By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

This latest example of how climate science has been totally corrupted appears in the Telegraph:

This is so utterly wrong on so many levels that it is hard to see how it ever passed peer review or got published.

For a start, the Beast was caused by something called Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW), as was was widely known at the time. The SSW is a common and natural weather phenomenon . (The Met Office explain this here.) Melting Arctic ice had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Secondly, the temperatures seen during the Beast were not unusually low, or the cold prolonged. Neither is it the case that such extreme cold is becoming more frequent in February, the opposite is in fact true:

Of course, the useless Julia Slingo, formerly the Met Office’s Chief “Scientist”, has alternately blamed melting Arctic ice in the past for dry UK winters and wet ones!

We then come on to the claim that snowfall was heavier as a result of less sea ice on the Barents Sea. As is usual with these sort of studies, there is no actual snowfall data at all to back up this claim. It is all derived from modelling.

But what we do know for certain is that the amount of snowfall in 2018 was by no means unusual for England. As my regular trawls through the archives showed just last month, February 1941 was hit by some of the heaviest snow of the century:

February 1978 also suffered from heavy snow, with exactly the same meteorological set up as in 2018, with winds from the east:

https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_bce03f75-5754-413c-8edf-fc59090e3539/

Indeed, coincidentally, the Met Office noted the 40th anniversary of that 1978 blizzard on its blog just a few days before the Beast struck:

These are just random samples, and there are many more instances of heavy blizzards wherever you look.

Interestingly the paper’s Abstract begins:

The loss of Arctic sea-ice has been implicated with severe cold and snowy mid-latitude winters. However, the mechanisms and a direct link remain elusive due to limited observational evidence

In other words, there is no data available to prove their theory, so they simply made up their conclusions to suit their agenda.

And they call it science.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/39FhLPI

April 2, 2021 at 12:09PM