“Fails The Test Of Science”: Another Rahmstorf/Mann Horror Climate Scenario Gets Assigned To The Dustbin

PIK alarm story fails the test of science: Jet Stream will also meander as usual in the future

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated by P Gosselin)

Almost one year ago the Potsdam PIK Institute put out a press release, which warned of stalling Jet Stream waves. Due to man-made climate warming weather extremes would remain stuck in a position longer. Among the messengers of the alarm were Stefan Rahmstorf and hockey stich fabricator Michael E. Mann.

Next on February 20, 2018 the horror scenario suffered a setback at the University of Missouri. Using model simulations it was determined that the Jet Stream would also meander in the future as well. Climate alarm shut off once more. This is not the first time that Rahmstorf’s extreme claims have been dispelled in short order by his colleagues. See here, here, here, here, and here.

The University of Missouri press release follows:

Weather should remain predictable despite climate change
Simulations of jet stream behavior in a warming climate suggest ranges of forecasts in the mid-century will be similar to those in present day.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, temperatures are expected to rise between 2.5 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. This warming is expected to contribute to rising sea levels and the melting of glaciers and permafrost, as well as other climate-related effects. Now, research from the University of Missouri suggests that even as rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere drive the climate toward warmer temperatures, the weather will remain predictable.

“The jet stream changes character every 10 to 12 days, and we use this pattern to predict the weather,” said Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science in MU’s School of Natural Resources, which is located in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. “We were curious about how this would change in a world with higher carbon dioxide levels. We found that in that warmer world, the variability of the jet stream remained the same.”

Lupo and Andrew Jensen, who earned his doctorate at MU, used an existing climate model to simulate jet stream flow in the Northern Hemisphere. The simulation monitored a variable that responds to jet stream flow changes and can indicate global-scale weather instability. Researchers used this variable to determine when the jet stream altered its flow. Since meteorologists can only accurately predict weather within the 10 to 12 days between jet stream flow changes, a shift in this time frame would directly impact weather predictability.

Over the course of a simulated 31 years, their observations indicated the jet stream would change its character about 30 to 35 times per year, a number that is consistent with current jet stream patterns. As the time frame used to predict weather did not change, the researchers concluded that weather would likely remain as predictable in a warmer world as it is today. The results do not address the effects of climate change on the nature or frequency of weather events but instead focus on the range of predictability afforded by the jet stream. In addition, the researchers did not extend the simulation past the mid-century to ensure their data was as accurate as possible. “Climate change will continue to create a lot of ripple effects, but this experiment provides evidence that the range of forecasting will remain the same,” Lupo said.

The study, “The Dynamic Character of Northern Hemisphere Flow Regimes in a Near-Term Climate Change Projection,” was published in Atmosphere. Other researchers involved in the study were Mirseid Akperov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Igor Mokhov of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Fengpeng Sun of the University of Missouri-Kansas City.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

41 responses to ““Fails The Test Of Science”: Another Rahmstorf/Mann Horror Climate Scenario Gets Assigned To The Dustbin”

  1. Curious George

    When do we get a reliable weather forecast for a week? Until then, I won’t trust any 31-year simulation.

  2. SebastianH

    The paper those Kaltesonne guys think has been disproved by the new model simulation can be found here:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242

    Anyone capable of reading should be able to determine for himself/herself if what Kaltesonne writes and P Gosselin is translating everything has any merit …

    1. AndyG55

      “Due to man-made climate warming weather extremes would remain stuck in a position longer.”

      Exactly what the paper says.

      So your point is EMPTY.

      Your comment has ZERO merit.

      1. SebastianH

        Please actually read the paper …

        1. AndyG55

          Please try to comprehend the content of the paper , seb

          I know English, science, physics etc are rather difficult for you,..

          but at least make the effort.

        2. AndyG55

          “In summary, our analysis of both historical model simulations and observational surface temperature data, strongly suggests that anthropogenic warming is impacting the zonal mean temperature profile in a manner conducive to wave resonance and a consequent increase in persistent weather extremes in the boreal summer”

          really seb.

          What is it that you are UNABLE TO COMPREHEND ?????

          Its a load of fabricated anti-statistical hogwash, based on standard AGW BS, but its pretty plain what it says.

