Wild Gyrations in Winter Temperatures. Why? A primer by Paul Beckwith

Hey, lets talk global warming as cascading consequences.
While right wingers on East are convinced the new ice age is upon us, here’s a little something for those who want to understanding how our global jet stream and other circulation patterns produce such as extreme weather that so much of the country is enduring, while in southern Colorado it’s been mild, mild and sunny, and dry,… too dry, High mountain snow pack is something like 1/4, 1/3 of what it should be this time of year.
Paul Beckwith does a good job of explaining how various individual aspects of our Earth system work together to produce the weather we experience.
He introduces various online tools, such as “nullschool’s” incredible visualization of our weather system in real time.

Earth.nullschool.net's Explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zOYKehS7g
Wild Gyrations in Winter Temperatures. Why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1CtnZ8sug0 Paul Beckwith | Jan 14, 2018 Winter temperatures seem to gyrate from extreme cold to extreme warmth, and back again, in an endless repeating cycle. When this gyration passes through the freezing point there is frost, snow, melt, rain cycling repeatedly, wreaking havoc on roads, rail lines, bridges, buildings, water pipes, animals and plants. Infrastructure and wildlife suffer greatly, and there are huge temperature contrasts greatly increasing the frequency, severity, and duration of extreme weather events. Why?

This may be of interest.
https://pi.tedcdn.com/r/talkstar-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/production/playlists/playlist_543/a3fda3de-72c5-4194-9a5d-f417ca350cef/whats_happenind_to_the_ocean_1200x627.jpg?quality=89&w=1200
https://www.ted.com/playlists/543/what_s_happening_to_the_ocean?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=playlist__2018-01-25playlist_image

This may be of interest. https://www.ted.com/playlists/543/what_s_happening_to_the_ocean?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=playlist__2018-01-25playlist_image
In a terrifying sort of reality check, sort of way. :-)
TRIONA MCGRATH How pollution is changing the ocean's chemistry KATE STAFFORD How human noise affects ocean habitats DEE BOERSMA Pay attention to penguins JEREMY JACKSON ow we wrecked the ocean I this bracing talk, coral reef ecologist JEREMY JACKSON lays out the shocking state of the ocean today: overfished, overheated, polluted, with indicators that things will get much worse. Astonishing photos and stats make the case.

BRIAN SKERRY The ocean’s glory — and horror


I’ve head a few talks by Jeremy Jackson - UCTV ‘Perspectives on Ocean Sciences’ - good speaker, horrifying what we have done, as a guy who got to play the San Francisco Bay (anyone familiar with Coyote Point) early 70s and who loved visiting the ocean, it’s sort of personal.
OH yeah, but I’m not supposed to get upset or “angry” at who our self inflicted apathy has created.
Thanks for the heads up W4U

As far as the Ice Age is upon us. That is true. Anyone that has been following the Global Warming understands the earth’s weather in the overall big picture is Ice Age weather. We are today in the interglacial period called the “Holocene" of the Pleistocene epoch. Which is the warmest part of the Ice Age cycle the earth is in right now.
Yes, Paul is right about “Wild Gyrations". But it may not only be for winter. It might be summer too.
In the news today. For a decade, no global warming.
In 2007, Professor Scott Armstrong at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton business school challenged Al Gore to a $10,000 bet about temperatures over the next decade.
The bet proposal was to compare the U.N.’s standard global warming model against Armstrong’s prediction of no increase at all.
Now, 10 years after the offer, Armstrong is declaring victory.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/26/al-gore-would-have-lost-global-warming-bet-academic-says.html

