Weather Patterns - A Discussion

[Crick]

A new paper out shows the Paradoxical Presentation and why it happens.

Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis: New support for the effect of solar activity on lower atmospheric circulation - Climate Etc.

by Javier Vinós A recent paper by Svetlana Veretenenko provides important support for the effect of solar activity on the lower atmospheric circulation through its effect on the polar vortex. Veretenenko’s paper is an important step in demonstrating the solar … Continue reading →

judithcurry.com

Interestingly the comment follows and the usual science deniers tout platitudes... The warming in the polar regions is Normal and Natural for our climatic cycle and not caused by man.

From Svetlana Veretenko's paper, the support for Javier Vinós' Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis, in the growingly dubious MDPI: Stratospheric Polar Vortex as an Important Link between the Lower Atmosphere Circulation and Solar Activity

"Another serious problem with solar–atmospheric links is pronounced spatial and tem-
poral variability. The atmospheric response (changes in pressure, temperature, cloud cover,
etc.) to solar activity-related phenomena may differ noticeably depending on the region
under study. Moreover, the correlation links observed between atmospheric characteristics
and solar activity factors reveal temporal variability, i.e., they may strengthen, weaken,
disappear, and even change the sign depending on a time period. As a result, the observed
temporal variability in the correlation links often provides the basis for doubts in the reality
of solar activity influence on the atmosphere."

Pretend this is a paper that does NOT support your position. Would you not say something like: "So, this correlation is not global and not consistent over time. Doesn't that rather mean that IT DOEN'T EXIST?"

 

[ReinyDays]

You would be correct. This paper also lays waste to Skeptical Science's graphing on the earth's energy budget. Once you get into the energy calculations and how the solar input affects our atmosphere the Climate Sensitivity number immediately is less than a 1 to 1 ratio. Current empirical evidence shows that number to be 0.6 deg C to 1. Which means the current warming of 0.3-0.6 deg C is well within those parameters. This throws Trenberth's and Mann's silly graphs into the trash bin of history.

Would Skeptical Science call themselves skeptics if they weren't total biased? ...

 

[Crick]

This paper also lays waste to Skeptical Science's graphing on the earth's energy budget. Once you get into the energy calculations and how the solar input affects our atmosphere the Climate Sensitivity number immediately is less than a 1 to 1 ratio. Current empirical evidence shows that number to be 0.6 deg C to 1. Which means the current warming of 0.3-0.6 deg C is well within those parameters. This throws Trenberth's and Mann's silly graphs into the trash bin of history.

I assume you mean Trenberth's energy budget diagram (when you say "Skeptical Science's graphing", but what graphs of Mann's do you believe this paper has tossed in the trash?

And when you say "paper" do you mean Veretenko's MDPI paper or Vinos' article? Were you aware that Vinos is actually a biologist and until relatively recently, his specialty was vinegar flies, cancer and neurobiology. He is heavily cited in his biological work, not so much in climate science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From Svetlana Veretenko's paper, the support for Javier Vinós' Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis, in the growingly dubious MDPI: Stratospheric Polar Vortex as an Important Link between the Lower Atmosphere Circulation and Solar Activity

"Another serious problem with solar–atmospheric links is pronounced spatial and tem-
poral variability. The atmospheric response (changes in pressure, temperature, cloud cover,
etc.) to solar activity-related phenomena may differ noticeably depending on the region
under study. Moreover, the correlation links observed between atmospheric characteristics
and solar activity factors reveal temporal variability, i.e., they may strengthen, weaken,
disappear, and even change the sign depending on a time period. As a result, the observed
temporal variability in the correlation links often provides the basis for doubts in the reality
of solar activity influence on the atmosphere."

Pretend this is a paper that does NOT support your position. Would you not say something like: "So, this correlation is not global and not consistent over time. Doesn't that rather mean that IT DOEN'T EXIST?"

You are spinning yourself in circles. The paper categorically disputes Trenberth's energy budget. This paper demonstrates why the current crop of Global Circulation Models fail (aka: Global Climate Models). The text you cite was very clear in how they are in error. The cause/effect relationships do not act the way you think they should, and she pointed it out very well.

I have told you over and over again to do the math. You refuse. Now the math has been done and she found what we expected.

 

[Crick]

You are spinning yourself in circles.

Well, someone is.

The paper categorically disputes Trenberth's energy budget.

Svetlana's paper never mentions Trenberth or energy budget. She does mention herself eight times in the text and 14 times in the Reference list but not Trenberth OR Vinos. What you've linked to by Vinos is not a paper it is a blog post extracted from his book that Curry posted up for him. As far as I can see, it has been peer reviewed by no one.

