 years.”

More utter BS, unsupported by any evidence.

Cause for the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2 is MOSTLY NATURAL.

And even if we have had some minor contribution, that is GREAT NEWS.

Just think , Loy-dopey, with the HUNDREDS of coal fired power stations being built by China in many parts of the world, there will be a steady INCREASE in human CO2 emissions for DECADES to come.

And there is nothing all your petty whinging and whimpering can do about it. 🙂

STILL WAITING….

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 3:11 am

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 3:15 am

“For a million years natural sources have been in quasi-equilibrium with natural sinks”.

.
What a totally SCIENCE and EVIDENCE FREE load of presumptive balderdash.

And the slight but HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming we have had since the LIA, COLDEST period in 10,000 years, will have greatly expanded the range of termites into areas frozen during the LIA, thus greatly increasing their CO2 output. All that frozen wood and other organic matter now available to chomp on.

Same with any other area where there has been natural warming, the CARBON CYCLE , that all life depends upon for its very existence, gets invigorated, and the first thing that happens is frozen ground starts to emit CO2 and/or methane.

The AGW fanatics cannot have it both ways , complaining about methane etc being released from thawing areas, and then saying humans are responsible for all the rise in CO2

That is just utter cognitive malfunction..

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 3:48 am

“but they have steadily accumulated”

.

Again, NO EVIDENCE.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 4:59 am

47% of next to nothing added to next to nothing leaves you still with next to nothing,…

0.03% of all radiative gases increased to 0.04% of all radiative gases is still next to nothing.

radiative gases equal 1% of the atmosphere so that is 0.04% OF 1% which equates to 4 molecules of co2 per 10,000 molecules of air.

Even a moron like you must understand that 0.004% of the atmosphere is so insignificant it is meaningless, only a complete and utter mental case could possibly truly believe that 0.004% of the air above our heads is the control knob for all of the earths varying climates, that or a complete and utter twat.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 11:11 am

So what? What are the implication of CO2 at 2,000 ppm being at “quasi-equilibrium with natural sinks?” Get a grip; there is no evidence that CO2 drives climate instability.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Fair
Doonman
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 11:39 am

So let me get this straight. Termites are “natural” but humans are not. I think that’s your argument, isn’t it?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Doonman
February 14, 2021 2:15 pm

Yep, we just ain’t “natural”, that’s our whole problem. Nuts!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 12:11 pm

So what?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 1:54 pm

You said, “… our emissions have caused them to climb by 47% in 170 years.” Correlation is not causation! Without proof positive that the increase is exclusively anthropogenic, your statement is a non sequitur.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
February 15, 2021 12:36 am

You forget CO2 concentrations before measurements were estimates. We really only have accurate measurements from the 50’s. So to claim 47% in 170 years is bogus at best.

Last edited 2 months ago by Patrick MJD
fred250
Reply to  Doonman
February 14, 2021 3:46 am

“It’s estimated termites worldwide emit 10 times the CO2 that humans do”

.

A 10 – 20% increase in termite area and population would thus swamp human emissions..

I wonder what area of land has become “termite viable” because of the slight beneficial warming out of the LIA.

Certainly LOTS of frozen wood, peat etc, now becomes edible.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Doonman
February 14, 2021 4:46 am

If lloydo and all his enlightened pals started to eat termite burgers they could save the world.

reduce termites by 20% and increase human emissions by 50% the third world places like africa new york and several other democrat run cities could live warm/cool and happy and the planet would not notice any of those human emissions at all as they just replace the missing termites emissions.

I think i have just solved global warming and all for the price of 1000 guineas please.

Bellman
Reply to  Doonman
February 14, 2021 9:17 am

It’s estimated termites worldwide emit 10 times the CO2 that humans do.

Estimated by who? There’s zero evidence to back up this estimate. It’s a claim that’s been made at least since the 1990s, but only seems to exist in an empty echo-chamber.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 14, 2021 11:43 am

You mean like the ZERO EVIDENCE to back the claim of CO2 warming

Go back to pressing lift buttons, if you can even get that right !

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 1:15 pm

No. When I say there’s zero evidence I’m being polite. Nobody has ever pointed me to a single source to that claim that doesn’t directly refute it.

This isn’t a claim about cause and effect, it’s a simple claim about numbers – either someone has estimated a value for termite CO2 that is 10 times that of human output, in which case it would be easy to point to their claims and examine the data, or it’s just a figure that someone’s made up.

You in contrast can never say what you would require as evidence of “CO2 warming”. Would you, for example, accept a statistical correlation between CO2 and global temperatures? If so, it’s easy to show greater than ZERO EVIDENCE for CO2 warming.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 14, 2021 4:44 pm

“If so, it’s easy to show greater than ZERO EVIDENCE for CO2 warming.”.

Then present the empirical evidence , mindless muppet !!

Or stop wasting everyone’s time.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 5:59 pm

CO2 has been observed to increase, global temperatures have been observed to increase, this was predicted. That’s the simplest empirical evidence I can think of.

Now present your empirical evidence that termites emit 10 times the CO2 that humans do.

20210214wuwt2.png
Graemethecat
Reply to  Bellman
February 15, 2021 6:05 am

Read my comment above about the anti-correlation of CO2 with temperatures between 1940 and 1980, and get back to us.

Bellman
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 15, 2021 8:58 am

Only a problem if the claim is that CO2 is the only variable that affects temperatures. The claim I’m disputing is that there is ZERO evidence that CO2 affects the climate.

Extending the data back to 1880 still shows a very good correlation between Atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures, the anomalous warmth during WWII not withstanding.

Using Log of CO2, gives an r^2 value of 0.89, rather better than the 0.75 if you just assume a linear rate of warming.

20210215wuwt1.png
Graemethecat
Reply to  Bellman
February 16, 2021 3:24 pm

Gistemp has been cooked to conform to the AGW narrative. Try again with an honest temperature series.

