Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Some claim the entire notion that human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is causing global warming is a deliberately created myth, that it was produced to isolate CO2 as a serious environmental problem that required curtailing the economies of developed countries. To enhance the threat required endangerment to plants, animals, and humans. The list of threats is endless because proponents of AGW can take everyday natural events and say they are not ‘normal.’ They know that most don’t know what is normal, as I discussed in a previous article, and that what is a ‘normal’ climate, changes with time. Many people use these interchangeably with natural and unnatural. The list of myths attributed to global warming is endless, but one started a few years ago titled, “A complete list of things caused by global warming” keeps expanding.
There is added confusion in the climate debates because proponents continually interchange ‘natural’ and ‘normal.’ It is a reflection of the philosophical and intellectual confusions and contradictions that result from the deception. It probably also reflects the underlying anti-humanity of many extreme environmentalists. For example, in Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report (1990), edited by Jeremy Leggett, says CO2 is added to the atmosphere naturally and unnaturally. By unnatural they mean the portion comes from humans. Is it reasonable to assume that if what we do as animals is unnatural, then we are unnatural? Goethe confronted the dilemma when he said,
“The unnatural – that too is natural.”
Ironically, the marketplace passed judgment on Leggett’s work. A paperback edition is available for one (1) cent assuming you are prepared to pay the $3.99 shipping. By comparison, a 2004 second edition of a true work of science, Jean Grove’s The Little Ice Age, originally published in 1988, is available in hardcover discounted at $657.82 with free shipping.
Combine these confusions of natural and unnatural, normal and abnormal with incorrect science and you create myths such as the claim that with global warming storms will become more frequent and severe.
The most frequent type of storms, which probably kill far more people over time than hurricanes or any other extreme weather phenomenon, is Mid-Latitude Cyclones. Figure 1 shows a map of the Low-Pressure Center and the wave that forms to create Cold and Warm Fronts.
The Mid-Latitude Cyclones form along the Polar Front and track from west to east usually going through a sequence called Cyclogenesis (Figure 2).
The critical thing is not the cold air per se, but what it does when it moves. The focus on warm air created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their political agenda means that most people don’t know that the cold air dictates what happens in the atmosphere. As Low Pressure intensifies the Cold air advances creating the Cold Front. This advancing air adds further instability to the warm moist air creating the potential for tornadoes. Cold air retreating creates the Warm Front.
The (IPCC) predict that with global warming these Mid-Latitude Cyclones will increase in frequency and severity. The problem is this is scientifically incorrect, which creates the dilemma that either they are incompetent or intend to deceive: either way it is an indictment.
Figure 3
Figure 3 is a simple schematic of the two major air masses that separate the atmosphere. It is almost the same in the Southern Hemisphere, except with latitudinal and intensity differences due to land/water ratios. The Polar Front is coincident with the line of Zero Energy Balance (ZEB) shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Figure 4 shows the average position of the ZEB and therefore the Polar Front. Figure 5 shows the average summer and winter positions.
Figure 5
The tracks of the storms vary seasonally as the ZEB/Polar front migrates. A second factor that influences the storm tracks are the Rossby Waves that form in the Polar Front. There are two basic patterns, Zonal (Figure 6) and Meridional (Figure 7).
Figure 6 Figure 7
The strength of the Circumpolar Vortex (Jet Stream) and intensity of the storms created are a function of the temperature difference across the Polar Front known as the Zonal Index. It is defined as;
A measure of strength of the middle-latitude westerlies, expressed as the horizontal pressure difference between 35° and 55° latitude, or as the corresponding geostrophic wind.
The pressure difference is a function of the temperature difference, the greater the temperature difference, the greater the pressure difference the stronger the winds and the potential for more severe storms. The IPCC say that global warming will occur more in the cold polar air than in the tropical air. The result of this reduces the Zonal Index and the energy potential for Mid-Latitude Cyclones.
Everybody knows a broken clock is accurate twice a day. Such is the situation with the AGW proponents claims of increased storminess, which will occur, but not because of warming but cooling. The current situation is problematic because the world is cooling as all the evidence of changing solar activity indicates. Historical evidence shows that storminess increases during cooling. Lamb identified the periods of significant cooling in the overall cooling trend from the apex of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA). He identified nine distinctive features on page 452 in Climate: Present, Past, and Future. Item (6) reads,
Evidence of increasing severity of the windstorms and resulting sea floods and disasters by shifting sand in latitudes 50 – 60°N, particularly in the 13th century, and between about 1400 and 1450 and about 1530 – 1700 (the great North Sea storms of 1530, 1570, 1634 and 1694, the Hebridean storm of 1697 and the storm described by Daniel Defoe which passed across southern England in December 1703 seem to have been of a severity unmatched in the records from other times except by those mentioned above between 1212 and 1362).
Defoe traveled across England and sought input on the nature and intensity of the storm, the loss of lives and extent of the damage. He published his findings (Figure 8).
Figure 8
The particular cold spell that pushed the ZEB and Polar Front further toward the Equator at that time caused considerable difficulties. In 1695 the Reverend John Shower published a sermon titled, “Winter meditations: or, a Sermon concerning Frost, and Snow, and Winds, &c (sic).” It culminated in the exceptionally cold year of 1709. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society reported,
People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken’s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.
You need lesser myths to support a big myth. Such is the history of the global warming deception. In science, as Einstein said,
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment completely wrong.
The problem is when you are dealing with myths it is the opposite.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me wrong; a single experiment completely right.
The fact that storms increase with global cooling will appear to support the myth that they are due to warming. Sadly, you only need one apparently substantiated myth to keep the entire mythology alive.
Nice, clear article.
Whilst I can not agree with the author that the world is currently cooling there is no doubt that the truly exceptional storms occur during the cooler rather than warmer times.
Lamb is but one historical climatologist who noted this, there are numerous others, imcluding myself, who have also researched this subject. I use the extensive Met office recrds and the storms contained in such records put our current time into their mostly relatively benign perspective.
If we continue to warm we will hopefully escape some of the weather extremes of the sometimes cooler past.
Tonyb
You can’t agree that the climate is cooling? Believe what you want. Time will tell. BTW, I wouldn’t trust the Met Office. I spoke to one of their so-called experts not so long ago, who thought that GCR stood for Great Central Railway. That is not a joke, BTW.
Temperature is not the real criteria [cool or warm] for the tropical cyclones formation. In India, along the east and west coasts severe cyclones are formed occasionally in pre-monsoon or summer inwhich temperature reaches maximum — heatwaves season. Post-monsoon season [October to December] the descending arm of seasonal temperature curve, cyclonic activity is maximum reaching up to super cyclone level. In the monsoon [June to September] the activity is more in the range of low-pressure to deep depression. This gives rain all over India where as pre-monsoon and post-monsoon gives rain over part of the country based on the wind pattern [general circulation pattern]. The monsoon moves from south to north and yet northeast gets its rains independednt of this due to Himalayan mountains acts as a box to converge wind and give copious rains..
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
it’s the changing that makes it unstable…and more storms
It’s been stable…less storms
Thanks, this is a great summary of modern dynamic meteorology, explaining the travelling low pressure systems, cyclones, and how their tracks relate to Rossby waves and the Jet stream. All of this clarification came with the classical work of Vilhelm Bjerknes and his team at University of Bergen, between 1915 and 1939. Unfortunately, the current ‘Bjerknes Centre’ at the same university is in the pocket of the IPCC.
Good review of basic weather.
When insolation is high (i.e. summer) the long term variability in the land temperatures (in this instance the CET) follows closely the long term changes in solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCs0.gif
low pass filter (6db down @30 years) is used for both solar and the CET data. deltaGSN = 11years
The CET’s summer trend for whole of the 1660 to 2015 data period is near zero. The rise in the summer CET since the 1980s appears to be ‘exceptional’, it is about 0.2C greater than that for the 1690-1720 period.
When the insolation is reduced (i.e. winter) correlation is sporadic. In the recent decades it appears that the driver changes from the summer solar to the winters Arctic jet stream meandering.
This conflict between the summers solar and the winters jet stream drivers makes the annual attribution uncertain. However, it is the winter that gives the
CET an overall rising annual trend of approx. 0.25C/century.
