Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[One Bad Pig]

Quality first, piglet.

You know I don't read one-liners.

I didn't recall that, but I'll try to find room for that tidbit somewhere.

And piglet ...

This was just a tongue in cheek poke at taoist, who stated earlier that cold temperatures in the Eastern US were balanced by sweltering temperatures out West.

Troll better.

In the earlier WaPo article, I quoted ...

Right now, the jet stream is crashing south in the eastern half of the continent while surging northward in the west half. That phenomenon, called the North American Winter Dipole, is strangely enough simultaneously responsible for freezing temperatures in the East and the roasting temperatures in the West, which are fueling recent forest fires in California.

For the record, I'm not Dino Grandoni, I don't write for the Washington Post, and there was no suggestion that the anomalies balanced.

Oh, "roasting" is much better than "sweltering." My bad.

For the record, you quoted it, and the implication was that the anomalies balanced. If you quote something without qualification, I naturally assume you agree with it.

Even on average, it's wicked cold in North America.

Well, yes.

And on average, popular science writers muff the science.

Popular writers on any topic have a distressing tendency to muff it up (sometimes, even when they write competently while writing for a technical audience, like Bart Ehrman).

Using a large single-model ensemble of climate simulations, we show that the observed positive trend in the warm-West/cool-East events is attributable to historical anthropogenic emissions including greenhouse gases, but that the co-occurrence of extreme western warmth and eastern cold will likely decrease in the future as winter temperatures warm dramatically across the continent, thereby reducing the occurrence of severely cold conditions in the East.

If this research holds up, dipole frequencies will increase, creating "polar vortexes" more often. But it's a phenomena that will fade over time. Still, the east coast should get ready for nasty winters for a while.

Given the inability of IPCC models to even remotely predict reality thus far, consider me skeptical. I'm used to rather nastier winters than we typically get 'round here, so I'll be alright. I'll hold out hope for more snow days.

[Juvenal]

Yeah, and your rationalization totally justifies organizations like NOAA and NASA secretly "adjusting" past temperature data on a monthly basis in order to fabricate a warming trend. And isn't it odd how these "adjustments" only ever seem to go in one direction? That's "settled science", y'all!

Secret.

inigo-2.jpg

I'm thinking you're not much into following climate science.

[Juvenal]

I didn't recall that, but I'll try to find room for that tidbit somewhere.

They're clutter. I don't do clutter.

Oh, "roasting" is much better than "sweltering." My bad.

That's WaPo, screeching proud.

For the record, you quoted it, and the implication was that the anomalies balanced. If you quote something without qualification, I naturally assume you agree with it.

You misspelled "inference." A dipole is two poles with opposing parity. There's no particular implication they need to balance. Dino's principle muff was in suggesting the dipole was the loop in the jet stream, but you can read past that easily enough.

I quoted it for its reference to the dipole because it was directly responsive to the most recent appearance of president tweet, and because it linked to an earlier piece that associated the dipole with the current polar vortex, and because that piece linked to the paper, which is the science upon which that excerpt from the article was based.

To be clear, the importance of the dipole isn't that the temperatures balance, it's that by its mere existence, it stretches out our loop in the jet stream. When the stream stretches into Canada, the east coast gets Canadian air, still smelling of pinned moose. When it stretches further, they're visited by Canada's northern neighbors.

Popular writers on any topic have a distressing tendency to muff it up (sometimes, even when they write competently while writing for a technical audience, like Bart Ehrman).

Thank god that never happens to me. And for my perfect hair.

Given the inability of IPCC models to even remotely predict reality thus far, consider me skeptical. I'm used to rather nastier winters than we typically get 'round here, so I'll be alright. I'll hold out hope for more snow days.

If it's leading you to bring back nasty rumors, you should stop hanging out in those places. If there had been massive failures in the IPCC models, we'd have heard about it by now.

[carpedm9587]

Huh. I hyperlinked it in my post. Here's the direct link: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d...ppkifgno?hl=en

Yeah - but the page is not functional. My Chrome may be broken. It's been giving me problems. For example, this page always comes up blank: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/c...sions?hl=en-US

Thanks for the assist, BTW.

[Adrift]

Yeah - but the page is not functional. My Chrome may be broken. It's been giving me problems. For example, this page always comes up blank: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/c...sions?hl=en-US

Thanks for the assist, BTW.

Hmm. Maybe you're not running the latest version? And you're welcome.

[EvoUK]

It would be helpful, MM, if you knew a bit more about how science is done.