Bellman
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 16, 2021 5:59 pm

Why do I get the feeling that any graph I show will be rejected by you? Tell me what temperature series you consider admissible and I’ll see what I can do. In the mean time here’s the same technique used on HadCRUT4 data.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bellman
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
February 16, 2021 6:05 pm

Sorry, had to correct minor mistake on graph. Here’s the corrected version.

20210216wuwt.png
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 11:36 pm

There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is having any effect at all or that increasing CO2 is causing temperatures to rise. Be careful of the dreaded post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There’s a very high likelihood that CO2 over ~100 ppm is already fully saturated in the 15 μ band.

I suggest you research CO2 greening via the following URL …
https://wattsupwiththat.com it is very handy to access actual science. There are several articles on all aspects including the human contribution. BTW, there are several biological signs when increased growth is related to elevated CO2. This is just basic biology.

BTW, I don’t need a lecture about how plants love CO2, I know that. The stress here is on the human emitted portion of CO2.

From reading many of your posts and the comments to them, I would think you could seriously benefit from lectures on ALL aspects of climate science. You seem to be very confused between science and belief.

There is no need to prove that the current greening is all caused by anthropogenic CO2, since there is no evidence that the increase in CO2 is solely human caused. We do know that CO2 is beneficial, though, as is warming, which is easily explained by natural variation.

Loydo
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 14, 2021 1:35 am

“…since there is no evidence that the increase in CO2 is solely human caused.”

Actually, Rory there is and its not even controversial.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 2:52 am

“there is”…

.

WRONG again.

And EVIDENCE-FREE, as always…

You are an EMPTY SOCK, Loy-dopey.

garboard
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 7:30 am

I could be wrong but I think the argument I’m familiar with is that it is getting warmer and there is no other explanation for it . which is hardly overwhelming proof . and not exactly true . just out of curiosity , if co2 is the control knob how close a correlation should there be between temp and co2 and how much of a lag or variation should there be between the two .? seems that both are increasing but doesn’t appear that there is much correlation between their respective rates of increase . educate me .

garboard
Reply to  garboard
February 14, 2021 7:34 am

for instance early 20’th C warming , the cooling 70’s when co2 began its big rise , the Hot 80’s , the Pause ?doesnt look like there is much indication of direct connection between the two

Tom Abbott
Reply to  garboard
February 14, 2021 4:05 pm

The warming from 1910 to 1940, was said by the IPCC to not be greatly influenced by CO2 because at the time, CO2 concentrations were much lower than today, so we can assume that most of the warming from 1910 to 1940 was controlled by Mother Nature’s processes.

The period from 1980 to the present represents a period of warming that is equal to the magnitude of the warming from 1910 to 1940, and the warming for these two periods reached the same level of warmth before starting to cool again.

Alarmists say the warming during the period from 1980 to the present was caused by CO2.

So one period, 1910 to 1940 was mostly Mother Nature caused, while a similar period from 1980 to the present was caused by CO2.

But we already have a mechanism to make this warmth happen, and is proven by the 1910 to 1940 period, so we do not need any CO2 in the equation to warm today like we warmed in the 1930’s.

There’s no evidence CO2 is causing current warming. It could all, or mostly all, be Mother Nature. And noone can say otherwise with any authority.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 10:03 am

“…since there is no evidence that the increase in CO2 is solely human caused.”

Actually, Rory there is and its not even controversial.

If such news wasn’t controversial, you wouldn’t be here trying to convince people that black is white and that water flows up hill. You’re trying to convince everyone that all natural variation ended the moment humans began to use fossil fuels. Hell, you probably believe in Mikey Mann’s fantasy hockey stick “science” 🙂

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 2:20 pm

You know so much about “climate change”, it would be refreshing if some of it was true.

Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 1:40 am

And so could be the warming

Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 7:05 am

For plants there is no difference between natural and human CO2, they can’t and won’t distinguish. 😀

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 11:10 am

Loydo, you still must address the assumed 3X warming of H2O feedbacks. It is trivially true that increased CO2 concentrations, in the absence of any other changes, should theoretically engender a slight warming. The existing observational evidence shows that any amplification of CO2 warming is missing. To win the argument, Loydo, you must show evidence of amplified CO2 warming. The missing tropical (and now worldwide) tropospheric “hot spot” is something even the CliSci deep thinkers have been unable to explain away. Go ahead and give it a shot, Loydo.

Loydo
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 14, 2021 8:57 pm

Dave, I don’t must anything. I’m nailing my colours to the mast with every post, if there is some specific statement I’ve made you disagree with, what is it and tell me why you think I’m in error.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 12:10 pm

There is plenty of evidence that CO2 – being a radiative GHG like H2O – contributes to both warming and of course to greening to [sic].” A trivially true statement, Loydo. But you need to show evidence that an increase in CO2 concentrations will lead to a 3X amplification of CO2’s temperature effects. The measured lack of a tropospheric hot spot invalidates all the UN IPCC CMIP climate models. Please tell me where I am going wrong here.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 1:51 pm

Anthropogenic sources of CO2 are a small fraction of the total Carbon Cycle. I think that it is a mistake to attribute significant changes — good or bad — to anthropogenic CO2. Sources and sinks can’t tell where the CO2 originated. At best, isotopic fractionation occurs at the interchange interfaces, but that doesn’t really differentiate anthropogenic from other sources. I think that the physics of isotopic fractionation is not yet a mature discipline.

Loydo
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 9:11 pm

“Sources and sinks can’t tell where the CO2 originated”

True but irrelevant. The atmosphere’s CO2 conc. has increased XGt, humans have emitted 2XGt. The rise in CO2 is closely corellated with human emissions. You can’t claim that somehow nature is ‘laundering’ our emissions and in doing so removes our responsibility.

Is that how you explain this:
comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Loydo
Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
February 15, 2021 6:22 am

Loydo: You’ve been asked several times to explain the anti-correlation between CO2 and temperatures from 1940 and 1980, in addition to the ice-core record, both of which falsify your hypothesis that CO2 controls temperature, not vice-versa. So far, you’ve ignored the question. Why?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 3:52 pm

“There is plenty of evidence that CO2 – being a radiative GHG like H2O – contributes to both warming and of course to greening to.”

