Climate scientist debunks fear of an ‘unprecedented climate emergency’

A self-proclaimed climate expert has issued a dire warning of an ‘unprecedented climate emergency’ because the Northern Hemisphere’s jet stream crossed the equator, but actual climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says the move is not at all unprecedented.

Paul Beckwith“Our climate system behaviour continues to behave in new and scary ways that we have never anticipated, or seen before,” Paul Beckwith wrote in a piece titled ‘Jet Stream Crosses Equator, Unprecedented?‘.

“Welcome to climate chaos. We must declare a global climate emergency,” he blared.

Spencer, however, saw the event as typical, not unprecedented.

“There is frequently cross-equatorial flow at jet stream altitudes, and that Daily Caller  New Foundationflow can connect up with a subtropical jet stream,” Spencer wrote in a response to Beckwith. “But it has always happened, and always will happen, with or without the help of humans.”

The supposed climate emergency stems from a belief that the northern jet stream crossing into the south will mix the seasons and warm the winter as well as cool the summer.

Beckwith, who has a master’s degree in laser optics and a bachelor’s degreeDr_-Roy-Spencer in Engineering, “knows little of meteorology, let alone climate,” Spencer continued.

Dr. Spencer, for comparison, has a Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has worked as a senior scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center where he received the ‘Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal’, and later went on to be principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He has also testified before Congress several times regarding global warming.

Another article originally run on robertscribbler.com Tuesday said the Tropics “have served as a mostly impenetrable barrier to upper level winds moving from one Hemisphere to another.” However, since it was published, the article has been edited to remove the impenetrable claim, since climate blogger and veteran meteorologist Anthony Watts, as well as Spencer, called out Robert Scribbler over that.

“I like the ‘impenetrable barrier’ line … as if everything in the atmosphere is somehow fixed and rigid,” Watts responded on his website Thursday.

The Daily Caller News Foundation was able to find the original article containing the original language on blackbarth.com.

Beckwith closes his piece with this: “Please consider a donation to support my work and videos at my easy to use, Donate Button here, using PayPal.”

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
Categories

About the Author: Craig Boudreau

Craig Boudreau writes on energy and the environment for The Daily Caller.

  • Isandhlwana79

    Beware of Dano the FRAUD. He trolls these sites.

  • Isandhlwana79

    Everybody should block Dano the FRAUD. That way one does not have to endure his childishness.

    • Brin Jenkins

      One thing he will not do is discuss his beliefs in the warming mechanism, it’s sad when he tries to promote warming and is unable to explain it.

      • Dano2

        What is sadder that poor hapless Jenkins can’t grasp the fact it was already explained to him.

        (BTW, I say can’t grasp rather than fibbing about it due to comment history.)

        Best,

        D

        • Brin Jenkins

          Then do us a favour and explain again so others can be educated.

          • Ian5

            This Kids Britannica video should be basic enough for you. It’s aimed at 8 to 11 year olds. Let us know what you don’t understand.
            http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-149342/The-greenhouse-effect-is-a-natural-phenomenon-through-which-Earth

          • Isandhlwana79

            The jerk that responded to you has the audacity to condescend to you after complaining about me calling him a name (kook-he is after all). Typical liberal- hypocrite.

            • Dano2

              Concern troll concern trolls in an attempt to discredit another commenter who pointed out concerned’s errors.

              Best,

              D

            • Brin Jenkins

              Yes I have seen Ian 5 before, when folk are unable to respond other than pro warming links we may rest assured they don’t have a great deal of understanding.

              I had a good conversation with Professor Merrifield of the UK and he had an explanation of an infrared slowing mechanism that had some merit. I still think however that gravity probably has a similar small effect and is pretty insignificant. Professor Mike Merrifield just agreed to differ without the usual abusive crap.

              • Isandhlwana79

                Brin, the biggest dunce is Dano. Talk about a kook! Wow! He has nothing, no expertise at all. I find his “best” garbage a ‘tell’ of his OCD.

            • Ian5

              More name calling, the preferred strategy used by propagandists. If you’ve been following this blog you will see that Brin has repeatedly been provided an explanation of the basic physics of AGW by numerous posters but doesn’t get it. Tell us what you don’t understand:
              http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-149342/The-greenhouse-effect-is-a-natural-phenomenon-through-which-Earth

              • Brin Jenkins

                Then explain and prove your point. How does C02 become the driver of Global Warming? Nothing else counts until this is cleared first.

