Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered | Watts Up With That?
Description: Guest essay by Eric Worrall Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked littl…
Date: 2017-12-29T01:18:20+00:00

Advertisements

# Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered

Eric Worrall / 16 hours ago December 28, 2017

Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.

> It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real

> Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017

> This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.

> …

> Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.

> The Arctic is warming much faster than most of the planet, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of sea ice that covers the region each winter. That loss of ice has allowed more heat to transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, causing a weakening of the polar vortex winds over the Arctic. Those winds usually “insulate the rest of the Northern Hemisphere” from freezing Arctic temperatures, Overpeck said. But as the winds have weakened, it’s gotten easier for freezing Arctic air to swoop further south, he said.

> “That is due to the warming of the Arctic, which in turn is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and primarily burning of fossil fuels,” Overpeck said in an interview.

> Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest, although the science on that front is less certain, Overpeck said. Unlike most of the rest of North America, the Southwest is warmer than usual right now, and 2017 will “without a doubt” go down as one of the region’s hottest years ever measured, Overpeck said.

> “This is contributing to our record wildfires in California, and the drying out of vegetation that’s leading to those wildfires, and the drying out of the Southwest’s water,” he said.

> …

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/12/28/its-cold-outside-but-doesnt-mean-climate-change-isnt-real/987948001/

So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future (see the graph at the top of the page).

> … Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.

> Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.

> Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …

Read more: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation. Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.

> …

> 1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable

> Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.

> Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable.

> Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.

> This difficulty doesn’t mean that climate models or climate science are invalid or untrustworthy. Climate models are carefully developed and evaluatedbased on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes. This is why climatologists have confidence in them as scientific tools, not because of ideas around falsifiability.

The Conversation: Climate change has changed the way I think about science. Here’s why

No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle.

Whatever the observation, the climate explainers have their theory – their infinitely adaptable theory, which they claim is science. Warm weather confirms their worst fears. Cold weather is waved away. Whatever the observation, the explainers shamelessly adapt their theory to provide an explanation, based on their “scientific” theory which cannot be falsified by any conceivable observations, event an abrupt plunge into a new ice age.

Advertisements

### Rate this:

### Share this:

- Google
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Reddit
- LinkedIn
- Tumblr
- Pinterest
- Email

### Like this:

Like Loading...

### Related posts

### Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. on UK’s Met Office Press Releases on Climate

### Time Magazine blizzard science sets low standard for green journalism

### New peer reviewed paper refutes claims of blizzards of last winter being driven by “global warming”

## 191 thoughts on “Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered”

1. A record cold is just weather. A record heat is climate.

   Reply

   - or more frequently of late, record cold is proof of global warming.

     Reply

     - Or it could be the falsification of temperatures recorded and even manipulated by zealous global warming enthusiasts which has been documented.

   - Also, three days of warm weather is a heat wave while three weeks of extreme cold is a “cold snap”.

     Reply

     - cold kills. Arctic cold kills Big Time.

       Homeless man freezes to death after being turned away from housing center
       http://wkrn.com/2017/12/21/homeless-man-freezes-to-death-after-being-turned-away-from-housing-center/

       Many more to come as the 30-year cooling cometh.

     - Turning away a person, who has no where else to go, in deadly cold conditions, by a person or persons in charge of a shelter specifically set up to protect such people, and which resulted in the unsurprising death of that individual, sounds a lot like homicide to me.
       Like rowing your life boat right past someone floating in mid-sea.

   - ‘Trump Pokes Fun At Global Warming Critics, Tells People To Bundle Up’
     http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/28/troll-in-chief-trump-pokes-fun-at-global-warming-critics-tells-people-to-bundle-up/
     “IN the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!
     — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 29, 2017”

     Reply

     - I simply love President Trump.

       Never in the history of mankind has a US president been so scathingly honest (and politically incorrect, I might add).

     - Rocky road

       I was a scoffer. I had been sold the lie that the man is a fool, predator, buffoon, dangerous etc.

       Then I watched in slack jawed amazement as he actually began to fulfill his manifesto promises within days of taking office, or at least, is trying to. In my 60 years, I can’t recall a political leader of a Western democracy get on with business like he has.

       I have since learned of the American Democrats historic, and I suspect lingering racism, and the Republicans reason for existence, to free everyone, not just African Americans.

       I’m now a strident British (Scottish actually) fan of DT and suspect he will go down in history with Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents of the USA and campaigner for a better, more honest world. And I believe Lincoln was also elected with only 40% of the vote but won because of the College system.

       Go on America. Show the world what fighting spirit is like again!

     - Well said. I remember when the lead scientist was interviewed years ago about fudging the figures. Him and his 3 confreres. He cried as he walked away and said, “I am not a spin doctor”. He committed suicide shortly after. The other 2 scientists have never been interviewed.

     - I have learned that you never trust what a politician says but you watch what they do. Donald Trump if you do the same ignore what he says, you will love what he does. Sometimes he deliberately throws verbal bombs at the press to keep them busy while he gets done Making America Great Again!

     - I’m still not a fan of his over all, but I do love the way he’s driving liberals crazy.

     - “I simply love President Trump.

       Never in the history of mankind has a US president been so scathingly honest (and politically incorrect, I might add).”

       Yes, you have to love Trump! I do, especially, because he takes the lying Leftwing MSM head on, and he does so by speaking the truth. For all the distortion of his words by the MSM, if you actually listen to what Trump says, you will see that he speaks the truth. Sometimes, especially those on the Left, don’t like to hear the truth (that’s why it is not politically correct, because it doesn’t agree with the Left’s viewpoint). They prefer to live in their insulated self-created bubbles, and they hate it when someone like Trump comes along and bursts their bubble with the truth. They lash out violently when this happens. It must be really exhausting for them now that Trump is on the scene.

       I heard about a Rasmussen poll this morning which showed Trump with a 46 percent approval rating after his first year in Office. That compares with a 47 percent approval rating for Barrack Obama after his first year.

       So after about two years of relentless lying attacks by the Leftwing MSM on Trump, he is only one point lower than Obama at the same time in Office. Trump would be at 90 percent if the MSM told people the truth about him.

       The Leftwing MSM fawned over Obama and attack Trump at every opportunity, yet they are practically tied in the approval ratings. That must be pretty frustrating for the members of the Leftwing MSM.

       The Democrats are thinking they are going to do every well in the 2018 midterm elections, but I think that is just wishful thinking on their part. I think the House Republicans will hold onto enough seats to be the majority, and I think there is a possibility that the Republicans will have 60 seats in the U.S. Senate after the 2018 elections.

       You can bet Trump is going to be out promoting every Republican Senate candidate, especially those in Democrat States that he carried in the election. These campaign rallies are going to be fun!

       Trump’s election has upset the New World Order, and we are delighted about that! :)

   - What’s really needed is to have an objective definition of what is “weather” and what is a “climate”. Too often it’s claimed that “weather isn’t climate” without any clarity about what either mean in practice.

     Reply

     - Exactly, it does not change the facts. The average temperatures globally have been steadily increasing. The ice caps are melting. I’m not sure why this is even an issue, please explain. Everyone should be concerned with rising sea levels as you will pay one way or another.

     - Hotscot, would you consider emigrating to the U.S. ? We need more like you.

     - Jeff, we are coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA), of course the temperatures have increased and the Sea level is rising, you should be very glad that is so.
       Just to put your mind at rest the Arctic ice has not melted any faster for the last 10 years and the Antarctic during those years was at some of it’s highest levels ever seen.
       As to rising sea levels, the current sea level rise is not acceleratingand is nothing compared to the sea level rise after the last Ice Age. See this chart

       https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2fRcpS0TS&id=7A1187C60FA85F6AD7752B6D48B8390686A97CF0&thid=OIP._RcpS0TSdY5GlR59lEXgIwHaFD&q=historic+sea+levels+chart&simid=607986600271347733&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

     - Jeff, the Arctic still hasn’t reached the ice level lows that were seen in the 70’s.