This paper demonstrates why the current crop of Global Circulation Models fail (aka: Global Climate Models). The text you cite was very clear in how they are in error. The cause/effect relationships do not act the way you think they should, and she pointed it out very well.

I have told you over and over again to do the math. You refuse. Now the math has been done and she found what we expected.

I have been reading Vinos' blog post as well as Veretenenko's paper and a few referenced works. I have not read every word and I have been searching for commentary on Vinos work from people more expert than you and I. Vinos has not garnered much attention, though I'm sure you and I have different thoughts as to why that might be. I did, however come across this relevant, peer-reviewed paper in PNAS discussing the Earth's outgoing LW radiation. It states that satellites and models have counterintuitively found outgoing LW radiation to be a simple, linear function of surface temperature when the processes involved are non-linear. An analysis indicates this is due to the cancellation effect between two non-linear processes. The rub here is that Vinos believes the majority of outgoing energy leaves the planet poleward of 60N and S. It occurred to me as I was reading it that Vinos was considering heat transport between the hot tropics and the cold poles to dominate his view, when what he should have been looking at was the radiative transfer from the Earth's surface and the TOA to space at 2K.

See: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809868115

 

[Crick]

Well, someone is.

Svetlana's paper never mentions Trenberth or energy budget. She does mention herself eight times in the text and 14 times in the Reference list but not Trenberth OR Vinos. What you've linked to by Vinos is not a paper it is a blog post extracted from his book that Curry posted up for him. As far as I can see, it has been peer reviewed by no one.

I have been reading Vinos' blog post as well as Veretenenko's paper and a few referenced works. I have not read every word and I have been searching for commentary on Vinos work from people more expert than you and I. Vinos has not garnered much attention, though I'm sure you and I have different thoughts as to why that might be. I did, however come across this relevant, peer-reviewed paper in PNAS discussing the Earth's outgoing LW radiation. It states that satellites and models have counterintuitively found outgoing LW radiation to be a simple, linear function of surface temperature when the processes involved are non-linear. An analysis indicates this is due to the cancellation effect between two non-linear processes. The rub here is that Vinos believes the majority of outgoing energy leaves the planet poleward of 60N and S. It occurred to me as I was reading it that Vinos was considering heat transport between the hot tropics and the cold poles to dominate his view, when what he should have been looking at was the radiative transfer from the Earth's surface and the TOA to space at 2K.

See: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809868115

Billy Boy? Any comment?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Boy? Any comment?

You are centered on discrediting not discussing what it is they have found. I find arguing with idiots a waste of time. Hence my non answer to your question.

 

[Crick]

You are centered on discrediting not discussing what it is they have found. I find arguing with idiots a waste of time. Hence my non answer to your question.

And with how many other posters have you discussed "what they have found"? How many other posters read Vinos or Veretenenko or Koll & Cronin on PNAS just so they could discuss what HE is CLAIMING to have found? Do you think ANYONE else here has gotten past Vinos' first paragraph? Get f-ing real.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

 

[ReinyDays]

Why do you think this is "extreme"? ... looks absolutely normal to me ... give or take 10ºC ...

The FALSEHOOD here is only using data from 1981 to 2010 ... go back to 1930 and we could show the exact opposite ... this is how we LIE with statistics, restricting the sample pool to drive up percentages, like the Monty Hall problem ...

How did we come by data in the polar regions? ... meteorologists "on the ice" has only been happening in the past twenty years or so ... and this has been limited by how goddam expensive it is to live in such places ... I wonder if Scott Duncun knows there's another half to Earth, with dark-skinned peoples ... or maybe he doesn't care about those places ...

Anything within 10ºC of average in normal and expected, at all time in all places ... what the egg-head sciency types call "high standard deviations" ...

Standard deviation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Why do you think this is "extreme"? ... looks absolutely normal to me ... give or take 10ºC ...

The FALSEHOOD here is only using data from 1981 to 2010 ... go back to 1930 and we could show the exact opposite ... this is how we LIE with statistics, restricting the sample pool to drive up percentages, like the Monty Hall problem ...

How did we come by data in the polar regions? ... meteorologists "on the ice" has only been happening in the past twenty years or so ... and this has been limited by how goddam expensive it is to live in such places ... I wonder if Scott Duncun knows there's another half to Earth, with dark-skinned peoples ... or maybe he doesn't care about those places ...

Anything within 10ºC of average in normal and expected, at all time in all places ... what the egg-head sciency types call "high standard deviations" ...

Standard deviation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

lol. 'we have only been collecting data the past 20 years, but if we go back to 1930 we could show the opposite... with data i just said we don't have'. lmao.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

When we see climate changing, we don't automatically jump on the human bandwagon, case closed. No, we rigorously examine and test all other reasons why climate could be changing: the sun, volcanoes, natural cycles, even something we don't know yet: could they be responsible?

