Coming soon: Climate change causes ice ages too

By Jo Nova

Right after it happens: scientists discover Climate Change *may* cause extreme cold

Today, just in time for the Big US Freeze comes the soft sell junk science stories suggesting that Global Warming is responsible.

In ten years time, if the world cools, and the thermometer adjustments can’t hide the frosts, the snow, and the cherries that don’t ripen, don’t think for a minute that the climate modeling Gods, the banker cartels, or the Church of Carbon will admit they were wrong. The bait and switch will go where-ever the weather does, and if we get an ice age, well carbon emissions will have caused that too.

The “climate fear” message just needs some tweaking and here it comes: Man-made CO2 warms the air but apparently it also shifts the jet streams which causes all that hot air in the Arctic to rush south and freeze Florida. But  in 2008 the climate experts said the opposite. Back then climate change was causing jet streams to move towards the poles, “which fitted the predictions of climate models”. See how it works? They can never be wrong.

One day the increased snow will keep the northern reaches permanently iced over, and next thing you know the Little Ice Age is back, and it’s all because you didn’t catch the bus. Climate change will cause ice ages.

Research suggests all sorts of things to suggestive people:

Scientists say Arctic warming could be to blame for blasts of extreme cold

Research suggests that climate change is altering the jet stream, pushing frigid air down to southern climes more frequently. But the scientific jury is still out.

By Scott Dance, The Washington Post

Notice how they start “the data is clear”, as if they have any respectable verification of anything at all:

The data is clear: Rising global temperatures mean winters are getting milder, on average, and the sort of record-setting cold that spanned the country Friday is becoming rarer. But at the same time, global warming may be altering atmospheric patterns and pushing harsh outbreaks of polar air to normally moderate climates, according to scientists who are actively debating the link.

Because nearly infinite money is thrown at research connecting CO2 to everything on Earth, there will always be one paper published somewhere, sometime, randomly, that suggests a useful “link” or predicted something that happened once. One of these teams is right, but we won’t know which one till it happens.

The debate started with a research paper Francis co-authored in 2012. It gets revived whenever an extreme-cold event creates headlines, such as in 2021, when Texas’s energy grid was overwhelmed by a storm that killed 246 people.

Francis’s research hypothesized that Arctic warming was reducing the contrast between polar and tropical temperatures, weakening the jet stream, a band of strong winds in the upper atmosphere that helps guide weather patterns. A weaker jet stream would allow weather systems to more easily swing from the Arctic down into mid-latitude regions that typically have temperate climates.

Because the climate is a complex phenomenon, this game can go on forever, there will always be another variable to make up explanations with, or to “discover” corrections in the raw data that make it work — no matter what the weather does.

Modern Science is just a fishing industry for post hoc Public Relations excuses for any policy you want.

It’s going to be minus 5 C (23F) in Tampa, Florida, and a lot colder in Canada. Best wishes to our friends in the Northern Hemisphere.

9.9 out of 10 based on 80 ratings

132 comments to Coming soon: Climate change causes ice ages too

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Funny didn’t it start out that CO2 was going to cause an ice age 30 odd years ago then switched to globull warming , how gullible do these people think we are .

    380

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      Funny how a trace gas – minuscule yet essential – can cause wild, erratic, frigid weather climate in one place, yet also cause calm, settled, balmy conditions in another. Wait for it – it’s ‘complex’ 🤣

      Happy Christmas Eve from one of those calm, settled, balmy places… so balmy I just saw Santa ride past, in a bikini on a motorbike, and oh did she look hot!

      331

  • #
    David Maddison

    “Climate change” or whatever it’s called today is the ideal all-purpose crisis.

    There is nothing that can’t be attributed to “climate change”, including the only other competing constructed crisis, COVID-19.

    Goolag “covid climate change” without quote marks and see.

    251

    • #
      Jack01

      The other thing they have brainwashed people to believe is that bad weather is the result of climate change.

      As if weather was perfect before people started burning coal? This is the level of rampant stupidity that the left have inflicted on many people.

      371

  • #
    Mike Jonas

    Right after it happens. Says it all.

    201

  • #
    Neville

    Some scientists + MSM also told us that the 1970s cold period in the USA could be the start of another Ice Age.
    And it was really cold for a number of years, but then they quickly changed to the global warming scare after Dr Hansen’s stupid talk in Washington DC in 1988.
    Now it’s “Climate change” and whatever happens now is caused by Humans and the extra 0.007% of co2 in the atmosphere.
    The same Dr Hansen now tells us that 350 ppm is ok, so we need to get rid of that pesky 68 ppm above their safe 350 ppm level.
    Should be easy just ask China, India and the developing countries as they build hundreds of new Coal power stns into the future.
    Meanwhile the data tells us that 8 billion Humans now live in the safest world EVER and we also enjoy the best climate for Humans EVER and longest life expectancy and wealth per capita EVER etc. Just look up the data, see Macrotrends or OWI Data etc.

    260

    • #
      Hivemind

      They had to change the name to Climate Change, because the warming had stopped. It would have been very embarrassing.

      110

      • #
        Dennis

        I remain confused about the predictions that by 2000 Sydney Opera House would be below water, and there would never be enough rainfall again to fill dams.

        100

  • #
    David Maddison

    https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

    A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

    SEE LINK FOR LIST

    Also quoted on that page there is this quote from the BBC, a viewpoint from 2004:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm

    Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.

    161

  • #

    Well, for a start there is no debate as the Climate Alarmists do not allow for an alternate position in the ‘debate’. It’s like heads we win and tails you lose. Two Bob each way and all that. Just be like Mother Nature and adapt. A lot lot cheaper and easier IMHO.

    210

  • #
    Rosco

    Joe Postma has been enduring maximum temperatures below zero for more than a month. Maximums right now are minus 18°C.

    I don’t know how people live in these areas.

    When the idiots get their way there will be huge vacant cities all over the northern US and Canada.

    161

    • #
      Hivemind

      Try reading “Fallen Angels”, by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn. It’s an excellent view into the mindset of the warmists. Even though the world is being covered by ice, they won’t abandon their belief that CO2 is causing dangerous warming. It’s a great read, I recommend it for anybody that can think.

      51

  • #
    David Maddison

    Leonard Nimoy discussed about the possibility of a coming Ice Age in the 1970’s in the “In Search of…” TV series.

    Incidentally, this episode appears to have been deleted from the official “In Search of…” YouTube channel. It was in Season 2, 1977-78.

    Fortunately, another YouTuber resurrected it.

    https://youtu.be/RQRqr9_jw5I 22 mins.

    141

  • #
    b.nice

    Do their CHIMP6 models show an Ice Age ?

    110

    • #
      RickWill

      The models show warming everywhere at similar rates. The temperature for the various models covers a range of 3C for the present time but the trends are always close.
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhBlQt8jdeBoZ9NhY?e=N9M7Po

      There is now a recognition that the snowfall element of the models is wrong and it needs revision. No model has Greenland gaining elevation or increased permanent ice cover.

      I think the modellers are 10 to 20 years away from recognising that they are observing the start of glaciation.

      Most “global warming” is occurring on land north of 40N in winter when the ground is below freezing. It does not take much thought to realise civilisation is witnessing what has happened four times in the past 500k years; termination of an interglacial.

      121

      • #
        RickWill

        What is being observed across North America today is the essence of modern so-called “global warming”.

