Jump to content

Increasing weather/climate extremes


Recommended Posts

Sure....but you know what I meant.

I know what you meant. You knew that it's still warming but not as much as some predicted, so you take that opportunity to make dishonest statements like "temperatures are going down" because you would otherwise have to concede that you're out of your league debating with Waldo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know what you meant. You knew that it's still warming but not as much as some predicted, so you take that opportunity to make dishonest statements like "temperatures are going down" because you would otherwise have to concede that you're out of your league debating with Waldo.

What....are you waldo's cheer leader? Is that all you have to offer?

As for the temperatures....Michael Hardner just said:

The MET has indicated that warming has stalled.

This means that its not warming or cooling...its remained the same since 1997. So no....its not still warming as you say.

But don't let your pom poms get in the way if you feel like contributing anything.

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Temperatures aren't "going down" - that's just wrong. The MET has indicated that warming has stalled.

Added: I tend to not be able to read must past fundamental errors in a post.

Michael... that's not what the MET Office indicated - that was the usual British tabloid nonsense that resulted from the MET Office issuing an updated decadal prediction... a futures prediction, one based on a relatively new methodology/system. Again, a prediction... not a reflection/assessment upon relatively recent years warming.

response from the MET Office:

8 January 2013 - There has been media coverage today about our experimental decadal global temperature prediction, which is routinely updated in December each year.

The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.

This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850.

Decadal predictions are specifically designed to predict fluctuations in the climate system through knowledge of the current climate state and multi-year variability of the oceans.

Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long term warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you think that the drought of 1930s which of course was the worst ever seen in the US is 'a throw away". Nothing severe there....hey?

I'm also glad to see that your answer to the dust bowl is "using computer models"....are those the same models that same to be plauging global warming activists today? How are those models faring with actual numbers?

no - the 'throw away' reference was with respect to my post itself... I'd indicated I had no time today to post today. My single short response was the 'throw away' in lieu of one more detailed/comprehensive.

short of using the time-machine you apparently have access to, others must rely upon models to simulate past events. The 30s Dust Bowl has been analyzed to the nth degree; surely you're suggesting you've never heard of the impact/contribution land usage had in that period and its lead-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course waldo has shown that the jet steam has shifted but no actual proof that is man caused.

see, this post for related evidence and theoretical support for that evidence. Again, "see anthropogenic sources... see global warming... see accelerated Arctic ice melting... see Arctic Amplification... see a changing/shifting jet-stream... see an expectation of "more extreme weather events, such as heavy snowfall, heat waves, and flooding in North America and Europe, varying in location, intensity and timescales".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, now that temperatures are going down....[waldo: temperatures are not going down... less global surface warming is not cooling --- your false claim also ignores ocean warming]

well now its the oceans causing the problem. [waldo: see here ... the warming component that has always gone into the oceans accounts for more than 90% of warming; increased warming within respective ocean layers has been observed in the same relative time frame of reduced global surface warming]

...of course now climate apparently means 30 year stints when it used to mean much longer terms....another convenience for them. [waldo: the long established official WMO time frame designation for climate is 30 years... used as it is, "long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies; i.e., natural variability"]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This means that its not warming or cooling...its remained the same since 1997. So no....its not still warming as you say.

that you would actually make this claim, particularly tied to the 1997 reference, shows your relative neophyte status within your own denier positioning.

this thread has a rather narrow focus/intent... it's not intended to devolve into another one of your derailed shyte-fests. You've made several claims in your last few posts. They have been refuted, several times over in previous MLW threads. My suggestion/request to you is to start a new thread, take the denier initiative that no other MLW denier has ever done... go where no MLW denier has gone before! Start a thread to showcase your claims... and substantiation for those claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that deniers like to claim that climate scientists are using data incorrectly and yet have no problem ignoring ocean temperatures, when they comprise most of the planet? Similarly, obesity is not a problem if you simply ignore the west.

