EM. Snow or Ice in Florida is not unusual, nor is it a recent occurrence. The first time I visited Florida, in the mid- 1970s, there was such an event. Icicles formed on oranges. I believe cold spells, but not frosts, are required to make the oranges sweet. To avoid freezing, fruit growers used burning braziers. The fact that they had this equipment indicates freezing events had a much longer history.
Not much evidence for climate change.

I had a colleague who lived in Key Biscayne (South Miami) who welcomed these cold snaps. They would open up all their windows and decamp to heated hotels. The cold killed off insect pests and parasites.

Desperate stuff. Unequal temps cause instability. Less unequal temps cause instability. Everything is caused by AGW, no matter what it is, or what the explanation for the opposite effect was last year. Is there any kind of weather which does not support the hypothesis? Not likely. That is why this is indistinguishable from faith, a religion. And the word sceptic should be replaced by heretic.

More problems for models:

"Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.

The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications Dec. 22 that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/10/study-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-of-daily-cloud-cycle/

"It is a bit more complicated than that.
For example, the jetstream is generated by the temperature gradient between the Arctic and temperate latitudes."

You are just talking bollocks now. Surely you know by now that I did many years of Postgrad Meteorology and that it wad in Mid Latitude Dynamics. I would admit the tropical stuff is still somewhat alien/different to me.

If you want me too I could outline the very basics of weather if you want me to?

"Climate change is warming the Arctic faster than the temperate zone. The temperature gradient is smaller and the jetstream weaker. It is also less stable. Rossby waves are bigger, extending further North and South. Localised cold spells become more frequent against a background of long term warming. You get oddities like snow in Florida."

That makes no sense whatsoever. It sounds like the kind of bullshit my many uselesss teachers would come up with to cover the fact they couldn't teach the curriculam for my O levels.

Rossby/Planetary waves is what I did for 4 years so if you want to ask any questions?

Such a long discussion about nothing.

https://youtu.be/SqzcA7SsqSA

Michael Kelly: The CRU Mails – anatomy of Climategate

http://web.archive.org/web/20120108014900/http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