        It is not easy to wrap your head around the idea that snow warms the place up. But when the snow was formed in the atmosphere it was radiating at an average of 185W/m^2 (-33C). That is up to 100W/m^2 less heat loss than what frozen ground radiates at under clear sky. So it has retained surface heat during its formation.

        It takes the equivalent of 100kg of coal combustion to liberate 1000kg of water from the ocean surface and elevate it to freezing altitude. So snow formation is energy intensive and only occurs with warm oceans.

        Glaciation is a highly energy intensive process. Every 10 tonne of snow on the ground required the equivalent energy of burning 1 tonne of coal to get it there. In the first phase of the modern glaciation, the oceans will fall 4mm per year. That requires 1,400,000,000,000 tonne of snow to be left on the land EVERY year – LOTS of ocean heat input.

        80

    • #
      Hivemind

      “Do their CHIMP6 models show an Ice Age ?”

      No, but many of the earlier climate models showed a deciduous rainforest where the Sahara Desert is, which shows just how much weight we can put on them.

      60

  • #
    b.nice

    ” but apparently it also shifts the jet streams “

    Like happened around 1977 ?

    140

  • #
    MrGrimNasty

    Global warming must have been powerful in the 80s! There have been lots of Florida freezes not listed here in more recent years, perhaps not so harsh, but they have also got better at preventing frost damage with irrigation sprays etc.
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uBLPqPU-F6s/XhLV_LGaWYI/AAAAAAAAo7w/2Nrdlxcz1Bozav-LL7U3ecPOGh-RxDKeQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Florida%2BImpact%2BFreezes%2BTemperature%2BData.png

    90

  • #
    Crakar24

    Speaking of cherries, Forreston a small town in the radelaide hills known for its cherries can’t sell any because they are still green, cherries are now selling for $15/kg.

    All caused by climate change (Registered Trademark)

    101

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Crakar,
      At the Chelsea flower show 2022, regular gold medal winner Harkness Roses missed gold but got silver gilt this year because their roses opened fully for the judges a few days too late.
      No charge for this supporting data for strawberries.
      Geoff S

      40

    • #
      RickWill

      My cherries rotted before they ripened. Last year they had an oily leaf mite that damaged most of the crop.

      10

    • #
      Adellad

      I was at the Central Market yesterday – $15/kg my reverse end. Most were double that and more, some 3 times that and more.

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      They will have to sell then later to produce cherry rip chocolate.

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

    Ayn Rand

    180

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Deutsche Bank report: ‘A Certain Degree of Eco-Dictatorship Will Be Necessary’ in order ‘to move towards climate neutrality’

    Deutsche Bank Research document published in November 10, 2020, entitled ‘What we must do to Rebuild’ – On page 70, an analysis By Eric Heymann is titled: “Climate neutrality: Are we ready for an honest discussion?” – Page 72:

    Heymann, a Deutsche Analyst in Sectors and resources wrote:

    “We take key consumption decisions, for example whether we travel at all, how much we travel…These decisions tend to be made on the basis of our income, not on climate considerations…If we really want to achieve climate neutrality, we need to change our behavior in all these areas of life…carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behavior.

    That means that carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behavior. Another (or perhaps supplementary) option is to tighten regulatory law considerably. I know that “eco-dictatorship” is a nasty word. But we may have to ask ourselves the question whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality.”

    80

    • #
      OldOzzie

      December 23, 2022

      Cold winter exposes climate frauds: Germany returns to coal

      This is weird…. After “leading the way” for the climate communists, Germany now faces a freezing winter and ballooning energy crises — they’re at the precipice of an economic meltdown, so they’re bringing back their coal.

      See what Bloomberg had to say:

      Germany is set to boost its reliance on coal as it battles an unprecedented energy crisis — even at the expense of its ambitious climate goals.

      …coal is making a comeback as countries seek to prevent soaring energy costs from triggering an economic meltdown. In Europe, the crisis is acute, after Russia curbed natural gas supplies in the fallout of its war in Ukraine.

      (Oh how I’m relishing in President Trump’s ‘told ya so’ moment right now.)

      Additionally, the article includes a quote from Carlos Fernandez Alvarez, who is the “acting head of gas, coal and power at the International Energy Agency.” A precursory scan of the website yields a consistent lexicon. You’ll see the words “sustainable” and “clean energy”, and some of their technologies include “carbon capture” and “methane abatement” — cull the cows and bring on the cricket food!

      Per Alvarez:

      Everyone is keeping their climate targets, but it’s true that when you face the dilemma to keep the lights on or decrease carbon emissions, the choice is to keep the lights on[.]

      Two interesting points that arise from the above assertion:

      First, Alvarez acknowledges that a transition away from gas and coal as a source of energy is at this moment, not achievable without forcing people to return to the Dark Ages. Ramrodding through policy to conform to “climate goals” results in “an unprecedented energy crisis” — it’s just not feasible.

      Secondly, Alvarez eviscerates the seriousness of the “climate crisis.” It’s obvious the powers that be don’t mind sacrificing the prosperity and comfort of the average citizen, so if it were actually a crisis, they’d make us use candles. But it’s not a crisis, rather it’s communism in disguise, and therefore they can’t do too much too soon, it’s a boil the frog type strategy.

      90

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      OO,
      Shows again the need for the Establishment to show beyond reasonable doubt that net zero is a necessary or even worthwhile target.
      It is long past time for realistic, scientific derivations of the social cost of carbon. Current favourites are unbelievable propaganda, but they are used as if impregnable.
      Geoff S

      80

      • #
        Ted1.

        Geoff.

        An old mate paid me a compliment today that leads me to tell this story.

        Between tractors and trucks I would have spent about a thousand hours a year working alone with noisy machinery. Hardly sociable until my mates get to eat my produce, which is a bit remote.

        When being sociable I sometimes found difficulty explaining to people things that were obvious to me.

        I guess there’s nothing unusual about that, but I formed the opinion that the proportion of the population who could successfully consider a problem with more than one variable in it was less than ten percent, and possibly as low as one percent.

        Then I was talking to a priest. He said: “I did a course lately, and they said that only one in forty of the population has the mental capacity to initiate new thinking”.

        Which I saw as confirming my observation from the back blocks.

        The relevance of all this is that the thirty nine depend on the one. So it is the one that has to be persuaded, then the 39 can flip.

        Not impossible. But it won’t happen if nobody is trying.

        80

  • #
    b.nice

    “Best wishes to our friends in the Northern Hemisphere.”

    Particularly to those who’s governments have severely compromised your electricity and energy supply systems.

    All we can do is wish you the best of luck that you scrape through another winter.

    110

  • #
    el+gordo

    What causes the jet stream to meander?

    40

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >’What causes the jet stream to meander?”

      Cap Allon (Electroverse):

      When solar activity is HIGH, the jet stream is tight and stable and follows somewhat of a straight path. But when solar activity is LOW, that meandering band of air flowing 6 miles above our heads becomes weak and wavy, it effectively buckles which diverts frigid Polar air to atypically low latitudes and replaces it with warmer tropical air.

      In other words, natural climate change or the IPCC’s “natural variability”.

      Obviously that doesn’t advance the ‘Net Zero’ cause so please ignore.

      100

      • #
        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >”ASk Mike Lockwood, he seems to know long enough”

          Yes, he knows.