Obesity isn't a problem. Illnesses that are sometimes associated with obestiy are. BUt that's another thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael... that's not what the MET Office indicated - that was the usual British tabloid nonsense that resulted from the MET Office issuing an updated decadal prediction... a futures prediction, one based on a relatively new methodology/system. Again, a prediction... not a reflection/assessment upon relatively recent years warming.

response from the MET Office:

Perhaps not stalled as in stopped but ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9708144/Doha-Global-warming-is-slowing-down-says-Met-Office.html

Dr Stott warned that global warming could speed up again at any time, and insisted that the general pattern of warming is not in doubt.

"Global warming is happening. Yet again we have a year (2012) in the hottest ten years on record.

"It has slowed down but it will speed up at some point."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - the 'throw away' reference was with respect to my post itself...

Your posts are throw aways. Got it.

short of using the time-machine you apparently have access to, others must rely upon models to simulate past events. The 30s Dust Bowl has been analyzed to the nth degree; surely you're suggesting you've never heard of the impact/contribution land usage had in that period and its lead-up.

Yup...I've heard of the land use practices but its like you previously said....this was NOT the root cause. The most extreme heat wave and most extreme drought seen in North America were the root causes. Would the dust bowl not have happened if land practices are better....maybe....but the reality is the they certainly would not have happened if the unprecidented heat wave/drought hadn't occurred.

Conversely, global warming theorists like to use Katrina as this big bad storm when really it was not an extreme and only ranked 6th all time for intensity. In fact, hurricane Charley one year prior was a full category above it and nothing is said about it. Why? Because it only killed 40 people. Of course the reason for the majority of deaths was the failure of the man-made levees and the simple fact of builing below sea level. However, unlike your attribution to man's involvement in the Dust bowl, you would never cite that Katrina would have been just another storm if the levees held.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

see, this post for related evidence and theoretical support for that evidence. Again, "see anthropogenic sources... see global warming... see accelerated Arctic ice melting... see Arctic Amplification... see a changing/shifting jet-stream... see an expectation of "more extreme weather events, such as heavy snowfall, heat waves, and flooding in North America and Europe, varying in location, intensity and timescales".

Again...all I am really looking at is the anthropogenic sources (ie. Is man causing this?) You have used this post a number of times as some sort of bullet proof case but I think its another one of your Wizard of Oz scare tactics. Let's start from the beginning.

The video posted by Jennifer Francis is as the titled states....a video to help understand the jet stream. It does NOT say anything about anthropogenic causes. I don't think you said it would but I just want to be clear that it does not.

You then reference a link to a Pottsdam study and you say:

providing theoretical support to the above mentioned 2012 study (by Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University), the study from the Pottsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany: Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change

This is where your deflection comes into play. The link you provided was NOT to the Pottsdam study but rather an acticle written on "The Conversation" website written by the authors discsussing the study. The website article is called "Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change" HOWEVER the study is actually called "Quasiresonant amplification of planetary wavesand recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes".

Let's look at both though. Your posted link had a quote as per below:

The northern hemisphere has experienced a spate of extreme weather in recent times. In 2012 there were destructive heat waves in the US and southern Europe, accompanied by floods in China. This followed a heat wave in the US in 2011 and one in Russia in 2010, coinciding with the unprecedented Pakistan flood and the list doesnt stop there.

Now we believe we have detected a common physical cause hidden behind all these individual events: each time one of these extremes struck, a strong wave train had developed in the atmosphere, circling the globe in mid-latitudes. These so-called planetary waves are well-known and a normal part of atmospheric flow. What is not normal is that the usually moving waves ground to a halt and were greatly amplified during the extreme events.

Climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning does not bring a uniform global warming. In the Arctic, the warming is amplified by the loss of snow and ice. This in turn reduces the temperature difference between the Arctic and, for example, Europe. Yet temperature differences are a main driver of air flow, thereby influencing the planetary waves. Additionally, continents generally warm and cool more readily than the oceans.

