Another Manntastic claim: Extreme weather events linked to climate change impact on the jet stream

From Penn State, and the “close but no cigar” department (see bold in text) comes this modelspalooza masquerading as science:

On the is an image of the global circulation pattern on a normal day. On the right is the image of the global circulation pattern when extreme weather occurs. The pattern on the right shows extreme patterns of wind speeds going north and south, while the normal pattern on the left shows moderate speed winds in both the north and south directions. CREDIT Michael Mann, Penn State

Unprecedented summer warmth and flooding, forest fires, drought and torrential rain — extreme weather events are occurring more and more often, but now an international team of climate scientists has found a connection between many extreme weather events and the impact climate change is having on the jet stream.

“We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State. “Short of actually identifying the events in the climate models.”

The unusual weather events that piqued the researchers’ interest are things such as the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 Pakistan flood and Russian heatwave, the 2011 Texas and Oklahoma heat wave and drought and the 2015 California wildfires.

The researchers looked at a combination of roughly 50 climate models from around the world that are part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), which is part of the World Climate Research Programme. These models are run using specific scenarios and producing simulated data that can be evaluated across the different models. However, while the models are useful for examining large-scale climate patterns and how they are likely to evolve over time, they cannot be relied on for an accurate depiction of extreme weather events. That is where actual observations prove critical.

The researchers looked at the historical atmospheric observations to document the conditions under which extreme weather patterns form and persist. These conditions occur when the jet stream, a global atmospheric wave of air that encompasses the Earth, becomes stationary and the peaks and troughs remain locked in place.

“Most stationary jet stream disturbances, however, will dissipate over time,” said Mann. “Under certain circumstances the wave disturbance is effectively constrained by an atmospheric wave guide, something similar to the way a coaxial cable guides a television signal. Disturbances then cannot easily dissipate, and very large amplitude swings in the jet stream north and south can remain in place as it rounds the globe.”

This constrained configuration of the jet stream is like a rollercoaster with high peaks and valleys, but only forms when there are six, seven or eight pairs of peaks and valleys surrounding the globe. The jet stream can then behave as if there is a waveguide — uncrossable barriers in the north and south — and a wave with large peaks and valleys can occur.

“If the same weather persists for weeks on end in one region, then sunny days can turn into a serious heat wave and drought, and lasting rains can lead to flooding,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany.

The structure of the jet stream relates to its latitude and the temperature gradient from north to south.

Temperatures typically have the steepest gradients in mid-latitudes and a strong circumpolar jet stream arises. However, when these temperature gradients decrease in just the right way, a weakened “double peak” jet stream arises with the strongest jet stream winds located to the north and south of the mid-latitudes.

“The warming of the Arctic, the polar amplification of warming, plays a key role here,” said Mann. “The surface and lower atmosphere are warming more in the Arctic than anywhere else on the globe. That pattern projects onto the very temperature gradient profile that we identify as supporting atmospheric waveguide conditions.”

Theoretically, standing jet stream waves with large amplitude north/south undulations should cause unusual weather events.

“We don’t trust climate models yet to predict specific episodes of extreme weather because the models are too coarse,” said study co-author Dim Coumou of PIK. “However, the models do faithfully reproduce large scale patterns of temperature change,” added co-author Kai Kornhuber of PIK.

The researchers looked at real-world observations and confirmed that this temperature pattern does correspond with the double-peaked jet stream and waveguide patter associated with persistent extreme weather events in the late spring and summer such as droughts, floods and heat waves. They found the pattern has become more prominent in both observations and climate model simulations.

“Using the simulations, we demonstrate that rising greenhouse gases are responsible for the increase,” said Mann. The researchers noted in today’s (Mar. 27) issue of Scientific Reports that “Both the models and observations suggest this signal has only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability.”

“We are now able to connect the dots when it comes to human-caused global warming and an array of extreme recent weather events,” said Mann.

While the models do not reliably track individual extreme weather events, they do reproduce the jet stream patterns and temperature scenarios that in the real world lead to torrential rain for days, weeks of broiling sun and absence of precipitation.

“Currently we have only looked at historical simulations,” said Mann. “What’s up next is to examine the model projections of the future and see what they imply about what might be in store as far as further increases in extreme weather are concerned.”