Could it be the sun? No: the sun's energy has been going down at the very time that the average temperature of the planet continues to rise. Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions No, even a Grand Minimum wouldn't save us. RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

Could it be volcanoes? No: though a big eruption emits a lot of soot and particulates, these temporarily cool the planet. On average, all geologic activity, put together, emits only about 10% of the heat-trapping gases that humans do. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011EO240001

Could it be orbital cycles? Are we just getting warmer after the last ice age? No: warming from the last ice age peaked 1000s of yrs ago, and the next event on our geologic calendar was another ice age: was, until the industrial revolution, that is. https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jetc/files/Tzedakis-et-al-2012.pdf

Could it be natural cycles internal to the climate system, like El Nino? No: those cycles simply move heat around the climate system, mostly back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. They cannot CREATE heat. So if they were responsible for atmospheric warming, then the heat content of another part of the climate system wd have to be going down, while the heat content of the atmosphere was going up. Is this what we see? No: heat content is increasing across the entire climate system, ocean most of all! Nuccitelli et al 2012 Total Heat Content

Could it be cosmic rays? No. Cosmic Rays and Climate moving in opposite directions

How about the magnetic pole moving? Planet Niribu? Geoengineering? What about an unknown factor we don't know about yet? No. Testing for the Possible Influence of Unknown Climate Forcings upon Global Temperature Increases from 1950 to 2000

It has been known since the work of John Tyndall in the 1850s that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared energy, and Eunice Foote was the first to suggest that higher CO2 levels would lead to a warmer planet, in 1856. No one has been able to explain how increasing levels of CO2, CH4 and other heat-trapping gases would not raise the temperature of the planet. Yet that must be done first, if we are to consider any other sources as "dominant". Moreover, when Rasmus Benestad and other scientists examined dozens of published papers claiming to minimize or eliminate the human role in climate change, they found errors in every single one. Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

<p>Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.</p>

skepticalscience.com

If you don't think humans are the dominant source of warming, you are making a statement that does not have a single factual or scientific leg to stand on. Yet leaders of science agencies are saying exactly that today. This is the world we live in.



Thanks to Katharine Hayhoe

 

[Crick]

A good excerpt from your Nuccitelli link that all the deniers here should read.

You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.

If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors. Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form. Instead, as our paper shows, the contrarians have presented a variety of contradictory alternatives based on methodological flaws, which therefore have failed to convince scientific experts.

Human-caused global warming is the only exception. It’s based on overwhelming, consistent scientific evidence and has therefore convinced over 97% of scientific experts that it’s correct.

 

[ReinyDays]

When we see climate changing, we don't automatically jump on the human bandwagon, case closed. No, we rigorously examine and test all other reasons why climate could be changing: the sun, volcanoes, natural cycles, even something we don't know yet: could they be responsible?

Could it be the sun? No: the sun's energy has been going down at the very time that the average temperature of the planet continues to rise. Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions No, even a Grand Minimum wouldn't save us. RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

Could it be volcanoes? No: though a big eruption emits a lot of soot and particulates, these temporarily cool the planet. On average, all geologic activity, put together, emits only about 10% of the heat-trapping gases that humans do. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011EO240001

Could it be orbital cycles? Are we just getting warmer after the last ice age? No: warming from the last ice age peaked 1000s of yrs ago, and the next event on our geologic calendar was another ice age: was, until the industrial revolution, that is. https://people.clas.ufl.edu/jetc/files/Tzedakis-et-al-2012.pdf

Could it be natural cycles internal to the climate system, like El Nino? No: those cycles simply move heat around the climate system, mostly back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. They cannot CREATE heat. So if they were responsible for atmospheric warming, then the heat content of another part of the climate system wd have to be going down, while the heat content of the atmosphere was going up. Is this what we see? No: heat content is increasing across the entire climate system, ocean most of all! Nuccitelli et al 2012 Total Heat Content

Could it be cosmic rays? No. Cosmic Rays and Climate moving in opposite directions

How about the magnetic pole moving? Planet Niribu? Geoengineering? What about an unknown factor we don't know about yet? No. Testing for the Possible Influence of Unknown Climate Forcings upon Global Temperature Increases from 1950 to 2000

It has been known since the work of John Tyndall in the 1850s that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared energy, and Eunice Foote was the first to suggest that higher CO2 levels would lead to a warmer planet, in 1856. No one has been able to explain how increasing levels of CO2, CH4 and other heat-trapping gases would not raise the temperature of the planet. Yet that must be done first, if we are to consider any other sources as "dominant". Moreover, when Rasmus Benestad and other scientists examined dozens of published papers claiming to minimize or eliminate the human role in climate change, they found errors in every single one. Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

<p>Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.</p>

skepticalscience.com

If you don't think humans are the dominant source of warming, you are making a statement that does not have a single factual or scientific leg to stand on. Yet leaders of science agencies are saying exactly that today. This is the world we live in.



