Judith Curry, ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer! Harvey's global warming connection.

The hallmark of a great scientist is the ability to ask great questions.  Questions who's pursuit leads to meaningful progress towards understanding.  When it comes to our country's contentious manmade global warming discussion, it also comes down to how serious one is about asking meaningful questions that allow for meaningful constructive answers. (last edit Sept 1)

Judith Curry writes, “Anyone blaming  Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”  (I thought she knew about climatology. Please consider.)

* Global warming is definitely directly related to that hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and is currently causing the stalling and reversal of Harvey’s northward movement.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges.

* Global warming is definitely directly related the Brown Ocean Effect that continued feeding moisture, energy into Harvey after it made land fall.

h/t to Paul Beckwith 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zus0ICUvd1c.

also see

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/brown-ocean-can-fuel-inland-tropical-cyclones/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/tropical-cyclones/brown-ocean-effect

250 hPa - Jet Stream

https://earth.nullschool.net

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I was told to read this recent article by Judith Curry regarding Hurricane Harvey.  I did as requested and was baffled, what was I was supposed to find interesting in it?  Other than watching Judith’s outrageously biased perspective manipulate facts into fantasy, which is a thing worth studying.  So with no further ado, lets take a look.

Hurricane Harvey: long-range forecasts

Posted on August 27, 2017

by Judith Curry

¶3 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

This is the third installment (paragraph 3) of this citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal media sensation the John Bates Affair.  For some background and introduction link here.  I’ve borrowed Bates’ subtitle since I’m exploring his wordsmithing in order to ponder his motivations and it seemed to fit well enough.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc - J. Curry

“A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”

source: arstechnica.com
(Can you see the difference?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bates writes in ¶3:   In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. 

___________________________

This sounds like Mr. Bates the prosecuting attorney setting up a jury to convict.  Critical information like what?  

Technical infractions of documenting protocols?  Procedures that take years to satisfy and were the source of many contentious meetings between departments and Bates trying to iron out his fastidious (perhaps even obstructionist) red tape with real world needs.  Bates does not share that side of this story.

What’s galling with that sentence is that having read through all this a number of times I already know Bates provides nothing of the sort.  Not a hint of any slight or infraction against Chairman Smith by Dr. Karl.  The NOAA claim perhaps woven between the lines.  The Science Magazine claim amounts to nothing more than another creative and hostile insinuation.  I can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t Judith’s ghostwriting.

Bates ¶14   ... Did Karl et al. disclose to Science Magazine that they would not be following the NOAA archive policy, would not archive the data, and would only provide access to a non-machine readable version only on an FTP server?

Has Dr. Bates stopped beating his wife?  That sort of framing is gratuitous and only good for contriving prejudices.

¶2 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

This is the second installment (paragraph 2) of this citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal.  For some background link here.  I’ve borrowed Bates’ subtitle since I’m exploring his wordsmithing in order to ponder his motivations.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc - J. Curry

“A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”

For perspective, all this hubbub is over the difference between these two lines

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bates writes in ¶2:   ‘The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015’ 

__________________________

If this is Bates’ “most serious example” - what’s the big deal?  If it was a big deal, why wasn’t Dr. Bates duty bound to formally raise concerns while in his position of responsibility at NOAA?

“Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.” (W. Cornwall, P. Voosen) 

Instead Bates retired and only then does he drag his personal dirty laundry over to Judith Curry for her make-over skills.  Then he releases his complaint to a public that has no technical understanding of the issues.

That’s not how serious scientists or competent administrators operate.  Smells more like vendetta ensnarled by political dirty tricks.

This begs the question, why doesn’t Bates take his own advice?

(Bates) cautioned scientists against advocating policy.

"You really have to provide the most objective view and let the policymakers decide from their role," Bates said. "I'm getting much more wary of scientists growing into too much advocacy. I think there is certainly a role there, and yet people have to really examine themselves for their own bias and be careful about that."(W. Cornwall, P. Voosen)

¶1 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

This is a citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal.  For more background you can start here.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc.- Curry's blog

“A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”

__________________________

I’ve borrowed John’s subtitle since I intend to explore his wordsmithing and ponder his motivations.

Bates' beloved Protocol

_________________________________________________

Bates writes in ¶1   “I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016)." 

__________________________

Red flag right out of the gate.

It’s telling that Bates makes light of what the Trump Administration had already done to climate science information.  Given such an intro we must consider the possibility John Bates’ is motivated by politics and opportunism rather than any concern over data records.

