In the wake of an Iowa primary election chilled in a record blast of cold weather – which scientists say may, counterintuitively, have been worsened by global heating – Republican presidential candidates are embracing the fossil fuel industry tighter than ever, with little to say about the growing toll the climate crisis is taking upon Americans.
The remaining contenders for the US presidential nomination – frontrunner Donald Trump, along with Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis – all used the Iowa caucus to promise surging levels of oil and gas drilling if elected, along with the wholesale abolition of Joe Biden’s climate change policies.
Trump, who comfortably won the Iowa poll, said “we are going to drill, baby, drill” once elected, in a Fox News town hall on the eve of the primary.
I couldn’t make this sort of schist up, even if I was trying
In the wake of an Iowa primary election chilled in a record blast of cold weather – which scientists say may, counterintuitively, have been worsened by global heating…
While the recent deep-freeze was not nearly as bad as February 2021, it was below freezing in Dallas TX for nearly four straight days.
Figure 1. Dallas TX temperatures, January 13-15, 1975. TimeandDate.com
On Sunday and Monday (January 14-15), it was below 20 °F and overcast for about 30 straight hours. We even had a light dusting of “global heating” on January 15.
“The growing toll the climate crisis is taking upon Americans”
Irrespective of whether or not any of the recent warming has been caused by anthropogenic activities, it’s fairly easy to put that “growing toll” into context.
Terando et al., 2020, will help be demonstrate this. It features a variation of one of my favorite {/Sarcam} climate models.
Figure 6. Modeled human plus natural climate forcing compared to three instrumental records (see Terando for specifics)
Figure 7. Modeled human climate forcing compared to three instrumental records (see Terando for specifics)
If the models are reasonably accurate, the early 20th century warming can be explained by natural forcing mechanisms. Whereas, some or all of the warming since about 1975 cannot be explained by natural forcing mechanisms alone. That said, the models only incorporate known, reasonably well-understood, forcing mechanisms. Judith Curry illustrated this concept quite well…
Let’s assume arguendo that all of the warming since 1975 is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. What would this mean? It’s about 0.8 °C. warmer now than it was in 1975 (the last time the models didn’t require an anthropogenic component). Here’s UAH 6.0 overlaid on the Terando, 2020 model:
Figure 9. Is +0.8 °C since 1975 a “climate crisis”?
1975 was the real “climate crisis”
Figure 10. Science News, March 1, 1975
Assuming the climate models are valid, fossil fuel emissions saved us from “The Ice Age Cometh.”
Figure 11. Context
Warming has made cold weather more likely than when “The Ice Age Cometh”?
The current blast of cold weather is “certainly much more likely given how much the planet is warming” said Judah Cohen, a meteorologist at Verisk Atmospheric and Environmental who has studiedthe phenomenon. “There is scientific evidence that makes severe winter weather consistent or explainable in a warming world. One does not negate the other.”
Anyone else not seeing a pattern of global warming-induced deep freezes?
From 1895-1975, the US averaged about 4,700 Heating Degree Days (HDD) per year. Since “The Ice Age Cometh?”, the average annual HDD has steadily declined to about 4,000.
Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at Woods Hole Research Center, said that while it seems counterintuitive, the science was “becoming clear” that extreme cold spells will be a consequence of global heating.
“The irony is pretty rich” that Iowa has experienced such conditions during a Republican presidential primary, Francis added. “Of course, the deniers won’t see it that way, and won’t listen to any science that says otherwise.”
Do these people not know how to conjugate verbs and diagram sentences?
[W]hile it seems counterintuitive, the science was “becoming clear” that extreme cold spells will be a consequence of global heating.
“Of course, the deniers won’t see it that way, and won’t listen to any science that says otherwise.”
How can “deniers” (or anyone else) “see it that way,” if it hasn’t happened yet?
The irony is definitely “pretty rich.”
“[T]he science was ‘becoming clear'”
Clear as mud! I suppose these NOAA “experts” must be “deniers”:
Understanding the Arctic polar vortex
BY REBECCA LINDSEY REVIEWED BY AMY BUTLER AND JAMES OVERLAND
PUBLISHED MARCH 5, 2021
In late February, as the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast suffered through an unusually strong blast of wintry weather, weather talk turned to the polar vortex and the possibility that the extreme cold was yet another example of weather-gone-wild due to global warming. In this article, we’re talking to two NOAA experts about the devastating extreme cold event, the polar vortex, and the potential link to global warming.
[…]
The polar vortex and global warming
Among the questions readers have been asking us is whether global warming is affecting the polar vortex in a way that would—paradoxically—make severe winter weather outbreaks in the mid-latitudes more likely. According to Butler, the idea isn’t as counter-intuitive as it seems at first glance.
[…]
No clear trend, but limited data
But while the hypothesis is plausible, Butler said, “I don’t think there is any convincing evidence of a long-term trend in the polar vortex. What we see in the record is this very interesting period in the 1990s, when there were no sudden stratospheric warming events observed in the Arctic. In other words, the vortex was strong and stable. But then they started back up again in the late 1990s, and over the next decade there was one almost every year. So there was a window of time in the early 2010s where it seemed like there might be a trend toward weaker, more disrupted or shifted states of the Arctic polar vortex. But it hasn’t continued, and more and more, it’s looking like what seemed to be the beginning of a trend was just natural variability, or maybe just a rebound from the quiet of the 1990s.”
“It’s tough, though,” Butler continues, “because we don’t have a very long record of observations of the stratosphere. We’ve only been observing it directly since the 1950s. That’s not very long to understand what kind of natural variability the polar vortex might be capable of. One researcher did a historical reconstruction by correlating the overlapping portions of the North Atlantic Oscillation index—which goes back much farther—and the polar vortex record, and then extrapolating the polar vortex record farther back in time using the NAO index. It showed no long-term trend, and no big differences in recent decades compared to previous decades.”
Still, she said, it’s possible there have been changes to the vortex like location that aren’t as well understood and could have consequences for surface impacts.
Models stubbornly split
The uncertainty due to a relatively short history of observations isn’t the only reason experts can’t dismiss the possibility that something could be up with polar vortex. Some climate model experiments do predict that continued warming will lead to a weakening of the polar vortex.