          Also from his 2010 paper:

          Lockwood M (2010) Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum.
          https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.2009.0519

          8. The current solar minimum in context and the future

          The probability of at least one grand minimum (φ < 175 MV) having occurred within an interval of duration t of the end of a grand maximum is shown in figure 7 for t between 1000 and +1000 years. The fact that the distribution is asymmetric is not surprising because t = 0 is at the end (rather than the centre) of the grand maximum, and there is also a tendency for the declines to be more rapid than the rises. Hence, although there is a chance that the current solar minimum heralds a rapid return to MM conditions in the next century, a smaller fall is actually more likely and MM-like conditions are most likely to be 100–200 years into the future.

          And,

          9. A climate response to the decline in solar activity?

          The recent solar minimum shows that the trends to lower TSI and greater cosmic ray fluxes identified by Lockwood & Fröhlich (2007) have continued and these would be, if anything, a cause of lower temperatures on Earth. It is not surprising, therefore, that the GMAST record has been scrutinized for a matching decline. As shown in the bottom panel of figure 1, the NASA/GISS data show a continued rise in GMAST, whereas the HadCRUT3v data show a plateau after about 2000. This highlights the difficulty in combining the available data into a single homogeneous series. These datasets do not use the same input data, nor do they handle regions of missing data in the same way (in particular, GISS interpolates into areas of missing data, whereas HadCRUT3v does not).

          So as I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread, probably Dalton Minimum conditions with a chance of Maunder conditions.

          Climate crisis: what lessons can we learn from the last great cooling-off period?
          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/09/climate-crisis-lessons-to-learn-from-the-little-ice-age-cooling

          40

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            Lockwood >”a tendency for the declines to be more rapid than the rises”

            Lockwood expands in Krishna’s BBC link:

            Professor Lockwood explained that studies of activity on the Sun, which provides data stretching back over 9,000 years, showed that it tended to “ramp up quite slowly over about a 300-year period, then drop quite quickly over about a 100-year period”.

            He said the present decline started in 1985 and was currently about “half way back to a Maunder Minimum condition”.

            1985 makes sense when you trace the minimums (as does Abdussamatov’s bicentennial measure) which can be seen in this graph:

            SC1 – SC26 (SC25/26 prediction):
            https://i0.wp.com/thegrandsolarminimum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/x7IVbMTJ.png?ssl=1

            1985 was the last peak minimum. But it wasn’t until the end of SC23 (2004 arguably – IPCC 2007) that the area under the curve (and hence energy) really dropped off.

            10

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Lockwood in Deccan Herald:

          “We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10 percent to 20 percent – nearer 20 percent – probability that we’ll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions.”

          Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/content/383077/is-sun-falling-silent-dropping.html

          Probably beyond my life span but I’m inclined to think I’ll experience Dalton conditions in my old age depending on the regional distribution. For then I’d prefer a warming scenario – any of the IPCC’s warming scenarios will do thanks.

          20

    • #
      John Hultquist

      Deflection of moving fluids or objects on a spinning sphere is because of the Coriolis force and is called the Coriolis effect.
      Earths spins or rotates on its N-S axis.

      20

      • #
        el+gordo

        That is true, but when the sun is quite the jet streams become sluggish and kinks appear, creating blocking high pressure.

        We could think about how a quiet sun makes the stratosphere shrink.

        20

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Mike Lockwood gave his thoughts re blocking and the stratosphere in Krishna’s BBC link:

          The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.

          Solar UV heats the stratosphere (20-50km above the surface), particularly the equatorial stratosphere. This results in a temperature gradient, which leads to the formation of high level winds.

          “The change in solar activity undoubtedly changes the stratospheric winds,” said Professor Lockwood.

          Studies have shown that the state of the stratosphere can make a considerable difference to what happens in the troposphere, which is where the jet stream occurs, Professor Lockwood explained.

          “There has been some quite simple modelling that indicated that heating the equatorial stratosphere with more UV would actually move the jet streams a little bit, by just a few degrees.

          “That, of course, has the potential to change the behaviour of the jet streams – and that is the sort of thing that we think we are seeing.”

          Solar UV => stratospheric winds => troposphere jet stream.

          30

        • #
          Adellad

          Blocking can be by a cyclonic system or anti-cyclonic no?

          20

  • #
    David Maddison

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

    H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women

    80

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN here’s the only DATA that matters and it shows NO increase in co2 emissions for the USA + EU since 1970, or over HALF A CENTURY. When will they WAKE UP?
    Importantly check out China’s recent SOARING co2 emissions since 2017.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

    40

  • #

    “corrections in the raw data that make it work”.
    Australia has always used this method. Much of the observational data is not online or online but only partly digitised. Many long records would go back into the 1920s etc but are only fully digitised back to 1957 or some such date. Thus many daily extreme records are claimed that have happened before. These records are there in the data but we don’t get to see all the daily data let alone anything much that could be called raw data. Instead of raw data we get monthly averages. Many of the extreme days in the past like Bourke on January 3 1909 at 125 degrees F have been deleted. Then the claim is made that temperatures that have not passed the Q.A. tests are there but are in italics is made. So there seems to be multiple overlapping levels of past extreme removal.
    Entire long datasets are missing. Many long datasets are broken into a monthly averaged old half and a daily digitised new half. Old daily records that are and perhaps are not suspicious are deleted. Large amounts of daily data are in italics and then the modern data is selected from 60 spot samples per minute that are not averaged to WMO standards to remove electrical noise.
    Every step of the way old extremes are calmed down and new extremes are exaggerated. Then calculations are based on either homogenisation or gridded infil of what is left untouched.
    The gridded data infil where there are no thermometers is warming at an alarming rate.

    120

  • #
    David Maddison

    They are also trying to scare the children by bringing Santa Claus, the elves and reindeer into it.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-change-lapland-santa-claus-father-christmas-reindeer-global-warming-a8113041.html

    Climate change in Lapland: The impact of global warming in the land of Santa Claus

    Environmental changes in the far north are having disastrous effects on the region’s indigenous people and tourism industry

    Josh Gabbatiss
    Science Correspondent
    Saturday 23 December 2017

    Lapland occupies a happy space in the popular imagination as a winter wonderland, occupied by reindeer, elves and Father Christmas.

    The real life Lapland, however, is increasingly facing up to the grim reality of global warming.

    SEE LINK FOR REST, REQUIRES REGISTRATION

    40

    • #
      Harves

      It’s self-perpetuating isn’t it? Like, tell the world that the Great Barrier Reef has been destroyed by magic CO2 gas, then when tourists don’t visit, blame climate change for destroying tourism on the reef.

      I used to be on the Aust Marine Conservation Society mail out. It was hilarious; in the same email they’d be telling everyone that the GBR was being destroyed by global warming AND also advertising eco-diving trips to much warmer reefs nearer the equator.

      They never did respond to me when I pointed out this hypocrisy.

      70

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      David, the Danish Met Inst’s page yesterday showed the WHOLE Arctic Sea basin frozen solid, 2-3 metres thick in some places. Also the temp for 80* North and above was 25 degrees Celsius BELOW freezing – maybe the Independent churnalist partook in some of the Laplanders’ reindeer magic potion…

      70

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN here’s another baffling question…. if TOXIC S & W are the cheapest energy, then why are China, India and developing countries NOT changing to these TOXIC disasters?
    They must be stupid, but they would rather spend their time and money on very safe, RELIABLE COAL, GAS Hydro and NUCLEAR. BASE-LOAD energy is their number one future requirement.

