Climate Change

Fewer U.S. Cold Waves

Cold waves aren't as common as they used to be, but research suggests that climate change could still make polar vortexes worse.

|

PolarVortexNOAA
NOAA

People who remain skeptical about global warming have been citing as contrary evidence the brutally cold polar vortex now assaulting the midwestern and northeastern U.S. So here's a baseline for discussion: The planet is getting warmer, and the United States is experiencing fewer, not more, cold waves.

First, the cold waves. The 2017 Fourth National Climate Assessment notes that the annual average temperature in the contiguous United States increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) from 1901 to 2016. Therefore it not surprising that heat waves have become more frequent in this country since the 1960s, while extreme cold temperatures and cold waves are less frequent. The assessment notes that "the number of record daily high temperatures has been about double the number of record daily low temperatures in the 2000s, and much of the United States has experienced decreases of 5%–20% per decade in cold wave frequency."

Now let's briefly consider the trend in global average temperature. Satellite measurements of the lower troposphere (that is, the atmosphere from the surface to about 5 miles up) According to researchers at both the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), 2018 was the sixth warmest year since 1979. Surface temperature analysts at Berkeley Earth and the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service say that 2018 is the fourth warmest year since 1850. The Copernicus researchers report that "the average temperature of the last 5 years was 1.1°C higher than the pre-industrial average." U.S. climate researchers have not yet reported their calculations for 2018, due to delays occasioned by the federal government shutdown.

The UAH researchers calculate that the planet has been warming at an average rate of +0.13 °C (0.23 °F) per decade. RSS reports a faster increase—an average rate of about +0.18 degrees C (0.32 degrees F) per decade. Berkeley Earth reports that since 1980, average surface temperatures have been increasing at a rate of +0.19 °C (+0.34 °F) per decade. NASA's Earth Observatory reports that since 1975, the surface has been warming at a rate of roughly +0.15-0.20 °C (0.27-0.36 °F) per decade. Cold though it may be in Chicago, it has been getting warmer overall.

Given that we're talking about a polar vortex, the trends in the Arctic seem relevant. Researchers find that temperatures in that region are rising considerably faster than the global average. Berkeley Earth reports that 2017 was the second warmest year in the Arctic since 1900 and that the region's average temperatures had increased in the past 40 years by about +3.0 °C (5.4 °F). It also calculates that the average increase for the planet over the same period was just shy of +1.0 °C (1.8 °F). Basically, the Arctic is warming three times faster than the whole planet.

So does Arctic warming have anything to do with cold weather in mid-latitude areas like the Midwest? Many climate researchers are intrigued by this question. The Rutgers climatologist Jennifer Francis and her colleagues published a study in Geophysical Research Letters last September that hypothesized that rapid Arctic warming favors an "increased persistence of regional weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. Persistent conditions can lead to drought, heat waves, prolonged cold spells, and storminess."

The rough idea is the jet stream—a westerly blowing river of air, high in the atmosphere, that generally confines Arctic air masses to the far north—becomes wavier and more unstable as the polar region warms and the extent of sea ice declines. The deeper jet stream waves periodically stall, allowing the frigid air to flow southward and freeze folks in the Midwest. The same process is also thought to be responsible for long-duration cooling events during winters in Siberia.

In a statement reporting the study results, Francis observed, "While we cannot say for sure that Arctic warming is the cause, we found that large-scale patterns with Arctic warming are becoming more frequent, and the frequency of long-duration weather conditions increases most for those patterns." Long-duration weather events like the current polar vortex.

On the other hand, there's an analysis of especially cold U.S. winter months during the past half-century, published last June by researchers associated with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. It also finds links between reduced sea ice the warming Arctic and recent cold snaps in the U.S., but it also points out that similar events have frequently occurred without that association. The researchers conclude that it will be difficult to untangle the effects of natural variations from those associated with increased warming.

