global warming, chaotic jet stream waves and extreme weather

While the fantasists keep denying, the evidence keeps piling up.

Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves? A new study investigates how changes to atmospheric winds are making weather more extreme by John Abraham http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/17/global-warming-causing-extreme-weather-jet-stream-waves Very recently, a paper Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favor particular regional weather extremes was published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The authors, James Screen and Ian Simmonds, investigated the role that changes to upper level winds in the atmosphere have on the occurrence of extreme weather. What they found was very interesting. … The latest study is related to this topic but still unique. The authors don’t ask the question “are humans changing the jet stream patterns?". Instead, they ask, “how do undulations in the jet stream affect weather?". To be fully accurate, the study isn’t just about jet streams, it really deals with mid-latitude planetary waves but for this article, I will use the term “jet stream" as a surrogate for simplicity. The authors went back into our weather records (1979–2012) and found the 40 months with the most extreme weather (most extreme precipitation and most extreme temperatures). They then evaluated how “wavy" the jet stream was during those extreme months. They found that,
months of extreme weather over mid-latitudes are commonly accompanied by significantly amplified quasi-stationary mid-tropospheric planetary waves. Conversely, months of near average weather over mid-latitudes are often accompanied by significantly attenuated waves.
In common parlance, this means that when the jet stream undulates and travels very slowly, we see more extreme weather. Conversely, when the jet stream travels in a straighter path, the weather is less extreme. This association itself is not new but it brings the connection of large-scale climatic variations and our local weather to the fore of attention. Perhaps more important, however, are the follow-on observations from the authors. In particular, they report,
Depending on geographical region, certain types of extreme weather (for example hot, cold, wet, dry) are more strongly related to wave amplitude changes than others. The findings suggest that amplification of quasi-stationary waves preferentially increases the probabilities of heat waves in western North America and Central Asia, cold outbreaks in eastern North America, droughts in central North America, Europe, and central Asia, and wet spells in western Asia.
Dr James Screen, a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter and lead author of the study told me,
The impacts of large and slow moving atmospheric waves are different in different places. In some places amplified waves increase the chance of unusually hot conditions, and in others the risk of cold, wet or dry conditions.

For discussion sake my two cents worth. . .

Friday, October 25, 2013 Colorado Floods - statistical certainty vs geophysical realities http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/colo-floods-statistics-vs-physics.html
The impacts of large and slow moving atmospheric waves are different in different places. In some places amplified waves increase the chance of unusually hot conditions, and in others the risk of cold, wet or dry conditions.
When flying above an ocean of clouds, the tops of the clouds sometimes form rolls of waves, just like the waves in the ocean. I always thought that it was the gravity effect on the clouds, just like on the oceans. These waves are not the same as the slow moving atmospheric waves you are talking about are they?
The impacts of large and slow moving atmospheric waves are different in different places. In some places amplified waves increase the chance of unusually hot conditions, and in others the risk of cold, wet or dry conditions.
When flying above an ocean of clouds, the tops of the clouds sometimes form rolls of waves, just like the waves in the ocean. I always thought that it was the gravity effect on the clouds, just like on the oceans. These waves are not the same as the slow moving atmospheric waves you are talking about are they? There are all sorts of weird cloud phenomena out there. Between wind, heat, gravity, converging weather fronts and lighting… Have some fun and check out some of the stuff on YouTube, here's one and they have many many more, some interesting other's weird and manipulated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKh-YjgPIMg

I was talking more about this stuff
Rapidly Warming Arctic Leading to Deadly Extreme Weather Events
http://mashable.com/2014/08/11/warming-arctic-causing-deadly-extreme-weather-events/
“Quasi-resonant circulation regimes and hemispheric synchronization of extreme weather in boreal summer”
Dim Coumou, Vladimir Petoukhov, Stefan Rahmstorf, Stefan Petri, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/08/06/1412797111.abstract

Cool pictures.
I have read stories about how the north poles ice caps was once an ocean in warmer times. The thinking at the time was ocean currents was the cause and effect.
There seems to be a lot of hypothesis right now. But with so many good people working to find the answers, let’s hope that in five years the climate teams will have working computer models that will connect all the aspects of data and people will start to view the earth as a living rock.

