Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I keep reading that the freezing cold weather in Houston, Dallas, and the central US is the result of “global warming”.
When I heard that, my first thought was, … “Whaaa?? How would that work, that getting warmer would make it colder?”
Following up on that logic, my next thought was, “I wonder just how much colder the world would have to get in order for Houston to never freeze again?”
That sounded like a great thing to me, no more ice and snow, because I’m a tropical boy. After two decades of living on lovely warm Pacific islands, when I see the ice jumping out of my nice drink with the little umbrella in it and running around covering up the landscape, I call that “Water behaving badly!”.
So I thought I’d take a look and see just how cold the globe would have to get for the US to stay warm all the time. I figured I’d see how many days of the year it’s been freezing in Houston, to see just how much “global warming” was increasing ice and snow there. Here’s that graph:
Hmmm … doesn’t look like “global warming” has increased freezing in Houston. But undeterred, I kept looking. I figured that Dallas must show some sign of the dreaded “global warming” making icy streets and frozen pipes more common …
Well, it was starting to seem like the theory that “global warming” makes things colder wasn’t looking all that good. But I reckoned that surely, in the heart of the US this mystery phenomenon could be found. So I looked to Oklahoma City to show me the truth …
Sixty days a year below freezing? As a tropical boy, I can only say YIKES! But I digress …
Now, to be clear, this is just three cities. So I suppose it’s possible that “global warming” is making some city somewhere icier, making frost and burst pipes more common someplace … but it sure isn’t happening in Houston, Dallas, or Oklahoma City.
Here on our Northern California hillside with a tiny bit of the Pacific visible in a gap between the hills, I live in a climate anomaly. The area between about 600 to 800 feet (180 – 240 m) elevation on the western face of the first range of hills in from the ocean in this stretch of the coast is called the “Banana Belt” because it stays warm. We’re at about 700 ft elevation, and we can grow guavas and avocados on our land.
But a mere quarter-mile (half a kilometre) from my house, on the eastern side of the ridge, it routinely freezes every year. Me, I can’t recall the last time it froze where I live … go figure. The world of climate is a weird and wonderful place.
My warmest and least icy regards to all, and good will and prayers for the afflicted folks in Texas.
w.
PS—Misunderstandings are rife on the web. So when you comment, PLEASE quote the exact worlds you are referring to, so we can all understand who and what you’re discussing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I say it is getting cooler. Globally.
On coastal micro climate: here on India’s south east coast we found that the sea ‘s temperature influence can be felt up to 1.3 miles inland on light sloping (<100 ft) rural terrain.
Nice and warm and the sea shielding against extremes. Do stay in the shadow here though…
Well if you prefer, its the result of climate change.
Which where I live results in flooding and heavier rainfall and more storms and only the occasional heatwave. And also the occasional sub zero event.
Poor griff..
Its ACDS metal affliction still makes it think this is something other than NATURAL VARIABILITY
STILL WAITING for any evidence of global “climate change” due to human CO2
Remain in your ACDS abyss, griff, you will continue to be an LYING ignorant non-entity.
“I keep reading that the freezing cold weather in Houston, Dallas, and the central US is the result of “global warming”.
“it was starting to seem like the theory that “global warming” makes things colder wasn’t looking all that good”
Come on Willis, don’t make out you don’t know the prediction is about more variation; warm and cool, not just cooler. Do one of your fabled analysis of whether say Chicago’s or Dallas’s temperature has become statistically more or less variable over time.
Come on loy-dodo, don’t make out that the so-called “predictions” cover such a huge range of outcomes……
… as to be TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.
PRODUCE something other than evidence-free gobbledy-goop !
You haven’t got the ability to do ANY of that, though, have you Loy-dodo
Stil the DESPERATION and DENIAL as you see your little fantasy AGW CULTISM crashing down around you.
Have you found any empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2 yet ??????
Or are you still a total abyss…..
Here’s yet another chance for you to FAIL PRODUCE EVIDENCE..
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?
What prediction?
That loydo will post some warmunista drivel. So far? 100% accurate.
Typically according to climate history there is increased variation amplitude in temperature during periods of cooling, not warming.
So retreating from “global warming” and moving to “climate change” as more variation, is effectively an admission that climate has turned to cooling.
We’re both the warming and the cooling, the reduced and the increased variation, caused by CO2?
Is there anything that is not caused by CO2?
“there is increased variation amplitude in temperature during periods of cooling, not warming.”
Do you have a link to any supporting evidence for this? I’m not saying you aren’t correct but its a bit of a blanket statement, which cooling periods and how much variablity for example?
ROFLMAO
Loy-dodo asking for evidence.. that is hilarious 🙂
You remain an EVIDENCE-FREE, ACDS mental patient, loy-dodo. !!
Loydo, first, all four of them (Houston, Dallas, Grapevine Dam, and Oklahoma City) have in fact become very slightly LESS variable over time, although the change in each case is quite small and not statistically significant. For example, the standard deviation of the first half of the Dallas daily record is 9.24, and the sd of the last half of the record is 9.03.
