I prepared a visual aid to help readers distinguish between global warming vortexes and those caused by global cooling.
Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Boris Building Back Better
- Russell Cook on “What trees can survive Arizona’s megadrought?”
- Gordon Vigurs on Boris Building Back Better
- Conrad Ziefle on Boris Building Back Better
- Disillusioned on Superstition Based Science
Archives
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
As usual.. all one can say is…. BRILLIANT
You must have one huge load of historic files, or a lot of searching time, to be able to just grab them at will. :-)
Well done as usual.
Thanks Andy
Thanks for clearing this up for meTony! I never was able to distinguish them before, and definitely cannot now. Mind blowing. ;)
Hey gator! “I never was able to distinguish them before”
It is easy to tell the difference. The snowflakes from the new global warming blizzards have six points each, while the snowflakes from the old global cooling blizzards have an even half dozen points.
Yep, they both have blocking highs over the Arctic. I wonder if it’s not a polar vortex when it dips down somewhere but N. America. It was extremely cold in much of N. Asia with lots of new record lows set in October and yet no mention of that when it was happening in the general press of the US.
Back then Joe Bastardi said it would be coming here due to the “bath tub slosh effect”. And here it is.
according to CR, the “more colder” anomaly is now over both USA and Northern Russia/eastern Europe, while the “less colder” anomaly sits in the Arctic
Equiareal projection. Please. Svalbard is small.
yeah, but in the other projection the north Russia “more colder” doesn’t show up as much. :-)
difficult to get all three anomalies on the same image
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/dailysummary/#T2_anom
I love the second diagram where the only two cities shown are Buffalo NY and San Francisco CA.
I do not care what ‘they’ call it. I call miserably cold. Even my dog won’t stay out for more than a few minutes. Can’t take the trash out sans ski gloves.
At the risk of repeating myself:
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=sudden+stratospheric+warming
Capiche?
The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eDTzV6a9F4
“I believe the odds are that we can expect, as a result of global warming, to see more of this pattern of extreme cold in the mid-latitudes and some extreme warm in the far north.”
The troubling thing with global warming is, that this religious nonsense is at the highest level in the most powerful nation in the world.
Yup – and they can’t get their “doctrine” straight, either. ?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-as-seen-from-space-bob-mcdonald-1.3899865
Bob McDonald’s CBC blog is never open for comment. If it were, his low level agitprop would be easily debunked. Image of Pine Glacier calving a small iceberg “proof” of CO2 induced climate change forgetting that in 1956 the USS Glacier measured a 335 km x 97 km size tabular iceberg off Scott Island.
Truisms such this are supposed to make us take the CBC clown seriously: “But Earth is a planet too, and satellites that point their instruments down are providing us with a planetary perspective, which is often lost among our daily concerns with economies, conflicts and other tightly focused human needs.”
No kidding…
McDonald concludes: “It would be a good idea for anyone who believes there is no evidence of climate change to have a look at the records NASA has released and to see the changes for themselves. Satellites don’t lie.”
Well, paid activists do.
Actually the lie is in the strawman “…anyone who believes there is no evidence of climate change… “
And it swings on the definition of “Climate Change”
That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). or link
The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.
So ‘De1n1ers can have no problems with the graph below but still be called out on denying ‘climate change’ Nasty little twist on definitions isn’t it?