Bitter Cold In Every Direction…Harsh Winter Conditions Grip Northern Hemisphere As Globe Cools

Never mind the severe cold hitting the Super Bowl this year, or scientists lecturing us on global warming while their host resort Davos got buried in snow.

There’s been a lot of cold gripping all over the northern hemisphere this winter – much more than many of us expected. Europe has also joined in on the freeze-fest as the harsh winter spreads across the old continent and even into Africa:


Cold is forecast to keep Europe shivering this week. Image cropped from wetter.online.de.

Cooling globe

One reason for this could be due to the rapidly falling global surface temperatures  as recorded by satellite data. In January the global mean temperature anomaly dropped to +0.26°C, with the tropics (where most of the heat is found) posting a nippy -0.12°C anomaly, according to Dr. Roy Spencer.

Other cooling factors include the current La Nina and possibly the low solar activity playing a role. IceAgeNow here reported last July that solar activity was at its most rapid decline in 9300 years.

Europe

In Northern Europe cold winter are normal, but the recent forecast for the Finnish region of Lapland warned of temperatures down to -40°C. This Finnish website here writes:

Temperatures have been low all winter in Finnish Lapland, but the cold dip expected this week could see record-breaking extremes.”

Snow and cold are also forecast across UK as the Express here reports: “Britain set for FOOT of heavy snow NEXT WEEK in COLDEST freeze for decade.”

Spain, North Africa get frostbitten and snowed on

The wintry conditions will likely impact agriculture and the European food markets. Fruitnet.com here writes: ” The cold snap gripping much of the Spanish peninsula is likely to reduce the availability of vegetables and salads on the European market during the coming weeks.”

The extreme cold has even extended beyond southern Europe and into Africa! For example Southern Morocco saw snow for the first time. And so has the Canary island of Tenerife seen its landscape get blanketed with the white stuff.

Stunning Sahara snow

Also The Mail here reports snowfall in the Algeria – the Sahara Desert. Up to December 2016 it had not snowed there in 37 years. Now according to The Mail it has snowed 4 times since, and it’s the second time this year already. “Locals were stunned to see snow on the sand dunes in the Sahara Desert yesterday.”

Records in Japan

Japanese blogger Kirye here tweeted that minimum temperature dropped to -17.2 ℃ on February 2, 2018, in Ikarigaseki, Aomori Prefecture. “It is the coldest daily minimum temperature since records began on November 24, 1976! The previous record low was -16.6 ℃, set on January 18, 2014.”

Kirye also tweeted: “The minimum temperature in Fuchu, Tokyo dropped to minus 8.4 ℃ on January 25, 2018. It is the lowest daily minimum temperature since records began on December 15, 1976. The previous record low was minus 8.2 ℃, set on February 8, 1984.”

Moreover, Japan’s mean temperature anomaly for January 2018 was a chilly -0.22 ℃. Kirye writes that there’s been no warming trend for January from 1986 to 2018.

The English language NTV of Japan writes: “This winter’s harshest cold wave continues in Japan with freezing temperatures in central Tokyo recorded two days in a row for the first time in 55 years.”

Kirye adds: “The minimum temperature dropped to -3.1℃ on January 26 in Tokyo. It is the coldest daily minimum temperature for January 26 since 1965.”

Russian Snowmageddon…minus 67°C

As I already highlighted here earlier, a number of locations across the northern hemisphere are seeing surprising brutal winter conditions. Another example: media outlets have reported widely that Moscow just saw a record snowfall. Also read here.

And in the Siberian region of Yakutia, the temperature fell as low as minus 67 Celsius.

Australia and New Zealand

Even the southern hemisphere has not been spared. The weatherzone.com.au here reports “many towns in south-east Queensland have experienced their coldest February day on record”  and that “Archerfield managed only 21°C and Coolangatta on the Gold Coast 21.6°C”.

According to a local meteorologist: “These are the coldest February days that we’ve ever experienced in those places and some of those records date back quite some time.”

Finally Ice Age Now here writes that Tasmania even recorded a “summer blizzard.”

That’s a lot of winter, snow and cold for a planet that is supposedly warming rapidly.

 

138 responses to “Bitter Cold In Every Direction…Harsh Winter Conditions Grip Northern Hemisphere As Globe Cools”

  1. sunsettommy

    It will be interesting to see what Sebastian and CO2 haters will come up with this undeniable evidence that Increasing Cold and Snow is a sign that “global warming” is not global, that it has been almost totally confined to the Northern Hemisphere, yet the INCRESASE in snow fall and cold occurs in the same Hemisphere!

    The IPCC made it clear for years that they based, on the absurd AGW conjecture that it would snow LESS and have increasing rain and snow in the winter time.

    Yet we have undeniable evidence of INCREASING cold waves the last 15 years or so, that can’t be explained away. But they will try with their usual pretzel based rationalization nonsense.

    1. AndyG55

      I’m surprised the Arctic has any ice left at all,

      Its all been pumped over Russia, USA, and now Europe.

      Enjoy, all those who love the cold and hate a bit of warmth. (Looks like around 25°C down here again today 🙂 )

      Just remember NOT to use that evil fossil fuel for staying warm.

    2. SebastianH

      What I will come up with? You are the ones coming up with incredible stories 🙂

      Global warming doesn’t mean that it is x degrees warmer every second in all places on the globe. If you think a cold winter disproves global warming, then you haven’t understood what you are arguing against. How can you even argue against something effectively without knowing the basics?

      We have evidence of increasing cold waves? Where do we have that? Did we also have record high temperatures in the last years? Or does that not count?

      Just don’t be surprised when someone asked where the coming ice age went when the next heat wave hits. Also don’t act like you are any better 🙂

      1. AndyG55

        WOW, just over half the oceans are BELOW the average.

        Signs of COOLING.

        Wouldn’t you agree that is what the FACTS say, seb?

        1. AndyG55
          1. John Brown

            One has to be wary about New Zealand, looks like a hot spot with a potential geological reason!

          2. SebastianH

            Ehrm, El Nina?

            Maybe you don’t remember past cooling scares, but I have read these skeptics blogs archieves back to 2008. Everyone was predicting a new ice age because of slight cooling (the Oceans taking up energy) … hell, there is even a bet on this blog that this decade would be cooler than the one before.

            OHC is going up not down, AndyG55:
            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

            This is only a temporary cooling of the surface.

            P.S.:
            2017: http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomg.2.6.2017.gif
            2018:
            http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomg.2.5.2018.gif
            and here is one from the summer 2017: http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomg.7.17.2017.gif

            Notice anything? The planet has seasons, apparently 😉

          3. SebastianH

            Meant to write “taking down energy” or rather “pulling down” …

          4. AndyG55

            No measurements before 2003. NOAA model based.

            ..and CERTAINLY NOT from CO2 , because as we all know, there is NO mechanism for CO2 warming oceans

            Solar only, and you know that.

          5. SebastianH

            So you are saying the oceans are now cooling and the OHC content data that shows it is warming is invalid because there are no measurements from before 2003?

            Are you serious?

          6. AndyG55

            Do you DENY that there are very few measurements before 2003?

            Do you DENY that it is mostly based on assumption driven models?

            Are you displaying your ignorance yet again?

            Are you serious?

            You know that CO2 has not caused oceans to warm, and you know that oceans are starting to cool, that is what actual measurements rather than models tell us.

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/North-Atlantic-Cooling-OHC-Piecuch-2017.jpg

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Pacific-Southern-Ocean-Cooling-OHC-1970-to-2009-Li-2017.jpg

            http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56530521e4b0c307d59bbe97/t/572250e637013b9e5280e912/1461866734166/?format=1000w

            Argo temps before NOAA adjustment.

            http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/argo-m-ppt.jpg

          7. AndyG55
          8. SebastianH

            These replies of yours are just unbelievable. Why whould having not as accurate data before 2003 matter for the OHC increase today? You do realize that we have 2018, several years into accurate OHC data, right?

            And then you post links to some areas of the ocean and claim that the cooling there is “what actual measurements tell us”. I pointed you to the “actual measurements”. But of course, it has to be fake when it doesn’t suit your impression of what is happening.

