The science is in!

The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.

As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.

The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.

The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.

That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century.

I guess that takes care of that. We’re dooooooomed! Might as well party!




  1. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    What–is that true? I don’t think so. I agree that would be irrelevant as to whether global warming is caused by something other than the Sun’s output but certainly the ground temp without calculating the Sun’s Input is completely relevant to whether or not the Earth is heating up as a trend over time?

    You gotta keep your issues separatee by clear thinking.

    Good boy.

  2. MikeN says:

    >I wonder if a footnote somewhere lists the locations of all the ground based thermometers?

    This is the impetus for climategate. Someone wanted the temperature records that were being used to calculate the temperature index. The scientists responded that it is all publicly available, we don’t have to give you anything.
    The skeptics responded, yes it’s publicly available, but you have to tell us which stations you are using out of the big list. The scientists refused. Phil Jones told one guy,’Why should I give you my data, when you are just trying to find something wrong with it?’

    This is not the temperature index that NASA publishes.

  3. MikeN says:

    >what I’m really thinking ought to be looked at is the actual MODEL that the IPCC actually uses. Sometimes I wonder if its an actual model or if its just a bunch of conjectures strung together?

    In theory, the IPCC doesn’t do its own research, and only summarizes existing research. There are lots of models. If you want model outputs, they are available at a site called the Climate Explorer.

    To answer your question, it is an actual model.

  4. What? says:

    Has the model been validated?

    Bernanke / Greenspan had financial models that predicted the economy would be fine just before the meltdowns of 2001 and 2009. I will argue that the brightest minds available are building financial models at the biggest institutions and The Fed, and their models drive tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars of decisions each year.

    The climate models are probably as complex as these financial models, and are probably just as likely to be correct long term.

    B – I can’t understand half (or more) of your words; are you saying that measuring output (temperature) is sufficient to fully characterize a “black box”, e.g. without measuring input?

  5. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Mike–I recognize your expertise in this area. I wonder if you are playing with us. Some secret hat trick?

    What==yes, I apologize, not the clearest. I will rephrase: you are wrong. Ground based temperature readings without regard to the Solar Input are VERY NECESSARY. In fact, thats what told us the earth was heating up. The question was then why. THEN the solar input had to be measured, predicted, modeled.

    Solar Input is very relevant in figuring out WHY we are heating up or cooling off.

    So, failure to take account of the Sun is relevant or irrelevant depending on what you are talking about.

    In your phrasing: measuring output is all you need to do to measure output.

  6. What? says:

    B-Please tell me again, what does it mean if the temperature measurement is higher?

  7. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Ha, ha. Was I THAT unclear? Maybe so.

    If the temperature measure is higher, that means the earth is getting warmer. That could be because the Sun got hotter, moved closer, orbit of the earth, vent activity at the ocean floor spread, too many cows, too many termites, or maybe too many humans.

    Since there is no parallel Earth to use as a control match, we can’t prove what elements in the weather equation are changing to cause the earth to heat up, but you do what can be done: the best you can do.

    In the great mix of things, I think the Sun’s influence on the equation is pretty much totally an accurately understood and modeled? Its motion/heat/output mechanics has been understood in different parts for years. Its those elements that have strong counter feed back loops like water vapor/cloud coverage/precipitation that are so very difficult.

  8. What? says:

    And what would it mean if the temperature measurement was consistently falling?

  9. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Well, you played that one for too long.

  10. What? says:

    So, now you see the flaw in your logic.

  11. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    No. I “see” no flaw. If temps go down, that means the earth is cooling.

    Surprise me.

  12. What? says:

    So, if I erased your memory and put you and a couple of hundred climate researchers on the Earth during a period of about 100,000 years ago, for maybe 300 years, and you all saw the global temperature measurements fall 1,2 or maybe 2.2 ℃, what would you conclude would be the final outcome of this trend (extrapolating forward)?

  13. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    I wouldn’t conclude anything knowing that to reach a reasonable conclusion would need to account for many more variable.

    Silly Boy. Now stop being tedious.

  14. What? says:

    Hence, temperature measurements mean nothing.

    A data trend does not constitute science.

    Science takes the inputs and outputs, and then creates a testable transfer function that models the outputs given the inputs. If the transfer function can’t be verified, then it isn’t worth the paper it is written on, and certainly shouldn’t be used to define global economic and environmental policy.

    In my example above: If temperature measurements were going down, there would be a substancial number of people who would claim that certainly the Earth was going to freeze over completely unless something was done to stop it.

    While science tells us that the Earth did freeze over in the past: during the period 100,000 years ago the Earth only went through an Ice Age where maybe, what, <1/3 froze over. That Ice Age ended something like 20,000 years ago.

    Science is always tedious, that's why Lohan isn't a scientist.

  15. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    No, science is not tedious, just you are tedious on this particular issue==but indeed perhaps issue that touches on the scientific method?

    Your hypothetical is nonsense. I’ve already told you why.

    You are confusing an issue of scientific “proof” with one of risk tolerance/avoidance.