          1. SebastianH

            Good, now compare that to the content of the Missouri study/paper.
            http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/9/1/27/htm

          2. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO,

            seb fall flat on his face, with the first paper he linked.

            Then promptly does another massive FACEPLANT. !

            HILARIOUS !!

            “Since these results imply that the IE indicates approximately 30–35 flow regime transitions per year on average in a near-future warmer climate, the implication is that the well-known dynamic predictability wall for large-scale flow ……. would still be similar to the present day.
            Further, the implication is that the dynamic character of the near-future large-scale flow regime in a moderate CO2 emissions scenario would be similar to that for the immediate past 30 years

            You really do like MAKING A FOOL of yourself, don’t you, seb.

          3. SebastianH

            Well, and you do think those claims contradict each other? How so?

            And even if they did, how does pitching one model result from nearly the exact same data against another model result work? Do you throw a coin which one you think is more likely? Or do you go after your gut feeling?

          4. AndyG55

            Poor seb,

            still wiping the faceplant cowpat off his face.

            If you don’t have the intelligence to figure out how they contradict each other, NOBODY can help you !!

            One says “INCREASE”, the other says “STAYS THE SAME”.

            Is that simple enough for you?

            Just go and find a working brain from somewhere, because the one you have now is total SLUDGE from too much brain-hosing.

          5. SebastianH

            One says “INCREASE”, the other says “STAYS THE SAME”.

            Do they really say that? Are they talking about the same thing?

          6. AndyG55

            Yes seb, they REALLY do say that.

            I know comprehension is REALLY DIFFICULT for you, but do at least try !!

  3. Jack Dale

    The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”

    1. AndyG55

      “The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years”

      Say what ???

      According to both MASIE and NSIDC the current 2018 extent is ABOVE that of 2015, 2016 and 2017. (also 2006, and very close to 2007 and 2011.)

      Russian “old ice” is much greater than 10 years ago.

      Yes I know that comment was published in 2012, but it is an “alarmist” comment, not properly taking into account climate history.

      Yes, the extent has a slight drop from the EXTREME HIGHS of the late 1970’s (similar to those of the LIA), but it is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

      That slight drop is GOOD, and is HIGHLY BENEFICIAL to all those living up there.

      1. SebastianH
        1. AndyG55

          AGW fabrications that DO NOT match actual real data, seb

          A very common theme of the AGW Agenda..

          https://s19.postimg.org/bkgbf2prn/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_2.png

          https://s19.postimg.org/6mfheh5tf/DOE.gif

          And weren’t you the one saying that Arctic sea ice was driven by temperature???

          You can’t have it both ways seb, except by tortuous cognitive dissonance.

          https://s19.postimg.org/vws4z68s3/arctic_temp.png

          https://s19.postimg.org/5ffms4j1v/iceland_8.jpg

          https://s19.postimg.org/xn6kmx0xf/iceland.jpg

          https://s19.postimg.org/vdk9w6zdv/Reykavik_ref.png

          Note that the late 1970’s was the Coldest period since the PEAK WARMTH in the late 1940’s

          And as we all know, , even now after the slight drop from the EXTREME HIGH of the late 1970’s, Arctic sea ice is STILL in the top 10% of extents of the last 10,000 years.

          https://s19.postimg.org/loqxfbppf/Holocene-Sea-Ice-Greenland-Sha-17.jpg

          https://s19.postimg.org/v6om69bj7/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Extent-_North-of-_Iceland-3000-_Years-_Moffa-_S_nchez-.jpg

          https://s19.postimg.org/a2p8qx7oz/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Changes-_Chukchi-_Sea-_Yamamoto-2017.jpg

          It is STILL ANOMALOUSLY HIGH. !!

          1. SebastianH

            AGW fabrications that DO NOT match actual real data, seb

            A very common theme of the AGW Agenda..

            Sure, make up your world however you like. The data i linked to is not model based, but taken from ship and aircraft records.

            And weren’t you the one saying that Arctic sea ice was driven by temperature???

            Yes.

            You can’t have it both ways seb, except by tortuous cognitive dissonance.

            There is no contradiction here, what are you talking about? Care to come up with actual Artic temperatures including the sea surface?