Yes, but the fact that CO2 is a radiative GHG does not establish how much warmth CO2 might add to the atmosphere, and we have no way of measuring it other than guesses as to the ECS number.

So there is no measureable evidence that human-derived CO2 is adding enough warmth to affect the Earth’s climate.

Claiming that severe weather is evidence of CO2 warming is pure speculation because the Earth has experienced severe weather since the beginning of time on Earth.

It is just as likely that Mother Nature is controlling the behavior of the Earth’s atmosphere. More likely, imo, since I don’t see any evidence for CO2 control.

garboard
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 7:09 am

the link between increased co2 and enhanced plant growth has been demonstrated repeatedly and is easily understood , co2’s effect on the vastly chaotic non linear planetary climate systems not so much

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 11:02 am

You miss the point, Loydo. The theory of CO2 warming is fairly solid. All empirical evidence shows that the multiplying factor of about 3X CO2 warming assumed in UN IPCC climate models is wrong. You need to address that issue to retain any credibility.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 12:03 pm

Loydo, you are sidestepping the question. Please provide empirical studies that CO2 increases will drive a 3X increase in temperatures. In the absence of a measured tropical tropospheric hot spot, the UN IPCC CliSci models have been falsified. Simply repeating political dogma will not convince thinking people.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:52 pm

I just asked a simple question, and you sidestepped it. Typical.

Loydo
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 13, 2021 8:15 pm

Ok, you didn’t understand so, um, no.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:48 pm

No Loy, you ran away like the petulant little child-mind that you are.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:00 pm

comment image

Easily explained by MORE SUNSHINE hours

Facts need not interrupt your mindless yabbering though, loy-dumbest.

Unless of course more rain means more sunshine.

Remain CLUELESS, loy.. its your only hope.

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
February 13, 2021 9:14 pm

More sunshine hours…looks like “Cleaner Air” to me

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 9:06 pm

Considering our “Radical Abrupt Unplanned Geo-engineering Experiment” started with the onset of the industrial revolution some 270 years ago, you were happy with the Holocene the way it was back in 1750 and are quite probably the world’s oldest living human

Last edited 2 months ago by Bryan A
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 9:14 pm

“Loydo is concerned about the global warming that has already occurred and shows no end…blah..blah”

.

The warming we have had out of the coldest period in 10,000 years, have been totally beneficial to all life on Earth..

… as has the natural increase in atmospheric CO2.

All scientific evidence shows that is absolutely NOTHING to be concerned about except a drop back to LIA type temperatures.

Your idiotic “concernᴸᴼᴸ” is a sign of either..

… a deep-seated brain-washed ignorant cultism….

… or a totally irrational and non-functional mind which is incapable of any scientific comprehension whatsoever.

garboard
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 7:01 am

really ? you’d prefer the 1930’s when millions died in china from flooding , the US had massive drought , heat and dust storms , the most powerful hurricane to ever make landfall hit Florida , New England had a catastrophic cat 3 hurricane , most of the east coast had disastrous floods ? oh for the good ol days when the climate was gentle .

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 11:56 am

Normal people do not refer to themselves in the third person, Loydo. You are hiding behind a pseudonym. Please cite studies that show current and reasonably projected CO2 levels will cause existential threats to humankind. Otherwise, you are simply blowing smoke from your nether regions.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Fair
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 12:53 pm

Let me put it this way Alice: I was happy with the Holocene the way it was before we started our radical, abrupt, unplanned geoengineering experiment.

The Holocene has been steadily cooling for 10,000 years and no end in sight. It’s still cooling. Are you “happy with” that? Would you have been just as happy during the Holocene thermal optimum at possibly 3 degrees warmer than the present?

You people almost cancelled the Medieval Warm Period (but failed due to actual evidence). You can’t cancel the entire Holocene. It disproves all of your conjecture.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 7:39 pm

You poor dumbest Loy.

Your DESPERATION is really showing through.

300 times more DESPERATE in fact. !

And that is shown by every post you make.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:33 pm

comment image

Now explain how human CO2 increases the hours of sunshine per year..

… while making it wetter.

And then they go on a stupid dice rolling analogy, showing further that they really HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE.

Just like you, loy-dumb

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 13, 2021 8:39 pm

And they say “wetter”..

….. which it ISN’T

comment image

comment image

Lrp
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 1:45 am

Loydo is not here to learn, she’s here to parade her ignorance and vent her anger

fred250
Reply to  Lrp
February 14, 2021 2:54 am

Certainly hasn’t shown ANYTHING except base level gullibility and ignorace.

Just regurgitates the mantra, no rational thought or resemblance of scientific evidence needed.

Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 6:49 am

Lloydo
So anthropogenic warming began in the 1600’s?
I guess it’s possible if much of this warming is actually urban heat island and just physical warming from burning stuff (like whales then fossil fuels).

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Loydo
February 14, 2021 9:31 am

Only a total dingbat would use the word numbat in place of dingbat.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Loydo
February 15, 2021 5:39 am

Nat

ural

var

iab

ili

ty

and all the kings models cannot put clumty bumpty together again

So funny when they claim that observations well within the reach of natural variability are evidence of man made climate change.

When you point this out they say “oh well, its happening faster than before, without evidence of course

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 3:49 pm

At least it’s profitable to be wrong in the Climate Crusades.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 13, 2021 8:50 pm

And how, it’s profitable … for some.

Redge
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 13, 2021 11:50 pm

Are you talking about the Profit Al Gore?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Redge
February 14, 2021 1:44 am

His net worth increased from $700 000 before he climbed aboard the Climatescam bandwagon to around $300m today. Numbers don’t lie.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 4:41 pm

At least they are consistent. You gotta give them that!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
February 13, 2021 8:49 pm

At least they are consistent.

When I remind them of their consistency, they just call me names. Sourpusses!

