Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[-1=e^ipi]

Anyway, redoing the calculations with a more accurate 3C increase by 2100 and an arctic amplification factor of 2.5, I get:

T₁(t)-T₂(t) = ΔT(t) = (ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T₁(t)-T₁(2014))), where T₁(t) is the temperature of the Ferrel Cell at time t, T₂(t) is the temperature of the Polar Cell at time t, ΔT(t) is the temperature differential at time t, and τ is a constant. Rearranging the equation gives T₂(t) = T₁(t) - (ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T₁(t)-T₁(2014))). Taking the derivative with respect to T₁(t) gives ∂T₂(t)/∂T₁(t) = 1 + τ*(ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T₁(t)-T₁(2014))). Setting t = 2014 gives ∂T₂(2014)/∂T₁(2014) = 1 + τ*(ΔT(2014)). Using the values ∂T₂(2014)/∂T₁(2014) = 2.5 and ΔT(2014) = 13.5K, we find that τ = (2.5-1)/13.5K = 0.1111/K. Using this value of τ, we can estimate the temperature difference for 2100. ΔT(2100) = (ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T₁(2100)-T₁(2014))) = (13.5K)*exp(-0.1111/K*(3K)) = 9.67K.

Given that the speed of the jetstream is approximately proportional to sqrt(∇T) (as shown earlier), we should expect that the speed of the Northern Polar Jetstream will be sqrt(96.7/13.5) ≈ 84.6% the level it is now (or a 15.4% decrease in speed).

Using the relationships explained earlier, this 15.4% decrease in the speed of the jetstream should lead to a decrease in the wavelength of the jetstream by 8.0%, an increase in the amplitude of the jetstream by 9.7%, an increase in the frequency of resonance phenomena by 28.4%, a decrease in the group velocity of the jetstream by 15.4%, an increase in the duration of non-resonant weather events by 9.7%, no change to the duration of resonant phenomena, and an increase in the mean magnitude of the longitudinal pressure gradient by 9.7% (mean latitudinal pressure gradient is unchanged).

So yeah, using the earlier values which gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to the climate alarmists, I might have overestimated expected change by a factor of two.

Edited July 21, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Either they're right or wrong and if they keep changing their minds, then obviously they're wrong over and over again. Asking what the effect of climate change is on the jet stream is like asking what the effect of santa claus is on the running of the bulls.

I think that climate change affecting the jetstream has more to do with Santa than Pamplona. He uses it to get around much quicker on Xmas eve, just like a jetliner going from YVR to LHR.

[-1=e^ipi]

I want to retract an earlier claim I made about hurricanes. The reduction in the surface-tropopause temperature gradient due to global warming does not cause less frequent or less intense hurricanes. It was incorrect of me to think this is a mechanism that causes this.

That said, the arguments 'higher temperatures -> more energy -> more hurricanes' or 'higher temperatures -> more water vapour -> more hurricanes' are incorrect as well.

The reduction in the surface-tropopause temperature gradient is a result of the air carrying more water when it is warmer. As humid air moves adiabatically upward and cools, once it becomes saturated some of that water will condense to water droplets. That condensation process releases latent heat, which partially offsets the temperature loss of the air from moving upward. This is why wet air will have a lower lapse rate than dry air, and why warmer humid air will have a lower lapse rate than cooler humid air.

The earth's troposphere is usually on the edge of adiabatic stability. As a result, the warming of the planet, which increases water vapour in air cancels out the reduction in the surface-tropopause temperature gradient; that is, a parcel of air moving from surface to tropopause at the edge of adiabatic stability will have exactly the same temperature as tropopause air once it reaches to tropopause, so no work to run a heat engine can be done.

In order for hurricanes to form, you need adiabatic instability, which can occur if the air is on the edge of adiabatic instability and then the air near the surface is warmed slightly by the sun. Since the atmosphere is relatively transparent to sunlight, the effect of the sun will be to warm the surface more than the upper troposphere. The reason why hurricanes generally form during the summer is because there is more sunlight to warm the surface faster than the tropopause and the tropopause does not have an equilibrium temperature profile for that level of sunlight. So the extra sunlight creates adiabatic instability, which causes hurricanes.

This is also why you have hurricanes form in the tropics: because the tropics have the most direct sunlight so therefore the most adiabatic instability due to the sun warming the surface more than the tropopause. Even if the waters around Britain increased to 27 C (temperatures good for hurricanes to form in the tropics today), you still wouldn't get hurricanes forming at that latitude because the sun wouldn't be strong/direct enough to create the adiabatic instability necessary.