            And as we all know, , even now after the slight drop from the EXTREME HIGH of the late 1970’s, Arctic sea ice is STILL in the top 10% of extents of the last 10,000 years.

            *Yawn* and it is whatever of whatever of the last 100 million years. Who cares? The current decrease in sea ice extent (and more importantly land ice volume) is clearly caused by warmer temperatures. Even warmer temperatures will cause this trend to continue, do you agree or disagree?

            Have fun turning around everything so it fits your feeling about how stuff should be. I’d call that cognitive dissonance, but hey, I am no doctor. So maybe it’s just something caused by the wind turbine syndrome

          2. AndyG55

            Poor seb.

            STILL in DEEP DENIAL of climate change.

            You HAVE to deny the fact that Arctic Sea ice is actually ANOMALOUSLY HIGH, don’t you, seb

            Makes you look pretty darn IGNORANT, you know. 🙂

            As though you can’t read basic charts or something.. DOH !!

            https://s19.postimg.org/loqxfbppf/Holocene-Sea-Ice-Greenland-Sha-17.jpg

            https://s19.postimg.org/v6om69bj7/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Extent-_North-of-_Iceland-3000-_Years-_Moffa-_S_nchez-.jpg

            https://s19.postimg.org/a2p8qx7oz/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Changes-_Chukchi-_Sea-_Yamamoto-2017.jpg

            “The current decrease in sea ice extent (and more importantly land ice volume) is clearly caused by warmer temperatures.”

            Yes, from the COLDEST period and the HIGHEST extremes of sea ice in 10,000 years.

            And all totally NATURAL from SOLAR energy and ocean cycles.

            There is ZERO evidence that humans had anything to do with that NATURAL warming, and you know that to be the case.

            Iceland data shows very clearly that late 1970s extent was up with that LIA EXTREME.

            DENIAL OF DATA.. the only thing seb has left.

            I know you HAVE to DENY Climate History to keep your sludge-filled mind in its irrational state.

            Do you DENY that 1940s Arctic temperatures were similar to day?

            Do you REALLY think the Arctic seas were not also warm?

            Have you TOTALLY IGNORED all the information showing rapid decrease in sea ice leading up to the 1930s?

            Do you REALLY DENY the existence of the AMO.

            When was the last time any ship sailed through the Larsen 1944 route next to Banks Island?

            You really do live in a mindless little la-la-land of CLIMATE DENIAL, don’t you seb.

          3. AndyG55

            “There is no contradiction here, what are you talking about?”

            Ok so you ADMIT that since Arctic temperatures were similar to now in the 1930’s, 40s.,

            …then Arctic sea ice was similar to now

            Tiny steps, seb, tiny step.

            Another hilarious faceplant expect from you really soon. 🙂

          4. AndyG55

            “The data i linked to is not model based”

            ROFLMAO. Yes, of course it is, seb. 😉

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/08/Figure52.png

            seb faceplants , yet again !!

          5. AndyG55
          6. AndyG55

            And a couple more for good measure.

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24054325_shadow-1024×687.png

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Time-AnotherIceAhe1974_shadow-650×1024.png

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24055241_shadow.png

            I particularly like the wording in the one above…

            “the change FOR THE BETTER amounts to only a degree or two, but that is enough to make all the difference in countries that fringe the Arctic”

            See how common sense prevails when their isn’t some wacky anti-CO2, anti-life agenda to be pushed. !!

            WARMER IS BETTER.. particularly up there.

            Still, a LONG way to go before the sea ice RECOVERS down to the much smaller extents of even the MWP, let alone the first 3/4 or more of the current interglacial.

            Then by 1974, we get this…

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/g3168_shadow-268×1024.png

            “Iceland fleet can no longer make catches north of Iceland. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A CENTURY, the ports are blocked by drifting ice, and the per acre yield of fodder crops has dropped 25 per cent”

            I’ll repeat that.. remember, this was written in 1974

            “FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A CENTURY, the ports are blocked by drifting ice”

            This is what seb and other Arctic sea-ice bed-wetters want. HARSH, DESPERATE times for the people living up there.

          7. AndyG55

            “(and more importantly land ice volume)”

            Greenland Total Ice Mass since 1900

            https://s19.postimg.org/9i1vx9lv7/Greenland_ice_mass2.png

            GRACE measures gravity changes, Greenland is over a LARGE volcanic region. If you can’t figure out why it is totally meaningless, then we can chalk IGNORANCE of Geology up as another in a VERY LONG list !!

