Bulk of global warming fears gone — storms won’t increase

UPDATE NZDT 1845 Monday 7 March

My apologies. There were distractions while I was writing this post that caused a silly error: I mistook the author of the post I wanted to report on. Richard Cumming alerted me to it (thanks, RC) and the references are now corrected. Insertions shown by green highlighting.

The trickery has been going on for years. First, an alarmist paper will describe details of a hitherto unknown peril of man-made global warming. The media picks it up and circulates it for months. Then, maybe years later, once our selfish ruin of the environment is established, a rebuttal comes out, showing the peril is against the laws of physics.

But does the rebuttal get the fanfare of trumpets that greets the warmy paper? Not likely. The media ignore it, so nobody knows about it and the climate gravy train rattles happily on.

But now a central warmy myth is destroyed — and a more important rebuttal of the preposterous human climate ruination theory would be hard to imagine. For the new analysis contradicts fundamental forecasts of “extreme weather events … such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves” that underpin the climate scare.

Genuine reason to celebrate – if only we were told about it

These are not new things, of course. Extreme weather events have been happening for millenia, but they represent most of the bad things we fear from global warming. They would endanger lives and infrastructure and gravely reduce food production, hinder transport and travel, and raise anxiety everywhere. Elimination of these potential perils is greatly to be desired.

Now the threat of those perils has been removed, humanity has true cause to celebrate—except that most people won’t be told about it.

On 17 March 2012 Geophysical Research Letters published “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes“, by Jennifer A. Francis and Stephen J. Vavrus. That paper was updated on 6 January 2015 by Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming published in Environmental Research Letters.

Four days ago Dr Ed Berry published A Warming Arctic Would Not Cause Increased Severe Weather or Temperature Extremes (Berry 2016), a critique by Chuck Wiese (Wiese 2016), in which he contradicts the claims made in Francis and Vavrus 2012.

Contradicting warmist alarm

[Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes, by Jennifer A. Francis and Stephen J. Vavrus (2012)] FV (2012) is fatally flawed, incorrect and should be withdrawn by the authors. As shown here, there is no theoretical basis in which to ground FV (2012). Using the proper Rossby wave physics as illustrated here, these atmospheric waves (or commonly called planetary atmospheric waves that generate low and high pressure systems that create our weather, severe and otherwise) behave in the opposite fashion as claimed in FV (2012).

A warming Arctic that is supposed to be weakening the westerly wind belt across the northern hemisphere would create an entirely different effect on the earth’s weather [than] FV (2012) claims. If FV (2012) claims were true, the physics governing these waves would require them to flatten in amplitude and migrate to a higher latitude, causing a much weakened effect on the Northern Hemisphere’s weather patterns.

If FV 2012 claims were true, precipitation systems would weaken and migrate northward with the migrating jet stream. Storms, severe and otherwise would become far less common than today and would be replaced with problematic drought and much higher surface absolute and relative humidities. This increased low level moisture would lead to sporadic showers and thunderstorms in an ever expanding maritime tropical airmass environment, but not enough precipitation to forestall severe droughts.

Sounds like this has been in the textbooks for decades. Why only now does a scientist explain the physics to us, or why has it taken we amateurs so long to notice it? This is deadly to the panic stirred up by the warmies, like so much else that has been surfacing lately.

But is it true?

In comments on Berry 2016Wiese 2016, one Erl Happ appears to speak knowledgeably and says that the authors of these papers appear to have a weak grasp of reality. “Neither is in a position to describe cause and effect.” Which is a stiff-armed challenge indeed.

It’s a big job, but would it be too much to hope an objective meteorologist or atmospheric scientist might scan the arguments and equations in both Francis and Vavrus 2012 and Berry 2016Wiese 2016, and express an opinion on their worth? What do you think?

h/t to Richard Cumming and Not a Lot Of People Know That

Leave a Reply

10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Maggy WassilieffRichard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldSimon Recent comment authors
Notify of

When in doubt, side with the referred paper in a scientific journal rather than a blog post. There is a lot of pseudo-science rubbish posted in blogs by people who don’t know what they are talking about.

Quite a few meteorologist have observed though that the northern hemisphere jet stream has become ‘wavier’ in recent years and has got ‘stuck’ for long periods leading to hot, cold, drought and rainfall extremes. Determining cause from effect is difficult though as is inferring whether this is a permanent or temporary feature.

