Where's my Global Warming!

[ScienceRocks]

I'll be rooting for it to triple to prove you right or wrong.

 

[Jroc]

I'll be rooting for it to triple to prove you right or wrong.

Me too, it'll be so much greener Plants are our friends

 

[JimBowie1958]

Blood, where did you get that idiot conspiracy theory?

Oh, that's right, your political cult fed it to you, hence you BELIEVE.

Meanwhile, this breaking news just in -- scientists have determined the earth is tilted at 23 degrees, causing a thing called "winter", which leads to cold temperatures.

Denialists, of course, are completely mystified by that explanation.

Do you know how much of the suns energy is reflected back into the atmosphere?

Do you know how much is generated internally in the Earth via radioactive decay?

No, I didn't think so, but you are still damned sure the warming from 1810 to 1998 was entirely due to man made global warming?

lol

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah all of the sudden Co2 is a pollutant...Bullshit. I want my Co2

Your mental masturbation over labels like 'pollution' doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, or the fact that human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43%, or the fact that this extra CO2 is causing the Earth to warm up which is causing global climate patterns to change.

Bullshit you could triple the co2 in the atmosphere and it wouldn't do what you nuts say

Oh, KrokoKrap, you're so retarded and brainwashed, you actually seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that your ignorant unsupported assertions count as less than nothing compared to all of the decades of scientific research and evidence, plus the laws of physics, that definitely affirm that this (currently) 43% increase in CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels is, in fact, exactly what is warming the planet and changing the climate. It's happening already and the warming and climate changes and other effects will continue to get worse for a very long time, causing damages beyond your rather meager comprehension. Your ignorant denial of science is pathetic. Your assumption that you understand things better than what is now virtually the entire world scientific community is beyond 'pathetic', right on into 'just plain crazy'.

Making claims in a debate, like the one you just made, is just meaningless noise unless you can back up your claims with actual scientific evidence that supports them. You have none. Endlessly repeating your uninformed opinions without providing any evidence to support you convinces no one and just makes you look even more idiotic. BTW, by 'supporting scientific evidence', I don't mean a blog post by some non-scientist who just repeats denier cult myths, again without providing any scientific support for his claims.

Your posts are pretty consistently just 'meaningless noise', Krok. You seem utterly clueless about all this and you seem to be coming at it from political/economic motives (or perhaps just psychosis) rather than any actual understanding of the science involved or any knowledge of the enormous amounts of real world evidence supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists.

 

[Kosh]

ARe you kidding me?

Do you really think there are no corporations that stand to lose billions per year if we take global warming seriously?

Compare THEIR potential loss to the pittance made by academics, lad.

Perspective..get some

And I say this as someone who admits I do not have a scientific clue, too

But as to understanding profit MOTIVES?

That I definitely can understand, kid.//and I suspect you can too, if you step back and look at it dispassionately.

And, FYI, the academic community has NO reason to make shit up. Really they do not. The vast majority of them get paid the same either way, ya know> (if you didn't know that, you do now)

OTOH

The Energy industry has BIILLION$ AND BILLION$ AND BILLION$ OF REASON$ TO fabricate non$en$e, (annually)

Yeah all of the sudden Co2 is a pollutant...Bullshit. I want my Co2

Your mental masturbation over labels like 'pollution' doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, or the fact that human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43%, or the fact that this extra CO2 is causing the Earth to warm up which is causing global climate patterns to change.

AGW propaganda!

 

[Kosh]

Your mental masturbation over labels like 'pollution' doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, or the fact that human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43%, or the fact that this extra CO2 is causing the Earth to warm up which is causing global climate patterns to change.

Bullshit you could triple the co2 in the atmosphere and it wouldn't do what you nuts say

Oh, KrokoKrap, you're so retarded and brainwashed, you actually seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that your ignorant unsupported assertions count as less than nothing compared to all of the decades of scientific research and evidence, plus the laws of physics, that definitely affirm that this (currently) 43% increase in CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels is, in fact, exactly what is warming the planet and changing the climate. It's happening already and the warming and climate changes and other effects will continue to get worse for a very long time, causing damages beyond your rather meager comprehension. Your ignorant denial of science is pathetic. Your assumption that you understand things better than what is now virtually the entire world scientific community is beyond 'pathetic', right on into 'just plain crazy'.

