Dipole causing Eastern Freeze due to Burning Fossil Fuels

Dipole causing Eastern Freeze due to Burning Fossil Fuels

Exactly as predicted. Global Disruption is not a HOAX. I remember reading this about the Jet Streams changing due to the Warming Oceans. Even a Climate Denier can see this. The fossil fuel interests should be held accountable and pay for the damages.

NoMoPetrol | January 5, 2018

Talk about something that will go right over the heads of the deniers. Since they don't understand the difference between climate and weather patterns affected by climate change, it will be easy for them to maintain blissful comfort in their alternate universe of "real news".

Tesla-David | January 5, 2018

Yes the disruption in the Jet Stream due to Climate Change has been an ever increasing threat to extreme weather in the lower 48 states, while Anchorage, AK is a balmy 45 degrees in mid-Winter. It is amazing to see the amazing amount of ignorance by deniers and our idiot in chief, who only rely on their "real news" sources instead of the science based universe.

Remnant | January 5, 2018

@Mike83 (OP, January 5, 2018)

<< Dipole causing Eastern Freeze due to Burning Fossil Fuels ... Exactly as predicted. Global Disruption is not a HOAX. >>

Speculations based on contingencies and math model simulations do not separate actual trends from random data.

Check Mikhail Voloshin's Random Walk Analysis of NOAA and GISTEMP climate data processing

The "Perfect-Storm" analogy is cheap and hollow anything-goes sensationalism that amounts to Kabuki dancing around the AGW farce.

Remnant | January 5, 2018

@Tesla-David (January 5, 2018)

<< It is amazing to see the amazing ... >>

Powerful insight, cave-dwelling SaSoT, truly worthy of publication.

Mike83 | January 5, 2018

NoMoPetrol You are correct as illustrated by a political post above. They are so dumb to believe Fake news lacking in any critical thinking using quacks for their science. Too bad loud mouths can't actually change the scientific facts but only illustrate emotionalism.

MitchP85D | January 5, 2018

Yep, it is so cold outside because the earth is warming! I've been hearing that for decades!

How about an alternative view - called the conservation of energy principle. When a concentration of lack of heat (cold) over the Arctic spreads out across the continents, heat dilutes, or replaces the lack of heat in the Arctic. So, of course the Arctic warms when the mid-latitudes get colder. It has to! Then, after a few more weeks of perpetual darkness, the lack of heat builds up again due to radiative flux into space. And this starts the process all over again.

This has been going on for millions of years. There is nothing new under the sun!

Mike83 | January 5, 2018

In the welfare fossil fuel crowd they can only see one tree in the forest and it is doing fine.

NoMoPetrol | January 5, 2018

I'm putting my money on the chocolate shortage finally bringing the deniers to their knees.

SO | January 5, 2018
science-isbetter | January 5, 2018

Warm Arctic and cold lower 48 are related. But it's not "conservation of energy" as Mitch tries to snow you.

Mitch, science is better than FUD.

teslu3 | January 5, 2018

A good summary:
For current version of top picture see
and place mouse over "2m Temperature Anomaly" Also over "Jetstream Wind Speed"

Mike83 | January 5, 2018

Very elegant and informative. Thanks teslu3

Remnant | January 5, 2018

@teslu3 (January 5, 2018)

<< A good summary:[by Peter Sinclair,] >>

As Peter Sinclair acknowledges, "the science is still emerging on this process" ... !!!!!

Remnant | January 5, 2018

@Mike83 (January 5, 2018)

<< In the welfare fossil fuel crowd they can only see one tree in the forest and it is doing fine. >>

Mischaracterization of the opponent in order to create a strawman is a common fallacy that you make compulsive use of and which illustrates both incompetent reasoning and ill faith on your part.

SCCRENDO | January 5, 2018

@Remnant. First thing we need to address is the new BS you are going on about called the “random walk”. It comes from economics and even economists seem to question it. The new fraud on the block Voloshin tried to adapt it to the NOAA data in order to try undermine their validity. It has not even been adequately validated in economics so how can it even be adapted to a total different scenario. It inserts a predesigned variation and puts it up against the data and claims that it is no different from the actual data. What science recognizes is that data does indeed have a coefficient of variation and this is taken into account when trying to determine statistical significance. And indeed all the temp data have been evaluated with true scientific rigor

SCCRENDO | January 5, 2018

2nd point would be Remnant’s claim that we mischaracterize deniers. Indeed the AGW-greenhouse gas-climate change-global warming hypothesis has excellent plausibility supported by rigorous science. Having dealt with Strawmam_Welfare_Mitch for a few years now and witnessed his denial arguments the first thing that comes to mind is that he completely who they repeatedly reference. These hucksters take one tiny aspect and then put in tremendous effort to cherry pick that point with the follow up claim that the whole theory is flawed. Their attack usually involves either fraudulent data, data omissions or misinterpretations. And indeed as Mike stated they enter a forest and pick a tree show that it is doing fine but forget to mention that the rest of the forest is rotting.