Thanks to Katharine Hayhoe

You didn't address how much the Earth is warming ... we've seen a single degree of warming since 1980 and that hasn't changed climate, why do you think another single degree will? ... I've noted well your lack of claims of catastrophe ... if something defies common sense, then it likely defies science ...

No: heat content is increasing across the entire climate system ...

We can measure this ... the numbers are crazy everyplace but with 25 years of data we can extract a 1.8 (±0.5) W/m^2 average ... and this is what the IPCC is using ... this is the equivalent of a grain-of-wheat light bulb every two square meters ... meaning this is a trivial amount of energy in the grand scheme of things ... that won't cause hypercanes to drop twenty feet of hockey sticks ... I'm surprised we can even measure the temperature rise in the oceans ...

But so what? ... do we let a billion people go without basic refrigeration because of ... one ... single ... degree ... ? ...

=====

My objection is based on mathematics ... starting with the fourth root relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature ... if you're not familiar with the behaviors of fourth root relationships then trust me ... this alone refutes all claims of catastrophe that defy common sense ...

Hypercanes and hockey sticks ... that'll take magical forces ... not natural ones ...

 

[Crick]

You didn't address how much the Earth is warming ... we've seen a single degree of warming since 1980 and that hasn't changed climate, why do you think another single degree will? ...

This is what it's done:
\

Global temperature changes mapped across the past 24,000 years

Preserved records reconstruct global climate evolution.

www.nature.com

Global surface temperature - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This should worry you.

I've noted well your lack of claims of catastrophe ... if something defies common sense, then it likely defies science ...

Science says that we are experiencing an almost unprecedented warming, that the primary cause is human GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and that we are at the very brink of being able to do anything significant about it. Rejecting THAT is defying science.

No: heat content is increasing across the entire climate system ...

We can measure this ... the numbers are crazy everyplace but with 25 years of data we can extract a 1.8 (±0.5) W/m^2 average ... and this is what the IPCC is using ... this is the equivalent of a grain-of-wheat light bulb every two square meters ... meaning this is a trivial amount of energy in the grand scheme of things ... that won't cause hypercanes to drop twenty feet of hockey sticks ... I'm surprised we can even measure the temperature rise in the oceans ...

That is NOT a trivial amount of heating GIVEN THE RATE AT WHICH IT IS TAKING PLACE. And the same ongoing process that has created that 1.8 W/m^2 of heating is going to create a great deal more heating which will raise sea levels at an accelerating pace, will further increase the frequency and severity of weather events and which will do further damage to fresh water supplies, wildlife and agriculture.

But so what? ... do we let a billion people go without basic refrigeration because of ... one ... single ... degree ... ? ...

The only power shortages people are suffering at present are due to Russia's response to western support of the Ukraine in the face of Putin's unprovoked imperialist invasion. Non-emitting technologies are replacing fossil fuels in transportation and energy generation. That will continue.

My objection is based on mathematics ... starting with the fourth root relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature ... if you're not familiar with the behaviors of fourth root relationships then trust me ... this alone refutes all claims of catastrophe that defy common sense ...

Your "mathematical" objection was debunked shortly before the turn of the 19th century.

Hypercanes and hockey sticks ... that'll take magical forces ... not natural ones ...

Human GHG emissions and their effect on the planet's temperatures are synthetic, not natural.

 

[jc456]

The trough on the hot side of the polar and equatorial jets (in yellow) is what caused massive flooding last week in Yellowstone and surrounding areas. It is very slow moving and the reason the plains are now looking a flooding as it moves slowly east.

View attachment 660111


As the world cools these troughs, created by the jets, are what give us our major floods and snowfalls. The polar jet has not moderated this year. I fully expect winter to be here very early and it to be a very hard and cold one with snow. The current weather patterns we see today, if they continue through the fall, will create these major snow events.

that there is some rather smart CO2 you got their Billy!!!!

 

[jc456]

This should worry you.

why? What's it gonna do?

 

[ding]

Human GHG emissions and their effect on the planet's temperatures are synthetic, not natural.

Synthetic CO2?

 

[ding]

This is what it's done

Ummm… no it isn’t.

 

[ding]

This should worry you.

It doesn’t. It’s just weather. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.