In a nice summary of current research on how a warming Arctic may affect our weather, Francis observes, "Exactly how the northern meltdown will 'play ball' with other changes and natural fluctuations in the system presents many questions that will keep scientists busy for years to come, but it's becoming ice-crystal-clear that change in the far north will increasingly affect us all."

The bottom line: The U.S. is experiencing fewer cold waves, even as recent research suggests that a warming Arctic may bolster the cold waves that do occur by making it easier for frigid air to spill southward and hang around longer.

NEXT: Time-Looping Russian Doll a Quirky Ode Self-Discovery

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, climate change may make the polar vortex worse. But the polar vortex has been causing having in North America since the dinosaurs. It is one of the defining characteristics that has shaped the evolution and history of our continent, that we have no east-west mountain range to block the arctic air.

    1. *havoc, not having

    2. North/South.

      We do have an East West Mountain range that blocks weather – the Rockies.

      1. No the Rockies are north to south not east to west. Basically it is one flat plain from the North Pole to Texas.

        1. That is between the North South range of the Appalachians and the North South range of the Rockies.

    3. BUILD THE MOUNTAIN RANGE

  2. My feet are sticking out the end of my blanket and they are a bit chilly. Therefore global warming is a hoax, QED. Idiot.

    1. Poor Tony and his Lefty friends cannot convince people of their positions because the evidence is lacking and cannot use government to force people to comply.

      It has been a bad 2 years for y’all.

      1. The longer we wait, the more intrusive the measures will have to be. Either that or we all die. The ultimate market failure, you could say.

        1. Either that or we all die.

          lol

        2. Or the market will adapt.

          Slip and slides for all and cheap. Made in Antarctica.

          1. The market isn’t adapting and you are not smarter than the world’s collection of experts on the subject. You aren’t even the smartest person in a room with only you in it.

            1. Poor Tony. He wants what he said to be true. He just cannot form the words to convince anyone.

              1. He goes on Reddit, gets all the soy boy arguments down, then comes here to try to save the world from the evil white capitalists.

                Save a tree Tony, stop breathing

              2. This third person stuff is really embarrassing for you. If you’re too cowardly (or can’t) form a coherent reply, take Mark Twain’s advice and keep your mouth shut

            2. The world’s collection of experts can’t say for certain that humanity is causing it.

              But please, tell me more about the 97%.

              1. Yes they can.

                Also, the victims of a catastrophe don’t give a rat’s ass what’s causing it. What is the point of this so-called “debate” now that we’ve moved the goalpost to “what’s causing it derrr?” To figure who to sue? You guys all used to deny the catastrophe was even real. Don’t think I forgot.

                It takes so much less effort to not fill your head with curated bullshit.

                1. Have you even bothered to ever read the actual report that is used for the spurious 97% claim?

                  I’m betting you haven’t because you wouldn’t know science if it bit you on the ass.

                  1. Your horseshit ant-science talking points are like six years stale. Someone ventilate this place.

                    1. I’m not the one that brought it up and I’m not the one that doesn’t understand the scientific process.

                2. Poor Tony, your citation fell off.

            3. Poor Tony – you still believe there are experts.

              1. A more pristinely formed and succinct nugget of anti-intellectualism could not be dreamed up by the best propagandists. You sir have been had. I wish that someday you realize it.

            4. How is the market not adapting? Please provide examples. In agriculture, we are adapting, planting different crops, or using different rotatiins. Utilizing technology such as GMOs, breeding for specific traits in livestock and plants to make them more tolerant to hot temperatures and drought. Vehicles are more fuel efficient. New construction are made to be better insulated and easier to cool. So exactly how is the economy not adapting?

        3. How about you save the planet and stop breathing?

          Somewhere out there is a 100 year old tree producing oxygen for you to make dumbass comments all day.

