JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Global confusion: Turns out global warming doesn’t cause wandering Jet Stream “extreme weather”

It’s a flip on a flop. After all the media headlines, a new paper suggests that some climate scientists are not just wrong, they got cause and effect mixed up, and that the wandering “blocking” jet streams are not caused by warmer arctic, but may be causing the temperature changes instead.

“”The well-publicised idea that Arctic warming is leading to a wavier jet stream just does not hold up to scrutiny,” says Screen.

“With the benefit of ten more years of data and model experiments, we find no evidence of long-term changes in waviness despite on-going Arctic warming.”"

The truth is that most big models loosely predicted that global warming would make the jet streams less wiggly, but from the mid 1980s the jet-stream-trend was the other way. As the Arctic warmed the “waviness of jet streams increased”. So in 2012 a few modelers came up with a post hoc rationalization of why, really, truly, actually a warmer Arctic meant that the jets streams would wander more. The media enthusiastically repeated it, though it was contentious and disagreed with most models. But oh dear, by golly, by 2015 the trend started to reverse again. Now in 2020, Blackport and Screen are resolving the latest inconsistency by discovering the data going back 40 years and the longer trends. They explain (quite sensibly) that temperature changes in the Arctic have no significant effect on the jet streams, though the opposite might be true.

Welcome to the world of climate modeling where long monotonic trends can be explained in a jiffy, but no one can predict a turning point in advance.

When will the newspapers retract all the false headlines?

Polar Jet Streams

A wandering polar jet stream can drag cold air south, and warm air north. | NASA/TRENT L SCHINDLER

“Global Warming is responsible for Freezing”

This paper heavily criticizes a central media theme in the man made global warming theory. At the core of this was the principle that the poles would warm the fastest, this would reduce the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator, and that would mean the winds would slow too, and the jet streams would be “wavier” (meaning wandering north and south). They would bring hot air away from the equator, and dump cold arctic blasts in the most odd distant places. This Francis and Vavrus hypothesis was only devised in 2012 (discussed more here). This theory though, has been used by the science-media industrial complex to tell us that  cold snaps, snow storms and warm weekends were caused by polar vortexes, which were thus driven by our evil coal plants and our horrible light globes.  If only we drove more Teslas we’d get less blizzards, right?

Media Headlines -- Climate Change causes Polar Jets which  cause cold snaps

 Media headlines in The Independent, The Guardian, Forbes, Financial Times.

 

 National Geographic may want to interview someone other than Michael Mann next time (see the image below). There is so much wrong with this, starting with the Earth only having two poles and one of them isn’t warming. (Antarctica has generally been cooling since Roman Times. The small part that has warmed sits on 91 volcanoes and the Southern Oceans haven’t warmed either.).

Michael Mann on Polar Jets

Michael Mann said so…  National Geographic

Who knew — the theory was always contentious?

It appears that ever since this theory was published there were plenty of scientists who weren’t sold on it (and these are the same climate modelers that the newspapers usually love to quote — read the introduction of this 2014 paper by Hassanzadh et al.). Indeed it appears many climate scientists really didn’t think that Arctic Warming would create more “blocking” events. Where were they when the journalists were blaming coal stations for storms and blizzards?

The post hoc stop-gap theory:

 It has been proposed that the faster warming of the Arctic compared to the rest of world—so-called Arctic amplification—is altering the atmospheric circulation and contributing to an increase in extreme weather in the midlatitudes (6). One hypothesis proposed by Francis and Vavrus suggests that the reduced equator-to-pole temperature gradient weakens the predominant westerly wind, which, in turn, causes larger-amplitude waves in the midlatitude circulation (78), hereafter referred to as a “wavier” circulation. A wavier circulation has been linked to increased occurrence of extreme midlatitude weather, with the types of extremes favored by amplified waves varying by location (9)

The new paper looks at the way that the Arctic kept warming in autumn and winter but the jet stream waviness didn’t. The increase in waviness suddenly, and for no reason the models could say, reversed in the last few years.  Blackport and Screen do the most surprising thing and draw the obvious conclusion: the models are wrong.

DISCUSSION

As usual, the paper solves model failures and discrepancies that the public didn’t know existed. Where was that press release?

Our results help to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the observed increased in waviness and the small decrease projected by modeling studies.

So the models predicted waviness would go down, but it went up. Then someone came up with a way to explain that, but now the waviness stopped going up. So we’re resolving nothing much by dropping that dud theory except that climate modelers do not understand what drives jet stream trends.

The increase was only detected in 2012. (Ref 7):

In the years since the observed increase was first detected (7), Arctic amplification has continued; however, the increase in waviness has not. Over the past 40 years, seasonal trends in waviness across all regions and using multiple metrics are close to zero, in agreement with multidecadal trends simulated by models. This strongly suggests that the previously reported increases in waviness were a manifestation of internal variability.

Note “internal variability” is code for “some factor we don’t know” which in this case could be The Sun. None of the models include little old factors like solar magnetic changes, solar particle flows, or massive solar spectral changes. The Sun swings through high UV years to low ones but the models won’t find out if that matters because they are not even looking.

Actually, it looks like the evidence was already there and for decades that this was incorrect:

We have shown that in both observations and models, there is a correspondence between changes in the meridional temperature gradient and the waviness of the midlatitude circulation on interannual to decadal time scales. However, this correspondence is not seen over the 40-year observed and modeled trends or in model experiments forced with a reduced temperature gradient.

A great day. Finally scientists draw the obvious conclusion about cause and effect:

We conclude that the association is not indicative of a forced response of waviness to Arctic amplification, and instead, it likely arises because of internal climate variability. We further speculate that the relationship between interannual to decadal changes in the meridional temperature gradient and the waviness of the midlatitude circulation is not simply a random occurrence of internal variability but instead partly occurs because the changes in waviness cause changes in the meridional temperature gradient, consistent with physical expectations (194445). The combination of internal variability and misinterpretation of causality could potentially explain the discrepancy between observational and modeling studies.

The paper even discusses the media narrative and uses the words “uncertainty” and “overstated” in the same paragraph:

Despite substantial scientific uncertainty, the Francis and Vavrus hypothesis has become a regular narrative in media reporting of extreme weather events (3335). This widespread media reporting is likely a major reason why there is high public belief that if Arctic warming continues, it will have major effects on midlatitude weather (33). Some scientists argue that the possible effects of Arctic amplification on the circulation have been overstated in the public discourse and distracted from other more certain and no less concerning consequences of climate change (36).

Refreshing. I can’t remember the last time I read a paper that mentioned the “direction of causality” or the need to make “like for like” comparisons between models and observations.

Previous work examining changes in waviness in response to Arctic amplification has focused on either only observations (781920) or only models (232529) or compared recently observed trends to future model projections (18), making fair model-observation comparisons difficult. Here, we attempt to reconcile the divergent conclusions of previous studies by making “like-for-like” comparisons between observations and models. First, we update the observed waviness trends to the end of 2018 to examine whether the previously reported increases (781819) have continued and compare them to the range of simulated trends from a multimodel large ensemble. Next, we examine the correspondence between Arctic amplification and waviness as manifested in interannual to decadal variability in both observations and models. Last, we perform controlled model experiments to determine the direction of causality in simulated relationships between Arctic amplification and waviness.

 The paper said so much more than the press release:

Jet stream not getting ‘wavier’ despite Arctic warming

Rapid Arctic warming has not led to a “wavier” jet stream around the mid-latitudes in recent decades, pioneering new research has shown.

Scientists from the University of Exeter have studied the extent to which Arctic amplification – the faster rate of warming in the Arctic compared to places farther south – has affected the fluctuation of the jet stream’s winding course over the North Hemisphere.