In order to attribute the CET’s 360 years of annual rising trend it is necessary to know long term changes in the polar jet stream, but its records are only few decades long.
“There is added confusion in the climate debates because proponents continually interchange ‘natural’ and ‘normal.’”
This is most obnoxious when advocates of the AGW hypothesis deliberately conflate warming with anthropogenic warming, then engage in defying their opponents to demonstrate the planet isn’t warming in order to prove it isn’t being caused by humans. I can’t count the times I’ve listened to the smug liars take advantage of that technique, knowing full well their victims are trapped as soon as they take up the challenge.
They’ve so thoroughly trained both the general population and the media to automatically assume all warming is anthropogenic it’s never challenged. “Prove the world isn’t warming you denler!” runs the attack, and it almost always succeeds against the novice.
Thanks for the detailed discussion of cyclones and the forces that drive them.
Just wanted to say that I get sick of ‘Weather Warnings’ from the Met Office (here in sunny England). Where I live, three days we’ve had a ‘Yellow weather warning’ for each of the days – “Heavy rain”. One 2-minute shower, today…that’s it. The warning is still in force until 9.00 this evening. I’m sitting here, typing this – glorious blue skies. We have to pay taxes for this crap.
..Same thing just happened in Southern Ontario, Canada.. The Weather Network headlines were screaming ” The Worst Thunder Storm EVER” to hit Ontario….ended up with a few showers.. !
The next day they actually put out a video “explaining” why it didn’t happen like they said it would !
Where did the thunderstorms go in S. Ontario? http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/where-did-the-thunderstorms-go-in-s-ontario-answers-here/68853/
But it makes them feel important, and thats the main thing
In the U.S. we’re getting sick of the hype from The Weather Channel. TWC recently started the practice of naming winter storms, but they failed to come up with a useful criteria. The named storms are often within the bounds of “normal” winter weather, and they’re over-hyped to the point that it just turns into very bad theater.
All the major American national networks do a weather segment during their news broadcast, and the national meteorologists, when a major storm system is coming, all say something overly dramatic like “80 million Americans are under threat” from this storm.
Fortunately, the local meteorologists have not bought into this hype and have not bought into the CAGW theme, either. At least, if they do, they keep their opinions to themselves and don’t broadcast them.
“The warning is still in force until 9.00 this evening. I’m sitting here, typing this – glorious blue skies. We have to pay taxes for this crap.”
No, I would say we have to pay taxes for you to be educated so poorly.
I would recommend reading the full text of the said “Yellow warnings”.
Which say…..
“Scattered heavy thundery showers are expected to develop, and will once again lead to slow-moving downpours across the warning area. SOME PARTS WILL INEVITABLY MISS MOST, OR ALL, OF THE HEAVIER RAIN.”
You may be clairvoyant but the science of meteorology isn’t (yet) and so cannot know if a heavy shower will hit you or your house specifically..
i think it’s the issuing of warnings for fairly normal english summer weather events which gets on peoples nerves. A case of crying wolf all the time.
[ mod, on that level :
No, I would say we have to pay taxes for you to be educated so poorly.
I would recommend reading the full text of the said “Yellow warnings”.
Which say…..
“Scattered heavy thundery showers are expected to develop, and will once again lead to slow-moving downpours across the warning area. SOME PARTS WILL INEVITABLY MISS MOST, OR ALL, OF THE HEAVIER RAIN.”
______________________
on that Level
Tonyb can troop throuout Mali with boku haram killing people unable of citing holy Quran Verses. What’s up whith that ]
ToneB. As usual, you don’t understand (seen a few of your posts where you lack basic intellect). First of all, the weather warning was issued for MY TOWN. It’s three miles by three miles. I live on top of a hill and can see the entire town if I go to the edge of my front garden. Secondly, I have been tracking all the rain through raintoday.co.uk so I can see where it’s raining. Lastly, the warning was still in force when a simple radar check (by the Met Office) shows the brilliant blue sky I mentioned hours before the warning was due to expire. That isn’t clever.
Just in case you missed it, I say again – the warnings were issued for MY TOWN, not a region, and were wrong…three days running. Oh, and no thunder either – was watching that on lightningmaps.org. Nearest was 35 miles away! So, ToneB, if a warning is issued for a specific geographic location that is 9 square miles (it’s actually 4.5 sq m because of its shape) they should get it right. I’ll wait for your apology…a long time.
bazzer1959
“First of all, the weather warning was issued for MY TOWN.”
Are you sure? I don’t think the UK MetOffice issue colored warnings for specific towns, only for regions.
As Toneb said, the specific warning was very clear that heavy rain could hit anywhere, whilst other places might not see any.
Speaking of poorly educated here you are in person. The legendarily fake nature of your intellectual credentials is contribution to AGW loopers having reputations for not being able to figure out modern era climate models leave out atmospheric compression, replacing it with illucid thermodynamic trash a student immediately recognizes as such.
People like you are necessary for the rest of the world to realize the level of intellectual dross drawn to belief in AGW
340 W/m^2 arrive at the ToA, 100 W/m^2 are reflected straight away leaving 240 W/m^2 to continue into the atmosphere (80 W/m^2) and surface (160 W/m^2). In order to maintain the existing thermal equilibrium (only required for constant temp) 240 W/m^2 must leave the ToA. Leaving the surface at 1.5 m are: thermals, 17 W/m^2; evapotranspiration, 80 W/m^2; LWIR, 63 W/m^2 totaling 160 W/m^2 plus the atmosphere’s 80 W/m^2 making a grand total of 240 W/m^2 at ToA.
When more energy leaves ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will cool down. When less energy leaves the ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will heat up. The GHE theory postulates that GHGs impede/trap/store the flow of heat leaving the ToA and as a consequence the atmosphere will heat up. Actually if the energy leaving the ToA goes down, say from 240 to 238 W/m^2, the atmosphere will cool per Q/A = U * dT.
The S-B BB temperature corresponding to ToA 240 W/m^2 OLR is 255 K or -18 C. This value is compared to a surface at 1.5 m temperature of 288 K, 15 C. The 33 C higher 1.5 m surface temperature is allegedly attributed to/explained by the GHE theory.
Comparing ToA values to 1.5 m surface values is an incorrect comparison.
The ToA temperature of 255 K should be compared to the ToA surface temperature of 193 K, -80 C, not the 1.5 m above land surface temperature of 288 K, 15 C. The 255 – 193 = 62 difference is explained by the earth’s effective emissivity. The ratio of the ToA observed surface temperature to the S-B BB temperature gives the emissivity: (273-80) / (273 – 18) = .767.
Because the +33 C comparison between ToA 255 K and 1.5 m 288 K is invalid the GHE theory/explanation is an invalid non-solution to a non-problem.
References: ACS Toolkit, Trenberth et. al. 2011 “Atmospheric Moisture Transports …….” Figure 10, IPCC AR5 Annex III
Good article, Tim.
Nervertheless, you missed your point, by not cited Marcel Leroux who has invested the concept of “Mobile Polar High” which explains everthing.
http://88.167.97.19/temp/The%20Mobile%20Polar%20High%20a%20new%20concept%20explaining%20present%20mechanisms%20of%20meridional%20air-mass%20and%20energy%20exchanges%20and%20global%20propagation%20of%20palaeoclimatic%20changes_Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
His must read book can be found here :
https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Analysis-Weather-Climate-Perturbations/dp/B01A68KCYE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1465758343&sr=8-2&keywords=%22marcel+leroux%22
I did not include Leroux because I was very familiar with his work. Marcel Leroux didn’t do his literature search and I told him as much before he died. His Mobile Polar Highs (MBH) were nothing more than another name for a continental Arctic (cA) air mass, in the Bergeron air mass classification system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass
His work on creation and movement of Mid-Latitude Cyclone was precisely what Lamb had been doing for over 20 years. I spent considerable time with Lamb at the CRU discussing these issues. He provides a very good over view of his 1972 work in Volume 2 of “Climate Change; Present, Past, and Future.
I also received copies of and was asked to review work of his graduate student that also emulated what Lamb had done.
Leroux received attention because he was an early skeptic and his work on MBH received attention because few knew anything about climatology and thought it was new and original.
It is not much better today, witness some of the comments here and generally on articles on WUWT. Most people are all about the politics and scoring what they think are intellectual points when all they do is display their ignorance.
“Most people are all about the politics and scoring what they think are intellectual points when all they do is display their ignorance.”
Sadly, I am afraid you are right. I would even say that I might be in that category at times myself. I hope not too often.
The only thing I can say in my defense is that I was reading Lamb’s books from the beginning even though I was just a lowly math teacher. I don’t know why I found climatology so interesting — nor why I thought that H.H. Lamb was the best. (still think that, no offense to your very great contributions)
Anyway, I would like to say that I find your essays here to be the best of the best and they are one of the main reasons I visit this site every day. A day that has an essay by you is golden. 🙂
How does this fit (or not) with AO – ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_oscillation
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
What the AGW people fail to understand is that energy transfer increases as the delta increases, not as the delta decreases. If storms are increasing in intensity, that means that more energy is being transferred which will only happen if the polar caps get cooler, not warmer. This is all basic thermodynamics, something the climate scientists must have failed at.
At the end of this essay Dr Ball identifies the underlying reason the CAGW pseudoscientists at NCAR, NCEI, and GISS have tried (and mostly failed) to position their anthro CO2emissions-climate control knob theory as the null hypothesis.
Over the years since this all started, I have come to the conclusion that most climate “scientists” are incompetent. But that does not mean that they are not consciously trying to deceive also.
I think they are so deep in the CO2 delusion that they could never think their way out of the dilemma of the facts going against their theory — but they would never want to either. I guess that means we have “Incompetent Fr**d”.
Neither they are incompetent or deluded; by now the ‘climate scientists’ know very well that the CO2 if anything at all, is by far the most insignificant player in the short, medium or long term climate change.
An excellent article from Tim as always
“Delta” is just another word for “weather”. GK
This is the mechanism that is relevant:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
You wrote: “In science, as Einstein said, ‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment completely wrong’.”
This is given elsewhere as:
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
note the emphasized words
And is footnoted there: Calaprice, Alice (2005). The New Quotable Einstein. USA: Princeton University Press and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. p. 291. ISBN 0-691-12074-9. Calaprice denotes this not as an exact quotation, but as a paraphrase of a translation of A. Einstein’s “Induction and Deduction”. Collected Papers of Albert Einstein Vol. 7, Document 28. The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918–1921. A. Einstein; M. Janssen, R. Schulmann, et al., eds.
Dr. Ball. Another excellent article. Thanks!
You wrote, “The current situation is problematic because the world is cooling as all the evidence of changing solar activity indicates.”
Where can I read more about that?
You can start here;
https://www.amazon.com/Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe-Independent/dp/1909022241?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
You can also check
Willie Soon and Steve Yaskell’s “The Maunder Minimum and the variable sun-earth connection.”
Then look at the work by Russian sun-climate experts like Usoskin;
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N32/C1.php
The reference to DeFoe is figure 8, but where is the reference to Lamb? Should I know this already?
“The problem is this is scientifically incorrect, which creates the dilemma that either they are incompetent or intend to deceive: either way it is an indictment.”
There is a third option.
That “they” know more than you Tim Ball.
“The pressure difference is a function of the temperature difference, the greater the temperature difference, the greater the pressure difference the stronger the winds and the potential for more severe storms. The IPCC say that global warming will occur more in the cold polar air than in the tropical air. The result of this reduces the Zonal Index and the energy potential for Mid-Latitude Cyclones.”
This is true – but is not the only casual factor on developing mid-latitude baroclinic depressions.
Release of latent heat of condensation in forced ascent being one.
This will increase in a warming world.
PVA or +ve vorticity advection being another. This relates to the cyclonic spin induced by a jet stream, and is not entirely dependent on it’s strength, but also its curvature. A meridional PJS can, via increased cyclonic curvature in the driving upper trough of the long-wave (especially when combined with a fast moving short-wave or “jet-streak” ) result in forced ascent and “explosive” development.
Mr Ball HH Lamb published “Climate: Present, Past, and Future.” in 1972.
There is a whole wealth of research since then…….
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/091.htm
“Global analyses of changes in extra-tropical storm frequency and intensity have not been attempted, but there have been several large-scale studies. Jones et al. (1999c) developed a gale index of geostrophic flow and vorticity over the UK for the period 1881 to 1997. This revealed an increase in the number of severe gale days over the UK since the 1960s, but no long-term increase when considering the century period. Serreze et al. (1997) found increases in cold season cyclones in the Arctic region for the period 1966 to 1993. Angel and Isard (1998) found significant increases in strong cyclones (<993 mb) in the Great Lakes region from 1900 to 1990 during the cold season. Graham and Diaz (2001) find evidence for increases in strong cyclones over the Pacific Ocean between 25 and 40°N since 1948 and link the increase to increasing sea surface temperatures in the western Tropical Pacific. Alexandersson et al. (1998, 2000) similarly studied extreme geostrophic wind events in the north-western European area based on homogenised observations during the period 1881 to 1998. These studies revealed an increase in the number of extreme wind events around and to the north of the North Sea. The WASA group (1998) similarly investigated the storm related sea level variations at gauge stations in the south-eastern part of the North Sea. They found no long-term trend during the last 100 years, but a clear rise since a minimum of storminess in the 1960s, which is consistent with the rise in extreme geostrophic wind found by Jones et al. (1999c). This increase is also consistent with changes in the NAO (Figure 2.30). Some analyses have focused on hemispheric changes in cyclone activity. Lambert (1996) analysed gridded SLP over both the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans for the period 1891 to 1991. He found a significant increase in intense extra-tropical storms, especially over the last two decades of his analysis, but the data were not completely homogenised. Simmonds and Keay (2000) used data from 1958 to 1997 in the Southern Hemisphere and found an increase in cyclone activity through 1972 before decreasing through 1997 with strong decreases during the 1990s."
Extreme weather events are not increasing. I invite you to examine the wealth of data on the WUWT Extreme Weather Page.
I realize that you have presented some data that purports to show that storms have increased in a warming world. The bulk of the available data shows otherwise.
My bad for a messed up link: Extreme Weather Page
commieBob says:
Extreme weather events are not increasing. I invite you to examine the wealth of data on the WUWT Extreme Weather Page.
Correctomundo, Bob. Extreme weather events have been steadily decreasing globally:
But as Toneb demonstrates, various regions can always be cherry-picked, such as “north-western European area based on homogenised observations… strong cyclones over the Pacific Ocean between 25 and 40°N… the south-eastern part of the North Sea… severe gale days over the UK… the western Tropical Pacific…” and any other carefully selected area that supports that kind of confirmation bias.
Hunting for storms here and there is just more hyping of AGW weather myths. But all that is shown are the routine fluctuations that naturally occur all the time in different locations. Picking out local variations like that is a time sink, nothing more.
were not completely homogenised. Simmonds and Keay (2000) used data from 1958 to 1997 in the Southern Hemisphere and found an increase in cyclone activity through 1972 before decreasing through 1997 with strong decreases during the 1990s.”
___________________________________
TonyB, that lot of mouthwork.
Without healthy outcome. Take a long sleep.
TonyB, what age you are. 16, 17, 18.
22, 23, 24.
31, 32 ….
You won’t command my left 10 years in real world.
Johann
Please do not confuse me with ToneB. He has made lots of comments here on this thread. I have made one which supports the general Theme of Tim Ball’s article.
tonyb
The “warming world” is not a given. And for your other points: check out the cool and warm worlds we’ve had and # of Atlantic Hurricanes:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/ACE_Index_1948-2014.svg
The 50s- 60s cold period had more hurricanes, the 70s to 1995 fewer hurricanes. 1995 to 2005 high. We may now be dipping into low frequency after the temperature stagnated to 2005 and, except for the 2015/16 El Nino is dropping since 2005. We may be about to see that a 60ish year cycle is a better guide for hurricane frequency (whatever is causing it) than just temperature changes. Also, if warming and cooling do have such effects, they are probably limited in the extremes. Although it seems here cooling is a partial factor in the record for hurricane frequency, I’m sure they are fewer or none during a glacial period or even certain level of cooling. Similarly, in the age of the dinosaurs, when the sea appears to have been free of ice and the temperature much warmer (and over much of the globe) the lack of a significant temperature variation wouldn’t be very conducive for the operation of a hurricane heat engine. The intertropical convergence zone would presumably be very broad. Finally, in a warming world, most of the warming occurs in the polar regions so that the tropics basically don’t warm – this reduces the temperature gradient between the poles and the tropics.
If we have learned anything since the advent of the ‘Pause’, it ain’t simple. The ‘Pause’ is the singlemost important happening in climate science. It should have been embraced because we could learn some very important science. The reponse to it has been to hide it, dismiss it, bend it up to fit the `1990s equations which have been falsified by it. The idea of a ‘warming world’ has even been badly wounded. Would you take a bet now (as you would have in the 1990s) on where the temperature is going over the next several decades?
Toneb:
“This is true – but is not the only casual factor on developing mid-latitude baroclinic depressions.
Release of latent heat of condensation in forced ascent being one.
This will increase in a warming world.”
No it won’t increase in a warming world. If the latitudinal temperature gradients decrease as Ball points out because of AA, where is the dynamic forcing coming from to INCREASE the production of vertical lifting and release of latent heat? And how can this create increased PVA ( positive vorticity advection ) when the result of this process REQUIRES that the mean position of the jetstream which creates relative vorticity with the creation of a wave cyclone at a particular latitude migrate to a higher latitude? Absolute vorticity must be conserved. Therefore the relative vorticity associated with a particular cyclone migrating to higher latitude must decrease and so must its strength and circulation.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
@ Toneb: Who are you? Where are you employed? Your blather like so many others who use pseudonyms for names like to appear on blogs and pose as experts. You reveal you know nothing about atmospheric science.
Chuck Weise:
Read again – I didn’t say that a reduced strength PJS would NOT decrease forced ascent. I agreed with Tim Ball.
I said that release of LH with be increased in a warming world and so mitigate the former.
Also are you arguing that AGW will effectively reduce latitudinal deltaT decrease in all circumstances? Consider the case of differential baroclinic forcing.
Take the situation of a NE’er for you US citizens. Are you saying that the advection in winter of 510dm (FI) thickness polar air into the NE States when differentially forced against 564dm sub-tropic air is going to materially change in the next, say, 100 years? This is what happens in a meridionally waving PJS – it advects extreme air southwards and meets extreme air moving n’ward ahead of it. Not always – but in geographically favoured places it does eg the NE States.
“when the result of this process REQUIRES that the mean position of the jetstream which creates relative vorticity with the creation of a wave cyclone at a particular latitude migrate to a higher latitude?”
I do know that Chuck – however – where did I talk about the developing depression being at a different latitude?
All it requires is that cyclonic curvature is increased at the same latitude (the clue is in the word “meridional”). I do not argue that it WILL be increased – the point I am making is that the absolute strength of the PJS is not the ONLY forcing acting.
“Toneb: Who are you? Where are you employed? Your blather like so many others who use pseudonyms for names like to appear on blogs and pose as experts. You reveal you know nothing about atmospheric science.”
Fail my friend: You tell me where you work/worked and then I’ll follow. But you might be able to guess (look at how I spelled “favoured”).
Also having a pseudonym on here is my prerogative and you will find the great majority of contributors here do.
You would find my name if you searched on Google however, should you care to look.
You disagree the findings of the papers quoted by the IPCC?
Toneb: “I said that release of LH with be increased in a warming world and so mitigate the former.”
How is this possible? If things get warmer, the atmosphere expands in addition to their being less dynamic lift. Evaporation increases but precipitation decreases.
Toneb: “Also are you arguing that AGW will effectively reduce latitudinal deltaT decrease in all circumstances?”
That’s a trick question. You can always find an exception. But the rule would be that the decreasing Delta T across latitudes would decrease, therefore total potential energy available for storm production would also have to decrease. The world WILL become LESS stormier, contrary to the AGW nonsense.
Toneb: “Are you saying that the advection in winter of 510dm (FI) thickness polar air into the NE States when differentially forced against 564dm sub-tropic air is going to materially change in the next, say, 100 years? ”
If you’re going to claim that AGW is causing the climate to change, then over time, storms MUST DECREASE in strength and migrate to a higher latitude. Any claim contrary, like what the climate establishment and their bogus alarmism about stronger storms is claiming is just a bunch of crap. This is basic dynamic atmospheric science.
Toneb: “All it requires is that cyclonic curvature is increased at the same latitude (the clue is in the word “meridional”). I do not argue that it WILL be increased – the point I am making is that the absolute strength of the PJS is not the ONLY forcing acting.”
Without a meridional flow ( high amplitude) to inject cold air from a higher latitude, same latitude cyclogenesis cannot achieve the deepening it does compared to lower amplitude zonal flow. If AGW is true, the amplitudes MUST decrease so your other points about a 510 dm thickness intercepting flow from a 564 dm thickness is double speak. It makes no sense.
Toneb: “Fail my friend: You tell me where you work/worked and then I’ll follow. But you might be able to guess (look at how I spelled “favoured”).
Also having a pseudonym on here is my prerogative and you will find the great majority of contributors here do.
You would find my name if you searched on Google however, should you care to look.
You disagree the findings of the papers quoted by the IPCC?”
I am an operational meteorologist degreed in atmospheric science with about 25 years of experience and unlike you, I have a real name. I have no objection to anyone using a pseudonym as a name when blogging. But I do have a problem when someone like you surfaces using a pseudonym and then acts like you’re an expert when you display an ignorance about what you’re talking about. So why don’t you tell the audience who you are and whether or not you’re an expert and if so, what gives you the understanding of atmospheric science that you claim you have?
And if the IPCC is claiming frontogenetic cyclones get stronger in a warming world, especially with AA or arctic amplification, then yes, I proclaim them to be touting nonsense because what they are claiming goes contrary to volumes of published and peer reviewed literature in the record in the discipline of atmospheric science.
Love your posts Chuck.
Chuck Weise:
“How is this possible? If things get warmer, the atmosphere expands in addition to their being less dynamic lift. Evaporation increases but precipitation decreases.”
OK, show me the peer-reviewed science that backs up your hand-waving.
“The world WILL become LESS stormier, contrary to the AGW nonsense.”
Again, please post links to the peer-reviewed science backing up that hand-waving.
“like what the climate establishment and their bogus alarmism about stronger storms is claiming is just a bunch of crap. This is basic dynamic atmospheric science.”
I repeat.
Peer-reviewed science please.
“If AGW is true, the amplitudes MUST decrease so your other points about a 510 dm thickness intercepting flow from a 564 dm thickness is double speak. It makes no sense.”
It makes perfect sense in the manner in which I posed it.
Differential thermal advection will always occur. AGW or not.
By the by though as my OP was talking of drivers to major cyclonicity – that PJS strength is not the only one. There is LH release increase.
Sorry that is unarguable empirical meteorological thermodynamics.
The “snowmaggendon” event in the E States this last winter.
Did this not have large values of precipitable water?
http://mashable.com/2016/01/22/causes-of-east-coast-blizzard-global-warming/#NQm50ZSJgmq1
“In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing,” he wrote in an email. “At present, sea-surface temperatures are more the 3-degrees Fahrenheit above normal over huge expanses (1,000 miles) off the Northeast coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is perhaps 15% higher as a result. Up to half of this can be attributed to climate change.”
“Ryan Maue @Ryan Maue
Climate scientist quotes today seem to be confusing baroclinic cyclogenesis w/tropical cyclones. Terms missing: air-sea flux, latent heat… heat flux, latent heat release effects on “bomb” cyclones showed 30-yrs ago complicated process. Goldilocks ingredients of max dev (2/2)”
“But I do have a problem when someone like you surfaces using a pseudonym and then acts like you’re an expert when you display an ignorance about what you’re talking about. So why don’t you tell the audience who you are and whether or not you’re an expert and if so, what gives you the understanding of atmospheric science that you claim you have?”
Exactly what I though of you comment my friend. ANd I have not just “surfaced”.
I do nothing other than quote meteorological science as you will find in the knowledge base whereas yours seems to come from just yourself.
I totally reject your further hand-waving ad Hom.
You missed my point entirely and jumped to the “amateur know-nothing” tactic.
And I do know of your *theory* re PJS’s in a warming world.
I do not now enough of the maths involved to do other than repost these comments from the moderator at SkS in this thread …
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1967&p=2
“The way people approach the problems of science is through publishing research. You’ve thus far been unable to provide supporting research for your claims, and contrary to how people actually approach the problems of science, you’ve only made claims that you understand this stuff while no one else does. It’s quite obvious that you are the one who does not adhere to a scientific approach.”
“In terms of what is “owed to the public,” the only thing that is owed has already been delivered. Dr. Francis has published her work in the peer reviewed literature, as scientists are expected to do. If you have a challenge to the conclusions of her research it is your responsibility to submit those to peer review. Apparently this is something you’re unwilling or incapable of doing.”
“If this is “basic atmospheric physics” you should be able to present published research that says exactly this. If there’s not any published research that states exactly what you’re claiming, contradicting Dr. Francis, then there are two possibilities. (a) No one has shown this in the research, and there’s an opportunity to publish an important paper, or (b) no one else working in the field agrees with your conclusions.”
“We know from clear, empirical measurements that the arctic is warming faster. So, by your claims, that would result in fewer extreme weather events.”
I most certainly will not give you my full name.
I have been physically threatened by an individual contributor on here (some years ago and Anthony banned him).
As I said, you will find my credentials on the web.
But FYI: I was employed by the UKMO for 32 years gaining an associates degree and was active as an on-the-bench forecaster from 1986 until my early retirement in 2006. I worked both in military aviation (RAF fast-jet trainers primarily on low level missions) and then in the commercial/media/civil aviation arena.
“And if the IPCC is claiming frontogenetic cyclones get stronger in a warming world, especially with AA or arctic amplification, then yes, I proclaim them to be touting nonsense because what they are claiming goes contrary to volumes of published and peer reviewed literature in the record in the discipline of atmospheric science.”
WUWT is not peer-reviewed science.
If you have a theory contrary to that accepted then get it published in a reputable paper.
Until then it is you that “display an ignorance about what you’re talking about”.
“How is this possible? If things get warmer, the atmosphere expands in addition to their being less dynamic lift. Evaporation increases but precipitation decreases.”
OK, show me the peer-reviewed science that backs up your hand-waving.
“The world WILL become LESS stormier, contrary to the AGW nonsense.”
Again, please post links to the peer-reviewed science backing up that hand-waving.
“like what the climate establishment and their bogus alarmism about stronger storms is claiming is just a bunch of crap. This is basic dynamic atmospheric science.”
I repeat.
Peer-reviewed science please.
“If AGW is true, the amplitudes MUST decrease so your other points about a 510 dm thickness intercepting flow from a 564 dm thickness is double speak. It makes no sense.”
It makes perfect sense in the manner in which I posed it.
Differential thermal advection will always occur. AGW or not.
By the by though as my OP was talking of drivers to major cyclonicity – that PJS strength is not the only one. There will be greater LH release increase in a warming world.
Sorry, that is unarguable empirical science.
The “snowmaggendon” event in the E States this last winter. Did this not have large values of precipitablw water?
http://mashable.com/2016/01/22/causes-of-east-coast-blizzard-global-warming/#NQm50ZSJgmq1
“In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing,” he wrote in an email. “At present, sea-surface temperatures are more the 3-degrees Fahrenheit above normal over huge expanses (1,000 miles) off the Northeast coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is perhaps 15% higher as a result. Up to half of this can be attributed to climate change.”
“Ryan Maue @Ryan Maue
Climate scientist quotes today seem to be confusing baroclinic cyclogenesis w/tropical cyclones. Terms missing: air-sea flux, latent heat… heat flux, latent heat release effects on “bomb” cyclones showed 30-yrs ago complicated process. Goldilocks ingredients of max dev (2/2)”
…………………………………………………………………………..
“But I do have a problem when someone like you surfaces using a pseudonym and then acts like you’re an expert when you display an ignorance about what you’re talking about. So why don’t you tell the audience who you are and whether or not you’re an expert and if so, what gives you the understanding of atmospheric science that you claim you have?”
I do not “surface” – I’ve posted on here many times.
And exactly what I thought of your comment my friend. I do nothing other than quote meteorological science as you will find in the knowledge base – whereas yours seems to come from just yourself.
I totally reject your further hand-waving ad Hom.
You missed my point entirely and jumped to the “amateur know-nothing” tactic.
And I do know of your *theory* re PJS’s in a warming world.
I do not know enough of the maths involved to do other than repost these comments from the moderator at SkS…
“The way people approach the problems of science is through publishing research. You’ve thus far been unable to provide supporting research for your claims, and contrary to how people actually approach the problems of science, you’ve only made claims that you understand this stuff while no one else does. It’s quite obvious that you are the one who does not adhere to a scientific approach.”
“In terms of what is “owed to the public,” the only thing that is owed has already been delivered. Dr. Francis has published her work in the peer reviewed literature, as scientists are expected to do. If you have a challenge to the conclusions of her research it is your responsibility to submit those to peer review. Apparently this is something you’re unwilling or incapable of doing.”
“If this is “basic atmospheric physics” you should be able to present published research that says exactly this. If there’s not any published research that states exactly what you’re claiming, contradicting Dr. Francis, then there are two possibilities. (a) No one has shown this in the research, and there’s an opportunity to publish an important paper, or (b) no one else working in the field agrees with your conclusions.”
“We know from clear, empirical measurements that the arctic is warming faster. So, by your claims, that would result in fewer extreme weather events.”
…………………………………………………………………………….
I most certainly will not give you my full name.
I have been physically threatened by an individual contributor on here (some years ago and Anthony banned him).
As I said, you will find my credentials on the web.
But FYI: I was employed by the UKMO for 32 years gaining an Associates degree and was active as an on-the-bench forecaster from 1986 until my early retirement in 2006. I worked both in military aviation (RAF fast-jet trainers primarily on low level missions) and then in the commercial/media/civil aviation arena.
“And if the IPCC is claiming frontogenetic cyclones get stronger in a warming world, especially with AA or arctic amplification, then yes, I proclaim them to be touting nonsense because what they are claiming goes contrary to volumes of published and peer reviewed literature in the record in the discipline of atmospheric science.”
WUWT is not peer-reviewed science.
If you have a theory contrary to that accepted then get it published in a reputable paper.
Until ten it is you that “display an ignorance about what you’re talking about”
Chuck Weise:
“How is this possible? If things get warmer, the atmosphere expands in addition to their being less dynamic lift. Evaporation increases but precipitation decreases.”
Toneb: OK, show me the peer-reviewed science that backs up your hand-waving.
“The world WILL become LESS stormier, contrary to the AGW nonsense.”
Again, please post links to the peer-reviewed science backing up that hand-waving.
“like what the climate establishment and their bogus alarmism about stronger storms is claiming is just a bunch of crap. This is basic dynamic atmospheric science.”
I repeat.
Peer-reviewed science please.
A non meteorologist like you now looks silly. The “peer reviewed” science that I base all my statements on is from established peer reviewed literature in the record of atmospheric science that was published in textbooks and taught at all major universities in atmospheric science. It should continue to be taught today as it was 30 years ago. These are basic founding principles, not “hand-waiving”. ( a favorite cliché used by promoters of AGW like yourself ) The notion that such fundamental ideas need to be re-stated in a “peer reviewed” paper by themselves is ridiculous. These ideas are the “glue” that are used to solidify the physics used to describe the behavior of the atmosphere. But in case you are interested, I’ll reference some of them again for you by copying the ones I linked up and presented to the scientific illiterates you follow over at Skeptical Science:
“Dynamic Meteorology and Weather Forecasting”, authors Godske, Bergeron, Bjerknes and Bundgaard. American Meteorological Society Volume 605, 1957, Chapter 11, Hydrodynamics of the Atmosphere. … (and) ” Dynamical and Physical Meteorology” Haltiner and Martin Chapter 12, Horizontal Frictionless Flow, 1957 ISBN 57-8005. ” Introduction to Theoretical Meteorology, Hess 1959 ISBN0-03-005743-0″
“If AGW is true, the amplitudes MUST decrease so your other points about a 510 dm thickness intercepting flow from a 564 dm thickness is double speak. It makes no sense.”
Toneb: It makes perfect sense in the manner in which I posed it.
Differential thermal advection will always occur. AGW or not.
By the by though as my OP was talking of drivers to major cyclonicity – that PJS strength is not the only one. There is LH release increase.
Sorry that is unarguable empirical meteorological thermodynamics.
The “snowmaggendon” event in the E States this last winter.
Did this not have large values of precipitable water?
http://mashable.com/2016/01/22/causes-of-east-coast-blizzard-global-warming/#NQm50ZSJgmq1
“Ryan Maue @Ryan Maue
Climate scientist quotes today seem to be confusing baroclinic cyclogenesis w/tropical cyclones. Terms missing: air-sea flux, latent heat… heat flux, latent heat release effects on “bomb” cyclones showed 30-yrs ago complicated process. Goldilocks ingredients of max dev (2/2)”
You demonstrate you don’t understand. The blizzard you reference was occurring without AGW. There is adequate COLD at higher latitude to engage frontogenesis, cyclogenesis and differential temperature advection at mid latitude where there is higher relative vorticity compared to a higher latitude. And Maue’s comments back my assertions so what point did you think he was making?
Toneb: I totally reject your further hand-waving ad Hom.
You missed my point entirely and jumped to the “amateur know-nothing” tactic.
And I do know of your *theory* re PJS’s in a warming world.
I do not now enough of the maths involved to do other than repost these comments from the moderator at SkS in this thread …
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1967&p=2
Toneb: “ You’ve thus far been unable to provide supporting research for your claims, and contrary to how people actually approach the problems of science, you’ve only made claims that you understand this stuff while no one else does. It’s quite obvious that you are the one who does not adhere to a scientific approach.”
Wrong. I just gave you the references that are peer reviewed and published textbooks. And considering this, I find it curious that when you harp on about peer reviewed research that you reference such a comical site like Skeptical Science, run by John Cook, and who has been exposed for his multiple deceptions here on WUWT for the “consensus” nonsense along with a host of others. The article you reference was written about the jetstream by John Mason of the Skeptical Science team. He touts the incorrect application of atmospheric science from Jennifer Francis and Steve Vavrus on Rossby waves because he has no expertise on ANYTHING related to the atmosphere. He cut and pasted literature from multiple sources and tried to link FV 2012 to it claiming it was all good. Here is John Mason’s academic credentials taken right off the SKS website:
John Mason
John Mason graduated in geology from Aberystwyth University in 1985. He went on to undertake research on ore genesis and supergene alteration in the metalliferous mining districts of North and Central Wales, leading to an M Phil and a number of key papers. He also worked for a time in mineral exploration with the British Geological Survey and then the private sector. His interest in climate came via investigating severe weather events and their aftermath and seeing the massive changes that past climate shifts have brought to the Welsh landscape. When not doing any of the above, landscape and weather-photography plus sea-angling keep him occupied.
In other words, a no nothing in atmospheric science posing like you as an expert.
Toneb: “If this is “basic atmospheric physics” you should be able to present published research that says exactly this. If there’s not any published research that states exactly what you’re claiming, contradicting Dr. Francis, then there are two possibilities. (a) No one has shown this in the research, and there’s an opportunity to publish an important paper, or (b) no one else working in the field agrees with your conclusions.”
I did present a paper on this very subject. It was published here at WUWT last March 13th:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/13/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/
This paper was reviewed by Dr. Ed Berry before I sent it out. Berry holds a PhD in atmospheric physics and agreed with the content. I have also received other comments from professors of atmospheric science that stated it was straight forward, correct and easy to comprehend atmospheric science. So indirectly, the article was “peer reviewed”. I don’t submit anything of a technical nature for publication without having peers in my own group examine it. The only difference in this vs. peer review from the journals you claim I would have to publish in to satisfy your phony whim is that those who would be the reviewers are employed exclusively by the climate racket and have a financial bias and incentive to reject anything falling outside the circle of promoting AGW. Proof of this is the lack of ANY dissenting views published by the AGU, Nature or Science, considered “premier journals” by this racket, including FV 2012 that my article refutes.
Toneb: “I most certainly will not give you my full name.
I have been physically threatened by an individual contributor on here (some years ago and Anthony banned him).”
It has been my experience in dealing with trolls like you that when I ask for a true identification, the fear of violence by realists and skeptics becomes a repeated reason for refusing the request. I run across this phony excuse all the time. I do not know of ANY climate realist or skeptic that has ever nor would they threaten violence against anyone. It appears to me that you are suffering from some sort of a paranoid psychosis that seems common to me in dealing with people like you. But that is also been my experience in dealing with the AGW crowds. They are in a bubble disconnected from reality and like to claim only their opinions are relevant. The truth doesn’t matter. You fit this description.
Toneb
I think you are trying to muddy the water with lots of its buts and maybes.
If the tropospheric thermal gradient decreases so does baroclinic energy to make stronger storms. Simple as that. Yes AGW theory suggests a cooling lower stratosphere which could see stronger jet streams but obs show there has been no cooling there since 1994.
A warmer polar air mass means lower potential +ve vorticity air when displaced equatorward. (Low pressure formation) Meanwhile a warmer world means warmer tropical air moving poleward has greater -ve potential vorticity (high pressure formation).
Net result weaker and fewer storms.
Curvature is related to jet stream strength and ultimately you can not generate stronger storms from a weaker baroclinic zone.
You tried to pass yourself off as a meteorologist and can’t name the law of thermodynamics that solves temperature of gas and atmospheric mixes. You’re a bombastic fake. You thought there was a green house gas effect. Yet you are so dumb you didn’t know the law for solving temperature of gas formally, strictly forbids such. You hitched your intellectual wagon to the absurd political movement that subtracted atmospheric compression from temperature analysis of the atmosphere,
then claimed magic was happening and nobody knew why the temperatures don’t jibe, without there being in effect, the very green house gas quackery you claim –
– you still think was real gas mathematics, was real gas physics, was real.
That’s what you bring here. You thought James Hansen’s quakery was real scientific endeavor.
We all know these pro-warming scientists and their pro-green activist kin are dangerous people.
They are sacrificing the greater good for their own personal incomes and prestige and the need to feel morally superior. They need to pay for what they have done.
cut off the money and people can go back to being just normal human beings. Then the story will unravel and the greater good will return to holding the morally superior position.
Perhaps the US election will provide the best chance for cutting off the cash. I’m already seeing shifts in research anticipating that hype won’t be a very profitable stance to adopt. If the UK has any b@lls left from when they ruled the waves and the sun never set on its empire, they will exit in the next referendum. They have been weakened and made fearful of the ‘risks’ of leaving the bosom of nanny politics in the EU and trying out well rested wings. It might come to an end.
From the article:
“The strength of the Circumpolar Vortex (Jet Stream) and intensity of the storms created are a function of the temperature difference across the Polar Front known as the Zonal Index. . .
The pressure difference is a function of the temperature difference, the greater the temperature difference, the greater the pressure difference the stronger the winds and the potential for more severe storms.
The IPCC say that global warming will occur more in the cold polar air than in the tropical air. The result of this reduces the Zonal Index and the energy potential for Mid-Latitude Cyclones.”
So, if the IPCC is right, they are wrong. 🙂
One thing I know: When we have zonal flow, like the example below, we get large outbreaks of big tornadoes in the central U.S.
And when we have jet stream flows like the one below, we have much milder tornado seasons. Like this season.
In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level. This rules out atmospheric CO2 as a significant factor in climate change.
Emergent structures analysis http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com demonstrates that climate change since before 1900 can be explained (97% match with measurements) by an approximation of ocean cycles combined with the influence quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies.
If average global temperature does not significantly decline before 2020 an as yet unidentified factor is preventing it.
