Skip to content

Melting Arctic Drove Beast From The East Claims Fake Study.

April 2, 2021
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

This latest example of how climate science has been totally corrupted appears in the Telegraph:






This is so utterly wrong on so many levels that it is hard to see how it ever passed peer review or got published.

For a start, the Beast was caused by something called Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW), as was was widely known at the time. The SSW is a common and natural weather phenomenon . (The Met Office explain this here.) Melting Arctic ice had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Secondly, the temperatures seen during the Beast were not unusually low, or the cold prolonged. Neither is it the case that such extreme cold is becoming more frequent in February, the opposite is in fact true:






Of course, the useless Julia Slingo, formerly the Met Office’s Chief “Scientist”, has alternately blamed melting Arctic ice in the past for dry UK winters and wet ones!

We then come on to the claim that snowfall was heavier as a result of less sea ice on the Barents Sea. As is usual with these sort of studies, there is no actual snowfall data at all to back up this claim. It is all derived from modelling.

But what we do know for certain is that the amount of snowfall in 2018 was by no means unusual for England. As my regular trawls through the archives showed just last month, February 1941 was hit by some of the heaviest snow of the century:




February 1978 also suffered from heavy snow, with exactly the same meteorological set up as in 2018, with winds from the east:





Indeed, coincidentally, the Met Office noted the 40th anniversary of that 1978 blizzard on its blog just a few days before the Beast struck:



These are just random samples, and there are many more instances of heavy blizzards wherever you look.

Interestingly the paper’s Abstract begins:

The loss of Arctic sea-ice has been implicated with severe cold and snowy mid-latitude winters. However, the mechanisms and a direct link remain elusive due to limited observational evidence

In other words, there is no data available to prove their theory, so they simply made up their conclusions to suit their agenda.

In any exercise like this, the first thing to establish is whether snowfall levels are higher than in similar weather events in the past. This the authors have not even attempted to do, which makes their paper no more than a sham.

And they call it science.

  1. Peter Yarnall permalink
    April 2, 2021 6:11 pm

    Not quite sure why Ms Rudgard is still writing rubbish in the Telegraph. She is really more suited to the Guardian with her greeny lefty agenda.

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      April 3, 2021 12:45 am

      “Not quite sure why Ms Rudgard is still writing rubbish”

      The money, it’s always about the money !

  2. April 2, 2021 6:55 pm

    More like idle gossipy speculation-based than an honest, scientifically based discussion.
    Should have a qualifying warning accordingly!

  3. April 2, 2021 7:13 pm

    “Experts” “Scientists” “Extreme” and “the Barents Sea free of sea ice by …wait for it 2080”! A new date for fear!

    These wilfully disingenuous people have no limits.

    Regarding Paul’s point about lack of competent reviewing, I see climate paper after paper with clearly flawed methodologies and conclusions built into the introductions. Also I challenge repeatedly the weight given to the product of models which as in this case are not empirical YET……. they are the source of an empirical result in the form of a date, 2080! No doubt that will be the extreme (P1) of the distribution range of possible outcomes we are very familiar with in the writings and ravings from the surreal world of Klymut Cyence

    Given that the obsequious Media Mob currently blind to the rape of the US people and it’s constitution openly declared that they no longer would follow basic journalistic standards because of Trump, so the over abundant mediocrity which has infested universities is tolerated because they bring easy climate dollars to the Universities, regardless of the pap they produce. They are encouraged to write any old piffle as long as it contains all the climate alarmist buzz words knowing it will be waved through with minimal checking by the editorial staff of once august now corrupted journals like Nature and its bastard child Nature Geoscience.

    So many climate fashion rags exist now to be echo chambers for corrupted scientists to keep their lousy jobs, pontificating endlessly and pointlessly about climate change. It used to be a no no to quote yourself. Now self quoting fills the reference lists of these narcissists in scientists clothing.

    You can write a paper on a post modernist study of your navel fluff and as long as you remember to insert is the phrase “because of Climate Change” and “due to Climate Change”, your paper will just sail through. Just look at what passes for science in these rags today. You will NEVER be challenged to defend that statement by the corrupt peers or the feckless readership who just read these rags to reinforce their own received wisdom.

    • Vic Hanby permalink
      April 3, 2021 12:14 pm

      I’ve stopped being surprised how often manuscripts that merit the ‘rejection’ button still get published. When I started (late ’60s) journals regularly published correspondence pages where you could take issue with authors who would then respond. This frequently made for entertaining reading. Nowadays when I read of the ‘Gold Standard of peer review’ I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

  4. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 2, 2021 7:22 pm

    Arctic sea ice extent (joint 7/8th lowest of past 43 years) and volume ended the winter similar to most recent years of the last decade, although the volume may still go up another nibble it won’t be significant.

    La Nina seems to be feeding through.

    Can’t say the drop was noticeable in the 2m surface temperatures, seemed to go up a little then cool down a little, so pretty even over the whole month – not scientific, just the impression I got from observation.

    • Mack permalink
      April 2, 2021 10:34 pm

      ‘Arctic sea ice extent 7th/8th lowest in the last 43 years’. Sounds a little scary if I was a follower of global warming. If I then said that it was in the top couple of hundred HIGHEST extents of the past 10000 years then I would possibly say, ‘forget global warming, it’s the next glaciation we
      should be worried about!’

    • dave permalink
      April 3, 2021 11:30 am

      Yes, UAH shows a substantial drop (-0.21 C).

      Also, the Sun is spotless.

  5. 2hmp permalink
    April 2, 2021 7:24 pm

    Olivia Rudgard competes with Harrabin to write the greatest rubbish.