Making claims in a debate, like the one you just made, is just meaningless noise unless you can back up your claims with actual scientific evidence that supports them. You have none. Endlessly repeating your uninformed opinions without providing any evidence to support you convinces no one and just makes you look even more idiotic. BTW, by 'supporting scientific evidence', I don't mean a blog post by some non-scientist who just repeats denier cult myths, again without providing any scientific support for his claims.

Your posts are pretty consistently just 'meaningless noise', Krok. You seem utterly clueless about all this and you seem to be coming at it from political/economic motives (or perhaps just psychosis) rather than any actual understanding of the science involved or any knowledge of the enormous amounts of real world evidence supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists.

A debate is about facts and AGW is nothing but religious dogma.

Please stop posting AGW propaganda while calling it a debate, it is just like when the far left posts their religious propaganda that has been debunked.

AGW is nothing more that religious propaganda and not based in any real science thus a debate is impossible. So to post AGW is a fact shows that is about a religious agenda not based on any kind of scientific fact.

 

[RollingThunder]

Bullshit you could triple the co2 in the atmosphere and it wouldn't do what you nuts say

Oh, KrokoKrap, you're so retarded and brainwashed, you actually seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that your ignorant unsupported assertions count as less than nothing compared to all of the decades of scientific research and evidence, plus the laws of physics, that definitely affirm that this (currently) 43% increase in CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels is, in fact, exactly what is warming the planet and changing the climate. It's happening already and the warming and climate changes and other effects will continue to get worse for a very long time, causing damages beyond your rather meager comprehension. Your ignorant denial of science is pathetic. Your assumption that you understand things better than what is now virtually the entire world scientific community is beyond 'pathetic', right on into 'just plain crazy'.

Making claims in a debate, like the one you just made, is just meaningless noise unless you can back up your claims with actual scientific evidence that supports them. You have none. Endlessly repeating your uninformed opinions without providing any evidence to support you convinces no one and just makes you look even more idiotic. BTW, by 'supporting scientific evidence', I don't mean a blog post by some non-scientist who just repeats denier cult myths, again without providing any scientific support for his claims.

Your posts are pretty consistently just 'meaningless noise', Krok. You seem utterly clueless about all this and you seem to be coming at it from political/economic motives (or perhaps just psychosis) rather than any actual understanding of the science involved or any knowledge of the enormous amounts of real world evidence supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists.

A debate is about facts and AGW is nothing but religious dogma.

Please stop posting AGW propaganda while calling it a debate, it is just like when the far left posts their religious propaganda that has been debunked.

AGW is nothing more that religious propaganda and not based in any real science thus a debate is impossible. So to post AGW is a fact shows that is about a religious agenda not based on any kind of scientific fact.

So then......you're just insane......good to know.....LOL.....scientific evidence is "religious propaganda" and the vast majority of scientists in the world are just bunch of religious fanatics who know nothing about science, but of course you, the divine Klod, know better.....LOLOLOL....you are sooooo retarded, Klod, as well as insane.....let me know if you ever manage to post something that isn't meaningless noise.....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your mental masturbation over labels like 'pollution' doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, or the fact that human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43%, or the fact that this extra CO2 is causing the Earth to warm up which is causing global climate patterns to change.

Bullshit you could triple the co2 in the atmosphere and it wouldn't do what you nuts say

Oh, KrokoKrap, you're so retarded and brainwashed, you actually seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that your ignorant unsupported assertions count as less than nothing compared to all of the decades of scientific research and evidence, plus the laws of physics, that definitely affirm that this (currently) 43% increase in CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels is, in fact, exactly what is warming the planet and changing the climate. It's happening already and the warming and climate changes and other effects will continue to get worse for a very long time, causing damages beyond your rather meager comprehension. Your ignorant denial of science is pathetic. Your assumption that you understand things better than what is now virtually the entire world scientific community is beyond 'pathetic', right on into 'just plain crazy'.