Last edited 2 months ago by Rory Forbes
czechlist
Reply to  Giordano Milton
February 13, 2021 3:38 pm

Didn’t the “expert climate modelers” predict this bitter cold 10 years ago? No, I think they said kids wouldn’t know what snow is.
God bless the people and beasts which must endure this bitter onslaught.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  czechlist
February 14, 2021 5:20 pm

Yeah, my farmer neighbor has to go out and work in this bitter cold every day. He earns every penny he makes.

John Tillman
Reply to  Giordano Milton
February 13, 2021 5:00 pm

Alarmists just keep making new ones. From December 2020:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55212417

Twenty years after UAE’s Dr. Viner and colleagues predicted that soon British children wouldn’t know what snow is, the new forecast is for no snow or even sub-freezing temperatures in the UK by 2040.

Redge
Reply to  John Tillman
February 13, 2021 11:57 pm

The biggest concern for me about the drivel posted by the BBC link is the target audience.

Decades ago John Cravens Newsround (Craven worked at the BBC) and was aimed at children.

The online BBC Newsround is still aimed at children.

Judging by the comments, the BBC are ensuring their target audience are being well and truly indoctrinated.

bonbon
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 2:35 am

China just banned the Boob. It is not a “news” channel.

John Tillman
Reply to  bonbon
February 14, 2021 8:27 am

China suffers under a tyrannical, genocidcal dictatorship, whose speech policies make the Beeb look like 8Chan.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bonbon
February 14, 2021 5:33 pm

I think the UK banned a Chinese Broadcast license and this may be retaliation for that, or for the BBC reporting on the atrocities being perpetrated on Chinese Muslims, or both.

Dictator Xi seems to think he is on a roll, and is playing hardball just about everywhere, although I saw a news report that the Chicoms and the Indians are reducing their troop numbers in the area where they were clashing recently.

You can see why Xi thinks he is on a roll. He has his chief rival, the United States, under complete control now, what with Joe Biden in the pesidency. Xi owns Biden, and we notice that Biden is reversing all Trump’s attempts to reign in the Chicoms.

Spend a few million dollars smartly and you too can own an American president. They come relatively cheap.

Scissor
February 13, 2021 2:01 pm

Makes my feet cold.

February 13, 2021 2:08 pm

Don’t forget Texas. The forecast for Monday night at Geronimo Creek Atmospheric Monitoring Station in Central Texas is for snow and 9 degrees F. Austin’s forecast is 6 degrees F. These will likely become record lows.

czechlist
Reply to  Forrest M. Mims III
February 13, 2021 4:04 pm

Tejas, 1974-1984 bitter cold, snow and ice around Christmas through New Year and brutally hot July – September. Haven’t seen this cold since 1983. I hope this doesn’t portend a trend

Sara
Reply to  Forrest M. Mims III
February 13, 2021 5:18 pm

Odessa, TX, 1951 – sleet and bitter cold. I was five. My brother was two. He was cold so he stood on the furnace register in his bare feet and got hot feet for it.

February 13, 2021 2:23 pm

Warmistas are increasingly concerned to deflect public attention away from 40+ years of failed climate predictions by floating out new baseless theories to pile on top of the wobbly CO2 Global Warming hypothesis.

Dave Fair
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 13, 2021 6:15 pm

I am deeply concerned that the bulk of CliSci turn their eyes from clear lies about ‘climate disaster.’ If money and power can corrupt whole sectors of science, is there ever any optimism about politics being for the betterment of the average person?

RickWill
February 13, 2021 2:28 pm

But we do know that climate change is likely to make winters milder and wetter in the UK,

I wonder how “likely”. Such wishy-washy terminology. Then milder and wetter!

THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE. It is just weather. We will know there is climate change when the Tropical Atlantic does not reach 30C annually and snow starts accumulating on mountains in Europe.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  RickWill
February 13, 2021 2:46 pm

THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE.

I disagree. There is no empirical evidence that there isn’t precisely the same amount of climate change as there has always been. The problem is; using the term “climate change” as they do, it’s an appeal to ambiguity … equivocation. This planet doesn’t have a single, measurable climate.

RickWill
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 2:53 pm

You have a right to disagree but the evidence is clear.

While sea ice forms annually at both poles and the tropical ocean warm pools reach their controlled 30C at least annually there is no climate change; there is weather. The average surface temperature will remain be the arithmetic average of the two extremes – 14C.

We will know there is climate change when the Atlantic does not get to 30C annually:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000PA000506

Rory Forbes
Reply to  RickWill
February 13, 2021 3:19 pm

I fear you’re not following what I wrote. Reread my second sentence.

In essence we’re saying exactly the same thing. The default condition of every climate on the planet is change. There can never be a steady state of climate. All climates are local or at most regional, subject to change due to the effects of local conditions, but they’re all changing. The big question is; how significant is the anthropogenic effect and is it measurable?

Mr.
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 4:56 pm

Great summation Rory.

Averaging climate conditions around the world is arrant nonsense.
Or should that be nonsensical?

And then to argue about whose average construct is more “accurate” is just – well, I’ll just shake my head.

Just where does one go on Earth to find this average climate or temperature to confirm by observation the veracity of these constructs?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mr.
February 13, 2021 5:02 pm

It’s always a problem trying to average discrete information. If we average the temperatures of everyone in hospital, we’d send everyone home. Averaging world temperatures (adjusted) or not is about as useful as averaging telephone numbers.

RickWill
Reply to  Mr.
February 13, 2021 5:15 pm

Just where does one go on Earth to find this average climate or temperature to confirm by observation the veracity of these constructs?

If I take a a spherical shell with good surface heat transfer and I hold a circumference at 30C and the opposing ends at -2C, then the average temperature over the sphere is going to be close to 14C.

That it what determines the temperature of Earth’s surface.

Average Surface Temperature = {30 + (-2)}/2 = 14C

Has been for millennia and will be for a long time until the tropical Atlantic does not make the 30C.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  RickWill
February 13, 2021 5:54 pm

f I take a a spherical shell with good surface heat transfer and I hold a circumference at 30C and the opposing ends at -2C, then the average temperature over the sphere is going to be close to 14C.”

You’re still averaging intensive properties. That’s a Bozo No-No.

