Every Provincial capital below freezing today

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc No surprise on your recent addition to your reading list. You have already decided there is no human caused climate change.

But where is the evidence from thousands of climate scientists and their organizations? None of their organizations are saying human caused climate change isn't happening.

I guess it must be a giant conspiracy! LOL

[chuckChuck]

Sasky, were there any good cocktail recipes with pictures in Patrick Moores book?

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck why can't you get it.

Money talks.

you get grants for studies now if you are for climate change. It's a living for these people so why would they look at what happened since time began and this can be proven.

Carbon was low at one time in the great ice age.

Follow the money man you must know that by now.

[chuckChuck]

So that explains why Alberta and Kenney had to commission a climate change denial paper for Alberta's oil industry? Yeah Sasky as you say, follow the money! LOL

[farming101]

Jet stream for today
Once a theory or experiment is devised observation is the next step.

[fjlip]

Just science? , scientists can be BOUGHT. Data cherry picked. Thinking tiny little humans can change climate/weather with TAXES make all "those people" REASON DENIERS! I have said before....take a vote, WHO WANTS IT COLDER? Anyone?

[seldomseen]

It’s -40 here and the power is off and it doesn’t really matter what any expert scientist tell you. Thank goodness we have a wood stove!

[jazz]

Jet stream for today
Once a theory or experiment is devised observation is the next step.

So the jet stream isnt waving and slipping up north to drive the polar vortex down here.

Honestly looks more like a switch from el nino to la nina is underway. Thats a proven climate phenomena that our climate scientists regularly deny.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Jet stream for today
Once a theory or experiment is devised observation is the next step.

You are confusing science with climate science. Where the next step is to cherry pick and adjust the data until it aligns with your theory, then ignore all observations to the contrary, while labelling everyone who points of the contradictory observations as a denier, and refusing to share your data with them.

Meanwhile, Chuck is still promoting his completely discredited jet stream theory. I already posted this study from the Journal Nature for him to ignore:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00954-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00954-y

[Horse]

Ok, chuck since you think it's humans that cause climate change as you call it and Carbon is bad.

Why was the Carbon level so low during the great ICE Age?

Why was Western Canada a great swamp and so hot covered in the water a jungle?

Carbon was at its highest level before the great asteroid hit.

But we are basing everything on the last 100 years.

Wow, your so far in the left-field it's not even funny.

Cut and paste, please.

So where did this info come from ????,The same scientests that you try to belittle when ever they are in disagreement with your wants.
I dont get it every time the temp drops all you climate change deniers jump up and down saying there is the proof its all a hoax, Cant seem to get the difference between climate change and weather sorted out in your minds.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So where did this info come from ????,The same scientests that you try to belittle when ever they are in disagreement with your wants.
I dont get it every time the temp drops all you climate change deniers jump up and down saying there is the proof its all a hoax, Cant seem to get the difference between climate change and weather sorted out in your minds.

That is a fair observation. But have you not noticed the media, and the Chuck's promoting a single warm reading on a single day in a single station as evidence of global warming? Someone pointed out the example earlier in this thread. Can't have it both ways.

[oldjim]

OK it's -36 C here right now. What would the temperature be if there were no humans?

[chuckChuck]

The authors of this correspondence didn't say with certainty that arctic warming is not causing impacts in the mid lattitudes just that there is weak evidence for it. That's fine. We need to hear from other scientists on this before we can draw conclusions.

But they clearly say arctic warming and sea ice loss is continuing! Thanks for linking to research that contradicts your opinions!


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00954-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00954-y

Weakened evidence for mid-latitude impacts of Arctic warming

Russell Blackport & James A. Screen

Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages1065–1066(2020)Cite this article


To the Editor — The idea that rapid Arctic warming might be changing weather patterns at lower latitudes rose to prominence in 2012. At that time, amidst rising global temperatures and record low Arctic sea-ice cover, parts of the mid-latitudes had just experienced a run of extremely cold winters1. Some scientists speculated that these cold snaps were driven by Arctic-induced changes in the atmospheric circulation, pointing to an unexpected 25-year winter cooling trend over Eurasia, an ostensible shift in the Arctic Oscillation and increased meandering of the jet stream as evidence2,3. These tendencies would continue as the Arctic warmed further, they predicted. Such ideas were controversial from the outset. Very quickly, other scientists questioned the idea, arguing that the cooling and circulation trends were not robust and unlikely to continue in the longer term4,5. Jennifer Francis, whose seminal work proposed that Arctic warming was leading to a wavier jet stream, predicted in 2014 that “within a few years, as Arctic amplification continues, we will have enough data to know whether or not we’re right”6.