            This is ridiculous and I don’t know why I should have any faith that anything coming from you is not trolling or genuine ingorance.

          9. AndyG55

            Poor seb still doesn’t realise that the OHC is from a MODEL, driven by AGW assumptions.

            Josh Willis even had to “adjust” the ARGO data because it showed slight cooling.

            Show us where measurements were made before 2003, seb. Even now, 0.65 BILLION cubic kilometres of ocean with 3500 floats, and you think they can give a meaningful result. Your mathematical ignorance, again brought to light.

            The values in the OHC graphs are REALLY SCARY to seb, because he is incapable of realising what a tiny rise in temperature they represent.

            He also fails to realise that a rise in OHC can only come from SOLAR, and there is absolutely ZERO possibility that humans can have any effect on it.

            CO2 CANNOT cause OHC to increase, so by harping on the OHC rise he is ADMITTING that any warming has been PURELY NATURAL after the COLDEST period in 10,000 years and is certainly NOT from human CO2.

            Thanks seb.. WE KNOW THAT !!

            And yes, YOUR comments are RIDICULOUS, and they are based only on mindless attention-seeking and brain-washed ignorance.

          10. AndyG55

            Notice how the REAL data levels off when even the sparse measurements of ARGO are implemented

            https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/28-noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png

            Notice that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are COOLING

            https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png

            And notice how stupid the model projections look

            https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/04-argo-era-raw-v-adjusted-ohc.png

            The stuff from NOAA is KNOWN to be manically adjusted, just like their fabricated temperature series.

          11. AndyG55

            And of course , we could look at longer term OHC showing that the world is very much at the COOL end of the Holocene. OHC rise is out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            TOTALLY NATURAL, and TOTALLY BENEFICIAL.

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Medieval-Warm-Present-Rosenthal-13-Warmings.jpg

            And of course there is this..

            https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/Ocean_Heat.jpg

            Never let the FACTS get in the way of your mindless ranting, seb. !!

          12. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            There’s a reason they chose the beginning of warming time to be in the early 70’s, and here it is.
            https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-us-epa-provides-us-with-historical.html

            Just like Tony Heller’s been telling it.

          13. SebastianH

            It is kind of amazing how you manage to contradict yourself so badly 😉

            Show us where measurements were made before 2003, seb. Even now, 0.65 BILLION cubic kilometres of ocean with 3500 floats, and you think they can give a meaningful result.

            vs.

            And of course , we could look at longer term OHC showing that the world is very much at the COOL end of the Holocene. OHC rise is out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.[link to Rosenthal reconstruction]

            It’s almost like a Flat Earther claiming that Flat Earthers “live all around the globe” 😉

            Of course, if you think every data is fake and only you can determine what is right … what is the point of discussing anything with you again? Apparently you live on a different planet.

          14. AndyG55

            roflmao.

            Your mind lives in a total cognitive MESS, doesn’t it seb.

            You probably don’t even comprehend the difference in scales and what they represent.

            Your IGNORANCE runs very deep seb.

            YOU are the one pushing a TINY modelled rise in OHC since 1958, you must accept the HUGE drop in OHC in the Rosenthal graph, which shows, like EVERY OTHER SCOURCE, that we are very much at a COOL period in the current interglacial.

            There is NO relationship between OHC and CO2.

            There is NO empirical proof that CO2 causes any warming at all of our oceans or of our gravity warmed and controlled convective atmosphere.

          15. SebastianH

            AndyG55, you have to make up your mind. Detailed measurements today cannot be meaningless and at the same time a reconstruction offers perfect OHC data. And wasn’t Rosenthal writing in his paper that the modern OHC increase happens at a faster rate than any past increase?

            The modern rate of
            Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in
            the past 10,000 years

          16. Kenneth Richard

            And wasn’t Rosenthal writing in his paper that the modern OHC increase happens at a faster rate than any past increase?

            The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years

            This statistical malfeasance has been pointed out to you about 5 times before…and yet you still peddle it…just like Michael Mann did when the paper came out.

            Rosenthal used the “highest rate in the past 10,000 years” to get his paper published. To get that soundbite, though, Rosenthal compared an overall 8,000-year-long cooling trend to a 55-year-long warming trend (1955-2010). When one compares the overall change during an 8,000-year trend to the overall change during a 55-year period, it will quite obviously change more dramatically during the shorter period than during the longer period.


            Rosenthal et al., 2017
            “Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010, corresponding to ~0.033°C per decade. To obtain a first order comparison, we assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka [10,000 and 2,000 years ago] by ~1.5 °C we calculate a cooling rate 0.002°C per decade.”

            It’s like pointing out that temperatures dropped by 0.4 C during one year, 2016, and saying that that rate represents a change of -4 degrees C per decade, and -40 degrees C per century, and since -40 degrees per century using a 1-year period is faster than any rate in the last 1,000 years, we can therefore say that humans are causing climate change at a catastrophically unprecedented rate. This is exactly the kind of statistical propaganda that your side is constantly engaging in.

            Your side: 30,000 species per year are dying off, extinct, because of climate change! Actual number? 1 species lost since 2000. A mollusc.

            Your side: 900 Billion Tons of Ice Lost Since 1900! What does that represent? <1 inch of sea level rise. Catastrophe?

            Stop buying into the alarmist statistical propaganda your side peddles, SebastianH.

          17. AndyG55

            Poor confused empty minded seb.

            Still just above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            Some totally natural, HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming from that COLDEST of periods.

            PANIC, PANIC. !!

            And keep using that fossil fuel to travel and keep warm, seb.

          18. AndyG55

            And then there is this..

            As soon as proper measurements start.. It levels off.. Funny about that. 😉

            https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg

            And the divergence from the so -called “climate models” is, AS ALWAYS, a JOKE.

            http://i54.tinypic.com/28ix0yc.jpg

          19. SebastianH

            As soon as proper measurements start.. It levels off.. Funny about that.

            Is that so?

            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

            How funny is that leveling off in those graphs to you?

          20. AndyG55

            “How funny is that leveling off in those graphs to you”

            Yes, NOAA are REKNOWNED for doing that.

            It is getting hilarious. if it weren’t such a serious breach of scientific ethics.

            (Ethics.. now there another word that is a total anathema to you, hey seb.)

        2. Colorado Wellington

          Andy,

          Sebastian is a global warming prepper. He knows the killer heatwave is coming and he’ll be the last man pounding at his keyboard in an Al Gore-branded speedo.

          People ridiculed Noah, too.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            True. We should thank SebastianH for the warming forewarning. Maybe this time we’ll actually be able to detect an anthropogenic signal…since it hasn’t been detectable yet.

          2. SebastianH

            Awwww, the sincerest compliment I’ve ever got on this blog. Or should I have replied in sunsettommy’s voice: “what, no counter-argument? you have nothing, blabla”?

          3. AndyG55

            You have no counter argument, seb

            And you KNOW it,

            You remain EMPTY of all science.

          4. SebastianH

            Thank you for pointing that out, AndyG55, without noticing the irony in that statement 😉

          5. AndyG55

            Still the attention seeking, seb.

            Lonely and empty, poor sad seb.

      2. AndyG55

        “Did we also have record high temperatures in the last years?”

        Which came from a large OCEAN COOLING event.

        Certainly NOTHING to do with CO2, was it seb.
        Otherwise it would not have cooled back down to pretty much where it started.

        No human causation what-so-ever.

        If you have any proof otherwise. PRODUCE IT.

      3. AndyG55

        “How can you even argue against something effectively without knowing the basics? “

        That’s all you EVER do, seb, argue mindlessly about things you know very little about.

        Its the only choice you have.

      4. sunsettommy

        The IPCC clearly stated in 2001 and 2007 for LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain.

        Stop ignoring it the failures of the IPCC predictions.

        1. SebastianH

          Yada yada, and Al Gore “predicted” an ice free Arctic, etc … wanna know what skeptics predicted in the past? 😉

      5. tom0mason

        Good seb, I await anytime your foolish comment use a period of hot weather as the basis for saying it validates you ridiculous CO2 mediated global warming superstition.