     - DR, Hotscot doesn’t need to immigrate to America, he can simply “Identify” himself as an American Dreamer who is 1/32 part Cherokee and meet some sort of quota and he will be all set. Hey, it worked with sex “genetics”. Then, he can just claim “Sanctuary” status and get to ignore the American laws he wishes not to comply with. Isn’t that the Progressive way of doing things? You just have to know how to game, er, work within the system!

     - Perhaps weather is what you see; climate is the result in seconds, minutes, days, years, decades,centuries, or milliniums.

     - I love when old records get tied especially when there a hundred years old when there was less of e everything that the moonbemer scientist claim..

     - Since is it mostly controlled by the sun they will never agree.

   - Yep, ‘Climate Change’ means anything bad in climate religion circles. If an alarmist burnt the Christmas dinner they’d probably blame ‘Climate Change’!

     Reply

   - perfect

     Reply

   - A record cold is just climate. A record heat is weather.

     You have to have weather change starting today and last 30 years before its called a climate change. When the forests return to the Sahara, Montreal has weather like Miami and Los Angeles looks like Blade Runner, that’s climate change. Average temp of Arctic in winter is -27 F, ice melts at 32 F. So no ice in Arctic would mean a 59 degree temp change in winter ?

     Reply

   - Funny, after reading the bible it also says that in the end times there will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines. However when you ask what will fix it from Liberals, the money usually has to come from the United States tax payers and usually goes to some liberal cause like the UN another Liberal or global government. They will try anything to bypass the US constitution. Most carbon comes from the Sun and Volcanoes. Unless they say we need to block the Sun or fill up all the Volcanoes then its just another money grab for liberal causes.

     Reply

     - Hell the Carbon Tax is already raising the cost to everything and the political of both parties lie about it .

   - The future wrought by Klimate Krishna will be warmer, or perhaps colder, except if it stays the same, unless we say so…

     Reply

   - Hot and cold is climate for the right price and the tap into taxpayer funds at the trough.

     Reply

2. Two words explain this post: Bull Crap!

   Reply

   - .Truth hurts ?

     Reply

   - Yes, the quoted text in the boxes certainly fits the description. The complete “bull crap” can be found at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/12/28/its-cold-outside-but-doesnt-mean-climate-change-isnt-real/987948001/

     Reply

     - Except there is no truth in this post or the USA Today article. Hansen, Mann, Gore et al, all see the writing on the wall now, and are trying in vain to cover their behinds as northern North America (and previously this fall such as Siberia) experiences one of the coldest outbreaks across the northern hemisphere since the 1960’s and 1970’s. The warming records that article talks about are one offs, and beat by a slim temporary margin, whereas things like the California droughts are historical and mostly in a desert area already, which was charged up by heavy rainfall this spring, which led to so many ladder fuels to burn when it inevitably dries out by mid summer to late fall. Nothing new there, except a bunch of nut job arsonists with Bic lighters now. Or very poor power line maintenance by PG&E.

       The current natural 40 year warming trend we have have been having the last 40 years is just ending and turning over into a new 40 year cooling trend, which explains the long pause as things plateau the last 18-19 years and go south for a spell. Warming does not cause long term cooling. Doesn’t even make any sense. I repeat: Their explanation does not even make any sense if the Arctic has been warming the last 40 years, that this somehow leads to near record low temps now in 2017/18 in the northern hemisphere. I had no idea what they were talking about or what they were trying to explain, except maybe a movie plot out of The Day After Tomorrow. Total fiction.

       The real interesting part now is that we should be able to partially test the sensitivity of CO2 to long term radiative forcing that is presently baked into the background temps over the next 40 years. UHI and the minimal 1/3 – 1/2 degree C CO2 forcing the last 150 years since the LIA will hopefully make the cooling trend that less severe than it would have been. Of course, there is no way to definitively test this now compared to a natural Earth that would have perhaps gone in a slightly different direction 150 years ago had we humans not developed the planet with significant land use change and fossil fuel use. Most skeptics don’t deny the radiative properties of the GHG’s, only that they are fairly minimal compared to the elephant in the room; water vapour, which is the largest GHG. The argument now, is what are the long term feedbacks, which only time will tell. Stay tuned, and pray that the cold trend does not coincide with severe vulcanism which cools the earth catastrophically for 1-3 years, and we lose a significant part of the global harvest when we will soon have 8 billion people to feed. That is the only possible Catastrophic scenario that is remotely possible.

     - E2,

       Regional wars (possibly even nuclear exchanges) and intense localized conflicts are the more likely Black Swans. A black swan like that induces global economic-trade freezes.
       The outcome of that is likely indistinguishable in effect from any hypothesized global harvest collapse.

     - I agree Joel, and as Murphy’s Law generally goes, one Black Swan event is usually coincident, or even more precise, a synchronicity of events that lead to a pitfall. Like WW1 when all the seeds were planted from generations previous, but took some event to trigger it all and unleash a global conflict, that leads to another global conflict. History is ripe with examples of both natural and man made environmental collapse, as well as outright devastating total war that is not forgotten.

       The most immediate of catastrophes would indeed be a ‘hot’ war that spirals out of control within days or weeks which would indeed be quicker than a partial global crop failure that would take a year or more to unfold, but would also lead to further conflict and collapse on so many levels. Which would only exacerbate the difficulty with the harvest and the distribution of the resources and food while we recovered from the consequences of such but were also embroiled in all out total war. We can only hope these times are short and we can return to normal, whatever that may look like. Nobody wins in either scenario.

       It is probably the oldest story in the book(s), since it seems to be ingrained into our collective (un)conscious in most of the worlds ancient religions, literature and art. We are no different now, and in fact much more fragile in many ways, that many of us now neither farm, or hunt and gather and are reliant on everything working to perfection, everyday.

   - But its true! Read this explanation very carefully! ;)

     “Climate models are carefully developed and evaluatedbased on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes”.

     Cheers

     Roger

     http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

     Reply

     - Obviously they don’t see the point of a model that make predictions before it happens. Why bother with that silliness when they are so good at “explaining” events after it happens!

     - Yes, I love that quote. It shows what depths these people have descended to.
       The linked article shows a graph comparing past climate and the climate model prediction. Miraculously, there is an almost perfect fit.
       So, what does this prove? It proves that climate models are amazingly good at predicting what has already happened. And nothing else.

       As I understand it, the models are full of arbitrary constants that they can tweak as much as they like. As Willis pointed out some time ago, very likely after each hindcast, parameter changes that make the match better are kept, changes that make the match worse are rejected. So you end up with perfect Darwinian evolution – the models evolve to make the match with historical data better and better.
       Of course, this is just a sophisticated version of curve matching. It has absolutely nothing to do with any understanding of how the climate works.

       If this is the case, then it’s possible to make a prediction: climate models will do well at predicting the past but will fail completely when it comes to predicting the climate 30 years in the future (the standard period that defines cllimate). We can now compare 30 year predictions with what actually happened. Of course, they weren’t even close, they predicted far more warming than actually happened. The models are worthless for climate forecasting. Even the IPCC has admitted that it’s impossible because of the chaotic nature of weather and climate.
       In my opinion, the claim that the models have been proven and that they can predict the climate up to the end of the century is not just absurd, it’s fraudulent. Bearing in mind the trillions of dollars that will be wasted on the basis of these models, it’s also financial fraud.
       Chris

     - They have already exceeded science with their minds. Now, science needs to catch up..

     - Joe, the point of a model is to look good.

   - My favourite is: “climate bollocks”.

     Reply

3. I watched “The Day After Tomorrow’ last night on cable. Had a laugh at a couple of bits. Apparently the massive storms and cold air was being caused by fresh water from melting poles draining into the ocean, thus cooling the ocean rapidly. Another comment by a character in the movie – “I thought the Sun was responsible for climate change?” Hollywood just can’t help themselves. Full of liberal progressives (aka socialists) global warming believers.

   Reply

   - AKA Communists!

     Cheers

     Roger

     Reply

   - When and how does dogma get dogmatized to become a part of the belief system of the true believers of the dogma? Is there a subset of human beings for whom dogma is necessary if they are to have the ability for “independent” “thinking?” (Memorize, recall and recite?)