With Trump in Charge, Climate Change References Purged From Website

By Coral Davenport | Jan. 20, 2017 | New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-white-house-website.html

WASHINGTON — Within moments of the inauguration of President Trump, the official White House website on Friday deleted nearly all mentions of climate change. The one exception: Mr. Trump’s vow to eliminate the Obama administration’s climate change policies, which previously had a prominent and detailed web page on whitehouse.gov.

The purge was not unexpected. It came as part of the full digital turnover of whitehouse.gov, including taking down and archiving all the Obama administration’s personal and policy pages.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website

Jason Koebler | Jan 20, 2017

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website-5886b75d0b367c453f87dd14

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Will, this one's for you - What we knew a half century ago.

(Well that was one of the worst intros I've written in a while, let me try that again. - edited Nov 8th PM)

I read an article that fits right into my recent retrospective musings* regarding global warming and what we are willingly doing to our children's future.  

The key point:  

On 5 November, 1965, the group now known as the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) cautioned President Lyndon B. Johnson that continued accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from fossil-fuel burning would “almost certainly cause significant changes” and “could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”

You see climate science contrarians I deal with continue pretending there's still substantial doubt regarding the fundamentals of what we are doing. Nonsense!  

The foundations of a clear understanding that society actually was conducting a global geophysical experiment go back over 60 years.  In fact, we recently passed one of the early big milestones of that growing recognition - which Dana Nuccitelli reports on. 

With thanks to SkepticalScience.com, here's something to think about next time some contrarian character tries telling you there's a lot of uncertainty regarding climate science and what injecting over two gigatons of greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere month, after month, after endless month will do.  

(Will, I gotta tell you, I sit slack jawed wondering, how can people so delude themselves that they trivialize this reality in favor of demanding to know the exact speed of our rush to catastrophe. Or waste precious time arguing total trivialities while ignoring the gorilla in the room.

Re. CAGW, if you think upending our planet's climate system isn't catastrophe on every level, you're lost within your own daydreams, oblivious to this Earth and the workings of this complex society you depend on but take oh so for granted.

Remember what environmentalists were saying back in those 'innocent' 60s: 

~ ~ ~ "You can kid yourself, but you can't fool mother nature!" ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  "No Deposit No Return Earth." ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

What a tragedy so few were paying attention.            

__________________________________

Scientists warned the US president about global warming 50 years ago today

Posted on 5 November 2015 by dana1981

Fifty years ago today, as the American Association for the Advancement of Science highlighted, US president Lyndon Johnson’s science advisory committee sent him a report entitled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. The introduction to the report noted:

Pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air and the lead concentrations in ocean waters and human populations.

Climate blogger Steven Goddard exposes himself. Amazing.

I came across an interesting website a few weeks back.  It's not some fantastic new information source. This one is different. it's more along the lines of a taste of divine justice whilst dispensing a dose of moral comedy.

As for background story, there's a character on the internet who personifies the Republican/libertarian echo-chamber's approach to confusing climate science awareness by throwing as much excrement as it as possible and then ignoring all opportunities to educate himself.  His name is Steven Goddard, no, not the respected late rocket scientist Robert Goddard, just some schmuck desperately trying to steal some luster off another's great name, (like the George C. Marshall Institute, which has absolutely nothing to do with the man who died in '59).

At first it was a mystery, who was this character?  By and by it turned out to be one Tony Heller.  You may ask who is Tony Heller?  Beats me.  It only get's interesting because now another Tony Heller has stepped up to the internet plate with his website Exposed: https://TonyHellerakaStevenGoddardisNotaSociopath.wordpress.com

Who is this Tony Heller Exposed?  Well he claims to be the dude hiding behind Steve Goddard's name.  Yeah, it's twisted.  In his own words: "Exposed is me, the person behind Steve Goddard, an over-the-top-climate denying troll.  I'm blowing the whistle on myself and sometimes others."  To learn more about Tony aka Goddard aka Heller visit here.

In truth, I'm not sure what to make of his blog, except that more people ought to be aware of it.  Why?  Because it seems to me there are some good lessons in this approach - that is, in watching how one of the clowns comes clean, or is it tastes some of his own vile poison?  You decide.  Here are a few snippets:

_________________________________

Exposing Tony Heller, Exposed

CAGW. Ask a simple question, get a revealing answer. Dodging the issue.

{edited 11:15 pm}

citizenschallenge asks, "Just what does it take to qualify as a 'catastrophe'?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems to me that an intelligent, rational, constructive dialogue requires understanding what each other mean; and that each side takes the time to explain what they mean when using certain terms.  