          Save that tree tony, for humanity

        4. The longer we wait the less costly those more intrusive measures will be as a percentage of global GDP.

          You want to act now? Then you’re condemning several hundred million to a life of abject poverty. Act later and those people and their descendants are not only better off – fewer people will have died than if you hadn’t acted at all.

    2. My feet are sticking out the end of my blanket and they are a bit chilly.

      And your head nice and toasty because it is stuck firmly up your ass. Tony admits he doesn’t do science but insists he is right about something he knows nothing about.

      1. Lefties always have a fatalistic view on the future.

        If they don’t kill you, some unproven force will.

      2. Science sticklers are right to note that much of this global warming stuff is merely theory.

        Much like evolution.

        Or gravity.

        Carry on, clingers.

        1. Artie, you really shouldn’t talk when your betters are conversing–I know you think you’re saying something intelligent, but it’s just random words being barked out between your grandmaw’s thrusts.

          Evolution IS a theory. A theory that is constantly tested and experimented with. A theory that is open and accesible.

          Likewise gravity. And the underlying theory has changed quite a bit from the one first postulated.

          But you dont know any of that, being an imbecile.

          Anthropogenic Climate Change is also a theory. And it, too is constantly tested. And has been found to be wanting. Even the vaunted 1C degree of temperature rise lives within the margin of error.

          That is the point of testing theories, Artie–to see if they work.

          There are many hypotheses within the theories of evolution and gravity that work–and some that have been discarded–because they DON”T work.

          This has also happened with the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change, but the bad hypotheses never seem to get discarded–only restated and trotted out again and again.

          Which is why they, like you, are the subject of such ridicule.

          1. And he doesn’t even to get that evolution is constantly challenged in those tests because we continually learn how badly we don’t understand it.

    3. Tony yelling at clouds again.

    4. We need a government program to tuck in the blankets of the underprivileged like Tony.

  3. DC;DR (Don’t care; Didn’t Read)

    1. If you don’t care, why bother commenting?

      1. If you dont have anything to say, why bother commenting?

      2. On the hopes that Ronald might actually report on something that truly matters. The climate has changed continually before there were humans and will continue to change long after humans are gone. Humans have, and will continue to , adapt. Who knows, maybe in 20 years another meteor will strike Earth and plunge it into another Ice Age. Maybe that will appease Ronald.

        1. The debate over the climate doesn’t matter?

          1. Its not a debate.

            A debate involves differing opinions based on existing evidence being listened to.

            1. We used to listen to the Climate “Scientist’s” position until they lied to cover up the evidence does not fully support their hypothesis.

            2. Well then, between it not being a debate and probably unconstitutional as well, the government will most likely just drop it and move on.

              1. The Nazi’s are actually left-wing socialists – it’s in their name!

                1. Thanks for clarifying the truth about Nazis, Crusty.

                  That and Hitler, Goebbels, and other Nazis called themselves Socialists.

                  The Internet sucks for Socialists since you can just look up historical facts on your own.

              2. One Team won’t drop it. The other Teams are playing defense.

                1. One Team won’t drop it. The other Teams are playing defense.

                  Bullshit, that would be a debate and you just said there isn’t one.

                  1. Bullshit, that would be a debate and you just said there isn’t one.

                    There isn’t a debate, there is an “us vs them, right vs wrong, Jesus vs Satan” discussion happening.

                    1. Damnit, Crusticles, stop arguing whether this is a discussion or a debate.

                  2. By “not drop it”, the Left barks orders and prophecies of the sky falling.

                    Evidently, the only guaranteed catastrophic end of the Earth is the Sun going Red Giant in 1 billions years or so.

                    If humans are still around and don’t get off this heap of rock, humans will be extinct and it’s not humans causing this event.

                    1. By “not drop it”, the Left barks orders and prophecies of the sky falling.

                      It’s too bad nobody will take the time to counter that nonsense.