###


If Mann’s press release wasn’t heavy on alarmism enough, read the press release by fellow RealCimateer Stefan Rahmstort

Weather extremes: Humans likely influence giant airstreams

POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH (PIK)

The increase of devastating weather extremes in summer is likely linked to human-made climate change, mounting evidence shows. Giant airstreams are circling the Earth, waving up and down between the Arctic and the tropics. These planetary waves transport heat and moisture. When these planetary waves stall, droughts or floods can occur. Warming caused by greenhouse-gases from fossil fuels creates favorable conditions for such events, an international team of scientists now finds.

“The unprecedented 2016 California drought, the 2011 U.S. heatwave and 2010 Pakistan flood as well as the 2003 European hot spell all belong to a most worrying series of extremes,” says Michael Mann from the Pennsylvania State University in the U.S., lead-author of the study now to be published in Scientific Reports. “The increased incidence of these events exceeds what we would expect from the direct effects of global warming alone, so there must be an additional climate change effect. In data from computer simulations as well as observations, we identify changes that favor unusually persistent, extreme meanders of the jet stream that support such extreme weather events. Human activity has been suspected of contributing to this pattern before, but now we uncover a clear fingerprint of human activity.”

How sunny days can turn into a serious heat wave

“If the same weather persists for weeks on end in one region, then sunny days can turn into a serious heat wave and drought, or lasting rains can lead to flooding”, explains co-author Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany. “This occurs under specific conditions that favor what we call a quasi-resonant amplification that makes the north-south undulations of the jet stream grow very large. It also makes theses waves grind to a halt rather than moving from west to east. Identifying the human fingerprint on this process is advanced forensics.”

Air movements are largely driven by temperature differences between the Equator and the Poles. Since the Arctic is more rapidly warming than other regions, this temperature difference is decreasing. Also, land masses are warming more rapidly than the oceans, especially in summer. Both changes have an impact on those global air movements. This includes the giant airstreams that are called planetary waves because they circle Earth’s Northern hemisphere in huge turns between the tropics and the Arctic. The scientists detected a specific surface temperature distribution apparent during the episodes when the planetary waves eastward movement has been stalling, as seen in satellite data.

Using temperature measurements since 1870 to confirm findings in satellite data

“Good satellite data exists only for a relatively short time – too short to robustly conclude how the stalling events have been changing over time. In contrast, high-quality temperature measurements are available since the 1870s, so we use this to reconstruct the changes over time,” says co-author Kai Kornhuber, also from PIK. “We looked into dozens of different climate models – computer simulations called CMIP5 of this past period – as well as into observation data, and it turns out that the temperature distribution favoring planetary wave airstream stalling increased in almost 70 percent of the simulations since the start of the industrial age.”

Interestingly, most of the effect occured in the past four decades. “The more frequent persistent and meandering Jetstream states seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, which makes it even more relevant,” says co-author Dim Coumou from the Department of Water and Climate Risk at VU University in Amsterdam (Netherlands). “We certainly need to further investigate this – there is some good evidence, but also many open questions. In any case, such non-linear responses of the Earth system to human-made warming should be avoided. We can limit the risks associated with increases in weather extremes if we limit greenhouse-gas emissions.”

###

Article: Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Kai Kornhuber, Byron A. Steinman, Sonya K. Miller, Dim Coumou (2017): Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events. Scientific Reports [DOI: 10.1038/srep45242]

Weblink to the article once it is published: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242



To all this modeling sans empirical evidence I say:

Nature had an editorial five years ago that remains germane today:

Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

Having 50  models (as Mann’s PR says) isn’t necessarily better, but it does help convince people who believe that consensus is more important than actual evidence.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
250 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
daveandrews723
March 27, 2017 7:40 am

Boy, the love their models… like the one that predicted the permanent California drought, I imagine. Their arrogance has no bounds.

Bryan A
Reply to  daveandrews723
March 27, 2017 9:58 am

Gotta love those graphics. Apparently man has been having a negative effect on the climate since 1950, when the GHG effect from fossil CO2 was supposed to “Kick In”. But, now apparently 1980 was “Nornal” when it comes to Climate??? 1964 & 1983 (El Nino years) saw record flooding in California Sonoma County alonf the Russian River basin, I guess this was “Normal” flooding and heavy rain events whereas 1998 and 2016 were Abbi-normal

Reply to  Bryan A
March 27, 2017 12:22 pm

Re abbi-normal – and you can’t even say “At least it is not raining”.