Recent studies have suggested the warming Arctic region has led to a “wavier” jet stream – which can lead to extreme weather conditions striking the US and Europe. However, the new study by Dr Russell Blackport and Professor James Screen, shows that Arctic warming does not drive a more meandering jet stream. Instead, they believe any link is more likely to be a result of random fluctuations in the jet stream influencing Arctic temperatures, rather than the other way around. The study is published in leading journal Science Advances on Wednesday 19 February 2020.

Dr Blackport, a Research Fellow in Mathematics and lead author of the study, said: “While there does appear to be a link between a wavier jet stream and Arctic warming in year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability, there has not been a long-term increase in waviness in response to the rapidly warming Arctic.”

Scientists have studied whether the jet stream’s meandering course across the Northern Hemisphere is amplified by climate change in recent years. For about two decades, the jet stream – a powerful band of westerly winds across the mid-latitudes – was observed to have a “wavier” flow, which coincided with greater Arctic warming through climate change. These waves have caused extreme weather conditions to strike mainland Europe and the US, bringing intense cold air that leads to extreme cold weather.

In this new study, Dr Blackport and Professor Screen studied not only climate model simulations but also the observed conditions going back 40 years. They found that the previously reported trend toward a wavier circulation during autumn and winter has reversed in recent years, despite continued Arctic amplification.

This reversal has resulted in no long-term trends in waviness, in agreement with climate model simulations, which also suggest little change in “waviness” in response to strong Arctic warming.

The results, the scientists say, strongly suggest that the observed and simulated link between jet stream “waviness” and Arctic temperatures do not represent a causal effect of Arctic amplification on the jet stream.

Professor Screen, an Associate Professor in Climate Science at Exeter added: “The well-publicised idea that Arctic warming is leading to a wavier jet stream just does not hold up to scrutiny.

“With the benefit of ten more years of data and model experiments, we find no evidence of long-term changes in waviness despite on-going Arctic warming.”

Insignificant effect of Arctic amplification on the amplitude of mid-latitude atmospheric waves is published in Science Advances.

 

REFERENCE

Blackport, R, and Screen, J. (2020)  Insignificant effect of Arctic amplification on the amplitude of midlatitude atmospheric waves, Science Advances  19 Feb 2020: Vol. 6, no. 8, eaay2880 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aay2880

J. A. Francis,  S. J. Vavrus (2012) Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes.Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L06801 (2012).

J. A. Francis,   J. Vavrus (2015) Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 014005 (2015)

The models mostly find less wandering jet streams:

J. Cattiaux, et al (2016), Sinuosity of midlatitude atmospheric flow in a warming world. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 8259–8268 (2016).

Y. Peings et al (2017)  Late twenty-first-century changes in the midlatitude atmospheric circulation in the CESM large ensemble. J. Clim. 30, 5943–5960 (2017).

Barnes et al (2015)  CMIP5 projections of arctic amplification, of the North American/North Atlantic circulation, and of their relationship. J. Clim. 28, 5254–5271 (2015).


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (56 votes cast)
Global confusion: Turns out global warming doesn't cause wandering Jet Stream "extreme weather", 9.6 out of 10 based on 56 ratings

138 comments to Global confusion: Turns out global warming doesn’t cause wandering Jet Stream “extreme weather”

  • #
    Curious George

    “Climate scientist” is an oxymoron. [snip]

    [Comments from the whole #2 subthread are off topic and moved to Thursday Unthreaded #27. - Jo]

    200

  • #
    • #
      Curious George

      You consider the atmosphere to be a black body. It might be a good approximation, but you have to show that the resulting error is negligible.

      72

      • #
        PeterS

        Most atmospheric models are single layer and is accepted in the scientific community they approximate a black body reasonably well. So there is no need to show the error is small. However multilayer, non-black-body atmospheric models have bee developed. So it depends how accurate one needs to be and the impact on the results. That’s not a simple exercise.

        71

        • #
          Curious George

          There is no need to show the error is small. You just declare it to be reasonable, whatever it means. Science made easy.

          70

        • #
          John PAK

          Peter, I’m glad someone raised this layers issue as we are commonly misled down the path that sees the whole atmosphere as some sort of homogenous blanket.
          The optical height for CO2 varies but in general terms most IR absorption takes place in the first 100m from the surface. Above 4000m there is virtually no water vapour and very little of any gas so low temp radiation off the top of clouds can radiate to space almost unimpeded. Having more CO2 increases absorption towards the bottom of that lowest 100m and increases emission to space above the tropopause so we see a greater temperature differential between bottom and top of atmosphere which implies greater over-turning circulation.
          Hard to model.

          60

      • #

        The bulk atmosphere (GHG’s + clouds) is most properly considered a graying layer inserted between an approximately ideal black body surface (ocean surface and bits of land that poke through) and its environment (space) whose combination can be reasonably approximated as a gray body, which for Earth, has an effective emissivity of about 0.62. To the extent that the surface is not ideal, the deviation from ideal simply modifies the effective emissivity of the graying layer.

        The graying layer attenuates surface emissions by a factor of the emissivity, where what’s attenuated must be returned to the surface to supplement the incident solar forcing and offset a temperature higher then the emissions (or the stady state incident energy) can support.

        On a W/m^w basis, twice as much is actually attenuated (absorbed) by the atmosphere where about half of this is returned to the surface to sustain additional surface emissions while the remainder is added to what’s not attenuated in order to satisfy the radiant balance.

        An ‘ideal’ gray body whose emissivity is 0.62 is shown by the green line in the accompanying plot. Each small dot is 1 month of data plotting the average surface temperature (Y) vs. average emissions at TOA (X) for each 2.5 degree slice of latitude from pole to pole. The larger dots are the per slice averages over 3 decades of data which as you can see, don’t deviate much from the idealized behavior. You should also notice that the constant emissivity from pole to pole is independent of the incident energy and the surface temperature illustrating a steady state linear behavior between the output missions (or input power) and the surface emissions corresponding to the surface temperature.

        http://www.palisad.com/co2/tp/fig1.png

        This demonstrably linear behavior in the domain of Joules is ignored by the IPCC and its self serving consensus in favor of fake linearity between W/m^2 and temperature in order to violate both COE and the SB Law in an effort to support a range of ECS that the laws of physics precludes.

        50

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          :-)
          “On a W/m^w basis, twice as much is actually attenuated (absorbed) by the atmosphere where about half of this is returned to the surface to sustain additional surface emissions while the remainder is added to what’s not attenuated in order to satisfy the radiant balance.:-)

          Really?

          Congratulations, you have just described the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Can I buy one for my car?

          Where did this come from?

          KK

          21

          • #

            The Sun will eventually die, so where do you get perpetual motion out of this? Radiant energy is conserved between the atmosphere and TOA and between the surface and atmosphere.

            For an emissivity of 0.62, 38% of the surface emissions are attenuated before those emissions reach space. The average radiant emissions of the surface are about 390 W/m^2, 38% of which is 150 W/m^2 which when added to the 240 W/m^2 of average solar input exactly offsets the 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface. The GHG’s and clouds in the atmosphere actually absorb about 72% of what the surface emits, or about 300 W/m^2. Half of this is 150 W/m^2 which when added to the 240 W/m^2 of solar input offsets all 390 W/m^2 of surface radiant emissions. When the remaining 150 W/m^2 is added to the 90 W/m^2 not absorbed, the resulting 240 W/m^2 offsets the 240 W/m^2 of incident solar energy.

            20

            • #

              Emissivity argument is a post hoc fallacy, and so is “what GHGs absorb”.

              What they “absorb” is determined by their temperature.

              If you want to know what they really absorb by radiation you havento completely remove conduction and convection. You can’t. Only in a lab.

              63

              • #
                farmerbraun

                “have to” and “havento(sic) ” mean totally opposite things.
                ?

                01

              • #
              • #

                Expect to get a lot of typos when I use my smartphone. Hevento is not a word.

                30

              • #

                Zoe,

                It works and the data confirms so. So what’s your actual objection?