    It like you saying if I can’t tell you whether the spin of a roulette wheel will be red or black on spin number 100 that I can’t tell you the odd’s are 50/50.

    Lack of certain types of precision does not negate the remaining body of knowledge that is quite accepted. EG–increase the amount of co2 in the atmosphere with all other variables staying the same, and the earth will heat up.

    Course there are other variables. Sometimes well understood in isolation, but all interacting with the other variables.

    Its just too simple minded to require certainty when a best guess is all that is possible.

    No proof that smoking causes cancer===and in fact it doesn’t cause cancer, it just increases the likelihood of cancer.

    Silly Boy.

  16. Glenn E. says:

    So the moral of the article is? Ignore how cold and frosty it’s gotten in many parts of the world, for the first time, EVER! And only pay attention to how it may have gotten slightly warmer up (or down) at some pole, nobody lives near, and can’t confirm the data recorded, without a grant-funded axe to grind, proving AGW.

    Funny. You rarely if ever hear about warm or hot severe winds blowing in and knocking out transportation, or drying out lakes and rivers. We had the “Dust Bowl” once, back in the 1930s, because they tried to cultivate land that too arid to sustain farming. But most of the time it’s a very cold, frigid air mass, making all the havoc. How is that caused by warming? What’s the slight of hand magic trick that we’re not being told about? State magic often relies of Misdirection to work. And I can’t help thinking that misdirection is also behind the explanation of how colder weather is the result of a warming trend. Is black, white, and white, black, slso? I call Shenanigans on the global warming scare. Like dishonest carnies, they’ve rigged the games so only they win.

    ABC’s Nightline recent ran a piece about GW. And they guy who originally pioneered the GW idea, NOW, doesn’t believe in it himself. I believe this segment can be found on Youtube.

    The problem isn’t that pollution is warming up the earth. That’s a red herring issue. Probably designed to confuse us, and be easily denied or refuted. The real problem is the purity of breathable air, and the water everything needs to strive in. All of this is being flat out ignored, in favor of Global Warming, which is far easier NOT to believe in.

    So while our air turns into a polluted soup, regardless of its damn temperature. And all our rivers and oceans become toxic brews. Let’s not do a damn thing about correcting that. Like making industry stop dumping its wastes there. Or stop jamming their smoke stacks up ever higher, to hide their pollution output from ground monitoring. Or running off to some third world nation, that doesn’t care at all about their factories poisoning the earth. Stop blaming the average US driver for owning a gas guzzler, for screwing up the world. Because these vehicles were the only things the auto makers wanted to produce. And lobbied hard as hell to get away with it. And now have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to produce less polluting all electric and hybrid cars, at an affordable price range. Because they can’t make as much profit for something that doesn’t burn fuel and oil.

    Talk about Global Warming. One thing you can say about all electric vehicles. They don’t create a lot of waste heat, the way gas fueled ones do. That alone should be a great reason to switch as many cars and truck over to electric. But I don’t hear Al Gore saying anything of the kind. In fact when he was Vice President, he helped curtain electric vehicle development. And has done nothing since then to reverse the damage. Of course, he’d rather gas cars existed. He owns millions in Oil stock. He just flouts this lame carbon tax idea, to solve the problem. If there’s a problem.

  17. Glenn E. says:

    America is no longer the primary cause of all the world’s air pollution, and supposed global warming. Everything’s been moved to China. Along with most of America’s jobs. If you think its bad in the US. At least you can see where you have to go to complain. And have someone to complain to. In China you can barely see where you’re going. And have to drive slower, to avoid causing an accident. You’ve got nobody to complain to. They’re got their to log you as a trouble maker, should you question your working and living conditions. Just shut up and breathe your soup.

  18. Glenn E. says:

    The world climate is a complex jigsaw puzzle of parts. No one can really say with much certainty what effect some happening here now, has over there later. Environmental impact studies have been done for years, and either been wrong, ignored, or both. What’s the effect of all the urban sprawl, that increases water runoff and heat island effects. We either never told this, because it might kill development projects. Or the science just can’t predict it. And yet they claim to be about to explain every aspect of how the weather works, now and into the far future.

    But whenever real money is at stake. They can’t or won’t predict squat.And may even be falsely predicting, to hedge their investments. Nobody ever asks if these climate experts are shareholders of any sun block makers?

  19. retroman81 says:

    just watch Day After Tomorrow and all will be easily explained to you all

  20. Mr Fog says:

    # 97 MikeN = In theory, the IPCC doesn’t do its own research, and only summarizes existing research.

    yes. They summarize so well that many of their scientists want their names off the document.

  21. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    #112–Glenn E==not to pick on you particularly but your post illustrates so well the foggy thinking that convinced me to go with the IPCC. Their opponents arguments are disjointed and god awful, just like yours. Let’s parse:

    1 The world climate is a complex jigsaw puzzle of parts. No one can really say with much certainty what effect some happening here now, has over there later. /// A generalized statement that combines and equates nonsense with well established science leaving it to the reader to interpret as they wish. Complex?==yes. “No one can really say?”==no. Read the IPCC. “some happening here now, has over there”==no. Its true we can’t predict the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings in Asia on the weather in Idaho, but thats not the same thing as pumping billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere. You equate the single flap of a butterfly’s wing to two centuries of digging up and burning coal and gas. You see that error? Its worse than fuzzy thinking, something much worse.