Cool pictures. I have read stories about how the north poles ice caps was once an ocean in warmer times. The thinking at the time was ocean currents was the cause and effect. There seems to be a lot of hypothesis right now. But with so many good people working to find the answers, let’s hope that in five years the climate teams will have working computer models that will connect all the aspects of data and people will start to view the earth as a living rock.
You're being silly and disingenuous - Of course the north pole was ocean in warmer times, and scientists already know a lot more than you are willing to admit. You can get a quick run down on previous major climate changes: http://nature.nps.gov/geology/nationalfossilday/climate_change_earth_history.cfm
The IPCC Explains... Why Climate Change Today is Unusual IPCC FAQ 6.2 Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth’s History? http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/ipcc-faq-why-climate-change-today-is-unusual.html

Oh and to be sure,
although ocean currents plays a big role in Arctic melting / freezing, it is merely the medium of exchange.
Moving heat from one place to another.
The drivers for warming have to do with a combination of factors
how much sun energy the planet is receiving
how much of that energy is retained by the Earth’s insulating atmosphere
many other factors are part of the system, but these are the basic drivers
again the ocean does not produce heat (tiny amounts of volcanic heat don’t count)

I am on top of the fence right now, wanting to jump to the correct side, but there is just not enough data to convince me one way or the other. At first it was “Global Warming" and now it is “Climate Change". Sort of like “Creation" is now “Intelligent Design". You just get the feeling that you have just been played.
Check out http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/
Now I agree with Climate Change. The earth has always and will always be in a Climate Change. So the change from Global Warming to Climate Change is like the Global Warmers needed to change theories. But before we create thousands of billionaires and we begin massive funding by new taxes paid to a world government, let’s do the right thing for our future generations. Let’s get the climate computer models up and working and base our facts on better data.

Mike if you were the least bit serious about learning about what’s going on with our climate
and what that means for our planet and society FORBES is one of the last places to go.
OH gosh just went to that article you linked - it’s about the NIPCC! Jezzuz Krist that’s as big a fraud as you can get!
You don’t even have to know anything about climate science, just look at the group of people that put it together.
NIPCC is not science, that was politics.
FYI
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Heartland Institute’s NIPCC Report, peer reviewed?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/09/heartland-institutes-nipcc-report-peer.html


Thursday, June 13, 2013
Donors Trust, Barre Seid, Heartland Institution, NIPCC, follow the money
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/donors-trust-barre-seid-heartland.html


Thursday, June 13, 2013
Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by CAS in special ceremony… WUWT?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/heartlands-nipcc-report-to-be-accepted.html


Friday, June 14, 2013 Chinese Academy of Sciences comments on Heartland / Watts claims http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/chinese-academy-of-sciences-comments-on.html This morning I received a reply to my question.
Dear Mr. M, Thank you for your attention to the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The news that you saw on the website is actually a mistake caused by translation and compilation. There is indeed a book named "Climate Change Reconsidered" to be published in China by the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library, CAS, with a book release on June 15th. However, this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved. A few CAS experts participated in the translation of the book, aiming to demonstrate different voices in the global scientific field to the Chinese science community, however, that does not mean that CAS joined the research or agree with their view point; neither does it mean that CAS will decide "promote" the climate "skeptic" view or group. Attached are the cover of the book and the preface by the president of Heartland and translator's preface by the curator of the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library, expressing their own viewpoint, respectively. Thank you again for your attention to the CAS and here is our website (http://english.cas.cn/) and the website of the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library (http://english.llas.cas.cn/), please stay focused on our research progress, any of your suggestions will be warmly welcomed. If you have any questions on CAS, please do not hesitate to ask. Best, Chinese Academy of Sciences
bonus http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/04/forbes-follies-joe-bast-lies.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Besides, if you were to really investigate the IPCC you would find that they are guilty of watering down their report, not pumping it up.

This may be a bit off the subject but here goes.
Two books that I read several years ago by Brian Fagan “The Great Warming” and “The Little Ice Age.”
These books show how climate change has impacted societies in the past. How we are going to adapt to climate change something we need to start thinking about. These book are also why part of the reason that I feel reforestation is one of the more important things we need to do to reduce the impact of our current actions.