American Thinker: Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline

From: "Chris de Freitas" <c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz>
To: Inter-Research Science Publisher
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:45:56 +1200
Subject: Re: Climate Research
Reply-to: c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz
CC: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Otto (and copied to Mike Hulme)
I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had
my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the
people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike
himself refers to "politics" and political incitement involved. Both
Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is
not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change
debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding
as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. I
understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to
fuel a public attack. I do not know the source
Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR
that "have been authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate." How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the
answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists "who
are well known for their support for the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate?
Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a
political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my
professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an
academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never
accepted any research money for climate change research, none from
any "side" or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I
have no pipers to pay.
This matter has gone too far. The critics show a lack of moral
imagination. And the Cramer affair is dragged up over an over again.
People quickly forget that Cramer (like Hulme and Goodess now) was
attacking Larry Kalkstein and me for approving manuscripts, in
Hulme's words, "authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate."
I would like to remind those who continually drag up the Cramer
affair that Cramer himself was not unequivocal in his condemnation of
Balling et al's manuscript (the one Cramer refereed and now says I
should have not had published - and what started all this off). In
fact, he did not even recommend that it be rejected. He stated in his
review: "My review of the manuscript is mainly with the conclusions
of the work. For technical assessment, I do not myself have
sufficient experience with time series analysis of the kind presented
by the authors." He goes on to recommend: "revise and resubmit for
additional review". This is exactly what I did; but I did not send it
back to him after resubmission for the very reason that he himself
confessed to ignorance about the analytical method used.
Am I to trundle all this out over and over again because of criticism
from a lobbyist scientists who are, paraphrasing Hulme, "well known
for their support for the notion that humans are significantly
altering global climate".
The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike
Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of
the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided
by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in
consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected
based on the guidance I received. All are reputable
paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction
of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare
have referred to as "the other side" or what Hulme refers to as
people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate." One of the five referees
turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would
not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed
comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B
were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive
alterations accordingly. This was done.
I am no paleoclimatolgist, far from it, but have collected opinions
from other paleoclimatologists on the S&B paper. I summarise them
here. What I take from the S&B paper is an attempt to assess climate
data lost from sight in the Mann proxies. For example, the raising on
lowering of glacier equilibrium lines was the origin of the Little
Ice Age as a concept and still seems to be a highly important proxy,
even if a little difficult to precisely quantify.
Using a much larger number of "proxy" indicators than Mann did, S&B
inquired whether there was a globally detectable 50-year period of
unusual cold in the LIA and a similarly warm era in the MWP. Further,
they asked if these indicators, in general, would indicate that any
similar period in the 20th century was warmer than any other era.
S&B did not purport to do independent interpretation of climate time
series, either through 50-year filters or otherwise. They merely
adopt the conclusions of the cited authors and make a scorecard. It
seems pretty evident to me that temperatures in the LIA were the
lowest since the LGM. There are lots of peer-reviewed paleo-articles
which assert the existence of LIA.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding this particular quibble.
Some sort of averaging is necessary to establish the 'slower' trends,
and that sort of averaging is used by every single study - they
average to bring out the item of their interest. A million year
average would do little to enlighten, as would detailed daily
readings. The period must be chosen to eliminate as much of the
'noise' as possible without degrading the longer-term signals
significantly.
As I read the S&B paper, it was a relatively arbitrary choice - and
why shouldn't it be? It was only chosen to suppress spurious signals
and expose the slower drift that is inherent in nature. Anyone that
has seen curves of the last 2 million years must recognize that an
averaging of some sort has taken place. It is not often, however,
that the quibble is about the choice of numbers of years, or the
exact methodology - those are chosen simply to expose 'supposedly'
useful data which is otherwise hidden from view.
Let me ask Mike this question. Can he give an example of any dataset
where the S&B characterization of the source author is incorrect? (I
am not vouching for them , merely asking.)
S&B say that they rely on the original characterizations, not that
they are making their own; I don't see a problem a priori on relying
on characterizations of others or, in the present circumstances, of
presenting a literature review. While S&B is a literature review, so
is this section of IPCC TAR, except that the S&B review is more
thorough.
The Mann et al multi-proxy reconstruction of past temperatures has
many problems and these have been well documented by S&B and others.
My reading of the IPCC TAR leads me to the conclusion that Mann et al
has been used as the basis for a number of assertions: 1. Over the
past millennium (at least for the NH) the temperature has not varied
significantly (except for the European/North Atlantic sector) and
hence the climate system has little internal variability. This
statement is supported by an analysis of model behaviour, which also
shows little internal variability in climate models. 2. Recent global
warming, as inferred from instrument records, is large and unusual in
the context of the Mann et al temperature reconstruction from multi-
proxies. 3. Because of the previous limited variability and the
recent warming that cannot be explained by known natural forcing
(volcanic activity and solar insolation changes) human activity is
the likely cause of the recent global change.
In this context, IPCC mounts a powerful case. But the case rests on
two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability
and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the
climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious
then the IPCC case is weakened or fails.
S&B have examined the premise that the globally integrated
temperature has hardly varied over the past millennium prior to the
instrumental record. I agree it is not rocket science that they have
performed. They have looked at the evidence provided by researchers
to see if the trend of the temperature record of the European/North
Atlantic sector (which is not disputed by IPCC) is reflected in
individual records from other parts of the globe (Their three
questions). How objective is their assessment? From a purely
statistical viewpoint the work can be criticised. But if you took a
purely statistical approach you probably would not have sufficient
data to reach an unambiguous conclusion, or you could try statistical
fiddles to combine the data and end up with erroneous results under
the guise of statistical significance. S&B have looked at the data
and reached the conclusion that probably the temperature record from
other parts of the globe follows the same pattern as that of the
European/North Atlantic sector. Of the individual proxy records that
I have seen I would agree that this is the case. I certainly have not
found significant regions of the NH that were cold during the
medieval period and warm during the Little Ice Age period that are
necessary offsets of the European/North Atlantic sector necessary to
reach a hemispherically flat pattern as derived by Mann et al.
S&B have put forward sufficient evidence to challenge the Mann et al
analysis outcome and seriously weaken the IPCC assertions based on
Mann et al. Paleo reconstruction of temperatures and the global
pattern over the past millennium and longer remains a fertile field
for research. It suggests that the climate system is such that a
major temporal variation as is universally recognised for the
European/North Atlantic region would be reflected globally and S&B
have given support to this view.
It is my belief that the S&B work is a sincere endeavour to find out
whether MWP and LIA were worldwide phenomena. The historical evidence
beyond tree ring widths is convincing in my opinion. The concept of
"Little Ice Age" is certainly used practically by all Holocene paleo-
climatologists, who work on oblivious to Mann's "disproof" of its
existence.
Paleoclimatologists tell me that, for debating purposes, they are
more inclined to draw attention to the Holocene Optimum (about 6000
BP) as an undisputed example of climate about 1-2 deg C warmer than
at present, and to ponder the entry and exit from the Younger Dryas
as an example of abrupt climate change, than to get too excited about
the Medieval Warm Period, which seems a very attenuated version.
However, the Little Ice Age seems valid enough as a paleoclimatic
concept. North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
bottom - not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-
hand.
Regards
Chris