So, six years on, what has changed? Arctic amplification and sea-ice loss have indeed continued (Fig. 1). But predictions of a more negative Arctic Oscillation, wavier jet stream, colder winters in mid-latitudes or, more specifically, in Eurasia, and more frequent and/or widespread cold extremes have not become reality (Fig. 1). The short-term tendencies from the late 1980s through to early 2010s that fuelled the initial speculation of Arctic influence have not continued over the past decade (Fig. 1). Long-term trends in the Arctic Oscillation and waviness, updated to winter 2019/20, are small and indistinguishable from internal variability (Fig. 1). Temperature-related metrics all indicate warming in the longer term, with fewer and milder cold extremes (Fig. 1). The multidecadal warming of minimum daily temperature is larger than that of average winter temperature (Fig. 1), implying a detectable reduction in mid-latitudes of subseasonal temperature variability7.
Fig. 1: Indicators of Arctic change and its possible mid-latitude impacts.
figure1

Time series of Arctic sea-ice extent (SIE; light blue), Arctic amplification (dark blue), Arctic Oscillation (AO; light green), atmospheric waviness (dark green), midlatitude (30–60° N) land surface air temperature (SAT; light red), central Eurasia (40–60° N; 60–120° E) SAT (dark red), midlatitude land minimum daily SAT (light purple) and the percentage area of mid-latitude land experiencing at least one cold (1 s.d. below average) winter month (dark purple). The SIE and Arctic amplification indices are averages for autumn and winter (September–February), whereas all other indices are for winter (December–February). Linear trends are shown for two time-periods: 1979/80 to 2019/20 and 1988/89 to 2011/12, the latter highlighted by grey shading. Thicker lines demark trends significant at the 95% confidence level. Arctic amplification is defined as the difference between Arctic (65–90° N) and Northern Hemisphere (0–90° N) SAT. Waviness is defined by the local wave activity11 (LWA) averaged over mid-latitudes (40–60° N). The Arctic sea-ice index was provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center21. Atmospheric indices were calculated from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ERA-5 reanalysis23, except for the Arctic Oscillation that was provided by the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.
Full size image

Also, over the past six or so years, there has been a surge of modelling studies suggesting only a weak influence of Arctic warming on mid-latitudes8,9,10,11,12,13. The magnitudes of the simulated responses are consistently weaker than observations might imply, for reasons that are uncertain and contentious14,15,16. A recent review concluded that observations provide strong evidence of Arctic influence on mid-latitudes16; this conclusion, however, was drawn from surveying influential studies that reported now-outdated trends. We argue that updated observational and reanalysis records (Fig. 1) tell much the same story as models: that the Arctic influence on mid-latitudes is small compared to other aspects of climate variability, and that observed periods of strong correlation (such as 1988/89 to 2011/12) are an artefact of internal variability11,17,18.

An alternative interpretation is that causal relationships are intermittent19,20, being strong at times and weak at other times. Our opinion, however, is there is not enough evidence for, or physical understanding of, intermittency in Arctic-to-mid-latitude connections to allow us to disregard the simpler explanation. That is, short-term fluctuations in the coherence of Arctic and mid-latitude trends are a manifestation of internal variability, and the forced response to Arctic warming, better estimated from long-term trends and/or models, is weak in mid-latitudes. Regardless of the cause, and despite continued Arctic amplification, the reversal in the past decade of prior tendencies and the absence of long-term trends in the Arctic Oscillation, jet stream waviness and Eurasian winter temperatures should be better acknowledged in the scientific literature. It is indefensible to continue to rely on past short-term trends, which have since disappeared, as evidence of a large influence of Arctic warming on mid-latitude winter climate and extreme weather14,16. Here we have shown that multiple metrics purported to be affected by Arctic amplification corroborate a weakening of evidence for detectable mid-latitude effects of Arctic warming.

[seldomseen]

So Stoon broke 114 year old cold record last night. After 30 years of warming! Wouldn't you think after so many years of warming you would stop breaking records?

[Oliver88]

I wonder how chuckys solar panels are heating his house?