                GHG absorption is not a fallacy, but a physical property that’s well defined and quantified by the laws of Quantum Mechanics. The electron clouds of GHG molecules transition from the ground state to higher energy states and back as a consequence of the absorption and emission of photons. At the energies involved, collisions will at most increase the probability of an energized GHG emitting a photon and transitioning to a lower state, but aren’t energetic enough to transition GHG molecules into higher energy states. Small amounts of energy can be transferred between state energy and translational motion, but this will generally occur in equal and opposite amounts and there’s no net transfer of energy either way.

                Conduction and convection are heat transfer by matter, while the radiant balance involves the transport of energy by photons. These two paths are largely orthogonal to each other where the energy transported into the atmosphere by matter can only be returned to the surface since only photons can leave the planet.

                As far as the subsequent radiation of any energy transported into the atmosphere by matter is concerned, we are only concerned with the steady state and in the steady state, the energy radiated by matter is equal to the energy absorbed by it, otherwise, that matter will heat (or cool) without bounds thus it’s not in the steady state.

                Subtracting conduction and convection is trivial once you realize that in the steady state, it has a zero sum influence on the radiation leaving the surface as a consequence of its NET average temperature. Otherwise, you need to explain what effect these will have on the steady state radiant balance other then the effect they’re already having on the steady state radiant balance.

                10

              • #
                Lance

                “Things” absorb energy by

                Radiation
                Convection
                Conduction

                The last 2 depend on temperature.

                The first depends upon radiation frequency, radiation absorption cross spectrum, and exposure.

                FYI.

                21

              • #

                co2,
                If you ever played with HITRAN’s database, you’d know that you MUST enter Pressure and Temperature to generate an absorption spectrum.

                You don’t know by which method CO2 got heated in the atmosphere. You just assume it’s all by radiation.

                Conduction and Convection are so powerful that they don’t need much energy to be maintained.

                31

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Your over thinking this CO2.

                Above 30 metres and up to about 14,000 metres altitude CO2 is simply one small amount of the large body of gases known as the Atmosphere.

                It obeys the meaning of PV=nRt.

                Up to the first 30 metres the atmospheric gases are absorbing heat from the surface and possibly also by ground origin IR absorption.

                This energised portion of atmosphere is now expanded, now lower density and rises up through colder air as a bubble.

                CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant.

                KK

                10

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              CO2

              In your first comment you described “energy” at altitude returning to the surface to augment surface energy.

              This is a thermodynamic impossibility.

              KK

              11

              • #

                Keith,
                No it’s not. Photons carry energy and photons can travel in any direction, whether from the surface to the atmosphere (or space) or from the atmosphere (or space) to the surface. Your cell phone would not work if photons could only travel from hot to cold as it seems you’re trying to argue.

                21

              • #

                co2,
                Your cellphone uses different frequencies for down and up link.
                Antenna is hot on a channel when it sends, and cold when it receives.

                33

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                CO2

                Re “photons”.

                They are an imaginary construct to help quantify radiation.

                There’s a duality available: waves help in some cases, in others photons are nominated.

                Lower energy from altitude cannot move to ground where there are higher level energy states.

                Energy in the form of radiation eventually goes to a lower energy region, the extreme example being to deep space.

                KK

                21

            • #

              Zoe,

              The frequency of a photon has no bearing on the directions it can travel. Photons of all possible energies (frequencies) can travel in any direction.

              You must distinguish the heating of a CO2 molecule per the kinetic theory of gases, that is, sharing energy by collisions and heating consequential to state energy shared by the exchange of photons per the laws of Quantum Mechanics. Keep in mind that there’s no NET conversion between the two in either direction.

              BTW, I’ve done far more than just ‘play’ with the HITRAN database. I’ve written my own version of MODTRAN that offers a far wider range of performance/accuracy trade-offs and algorithmic innovations in the integrator that produce the same relative accuracy in significantly less compute time and with a relatively small memory footprint.

              Yes, absorption is dependent on temperature and pressure, but the average temperatures and pressures change so little and the dependencies are so small, you’re worrying about second and third order effects that have little influence on the steady state, where relative to ‘climate change’ all that matters are changes to the steady state.

              13

              • #

                co2,
                Do you understand how Boltzmann and Planck derived their equations?

                Do you understand how they got the right answer by assuming one wave per frequency between two opposing molecules (at opposing walls)?

                You claim two way photon flows between their walls, but they don’t. ONE wave, not double photon flows.

                If there was two way photon travel between two opposing walls, the “photon gas” density in the cavity would be DOUBLE what Planck derived.

                Show me this 2x factor due to your theory in their empirically verified formulas.

                “shared by the exchange of photons per the laws of Quantum Mechanics.”

                The distance between molecules in the atmosphere is too small to allow the type of emission that’s possible in a solid large cavity radiation oven.

                Most radiation is not real and derived via temperature actually caused by conduction.

                P.S. Do you also believe that a sponge makes a spill wetter due to back-moisture?

                31

              • #

                Sorry Zoe, but the only thing that matters relative to the radiant balance is radiation. At TOA, mostly visible photons arrive and mostly LWIR photons leave the planet and in the steady state the average W/m^2 of input photons is equal to the average W/m^2 of output photons. The O2 and N2 in the atmosphere neither emits or absorbs the visible photons or the LWIR photons that comprise the radiant balance. Only GHG’s and the water in clouds are involved with the RADIANT balance. GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters of photons, while the water in clouds are broad band absorbers and emitters of photons.

                Why do you reject this? What part of the confirming data don’t you believe? Pay careful attention to the plot in the earlier comment. There’s no other way to explain it.

                The cavity experiments have nothing to do with how GHG gases behave, how photons propagate or how the atmosphere works. You may be missing a key point that while the SB equation can be derived from the characteristics of an ideal Planck spectrum, the basic relationship between W/m^2 and temperature is independent of the spectral characteristics of the W/m^2. A thermometer exposed to an energy flux of 390 W/m^2 will measure a temperature of 288K whether those W/m^2 are in the form of a Planck spectrum emitted by an ideal BB or as a single frequency laser beam of arbitrary wavelength.

                A simple experiment that disputes your misinterpretation is to shine two laser beams at each other through an ice cube transparent to the lasers. Photons are now traveling in opposite directions from hot to cold and cold to hot.

                23

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Zoe,
                re “co2,Do you understand how Boltzmann and Planck derived their equations?

                Sounds good and logical.

                KK

                11

              • #

                “Photons are now traveling in opposite directions from hot to cold and cold to hot.”

                That’s nothing but your assertion.

                There is one wave per frequency between two opposing lasers.

                You don’t understand how radiation equations are derived but you want to use them anyway.

                Boltzmann and Planck understood that if the separation between walls is 1 meter, there will never be a 2 meter wavelength photon. Never.

                You don’t understand this, and so you don’t understand what photons can exist between the small seperation distance of molecules in the atmosphere.

                41

    • #
      PeterS

      …engaging in ideological mathematics and not real physics

      Eureka! Now I understand why at University I began to dislike mathematics and focused on Physics. The Maths Professors were too ideological whereas the Physics Professors were down to earth and dealt with the real world, at least most of the time.

      140

    • #
      Peter C

      A bit off topic, but your excitement is understandable.

      Jo may shift this to the weekend unthreaded. If so I may discuss it there.

      20

    • #
      RickWill

      Unphysical claptrap.

      Not sure if you have the comprehension but you should put some effort into learning and understanding basic thermodynamics. First law will be enough to give you a clue why your maths is unphysical claptrap.

      56

      • #

        You must be a genius. Not me, I’m a dummy.

        I got a 7 on the Physics IB exam, and all A’s in 5 University Physics and Astronomy classes.

        I wasn’t fortunate to ever hear of thermodynamics. Is that like a thermos that moves?

        54

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Your lack of thermodynamic understanding shines through.
          After university is over the real world becomes much more complex.

          65

          • #

            Hostility without substance will be ignored.

