Ice on Great Lakes doubles in one week!!

[SSDD]

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

Riiiight.

Lol

Actually, he is...or can you point to anywhere that you have attempted to defend your claims?

 

[Muhammed]

Oy.....more bad news for the AGW k00ks.
https://weather.com/news/news/2019-01-24-great-lakes-ice-doubles-late-January
They are always talking about everywhere it isn't ball busting cold!

Kind of late, isn't it? Shouldn't it already have been frozen solid by now?

No.

Fuckin, retard.

 

[Crepitus]

"No answer"?

Kid I explained it already.

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Actually, what has been determined is that you are a bot, with no informed opinion of your own...only the opinion someone gave you..and when that opinion is challenged, you can not defend it...instead you switch to logical fallacy, and impotent name calling. The evidence is immense and scattered across the board for all to see. Now, care to defend your claim about the polar vortex being the result of arctic melting in the face of observed evidence..

Again..here is what others had to say regarding that hypothesis...

The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”

The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”

Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”

There ya go, bein' stupider than you have to be again.

 

[Crepitus]

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

He is a typical bot...no informed opinion of his own...just one that someone with a political agenda gave him..He can't begin to defend it so when challenged, he automatically goes to logical fallacy and impotent name calling..

Are you kids masturbating to my posts again?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oy.....more bad news for the AGW k00ks.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-01-24-great-lakes-ice-doubles-late-January

They are always talking about everywhere it isn't ball busting cold!

...global warming to blame!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oy.....more bad news for the AGW k00ks.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-01-24-great-lakes-ice-doubles-late-January

They are always talking about everywhere it isn't ball busting cold!

Permanent ice like we see in the Arctic and the Antarctic?

The ice isn't permanent

 

[Crick]

That's true!

 

[SSDD]

Actually, you didn't...You provided a not very well accepted hypothesis which is falsified by the observed evidence.

.....and kid? really? I was born in the very early 1950's...my bet is that your parents weren't even thought of when I was born. Typical though...you tend to talk just to hear yourself and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether what you say is thought out or not...or even factual for that matter.

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Actually, what has been determined is that you are a bot, with no informed opinion of your own...only the opinion someone gave you..and when that opinion is challenged, you can not defend it...instead you switch to logical fallacy, and impotent name calling. The evidence is immense and scattered across the board for all to see. Now, care to defend your claim about the polar vortex being the result of arctic melting in the face of observed evidence..

Again..here is what others had to say regarding that hypothesis...

The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”

The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”

Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”

There ya go, bein' stupider than you have to be again.

The only one who is not defending his position in the face of evidence that challenges it is you...alas, that make you stupid...let me know when you can defend your position.

 

[SSDD]

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

He is a typical bot...no informed opinion of his own...just one that someone with a political agenda gave him..He can't begin to defend it so when challenged, he automatically goes to logical fallacy and impotent name calling..

Are you kids masturbating to my posts again?

Logical fallacy? That all you got?

 

[Crepitus]

It's a fact kid. You know, as in what's actually happening/happened?

And if you were born in the 50s how come you haven't grown up?

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Actually, what has been determined is that you are a bot, with no informed opinion of your own...only the opinion someone gave you..and when that opinion is challenged, you can not defend it...instead you switch to logical fallacy, and impotent name calling. The evidence is immense and scattered across the board for all to see. Now, care to defend your claim about the polar vortex being the result of arctic melting in the face of observed evidence..

Again..here is what others had to say regarding that hypothesis...

The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”

The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”

Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”

There ya go, bein' stupider than you have to be again.

The only one who is not defending his position in the face of evidence that challenges it is you...alas, that make you stupid...let me know when you can defend your position.

Lol, you sound desperate.

 

[Crepitus]

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

He is a typical bot...no informed opinion of his own...just one that someone with a political agenda gave him..He can't begin to defend it so when challenged, he automatically goes to logical fallacy and impotent name calling..

Are you kids masturbating to my posts again?

Logical fallacy? That all you got?

I what way is me noticing you dorks stroking each other a logical fallacy?

Unless you meant to say your post was "phallus-y", LMAO!!

 

[initforme]

It's minus 40 here right now. I wish this cold would work it's way down to the whole lower 48 just to watch the reaction. I remember being in a 5 inch snowstorm in Charlotte. People were acting like the world was ending. It was hilarious. Anyway, nothing like a blaze in the woodstove and an ice cold Heineken.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let the smashing of all time cold records begin....

Second entry is the current temp at 1200am
First entry is the old low temp record..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another polar low is gaining steam in the Bering Sea. It has all ready passed 950mb in pressure drop and the internal air mass is cooling rapidly. Here comes the polar express 2.... Upper level winds are favorable for this to be a twin to the one hitting the Midwest today.

 

[SSDD]

Like crick...it looks like a half assed, not well accepted hypothesis which flies in the face of observation is good enough to fool you also...simply add the proper political lean to it and the uneducated will flock to it in droves.

Tell me, how do you explain the fact that such cold spells are decreasing when the hypothesis predicts that they will increase? In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? In real science it is tossed out and work begins on another hypothesis which won't produce predictive failures.

In pseudoscience, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which has a predictive failure? Nothing at all so long as the funding keeps coming in.

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Actually, what has been determined is that you are a bot, with no informed opinion of your own...only the opinion someone gave you..and when that opinion is challenged, you can not defend it...instead you switch to logical fallacy, and impotent name calling. The evidence is immense and scattered across the board for all to see. Now, care to defend your claim about the polar vortex being the result of arctic melting in the face of observed evidence..

Again..here is what others had to say regarding that hypothesis...