                    2. We know you can’t counter what I say, which is why you do what you do.

                    3. We know you can’t counter what I say, which is why you do what you do.

                    4. I see your rubber…

                  3. Have you ever tried debating devotees of an apocalyptic cult?
                    Its exhausting.

                    1. I wrote charles manson a few letters years ago.

                      It was exhausting.

  4. The climate models have been so abused by climate alarmists that I put no faith in them for anything.

    Climate and weather correlations have been so abused that all correlations are both possible and meaningless.

    I keep on coming back to certain facts:

    There were cattle ranches (small scale, of course) in Greenland one thousand years ago, and none now.

    Corals underwent a 400-500 foot sea level rise just 10-15,000 years ago and survived; yet we are told over and over again that global warming is killing them.

    Dinosaur atmosphere supposedly had 4 times the CO2 level of today, yet did not lead to runaway Venus-style climate, and dinosaurs survived for 150 million years.

    On and on, there are a thousand reasons to ignore climate modelers.

    1. The question of whether human activity is contributing to warming and climate change is a separate question from whether that will continue and, if so, what the consequences will be 100 years from now (or whatever your preferred time horizon will be). And that is a separate question from what, if anything, should be done to counter that possible future today at both the private and national level.

      Or, put differently, one doesn’t need to accept the most dire predictions of some climate scientists / activists or the socialist responses frequently pushed by environmentalists to accept that human activity has had and is likely to continue to have a significant impact on global climate, and that that impact might be disruptive and costly.

      1. The potential costly and disruptive effects of warming must be weighed against the efficacy, cost and disruption of “doing something about it”

        Unless of course “doing something” is a cover for your political agenda, then disruption is a feature and costs be damned

    2. The Cretaceous was indeed much warmer. The polar regions were temperate. I don’t think anyone is claiming a runaway Venus-style catastrophe is possible anytime soon. However, the climate IS warming. That’s an undeniable fact. What is debatable is whether it is catastrophic.

      Personally, I don’t think it is. We are in an ice age. An ice age is a symptom of recycling inefficiency. Specifically, it is a symptom that carbon is not being recycled efficiently enough and is being buried at a higher rate than new supplies from volcanic sources. These inefficiencies arise from jumps in evolutionary complexity, usually brought on by an improvement in converting solar energy into energy used for fixing carbon. This results in new types of organic carbon which nothing knows how to eat. Until the recyclers of these new forms of carbon evolve, it gets buried. The current ice age is a result of the evolution of grasslands in the Miocene. That’s why the Midwest is the breadbasket of the US – all that sweet buried carbon in the mollisols.

      Perhaps humans evolved to liberate all that carbon buried during the Carboniferous, before fungi and insects learned how to digest wood. Or perhaps we evolved to make plastic, as George Carlin thought.

      1. I don’t think anyone is claiming a runaway Venus-style catastrophe is possible anytime soon.We have had scientists, not just politicians, proclaiming 12 years til doom.

        Like I said, alarmists. I simply don’t trust them.

      2. It would be stupid to deny that the earth is warming or that climate is changing. But that doesn’t mean humans are having a significant impact on it. Especially when you consider that there is far less CO2 in the air today then in millennia past.

        1. If anything, we should hope and, assuming the hubris that we have the ability, accelerate warming.
          Current temperatures are far from ideal for humans, though not bad either.
          Life, which is fundamentally organized atomic activity, thrives in generally higher than lower temperatures.
          It’s simple, inescapable physics.
          Absolute 0 = stasis = non existence

        2. The word significant has a unique meaning in science, unfortunately something can be shown to be significant but have minimal real world impact, e.g. basically significant basically means that there is a high probability (usually greater than 95%) that the studied variable has an impact on the studied system. The variable doesn’t need to have a large impact in order to be significant.

  5. xkcd covered this a couple years back
    https://xkcd.com/1321/

    1. Not Munro’s best work — the avg difference in temperature isn’t large enough for people to notice (unless they lived through the 1700s), and the recent snap broke records going back to the 1800s, when virtually everyone agrees the globe was cooler.