For instance, CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) has become a term of derision among the climate science denying crowd, yet it's never defined.  

Their attitude baffles me.  These people profess that they don't deny the science behind how greenhouse gases make our planet habitable, implying they recognize that increasing our planet's greenhouse gas insulation will warm the planet.  Yet in the next sentence, you'll hear them ridicule the notion that a warming world will inflict increasing levels of catastrophe upon our society.

Makes me wonder just what do they mean with "catastrophe" anyways  -  what level of destruction are we talking about?

I mean, haven't these free marketeers learned the fundamentals of compounding interest?  Or do they conveniently suspend those mathematical realities when it comes to thinking about the geophysics of our planet... you know, that stuff that provides our life support system?

That's why I ask that opening question now and then, usually to silence, but this afternoon I got a bite.  

It turned out to be such a good example of a typical Republican/libertarian PR machine response that it deserves to be added to this collection.

Though I still can't enunciate exactly how this ties into "Seepage" there is a connection that I'm sure sharper minds can puzzle out once they decide to think about it.  What I can do is offer some observations on how these denialista's weave their intimidation while destroying constructive dialogue.

joseph p. 1:32 PM - 6/8/15 
Short version of an Answer: When the alleged cure to a still only alleged disease, is already known to be much worse than the alleged disease, and applying the "cure" just keeps on creating more of its own very real disease catastrophes. And then you yourself +citizenschallengeYT can even vie to become the "King of Catastrophes"!

The Judith Curry Collection

I've been working on an open letter to Dr. Judith Curry and since there's no room there for getting into all the reasons I feel justified in writing such a letter to this scientist who traded in her standing among scientists as a respected colleague, for her current standing as an adored celebrity for the Global Warming Denial PR Community, I've compiled this collection of articles that look into various aspects of Judith Curry's brand of science in a vacuum, and science by rhetoric.

Judith Curry's cynical game: "CAGW Memeplex"

Judith Curry PhD, posted the following at her website where she seems to take endless joy in spinning evidence; injecting impossible expectations; misrepresenting the work of colleagues; and adding ever more layers of confusion rather than clarity. 

This was written by Andy West who tries to 'look inside the heads' of folks who see current geophysical trends as leading to catastrophe down the line...

"CAGW memeplex"

Posted on November 1, 2013

Written by Andy West, endorsed and posted with pride by Judith Curry at her blog.

Global Warming Policy Foundation misleading the public

This seems like a timely SkepticalScience.com article to Repost.  Not much to add, except that if you've been immersed in the climate science "skeptics" echo-chamber, here's your change to learn about The Rest of The Story regarding "climate sensitivity". . .

With thanks to the John Cook and the other volunteers at Skeptical Science.com here's an article by Dana Nuccitelli. 

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 10 March 2014 by dana1981 The UK anti-climate policy advocacy group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has published a report written by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok claiming “the IPCC hid the good news” regarding climate sensitivity…

---

"Judith Curry on ‘dogma’ and ideology" and the IPCC - thoughts to consider

I came across this article by Chris Colose, a PhD student in an Atmospheric Science program.  It's two years old, but than Judith Curry has been attacking the IPCC for a while now.  The article does a excellent job of outlining the flaws in Judith's assertion and anyone interested in a clearer understanding of the real story behind the IPCC would benefit from reading: "Judith Curry on ‘dogma’ and ideology"  

Chris Colose has given me permission to reprint his entire article.  

I have added some web links, highlights and sentence breaks where I thought they were appropriate - text remains unaltered.   {11/23/12}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judith Curry on ‘dogma’ and ideology
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/934/
Posted on November 9, 2010 | by Chris Colose

Dear Judith Curry fans and other Republicans,

In light of the fruitless dialogue I'm having with Curry fans at her: 
"Climate change: no consensus on consensus" thread: 
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3692282252844489453#editor/src=sidebar

I though I'd write a letter.

======================

Dear Judith Curry fans and other Republicans,

Recently I listened to an interesting talk given by Dan Leonard, of WSI (The Weather Channel): 

"Seasonal Forecasting - How is it Possible?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS7VuYKupLs&feature=relmfu

It was part of a series taken at the "Weather and Climate Summit" this past January

[ http://www.stormcenter.com/wxcs2012/index.html ]  and though it has to do with forecasting temperatures more than long term climate issues I still found it interesting.

Particularly when a good deal of the last half of Dan's talk was about examining WSI's bad forecast for December 2011.  It's a fascinating review of the complexity of our atmosphere's heat distribution engine. 