    120

    • #
      ozfred

      Actually China is installing huge amounts of both solar and wind generation “assets”
      What China is NOT doing is planning to eliminate the fossil fuel generation BEFORE tested and reliable alternative generation has been confirmed.

      20

      • #
        Mike

        Ozfred……that’s the most accurate depiction of realistic energy policy that should be embraced by todays western dystopian world

        30

  • #
    el+gordo

    Here is one theory on the meandering jet stream.

    ‘ … the message from a new study that identifies a compelling link between solar activity and winter temperatures in northern Europe.

    ‘The research finds that low solar activity promotes the formation of giant kinks in the jet stream.’ (New Scientist)

    40

    • #

      The solar activity is not really low anymore though. Is there a delay like “The Evans notch”?
      https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

      33

      • #

        Have a look at the actual TCI that represent the energy in the thermosphere, representing the UV radiations heating

        60

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Siliggy >”The solar activity is not really low anymore”

        You’ve presented this cycle (25) in comparison to previous (24). You do realize SC24 was low?

        Take a look at SC1 – SC26 (SC25/26 prediction):
        https://i0.wp.com/thegrandsolarminimum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/x7IVbMTJ.png?ssl=1

        From NOAA & NASA Solar Cycle 25 Forecasts – A Comparison
        https://www.thegrandsolarminimum.com/noaa-nasa-solar-cycle-25-forecasts-a-comparison/

        SC19 is highest
        SC24 was less than half SC19
        SC25/26 predictions are on a par with Dalton Minimum SCs 5/6 1798 – 1823

        That’s if we’re lucky. Maunder Minimum prior to SC1 was even less.

        60

        • #

          You’ve presented this cycle (25) in comparison to previous (24).

          Not really. I presented the data all the way back to 1750.
          Here is the link again. Under the main default chart you chose to see and be critical of there is a sliding adjustment. Slide it over to the left to see a longer time period than the default.
          https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

          Now you take a look at how well the progression of SC 25 matches the progression of SC 20 so far. Predictions are not working out so well and never do. The red line shows that predictions were much lower but have gone wrong.
          Take a look also at the link Krishna provided. Here it is again. On it you can see that the current sunspot number is only just under the grey neutral line.
          https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/21dec22/TCI_Daily_NO_Power_Percentiles.png

          “You do realize SC24 was low?”

          Yes that is part of the reason for “is there a delay”. Clearly rapid global cooling has begun. I have seen better correlations with the 22/23 year long solar magnetic cycle than the 11 and a bit year long sunspot cycle. Notice prior to SC20 there was a very big SC19.
          I suspect the low SC24 has caused volcanic activity like Hunga Tonga, while the higher SC25 has contributed to rainfall. The water vapour from the volcano has presented a real problem for warmists by not doing what water vapor feedback needs to for their theories. As usual everybody ignores the change in earths diameter and surface area due to rotation speed and La Nina thermal Equatorial flywheel effects.

          10

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            Siliggy >”Now you take a look at how well the progression of SC 25 matches the progression of SC 20 so far.”

            Nowhere near SC20. What you are looking at is the first in series of spikes as in every other SC. The Red prediction smooths out the spikes i.e. not an apples-to-apples comparison.

            Take SC24. The peak monthly spike was 146.1 but the corresponding smoothed monthly value was 110.5. That is almost identical to SC14 and SC7.

            >”the current sunspot number is only just under the grey neutral line”

            Again, the spikes are no indication. The smoothed monthly value is somewhere midway between cool and neutral.

            >”Notice prior to SC20 there was a very big SC19″

            As I stated – “SC19 is highest”

            Your original assertion was ”The solar activity is not really low anymore”. The latest smoothed monthly value is 73.1. That’s similar to SCs 5, 7 and 12 at the same stage in each cycle.

            That’s low.

            00

            • #

              “The latest smoothed monthly value is 73.1.”
              No that is the prior one when the prediction was 37.1.
              The latest is actually 77.3 for which the prediction was only 39.7
              Just as both of those predictions were too low the predicted peak of 115.3 can be expected to underestimate by a similar ratio.
              37.1 / 73.1 = 0.507
              39.7 / 77.3 = 0.514
              This means the prediction of a July 2025 peak of 115.3 will likely undershoot by at about 0.51 of the real value. The solar cycle peak being 115.3 / 0.51 = 226.1
              What this means is

              The solar activity is not really low anymore

              00

      • #
        el+gordo

        There is this harmonic in the system.

        https://i.imgur.com/7PksH7H.png

        Javier is forecasting that world temperatures will remain flat, followed by a moderate cooling.

        There is enough heat in the system to keep temperatures above the 1950s to 1970s period, but there is no certainty. An unforeseen volcanic eruption might muddy the waters and of course when the AMO goes negative we should get a better picture.

        20

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >”There is enough heat in the system to keep temperatures above the 1950s to 1970s period”

          But for how long?

          If say in solar terms, the Modern Warm Period ended 2004 and the thermal inertia of the ocean is 20 yrs +/-, then cooling in earnest begins around 2024.

          Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
          Habibullo I Abdussamatov (2013)
          https://www.longdom.org/open-access/grand-minimum-of-the-total-solar-irradiance-leads-to-the-little-ice-age-38014.html

          The World Ocean is inertial environment with slow changes in the climate system, the atmosphere is more changeable. However, close cooperation of the atmosphere and the World Ocean leads to a significant delay and atmospheric climate response to external stimuli. Therefore the Earth’s thermodynamic temperature does not change immediately due to variations in the TSI and Bond albedo; there is an appreciable lag in time determined using the constant thermal inertia of the planet [30]:

          t=0.095(1+0.42·l) yr, (17)

          where l is the depth of the active layer of the World Ocean. If the depth of the active layer of the World Ocean is 300-700 m, the constant thermal inertia is

          t=20 ± 8 yr. (18)

          Say goodbye to the Modern Warm Period.

          40

    • #
      RickWill

      The snow fall has been trending up for more than 100 years.
      https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/xvvjzt/paradise_mt_rainier_snowfall_with_trend_line/

      Glaciation across the northern land masses requires much warmer ocean surface than present. At the current rate of September ocean warming, the show fall will only increase 50% by 2200 compared with now. That only shifts the permafrost about 1 degreee south from where it is in isolated places like Greenland. Permafrost is still retreating on the major land masses.

      Once permanent ice forms it will become a positive feedback because the land is always cold and all advection results in snow accumulation rather than rainfall. The snow is highly reflective and absorbs less than 35% of incoming surface EMR. It id like cloud on the ground and prevents heat getting into the ground.

      I am looking for places like Edmonton in Canada to be reporting their show piles accumulating rather than being alll gone by September. Maybe places across Siberia as well. Also Norwegion glaciers gaining elevation.

      40

  • #
    Ross

    Same in Australia, if we get high temps in Summer it’s “global warming” and we’re all going to fry. If its winter or maybe autumn/spring then its climate change and the events are unprecedented. It’s a fantastic concept because you can fit either descriptive term for any major weather event. It’s the Magic Pudding of climatology.

    110

  • #
    David Maddison

    Video: Founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore talks about “The Truth about CO2”, what Leftoids call “carbon” (sic).

    https://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc 4.5 mins

    It is a Prager University video. Note that in keeping with Leftist intolerance of alternative opinions, many other Prager U videos have been deleted by YouTube. This one is likely only able to survive because it’s probably also been “shadow banned”.