However, since global warming causes an increase in water vapour, there will be more cloud cover and the upper troposphere will be more opaque to longwave radiation from the Earth. As a result, the sun will have less ability to warm the surface more than the upper troposphere and therefore there will be less adiabatic instability. As a result, expecting less intense and less frequent hurricanes still make sense, but not due to the simplistic 'reduction in surface-tropopause heat gradient makes the heat engine less effective' argument that I gave earlier.

The reduction in the polar-equatorial temperature gradient is still relevant with respect to reducing the efficiency of various climate phenomena such as tornadoes for example.

Edited February 15, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

I want to retract an earlier claim I made about hurricanes. The reduction in the surface-tropopause temperature gradient due to global warming does not cause less frequent or less intense hurricanes. It was incorrect of me to think this is a mechanism that causes this.

That said, the arguments 'higher temperatures -> more energy -> more hurricanes' or 'higher temperatures -> more water vapour -> more hurricanes' are incorrect as well.

The reduction in the surface-tropopause temperature gradient is a result of the air carrying more water when it is warmer. As humid air moves adiabatically upward and cools, once it becomes saturated some of that water will condense to water droplets. That condensation process releases latent heat, which partially offsets the temperature loss of the air from moving upward. This is why wet air will have a lower lapse rate than dry air, and why warmer humid air will have a lower lapse rate than cooler humid air.

The earth's troposphere is usually on the edge of adiabatic stability. As a result, the warming of the planet, which increases water vapour in air cancels out the reduction in the surface-tropopause temperature gradient; that is, a parcel of air moving from surface to tropopause at the edge of adiabatic stability will have exactly the same temperature as tropopause air once it reaches to tropopause, so no work to run a heat engine can be done.

In order for hurricanes to form, you need adiabatic instability, which can occur if the air is on the edge of adiabatic instability and then the air near the surface is warmed slightly by the sun. Since the atmosphere is relatively transparent to sunlight, the effect of the sun will be to warm the surface more than the upper troposphere. The reason why hurricanes generally form during the summer is because there is more sunlight to warm the surface faster than the tropopause and the tropopause does not have an equilibrium temperature profile for that level of sunlight. So the extra sunlight creates adiabatic instability, which causes hurricanes.

This is also why you have hurricanes form in the tropics: because the tropics have the most direct sunlight so therefore the most adiabatic instability due to the sun warming the surface more than the tropopause. Even if the waters around Britain increased to 27 C (temperatures good for hurricanes to form in the tropics today), you still wouldn't get hurricanes forming at that latitude because the sun wouldn't be strong/direct enough to create the adiabatic instability necessary.

However, since global warming causes an increase in water vapour, there will be more cloud cover and the upper troposphere will be more opaque to longwave radiation from the Earth. As a result, the sun will have less ability to warm the surface more than the upper troposphere and therefore there will be less adiabatic instability. As a result, expecting less intense and less frequent hurricanes still make sense, but not due to the simplistic 'reduction in surface-tropopause heat gradient makes the heat engine less effective' argument that I gave earlier.

The reduction in the polar-equatorial temperature gradient is still relevant with respect to reducing the efficiency of various climate phenomena such as tornadoes for example.

So youve go a bit of a handle on why it rains, and sometimes rains hard Good going.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think I've figured out a way to determine the economic impact (in terms of change in productivity) of this effect and use it in an integrated assessment model.

The first thing one needs is to obtain some sort of reasonable definition of how frequently the climate of a location on earth gets stuck (or alternatively how infrequently it changes). What one could do is look at average temperature by time of year of a particular location and then for each year take the observations of temperature by time, subtract the average and subtract what is expected based on the long term trend. This gives a sort of residual temperature by year. This residual will have an autocorrelation (which one can calculate based on the entire year of observations) and this autocorrelation will be a measure of how frequently the climate changes states. If the jetstream is more frequently getting stuck, then this should correspond to a higher autocorrelation factor.

The rate at which the jetstream gets stuck is going to depend on both the topology of that particular latitude band (the northern mid latitudes will see a stronger effect than the southern mid latitudes due to have more mountain ranges and less ocean) as well as the temperature gradient. What one can do is for each latitude band, determine the zonal temperature gradient for each particular year. One can then empirically estimate (using time series data) how the autocorrelation factor relates to the zonal temperature gradient (using a functional form inspired by physics); one can then use this estimate to estimate the change in the autocorrelation factor due to climate change.

Lastly, to estimate the productivity effects, just look at variation in the logarithm of real GDP compared to the variation in the autocorrelation factor while controlling for other relevant factors. Once one has productivity as a function of autocorrelation of temperature, one can combine this with autocorrelation of temperature as a function of zonal temperature gradient to obtain the economic impacts of this change in jet stream effect.