Towards the end it got me to thinking about the way "skeptical" folks and denialists "frame" their arguments and justifications.  Always making out the "consensus" scientist as the bad guy and any little flaw as a "smoking gun" to attack.

During this talk it was interesting seeing how professionals go at their tasks.  They made a very bad forecast, they focused on examining and understanding what went wrong and now they were sharing that learning process with other meteorologists.  Just another day in the continuing education that is science.

I bring this up because I am disturbed by the extent to which the "AGW skeptical" community depends on character assassination, sinister implications, heck even out and out paranoia and the one-world government and black helicopters thing.  With never a straight answer to be offered.

You claim I'm naive because I don't see it your way - after all it's so freak'n obvious.  So obvious none of you bothers to provide any objective list of evidence justifying your demonization and distrust?  

Why should I believe your claims of the supposed sins and frauds the community of climate and Earth scientists have committed - when you can never offer straight answers?

Why am I naive, because I believe serious professionals - folks who are dedicated to understanding and learning and figuring out how our planet's global heat distribution engine operates?  Why do you find it more naive than believing something you can't objectively support?

And you with the denialist mindset... ever consider your own naivety?  I believe your problem is that you can't admit to yourselves that you're dreadfully scared of changing anything about your lives and business?  Thus you refuse considering anything that might upset your boat. Like the guy who refuses to see a doctor for those chronic pains because the doctor might have bad news.

How naive is it assuming scientists are all part of a world conspiracy to take away your god blessed life-style?  

How naive is it to assume that evidence across dozens of disciplines and nations of researchers - can be coordinated in order to trick us into a one world government?  

The real world isn't that simple.  Scientists are competitive and intent on outdoing the next scientific team.  Flawed or manipulated evidence get's discovered and exposed by competing teams.  

But the denialist expects me to believe that's all a front?  Even though, you don't produce any simple objective lists outlining all these supposed frauds.

Instead you endlessly flog Mann and his hockey stick as though dynamic science doesn't include mistakes and ragged edges.  You never mention that all those flaws and uncertainties you consider so sinister where in actuality discussed and were part of the science moving forward.  Rather than accepting such facts of science - you intend to continue distracting, misdirecting and avoiding the real issues by forcing your paranoid beliefs {that your life style is under attack and that climatologists are an enemy} into swamping what should be a sober discussion.

Shame on you.

===================================

There's an educational seven part series of videos that explains the fundamentals of what is happening within our global heat distribution engine.  I challenge any "skeptic" out there to explain why I should ignore this sort of information.


This isn't the stuff of conspiracy, this is Earth Observation.
I wonder how "skeptics" find it so easy to dismiss this sort of basic understanding of our global heat distribution engine.

For more:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/10/climate-change-videos-part-i/

Climate Change Line of Evidence - videos: Part I
Filed under: 

• Climate Science
 
• Communicating Climate

 — group @ 9 October 2012 

The US National Research Council has been doing a lot recently to expand background knowledge of the climate system and of climate change. In tandem with a new report discussing strategies for advancing climate modeling, they have put up a an introductory web site on climate models (including some interviews with some actual climate modelers). 

More comprehensively, they have helped put together a series of videos discussing everything from the definition of climate to attribution of climate changes and future projections. 

The series is in seven parts, viewable here. 

There are additional resources here.

Weather and Climate Summit - lecture series

I've come across this series of lectures and since they speak directly to teaching the reality of climate change.

I love these sorts of videoed lectures because I get to listen to actual scientists, people who are on the front lines doing the difficult work.  They consistently impress and educate.  And they bring home the point that uncertainly does not equal not knowing!

In my recent conversations at the JudithCurry discussion forum, I'm struck by their long winded grandiloquence, such as: “defenders of the IPCC consensus have expended considerable efforts in the ‘boundary work’ of distinguishing those qualified to contribute to the climate change consensus from those who are not [4]."  

~ ~ ~

Trying to inject distrust, simply by making claims, never appreciating or sharing that what we are talking about is dedicated people - researchers and scientists and support staff going out in the field to conducting studies and doing the research and trying to be as accurate as possible in recording their observations.  No perfect at/in any part of this endeavor {like every other human enterprise} - but it works and it works well and they have learned a lot that does not deserve the contrived ridicule the "Free corporate Marketers" have orchestrated. 

There is a base dishonesty about folks like Curry and commenters at her website - when they are basing all their thinking on an assumption that the science has been inferior.  They don't provide actual specifics regarding ~ our actual factual world full of knowledge and experience that climatologists and related field of researcher have been accumulated ~ but they sure do continue believing themselves. 