    40

  • #

    The ABC are up to their latest tricks of disinformation. Last night, (Friday 23/12/22) Tom Saunders, the ABC’s meteorologist said in his extended story on the coming few day’s weather; “…heat waves are responsible for more deaths than any natural disaster” end quote. (See 15:11 minutes in on the ABC news last night). This statement needs to be fact checked because from my humble position is completely wrong. I won’t be bothered putting an official complaint to the ABC for many reasons, their procrastination over any alleged error by them is never conceded.
    https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NU2209W255S00

    90

    • #
      Ross

      “Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather”. Antonio Gasparrini, Yuming Guo, Masahiro Hashizume, Eric Lavigne, Antonella Zanobetti, Joel Schwartz, Aurelio Tobias, Shilu Tong, Joacim Rocklöv, Bertil Forsberg, Michela Leone, Manuela De Sario, Michelle L Bell, Yue-Liang Leon Guo, Chang-fu Wu, Haidong Kan, Seung-Muk Yi, Micheline de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coelho, Paulo Hilario Nascimento Saldiva, Yasushi Honda, Ho Kim, Ben Armstrong. Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, May 2015 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0

      60

  • #
    Ross

    Gold star to Rick today. Stellar performance to endure the pain of listening/viewing to the ABC, and saving the rest of us from that ignominy.

    90

  • #
    David Maddison

    Tony Heller has documented the extensive fraudulent alteration of data or denial of historic events by Climate Alarmists / the anti-Energy and the anti-Western Civilisation lobby.

    However, he is being extensively shadow banned by the Leftoid platforms like YouTube as you can see by the extremely low numbers of views he gets. Consistent with Leftoid ideology, they censor opinions they don’t agree with.

    YouTube doesn’t provide many, if any, notifications to his subscribers and nothing in their feeds for his new videos, or rarely so, if ever. I subscribe to him and used to always get notifications and he would appear in my recommendations but now, never.

    https://youtube.com/@TonyHeller

    It’s best to find him on non-Leftist free speech platforms like Rumble.

    https://rumble.com/user/tonyheller

    70

  • #
    RickWill

    Scientists say Arctic warming could be to blame for blasts of extreme cold

    Given enough time these nutters will eventually realise CO2 does zip and they are observing real climate change rather than what the models produce.

    So called “global warming” is dominated by rising January temperature on land north of 40N. Take a look at NASA’s 2021 temperature anomaly map.
    https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Screen-Shot-2022-12-22-at-7.59.49-am-1671682990.4175.png?fit=775%2C459&ssl=1
    Arctic Ocean, Hudson Bay and Greenland all red hot. Now think about Greenland; a 2000m thick ice block being red hot. The January temperature has increased 10C. What 10C increase? Yes from -30C to -20C. That is “global warming” right there.

    What the observations reveal is that the termination of the modern interglacial is in process. It is still early stages. Just 1000 years into an 11,000 year shift to warmer oceans in the NH in September leading to increased advection of that heat to land during the boreal winter. The heat transport results in increased snowfall. The subtle signs have been there for over 100 years now. It is just beginning to accelerate.

    This process has repeated 4 times in the past 500k years.
    https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhHtudMEW7WbCojm3?e=7iYTli

    60

  • #
    wal1957

    I knew something like this was on the cards when they changed the name of the scare campaign because the weather wasn’t doing what the computer modelling said it should.
    Global warming morphed into Climate change.
    Voila! It then doesn’t matter what the weather does, it can all be blamed on climate change!
    I doubt that this will ever be exposed as the fraud that it is. There is too much money involved and the reputations of governments, “scientists”, the media, etc.etc.etc. would all be worth as much as a pimple on granny’s backside.
    They will continue to circle the wagons and cover each others butts.

    Once upon a time, along time ago, I had a bit of respect for “experts”, the news media and even some politicians.
    Now? Zero respect and zero tolerance.

    100

    • #
      Mike

      Wal1957……good year 1957! Thus I’ve been around long enough to experience the intrinsic variability of weather events & alas the hubris & hyperbole associated with the moving goalposts of climate predictions. Totally with you on your post!!

      30

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    >”Rising global temperatures”

    That era has been over for about a quarter century. We reached peak warming and that was it – the Modern Warm Period. I hope you all enjoyed it.

    Lembo, Bordi, and Speranza (2017)
    Figure 2: Monthly mean time series (1979-2015) of ERAI surface temperature (T 2 m ) averaged over (a) the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and (b) Southern Hemisphere (SH) midlatitudes (30-60 • N and 30-70 • S, respectively). Units are in kelvin.

    A discernable rise in NH up to the turn of century but nothing after.

    SH flat – no rise.

    30

    • #
      RickWill

      The Northern Hemisphere has inly just started ti warm. And the Southern Hemisphere is still warming north of 55S on average.

      The NH is just 1,000 years into an 11,000 year summer warming trend.

      The average global temperature will not fall until the large northern land masses start accumulating ice again. The permafrost is still retreating on most of the land. Only Greenland and Iceland are gaining ice extent.

      Both summer and winter temperatures in the NH will trend up for a long time. That is both cause and result of more snow. Water evaporated from warmer oceans ends up as winter snow when the land is below freezing.

      30

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Rick >”The Northern Hemisphere has inly just started ti warm. And the Southern Hemisphere is still warming north of 55S on average”

        The ERAI graph I posted contradicts both assertions.

        Again, a discernable rise in NH up to the turn of century but nothing after.

        SH flat – no rise.

        Warming requires extra energy at the surface – where’s that coming from now that the sun’s gone quiescent?

        Same as #22.1.3.1 (and see reference), if say in solar terms, the Modern Warm Period ended 2004 and the thermal inertia of the ocean is 20 yrs +/-, then cooling in earnest begins around 2024.

        Reduced energy input to the system cannot produce extra heat – the system cools.

        40

        • #
          RickWill

          This is what is written under those charts:

          Monthly mean time series (1979-2015) of ERAI surface temperature (T 2 m ) averaged over (a) the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and (b) Southern Hemisphere (SH) midlatitudes (30-60 • N and 30-70 • S, respectively). Units are in kelvin.

          There is 90 degrees in each hemisphere. And the data is not measured. It is modelled:

          Seasonal variability in near-surface air temperature and baroclinicity from the ECMWF ERA-Interim (ERAI) reanalysis and six coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs)

          I have looked at actual surface 2n air temperature at granular level as well ocean surface temperature. I put very high certainty on the NOAA/Reynolds SST. Not so much faith in the GHCN land air temperature but it is the only land data that is readily available in actual temperature rather than anomaly.

          40

  • #

    Climate change causes ice ages too

    What else, so far they don’t talk about gloabl Warming, it’s not wrong 😀
    Or is there someone saying the drop into an ice age is not a change of the climate ?? 😀 😀 😀

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      I loved the logic by Tim Flannery that Climate Change caused longer and more frequent droughts. That would get to the point where droughts did not exist because they were the norm. Except now a decade later the dams which would never fill are overflowing across Australia. But sooner or later his prediction will be right. Rain is only an interlude between droughts in this wide brown land. And both floods and droughts are our fault. But the average climate then looks acceptable.

      60

  • #

    “Right after it happens: scientists discover…”

    Well done Jo. I think it is only a few steps from here to a full blown model that predicts and diagnoses alarmist behaviour. A model down to the level that predicts the exact text of “science” generated by alarmist activists is not out the realms of possibility.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    As a logical person, the only argument for man made weather is the allegation without proof that the extra 50% in CO2 since say 1850 has caused Climate Change, formerly known as Global Warming.