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”There is a lot of pseudo-science rubbish posted in blogs by people who don’t know what they are talking about.” The paper is by Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist, Weatherwise, Inc. Not Ed Berry as RT states. You don’t say so explicitly but you do imply that Chuck Wiese has not applied the physics principles correctly i.e. he does not know what he is talking about. A) What evidence do you have for this or are you just throwing mud (or do I infer incorrectly? B) Have you even looked at the physics yourself (see the physics application below but I’m wondering what you are basing your opinion on – argument from authority? what?)? Chuck responds to (if so) similar degradation in a thread on the same topic at Skeptical Science in 2013: ‘A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming’ Posted on 22 May 2013 by John Mason Chuck Wiese at 06:32 AM on 30 October, 2015 Michael Sweet, MA Rodger and Philippe: I will answer your comments in this one post. To repeat, Jennifer Francis’s conclusion in her… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

BTW Simon re >’When in doubt, side with the referred paper in a scientific journal rather than a blog post”

I don’t think so. Firstly, the correct term is “refereed” paper. Such a paper defers to references i.e. a list of referred papers – your term. See more on the Francis and Vavrus references below.

Wiese firstly refers to 2 published meteorological texts i.e. heavyweight definitive meteorological physics references. Only secondly does he refer to 3 research papers.

Francis & Vavrus is just one lightweight paper i.e. “single study syndrome” according to Skeptical Science. Their paper is here:


In references, they do NOT defer to any definitive meteorological texts relevant to the appropriate physics. Needless to say, they don’t apply meteorological physics in their paper. They just waffle.

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Meteorology makes no recourse to the theoretical radiative physics of the greenhouse effect to determine temperature anywhere in the atmosphere or surface e.g. nightly TV weather forecasts. Same for the space race. The US Air Force Labs modeled atmospheric temperature from surface to top of atmosphere without recourse to the greenhouse effect, first in 1963 and updated in 1976. Warmies are adamant that only the greenhouse effect can explain surface temperature, but they can’t model surface temperature with those theoretical principles for daily weather as do meteorologists. Unfortunately there are those in meteorology, like Francis and Vavrus, who being unable to usefully adopt the greenhouse effect in their discipline, twist the principles of meteorology to get on board the climate gravy train and to gain go-to prominence. Francis and Vavrus ideas have been accepted as fact by the US media (and propagated elsewhere) where they have gained plenty of traction, especially Francis. But not much support from the meteorological or climate community (except in pal review that is). And Jennifer Francis does not take kindly to criticism: ****************************************************** ‘Arctic sea ice and extreme weather’ Posted on August 21, 2013 by Judith Curry […]… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Judge Orders White House To Stop Hiding Its Bogus Global Warming ‘Proof’ by Jeff Dunetz, Guest Post Hans Bader | Mar 18, 2016 On January 8, 2014, the White House posted a controversial video claiming that global warming causes more severe winter cold. Called “The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes,” it featured the director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), , claiming that a “growing body of evidence” showed that the “extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States” at the time was “a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.” [Editors Note:Holdren also believes Trees should be given standing to sue in courts] This claim was questioned by many scientists and commentators. (See, e.g., Jason Samenow, Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument, Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2014 (linking to objection by five well-known climate scientists in the Feb. 14, 2014 issue of Science magazine); Patrick J. Michaels, Hot Air About Cold Air, Jan. 16, 2014 (former state climatologist of Virginia rejected Holdren’s claim)) In April 2014, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent a… Read more »

Maggy Wassilieff
Maggy Wassilieff

Interesting paper by Prof Mike Kelly (Cambridge Uni….ex New Plymouth, Victoria Uni) about trends in extreme weather events since 1900.

trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900–an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155-1 (Journal of Geography and Natural Disasters 2016. 6,1.)

Especially interesting sentence at the end of his introduction… states that NZ’s temperature rise record is solely due to ad-hoc adjustments.
His main conclusion: first half of the 20th Century had more extreme weather than the 2nd half.

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)


>”Especially interesting sentence at the end of his introduction… states that NZ’s temperature rise record is solely due to ad-hoc adjustments. His main conclusion: first half of the 20th Century had more extreme weather than the 2nd half.”

Easy to see both in GHCN V2 temperature data from NZ:

Average temperature anomalies, 15 stations from 1880, New Zealand, GHCN V2

More here:

‘The Hunt For Global Warming: Southern Hemisphere Summary’
Posted on April 13, 2015 by Euan Mearns

Compiling GHCN V2 as Euan Mearns has done is no different to NIWA’s flagship Virtual Climate System Network (VCSN), that you have to pay to subscribe to.

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Update featuring Jennifer Francis:

‘Judge May Sanction White House Office of Science Over Bogus Climate Video’

Written by Hans Bader, Lid Blog on 25 March 2016.


Post Navigation