NIPCC is not science, that was politics.
This whole “Global Warming" or “Climate Change" or “Earth Cycle" involves a lot of money and where there is money there is politics. Some back ground. Years ago I believed the top climate scientist and bought into the fact that the mouth of Hudson Bay was going to freeze closed and send us into another Ice Age. It was one of the reasons among many others for my moving from the high altitudes of Wyoming at the time. Not the main reason, but it was in my mind that the Ice Age was coming and the winters were going to be tougher. Then years later we went into the battle of the oil drilling and fishing rights of the North Pole Ocean. This was because at the rate of warming the ice cap was going to be completely gone in a few decades according to our top climate scientists. Again I bought into the idea, after all the scientist were using facts and data, which was beyond question. Now a few decades latter we are into the “Global Warming". Simple enough, Sun heats the earth. Carbon in the air catches the heat that would normally end up in space. The Global Warming is caused by the blanket of carbon holding the heat next to the earth. So the more carbon, the thicker the blanket, the warmer the earth. Al Gore explained it quite well. Now 98% of the people and scientists agree the earth is warming. So, let’s not waist space on the 2% that don’t. What happened next was the earth was not following the Global Warming carbon charts the way the scientists said it should. If you put a thicker blanket on the earth then the earth should warm up. But the data was showing that the earth was warming up and then the thicker blanket was following the warm up. And not all the scientist agreed that carbon was the driving factor. The “What" and “How" of earth warming came into question by many scientists who had different ideas. Some scientists were telling us that the 100K year climate cycle of the earth was at play here. And while the carbon was helping hold the heat next to the earth, that it may not be the causing factor. And that the earth has repeated this 100K cycle many times. The scientist are telling us that there was a time when carbon in the air was 350 times thicker than it is today. And the earth was a snowball and the carbon Global Warming couldn’t warm the earth enough to melt the snow. Now ask yourself, if these fact are known, why are they never addressed in the Global Warming meetings? The answer is always the same, no matter what the question, “NOT ENOUGH DATA". Next, if Global Warming is solid, then it should be gaining steam as people understand it and are backing it up. That is not the case. In the reports and even the White House you see them backing away from Global Warming and moving to “Climate Change". Mirroring the same tactics as “Creation" to “Intelligent Design". Today, we are in “Climate Change". And climate change includes the 100K cycle. The data that will answer all the questions is still about five years away. The data might tell us that carbon while helping a little will not stop the earth’s warming cycle. And it was one of the biggest waste of money in mankind’s history. Where is the earth in the climate cycle? Are we at the peak yet? Heading to the peak? Are we one year away or ten thousand years away from the peak? Has the earth reached the peak and we are now in the cooling trend of the cycle? What’s different between this climate cycle and the last six climate cycles? Very, very, very basic questions that need to be answered before we jump off the cliff. Tens of thousands of educators and scientist in America. And it is known and a fact that changing to the phonic alphabet would help fix the ineffective educational system and wipeout illiteracy. Yet, the system that spends the most resources in the world on education refuses to use a phonic alphabet. Why? Scientists have agreed for years that the base 10 measurement system is by far better for us than the system we use. And if there was a tax or money to be made by moving to the base 10 system, we would be using the base 10 system today. Point being the IPCC may be the best thing we got going, but for a system that can’t change to a base 10 or phonic alphabet, at some point you got to start watching the power of money and understand that even the educators and scientist are politically affected.

Citizenschallenge, Only got a few minutes and will check out the sites you listed latter and get back to you, thanks for the work.

MikeYohe - you’re mistaking changes in terms for changes in science. The science is the same. The reason the term Climate Change was substituted for Global Warming is that warming can actually have cooling effects. In other words, it’s complicated, and the anti-science forces are simpletons. Very different from Creationism and Intelligent Design, which was a change in tactics by right wingers because they’re first tactic wasn’t working.

Mike you have a fabricated story that mixes up what various newspaper reporters say, with what the literature and actual scientists are say.
Such as your Hudson river misunderstanding. Or am I mistaken? Please find a paper supporting your claim.
You will always be able to play this game because most people prefer to remain ignorant on the topic so will believe anything the last person just told them.
PS. The Earth continues warming apace, while damaging impacts keep increasing, but then it would take a good faith effort to look at what’s happening around the globe to appreciate those realities.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Beyond that, this whole attitude that somehow our current corrupt economy is sacrosanct, worth preserving exactly like it is seems a joke.
Even without the global warming thing, I see a global economic/political situation that’s racing straight for a brick wall.