Next, I’ve seen NO scientific explanation as to why a gradual warming of the planet should cause greater variation in temperature.
For fun, I took a look at the CET data. First half SD, 4.90. Last half SD, 4.64.
From my point of view, the claim that “global warming” leads to greater temperature variation was nothing more than an attempt to paper over the fact that the predictions of drowned cities and the end of arctic ice were cratering. As a result, I pay that claim no mind.
So if you have evidence that the gradual warming that we’ve seen over the last couple hundred years is leading to greater temperature variation … now would the time to break it out.
w.
PS—Your allegation that I am pretending not to know that “the prediction is more about variation” is sleazy, underhanded, and vile … which is a reflection of YOU, not me. I don’t “make out I don’t know” things. You and your friends might lie in that manner about what you know.
I don’t, and I don’t appreciate your nasty accusation.
Us kids were raised in part under what was called “The Captain’s Code”. My great-grandfather was a Louisiana river and ocean-going boat captain, called “The Captain” with capital letters and all by everyone including his children. My grandmother was The Captain’s Daughter, and when she said “I wonder what The Captain would think of that”, we knew we were in trouble. One part of The Captain’s Code was:
If there is a man who can call you a liar, kill him.
If you are one, kill yourself.
There is no room for either of you.
Now, The Captain was born in 1848, a much rougher time … so despite my grandmother inculcating all of the Captain’s Code in us kids’ heads, and despite her treating lying as a mortal sin, I’ve never killed a man who called me a liar. However, I’ve done my best to live by that maxim, and I don’t put up with your kind of ugly crap from anyone, man, woman, or child. Dial it back or I won’t discuss anything with you.
If you’re interested, here are some other parts of The Captain’s Code:
If you must ask yourself the question as to right or wrong, the answer is usually No.
It is better to live in a sixteen by sixteen foot cottage you own,than to live in a mansion owned by others.
When you go into a fight make sure the deck is clear behind you. You may need to step back.
If it is necessary to frame your diploma and hang it in the living room, there must be something wrong with your education.
Tread softly on slippery ground
Never write what you can’t rub out.
Thanks for your response. Re the allegation I apologise I didn’t intend it to be offensive.
“that getting warmer would make it colder?”
” just how much colder the world would have to get in order for Houston to never freeze again?”
“just how cold the globe would have to get for the US to stay warm all the time”
I meant it to be frank and blunt, but not offensive. Yes I know you were trying to be funny. Disputing the severity of AGW is one thing, but I suggest giving succour to ‘coolism’ is hardly the path to better understanding.
Back on the topic of temperature variation caused by polar jet waviness, recent research strongly disputes the idea:
“The well-publicised idea that Arctic warming is leading to a wavier jet stream just does not hold up to scrutiny.
“With the benefit of ten more years of data and model experiments, we find no evidence of long-term changes in waviness despite on-going Arctic warming.”
Professor Screen, an Associate Professor in Climate Science at Exeter.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200219152855.htm
Apology accepted, thank you.
However, you haven’t answered my request, viz:
Best regards,
w.
Ok I thought I did: “recent research strongly disputes the idea”. I totally accept your findings in regard to the cities you looked at. I haven’t looked myself so I have no reason to dispute them.
I had accepted the chain of causation viz: a a warmer pole > weaker gradient > wavier jet > more warm intrusions north and cold ones south. But as posted above, even that seems not to be the case, at least as far as a wavier jet goes.
There is NO EVIDENCE of any warming by human cause except UHI and minor land changes. But you know that, don’t you loy-dodo
You will NEVER understand that the world is starting to COOL, your deep-seated ACDS will not allow your feeble brain-washed mind to accept REALITY.
Giving “succour” to ACDS based “warmism” shows you have no understanding whatsoever.
Pretending that you have even the slightest understanding of anything to do with climate, is just plain WRONG.
You make it patently obvious that you are TOTALLY CLUELESS
You can’t even support the farce of warming by atmospheric CO2 with anything except empty , mindless rhetoric and blathering.
The Arctic is NOT warming except from the two major El Nino events
In Fact, between the 1979/80 major El Nino, the Arctic actually COOLED
And since 2000, after the effect of the 1998 major El Nino, ZERO trend until the 2015 El Nino/Big Blob event. ( gradually subsiding)
So yes, Arctic warming has not caused the jet stream waviness
In fact the wavy jet stream was evident in 1977 when NH was near its coldest since the 1940 peak
You do realise those are opposite causation statements, don’t you loy-dodo !
It’s weather variability and trying to sell it as climate variability is fraudulent
Willis I am always excited to read you essays!
Following some of the comments to this thread I bumped into the Danish Meteorolgical Institute DMI which had an article why we were seening a very cold period from mid jan to mid feb 2021 here in Denmark. Their explanation in my translation:
Up high in the atmosphere over Arctic in the layer called stratosphere, you find the polar vortex. If the polar vortex is weakened it can result in hugh changes in the weather down beyond, which results in a longer cold period.
