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.
“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
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.
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?