NorwegianSceptic
Reply to  Bryan A
March 28, 2017 12:42 am

“Mann has been having a negative effect on the climate since 1988”.
– There, fixed it for ya !

Malcolm Bryer
Reply to  daveandrews723
March 27, 2017 10:51 am

What we have here is a whole generation that has grown up watching TV screens and computer screens believing everything that looks nice is therefore true. It is not science it is narcissism.

MarkW
Reply to  daveandrews723
March 27, 2017 11:11 am

As every modeler knows. The earth’s climate is completely stable and hasn’t changed once in the last couple of billion years.
Any changes that are happening now must have been caused by man.
The IPCC said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Reply to  MarkW
March 27, 2017 11:18 am

Texas never had a heat wave before 2011. Unprecedented.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
March 27, 2017 12:07 pm

And California never had a drought before 2010

4 Eyes
Reply to  MarkW
March 27, 2017 8:41 pm

And the 1930s dust bowl hot years never happened because there is hardly anyone alive who can remember that period and as we all know the only time frame that counts for alarmists is living memory.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
March 28, 2017 8:45 am

I remember one not so young alarmist I debated a number of years back.
When asked what the ideal climate for the planet was, he replied that it was the climate that he remember as a child.

Irony, it’s not just for laundry.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  daveandrews723
March 27, 2017 4:37 pm

But don’t ignore the fact that there were 50 CMIP5 models used – all the same, but different. I can only guess that they all agreed (by consensus) on the usual 2+2=5 result … with an impressive precision of ±0.02 of course.

March 27, 2017 7:41 am

Grasping at straws.

Latitude
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 27, 2017 9:33 am

You gotta love it……global warming that has had no effect on temps in the past ~20 years……screwed up the jet stream
Must be all those windmills

Reply to  Latitude
March 27, 2017 1:56 pm

You are using logic. Thats not fair to Mann and Rahmstorf. They just believe the CMIP5 serm despite it having been proven wrong three ways.

Luther Bl't
Reply to  Latitude
March 28, 2017 12:08 pm

It’s worse than we thought.

Not only has the missing heat gone into the Rossby waves, as you imply, but it has caused the Moon to orbit further from the Earth than in the epoch of unicorns, fluffy bunnies, and inundations of milk and honey that caused the topographical changes observable everywhere today.

phaedo
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 27, 2017 11:05 am

Grasping at grant money.

Tom Judd
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 27, 2017 12:43 pm

I wish they were just grasping at straws. They’re grasping at me someplace else and I don’t like it.

drednicolson
Reply to  Tom Judd
March 27, 2017 2:30 pm

Your wallet.

Gunga Din
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 27, 2017 3:01 pm

Grasping at straws to repair the rails that keep the gravy train on track?

Barbara
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Global Change Musings Blogspot, Australia

Older posts > Feb.10, 2017, second page in.

‘Climate change and activism: time for protests to rival those against the Vietnam war’ by Colin D. Butler

Scroll down to: Jetstream Deforming

Colin D. Buttler

Prof. University of Canberra
Australian IPCC contributor
Co-founder of ‘Health – Earth’, University of Canberra

https://globalchangemusings.blogspot.ca

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
March 27, 2017 11:21 pm

Re: Northern Gateway Project, Canada

‘Open Letter on the Joint Review Panel regarding the Northern Gateway Project’, May 26, 2014

Signatures include:

Michael E. Mann, Penn State University
Trevor Hancock, University of Victoria & “Health-Earth”, Australia

And many other signatures.

http://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/jrp_letter_to_federal_govt_may28_all_signatures.pdf

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
March 28, 2017 7:14 pm

‘Sustainable Development: A Canadian Perspective’ c.2002, 129 pages.

5.3, Toxic Substances

P.49, Section by: Dr.Trevor Hancock, Chairman, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment/CAPE.

PDF download at:
http://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/En40-668-2002E.pdf

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
March 29, 2017 12:08 pm

UN/United Nations
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
National Assessment Report for WSSD, 8 Jun 2011
Health & Environment
Toxic Substances: pages 48-51

Trevor Hancock

At:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=166&type=504&menu=139

Butch
March 27, 2017 7:43 am

“On the is an image of the global circulation pattern on a normal day. On the right is the image of the global circulation pattern when extreme weather occurs ” ???