            And of course, just like Arctic sea ice, Greenland is ALSO just a tiny amount down from it LARGEST area in 8000+ years

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

            But seb will continue to DENY CLIMATE CHANGE, won’t you seb.

          8. SebastianH

            DENIAL OF DATA.. the only thing seb has left.

            I showed you the data … if anyone is in denial of data here, then it’s you AndyG55.

            Ok so you ADMIT that since Arctic temperatures were similar to now in the 1930’s, 40s.,

            Do you really believe we have accurate temperature data of the Artic from that time? Why do you then post temperature records from Iceland? Or ice records from Iceland?

            “The data i linked to is not model based”

            ROFLMAO. Yes, of course it is, seb. 😉

            The link again:
            http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/timeseries/timeseries-c05-p06.html

            This discussing leads to nowhere … go bath in your obscure “evidence” that supports the fantasy world you are trying to hold up. Maybe you’ll someday come to your senses, maybe not …

          9. SebastianH

            Greenland Total Ice Mass since 1900

            https://s19.postimg.org/9i1vx9lv7/Greenland_ice_mass2

            Well, the graph goes down 2 pixels. Can you tell us how much mass that is? 😉

            GRACE measures gravity changes, Greenland is over a LARGE volcanic region. If you can’t figure out why it is totally meaningless, then we can chalk IGNORANCE of Geology up as another in a VERY LONG list !!

            Oh please enlighten us, why do you think volcanic activity was ignored when determining ice mass loss?

            And of course, just like Arctic sea ice, Greenland is ALSO just a tiny amount down from it LARGEST area in 8000+ years

            I don’t get why you are so stuck in the past. What does this have to do with what is causing ice mass loss today? Hey, 200 million years ago everything was different, that’s why today is normal … wth!?

          10. Kenneth Richard

            I don’t get why you are so stuck in the past. What does this have to do with what is causing ice mass loss today?

            Haine, 2016
            “The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.”
            “There is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”

            Hofer et al., 2017
            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”

            Rysgaard et al., 2018
            A compilation of heat flux recordings from Greenland show the existence of geothermal heat sources beneath GIS and could explain high glacial ice speed areas such as the Northeast Greenland ice stream. … Geothermal springs with source water temperatures above 0 °C have been found all over Greenland, especially around Disko Island in West Greenland, where several thousands of such springs have been identified. … Therefore, we assume that vertical turbulent mixing and GHF [geothermal heat flux] are the primary processes behind the observed salinity and temperature change.”

            Orsi et al., 2017
            The recent warming trend in North Greenland … We find that δ 18O [temperature/climate proxy] has been increasing over the past 30 years, and that the decade 1996-2005 is the second highest decade in the 287-year record (Figure 4). The highest δ 18O values were found in 1928, which is also an extreme year in GISP2 and NGRIP ice cores, and in a coastal South Greenland composite [Vinther et al., 2006; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2015], but the decadal average (1926-1935) is not statistically different from the decade (2002-2011).”

            “The surface warming trend has been principally attributed to sea ice retreat and associated heat fluxes from the ocean [Serreze et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010a, b], to a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) since 1990, increasing warm air advection on the West Coast of Greenland and Eastern Canada [Hanna et al., 2012; Fettweis et al., 2013; Ding et al., 2014], and to an increase in the Greenland Blocking Index [Hanna et al., 2013]. These latter mechanisms could be dominated by natural variability rather than forced response to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases [Fettweis et al., 2013; Screen et al., 2014].”

          11. SebastianH

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03420-8 (Cascading lake drainage on the Greenland Ice Sheet triggered by tensile shock and fracture)

            “Due to atmospheric warming, SGLs have become more numerous and larger while expanding to higher elevations”

            https://www.sciencealert.com/chain-reaction-draining-lakes-threatening-greenland-ice-sheet

          12. AndyG55

            Poor seb,

            Relying of one manic AGW fabrication

            DENYING all other information

            “why do you think volcanic activity was ignored when determining ice mass loss?”

            OK seb, show us the mass/gravity change data from the moving volcanic magma sacs…. or remain EMPTY as always.