These two factors are crucial for the mechanism now detected. They result in a changing pattern of the mid-latitude air flow, so that for extended periods the slow waves get trapped. The irregular surface temperature patterns disturb the global air flow. This analysis is based on equations that our team of scientists developed, mathematically describing the wave motions in the extra-tropical atmosphere. The conclusions drawn from the equations were tested using standard daily weather data from the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP).

During recent periods in which several major weather extremes occurred, the trapping and strong amplification of particular waves like wave seven (which has seven troughs and crests spanning the globe) was observed. The data show an increase in the occurrence of these specific atmospheric patterns.

This analysis helps to explain the increasing number of unprecedented weather extremes. It complements previous research that already showed that climate change strongly increases the number of heat records around the world, but which could not explain why previous records were broken by such stunning margins. The findings should significantly advance the understanding of weather extremes and their relation to man-made climate change.

This quote was NOT from the study as you state but rather from the article. Additionally the quote itself is not as fluid as you present it, rather it is a determined selection of various paragaphs that you wanted to portay. Of course....one of the few paragraphs that you selectively missed out in your post was the final paragraph of this article:

Still, things are not at all simple. The suggested physical process increases the probability of weather extremes, but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability. Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definitive conclusions.

So there’s no smoking gun on the table yet – but quite telling fingerprints all over the place.

So essentially your authors have a suggested mechanism which they feel COULD tie anthropogenic warming to the extreme cases however even they say they haven't had enough time to tell. In my opinion only, I would like to see research using their model with the data available in the 1930s and see what it say but apparently the data is not there....so probably not possible.

Now let's look directly at the study. When you click on the link to the study it brings you to an abstract. On this side I clicked on the link which says full text which brought up a six page pdf. I'm trusting this is the article. I searched the 6 page pdf of the study for the word "anthropogenic" and came up with three spots where they actually reference it.

First one:

The 32-y period analyzed in our paper is too short to draw firm conclusions as to the frequency of the studied quasiresonant extreme events in the future. However, there exist some indications for more favorable conditions for the occurrence of the above peculiarity in the shape of u in recent decades. The ongoing inhomogeneous process of global warming, mostly the result of anthropogenic forcing, causes the so-called Arctic amplification induced by the reduction of snow and polar sea ice cover (36).

Again we see the 32 year caveat. They do go on to say that anthropogenic forcing caused by Arctic amplification. But of course they didn't say it...they just cited it as per footnote 36 (CAPE-Last Interglacial Project Members (2006) Last interglacial Arctic warmth confirms polar ampli fication of climate change. Quat Sci Rev 25:1383–1400) which is a different study altogether. The purpose of the Pottsdam study was to prove their "mechanism" works and they even said....its too soon to tell.

The second time we see "anthropogenic" is here:

At the same time, we cannot exclude the possibility that a substantial component of recently observed trends, e.g., of the surface air temperature on spatial scales smaller than continental, may result from intrinsic natural variability (39) and not just from the process of global warming mostly due to anthropogenic forcing that we discussed above. Moreover, the considered quasiresonance is not the only possible mechanism for amplification of zonal wave numbers m=6 −8.

So essentially ANY tie they did make to anthropogenic warming was taken right back in this statement. Furthermore they even said that their model was not the only model. So is anything they said conclusive?

Here is the third and final time:

However, there are important differences. Stott et al. (40)compare the magnitudes of natural and anthropogenic forcing, but do not provide a physical mechanism for the occurrence of extreme summers.

So even your authors are saying that other claims who compare the natural magnitudes of natural and anthropogenic forcing are not accurate as they do not provide the mechanism. Its all about the mechanism...the computer modeling. You can make whatever claims you want but you need to back it up which they fully admit is not possible....at this time.