      The proper response is that in a warming trend of a few degrees, the daily outliers should still expect to be found far from the mean.

      1. I thought the take home point was that relatively very low temps were becoming less common.

    2. L: FWIW, my thoughts about that xkcd cartoon.

      1. +1

  6. So does Mr. Bailey expect us to just ignore climategate and all of the purposely manipulated, fraudulent data?

  7. First, the cold waves. The 2017 Fourth National Climate Assessment notes that the annual average temperature in the contiguous United States increased by 1.8?F (1.0?C) from 1901 to 2016. Therefore it not surprising that heat waves have become more frequent in this country since the 1960s, while extreme cold temperatures and cold waves are less frequent.

    Climate “scientists” cannot verify if this is part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling or is 100% linked to human activities.

    Since they refuse to admit this and try to convince people of their positions rather than ordering that climate deniers be imprisoned, I say fuck them.

    1. Climate “scientists” cannot verify if this is part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling or is 100% linked to human activities.

      Actually, at this point, even ignoring issues like climategate and the rather overt bureaucratic corruption of the field, there’s a decent case it should be firmly established as disproven until established otherwise. Cry ‘Wolf!’ enough times and eventually your continued cries of ‘Wolf!’ affirm the absence of wolves rather than the opposite. When a significant portion of climate scientists can’t get to their summit in Davos or wherever because all the regional airport runways are too hot for planes to take off, we might have a problem. Until then, any schlub who can parrot dogma with less bumbling idiocy than James Hansen can catch a flight from their remote monitoring station to the posh locales of wherever the 1% decide to host their summit without the climate interfering too much.

  8. As can be seen in the plot below, there is no evidence in the data supporting the claim that decreasing Arctic sea ice in recent decades is causing more frequent displacement of cold winter air masses into the eastern U.S., at least through the winter of 2017-18:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..ecreasing/

    And Bailey confirms this

    On the other hand, there’s an analysis of especially cold U.S. winter months during the past half-century, published last June by researchers associated with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. It also finds links between reduced sea ice the warming Arctic and recent cold snaps in the U.S., but it also points out that similar events have frequently occurred without that association. The researchers conclude that it will be difficult to untangle the effects of natural variations from those associated with increased warming.

    That is a long winded way of saying there is no proof only some inconsistent association. Could the global warming God punish us by more polar vortexes? It is possible. But there is no evidence that shows that it will.

    1. I have yet to see a convincing evidence that any minor changes to climate over 100 years was not natural occurring warming as the last Ice Age was natural cooling.

      1. Maybe you guys will cover that in your senior year.

        1. He’s certainly brave for going back to high school at 75.

          1. He’s been putting off finishing that high school diploma long enough.

          2. At least he was able to get out of middle school. That puts him one step ahead of you and chipper. Just because he is living a dream you never will is no reason to get nasty.

            1. Hey, I’m waiting for my 70s just like he did.

              1. But you will still have to go back and graduate middle school first.

                1. But you will still have to go back and graduate middle school first.

                  Believe me, I’ve got my fingers crossed. The good news is I still have 20 years to study.

            2. It pretty funny that even if I was a high school kid who served in the military, they’re still getting owned daily by me. It clearly triggers them.

              This is literally the best that they can come up with.

              I feel bad for them roommates.

  9. Polar vortex looks a bit like the Laurentide Ice Sheet, makes one wonder if it’s possible reglaciation involves a semi-permanent polar vortex — that would help explain how it can be cold enough to glaciate as far south as Chicago, a place with 90+ degree summers today.

    Obliquity cycle is also on the decline, in the long run. Interglacials have rarely managed to span multiple obliquity cycles, and the fashionable long-CO2-residence-time speculation notwithstanding, no one really knows if this one will last more than another couple thousand years.