            If you haven’t got that information, you can’t measure the ice. WAITING !!!

            “Do you really believe we have accurate temperature data of the Artic from that time”

            Do you really think that they DON’T !!

            Do you really think that they didn’t know how to use a thermometer in the 1930s, 40s??

            That really is the deepest depths of DENIAL.

            But its all you have, isn’t it seb..

            “I don’t get why you are so stuck in the past.”

            And seb does another MASSIVE FACEPLANT !!! 🙂

            You HAVE to DENY the past, because it shows that we are actually at a rather COOL period of the current interglacial. This make a total idiocy out of all the global so-called warming nonsense.

            But DENYING the past is something you MUST DO to hold your brain-hosed anti-science beliefs.

            Your only choice is….

            DENIAL of CLIMATE CHANGE.

          13. AndyG55

            “that’s why today is normal “

            Nowhere near normal for the current interglacial.

            Just a tiny bump out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            Arctic sea ice in top 10%,

            Greenland ice area above what it has been for all of the last 8000+ years except that LIA.

            Do you really want the temperatures to drop back down slightly to another LIA.

            Do you REALLY think that is where they should be.. at the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, a spiteful, vicious climate period?

            Why do you hate humanity so much that you would wish that on them !!

            Oh, and Arctic temperatures were similar to now in the 1930s, 40s all around the Arctic.

            https://s19.postimg.org/vws4z68s3/arctic_temp.png

            https://s19.postimg.org/d3hrldzj7/Arctictemps.jpg

            As was the whole of the NH.

            https://s19.postimg.org/llr7psycz/Cooling_1.jpg

            Waiting for more CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL from you seb.

          14. AndyG55

            A more realistic Arctic sea ice chart than the nonsense AGW Agenda driven crap you posted.

            https://s19.postimg.org/hcmhnqak3/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Alekseev-2016-as-shown-in-_Connolly-2017.jpg

            Notice how it matches measured temperatures quite well. 1940s close to now. (remembering that there has been a zero trend since 2008)

            Seems you were correct about something for a change.

            Arctic sea ice is linked to Arctic temperatures.

            Must have been a LOT warmer during the first 3/4 of the current interglacial, hey, seb.

            https://s19.postimg.org/a2p8qx7oz/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Changes-_Chukchi-_Sea-_Yamamoto-2017.jpg

            https://s19.postimg.org/v6om69bj7/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Extent-_North-of-_Iceland-3000-_Years-_Moffa-_S_nchez-.jpg

            But lets all go back to the bleak LIA as being “normal” shall we. 😉

        2. AndyG55

          and seb , you do realise that those pre-1979 fabrications are based heavily on climate models, don’t you.

          You would get sucked in by anything your handlers brain-hose you with, wouldn’t you.

          You have ZERO capacity for actual self-generated thought.

          Time for another round of laughter. 🙂

          1. AndyG55

            oops, must have not closed the bold,

            …was only meant to be on the word FABRICATION !!!

        3. AndyG55

          ps, and thanks for the graph showing YET AGAIN….

          … just how incredibly incompetent the models are. !!

    2. Kenneth Richard

      Yes, we know that warming causes temperatures to become colder, and therefore more snow falls in the Northern Hemisphere. Obviously this is what climate models have been saying all along.

      IPCC AR4 (2007): “Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America

      Kunkel et al., 2002: “Surface conditions favorable for heavy lake-effect snow decreased in frequency by 50% and 90% for the HadCM2 and CGCM1 [models], respectively, by the late 21st Century. This reduction was due almost entirely to … an increase in average winter air temperatures.”

      Kapnick and Delworth, 2013: “In response to idealized radiative forcing changes, both models produce similar global-scale responses in which global-mean temperature and total precipitation increase while snowfall decreases. … By using a simple multivariate model, temperature is shown to drive these trends by decreasing snowfall almost everywhere” (press release) “In North America, the greatest reductions in snowfall will occur along the northeast coast, in the mountainous west, and in the Pacific Northwest. Coastal regions from Virginia to Maine … will get less than half the amount of snow currently received.”

      [A]s global temperatures rise due to climate change, snow on Christmas Day could increasingly become a rarity—even a distant memory.”
      ———————————————————-
      Coleman and Schwartz, 2017
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-15-0350.1
      Seasonal blizzard frequencies displayed a distinct upward trend, with a more substantial rise over the past two decades.”