  2. tom0mason

    With a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) event likely to happen sometime between now and the first weeks of March we might just have a cooler than anticipated March as well.

    See University of Berlin Upper Stratospheric chart —
    http://users.met.fu-berlin.de/~Aktuell/strat-www/wdiag/ec.php?alert=1&level=30&forecast=f240&lng=eng
    This is the forecast up to 15th February.
    From this chart, and the indicated progressions from previous date charts, a SSW event is likely to happen. This chart shows the polar vortex being split (blue areas) and being displaced to (a weak part) over central Europe, and the main part over Canada. There is an intensifying warm area between them (orange colors). This is all happening above the tropopause so is not yet a weather effective event!
    If this actually happens (it is a modeled forecast!), it could filter warmth down (normally takes a week to a month, sometimes never) then the Arctic temperatures could rise (+10°C to +30°C or more).
    Often when an SSW is intense the filtered down to ground level, the warmth and high pressure system it can affect the normal wind direction, reducing, or sometimes stopping the usual Westerly air flow. With very intense SSW (rare occasions) it can reverse them.
    Usually with a SSW mediated event, the polar high pressure system will push the normally Arctic weather patterns out to areas far outside the Arctic region to the lower latitude. Which areas get the ex-polar weather is up to chance at this stage of the progression.

  3. Bitter&twisted

    Cold snaps, like heatwaves are simply weather.
    Unfortunately such events are labelled as “extreme” and/or “unprecedented”, by the religious cult called “Climate Change Alarmists”.

    1. tom0mason

      Indeed B%T,
      if this SSW comes to pass, the cAGW congregation will be shouting from the rooftops that the Arctic is melting, only for the cold weather to descend onto areas further south.
      Usually the warmth hitting the Arctic with last less than a week (often it’s just hour to a day or two), while areas experiencing the cold weather may be in the freezer for up to a month!

      I’ve always wondered how much ice there was at the Arctic at the beginning of the last LIA, there may well have been very little.

    2. Steve

      Exactly.. its simply weather.
      The AGW crowd would have us believe that we as humans can control the earth’s temperature.
      In spite of the billions spent to date it does not appear to be in any way successful.
      But they will be quite happy to go on spending other peoples’ money.

    3. Mikky

      Spot on, hot air moves North, cold air moves South, if mid-latitudes are getting more cold air, then polar regions must be getting more warm air, good news for those that live there.

      1. John F. Hultquist

        Mikky,
        Above @ 6:11, tom0mason writes of Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW). Researching this topic is a fun, but somewhat difficult, endeavor.
        Consider that depending on time of year, a band of Earth between the Tropics (encompasses much ocean) gets direct shortwave solar energy, and that warms the top 100 m. or so. The atmosphere above that warm water gets water vapor and warmth, and the air rises. Water vapor condenses as the air rises, expands, and there is a drop of temperature. Rain falls back to the ocean, but the air continues to move up and away from the region of heating. The high altitude air radiates energy to space.
        Now explain where all the planet encompassing cold air goes, and what happens when it returns toward Earth’s surface.

        Folks should have an actual globe (not a flat map) when looking at these things. The area close to the Equator, say from 10° S to 10° N is a big region. The Polar regions are small by comparison. That’s not apparent on the projections often used on web pages. [I do know that much air comes down in the Sub Tropical High Pressure (STHP) zones.]

    4. SebastianH

      The only one calling the current cold weather something like this is the author of this blog post. Sooooo, is he a religious cult alarmist by that definition?

      1. Steve

        With respect SebH I think you are missing the point.
        Lets assume that AGW is the cause of global warming and it is going to get hotter all over the planet. Both poles will slowly melt and sea levels will rise and coastal dwellers will have to move. According to some worriers the rivers will run dry and crops will be scarce. It reminds me of some inconvenient truth.
        We have to do something about this. We have to stop burning coal. It is the cause even though it produces a non toxic gas and when it reaches 400ppm goes to steady state. Somehow it creates a ‘greenhouse’ trapping the heat inside where we live. Overall it is a fearful scenario. A lot of people believe it. I do not because I believe that the sun is the main driver of GW and what we do is minuscule by comparison. However lets agree that AGW is real. Lets stop using oil. Lets stop burning coal. Lets have wind farms, solar panels, hydro and nuclear power everywhere. Should not be a problem except for the cost..and for the danger of nuclear plants,dry rivers, the sun not shining 24/7 and the wind not blowing.

        1. SebastianH

          Well, http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg

          Transitioning to a sustainable future should be the goal of every cilization, no matter what environmental consequences using fossil fuel have or have not.

          There is no reaching a steady state at 400 ppm and calling it greenhouse in quotation marks is just making fun of the name of the effect. You should know by now that it works nothing like a greenhouse, only the end result is roughly the same: it’s warmer inside.

          I don’t think global warming is a fearful scenario. Not for the developed world. It won’t happen suddenly like it is depicted in movies and our technology should allow us to adapt pretty well. But that won’t necessarily be true for other animals and countries. I hope we don’t have to find out how a world with 800 ppm CO2 looks like when the equilibrium state is reached (no radiative imbalance, oceans/nature taking up as much CO2 as is added by us per year, stable concentration, etc).

          1. AndyG55

            “Transitioning to a sustainable future should be the goal of every cilization”

            Solar and wind are NOT sustainable, they require subsidies and mandates and carbon taxes to exist.

            There is absolutely ZERO science to back up CO2 warming, otherwise you would produce it, so all 800ppm would do would be to FURTHER ENHANCE the biosphere.

            Remember that the globe is cooler now than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years. More warming would be entirely beneficial.

            Cooling back down to the LIA would be the real worry.

            How’s the fossil fuel heating and the Mercedes going seb?

      2. AndyG55

        Poor seb, so mindless, lonely and attention-seeking, that he can’t see when someone is having a bit of fun at the AGW sympathiser expense.

        You really have issues engaging your little mind, don’t you, seb.

  4. Marko

    Netweather forum > forecast models, atmosphere.. > stratosphere temperature watch 2017/18.

    Very nice forum for cold lovers and they are watching very closely that forecasted SSW.

    So far winter in Finland has been relatively warm. Only in northernmost Finland winter has been normal what comes to temperature. The lowest reading so far is now -37,1.

    The record low temperature for February in Finland is -49,0 ( Sodankylä 5th February 1912 ). Record for March is -44,3 ( Salla 1st March 1971 ), just in case.. if there´s SSW and it happens to deliver some polar air to Scandinavia.

    1. tom0mason

      Yes Marko,
      I keep an eye out there and at hŧŧp://www·meteociel·fr/ for the ECMWF, ARPEGE, GFS and other weather model forecasts.

  5. tom0mason

    I understand it is now snowing in Cologne.

    1. SebastianH

      Omg, the ice age is coming!

      1. AndyG55

        Gees, you have changed your story.

        Have you finally figured out that there is no warming from CO2, and that the minor fluctuations from the gravity base average surface temperature are actually SOLAR driven.??

        Are you finally waking up to REALITY ????

      2. sunsettommy

        Sebastian, we are ALREADY in an ice age which began about 2.6 million years ago.

        What you should have said was GLACIATION is coming.

        1. AndyG55

          Last 2000-3000 years before the LIA was called the NEOGLACIATION.

          The a 200-300 year cold patch, then very slight warming up to now, THANK GOODNESS !!

          The NEOGLACIATION can be clearly seen in Arctic sea ice

          https://s19.postimg.org/vgdnb299v/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Holocene-_Stein-17.jpg

          and in the GISP ice data.

          https://s19.postimg.org/juac2rmk3/holocene.png

          As well as in Greenland ice area

          https://s19.postimg.org/ceo16fi7n/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Briner.jpg

          We are still VERY MUCH at the cold end of the current short interglacial.

          In the Modern SLIGHTLY Warm Period.

      3. tom0mason

        Seb,

        Yes dear, I know there’s an Ice-age coming — there is always and ice-age coming when you’re not in one.
        Currently we are at the cold end of the temperature scale for this planet.