        • Brin Jenkins

          Come on just admit it, you are unable to explain. Man made CO2 is incapable of causing heat, its increase is a result of heat after the event not before.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Brin, are you really expecting anything half way intelligent from that clown? His only response will be a childish one. He has zero understanding of climate dynamics.

            • Dano2

              LOLO’s laughable assertion, Man heats the Earth in your imagination and that is a fact. You can’t prove any of [it], was refuted.

              That’s the reason for the brave stand here – it’s false assertion was exposed.

              Best,

              D

          • Isandhlwana79

            I think the chump is still trying to respond to me. He definitely has no clue. A sad little man.

      • Isandhlwana79

        Brin, you are right. He really has no clue. I now have him blocked so I don’t have to entertain his childishness.

      • Isandhlwana79

        He keeps trying to reply to me but the dummy can’t understand that I don’t see whatever his inane garbage is. A sad little man!
        LMAO at Dano the FRAUD.

        • Dano2

          I prefer that some block me, then I can point out their parroted disinformation without having to waste time with their deflections and inanities.

          Best,

          D

  • Isandhlwana79

    There is no significant relationship between CO2 rising and temperatures, a null hypothesis.

    • Ian5

      Not true. You are ignoring the science and repeating Heartland talking points.

      • Isandhlwana79

        Heartland isn’t the only organization making that claim. Other
        scientists as well do so. No more responses you. Two was enough. Go fly
        your garbage somewhere else. No one buys it here. buh bye

        • Ian5

          What other organizations? please point us to some independent scientific academies or institutes. Please back up your statement.

          • Dano2

            That one foams and calls names when it’s parroted propaganda is called out. There wlll be no backing of statements forthcoming.

            Best,

            D

  • Isandhlwana79

    A great read that destroys the myth of scientific consensus on global warming:

    https://www.heartland.org/press-releases/2015/11/30/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

    • Ian5

      Another rubbish report brought to you by the Heartland Institute the same organization that brought us the ridiculous Unabomber billboard campaign. Its sole purpose is to mislead and misinform.

      • Isandhlwana79

        Right. All you can do is call it rubbish and make an inane comment about the unabomber. As if that discredits the report. Gotcha. No more response to you, AGW kook.

        • Ian5

          It does discredit the report because the publishing organization is not credible. If you don’t believe that then you are just being lazy and not looking at the evidence. Name calling is also childish and a known strategy of propagandists.

    • Dano2

      Links to a fossil fool PR firm.

      Seems legit.

      Best,

      D

  • Isandhlwana79

    I see the kook (who I can’t see what the clown says) continues to stalk me. I love the fact that I live in the fool’s head rent free. Dano the Kook and FRAUD.

    He also has a fellow kook pestering this site.

  • Isandhlwana79

    I am copying the words of a known physicist:

    Salby and others have shown that changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in temperature, both up and down.

    This means CO2 is not a primary driver of climate.

    This is not hypothetical. This is fact derived from data.

    If anyone wants to know who (especially the AGW kooks), look for it yourself.

    • Dano2

      …and CO2 leads temperature now. Basic physics that shill Salby can’t refute.

      Best,

      D

      • Brin Jenkins

        Dano warming water releases C02. A cause and its effect easily seen at home with water from your cold tap and a sunny window.

        How do you reverse this?

        That is basic physics.

        • Dano2

          Too bad that isotopic signature of added CO2 in atmosphere is that of fossil carbon. Carbon that we dug out of the earth and burned.

          This was known definitively worldwide by the 1980s. Why don’t you know this?

          Best,

          D

          • Brin Jenkins

            Released by heat and not a cause. Explain the Mechanism of the heat retention simply without needing others to help you.

            • Dano2

              Poor Brin can’t grasp the simple things.

              Sad!

              Best.

              D

              • Brin Jenkins

                And even this simple thing to quote your words seems beyond you.

                • Dano2

                  You can’t grasp the fact of isotopes. We get it.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • Brin Jenkins

                    Then please explain so others might also be educated

                    • Dano2

                      They can follow the links I provided you. That you can’t grasp. They show the change in isotopes of atm CO2 with an increasing fraction of CO2 with a fossil signature, not a signature from CO2 released from the ocean.

                      You learned this in school. We all did, in high school physics.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Thats all you ever do rely on others thinking, have you non of your own? I have an HND and understand perhaps a little more than you feel. Thinking hardly seems to fit. You still have not given any explanation of how and why.

                    • Dano2

                      More bumbling.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Ian5

                      It has been explained to you many times. It is basic physics.What exactly don’t you understand?
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
                      http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-149342/The-greenhouse-effect-is-a-natural-phenomenon-through-which-Earth

                    • Dano2

                      What exactly don’t you [want to] understand?