I wonder Mickey Mouse Mann realizes he LEFT something out from the caption below the first graph ?? D’OH !

Bryan A
Reply to  Butch
March 27, 2017 10:00 am

He didn’t want to be viewed as a “Left”ist so he Left it out

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
March 27, 2017 12:09 pm

See LEFT is good…RIGHT is bad
Subliminal indoctrination

Neil
March 27, 2017 7:50 am

Interestingly, most of the effect occured in the past four decades. “The more frequent persistent and meandering Jetstream states seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, which makes it even more relevant,” says co-author Dim Coumou from the Department of Water and Climate Risk at VU University in Amsterdam (Netherlands).

So let me get this straight: The jetstream, which has been most documented since WW2 (I am aware of the earlier histories, but it was the 1940s it was most extensively studied, so let’s use that start date) – ie. 77 years – has been wavering around more in the last 40 years.

That is to say: for the vast bulk of the time we’ve been aware of the thing, it’s been moving around, but this is new and proof of climate change.

I’m shock and stunned at this revelation.

Reply to  Neil
March 27, 2017 8:25 am

We have only been able to measure the jet stream at the level of detail required since satellites appeared about 40 years ago, so the inference is that extreme weather events prior to that were natural and recent ones are not. For example, the multi-century droughts California experienced between about 850 AD and 1400 AD were natural, but the recent 4 year drought was not.

Attempting to reconstruct the jet stream from sparse surface temperature measurements will never reveal the fine structure that Mann seems so concerned about. Perhaps they throw a few NAN’s into the simulation to get the results they are looking for.

Leopoldo
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 27, 2017 11:39 am

it was a great phrase.

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 27, 2017 2:33 pm

Similarly the numerous extreme heat events, drought events, wind events and cold events we can trace in the British climate over the last thousand years must have been natural but the 2003 heat event was obviously caused by man, even though it doesn’t seem any different to previous ones…

Tonyb

March 27, 2017 7:53 am

LOL, the first sentence of the Introduction of the paper refers to “the unprecedented, ongoing drought in California”:

“A series of persistent, extreme summer weather events in recent years including the 2003 European Heat Wave, the 2010 Pakistan flood/Russian heatwave, 2011 Texas drought and the unprecedented, ongoing drought in California, has led to a continuing discussion in the scientific literature regarding the relationship between anthropogenic climate change and the spate of recent weather extremes”

HT Tom Nelson for noticing that.

Nick Werner
Reply to  Paul Matthews
March 27, 2017 8:19 am

Excellent observation. Peer review in climate science has become so painstakingly thorough that by the time it’s completed, even the first sentence is wrong.

Reply to  Paul Matthews
March 27, 2017 9:30 am

Weather events are not climate except when it’s the other way ’round.

Hugs
Reply to  rebelronin
March 28, 2017 11:26 am

Weather in climate paper is pretty much non sequitur, but this is pure bovine excrement

unprecedented, ongoing drought in California,

It is not unprecedented, nor ongoing, and such a published anecdote confirms that top notch sciency publication series have downgraded into cheap political games. This is hopeless.

March 27, 2017 7:53 am

Cherry picking weather events now and not computer model inputs to “substantiate” their theories. I suppose we should applaud their ingenuity and perseverance, even if their science is still on a par with that of medieval alchemists!

Jon
Reply to  macawber
March 27, 2017 9:59 am

On a par with medieval alchemists? Please! These scientists have actually managed to transmute something worthless into gold!

Sandyb
Reply to  Jon
March 27, 2017 12:14 pm

“high-quality temperature measurements are available since the 1870s, so we use this to reconstruct the changes over time,” WHAT, PROVE IT. Show me a couple of accurate thermometers from the 1870s and who used them and where. Hogwash.

Reply to  Sandyb
March 28, 2017 1:16 pm

Their incessant need to “adjust” historical temperatures, even well into the 20th century, makes you wonder how they know anything about temperature! Clearly the people from the first half of the 20th century (and all of the 19th century) did not know how to take temperatures – otherwise why would their raw data need to be adjusted?

AndyG55
Reply to  Jon
March 27, 2017 12:22 pm

““high-quality temperature measurements are available since the 1870s”

I wonder why BOM in Australia reject anything before 1910, then. 😉

Reply to  Jon
March 27, 2017 12:23 pm

True, so please could we have our portion of this Klimategeld!