So I guess you will have to take this over used cut and paste job out of your rotation? I really did like this example as it reminded me of how you are like the Wizard of Oz. You post these big booming messages that scare people off because they don't have the time or desire to actually look into them. However once you actually dig a little deeper you find that the arguments are no smarter than the scarecrow. In fact they are only a 'strawman' argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that you would actually make this claim, particularly tied to the 1997 reference, shows your relative neophyte status within your own denier positioning.

this thread has a rather narrow focus/intent... it's not intended to devolve into another one of your derailed shyte-fests. You've made several claims in your last few posts. They have been refuted, several times over in previous MLW threads. My suggestion/request to you is to start a new thread, take the denier initiative that no other MLW denier has ever done... go where no MLW denier has gone before! Start a thread to showcase your claims... and substantiation for those claims.

MLW is a forum that allows every member to discuss the posted thread. Its not an area for you to post your beliefs and lecture the crowd. If you want that then I advise you leave MLW and start your own blog.

The only thread I would have any interest in starting would be one discussing how both sides use data incorrectly to get their message out. Of course I don't need to start a thread to do that....I can just show you here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you an environmental scientist? I'm just curious because I haven't noticed you make any sort of academic exceptions to their methodologies.

Actually yes I am. I have a BSc Environmental Science. What is your background cyber?

PS...thanks for being a fan and reading my posts. Of course I did notice you conveniently cropped my quote so that you could gril me. Here's the full one:

That is not true at all. I gladly agree with them when they use the data properly and not pick and choose statements to serve their purpose. I absolutely deplore any one organization that misleads people by using fear mongering statement that simply aren't true. I feel the exact same way about organizations on the 'other side'.

Use the facts....and that is it. Don't make things sound better or worse than they are just because you want to prove your agenda.

Seriously...I will gladly entertain studies that show any increases in global events but I will criticize any area that uses serious data. If they don't then I will applaud it.

I am not out to prove there that GW or AGW exists. I just hate seeing either side use the data incorrectly. Both sides do it but I find certain MLW members flaunt the global warming side more than they should.

At one of the environmental conferences that I attended a few years back, I had an opportunity to have lunch with a statistician from the NOAA. We started chatting about global warming and man made causes and he had an interesting take on it. He said he was simply a statistician and that he didn't care either way however he would review a large number of papers from global warming theorists and he said that he rejected 99% of them because they used that statistics incorrectly. Again...it comes down to agendas and what people are willing to do to achieve theirs.

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your posts are throw aways. Got it.

you need to ask yourself what personal failing you have that would make you, again, respond in this manner... I replied to your initial comment, describing how/why the phrase was used. You choose to (again) purposely derive your own personal misinterpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup...I've heard of the land use practices but its like you previously said....this was NOT the root cause. The most extreme heat wave and most extreme drought seen in North America were the root causes. Would the dust bowl not have happened if land practices are better....maybe....but the reality is the they certainly would not have happened if the unprecidented heat wave/drought hadn't occurred.

clearly, your ever prevalent reading comprehension difficulty surfaces again… the quote was quite specific, speaking to the ‘Dust Bowl drought and extreme heat’… somehow, you manage to take the quote contents and speak directly of the Dust Bowl, proper.

but, yes, that’s right… land usage practices made the “Dust Bowl drought worse and longer lasting”. Again, the quote speaks to both the Dust Bow drought and the extreme heat of the 30s - if you accept the quote stating land usage practices were not the root cause, then you should, in kind, accept the article’s statement on what the root cause of the “30s Dust Bowl drought and extreme heat” was; i.e. “ocean patterns: primarily caused by below-average ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific and warmer than average ocean temperatures in the Atlantic”. In that vein, do you have a natural cause for the 2012 drought… one you’d like to put forward to allow you to deflect away from considerations of it being influenced by increased warming?