[…]
At the same time, other model simulations predict that warming and sea ice loss will lead to a stronger polar vortex.
[…]
Still, by most of the metrics experts use to describe winter climate, Overland agrees the big picture is clear: on average, winters are warmer and cold extremes are less likely than they were a century ago. That trend is likely to continue with rising greenhouse gases and more global warming. If these intermittent influences of the Arctic on the mid-latitudes won’t fundamentally change the overall trajectory of winter climate with global warming, then why is the subject still such a hot research area?
Some models predict that global warming will cause more cold snaps in the future…
Other climate models predict that global warming won’t cause more cold snaps in the future…
And no actual observational data support the idiotic notion that global warming had anything to do with the January 2024 deep freeze.
Reference
Terando, A., Reidmiller, D., Hostetler, S.W., Littell, J.S., Beard, T.D., Jr., Weiskopf, S.R., Belnap, J., and Plumlee, G.S., 2020, Using information from global climate models to inform policymaking—The role of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1058, 25 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201058.
Reality by fiat is necessary when your theories are unfalsifiable. In other words, it is so because they say it’s so, and the fact that they can’t actually prove anything is irrelevant. It is because they say it is, period.
Ya … no one knows what this is, right? (MIDDLE of winter and Texas is down 1/4 of their NUCLEAR power generation capability (which is about 1350 MW) is all, downvoter.)
P.S. There has been NO NEWS or announcement about this either.
P.P.S. About three years ago this same time (Feb 2021) Unit 1 tripped off during a VERY cold weather event and this __WAS__ news!! Are people’s memories really that short?
In England, where I no longer live, you can get thrown in the clink for pointing out a dude in a dress is in fact a dude, not a woman. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-isnt-a-free-country/
It’s only a matter of time before climate realism is treated the same way, at least in the UK. I’m half considering taking a lesson from the US border crisis and applying for refugee status…
I would welcome an intelligent refugee – as opposed to one who is looking for free stuff or how to spy on/sabotage US military. (The US military has enough saboteurs in Congress/Executive branch.)
I suggest that Trump is a shoe in- what with most Americans hating Biden’s border policies- and most hating Biden’s climate policies. I’m not even a fan of Trump but I agree with those folks who hate those policies so it looks like I’ll vote for Trump. Last time I didn’t vote for either- skipped that part of the ballot.
Trust the holy algory-y-y-y-y-ythm! (waves a censer)
Mantis
January 24, 2024 10:49 am
which scientists say may…
Which scientists? When did they say it? Reference please. Almost any ridiculous prediction “may” happen. It probably won’t though.
the science was “becoming clear” that extreme cold spells will be a consequence of global heating.
“The irony is pretty rich” that Iowa has experienced such conditions during a Republican presidential primary, Francis added. “Of course, the deniers won’t see it that way, and won’t listen to any science that says otherwise.”
What science? Show us the evidence. Models aren’t evidence, they are just your beliefs run through a computer to make it look scientific. Show us actual evidence based on observations. This person talks about irony and decrying science deniers while proclaiming heat causes cold.
Perhaps they did not wear readable name badges in that dream.
Rick C
January 24, 2024 11:02 am
“Warming causes cold” is not only counterintuitive, it is counter GHG theory. As Einstein or Newton or Popper or Feynman or Mark Twain or someone once said, “you can’t have it both ways.”
Your comment just sparked a thought. I’m a firm believer in symmetry. If they can claim that warming causes cold, why can’t others make the symmetrical claim that cold causes warming? Think about the ‘splodyheads when people start claiming that global warming is actually evidence that the world is getting colder and is proof that “the next ice age cometh.”
And as Tertullian did not say, credo quia absurdum est.
Of course, the only one who seems to actually believe this one is the brain-damaged child dragged into the top picture of this article. And it turned out that even she requires a handler to not wander off topic.
As l have been pointing out over the last fews days.
That sudden rise in the warming from around 1980 is a fake man made signal caused by the switch over of recording temps from glass to electonic thermometers. As now feel l have enough evidence to call it out.
Since Jan 6th l have been keeping track of the temps with my glass thermometer and comparing the results with 2 local AWS’s and the results have been a eye opener. Because with the results so far l would say that electonic thermometers are on average warming the daytime temps up by a factor of 0.7C over that of a glass thermometer during the winter here in the UK at least.
Taxed, do you not think the topic has already been studied to death? At least do a scientifically rigorous controlled experiment if you must, which you are not.
Anyway, as predicted, the mean CET anomaly is already back to 0, and if the forecast for the rest of Jan is right, will end up between 0.5 and 1 degree over, probably near the upper range. One brief cold spell sandwiched between near record warmth does not a cold January make.
Near record warmth.
Where’s the data come from for that claim exactly , oh! don’t tell me from AWS’ mostly located in airports.
Well my glass thermometer is calling BS on that claim.
Because here in North Lincolnshire area during this claimed record warmth my thermometer was recording the max temp to be at least 2C cooler then the AWS’s were recording.
Here the results.
21.1.24
my thermometer (urban) max temp 10.1C min temp 3.5C
AWS (urban) max temp 12.7C min temp 3.7C
AWS (rural) max temp 12C min temp 3.2C
23.1.24
my thermometer max temp 12.1C min 3.7C
AWS (urban) max temp 14.6C min temp.4.8C
AWS (rural) max temp14.7C min temp 4.9C
So sorry that claim about neat record warmth is looking like a crock of shite to me.
Fixating on temperature and accusing everyone else of being wrong will not get any of us anywhere – as the entirety of Climate Science has demonstrated for well over 30 years.
and counting as we read in this story – the accusations just get worse and worse
Peta of Newark
Yes l understand the weather play’s a big role in the temps that are recorded.
So l noted the weather on the day’s l was recording and what ever the weather the AWS’s max temps were always running warm.
Here are some examples.