    Environmental impact studies have been done for years, and either been wrong, ignored, or both. /// This has nothing to do with GW, except as a butterfly’s wing flap. More fuzzy equating.

    What’s the effect of all the urban sprawl, that increases water runoff and heat island effects. We either never told this, because it might kill development projects. Or the science just can’t predict it. And yet they claim to be about to explain every aspect of how the weather works, /// Every aspect? NO one has EVER said that–except those wanting to put red herrings into the stew. Arguments like that make your entire rant suspect.

    But whenever real money is at stake. They can’t or won’t predict squat. /// Who is this “they”. More conflation and worse than fuzzy thinking. Scientific studies have/are standing in the way of many big money projects. Thats what motivates too many idiot posts like yours==full of sound and fury, logic errors, conflation, bad analogies, and BS.

    And may even be falsely predicting, to hedge their investments. /// Oh, not scientists but investors providing bad science. Is that what you mean throughout this rant? So general, vague, and conflate nobody, including yourself can really track what the frick you are talking about.

    Nobody ever asks if these climate experts are shareholders of any sun block makers? /// Or vice versa.

    You idiot deniers are like Darwin Deniers arguing that if man descended from chimpanzees, how come no one wakes up in the morning swinging from trees. Your arguments/positions are SO DEFECTIVE it drives fence sitters like me into your opposition camp.

    Silly Hoomans.

  22. MikeN says:

    >Some secret hat trick?

    No, nothing secret about it. I used to agree with the AGW mindset to an extent, then analyzing the science, particularly the RealClimate website, made me less of a skeptic, then following it some more, and I became much more of a skeptic. Best to let people see the whole thing, and they are likely to reach the same conclusion. Michael Mann’s RealClimate website has probably created more skeptics than they destroyed.

  23. bobbo, Adam named the animals, SATAN uses only numbers says:

    Mike: Adam named the animals, SATAN uses only numbers.

    Yes, I’ve gone back and forth as well.

    How do you answer:

    1. Constant sea level rise.

    2. How does the burning of sequestered carbon not increase the atmospheric co2 resulting in increased acidification and heat retention? IOW==how can adding massive amounts of a chemical to a brew not have “some” consequence? Mother Earth Gaia can absorb/use a lot of carbon before it starts to become a problem, that why there is lag time. The carbon cycle is fairly well understood. What happens to all the co2 pumped into the atmosphere.

    Common sense tells me “something” happens. common sense tells me it heats things up.

  24. MikeN says:

    >If temps go down, that means the earth is cooling.

    Nope, try again.

  25. MikeN says:

    Common sense tells me it heats up. I’ve explained it before, that doesn’t mean things heat up a lot. It could be the amount of heating is just minor compared to natural variations.

    Ocean acidification I don’t see as a real problem. The ocean PH is above 7, so by acidification, they actually mean ocean less basicification. Then they spread scare stories about what happens when you drop acid or carbonates in water, which is not the same thing as adding carbon. A number of ocean life which are allegedly threatened, are in fact always consuming carbon to form their skeletons, and constantly shedding as well. A built-in negative feedback right there.

    For sea level rise, you expect sea level to rise from warmer temperatures. Again, it’s a matter of how much. The sea level rise does not come from melting glaciers, as ice cover is expected to increase with a small amount of warming, along the lines of the original post. Sea level rise comes from the thermal expansion of water. Plus sea level rise is not constant. This was a matter of dispute between RealClimate and Roger Pielke Sr, who saw a pause for a few years.

    There is also a skeptical point as to whether sea level is actually rising. Something about how the IPCC is selectively picking and choosing their data, with the data being adjusted to match a flawed measurement, with the intent of showing big sea level rise problems. The site
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/
    has a separate skeptic view that requires a great deal of math knowledge to follow, but basically eviscerates an alarming RealClimate paper on the subject.

    By the way, I was just kidding in my last post. Lower temperatures would indicate some cooling, but the climate scientists disagree. Unless the temperatures drop below the long-term average, then lower temperatures still means warming. I’d post the link, but Tamino’s old posts are gone from his site.

  26. bobbo, Adam named the animals, SATAN uses only numbers says:

    Mike–why don’t you include the name of the poster you are responding to?

  27. KD Martin says:

    # 6 Mextli said, on December 27th, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    That’s the first time I have known the term “standing waves” to be applied to the atmosphere. Is that a common practice?

    —————————-

    Standing waves are common in the atmosphere. This photo taken from a Cessna 172 shows lenticular (standing wave) clouds. These clouds are fairly common near mountain ranges which supply the lift to cool the atmosphere to the point where water condenses to a vapor, forming clouds that define the downwind standing waves.

    Photobucket


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13740 access attempts in the last 7 days.