            75

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              It’s not hostility, it’s just fact. You have not got a clear understanding of the accounting procedures required in thermodynamics, that’s all.

              In a similar vein if I wrote a computer program you would very quickly pick up my lack of skill there.

              32

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              But if hes right, you’re in trouble…..

              Nice pass-agg by the way…..

              20

        • #
          Lance

          Your credibility would be greatly enhanced by posting your grades in Physical Chemistry and Statistical Thermodynamics.

          We’ll wait.

          56

        • #
          farmerbraun

          So you did study a little Greek as well?
          thermos = heat
          dynamic = non-static

          50

          • #

            Sarcasm & Jokes need not be taken seriously.

            My derivations are correct. Since no one can find fault with them, they lash out.

            34

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              No Zoe, your identification of thermodynamically relevant factors was lacking in a previous post indicating that you are too trusting of other people’s work that you use as a stepping stone.

              KK

              23

            • #
              Lance

              derivations? Where?

              32

            • #
              RickWill

              What you have written is gibberish.

              There is no proof. You pull equations out of thin air without any reference or ability for reviewers to reference them..

              You magically state that ∆T is zero. Then show a chart where the thermal gradient is not zero.

              All just meaningless statements. Your analysis defies conservation of energy; a fundamental of thermodynamics and the real physical world.

              This link shows a well referenced application of maths to the physics of ocean waves:
              http://pordlabs.ucsd.edu/rsalmon/111.textbook.pdf
              Note how each equation is referenced. The theory flows with a combination of maths and descriptive detail. Contrast this with your gibberish.

              53

              • #

                “You magically state that ∆T is zero. Then show a chart where the thermal gradient is not zero.”

                Uhm, dT=0 is for Boltzmann and Planck’s blackbody radiation oven.

                “There is no proof. You pull equations out of thin air without any reference or ability for reviewers to reference them..”

                LMAO.
                The conduction and radiation formulas are in every textbook, and I refer to wikipedia for simplicity’s sake.

                “Your analysis defies conservation of energy”

                If that’a how you see it, then Boltzmann and Planck defied your ideological mathematics.

                You’re trying to equate translational energy with vibrational energy, whereas in reality they DO NOT EQUATE, and they fall under EQUIPARTION THEORY.

                Total energy is conserved, while two of its subtypes are not.

                “Note how each equation is referenced.”

                There’s no bibliography. NOTHING is referenced. If you mean every equation is tagged with a unique ID, sure, but that’s not a reference. LMAO

                I can’t take you seriously.

                33

              • #
                RickWill

                If that’a how you see it, then Boltzmann and Planck defied your ideological mathematics.

                Show me exactly how Boltzman and Planck defied conservation of energy? Your referenced links only go to Wiki pages that give biographies. If you make a claim that these individuals were able defy the conservation of energy then you need to provide pertinent detail not a link to their biographies.

                Tagging equations and providing their source would at least make it possible for a reviewer to show you specifically where your maths fails the test of the physical world.

                This is taken from your page:

                Obviously with a constant temperature, ΔT equals 0, and thus CHF is also ZERO!

                Clearly you stated ∆T not dt. You are very confused!

                23

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Zoe,
                Part of learning is to acknowledge that there maybe some issues that you don’t have a good grasp of.

                Some things you have written are great and obviously based on prior familiarity.

                Others, like the references to Black Bodies, are text book regurgitation that lacks deeper essential knowledge and experience.
                You can’t just take a thermodynamic equation like the S,B from a text book and plug in stuff. Tuning that equation to the situation is essential.

                On the other hand your physics seems to shine through if I read you correctly.

                You seem to say that CO2 can’t super heat the atmosphere. If that’s what you expressed I can see good ground work in that comment.

                KK
                And that’s not hostility.

                10

              • #

                “Part of learning is to acknowledge that there maybe some issues that you don’t have a good grasp of.”

                That’s funny because all my critics have no idea what conductive heat flux is, how it’s calculated, and how irrelevant it is to emission at the surface boundary.

                “You can’t just take a thermodynamic equation like the S,B from a text book and plug in stuff.”

                That’s ironic because my critics like to take the conductive heat flux and plug it into SB equation.

                20

            • #
              farmerbraun

              O.K. I got it.
              You were joking when you said that you had never heard of thermodynamics.
              How did I miss that?

              50

        • #
          RickWill

          As I suggested, you need to have a basic understanding of thermodynamics and sufficient hands on experience to apply that understanding to the physical world.

          When you have achieved some credibility in application of thermodynamics, revisited your claptrap and realise how silly it is.

          63

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Zoe, this has been mentioned before, but there are two issues beyond your obvious computing skills and equation solving skills.

      You are being misled if you think that the S-B equation is easy to use.

      You have previously been caught out ignoring essential factors when dealing with mass, heat and momentum transfer problems.

      If you are going to use other people’s work as a stepping stone you may be using an incorrect base to jump from.

      Start at the beginning and do it all yourself.

      KK

      55

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Working with boundary conditions doing microwave wave-guide calculations messes with my head….

        But I agree…starting from the ground up is the only way to go.

        20

      • #

        If Boltzmann and Planck are an incorrect base, who is?

        “You have previously been caught …”
        Complete fabrication ? smear job?

        First time I’m hearing such a strange accusation. Was it behind my back?

        22

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          No.

          It was your attempt to use surface evident energy from the Earth’s core, mixed with a few other factors to calculate another factor.

          Two unknowns were involved; the one you were solving for and the other one you overlooked.

          KK

          11

    • #
      WXcycles

      Zoey, it seems you wish to evoke geothermal energy to balance global energy flux but only because you’ve incorrectly asserted DWLWR does not exist. The following makes clear you’re completely wrong about that.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/tuesday-open-thread-5/#comment-2278008

      Thus your desire to implicate geothermal flux as a ‘solution’ isn’t even necessary as there’s no such deficit, you’re barking up the wrong tree with this. Time to get your mind clear about those things, before going off on more pointless tangents.

      52

      • #

        Do you at least agree that satellites can not detect IR moving away from it?

        In your link I don’t see DWLWR being observed, only you asserting that it’s the only thing that explains OLR changes. DWLWR is your assumption and conclusion. It seems like circular reasoning to me.

        35

        • #
          WXcycles

          It seems like you can’t face basic facts.

          53

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Zoe,
          I am totally in agreement with you that DWLWR radiation is a nonsense concept.

          Unfortunately some people have read this stated so many times that they believe it.

          They somehow imagine a photon excreted in the direction the earth and continuing to move without impediment until it crashes into the ground and heats it.

          Sadly a little knowledge goes a long way.
          These “believers” are unaware that there’s No Such thing as a Photon. It is simply one of two ways of examining aspects of energy transfer at atomic level.

          Wonders never cease.

          KK
          KK

          42

      • #
        James Poulos

        It gets cooler at night.

        40

  • #

    Climate. The stupendously complex in perpetual flux…

    It’s not that climate models are wrong.

    It’s not that climate models might be wrong.

    It’s not that climate models have been wrong.

    The problem is that climate models must be wrong.

    100

    • #
      PeterS

      Climate models are models of varying degree of accuracy, mostly failing to predict the various changes of the past let alone into the future. They all belong in the rubbish bin for predictive purposes. Fine if one wants to try and develop one that actually comes close to the real world. At the moment I don’t think that’s possible for two main reasons. One, we don’t yet have a complete understanding of the physics involved. Two, even if we did we don’t have the computing power as yet to crunch the numbers.

      100

      • #
        TdeF

        That is assuming it can be modeled. We see the air and its behavior as the weather and self contained. So we analyse the weather to predict the weather. We see effects as causes, which is why we understand nothing and can predict nothing. And who needs to include the ocean in their models?