      Changnon, 2017
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0217.1
      “Heavy 30-day snowfall amounts were evaluated to identify spatial and temporal characteristics east of the Rockies in the United States during the period 1900-2016. An extensive data assessment identified 507 stations for use in this long-term climate study. The top 30-day heavy snowfall amount and the average of the top five 30-day heavy snowfall amounts were examined. … The northern Great Plains, Great Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast experienced more top five periods [more snow] in the second half of the 117-year period [1958-2016]”

      Andrews et al., 2016
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2731/full
      Long-term observations of increasing snow cover in the western Cairngorms [Scotland] … For 13 consecutive winters between 2002 and 2015, the date for the onset of continuous winter snow cover, and subsequent melt, was recorded on slopes of north and north-easterly aspect at altitudes between 450m and 1111m amsl. Results show that the period of time during which snow is continuously present in the catchment has increased significantly by 81 (±21.01) days over the 13-year period, and that this is largely driven by a significantly later melt date, rather than earlier onset of winter snow cover.”

      1. SebastianH

        More moisture leads to more snow where it is cold enough. In the long term, it won’t be cold enough anymore, so less snow in these regions, even with more humid air.

        Having fun re-interpreting what climate science says? Constructing strawmen (maybe even unintentional) and then arguing against them … that’s skepticism in a nutshell, at least as it can be observed on this blog.

        1. AndyG55

          Make it up as you go along.. the AGW mantra way.

          Any fantasy excuse will do, seb…

          …even if totally unprovable by any real science or physics.

        2. AndyG55

          “In the long term, it won’t be cold enough anymore,”

          ROFLMAO.

          another little seb FANTASY.!

          Just preach the mantra, little mind.

          Do you mean it might eventually reach MWP temperatures, and sea ice will drop down to a more “normal” Holocene level, instead of the current anomalously high extents.?

          Wouldn’t that be a great benefit to those living up there. !!!

          Travel, commerce, fishing recreation, ALL become feasible form more than a very short period each year.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    It’s interesting that jet stream meandering is back in the news. Last time that happened (aside from the polar vortex angst a couple years ago) was when the Moscow heat wave of 2010 occurred in conjunction with the Pakistan floods. They were caused by a severe jet stream blocking event.

    That same year the UK was whited out – also by a jet stream blocking event. IPCC lead author Prof. Mike Lockwood linked the event to low solar activity:

    Low solar activity link to cold UK winters (BBC, April 2010)

    That was at the depths of the lowest solar minimum for about two centuries. Again we are back down to similar levels of low solar activity today as we approach the next minimum in the solar cycle. And the UK has been hit by the “Beast From the East” twice this winter.

    There is a lot of data suggesting sinuous Rossby waves are linked to low solar activity. But there is no credible data to show it is due to CO2. The climate alarmists can’t admit that though, because then we’d have to look more closely at the full effect of the Sun. That would destroy their case and cause them to be defunded.

  5. John F. Hultquist

    Kapnick and Delworth, 2013:
    In North America, the greatest reductions in snowfall will occur along the northeast coast, in the mountainous west, and in the Pacific Northwest.

    I think the Lake Tahoe area is included in the “mountainous west”, and I know you will find this unsurprising – the area has just been buried in a couple feet of global warming. Just about anything that can be closed – schools, courts – closed early Friday. A friend spent 2 hours shoveling a path to her hay shed so she could feed her horses.
    She is not a fan of global warming.

    I realize this is from personal testimony (anecdotal evidence) and not “climate science”, but it is real and not from a computer model. Also, it is funny, mostly because I am not there and having to deal with it.

  6. tom0mason

    As I write most of the UK is getting covered in the white stuff that ‘Global Warming™’ provides, and the forecast is for overnight temperatures to drop to below 0°C for longer than the Arctic was supposedly warmed recently. Funny how a SSW provides a little polar warming, but is essentially nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2 mediated atmospheric warming but makes the ‘Global Warming’ advocate hotly apoplectic with BS about ice at the North Pole, maybe they should look at a little climate history (eg polar ice during the 1920-1930).

  7. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #308

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close