Menicholas
Reply to  Jon
March 27, 2017 1:16 pm

I was wondering if they used raw or “adjusted” data?

pameladragon
Reply to  macawber
March 27, 2017 7:51 pm

That is a terrible thing to say about medieval alchemists! At least they were sincere in their attempts to figure out the mysteries of the world. Mann is more akin to a tantruming 2-year old!

PMK

Steve Case
March 27, 2017 7:54 am

Word search on the above article turns up “extreme” 19 times

If you go to NOAA’s Climate at a glance,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
you will find that a comparison of Maximum and Minimum temperatures shows that summers are getting cooler and winters are getting warmer. In other words the climate in the United States at least is getting milder. Pretty soon the Michael Manns of this world will have to scare us with claims about “Extreme Mildness”

Truman ross
Reply to  Steve Case
March 27, 2017 8:50 am

If it wasn’t so funny, it would be serious——-climate change has ALWAYS,ALWAYS, ALWAYS been happening!!!!!!

Reply to  Steve Case
March 27, 2017 9:22 am

I see a correlation between extreme weather and extreme sports.

Reply to  rebelronin
March 27, 2017 9:46 am

Know what?
I’m bored with ‘extreme’ weather.
So 20th century.
I want ‘ultimate’ weather.

drednicolson
Reply to  rebelronin
March 27, 2017 2:44 pm

“No no, ultimate weather is too calm.”
“Ultimate weather too calm?!”
“Yes, we’re gonna have to go right to… LUDICROUS WEATHER”

Pop Piasa
Reply to  rebelronin
March 27, 2017 4:29 pm

I see your ludicrous weather and raise you two MANIACAL weathers!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  rebelronin
March 27, 2017 4:32 pm

“I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hurricane today…”

Leopoldo
Reply to  Steve Case
March 27, 2017 11:42 am

extreme mildness is a good phrase

Jer0me
Reply to  Leopoldo
March 27, 2017 12:42 pm

As is “sextreme meanders”, my favourite!

Currently weathering Cyclone Debbie, already blamed on Climate Change ™…

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Leopoldo
March 27, 2017 4:36 pm

Batten down the windmills, mates!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Leopoldo
March 27, 2017 4:51 pm

Hey Jer0me, since a cyclone rotates reversed in the SH, does the wind blow out towards the sea?
/sarc

Jer0me
Reply to  Leopoldo
March 27, 2017 6:58 pm

Pop, yes half of it does blow out to sea 🙂

eck
March 27, 2017 7:54 am

Unprecedented??? Geesh! Lost me there. No sense reading further.

PiperPaul
Reply to  eck
March 27, 2017 8:29 am

Journalists and idiots DO love that word. It’s dramatic.

drednicolson
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 27, 2017 2:48 pm

Unprecedented usage of the word, even.

Hugs
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 28, 2017 11:29 am

Unprecedented is not sustainable.

Reply to  eck
March 27, 2017 9:14 am

To plagiarize and spoof-
“Unprecedented!”
“You keep saying this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Bryan A
Reply to  Aphan
March 27, 2017 10:04 am

sounds like what the World Governence aspet of climate control is tyring to do to the USA,
Make us Un-Presidented

Reply to  Aphan
March 27, 2017 12:42 pm

inconceivable

Bryan A
Reply to  Aphan
March 27, 2017 2:19 pm

that and Un-concieveable

Griff
March 27, 2017 7:54 am

Exactly the jet stream effect described has been behind a number of the UK winter storm/flooding events which have occurred nearly annually since 2000 (and did not in the 20th century occur with same frequency or intensity)

Phoenisx44
Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 8:00 am

Nearly annually since 2000? Which UK are you living in exactly? We’ve had 15 or 16 winter storm/flooding events? Bizarre nonsense.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  David Johnson
March 27, 2017 11:51 am

Anthony- Perhaps you would consider archiving this linked paper as it is a nice counter to the persistent nonsense of our climate getting “worse and worse”. An associated link to Warren Buffet’s comments that their insurance business is not seeing higher costs due to climate change might “seal the deal” in the minds of many agnostics.

Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 8:09 am

Griff, the IPCC projected that it would be WARMER and less snow over time. Dr. Viner said 17 years ago that snowfall would be a thing of the past,,,,,

” However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”

March 20,2000

Your claim has been utterly destroyed. England, at least two different years was 100% covered in snow,other years large areas covered.