        The problem is that everything we know as the weather is really controlled by the oceans and the water and the sun which heats the the oceans largely. Storms happen when there is too much energy in one place like the Caribbean and energy comes from the sun. And the heat capacity of the oceans is 1400x that of the air. And it moves. And we humans are utterly dependent on rain which does not come from the atmosphere but from the oceans. We are looking in the wrong place, studying effects not causes.

        If we want to understand the weather, we should model and fully understand the sun intensity, cloud cover, evaporation, ocean currents and the transport of heat via the oceans, as with the Gulf Stream and the Humboldt current and the huge layer which causes El Nino and La Nina and the Monsoons on which whole nations depend. The weather is simply the result of this activity and studying and modelling causes not effects might actually work but we get upper atmosphere people like James Hansen who think they can predict climates.

        As I point out so often, Prof Weiss has modeled the last 2500 years of temperature and has a near perfect fit with two and only two solar cycles plus one heat oscillation in the Pacific which covers half the planet. We should be studying where the energy goes and how it is transported around the world in ocean currents. And there is more.

        Near 0C in the warm Arctic there are secondary effects in warming and cooling too, such ice formation and melting. Less ice means that areas warm faster. A lot of heat goes into the latent heat of melting of ice in the transition or the heat released on freezing which buffers it. ” At 0°C, liquid water has 334 J g−1 more energy than ice at the same temperature.” I have read nothing of this very important problem buffering temperature changes around 0C and in summer in the Arctic, the average temperature is 0C.

        There is just so much missing from the models. This is all due to mathematicians like Michael Mann who believe that you can understand and so predict weather by statistical analysis. He is the sort of scientist who would model the speed of falling things to predict them but it took a real scientist in Sir Isaac Newton to grasp gravity. Newton gave us understanding. Mann made up data.

        Statistics can succeed on a grand scale but is a total failure to understand mechanisms and effects like the chaotic weather. And so they make predictions which quite understandably are often wrong.

        As for CO2, in the last thread the satellite maps of world CO2 showed there is a huge summer band of CO2 at Australia’s latitude. But there’s only water down here and a tiny 2% of humanity. And the band is gone in winter. Surely that tells you that coal is not the culprit. The CO2 comes from outgassing of the oceans. But there’s no money in that piece of proven science and huge cash and millions of jobs in blaming tiny CO2 for the weather.

        180

        • #
          truth

          Maybe they would have found their mistakes years ago if more than half [ a guess] of the world’s qualified scientists were not frozen out…demonized…not permitted to question…nobbled or sacked.

          Even when they find out they were wrong on important elements… they anxiously reassure each other that their catastrophic hypothesis of ‘climate change’…on the strength of which their cohort plus hysterical groupies demand the dismantling …even demolition…of modern civilization…is as true as ever and must not be questioned.

          The mistake doesn’t change much, they want us to know…just distracts ‘from other more certain and no less concerning consequences of climate change’.

          Question is will the world as we know it survive their bouts of militantly-enforced manufactured certainty..or will it be too late by the time the cascade of ‘oops’ admissions merits a global rethink.

          The aviation and shipping questions should give pause …because nothing in the world can be the same if the cult does what it must do with those industries… if it’s interested in having any credibility whatsoever.

          40

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Peter,
        We don’t need computing power; what’s needed is Process Analysis beginning with a list of active factors and this obviously hasn’t been done.
        These things are Not models.

        KK

        41

        • #
          Slithers

          There NEVER will be enough computing power to resolve even a three body problem let alone our atmosphere.
          They need super computers to render 100Gb of data from one instruments aboard NOAA-20 every 12 hours and cannot get that right most of the time.

          30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Massive computing power isn’t important.

            The Big issue in modelling is factorial analysis.

            If you miss out one that’s important no amount of computing power will save you.

            Any CO2 heating effect, if it exists, is so small in comparison with other known factors that are poorly quantified that you are essentially “modelling” an unknown pile of garbage.

            Error analysis of factors beside CO2 is an unknown issue of such magnitude that the idea of modelling CO2 effect in the atmosphere is a joke.

            Unfortunately it’s not a joke, it’s much more sinister than that.

            Just look at Scomos latest tribunal to get a glimpse of the direction we are being taken.

            The mainstream media term “massive computing power” is simply misdirection.

            btw can anyone guarantee me that there is an operating mechanism by which CO2 can take in heat over and above its scientifically acknowledged share governed by the gas laws.

            KK

            00

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        There’s no such thing as a model that links atmospheric CO2 with air temperature.

        They are politically sanctioned constructs.

        KK

        20

    • #
      James Poulos

      The continued failures of CO2 based climate models prove CO2 is not a factor.

      180

      • #
        TdeF

        Oops. I think I just said the same thing with a lot more words.

        100

      • #
        James Poulos

        I summarised it for you.

        90

        • #
          Lance

          Einstein agreed with you, or you with him. :)

          ‘The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple.’

          “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”

          paraphrased: “Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler”

          60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            How do you make a statue of Einstein?

            You get a large piece of stone, and cut away all the pieces that don’t look like Einstein.

            It is a principle that has served me well, over the years.

            p.s. If anybody wants a few statues of Einstein, I know where you can get a bulk deal.

            30

    • #

      Really, we’ve go to shut down this academic scam in a hurry.

      Otherwise the shunting of observation and the practical in favour of GameBoy science is going to have big consequences. It’s impossible for the present blip called Modern Warming within the longer blip called interglacial to go on for long. The warm blip will be over in the very short term, the interglacial will be over in the medium term. Unless the heavens shut down and the bulk of Earth ceases to be a seething mush, of course. None of this is new or mysterious or alternative. It’s stock standard natural history, never denied, simply ignored in favour of GameBoy science, plunder and mass manipulation.

      An interesting and encouraging fact: the second largest agricultural exporter in the world is now tiny Holland. Obviously it has to do with proximity of markets, ports etc as well as with great ingenuity. But I can’t think of anything more important than improving the means of getting food when neither climate nor space are optimal for that undertaking.

      Into thrift and conservation? Like wind/solar tech, recycling of all resources etc? Want to model something cool? Model a Dutch onion patch. https://dutchreview.com/news/innovation/second-largest-agriculture-exporter/

      100

    • #
      davefromweewaa

      No no Moso. It’s you that’s wrong.
      Garbage in, Gospel out!

      70

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Yes!

      Climate Models, if we can assume any honesty in the process, have one job; to link atmospheric temperature to variations in the quantity of CO2 contained therein to the exclusion of all other factors.

      They Don’t, and can’t, do this.

      It is a nonsense to say this can be done.

      There ARE NO MODELS which carry out the job specified.

      It is all a construction by manipulative people in positions of power.

      MalEx444 thanks you for your indulgence.

      KK

      50

    • #
      John PAK

      My issue with most models is that they tend to reflect the designers’ ideas of what is real. To enter equations about heat transfer you have to have a pretty good framework for how the physics of an atmosphere work but if your construct is wrong the final results will quite possibly reenforce your errors and simply provide a wrong answer (as demonstrated by 95% of GCMs).
      Real life observation must be of primary importance. Models should come in second place.

      Simple BoM weather forecasts use all past runs to suggest the future 7 days but that has recently been shown to be hopelessly wrong. Their “no substantial rains ’till April” suddenly became widespread heavy falls in coastal NSW with over 775mm in the BoM gauge at Berambing this year.

      If we cannot do the one month forecast what hope have we of turning our computers to the one year or decade forecast of climate. Our basic premises are a long way out.

      20

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        JP,
        A common model failing is to not complete the cycle. If you wish to imagine that the radiative physics as expressed are correct, then that is the first part. The second part asks”What is the reaction of the global system to this atmospheric perturbation?” This is the half that gets less attention. It includes very important possibilities like the area of the globe covered by clouds that might modify heat flows and temperatures. Geoff S

        30

  • #
    Dennis

    “The big story is this ridiculous Carbon Hoax nonsense where we are being asked to give up our property rights and freedoms for an absolute lie, which I’ve now proven in my latest book, “The Carbon Hoax: A Story- Ruling the World with a Big Lie” (published on Kindle today) using the perpetrators’ own words and NASA’s recent report that temperatures globally are in a free fall.”