of course, the main thrust of the quote, which you completely ignore, is that in comparing the two droughts, the 2012 drought did not have the extenuating influence of poor farming practices/land usage. As is your repeat pattern, you bring forward these past events, while initially never stating any causal links/ties for them. My quote reference offers a root cause for the 30s Dust Bowl drought and extreme heat… ocean patterns; with that root cause amplified and extended by poor farming/land use practices. You subsequently simply state the cause as a most non-specific, “heat wave and drought”. Aside from you being non-specific… the drought was the cause of the drought! Huh!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely, global warming theorists like to use Katrina as this big bad storm when really it was not an extreme and only ranked 6th all time for intensity. In fact, hurricane Charley one year prior was a full category above it and nothing is said about it. Why? Because it only killed 40 people. Of course the reason for the majority of deaths was the failure of the man-made levees and the simple fact of builing below sea level. However, unlike your attribution to man's involvement in the Dust bowl, you would never cite that Katrina would have been just another storm if the levees held.

you keep harping on hurricane Katrina, while making the broadest of charge/claim within the most sweeping of generalizations. If you have a direct and specific concern where a reputable organization(s) or scientist(s) exceeded your personal (undeclared) measuring stick on how hurricane Katrina should be discussed, please bring something forward. Something… anything… other than your continued unsubstantiated claims (i.e. broad-sweeping claims/generalizations). Clearly, in the other thread, you had a meltdown because the WMO simply included it in a collective grouping reference of examples of extreme events that occurred in the recent 2001-2010 decade….. to which I relayed to you the actual rather benign comments concerning hurricane Katrina within the full WMO report. Talk about your over-reach and manufactured outrage!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again...all I am really looking at is the anthropogenic sources (ie. Is man causing this?) You have used this post a number of times as some sort of bullet proof case but I think its another one of your Wizard of Oz scare tactics. Let's start from the beginning.

The video posted by Jennifer Francis is as the titled states....a video to help understand the jet stream. It does NOT say anything about anthropogenic causes. I don't think you said it would but I just want to be clear that it does not.

it’s quite telling to have you now, apparently, accepting to a shifting jet stream tie to extreme weather… or at least accepting to the tie so long as its underlying causal mechanism is only a natural effect… you won’t even entertain the possibility of a human induced contributing factor… or even the suggestion the underlying mechanism may reflect on both natural and human influence. Quite telling, indeed, since you were the guy in the other recent thread, who so ridiculed any suggestion that the jet stream could have influence over recent extreme weather events. How consistent of you!

clearly, the Arctic is warming at a rate greater than any global area, particularly in relation to mid-latitude areas... the rate of Arctic warming is twice that of the global rate of warming. My post referencing the study speaking to Arctic amplification has been provided to correlate enhanced Arctic warming (relative to human caused accelerated Arctic sea ice melting and subsequent feedback mechanisms), to observed changes in jet stream patterns. By its very nature, the jet stream is fuelled by the temperature gradient (the difference), between the Arctic and mid-latitudes… and by its very nature, changing that temperature gradient difference alters the jet stream pattern. The study showed the jet stream pattern changes in relation to enhanced Arctic warming and the resulting temperature differential relative to mid-latitudes… the jet stream pattern change shows the jet stream becoming “wavier” in terms of steeper troughs and higher ridges (more pronounced north/south swings), bringing warmer air from the south further north than ‘typical’ and bringing cooler air from the Arctic further south than ‘typical’. As well as a slowed westerly component of upper-level winds.

ultimately, the changing jet stream pattern means that the weather systems that the jet stream ‘steers’ are progressing more slowly, presenting a greater tendency to develop so-called ‘blocking patterns’, which in turn raise the chances for prolonged and intensified extreme weather events (like floods, droughts & heat waves).

