The researchers wrestle with the non-correlation of extreme winter weather events and the monotonic increase in CO2 levels, offering a verdict of ‘probable’ natural variation. They try to support IPCC climate assertions, but the article keeps saying ‘however’. One of the study’s authors says: “This is still a challenging issue that needs further exploration to quantify the relative contributions of natural variability and human activity to regional extreme events.”
– – –
A recent study by researchers from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, presents robust interdecadal changes in the number of extreme cold days in winter over North China during 1989–2021, and the findings have been published in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, says EurekAlert.
Specifically, the number of extreme cold days increased around the year 2003 and then decreased around the year 2013, with a value of 8.7 days per year during 1989–2002, 13.5 during 2003–2012, and 6.6 during 2013–2021.
During 2003–2012, the Siberian–Ural High strengthened and the polar jet stream weakened, which favored frequent cold air intrusion into North China, inducing more extreme cold days. In addition, the intensity of extreme cold days in North China showed no significant difference in the three periods.
However, the related cold air could influence a larger area, which was especially the case for the stronger cold air center located to the west of Lake Baikal during 2013–2021.
The increase in the number of extreme cold days in North China in 2003–2012 probably arose from natural decadal variability. However, as pointed out by the corresponding author of this study, Prof. Yali Zhu, “This is still a challenging issue that needs further exploration to quantify the relative contributions of natural variability and human activity to regional extreme events.”
How extreme weather and climate events change is an intriguing issue in the context of global warming. As IPCC AR6 points out, cold extremes have become less frequent and less severe since the 1950s, mainly driven [Talkshop comment – they claim] by human-induced climate change.
However, cold extremes could also exhibit robust interdecadal changes at regional scale.
Source here.
– – –
Image: Ural Block [credit: netweather.tv]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“to quantify the relative contributions of natural variability and human activity to regional extreme events.”
Using what data?
Why does anybody look at the weather and not just see large natural variation over any and every period you take?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
which the weather/climate Brahmins prove day after day, yet the media clowns and political clowns continue after DECADES of screwups and false predictions to worship their pronouncements as holy writ.
It boggles the mind.
We know, We know, We know, We know, We know, We know,
Next election, we should just as well vote for the Monster Raving Looney party…. Many of their policies have been already adopted by the Useless Duo Uni-party : eg Dog Licence, 11-Plus exams, and a few more.
At least we’d have the people we voted for !
The increase in the number of extreme cold days in North China in 2003–2012 probably arose from natural decadal variability.
‘Probably’ = we have nothing to suggest otherwise. But the professor still invents a ‘challenge’ to pin at least some of the cause on humans 🙄
oldbrew says: March 9, 2024 at 1:07 pm
11 years isn’t long enough to provide a ‘viable sample’ for ‘natural variability’ (let alone ‘decadal variability’).
At least 3 times the ‘period’ is needed to offer a ‘reasonable’ assumption for the ‘variability’ suggested. This would be ~30 years of observation for ‘decadal observation’, or (given the ‘chaotic’ behavior of our weather/climate systems) ~1000 years of observation (what did Noah say???).
What prompted you to post this subject OB?
I can’t accept it’s content.
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
These figures are from “Looking Out the Window”… an graphical look at the best records available for Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) and Atmospheric CO2 from 1880 through 2011.
The book (loosely) presents the evidence in a trial format with the UN-IPCC being the “Prosecutor”, the “Defendant” is Atmospheric CO2 (from all sources), and the reader is a member of the “Jury” who is expected to form his own verdict from the evidence presented.
The first chart above shows what the “Prosecutor” limits his view to… the post late 1970s during which global climate was recovering from a 35-year cooling trend (early 1940s through mid 1970s)… for the obvious reason that it creates a false image suitable for the IPCC’s “climate change” narrative… that CO2 is a strong force. This is typical of the IPCC’s deceptive selective evidence to which we’ve become accustomed.
But what does the rest of the evidence testify to?
From 1881 through 1911:
Each of these charts represents a period of “climate” (at least 30 years of evidence).
Based on the 1881 to 1911 evidence, the IPCC would have no case. Atmospheric CO2 grew 9.2 ppm as GAST fell by 0.37 deg C, the exact opposite of the prosecutor’s charge against defendant CO2!
What about 1911 through 1944, another glimpse “climate”?
A dramatic warming (+0.73 deg. C) despite CO2 growing nearly the same amount (9.6 ppm vs. 9.2 ppm) as during 1881-1911 when GAST cooled. More clear evidence that runs counter to the IPCC’s “climate change” accusation against atmospheric CO2.
The final block of climate to complete the 1880 to 2012 data sets:
During 1944 through 1976 atmospheric CO2 increased (+21.8 ppm) or 2.4 times its growth from 1881 through 1911 (9.2 ppm), yet despite this large difference in the growth of atmospheric CO2, climate cooled the very same amount. All of which is contrary to the IPCC’s climate change narrative.
These charts explain why “warmists” avoid looking at any evidence prior to the satellite data era (1979+). It also explains their fervent efforts to “homogenize” the actual data so that appears to better fit their narrative.”
