{"id":296239,"date":"2024-01-17T17:31:25","date_gmt":"2024-01-17T16:31:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=296239"},"modified":"2024-01-17T17:31:27","modified_gmt":"2024-01-17T16:31:27","slug":"cold-brings-out-more-climate-lunacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=296239","title":{"rendered":"Cold brings out more climate lunacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Joe Bastardi<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am not even talking about wind turbines failing due to it being too cold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, cold brings out the Lunatic Fringe when it comes to climate. Because of the everyone-gets-a-trophy mentality that many of them have (no matter what happens, they always attribute it to climate), they try to blame cold on warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us get something straight. The so-called global temperature is a horrible metric for climate because temperatures are a third derivative indicator of climate. Wet bulb temperatures are far better and best are saturation mixing ratios. They show the relationship of water vapor to temperatures and, since there is no such relationship between CO2 and temperature, intuitively it means CO2 can not be proven to do anything.  And so they refuse to quantify the mixing ratios.  But the increase in water vapor due to warming oceans can be directly linked not only to increased temperature but also to understanding where and when it\u2019s warmer; we see it has to be water vapor since the warming is in the coldest driest areas much more than toward the equator. This, by the way, sets off a whole chain of events that I have been trying to show people. While I am at it, I would be happy to show this entire hypothesis to groups that want to see it.  At the very least, you can laugh it out of existence. ( I am confident when I explain, you won\u2019t) I have explained this dozens of times and can defend the hypothesis. I figure the best way to prove it is to get out in front of events in the weather and expose these people when they open their mouths on something I was predicting way before. They are clueless until it happens since the only way they care about the weather is to use it for non-weather purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case the public does not understand that even if we use the global temperature, it\u2019s an average of all observations. If it is 1 degree above average, it means there is enough warmth to outdo the cold by that much, but there is still going to be cold around.  There is still going to be much of the planet not knowing it is warm unless they are told and told so in a way that is pure exaggeration (hottest ever). Trying to use a temperature that is a bit over 59 (though at actual weather stations its under 58) and portraying it as hot is deceptive and delusional. 59 is not hot. The fact that it is warmer where its coldest and driest DECREASES temperature contrast and lead to less severe events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what about the idea that warm causes cold?  This is Climate 101 from back in the 1950s. So they recycle it because no one reading this probably cared about the climate in the \u201960s, and if you don\u2019t, certainly their mindless minions did not. The idea is, if the world warms, it is because of more water vapor, so the snowier areas of the world, though warming more, would get more snow, and it would naturally start to counter warming. I learned about this idea when I was 8 years old out of some books my dad gave me on the weather. I learned it again at Penn State in the 1970s  pre Michael Mann ( he is at U Penn now). It is a natural built-in cycle that follows Le Chateliers, something that is never mentioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weatherbell laid the trap for the cold you see now, starting back in Spring. We are now going out as far as 9 months in our forecasting (hence the hurricane forecast that came out in December). In any case, the bullet points in the forecast had this from Aug 15 (first official release).<\/p>\n\n\n\n