was to compare the U.N.’s standard global warming model against Armstrong’s prediction of no increase at all. foxnews
Please provide a link for this "U.N. standard global warming model" I'm coming up snake eyes and I suspect it refers to ..., hmmm,... no telling where the hell Armstrong pulled it out of or specifically what it refers to. The UN does not do climate models to the best of my knowledge. Can you answer the mystery? Heck, I can't even find the study that Armstrong is basing this on? So please specifically, did Armstrong publish a paper or simply type up an overblown blog post? Can you provide a link? NO, not his website, his published paper, then again, is all this based on his personal blog? Or, Mike will it just be more riddles upon riddles upon willful ignorance? :blank: Oh what about this?
Global Warming: 1880-2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kFHQpZpgdg
and apparently you didn't notice this FOXNEWS headline/link buried in the text:
Ten years out, Armstrong said that has not happened. But the fact that the U.N. model’s prediction is closer regarding today’s temperature has prompted some to question Armstrong’s methodology. EVEN WITHOUT EL NINO LAST YEAR, EARTH KEEPS WARMING http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/18/even-without-el-nino-last-year-earth-keeps-warming.html “Anyone objectively looking at the data, even at the graph produced above, can see that climate models were much, much, much better at predicting global warming over the past decade," John P. Abraham, professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas told FoxNews.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Incidentally regarding your claimed climate expert who turns out to be but your latest example of an uneducated, re actual climate science, masquerading as an uncertified mcExpert on the topic. Armstrong is no climatologist,
https://www.desmogblog.com/scott-armstrong Credentials Ph.D., Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1], [2] M.S., Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University. [1], [2] B.S., Industrial Engineering, Lehigh University. [1], [2] B.A., Applied Science, Lehigh University. [1], [2] Background J. Scott Armstrong Ph.D is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. According to his website, Armstrong's work focuses mainly on forecasting methods, strategic planning, survey research, and research methods.
So, basically we have a business oriented statistician who does not believe global warming is happening because it might hinder our economy. Seems he does not acknowledge the role of CO2 in our atmosphere, makes him an absolute fail (or fraud, take your pick) from the gitgo. What we are left with is a very biased individual capable and willing to torture the data and the narrative to claim the results he wants. For instance interesting how doesn't want his audience aware of the previous few decades, wonder why? drroyspencer.com - UAH's historically error riddled computations. fyi:
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998 ZEKE HAUSFATHER 30.06.2017 https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998 Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism Posted on 12 June 2011 by dana1981 https://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates John Abraham | Thu 11 May 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
MikeYohe said, As far as the Ice Age is upon us. That is true. Anyone that has been following The bet proposal was to compare the U.N.’s standard global warming model against Armstrong’s prediction of no increase at all. Now, 10 years after the offer, Armstrong is declaring victory. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/26/al-gore-would-have-lost-global-warming-bet-academic-says.html
Fox News???????? The mouthpiece for Big Business? You've got to be kidding. I wonder who pays Armstrong. Comes to mind the Nazi concentration camps, where people were told to take nice showers to improve cleanliness, as they were gently ushered into the gas chambers. Your naivity is astounding.
MikeYohe said, As far as the Ice Age is upon us. That is true. Anyone that has been following The bet proposal was to compare the U.N.’s standard global warming model against Armstrong’s prediction of no increase at all. Now, 10 years after the offer, Armstrong is declaring victory. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/26/al-gore-would-have-lost-global-warming-bet-academic-says.html
Fox News???????? The mouthpiece for Big Business? You've got to be kidding. I wonder who pays Armstrong. Comes to mind the Nazi concentration camps, where people were told to take nice showers to improve cleanliness, as they were gently ushered into the gas chambers. Your naivity is astounding.
Have you ever heard of Wall Street???????? The United States of America, a county you should learn about was built and became a world power by big business. Fox news is the group that is fighting for your constitutional rights. As the other news agencies are covering up the fact that is coming to light about the Democratic Party using the DOJ and FBI to spy on Republican Party during the election. Your post is lacking structure. Are you claiming Armstrong is wrong? Are you claiming Fox News is wrong? I got the part where you think people who can think for themselves are naïve. But that is just showing lack of experience of the world.

Ignoring the information does not mean it’s not there you silly goose.

Wild gyrations. A couple days ago we finally got some data with numbers. A real rarity in climate change publications that have been mostly a changing trendology. As it is taken a couple of decades to get the CO2 consortium to begin to understand that weather is a combination of all energy and all cycles along with what the humans are contributing. And not just the CO2. And that other sources that they claimed contributed too little to bother with must be added to the numbers for the computer models to work correctly.
The new numbers are for the sun cycles. When the sun is in the cooling part of the eleven year cycle, the earth’s temperate can drop one quarter of a degree. There is the grand solar minimum and the grand solar maximum. Which simply is where the sun is at with four of its cycles. When all the cycles reach a hot or cold point at the same time. This is now being studied as part of the Carbon Cycle.
Now the Little Ice Age is being connected to the grand solar minimum. That in itself is a “Wild gyration" of the weather pattern if you ask me. The other item coming out is the Greenland ice melting. The Vikings settlements are now starting to show from the ice melting. The thinking is that the satellite data that is showing a reduced cloud coverage over Greenland is allowing more sunlight, thus more ice melt. Yes, the clouds are the item that the CO2 consortium said have zero effect and balances out at zero change in the weather. The facts are starting to argue that claim.