Verdict: CO2 is innocent of all climate change charges.
Thank you Bob (I only wish I could ‘link’ articles here).
The temperature peak during 1945 is most probably due to the second world war when many munitions were oxploded into our atmosphere. However, this is only an ‘assumption’.
IMHO the real climate temperature is regulated by actions within the ‘hydrosphere’.
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
These two quotes: ‘needs further exploration to quantify the relative contributions of natural variability and human activity’ (researchers) and ‘mainly driven by human-induced climate change’ (IPCC) – to some extent are in conflict.
They’re trying to have it both ways, as suggested by all the ‘however’s in the article. Or do they hesitate to say what they really think in case it looks anti-IPCC?
I agree, understanding that solar variability has a significant impact on those “actions within the ‘hydrosphere’.”
I should have mentioned the charts’ right axis should have been labeled “Atmospheric CO2 Change (ppm) from 1880” as these charts examine changing temperature vs. changing atmospheric CO2 (from all causes).
These charts examine the evidence in nature to see whether it is consistent with the IPCC’s theory that changing atmospheric CO2 is a strong force for climate change (as represented by 30+ years of GAST change).
It is remarkable that the political charlatans of the IPCC are so scientifically-challenged that they cannot comprehend the impact of the failure of their assumed theory to pass scrutiny by one of the three pillars of the the scientific method, specifically, observation in nature.
Clearly, if the observed evidence shows no correlation between changing CO2 and changing temperature over every significant period of time, one cannot be the driver of the other, i.e., no causation exists. Ironically, changing temperatures may have an impact on changing atmospheric CO2 due to there effect on the hydrosphere.
Bottom line, the climate change narrative being used to exert control over people’s freedom to choose (e.g., internal combustion vehicles vs. EVs) is nothing more than a convenient political narrative based entirely on an invalid theory unsupported by the observed evidence in nature.
But then, this is nothing new. Political charlatans in league with wealthy supporters who, in turn, benefit from massive government spending (regardless of consequences) have been at this charade on smaller scales throughout contemporary history. The only thing new here is the global magnitude of the damage being done to education, economic health, and civilization in general.
All those who oppose the narrative are slandered as “climate deniers”!
We must agree that UP really is DOWN… and if we do not, then we are the problem.
My prior comment was for “darteck”, this is to “oldbrew” (interesting names).
Astute observation (do they think people cannot read?).
The IPCC statement, “mainly driven by human-induced climate change” is boiler-plate for any “true-believer” authored article dealing with climate change.
The repeated statement of the big lie that humans are responsible for any meaningful degree of climate change is nothing less than propaganda.
Repeat a lie often enough, and some will believe it.
Bob Webster says: March 11, 2024 at 5:11 pm
I concur Bob. ‘Sol’ (our sun) isn’t the ‘constant star’ that we always believed it to be. It varies a lot in the ‘UV’ spectrum, which together with ‘blue vis.’, the UVA has the greatest penetration through our atmosphere and seas/oceans (~1Km to extinction through ‘pure water’). As we ‘dive’ into water, we notice that the ‘red colors’ ‘disappear first’ and we are left with a ‘blue image’. I don’t believe that the ‘energy’ from these ‘spectra’ just ‘disappear’, no, it continues to ‘exist’ in a ‘degraded form’ (probably ‘heat’, or ‘absorption’ by phytoplankton).
As for the ‘hydrosphere’, or ‘hydrological-sphere’. ‘CCN’ (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) generate almost ‘pure water’ in ‘clouds’. What does ‘almost pure water’ (condensed by a ‘solid particulate’) absorb first? CO2 of course! Thus, CO2 is removed from our atmosphere by the ‘rain’ that fertilizes ‘land and sea’ for the ‘plants’ and ‘phytoplankton’ that share our planet. As Earth’s waters and surface ‘warms’, so does the ‘evaporation rate’ of ‘water’ into a ‘warmer atmosphere’. This gets confusing with the introduction of ‘hygrometry’. The ‘warmer the atmosphere’, ‘the more water’ it can ‘absorb’ without/before ‘condensation’. This is the logic behind ‘why “clouds” appear’ ‘high in the sky’, because it’s ‘colder there’. ‘WV’ (water vapor) has, as an individual gas, ~3/5ths the ‘density’ of ‘other atmospheric gasses’, thus, ‘rises’ within Earth’s atmosphere to a ‘temperature environment’ where it’s ‘gaseous existence’ can no longer exist resulting in ‘condensation’ and eventually ‘rain’. Ditto. This is ‘hygrometry’.
I also concur that ‘too much business’ is ‘involved’ with our UK Political ‘system’ for the ‘system’ to be ‘healthy’ for ‘democracy’.
BTW, I am/was known on many internet sites as ‘suricat’. I ‘came out’ a while ago with my ‘true identity’ as Ray Dart, but when I first ‘posted here’ the ‘site’ connected an ‘old web that I hosted here’ which was ‘darteck’.
Apologies’ for the confusion.
Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).