8.1.24
my thermometer max 2.8C
AWS (urban) max 3.6C
AWS (rural) max 3.7C
weather dull and cloudy
9.1.24
my thermometer max 3.5C
AWS (urban) max 5C
AWS (rural) max 5.3C
weather sunny and windy
10.1.24
my thermometer max 5C
AWS (urban) max 6.7C
AWS (rural) max 6.4C
weather cloudy bright with NE wind
11.1.24
my thermometer max 5.7C
AWS (urban) 6.9C
AWS (rural) 6.9C
weather cloudy dull with drizzle
15.1.24
my thermometer max 0C
AWS (urban) max 2.1C
AWS (rural) max 2.1C
weather sunny all day with cold NW wind.
l have been recording almost daily since Jan 6th and not once during that time has any of the AWS recorded a lower max temp then my thermometer.
Sorry but that’s looking seriously suspect to me and am calling them out on it.
Your observations are quite interesting but PETA is supplying wise advice. If you are ready to use those recorded temperatures to challenge the official statistics, you will need some sophisticated data. A data-logging weather station is a minimum requirement.
This the type of bird-dogging that WUWT readers thrive on. Do it right to the best of your ability and means. Good luck.
Am just average joe and l “know my limits” when it comes writing papers.
Best thing l can do is flag up where l see there are issues and hopefully bring them to the attention of others on WUWT.
Peta,
Thank you for your speculation, which unfortunately is quite wrong.
Australia has many official weather stations that have very little contact with people. They are candidates for the label “pristine” in studies like UHI.
Without the Hand of Man effects that you list, one would expect each station to show a time trend that reflected climate change alone. The trends should match, not only in units like deg C per Century, but also by wriggle matching.
I have studied 45 such pristine stations for a WUWT article in prep. The summary result is that trends are quite different from station to station and very large, whole numbers different in deg/century. Some are negative, some are positive. Some wriggles match sometimes, most do not.
The emergent conclusion is that these historic daily temperatures that are the foundation for claims of global warming are unfit for purposes and entirely unable to be adjusted into a better condition (because the causes of the differences are not known, let alone the magnitude or even sign of the causes of these differences).
Geoff S
However, it is reasonable to expect that MIG thermometers, especially those that record min/max, will have greater thermal inertia. That is, there is a finite time to equilibrate with changing temperatures, and it will take longer if the mercury has to move little plugs of iron than it will for a thermistor or resistance wire to record a transient gust of wind.
Don’t forget that the impact of that inertia is probably asymmetric because of gravity pulling down on the media while it is going up and still pulling down while it is coming down. The forces are
f(total) = f(temp) – f(gravity) in the up direction and
f(total) = f(temp) + f(gravity) in the down direction
This is certainly enough to make a difference in the hundredths digit meaning the adjustments climate science makes are just plucking a value out of the GREAT UNKNOWN based on subjective guessing.
edenhope airport cant even run the bar pressure maybe 4x in 17yrs? everytime they run it the rain or temp reads vanish. in 2022? early 23 they removed our town from the maps, while we are the recording station…but they added Birchip which has none? and a tiny pop
go figure?
I’d blame the rise of temperature on reduction of air pollution. There are several studies that show the link.
Rud Istvan
January 24, 2024 11:39 am
Difference between these folks and the Babylon Bee? These folks are serious (ly deluded). The Bee is funny satire.
Ron Long
January 24, 2024 11:47 am
Counterintuitive? If I had suggested that intuition was a part of Science the Professors would suggest I change Majors to Education. What is the net result of Climate Change making it both hotter and colder? I’ll see if I can find the old Texas Instruments calculator and get back to you.
When things like this happen, it’s obvious that rapid, destructive climate change is happening right now. Homes are being destroyed by these unusual circumstances.
Cold causes heat
Boys are girls
Riots are peaceful
Theft is charity
War is peace
The crowd is shouting “Lets go Brandon”.
If we wish hard enough, Tinkerbell will come back.
I think there are a lot of “coincidences” involved… 😎
Crispin in Val Quentin
January 24, 2024 12:35 pm
It is impossible to think of this alarmism as anything other than mirthful entertainment. If winters are warm (which happens now and then) it is caused by AGW. If they are cold (which happens now and then) it is also caused by AGW. If it is the same as usual (which happens most of the time) it is “pent-up heat waiting to jump out and bite us”. Good grief.
I am leaning towards the idea that CO2 added to the atmosphere is making no discernable difference to local or global weather or temperatures.
That which is not measured cannot be managed.
That which cannot be discerned cannot be managed.
That which is an obvious lie can be refuted.
Repudiation for alarmists:
“Vainand wretched is thatwhich ye have imagined and still imagine!”
Guidance for bloggers:
“Refute that which is false and vain.”
MarkW
January 24, 2024 12:40 pm
Calm weather in the northern hemisphere is associated with a smooth west to east flow of the NH jet stream.
Extreme weather is associated with a wavy pattern in the jet stream.
However the jet stream gets really wavy only when it gets cold.
Since global warming is supposed to make the world warmer, this would mean that the jet stream would spend more time with a smooth flow, which should mean less wild weather.
As usual, climate alarmists just make up whatever argument they need in order to support what they are told to believe.
From the article picture caption: “Climate protesters interrupt a Trump rally in Iowa on 14 January. Photograph: Christian Monterrosa/AFP via Getty Images”
That was the rally where Trump laughed at the protesters and told them to “Go home to mommy.”
Yeah, some leftwing billionaire is putting up the money, , You can bet on it.
Matt G
January 24, 2024 12:52 pm
“It’s cold because it is hot”
NO, the correct scientific answer is, it’s cold because the sun doesn’t reach the poles during Winter. This has not changed, so the cold doesn’t change either.
This occasionally affects more mid-lattitude areas when warmer air displaces this no sun frigid air away from the poles.
CO2 has zero influence on this because the heat source being high solar concentrated Tropics and sub-Tropics oceans and atmospheric air flowing towards the poles.
The only way to prevent it being cold in Winter is to move the land masses away from the poles so warm ocean currents flows through the zero sunlight zones.
Climate Alarmists think they are the keepers of “the Science”. In the opinion of climate alarmists, if you don’t agree with them, then you don’t agree with “the Science”,
Climate Alarmist Science = Speculaton, Assumptions, and Unsubstantiated Assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s weather/climate. No “the Science” here. Climate Alarmists are very confused when it comes to discerning actual science. They think science is opinion. Their opinion.