[waldo]

So yeah, using the earlier values which gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to the climate alarmists, I might have overestimated expected change by a factor of two.

I think I've figured out a way to determine the economic impact (in terms of change in productivity) of this effect and use it in an integrated assessment model.

we've had some exchange on this subject in other threads... why I even recall the thread/posts where I brought first notice (to you) of the subject of Arctic Amplification and study of it in terms of possible jet-stream impact and related published study in that regard. Your "unpublished" maths notwithstanding, care to summarize... in plain English narrative without drawing back through this thread, your position on what you refer to as, "this effect"... and what you're prepared to attribute it to? And more pointedly, given you aren't published and appear to have no expressed intentions in that regard, what gives you the latitude to posture your own unpublished interpretations in the face of existing formal scientific publications, pro or anti, in regards Arctic Amplification ties to jet-stream movements/stalling?

.

[-1=e^ipi]

care to summarize... in plain English narrative without drawing back through this thread

I did summarize. Go to page 1.

[waldo]

I did summarize. Go to page 1.

unless you presume to not attribute the 'stalling out' of storms to this effect... how can you state, "the severity/intensity of weather events will not increase as a result of this phenomena"? Note: a response in plain English narrative will suffice - no maths required!

[-1=e^ipi]

how can you state, "the severity/intensity of weather events will not increase as a result of this phenomena"?

Come on waldo, why not just put a bit of effort into reading what I wrote? At the top of this page I suggested that an increase in the global average temperature by 3 C would result in a 28% increase in the frequency of resonant phenomena (also note that the relevant relationship is that the frequency is proportional to the temperature gradient to the power of -0.75).

Edited October 31, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Come on waldo, why not just put a bit of effort into reading what I wrote? At the top of this page I suggested that an increase in the global average temperature by 3 C would result in a 28% increase in the frequency of resonant phenomena (also note that the relevant relationship is that the frequency is proportional to the temperature gradient to the power of -0.75).

again, respond in plain English narrative: if storms are stalling and not moving out per traditional norm, if they are staying in place for days and days... week+ periods... are the impacts of the stalling storms increasing in intensity/severity - yes or no?

[-1=e^ipi]

again, respond in plain English narrative: if storms are stalling and not moving out per traditional norm, if they are staying in place for days and days... week+ periods... are the impacts of the stalling storms increasing in intensity/severity - yes or no?

The frequency of stalling storms is increased.

[waldo]

the question/request: "again, respond in plain English narrative: if storms are stalling and not moving out per traditional norm, if they are staying in place for days and days... week+ periods... are the impacts of the stalling storms increasing in intensity/severity - yes or no?"

The frequency of stalling storms is increased.

no worries... your refusal to answer the question is just as damning as the answer you know exists, that counters your claim... that you refuse to provide
.

[-1=e^ipi]

are the impacts of the stalling storms increasing in intensity/severity - yes or no?

Define what you mean by intensity/severity in this context, because your question appears ambiguous in meaning to me.

[waldo]

Define what you mean by intensity/severity in this context, because your question appears ambiguous in meaning to me.

you're the one using it... I'm quoting your reference/use - the onus is on you to define what you mean and how you're using it. The crux of the whole discussion focus on impacts related to stalling storms... those that stay in place and don't move off per traditional norm... is on, for example, the resulting impact of intense precipitation and resultant associated flooding on affected areas/communities.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between 'more intense storms' and 'more intense impacts of stalling storms'. Please clarify what you mean by the latter.

[69cat]

Ok - 1=

I just found this link, never knew it existed, so as Waldo says i was posting in the wrong place. You did mention the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation in the thread on the Paris climate summit and now i read this and see you have theory to back up my laymans observations.

First, i did not realize that climate sceptics were such a large group, with 1350 peer reviewed papers arguing against AGW listed here:http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Droughts

An interesting comment from that page says only 65 papers explicity endorse AGW. I wonder if that is true.

Rebuttal: No 97% study exists that shows 43,950 peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW. The largest study to date, Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 papers (66%) held no position. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings. All the other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.

Anyway, moving on "-1=", what i see as a climate sceptic is a 60 year cycle not mentioned in IPCC or NOAA data but i beleive you recognize it. What i see on the farm is about every 60 years is period when our land gets 2 to 3 times its average rainfall when California and Texas record serious draughts. At my place this is 2014, 2010, 1954, 1950 and Environment Canada records indicate late 1880s to be wet. There is reference to a US drought 1890 to 1896 and recent California and Texas droughts are well known as are the ones of the 1950s.