Don’t hear from you for weeks, then you show up with this nonsense.
Have you no sense of dignity whatsoever you groveling lying sack of crazy-making.
All you wrote up there is a bunch of mixed up bullshit - that would never stand up to closer examination.
Which of course is impossible since as usual, Mike just offers his interpretation and
no sources, nor details, just more of Mike’s fantastical mental masturbation.

This guy discusses some of the other, less obvious (than being the thee major insulating medium of our atmosphere - yes more important than H2O vapor, don’t cha know.) things CO2 does.

Thunderstorms, Tornados & Climate Change: Dr Harold Brooks (November 2017) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CLd9ijnQZg Understanding Climate Change Published on Feb 11, 2018
was to compare the U.N.’s standard global warming model against Armstrong’s prediction of no increase at all. foxnews
Please provide a link for this "U.N. standard global warming model" I'm coming up snake eyes and I suspect it refers to ..., hmmm,... no telling where the hell Armstrong pulled it out of or specifically what it refers to. The UN does not do climate models to the best of my knowledge. Can you answer the mystery? Heck, I can't even find the study that Armstrong is basing this on? So please specifically, did Armstrong publish a paper or simply type up an overblown blog post? Can you provide a link? NO, not his website, his published paper, then again, is all this based on his personal blog? Or, Mike will it just be more riddles upon riddles upon willful ignorance? :blank: Oh what about this?
Global Warming: 1880-2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kFHQpZpgdg
and apparently you didn't notice this FOXNEWS headline/link buried in the text:
Ten years out, Armstrong said that has not happened. But the fact that the U.N. model’s prediction is closer regarding today’s temperature has prompted some to question Armstrong’s methodology. EVEN WITHOUT EL NINO LAST YEAR, EARTH KEEPS WARMING http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/18/even-without-el-nino-last-year-earth-keeps-warming.html “Anyone objectively looking at the data, even at the graph produced above, can see that climate models were much, much, much better at predicting global warming over the past decade," John P. Abraham, professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas told FoxNews.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Incidentally regarding your claimed climate expert who turns out to be but your latest example of an uneducated, re actual climate science, masquerading as an uncertified mcExpert on the topic. Armstrong is no climatologist,
https://www.desmogblog.com/scott-armstrong Credentials Ph.D., Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1], [2] M.S., Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University. [1], [2] B.S., Industrial Engineering, Lehigh University. [1], [2] B.A., Applied Science, Lehigh University. [1], [2] Background J. Scott Armstrong Ph.D is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. According to his website, Armstrong's work focuses mainly on forecasting methods, strategic planning, survey research, and research methods.
So, basically we have a business oriented statistician who does not believe global warming is happening because it might hinder our economy. Seems he does not acknowledge the role of CO2 in our atmosphere, makes him an absolute fail (or fraud, take your pick) from the gitgo. What we are left with is a very biased individual capable and willing to torture the data and the narrative to claim the results he wants. For instance interesting how doesn't want his audience aware of the previous few decades, wonder why? drroyspencer.com - UAH's historically error riddled computations. fyi:
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998 ZEKE HAUSFATHER 30.06.2017 https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998 Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism Posted on 12 June 2011 by dana1981 https://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates John Abraham | Thu 11 May 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
Where do you come up with claimed climate expert? You are jumping to conclusions that are not required to make a point that is not required. Anyone can make a bet. A statistician who works with numbers must have a better chance of seeing the whole picture. The biggest mistake Michael Mann made was not having his paper reviewed by a statistician before releasing it. Scott Armstrong is the founder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting, which are the two main journals that address the subject of forecasting. Armstrong is also a founder of the International Institute of Forecasters and of the International Symposium on Forecasting. www.newsofinterest.tv/global_warming/effects/extinction/scott_armstrong_bears.php an interesting piece about what Mr. Armstrong has done. RE: Gore Go to //forecastingprinciples.com/ then type Gore in the search box. For which data Mr. Armstrong used go to www.theclimatebet.com/

You’re a funny one mikie.
“Journal of Forecasting” :smirk:
Pray tell, what kind of forecasting does your Professor do?