All of Britain covered by snow

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/08/all-of-england-covered-by-snow/

Editor
Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 8:10 am

Go away and check out the 1870s, 1910s, and 1920s

Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 8:18 am

Griff, do your homework next time before you make silly unsupported claims. Here is a long list of Natural disasters back to 535 ad ,weather wise:

List of natural disasters in Great Britain and Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

leafwalker
Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 8:39 am

Griff brings to mind a kid poking an anthill to watch the ants scurry around. Then he leaves.

I don’t mind Griff – I find his critics comments to be very informative!

BCBill
Reply to  leafwalker
March 27, 2017 9:20 am

I wish more people like Griff participated. As leafwalker says, his postings bring out a lot of good responses. I certainly wouldn’t want to be like the passengers on the gravy train who are desperate to shut down any discussion. Go Griff.

Sun Spot
Reply to  leafwalker
March 27, 2017 10:48 am

Yes, Griff-ter is a very useful tool, he invokes the “reverse-Giff-Streisand Effect”, ie. he publishes stupidity that amplifies the knowledge of Giff’s ignorance.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 9:16 am

You’ve just discovered the ‘Pause’ Griff. Been there done that.

Philio
Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 9:54 am

The one time I was privileged to visit the UK was May, 1982. Everyone, including the friends I was visiting, said ” the weather is much nicer than last year”. Mid to high 70’s(that’s 25degC for metric folks), moderate to light breezes, sunny to partly cloudy skies, no rain for a week.

Weather changes aren’t all bad for the climate. The climate catastrophe’s hadn’t hit the papers then so the weather had a chance to be nice.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 11:01 am

RE Phoenisx44
What Griff meant to say was “nearly annually since 1000”. we will forgive Griff for the typo.

AJB
Reply to  Griff
March 27, 2017 11:33 am

Has Griff been helping out with the rewrite of Michael Fish’s memoirs?

Mark from the Midwest
March 27, 2017 7:58 am

I have a model that shows that you are all about to buy a 5 acre parcel in Florida, sight unseen, from me, at a fabulous introductory price of just $42,500 each. Send the money to this numbered Swiss bank account:
ZT14978XMT328, and when receipt is verified I will send the deed to you by FedEx.

Because models are so scientifically valid you will do as I say

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 27, 2017 5:10 pm

Shouldn’t that be an unprecedented introductory price? Just sayin

HAR
March 27, 2017 7:58 am

Well, it is clear that the great hoaxter Mann is trying another one on. He has to so as to try and distract attention from Thomas Karl’s attempt at weather fraud. Absolutely, positively cannot let facts disturb the narrative!

Myron Mesecke
March 27, 2017 8:00 am

Why are these so called climate experts so inept at looking backwards?
They seem incapable and/or unwilling of studying weather events from long ago.
More violent tornadoes in the cooler ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. Plenty of hurricanes.
Cold winters, hot summers, droughts, floods and east coast tropical storms in the cooler 1950s.

Somehow, if they acknowledge this at all they will declare it ‘normal’ but a less severe version of it today can only be a manifestation of man’s CO2 output.

Makes me want to do a Clockwork Orange on them and force them to watch reports on the weather from these cooler decades.

Bruce Ploetz
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 27, 2017 10:01 am

Pinterest doesn’t let you use their pics.Another example: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6kgbxRcXl1qcq2h3.jpg But their eyes are wide shut, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Tom Halla
March 27, 2017 8:02 am

I disbelieve that there is any real pattern of extreme weather, so claiming a cause for something that does not really exist is an excercise for philosophy students. The California and Texas droughts were not any way unprecedented, and fit historical weather patterns.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 27, 2017 8:34 am

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

And the mercury news is so biased to the left, I terminated my subscription many years ago. Note the lip service to CO2 at the end of the article. BTW, the recent drought came to an end about 9 months after this article was published.

Editor
March 27, 2017 8:08 am
Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 27, 2017 10:56 am

Well, even if there should be some changes of the Rossby Waves behaviour in the last decades, this could also be caused by a cooling ozone layer thanks to the weakening sun and its reduced UV intensity.

BTW: Just today there was very interesting press release in Switzerland about the probable effects of the next great solar minimum:

http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx

March 27, 2017 8:09 am

So now we know what Mann will say in his Congressional testimony March 29, 2017.