     Reply

4. “…this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming…”
   NOW I get it – the cold part is caused by the cold part of global warming! The warm part of global warming goes somewhere else. It is so obvious now, I don’t know why I didn’t see that all along!

   Reply

   - The heat is hiding deep in the oceans again. That’s its safe space.

     Reply

5. Shorter version: Our new God works in mysterious ways.

   Reply

   - so the IPCC scripture tells us so…

     Reply

   - That analogy truly fits. These ‘explanations’ reveal that this has fully morphed into a religion.

     Reply

   - 2 Chronicles 18:19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
     20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
     21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.
     22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

     Those lying prophets are to fool the modern Empire into ending itself, and dragging down with them the unrepentant enablers (gullibles) who let it happen, while feeding on Swamp Entertainment.

     MAKE PEACE NOT WAR.

     The ones that make war are these who cover themselves with the madness. Those who make war, build the war machines, the ones that destroyed the Aral Sea and now want to use the environment to control the economy until they consolidate power. Then, they will quit worrying about the environment or Global Warming or any of that….

     Reply

6. Trump… the 2017 gift that keeps on giving!!
   LOL

   > In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

   > — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 29, 2017

   Reply

   - note the date. which is based on GMT.
     So…. Hot off the Press!!
     That popping noise you hear outside your house/apt/flat is NOT fireworks.
     It is your Liberal nieghbor’s heads exploding as they read DJT’s latest tweet on the Climate scam.

     Reply

   - Trump’s tweet is up to almost 31K retweets and almost 100K “Likes” as of 11 pm EST (US East coast).

     Those with Twitter accts, go retweet and Like to help make more Lib heads explode.

     Reply

     - Suuuuperb innit?…

     - The left and their press just hates his tweets. And when the left hates something, 9 times out of 10 I’m for it.
       The Presidents most often tweets to make a point or news that he knows will not be presented in the media which hates him. Other times it’s just to needle his opposition and by doing so change the direction of the lefts talking points. And other times his tweets are meant as a diversion. The pattern of his tweets reveal there really is a lot more going on between his ears than the press will ever give him credit for. He is playing them like a fiddle and they don’t realize it.

     - 11:30 pm EST update:
       The Twitter-verse, even by Twitter-verse standards, is now going bat-shit crazy trying to respond and digest this President of the US Trump tweet swipe at the Left’s climate religion.

       Popcorn Futures exploding! Gonna be a fun 2018.

7. “Some Climate Scientists even shamelessly reject the very concept of scientific falsification with regard to the conduct of climate science.” Best I can figure out because the end results of climate change is still 100 years out there, you can suggest in the near term things can happen that appear to be a falsification. But that supposedly do not negate the theory that mankind will be reponsible for the warming of the earth a 100 years from now. How convenient. Only our kds or grandkids will be around to know how that works out. And don[t you know by then some new potential disaster will come along that will make climate change look like a cake walk.

   Reply

   - The only public policy relevant question is what is climate sensitivity to increasing CO2. A CO2 amount which is largely due to man’s burning fossil fuels for economic development. The convenient number/acronym adopted is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS).

     For the better part of 25 years, the climate science community used ECS > +2 deg C as the threshold for alarm that required policy action by humanity to avert catastrophe. Over the years now, the data is rolling that clearly shows ECS is likely < 2 deg C. Probably closer to 1.5 deg C, and maybe even 1 deg or less. +2 C is becoming more unlikely each year.

     So what have the Alarmist majority of climate scientists done? Did they declare "no Problem.? No, they move the alarm threshold now down to 1.5 deg C to keep the Alarmist rhetoric going.

     But there is aclear cost-benefit analysis that must be done. Climate change may be costly, but De-carbonization is likely even more costly. IOW, the "fix" kills the patient (humanity). De-carbonization makes us less able to handle future natural disasters as man continues to build civilizations into harm's way.

     Poor countries degrade their environment because they do not have the energy resources to lessen impacts, to keep water and ecosystems clean. To provide infrastructure to lessen weather disasters. Imagine if they were wealthy enough to provide pre-disaster infrastructure hardening, during disaster evacuations, and after disaster recoveries just like the West rich countries. Then the impacts to their ecosystems would be much less.
     Invoking the Precautionary Principle is self-contradictory where climate change is concerned. There is always going to be natural disaster that mankind must deal with. Population is growing, and unless you are an Ehrlich-Holdren doomsday-Malthusian who relishes a population calamity, then Billions of people must be cared for. And economic wealth and development are intimately tied to fossil fuel use until something better comes along.

     Reply

     - @joelobryan
       “Population is growing, and unless you are an Ehrlich-Holdren doomsday-Malthusian who relishes a population calamity, then Billions of people must be cared for. And economic wealth and development are intimately tied to fossil fuel use until something better comes along. “

       The replacement for fossil fuels is available, nuclear energy. And it produces no CO2. Naturally the Greens are opposed to it.

   - Yea but they our right LIE now. For example Arctic Sea Ice volume and extent has not dramatically declined this year as compared to the last few more recent years. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

     And as I have said elsewhere, this winter is reminding me of the 1970’s. You know that time when many scientists were blaming the cold weather on Global Cooling! Exact same pattern happening now as occurred in 1977.

     They make their claims above without a bit of real science to back them up.

     Reply

     - Precisely! This Strong La Nina event almost perfectly matches the one that produced the Winter of 1977-1978. Even the unusual snowfalls so far match the Winter of 1977 events. Better bundle up from the Canadian Border down to North Florida! Climate Cycles repeat, but Climate Alarmists barely remember their claims of yesterday in the slippery slope of CAGW Imbecility.

   - Can’t cut off those grants, special guest lecturer fees and acclaim, endowed chairs, fawning undergrads,… hummm…… life is good!,.. let’s not let a few little facts get in the way of my tenure and prestige.

     Reply

   - …..Something such as the depletion of economically accessible fossil fuels, perhaps? They are finite, you know? And the end of fossil fuel usage will be dictated by their lack of availability, you know? And their depletion to a level where they are no longer available will bring on hell-to-pay, don’t you know?

     Will institutionalized slavery remain a historical fact without being revived and reinstated when fossil fuels are depleted? Hah! Not a chance.

     Reply

     - We all remember how the Stone Age ended when we ran out of rocks.

       Nuclear energy will replace fossil fuels long before fossil fuels are exhausted, if they are ever exhausted.

       As for the return of slavery, that is more related to the trajectory of Islam than the depletion of fossil fuels.

8. 0.8 degree warming in 168 years (According to Hadcrut) shows that we are heading towards a burning future. Each year it will be hotter by nearly 0.005 °C!

   Reply

   - 0.0047619047619047619047619047619

     Reply

   - Any idea what the margin of error may be for the temperature readings that were recorded 150 years ago? And does it really matter as long as the temperatures that were recorded provide support for the global warming dogma?

     Reply

     - Because of homogenization and other “secret sauce” processing tricks, we don’t even know what the error bars are on the current numbers!!!!

   - There are way too many events we don’t know the effect of, both in our local system and in our galaxy, to say that our planet will continue warming ad infinitum.

     Reply

9. “Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest, although the science on that front is less certain, Overpeck said.”

   … although the science on that front is LESS CERTAIN …

   less certain than what? his very very uncertain & unlikely rationalization led guess about the current cold?

   When does Vegas start giving odds on specific climate(weather) guesses?

   Reply

   - “science on that front is less certain” = I pulled this out of my arse, here enjoy.

     Reply

     - Oh and that smell you smell, it is NOT what you might think. (despite just coming out of Overpeck’s arse.)

       It is that special IPCC-approved fragrance, directly from Paris called, “Eau de Climate Science.”

10. “Arctic warming may also be contributing to the long-term drying of the U.S. Southwest”

    What long term drying in the Southwest? The warm AMO phase drives Arctic warming and drying of the Great Plains, which is where U.S. drought is now shifting to, but a warm AMO phase has nothing to do with AGW.

