Deep Dips In Climate Science Intelligence

During the 1970s ice age scare, climate scientists blamed deep dips in the jet stream and extreme weather on global cooling. Now they blame them on global warming.

1975

During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.

If global temperatures should fall even further, the effects could be considerably more drastic.

ScreenHunter_30 Jun. 20 21.16 ScreenHunter_29 Jun. 20 21.15

Science NEWS 1975

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Deep Dips In Climate Science Intelligence

  1. Brian G Valentine says:

    Interesting that (as a couple of years ago) all GCM that I am aware of, predicted a polar jet stream the reverse direction of the observed.

    I don’t know if this difficulty has been corrected or not.

  2. T.O.O says:

    Brian,
    The Earth would have to reverse it rotational spin for the jet streams to reverse direction. I doubt that you will find any modeling of that in the scientific literature.

    P.S. I am glad I didn’t pay in advance.

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Look it up in the “modeling’ section of AR/4 or 5

      Then come back and laugh your ass of for us

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        Cannot write more for some while, have a report due for work.

        bgvalentine AT Verizon DOT net

      • T.O.O says:

        Brian,
        More grand pronouncements devoid of evidence but you want me to go on a wild goose chase to find it.

        How much is it going to cost me?

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          A freebie. But you have to email me.

          Some while ago, on another blog, an author claimed the solution to a math problem and won a prize. I wrote that i could solve the problem by another method, the author did not believe me, so i typed out the solution, the author agreed with me.

          But then i realized, i wasted five hours typing that out, he received the prize money, all I did was inflate my own ego. No more of that.

    • Chewer says:

      Not!
      If you look at the jet streams daily, you’ll note that they do indeed change directions from omega blocks to transient upwelling events!

  3. Chewer says:

    The uninterrupted concentric polar jet-streams that we see today are like they’ve been in the cooler decades of our planets history. Their altitudes are much closer to the surface than at southern and equatorial regions. This is all quite well and normal, except the streams are beating the living shit out of the AGW crowd’s imaginary ghost!
    http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/AN/2xJetStream.html
    http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/AN/2xJetStream.html

    • T.O.O says:

      Chewer,
      “the streams are beating the living shit out of the AGW crowd’s imaginary ghost”

      Would you care to expand on that?

      • miked1947 says:

        TOO
        The Jet streams are flowing in normal patterns for a colder or cooling climate. What we are experiencing currently is a normal winter jet stream pattern and today is the first day of Summer. We are already having jet stream patterns for Fall and Winter.

      • Chewer says:

        By all counts, SST’s, jet-streams, surface temperatures, solar O/P (photons, gamma rays, x-rays, protons, electron count, solar wind speed, Van Allen belt structure) and the Indian Ocean dipole’s steady state since 2004, the upper 400M mixing of the Pacific & Atlantic and absence of a maturing greenhouse effect! You know, the hypothesis that has been drilled into us on a dynamic planet with an ever varying core and ever varying multiple regions above that core.

        • T.O.O says:

          Chewer, miked and Brian,
          Your internet must be different to mine because all I could find was article after article (and one video) about the effect of global warming on the jet streams:

          Polar jet stream appears hugely deformed:
          http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/polar-jet-stream-appears-hugely-deformed.html

          Climate change is forcing the jet stream higher and closer to the pole in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, according research published this April in the journal Geophysical Research Letters : http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=958

          While the oscillations of the streams are chaotic in nature, their relative positions are generally predictable to remain with certain bounds as described above. The earths atmosphere contains what are called atmospheric cells. As seen in the image below, they include the Polar Cell, The Ferrel Cell, and the Hadley Cell. It has been postulated through climate models that global warming would affect the position, or structure, of these cells.
          The general prediction was that the Jet Streams would move north and south in their respective hemispheres, and rise in altitude. This was assumed due to a very basic reality in physics, warm air expands and cold air contracts. A warmer atmosphere means the jet streams should rise in altitude and shift towards the poles. This of course has implications for climate change and weather.
          Observations have now shown that the jet streams are in fact shifting as expected. Again, we see that the observations are matching expectations, which indicates yet another confirmation signal:
          http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/latitudinal-shift

          Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss:
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

          Good video:
          http://climatestate.com/2013/05/02/global-warming-changes-the-jet-stream-cause-of-more-extreme-weather/

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          T.O.O.

          The recent articles on the effect of warming and CO2 on the jet stream are bogus.

          Here is why.

          In 2010 Prof Mike Lockwood found that jet stream blocking (which is linked to sinuousity of the Rossby waves) is due to low solar activity. As we’ve discussed, 2010 was in the solar minimum after SC23 and solar magnetism was extremely weak.

          He found this was the reason for the very cold winter in the UK of that year.

          Jet stream blocking also caused the Moscow heat wave and the accompanying Pakistan floods that same year.

          As an aside you will notice from the New Scientist write up of the same event that the jet stream was going backwards, because the Rossby wave was so sinuous it was almost forming a billabong-like shape. (I’m an Aussie, forgive me if I use parochial similies).

          You may be interested also that there was a lot of blocking occuring during the most recent Northern winter, which was also very cold. During that time the Ap Progression index was very low, around 5, as it was during the 2010 northern winter and summer.

          Mike Lockwood is a well regarded IPCC contributor, and is not a climate sceptic (I can show you where he is wrong in Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007 if you want).

          In other words, in 2010 it was shown by an IPCC consensus professor that the Sun caused the jet stream issues. Now the usual suspects from groups like PIK are saying CO2. Why? Is it because they avoid any attention to the Sun at all costs?

          I would put my money on Lockwood in this case.

      • You should get him to admit he didn’t know what he was talking about and made stuff up, before you continue educating him. He won’t appreciate it.