Brook HURD
March 27, 2017 8:15 am

Mann and his crew seem to have redefined “unprecedented” to mean that something has not occured during the previous decade. California has had cyclical droughts throughout recorded history. Neither the recent drought, nor the atmospheric river which ended it are in any way unusual.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Brook HURD
March 27, 2017 12:18 pm

To them “unprecedented” is anything they are unaware of, and since they lack any natural curiosity they are pretty much unaware of everything

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 27, 2017 3:23 pm

To them “unprecedented” is anything they didn’t see in a tree ring. And we know what didn’t show up in a tree ring.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  Brook HURD
March 27, 2017 8:59 pm

Mann and his crew seem to have redefined “unprecedented”

If nothing else – and after eight+ years of lurking and occasional posting, I’m becoming increasingly convinced that there may well be nothing else – one must give Mann and his like-minded (for want of a better word) cohorts credit for consistent high marks in the “redefinition” department.

As I had noted back in 2012:

we have had to learn to, well, acclimatize ourselves to “climate scientists” who give themselves licence to redefine commonly understood words in the English language; words such as “trick“, “decline”, “fudge” – and even “experiments”

One would have thought that those who had achieved such lofty academic heights as Mann and his ilk would know enough of the world they share with the rest of us and would be smart enough to figure out that they had absolutely no right to don the halo of a Nobel (Peace) Prize – as far too many of them indisputably did.

But, alas, they clearly lack such skills and/or perspicacity. Considering that they have proven themselves to be so very wrong on the small stuff, why on Gaia’s green earth should they ever be trusted on the big stuff, eh?!

March 27, 2017 8:16 am

Don’t you first have to start with proof that the events described are actually unprecedented or at least significantly off of recorded weather norms? If not, what you are proving is that CO2 causes normal weather.

Pat McAdoo
March 27, 2017 8:20 am

Good point, Don.

Curry and Pielke now have time to phrase their refute.

Pielke, Jr left the mainstream climate blogs as I recall because he kept showing that “extreme” weather events had no correlation with any of the models nor the recorded data. So the warmistas made him miserable. Seems his father also left the blogs for the same reason. Then there’s Curry……

Besides, what is the definition of “extreme” or “unprecedented”?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
March 27, 2017 8:45 am

“Unprecedented – never done or known before:
In other words a total failure of science in their opening remarks.

March 27, 2017 8:22 am

And then there’s Attrubution Science of course.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929159

RWturner
March 27, 2017 8:25 am

“The researchers looked at real-world observations and confirmed that this temperature pattern does correspond with the double-peaked jet stream and waveguide patter associated with persistent extreme weather events in the late spring and summer such as droughts, floods and heat waves. They found the pattern has become more prominent in both observations and climate model simulations.”

The latest global weather patterns are always confirming their hypotheses. And that’s easy to do, when your “science” involves giving “real-world observations” (opposed to fake-world) a looksy and simply saying, that’s exactly what we’d expect due to increased CO2.

And here is their analysis of the “observations”. A cherry picked trend-line starting in 1970 is the basis for their entire conclusion.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242/figures/5

And here is their model source code.

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/10000/nahled/bone-tower-67812771829030i7E.jpg

rocketscientist
Reply to  RWturner
March 27, 2017 11:14 am

OMG!!!
You do realize what that alignment of bones indicates: Even more use of… unprecedented!

Bryan A
Reply to  rocketscientist
March 27, 2017 12:18 pm

Thems must be the bones of the Bramble Cay melomys that have gone extinct. Perhaps they were the best source of entrails for climate model predictiveness.

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 27, 2017 1:03 pm

I am not schooled in chicken-bone code. I feel soooooooo inferior.

Menicholas
Reply to  RWturner
March 27, 2017 11:17 am

Where are the entrails?
Cannot make a good climate prediction without them entrails.

Bryan A
Reply to  Menicholas
March 27, 2017 12:21 pm

They lost their predictive ability because the Bramble Cay Melomy entrails worked the best.

Phil R
Reply to  Menicholas
March 27, 2017 12:29 pm

Menicholas,

Apparently, you can! 🙂

osteomancy, osteomanty:
divination by the examination of bones.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/osteomancy

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
March 27, 2017 1:19 pm

Phhtt!
Gave me a competent haruspex anyday!