SCCRENDO | January 5, 2018

In reference to Strawman_Welfare_Mitch. He completely does not understand the science but has a group of fraudulent scientists that he repeatedly references.

SCCRENDO | January 5, 2018

On the original topic I found this article which explains it pretty well. The diagrams should make it easy for even weatherman_Mitch to understand

Mike83 | January 6, 2018


One of the most dreadful consequences which is not recoverable is the destruction of the Ocean by the massive burning of fossil fuels. As the ocean provides 51% of the Oxygen we breathe and it is going away we may see the limiting factor ending animals that require oxygen like the homo sapiens. Beyond stupid the fossil fuel morons are ignoring science for money. My Grandma used to say, you can't take with you.

science-isbetter | January 6, 2018

Politicization of explainable events at the expense of science bodes ill. Leads to witch trials, racial stereotyping, ethnic cleansing and a fundamental brake on progress.

As just one example, you don't have to go very far back in time to see financial interests distort the benefits of Nikola Tesla's alternating current inventions. Eventually science won out because rational people continued to fight the good fight.

Tesla-David | January 6, 2018

@SCCRENDO +1000, well said!

MitchP85D | January 6, 2018

Think about it. What were we burning before fossil fuels? Would the environment have been much better off today if we just left the fossil fuels in the ground and just kept burning what were we using before??!!!

I'll let you SaSoTs think about that one for a while.

SCCRENDO | January 6, 2018

@Welfare_Mitch. Don’t have to think about this very long. At the time the burning of fossil fuels was a good idea. It helped advance society. Also we were as ignorant as the climate change deniers are today and did not understand the consequences. Unfortunately the use of fossil fuels has increased exponentially and has overwhelmed the ability of the environment to handle it. Also we now understand the consequences. Fortunately we have also developed alternate energy sources which makes the shift from fossil fuels relatively painless. Do you get it now Mitchie??

SO | January 7, 2018

At one time people used to heavily use XRay machines to measure hats and shoes. Once people found out how dangerous that was, they stopped doing it. Same should be done for fossil fuels today where possible.

I guess previous generations were smarter on average.

Nexxus | January 8, 2018

It should be needless to say, but at the time we were burning wood and peat, prior to fossil fuels, there was 1/6th the population we have now. 1 Billion+ just didn't have the effects we're seeing today.

MitchP85D | January 8, 2018

Think of how many trees would be cut down if we kept burning wood today! Fossil fuels have saved the environment from wood-burning humans!

Plus, our standard of living has been upgraded tremendously by fossil fuels. Will this go on forever? Of course not! Give it about 200 years, we will be completely off fossil fuels. The fossil fuel age will only be a little "blip" in both the geological timeline and the human timeline! Effects on the environment? Negligible!

science-isbetter | January 8, 2018

Nexxus +1

SCCRENDO | January 8, 2018

@Welfare_Mitch. You are totally clueless as regards climate change and the environment that you have no idea whether this planet will exist in 200 years. If we carry on as we are with deniers like you around and destructors in chief like our present stable genius who is at all out war with the environment and looking to trigger nuclear conflicts I am not too optimistic.

MitchP85D | January 8, 2018

Look at the previous 200 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 1,000,000 years. I think our odds are very good in the next short little 200 years!

SCCRENDO | January 8, 2018

@Strawman_Mitch. Wrong again. Ask your financial advisor. Past performance does not guarantee future results

Remnant | January 8, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 5, 2018)

<< ... the new BS you are going on about called the “random walk” ... comes from economics and even economists seem to question it. The new fraud on the block Voloshin tried to adapt it to the NOAA data in order to try undermine their validity. It has not even been adequately validated in economics so how can it even be adapted to a total different scenario. >>

Your miserable diatribe is just a low level political screed, based on ad-hominem argumentation, insults, and lies. Its only likely utility is to show how ignorant you are of data processing and statistics, not to speak about the fact that the whole AGW faith is based on virtual graphs and points on math simulation models.

There isn't even a uniform method of calculating an average global temperature. AGW is fiction, fraud, farce, figment, vapor. The AGW debates look more and more like those allegedly scholastic debates about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

MitchP85D | January 9, 2018

There is no guarantee in the future. Period. But at this point in time, what is it that we have to go on? The past. If you don't examine the past, how can you have any idea about what will happen in the future?

Oh, I know. Computer models!