  6. Cheshire Red permalink
    April 2, 2021 7:48 pm

    The Telegraph has apparently recruited Ash ‘f*cks like a champion’ and ‘literally a communist’ Sarkar as their ‘Race correspondent’. Talk about misplacing their content to their readership.
    Glad I cancelled my subs months ago.

  7. Jack Broughton permalink
    April 2, 2021 7:57 pm

    Also reported by the hapless Madeleine Cuff in the I. Equally silly use of “experts and scientists say” to cover-up the ineptitude of the reporters and editors. Climate change is whatever they say it is. Hopefully, the people are becoming wise to the non-stop bombardments with fake-news, as shown by the recent poll that you reported.

    None of them mention that our much-vaunted CO2 reductions make not a measurable jot of difference to the increase rate: nor the cost to the economy, i.e. everyone.

    • Gamecock permalink
      April 2, 2021 10:15 pm

      “Climate change is whatever they say it is.”

      Actually, they never say. It is conspicuously undefined. But scary.

  8. Broadlands permalink
    April 2, 2021 8:23 pm

    Someone should point out to Dr. Bailey (the expert who hypothesized?) that in the 1920s the Barents Sea also had ice-free conditions…

    “During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location.”

    CO2 was pre-industrial.

  9. April 2, 2021 9:27 pm

    From what I can see (and remember), none of the recent “Beasts from the East” matched the one in 1986-87 – 35 years ago!!!. Then, a huge well-defined high-pressure system moved across western Russia from Siberia and teamed-up with a smaller (but equally well-defined) low in the Med. The result was the most humongous passage of cold air from Siberia into western Europe.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      April 2, 2021 9:37 pm

      Yes the cluster of cold winters in the 80s are oft forgot.

      Dec 2010 and Mar 2013 were colder than any same month in the 80s though.

      The last cold spell this year was not a true beast from the east at all, and the one a few years ago was very brief/half-baked.

  10. Ray Sanders permalink
    April 2, 2021 10:18 pm

    Olivia Mudguard – A levels in English Language, English Literature, French and History. BA (2:1) History. . MA (Merit) Investigative Journalism.
    Why the f@ck did I bother taking a Physics degree when any thick journalist obviously knows everything about science.

  11. April 2, 2021 10:24 pm

    The beast from the east weather pattern was the same as in 2010. It’s due to the solar minimum and the switch to meridional flow of the jet stream. When that happens you get jet stream blocking events, where either extensive warm periods or extensive cold periods occur, depending on which side of the static jet stream you are caught on.

    The news was full of such reports in 2010, such as when the whole UK was whited out. That same year there was the Great Moscow Heatwave which went for a month. Both due to jet stream blocking.

    Unfortunately the climatists dare not accept that the Sun causes this stuff because if they did they might also have to accept that it also caused most warming last century.

    • Mack permalink
      April 3, 2021 12:45 am

      Very good point Bruce.

      Paul had a recent post on this site about the ‘recent’ retreat of the Taku Glacier in Alaska, as heralded by the usual climate alarmist suspects as being emblematic of man made climate change.

      Notwithstanding the fact that the Taku Glacier’s recent retreat was so recent that the Chicago Tribune newspaper reported upon it’s prospective demise as long ago as 1935, long before anthropogenic impacts could have been felt according to IPCC theory. And, even more inconveniently, it’s two century long recorded history of advance and retreat prior to it’s modern movements is a matter of record. Regardless, the media have happily used it as an example of our carbon sins. Anyway, after the 1930s it grew again, for a while, whilst we pesky humans were polluting the planet with ice melting co2, and then started to retreat again.

      But, looking into the history of Alaskan glaciers, I discovered that National Geographic Magazine in the US sponsored a 5 year long survey of the Alaskan glaciers in the late 1960s. The conclusion of the scientists on this survey was that the advance and retreat of Alaskan glaciers strongly correlated with solar maximas and minimas. Co2 don’t didnt even get a look in. But those were the days when scientists looked for answers as opposed to having an answer and then trying to make their ‘evidence’ fit their pre-ordained hypotheses. How many scientists now, who gain their funds by researching into anthropogenic causes of ‘climate change’, would get future funding should their research reveal that the planet’s climate was largely dictated by the sun, tides, ocean currents, earth rotation, cloud formations, precipitation and el ninos and la ninas and had bugger all to do with human influence aside from a minute UHI affect around the big cities and towns? We all know the answer.

  12. Phoenix44 permalink
    April 3, 2021 9:02 am

    This is the abysmal standard of so much of climate science. It simply ignores context. Just as with the pollution claims it ignores what has come before and focuses solely on a very limited data set when much larger data sets are available. In doing so ot makes claims that are easily contradicted by the larger data set.

  13. April 3, 2021 9:59 am

    We then come on to the claim that snowfall was heavier as a result of less sea ice on the Barents Sea

    What would cause evaporation in the Arctic’s mostly dark winter months?

  14. Mad Mike permalink
    April 3, 2021 11:52 am

    I’m no scientist and don’t have the area of sea newly uncovered by ice to hand but common sense should alert people to the obvious fallacy of this so called piece of scientific research. The area of sea uncovered must be pretty small relative to total Northern hemisphere sea surface so the impact could not possible have caused so much evaporation cited especially as the sea temperature will have been not much above freezing. Cold water is not noted for it’s eagerness to evaporate.

    Shoddy journalism which should have easily seen this report for what it is, funding justification disguised as science.

  15. olddigger permalink
    April 3, 2021 2:40 pm

    From the start of the Beast from the East catchphrase, I referred to it as the Hysteria from Siberia.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: