Despite the repeated efforts of paid propagandists like Joe Romm (Center for American Progress) to try to make this event about global warming, by parroting faulty science from James Hansen, it simply isn’t true. Hansen’s paper isn’t even peer reviewed, it simply reflects his own opinion published on his own website: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf
Despite these efforts to turn something natural into something sinister, the evidence keeps accumulating showing that global warming had nothing to do with it, and blocking highs, a natural pattern that develops and often stays static for days or weeks, does.
For example back December 2011 I covered a story out of UCAR via Dr. Roger Pielke Sr that spoke to the Russian Heat Wave saying:
How much could global warming have contributed? Although the heat wave unfolded during one of the warmest years on record globally, the NOAA group found no evidence of a significant trend in blocking during July over western Russia in the last 60-plus years of upper-air records. And they noted that average July surface temperatures have not risen significantly over western Russia, unlike some other parts of the world and the world as a whole.
I also covered the original story and peer reviewed paper from NOAA: Peer reviewed paper: 2010 Russian heat wave “mostly natural”
“In summary,” to quote Dole et al., “the analysis of the observed 1880-2009 time series shows that no statistically significant long-term change is detected in either the mean or variability of western Russia July temperatures, implying that for this region an anthropogenic climate change signal has yet to emerge above the natural background variability.” Thus, they say their analysis “points to a primarily natural cause for the Russian heat wave,” noting that the event “appears to be mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained an intense and long-lived blocking event,” adding that there are no indications that “blocking would increase in response to increasing greenhouse gases.”
Previously I covered Final words on the 2010 Russian heat wave from AGU: weather, predictable and, NOAA finds”climate change” blameless in 2010 Russian heat wave. The story hasn’t changed.
Now another paper has emerged concluding that the heat wave of 2010 was “a result of natural atmospheric variability.” The paper published in the Monthly Weather review is titled: Large scale flow and the long-lasting blocking high over Russia: Summer 2010
And it concludes as NOAA and UCAR have previously that it is all about blocking highs,
“The anomalous long-lasting blocking high over Western Russia including the heat wave occurs as an overlay of a set of anticyclonic contributions on different time scales: (i) A regime change in ENSO towards La Niña modulates the quasi-stationary wave structure in the boreal summer hemisphere supporting the eastern European blocking. “
…and there’s nary a mention of global warming:
Large scale flow and the long-lasting blocking high over Russia: Summer 2010
Monthly Weather Review 2012 ; e-View
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00249.1
Abstract:
Several studies show that the anomalous long-lasting Russian heat wave in summer 2010, linked to a long-persistent blocking high, appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability.
This study analyzes the large scale flow structure based on ERA-Interim data (1989 to 2010). The anomalous long-lasting blocking high over Western Russia including the heat wave occurs as an overlay of a set of anticyclonic contributions on different time scales: (i) A regime change in ENSO towards La Niña modulates the quasi-stationary wave structure in the boreal summer hemisphere supporting the eastern European blocking. The polar Arctic dipole mode is enhanced and shows a projection on the mean blocking high. (ii) Together with the quasi-stationary wave anomaly the transient eddies maintain the long-lasting blocking. (iii) Three different pathways of wave action are identified on the intermediate time scale (~ 10-60 days). One pathway commences over the eastern North Pacific and includes the polar Arctic region; another one runs more southward and crossing the North Atlantic, continues to eastern Europe; a third pathway southeast of the blocking high describes the downstream development over South Asia.
Time to bring out Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s handy gadget ala the Staples “That was Easy” button and push it for Joe Romm and Jim Hansen, repeatedly:
Schneidereit, Schubert, Vargin, Lunkeit, Xiuhua Zhu, Peters and Fraedrich disappoint. – gavin.
[snip off topic and we covered it last week here -Anthony]
Does any one really need a paper to demonstrate a weather pattern obvious to every graduate of a meteorology program?
one would think that make believe weather science would be more difficult in the satellite age.
But no.
[snip waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy off topic, this is what tips and notes is for – Anthony]
Romm at the link above is switching the scare from heat waves and rising sea levels to droughts.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/28/454281/global-warming-sharply-increases-likelihood-of-outlandish-heat-waves/?mobile=nc
BTW, the ‘parroting’ link is broken.
“adding that there are no indications that “blocking would increase in response to increasing greenhouse gases.””
Increasing greenhouse gases are supposed to REDUCE blocking by pushing the climate zones more poleward to make the jetstream tracks more zonal whereas blocking is associated with meridionality.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/
“From 1979 to 2001, the Northern Hemisphere’s jet stream moved northward on average at a rate of about 1.25 miles a year, according to the paper published Friday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The authors suspect global warming is the cause, but have yet to prove it.”
The fact that blocking and meridionality has returned to a frequency similar to the 60s and 70s cooler phase suggesats that the globe is now cooling despite increasing CO2 emissions.
To clarify, there are several Pats. lol
What makes the Russian heatwave of 2010 any different from past heatwaves? we could just as easily be discussing the Russian heatwave of 1910, over a century ago.
RUSSIAN HEAT-WAVE. CROPS WITHERED. A prolonged heat wave has withered the ‘crops, meadows, and orchards in Southern Russia. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article26261209
Or the heatwave of 1914, Almost a century ago.
RUSSIAN HEAT WAVE. GREATEST FOR 5O YEARS, FIRES RAVAGE COUNTRYSIDE.
The greatest continuous heat wave of the past half century is being experienced by the residents of North-western Russia. Monstrous forest fires are raging in every direction. The effect of the prolonged drought on crops is causing considerable anxiety. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article73575567
The fact that blocking and meridionality has returned to a frequency similar to the 60s and 70s cooler phase suggesats that the globe is now cooling despite increasing CO2 emissions.
The poleward shift of climate zones (high and low pressure systems) was the original climate change claim. It was only when this failed to happen at anything like the predicted rate that the focus shifted to global temperatures, etc.
The poleward shift of climate zones is the definitive signature of global warming, whereas surface temperature, troposphere temperature, and SSTs could (and probably are) caused primarily by aerosol, cloud and solar irradiance changes, with some contribution from ocean cycles.
So I agree with Stephen, we are likely heading back to the climate of the 60s/70s .
“We conclude that extreme heat waves, such as that in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, were “caused” by global warming, because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.” Jim Hansen, GISS, Private paper. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf
This is a new law of causality: if an event is highly unlikely, but nevertheless happens, its cause must be found in something else that is linked to related parameters.
Examples:
– John falls in love with Jane;
– A strong euro currency crisis developed over the past 10 years that may have had an effect on the emotional state of John and Jane;
– Therefore, the euro crisis must be the “cause” for John falling in love with Jane (and, hopefully, vice-versa).
Another one:
– A nuclear plant has a meltdown;
– Medical treatments with radionuclides have increased manifolds over the past decades;
– Therefore medical treatments with radionuclides must have been the “cause” for the nuclear plant meltdown.
Ready to compete for the best one?
The only attenuating circumstance for Mr. Hansen is the use of quotes around the word “cause”. But this was enough: I did not waste time reading the rest of his paper.
All we need do now is convince the BBC that there is nothing weird about weather events like this and perhaps they’ll produce a new programme that says don’t worry,it’s just weather. I won’t be holding my breath.
What was the frequency of heat waves in the LIA?
this link was a good read.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/14/historical-perspective-on-the-russian-heat-wave/
Ooh, I love it when Mr. Watts gets excited (drools?) over a peer-reviewed paper. Then I get to ask the question: what causes him to ignore the results of the thousands of peer-reviewed papers that point to anthropogenic global warming? Oh yes, I forgot, all those hundreds of scientists are corrupt evil-doers.
Honestly, I’m glad you find peer-reviewed papers to be of a high merit. And I have no problem with you criticizing science papers because they lack peer-review. So yes, criticize Hansen’s non-peer-reviewed article, but don’t forget to criticize Monkton, who has not one single peer-reviewed scientific article to his name.
Hah! Blocking highs, basic to meteorology, are apparently unknown to some ‘climate scientists’.
This is relevant at the moment to the UK. In 1976, a blocking high cut off all Atlantic weather patterns and left us pulling up hot dry air from the Sahara, replete with sand grains carried in the air. It didn’t rain for most of the year, resevoirs ran dry and we had to carry buckets to standpipes in the streets to get a ration of water.
Now we have another drought in parts of the country, and it’s easy to visualise the usual suspects appearing on the BBC blaming it all on AGW. Younger folks, or those with short memories, might fall for it, but more to the point, if 1976 occurred now, Hansen and Romm would be all over it crying ‘doom’.
Weather, not climate, just as it was before AGW became the cult of the day.
Hmmm, just noticed that my contributions at Tallbloke’s and Climate Realists have been categorised as Transcendental Rant and way out there theory along with Joe Romm’s Climate Progress site.
I think that is grossly unfair.
I have encountered much support for many of my basic propositions from contributors on this site even if I have recently diverged from Anthony and Willis over the significance of surface atmospheric pressure as regards the global energy budget.
Anthony the following comes from a certain archive recently released which you decided not to report on. It’s too bad you made that decision because it’s a treasure trove!
“Overall, I think Watts is right on Romm: with this attitude, he does himself more harm than good.”
DavidA says:
March 30, 2012 at 5:27 am
“Overall, I think Watts is right on Romm: with this attitude, he does himself more harm than good.”
___________________________________
The sentence makes no sense since it is quoted without context. Who is the “HE” in the second part of the sentence?
All very clever.
The green scamsters know that Global warming has stopped, so have moved onto blaming any weather event as “extreme” and blame it on CO2- which we have to regulate/tax for our (their) benefit.
Of course the World wide media helps the cause…..
It’s clear without further clarification; “Watts is right on Romm:”, then the rest expands upon what Watts is right about i.e. Romm’s attitude.
“…with this attitude, he [Romm] does himself more harm than good.”
So you are saying that as global warming really kicks in those heat waves will make this one look puny.
Mike says:
March 30, 2012 at 6:58 am
So you are saying that as global warming really kicks in those heat waves will make this one look puny.
____________________________________
No, it works the other way round. “Global Warming” => Arctic Warming => less temperature differential =>less Rosby waves => less blocking highs and turbulent weather (cyclones)
It is the cool half of the cycle that is the problem not the warm half. That is why there is a switch from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and “Global Weirding.” The fraudsters know darn well we are headed for cooling and more extreme weather so they are switching gears to take advantage of the rough weather ahead while they sweep “Global Warming” under the rug just as they did the 1970’s rallying cry of “The Coming Ice Age” Something I remember very well from my youth.
Mike, you state the central characteristic of fear mongering in pursuit of money and or votes, and it goes something like this: “Just wait for the bad stuff to really get going and then you will be sorry you [didn’t vote for me] [didn’t send me money] [fill in the blank].”
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Interglacial temperature oscillations.
Just found a great quote by Goethe
OHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE, The Maxims and Reflections of Goethe
In the history of science and throughout the whole course of its progress we see certain epochs following one another more or less rapidly. Some important view is expressed, it may be original or only revived; sooner or later it receives recognition; fellow workers spring up; the outcome of it finds its way into the schools; it is taught and handed down; and we observe, unhappily, that it does not in the least matter whether the view be true or false. In either case its course is the same; in either case it comes in the end to be a mere phrase, a lifeless word stamped on the memory.
Having lived in at least three “blocking highs” in Texas since 1980, with three dastardly hot summers to boot, I find nothing surprising and everything compelling about this paper. Because these kinds of highs are, in my experience, more frequent and longer-lasting in relatively flatter areas. The Texas plains and prairies and the Russian steppes are very similar geographically. I just hope we don’t have a second consecutive summer like last year’s. That was hard on me.