At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide levels, ppmv
40,000 Exhaled breath
20,000 OK in submarines
8,000 OSHA limit for 8 hr exposure
5,000 OSHA limit for continuous exposure
5,000 Approximate level 500 million years ago
1,500 Artificial increase in some greenhouses to enhance plant growth
1,000 Approximate level 100 million years ago
1,000 Common target maximum for ventilation design for buildings
404 Current atmospheric level
275 Atmospheric level before industrial revolution
190 Atmospheric level at end of last glaciation
150 All plants and animals die below this level.
Link, please, I can use this, as it is supported here: http://www.catholica.com.au/misc/images2013/AJB-Global-Temp-Atmospheric-CO2-over-Geologic-Time_640x513.gif
Your link has been updated a bit as shown at the source http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
The list above was compiled by me from Google search (with multiple verification) for each item. Some are referenced in http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
DeeDub, link is right there: http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com/
Great comment Dan, Thanks for sharing your ‘culmination of 8 years work’!
Dan Pangburn,
It should also be pointed out that the current CO2 concentration is very low by geologic standards:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
The recent rise in CO2 has been a net benefit, with no observed downside. The planet is measurably greening as a result of that beneficial trace gas, which is as essential to life on earth as H2O. And for all the terrified folks hand-wringing over the rise of CO2 (by only one part in 10,000 over the past century), they would not even be aware of it if it were not for the use of very sensitive instruments.
But plants are very much aware of the added CO2. They are benefiting from it, and as a result the entire biosphere is thriving.
And after nearly twenty years of rising CO2 without causing any global warming, the belief that CO2 is the primary cause of rising temperatures is down for the count.
Figure 5 in http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com is a bar graph emphasizing this.
I added up all the numbers in your comment,
creating the ultimate CO2 number,
which contains all knowledge of CO2
in just one number,
and that number is:
82,519 ppmv
That’s a lot of CO2 !
82,519 ppvm is definitive proof of climate change,
and don’t you forget it.
Not to be picky but the quote from the Royal society is sussed.
“and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more”
The metre wasn’t around in 1709, it was defined in 1793. The quote cannot be correct.
Folks were playing around with the definition of the metre starting in the mid 1600s. link. The unit was formally adopted after the French revolution.
As you point out, the timing is ‘interesting’. It would be nice to see an image of the original document.
The standard unit of “length”, …. pre-1793, ….. was one (1) Barnstick.
Cheers
There were lots of units of length, depending on what you were measuring. One of my favorites is the fathom.
Any sailor could measure the depth of water with a stone tied to the end of a rope.
We still have the same thing. Your units depend on what test instrument you have. For instance, you could tune an antenna using an RF-voltmeter, a wattmeter, or a VNA. Your units would be volts, SWR, or s-parameters. OK, you wouldn’t use all three on the same antenna. 🙂
The correct choice of unit makes your life simpler.
commieBob, the “barnstick” method of measuring was still being employed up into the early 20th Century.
Items that were “marked” in inches or feet, such as 12” rulers, measuring tapes or 3’ yard sticks, were not a common item in early American households, ….. nor were they a common item taken with them during the 1700’s-1800’s “Westward Ho” migrations to settle the West.
Thus, when those early settlers decided to build a permanent structure (barn or house) the 1st thing they would do was make themselves a “barn” stick (aka: “yard” stick) to insure the length, width and height of their house//barn. Like, … 12 “sticks” long, 6 “sticks” wide and 5 “sticks” high (aka: 36’ L x 18’ W x 15’ H).
Marks, lines, notches and numbers were added to the “barn” stick as needed.
Well, as long as we’re being picky… ~_^
BLUF: The “(sic)” in the following is extraneous:
“In 1695 the Reverend John Shower published a sermon titled, “Winter meditations: or, a Sermon concerning Frost, and Snow, and Winds, &c (sic).””
“&c” was a common, not to say “standard” rendering of the Latin “et cetera” at that time, synonymous with the current “etc.” The character we call “ampersand” (&) is itself nothing more than a highly stylized “et” (Latin for “and”, hence its current use), and was well understood as such at that time; the letter “c” thus completes the abbreviation using two “letters,” rather than three.
Despite the fact that Latin has long since fallen out of common usage (with the result that the Latin origin of both the phrase and its characters are now at best a faded memory for most English speakers), this format is still technically correct, if uncommon*. This and the fact that the quoted title is the established title of a known literary work both remove the need for the “(sic),” since there is no erroneous notation or misspelling to distinguish as being part of some prior work rather than Dr. Ball’s.
Just my own thruppence on the matter (inflation, you understand). Do be sure to consult your own personal “red pen-holder” (H.S. teacher, college professor, &c.) before use. ^_^
* [footnote removed by comment author prior to posting, too bad he missed the marker itself!]
JohnB
That’s because it’s not a contemporary quote, as should be obvious from the style.
It seems to be from a 2009 New Scientist article.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126942-100-1709-the-year-that-europe-froze/
The beginning of this excellent article addresses to some extent the use of the word “normal” as applied to weather. Normal means complying with or meeting a standard, or norm. Best examples of true norms are human body temperature (98.6 degrees F, from which any significant departure up or down can mean serious illness or death) and human eyesight (20/20, meaning one sees an object 20 feet away as though it is 20 feet away). My favorite story of eyesight: George Bernard Shaw, playwright and critic, was urged by his friends to see an oculist and have his eyes checked. He did; and after exhaustive tests, the oculist said that Shaw’s eyesight was normal, “and that condition is very rare.” In other words, the standards for normal eyesight were well and widely known, but rarely observed.
Weather and climate have no such norms. They have averages, typical ranges, and the like; but there is no way to tell what weather or climate is normal. The fact that climate does change, over decades and centuries, rules out the possibility of a norm, which does not change. The idea that a big storm, or a hot spell, or a cold wave, or a flooding rain, is not “normal” is nonsense. Of course it is unusual; but the unusual always happens, sooner or later, as a result of natural forces known and observed for centuries. The idea of normal or abnormal is simply irrelevant. (Here in Virginia, annual rainfall averages out about a tenth of an inch per day. Does that mean that a day with no rain, or a day with over an inch of rain, is abnormal? Nonsense.)
first they convince you that CO2 @ 400 means something…and it’s dangerous
400 is so little it’s laughable
500 ppmv CO2 will cause human ears to shrivel up and fall off of heads.***
You could look it up!
Let’s get serious about the dangers of CO2.
Climate change is not a laughing matter!
*** Source: The Internet
At CliScep we believe the past is no giggling matter, so we’re proud to present the first truly scholarly timeline of the intractable tragedy that is the climate debate thus far. Enjoy learn!
Hitting below the belt is uncalled for, clipe . .
‘Normal’ for the last three million years is Ice Age super cold weather. Interglacials are short and abnormal.
Tim Ball is spot on. It drives meteorologists crazy to repeatedly hear climate blather as he describes that runs contrary to everything that is taught in atmospheric science about severe weather and storm behavior.
The climate establishment is incompetent and has everything backwards with respect to meteorology and atmospheric science. It is actually the practice of environmental religion that is tied to left wing politics that use it to advance destructive political policies to control energy and create a new slew of regulations and taxes that will accomplish nothing except destroy the economy and job opportunities.
And if we look at the political circles that want to prosecute and silence dissent on this subject using the RICO statutes, it appears to me that academia, who is advancing this nonsense, would also like to insulate itself from ever having to accept any responsibility for the gross deceptions and incompetence they are placing upon the public. In their minds, I’m sure they feel if this continues as they would like the government to make it do, then their future funding would become free of any future scrutiny regardless of accuracy or incompetence. Just as some politicians would like so as to assist them in continuing to advance their destructive, controlling policies and taxes upon the public. It appears new and rich sources of revenue to government are more important than the truth.
Excellent! Spot on Chuck Wiese!
Mike Macray
Agree totally.
My observations are that many climate scientists have limited training or not up to speed on the basics of meteorology, but rather have a PhD in maths or physics and then just specialise in one or two climate related topics.
Most meteorologists have an in-depth broad knowledge of weather, climate and computer model flaws and strengths. We know instantly when we hear exagerated claims from climate scientists because we are working with weather and climate everyday.
I am an independent UK Met Office trained Met with 22 years experience.
Some of the claims from the AGW side are just made up or if I were to be generous il-informed.
Climate scientists are hired only if they believe in the climate change fantasy, and then they make scary predictions because that’s what they are paid for.
Governments get the “science” they pay for … just like the cigarette companies did.
In other words, Political Correctness goes hand in hand with Scientific Incorrectness.