        • T.O.O says:

          Will,
          What I don’t know, I try and find out.

          I usually start by looking for the source and then I look to see if it has been peer reviewed or had some independent collaboration. I often take into account who it was that originally created the information and what their credentials are. Then I document the information that I found.

          This process is exactly the same one i use when investing in the stock market. BTW, ocean mining in the next 10 to 15 years looks like it has potential but a whole new generation of ocean-going equipment must be proto-typed and trialed first.

          PS Did you have a chance to find any factual information on PIOMAS yet?

        • PIOMAS will go negative in a couple of years from now. 😉

        • T.O.O says:

          Will,
          Very glib.

          I take you haven’t been able to find any factual evidence yet regarding PIOMAS being “complete crap”. Oh well, I suppose we will just have to mark it down as just another one of those unsupported allegations so often found here on “Real Science”.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          You’re the perfect target for any rip off green scam that comes along.

          You are the perfect patsy.

        • T.O.O says:

          No Brian,
          Perfect patsies are those people who will swallow any unsupported allegation that anyone cares to spout IF it is in line with their predetermined bias.

          Evidence needs to Independent and factual Brian. People whose level of evidence never rises above other opinion blogs (if they cite anything at all) are fish bait for shysters.

        • If you continue spamming this blog with the same bullshit, you will be placed on spam.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Anything I tell you, Anonymous Fool, I can back up with what you lack the ability to refute and you can take that to the bank.

        • T.O.O says:

          Steve,
          Is it called spam now to insist that factual evidence be produced before accepting grand allegations?

        • T.O.O says:

          Brian,
          Something needs to be produced first before it can be refuted.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          If I give you evidence, Mister Shit Head, to anything you ask for, and despite any valiant attempt you don’t refute it, will you state your name and residence?

          You have to pay something, Shit Head, nothing in this world is free.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          I can’t wait right now for your anonymous Shit Head crawling and sniping. You know how to reach me

          BGV

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          In case you miss it with the long thread, please see my comment up thread about the jet stream blocking issue.

          It is caused by low solar activity not CO2.

        • T.O.O says:

          Brian,
          Forgive me if i don’t believe that. I was tempted at first, but after you suggested that scientists were studying polar jet stream reversal, I kind of lost confidence.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          You weren’t tempted a bit, Dung Head, and I will give you the IPCC reference just as soon as you agree to some terms.

          You are a mouthy little twerp afraid of being identified as a mouthy little twerp with a name.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          I don’t make statements I can’t back up. That is the reason I survive as a denialist with an unpleasant but unchallenged character

        • T.O.O says:

          Bruce,
          Interesting but Lockwood stressed that this was a localized phenomenon and not global. It also does not seem to be at odds with the theory of CO2 warming effects on the jet stream but is just another factor that should be taken into account. The “blocking” description he used is exactly the same as my “meandering and loopy path” which results in extended periods of drought or rain or hot or cold depending on which side of the jet stream you find your self on.

          Another interesting bit was his talk of the deep solar minimum we have found ourselves in since 1985. I think we can definitely say that any global warming since then is not due to the sun.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Good night for now, you greasy little fool

        • T.O.O says:

          Brian,
          It ain’t going to happen, but if you really need the money, I know some elderly people you could try this with.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          T.O.O.

          Here’s what the article says:

          Recent studies suggest that when solar activity is low, “blocking” events move eastwards from above north-eastern North America towards Europe, and become more stable.

          Professor Lockwood was keen to stress that “blocking” only affected a limited geographical region, and would not have a widespread impact on the global climate system.

          If you look at the Rossby graphic in Steve’s post you can see what Prof Lockwood means. The areas inside the Rossby loop can be quite small. If you look at the map in my second link (or this excellent one from New Scientist) you’ll see the heatwave over Moscow was limited in area, but the jet stream pattern was also causing the blue patch over northern Pakistan, which had terrible floods.

          And while limited in specific areal effect (ie hot or cold) the system is moving eastward right along the whole of the northern hemisphere. That is pretty vast.

          We get the same Rossby patterns here in the southern hemisphere, but they usually don’t extend far enough north to affect weather in quite the same way. But if you look at anomaly maps you’ll often see strings of alternative hot patches and cold patches along about 50 degrees S.

          As to the decline since 1985, the SSN during solar cycle 23 was lower (at 120) that the last two cycles (164 and 158). But solar cycle 23 was very hot because solar cycle 22 was the shortest cycle for a couple of centuries. Short cycles mean hot temperatures over the next cycle. And the first decade of this century was hot.

          Now though temperature has been trending down for over a decade. That is consistent with the fall off in solar activity and the long solar cycle 23 which ended in 2009. Long cycle means colder during the next cycle. And that is what is now happening if you are keeping an eye on HadCET like me.

          The point of this is the IPCC consensus people are scratching their heads why temperature has been flat 15 years and cooling for ten. It is just as expected by the BJ1996 paper (and many others which cover the same relationship). Furthermore the PDO has turned down and the AMO has just commenced its downturn too. The CET has been very cold the start of this year, under the double influence of weak solar activity and ocean cyclic down turn. Global average temperature is behaving just as expected. It is not behaving as expected if CO2 sensitivity is high. Indeed if you do the calcs including both solar activity and ocean cycle contributions to the temperature record you’ll find the residual fits the low transient sensitivity values from LC2011 and SB2010 just about perfectly.

  4. Traitor In Chief says:

    Maybe bird calls will get rid of the ice?

    Cawwww! Cawwww!

  5. Chewer says:

    One of the more nasty possibilities brings cooling, and rather quickly when shit hits the upper troposphere:
    http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/index.php

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s