All you can do is trash the scientist after a decade has passed and there has been no warming increase that amounts to anything of value. //ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/freedomwatch/peter-ridd-raised-99k-defend-freedom-speech-just-48-hours Peter Ridd has some of the problems caused by actions of your type. The IPCC has the problem of all the models running hot. Ever ask why all the models are running hot? Do you have any ideas at all why that problem exists? Instead of trying to create a good verses evil science world. Why not just deal with the real facts? The facts that are the most concerning with global warming right now to me is the Milankovitch cycles. In 2019 we start the rapid glaciation part of the cycle that peaks in 2024. Humanity has been through these cycles before. But never with the infrastructure and population that we have today. The goal was to have the computer models working so that we would know if by 2075 the northern hemisphere will be locked in ice due to earth’s precession or earth’s elliptical path. If you don’t understand where I am coming from, then answer the question why it takes 10K years to go from the intermediate period we are in right now today to the coolest point in an Ice Age. And then 90K years to warm up from that point. It is looking like the Milankovitch elliptical cycle will take us 13% further from the sun than our closest point. That’s the new number up from 8%. Which the physical law of the inverse-square laws will give us a reduction number in solar radiation of 28%. And that may be what causes the earth to go into rapid glaciation in 10K years. The earth’s aphelion will reduce the sun’s heat by 6.9% from the perihelion which causes winter today. Think what 28% could do. Anyway, the point being, today’s climate science is moving at the speed of our political system. And that is not a good thing for the earth. The IPCC needs to clean house of all the political driven scientists.