    Reply

    - SW US boom-bust cycles of drought-wet years are driven by ENSO and PDO phasing.

      Blaming the Arctic (or the Arctic Oscillation) for something the Pacific Ocean and solar activity are doing is like a flea on a dog’s tail watching the dog wag back and forth.

      Reply

    - Most of that “long term drying” was caused by the decrease in hurricanes.

      Reply

11. So if it was record-breaking warmth occurring, the Alarmists would of course be blaming Climate Change.
    Now with near (or actual) record-breaking cold it is of course being blamed on Climate Change.

    As I told Grif in an different thread earlier today, when a hypothesis explains all possible outcomes/observations, it is not science, it is pseudoscience.

    Take home message:
    – When a “hypothesis” explains all possible observations, then from a science standpoint, it explains nothing. It is worthless.

    – From a broader, epistemological view, any hypothesis that explains everything is what we call a religion.

    The only logical conclusion (based on climate “experts” own assertions):
    Climate Change is a religion. A pagan religion to be more precise, but a religion in every sense none the less.

    Reply

    - In my opinion, a religious belief is a belief in something that isn’t true. Climate change meets this need very well, in that it claims that CO2 causes global warming, but the evidence shows that CO2 hasn’t caused global warming, either for the last 17 years, nor the 4.3 billion years before that.

      However, a true religion requires more:
      – a system of doctrine, or orthodoxy which directs what followers must believe
      – an organisation (usually led as a heirarchy) to disseminate that doctrine and administer rewards and punishments.

      I think climate change meets these requirements perfectly.

      Reply

      - You have an agnostic position or an outright atheist view on whether religious beliefs are true or merely inventions of the human mind. But to many people on this planet (4 Billion of at least 7+ Billion and counting) to them there is more truth in their religion and anything right in front of their eyes. They have opinions just like you Hivemind.

        I agree with you though (for a different reason) that today’s Climate Change belief fits every definition of a religion.

      - They certainly have one thing in common, they will not know for certain until after they are dead.

    - Dr. Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, MIT Professor Emeritus said it best:
      “Believing that CO2 controls the climate is like believing in magic.”

      Reply

      - To be precise (and fair) when quoting, I think Lindzen used the words “close to believing…” or something similar. Quoting should be precise. Paraphrasing without quotes can be a bit sloppier.

      - Magick is the art and science of causing change in conformity with will.

    - thats briliant ,can i borrow it for another blog with attribution?

      Reply

      - Ivan,
        borrower, change, post…. I don’t care. No attribution needed.

        None of my thoughts are original on this subject. My thoughts here are merely a re-distillation and re-packaging of what others have already recognized about the hustle called “Climate Science.”

12. Yikes please define “Climate Change” when ever it is used. It has become a term of Rhetorical Art that has no clarity.

    Reply

    - Climate Change per IPCC def is changing climate (> 30 years averages) due to effects of anthropogneic CO2 and other human influences/activities such as land use changes.

      Of course the Watermelons adopted Climate Change to obfuscate the issue for the ignorant. They switch between ontological meanings of Climate Change, climate change, and changing climate with ease to disguise their deceptions.

      Reply

      - Don’t forget Global Warming, which they had to abandon when the globe didn’t warm for 17 years.

      - As long as they define policy goals by using 1.5C and 2.0C increase in temperature it remains global warming.

      - R2Dtoo: Agreed. Plus, the theory is based on CO2 reradiating energy and causing warming. The “energy budget” is to the warm side. It IS about warming, no matter what they call it. It’s their problem that snow and cold increased and they had to scramble to somehow try and convince people that warming causes snow and cold.

13. Every time I hear that explanation that less sea ice means arctic air can move south I think “Damn, it must have been cold in the Medieval Warm Period”.

    Reply

14. JohninRedding. “But that supposedly do not negate the theory that mankind will be responsible for the warming of the earth a 100 years from now.” John, it is just a theory, not backed up my scientific evidence. Climate change happens, but it’s natural and overshadows anything man does. Here’s the history of climate change last 420,000 years. http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif I hardly think your kids & grandkids will need to worry about what humans do. Don’t fall for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming fraud/con.

    Reply

15. This is interesting….I’ve read that declining ice levels in the Arctic means more dark surface area so more heat energy is absorbed resulting in warmer temps….now it also results less ice coverage which means greater heat loss and cooler temperatures….

    Reply

    - Which should also mean that the oceans are now slowly cooling, with their heat slowly escaping to space, and having less heat to pump out El Nino’s in the future. Takes a long time to build a trend (minimum 30 years) but it is usually going one way or the other, and it sits still, or pauses for a period of time before heading the other direction. Not by much, as evidenced by .8 degrees C the last 150 years, but now maybe a net cooling for 40 years of maybe a 1/2 degree C. Maybe erases most of the gains we just made the last 150 years, and by the middle of this century, we are back in LIA territory.

      Reply

    - When the sun is shining at low angles, like it does in the arctic, the difference in reflectance between water and ice is small.

      Reply

16. Morality is complicated – and it doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children. If we say morality is good, it’s good, if we say morality is bad, it’s bad!

    Reply

17. > It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable. … Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.

    She hasn’t understood Popper’s principle of falsifiability even as an adult (and probably never tried to). We are not required to come up with a test that will definitely show the model or hypothesis in question to be wrong. If we were certain of such a test, this would make our hypothesis not only falsifiable, but already patently false. Instead, we must state a logically possible observation that our hypothesis rules out, and which therefore, should it indeed occur, would prove our hypothesis wrong.

    The hypothesis “All swans are white” is falsifiable, because a single black swan, if indeed found in the wild, will disprove it. It is sufficient that this black swan is logically possible, even if we don’t know exactly where and when it might be observed in reality.

    Reply

18. Mann-splaining?

    Reply

    - LOL :-)

      Reply

19. OK I don’t get it. So cold weather disproves global warming?

    Reply

    - There is irony and sarcasm being involved with this story. That must be what you don’t get.

      Cold weather only proves it is not warm today or this week. Nothing more.
      This cold in North America is not a new phenomenon.
      Regarding POTUS: Folks ought not to take his statements literally. They should take him seriously.

      Reply

    - Ok, I don’t get it:
      Hot weather proves global warming but cold weather does not?

      Atlantic Hurricanes proves global warming but a Global ACE well below average does not does not?

      Bleached corals prove “ocean acidification” but corals regenerating does not disprove “ocean acidification”?

      A lack of snow proves global warming but increasing snow cover in the northern hemisphere does not disprove it?

      “Permanent” droughts in Texas and California prove global warming but the drought busting rains which ended each does not disprove it?”

      [sarc]

      Reply

20. Sounds like Overpeck should be singing ;”Oh Sussanna”.
    I love this speculation that it is colder because of less arctic sea ice, so that is why the medieval warm period was not?
    Not much thought went into that excuse.
    Better one would have been walrus farts.
    The desperation of Team IPCC is delicious.

    Reply

    - Overpeck may be finding the American Southwest a bit warmer now that
      a court has ruled his Climategate emails can come out of cold storage
      for public viewing:

      http://tucson.com/news/local/ua-ordered-to-surrender-emails-to-group-that-calls-global/article_8983347d-faff-51b3-9748-f1a83737b637.html

      From chilly Northeast Ohio, have a safe and Happy New Year!

      Reply

21. Why do drones like Overpeck remain cluelessly ignorant of the fact that Arctic sea ice is still way above the extent of the MWP and basically all of the first 8000+ years of the Holocene ?

    Or are they actually aware of the fact and are LYING their a***s off. !!

    Reply

    - forgot the graph

      Reply

      - What methods are used to determine the Arctic ice extent as far back as the Bronze Age? How accurate are they in practice? It’s not like there’s any record of someone travelling North to check…

      - You need to do some research, don’t you. :-)

        Perhaps look at the match with GISP temperature data .

        Start to learn by yourself. :-)

    - AndyG55,
      Overpeck if anything, he is NOT clueless. He is a willing participant in the hustle. Overpeck is a key player from the earliest days (see the Climate Gate emails for instance) of the Climate Hustle.