Making claims in a debate, like the one you just made, is just meaningless noise unless you can back up your claims with actual scientific evidence that supports them. You have none. Endlessly repeating your uninformed opinions without providing any evidence to support you convinces no one and just makes you look even more idiotic. BTW, by 'supporting scientific evidence', I don't mean a blog post by some non-scientist who just repeats denier cult myths, again without providing any scientific support for his claims.

Your posts are pretty consistently just 'meaningless noise', Krok. You seem utterly clueless about all this and you seem to be coming at it from political/economic motives (or perhaps just psychosis) rather than any actual understanding of the science involved or any knowledge of the enormous amounts of real world evidence supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists.

That is true only for you Warmistas who reflexively dismiss any contrary studies or evidence. You have faith in the scientific establishment and an unscientific consensus that causes you to close your mind to the countervailing evidence.

To you the matter is already decided despite the historical record that shows that in science NOTHING is regarded as permanently settled, not even the Newtonian Law of Gravity as some have developed the Modified Newtonian dynamics theory to explain the Pioneer Anomaly. But people with your closed mindedness would reject that our of hand as just nonsense if you placed the same form of faith in Newtonian gravity theory that you do with AGW. This is a pseudo-religious faith you Warmistas place in a bunch of corruptible old men instead of the use of your own judgment.

Jroc on the other hand is showing that he can actually think for himself. He is more of a scientist than you Warmistas because he knows how fluid science truly is and he demands evidence and answers to his questions.

But nothing will dissuade you I know. Whatever gain you make from your closed mindedness, whether social, financial or emotional, I don't care, but whatever it is it has nothing to do with science or scientific inquiry. Your mind is made up and anything that would challenge your beliefs you reject out of hand.

You are a dogmatic zealot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh, KrokoKrap, you're so retarded and brainwashed, you actually seem incapable of understanding the simple fact that your ignorant unsupported assertions count as less than nothing compared to all of the decades of scientific research and evidence, plus the laws of physics, that definitely affirm that this (currently) 43% increase in CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels is, in fact, exactly what is warming the planet and changing the climate. It's happening already and the warming and climate changes and other effects will continue to get worse for a very long time, causing damages beyond your rather meager comprehension. Your ignorant denial of science is pathetic. Your assumption that you understand things better than what is now virtually the entire world scientific community is beyond 'pathetic', right on into 'just plain crazy'.

Making claims in a debate, like the one you just made, is just meaningless noise unless you can back up your claims with actual scientific evidence that supports them. You have none. Endlessly repeating your uninformed opinions without providing any evidence to support you convinces no one and just makes you look even more idiotic. BTW, by 'supporting scientific evidence', I don't mean a blog post by some non-scientist who just repeats denier cult myths, again without providing any scientific support for his claims.

Your posts are pretty consistently just 'meaningless noise', Krok. You seem utterly clueless about all this and you seem to be coming at it from political/economic motives (or perhaps just psychosis) rather than any actual understanding of the science involved or any knowledge of the enormous amounts of real world evidence supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists.

A debate is about facts and AGW is nothing but religious dogma.

Please stop posting AGW propaganda while calling it a debate, it is just like when the far left posts their religious propaganda that has been debunked.

AGW is nothing more that religious propaganda and not based in any real science thus a debate is impossible. So to post AGW is a fact shows that is about a religious agenda not based on any kind of scientific fact.

So then......you're just insane......good to know.....LOL.....scientific evidence is "religious propaganda" and the vast majority of scientists in the world are just bunch of religious fanatics who know nothing about science, ....

To think for yourself is the essence of sanity, and the problem is not that he rejects evidence but that he is also considering evidence you refuse to consider. If you knew a damned thing about how science really works you would know that science does not use consensus to settle disagreement, but only facts and reason, or else we would still be talking about how the sun circles our flat Earth which was the scientific consensus a millennia ago. Thankfully brighter minds than yours have guided science.

