When scrambling to explain all the cold weather, people only expose their ignorance of climate science.
Stephen Dorling, of the University of East Anglia’s school of environmental sciences, said it was not surprising the cold period raised questions over climate change – but the snowy weather should not be used as evidence against it.
Fortunately, they also produce statements that even those who don’t understand the science see as illogical. Notice Dorling says “climate change” as he tries to suggest the current cold is just an anomaly in an overall warming trend. Others point to storms and flooding as further evidence of changes due to warming.
Another predictable pattern is that environmentalists and those involved in climate science corruption will continue to present natural events as unnatural. They’ll claim events support predictions of increased disasters due to warming.
The Role of Extremists
It’s hard to understand the purpose of some things, like the role of extremists. The current situation in climate science provides the answer. They’re the bookends of a shift in society’s views of the world. Academics call them paradigm shifts, a term used by Thomas Kuhn in his work on the philosophy of science. They are fundamental changes in approach or underlying assumptions. Climate change is a subset of the paradigm shift of environmentalism.
Extremists grab the new idea and claim it as theirs. They then bully the rest of society into accepting their view with a missionary fervor. Part of the problem is the majority sees the new idea as improvement. Their problem is how much change do they make. People are naturally conservative because they know there are losers with change. What they don’t know are the limits, which are set when the idea costs more than it saves. This is when the extremists become the other bookend. They make claims, statements, and intransigence in the face of clear evidence that the majority understand is a step too far. Environmental extremism is not quite as advanced as it is for climate change. However as a subset, the latter will add to the growing awareness that environmentalism is now costing more than it gains.
A turning point in climate was Gore’s extreme statement that the science is settled. As the weather patterns shift, they claim them as evidence of their theory. The problem is, they are increasingly caught up in their own deception. This was created when they shifted the focus from global warming to climate change because CO2 continued to increase while temperatures stopped increasing. In the 2007 IPCC Report, they narrowed the focus to CO2 so definitively that there is no way out except to appear increasingly extreme and even ridiculous. No matter how much they identify natural climate changes as unnatural they are confronted with the fact of declining temperatures and increasing snowfall.
Bad Science Makes Bad Predictions
The original claims of increased storminess and severe weather made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are scientifically incorrect. Most severe weather and storminess are created by difference in temperature between two masses of air. On a global scale it occurs between cold polar air and warm tropical air along the Polar Front (Figure 1).
Low pressure systems develop along the Front and evolve into Mid-latitude cyclones that generally move from west to east. They can expand to systems hundreds of miles across with high precipitation and strong winds.
Storm potential severity is determined by the zonal index. This is a measure of the temperature difference between two latitudes. It is greatest across the Polar Front, although it migrates north and south seasonally. The IPCC claim global warming will be greatest in the polar region. But this reduces the temperature difference, which reduces the storminess potential. A brief historical review equates increased severe weather and massive storms with cooling trends that increase the difference. Examples include the 1588 storm that destroyed the Spanish Armada or the 1703 event that caused Daniel Defoe to travel across England and write a book, published in 1704.
One argument used by the scramblers is that it may be cool in some areas but it’s warm elsewhere. British government climatologist Philip Stott and NASA GISS’s Gavin Schmidt, both ardent supporters of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) corrupted data and science, argue this position. They say,
…it’s better to think in terms of odds: Warming might double the chances for a heat wave, for example. “That is exactly what’s happening,” Schmidt said, “a lot more warm extremes and less cold extremes.”
This works unless you know what is actually happening, beyond reduction in the number of stations used to determine global temperature and manipulation of the data by Schmidt’s boss. Figure 2 shows Jet Stream patterns that are coincident with the patterns in the Polar Front. There are two general forms: Zonal and Meridional.
As the world cools because of decreasing solar activity the dome of cold polar air expands. The mean position of the Polar Front is closer to the Equator, but it doesn’t expand evenly.
The pattern of Rossby Waves changes from zonal to meridional because the cold dense air pushes further south. Of course there’s a balance as warm air pushes toward the Pole. These are the warm areas identified by those scrambling to defend their thesis.
Another component of the deep waves of the meridional flow is the Waves that normally migrate west to east on a 4 to 6 week cycle stall – meteorologists call it blocking. As a result, whatever weather a region is experiencing is prolonged. The further south the cold air pushes the greater the temperature contrast but also the potential for increased precipitation. Warm tropical air holds more moisture than cold air. Ironically, it needs to be cooled for the moisture to condense to precipitation. This is achieved if the air is lifted up in the atmosphere. This explains why precipitation is higher on the windward side of mountains, known as orographic lifting. A second major lifting mechanism is when the cold air advances and, like a bulldozer, pushes the warm air up – a process called frontal lifting.
Climate Is What You Expect, Ignorance Is what You Get
Robert Heinlein said, “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.” This underscores that climate is the average of weather in a region or over time. The problem is, modern climate science assumes the weather pattern of the government record, 50 years at most, is a fixed climate. A brief study of history should correct their shortsighted view, but it won’t because they insist on wearing blinkers.