Landmark study casts doubt on controversial theory linking melting Arctic to severe winter weather
By Paul Homewood
From GWPF:
Every time severe winter weather strikes the United States or Europe, reporters are fond of saying that global warming may be to blame. The paradox goes like this: As Arctic sea ice melts and the polar atmosphere warms, the swirling winds that confine cold Arctic air weaken, letting it spill farther south. But this idea, popularized a decade ago, has long faced skepticism from many atmospheric scientists, who found the proposed linkage unconvincing and saw little evidence of it in simulations of the climate.
Now, the most comprehensive modeling investigation into this link has delivered the heaviest blow yet: Even after the massive sea ice loss expected by midcentury, the polar jet stream will only weaken by tiny amounts—at most only 10% of its natural swings. And in today’s world, the influence of ice loss on winter weather is negligible, says James Screen, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter and co-leader of the investigation, which presented its results last month at the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union. “To say the loss of sea ice has an effect over a particular extreme event, or even over the last 20 years, is a stretch.”
Full story
I wonder if the “Independent” will now retract their phony story from last month?
https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/snow-april-europe-sea-ice-b1831247.html
Or if the BBC/Guardian will now print the truth?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Surprising how much support this kind of science gets. Thanks for the heads up.
What is more surprising is…..that all of the money is being used pontificating about effects and NOT proving the cause which has never been done. Odd that almost as if it is a smoke screen to hide the herd of elephants in the climate emergency room.
“Every time severe winter weather strikes the United States or Europe, reporters are fond of saying that global warming may be to blame.”
Global warming is somehow able to make extreme weather both hot and cold. That’s why it is now known as climate change. But, the “control knob” is supposed to be a trace gas humans have emitted that somehow can also do both but doesn’t seem to correlate with either. How is that a climate emergency we can do anything about?
More importantly where is the emergency? Not the hyperventilation, where is the empirical data which supports the claim AND also the empirical data supporting proof of cause?
Is record food production an indicator of an “emergency”? If we did not have that where would the exponentially exploding human population be today?
There has been a staggering 27% increase in the total number of humans on the planet in 20 years and no one says a word….
If anyone wants a crisis to handwring about then there it is!
2000 6,143,493,823
2020 7,794,798,739 = 26.88% increase
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
It goes without saying 410ppm CO2 in the whole scheme of things is no more than a temporary delay of execution.
And if the alarmists want to keep world population down (I don’t think they do – not counting Attenborough) all they need to do is ensure that developing nations have access to cheap, available, reliable electricity (and other energies). The fact that they want to prevent the third world getting access to this says a lot about their motives.
If you have religion, turning water into wine is not a problem.
In my part of France we do it every autumn (with a little help from sunshine).
This report is interesting in that it seems to show the alarmists don’t know their left from their right – or their a… from their elbow.
Over at WUWT their is a report that Potsdam are saying the cold weather so far – and expected – is down to AGW moving the gulf stream further NW do that it is cooler when it gets to Europe. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/14/north-atlantic-nonsense/
Like someone said: they want it both ways.
On a simple basis, if the overall energy of the atmosphere stays the same but it us unevenly distributed and constantly shifting , then if one area is cooler then another must be warmer. So if we are now cooler then where is warmer?
You can’t have everywhere cooler without a decrease in total energy.
where is warmer?
Moscow – same latitude as Glasgow – is forecast to hit 27C tomorrow and Tuesday.
Look, it’s really quite simple. If it gets hot, that is caused by Global Heating, if there is no wind Global Heating again, and for too much wind and storms, un-seasonal cold, too much rain, too little rain, snow, no snow and every other weather condition you can think of, it’s Global Heating again.
With one exception, if it remains bang on the ‘average’, which isn’t actually an average of anything and has no statistical meaning whatsoever, well that’s not Global Heating, unless they of course they homogenized (whatever that means) the data, and what was bang on average has suddenly become warm, then it’s Global Heating.
But Arctic sea ice is no longer decreasing, the cycle has changed to global Cooling, so … their studies are all bunk.
So if the Arctic ice increases because of cooling it’s going to get warmer in winter according to their previous claims – or at least fewer extreme winter events. And fewer extreme hot events too
So if we have fewer hot extremes and fewer cold extremes doesn’t the average pretty much stay the same?
Arctic ice follows the AMO and the Summer Equinox ice cover had been over four million square kilometres for 12 of the last 14 years. I have £100 to bet that 2021 will be over 4Mkm2. You’d have won last year. Any takers? No, I thought not. Btw, OT, but wind electricity is down to, oh dearie me, 3.8.% again.
If one needs any more proof that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and the media are happy to go along with, consider this amazing quote that Andrew Marr didn’t even question.
“You don’t have to give up a quality of life to achieve some of the things that we know we have to achieve. That’s the brilliance of some of the things that we know how to do,” he told BBC One’s Andrew Marr show. “I am told by scientists that 50% of the reductions we have to make to get to net zero are going to come from technologies that we don’t yet have. That’s just a reality.”
So according to John Kerry I will be a billionaire tomorrow with money that doesn’t exist nor any knowledge of a way to get it…..it will just happen.
Imagine the furore if Boris had come out with sheer crap like that.
“…going to come from technologies we don’t yet have.”
Such happy insights used to come to me in my youth shortly after the fourth beer, but disappeared just before the vomiting up of the fifth beer.
“who found the proposed linkage unconvincing and saw little evidence of it in simulations of the climate.”
unquote.
I recall some 10-12 years ago, rahmstorf that alarmist wingnut at PIK spieling about loss of sea ice and freezing winters and conflating the two suppositions, happily and you do have to laugh, their modelled simulations now confirm that and here we GIGO.