From the UNIVERSITY OF EXETER and the “but we are certain there’s some kind of effect” department comes this uncertain study:
Induced climate change ‘tug of war’ keeps scientists guessing on storm tracks
The pivotal study, carried out by a team of international researchers, has shown that ‘multiple’ environmental influences can stymie predictions of how mid-latitude storms could behave.
Professor Mark Baldwin, Head of Mathematics at the University of Exeter and co-author of the paper said: “The study frames the important problem of what factors influence the paths of storms, and explores the possible future changes to storms and precipitation as climate changes.”
Specifically, the study looks at how a series of environmental forces such as enhanced surface warming in the Arctic – known as Arctic amplification – will impact the position of storm tracks. These are regions where storms travel from west to east across oceans and continents, driven by the prevailing jet stream.
The study suggests that there is a ‘tug of war’ between how these different environmental forces could change the position of the storm tracks.
Crucially, such major changes could significantly impact many of the most iconic cities worldwide – including New York, Chicago, London, Tokyo, Cape Town and Melbourne – because they shape temperature, precipitation and extreme weather.
The study, a review of the latest research in the field, is published in leading scientific journalNature Geoscience.
In idealized and comprehensive climate model simulations, warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads the clouds in high latitudes to reflect more solar radiation – thereby cooling the earth’s surface in those regions and increasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. In isolation (the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface) this would lead to a poleward shift of the storm tracks.
Meanwhile, those same clouds tend to enhance the greenhouse effect, thereby warming the Earth’s surface in those same regions and decreasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, producing an opposite shift (also, in isolation).
Dr Tiffany S. Shaw, assistant professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and lead author of the paper added: “Changes in the position of storm tracks in response to anthropogenic climate change depend on how the equator-to-pole temperature gradient will change, and among the various factors affecting this gradient, cloud changes stand out as one of the important pieces of the puzzle.
The study found many examples of opposing influences affecting the position of storm tracks. These included the opposing influence of warming in the tropical upper atmosphere and Arctic amplification (enhanced surface warming in the Arctic), both of which occur in models in response to climate change.
Ultimately, any major changes in the position of storm tracks will have a significant impact on society because storm tracks shape temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather.
“The opposing cloud influences on the equator-to-pole gradient should be studied in more detail to understand the ultimate outcome of this ‘tug of war’ as it relates to the future position of the storm tracks,” Shaw said.
The researchers have now called for expanding observational efforts and the hierarchy of computer simulations used to understand how storm tracks will shift in response to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Such shifts in position have the potential to significantly change patterns of rain, snow, heat waves and cold outbreaks. For example, if storm tracks shift poleward, New York and Chicago will likely experience warmer weather and less snow. And there’s already evidence that the shift of the austral storm track southward – which was caused by the ozone hole at the South Pole -has impacted rain in Australia and South America.
###
The Nature Geoscience review article, titled Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change, grew out of a conference held last year in Grindelwald, Switzerland, that was sponsored by the National Science Foundation and The World Climate Research Program.
If I understood this correctly, they are saying that:
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The quote is from: IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
and was the epigraph of a three part series last week on WUWT by Kip Hansen:
Chaos and Climate – Part 1: Linearity
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/15/chaos-climate-part-1-linearity/
Chaos & Climate – Part 2: Chaos
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/23/chaos-climate-part-2-chaos-stability/
Chaos & Climate – Part 3: Chaos & Models
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/04/chaos-climate-part-3-chaos-models/
Walter Sobchak ==> Thanks for the promotion — there is yet one more part of the series upcoming.
Dave Fultz and Raymond Hide, working independently, were able to show all this in revolving shallow pans of water, cooled with ice in a tin can in the center (simulating the Arctic ice cap) and a Bunsen burner heating the rim, acting for equatorial heating.
This is a statement of the bleeding obvious. But that is good because it makes not knowing more legitimate. The whole idea of predicting if and where dangerous anthropogenic climate change is going to happen, if at all, is shown to be preposterous.
“Study essentially says “we are guessing at future global weather patterns”
And even tomorrow’s local ones as well.
One would think that a mathematician would understand the inherent futility of trying to forecast the behavior of a multi-variate non-linear coupled (chaotic) system. The good professor needs to refresh himself with an undergraduate course in Chaos. The U of Exeter Maths Department doesn’t have one listed on their website, so maybe the London School of Economics (LSE) can help him: MA303: Chaos in Dynamical Systems
Several scientifically sad assumptions. The first one is that climate change and human caused climate change are assumed to be the same thing. All climate science cares about now is the effect of increasing CO2 on climate.
When models and observations don’t match up, this is when natural climate change comes in……..to explain the difference.
We have defined the ideal global temperature and CO2 level of our planet for life in general and specifically for humans……..which was at some point in our past, before humans caused both of these measures to go up.
It’s clear from the last 4 decades have featured of the best weather and climate since the Medieval Warm Period(that got that name for a reason) and maybe since humans walked the earth if you add the beneficial CO2 increase…..for most life on this planet.
The earth is greening up greatly and outside of heavier rains/high end flooding events, the benefits outweigh the negatives by several orders of magnitude.
Even as we hear about the “hottest” 2 years ever, the data shows the biggest crops ever. Not in spite of but with the assistance of slight warming and the increase in CO2.
So objective empirical data/real world observations, updated thru this last month, suggest that things are still improving in most important measures. If that’s not true then where is the evidence to contradict it?