    Howell Wolz

    60

  • #
    Aussie Pete

    Some climate scientists are like that other mob who think they have developed artificial intelligence. In both cases there is still a long way to go and it behooves them to get real.

    20

    • #
      Slithers

      Unfortunately Artificial intelligence has been around for a long time. Many Universities teach it as their major course.
      /Sarc off

      Seriously though your electric Kettle ‘Knows’ when to disconnect the supply!

      10

  • #
    el gordo

    The cause of jetstream waviness is a quiet sun.

    Imagine the stratosphere being cool for a couple of decades, ozone is depleted at the poles and they say its caused by CFC, now that the stratosphere has warmed the ozone hole mended over night. When the ABC eventually mentions this reality the game should be just about over for the catastrophists.

    So what caused the stratosphere to warm?

    At solar minimum the thermosphere and mesosphere cool and shrink, leaving the stratosphere stuck between a rock and a hard place, the warm troposphere is not shrinking. This is what causes the meandering jet stream, I think.

    30

  • #

    Popper said that science progresses by a recurring process of conjecture and refutation (by observation). Climate science is all conjecture (via models) with no refutation (because the models are too complex). Hence there is no progress, just endless conjecture.

    80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And was it Thomas Kuhn who said “when the paradigm is proven false, most scientists continue to use it as if it were still true”?

      60

      • #

        Indeed. The Earth centered solar system paradigm was used by most astronomers until the late 1700s. Hence Plank’s great line that science progresses one death at a time,when the old believers die off.

        Unfortunately the false AGW paradigm still has a strangle hold (literally) on climate science, so we are not to that point yet.

        70

  • #

    Note that they are not denying changes in jet stream waviness in itself. They are just pointing out that such changes as do occur do not correlate with changes in Arctic temperatures. Hence the demolition of the ideas of Jennifer Francis et al.

    But I pointed that out some time ago as Jo may recall.

    It still remains the case that changes in jet stream waviness over decadal time periods do correlate pretty well with solar variability so the following hypothesis remains in play:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

    Note, though that it is not just the waviness we need to consider but also the average latitude of the jets around the globe. I have previously suggested that the jets are waviest during a period of transition between net warming and net cooling.

    At the peak of a warming period the jets would be more zonal and shifted poleward to circle around a contracted polar vortex.

    At the bottom of a cooling period the jats would be more zonal and shifted rquatorward to circle around an expanded polar vortex.

    Maximum waviness would occur whilst the jets shift latitudinally between the two extremes.

    We see that currently, the jets are more zonal across the Atlantic with a large polar vortex which has pushed the jets equatorward so that they are now running across the UK with consequent flooding rather than running along a track to the north of Scotland.

    Meanwhile, cold plunges across North America are causing enhanced temperature differences across the jet stream track which both accelerates and renders more zonal the track across the Atlantic and into Europe.

    It was much like this during the cooling period of the mid 20th Century which was when I first started watching such things.

    On the basis of ships’ logs during the Little Ice Age it can get worse with the depression tracks along the jet stream running even more equatorward into the Bay of Biscay which then allows more blocking highs to develop over continental regions north of the jet stream tracks which is why Europe became cold at the time. A good example was the winter of 1962/3.

    100

    • #
      John PAK

      Parallel to the atmospheric wavy flows I’ve observed similar in river systems. Steep ground produces fast flows that try to find the shortest and quickest route down a mountain which tends to be straight where-as an “old” river crossing a flood-plain will wander side to side and look very like those loopy jet-stream maps. I’ve always interpreted the wavy jets as a sign of decreased energy differential between the warming tropics and cooling poles. If the polar regions are the back wheels of a car dissipating energy the tropics are the engine and the mid-latitudes are the drive train which are currently displaying a lot of slop but I might have it completely wrong. Just thoughts.

      20

  • #

    The failure of the CO2/warming theory is now so severe that only continuous emissions of propaganda from the Media are able to keep it on life support. Unfortunately, this propaganda is more effective than it has a right to be.

    150

  • #
    Zigmaster

    I think when one kept seeing unusual freezing events a long way from the Arctic being blamed on global warming it should’ve set off alarm bells in any sane human beings. These sort of events made the alarmists concerned how to maintain the narrative against such obvious non sensical conclusions. This failure to show continuous warming had to be resolved and the term climate change was born. The fact that global warming caused global cooling was no longer an inconvenient anomaly but just part of the new narrative.
    Whilst many people could dispute whether or not the world was warming ( dangerously) or not ,even the most fanatical sceptic couldn’t deny that the climate changes. Then it just became an argument of how much was due to man ( and CO 2) and how much was natural. The problem with the climate experiment is that there is no climate placebo to act as a comparator. In other words if CO2 would’ve been absolutely steady for the last 150 years what would’ve the worlds climate been like. We will never know so the truth has become whoever makes the loudest noise and convinces ( indoctrinated) the most people. That’s why posts like this one are great in satisfying the sceptics about their position but useless in causing doubt from the warmists. Their sources of info the ABC , Guardian , the government aren’t going to voluntarily release news items that contradict the narrative. They will continue blissfully scaring the wits out of their readers and watchers about an inevitable and upcoming apocalypse caused by evil coal and societal change is the answer. Every revolution needs an excuse. Climate change is theirs.

    90

  • #
    Ross

    To add to Stephen Wilde’s comment above look up Piers Corbyn’s videos –Climate Change Masterclass with Piers Corbyn which he did late last year. He spent quite a bit of time on one of the 4 videos on this issue, change of the jet stream pattern.

    I think this the video that covers it: https://thebasesproject.org/climate-change-masterclass-with-piers-corbyn-one/

    Piers is not the best speaker but you will get what he is talking about.

    I noted when I looked up this video that the Base Project now has a similar series of videos by Valentina Zharkova. I will have to look at those later.

    50

  • #
    EasilySolved

    The only way for us to clearly resolve these issues is to increase our emissions and see what happens.

    20

  • #
    el gordo

    They assumed that the meandering jet stream in the NH was caused by Arctic Amplification, but then the jet stream in the SH began behaving badly. Damn, it must be solar forcing.

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Using IPCC modelling to predict weather is like using virtual tools to repair an engine.

    80

  • #

    Wasn’t there a certain Mike Lockwood telling us s. th. about reduced UV radiation during solar minimum and a shrinking athmosphere due to cooling of the thermosphere ?
    It’s now measured as TCI, Thermosphere Climate index, daily published at spaceweather.com

    40

  • #
    toorightmate

    Totally off topic (that’s me!!!).
    A tropical low with pressure of 1001 and winds at 48kph is about to be deemed a cyclone by that austere bunch of learned folk – the BoM.

    60

  • #
    Lance

    Continental US is a record breaking cold cycle. None of the models predicted this.
    Buckle Up, Pilgrims, this sleigh ride is not yet ended.

    “The cold times are returning –and fast– in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.

    Don’t fall for bogus political agendas — our future is one of ever-descending COLD.”

    Sub Freezing in Florida by 27 Feb.

    “According to NOAA’s own warm-mongering, UHI-ignoring temperature datasets, North America has been cooling at a rate of 2.03C p/decade since 2015 (29x faster than the rate of warming prior to 2015):”

    https://electroverse.net/wave-after-wave-of-brutal-arctic-cold-set-to-engulf-north-america-over-the-next-10-days/

    Orange Juice is going to be much more expensive this year.

    60

    • #
      Ross

      I hope that recorded cooling from 2015 is enough for David and Jo to win their long running bet. ( I forget the full detail but it was something to do with cooling starting in 2017 (?) and continuing for several years)

      40

      • #
        el gordo

        I support David’s hypothesis, blocking highs began to form in the Austral winter of 2017 because of a meandering jet stream caused by a quiet sun.