RickWill
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 13, 2021 8:56 pm

The shell is a thin layer of the order 100m thick but having very high thermal mass and near constant specific heat throughout its depth. Its average temperature is a very good indicator of the energy in the climate system that produces the westher.

Of course Global Average Surface Temperature is a silly number but my number of 14C has no measurement error and is as good as any other silly number. In fact the 14C has some sensible physics behind it; sea ice forms at -2C and cloudburst limits tropical ocean temperature to 30C. No “greenhouse effect”, no data fiddling and no influence from CO2.

fred250
Reply to  RickWill
February 13, 2021 11:09 pm

“at -2C and cloudburst limits tropical ocean temperature to 30C. No “greenhouse effect”, no data fiddling and no influence from CO2.”

.

On an average(Tmin, Tmax) basis, no argument

But that assumes a constant unchanging linearity between Tmin and Tmax.

Variations come from non-linear difference between them.

The areas occupied by Tmin and Tmax at either end also make a difference to the true average

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Rory Forbes
Reply to  RickWill
February 13, 2021 8:37 pm

Believe it or not, temperature and its source is but one small component of climate.

Mike
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 7:42 pm

”The big question is; how significant is the anthropogenic effect and is it measurable?”

Not yet but any day now….

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike
February 13, 2021 8:35 pm

Not yet but any day now….

I hope you won’t hold it against me … but would you mind if I don’t hold my breath?

RickWill
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 5:27 pm

There is no empirical evidence that there isn’t precisely the same amount of climate change as there has always been. 

We know that there has been significant Climate Change in the past. We know that oceans were much lower than now. We know that enormous amounts of ice carved massive valleys through the landscape in Europe and North America. We can observe that glaciers have been retreating from the the past cold period. We know the deep ocean temperature is still recovering from the last period of glaciation.

I know that sea ice forms at -2C and exists at both poles. I know that tropical ocean warm pools control at 30C. It should be no surprise that the mean of the extremes is the average surface temperature. Until the extremes change, the average will be 14C.

The 14C is more accurate than any measurement system will achieve. All are prone to enormous errors. Climate modellers cannot agree on the current average surface temperature within a range of 2C.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  RickWill
February 13, 2021 8:30 pm

I still don’t think you’re reading what I wrote. Nothing you’ve written disagrees with my statement. In other words, all observed climate change is consistent with natural variation. You’re preaching to the choir … and admirably so. The question is still; is there anything unusual about these changes that only the human variable can explain.

RickWill
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 13, 2021 9:05 pm

 The question is still; is there anything unusual about these changes that only the human variable can explain.

Humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. That improves forest and crop productivity that may offset the reduction in forested land. It may also contribute to wild fires without improved forest management.

Any measured temperature changes on the surface are the result of measurement system flaws or data fraud; legalised through the acceptance of data homogenisation..

Rory Forbes
Reply to  RickWill
February 13, 2021 11:06 pm

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse are do you have some other reason for avoiding my question? You’re still preaching to the choir.

RickWill
February 13, 2021 2:45 pm

UK population has increased 10-fold since the 1750s. I figure their energy usage has increased more than that. I wonder how the siting of all the temperature gauges has changed over three centuries relative to human habitation in their vicinity.

There is a considerable amount of human induced measurement errors being used as evidence for “climate change”

People have been so misguided by the propaganda that they do not look for the obvious – Any temperature trend over the last century that is not zero is a measurement error.

The current global average surface temperature is 14C. It is only going to go one way from this value and it is not up as the fantasy models predict.

CMIP6_Compare.png
goldminor
February 13, 2021 2:48 pm

So this PhD student has found that which most of us have known for some time. That the climate is cyclical, and the point of change to a warm trend started in the late 1970s. What he needs to figure out next is that the return to factors which induce cooling are now in place, and should continue as a cooling trend into the late 2030s are perhaps beyond.

Graemethecat
Reply to  goldminor
February 14, 2021 2:02 am

At some point the acolytes of AGW like Loydo and Griff are going to be confronted with unequivocal global cooling. I am looking forwards to seeing how they cope.

jtom
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 14, 2021 7:11 am

You overestimate their intelligence, an easy thing to do. When we enter an unquestionable period of global cooling, they will blame it on man-produced CO2. It will be out fault. The limits of their minds can not handle a different reality.

Vuk
February 13, 2021 2:56 pm

Mr.Lee on one of your Uni web pages is stated:
Less well understood is why and by how much different weather regimes in the troposphere are influenced by stratospheric changes. This project will use a large archive of previous model forecasts from ten operational monthly forecast models and our own simulations to develop a more detailed understanding of coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere. …….”
You hardly need any of models. Not every SSW will cause vortex to split up, you need to know which one will.

Last edited 2 months ago by Vuk
John F Hultquist
February 13, 2021 2:58 pm

I wonder if Simon Lee knows the story of #42?

Many natural things such as snow, rain, and temperature appear to have a high variance. Thus to claim a thing hasn’t happened in 40, 50, or 100 years because of “climate change” is a hard sell.

I’d investigate this more if I were not dealing with snow and cold temperature – and we are near the edge of the beast threatening North America.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/curtmp.png

TonyG
February 13, 2021 3:09 pm

Weren’t we just told (like last week or so) that global warming is causing the cold? But now it’s making it less likely? I’m confused…

Tom Halla
February 13, 2021 3:24 pm

Well, 1647 was in the Little Ice Age, so England getting warmer since then fits natural variation better than fitting CAGW due to greenhouse gasses.

Paul C
February 13, 2021 3:29 pm

Looks like a project to digitise historical UK rainfall records (from 1677 to 1960) was done last year. Hopefully the raw data will be available.
https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/edh/rainfall-rescue/collections
also a current one for tide gauge data.
https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/psmsl/uk-tides

Steve Case
Reply to  Paul C
February 13, 2021 5:58 pm

Paul, Hopefully Phil Jones won’t be in charge of archiving that raw data

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steve Case
February 13, 2021 7:51 pm

Phil Jones shouldn’t be in charge of traffic cone maintenance.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul C
February 14, 2021 5:46 pm

Who did the digitizing, I’m wondering?

