GLOBAL WARMING COLD WAVES
Posted on: September 4, 2021
THE 2021 COLD WAVE OF NORTH AMERICA HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING AND IS THEREFORE THOUGHT TO BE A CREATION OF OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.
WHAT THE SOURCE ARTICLES SAY
WASHINGTON POST: LINK: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/09/03/climate-change-arctic-texas-cold/
In a study released Thursday in the journal Science, the devastating Texas cold wave in February is linked to a stretching of the polar vortex in the stratosphere miles above ground level. This stretching mode, only recently categorized, has become more common over the last 40 years, the paper finds, and the increase may be related to human-caused climate change.
BBC: LINK: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58425526
A new study shows that increases in extreme winter weather in parts of the US are linked to accelerated warming of the Arctic. The scientists found that heating in the region ultimately disturbed the circular pattern of winds known as the polar vortex. This allowed colder winter weather to flow down to the US, notably in the Texas cold wave in February. The authors say that warming will see more cold winters in some locations.
A SOURCE RESEARCH PAPER FOR THESE ARTICLES:
Matthias, Vivien, and Marlene Kretschmer. “The influence of stratospheric wave reflection on North American cold spells.” Monthly Weather Review 148.4 (2020): 1675-1690. ABSTRACT: While the relationship between the Arctic sea ice loss and midlatitude winter climate has been well discussed, especially on the seasonal mean scale, it remains unclear whether the Arctic sea ice condition affects the predictability of North American cold weather on the subseasonal time scale. Here we find that, in the presence of low Barents-Kara Sea (BKS) sea ice, sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) can favor surface cold spells over North America at the subseasonal timescale based on observations and model experiments. A persistent ridge of wave-2 pattern emerges over the Bering Sea-Gulf of Alaska several weeks after the SSW onset, with a coherent structure from the stratosphere to the surface, which, in turn, is conducive to synoptic cold air outbreaks in Canada and midwestern USA. This highlights a planetary wave pathway relating to BKS sea ice changes, by which the stratospheric polar vortex impacts the regional surface temperature on the subseasonal scale. In contrast, this mechanism does not occur with positive BKS sea ice anomaly. These findings help to improve the subseasonal predictability over North America, especially under the background of rapid change of Arctic sea ice in a warming world.
CRITICAL COMMENTARY
THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS THAT THE LONG TERM GLOBAL IMPACT OF BURNING FOSSIL FUELS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME CAUSES A LONG TERM RISING TREND IN GLOBAL MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE (GMST) AT TIME SCALES OF 40 YEARS OR ,LONGER. CLIMATE AND WEATHER EVENTS THAT ARE LOCALIZED AND NOT GLOBAL OR THAT OCCUR AT BRIEF TIME SCALES OF DECADAL OR LESS CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF THIS THEORY; BUT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF INTERNAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/
AS A DEMONSTRATION IT IS SHOWN IN A RELATED POST: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/01/11/global-warming-dec2020/ , THAT LONG TERM WARMING TRENDS IN GMST CONTAIN DECADAL TRENDS THAT ARE VOLATILE AND RANDOM. SAMPLE IMAGES FROM THE RELATED POST FOR GLOBAL MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE AND ARCTIC MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW.
GLOBAL
ARCTIC
CONCLUSION
IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE, WE PROPOSE THAT THE APPROPRIATE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY THAT GLOBAL WARMING INCREASES COLD WAVE EVENTS IN THE NORTH AMERICA IS THE TIME SERIES FOR A LONG TERM TREND OF 40 YEARS OR MORE IN SUCH COLD EVENTS THAT SHOWS A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RISING TREND.
NO SINGLE EVENT NOR A CLUSTER OF EVENTS CAN SERVE AS EVIDENCE FOR A THEORY THAT GLOBAL WARMING, ACTING THROUGH ARCTIC WARMING, IS CAUSING A RISING TREND IN NORTH AMERICAN COLD WAVE EVENTS. SCIENTISTS WHO MAKE SUCH A CLAIM ARE EITHER DISHONEST OR SUFFER FROM A WEAKNESS IN STATISTICS EDUCATION. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/18/climate-science-vs-statistics/
THAT A CAUSATION MECHANISM CAN BE PROPOSED FOR AN OBSERVED PHENOMENON POST HOC {AFTER THE FACT} DOES NOT SERVE AS EVIDENCE FOR THE PROPOSED CAUSATION. IT REMAINS A THEORY UNTIL VERIFIED BY THE DATA IN AN UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS.
MORE TO THE POINT, A THEORY DERIVED FROM THE DATA CANNOT BE TESTED WITH THE SAME DATA. THAT KIND OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH SUFFERS FROM A CIRCULAR REASONING FALLACY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE TEXAS SHARP SHOOTER FALLACY WHERE YOU SHOOT FIRST AND SELECT YOUR TARGET LATER.
HUMAN CAUSE: THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS HUMAN CAUSE BECAUSE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSE OF THE WARMING TREND, WHATEVER IMPACTS THE WARMING MAY HAVE ARE ALL NATURAL.
LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/11/09/the-issue-is-human-cause/
3 Responses to "GLOBAL WARMING COLD WAVES"
October 6, 2021 at 9:45 am
Here’s a poser. If a person creates water flow down a slide, as with three hoses, equidistant from one another, share what you understand about how the water flows. I would ask a few questions to be answered: 1) If the flow rate (and you’ll have to determine what that rate is, then give data on changes) is constant, what forces exist within each hose and what forces are there interacting between the three? What slide materials increase flow, and what are the reasons for this? Does the flow from each hose increase or decrease if we move the other hoses away? Why? What forces within each hose increase or decrease flow as pressure increases? What about slide and hose temperatures? 2) With the given data, should a pool be at the end of the slide, how fast would the pool fill up given flow rates, evaporation, temperatures, wind, and other interactions, and name those other interactions. 3) Demonstrate your understanding on spread sheets and show all elements.
**Here’s the purpose of the question. Certainly, anyone with common sense can see the above question is extremely easy compared to making claims about man-made global anything or knowing the ramifications of a new, but unknown MRNA vaccine, which has never before been used population-wide. If a propagandist can explain the paragraph above, demonstrating numbers, flow rates, resistance, and include all factors involved, with incredible accuracy, then we might consider you have some understanding regarding the Earth, but we’ll still know you’re so far away. However, in attempting to run the numbers regarding flow rates and slide materials, including a filling pool and things like evaporation, splash, and other creatures drinking, you might discover real science is far beyond the capability of people making gigantic claims. You see, it’s always easier to believe something no one can prove, then to prove something far easier. Try the above. If you can, then we might believe you are sincere in your efforts to understand larger concepts.
**Show you can do something extremely simple, as the above, then we might think you have some concept of the charts shown above.
Thongchai Thailand 
September 7, 2021 at 10:05 pm
I probably should have asked first but I posted this on Facebook because you did a great job of explaining the difference between “weather” and “climate”.
September 7, 2021 at 10:27 pm
Thank you