“Rapid changes in sea level and associated destabilization of climate at the turbulent close of the last interglacial maximum appear to be recorded directly in the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary structures of carbonate platform islands in the Bahamas. Considered together, the observations presented here suggest a rapid rise, short crest, and rapid fall of sea level at the close of 5e.
“The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!
conclude Neuman and Hearty (1996) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Hearty/publication/249518169_Neumann_A_C_Hearty_P_J_Rapid_sea-level_changes_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_substage_5e_recorded_in_Bahamian_island_geology_Geology_24_775-778/links/0c96051c6e66749912000000.pdf
We have to define the word ‘rapid’.
A period of 14000 years is a mere blink in geological time so, yes, rapid is the right word to use … as long as we don’t lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with geological time.
Of course Global Warming or CO2 is the universal cause for everything: cooling, the shooting in Orlando, Trump, Clinton, the sink hole in Ottawa…
Strangely, I think global warming may be partly the cause of Donald Trump.
Folks realize that they have been lied to by both party establishments. CAGW is one of the bigger lies. No matter who they vote for, things don’t improve. Thus they will support Trump who hasn’t betrayed them … yet.
commieB,
That choice is far more rational than trusting someone who has betrayed people around her, no? I would suggest asking Ambassador Chris Stevens if she’s trustworthy, but he’s unavailable for comment… ☹
As you said, both parties lie, and CAGW is one of their bigger lies. But when we cut through the incessant ad hominem deflection (which we’ll be subjected to ad nauseum from now until November), the choice is really between a successful builder (122+ skyscrapers, plus many other projects), versus someone who would be a complete unknown (and more likely than not, with a criminal record) if she had not married an ex-prez. The luck of the draw, I guess.
Can you name one outstanding accomplishment acheived by Mrs. C as Secretary of State, or anything else?
Neither can I.
…Oh, wait. She accomplished being born a woman. So she gets that bragging right. ☺
The paradigm is that the only thing we should look at is the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface but there is also the temperature of the earth’s surface to consider. The temperature of the actual earth’s surface seems to depend mostly on solar radiation as is agreed when it is stated that the earth heats up during northern hemisphere summer. How ice ages begin and end becomes confused when we can only look at surface atmosphere temperature as solar radiation declines then the temperature of the earth’s surface declines we see this happen during northern hemisphere winter but this also happens over the longer time scale. I live in Lincoln England which during the last ice age had glaciers running down our rivers instead of water, it was on the edge of this glaciation, on average we do not see the ground being frozen even at the coldest time of the year but if we did then glaciers would start to grow as we saw during the little ice age. I measured a ground temperature of 5 degrees last winter (internal unheated flat temperature) even though we were constantly told how mild it was by weather forecasters. How close does that put us to the start of the next ice age?
70+% of the earth’s surface is water (H2O) and when its average yearly temperature starts to DECREASE then for sure, the current interglacial period is in jeopardy of terminating.
I read that here was virtually no frost in southern Minnesota this past winter,late winter, end of Feb, but I drove by a pile of sand in NW Iowa that clearly showed 2 feet of frozen aggregate atop where they were digging to get the loose stuff, at that same time, late Feb. FYI, Iowa is south of Minnesota,,, Moving on….Did you hear? Going to the Sun Road, Glacier park Montana had their earliest open ever?! Never mind, it is closed again…due to June Snow… https://home.nps.gov/applications/glac/roadstatus/roadstatus.cfm
And with myths come the witches and the witchfinders general.
Ach, an’ me wi’oot me steel pin, ken ye!
^_^
Tim Ball’s posts are consistently good, and usually include some politics of climate change scaremongering, which I believe is more important than the (bad) science of predicting a coming climate catastrophe.
I do not agree with Mr. Ball’s prediction of cooling, since I do not believe anyone can predict the future climate, beyond a lucky guess.
We had a flat average temperature trend between the 1998 and 2015 El Nino peaks, that no one predicted, and the only thing I know about the future climate is there will be warming, or cooling, or a flat trend.
Climate change physics is not understood well enough to make accurate predictions, so I wish skeptics would stop making predictions — leave predictions to the warmunists.
The primary problem with government employee climate “science” is demonstrated by 40 years of wrong predictions — how many decades of wrong predictions are required before the obvious conclusion is reached: ‘We can’t predict the climate” ?
We have had 40 years of scary climate predictions — starting with a coming global cooling disaster, and quickly morphing to a coming global warming disaster.
Keeping the global warming fantasy alive is getting more difficult, as more people notice the climate they live in has not changed much, or is better than in past decades
The warmunists have had to make LOUDER predictions, more specific predictions (+2 degrees C. = doom) and more predictions, to keep the general public off balance, and scared.
This leads to every unfavorable weather event being blamed by someone on global warming, and every favorable weather event ignored, or blamed on natural variations.
The huge volume of false reports, “studies”, and predictions overwhelms skeptics, who get bogged down in details, such as average temperatures in tenths of a degree, and tiny adjustments to the data.
The character attacks and ridicule on skeptics are how leftists “debate” everything they believe in.
They treat climate change catastrophe skeptics just like they treat $15/hour minimum wage skeptics – ridicule and character attacks. That’s all they have to “debate” with — not facts, data and logic!
The climate change scam shows that a myth (a coming climate catastrophe) repeated enough times becomes a headline, and to most people the headlines they read are facts.
In general, a typical leftist you know personally will have almost no knowledge of Earth’s climate history, but will claim to “knows” the future climate of Earth in detail — and if you don’t believe in the same coming climate catastrophe, then you are a “climate science denier”.
Climate change seems to be a secular religion for people who reject conventional religions.
Beliefs, fantasies, fear of punishment for not following group norms, etc.
Climate change is 99% politics and 1% science, in my opinion — and the science is bad science, because whatever “science” fits the pre-existing conclusion is accepted … while the conclusion of a coming climate change catastrophe is nothing more than a 40-year old fantasy, cleverly used by left-wing politicians to gain political power over the general population.
Climate blog for non-scientists
Free
No Ads
No money for me
A public service to refute the climate change fantasy
Warmunists should stay away, or risk high blood pressure:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Richard Greene, “I do not agree with Mr. Ball’s prediction of cooling, since I do not believe anyone can predict the future climate, beyond a lucky guess.”
All fair except for the fact that Earth is cooling off constantly, else we’d have baked by now!
If the current Solar minimum continues, and extreme weather increases globally (based on the principles outlined by Mr. Ball), then you may have to reconsider. Already this year there are some record cold and snow in the S. Hem. at the same time as some record late season(almost early Summer) snow and cold in parts of the N. Hem. So, it gets down to predicting Sun Behavior. If it’s not already proveable through observation, I think we’ll know in a few short years whether Tim’s prediction is correct.
It is MHO that there is little to no difference between a “radicalized” Muslim terrorist, ……. a “radicalized” lefty liberal CAGW proponent …… or a “radicalized” lefty liberal highly partisan proponent of the Democrat Party
Such “radicalizations” do not result from a “one time” lecture, …. or a few weeks or several months of “brain washing” rhetoric, …….. but is the result of many years of piss-poor nurturing by parents, guardians, peers, public school teachers and/or false-prophets.
“You are what your environment nurtured you to be.”
“The IPCC say that global warming will occur more in the cold polar air than in the tropical air. The result of this reduces the Zonal Index and the energy potential for Mid-Latitude Cyclones.”
But they also say that increased greenhouse gases will increase positive NAO/AO, which would mean a more northerly and zonal jet flow, and a cooling AMO and Arctic.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Another excellent read from Dr. Tim Ball, demonstrating the ease at which the “global warming (hot)” aka “climate change (hot or cold)” scam proliferates, thrives and survives…
Excerpts:
“Everybody knows a broken clock is accurate twice a day. Such is the situation with the AGW proponents claims of increased storminess, which will occur, but not because of warming but cooling. The current situation is problematic because the world is cooling as all the evidence of changing solar activity indicates. Historical evidence shows that storminess increases during cooling.”
“The fact that storms increase with global cooling will appear to support the myth that they are due to warming. Sadly, you only need one apparently substantiated myth to keep the entire mythology alive.”
Read on…
i think the UNEP played a role in hyping both the ozone depletion scare and the climate change scare because scares serve their purpose.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991