SteveZ56
January 24, 2024 1:24 pm
Hopefully, the recent cold snap has incited people to think more rationally about the drastic measures used to supposedly prevent the world from warming a fraction of a degree over the next 50 years or so:
Electric cars don’t go very far in cold weather
Chargers for EV’s don’t work in cold weather
During a blizzard, it’s nice to have diesel-powered plows to push the snow off the road
When it’s below zero outside, it’s nice to have an oil or gas furnace to make it toasty inside
(even Greta might appreciate a warm house in Sweden)
Solar panels don’t work well in winter when it’s dark and/or cloudy most of the time
During a cold snap, people tend to burn more oil or gas to heat their homes, which emits CO2. Does the extra CO2 make it warmer outside? Not much. But the heat from the furnace makes it a lot warmer inside. So maybe “drill baby drill” makes a lot of sense.
“Solar panels don’t work well in winter when it’s dark and/or cloudy most of the time” You left out “covered with snow” as well as a period at the end of your sentence. (I’m in my cups, so I have a hard time distinguishing an important critique from a pedantic comment.)
Ed Zuiderwijk
January 24, 2024 1:33 pm
Not ‘counterintuitively’ but counter to the laws of thermodynamics. Everybody except the dimwits and the ignorants know that.
Edward Katz
January 24, 2024 1:57 pm
During the last three decades, global fossil fuel use has increased 60% despite all the COP conferences. So it’s hardly just the Republicans that are ignoring the so-called climate crisis. At best only a minority worldwide are even paying lip service to it, while the majority is ignoring it completely and going about their lives and businesses as is most convenient for them. As a result, the climate alarmists need to compose a new song-and-dance routine because people stopped listening to the old one years ago.
Edward,
That small “minority worldwide” is what is known as the Western elites and their acolytes! Not only are they responsible for the KatastrophicKlimateKult; they are also responsible for Forever Wars, Inc. like Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Ukraine; and the Standard American Diet, or SAD, the low fat, high carb and processed food diet that has probably killed and maimed more people over the last 50 years than ALL other causes combined when you look at the increases in diabetes, heart disease, and stroke that it engenders in the average human!
But it does lead to record profits for Big Ag and Big Pharma!
abolition man
January 24, 2024 2:36 pm
Great article as always, David, except for the math, science and logic impaired Greentards, who will have a difficult time understanding it!
One small mistake that needs correcting, however is found with the picture of your lovely backyard. You identify the white, flaky substance as “Gorebal Warming.” This is incorrect as there is little or no connection between Gore and bal-ance, mental or otherwise; but Gore and bull are inextricably linked forever in his science fiction thriller that poses as a documentary. This is why “Gorebull Warming” is now the accepted form. Please refrain from giving him even a smidgen of bal-ance!
Once again, geology rocks! My best to you and yours!
If not for “the math, science and logic impaired Greentards” of the world, I wouldn’t have much to write about… 😎
charlie
January 24, 2024 2:44 pm
Graun
The current blast of cold weather is “certainly much more likely given how much the planet is warming” said Judah Cohen, a meteorologist at Verisk Atmospheric and Environmental who has studiedthe phenomenon. “There is scientific evidence that makes severe winter weather consistent or explainable in a warming world. One does not negate the other.”
How can you establish that the apparent correlation isn’t just anecdotal? We don’t have measurements of global air pollution going back very far. However, we know from various proxies that there have been several hot-house and ice-house episodes in geologic history.
“The current blast of cold weather is “certainly much more likely given how much the planet is warming”
This is a powerful case for beefing up fossil fuels supplies to ensure one can heat their home, keep the lights on and ensure availability of essential services. If, because of bitterly cold winters, regardless of its cause, surely we can agree on the need to be prepared.
Appears that the overburden of wind, solar, and storage need to be scraped away before we can get to down to solid foundational material and get to work on the foundation.
I was in Iowa City for the winters of 1967 – ’68; One of those had me walking home, a mile +, in a temperature of -33°F {-36°C}. That’s my record cold. One evening a fire destroyed a building about 2 blocks from our favorite watering hole. Water hoses were clamped to parking meters so the crew would not have to stand and hold the nozzles. By morning there was a foot of ice on the street.
I don’t recall anyone mentioning that global warming was causing the cold.
Maybe I just missed that discussion. 🙂
ferdberple
January 24, 2024 11:44 pm
Figure 12. 100 year extreme events appear as you increase the length of time being sampled.
ferdberple
January 24, 2024 11:48 pm
Take 2 samples of weather. One 50 years long, the other 100 years long.
With zero climate change the 100 year sample will almost always have more extreme events than the 50 year sample.
ferdberple
January 24, 2024 11:53 pm
What is changing is not the climate, it is the length of time we have been observing that is changing.
where in the discussion of climate change has there been a statistical correction for the effects of sample length?
How likely are you to find a 1 in 100 year weather event in 30 years of weather records a compared to a 100 year record.
Statistical analyses in climate science are mostly garbage all the way around. When was last time you saw them calculate or quote the variance of any of their data distributions?
KevinM
January 24, 2024 11:56 pm
“From 1895-1975, the US averaged about 4,700 Heating Degree Days (HDD) per year.”
Need a clear definition of what a HDD is. Anything that happens 4700 days per year seems questionable.
Heating degree days (HDDs) are a measure of how cold the temperature was on a given day or during a period of days. For example, a day with a mean temperature of 40°F has 25 HDDs. Two such cold days in a row have 50 HDDs for the two-day period.
The currently accepted way to calculate degree-days is to integrate the temperature curve to determine the area between a base value and temp curve. 65F is a typical base value for degree-day calculation for use in sizing HVAC requirements.
for a good explanation of how degree-days are calculated.
Read down the page to find out why using the median temperature for the day is such a poor methodology to use in evaluating climate – which is what climate science stubbornly clings to like Teyve in “Fiddler on the Root”.