    1. The IPCC expresses virtual certainty that a glaciation is not possible for the next 50 Kyr if CO2levels remain above 300 ppm.

      It is hard to imagine a bigger natural catasrophy than the glaciation of North America. Given that, it is pretty remarkable that the ICC views that statement as a reason to worry about CO2 levels.

      1. The funniest part is that NOAA was founded (and the first satellites were launched) precisely on the basis of those concerns.

        And cooling might be a lot worse than people realize… agricultural might collapse globally due to dust and aridity (and perhaps falling CO2). Arguably one of the biggest long-term potential threats to human civilization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

        1. Cooling is something to be afraid of. The idea that a warmer planet would be worse than a cooler one much less some kind of catastrophe has to be the dumbest idea that has ever been foisted on the public.

          If a warmer planet is such a disaster for man and beast, then warmer areas of the planet should have less flora and fauna than colder ones, right? I mean the equatorial regions should be wastelands while the alpine and polar regions are teeming with life because of the cooler conditions.

          The whole thing is just a case of mass hysteria.

      2. Cold kills far more people than heat.

        Cold takes energy to mitigate; heat generally just requires siestas during the hottest parts of the day.

        1. Fun fact: there is no place on Earth too hot for significant agricultural production given sufficient irrigation, but at any given time around a third is too cold.

          And this is during what may be a short interglacial in a much longer ice age.

          1. Life needs two things to thrive, warmth and water. But, “science” somehow tells us that warming up the earth and melting the polar ice caps, something that would take an enormous amount of water currently locked in ice and put it into the atmosphere and water cycle would be a catastrophe.

            1. It makes you wonder if global warming hysteria is not borne of a deep seeded psychological urge toward suicide

              1. It’s borne of their deep seeded urge to kill other people.

                ie: See Tony

        2. Yes. Cold stunts the growth of plants which in turn reduces the number of larger animals an area can support. The elk heard in Yellowston Park is larger than the entire population of mamuals in Danali National Park even though Danali is at least ten or maybe more times larger.

          It makes no sense to claim a warmer earth is less conducive to life.

        3. You want to hear something weird? In the summer, my basement is the coolest part of the house. In the winter, my basement is the warmest part of my house. Spooky.

          1. You want to hear something weird?

            No.

      3. I’m aware that some alarmists talk about mass extinctions due to climate change, and I don’t particularly worry about that. And you’re absolutely right that New York being buried under hundreds of meters of ice would be catastrophic.

        But increased risk of flooding in coastal cities due to rising sea levels, higher incidence of tropical diseases in currently more temperate regions, and more arid conditions in land that is currently suitable for agriculture are all still plausible (not guaranteed, but plausible) and costly outcomes of warming.

        I’m of the opinion that we can adapt to those types of changes if and when they occur, but I think it’s worth trying to understand how likely and costly those adaptations might be, and whether mitigation action today could be a better alternative.

        In other words, it’s not a choice between two extremes, either in terms of widespread glaciation vs Venus style catastrophic green house effect, or in terms of doing nothing vs embracing terrible eco-communist policies.

        1. In other words, it’s not a choice between two extremes

          Nobody cares for your attempt to be sensible – pick a side and stick with it, cucktard.

          1. This is still the internet, right? What better place for people to have calm and reasonable discussions about important and controversial topics?

              1. How can I be a Nazi while believe in global warming? One is right wing and one is left wing!

                1. So global warming positions are right-wing now?

                  I just cannot keep up.

                  1. Don’t worry about it. It’s all circular. They’ll come back around to lap you soon enough.

        2. You are making a huge assumption that there is any choice involved at all. One of the other falacies of this whole farce is the assumption that man has enormous influence over the climate. I find that highly dubious. We may get glaciation whether we want it or not. Or we may get a nice warming period that raises the oceans and melts the ice caps. And rising sea levels will not make the land arid. That is absurd. Things get dry during an ice age when huge amounts of water that could be cirulating through the atomosphere is locked in polar ice. Melting that water and putting it into the sea and making it subject to evaporation and entering the water cycle will not make things dry. Warming will make the earth warmer and wetter.