ResourceGuy
February 13, 2021 3:48 pm

Another day, another PhD student broadcasting to the agenda science employer base. Weather is just weather unless it’s not and who declares that debate closure.

ResourceGuy
February 13, 2021 3:51 pm

Well, if atmospheric sciences doesn’t work out, there is always climate communications and climate psychology.

Smart Rock
February 13, 2021 3:53 pm

Fellow-WUWTers, go easy on this guy. He’s a Ph.D. student, probably with a truck-load of student debt hanging over him. How is ever going to graduate and get a career going if he starts questioning the dominant orthodoxy?

He almost uttered a heresy “These different patterns all fall within natural climate variability”. He needs to watch his step!

Plus he can write, and even use alliteration to make a point: “warmer, wetter winter weather is winning“. Let’s hope he doesn’t mature into one of the craven, cowardly conformists of catastrophist climate casuistry.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Smart Rock
February 13, 2021 5:57 pm

Now, if he had said “winning bigly”, he would have been instantly canceled.

Tombstone Gabby
February 13, 2021 3:59 pm

It’s pushing midnight Saturday in London. I just had a look at the traffic cameras – no sign of snow as of now.

Live Traffic Webcam busiest areas in London, England

Peter W
February 13, 2021 4:09 pm

Hare, cold (pun intended) reality is a tough thing for some people to face up to.

Chris Hanley
February 13, 2021 4:10 pm

The CET record of annual temperatures does indicate winters have warmed since about 1980 but there have been similar warming trends in past winters and the summer temperature trend has been close to zero.
The winter trend could be at least partly attributed to population increase and concomitant urban growth, the population of England in 1650 was 5.3 m. and is now 56.2 m. (Wiki).
The author refers to ‘climate change’ six times without defining it.
If by ‘climate change’ the author means warming due to post-1950 human emissions it’s not immediately obvious from the record, there is certainly no apparent ‘climate crisis’:
comment image
That doesn’t imply there has been no effect from human emissions.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 13, 2021 6:25 pm

It is just that after 40 years, CliSci has been unable to quantify the “effect from human emissions.” Only by making heroic assumptions about aerosol forcings can the keepers of the flame speculate that 50% of warming since 1950 is human-caused.

fred250
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 13, 2021 7:56 pm

comment image

Now, show us all how human CO2 causes more sunshine over the UK !

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Chris Hanley
Reply to  fred250
February 13, 2021 11:28 pm

“That doesn’t imply there has been no effect from human emissions” is an entirely neutral noncommittal statement on the matter.

fred250
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 14, 2021 2:55 am

Then why bother even saying it.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  fred250
February 14, 2021 12:16 pm

Since when is it your job to supervise what commenters post here?

Mr.
February 13, 2021 5:03 pm

If climate change is like loading a die, then rolling a one is still possible. Just because you roll a one every so often does not tell you that the die is not loaded. For that, you need to look at longer periods of time, to see if you are rolling more sixes and fewer ones.

I’m so appreciative of this insight into advanced statistical skill.

I had gotten to the point of thinking that climate predictions were done by a spin of the chocolate wheel at the local fair.

Science advances, hey?

William Haas
February 13, 2021 5:07 pm

People mix up true climate change with weather changes and cycles that are part of the current climate. True climate change is happening so slowly that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades, to even detect it.

Sara
February 13, 2021 5:15 pm

So these prognosticators fail to recognize that when something is wildly wobbly, swinging back & forth to an extreme instead of trekking along in a smooth path, it means that the “balance” of what is wobbling (e.g., jet stream extremes) is out of whack and preparing itself to flop flat to stabilize itself?

Where I live (35 mi north of Chicago) now and when I lived in Chicago, there seemed to be a cycle of really awful, cold, snowbound winter followed by several winters that were not so bad and relatively pleasant. This winter is one of those whammy jet stream flop winters, ten years to the month (almost to the day) after the blizzard that shut down Chicago (2011) and slammed the east coast.

Is ANYONE keeping track of this kind of thing besides me? These are cycles and they sometimes end up being prolonged. If they get long enough and frequent enough, they can be the cause of The Next Great Cold Period Everywhere.

I bought Joe Bastardi’s book. Awesome stuff. He didn’t specifically reference long-term cycles, but there seemed to be some hint of it, even if he didn’t intend that.

jtom
Reply to  Sara
February 14, 2021 7:38 am

So the last really cold blast was ten years ago, right? Yes, a great many people are keeping track of this kind if thing. Your cycle matches up with solar sunspot minima. There seems to be evidence that if solar activity falls below a threshold for a long enough period, that it ultimately results in colder weather on Earth. What that threshold is, and how long it must be below it, cannot be determined from the sparse data if the anomaly exists.

Another symptom of the lack of solar activity is a dearth of sunspots. From today’s spaceweather.com site:
“ SOLAR MINIMUM CONDTIONS ARE IN EFFECT: Solar Minimum, how can we miss you if you won’t go away? The sun has been blank (without spots) in 2021 60% of the time–including the last 10 days in a row. Solar flare activity is nil, and the sun’s X-ray output has flatlined. This surprising quiet spell comes on the heels of a surge in solar activity late last year; new Solar Cycle 25 is off to a sputtering start.”

And another cold wave is hitting Earth. Interesting, no?

OK S.
February 13, 2021 6:10 pm

Two Tardises at the same time in the same place. Something is very wrong in the time-stream. 🙂

Last edited 2 months ago by OK S.
saveenergy
Reply to  OK S.
February 14, 2021 12:28 am

“Two Tardises”

Should that be ‘Two Tardisi
as in The plural of rhinoceros is rhinoceri,

Last edited 2 months ago by saveenergy
Richard M
Reply to  OK S.
February 14, 2021 5:51 am

Wasn’t there an episode with 3 doctors all together?

michael hart
February 13, 2021 7:22 pm

“Why the UK’s weather varies so much.”
No it phucking doesn’t. That’s why we talk about it all the time. The British way of starting a conversation with a complete stranger is to say something about the recent weather.