http://di2.nu/foia/1057944829.txt

Rob Burton

As an expert on Rossby wavesould you care to critique the recent work o Dr Jennifer Fancis?

EM, did you mean Dr Jennifer Francis?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/meteorologist-trashes-jennifer-francis-extreme-weather-theory/

Meteorologists are getting better at weather forecasting, Climate Scientists are not getting better.

Golf Charlie

The full article is here.

physics/meteorology/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/

It contains a number of errors.

Firstly, Berry invokes the Rossby equation to produce an undefined term he calls "waviness" to describe the amplitude of Rossby waves. In the Appendix 1 he then says:-

One of the disadvantages of this equation is that it does not speak directly to the amplitude of these waves even though the maximum amplitude is specified in the general solution. That must be assumed a constant in the formulations described and vanishes as such in the final solution.

He contradicts himself, saying at the beginning of the paper that the Rossby equation predicts no increase in amplitude with decreasing jetstream velocity, then saying in Appendix 1 that the Rossby equation does not address the relationship between them.

He goes on to invoke another force, coriolis turning, as a damping effect on the amplitude of Rossby waves. In practice the coriolis effect is one of the forces generating Rossby waves. Note also that the coriolis effect becomes stronger at higher latitudes, so northward movement of the jetstream would be expected to increase its effect on Rossby wave formation.

Another error is to suggest that the northward movement expected of the jetstream in a warming world cancels out the southern movement of amplified Rossby waves. Since 1979 the jetstream has shifted Northwards by an average of 1.25 miles/ year. Call it 50 miles in 40 years. The increase in latitudinal amplitude of Rossby waves is predicted to be hundreds of miles.

In summary, Berry's article is a Gish Gallop, a string of dubious statements which sound plausible but do not stand up to scrutiny, even by a non-specialist.

In summary, Berry's article is a Gish Gallop, a string of dubious statements which sound plausible but do not stand up to scrutiny, even by a non-specialist.

Jan 11, 2018 at 8:49 PM | Entropic man

And Mann's Hockey Stick is what......?

Reply to myself.

North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
bottom - not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-
hand.
Regards
Chris

Golf Charlie

Replicated, repeatedly!

More on jetstreams from Tallbloke's Talk shop.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/jet-stream-changes-since-1960s-linked-to-more-extreme-weather-say-researchers/#more-35529

However, the data sets most frequently used provide relatively short time series (1979–present for the satellite era, 1948–present for the reanalysis era) that do not warrant robust results from a statistical significance perspective and that hamper the detection of non-linear relationships in a complex climate system.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/jet-stream-changes-since-1960s-linked-to-more-extreme-weather-say-researchers/#comment-133195

Totally unrelated haha!