          1. “Humans just can’t have that much of an impact, because of how I feelz in my intestines area!”

            In fact there is not a single ecosystem or square mile of land or water on this planet that has not been rather majorly affected by the presence of humans. We are not outside of nature, and neither are our pollutants.

            I don’t know why you people are so goddamn stubborn about not being educated on this subject while you feel entitled to say things about it,

            1. “In fact there is not a single ecosystem or square mile of land or water on this planet that has not been rather majorly affected by the presence of humans. We are not outside of nature, and neither are our pollutants.”

              Debatable to the degree you take it, but a good point.
              Humans impact the environment like no other species. All of civilization is testament to this.

              But: you’re talking about environment, not climate. They are not the same.

              1. Climate… is part of our environment.

          2. “You are making a huge assumption that there is any choice involved at all. One of the other falacies of this whole farce is the assumption that man has enormous influence over the climate. I find that highly dubious.”

            ^this ?mucho

            The energy output of the sun is responsible for like 95+% of earth’s climatic conditions.
            But of course progressives think the world revolves around them.

            1. Progressives are Agent Smith in The Matrix. They see humanity as a cancer on the planet and they mean to eradicate it. Well except for themselves, naturally.

        3. When the “elites” start selling off their beachfront property below market rates, then your discussion may be warranted.
          And despite the possibility that I may have to evacuate my current home, I’m still rooting for temperatures to increase because, as stated above by myself and others, warmer is better than colder for life.

  10. At any rate, I still want snowy winters in central Virginia, so I say bring on the Arctic air!

    1. It’s all fun and games until you drive by a railroad track on fire.

      1. TOP MEN refuse to allow the railroads to use Rearden Steel.

  11. So it doesn’t get as cold as frequently and that’s a negative impact of climate change on our weather. On the other hand, it gets extremely cold more frequently and that’s a negative impact of climate change on our weather.

    I’m sold. If we don’t let the government completely take over all energy decisions immediately to fix this emergency it’s going to be colder or warmer or something. Can we put Goldilocks in charge?

  12. AOC says the world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.

    Settled science.

    1. Enjoy the plastic straw bans.

      1. Boofing is definitely harder with those paper straws, amirite?

  13. I don’t doubt the weather has changed however we know all those in charge have changed all historical data so its hard to believe anything anymore.

    1. You could read the Wikipedia page on climate change. You could do something to educate yourself on current science, if you’re interested.

  14. Throwing a bone to progressives after an entire day of shitting on their terrible campaign platforms? Fair enough

  15. I sure do wish I could find the transcript of an interview with Michael Mann that I read a few years ago when the “polar vortex” first became a thing – in it the interviewer had asked Mann about this hypothesis (I remember it was a young female climatologist who had raised the issue, may very well have been Jennifer Francis he was speaking of) that global warming might lead to more erratic polar air flows and therefore cause colder winters across Northern Europe and North America. Mann dismissed this idea, saying that climate scientists had already looked at this possibility and the models showed that higher temperatures at the equator would put pressure on the polar air flows and keep them trapped. (Remember the “snow is just a thing of the past”?)

    And the thing is – the global warming folks actually did issue statements at the time that this “polar vortex” phenomenon was a one-off thing and had nothing to do with global warming because the science was already settled.

    The reason I remember this interview so well is because at that point the interviewer interjected that this made perfect sense that warmer air at the equator would trap the polar air flows because warm air rises. I wanted so badly to punch this guy in the face and tell him he’s never allowed to open his mouth on the subject again if he’s so damn stupid he thinks North is “up”.

    1. North is “up”.On a map.

  16. “People who remain skeptical about global warming have been citing as contrary evidence the brutally cold polar vortex…”

    You’re getting trolled, Ron.