      His recent move to UMich is as things always are dictated by money. UMich must have made a lucrative offer on stat-up funding, resource allocation for his first few years. Expecting the grants to come down the Pike. Ann Arbor is a very Liberal city.

      I live in Tucson, where Overpeck emigrated from. It is a backwater to some degree (not astronomy). Tucosn is Not very eclectic or trend setting here though for a Liberal who wants to be someone. Ann Arbor is closer to the East Coast where the climate hustle has political muscle and money. Overpeck if anything is a true follow the money kinda guy. His participation in past IPCCs and now his clandestine association with an anti-Trump Resist movement is how he is positioning himself to (what he hpes) is bigger things in post-2020 WH regime with D POTUS.

      Reply

22. I sometimes wonder how it works: Does Sammy Roth at USA TODAY phone up the University of Michigan press office asking for a global-warming comment on this week’s weather, and get put through to Jonathan Overpeck’s extension number? Presumably he could record a voicemail greeting says “You have reached the voicemail of Jonathan Overpeck. He is not available right now, but he can let you know that this week’s weather is due to man-made global warming.”

    Or does Jonathan Overpeck maybe announce a weekly global-warming press release somewhere on social media and Sammy Roth at USA TODAY follows Overpeck on Twitter or something. Whatever, it must be boring for all sides knowing that the same thing is going to said every time.

    Reply

    - Jonathan Overpeck is lying in his bed, sleeping soundly. We see by the dim, pre-dawn light, a nightstand bedside the bed, on which is seen a clock radio with a large, digital display that reads 05:59. Suddenly, the clock display rolls over to 6:00, at which point the sound of Sonny and Cher loudly singing I’ve got you Babe can be heard. Transition: Overpeck is now up and out of bed, dressed for the day. The phone rings, and we hear “Hey Jon, it’s Sam from USA Today. Damn it’s cold out there, and did you see the snowfall totals from Erie? INSANE, right? Anyway, you know what I’m going to ask. I’m sure you’re hearing as muchclimate apathy as I’ve been hearing. Can you give me a little pick-me-up for attribution?

      Reply

      - Just like in “Groundhog Day”, right?

      - And Overpeck responds: “Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming…”

        probably, at least, in part

        That’s one of those “climate scientist”, highly definitive, 95% accuracy, 97% consensus, in a way, maybe, just possible, sometimes responses.

    - [Mods- the bit bucket ate my post here (I don’t think there was anything spam-worthy in it)]

      Reply

23. “based on their ability to accurately reproduce observed climate trends and processes”

    So UTTER FAILURE gives them Confidence in their models..

    OK. !!

    Reply

24. As always, nothing says warming like cooling.

    Reply

25. Fake “scientists” living in their own world. The models that construct predicted that this winters months would look like this: https://realclimatescience.com/2017/12/donald-trump-vs-the-experts/#comment-75848

    Reply

26. NSIDC: ice extent Dec.28, 2000 = 13.065 km2, Dec. 28, 2017 = 12.421 km2, about 5% < ice extent, this is supposed to be a big climate changing condition?

    Reply

    - “The more it Melts, the more it Freezes”. Must be some significant cause and effect to saltier brine water melting and re-freezing every year and sinking into the thermocline that affects ocean currents over long term time scales.

      Reply

27. Say what you will but I’m completely sure that Global Warming is increasing the number of hairballs my cat hacks up!

    Reply

28. Consider me Warmsplained lol

    Reply

29. > A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue.

    This is the perfect lie. Nothing can possibly or impossibly disprove what has been deemed absolute truth.

    As a degreed man of science, I have both used and ascribe to the scientific method on a frequent if not daily basis. Knowing what I know about climate “science” and this sort of assertion by the gatekeepers of the discipline, it churns my stomach to think that actual science—and the importance of falsifiability—is seen with such disregard as to be prevented from even being discussed.

    Reply

    - Religious dogma is not falsifiable. Which is where the climateers are now.

      Climate Change – The new religion of the Left.

      Reply

      - Absolutely.

    - +100!
      Exactly the way I feel about this anti-science deceit.

      Reply

30. I am terribly confused here. They say that the Arctic is warming at an unprecedented rate, but the cold now being experienced by the Northern US is from freezing Arctic winds. Warm or Cold, which is it?? Are they suggesting there are warm parts of the Arctic and cold parts. Where are they, specifically?

    AussieBear.

    Reply

    - They are at the part where they have to change their lies.
      Same place they have always been.

      Reply

    - There are warmer and colder areas in the arctic. At present, there is a large cold air mass covering parts of eastern Canada and the U.S., with warmer areas to the west.

      This whole conglomeration will slowly rotate from west to east around the Northern Hemisphere. A big glob of cold air moves slowly.

      Reply

31. CAGW is falsifiable only by complete denial of research funding.

    Reply

    - It really is like a Hydra beast… a many-headed beast. Cut-off one head, another pops-up somewhere else. The funding cut-off must happen at the source. The NSF. Our tax dollars being thrown away for bad science.

      Climate is however (IMO) worthy of scientific study, and thus some public funding. But much, much less than current. The current state encourages alarmists claims to garner ever more funding. This must stop.

      Reply

      - We aren’t getting climate studies. We’re getting rationalization masquerading as science as an excuse to keep the money train rolling.

32. The Santa Ana winds are caused by cold dry high pressure / very dense air in the interior of the US getting funnelled out the valleys in California as it loses elevation and like a chinook it warms up and gets insanely dry that dries out everything very very fast causing the wildfire problems, it’s air that travels from the interior to the ocean. So the wildfire problem is because of the cold dense air in the interior.

    It’s hard to think this person shouldn’t understand this.

    Reply

33. The presumed sensitivity of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2 is indeed falsifiable as both data and theory tell us that the last average W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun increased the average temperature by no more than 0.3C. The presumed linearity between temperature and forcing gets in the way of seeing why this falsifies the consensus sensitivity as it obscures the theoretical and measured linear relationship between forcing and incremental W/m^2 of surface emissions.

    Given that all Joules are equivalent and all 240 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing from the Sun must on average contribute equally to the emissions of the surface, each W/m^2 contributes about 1.6 W/m^2 to the surface emissions where the next 1.6 W/m^2 of emissions from another W/m^2 of forcing would arise from a surface temperature increase from 288K to 288.3K. The prediction of the IPCC sensitivity that the last W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun increased the surface temperature by 0.8C +/- 0.4C is clearly falsified. Moreover; a sensitivity metric expressed as degrees per W/m^2 has a non linear 1/T^3 dependence as T (the temperature) increases.

    If as the IPCC suggests, the last W/m^2 of forcing increased the average temperature from 287.2K to 288K, the average surface emissions must have increased by about 4.3 W/m^2. If all Joules contribute equally, then each of the 240 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing must also contributes 4.3 W/m^2 to surface emissions adding up to over 1000 W/m^2 corresponding to an average surface temperature close to the boiling point of water. The prediction of the IPCC sensitivity that the surface temperature should be close to the boiling point of water is clearly falsified by the causal observer.

    Reply

34. Interestingly enough, I had a discussion tonight with someone on ECS. Their counter question was on EBCS. Equilibrium Biological Climate Sensitivity. Quite the question in the end.

    Where is Mosher on this item anyhow? Steven?

    Reply

35. Of course, by this logic, the warmest period of the last 1000 years was The Little ice Age.

    Reply

    - Humanity’s greatest advancements have largely come from the times of necessity for adaptation and invention to counter extreme adversity and change.

      We will make advances on nuclear power (and other energy sources not envisioned) and energy efficiencies when the pressing need comes again.

      Currently we are in the Age of Abundance. The pressing needs of necessity are not here right now. So we squabble rather than invent.

      Reply

36. A down home person might reasonably ask, “If the Arctic has warmed so much, where is the cold air coming from?”

    Of course, it is just small anomaly justifying all that red coloring up there, and it is still bloody cold. That doesn’t play well down home either. If you are going to make like palm trees will be growing in the Yukon soon, don’t tell country folks climate change is why they are freezing their butts.