But you do not understand science, that much is clear; you are merely being dogmatically loyal to fallible men who profit from the AGW theory and so refuse to let it go.

 

[jon_berzerk]

A debate is about facts and AGW is nothing but religious dogma.

Please stop posting AGW propaganda while calling it a debate, it is just like when the far left posts their religious propaganda that has been debunked.

AGW is nothing more that religious propaganda and not based in any real science thus a debate is impossible. So to post AGW is a fact shows that is about a religious agenda not based on any kind of scientific fact.

So then......you're just insane......good to know.....LOL.....scientific evidence is "religious propaganda" and the vast majority of scientists in the world are just bunch of religious fanatics who know nothing about science, ....

To think for yourself is the essence of sanity, and the problem is not that he rejects evidence but that he is also considering evidence you refuse to consider. If you knew a damned thing about how science really works you would know that science does not use consensus to settle disagreement, but only facts and reason, or else we would still be talking about how the sun circles our flat Earth which was the scientific consensus a millennia ago. Thankfully brighter minds than yours have guided science.

But you do not understand science, that much is clear; you are merely being dogmatically loyal to fallible men who profit from the AGW theory and so refuse to let it go.

nor does it insist that correlation =causation

 

[Abraham3]

Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?

OK, it can be true that all in set A are also in set B, without all in set B being in set A.

In other words, all causation might have correlation without all correlation proving causation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?

face it correlation never proves causation

without that basic understanding

your continuing ranting is pointless

non causa pro causa

 

[jon_berzerk]

Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?

OK, it can be true that all in set A are also in set B, without all in set B being in set A.

In other words, all causation might have correlation without all correlation proving causation.

post hoc fallacy below

a occurred then b occurred

therefore a caused b

 

[PredFan]

Follow the money people, and there is no money in research that disproves global warming. Not only is there no money in it, that way lies a ruined career.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Tell us, though, how often you see causation without some correlation?

OK, it can be true that all in set A are also in set B, without all in set B being in set A.

In other words, all causation might have correlation without all correlation proving causation.

post hoc fallacy below

a occurred then b occurred

therefore a caused b

Superstitious people follow that fallacy all the time. My favorite commercials right now, (yes, I am that pathetic) are the BudLight, 'It's only weird if it doesn't work!' commercials.

 

[jon_berzerk]

OK, it can be true that all in set A are also in set B, without all in set B being in set A.

In other words, all causation might have correlation without all correlation proving causation.

post hoc fallacy below

a occurred then b occurred

therefore a caused b

Superstitious people follow that fallacy all the time. My favorite commercials right now, (yes, I am that pathetic) are the BudLight, 'It's only weird if it doesn't work!' commercials.

the assumption that a causes b simply because a correlates with b

is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument on its face

 

[k2skier]

Blood, where did you get that idiot conspiracy theory?

Oh, that's right, your political cult fed it to you, hence you BELIEVE.

Meanwhile, this breaking news just in -- scientists have determined the earth is tilted at 23 degrees, causing a thing called "winter", which leads to cold temperatures.

Denialists, of course, are completely mystified by that explanation.