Judah Cohen: “There is scientific evidence that makes severe winter weather consistent or explainable in a warming world.”
This is obviously wrong. Severe winter weather increase did not happen during the 1976-1997 warming period. It has been happening since 1997 and for the previous 20 years, severe winter weather decreased. Which phenomenon started also in 1997 and is not related to global warming? Arctic winter warming. Severe winter weather increase and Arctic winter warming are linked through vortex strength. Since the polar vortex is affected by solar activity, as it has been demonstrated in studies published since the late 1950s, the most likely explanation is that the reduction in solar activity since the mid-1990s is responsible for severe winter weather increase and Arctic winter warming.
It is too bad that a solar explanation of any climate phenomenon constitutes heresy. As a consequence, climate scientists and their models have no clue about what is going on with the climate.
The second chart — right side – shows: “ the reduction in solar activity since the mid-1990s“ The larger chart (monthly data) shows Cycle #25 to be doing more than predicted.
ozspeaksup
January 25, 2024 4:06 am
reckon the temps are fudged?
well rainfall for my area in Wimmera appeared today at 5mm for the year via Elders BOM supplied data
in FACT we have had well over 40mm rain for january so far(just in the town zone more elsewhere) but NONE except late yesterday and today has been recorded
I wrote in to complain on the 14ths january and until today they had none at all
temps also been vanished for all bar the day and maybe overnight and then blank as well until this monday
AGW is Not Science
January 25, 2024 4:13 am
And yet, when there is a mild spell, THAT will be “caused by” global “heating.”
When EVERYTHING, including diametrically opposed outcomes, is supposedly “caused by” the same thing, you know it’s garden variety bullshit.
If all changes (+/-) in the dependent variable (temperature) are caused by increases in the independent variable, then the independent variable has no predictive value.
CO2 produces an insidious energy form called “chameleon heat”. It is capable of disappearing completely to suit certain narratives and reappearing when called upon to support those narratives, especially in Summer.
TBeholder
January 25, 2024 6:05 pm
Republicans Ignore
They ignore a lot. Who cares? It simply does not matter what USA Outer Party does not say. And it matters very little what it does say.
It’s a toy “opposition” allowed to exist in order to perform the ritual role of clown beaten with a stick, and as a flag pin marking the rear (rightmost) border of the Overton Window.
Reality by fiat is necessary when your theories are unfalsifiable. In other words, it is so because they say it’s so, and the fact that they can’t actually prove anything is irrelevant. It is because they say it is, period.
Need more mushrooms of the psychedelic kind.
Somebody should add them to the menu at the next COP event.
What makes you think they aren’t doing so already?
All those grasshoppers.
If they were tripping out- they wouldn’t worry much about 1.5 deg increase in temperature- not that I would know. 🙂
dogma! faith based “science”
AND – STP 1 (South Texas Project Unit #1 nuclear plant) still shows to be offline with NO reason given …
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/ps.html
Ya … no one knows what this is, right? (MIDDLE of winter and Texas is down 1/4 of their NUCLEAR power generation capability (which is about 1350 MW) is all, downvoter.)
P.S. There has been NO NEWS or announcement about this either.
P.P.S. About three years ago this same time (Feb 2021) Unit 1 tripped off during a VERY cold weather event and this __WAS__ news!! Are people’s memories really that short?
Looks like it went offline on Jan 22, after the freeze. It was operating at 100% on Jan 21.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/2024/20240121ps.html
Better to check with the utility itself than NRC.
Crisis ?
Maybe in Europe ?
https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/21/farmers-in-romania-france-and-germany-continue-road-convoy-protests
In England, where I no longer live, you can get thrown in the clink for pointing out a dude in a dress is in fact a dude, not a woman. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-isnt-a-free-country/
It’s only a matter of time before climate realism is treated the same way, at least in the UK. I’m half considering taking a lesson from the US border crisis and applying for refugee status…
I would welcome an intelligent refugee – as opposed to one who is looking for free stuff or how to spy on/sabotage US military. (The US military has enough saboteurs in Congress/Executive branch.)
I suggest that Trump is a shoe in- what with most Americans hating Biden’s border policies- and most hating Biden’s climate policies. I’m not even a fan of Trump but I agree with those folks who hate those policies so it looks like I’ll vote for Trump. Last time I didn’t vote for either- skipped that part of the ballot.
The machines probably voted for you instead.
The last time I voted I knew who I voted for when I filled out the ballot. Once I stuck it in the machine I had no idea who I voted for.
Trust the holy algory-y-y-y-y-ythm! (waves a censer)
Which scientists? When did they say it? Reference please. Almost any ridiculous prediction “may” happen. It probably won’t though.
What science? Show us the evidence. Models aren’t evidence, they are just your beliefs run through a computer to make it look scientific. Show us actual evidence based on observations. This person talks about irony and decrying science deniers while proclaiming heat causes cold.
Perhaps they did not wear readable name badges in that dream.
“Warming causes cold” is not only counterintuitive, it is counter GHG theory. As Einstein or Newton or Popper or Feynman or Mark Twain or someone once said, “you can’t have it both ways.”
That’s too complex for people who can’t tell a male from a female – not occasionally, but never.
Blaming both hot and cold weather on anthropogenic GHG emissions is like the classic sucker bet, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
Must have been extremely warm during the last ice age.
Your comment just sparked a thought. I’m a firm believer in symmetry. If they can claim that warming causes cold, why can’t others make the symmetrical claim that cold causes warming? Think about the ‘splodyheads when people start claiming that global warming is actually evidence that the world is getting colder and is proof that “the next ice age cometh.”
Shhh. It’s the next trick.
And as Tertullian did not say, credo quia absurdum est.
Of course, the only one who seems to actually believe this one is the brain-damaged child dragged into the top picture of this article. And it turned out that even she requires a handler to not wander off topic.
Blaming both hot and cold weather on anthropogenic GHG emissions is like the classic sucker bet, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
I think it’s like a 3 card monte game.
Or the Three Shell Trick
Unfalsifiable theories are never wrong?
As l have been pointing out over the last fews days.
That sudden rise in the warming from around 1980 is a fake man made signal caused by the switch over of recording temps from glass to electonic thermometers. As now feel l have enough evidence to call it out.