                      FIFY ;o)

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      No I have never had a viable explanation of the mechanism from Dano or yourself. Only your parroted beliefs that fly in the face of logic. You must be able to explain why, and you don’t. You were abusive when you thought I was confused over absorption and radiation. If you wish to convince folk of your theory you need to fully explain it.

                      Now you have an opportunity to do this here and now. There are many who are unsure and they deserve better than bullying and ridicule.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Brin, you are a gentleman. You have more patience with those two clowns than I do. My hats off to you!

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Thanks.

                    • Ian5

                      “…beliefs that fly in the face of logic”

                      Whose “logic” exactly? Brin, you have been provided countless explanations and references that you don’t accept. Like many deniers, you can’t accept them because the science is at odds with your ideology, beliefs and personal values. Or maybe you just can’t be bothered to pick up a basic highschool textbook and learn about the basic physical principles that have been understood and documented for decades. No, I’m not going to do your homework for you. Tell us what you don’t understand about the science behind AGW…scientific evidence that is accepted by virtually every US and international scientific academy: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      I don’t understand the mechanism of the C02 molecule in the warming cycle, it seems to have reversed its role from being an effect to a cause. I have seen its first role myself now can you show the second case?

                • Isandhlwana79

                  Brin, the clown is a waste of time. He and the Ian-fool have no clue. People 10 times smarter than them have the AGW scam properly scoped out. I laugh at idiots like Dano and Ian because they aren’t very deep thinkers. More like sheep following the herd.
                  baahhh……baahhh

  • Isandhlwana79

    I like how the new kook here can complain about being called a name then turns around and condescends another poster. Hypocrite much?

  • Isandhlwana79

    A new paper that says it is the sun not CO2 that drives climate change:

    http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf

    Neither one of the AGW kooks that have posted on this page have the expertise to refute this paper. Everyone should keep that in mind.

    • Dano2

      Exxon favorite Willie Soon didn’t conclude the sun drives climate not CO2. This poor thing was duped. Again.

      Best,

      D

      • Brin Jenkins

        Oh well put and so convincing, we are all educated and might soon be sent a Dano pink star first grade.

        • Dano2

          Smartie boots such as you should be able to quickly see that the Soon paper linked to did not conclude them CO2s not driving climate.

          Right, smartie boots? Everyone else can see the paper didn’t reach that conclusion, so whoever told poor hapless commenter a fib duped poor hapless commenter into spreading a fib. Standard tool fare.

          Best,

          D

    • Brin Jenkins

      Well this has to be true, all of our energy originated in our sun, it will all one day transfer all it energy into the void raising the temperature by an imperceptible amount.

  • Isandhlwana79

    Dano the FRAUD keeps stalking me. LMAO
    hahahahahahaha
    A shame he knows NOTHING about climate dynamics.
    He must be on the government’s grant (pay roll)
    LMAO at Dano the FRAUD who is a homosexual with OCD

    • Dano2

      See how this one acts when its false assertions are shown to be false?

      Sad!

      Best,

      D

      • Ian5

        Sad and predictably ignorant commentary. The usual pattern.

  • Isandhlwana79

    Debating the AGW kooks that come here to argue is a waste of time. Why? Simply because they aren’t experts or scientists, therefore they know nothing about the issue. Do they really think they can convince anyone of the scam they believe in known as AGW? They only appear as fools and sheep unable to think for themselves.

    • Dano2

      This one was exposed in a laughable assertion, Man heats the Earth in your imagination and that is a fact. You can’t prove any of [it], and was refuted.

      That’s the reason for the brave stand here – it’s false assertion was exposed and refuted.

      Best,

      D

      • Brin Jenkins

        Brave, no you use a pseudo name and not your own. Like a puppeteer you conceal yourself.

        • Dano2

          You can’t hide the fact that one made a laughable assertion and was exposed for making a laughable assertion.

          Best,

          D

  • Ian5

    I’m not debating, I’m just advising you that you are misinformed. And also one more reminder that name calling is a strategy used by propagandists.

  • Isandhlwana79

    The kooks keep wanting to respond to me. Why? Could it be I live inside their heads rent free?
    LMAO at the fools
    hahahahahahahaha

  • Isandhlwana79

    The two non-scientists trolling here telling people they wrong are amusing. They haven’t a clue yet they want to tell others they’re wrong. How ironic. Go tell that to the hundreds of PHD’s that dispute AGW.