From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!

Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo

----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany

Phone: +49 561 804 3898
Fax: +49 561 804 3176

http://web.archive.org/web/20130203110631/http://di2.nu/foia/0876437553.txt

http://web.archive.org/web/20130203110631/http://di2.nu/foia/0876437553.txt<?a>

From: Gary Funkhouser <gary@LTRR.Arizona.EDU>
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send
it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought
at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation
even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have
to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be
optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time
collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like
to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably
someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229
e-mail: gary@ltrr.arizona.edu

http://di2.nu/foia/0843161829.txt

Index of /foia/

Rob Burton

At the Polar front cold air moves South under warm air flowing North. The cold air is slowed by friction while the warm air at altitude can accelerate. Coriolis force turns the warm airflow to the right, producing a strong Westerly wind at altitude, the jetstream. .

The greater the temperature gradient across the Polar front, the stronger the jetstream. As Arctic amplification reduces the temperature gradient the jetstream weakens.

Why are you calling this "rubbish"?

random
http://di2.nu/foia/1047485263.txt

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/15/ph-d-climate-scientist-modern-warming-natural-co2-changes-affect-climate-weakly-at-most/#sthash.chIPojXt.dpbs

"University of California (Santa Cruz) Professor W. Jackson Davis (Ph.D.), President of the Environmental Studies Institute, has published a new paper with colleagues in the journal Climate that thoroughly undermines the conceptualization of a dominant role for anthropogenic CO2 in the global warming since 1850."

Fascinating paper. Davis has discovered a previously-overlooked oscillation in Antarctic climate that has been influencing climate for the last 226 millennia. Very old, if not exactly huge in magnitude:

Three definitions were used to describe temperature-proxy oscillations comprising ACOs: oscillations larger than 0.25 °C in amplitude (~90% of 546 cycles identified over 226 millennia), oscillations from 0.045 to 0.25 °C in amplitude (~10% of 546 cycles), and small oscillations characterized by a positive inflection of the temperature-proxy record followed by a negative inflection on a rising or falling background temperature-proxy curve (an additional 104 cycles creating a maximum sample size n = 650)

He then fits his cycle to recent temperatures

 The last millennium at Vostok has encompassed eight ACO cycles, whose average period is, therefore, 125 years (Figure 1 and SM Table S1). The most recent recorded temperature peak at Vostok occurred in 1760. Incrementing this date by the average ACO period of 125 years over the past millennium projects ACO peaks at Vostok in 1885 and 2010. The latter date is consistent with the possible peaking of the contemporary global warming trajectory in the NH, assuming acceleration of ACO teleconnection velocities with increasing temperature as we suggest here for regional teleconnection within the SH

Ah yes, the warm period of 1885, we all remember that, no? So, on planet Davis, a cycle of magnitude 0.25C in Antarctica explains a global rise of 1C, even though the previous 'peak' had no such influence, apparently. There's more, naturally …

Recent research shows, however, that neither atmospheric CO2 nor marginal radiative forcing by CO2 is generally correlated discernibly with global temperature over the past 425 million years [3]. Therefore, neither atmospheric CO2 nor marginal radiative forcing by CO2 caused temperature change in the ancient climate [3]. The same study showed that contemporary marginal radiative forcing by atmospheric CO2 has declined by approximately two-thirds since the beginning of the Industrial Age owing to the well-known logarithmic relationship between radiative forcing and atmospheric CO2 concentration [3]. Progressively larger concentrations of atmospheric CO2 therefore yield progressively smaller global temperature change, minimizing any possible impact of CO2 on global temperature

I thought I was reasonably up to date on the climate literature, but I was completely unaware of any such 'recent (frankly groundbreaking) research', so I eagerly followed the link to reference [3]. It turns out to be

Davis, W.J. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature for the last 425 million years.

In the same journal (I use the word in its loosest sense). So Davis's conclusions rest on Davis's conclusions. One might expect such a revolutionary study to have been very widely-cited, but according to Google Scholar, so far this paper has been cited once. By the author.

Fascinating paper.