I provided a study reference link as well as the video… apparently, your keen observation ability has you completely missing the study link... and, of course, you go off kilter from there! In any case, your description of the video is quite telling… to the point you’re simply going off the title of the video. Clearly, the video reflects directly on the study (that’s why I included it), with the lead author speaking directly to study observations relative to Arctic amplification. That you would ask a mind-numbing question about anthropogenic causes, clearly shows you have no understanding of Arctic amplification and/or that the study authors were not providing an underlying attribution for the observed effects/physical mechanisms of jet stream pattern changes… those ultimately caused by the temperature differential between enhanced Arctic warming and temperatures in the mid-latitudes. The study provides the linkage between climate change, changing jet stream patterns and raised chances for prolonged and intensified extreme weather events. It’s a shame you couldn’t get past the title of the video!

now, if you really are accepting to the changing jet stream pattern influence on the prevalence of extreme weather events, don’t hesitate to step forward and provide your (preferred) causal tie to what’s causing the jet stream pattern changes. Of course, since you’ve declared your denial, that you’ve declared global warming as “BS”, you’ll need to find your own more palatable causal tie… one other than Arctic amplification and its association to anthropogenic caused accelerated Arctic sea ice melting. Please don’t hesitate to bring that forward, hey?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You then reference a link to a Pottsdam study and you say:

This is where your deflection comes into play. The link you provided was NOT to the Pottsdam study but rather an acticle written on "The Conversation" website written by the authors discsussing the study. The website article is called "Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change" HOWEVER the study is actually called "Quasiresonant amplification of planetary waves and recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes".

what kind of a trivial BS play are you going for here? The article is written by 2 of the study co-authors… with them speaking to their study… the article provides a link to the study. I reference the article as it gives a more layman’s interpretation of the study. All co-authors of the study are affiliated with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

I specifically stated this study provided theoretical support to the aforementioned study (re: the study on Arctic amplification, changing jet stream patterns, and raised chances for extreme weather events)… it speaks to the underlying physical mechanisms/processes… being driven, ultimately, by Arctic amplification, by increased/accelerated Arctic sea ice melting as a result of increased atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic sources. That theoretical support reference inherently presumes on degrees of uncertainty… the linked article included full caveats. This, your latest accusation, parallels your earlier inability to associate the url of a provided graphic to its website origination point… which caused you to brazenly claim I was “hiding the source” – notwithstanding the graphic included the logo/name of the source!!!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at both though. Your posted link had a quote as per below:

I’ll leave you to the mind-numbing/stupid exercise you went through in posting extensive quote extracts, comparing the article to the study. The article doesn't counter/contradict anything within the study… go figure… study authors wrote the article!

one of your takeaways should be a recognition that within studies, when scientists make a statement and cite another study reference to qualify that statement… they are making and accepting the statement. Clearly, you haven’t any experience to suggest something as stupid as “they didn't say it, they just cited it”… oh my!

you botched your interpretation of the earlier study… you've doubled down with another misinterpretation of this study. Well done – a 2fer! The study is about underlying physical mechanisms… identifying the underlying physical mechanisms, those that reflect upon the established linkages between climate change and the greater chances for prolonged and intensified extreme weather events. The study caveats aren’t in consideration of whether the physical mechanisms are anthropogenic related… they’re physical mechanisms! The study caveats are with respect to whether or not the authors have properly identified the underlying physical mechanisms. And, as all climate scientists do, these authors also don’t discount a possible contributing influence of natural variability.

I trust you’ll enjoy the related study press release from the Potsdam Institute:

The world has suffered from severe regional weather extremes in recent years, such as the heat wave in the United States in 2011 or the one in Russia 2010 coinciding with the unprecedented Pakistan flood. Behind these devastating individual events there is a common physical cause, propose scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The study will be published this week in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and suggests that man-made climate change repeatedly disturbs the patterns of atmospheric flow around the globe's Northern hemisphere through a subtle resonance mechanism.

“An important part of the global air motion in the mid-latitudes of the Earth normally takes the form of waves wandering around the planet, oscillating between the tropical and the Arctic regions. So when they swing up, these waves suck warm air from the tropics to Europe, Russia, or the US, and when they swing down, they do the same thing with cold air from the Arctic,” explains lead author Vladimir Petoukhov.