    There is NO argument that man controls the weather except through fossil fuel CO2.

    However 64 years ago in 1958 this idea was proven completely wrong. The expected 14% increase in CO2 due to fossil fuels was shown to be 2.03% +/-0.15%. So it was busted then. And this simple statement of scientific fact has never been refuted.

    Fossil fuel CO2 is still less than a tiny 3%. The absurd 80 year half life of CO2 in the air quoted by the IPCC in all their reports is nonsense. It has been known to be only 6 years since the 1950s. At 6 years, more CO2 is absorbed and released every month than all of man made CO2 for the year, which is very rapid equilibrium of the most soluble gas. And any increase or decrease is balanced even faster.

    CO2 is so soluble almost all, 98% of CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. By comparison O2 is almost insoluble and it is all in the atmosphere. If all CO2 left the ocean, it would be 2% of the atmosphere, twice Argon. What CO2 in the air at any time is the vapour pressure of dissolved CO2 predicted by Henry’s Law. Warmer oceans mean more CO2. That is simple physical chemistry. Besides, how does CO2 heat the oceans as now being alleged and not the air, say around the Great Barrier Reef? Rather warm oceans mean more CO2. Simple.

    So while there are stories of man made fossil fuel CO2 causing heating and cooling and storms and droughts and floods, they are not science because as we have absolutely zero control over rapidly absorbed CO2 levels. So whether is it is NASA or the CSIRO or the Royal Society telling these stories of man made Climate, they could always read their own papers. There is almost no man made CO2 in the air.

    Nett zero, growing trees, sequestering CO2 in the ocean (which is nuts as it is already stuffed with CO2), ocean ‘acidification’ (the oceans are all alkali and will always be alkali), burning wood chips instead of coal (UK) makes no sense at all. And as CO2 goes up, more trees grow, an area the size of Brazil since 1988. Even NASA reported this, I assume reluctantly as five countries saw it.

    But the anti science Man Made Climate Change story continues. And since 1988 when man made government controlled Climate Change was invented for the UN to seize power, it has been one gigantic lie for 34 years with no actual science.

    So the question is what to do? Complain? Protest? Glue ourselves to paintings? Go back to using whale oil for lighting (Victorians)? Go back to olive oil for lighting (Romans) Stop growing food because nitrogen fertilizers which feed half the world come from ethane? Starve half the world to death, starting with Sri Lanka?

    My own thought is a single web site which gives the amount of CO2 in the air, but as it is under 3%, what is the point? It is stating a single provable fact which the IPCC already knows.

    We do not and cannot control CO2. CO2 is a massive amount of gas on a planetary scale, a gas which obeys Henry’s Law of dissolved gases in a world which is 72% covered in water, but people still want to argue about the effects of a 50% increase? And not a single prediction has come true. So despite the fact that the CO2 is not man made, the increase has zero effect anyway.

    And even ‘rapid Global Warming” is now being abandoned. So where are the real scientists? Vice President Al Gore and Professor Tim Flannery graduated in English, not science. And now the UN is trying to shut down the food supply, end borders and wipe out governments. It is about world domination and has nothing to do with the weather. And real scientists are cowed into silence.

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      And Australian Greens Leader lawyer Adam Bandt did a PhD on Communism on the docks and followed his hero Lenin into politics. Is he a Green activist looking to save the planet? No more than Lenin sought to save the Russian people. “Tell them what they want to hear and when we get power we will do what we like” is the Green manifesto.

      No one controls CO2. Or O2 for that matter. But O2 goes into the oceans so fish breathe and CO2 comes out of the oceans so plants grow. It is the truth. And we control neither process. It is an absurd lie, anti science to suggest that we do.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        I also find the typical graphs very misleading, as intended. See this from Columbia University. just before the end.

        This 1750 – 2022 graph is shown as always with the starting Y value at 1750 nearly on the X axis, obviously to make it look like a rocket ship, sudden growth, a la Michael Mann and his projected temperature graph. It looks like CO2 growth is 10:1. This is blatant deceit.

        In fact I have yet to see a graph which shows CO2 as it really is, a very slow climb from 0.028 to 0.04. Anyone looking at the real graph would ask why there is a problem at all?

        And they might also ask why a natural explanation like slight ocean warming was not the entire story. After all the oceans contain 98% of all CO2 gas and 99.93%(a) of all surface heat. A very slight oscillation in ocean currents would explain all climate changes. The air cannot hold the heat even for a single night, unless high in humidity. Pinning climate changes on CO2 at all would look the ridiculous con job it is. With oceans 3.5Km deep, oceans which never freeze, unlike the night sky, the heat cannot escape.

        (a) The oceans outweigh the air 350:1 with 4x the heat capacity and 75% of the solar collection area. And when climate predictions fail, the promoters simply blame the ocean. I can’t believe they get away with it. If Oceans are the real controllers of climate, why are Climate Scientists using the thin air as a predictor of climates?

        40

  • #
    revo of gong

    The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is an ellipse, and the difference between Perihelion and Aphelion is about 5 million kM which means that the Earth is about 3% closer to the sun at Perihelion compared to Aphelion. At present, Perihelion occurs on 3rd of January, in the Southern Hemisphere summer. This means that the energy received by the Earth from the sun should be about 3% greater at Perihelion than at Aphelion, but the UAH measurement of the Earth’s temperature does not show any significant increase. I have some thoughts on why this might be but have not been able to find a reason. Can anyone here explain it?

    60

    • #
      RickWill

      Can anyone here explain it?

      The solar EMR at the top of the atmosphere is a function of distance squared. So a 3% difference would be a 6% (1.03^2) difference in power level.

      To put actual numbers to it, in December 2020 the total solar EMR arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere was 180PW. Current global average annual electric power generation is 0.003PW – the sun is a powerful source of energy. By June 2020 the total solar EMR was down to 169PW. So a 11PW drop from December to January.

      However Earth is warmest in July or August just after the solar input has bottommed. The reason for that is that land responds much more readily to solar input than ocean and there is more land in the NH. Also ocean surface temperature cannot sustain a temperature above 30C because the clouds become persistent.

      The linked chart sets out the thermal response curves for polar, temperate and tropical regions for both hemispheres and and both main surfaces, land and ocean,
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhHkLC3n4v0VHT0t-?e=kiCUOl

      You can see a marked difference in the way the different regions, hemispheres and surfaces respond. The SH temperate oceans gets 34% of the available power to Earth in December at just over 60PW but it drops to 15PW in June. That 45PW range shifts the ocean temperature a miserly 4.3C.

      By contrast the NH polar zone swings 34C for less than 4PW swing. If you compare on an power flux basis, the NH polar land is 6.3 times more responsive to sunlight than the SH temperate oceans.

      The NH temperate ocean responds 2.3 times more to solar input than the SH temperate ocean.

      So despite the SH getting much stronger sunlight than the NH, the SH has much greater thermal inertia so temperature changes very little.

      As perihelion precesses toward the July solstice, the NH oceans will get much more surface area up to 30C and there will be much more snow fall during the boreal winter. That process started about 1000 years ago but is now only just beginning to show if you look carefully.

      So called “global warming” is just an inaccurate name for the termination of the modern interglacial now under way.