Since Jan 6th l have been keeping track of the temps with my glass thermometer and comparing the results with 2 local AWS’s and the results have been a eye opener. Because with the results so far l would say that electonic thermometers are on average warming the daytime temps up by a factor of 0.7C over that of a glass thermometer during the winter here in the UK at least.
Taxed, do you not think the topic has already been studied to death? At least do a scientifically rigorous controlled experiment if you must, which you are not.
Anyway, as predicted, the mean CET anomaly is already back to 0, and if the forecast for the rest of Jan is right, will end up between 0.5 and 1 degree over, probably near the upper range. One brief cold spell sandwiched between near record warmth does not a cold January make.
Near record warmth.
Where’s the data come from for that claim exactly , oh! don’t tell me from AWS’ mostly located in airports.
Well my glass thermometer is calling BS on that claim.
Because here in North Lincolnshire area during this claimed record warmth my thermometer was recording the max temp to be at least 2C cooler then the AWS’s were recording.
Here the results.
21.1.24
my thermometer (urban) max temp 10.1C min temp 3.5C
AWS (urban) max temp 12.7C min temp 3.7C
AWS (rural) max temp 12C min temp 3.2C
23.1.24
my thermometer max temp 12.1C min 3.7C
AWS (urban) max temp 14.6C min temp.4.8C
AWS (rural) max temp14.7C min temp 4.9C
So sorry that claim about neat record warmth is looking like a crock of shite to me.
Taxed:
None of the thermometers are wrong.
If they are showing different numbers, there is a reason
Accept that and go out and look for it.
Fixating on temperature and accusing everyone else of being wrong will not get any of us anywhere – as the entirety of Climate Science has demonstrated for well over 30 years.
and counting as we read in this story – the accusations just get worse and worse
Peta of Newark
Yes l understand the weather play’s a big role in the temps that are recorded.
So l noted the weather on the day’s l was recording and what ever the weather the AWS’s max temps were always running warm.
Here are some examples.
8.1.24
my thermometer max 2.8C
AWS (urban) max 3.6C
AWS (rural) max 3.7C
weather dull and cloudy
9.1.24
my thermometer max 3.5C
AWS (urban) max 5C
AWS (rural) max 5.3C
weather sunny and windy
10.1.24
my thermometer max 5C
AWS (urban) max 6.7C
AWS (rural) max 6.4C
weather cloudy bright with NE wind
11.1.24
my thermometer max 5.7C
AWS (urban) 6.9C
AWS (rural) 6.9C
weather cloudy dull with drizzle
15.1.24
my thermometer max 0C
AWS (urban) max 2.1C
AWS (rural) max 2.1C
weather sunny all day with cold NW wind.
l have been recording almost daily since Jan 6th and not once during that time has any of the AWS recorded a lower max temp then my thermometer.
Sorry but that’s looking seriously suspect to me and am calling them out on it.
Your observations are quite interesting but PETA is supplying wise advice. If you are ready to use those recorded temperatures to challenge the official statistics, you will need some sophisticated data. A data-logging weather station is a minimum requirement.
This the type of bird-dogging that WUWT readers thrive on. Do it right to the best of your ability and means. Good luck.
Am just average joe and l “know my limits” when it comes writing papers.
Best thing l can do is flag up where l see there are issues and hopefully bring them to the attention of others on WUWT.
Peta,
Thank you for your speculation, which unfortunately is quite wrong.
Australia has many official weather stations that have very little contact with people. They are candidates for the label “pristine” in studies like UHI.
Without the Hand of Man effects that you list, one would expect each station to show a time trend that reflected climate change alone. The trends should match, not only in units like deg C per Century, but also by wriggle matching.
I have studied 45 such pristine stations for a WUWT article in prep. The summary result is that trends are quite different from station to station and very large, whole numbers different in deg/century. Some are negative, some are positive. Some wriggles match sometimes, most do not.
The emergent conclusion is that these historic daily temperatures that are the foundation for claims of global warming are unfit for purposes and entirely unable to be adjusted into a better condition (because the causes of the differences are not known, let alone the magnitude or even sign of the causes of these differences).
Geoff S
However, it is reasonable to expect that MIG thermometers, especially those that record min/max, will have greater thermal inertia. That is, there is a finite time to equilibrate with changing temperatures, and it will take longer if the mercury has to move little plugs of iron than it will for a thermistor or resistance wire to record a transient gust of wind.
Don’t forget that the impact of that inertia is probably asymmetric because of gravity pulling down on the media while it is going up and still pulling down while it is coming down. The forces are
f(total) = f(temp) – f(gravity) in the up direction and
f(total) = f(temp) + f(gravity) in the down direction
This is certainly enough to make a difference in the hundredths digit meaning the adjustments climate science makes are just plucking a value out of the GREAT UNKNOWN based on subjective guessing.
Carnival fortune tellers indeed!
edenhope airport cant even run the bar pressure maybe 4x in 17yrs? everytime they run it the rain or temp reads vanish. in 2022? early 23 they removed our town from the maps, while we are the recording station…but they added Birchip which has none? and a tiny pop
go figure?
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age with 20 percent of the land frozen.
It is in a warmer but still cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods.
I’d blame the rise of temperature on reduction of air pollution. There are several studies that show the link.
Difference between these folks and the Babylon Bee? These folks are serious (ly deluded). The Bee is funny satire.
Counterintuitive? If I had suggested that intuition was a part of Science the Professors would suggest I change Majors to Education. What is the net result of Climate Change making it both hotter and colder? I’ll see if I can find the old Texas Instruments calculator and get back to you.
When things like this happen, it’s obvious that rapid, destructive climate change is happening right now. Homes are being destroyed by these unusual circumstances.
Or, at least Alaska is having unusual weather.
imagine how bad it would be if theyd had PV up as well?
Cold causes heat
Boys are girls
Riots are peaceful
Theft is charity
War is peace
The crowd is shouting “Lets go Brandon”.
If we wish hard enough, Tinkerbell will come back.
Fake News
Fake Data
Fake Women
To be fair, there are Fake Men as well.