The stratosphere is the layer of the atmosphere which in the polar regions starts in heights of 6-8 km and continues up until 50 km. In the stratosphere in the polar regions there is every winter created a vortex called the polar vortex. The polar vortex creates a permanent wind system where strong winds are blowing typical from west to east in a approximate circular way around the north pole.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/89a65f38-f082-4d82-b536-720384ca5afb
A strong (normal) arctic polar vortex to left and a suddenly stratospheric warming to the right.
When the polar vortex weakens, the strong winds in the height decreases and the stratosphere is warmed up. Sometimes the wind in the height can even change it’s direction and start to blow from east to west and in combination we see a huge warming of the stratosphere – up till 60C in a few days. This effect is called the suddenly stratospheric warming (SSW), and in a few weeks this can create dramatically weather changes over the nordic countries.
The weakening of the polar vortex is however not clearly understood.
The change of the wind directions and the following strong warming have impact on the lower laying jet streams and SSW sometimes creates a stationary high pressure north to east of Denmark and ice cold air will cover an area of a huge part of the northern Europe”.
Although the strong La Nina could have impact on the SSW, I do speculate if what is really happening here is a effect of the electromagnetic effect from the Sun – an effect IPPC now consider to take into account – an effect that could totally change our view of the energy balance of the Earth and may show that the Sun is the actual regulator of the climate on Earth.
kind regards
SteenR
“When the polar vortex weakens, the strong winds in the height decreases and the stratosphere is warmed up.” It should also turn pink, but it does not for reasons not yet researched 🙂
BTW, your link does not work.
The imbedded pictures was in the up load process changed to the mysterious link
I will just try to add them once more then
They can be found at http://www.dmi.dk
Water behaving badly, love that one! Here in western PA we got up to freezing yesterday and everything was drippydrippy. Now, at 15F, all that water is behaving badly by icing over roads and bridges and sidewalks and stairs. Bad water, no biscuit!
We all know windmills are an effective weapon in the fight against global warming. It’s just Texan’s being Texan’s went too big on the wind power thing. Wind was pulling 40% of load the day before the big freeze..
It doesn’t sound like windmills were very effective in Texas. If they went too big on wind power, shouldn’t it be real hot right now? I guess CAGW doesn’t live within the confines of mathematical logic.
it was supposed to be a joke. more wind power,less co2, less warming, but texas over did it resulting in big freeze
Wind and solar make up about 25 percent of Texas electricty production.
At the time of the cold front hitting Texas, the windmills were providing about 43 percent of the electricity consumed, so we have to assume that the Texas grid was producing at less than the maximum possible.
And, I assume that windmill electrons were given priority over electrons from other generation facilities, as part of the virtue signalling deal to promote wind and solar, and that is why windmills were providing 43 percent of the electricity being used at the time.
That’s my guess.
Heard on a BBC news report about Texas today: “If there’s one thing the last few days prove, it’s that the US must act on climate change”.
We already outlawed 100 watt incandescent light bulbs. What more could the BBC want?
Pity the poor climate researcher, toiling tirelessly to come up with new climate concepts such as a “wavier polar vortex”, showing that it does in fact exist, and is “worsened by climate change” aka “global warming” to climatesplain™ the weather – I mean “climate events. Think of what a difficult enough time they have of it, without us sitting here, continually mocking them, and taking potshots at them. We should be ashamed.
Hardly a “new” concept !
“It’s funny how after just a few days, my memory of what I thought I’d heard on the weather report was so different from what actually happened.”
=======
The power of adjustments (spin).
Willis, I sit between Houston and Dallas, and I can tell you, you are correct. No global warming here, but I’d sure like some right now. I moved away from Kansas in 1974, but it followed me down here this month. I want it to go back!
P.S. I can tell you aren’t a “climate scientist,” you look at real observations.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/cascend-data-shows-wind-power-was-chief-culprit-texas-grid-collapse
(^_^) … “PS—Misunderstandings are rife on the web. So when you comment, PLEASE quote the exact worlds you are referring to, so we can all understand who and what you’re discussing.”
The word, “worlds”, is intentional, right? If not, and it’s a typo, it shouldn’t be a typo — it’s right on, because some people are not on THIS world.
Headline on fake news.
“<b>Texas Crisis Exposes a Vulnerability to Climate Change</b>”
It was snow and low temperatures you idiots!
Yes, but due to rampant ACDS, any variability in the WEATHER anywhere is now part of “climate change” and means that mum, or dad, can no longer drive the kids to school in the SUV. !
I think the sombrero analogy is pretty good guess for the “waviness” of the jet stream, but the circularity is problematic, as things don’t always “circle back” per se, if I may.
Now, my frito theory doesn’t have this problem….
A sombrero after a hard night on the town ! :-p
I love Willis’s articles
Thanks for the kind words, Richard. I do my best to write in a way that can be understood by what I call the “interested lay-person”, someone who wants to understand more about a subject but doesn’t have three degrees in the topic.
My best to you, it’s comments like yours that keep me inspired.
w.