As to the "majority of climate scientists"

The local weather guy makes more meaningful predictions in a month than any climatologist has in a lifetime; and if I gave a damn about the competence of the local weather guy, a month's worth of accurate predictions wouldn't be enough for me to declare him competent.

False dichotomy - besides which, I'm pretty sure you and I have been over this already.

 

So, how can it be? Vast swath of N America experiencing absolute coldest temps ever...Snow in 48 states... Again.

Last time it was this cold, it was 1985. And this one looks to eclipse those records. Forget just having records for the day, we're talking records since ever in modern record keeping. I suspect that these kinds of temps have been normal over longer periods, but the real shocker is, coldest temps ever could simultaneously exist in a world that shouldn't be capable of producing them anymore. I think it's newsworthy. I still haven't seen a single warmist be able to explain why our warm blanket of CO2 is failing us so badly...

 

Warmist?

But I digress, I really wish people would actually sit down and read what Anthropogenic Climate Change is. Saying that because the atmosphere is heating up, we can't have extreme cold, is like saying the average age in a population is increasing so we can't have babies. The truth is, as the atmosphere heats up, we are going to have all types of more severe weather, hot and cold.

 

Global warming does not mean that cold stops happening. It does mean that every locale on the planet will even experience long term warming. It does not mean that record cold will cease to happen. Nor does it mean that snow will stop happening.

And yes. It is really cold in the United States right now. And it is newsworthy. However, it is still warmer overall everywhere else. And when you look the continental United States for the entire month it is even above average here as well.

I have to ask. How was it possible that the CONUS managed to be 0.309C above the climatological average even though it got really cold the last couple of days?

 

Do you suppose that just because you suggest that some one has said this that it makes your observation true? The observation isn't that we cannot have cold. I recognize that for many of the superficial this is the depth at which you can operate, but that still doesn't mean that your assertion was something that I did. Because, I didn't.

 

The 12Z (6am CST or 7am EST) data is. Here is what the Earth's temperature anomalies looked like this morning during the height of the cold snap in the CONUS. As you can see even though it is unusually cold in the upper Mississippi River area and Siberia the Northern Hemisphere and World are still +0.2C and +0.3C respectively. This despite the fact that it is actually colder in Canada and even parts of the United States then most of Antarctica right now. Yes. It is really freakin' cold outside especially if you live in the north central United States.

 

By the way, according to NOAA exactly 36,250,440 observations went into determining the global temperature this morning.

 

Well, it is summer there after all. How many more months of 24 hr sun can they expect to see in Antarctica? Also, I would add that the color charter here is spectacular. And not for use of color, but for attributing actual temperatures where no local weather stations exist. That's pretty spectacular....

 

How's this:

"When I published my paper on Arctic warming and severe winter weather in the US (Cohen et al. 2018) I was certainly hoping that this winter would support or at least be consistent with those findings. I think the winter so far has been consistent with those findings, but not as I expected heading into this winter. I already showed that for many Northeastern cities the frequency of severe winter weather increases as the Arctic warms using Boston as an example (Figure ii). I do think that the lack of snowfall in the Northeastern cities, the transient only cold is tied to the relatively cold Arctic basin. Prior to the winter I was telling anybody who would listen that we are living the golden era of nor’easters and I do think the warm Arctic has been at least partially responsible. But this has not been the case this winter so far and is contributing to the snow drought in the I95 corridor."

https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/

In my own words, the west coast has actually been extremely mild this year and the arctic continues to warm at almost double the rate as anywhere on the planet. This warming displaces arctic weather systems to further south and creates large loopy stalls in the jet stream that locks weather systems into place for long periods of time. In the summer this stall in the jet stream can lock in rain patterns that deluge and flood local areas and in winter can stall extreme cold in certain regions for extended periods.

All this was predicted by climate models, btw.

The rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change may be to blame for more frequent prolonged spells of extreme weather in Europe, Asia and North America, such as heat waves, freezing temperatures or storms.

"These are relatively short-term periods of bizarre weather, like the cold snap that paralysed North America earlier this year, rather than longer-term rises in temperature.