“What we found is that during several recent extreme weather events these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks. So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays. In fact, we observe a strong amplification of the usually weak, slowly moving component of these waves,” says Petoukhov. Time is critical here: two or three days of 30 degrees Celsius are no problem, but twenty or more days lead to extreme heat stress. Since many ecosystems and cities are not adapted to this, prolonged hot periods can result in a high death toll, forest fires, and dramatic harvest losses.

Anomalous surface temperatures are disturbing the air flows

Climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning does not mean uniform global warming – in the Arctic, the relative increase of temperatures, amplified by the loss of snow and ice, is higher than on average. This in turn reduces the temperature difference between the Arctic and, for example, Europe, yet temperature differences are a main driver of air flow. Additionally, continents generally warm and cool more readily than the oceans. “These two factors are crucial for the mechanism we detected,” says Petoukhov. “They result in an unnatural pattern of the mid-latitude air flow, so that for extended periods the slow synoptic waves get trapped.”

The authors of the study developed equations that describe the wave motions in the extra-tropical atmosphere and show under what conditions those waves can grind to a halt and get amplified. They tested their assumptions using standard daily weather data from the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). During recent periods in which several major weather extremes occurred, the trapping and strong amplification of particular waves – like “wave seven” (which has seven troughs and crests spanning the globe) – was indeed observed. The data show an increase in the occurrence of these specific atmospheric patterns, which is statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level.

“Our dynamical analysis helps to explain the increasing number of novel weather extremes. It complements previous research that already linked such phenomena to climate change, but did not yet identify a mechanism behind it,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of PIK and co-author of the study. “This is quite a breakthrough, even though things are not at all simple – the suggested physical process increases the probability of weather extremes, but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.” Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions.

Nevertheless, the study significantly advances the understanding of the relation between weather extremes and man-made climate change. Scientists were surprised by how far outside past experience some of the recent extremes have been. The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response to the mean warming trend, and the proposed mechanism could explain that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess you will have to take this over used cut and paste job out of your rotation? I really did like this example as it reminded me of how you are like the Wizard of Oz. You post these big booming messages that scare people off because they don't have the time or desire to actually look into them. However once you actually dig a little deeper you find that the arguments are no smarter than the scarecrow. In fact they are only a 'strawman' argument.

out of my rotation? Uhhh… no, not a chance. I am heartened that you weren't scared off… that you had, as you say, “the time or desire to actually look into them”. You looked – you clearly failed… big time! Well done. :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLW is a forum that allows every member to discuss the posted thread. Its not an area for you to post your beliefs and lecture the crowd. If you want that then I advise you leave MLW and start your own blog.

The only thread I would have any interest in starting would be one discussing how both sides use data incorrectly to get their message out. Of course I don't need to start a thread to do that....I can just show you here.

nice deflecting bluster. You drop these outlandish, long refuted, denier gems, without providing any substantiation. So as not to have you derail yet another thread, you’re challenged/requested to consider taking your unsubstantiated claims outside this thread and to provide support for them elsewhere (in a new thread you actually initiate, perhaps). Apparently, you take exception to being called on your BS – go figure.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not out to prove there that GW or AGW exists. I just hate seeing either side use the data incorrectly. Both sides do it but I find certain MLW members flaunt the global warming side more than they should.

At one of the environmental conferences that I attended a few years back, I had an opportunity to have lunch with a statistician from the NOAA. We started chatting about global warming and man made causes and he had an interesting take on it. He said he was simply a statistician and that he didn't care either way however he would review a large number of papers from global warming theorists and he said that he rejected 99% of them because they used that statistics incorrectly. Again...it comes down to agendas and what people are willing to do to achieve theirs.

well, yes… obviously. When you outright deny global warming, you’re clearly not setting out to prove it exists! But really, c’mon… who actually denies it’s warming? To do so, you’d have to be one of those guys out on the far fringe… out on the fringe of the fringe.

I note your anecdote is not at all self-serving… and it doesn’t fit to your agenda, at all. Fer sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...