    Nobody really knows why the amplitude of the Rossby waves sloshing out of the Arctic changes. The Russians have kept an Arctic Oscillation Index since the fifties. It gauges zonal vs meridional flow. Zonal flow (the kind the missionaries would have you believe keeps the cold corralled) actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.

    Reply

    - “Nobody really knows why the amplitude of the Rossby waves sloshing out of the Arctic changes. The Russians have kept an Arctic Oscillation Index since the fifties. It gauges zonal vs meridional flow. Zonal flow (the kind the missionaries would have you believe keeps the cold corralled) actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.”

      They do know but the causes/effects are complex with chaos coming to play.
      ENSO state (even where coldest waters are exactly re the current LaNina).
      QBO: an easterly quasi-tropical oscillation, as now, favours more reflction of Planetary (Rossby) waves into the Arctic in the first part of winter. An El Nino, the second half.
      Low solar – yes reduced UV does reduce the strengnth of the Stratospheric PV, and can tip the balance re formation of a -ve AO.
      The speed of formation of the Eurasian snowfield is correlated with a stronger winter Siberian high and migration into the Arctic.

      Sorry but your – zonal flow “actually corresponds with warmer arctic temperatures.” is an oxymoron as by definition if cold air moves south then warm air must move north replace it. Basic meteorology has it that easterly winds surrounding an area of HP (a -ve AO) develop if wamer air is at it’s core (in the NH the thermal flow aloft is from warm to cold and deflected to the right) and thus decends/warms as a result of convergence aloft and subsidence (leading to divergence at the surface).

      Cold plunges into the USA are neither unusual, nor are they likely to become so any decade soon.
      It is simply a meander that the PJS takes as to meteorology of the N Pacific and the Rockies favours. Look at where the last ice sheet limit was FI.

      Meanwhile the 96% of the NH that is not the good ol’ US of A (excluding the west) is overwhelmingly warmer than average.

      Reply

      - Isn’t it nice for NE Russia to get a nice warm -30ºC instead of -45ºC :-)

      - Should have, of course , included Canada in the cold plunge.

      - Ah “good ol temperature anomalies ” and climate nationalism which makes meteorology more of a social science than a pure science.

      - “Climate Change Institute”? At least they are honest about their bias.

      - Klyastorin and Lyubushin (2007)

        Further from the above:

        As goes the Arctic, so goes the globe.

        High pressure is “warm core” in both hemispheres, and I’m glad you brought that up. Go to nullschool, set it to air, surface, with an overlay of MSLP (surface pressure). Spin it to the Antarctic and you can see it is totally hogging the planetary surface low pressure right now. Zoom up to the stratosphere at 10hpa. You see hemispheric ANTIcyclonic flow.
        Do the same exercise in the Arctic. You see predominantly CYCLONIC flow aiding and abetting the “dipole”.
        Tightening a screw in the northern hemisphere is an apt analogy for anticyclonic high pressure at the surface. The southern hemisphere has left hand threads.

37. It’s no wonder proper scientists are worried about the damage that so-called “climate scientists” are doing to the field of science. These charlatans should all be put to work shoveling snow.

    Reply

38. This global warming scam has to last at least for another 15 to 20 years until the last “climate scientist” has retired. Until then there has at least enough money for the salary. So if temperature rises or falls, nothing can be a sign of cooling – its only a temporary event.

    Reply

39. The North Pole is really hot now……:

    https://www.yr.no/place/North_Pole/Other/North_Pole/long.html?spr=eng

    /sarc (as if needed).

    Reply

40. Arctic warming seems to be causing massive ice mass growth in Greenland.
    Eeeeeeeek!

    Reply

41. This ‘heads you lose, tails I win approach’ is a sign of many things. One of which is how climate ‘science’ offers a happy and comfortable home to third rate academics that otherwise would find it hard to get work in an high school.
    For has you can never be ‘wrong’ you never have to worry about being right beyond keeping to the dogma.

    Reply

42. I would love to be able to ask these guys some follow-up questions. Global warming induced cooling would be a negative feedback. Then the “settled science” theory of runaway global warming is no longer considered valid? If temperatures cooled back to the 1970s (or whatever the ‘golden age of climate’ was), wouldn’t all effects of warming end, since there would no longer be any warming, and everyone be happy? And if that is the case, is there any reason to keep funding climate research? You are implying that global warming is a self-correcting problem.

    Reply

43. #1 A pseudo linear progression statistical analysis is NOT a model

    Reply

44. Since you are all going to be driving electric vehicles soon , I wondered what effect these temperatures would have on such a vehicle which is charging outside on the street at night.
    I doubt if just a quick Google will provide the complete answer , but this might give some indication:

    Battery type Charge temperature Discharge temperature Charge advisory

    Lead acid –20°C to 50°C –20°C to 50°C Charge at 0.3C or lessbelow freezing.

    NiCd, NiMH 0°C to 45°C –20°C to 65°C Charge at 0.1C between –18°C and 0°C.

    Li-ion 0°C to 45°C –20°C to 60°C No charge permitted below freezing.

    Table 1: Permissible temperature limits for various batteries. Batteries can be discharged over a large temperature range, but the charge temperature is limited. For best results, charge between 10°C and 30°C (50°F and 86°F). Lower the charge current when cold.

    http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_low_temperatures
    I have left out the F temperatures and simplified the text format slightly in the (probably forlorn ) hope that the posted comment does not mangle it up.
    “no charge permitted below freezing” for Li ion batteries ? Is that correct ? Surely not . For what then is the future for the multitude of rapid charging TESLA outlets being installed along all the motorways in the UK in conditions such as we are currently experiencing?

    Reply

45. Climate science is based on hypothetical data aets hence why it is a hypothetical exercise. Pure science. It is not actionable. Hence all arguments are valid and invalid as they are all hypothetical. This is logic 101.

    Hypothesis is only consistent within its argument frame. Climate science is only consistent if you ignore reality.

    Reply

46. “The Arctic is warming much faster than most of the planet, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of sea ice that covers the region each winter. ”

    Here is data from the only actual measurements (as opposed to models) of the amount of sea ice (from Cryosat):

    http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html?show_cell_thk_ts_large=1&ts_area_or_point=all&basin_selected=0&show_basin_thickness=0&year=2017&season=Spring&thk_period=28

    Do you see any “dramatic decline”? Note that measurements are not possible during the melting season since there is no way to distinguish melt pools on the ice from open sea.

    Reply

47. I just looked at the NSIDC page and there’s an historical graph for the extent of arctic ice but not one for Antarctica ice extent? I’m sure they used to show both on the same page. Apologies if I’ve missed something.
    To Anthony et al Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

    Reply

48. Is it too hot, asks Goldilocks? Global Warming (GW). Is it too cold? GW. Is it just right? GW. The answer to any weather related question is: GW. The sheer nonsense of it escapes the AGW adherents.

    Reply

49. The winner of the 2017 Double Speak Award goes to ‘climate scientist’ Jonathan Overpeck. My guess is Ol’ john is in line for an IPCC fellowship grant…

    Reply

50. I thought I would dust off this little chestnut from WUWT. It was posted a few days over 7 years ago. Enjoy! (P.S. I still enjoy reading my mockery over the zealots. I hope you do too.)
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/northeast-us-blizzard-proves-global-warming/

    Reply

51. To see every blip and snip as proof of one theory or another is the opposite of science. Glib sayings and personal attacks are not science either. There is no unifying theory. Man does effect the climate. Think of the billions of trees that have been cut down and replaced with sprawling cities. Think of the 2 billion people who heat and cook with wood, , coal, dung and peat. The world’s climate would be better off if they used natural gas and oil, even electricity from clean burning coal. Think of the sun. Scientists now say it is quiet with few sunspots. They think it is dimming. You don’t think that has a great effect?
    I was recently in Gallop, NM. It was 70 degrees (F) during the day and 15 degrees (F) the next morning. The reason is that there is little in the way of the most significant greenhouse gas, water vapor. Very low humidity.
    Not much we can do about water vapor or should.