        YOU could look here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif but I know you’d find such science hard to swallow.

        😊

  6. Stephen Richards

    According to the ECMWF synoptic maps the Jetstream will breakthrough the cold in the east newt week. Reliability is good for this model but still can be totally wrong that far out.

    1. tom0mason

      Stephen Richards,

      “Reliability is good for this model but still can be totally wrong that far out.”

      Indeed, like all these weather models they are only computer programs running known science, and as such struggle with being able to predict accurately beyond 5 to 7 days periods.
      Just like the climate models in fact.

  7. About That Climate Change…. | Freedom Is Just Another Word…

    […] via Bitter Cold In Every Direction…Harsh Winter Conditions Grip Northern Hemisphere As Globe Cools […]

  8. donald penman

    There does not seem to be any decline in the Arctic sea ice this year and I don’t think that a SSW will cause any decline.
    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif

    1. AndyG55

      Yep, Arctic sea ice is doing remarkably well considering the amount of cold air being pumped down into the Russia, NE USA and now Europe. This is leaving a somewhat LESS cold anomaly over parts of the Arctic.

      The only places really struggling are those outside the Bering Straits where the water is still warming from the EL Nino effect
      Those areas only really freeze up when there are LIA conditions like in the late 1970s.

    2. AndyG55

      Totally benign comment disappeared twice. Please only post once if it does re-appear.

      1. AndyG55

        Yep, despite the massive doses of cold being funnelled down over NE USA, Northern Russia and now over Europe, the Arctic sea ice is doing quite well.

        The only areas really struggling are outside the Bering Straits, where there are still warm remnants of the El Nino and N. Atlantic Blob, and a bit around the lower Greenland Sea.

        Those areas only really freeze up when it is exceptionally cold, also LIA type cold, like in the late 1970s.

  9. John F. Hultquist

    That the folks in eastern North America and much of Europe have dealt with such cold temperatures is much appreciated. In Washington State and adjacent B.C., things are toasty by comparison.
    While we sympathise, we are not hoping for a change in the pattern.

  10. toorightmate

    Despite the cool start, I am sure that CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc already have the January 2019 headline ready:

    “2018 was the hottest year evvvaaaahhhhh!!!!!”

    1. tom0mason

      toorightmate,

      👍 Too right mate that’s a given. 😊

  11. Il pianeta si sta raffreddando - Mio Meteo

    […] solare, ma propone in italiano anche spunti da siti che si occupano di meteorologia come No tricks zone , Now ice age,  e l’australiano weatherzone che danno un contributo contro corrente […]

  12. richard

    The worrying thing will be how the cold is going to effect agriculture.

    So far with the minute warming and benign weather, year on year, the world has been harvesting bumper crops.

  13. tom0mason

    richard,

    That is the problem.
    Most western politician do not wish to discuss such things as contingencies against a long cold spells, as they have (conveniently) swallowed the cAGW twoddle hook, line, and sinker.
    Why protect against what is seriously probable, when there’s big money, and the ability to enhanced ones political image now in jumping on the fake bandwagon of ‘renewable’ energy, battery vehicles, and demonizing coal and oil companies?
    Politician have a ready-made ‘plausible deniability’ script if the probabilities work out the wrong way, just say “The scientists said it was so.”

  14. tom0mason

    Nice 8 minute video UK Met Office forecast for this week, with possible SSW influence at the end.

    https://youtu.be/877TAe3pW_c

  15. Bob Hoye

    Let’s call it weather and the extremes have been interesting.
    In July and August places in the Northern Hemisphere were setting unusual or record lows. The weather station on Greenland recorded -30 C, a record low for the north during the summer.
    At the same time, places in Australia, South Africa and Argentina set unusual lows for their winter.
    Now, ther are reporta of very cold in Siberia. And now, unusual lows in Australia.
    A few more years of this and one can start talking about a trend.

    1. tom0mason

      Bob Hoye

      Just some highlights of some cooler places this year —
      Of note is the lowest temperatures and highest snowfalls ever recorded in Russia, Siberia (down to -49.6°C that’s -57°F), and central and eastern China.
      And not to forget this year’s snow in the Moroccan Sahara and parts of North Africa, with the current continuing unusual cold in that region.
      Or the “Rare Snow” in Shanghai and in Taiwan (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3356095).
      Or the out of season summer snow in Tasmania, and unusual cold weather in Honduras(30°F below normal), Guatemala, Brazil, Tokyo (with snow), South Korea, Iran (with snow), and Bangladesh, etc, etc….
      And lets not forget frozen frozen fish including sharks being washed up.

      No nothing really unusual, eh?

  16. M E

    “Of course, if you think every data is fake and only you can determine what is right … what is the point of discussing anything with you again? Apparently you live on a different planet”

    Dear Seb.

    There is no point. Try another blog. This one is getting boring as they waste time on replying to you.

    From an infrequent visitor

  17. Luke

    In winter places get cold, no problem there. Ocean heat content continues to rise. OK, how? Top of atmosphere radiative imbalance will be restored when enough energy has been absorbed by the oceans so that the surface flux increases such that OLR equals solar absorbed. The oceans are absorbing energy because of an increase in down welling radiative flux. Because OLR has increased over the last 30 years, and surface T has gone up, this is a sure sign of a decrease in albedo. Hence more absorbed radiation. From the observation based model of Wild et al 2015 (a very good read btw) we can predict that, albedo and emissivity not changing, the oceans will continue to warm until around 2035.

    1. AndyG55

      “Ocean heat content continues to rise.”

      After NOAA “adjustments”

      Reality is different.

      https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg

      And to give you some idea that pre-2003 was modelled (assumption driven), you can look at the coverage.

      https://s19.postimg.org/7onmfamlv/Ocean_Measurements.png

      Yes, there has probably been some NATURAL ocean warming since the 1950’s… How “accurate” the assumption driven values are is very questionable.

      Even after 2003, the ARGO coverage of each buoy is a HUGE volume of ocean.

      “The oceans are absorbing energy because of an increase in down welling radiative flux”

      This is MOST DEFINITELY INCORRECT, you have been sold a LIE.

      DLWR does NOT penetrate the oceans.

      It does NOT cause warming of the oceans.

      There has NEVER been any scientific evidence that it does.

      It might cause a tiny increase in surface evaporation, but evaporation COOLS the surface because it removes latent heat. (this has been actually measured experimentally.)

      “From the observation based model of Wild et al 2015 “

      Model schmodel !

      Ocean surface is already starting to cool in many regions.

      “Top of atmosphere radiative imbalance “

      Really ?

      https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-olr.png

    2. AndyG55

      Luke, you, at least, might have an open enough mind to read and comprehend… We will see if you do. 🙂

      https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/what-caused-the-current-toa-radiative-imbalance/

      1. AndyG55

        Quote from that web page.

        “However, we do not see any trace of this AGW mechanism operating in the real Earth system.
        We see the short-term cloud/humidity perturbations to the tropospheric temp-OLR relationship during strong ENSO events,”

      2. SebastianH

        While that Okolaer guy often comes up with pretty good physical explanations he is completely wrong on the AGW issue, repeat what you and Kenneth repeat over and over again: “there is no evidence blabla”.

        There is also no evidence that an Asteroid does what it does. You can measure it’s current velocity and direction and compute an orbit from it. If you check later on whether or not the asteroid is still on that orbit, what would be the evidence for your calculations being right? The pure fact that the asteroid is where it is supposed to be? How is that evidence that it is there because of the laws you used to compute the orbit?

        And that’s always the problem in physics. You come up with equations that describe reality as good as you can. And if they don’t then you come up with something better. You can never proof that those equations are correct. There is no evidence that one thing really causes the other, it’s always just the best explanation.

        But for skeptics that’s not enough. They demand absolute proof because they know that is not possible to provide.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          But for skeptics that’s not enough. They demand absolute proof because they know that is not possible to provide.