SCCRENDO | January 9, 2018

@Remant. That is where you are completely wrong. Because temp is variable over different parts we need to find the best way to define it. And indeed the measure has been validated. In addition the standards are predefined before the measurements are taken as compared to the denier method of collecting data and then inventing statistics to measure it. When these standards are applied to the whole graph there is indeed a standard error and coefficient of variation but it stands up to the stats. What Voloshin has done is take a unvalidated economic statistic that was purely designed to show that a random guess would be as good as the available statistics. They even failed to show economic validation and now tries to apply it to scientific studies. He has invented a statistic purely designed to game the system in his favor. Whereas scientific studies need to pass muster against previously well validated test

PrimeTime | January 9, 2018

Computer models have been successfully used in drug design and, believe it or not, weather prediction including hurricane paths. Just to name a few.

SCCRENDO | January 9, 2018

@PrimeTime. Don't tell Welfare_Mitch. He knows nothing about weather and wishes to remain ignorant.

MitchP85D | January 9, 2018

This is the why meteorologists are highly skeptical of climate forecasts with computer models!

By the way, I work with computer models every working day of my life!

SCCRENDO | January 9, 2018

@Strawman_Mitch. Why do you work with computers if you don’t trust them??

MitchP85D | January 10, 2018

The models are good for about a week. Not months! And absolutely worthless for years!

Mike83 | January 10, 2018

Still on vacation having a great time.
Checking back it is obvious short term views are irrelevant to the overall Climate disruption since the burning of fossil fuels accelerated to obscene amounts. There may too much destruction already unfortunately for many being stubborn ignoring facts will lead to demise. The ocean oxygen content is already becoming very dangerous for oxygen breathing mammals.
Here is the latest on CO2 407.81!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is mankind suicidal?

SCCRENDO | January 10, 2018

@Ignorant_Strawman_Mitch. Shows how little you know. Computer models are only as good as the data provided and has nothing to do with short or long term.

MitchP85D | January 11, 2018

Well Captain Planet, this is where you are off your rocker. All environmental prediction models have a t=0 initialization. There is always a certain degree of error in the initialization which is due to lack of data points and interpolation in the grid. With each iteration, that initial error compounds more and more farther down the line of prognostication. This is why it is so difficult to forecast weather beyond a week. The error compounds to a point where the model is useless. This is why operational weather forecasters are the biggest skeptics of climate prediction models!

SCCRENDO | January 11, 2018

@Strawman_MItch. I am well aware of that. I was clear to state that models are only as good as the data provided. But that is why we don't get too excited about these predictions that the Arctic would be ice free by a certain date. It is the generalized predictions that we are more concerned with. It is you that is creating the strawman that because someone claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by a certain date and was wrong that the models must be wrong. We are all well aware that weathermen like you are incapable of accurately predicting the weather next week.

Mike83 | January 16, 2018

Climate Disruption caused by burning coal and oil is costing US citizens billions of dollars but the Feds are controlled by big oil and coal. Not sure anyone voted for these sh$%heads.

MitchP85D | January 16, 2018

Big Oil and Coal don't control anybody or anything! It is by far more accurate to state that Big Oil and Coal are controlled by the customers who buy their products! And everything Big Oil and Coal does is determined by what their customers demand!

If you do not see this, then you live in an alternate virtual reality world!

Mike83 | January 16, 2018

Open your brain and then consider the damages done by the liars in charge. Stop subsidizing fossil fuels and let real capitalism work.

SCCRENDO | January 16, 2018

@Mike83. His brain is so wide open that you can drive an oil tanker through it. He seems to have as much brain left as his buddy @Brain_Remnant.

MitchP85D | January 16, 2018

That's right SaSoT Boy1! You don't have an argument to counter with, so you just say somebody is stupid. Wow, how persuasive!

Think about it. What would happen if the oil industry and the coal industry just decided to come out and make a public announcement to the world that gasoline and coal are destroying the planet, so they won't sell the products anymore. How do you think their customers are going to take that?

C'mon SaSoT Boys, think about that one real hard!

SCCRENDO | January 16, 2018

@Welfare_MItch. Don't you think that this has been discussed ad nauseum. Yes the coal and oil industry just like the tobacco industry needs to come out and admit they are destroying the planet and killing people. And if they want their companies to survive they need to invest in alternate fuels. But of course you don't care about people and the environment as long as FEMA and other government departments are there to give you your welfare cheese when the environment taht you ignore hurts you.

MitchP85D | January 16, 2018

Don't you think smokers know by now the dangers of their habit? But they still demand the product anyway. Where there is a demand, somebody will provide the supply. SaSoT Boy1 cannot comprehend this concept for some reason.

People demand electricity. People demand transportation. And they want it at an affordable price. The coal/oil and auto industries are willing to provide the supply. Just because SaSoT Boys don't like that doesn't mean they can dictate terms for everybody else. It is up to the SaSoT Boys to make a compelling enough argument to the populace to dissuade them from buying the things they demand. Apparently, SaSoT Boy arguments are not doing too well!