    Reply

52. It’s the sun. We are going into a Maunder Minimum. Ask any amateur radio operator how propagation has been for the last several years.

    Reply

53. Time Magazine…1979…climate experts predict ice age doom for earth by 2003…
    Flash forward….climate experts and Al Gore predict global warming for earth by 3377…4477…6677…
    Flash forward…climate experts predict…

    Reply

54. 20 degrees above average is catastrophic warming. 20 degrees below average is winter weather.

    Most read book of 2050: The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax: “The remarkable story of how a run-of-the-mill 30-year warm spell led to mass hysteria.”

    Reply

55. Trump. Exactly the antidote for the last 8 miserable Liberal years. MAGA!

    Reply

56. Just goes to prove how full of hot air Al-Buffoon really is

    Reply

57. Remember, if it’s a record breaking cold snap it’s “weather”. But if it’s a little warmer than normal, it’s “global warming”. Just like if a democrat intentionaly violates our secrecy laws it’s “carelessness” but if someone else accidentally does, it’s “grosss neglegence”!

    Reply

58. I don’t even argue with the Global Warming clowns anymore. They’re so obviously delusional it’s easier to just let them believe whatever absurdity they like.

    Reply

59. In the warmistas’ book, this is like a “tails I win, heads you lose” game. No amount of evidence will ever shake their faith in the fairy tale of AGW. It doesn’t matter because the common sense of the average person tells them that their global warming theory is “frozen over.”

    Reply

60. There is exactly one test of science. It is the ability to provide useful predictions. Time and again we find no useful predictions from the current group of self-identified climate scientists.

    Reply

61. Let me see if I can think like a lunatic global warming liberal. How about this: The deep freeze is the warmest on record. It’s the warmest ice ever recorded.

    Reply

62. Here is what their models predicted for this winter:

    Reply

63. How does the climate engineering that even “rocket man” says he has using decades old technology come into play? Weather wars much.

    Reply

64. So the Believers are still ignoring evidence and keeping the faith. How dedicated they are to their Climate Change religion!

    Reply

65. “While scientists routinely find themselves explaining that day-to-day weather patterns are not the same as long-term climate trends, they also widely agree that human-caused climate change is exacerbating extreme weather.
    Along the New England coast, the cold appeared to be at least partially the culprit in the deaths of three thresher sharks found washed up on the shores of Wellfleet and Orleans on Cape Cod over the past several days, according to scientists.”

    Well it looks like our toothy friends haven’t found the missing heat in the oceans just yet and it’s a travesty that they can’t I guess.

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/even-sharks-are-freezing-to-death-winter-rages-and-the-nation-reels/ar-BBHtPVf

    Reply

66. do you realize these same such “experts” on climate science have no reasoning on why we even had an Ice Age. Then, they offer zero tangible opinion on how the Ice Age collapsed. In fact, they can’t explain how the North American continent covered in a mile thick crust of glacial ice could melt so fast and NO EXPLANATION as to where the Heat came from to melt thousands and thousands of miles of one mile thick ice.
    Yet, these same such blowhards can spew off all this double talk we are all gunna die “if” we don’t do what they tell us.
    really folks believing on the liberal side. You are committing all of us, to follow along with Global Warming when clear evidence shows they manipulated their so called science to fit their ill fitting story.
    What is clear in the historical records of the past 100,000 years plus, we are overdue for a hardline Ice Age. A BIG ONE at that… So how do you explain, where Quebec Canada is, turning into a massive frozen one mile deep thick crust of ice. Siberia being seasonally cold with wholly Mammoths grazing on the grasslands. But Canada from coast to coast, and a good portion of the USA covered in a mile of ice.
    A new Ice Age is going to be here long before we all burn up according to the Climate Change goofballs predictions happen.
    Please liberal climate change scientists, how do you melt tens of thousands of miles of mile thick glacial ice with 144 BTU’s per cubic foot of ice. Where did the heat come from?

    Reply

67. after much research I have found the formula that explains globull warming: X times Y = Z (X being the number of dollars received in grants that “experts” need to survive, Y being the message they are told to find by said givers of monies, and Y being the “adjusted” results)

    Reply

68. “Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters?”

    Of course not, indeed it’s just further PROOF of global warming.

    After all, they saw the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”!

    Reply

69. Will carbon tax funds now be used for snow removal assistance and warming centers for the homeless? The Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill would have handled that and many more discretionary uses of funds with the pot-o-money it would have bestowed into Party hands.

    Reply

70. “Science is complicated – and doesn’t always fit the simplified version we learn as children.”
    Sophie Lewis

    “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself”
    Albert Einstein

    Reply

71. Here’s my glowbull theory… the earth is a giant heat refrigerator. The sun heats one end and the other end gets cold… simple!

    Reply

72. All these well thought out and literate responses to this guy’s take on how cold is related to man warning up the climate is a very nice effort but you are wasting your time trying to use common sense with liberals. Let’s just call it what it is, consumate leftist bullshit!

    Reply

73. I think it would be difficult to find a theory so vociferously touted that failed the rules of theory offered by Karl Popper more than does the CAGW meme.

    “It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations.

    Confirmations should only count if the are the result of risky predictions. That is to say if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory, an event which would have refuted the theory.

    Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: the more it forbids the better it is.

    A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue but of any theory but is a vice.

    Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to greater risks.

    Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of ‘corroborating evidence’)

    Some genuinely testable theories when found to be false are still upheld by their admirers, for example by introducing ad hoc some ancillary assumption or by re interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying or at least lowering its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a ‘conventionalist twist’ or a ‘conventialist stratagem.”

    By these standards the alarmist hypothesis must be of the lowest scientific status in recent history.

    Reply

74. ﻿If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death. When will this cult of people who refuse to admit they are wrong? All the best science proves that our sun, the earth’s magnetic field and the oceans are the real drivers of our climate. The disgusting left wing physcobabble that promotes this junk science is wasting billions, how many billions is it in the hundreds? Billions that could go to desalination plants for fresh water, irrigation projects, fusion power research, food for children, medical research and exotic propulsion systems to begin exploring our solar system and beyond.
    Actually junk science like this is harming people by robbing us of needed resources.

    Reply

75. Don’t worry all you global warming believers. When the global warming “scientists” get through manipulating the data, this record cold will be recorded as record heat.

    Reply

76. Global warming/climate change is so discredited and bogus. NASA, NOAA, Penn State, East Anglia, all caught fudging data and Al Gore becoming a billionaire by lying to the people while his palacial mansion uses 40x the average home’s energy. What a joke! The great majority of Americans want these totalitarian hoaxers to STFU.

    Reply

77. “Global warming” was never about the temperature. Those two words are the red herring that hides catastrophic global POLLUTION. We humans can do something about pollution, but we can’t do anything about the temperature. Of course, we’ve chosen to NOT do anything about pollution, indeed, the US of A is investing 180 billion dollars to increase the production of single-use plastic, and Monsanto and ilk aren’t about to stop drowning our food in endocrine-disrupting pesticides that are causing infertility and a myriad of health problems for every species on the planet. As long as humanity’s highest values are Financial Profit and Personal Gain, the destruction of our environment will continue unabated. Got kids? Oh well. so sad too bad – they have no future. We’ve destroyed it. But no worries. The stock market and housing are at record highs: Party on folks.

    Reply

78. Don’t worry! They can still make this the warmest year on record. Just manipulate a little little more historical data.

    Reply

79. The ignorantly arrogant who believe in emotional “science” are quite humorous.

    Reply

80. Basically, It’s really cold because of global warming.

    Reply

81. From the article: “That loss of ice has allowed more heat to transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, causing a weakening of the polar vortex winds over the Arctic. Those winds usually “insulate the rest of the Northern Hemisphere” from freezing Arctic temperatures, Overpeck said.”

    I don’t recall any year where an arctic cold front has not come down into the U.S. at some time during the winter. Whatever mechanism there is that causes arctic air to come south, happens every year.

