Ice on Great Lakes doubles in one week!!

[SSDD]

Kid, he explained it already

Actually...he didn't "explain" anything...he provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is refuted right off the bat by observation.

But hey...it was good enough to fool you...right?

 

[Crick]

His explanation is the most widely accepted theory at present. Warming in the Arctic reduces the temperature differential between the pole and the equator. That produces oscillations in the jet stream pulling Arctic air southward and equatorial air towards the poles. I have posted it here on numerous occasions and none of you have ever claimed or presented any refutation. If you have one, let's see it.

 

[SSDD]

His explanation is the most widely accepted theory at present. Warming in the Arctic reduces the temperature differential between the pole and the equator. That produces oscillations in the jet stream pulling Arctic air southward and equatorial air towards the poles. I have posted it here on numerous occasions and none of you have ever claimed or presented any refutation. If you have one, let's see it.

Sorry, but it is not. It is a hypothesis put forward by two scientists, Cohen and Francis who published a paper and think that ice melt is linked to the more frequent excursions of the polar vortex into the lower latitudes.

The fact is that the frequency of such cold waves have decreased over the past 50 years..not increased...which flies right in the face of Cohen and Francis. Then
the U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.” The report further stated “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”

In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”...again...observation flies in the face of Cohen and Francis...

Alas, it is not the most widely accepted theory at present...it isn't even generally accepted because the observations simply don't jibe with the hypothesis.

But it's good enough to fool you...

 

[Crepitus]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

 

[Crick]

Climate change

Meanders of the northern hemisphere's jet stream developing (a, b) and finally detaching a "drop" of cold air (c); orange: warmer masses of air; pink: jet stream
A study in 2001 found that stratospheric circulation can have anomalous effects on weather regimes.[29] In the same year researchers found a statistical correlation between weak polar vortex and outbreaks of severe cold in the Northern Hemisphere.[30][31] In more recent years scientists identified interactions with Arctic sea ice decline, reduced snow cover, evapotranspiration patterns, NAO anomalies or weather anomalies which are linked to the polar vortex and jet stream configuration.[29][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] However, because the specific observations are considered short-term observations (starting c. 13 years ago) there is considerable uncertainty in the conclusions. Climatology observations require several decades to definitively distinguish natural variability from climate trends.[38]



References
29 ^ Baldwin, M. P.; Dunkerton, TJ (2001). "Stratospheric Harbingers of Anomalous Weather Regimes". Science. 294 (5542): 581–4. Bibcode:2001Sci...294..581B. doi:10.1126/science.1063315. PMID 11641495.
30 ^ NASA (December 21, 2001). "Stratospheric Polar Vortex Influences Winter Cold". Earth Observatory. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
31 ^ Jump up to:a b Song, Yucheng; Robinson, Walter A. (2004). "Dynamical Mechanisms for Stratospheric Influences on the Troposphere". Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 61 (14): 1711–25. Bibcode:2004JAtS...61.1711S. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1711MFSIO>2.0.CO;2.
32 ^ Overland, James E. (2013). "Atmospheric science: Long-range linkage". Nature Climate Change. 4 (1): 11–2. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4...11O. doi:10.1038/nclimate2079.
33 ^ Tang, Qiuhong; Zhang, Xuejun; Francis, Jennifer A. (2013). "Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere". Nature Climate Change. 4 (1): 45–50. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4...45T. doi:10.1038/nclimate2065.
34 ^ Screen, J A (2013). "Influence of Arctic sea ice on European summer precipitation". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (4): 044015. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8d4015S. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044015.
35 ^ Francis, Jennifer A.; Vavrus, Stephen J. (2012). "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes". Geophysical Research Letters. 39 (6): n/a. Bibcode:2012GeoRL..39.6801F. doi:10.1029/2012GL051000.
36 ^ Petoukhov, Vladimir; Semenov, Vladimir A. (2010). "A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents". Journal of Geophysical Research. 115 (D21): D21111. Bibcode:2010JGRD..11521111P. doi:10.1029/2009JD013568.
37 ^ Masato, Giacomo; Hoskins, Brian J.; Woollings, Tim (2013). "Winter and Summer Northern Hemisphere Blocking in CMIP5 Models". Journal of Climate. 26(18): 7044–59. Bibcode:2013JCli...26.7044M. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00466.1.
38 ^ Seviour, William J. M. (14 April 2017). "Weakening and shift of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex: Internal variability or forced response?". Geophysical Research Letters. 44 (7): 3365–3373. Bibcode:2017GeoRL..44.3365S. doi:10.1002/2017GL073071.