As in «Doctor swung lancet-o — you will sing falsetto» and «Looks like it ain’t Helium», or ..?
“”When did The Babylon Bee take over The Grauniad””
When Alan Rusbridger became the editor in the mid 90s
However CO2 levels have been rising since about 1850, and started “rapidly” rising somewhere around 1950.
Does this quote mean that only CO2 emitted since 1975 is able to influence the climate?
It means that the cumulative effect didn’t break out of the model’s noise level before 1975.
Which coincidentally is about when the large surge in urbanisation started.
Urban thermometers, were of course, not affected by this urbanisation. 😉
I think there are a lot of “coincidences” involved… 😎
It is impossible to think of this alarmism as anything other than mirthful entertainment. If winters are warm (which happens now and then) it is caused by AGW. If they are cold (which happens now and then) it is also caused by AGW. If it is the same as usual (which happens most of the time) it is “pent-up heat waiting to jump out and bite us”. Good grief.
I am leaning towards the idea that CO2 added to the atmosphere is making no discernable difference to local or global weather or temperatures.
That which is not measured cannot be managed.
That which cannot be discerned cannot be managed.
That which is an obvious lie can be refuted.
Repudiation for alarmists:
“Vain and wretched is that which ye have imagined and still imagine!”
Guidance for bloggers:
“Refute that which is false and vain.”
Calm weather in the northern hemisphere is associated with a smooth west to east flow of the NH jet stream.
Extreme weather is associated with a wavy pattern in the jet stream.
However the jet stream gets really wavy only when it gets cold.
Since global warming is supposed to make the world warmer, this would mean that the jet stream would spend more time with a smooth flow, which should mean less wild weather.
As usual, climate alarmists just make up whatever argument they need in order to support what they are told to believe.
From the article picture caption: “Climate protesters interrupt a Trump rally in Iowa on 14 January. Photograph: Christian Monterrosa/AFP via Getty Images”
That was the rally where Trump laughed at the protesters and told them to “Go home to mommy.”
The protesters were escorted out of the building.
Interesting that those yellow signs are exactly the same, apart from the name, as those seen at Vivek’s meeting.
PAID democrat operatives.
Yeah, some leftwing billionaire is putting up the money, , You can bet on it.
“It’s cold because it is hot”
NO, the correct scientific answer is, it’s cold because the sun doesn’t reach the poles during Winter. This has not changed, so the cold doesn’t change either.
This occasionally affects more mid-lattitude areas when warmer air displaces this no sun frigid air away from the poles.
CO2 has zero influence on this because the heat source being high solar concentrated Tropics and sub-Tropics oceans and atmospheric air flowing towards the poles.
The only way to prevent it being cold in Winter is to move the land masses away from the poles so warm ocean currents flows through the zero sunlight zones.
Remove “science” and replace with “climate botherer”
From Collins dictionary:
Climate Alarmists think they are the keepers of “the Science”. In the opinion of climate alarmists, if you don’t agree with them, then you don’t agree with “the Science”,
Climate Alarmist Science = Speculaton, Assumptions, and Unsubstantiated Assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s weather/climate. No “the Science” here. Climate Alarmists are very confused when it comes to discerning actual science. They think science is opinion. Their opinion.
Hopefully, the recent cold snap has incited people to think more rationally about the drastic measures used to supposedly prevent the world from warming a fraction of a degree over the next 50 years or so:
Electric cars don’t go very far in cold weather
Chargers for EV’s don’t work in cold weather
During a blizzard, it’s nice to have diesel-powered plows to push the snow off the road
When it’s below zero outside, it’s nice to have an oil or gas furnace to make it toasty inside
(even Greta might appreciate a warm house in Sweden)
Solar panels don’t work well in winter when it’s dark and/or cloudy most of the time
During a cold snap, people tend to burn more oil or gas to heat their homes, which emits CO2. Does the extra CO2 make it warmer outside? Not much. But the heat from the furnace makes it a lot warmer inside. So maybe “drill baby drill” makes a lot of sense.
I am under the impression that drilling holes in a furnace is a mistake.
The US energy consumption has been about the same since 2000. The extra oil and gas from drilling has been mostly exported for cash.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
“Solar panels don’t work well in winter when it’s dark and/or cloudy most of the time” You left out “covered with snow” as well as a period at the end of your sentence. (I’m in my cups, so I have a hard time distinguishing an important critique from a pedantic comment.)
Not ‘counterintuitively’ but counter to the laws of thermodynamics. Everybody except the dimwits and the ignorants know that.
During the last three decades, global fossil fuel use has increased 60% despite all the COP conferences. So it’s hardly just the Republicans that are ignoring the so-called climate crisis. At best only a minority worldwide are even paying lip service to it, while the majority is ignoring it completely and going about their lives and businesses as is most convenient for them. As a result, the climate alarmists need to compose a new song-and-dance routine because people stopped listening to the old one years ago.
The developing world, where most of the people live, is emphasizing growth out of poverty over CO2 reduction.
Edward,
That small “minority worldwide” is what is known as the Western elites and their acolytes! Not only are they responsible for the KatastrophicKlimateKult; they are also responsible for Forever Wars, Inc. like Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Ukraine; and the Standard American Diet, or SAD, the low fat, high carb and processed food diet that has probably killed and maimed more people over the last 50 years than ALL other causes combined when you look at the increases in diabetes, heart disease, and stroke that it engenders in the average human!
But it does lead to record profits for Big Ag and Big Pharma!
Great article as always, David, except for the math, science and logic impaired Greentards, who will have a difficult time understanding it!
One small mistake that needs correcting, however is found with the picture of your lovely backyard. You identify the white, flaky substance as “Gorebal Warming.” This is incorrect as there is little or no connection between Gore and bal-ance, mental or otherwise; but Gore and bull are inextricably linked forever in his science fiction thriller that poses as a documentary. This is why “Gorebull Warming” is now the accepted form. Please refrain from giving him even a smidgen of bal-ance!
Once again, geology rocks! My best to you and yours!