The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”

The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”

Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”

There ya go, bein' stupider than you have to be again.

The only one who is not defending his position in the face of evidence that challenges it is you...alas, that make you stupid...let me know when you can defend your position.

Lol, you sound desperate.

Really? I would think that someone who can't defend their position and is resorting to name calling and logical fallacy sounds desperate...If you weren't, then you would be discussing the science, and the obvious flaws in the hypothesis upon which your belief is based.

Typical liberal...project your own state upon your opponent, as if that were fooling anyone.

 

[SSDD]

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

He is a typical bot...no informed opinion of his own...just one that someone with a political agenda gave him..He can't begin to defend it so when challenged, he automatically goes to logical fallacy and impotent name calling..

Are you kids masturbating to my posts again?

Logical fallacy? That all you got?

I what way is me noticing you dorks stroking each other a logical fallacy?

Unless you meant to say your post was "phallus-y", LMAO!!

Even more sweaty desperation...not the first word in defense of your position...unless you believe impotent insult is a good substitute for rational argument in defense of a position. Is that what you think? Why not just admit that you can't defend your position...you heard some pseudoscience which blamed the cold on manmade global warming and which failed to mention that it didn't jibe with observation and it was good enough to fool you so you brought it here and presented it as your position...

Turns out it isn't a widely accepted hypothesis...even NOAA et al say that there is no real correlation between arctic ice melt and fluctuations in the polar vortex and you have no defense other than impotent insult because you have no informed opinion...you have an opinion given to you by someone with a political agenda....

 

[Crepitus]

I believe I've already determined you are too stupid to discuss this with. Beat it kid.

Actually, what has been determined is that you are a bot, with no informed opinion of your own...only the opinion someone gave you..and when that opinion is challenged, you can not defend it...instead you switch to logical fallacy, and impotent name calling. The evidence is immense and scattered across the board for all to see. Now, care to defend your claim about the polar vortex being the result of arctic melting in the face of observed evidence..

Again..here is what others had to say regarding that hypothesis...

The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”

The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”

Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”

There ya go, bein' stupider than you have to be again.

The only one who is not defending his position in the face of evidence that challenges it is you...alas, that make you stupid...let me know when you can defend your position.

Lol, you sound desperate.

Really? I would think that someone who can't defend their position and is resorting to name calling and logical fallacy sounds desperate...If you weren't, then you would be discussing the science, and the obvious flaws in the hypothesis upon which your belief is based.

Typical liberal...project your own state upon your opponent, as if that were fooling anyone.

I'd have thought so too but you never seem to shut up.

 

[Crepitus]

Epic failure... Unable to deal with facts and science.... Because they do not mesh with you political objectives.. Priceless

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything and have lost the debate.

He is a typical bot...no informed opinion of his own...just one that someone with a political agenda gave him..He can't begin to defend it so when challenged, he automatically goes to logical fallacy and impotent name calling..

Are you kids masturbating to my posts again?

Logical fallacy? That all you got?

I what way is me noticing you dorks stroking each other a logical fallacy?

Unless you meant to say your post was "phallus-y", LMAO!!

Even more sweaty desperation...not the first word in defense of your position...unless you believe impotent insult is a good substitute for rational argument in defense of a position. Is that what you think? Why not just admit that you can't defend your position...you heard some pseudoscience which blamed the cold on manmade global warming and which failed to mention that it didn't jibe with observation and it was good enough to fool you so you brought it here and presented it as your position...

Turns out it isn't a widely accepted hypothesis...even NOAA et al say that there is no real correlation between arctic ice melt and fluctuations in the polar vortex and you have no defense other than impotent insult because you have no informed opinion...you have an opinion given to you by someone with a political agenda....

Lol at "sweaty desperation" from the guy who was wacking off.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, that is precisely what science says. This will be the second time I have posted this, from Wikipedia's article on the polar vortex. Note, meanders (Rossby waves) occur when the vortex is weak.

"A study in 2001 found that stratospheric circulation can have anomalous effects on weather regimes.[29] In the same year researchers found a statistical correlation between weak polar vortex and outbreaks of severe cold in the Northern Hemisphere.[30][31] In more recent years scientists identified interactions with Arctic sea ice decline, reduced snow cover, evapotranspiration patterns, NAO anomalies or weather anomalies which are linked to the polar vortex and jet stream configuration.[29][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] However, because the specific observations are considered short-term observations (starting c. 13 years ago) there is considerable uncertainty in the conclusions. Climatology observations require several decades to definitively distinguish natural variability from climate trends.[38]

References

 

[skookerasbil]

Same Shit, that is precisely what science says. This will be the second time I have posted this, from Wikipedia's article on the polar vortex. Note, meanders (Rossby waves) occur when the vortex is weak.

"A study in 2001 found that stratospheric circulation can have anomalous effects on weather regimes.[29] In the same year researchers found a statistical correlation between weak polar vortex and outbreaks of severe cold in the Northern Hemisphere.[30][31] In more recent years scientists identified interactions with Arctic sea ice decline, reduced snow cover, evapotranspiration patterns, NAO anomalies or weather anomalies which are linked to the polar vortex and jet stream configuration.[29][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] However, because the specific observations are considered short-term observations (starting c. 13 years ago) there is considerable uncertainty in the conclusions. Climatology observations require several decades to definitively distinguish natural variability from climate trends.[38]

References

View attachment 242977

Oy.....hey jerky....it feels like -75 in the mid-west today. And you think the tens of million people going through this today will care about your theories on Rossby Waves. Yuk....yuk.....

The Number One Story on every network in New York today is the extreme cold. People who are over 50 saying they are seeing shit they've never seen before!!

Nothing more to say s0n!!