They are related to “stuck” weather patterns, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, told a conference on Arctic sea ice reduction in London on 23 September. “Is it global warming? I think it’s safe to answer yes,” she told the meeting.
Francis said a growing number of studies, including her own, suggest that the melting Arctic is having knock-on effects on the jet stream, the river of air that snakes around the northern hemisphere at an altitude of around 5 to 6 kilometres, and which has a profound impact on the world’s weather.

The jet stream is driven by the flow of air between the cold Arctic pole and warmer air that moves upwards from nearer the equator. As the warmer air advances polewards, it is swung eastwards by the Coriolis force which comes from Earth’s spin, creating a snake-like stream. “It’s a fast-moving river of air, a very messy creature,” says Francis.

The strength of the jet stream depends on the temperature gradient between the regions of cold and warm air – the wider the difference, the faster and stronger the jet stream.

Twice as fast
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, an effect enhanced when the sea ice that normally cools the Arctic air melts away. Because of this, the air currents that come from that region are getting disproportionately warmer too, narrowing the temperature difference between the Arctic and southerly winds, and thereby weakening the jet stream itself. “The winds have weakened by 10 per cent over the past three decades in the west-to-east wind of the jet stream,” says Francis."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26278-crazy-weather-traced-to-arctics-impact-on-jet-stream/

I know all this is just bliovating from all those stupid scientists who don't know anything about climate but I thought I would try to be the one "warmist" to try to explain this to you.

Carry on with your with your dismissal..........

Edit: Sorry those may not have been the best quotes to make the case. This article on the weather network may explain in more easily understood language:

"Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have warmed the globe by about 1 C over the past 50 years. However, the Arctic has warmed more than twice as much. Amplified Arctic warming is due mainly to dramatic melting of ice and snow in recent decades, which exposes darker ocean and land surfaces that absorb a lot more of the sun’s heat.

Because of rapid Arctic warming, the north/south temperature difference has diminished. This reduces pressure differences between the Arctic and mid-latitudes, weakening jet stream winds. And just as slow-moving rivers typically take a winding route, a slower-flowing jet stream tends to meander.

Large north/south undulations in the jet stream generate wave energy in the atmosphere. If they are wavy and persistent enough, the energy can travel upward and disrupt the stratospheric polar vortex. Sometimes this upper vortex becomes so distorted that it splits into two or more swirling eddies.

These “daughter” vortices tend to wander southward, bringing their very cold air with them and leaving behind a warmer-than-normal Arctic. One of these eddies will sit over North America this week, delivering bone-chilling temperatures to much of the nation."

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/n...change-connection-weather-environment/123443/

 

That's actually not true. I mean, there certainly aren't as many as other land masses, but Antarctica still has quite a few...dozens in fact.

Also keep in mind that you don't need surface stations to measure surface temperature anyway. Polar orbiting satellites can take these measurements as well.

 

Proof is definitive or fact not theoretical.

 

I would point out that you're arguing a point I didn't make, nor would I. The point isn't that more precip might fall. Or that temp variation cannot happen. Because, it does. The point is that if we are truly warming, the production of record shattering cold shouldn't then also be possible. And let's not forget what we're talking about here. These are just record cold temps for a day, they are record cold temps of all record keeping time. And like those who are determined to recalculate absolute warmest temps so that recent collections eclipse older records, the collection of all time records is more significant than single day records. Given the logic of climate warming, the current distribution of CO2 shouldn't then allow us ever to break record coldest temps. As a predictive function, a climate that is roughly +/- 1.C warmer shouldn't then create a condition where an absolute coldest temp ever could be achieved. The logic is very straight forward here. Something has to have facilitated enough concentration of cold to be pervasive enough to create them. This cannot only work one way where we justify transformative economic change when we hit high temps..

 

I suppose then you'd be cool if we only had what a couple dozen sites in North America then, right? Oh, and make sure you don't put any in Alaska or Canada... I'm sure you think you can guess their readings afterall....

 

If it were up to me and money were no limitation then I'd put them every square kilometer both land and ocean. But, remember the math says that the infinitesimal incremental improvement in precision of the mean temperature comes at a substantial increase in cost. The math being: E=S/sqrt(N) + C where E is the error of the mean, S is the error of the individual measurement and N is the number of measurements, and C is a constant systematic bias generally on the order of 0.01C for reanalysis or 0.05C for conventional datasets.

So for example...