      Once the climate modellers recognise that snow fall is going up faster than snow melt then they might begin to understand real climate change rather than the fairy tale that CO2 can alter Earth’s energy balance.. There are indications that that is happening. They have recognised that their snow fall/melt modelling is wrong because Greenland is gaining elevation and ice extent. Global annual snow extent has been trending up for at least 100 years but still melting faster than falling in most places.

      70

  • #
    Mike

    I’ve said it many times, but if your theory is proven by both A and not A then you are dealing in religion, not science.

    40

  • #
    Robber

    Gotta love today’s “science”.
    “research suggests”; “scientific jury is still out”
    And well said Jo: “Modern Science is just a fishing industry for post hoc Public Relations excuses for any policy you want.”

    40

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    The author and science promoter Andy Weir, author of “The Martian” is conventional enough in his views on climate change. But he’s sufficiently
    knowledgeable and insightful enough to use the phrase “You can’t get two climate scientists to agree on what colour an orange is.”
    (Or words to that effect.) For example, Zwally vs Sheppard on Antarctic ice.
    It’s good turn of phrase. I will definitely repeat it. In fact, I just did.

    30

  • #
    John Connor II

    240 million under severe weather warning as storms bring temperatures of minus 51C

    The National Weather Service (NWS) in the U.S. has issued severe weather warnings for more than 70 per cent of the country with 240 million people to be affected by snow and temperatures as low as minus 51C.

    The bad weather resulted in thousands of flights being cancelled and traffic chaos on Friday, December 23 with heavy snow, sleet and ice causing havoc.

    Issuing the warnings, the NWS said: “Winter weather hazards remain in effect from the Canadian border south to the Rio Grande (border river with Mexico), Gulf Coast and central Florida Peninsula while spanning from the Pacific Northwest to the Eastern Seaboard.”

    Thought to be one of the widest weather warnings ever issued in the U.S. with normally mid places like Dallas in Texas recording temperatures of minus 12. Meteorologists warned that temperatures were so cold that venturing outdoors unprotected could result in frostbite within minutes.

    https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/12/23/240-million-under-severe-weather-warning-as-storms/

    -51C? That’s too cold for me!
    Wonder how many solar panels will crack at these sub zero temps…

    20

  • #
    AZ1971

    See how it works? They can never be wrong.

    This is why I have long said most climate “scientists” are not practicing science at all but statistical manipulation, because for science to be science it needs a way to be disproven — AKA Popper’s Law of Falsifiability.

    90

  • #
    Dennis

    Christmas Eve on the NSW Mid Coast and if the warming continues I will have to discard my tracksuit top.

    30

  • #
    RoHa

    Of course it does. It also causes floods, droughts, COVID, fires, traffic jams, magpie attacks, dumb Americans, Eurovision Song Contest, spiders, heart attacks in healthy young people (Thai princesses included), corrupt MPs, and failed pavlovas.

    Dangerous stuff, this CO2.

    40

  • #
    Choroin

    All the rampant global warming is causing unseasonal cooling.

    Everything makes a lot more sense now . . . thank you benevolent experts of ‘science’.

    In other related news, the term ‘anti-science extremism’ is now being injected into global narratives:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1286457920301581
    Anti-science extremism in America: escalating and globalizing
    Abstract: The last five years has seen a sharp rise in anti-science rhetoric in the United States, especially from the political far right, mostly focused on vaccines and, of late, anti-COVID-19 prevention approaches. Vaccine coverage has declined in more than 100 US counties leading to measles outbreaks in 2019, while in 2020 the US became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now the anti-science movement in America has begun to globalize, with new and unexpected associations with extremist groups and the potential for tragic consequences in terms of global public health. A new anti-science triumvirate has emerged, comprised of far right groups in the US and Germany, and amplified by Russian media.

    What a wonderful conflation. This new terminology is such a catch-all for anyone who disagrees with any public policy – especially those driven by international organs of globalism – that it mirrors usage of the terms heretic and anabaptist in the dark ages through to the early modern period.

    So those who are deemed ‘anti-science’ will no doubt soon get the Guantanamo Bay treatment.

    As the editorial explains, this new group of extremists is taking their marching orders from the USA, and Vladimir Putin is ofc doing his best to amplify their message. So for any Aussies out there thinking of questioning the ‘science’ on any govt talking point, you will soon be an official recruit of US domestic T-word-ists, and you’ll be deemed a Russian asset working against the highly benevolent and desirable ‘liberal world order’. So remember this the next time you decide to question how unseasonal cooling is caused by rampant global warming . . . all you needed to do was to ‘trust the science’.

    Off you go to one of our new ‘well camps’ for a dose of attempted de-radicalisation.

    I’m beginning to think when this is all said and done, Galileo will be deemed to have gotten an easy ride from the Church for his own extremism.

    60

  • #
  • #
    Gerry, England

    HH Lamb noted decades ago – long before global warming was invented – that the jetstream becomes meridional during solar minimum and the pattern changed around 2005.

    The lying clowns at the UK Met Office have declared that next year will be the hottest the world has ever seen. They are not noted for the accuracy of their predictions as most of them are a joke. A while back they gave us a ‘barbecue summer’ at which point it barely stopped raining for weeks on end.

    60

    • #
      el+gordo

      Lamb was definite on this, meridional flow and blocking are linked. Throughout the depths of the LIA it was very pronounced.

      20

  • #
    Phil O'Sophical

    People should start to take notice of the work of Prof. Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University.
    She believes the Modern Grand Solar Minimum of 2020-2053 will reduce global temperatures to such an extent that Earth will enter another ‘little ice age’
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-woman-who-could-cancel-net-zero/

    Working on the Sun’s magnetic flux cycles as a cause and predictor of sun spot activity, I remember some time BC (that’s before Covid) that after years of work, she and her team created modelling that was able to predict the cycle with a high degree of accuracy. No one listened. She said then that the low sun spot activity and lead-in to cooling would begin in 2020, and so it appears.

    I was convinced that was why the imposition of ‘planet-saving’ green crap was ramped up so frantically – because it needed to be made fait accompli before it became too obvious that far from warming, cooling will be the challenge. But remember Endeavour was built in 1764 and Cook later circumnavigated the world: our forefathers survived the last little ice-age without the benefits of fossil fuels and modern tech. It looks like the globalists want us to have to do the same.

    60

    • #
      RoHa

      Valentina Zharkova? That’s a suspiciously Russian sounding name. She must be working for Putin to con us into buying Russian oil which we won’t need because we’re all going to drive electric cars. She wants us to roast to death from the Man Made Global Warming that is freezing up the North.

      60

      • #
        Phil O'Sophical

        You clearly see through the climate nonsense and the scam remedies. But in case you did not have your tongue in your cheek about the lady …

        Short cut for you. She’s Ukrainian, by the way.
        A distinguished professor aged 69, still curious and still working.

        She was born Sept 6, 1953 in Vinitsa, Ukraine.
        Arrived in United Kingdom, 1992.

        First class Master of Science with distinction, Kiev University, Ukraine, 1975.
        Doctor of Philosophy, Main Astronomical Observatory, Kiev, 1983.
        Research scientist, physics, Kiev University, 1975-1984,
        Lecturer in astrophysics, 1985-1992.
        Senior research fellow, physics and astronomy University Glasgow, UK, 1992-1998,.
        Project leader department Informational Technology Glasgow City Council, since 1996-1998
        Lecturer in cybernetics Bradford University, United Kingdom, 2000.
        Visiting research fellow Meudon Observatory, Paris, 1992.
        Research consultant Stanford University, 1998, 99, Harvard Smithsonian Center, 1998.
        Harvard Prof. 2001.
        Came to Northumbria University in 2013, where she still heads a team studying solar magnetic flux.