And the idea of starting to give storms (aka weather systems) names, is just a pitiful case of weather envy: “Well, the Americans have names for their hurricanes. Why can’t we have a name for an unusually rainy day.”
Jesus H. Christ on a bike in the afternoon. We have one of the mildest goddam climates on the planet but the meeja and global warmists are still trying to tell us different.

TallDave
February 13, 2021 7:47 pm

old news by about 50 years, at least in the US

remember the Dust Bowl wasn’t just hot, anomalous lows in the winter accompanied the anomalous summer highs in the same year

key to both was low humidity

land use changes and treebelts have measurably moderated US climate since the 1960s, particularly Plains

SAMURAI
February 13, 2021 8:53 pm

Leftists are about to learn that most of the beneficial warming we’ve enjoyed since 1979 has been from PDO and AMO warm cycles, and NOT from CO2 forcing, which this insane CAGW hoax is supposed to be all about.

Both the PDO and AMO are approaching their 30-year cool cycles, which is one of the reasons for the bitter winters we’ve been suffering through….

Once the PDO/AMO properly enter their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles, these cold events will become more frequent and global temps will start trending downward, as they did from 1945~1977, and from 1880~1915.

Leftists’ silly “Polar Vortex” mantra to explain away any weather event they don’t like is getting tedious… Polar Vortexes happen every other year or so, and are NOT caused by CO2..

fred250
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 13, 2021 10:11 pm

2 years before the coldest period since the warmer 1940s

comment image

fred250
February 13, 2021 9:42 pm

The Ten warmest winters in CET are, in order….

1869 6.8
2016 6.7
1834 6.5
1989 6.5
2007 6.4
1975 6.4
1686 6.3
1990 6.2
1796 6.2
2020 6.2

And yes, most of the winters that averaged below 2C were during the Little Ice Age

COLDEST period in10,000 years. !

Everybody in the UK should be CHEERING that those brutally cold winters are not occurring much any more.

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  fred250
February 13, 2021 9:54 pm

Linear trend in winter averages is a steady 0.04ºC/decade,since 1660, with no sign of any acceleration.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of any human CO2 warming in the CET winter temperatures.

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
fred250
February 13, 2021 10:06 pm

The 10 warmest Summer averages in CET are…

1977 17.8
1827 17.6
1996 17.4
2004 17.3
2019 17.3
2007 17.2
1847 17.1
1984 17.1
1948 17.0
1934 17.0

The Trend in the summer averages is 0.01ºC/decade with no sign of any acceleration.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of any human CO2 warming in the CET summer temperatures.

donald penman
February 13, 2021 10:32 pm

It has become a little milder in the UK in winter in the past few decades although there is nothing to suggest that the winters could not become colder in the next few decades. People use a straight line through data as though it is the long term trend but it is not because we have had years in the UK where we have had colder than average temperatures. While not accepting that this change is exactly cyclical these up and downs in temperature continue over long time periods, think of the little ice age and the medieval warm period or even ice ages, it is never a straight line through the small amount of data that we have.

February 13, 2021 10:41 pm

Quote: “…the succession of different extremes raises questions about climate variability and climate change.”

Back in the 1970s, that’s what global cooling was supposed to cause. Here’s an excerpt from a 1974 CIA report about the looming threat of a return to the neo-boreal conditions of the Little Ice Age (global cooling):
comment image

Graemethecat
Reply to  Dave Burton
February 14, 2021 2:26 am

The Warmunists have done their best to consign the Global Cooling Scare of the 1970’s to the memory hole as it completely punctures their narrative.

ren
February 13, 2021 11:39 pm

Stratospheric intrusion in the US is expanding westward ( Colorado).comment imagecomment image

February 13, 2021 11:55 pm

Climate science involves many different inter-related natural systems on earth – it’s more than just the human influence or carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions. Some climate drivers are natural and cyclical – like the repeating patterns of El Nino, Southern Oscillation. Some are spontaneous and unexpected – like volcanoes or large wildfires.

Gary Ashe
February 14, 2021 1:47 am

Who is this lloydo moron going on about ”its the observed data” nonsense.

Isnt it obvious that all the really cold winters or decades were before 1900.
Ya know during the little ice period, how is comparing that era to todays era of a natural thawing anything to do with actual science.

Since 1900 its clearly cyclical until the 80s then any government data after that has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt as the east anglia guys are the same guys in the climate gate scandal, and who in their right mind after reading those puts 2 penneths worth trust in those shysters.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Gary Ashe
February 14, 2021 1:49 am

oops during the little ice age period

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Gary Ashe
February 14, 2021 2:53 am

This is a priceless discussion. Good to see that we still have some people who can put together some priceless put downs – “Jesus Christ on a bike in the afternoon” just folded me up.
Meanwhile in the real world, England are way behind on first innings, all out for 134 on a DUST BOWL wicket and India are batting again…….sob……..sniffles.. ..
Just wait till we get the Indians over here in UK and trap them on an absolute SOGGY in Leeds…..
See, there is relevance after all….. weather variability….

philincalifornia
Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 14, 2021 7:19 am

Blasphemist. It never rained in Leeds before 1980.

My Mum lives there now, literally at the Kirkstall Lane End.

Apologies to people who have no idea what I’m talking about. Brian clearly does.

February 14, 2021 2:41 am

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute, usually a shrill voice for warming alarm, concedes: “cold waves like the one currently occurring in Europe may become more frequent.” This has caused consternation among fellow climatarians.

https://notrickszone.com/2021/02/13/january-mean-temps-in-northern-europe-stall-top-climate-scientist-concedes-cold-waves-more-frequent-ahead/

philincalifornia
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 14, 2021 4:41 am

Ha ha ha ha. They may not become more frequent either. I think it’s great that the climate crisis is now the climate alarmist crisis, as eminently proven by loydo up-thread. She may be one brick short of legoland, and still doesn’t know the difference between linear and logarithmic functions but I’d miss her if she left.