This topic has been covered over and over again ad infinitum and 97% of all climatologists and the agencies that employ them state the same, yet we still read that “all the data isn’t in yet and it will take years to compile it”. Information is continuously being cherry picked to support the pseudoscientific conclusions of a company bought and owned minority of scientists bent on denying the facts. There is even a bill here in Ohio that will instruct teachers to “teach” the other side of AGW (as if there’s another side) along with ID in the classrooms. This is unconscionable and is nothing more than a political ploy for the sponsors to be reelected. It is being fought BTW. To put it succinctly, AGW is a fact based on empirical evidence, not speculation, not one man’s hypothesis concerning a frozen river or anecdotal evidence concerning an exceptionally cold Winter in an area or why we need a phonetic alphabet (gotta see the evidence to prove this as American speech is made up of a melange of different languages and who decides just how they are accurately pronounced?) so IMO deniers should accept the facts or prepare to be ignored.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Cap’t Jack

MikeYohe - you're mistaking changes in terms for changes in science.
I saw the changes in “terms" change in the science of “Global Warming" when “Global Warming" science started to agreed that the Earth’s Cycle had a big effect on the warming of the earth today just like it has several times in the past. Isn’t it funny how creation changed its terms to “Intelligent Design?" And then claimed that nothing had changed, that it was still creation, just better defined term. They just had to add that little trick about how long God’s day is.
The science is the same. The reason the term Climate Change was substituted for Global Warming is that warming can actually have cooling effects. In other words, it's complicated, and the anti-science forces are simpletons.
Yes, Al Gore’s Global Warming was very simple. And the transfer of energy can create cooling. But you got to admit that Global Warming is a statement and Climate Change is a catch all bucket. They could have called it “Intelligent Design" of the universe instead of Climate Change and made it fit.
Very different from Creationism and Intelligent Design, which was a change in tactics by right wingers because they're first tactic wasn't.
Ditto. Same with Global Warming. It is understood that the earth’s cycle has the earth warming. And that CO2 is a blanket that helps hold that heat, thus keeping the earth a little warmer. But to what extent? Take away all the extra CO2 in the air and the earth would still be warming because of the Earth’s Cycle. Do you agree? The data and science was not there and is still not there for Global Warming. And Climate Change does not need science that stays on a true and defined course because it covers everything. We need to go back to Global Warming and find the answers to one question only. And the reports pretty much says that as soon as the new data bases are formed and collected, and the computer models are working we will have the answers. They say it is about five years away before the answer will be available. What if all this investment and changes they want to do today, doesn't make but a small dent in the warming of the earth? That the warming is going to happen anyway because of the Earth’s Cycle. And we spent all our resources on the Carbon when they should have been spent our resources on other weather damaging projects. We only have so much resources. For example, do you remember the top U.S. scientists in front of congress getting four billion dollars, that’s like a couple trillion dollars in today’s money, to build the plant in Washington that would burn nuclear waste into a non-nuclear product? Remember how solid that science was and how the process worked out once the plant was built?
(gotta see the evidence to prove this as American speech is made up of a melange of different languages and who decides just how they are accurately pronounced?)Cap't Jack
NOTICE: OFF POST SUBJECT Cap’t Jack, Who care if they are accurately pronounced? What, who and how much time is spent on your term “accurately"? With a phonic alphabet nobody has to decide. There is only one way to pronounce anything written phonically. Example. If I write “xuqshphtb" Can you and the next one hundred people pronoun it the same? In the phonic alphabet the answer would be “Yes". That is why they cannot have spelling bees in the phonic alphabet. Anything written can be pronounced the same way by all people. It is easy to teach and kids pickup on the alphabet quickly. The alphabet also has volume and speed. Two items our alphabet does not incorporate. https://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/ I thought this would also be interesting to you. Even Benjamin Franklin wanted a phonetic alphabet. And worked on building one. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/franklin.htm Some examples. Because of the different symbols of the phonic alphabet, I could not use the regular phonic alphabet as an example, because many of the symbols are not in the computer, so I used Sistemïzd Ënglish for this demonstration. The phonic alphabet does not use the frosting on the letters. Have a good reason for all that you do. Háv ä gud rëson for ol thát iü dü You may win or lose by the words you use Iü mä win or lüz bï thú wrdz iü iüz. Either dress right, or stay out of sight. Ëthr dres rït, or stä úwt ov sït. The louder the mouth, the smaller the brain. Thú lawdr thú múwth, thú smolr thú brän. Note, the phonic alphabet does not have vowels, double consonants or even the letter “q". In 1906, President Roosevelt ordered all executive department documents of the White House to use the Phonetic Alphabet. A number of scholars declared their approval, among them editors of many well-known dictionaries.