          No, we just would like to see observational evidence and physical measurements from a real-world physical experiment that shows how much cooling occurs in a body of water — any body of water — when the CO2 concentration in the air above it is decreased in increments of parts per million. Sorry for expecting you to actually support your beliefs rather than just accepting that modeled results are enough and neglecting the paleoclimate data that show CO2 concentration change follows rather than leads temperature change, or that rapid temperature changes occur independently of CO2 concentration changes, undermining the claims that CO2 is a primary causal agent of ocean heat content changes.

          1. SebastianH

            when the CO2 concentration in the air above it is decreased in increments of parts per million

            Please propose a setup where this would be possible to do. Or maybe you could just use something that influences downwelling infrared radiation in a similar way. If only someone had done that already …

            and neglecting the paleoclimate data that show CO2 concentration change follows rather than leads temperature change

            I think you are missunderstanding climate science. Nobody is denying this. Of course CO2 follows temperature most of the time. If nothing introduces or absorbs extra CO2 you just have the normal seasonal and ocean cycle dependent emission/absorption.

            r that rapid temperature changes occur independently of CO2 concentration changes

            And again, no climate scientist is saying that this didn’t occur. Why would they?

            undermining the claims that CO2 is a primary causal agent of ocean heat content changes.

            Nope, that isn’t undermaining anything.

            If your kid gets beaten at school, you would surely suspect Billy, since he has done that before. When the teacher tells you it was Timmy, you wouldn’t believe it, since it has been Billy in the past, so how could it be Timmy today. That’s how your argument sounds like.

          2. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO

            Yet another baseless ZERO-SCIENCE seb post.

            With, of course, yet another MINDLESS irrelevant seb analogy.

            NO PROOF of CO2 warming oceans.

            NO PROOF of CO2 warming the atmosphere.

            NO PROOF of CO2 warming anything

            You really are running around like a headless chook when it comes to presenting one tiny bit of empirical evidence to support anything you yap about, aren’t you seb

            And that headless chook would have more brains than you appear to have.

        2. AndyG55

          “he is completely wrong on the AGW issue”

          No, you are the one that is COMPLETELY WRONG.

          You are TOTALLY UNABLE of backing up any of your WACKY, anti-science, anti-data, ideas of climate.

          You are a scientific non-entity who’s ideas are based on some manic, fantasy, fabrication.

          Your data and science backing your wacked-out ideas comes from Never-Never land. !!

        3. AndyG55

          “asteroid????”.. ALBATROSS !!

          And yet another child-minded , irrelevant analogy from seb

          The RUN and HIDE, look-over-there meme that he keeps adopting in-leau of being totally EMPTY of any rational proof or science to back his fantasies.

    3. tom0mason

      Indeed Luke Wild has a lot going for it.

      Where we can learn is to look at what actually happened during other recent cold periods …
      From the British Records only (https://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm) …

      –1645-1710 — “The Maunder Minimum”: Period of notably reduced solar activity. Possibly contributing to (or adding to), the downturn in temperatures during this period (though note, there were also some very warm summers, e.g. 1645!)

      1646, very hot — 31st May, 1646 (new-style date converted): Notable outbreak of tornadoes in eastern England. Specifically Thetford / Newmarket, (Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Norfolk); Brandon Parva (Norfolk) and Swaffham Prior (Cambridgeshire). At least three different tornadoes involved. It was a notably hot day (“violent hot day”), with severe thunderstorms, heavy rain & large hail. The hail is noted as being of “extraordinary size”, and “some hollow within like rings”.

      1651-1654 — Four successive fine (i.e. often dry / hot) summers but that of 1651 appears to have been ‘fine’ only across England; Scotland though is specifically included for the other years in the various chronicles. 1651 in particular across England (only?) was noted as being dry with a ‘scorching’ summer – a ‘great’ drought with excessive heat. Kent is specifically mentioned (continental influence). It may be that only the southern half of Britain was so favoured, as there are notes that in Scotland, this year (1651) was subject to even ‘greater dearth’ than the preceding year.

      However although there were many warm periods during this solar minimum period, cold and extremely cold weather easily dominated the general climate of this period.

      The most foolish uneducated people assume that when a ‘grand minimum’ or ‘Little Ice-Age’ style cooling happens it will be almost instant and be continuously extremely cold. This is the mind-set of the uneducated who can not be bothered to read-up about how the cold creeps up with increasingly devastating developments.
      I have come to the conclusion that the coming cooling will start very soon (about 2020) and will last about 3 to 5 solar cycles. That is to say come 2020 a new weather/climate regime will be starting. Of course the uneducatable troll that comments here, considers I am saying that come 2020 we’ll all freeze but that is what I’ve come to expect from that particular idiot cAGW egoist here.

  18. Luke

    I don’t agree that the sea doesn’t absorb infrared. It does not matter how far the ir penetrates, it is either absorbed or it isn’t. If it isn’t, where does it go? Also, when I model it, the base of atmosphere and the surface end up with the same temperature in a radiative equilibrium state, so there is no “2nd law of thermodynamics” issue.
    I have never heard anyone give a good explanation of what changes in OLR signify. How does OLR behave to your mind in the scenario of increasing atmospheric emissivity at constant absorbed solar? My model says olr must decrease when emissivity goes up, because surface flux can be the only source of energy to increase the surface temperature and regain toa equilibrium. The energy is “borrowed” from the olr. Downwelling solar is all spoken for maintaining the initial fluxes. Following regained equilibrium, olr the regains its initial value, so the long term effect of increased emissivity is that olr is unaffected. What do you think?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      I don’t agree that the sea doesn’t absorb infrared.

      How much IR does the ocean absorb (in other words, what depth) relative to the 20-30 meters of absorbed SW heating? Is it more than the micrometer layer (0.1 to 1 mm)?

      It does not matter how far the ir penetrates

      Why not? If it doesn’t penetrate past the hair-thin skin layer (and it doesn’t), whereas the direct SW solar heating of the oceans reaches depths of 10s of meters, is not a change in the variable (SW) that is orders of magnitude more influential in determining the heat content of the oceans worth focusing on relative to a contribution (IR) so small as to be undetectable/unmeasurable?

      it is either absorbed or it isn’t.

      So if it’s absorbed, but the impact of that absorption is so minuscule as to be negligible — especially when compared to the direct SW forcing — why is the IR absorption worth considering as important?

      If it isn’t, where does it go?

      “nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy [IR] is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation”

      Irvine, 2015
      Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
      http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156 [click “Download” pdf]

      [I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface.

      The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states clearly their belief that the Efficacy (E) of solar forcing (E Solar ) is approximately equal to (E GHG ) in Working Group 1 (WG1) Chapter 8.1.1.3. It has been suggested that the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated by the long wave radiation (LWR) reemitted by GHGs and that this either acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy to the atmosphere or alternatively is comprehensively mixed by wave action and that these entirely different mechanisms warm the oceans almost exactly the same amount as solar energy which is transported radiatively to a depth of many meters.

      Not only is it highly improbable that these entirely different mechanisms would have almost exactly the same effect on OHC, it can, also, be shown by means of a simple experiment, “Appendix 1”, that nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.

      One area that the CMIP5 models do not treat as a tuning parameter is the difference between E(Solar) and E(GHG) [the Efficacy of Solar vs. GHG ocean heating]. They, in fact, treat the approximate equivalence of these two factors as a desired property based on the vertical and geographical distribution of these two forcings in the atmosphere and tune their models to suit. They do not take account of the large difference in water absorption between long wave radiation and short wave radiation.

      These changes in radiative absorption have a significant effect on OHC and are approximated in the CMIP5 models for both GHG radiation and solar radiation. The energy from these two vastly different radiative sources is then diffused by various methods, but importantly, is treated the same for the purpose of this diffusion process. What the CMIP5 models don’t do is allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not.

      What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.

      1. SebastianH

        Kenneth, when a bullet hits your body, it doesn’t matter whether it gets stuck at the surface or penetrates. As long as it doesn’t leave your body on the other side, your body will absorb all the energy.

        Now to IR backradiation. The absorption of backradiation is of course something with almost never happens. The net effect is most of the time a flow of energy from the surface towards the atmosphere. It’s a form of insulation, not an additional heat source. But for the sake of having values to calculate with you can of course separate the two streams and have X W/m² surface to atmosphere and Y W/m² atmosphere to surface. As said, Y is most of the time smaller than X, so no real “penetration” is happening.