Polar vortex - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate change

Meanders of the northern hemisphere's jet stream developing (a, b) and finally detaching a "drop" of cold air (c); orange: warmer masses of air; pink: jet stream
A study in 2001 found that stratospheric circulation can have anomalous effects on weather regimes.[29] In the same year researchers found a statistical correlation between weak polar vortex and outbreaks of severe cold in the Northern Hemisphere.[30][31] In more recent years scientists identified interactions with Arctic sea ice decline, reduced snow cover, evapotranspiration patterns, NAO anomalies or weather anomalies which are linked to the polar vortex and jet stream configuration.[29][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] However, because the specific observations are considered short-term observations (starting c. 13 years ago) there is considerable uncertainty in the conclusions. Climatology observations require several decades to definitively distinguish natural variability from climate trends.[38]



References
29 ^ Baldwin, M. P.; Dunkerton, TJ (2001). "Stratospheric Harbingers of Anomalous Weather Regimes". Science. 294 (5542): 581–4. Bibcode:2001Sci...294..581B. doi:10.1126/science.1063315. PMID 11641495.
30 ^ NASA (December 21, 2001). "Stratospheric Polar Vortex Influences Winter Cold". Earth Observatory. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
31 ^ Jump up to:a b Song, Yucheng; Robinson, Walter A. (2004). "Dynamical Mechanisms for Stratospheric Influences on the Troposphere". Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 61 (14): 1711–25. Bibcode:2004JAtS...61.1711S. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1711MFSIO>2.0.CO;2.
32 ^ Overland, James E. (2013). "Atmospheric science: Long-range linkage". Nature Climate Change. 4 (1): 11–2. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4...11O. doi:10.1038/nclimate2079.
33 ^ Tang, Qiuhong; Zhang, Xuejun; Francis, Jennifer A. (2013). "Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere". Nature Climate Change. 4 (1): 45–50. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4...45T. doi:10.1038/nclimate2065.
34 ^ Screen, J A (2013). "Influence of Arctic sea ice on European summer precipitation". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (4): 044015. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8d4015S. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044015.
35 ^ Francis, Jennifer A.; Vavrus, Stephen J. (2012). "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes". Geophysical Research Letters. 39 (6): n/a. Bibcode:2012GeoRL..39.6801F. doi:10.1029/2012GL051000.
36 ^ Petoukhov, Vladimir; Semenov, Vladimir A. (2010). "A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents". Journal of Geophysical Research. 115 (D21): D21111. Bibcode:2010JGRD..11521111P. doi:10.1029/2009JD013568.
37 ^ Masato, Giacomo; Hoskins, Brian J.; Woollings, Tim (2013). "Winter and Summer Northern Hemisphere Blocking in CMIP5 Models". Journal of Climate. 26(18): 7044–59. Bibcode:2013JCli...26.7044M. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00466.1.
38 ^ Seviour, William J. M. (14 April 2017). "Weakening and shift of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex: Internal variability or forced response?". Geophysical Research Letters. 44 (7): 3365–3373. Bibcode:2017GeoRL..44.3365S. doi:10.1002/2017GL073071.

Polar vortex - Wikipedia

cutting and pasting shit you don't understand... Priceless...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Chicago All-Time Record Low?

"Both the European (ECMWF) and U.S. (GFS) weather forecast models are in agreement that by Wednesday morning temperatures in the Chicago suburbs will be approaching -30 deg. F. The all-time official record low for the Chicago metro area was -27 deg. F (O’Hare) on January 20, 1985, and that 34 year old record could fall as the ECMWF model is forecasting -32 deg. F for Thursday morning while the GFS model is bottoming out at -26 deg. F on Wednesday morning. Of course, these forecasts will change somewhat in the coming days as the cold wave approaches."

Dangerous, Record-Breaking Cold to Invade Midwest, Chicago

"The GFS forecast temperatures for Wednesday morning shows most of the upper Midwest will be well below zero, and temperatures might not get above -20 deg. F even at midday on Wednesday as far south as northern Indiana. Again, the strong northwest winds will be pushing this air southeast, and Thursday morning will also bring record-breaking cold into the Ohio River Valley."

Weather Underground says -20. Now who's being an alarmist?

Even NOAA is showing a low-high temp record of -30 Deg F for wed shattering all time low-high temp records over the region..

Tell me Crick, How is this happening with your super powered CO2 molecule?

 

[Billy_Bob]

International Falls Night Time low this morning was -48 deg F... just 2 degrees from the all time low record which will be breached tonight...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Whether warming is happening it not. We here in the US can do very little if anything about it.

 

[Crick]

We can do more than we are doing.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol.....so a critical study that was done 20 years ago has been universally rejected by those who make energy policy. Impressive.

And why this urgent "need to do more" when " more" is not at all defined? And to what end? Nobody alive has any clue if doing "more" or "alot more" is going to have any effect at all.

So makes people wonder what the real motivation is here if you are a climate crusader?

 

[SSDD]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

 

[Crepitus]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy, no one would characterize an exchange with you on any scientific topic as a "debate".

 

[Crepitus]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

Riiiight.

Lol

 

[Billy_Bob]

74% ice locked...

And we still have two or three weeks of this cold..

 

[Yarddog]

Oy.....more bad news for the AGW k00ks.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-01-24-great-lakes-ice-doubles-late-January

They are always talking about everywhere it isn't ball busting cold!

Lets hope the glacier creeps south all the way to DC and takes up Nancy Pelosi's parking spot.

 

[SSDD]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Actually, what has been determined is that you are a bot, with no informed opinion of your own...only the opinion someone gave you..and when that opinion is challenged, you can not defend it...instead you switch to logical fallacy, and impotent name calling. The evidence is immense and scattered across the board for all to see. Now, care to defend your claim about the polar vortex being the result of arctic melting in the face of observed evidence..

Again..here is what others had to say regarding that hypothesis...

The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”

The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”

Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”

 

[SSDD]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

He is a typical bot...no informed opinion of his own...just one that someone with a political agenda gave him..He can't begin to defend it so when challenged, he automatically goes to logical fallacy and impotent name calling..