        We are entering a cooler phase, probably no worse than the early 1960s. On the ground people will notice unseasonable weather and become alarmed, and the klimatariat has no answer.

        https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/cool-days-in-hobart/531165

        30

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Record lows being set in the US of A and now Greenland , temps here in the northeast of Victoriastan have been cooler and it’s going to be interesting what the snow season is like this year .
          Unlike the CSIRO I’m predicting another bumper snow season although wouldn’t mind if this winter is warmer .
          With BOM continually fiddling the numbers even if we had snow from here to Darwin it would still be the hottest ever year .

          10

  • #
    Ross

    There is a good meme going around saying :

    “The most powerful Governments on Earth can’t keep a virus from spreading but they say they can change earth’s temperature if you pay more taxes”

    60

  • #
    pat

    still the only coverage in the MSM:

    20 Feb: Daily Mail: Extreme blasts of cold weather hitting Europe and the USA are NOT caused by a warming Arctic changing the way the jet stream moves
    •Previously it was thought a warming arctic was changing the jet stream waves
    •The new research found fluctuations in the jet stream may be warming the arctic
    •They found that any link between the two was over years not a longer period
    By Ryan Morrison
    Research by the University of Exeter disputes earlier studies suggesting a warming Arctic was creating a ‘wavier’ jet stream and linked to climate change.
    They found it’s more likely the other way around with random fluctuations in the jet stream warming up the Arctic over decades…
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8021267/Cold-weather-hitting-Europe-USA-NOT-caused-warming-Arctic.html

    plus a brief mention in Cosmos:

    21 Feb: Cosmos: Arctic warming not making the jet stream ‘wavier’, scientists say
    In fact, it’s the other way around
    https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/arctic-warming-not-making-the-jet-stream-wavier-scientists-say

    neither Govts nor their useful “climate protester” idiots have an interest in this story.

    see comments #54 and #55 in Jo’s previous “Jan 2020″ thread for Angus Taylor cheering on an Australian future with 84 percent RE by 2050, according to Bloomberg; no costings… plus today’s “Climate Crisis” protests across the Nation etc.

    30

    • #
      Annie

      The DM is still wittering on about the supposedly record high temperature in the Antarctic!
      Just as we have seen demonstrated so frequently about how l1es travel all round the world before truth gets its boots on. Of course, it’s the original ‘misinformation’ continually put out by the media that is what is remembered, even if there is ever a correction published (in a small paragraph at the bottom of an inner page!).

      20

  • #
    jpm

    It seems to me that the statement : “most big models loosely predicted that global warming etc” is a load of male bovine droppings. Computers calculate and don’t make predictions. People use them to make calculations used to prove or disprove their theories. Saying that computers make the predictions shifts the responsibility to the computers, does it not?
    Do these people send their computers to university to learn to make these predictions? I doubt it.
    John

    20

  • #
    Speedy

    Ah, Climate Science! Often wrong, but always certain.
    Cheers,
    Mike

    40

  • #
    pat

    29 Feb: The Hill: Trump budget calls for slashing funds to climate science centers
    By Rebecca Beitsch
    President Trump’s budget proposes closing a network of climate science centers, prompting concerns the administration will hamstring climate change research while booting employees from the federal workforce.
    Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget would slash funding for the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers, eliminating all $38 million for research to help wildlife and humans “adapt to a changing climate.”
    Rather than fund all eight regional centers along with the national one, the budget instead calls for just one center, at a cost of $20 million…

    The administration previously moved two research wings of the Agriculture Department to Kansas City. One of those agencies, the Economic Research Service, lost nearly 80 percent of its nearly 200-plus person staff and had trouble producing required reports…
    The administration is also in the midst of relocating Bureau of Land Management (BLM) staff, shifting more than 150 Washington-based employees to locations across the West, leaving just 61 employees in the nation’s capital. The move is expected to break apart the team that reviews the environmental impacts of major projects…

    The eight regional centers that are on the chopping block are part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) but are housed at universities where they produce research about the local impacts of climate change…

    “Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs) provide actionable science and research that directly address many of the climate-related challenges unique to different regions of the country,” the House Appropriations Committee wrote in a report. “The Committee believes the administration’s attempt to reduce and curtail the activities of these centers is shortsighted and counterproductive at a time when our natural and cultural resources, our communities, and our health are being assaulted by climate change.”…
    The National Center for Climate Adaptation is currently located in Reston, Va., outside of Washington, D.C., while the regional centers are located at universities in Fairbanks, Alaska; Manoa, Hawaii; Seattle; Tucson, Ariz.; Boulder, Colo.; Amherst, Mass.; Norman, Okla.; and Raleigh, N.C…

    Robin O’Malley, who helped establish the system of climate adaptation science centers at the beginning of the Obama administration before retiring from USGS late last year, said the attempts to limit the reach of the regional, university-based centers comes amid an Interior-wide push for greater scrutiny of the grants given to higher education…

    Regardless of how the USGS consolidation plays out, critics say the massive cut in funding for climate science speaks volumes.
    “The presidential budget is all about sending signals,” Clement said. “The signal they’re trying to send is: We do not value climate science.”
    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/483689-trump-budget-calls-for-slashing-funds-to-climate-science-centers

    20

  • #
    pat

    open access:

    20 Feb: NYT: Warmest January Ever Puts 2020 on Track to Be One of Top 10 Hottest Years
    By Henry Fountain
    It may only be February, but 2020 is already “virtually certain” to be among the 10 warmest years on record, and has nearly a 50 percent chance of being the warmest ever, scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.

    The predictions follow a January that was the warmest ever in 141 years of record keeping, Karin Gleason, a climatologist with the National Centers for Environmental Information, said in a conference call. Global average temperatures last month were 2.05 degrees Fahrenheit (1.14 degrees Celsius) above average, slightly higher than in January 2016, the previous record-holder…
    “According to our probability statistics, it’s virtually certain that 2020 will rank among the top 10 years on record,” she said. Their analysis also showed a 49 percent chance of this year being the warmest ever, and a greater than 98 percent likelihood it will rank in the top five…

    Central India was one of the few regions with cooler than average temperatures…
    Alaska was cooler than average, but NOAA forecasts for the next few months call for a return to the above-average warmth that has been the norm in Alaska in recent years and that has led to a large decline in sea ice, particularly off the state’s west coast…

    NOAA is forecasting warmer-than-average temperatures into May across most of the country, from the West through the Southwest, Southeast, Midwest and into the Northeast. There is also a likelihood of a wet spring across most of the eastern half of the country.
    California and the Southwest are expected to be dry, likely leading to the return of drought to California and intensification of drought in the Four Corners of the Southwest, NOAA said.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/climate/global-temperatures-climate-change.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    21 Feb: Financial Times: Economists should learn lessons from meteorologists
    Weather forecasters make hypotheses and test them daily…
    The UK’s national weather service, the Met Office, is to get a £1.2bn computer to help with its forecasting activities. That is a lot of silicon…

    30

  • #
    WXcycles

    They explain (quite sensibly) that temperature changes in the Arctic have no significant effect on the jet streams, though the opposite might be true.

    Oh boy, the strength and movement of the Jetstream is entirely related to the Highs and Lows either side of it’s path.

    If the location of the High and the Low are being controlled by in-falling stratosphere that’s what will govern the High, the Low and Jetstream’s location, intensity and movements.

    The Jet moves RELATIVE to the standing dynamic gradients, not against absolute polar temp or equatorial temps.

    (And temp at what altitude, btw? The polar surface? Oh please! ‘Scientists’ asserting these alleged ‘theoretical’ claims have no clue about anything. Time wasters and dead wood.)

    20

  • #
    WXcycles

    The UK is about to be crossed by its third major surface low and decaying deep Jetstream combo this month.