    Reply

82. If the Arctic is warming, then where is all of this cold air coming from???

    Reply

83. I also find it entertaining how we can have entire continents with record-breaking cold winters, summer heat is isn’t even as high as the 1930s, yet somehow, each year is almost the “hottest year ever”.

    If they do their taxes the way they analyze temperature data, the IRS would jail them.

    Reply

84. Quite simply it was not in the model before and to put it in now would mean someone changed the model. Anyone who has read ‘A world without Ice’ and the other publications would realize they are changing the story.

    Reply

85. Lol….lefties are so deranged. They severely lack any logic skills….let alone honest scientific rigor. To them the weather/climate is just an extension of loony lefty politics.

    Reply

### Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it. Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)
Name (required)
Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Advertisements

# Search WUWT:

Search

# The Maxim of our resolve

“Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you.” – Andrew Breitbart | read more

# Site stats

- 338,203,830 views

# Weather Picture of the Day

Click for the image

# Awarded TOP 100 Status

"...the world's most viewed climate website"
- Fred Pearce The Climate Files:
The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

"...invaluable" - Steven F. Hayward, The Weekly Standard

"...changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming. - Jonathon Moseley, American Thinker

"...flashy (apparently widely distributed)"- Michael E. Mann

# Now on DVD:

# The QLav®

# NEW RELEASE! BUY THIS BOOK…

# Shameless Plug

Donations accepted: fling funds to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

# Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

# Follow WUWT via Email

Enter your email address to follow WUWT and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 46,829 other followers

# Recent Posts

- President Trump trolls the global warmers – hilarity ensues
- Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered
- North Atlantic Oscillation phases, tree growth, and droughts
- Ridiculous study: Charcoal remains could accelerate CO2 emissions after forest fires
- Glaciers and Sea Level Rise
- The End of “The End of Winter”
- Claim: “Climate Denial” is Dead – But Climate Apathy is Preventing Action
- “Don’t they Love Their Grandchildren?”: HuffPost Celebrates the Climate Wisdom of the Pre-Moderns
- Reply to Patrick Brown’s response to my article commenting on his Nature paper
- EPA: “Roundup Not Carcinogenic” — MSM Silent
- Study: Poor People Eating Properly would Accelerate Global Warming
- Putting lipstick on Lewandowsky’s pig, er, polar bear
- More On Svensmark and Cosmic Rays
- Another positive feature of global warming – less record breaking cold
- China’s Great Climate Joke: Switching to Gas, Made from Coal

# Top Posts & Pages

- Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don't Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered
- President Trump trolls the global warmers - hilarity ensues
- The End of “The End of Winter”
- Glaciers and Sea Level Rise
- EPA: “Roundup Not Carcinogenic” -- MSM Silent
- Claim: "Climate Denial" is Dead - But Climate Apathy is Preventing Action
- Ridiculous study: Charcoal remains could accelerate CO2 emissions after forest fires
- North Atlantic Oscillation phases, tree growth, and droughts
- "Don't they Love Their Grandchildren?": HuffPost Celebrates the Climate Wisdom of the Pre-Moderns
- Reply to Patrick Brown’s response to my article commenting on his Nature paper

December 2017
M | T | W | T | F | S | S
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
« Nov |  |
| 1 | 2 | 3
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31

# Archives

Archives

# Categories

Categories

# Recent Comments

| Gareth on President Trump trolls the glo…
| iodiner on Record Breaking Winter Cold? D…
| thomasjk on President Trump trolls the glo…
| drednicolson on President Trump trolls the glo…
| Toneb on The End of “The End of Winter”
| Gareth on President Trump trolls the glo…
| MarkW on EPA: “Roundup Not Carcinogenic…
| TA on President Trump trolls the glo…
| Russ R. on President Trump trolls the glo…
| icisil on President Trump trolls the glo…

# Humor/Satire

- Cartoons By Josh
- The Daily Bayonet

# Lukewarmers

- Climate Abyss – John Nielsen-Gammon
- Climate Debate Daily
- Climate Science – Pielke Sr.
- Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
- Dr. Roy Spencer
- Judith Curry
- Lucia's The Blackboard
- Moshtemp – Steve Mosher
- The Lukewarmer's Way – Tom Fuller
- Thomas Fuller – 3000quads

# Political Climate

- American Elephants
- Andrew Bolt
- Autonomous Mind
- Christopher Booker
- Climate Depot
- EU Referendum – Richard North
- Green Hell Blog
- James Delingpole @ Breitbart
- NYT Dot Earth – Revkin
- Planet Gore

# Pro AGW Views

- AccuWeather GW Blog
- Collide-a-scape – Keith Kloor
- Real Climate
- scienceofdoom
- Stoat – Connolley
- Tamino's Open Mind

# Skeptical Views

- 1000+ skeptical papers
- A Walk On The Natural Side – Jim Steele
- Appinsys
- Australian Climate Madness
- Bishop Hill
- Bob Carter
- C3 Headlines
- Carlin Economics
- Climate Audit
- Climate Change 101
- Climate Change Dispatch
- Climate Conversation – NZ
- Climate Realists of Norway
- Climate Resistance
- Climate Sanity
- Climate Skeptic
- Climate Views
- CO2 Science
- Die Kalte Sonne
- Digging in the Clay
- Dr. Norman Page
- Dr. Tim Ball
- Ecotretas
- Friends of Science
- Haunting the library
- ICECAP
- International Climate Science Coalition
- Jennifer Marohasy
- Jo Nova
- Marcel Crok – De staat van het klimaat
- Master Resource
- Niche Modeling – David Stockwell
- No Frakking Consensus
- No Tricks Zone
- Small Dead Animals
- Solar Cycle 24 Board
- Surfacestations Gallery
- Surfacestations Main
- Susan Crockford – polarbearscience
- Tallbloke’s Talkshop
- The Air Vent
- The Chiefio – E.M. Smith
- The Cosmic Tusk
- The GWPF
- The Hockey Schtick
- The Next Grand Minimum
- The Reference Frame
- Tom Nelson
- Trust Yet Verify
- Warren Meyer
- Warwick Hughes
- William Briggs
- World Climate Report

# Tools

- NCDC Hi/Lo Records lookup
- Our World in Data
- SOHO solar images
- UAH AMSU Daily Temps
- Weather Picture of the Day
- WFT – Interactive Climate Graph Engine

# Transcendent Rant and way out there theory

- Climate Progress
- Climate Realists

# Unreliable*

- Skeptical Science – John Cook

* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

# Click for the:

# Sea Ice Page

# Solar Images & Data Page

# Atmospheric Maps Page

# ENSO/SST Page

# ENSO Meter

# WUWT Tag Cloud

Al Gore American Geophysical Union Antarctic antarctica Arctic Atlantic Ocean Australia Barack Obama BBC Bill McKibben california Carbon dioxide China climate climate change Climate model Climate sensitivity Climatic Research Unit Climatic Research Unit email controversy Climatology Current sea level rise Earth El Niño-Southern Oscillation Energy environment EPA Extreme weather Freedom of Information Act Geophysical Research Letters Global warming Global Warming Policy Foundation Goddard Institute for Space Studies greenhouse gas greenland Heartland Institute Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC IPCC Fourth Assessment Report James Hansen Josh Judith Curry La Nina Little Ice Age Medieval Warm Period Met Office Michael Mann NASA National Center for Atmospheric Research National Climatic Data Center National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Science Foundation National Weather Service New York Times NOAA Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean Peter Gleick Polar ice packs Roy Spencer Science & Environmental Policy Project Sea ice Sea level Sea Surface Temperature Skeptical Science Snow Solar variation Steve McIntyre sun temperature Temperature record Tropical cyclone United States United States Environmental Protection Agency University of East Anglia Watts Up With That?

# Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

# Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

# Meta

- Register
- Log in
- Entries RSS
- Comments RSS
- WordPress.com

# Copyright Notice

Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2017, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission. (Miriam O'Brien aka slandering "Sou" from Hotwhopper, that means you.)

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

Post to
Cancel
Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address
Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: