The Frigid Winters Of Global Warming: “Uncompromising Cold” … “Conditions That May Be Recalled For Generations”

How often have we heard the older folks reminiscing about good old fashioned New England winters we used to get 50 years ago? Well, they’re back.

Ironically today’s winters are in fact so tough that journalist Jason Samenow of the online Washington Post here predicts that we may remember the current one “for generations“.

A “severe cold” is set to blast the eastern U.S. later in the week. And bitter cold is projected to persist well into March.

The WaPo writes that “parts of New England could witness its coldest air in years” and that frosty conditions will dip “into central and parts of south Florida“.

According to the WaPo, the cold “can be traced to the polar vortex” coming from the North Pole regions, and that the winter will likely leave a deep imprint in our minds:

For areas of New England buried under multiple feet of snow, the added element of uncompromising cold will present extreme mid-winter conditions that may be recalled for generations.

Cold plunging from the North Pole deep into the middle latitudes normally means the polar air gets replaced, usually by warmer air from the south. Yet Arctic regions are also seeing polar vortex-like cold effects, with places in Alaska dipping close to -60°F, writes the WaPo.

The cold that is to grip the US east coast is set to come in two waves. The second wave will originate in Siberia, says the WaPo, and temperatures will be at levels that are 30°F below normal along the entire east coast of the US, with bitter cold literally effecting more than 100 million people.

Source: Weatherbell Analytics

Scientists are baffled by the recent severe cold winters that have struck North America. Ten years ago, when North America saw balmy winters, scientists were trumpeting cold and snowy winters as those of the 1960s and 70s, were “a thing of the past“. Now these old fashioned winters are back from the photo albums and the same red-faced scientists are now claiming these are global-warming frigid winters.

The truth and reality are that this has nothing to do with global warming, but has everything to do with natural cycles…the very ones that have sent global warming packing for 18 years.

Scientists have yet to explain how one distinguishes between a global-warming frigid winter and one that is an old fashioned cold one. Both are the same and arecaused by the same thing: predominant pattern of Arctic air dipping far south for the greater part of the winter season.

 

13 responses to “The Frigid Winters Of Global Warming: “Uncompromising Cold” … “Conditions That May Be Recalled For Generations””

  1. DirkH

    CO2… Is there nothing it can’t do?

  2. A C Osborn

    Yes but the Climate Records will not show it will they?
    They will have Quality Controlled and Adjusted to suit.
    That was one of the first things that set me against CAGW, the story the so called Scientists were telling did not match my memory of the Climate of my youth 60 years ago, or the history that I learnt then.

    1. Jeff Todd

      He who controls the past controls the future; he who controls the present controls the past.
      I do not think George Orwell had climate scientists in mind when he wrote 1984; but he was pretty much spot on with the temperature records.

  3. John

    No mystery here. Weak solar output of the last 2 cycles leads to a roller coaster jet stream due to Meridional Zone Flow. That’s why the Western half of the US is not affected (on the other side of the big dip). CAGW alarmists weakly assign the brutal winters to “climate change,” but this is actually almost entire due to secondary and tertiary effects of weak solar output.

  4. Stephen Wilde
    1. Dave in the states

      This falls in line with what we are observing in North America this year. The east has been catching it, while the west is having a very mild winter. It didn’t start that way. In Nov winter started out harsh in the Rockies but then the pattern shifted farther to east and the winter storms have been rolling down the east side of the Rockies one after another.

  5. dennisambler

    To draw a comparison with an earlier topic, that of Cholesterol, this is what cholesterol skeptic Dr Malcom Kendrick said in 2005, substitute AGW for cholesterol:
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/548#.VNs3qy48Ts1

    “The cholesterol hypothesis can be likened to a cathedral built on a bog. Rather than admit they made a horrible mistake and let it sink, the builders decided to try and keep the cathedral afloat at all costs. Each time a crack appeared, a new buttress was built. Then further buttresses were built to support the original buttresses.

    Although direct contradictions to the cholesterol hypothesis repeatedly appear, nobody dares to say ‘okay, this isn’t working, time to build again from scratch’. That decision has become just too painful, especially now that massive industries, Nobel prizes, and glittering scientific careers, have grown on the back of the cholesterol hypothesis. The statin market alone is worth more than £20billion each year.”

  6. Hoi Polloi

    We’re going to be fried! Uncompromising cold! I heard it all before.
    There suppose to be 2 horror winters the last 2 years. Nothing of the kind.

    Oh well, let’s wait and see, nature is catching you when you’re least expect it!

  7. Alex B

    Meanwhile in Norway we have record high temperatures and in the Trondheim area where I live almost all snow melted away this weekend. Alarmists run amok. As I am writing this (almost 13:00) it is 8,9 degrees Celsius outside. I am not complaining, but can you send some of the cold and snow over here so that the green churchers here will shut the f**k up?

    1. DirkH

      Same in Germany. Looks like we and Norway got the good direction of the jetstream this week.

      Hey Alex, just let your Greens panic, if we’re lucky they’ll fail to prepare for the next reversal. Encourage them. Make them invest in pomegranate plantations in the Fjords.

      1. Verity Jones

        “Make them invest in pomegranate plantations in the Fjords.”

        LOL

  8. PhysicsGroup

    The models are wrong because of the initial assumption that without GH gases the troposphere would have been isothermal. We know this assumption is made because we know the 255K temperature is at about 5Km altitude, and yet they say the surface would have been the same 255K. From there they get their sensitivity by assuming water vapor makes rain forests about 30 to 40 degrees hotter than dry regions and carbon dioxide adds a bit of warming also. In fact none of that happens.

    The assumption regarding isothermal conditions is inherently applying the Clausius “hot to cold” statement which is just a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane. That we know because it is clearly specified (as here) that the entropy equation is derived by assuming that changes in molecular gravitational potential energy can be ignored. It is those changes which actually cause the temperature gradient to evolve, so we must always remember that sensible heat transfers are not always from warmer to cooler regions in a vertical plane in a gravitational field
    .
    So they cannot prove that the Clausius statement they use to get their assumed isothermal conditions is correct in a vertical column of a planet’s troposphere, and so they cannot prove the fundamental building block upon which they built the GH conjecture.

    Any questions are probably already answered here: http://climate-change-theory.com

  9. PhysicsGroup

    The models are wrong because of the initial assumption that without GH gases the troposphere would have been isothermal. We know this assumption is made because we know the 255K temperature is at about 5Km altitude, and yet they say the surface would have been the same 255K. From there they get their sensitivity by assuming water vapor makes rain forests about 30 to 40 degrees hotter than dry regions and carbon dioxide adds a bit of warming also. In fact none of that happens.

    The assumption regarding isothermal conditions is inherently applying the Clausius “hot to cold” statement which is just a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane. That we know because it is clearly specified (as here) that the entropy equation is derived by assuming that changes in molecular gravitational potential energy can be ignored. It is those changes which actually cause the temperature gradient to evolve, so we must always remember that sensible heat transfers are not always from warmer to cooler regions in a vertical plane in a gravitational field
    .
    So they cannot prove that the Clausius statement they use to get their assumed isothermal conditions is correct in a vertical column of a planet’s troposphere, and so they cannot prove the fundamental building block upon which they built the GH conjecture.