What I am mystified is that as late as the 80's they were telling us the earth was going to be soon covered with ice. Then they turn on a dime and tell us earth is going to be turned into a burning hell. And you accept this without question? If they were wrong then, what makes them right now? I was born at night but I wasn't born last night. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Climate war heats up but Americans shiver
By Seth Borenstein Associated Press
WASHINGTON — We’ve become weather wimps.
As the world warms, the United States is getting fewer bitter cold spells like the one that gripped much of the nation this week. So when a deep freeze strikes, scientists say, it seems more unprecedented than it really is. An Associated Press analysis of the daily national winter temperature shows that cold extremes have happened about once every four years since 1900.
Until recently.
When computer models esti mated that the national average daily temperature for the Lower 48 states dropped to 17.9 degrees on Monday, it was the first deep freeze of that magnitude in 17 years, according to Greg Carbin, warning meteorologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
That stretch — from Jan. 13, 1997 to Monday —is by far the longest the U.S. has gone without the national average plunging below 18 degrees, according to a database of daytime winter temperatures starting in January 1900.
In the past 115 years, there have been 58 days when the national average temperature dropped below 18. Carbin said those occurrences often happen in periods that last several days so it makes more sense to talk about cold outbreaks instead of cold days. There have been 27 distinct cold snaps.
Between 1970 and 1989, a dozen such events occurred, but there were only two in the 1990s and then none until Monday.
“These types of events have actually become more infrequent than they were in the past,” said Carbin, who works at the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla. “This is why there was such a big buzz because people have such short memories.”
Said Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private firm Weather Underground: “It’s become a lot harder to get these extreme (cold) outbreaks in a planet that’s warming.”
And Monday’s breathtaking chill? It was merely the 55th coldest day —averaged for the continental United States — since 1900.
The coldest day for the Lower 48 since 1900 — as calculated by the computer models
— was 12 degrees on Christmas Eve 1983, nearly 6 degrees chillier than Monday.
The average daytime winter temperature is about 33 degrees, according to Carbin’s database.
There have been far more unusually warm winter days in the U.S. than unusually cold ones.
Since Jan. 1, 2000, only two days have ranked in the top 100 coldest: Monday and Tuesday. But there have been 13 in the top 100 warmest winter days, including the warmest since 1900: Dec. 3, 2012. And that pattern is exactly what climate scientists have been saying for years, that the world will get more warm extremes and fewer cold extremes.
Nine of 11 outside climate scientists and meteorologists who reviewed the data for the AP said it showed that asthe world warms from heat-trapping gas spewed by the burning of fossil fuels, winters are becoming milder. The world is getting more warm extremes and fewer cold extremes, they said.
“We expect to see a lengthening of time between cold air outbreaks due to a warming climate, but 17 years between outbreaks is probably partially due to an unusual amount of natural variability,” or luck, Masters said in an email. “I expect we’ll go far fewer than 17 years before seeing the next cold air outbreak of this intensity.”
And the scientists dismiss global warming skeptics who claim one or two cold days somehow disproves climate change.
“When your hands are freezing off trying to scrape the ice off your car, it can be all too tempting to say, ‘Where’s global warming now? Icould use a little of that!’ But you know what? It’s not as cold as it used to be anymore,” Texas Tech University climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said in an email.
The recent cold spell, which was triggered by a frigid air mass known as the polar vortex that wandered way south of normal, could also be related to a relatively new theory that may prove a weather wild card, said Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis. Her theory, which has divided mainstream climate scientists, says that melting Arctic sea ice is changing polar weather, moving the jet stream and causing “more weirdness.”
Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with the private firm Weather Bell Analytics who is skeptical about blaming global warming for weather extremes, dismisses Francis’ theory and said he has concerns about the accuracy of Carbin’s database. Maue has his own daily U.S. average temperature showing that Monday was colder than Carbin’s calculations.
Still, he acknowledged that cold nationwide temperatures “occurred with more regularity in the past.”
Many climate scientists say Americans are weather weenies who forgot what a truly cold winter is like.
“I think that people’s memory about climate is really terrible,” Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler wrote in an email. “So I think this cold event feels more extreme than it actually is because we’re just not used to really cold winters anymore.”

CHARLES REX ARBOGAST/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chicagoans protected themselves Monday from temperatures that reached minus 14 degrees.
How cold was it?
Monday, courtesy of the polar vortex, was the coldest day in years. But was it that cold, really?
The aveage temperature for the Lower 48 states: 17.9 degrees
How it ranks: The 55th-coldest day since 1900.
The coldest: Christmas Eve, 1983, when it stood at 12 degrees.

 

[Abraham3]

Have you actually skied K2?

 

[Abraham3]

post hoc fallacy below

a occurred then b occurred

therefore a caused b

True, however, A CANNOT be a cause of B UNLESS it does happen first.