    This was the situation in the observations at midnight (AEST):
    https://i.ibb.co/VV9bB4X/1-Screenshot-2020-02-22-Windy-as-forecasted-16.png

    The situation now-ish:
    https://i.ibb.co/4FrWPks/1a-Screenshot-2020-02-22-Windy-as-forecasted-17.png

    Waves – This jet is not as fast or deep but is still strongly amplifying the surface weather:
    https://i.ibb.co/dgB0HxS/2-Screenshot-2020-02-22-Windy-as-forecasted-3.png

    Wind
    https://i.ibb.co/bPWpctb/3-Screenshot-2020-02-22-Windy-as-forecasted.png

    Rain
    https://i.ibb.co/F8tSm8M/4-Screenshot-2020-02-22-Windy-as-forecasted-1.png

    Snow
    https://i.ibb.co/qpQsbm2/5-Screenshot-2020-02-22-Windy-as-forecasted-2.png

    Much like it was 2.5 weeks ago, the same pattern continues, but does seem to be easing now.

    The UK Met is still continuing with the cAGW-era farce of focusing on the named surface low but the real culprit is the expanded deeper jetstream flow which is strengthening the low and following after it, which is being fed by in-falling stratospheric air currently occurring right across North America and North Atlantic, and falling down into the lower troposphere.

    39,000 feet 0.0% Relative Humidity in hot pink
    https://i.ibb.co/JyqPDMf/39-k-ft-0-0-percent-relative-humidity-in-PINK-Screenshot-2020-02-22-Windy-as-forecasted.png

    Until this sinking pink ultra-dry stratospheric air volume reduces or else in-falls in another location, the recent pattern of major jets crossing the North Atlantic over the UK, and on to the Moscow area, will continue. And will continue to bring warmth to Europe and Western Russia.

    10

  • #
    Paul Miskelly

    Hi Jo,
    Back on Christmas Day 2019 I posted an earlier version of the following, very relevant to this present post:

    Recently I came across a book in my local library by father and son William & Nicholas Klingaman entitled: “The Year Without Summer: 1816 and the Volcano that Darkened the World and Changed History” (authors’ caps.)
    This is an account of the weather events in the Northern Hemisphere during the remainder of 1815 and calendar year 1816 during the period following the huge eruption of the Mt. Tambora volcano in the Indonesian Archipelago on 5 April 1815.
    The authors have meticulously researched the various weather reports, other official reports and documents, newspaper articles, letters, and other correspondence from the period and additionally have sought interpretation of that correspondence by present-day meteorologists to analyse the likely atmospheric mechanisms that caused what were by any estimation extraordinary and prolonged changes to weather patterns and systems.
    They show that the Mt. Tambora eruption was the largest, and deadliest, eruption in recorded history, being ten times more powerful than Krakatoa (1883), and one hundred times more powerful than the eruptions of Mt Pinatubo, Mt. St. Helens or Vesuvius.
    They then make the point that the resulting thin layer of sulphuric acid, formed as minute droplets suspended around the world high in the stratosphere, remained there for many months, resulting in a diminution in the flux of solar energy reaching both the atmosphere (troposphere) and the earth’s surface below. Furthermore, they claim, it was this reduction in solar energy input that was the principal cause of the profound impacts on both weather and climate.

    What I think is interesting for us is that recent weather events in the Northern Hemisphere bear an uncanny resemblance to those reported from 1815-6. The discussion of the effects of meandering jets streams in 1815-6 is all there in the book.
    We know that the one certain event that is common to both periods is that there is a diminution in solar energy reaching the earth. The important difference for now vs 1815-6 is that, with the present quiet Sun, the reduction in our present times can be expected to last for a much, much longer period. Let policymakers be warned.

    While the authors make it clear that the aerosol layer blanketed the entire planet from Pole to Pole, the book documents events for that period that occurred in the Northern Hemisphere only. There is virtually no mention at all of the weather events that occurred at any location south of the Equator.

    A further question for discussion then, is: would any of the expert contributors here be able to determine from such as Trove, etc., what weather was happening here in Australia during that 1815-16 period?

    It seems to me that, if the indicators resulting from such an analysis are that Australia could be in for a very long period of both drought and low average temperatures, then our policymakers ought to be alerted to those facts so that they can commence adaptive planning with regard to what would clearly be the urgent needs for water conservation, desalination, and also, (horror of horrors for some), the urgent need to build more coal, gas, and even nuclear, power stations to supply the necessary, vastly increased, energy requirement.

    BTW, the book is a fascinating read.

    Paul Miskelly

    20

  • #
  • #
  • #
    • #
      mwhite

      The sun is ignored because changes in the TSI are so small. The solar wind is ignored, CMEs are ignored, etc. All ignored.

      00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    For the “difficult” among us just imagine that the “marbles” were drops of water, each the size of a marble.

    To the plastic container, add 10,000 drops of marble water, then add the “boiled” drops, 4 only. Shake gently so that the drops iniquity and mix well.

    Are you seriously going to tell me that a thermometer placed in the water is going to register any change. Try litre of water and 0.4 ml of boiled water mixed. Seriously.

    The nutters are trying to tell us that 400 molecules in one million is significant?
    To make things worser for the UNIPCCC, only 16 of those 400 are of human origin. In marble terms, that’s 0.16 human marbles.

    If you believe that 0.16 human marbles in 10,000 is dangerous the someone has lost their marbles.

    KK

    00

  • #
    MichaelinBrisbane

    This is the opening paragraph of David Archibald’s 2010 book “The Past and Future of Climate Change”. It’s widely accepted by scientists but rarely referred to as it doesn’t suit the agenda of maintaining the idea that increasing CO2 levels will cause catastrophic global warming and climate change:

    “The first thing to be aware of is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongly logarithmic. Of the 3°C that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, the first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the following 300 ppm. By the time we get to the current level of 388 ppm, each 100 ppm increment will produce only about 0.1° of warming. With the atmospheric carbon dioxide content currently rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1° of warming every 50 years.”

    I like to quote it whenever I get a chance.
    [Note: 388 ppm in 2010]

    50

  • #
  • #
    Kalm Keith

    And that’s IF the so called greenhouse mechanism is actually the main energy gathering mechanism at ground level. Whatever, it’s all over for IR absorption in the first 30 metres above ground level and even there it’s likely that conduction with the earth or other atmospheric gases is the basic mechanism leaving the so called greenhouse mechanism for the Greenhouse where it belongs.

    KK

    00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    So, what’s all the fuss about?

    00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    A blast from the past: Will J comments.
    Have a look at his two separate comments.
    The last paragraph of the second one particularly caught my eye.

    He also suggests that imagining “photons moving outward spherically out is not useful. Wave concept is better in this situation where radiation detects a zone of low potential and moves thata way.

    He has a lot of practical experience. He tends to ignore momentum etc probably because he was more into understanding radiation in the context of radio radar transmissions.

    Still very useful despite the sometimes unusual expression.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-15-modeling-outgoing-radiation-olr/#comment-1759490

    KK

    00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Lance, good diagrams from the past which illustrate the nominal logarithmic effect.

    It is important to acknowledge that this is not a runaway, out of control thing, but actually a shutdown effect.

    But even more importantly I would like some stronger academic confirmation that the statement about CO2 giving the world an extra 30C degrees of heating.

    This is the heart of the issue, that a convincing confirmation of this greenhouse effect does not exist.

    Everything that I understand and observe in this tells me that the atmospheric CO2 heating effect described in not real.

    Many reasons exist to prove that the primary mechanism at work heating the air at ground level is conduction, or impact of atmospheric gases with the group which has received energy from incoming Solar UV.

    For me the above outline is simply saying that IF the effect exists Then we can stop worrying because it is a progressively diminishing effect.

    The whole thing from an engineering and scientific understanding is that it is a human origin Faeries Story.

    The whole thing is a disgusting nonsense.

    KK

    00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Group ,,,, ground.

    00