        It’s like two people throwing stuff at each other. If one throws more stuff than the other, then this person won’t really absorb the stuff from the other person as he/she sends it back right away.

        Apparently this concept is ultra hard to understand as you still insist on SW being the driver “because it penetrates deaper”. We get it, the Sun provides the energy! That’s no secret. The level of insulation is what ultimately determines how hot something becomes with the same level of energy input. Learn how that works, please.

        1. AndyG55

          Another idiotic ZERO-KNOWLEDGE irrelevant analogy from seb

          “Bullet.????” ALBATROSS

          “Apparently this concept is ultra hard to understand”

          Seems that way, your TOTAL LACK of understanding after so long can only be put down to WILFUL, BLIND IGNORANCE.

          Long wave radiation does NOT warm the ocean body…

          DATA, MEASUREMENT show this to be the scientific fact.

          DENIAL of science and data is all you have left to support your pitiful brain-washed AGW religion, isn’t it seb.

        2. AndyG55

          And your explanation in the 2nd paragraph is really one of the most WHACKED-OUT, fantasy, anti-science explanations I have ever seen !

          Do you just make this BS up as you go, with the help of some sort of magic mushroom??

        3. AndyG55

          “It’s a form of insulation,”

          What a load of UTTER BS !!.

          Next you’ll be calling it a ‘blanket’ or something equally moronic.

          Extra radiative gases are just another conduit for cooling

          More DWLW energy (which there isn’t anyway because it get thermalised immediately to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere)… means more evaporation, means more cooling.

          Always aimed at the surface temperature controlled by the gravity thermal effect.

    2. AndyG55

      It has been shown BY MEASUREMENT that short wave penetrates a FRACTION of a mm at most.

      It has also been shown BY MEASUREMENT that if it lead to evaporation, which also drags latent heat out of the surface, it causes a DROP in surface temperature of about 0.3ºC .

      It doesn’t matter one hoot if you have another opinion, unless you have actual measure scientific data to back it up.

      It doesn’t mater ONE HOOT what your model says unless you can back it up with measured empirical data.

      1. SebastianH

        if it lead to evaporation, which also drags latent heat out of the surface, it causes a DROP in surface temperature of about 0.3ºC .

        Really? So adding external energy causes water to evaporate away that extra energy and more? Wow, how does that work? Can you explain?

        Just for clarification, you think that water with a temperature of 20°C will be at 19,7°C when using an IR source to heat it up, because evaporation happens? Is that correct?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Please explain why you believe the “skin” layer (where the IR heat from GHGs resides) is about 0.3 K cooler than the meter of water below it (the “warm layer”). What causes that temperature difference? Here, I’ll help you…

          fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/Courses/MAR555/Suppl_Reading/Fairall_etal_1006.pdf
          From the Conclusion: “The cool skin represents a few tenths of a kelvin cooling by radiative and turbulent fluxes in the upper millimeter of the ocean; the warm layer [beneath] may be several kelvin of solar-induced warming in the upper meter.”

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL011133/pdf
          Introduction: “Skin SST is typically 0.1 -0.5 K cooler than the immediate sub-surface water, although considerable variation in the skin-bulk difference has been observed (e.g. Donlon et al., 1999). This temperature difference is due to the vertical heat flux through the thermal boundary layer in the top millimeter of the ocean; net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1963.tb01399.x/pdf
          While short-wave radiation will warm both surface and subsurface layers, long-wave radiation will cause a cooling of the surface depending on the temperature and humidity of the air.”

          https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf07/extended_abs/minnett_pj.pdf
          “Located at the upper limit of the molecular boundary layer, the skin temperature is generally a few tenths of a degree cooler than the temperature a few millimeters below it because of heat loss by sensible and latent heat fluxes as well as outgoing longwave radiative fluxes

          1. SebastianH

            Kenneth,
            I know how evaporation works. What I am asking is if AndyG55 believes that an increase in energy input that causes water to evaporate more actually results in the water being cooler than without that energy input.

            That’s what all my questions about cup A and B aim at and he not so ellegantly evades …

          2. AndyG55

            “I know how evaporation works.”

            You most obviously DO NOT.

            I understand that you HAVE to DENY actual measurements.. because you have NONE yourself.

            Ever used an evaporative canvas bag, seb?

            ——

            Where is that empirical proof of CO2 warming our convective atmosphere or the oceans??

            RUN and HIDE.. dodge and weave.. the seb way !!

            EMPTY. !!

          3. AndyG55

            “That’s what all my questions about cup A and B”

            And now seb thinks that the oceans are a cup !!

            BIZARRE, hallucinogenic fantasy..

            the seb way. !

          4. SebastianH

            And evaded again … well, we will never find out if AndyG55 is capable of admitting that he is wrong then 😉

            Retreating to insults it is, the only thing this guy does well.

  19. Hoten mot mänskligheten – depopulation. Del 2. | Peter Krabbe

    […] om att toppen av vår nuvarande värmeperiod redan är nådd och att vi har att förvänta oss ett kallare klimat framöver, exemplen ser vi redan i nordöstra USA och i norra Europa idag. Extremvädren har sina […]

  20. Luke

    Thank you for your reply. I was interested in the energy transfer. Absorbed and reemitted as non-radiative latent heat. Absorbed it is then.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Absorbed and reemitted as non-radiative latent heat.

      So IR from GHGs has no water-warming properties?

    2. AndyG55

      You seem as wilfully ignorant as a certain other person when it comes to science.

      .. penetrates top fraction of mm only

      .. causes evaporation

      .. measured COOLING of the top 1mm due to latent heat loss.

  21. La Terra in crescente raffreddamento... Il Giappone vede uno dei suoi peggiori inverni degli ultimi decenni con neve pesante e freddo pungente : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] giorni fa ho pubblicato su quanto il freddo e la neve stessero in modo brutale attanagliando l’emisfero nord (tradotto per voi da Attività Solare qui) in ogni direzione, caratterizzando poi in […]

  22. AndyG55

    Pierre,

    you might be interested in this, from Notalot…

    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Forecast_for_Solar_Cycle_25.pdf

  23. Luke

    I have a tin roof on my shed. I know that the sunlight doesn’t penetrate more than a fraction of a mm into the metal. The tin roof instantly reemits long wave radiation. The net effect of that radiation is to cool the tin roof. Therefore my tin roof never gets hot.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      The net effect of that radiation is to cool the tin roof.

      A tin roof is not the equivalent of a body of water. Neither is a steel pot. They have completely different chemical and physical properties.

      Therefore my tin roof never gets hot.

      non sequitur : a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

      Your tin roof gets hot because the sun’s radiative energy is directly heating it (SW). At night, your tin roof isn’t as hot as it was during the day. Why is that, Luke?

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Seems like an “analogy” that SebH would come up with.

      2. AndyG55

        If you mist spray your roof with just enough spray to have continuous evaporation,it will stay VERY COOL.

        Luke seems to have never experienced anything in real life.

      3. AndyG55

        The tin roof doesn’t evaporate, either. 😉

        Luke is vying with seb for comedy act of the day.

        And actually winning at the moment. 🙂

    2. AndyG55

      ROFLMAO.. Tin roof = water

      HILARIOUS !!!

  24. Luke

    Thank you for your response. I guess that leaves us with one question. The average sea surface temperature is, say, 290 K , which results in a surface flux of around 400 W/ m2. DWLIR doesn’t add any heat, according to your model. So the sea only absorbs SW, which over sea is say 170 W/m2, so can only heat something to say 230 K. Where does the extra energy come from to maintain sea surface temperature?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      The average sea surface temperature is, say, 290 K

      Please cite a source.

      1. tom0mason

        Here is a zipped-up text file of the type of data Hadley UK uses to imagine their SST variation. Just look at all those -99.99’s indicating no data.

        1. tom0mason
    2. AndyG55

      “which over sea is say 170 W/m2”

      Really?

      The childish use of world average (plucked out of where-ever?) shows just how down-right ignorant you are of how oceans warm and how they distribute heat and energy.