All you can do is trash the scientist .
Quite the comment coming from a person who derides and dismisses every serious climate expert, yet is willing to crown any clown as an expert on climate science, if said clown attacks mainstream climate science. All I was trying to do do was to have you establish your "expert" witness' qualifications. Read it again.
You're a funny one mikie. "Journal of Forecasting" :smirk: Pray tell, what kind of forecasting does your Professor do?
It's tragically ironic that Mike would find this simple request equivalent to trashing his "expert" witness. It's tragic that most of our fellow citizens are intellectually lazy and don't notice or care about such juvenile games of deception. I always knew the Hollywoodization of America would come to no good end.
The IPCC has the problem of all the models running hot. Ever ask why all the models are running hot? Do you have any ideas at all why that problem exists? Instead of trying to create a good verses evil science world. Why not just deal with the real facts? The facts that are the most concerning with global warming right now to me is the Milankovitch cycles. ( IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE NOT LEARNED ONE THING FROM THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN SHARED WITH YOU! ) In 2019 we start the rapid glaciation part of the cycle that peaks in 2024. (In your head.) Humanity has been through these cycles before. But never with the infrastructure and population that we have today. The goal was to have the computer models working so that we would know if by 2075 the northern hemisphere will be locked in ice due to earth’s precession or earth’s elliptical path.(Here you reveal your utter ignorance regarding Milankovitch cycle timescales) If you don’t understand where I am coming from, then answer the question why it takes 10K years to go from the intermediate period we are in right now today to the coolest point in an Ice Age. And then 90K years to warm up from that point. It is looking like the Milankovitch elliptical cycle will take us 13% further from the sun than our closest point. That’s the new number up from 8%. Which the physical law of the inverse-square laws will give us a reduction number in solar radiation of 28%. And that may be what causes the earth to go into rapid glaciation in 10K years. The earth’s aphelion will reduce the sun’s heat by 6.9% from the perihelion which causes winter today. Think what 28% could do. Anyway, the point being, today’s climate science is moving at the speed of our political system. And that is not a good thing for the earth. The IPCC needs to clean house of all the political driven scientists.
Wow, none of makes any sense (nor is it internally consistent) but that's your story and you're sticking to it come hell or high water. Oh speaking of "real facts" when are you going to share some. When are you going to reference where you find some of this "evidence" that supports your fantastical and extreme tunnel vision. Before you fret about other's bias, how about examining your own?
All you can do is trash the scientist after a decade has passed and there has been no warming increase that amounts to anything of value. //ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/freedomwatch/peter-ridd-raised-99k-defend-freedom-speech-just-48-hours Peter Ridd has some of the problems caused by actions of your type.
Okay so it's Mikie's McExperts Time Peter Ride fighting valiantly against the politicized scientific community. Let's take a closer look
Courtesy of Graham Readfearn Posted on June 24, 2016 More sophistry from The Australian on coral reef science in wake of Great Barrier Reef bleaching https://www.readfearn.com/2016/06/more-sophistry-from-the-australian-on-coral-reef-science-in-wake-of-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/ If you’ve been reading The Australian recently, you might think that coral reef science is in some kind of crisis. The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper has been attempting to spin the worst coral bleaching event in the reef’s recorded history as a beat-up by environmentalists and high-profile scientists. It isn’t. The latest instalment came earlier today from the newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd, under the print headline “The bleaching of parts of the reef is dividing the scientific world" and online under the headline “Great barrier battleground over coral bleaching." Lloyd seems to be trying to construct a narrative that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and the subsequent death of about a quarter of all the corals has opened some sort of schism among scientists. The bleaching, writes Lloyd, has “unleashed long-simmering tensions over the quality of reef research." This is, in my view, bollocks [sorry kids]. Lloyd includes three individuals to back up his claims. They have two things in common. One is that none of them are anywhere close to being actual experts in coral biology. The second thing Lloyd’s “experts" all have in common is a broad rejection of the science linking dangerous human-caused climate change to fossil fuel burning, something Lloyd does not mention. Let’s look for a minute at who Lloyd quotes to back up his narrative. First there is Prof Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech University, who has no peer-reviewed publications at all in relation to coral reefs. Having a solid body of peer-reviewed research behind you in the relevant scientific field should be the pre-requisite for assigning “expertise". Curry is a favourite among climate science deniers for her view that human-caused climate change is a beat up. Then there is the curious inclusion of Jim Steele, of San Francisco State University. According to that university’s website, Steele is “emeritus" – which means he is retired. "> I cannot find a publication listing for Steele, but this biography suggests expertise in biology and, in particular, birds. In 2013, Steele released a book claiming that climate change was natural and not being caused by humans.
(Oh my old pal Steele the Sierra Fraud https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/in-nutshell-jim-steele-proposes-that.html)
Then there is James Cook University’s Prof Peter Ridd, who is not a coral biologist. He has published work on how sediments and waters move around coral reefs, but I am told he has no expertise on the biology of corals. Lloyd again neglects to mention Ridd’s work on projects to support the construction of fossil fuel export facilities along the Queensland coastline close to the reef. Nether does he mention Ridd’s tendency towards climate science denialism. ... * Okay so the back-stabbing is mainly in his emeritus days and not at the Sierra Camp.
Hoegh-Guldberg is currently at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Hawaii with a couple of thousand other reef and coral experts. He has read the story in The Australian, and told me:
What is curious for me is that Graham Lloyd chose to speak with Ridd, Curry and Steele, and not the scores of coral experts that are available in Australia and elsewhere. When you look into the background of each individual, you find that Peter Ridd is a sedimentologist, Judith Curry a climatologist, and Jim Steele – a bird enthusiast who works in the Sierra Nevada – which at last count appears to be a long way from a coral reef. I don’t think there is a single scientist at this meeting who will support the position taken by sedimentologist Peter Ridd or, for that matter, Curry and Steele. That is pretty telling. Not exactly your most qualified experts. None of them has published in the peer-reviewed literature on coral bleaching – they are simply not experts.
But in my view, not only did Lloyd choose people who were “simply not experts" but he also missed some key facts and nuance in his scrambled narrative. ... Then it gets interesting check it out ]

Why doesn’t that sort of malicious contrived politicization of science ever bother Mike Yohe?
Here’s some interesting related thoughts,

Science on the verge? Posted on June 13, 2016 by ...and Then There's Physics https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/science-on-the-verge/ Michael Tobis has posted a recent article about who decides what is true? He addresses an interesting issue; when you work within a discipline, you typically know what is regarded as credible and what isn’t. Explaining this to those on the outside, though, can be very difficult. Given that alternative ideas are rarely simply dismissed, it can be quite easy for some to promote views that seem plausible to those on the outside, but that are regarded as probably flawed to those on who work in the field. How to address this in a world where it is important to know what is true and what isn’t, is a complex and difficult issue. I’ll let you read Michael’s post to find out more, but this gives me a segue into discussing another related topic. There’s a new book called the rightful place of science: science on the verge, which Judith Curry discusses here. My immediate reaction was rather negative, but I went through this presentation and it makes a lot of good points. ...