The pdf in this link is one example that shows temperature peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000. Seems 10 years after these peaks i see evidence of significant changes in rainfall patterns.

http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4

So, question for you, do you have anything to confirm my thinking regarding rainfall patterns following 10 years after temp peaks? Note that after NOAA is done corrupting the temperature records then 2000 and on is still climbing therefore i am saying that the leveling off after 2000 seen in the uncorrupted data allows the pattern to remain true.

Regarding your present discussion on stalling weather systems, i can say that i have observed that here. We received our major rain events last year over 2 to 3 days each time (not flash floods) and the systems took days to clear off.

Anyway, i am interested to know how you see rainfall patterns.

For the record, yes there has been a warming cycle but it fits cycles already documented and i dont expect to see the IPCC hockey stick going forward.

[-1=e^ipi]

So, question for you, do you have anything to confirm my thinking regarding rainfall patterns following 10 years after temp peaks?

I'm not sure. With respect to California or Texas, their latitude makes it such that they could receive less rainfall due to global warming since global warming causes the jetstreams to shift poleward (which means the Northern Tropical Jetstream will generally be closer to Texas and California). But as for the 10 year lag, I'm not sure how to explain that.

[Michael Hardner]

An interesting comment from that page says only 65 papers explicity endorse AGW. I wonder if that is true.

" After the analysis, she [Oreskes] concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

[TimG]

" After the analysis, she [Oreskes] concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it."

Of course such analysis ignores the reality that paying obeisance to the CAGW dogma a requirement to get journals to publish your paper. This has led to absurd situations where papers that clearly repudiate some aspect of the "faith" insist that their findings do not undermine the religion. Edited November 4, 2015 by TimG

[69cat]

Michael H, the door swings both ways, i have looked for peer reviewed papers on AGW causing earths temperatures to rise since the 1750s (end of mini ice age) and found none. I actually havent found any that show the temperature rise from 1950s is human caused - but apperently they exist as this is the common theme. If you have links i would like to see, specifically i am looking for peer reviewed papers showing C02 impact on data sets such as these:

http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Berlin_Germany_Large.gif

http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/CapeTown_SAfrica.jpg

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/ilulissa.gif

You are free to find other trends to plot CO2 on if these are cherry picked.

The value of the "skeptics" page i linked is that if you bothered to look at some of the articles regarding global warming you can find papers that do follow what the records that are in the history books vs the 'adjusted data' from NOAA.

Some good reading here in the 'comments' to very much question what NOAA is doing:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

But for people in pursuit of real science, what NOAA is doing with their recent data is old news and not surprising.

-1=

I followed the thermodynamics somewhat, i have read more simplified versions, and i think there in lies the drought/rainfall cycles so thought maybe it occurred to you and so i asked. Since the jetstream is at such a high altitude i did not think it was a factor but perhaps there is something to it. The "polar vortex" would have been a result and it and that certainly created a blocking front north of me so low pressure systems slid along easterly dropping rain, also came the brutal winters of 2013 and 2014, 2015 was better. Also the high pressure ridge over BC has been dominant for a year or more.

The 10 year lag is a curiosity, but it does seem more than coincidence that periods of major droughts in US also mean heavy rainfall in central Sask (flooding in Sask in 1950s is well documented) so shifting of the jetstream seems to tie in. My thinking was PDO on west coast releasing more moisture from ocean and being carried westward. Again, just something that may fit in to your theories - maybe not.

As for hurricanes, i was thinking in terms of tornadoes - stronger solar radiation creates more water vapor, more clouds, thus more solar blocking and so less hot air at the surface of the earth to mix with cold air (less temp gradient) and so fewer tornadoes. Basically a negative feedback system once enough heat is generated that regulates the earths temp. That would be for more of the global warming sceptics to prove. But public opinion is not interested in such things it seems.

And a cycle will continue where solar heating drops off, earths temperature will drop and tornadoes will become more prevelant. US tornadoes peaked in 1974 during the cold period i see. Guess i am too much of a sceptic to see patterns that IPCC tells us cannot possibly be there.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course such analysis ignores the reality that paying obeisance to the CAGW dogma a requirement to get journals to publish your paper. This has led to absurd situations where papers that clearly repudiate some aspect of the "faith" insist that their findings do not undermine the religion.

Climate Skeptics are still published. If there were proof of some of the claims posted in here - such as the claim that warming isn't happening - then somebody could publish that and make a name for themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael H, the door swings both ways, ...

You are free to find other trends to plot CO2 on if these are cherry picked.

...

