Between 1931 and 1944, we got Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, the Son of Frankenstein, The Ghost of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, and House of Frankenstein. A name pronounced incorrectly for decades until Gene Wilder straightened us out in Mel Brooks, Young Frankenstein.
It’s Frahn-ken-Steen.”
When it comes to the serialization of the horror show called Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Chaos, and the Crashing Climate, pronunciation hardly matters as long as you are saying the right words and following the bouncing ball of consensus, which changes all the time with only one common thread. It’s your fault, and they’ll be taking your money to pay their “friends” to fix it.
Scientists posing as journalists, wait – I’ve got that reversed, are in on the scheme and are forever coming to the rescue of this or that flailing narrative about global warming. The issue, or should I say back issue, is that they’ve not gotten all their Winston Smiths in a row. Rewriting history happens but not on a scale necessary to ensure the latest lie isn’t trampled on by some unearthed previous truth.
If you recall, the wonky jetstream is your fault, except it’s not. Without relitigating it, grand solar minimum decreased solar energy and weakened jet stream equals wonkiness. The science and journalism, or do I have that backward, argues that you’ve gone and done it—you and your gas-powered leaf blowers and string trimmers and combustion engines and white privilege. You broke the planet, you murderer!
Climate Deniers. Write that down because Science News ran a rather lengthy bit about global cooling in March of 1975, the year before America’s bicentennial. Some thoughts about planning for the potential ice age. It’s quite the thing—three successive pages of dense text and two visual aids. The average internet mind would never even consider trying to read it. Like the dog-eared paperback copies of Great Expectations you were supposed to read in Middle School. Lots of tiny words, close together – offensive handwritten notes in the almost non-existent margins. Forget it; where’s the Cliffs Notes (no internet back then)?
The article does not slay the current narrative because of how wrong the cooling science was then – though it should – the problem is the presence of inconvenient science for the current crop of wonky jetstream alarmists.
It looks like this,
Which looks a lot like this nearly 50 years later.
The text explaining the top drawing (and the bottom) is an even more significant problem for the Warmist Cult.
The cause of this increased variability can best be seen by examining upper atmosphere wind patterns that accompany cooler climate. During warm periods a “zonal circulation” predominates in which the prevailing westerly winds of the temperate zones are swept over long distances by a few powerful high and low pressure centers. The result is a more evenly distributed pattern of weather, varying relatively little from month to month or season to season.
During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.
A cooling climate causes Jetstream variability—a cooler atmosphere. I’m no expert, but I’ve got at least a passable handle on the English language. If cooling causes variability and we’re in a grand solar minimum (reduced solar energy), warming can’t drive it, too, regardless of where that warming is from. And especially since at least 1975, a warmer atmosphere has been credited with a stable jetstream.
I realize that the climate change consensus crowd will change the consensus to make the narrative fit the observation because that is what the word change in Climate change means. The expectation is that the peasants are too stupid to catch on, even after the self-proclaimed experts have been wrong about everything.
And I’m not here to give the peasants more credit than we are due. Too few are interested enough to realize what it all means. The misery they are experiencing is a direct result of a man-made money crisis created to fund the real climate chaos. The funding of a transition to a failed system incapable of powering our 20th-century needs, forget the 21st century.
Theirs is an undeniable hypothesis more in keeping with fundamentalist faith than science. Secular demi-gods capable of changing the weather and the world, but only if you will part with everything you worked to achieve while they part with nothing.
A wind that needs to change.
The monster of Climate Change dogma is the only thing we need to fear: that and its never-ending sequels.
HT | RCSB