I think we've reach the point it's obvious that this is all about desperately clinging to one's fictitious world view (Free Market, no Anthropogenic Global Warming, no need to change a thing about the way we lead our business and lives.) and not about the state of our knowledge.  Fear, fear and anger overriding objectivity and reason.  OK I'll get off my soapbox and invite you to listen to some very smart hard working scientists tell their own story:

This is a work in progress, right now I'm at step one getting it up here to share the links:

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 3, Session 6 

Dr. Jennifer Francis, Rutger's University

Wacky Weather and Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice: Are They Connected?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Session 9 

The Arctic Paradox

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Session 

Jim White, University of Colorado

Climate Change Impacts Are Happening Faster and Faster- 

Greenland, Sea Level Rise and Some Atmospheric Chemistry

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Breckenridge Weather and Climate Summit Website:

http://www.stormcenter.com/wxcs2012/index.html

Glen Gerberg Weather and Climate Summit 

The Weather and Climate Summit was established in 1985 to bring together television weathercasters and meteorologists from top U.S. and Canadian markets with leading scientists and researchers. This summit allows for dynamic and frequent interchange between the media and scientists in order to foster improved communication and collaboration between these diverse professions.  

The Weather and Climate Summit enables television meteorologists to learn more about upcoming technologies and research findings that will lead to improved public awareness. The Weather and Climate Summit also helps the attendees and scientists understand how each one operates, produces information, conducts research and communicates. The ultimate outcome of this summit is the establishment of improved media-scientist relationships that fosters continued dialogue for improved scientific communication to the public.

Goal of Summit Participants

• To learn about advanced technologies that can help improve weather forecasting and warning dissemination;

• To understand the latest on the state of the climate and climate science research;

• To better understand how extreme weather and climate change may impact their viewers;

• Foster improved relationships with the speakers, scientists and subject matter experts.

http://www.stormcenter.com/wxcsummit/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Judith Curry and the Global Heat Distribution Engine

One thing that confuses me about Judith Curry is how she can co-author a paper like this

Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall

1. Jiping Liu
, 
2. Judith A. Curry, 
3. Huijun Wang, 
4. Mirong Song, and 
5. Radley M. Horton

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4074 

Abstract:
While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. 

Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. 

However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. 

This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. 

Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.

Also see the story at: http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/arctic-ice-decline/ 
Unusual Weather: Arctic Sea Ice Decline May be Driving Snowy Winters Seen in Recent Years

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And then she writes a dressed up op-ed like "No consensus on consensus" that totally skirts what is known, instead getting lost in a wormhole of rhetoric and misdirection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here you can find a lecture by Jennifer Francis another scientist who has studied this area extensively.  It's talks like her's that offer a chance to better appreciate how our planet operates and to come to grips with all that is known by climatologist, instead of allowing politically motivated folks to distract us with flimflam.

The Weekend Wonk: Jennifer Francis on Arctic Sea Ice

September 22, 2012

Here's how Peter Sinclair introduces it:

Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutger’s Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences is featured in my sea ice wrap video, which should be out early in the week. 

Here is a lecture she gave in January of 2012. Longish, but worth dipping into, as  she summarizes some of the most recent research in regard to the effects of shrinking arctic ice on weather and climate in the temperate latitudes – the so-called “arctic paradox” so beloved by Fox News – “if there’s global warming, why are we having this record snow storm?”. 

What she told me in a recent interview was that the sea ice record is not something that we just pay attention to in September – there will, in fact, be reverberations that will make fall and winter “very interesting” around the globe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Interestingly  Dr. Francis wrote an op-ed of her own in the Washington Post.  I found it much more enlightening that the jibber-jabber in "No consensus on consensus."

Washington Post ~ 09/21/2012

Shrinking Arctic ice and the wicked backlash on our weather

By Jennifer Francis

Guest Op-ed

Heat waves. Drought. Flooding. Cold spells. Wildfires. The climate system is changing before our very eyes, and there is no more glaring proof than the record-shattering loss of Arctic sea ice this summer. 

The National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Wednesday that the sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean has smashed the previous record minimum extent set in 2007 by a staggering 18 percent. The impacts of rising temperatures and melting ice extend beyond the far north to us in the United States, as we are poised to feel the weather-related backlash. 

The ice cover, only half of what it was only a few decades ago, is a stunning visual demonstration of the effects that increasing greenhouse gases, and resulting warming of the Earth, are having on the climate system... 

{...} 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/shrinking-arctic-ice-and-the-wicked-backlash-on-our-weather/2012/09/21/253aea6c-03f8-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html