And a cycle will continue where solar heating drops off,...

You are just spreading disinformation. I'm not sure where you got that information but it's just misleading. I have posted the NOAA temperature graph here and it looks nothing like what you have posted. And there's a strong correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases.

How can there be such a divergence of information, I ask you ?

It's because you are spreading disinformation, ie. fringe science and liars.

Here's John Daly - who died years ago, and whose blog you quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lawrence_Daly

http://www.john-daly.com/obituary.htm

"Although self-taught, John was a gifted scientist. He was particularly talented at presenting complex scientific climate data in a format that was easily read and understood by the layperson. "

[-1=e^ipi]

I actually havent found any that show the temperature rise from 1950s is human caused - but apperently they exist as this is the common theme.

This is the most convincing paper I have seen that suggests most of the warming post 1950 is human caused:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.5177.pdf

I followed the thermodynamics somewhat

Thanks. You are one of the few people to do that.

i was thinking in terms of tornadoes - stronger solar radiation creates more water vapor, more clouds, thus more solar blocking and so less hot air at the surface of the earth to mix with cold air (less temp gradient) and so fewer tornadoes.

I was under the impression that tornadoes are primarily affected by the equatorial-polar temperature gradient (you see lots of tornadoes occur in tornado alley due to warm air from the Gulf mixing with cold air from Canada), where as the effect you describe (more water vapour in the upper troposphere reducing the unevenness in heating between the tropopause and surface) is the mechanism that causes reduced hurricanes.

Basically a negative feedback system once enough heat is generated that regulates the earths temp.

The cloud feedback might be overall negative, but I doubt it is so large as to result in basically zero warming due to increases in atmospheric CO2.

[-1=e^ipi]

Since the jetstream is at such a high altitude i did not think it was a factor but perhaps there is something to it.

It is at a high altitude, but it represents the separation between two cells (Polar, Hadley or Ferrel) and corresponds to a relatively large temperature gradient. It also impacts the movement of storms and pressure systems. In any case, my derivations not only affect the jetstreams, but all Rosby waves (so basically all air traveling east over the Rocky Mountains).

[69cat]

Thanks for the link - 1=e, i will give it a read. Sure, i will come out of the closet completely and say i think the sun impacts the climate but temperature change of the earth is dampened by the ocean cycles (pdo, amo, etc), so sure - i am spreading misinformation.

As is claimed by the sceptics, the earth has been warming since 1900, prior to that it was warm too, with some cooling into 1900. So yes, cloud cover alone wont lead to lowering the earth temperature but will slow the rise. Remember that there are many methods used for determining earths temperature, methods not as easily ignored with rewriting data as NOAA has done.

I thought this graph was a pretty accepted history till the IPCC came along. The vikings settling Greenland did not simply have a twisted sense of humor when naming, but i guess the new thinking is they were just stupid as the earth was never as warm as the graph shows. The graph is simply mis information and should be struck from history, same with the little ice age, and all the data regarding the suns output over those periods which coincidentally aligns with temperature. Note the rapid rise around 1800.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uoTKoIMe2p8/TDCoaYS6LrI/AAAAAAAAABM/gX2OMi0jDlo/s1600/medieval-warm-period-little-ice-age-chart.jpg

The difference between me and the IPCC claims is that if i look at UNEDITED temperature data, there are very clear cycles. Such things as precipitation i see in my own environment, and i suspect tornadoes also. However once the pencil is taken out and data modified to obliterate all trends then everything is clearly random. So someone wanting to research forth coming tornadoe activity in tornafoe alley based on temperature cycles will get the simple response "no funding because we have no temperature cycles as per IPCC data".

Any climate model should be able to apply to any data set on an individual basis. So if you look at over 200 individual data sets, the climate model should match 95% of them - i dont see it. There is no need to "alter" a data set when you look at it on an individual basis, it does not matter if the thermometer in the monastery in Glasgow is out by 3 deg c, the trend for 300 years is still valid.

As i understand things, if the scientific community is asked to calculate the average global temperature for nov 1, 2015 the best they can do is 1 deg c accuracy.

Anyway, just some crazy theories of a guy that observes a few things. My theory is the oceans will dissipate heat and earth will cool down in coming years but we will still have many new regulations and taxes and they will be called what they really are "new taxes on energy use".

I am in favor of using more green energy and likely will be doing more myself in the next couple of years on that front than most ever will, but also those solutions will come about naturally and do not require people rewriting temperature readings that have been obtained over centuries and are very legitimate values when used as their own data set - especially when used solely to asses trend. But this is apperently "misinformation" to compare a model against a data set.