      1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

        Looks like Luke used the farce on this one.

        Radiative heat transfer goes according to the difference between the fourth power of the temps of the emitter and receiver.
        Φ = εσA(T^4 − T0^4)

        Use an “average temperature” and you will get the wrong result.

        The transfer isn’t linear in temperature, and it is highly dependent on the composition of the receiver, characterized by…
        “ε = emissivity, an empirically determined measure of a material’s effective ability to emit or absorb thermal radiation from its surface; it can be any value from 0 (no absorption) to 1 (100% absorption).”

        note also that heat transfer is, as we’ve said so many times, in the direction of warmer to colder, NEVER the opposite. So, if you are using the sun as the emitter, fine, but if the atmosphere is colder than the earth, it is warmed by the earth, not the other way round.

    3. Kenneth Richard


      fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/Courses/MAR555/Suppl_Reading/Fairall_etal_1006.pdf
      From the Conclusion: “The cool skin represents a few tenths of a kelvin cooling by radiative and turbulent fluxes in the upper millimeter of the ocean; the warm layer [beneath] may be several kelvin of solar-induced warming in the upper meter.”

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL011133/pdf
      Introduction: “Skin SST is typically 0.1 -0.5 K cooler than the immediate sub-surface water, although considerable variation in the skin-bulk difference has been observed (e.g. Donlon et al., 1999). This temperature difference is due to the vertical heat flux through the thermal boundary layer in the top millimeter of the ocean; net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1963.tb01399.x/pdf
      While short-wave radiation will warm both surface and subsurface layers, long-wave radiation will cause a cooling of the surface depending on the temperature and humidity of the air.”

      https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf07/extended_abs/minnett_pj.pdf
      “Located at the upper limit of the molecular boundary layer, the skin temperature is generally a few tenths of a degree cooler than the temperature a few millimeters below it because of heat loss by sensible and latent heat fluxes as well as outgoing longwave radiative fluxes

    4. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

      “The average sea surface temperature is, say, 290 K , which results in a surface flux of around 400 W/m2. ” – Like

      Sorry, Luke, but the sun is our only source of heat, and it only supplies ~341 W/m^2. Where do you get the extra 59 W/m^2? You can’t have more emitted than absorbed.

      More on that, and other warmist errors here.
      https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html

      In the future, please give more detail, as well as reliable references to support your assertions.

  25. Luke

    ERSST v5 can be downloaded from KNMI climate explorer. That’s the one I use, gives estimates of absolute temperature. Plus or minus 1K, makes no difference to the outcome.

  26. Luke

    Downwelling SW, refer Zhang et al 1994, Wild et 2015.

    1. AndyG55

      ROFLMAO,

      The old FLAT EARTH average solar.

      You just proved me totally correct that you are an ignorant twerp who has zero idea how and where oceans heat.

      Please keep going, class clown.. !!

  27. Luke

    Sorry, thats Zhang et al 2004, Calculation of radiative fluxes, etc. But Wild is more up to date.

    1. AndyG55

      Wild uses much fabricated NCDC/GISS surface data.

      Consign the paper to the circular file !!!

      What he is showing is the effect of their “adjustments™”

      This graph (from a Wild powerpoint)is a ripper though,

      https://s19.postimg.org/ftcuo5wk3/Dim_Wild.png

      ….. the curve pretty much EXACTLY matches the REAL Northern Hemisphere temperatures, slightly offset.

      WARMER around 1940 than current, leaving absolutely ZERO room for any CO2 warming.

      Thanks for drawing it to my attention 🙂

  28. La Terra in raffreddamento, in Giappone uno dei peggiori inverni di sempre | Il Blog di Meteoservice

    […] giorni fa ho pubblicato su quanto il freddo e la neve stessero in modo brutale attanagliando l’emisfero nord (tradotto per voi da Attività Solare qui) in ogni direzione, caratterizzando poi in modo molto […]

  29. Prediksi HK

    Around here, the highway departments use beet juice, among other things.

    Okay, this will solve the problem substantially.: go back to using studded snow tires and snow chains on non-studded tires. It’ll tear up the pavement, but there won’t be any of those foul chemicals in the waterways.

  30. Markus

    Hi Kenneth,

    „Uh, no. Your “explanations” did nothing of the kind.“

    You may write correctly that your haven’t understood my explanations. Try it again more carefully and stepwise and summarize me the parts you don’t understand for a second trial with more simplified explanations.

    „Exploring the factors that lead to the temperature gradients for planets like Saturn and Jupiter (no GHGs) is not a “hoax”. Greenhouse theory cannot explain the temperatures of those planets.“

    As explained above the radiation transport due to greenhouse gases is in principle well known. So it is a standard implementation of each model of planetary atmospheres. If the composition and density of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is known the greenhouse effect is quantified. Note, the greenhouse effect is not a “jack of all trades device” for every thermal thing happen in atmospheres! That would be a too simple view of nature! If the models of Jupiter / Saturn show a gap to the observations it is clear that something else is causing the higher temperature in the upper atmosphere. But this is not surprising. If earth model would only considers the physical laws of greenhouse gases and convection but not e.g. the ionization in the upper layers also the earths’s thermosphere would remain unexplained though it would reasonable fit their troposphere.
    But read the cited papers completely, the answer should be in there. It clear that your dilemma is not a one of the cited authors, they investigate beyond the „settled science of the greenhouse effect“, the settled science is already considered by them and boring.
    I speculate, but maybe the higher temperatures at the giants are cause be interaction between upper atmosphere and magnetosphere. That is complicated physics. But you should find the answer in the papers. If you find it, show it here please to tick off this question as solved.
    „And I’ll ask again, What is a “climate denier”?“

    It is not a precise label but with so called “climate deniers” commonly persons are meant which deny parts of scientific knowledge and conclusions on how the climate system is working. They ignore or fudge that parts of science that are believed (by them) to influence the public in a way climate deniers do not like.

    1. AndyG55

      “your haven’t understood my explanations.”

      Have understood that they are load of nonsense.

      And the continued use of he word “denier” makes you look like a fool, and nothing more.

    2. Kenneth Richard

      You may write correctly that your haven’t understood my explanations.

      Please cite the physical measurements from a real-world scientific experiment that indicates how much cooling is caused by lowering airborne CO2 concentrations by -0.000001 (1 ppm) above a body of water. Then find the physical measurements from a real-world scientific experiment indicating how much warming is caused by an increase of +0.000001 CO2 in the air above a body of water. Please cite the real-world scientific experiment that affirms these measurements. Not models. Real observations.

      Then, explain this… According to the GHE theory, pre-industrial CO2 levels (200-280 ppm) provide 7.2 K of Earth’s 33 K greenhouse effect. Also according to GHE theory (modeling), doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm yields an atmospheric temperature change of just 1.16 K. Explain why there is such a dramatic drop in diminishing returns for the direct CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect as the CO2 concentration climbs past its “baseline”.

      Finally, explain why it is that the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during 1992-2014 had no warming impact on the overall greenhouse effect during that period, as the greenhouse effect went on hiatus during that time…

      Nature paper: The Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect
      “The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] exhibits a notable increasing trend with a rate of 0.21 W m−2 yr−1 in 1979–1991, whereas its rate of change (−0.04 W m−2 yr−1) during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant.”

      1. SebastianH

        Please cite the real-world scientific experiment that affirms these measurements. Not models. Real observations.

        Since you think there is a huge difference between the IR radiation from clouds vs. varying CO2 concentrations, what is the point? You’ll ignore it anyway and claim that you’ll only accept it if someone could demonstrate it while actually modifying the CO2 concentration over a patch of water. Ask for the impossible, feel great that nobody can comply, declare victory … the usual skeptic way of “proving” things. BTW: have you found out how to show us that gravity works the same in other galaxies or at least everywhere in our own solar system? Unless you can empirically show this I won’t believe you when you say that gravity exists.

        Then, explain this… According to the GHE theory, pre-industrial CO2 levels (200-280 ppm) provide 7.2 K of Earth’s 33 K greenhouse effect. Also according to GHE theory (modeling), doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm yields an atmospheric temperature change of just 1.16 K. Explain why there is such a dramatic drop in diminishing returns for the direct CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect as the CO2 concentration climbs past its “baseline”.