    With all due respect.
    Yes, that is the level of discourse appropriate in engaging with “climate change” alarmists – people whose faith is in an eschatology rivalled only by the 7th Day Adventists for predictive accuracy.

  17. Cold waves aren’t as common as they used to be, but research suggests that climate change could still make polar vortexes worse.

    ‘Research’? Or more models being tweaked?

    1. If cold waves aren’t as common as they used to be, wouldn’t that, by definition, mean climate change makes polar vortexes less severe?

      1. They could be less frequent but colder when they do happen.

  18. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE…………>> http://www.geosalary.com

  19. Hey everyone–it’s okay.

    There’s no need to worry.

    Punxsutawney Phil didn’t see his shadow. It’s okay.

  20. Ok, ignore the science for a moment of whether we are causing it. From a human perspective, history is more and more pointing out that the turmoil in Europe and other areas were possibly directly caused by the little ice age. Why is pretty self evident when you see there were multiple seasons where food wasn’t produced any where near enough to support the population. When people don’t have food they get violent.

    That means we need it to stay warmer or reduce the population to that smaller than in the 1700’s. That might be the goal of some groups, to reduce the population; however, that wouldn’t have a positive impact on the economy any more than regressive taxes for funding climate science.

    Fuck it, I’m going to go throw another steak on the grill. It doesn’t effect me. My kid is the one affected eventually, just like our budget shortfall. Am I doing that right, Tony?

    1. Glad you recognize that minor, localized changes in climate can change the world. Obviously who or what causes it is quite low in relevance. Are we going to convene a court and pit a tree against a man? Justice is a red herring.

      This is a bigger climate change than ever happened on 5% of the world one time when people happened to be writing about it. It is, now, this day, an extinction event, a moment as calamitous as what wiped out the dinosaurs and worse, things that have happened five or six times in the history of earth. And, according to all available evidence and contradicted by none, humans happen to have ben the culprit.

      Hopefully that will only motivate us to do more than we otherwise might.

      1. This might be the most ignorant thing you’ve ever written.
        And that’s a really high bar.
        Color me impressed

        1. You are an emissary of death. If you care about justice more than action, tell me, what should society do with emissaries of death?

  21. WTF this article had over 200 comments yesterday.
    I log in now and its 126…

    1. Maybe not.
      I’m confused

  22. I like how people ask if I “believe” in global warming in the exact way I am asked if I “believe” in God (fuege pas kakodaimonos) and Santa Claus (fuck yeah!).

  23. While the media keeps parroting this talking point, heat waves have not become more common. I can only imagine the media freak-out if we had 1930’s type heat waves and droughts occurring now.

  24. So we went from “snow falls are a thing of the past” to “global warming makes them worse”.

    Is the earth heating? Maybe . People massage the data so much it’s hard to tell anymore. Personal, AGW sorry climate change is the new religion. People need to feel they have power over everything. So now they want to have power over the temp of the Earth. That with enough feelings, we can fix everything. find it a little arrogant honestly.

    Some notes

    * C02 is steadily increasing yet temperature as stalled or barely.
    * Even Ron has pointed out the moving goal-posts up there. Look at the dates 1979, 1850 etc. They can’t even decide one where to measure.
    * Point to one model prediction that has been right please?
    * Sorry, as a solar scientist, I’m going with the Sun and solar activity
    * Something that isn’t talked about – cold kills more people than heat.
    * Why is our temperature the perfect for the earth?
    * If Tony popped, would that caused the run away greenhouse affect?

  25. Between the religious climate alarmists and their reactionary opposites, it’s hard to really form an opinion on the matter, so I don’t worry about it too much. I just don’t know, which is probably the opinion most people should have.

    I do think we’re in more immediate danger of the democratic socialists using it as their wedge issue. I know for sure that turning the world in to Cuba won’t make the planet a better place.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.