1 station every 100km (or 10000 sq. km) would yield 510,000,000 / 10000 = 51,000 stations.

1 station every 50km (or 2500 sq. km) would yield 510,000,000 / 2500 = 204,000 stations.

If each station has a margin of error on temperature measurements of 1C then:

E = 1 / sqrt(51000) + 0.01 = 0.0144C

E = 1 / sqrt(204000) + 0.01 = 0.0122C

So you only increase the precision by 15% for reanalysis but increase your cost by 400% because there are 4x as many stations.

Don't read too much into this...I'm not saying there are 51,000 stations right now. This is just an example of things to be considered.

 

But if cold air is being pushed south out of the arctic by the so called polar vortex as a result of the warming arctic and slowing jet stream with larger looping patterns, as has been documented, wouldn't you expect that that arctic air moving south would be colder than that experienced before the jet stream pattern had changed as a result of the warming arctic?

Also you are assuming that weather in the eastern US is somehow indicative of the entire planet's climate. Where I live in North America we have barely had a winter and in Australia they are again approaching record heat and drought in January.

I read one account that it is so hot snakes are seeking relief in peoples toilets and koalas are begging for water in suburbs.

Cold weather in Chicago for week or so does not mean the world is not warming. Just another example of extreme weather as the planet tries to find an equalibrium in a warming world.

 

I may be a victim to Poe's Law, but below is your quote with the parts I was referencing to, highlighted.

Here is an article explaining what I was talking about: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/

 

The problem with this is that the actual severe weather they are talking about is supposed to happen way off in the future, not now since in the last thirty years that AGW has been the cause celeb temperatures globally have not risen much.

 

Which I then addressed. You, nor your citation, can explain the fundamental issue. Coldest ever. If, as the citation postulates, and you parrot, warming is the force that "creates" the instability, then the citation fundamentally misses the point. Temperature moderation and closer homogeneity should actually induces far less instability, and should then "moderate" possible potential extreme temps. This is basic stuff here. So, you mistake the position asserted as one that your citation then covers, which is inaccurate in the first place. The expectation that more H2O is available in cold situations to become snow isn't the question. The question is why the blanket of warming that we're to believe is now enhanced is failing to produce the results that we should be able to expect. Clearly, the moderation effect isn't creating more stability if polar "leakages" or "vortex's" are still happening. If we were less volatile, these events simply wouldn't happen because of exactly the moderation that the AGW meme demands. So, what is it then?

I assert that temperature homogeneity is in fact diverging. More dissimilarly is inducing the air masses to move more and creating these intense pockets of cold. We have plenty of evidence and data that suggest this is both not unusual, nor should it be. And yet, the smoothing effect of warming has not overcome the natural heat or cold dissipation processes of the natural world. That should tell us something. If only more folks would listen.

 

Climatology & meteorology work with two very different sets and types of data. Meteorology concerns itself with constantly changing data conditions, that are largely unpredictable & not altogether understood. Climatology studies glacial & other deposits left from the past that are solid & unchanging, and much less subject to interpretation error. Climatologists are the ones who've tried to alert us to the dangers of ongoing man-made climate change. The evidence was disputed at first, as are all new hypotheses. But scientists from various other specialties have gradually been convinced by the accumulating evidence. Most skeptics are people who have little or no interest in science or it's evidence, but base their denial on religious beliefs or a personal aversion to facing the challenges global warming presents.

 

Who says?

 

Show me where anyone has said that AGW is supposed to moderate potential extreme temperatures. Not any climatologists. Extreme weather (hot or cold) is driven by energy. The hotter the Earth, the more energy there is.

 

The AGW science. Unfortunately with the hysteria abounding every weather event now is blamed on AGW.

 

For decades scientists have been HOWLING about the dangers of bad cholesterol and convincing people to radically alter their diets as a result and take physically damaging medication and then last year British scientists proved that there is no such thing as bad cholesterol. Science is quite often wrong . . .

 

It's not, the point is that all mathematics has to eventually boil down to axioms which you can't prove using mathematics. For example, the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms.

 

Doesn't bother you that you believe science when it comes to smoking cigarettes, or flying in an airplane, or using the internet, but suddenly, when your political party tells you to believe something you magically don't believe science anymore?