        Very impressive Kenneth. You demonstrate to us that you don’t understand the greenhouse effect and still don’t get it when something increases in a non-linear way … in one single paragraph!

        1) the GHE is not 33K
        2) you constantly write about “low ECS” and presumably know that ECS has something to do with temperature increase per CO2 concentration doubling. How is it that you seem to have no clue about the “dramatic drop”? That is the very nature of a mechanism like this.

        Finally, explain why it is that the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during 1992-2014 had no warming impact on the overall greenhouse effect during that period, as the greenhouse effect went on hiatus during that time…

        It had a warming impact: https://imgur.com/a/1KjPi (and in case you need a reminder, all while solar output is decreasing).

        1. AndyG55

          So, just mindless yapping as always.

          TOTAL EVASION of any empirical data.

          And a graph based on modelled data, DENYING even your own minders who say there is NOT ENOUGH DATA

          Absolutely no empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANY WARMING of ANYTHING

          Even you can’t be DUMB ENOUGH to think CO2 can warm the oceans, when you have zero proof it warms the atmosphere.

          Just the same old mindless, brain-hosed, cult-like, and totally unsupportable, belief.

          Pathetically EMPTY seb. !

        2. Kenneth Richard

          have you found out how to show us that gravity works the same in other galaxies or at least everywhere in our own solar system? Unless you can empirically show this I won’t believe you when you say that gravity exists.

          We don’t have empirically-derived gravity measurements for other galaxies. We do have empirically-derived, repeatable, cause-effect measurements for planet Earth, however. We can measure how fast an object will fall from a specified height above the Earth, given the force-distance values derived from empirical experiments. Those measurements are repeatable. We have no such measurements for CO2 and its heating effect on water. We have no empirical experiments. So your direct comparison of CO2–>water temps to gravity-force-distance is specious. One is empirical. The other is modeled, hypothesized. Science is about the empirical, not the hypothetical. This is probably the 10th time I have explained this to you in the last 2 months. And yet you continue to pretend that Earth’s gravity measurements are the direct equivalent of CO2–>water temp measurements anyway. It’s intellectually dishonest to continue repeating these false claims.

          1) the GHE is not 33K

          Components of the natural greenhouse effect: 7.2 K of 33 K

          Greenhouse gases and their effects: 7.2 C of 33 C

          you constantly write about “low ECS” and presumably know that ECS has something to do with temperature increase per CO2 concentration doubling. How is it that you seem to have no clue about the “dramatic drop”?

          It’s been alleged for a long time that the higher the CO2 concentration rises, the weaker and weaker it’s effects on planetary temperatures. For example:

          https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2008Q2/591A/Articles/Rasool_Schneider_Science.pdf
          “It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

          “It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2K.”

          Since you do “have a clue”, please let us know what you’ve found about the warming effects of CO2 as it doubles and doubles and doubles… What are your values for a factor-of-8 increase, if not “less than 2K”?

          It had a warming impact

          The warming impact during 1992-2014 can be associated with a reduction in cloud cover, which allowed more solar radiation to be absorbed by the Earth system.

          McLean, 2014
          “The decrease in total cloud cover anomaly is approximately 4.5 percent of sky, against the long-term average (all months 1984-2009 inclusive) of 66.4 percent of sky, which means a reduction of 6.8% of the cover.The reduction in total cloud cover is significant in the context of the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] , which indicates that cloud reflect 23% of the 341 Wm−2 (i.e. 79 Wm−2) of incoming solar radiation. The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere, some of which will be lost when it adds to the longwave radiation to space. Of course clouds have many other effects on the earth’s radiation budget many of which are not fully understood, but a change of 5.4 Wm−2 is potentially of considerable significance.”

          “To put this into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [1] , section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] Wm−2.The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone. Even the upper limits of the IPCC’s estimates fall well short of the increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover.”

          This cloud cover reduction is also associated with melting for the Greenland ice sheet.

          Hofer et al., 2017
          http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1700584/tab-pdf
          Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet … The Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has been losing mass at an accelerating rate since the mid-1990s. … We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995 can be attributed largely to a coincident trend of decreasing summer cloud cover enhancing the melt-albedo feedback. Satellite observations show that, from 1995 to 2009, summer cloud cover decreased by 0.9 ± 0.3% per year. … [T]he enhanced surface mass loss from the GrIS is driven by synoptic-scale changes in Arctic-wide atmospheric circulation. … Th[e] strong correlation between summertime NAO index and the MAR-based cloud cover could be used to forecast whether the observed reduction in cloud cover during summer, and the associated increase in GrIS melt, is likely to continue.”

    3. AndyG55

      “or fudge that parts of science that are believed (by them) to influence the public”

      You mean like the surface temperatures?

      Or the satellite sea level data?

      Do you DENY that these have been manifestly “fudged”

      Do you have any empirical proof for the very basis of you wonky religion.. you know, the fallacy that raising atmospheric CO2 levels will warm the oceans, atmosphere, or anything.

      That is what science is about: hypothesis, measure, validate.

      Climate science has FAILED MISERABLY on steps 2 and 3.

      The ones that DENY science, are the AGW sympathisers.

      1. SebastianH

        Physics AndyG55, these things have been proven a long time ago. You imagining up that it is not the case and all the mechanisms depending on this are wrong, is quite hilarious, but typical for the skeptic illusion bubble.

        If climate science has failed at measuring, how is it possible that you can actually measure the increase in the relevant CO2 wavelengths? You do know that, do you? Do you think this additional back radiation just magically disappears?

        1. AndyG55

          “Physics AndyG55,”

          Ahh something you have shown time and time again you failed badly at junior high level, and never got any further.

          Still trying to squirm your way around the FACT that you are TOTALLY EMPTY of any actual physical proof of CO2 warming anything.

          You say “these things” have been proven.

          ….. yet you have NOTHING.

          Show us where CO2 warming has been scientifically measured?

          Show us your “validation” for CO2 warming oceans or atmosphere or anything.

          otherwise its just another BASELESS ASS-umption.

          So HILARIOUS to watch your child-like tantrums getting more and more DESPERATE. 🙂

    4. AndyG55

      Markos,

      You also have the big problem that in the satellite data, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE.

      The only warming in the satellite data sets is from El Nino event and ocean cycles. Nothing to do with GHGs

      There is ZERO empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any warming effect on anything.

      1. SebastianH

        What would you recognize as a CO2 warming signature? Please describe such a thing. Thank you.

        1. AndyG55

          CERTAINLY NOT El Nino warming

          CERTAINLY NOT two 15+ years long NON-WARMING period.

          This CO2 warming is YOUR fantasy, seb

          ….. YOUR fairy-tale, seb.

          Why should I try to find it for you…

          … when you can’t even support that fantasy with any sort of real science??

  31. Luke

    It’s funny, my Gaa curve doesn’t look much like Song et al’s version, though I used HIRS and a combination of ERSST and GHCN CAMS, and Song used HIRS and HadCRUT 4. I thought HadCRUT was anathema to NTZ? Being all fake? But Gaa is dependent on absorbed solar as well as atmospheric emissivity, so a bit ambiguous. They are sort of right, but sort of not right as well.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      I thought HadCRUT was anathema to NTZ? Being all fake?

      What does the choice of instrumental dataset have to do with the hiatus in the greenhouse effect during 1992-2014?

      But Gaa is dependent on absorbed solar as well as atmospheric emissivity, so a bit ambiguous.

      Yes, and cloud cover changes (both SW and LW forcing) dominate both…even according to Song et al. (2016). The radiative forcing (SW and LW) associated with cloud cover changes completely dominate over the modeled effects of CO2 forcing…even when CO2 concentrations are doubled to 560 ppm.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
      The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO(2) doubling.”

  32. SebastianH

    What does the choice of instrumental dataset have to do with the hiatus in the greenhouse effect during 1992-2014?

    There was no hiatus …

    https://imgur.com/a/1KjPi