        10

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘… cooling would begin in 2020, and so it appears.’

      Not so fast, the PDO went negative in 2020 and it explains why world temperatures remain on a plateau.

      https://weather.plus/pdo-index.php

      I don’t believe Zharkova’s forecast.

      02

      • #
        Phil O'Sophical

        Unlike the so-called climate scientists who put garbage in to get out the garbage predictions they want, her team has worked for years to develop a model that fits history, not changing history to fit what they want as the doomsters do. Their programme finally is able to mirror the Maunder and Dalton minimums and recently observed changes. Of course they could be wrong, and would never claim it is a certainty – again as the doomsters do – just that their work convinces them there is a very high probability. And they are saying noticeable cooling from 2025 for thirty years. But I am sure you have good scientific reasons for not believing her – perhaps you could email her to discuss them.

        00

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Yesterday, I heard a TV news person going on about a bomb cyclone and what it is defined as. One of the markers invented was that the barometer drops by 24 millibars. Then he said it dropped by 14 millibars. Ooops. Just another winter storm in winter time.

    40

  • #
    Ed Zuiderwijk

    Scott Dance is an illiterate idiot. Illiterate because he doesn’t know the meaning of what he writes and an idiot because he falls for anything he has been told by charlatans.

    40

  • #
    Ed Zuiderwijk

    Incidentally, what about this priceless piece of comedy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyS9uqRLbB8

    40

  • #
    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘A poleward shift is not inconsistent with a wavier jetstream.’

      Hmmm …. a cold air outbreak in North America is a global cooling signal.

      We have to first figure out what makes the jet stream meander?

      40

    • #
      el+gordo

      Everyone agrees its real, but they can’t join the dots to implicate CO2.

      “The observational evidence for crazier jet stream activity has certainly been strong,” Yale Climate Connections meteorologist Jeff Masters, a cofounder of Weather Underground, says in the video. “We’re seeing some very unusual activity in the past few decades.”

      ‘Siting recent research drawing links between jet stream perturbations and severe weather events, Masters adds that theoretical and computer modeling evidence remains limited, making the subject still “a tough nut to crack.” (Skeptical Science)

      40

      • #
        Simon

        Jeff also says in the article that the quote comes from:

        Clearly, the world cannot safely wait to act until scientists fully understand how and why the climate is changing. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we must act swiftly, forcefully and globally to keep warming below the dangerous two degree Celsius threshold. Energy sources such as solar, wind and nuclear that emit low or zero levels of carbon dioxide, along with technologies that can capture and store carbon, must at least triple by 2050, and greenhouse gas emissions must fall by 40 to 70 percent, compared with 2010 levels. The shift might be surprisingly affordable, cutting global economic growth by only 0.06 percent a year, the panel has said. But if we wait until 2030, the necessary actions will be much more expensive, and it may become impossible to avert the threshold.

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-wacky-jet-stream-is-making-our-weather-severe/

        01

        • #
          b.nice

          Wacky jet streams have been around regularly since time began.

          There is NOTHING human caused about them.. and nothing humans can do about them.

          And from the IPCC…. LOL !!! Political Propaganda.

          Learn to tell the difference between that and reality.

          The totally unnecessary shift to wind and solar, small as it has been, has already been extremely expensive, and has started to destroy economies around the world.

          The more we “act” to combat the non-problem of increased atmospheric CO2, the more damage will be done.

          —–

          Now.. where is your scientific evidence that CO2 has any affect on the climate.

          Without that.. all these trite propaganda mantra comments are meaningless.

          00

          • #
            Simon

            I suggest you start by first reading the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers and then work your way up to the Full report. If you disagree with the evidence, you should start reading the cited papers, but there are hundreds of those. Only then, will you be able to express an informed opinion.
            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

            01

            • #
              b.nice

              Poor Simon, you obviously haven’t read it yourself.

              There is so scientific evidence in the summary for policy makers.

              t is nothing but political claptrap.

              So.. come on where is that scientific evidence.. You know you have none.

              Vague references to nebulous non-science political propaganda, don’t count as science.

              Where is the evidence you are citing.. quote line, and data that proves it.

              Or just keep rambling.

              00

            • #
              b.nice

              I say “all these trite propaganda mantra comments are meaningless.”

              …. and Simon immediately cites exactly that…

              …. so funny !

              00

            • #
              b.nice

              You do know that EVERYTHING in that link is based on failed models and supposition and guesses, don’t you? !

              You do know that warming by human released atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet, don’t you ?

              (if so.. where.. produce the specific paper)

              The only place that CO2 warming exists is in the minds, models and wallets of those pushing the scam.

              It DOES NOT exist in real life.

              00

        • #
          b.nice

          And of course, Jeff has made large amounts of money pushing the AGW scam through his weather sites.

          A rabid climate shill.

          Perhaps you should contact him for the “CO2 warming” scientific evidence that you have abjectly failed to produce…. 😉

          00

    • #
      b.nice

      A poleward shift also has absolutely NOTHING to do with increased atmospheric CO2.

      50

  • #
    Kevin Kilty

    Wednesday afternoon here in the Western U.S. (about 7 am local time on the 22nd in Perth) the temperature dropped about 40F in four hours. We eventually bottomed out at -25F about 12 hours later with wind chill in the neighborhood of -45F. Tough on wildlife. The quoted -51C temperatures quoted in the U.S. press are wind-chill values mostly in the high plains of Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas and Minnesota — not straight temperatures.

    This is hardly unprecedented. Our local record low is -50F (straight temperature) set in February 1963. Lots of record lows around the U.S. date from that same time. It must have been a arctic breakout even more extreme than this one. I heard from many of my highly educated acquaintences that we rarely get much colder than -20F in winters now. I decided to check. From 1960 to 1975 we had 7 winters in which we failed to go below -20F. From 2000 to 2015 we had warmed all the way to 8 such winters. The 10-20% of the population who fail to acknowledge a warming environment should be excused for holding such neanderthal belief because there really isn’t solid evidence of it without the altered weather records to read, is there? We were -28F in the first week of November 2014 (a four-sigma event) and -40F in January 2016. I cut a cross-country ski outting short in 1978 (perhaps 1979) because the -74F wind chill in Utah was too much to withstand. The world where I live is a cold place.

    Right now the exceptional winter conditions we had Wednesday through Friday are now in the eastern U.S. causing rolling blackouts in half-dozen electric power networks. We still have plenty of local coal-fired margin for such events, but our supplier is being bullied into adopting a “clean energy” goal of 70% by 2032 or so. Future trouble is, thus, inevitable; when it first occurs I suspect people will blame coal/natural gas for the problems and insist on more wind/solar.

    It is so frustrating that most people cannot reason, won’t do any research, can’t remeber a thing and just believe what they are told. Around here almost no one in a position of any political/administrative power holds anything like rational beliefs.

    I like to think that I spend quite a bit of my life fighting benightedness and superstition but I know for certain it is all to little avail.

    80

  • #
  • #
    feral_nerd

    In other news, droughts cause flooding.

    10

  • #
    Tom

    But if all the warm air is moving to the arctic then by logic eventually there will be no fridgid air to come south so global warming cannot possibly produce an ice age.

    00

  • #

    Old news:

    https://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

    I set out what is hapening but the establishment would prefer to ignore it.

    00