If not for “the math, science and logic impaired Greentards” of the world, I wouldn’t have much to write about… 😎
Graun
The current blast of cold weather is “certainly much more likely given how much the planet is warming” said Judah Cohen, a meteorologist at Verisk Atmospheric and Environmental who has studied the phenomenon. “There is scientific evidence that makes severe winter weather consistent or explainable in a warming world. One does not negate the other.”
Remarkable. Judah is an own work denier.
No detectable trend in mid-latitude cold extremes during the recent period of Arctic amplification | Communications Earth & Environment (nature.com)
Well the organization “Verisk” just plunged into the sewer in reputation in my book!
If one were looking for a reasonable explanation for the rise in temperature since the 1970s, one need to look no further than the reduction of air pollution. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20this%20month,degree%20to%201%20degree%20Celsius.
If one looks, they can find multiple papers on this subject.
Perhaps the key to lowering earth’s temperature is to pollute the atmosphere.
How can you establish that the apparent correlation isn’t just anecdotal? We don’t have measurements of global air pollution going back very far. However, we know from various proxies that there have been several hot-house and ice-house episodes in geologic history.
record blast of cold weather – which scientists say may, counterintuitively, have been worsened by global heating
Hmmmm. Scientists say a lot of things eh? So what made the record blasts of cold weather in the US in 1977? Scientists said….. Global cooling!
👍👍
“The current blast of cold weather is “certainly much more likely given how much the planet is warming”
This is a powerful case for beefing up fossil fuels supplies to ensure one can heat their home, keep the lights on and ensure availability of essential services. If, because of bitterly cold winters, regardless of its cause, surely we can agree on the need to be prepared.
Those are nice graphs (figures 4 & 5a).
Appears that the overburden of wind, solar, and storage need to be scraped away before we can get to down to solid foundational material and get to work on the foundation.
“Overburden?” You speak like a geologist.
I was in Iowa City for the winters of 1967 – ’68; One of those had me walking home, a mile +, in a temperature of -33°F {-36°C}. That’s my record cold. One evening a fire destroyed a building about 2 blocks from our favorite watering hole. Water hoses were clamped to parking meters so the crew would not have to stand and hold the nozzles. By morning there was a foot of ice on the street.
I don’t recall anyone mentioning that global warming was causing the cold.
Maybe I just missed that discussion. 🙂
Figure 12. 100 year extreme events appear as you increase the length of time being sampled.
Take 2 samples of weather. One 50 years long, the other 100 years long.
With zero climate change the 100 year sample will almost always have more extreme events than the 50 year sample.
What is changing is not the climate, it is the length of time we have been observing that is changing.
where in the discussion of climate change has there been a statistical correction for the effects of sample length?
How likely are you to find a 1 in 100 year weather event in 30 years of weather records a compared to a 100 year record.
Statistical analyses in climate science are mostly garbage all the way around. When was last time you saw them calculate or quote the variance of any of their data distributions?
“From 1895-1975, the US averaged about 4,700 Heating Degree Days (HDD) per year.”
Need a clear definition of what a HDD is. Anything that happens 4700 days per year seems questionable.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-and-calculators/degree-days.php#:~:text=Heating%20degree%20days%20(HDDs)%20are,during%20a%20period%20of%20days.
The currently accepted way to calculate degree-days is to integrate the temperature curve to determine the area between a base value and temp curve. 65F is a typical base value for degree-day calculation for use in sizing HVAC requirements.
Go here:https://www.degreedays.net/calculation
for a good explanation of how degree-days are calculated.
Read down the page to find out why using the median temperature for the day is such a poor methodology to use in evaluating climate – which is what climate science stubbornly clings to like Teyve in “Fiddler on the Root”.
But using the median is tradition! 🙂
TRADITION! (waving hands in the air!)
This is obviously wrong. Severe winter weather increase did not happen during the 1976-1997 warming period. It has been happening since 1997 and for the previous 20 years, severe winter weather decreased. Which phenomenon started also in 1997 and is not related to global warming? Arctic winter warming. Severe winter weather increase and Arctic winter warming are linked through vortex strength. Since the polar vortex is affected by solar activity, as it has been demonstrated in studies published since the late 1950s, the most likely explanation is that the reduction in solar activity since the mid-1990s is responsible for severe winter weather increase and Arctic winter warming.
It is too bad that a solar explanation of any climate phenomenon constitutes heresy. As a consequence, climate scientists and their models have no clue about what is going on with the climate.
Solar Cycle Progression | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center
The second chart — right side – shows: “ the reduction in solar activity since the mid-1990s“
The larger chart (monthly data) shows Cycle #25 to be doing more than predicted.
reckon the temps are fudged?
well rainfall for my area in Wimmera appeared today at 5mm for the year via Elders BOM supplied data
in FACT we have had well over 40mm rain for january so far(just in the town zone more elsewhere) but NONE except late yesterday and today has been recorded
I wrote in to complain on the 14ths january and until today they had none at all
temps also been vanished for all bar the day and maybe overnight and then blank as well until this monday
And yet, when there is a mild spell, THAT will be “caused by” global “heating.”
When EVERYTHING, including diametrically opposed outcomes, is supposedly “caused by” the same thing, you know it’s garden variety bullshit.
If all changes (+/-) in the dependent variable (temperature) are caused by increases in the independent variable, then the independent variable has no predictive value.
And if a connection is not predictable, it’s not falsifiable.
alaska boats are sinking due to snow
wow
https://www.sott.net/article/488212-More-boats-sink-roofs-collapse-avalanche-danger-remains-high-as-snowfall-pummels-Juneau-Alaska
CO2 produces an insidious energy form called “chameleon heat”. It is capable of disappearing completely to suit certain narratives and reappearing when called upon to support those narratives, especially in Summer.
They ignore a lot. Who cares? It simply does not matter what USA Outer Party does not say. And it matters very little what it does say.
It’s a toy “opposition” allowed to exist in order to perform the ritual role of clown beaten with a stick, and as a flag pin marking the rear (rightmost) border of the Overton Window.
Hmm … The Clientist are out there, via the MSM, claiming an event (storm of any sort) is proof of CAGW yet a cold spell is also proof of CAGW?