Climate change" is where the money and prestige is. You're not going to get your name in the journals, or hold a job at a major university, or have access to grant money unless you tow the line. It's the same for anyone who questions evolution, even if they make a prediction that turns out to be true, like when Dr. Humphreys correctly predicted the existence and strength of planetary magnetic fields based on the assumption that the universe is only several thousand years old. It was a startling discovery for anyone who promotes the old universe theory, but it was all but ignored by mainstream science.

http://creationresearch.org/crsq/art...21_3/21_3.html

Anyway, there's your motivation for lying, or at least not looking closely at the numbers to see if they really add up -- and people who have taken a critical look at the data have discovered that it really doesn't add up, but you won't see their names in the pages of peer reviewed publications because the gatekeepers won't let them in.

Thread here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...e-change/page3

[Mountain Man]

More evidence of NOAA scrubbing the temperature record to erase "anomalously cold winters", i.e. data that disproves global warming...

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-cold-winters/

[stfoskey15]

More evidence of NOAA scrubbing the temperature record to erase "anomalously cold winters", i.e. data that disproves global warming...

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-cold-winters/

If you look at the January-March data instead of December-February, you find that Jan-Mar 2015 tied 1904 for coldest on record, and 2014 was 14th coldest on record. So the anomalous cold wasn't hidden; it just occurred later in winter. It's worth noting, however, that the seven mildest Jan-Mar periods have been since 1990.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017

[JonathanL]

We're long past the point where "settled science" claimed that snow would be an almost unheard of phenomenon.

If only.

[Roy]

"Pooping on the chess board", also known as proving Roy wrong.

No, but feel free to continue ignoring the ample proof that NASA and NOAA have actively and deceptively destroyed the historic temperature data to support the global warming/communist agenda.

You aren't proving me wrong, you're proving yourself wrong.

If "NASA and NOAA have actively and deceptively destroyed the historic temperature data" then how in Jotunheim could you know that "the last 17-years ... has exhibited a slight cooling trend"?

[Roy]

P.S. Ironically, this is the exact data set that climate deniers point to so as to show an 18-year slow-down from 1998-2015. Apparently, the data is good enough to prove a slow down, but not good enough to show an overall trend...?

Even more ironically, Mountain "pawn-pooper" Man has made both those claims in this thread

[carpedm9587]

More evidence of NOAA scrubbing the temperature record to erase "anomalously cold winters", i.e. data that disproves global warming...

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-cold-winters/

It's not clear to me that either the author of this page, or you, have actually looked at the data or the graphs. Both graphs show below average temperatures for Jan/Feb in both 2014 and 2015. I live in the northeast (northern Vermont) - and we have never had a "cold snap" that lasted continuously for 4 months, not in my memory. We get a serious cold drop, maybe for as much as a couple of weeks, then temperatures moderate for some period, then another wave passes through. The averages for even a month will hide the deepest "snaps" which usually last for only a few days.

Case in point - right now. News has been all about how COLD it is, but we've seen below zero temps on maybe a dozen days, interspersed with days in the teens, twenties, thirties, and even 40s. I can't remember a January that DIDN'T have our annual "January Thaw." And I live just under the midline elevation for Vermont.

It seems to me, MM, that you are willing to grab hold of any article that affirms your pre-existing beliefs, and you seem completely unwilling to look at anything (seriously) that might counter them. So far the dust you are throwing into the air is just more of the same from "climate deniers." Why not just say, "I don't WANT to believe it!" and be done with it?

Meanwhile, if you think yet another link from a climate-denying website with no clear science behind it and just a lot of vague accusations is going to convince anyone...I think you're going to be in for a surprise. You cannot counter hard science with political fluff. It just doesn't work.

[Mountain Man]

You aren't proving me wrong, you're proving yourself wrong.

If "NASA and NOAA have actively and deceptively destroyed the historic temperature data" then how in Jotunheim could you know that "the last 17-years ... has exhibited a slight cooling trend"?

You have to look outside of the "official" record , or get your hands on "unadjusted" data. I would have thought this was obvious, but maybe not because uncorrupted records are becoming almost impossible to find, and the agencies in question aren't open about when and how "adjustments" are made.

I mean, the pause was obvious to everybody with alarmists at a loss to explain it, until NOAA "adjusted" the data, and *PRESTO* no more pause. And then they refused to show their work. It's quite the scandal.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...e-climategate/

But you unwittingly make a good point: since we obviously can't trust the official record keepers then who can we trust? What I do know is that the government shouldn't be making policy decisions based on fraudulent data.

[carpedm9587]

I'm going to move on. When beliefs cease to be evidence-based, and instead depend on conspiracy theories and cherry-picking of data, discussion is fairly pointless. For the record, I DO trust the NOAA and NASA numbers, because I've looked into the methodology, I understand (reasonably well) the science, and I do not cherry-pick years and data to make dubious claims, either for or against global warming.

[Juvenal]

You cannot counter hard science with political fluff. It just doesn't work.