Sara
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 14, 2021 5:59 am

Oh. My. God Neptune the Weather God!!!! He has committed Blasphemy!!! He will be cast into the Outer Darkness along with the rest of us twidgets, over here with the good food and drink and the fire in the fireplace. He will need comfort to get over not being One Of Them anymore.

Popcorn, anyone?

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 14, 2021 7:19 am

You forgot to mention, it’s because of Global Warming, that is the real reason for the split of the polar vortex.

Walter Sobchak
February 14, 2021 5:41 am

And it is -30 Celsius in St.Paul MN as I write this. St. Paul is well south of any point in England.

Mervyn
February 14, 2021 5:59 am

In a post truth era of the progressive loonies, facts no longer matter.

Catastrophic man-made global warming is what ‘climate change’ was supposed to be about. The loonies want us to believe ‘climate change’ is responsible for anything and everything because the most basic premise of their supposition is not backed up by any discernible evidence.

It seems to me that Mother Nature refuses to cooperate with the IPCC, and real world observational data on climate refuses to cooperate with the climate change modellers and their GIGO models.

Sara
February 14, 2021 6:04 am

I don’t care who you are or where you are, but some of the creative cussing in these comments is hysterical!!!! Thank you for making the day that much lighter!

I have fed the birds, including the Cardinal and the chickadees and juncos and various sparrows and, am now awaiting the next dump of snow on my house. So far it appears that we have a wind chill of -22F, temp of barely 8F, and pending snow somewhere up there in the clouds. Total snow to date (since Feb. 2) is about 14 inches, but I haven’t measured it just yet. Just happy I decided to replace the old furnace last fall with a new, more efficient unit that has slightly dropped my gas bill.

Not to worry: it is part of a short-term cycle that seems to occur about every 10 years, the last episode being February 2011. Is anyone (besides Joe Bastardi and the guys who run WUWT) tracking these cycles or do I have to do all the work for you?

Have a nice cozy day.

George Daddis
February 14, 2021 6:46 am

“…we do know that climate change is likely to make winters ..”
What jumps out to me is that Simon Lee implicitly accepts the existence of “Climate Change” and that this change in climate is not within the range of natural variation.

However, if the variation he assumes is natural then there is no basis for his conclusion.

This brings to mind a recent article by Dr. Curry where she laments that the more recent climate “scientists” no longer have a background in the basic sciences (physics, chemistry etc). They start with the assumption (presumably from their professors, or even the nature of the program in which they are enrolled) that change is dangerous and man made, and instead have studied mathematics in order to build models to extrapolate from that assumption.

philincalifornia
Reply to  George Daddis
February 14, 2021 8:26 am

Climate scientists haven’t learned about climate cycles yet. They’re not the sharpest pencils in the box. If they were, they might have chosen to become real scientists.

Alba
February 14, 2021 8:19 am

That’s a very interesting photograph. The caption refers to Braemar and shows a building displaying the sign, “Great North Railway of Scotland”. But the railway line never reached Braemar. The end of the line was at Ballater, some 17 miles away from Braemar. Maybe there’s an explanation why a building in Braemar displays the sign of the GNoSR. Or maybe that building isn’t in Braemar.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Alba
February 14, 2021 8:47 am

I think they got it right, actually. I did spend some time up there once, in winter too, and it was wonderful – Inverness, Aviemore, etc., but never made it to Braemar.

https://outaboutscotland.com/braemar-in-aberdeenshire/

…… and, while I’m yammering on, spent some time on the Orkney Islands too. What a great place for understanding pre-climate liar climate history.

D Cage
February 14, 2021 10:16 am

Can anyone answer the question I asked our junior school teacher when I was about eleven. The wet and dry thermometers you get the humidity figure from those tables mean you get a different answer if the ground it wet and dry from different evaporation so the number is never the real temperature is it? Surely it is always low by an amount determined by the evaporation cooling of the mandatory grass surrounding area by between zero and around ten degrees.

February 14, 2021 10:36 am

The BBC reports the anomalous freeze in Texas – remarkably without including the “but it’s caused by global warming” steer. A curious change of practice.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56058372

Andy Pattullo
February 14, 2021 11:04 am

“Extreme cold, a heatwave, a deluge, and another cold snap: the succession of different extremes raises questions about climate variability and climate change.“

What questions?. The article clearly states these changes are within normal expected variability of the weather. It isn’t generally disputed that we have gradually moved into a warmer period than the little ice age a century and a half ago, so no reason to be surprised if cold extremes have lessened and average temperatures risen marginally. But these weather events say nothing about overall climate change nor are they proof of the widely publicized theory that human CO2 emissions (about 5% of total global emissions) are the primary control knob of tropospheric temperature, or that they will drive dangerous changes in climate. Those conclusions are only supported in the heads of undisciplined climate modelers and their model outputs.

Academic research was a good part of my job early in my career. I stopped as soon as I realized what was expected of me and what would be rewarded. It wasn’t what the public might think – good, honest and objective research with conclusions that would support good policy. The incentives were all around notoriety, prestige, money and power. If someone accidentally found some nugget of truth and told the world about it (before trying to make boat load of money on it) that was just a fortunate bonus.

ResourceGuy
February 14, 2021 2:56 pm

It’s not cold enough to close the climate courts. The lawyers can work from home.

Tom Abbott
February 14, 2021 3:13 pm

From the article: “Thus, while weather extremes will continue to occur at both ends of the spectrum as part of a natural, jet stream-driven rollercoaster, the evidence supports the projections that warmer, wetter winter weather is winning.”

You consider that evidence, do you?

I consider it pure speculation. No evidence involved. You are seeing what you expect to see.

Joe E
February 15, 2021 9:08 am

Are all these measurements since the 1600’s made with the same type of instruments, in the same geographic location using the same methods? After all, doesn’t the scientific method require such methodology in order to compare data? just asking

Matthew Sykes
February 18, 2021 1:54 am

Can we have CET summer temps to see how GH gases cause less cold, rather than more warmth?