This topic has been covered over and over again ad infinitum and 97% of all climatologists and the agencies.... Cap't Jack
I know in the oil industry the best scientists work hand and hand with the industry. Same with mining. Good science should always be tested. Let’s say for the reason of debate. You’re 100% correct. And we give more power to the government. And we also empower a world government power that can tax you. Don’t you ask yourself if that may be more dangerous to freedom and the democratic system than the Global Warming? Remember it was the people who put Hitler, Stalin and Mao into office in movements that claimed to make things right and the power given to the office that kept them there. Take all the political junk away. Agree that the earth is warming. Agree that the carbon is a warming blanket. Agree that the datum for the heating is the sun. Agree with the Milankovitch cycle. Agree that we are in at least the sixth 100K cycle. Agree that reducing the earth’s warming blanket will help cool the earth. Now where we seem to disagree is that I think the Milankovitch cycle is causing the earth to heat and the blanket will hold some of that heat, just how much is still being calculated. You seem to be telling me that the whole problem is the carbon is heating the earth. Get rid of the carbon and the earth will stop warming. I see the scientist disagreeing on this fact. Some are saying the heating of the earth has more to do with the Milankovitch cycle than the amount of carbon. Myself, I would like to know the answer to that. And the government is saying they are working on that answer. ID in the classrooms, you got to be kidding!
Mike you have a fabricated story that mixes up what various newspaper reporters say, with what the literature and actual scientists are say. Such as your Hudson river misunderstanding. Or am I mistaken? Please find a paper supporting your claim.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. It was the Hudson Bay, not the river. The story said that the depth of the mouth of the bay was shallow and as fresh water entered the bay and less Atlantic current then the salt levels would drop. The mouth of the bay would be frozen to the point of stopping the Atlantic currents from entering the bay. This would cause the bay to freeze solid. Thus the start of the new ice age. I read this story back when the slide rulers were quite popular and scientists were never wrong. I did a quick look on the internet and could not find a paper, but because of the time span, that does not surprise me. I did see a couple of older books that had the Hudson Bay as the center of the Ice Age. But it did not get into what caused it to be the center.
You will always be able to play this game because most people prefer to remain ignorant on the topic so will believe anything the last person just told them.
I do not know what you are calling a game. The taxing of the United State population on theories yet to be proven? Or if you think the theories have been proven, then it is on a bunch of unanswered questions. Tax money being collected for electricity on your home and being sent to the UN. It is this blind faith and beyond questioning of science that has caused the starvation of millions of people a generation ago. How quickly we forget. What I call play a game is when a post is nitpicked and the meat of the subject is ignored. I will ask again. “Where is the earth in the climate cycle? Are we at the peak yet? Heading to the peak? Are we one year away or ten thousand years away from the peak? Has the earth reached the peak and we are now in the cooling trend of the cycle? What’s different between this climate cycle and the last six climate cycles? Very, very, very basic questions that need to be answered before we jump off the cliff." Ignoring very basic questions happened all the time in the Creation vs. Evolution debates.
PS. The Earth continues warming apace, while damaging impacts keep increasing, but then it would take a good faith effort to look at what's happening around the globe to appreciate those realities.
And don’t forget a look at our past history, this warming cycle has happened at least six times. I could not agree with you more. The warming of the earth is causing great damage and it is looking like the damage will be increasing.
Beyond that, this whole attitude that somehow our current corrupt economy is sacrosanct, worth preserving exactly like it is seems a joke. Even without the global warming thing, I see a global economic/political situation that's racing straight for a brick wall.
I could not agree more, you're right.