A graph that shows increasing temperature and increasing CO2 isn’t evidence of anything bad………except, that maybe that we are getting closer to the ideal levels for life on this planet.
I wonder where Exeter Uni would get funding if not from the AGW trough !
Nowhere if quality of work of the climate department is any guide to the rest.
Well then. As long as we’ve eliminated all the usual suspects we’re down to natural influences.
We can make the problem much simpler by just eliminating all the useless hypotheticals.
It states that “Ultimately, any major changes in the position of storm tracks will have a significant impact on society because storm tracks shape temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather.”
All this stuff is based on poor quality models. The Hurricane Season since 1913 showed a normal distribution. That is they are following natural variability only and no human influence on them.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Hello Grindelwald, Switzerland – low season?
‘The Nature Geoscience review article, titled Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change, grew out of a conference held last year in Grindelwald, Switzerland, that was sponsored by the National Science Foundation and The World Climate Research Program.’
That’s jolly good green air travelling in the Alps :
https://www.google.at/search?q=Grindelwald+to+Ramsau+route&oq=Grindelwald+to+Ramsau+route&aqs=chrome..69i57.49689j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
BIG ecological footstep !
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=CizSV5KUJejfgAaOw6mgDA&q=visit+Grindelwald+Volksfest&oq=visit+Grindelwald+Volksfest&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3
‘And there’s already evidence that the shift of the austral storm track southward – which was caused by the ozone hole at the South Pole -has impacted rain in Australia and South America.’
Totally bogus, there was an extended period over recent times where the Subtropical Ridge was strengthening, apparently caused by human induced CO2 (a line pushed by Timbal at BoM) but 2016 has seen the nexus broken and the storm tracks are moving north again.
We are saved.
And slightly drowned from the looks of it. I have noticed many news clips this year at WeatherZone, which tell stories of heavy rains and floods in many areas of Australia. Praise the Lord the drought has broken. …http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
I challenge anyone with contacts in the fossil fuel world to get up and argue with climate scientists. Start by demanding compensation for the subsidies extracted given the difference between the original claims that were used to justify them and the unadjusted data. Demand that since they claim the science is beyond question they sign documents giving unlimited compensation for any failure of the predictions to be as drastic as the scientists claim.
After all if the science really is beyond question they are at zero risk by doing so.
It is time for the fossil fuel industry to stop being a punch bag and start throwing really hard punches back and the universities be made to suffer economically for their pontification as customers have for years.
Or to go with the science
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/44642/total-s-billion-dollar-acquisition-will-allow-it-to-compete-with-tesla-solarcity-says-lux-research/
Griff, I use advanced batteries every day, but still know they aren’t within two bulls’ roars of where you think they are. Physics is not the strong suite of greenies, but they are welcome to put their own money on the line. Just not ours.
This isn’t recent; I’m posting it in response to the keyword “patterns” in the title. It’s the second incident involving replacement of natural patterns with modeled data that I’m aware of. The first was Pacific Marine Lab director Chris Sabine’s replacement of pH values with a wide range and no trend with a modeled smooth curve and a trend toward lower pH; the fraud discovered by PhD candidate Mike Wallace.
“Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.
But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.”
NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
November 24, 2015
Written by P Gosselin, notrickszone.com
http://principia-scientificdotorg/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
nothing new here
Information theory provides a writer with a logical basis for defining terms and grouping them together under which the “science” of a study is the mutual information of the model that is a product of this study. This model makes predictions plus a conditional prediction that is called a “predictive inference.” As the mutual information is non-nil this model suitable for use in regulating a system e.g. the climate system. The “conditions” are defined on the complete set of independent variables of the model and are called “patterns.” The humans that conduct the study are rightly called “scientists.” The rules under which the patterns are discovered are called “the principles of reasoning.”
A model that makes “projections” makes no predictions or predictive inference. The mutual information is nil thus the model does not support regulation of a system such as the climate system. There are no patterns or principles of reasoning. A human who conducts a study of this type often has features of a scientist that include a PhD degree and appointment to the scientific faculty of a of research university. Thus, a human of this type is widely mistaken for a scientist but as his model generates no mutual information he/she should rightly be called a “pseudoscientist.”
There is much to be said for drawing your conclusions from observations and hard data rather than from predictive models that pretend to understand a system so complex as Earth.
davidbennettlaing:
Observations are essential but inadequate for the purpose of regulating a system as the outcomes of the events lie in the past. To regulate a system one must have information about the outcomes of events lying in the future conditional upon actions taken in attempts at regulating the outcomes that are taken in the present. In information theory information of this type is called the “mutual information.”
For today’s climate models the mutual information is nil. Thus, notwithstanding continuing attempts by politicians to control our climate it cannot be controlled. To have a chance of making it controllable, climatologists must switch from building models that make projections to building models that make predictions. A conditional prediction aka predictive inference is made by a model that makes predictions. Today’s climate models make no predictive inferences.
Many well meaning people think there is not a useful distinction to be made between predictions and projections but this is not so. Failure to make this distinction is symptomatic of widespread applications of the equivocation fallacy in making arguments about global warming.These applications draw a conclusion from an argument in which “prediction” or “projection” changes meaning in the midst of the argument. An argument of this type is an example of an “equivocation.” An equivocation looks exactly like a syllogism but while the conclusion of a syllogism is true, the conclusion of an equivocation is false or unproved.
Good point!