Reply to  RWturner
March 27, 2017 11:23 am

Looks like a zonal pattern to me!

DHR
March 27, 2017 8:35 am

And then there is the Palmer index for the lower 48. Not much to see there, except for the exceptionally dry years in the 30’s and early 50’s.
comment image

John Harmsworth
Reply to  DHR
March 27, 2017 12:13 pm

Yeah, but that wasn’t climate change. Climate change came later, disguised as normal weather.

Harry Passfield
March 27, 2017 8:54 am

We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events

Dr Mann: A miss is as good as a mile. I once came as close to winning the lottery jackpot as one can get – without actually winning it. Hey, I stayed a poor man by just getting close; you managed to become rich as Croesus just by getting somewhere in the ballpark.

Bryan A
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 27, 2017 12:23 pm

actually you were made slightly poorer due to the fact that you had to spend some of your hard earned income on that Close Lottery Ticket

March 27, 2017 8:58 am

I remain doubtful that adding more models of the usual fashionable quality will lead to any accuracy in attribution of weather changes, but it surely must increase the smell of decay in the halls of academia.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 27, 2017 9:05 am

Sorry, did the release describe Mann as “distinguished” or “extinguished “? I can’t quite remember and can’t summon up the enthusiasm to read this panic mongering nonsense again.

Menicholas
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 27, 2017 11:19 am

At Penn State, “distinguished” apparently means “has not been convicted of any felonies recently”.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 27, 2017 12:15 pm

How about disingenuous? Discredited? Disgusting?

Pop Piasa
March 27, 2017 9:09 am

How is CO2 supposed to overpower the oceanic cycles when it comes to atmospheric circulation? Does Mann still believe that the troposphere is giving heat and CO2 to the oceans, when common sense should show the reverse is actually the case? How does CO2 change the pressures off the NW coast of Australia that control the tradewinds as the SSTs in the Indian Ocean rise and fall?

He appears to ignore everything but the stuff that backs his claims.

pochas94
March 27, 2017 9:12 am

So they looked really, really hard and found a correlation.

Hugs
Reply to  pochas94
March 28, 2017 11:36 am

(p > 0.45)

March 27, 2017 9:14 am

The amazing thing is this.

Real atmospheric scientists ( Manabe and Wetherald, 1979 ) identified reduced thermal wind decades ago. Their conclusion?

“The reduction of meridional temperature gradient appears to reduce not only the eddy kinetic energy, but also the variance of temperature in the lower model troposphere. “

Got that?

Global warming reduces both extreme weather and extreme temperatures!

Sommer
Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
March 27, 2017 10:24 am

Meanwhile, CBC in Canada is broadcasting this information today and in so doing backing up our Minister of Environment, Catherine MacKenna, as she insists that carbon taxes will reduce these “extreme man made weather events”.
The gullible, uninformed are feeling guilty and frightened into submission.

TomRude
Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
March 27, 2017 10:48 am

@ sommer do you have a link to the CBC story? Thanks

Brett Keane
Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
March 27, 2017 10:54 am

@ Turbulent Eddie March 27, 2017 at 9:14 am: However, it is cooling that has started, and this is behind the meridional vigour. A new phase thanks to the quiet sun and ocean currents. Which we can nowadays observe, and that is unprecedented….

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
March 27, 2017 11:57 am

Re TomRude
It was on the CBC News network (bell 502) with Johanna Wagstaffe commenting. She likes that sort of stuff.

TomRude
Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
March 27, 2017 2:11 pm

Thank you Gerald

TomRude
March 27, 2017 9:14 am

“We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State. “Short of actually identifying the events in the climate models.”

Sadly for Mann, identifying the events would be the only proof that his theory may be valid.
As for Coumou’s video, it is straw man after straw man in the first 30 seconds: this guy has no clue about meteorology.

Richard III
March 27, 2017 9:22 am

Wasn’t it about 40 years ago (the 1970s) that we began extracting energy from the sunshine and the wind because of the “energy crisis”? Perhaps, we are altering weather patterns (that run on energy) with our efforts and creating the worsening conditions. After all, correlation is causation, right?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Richard III
March 27, 2017 12:44 pm

Maybe we provoked the wind gods! Or maybe CO2 bothers their noses. Michael Mann is looking into it.

Reply to  Richard III
March 28, 2017 1:48 pm

Clearly we need to extract the exact right amount of energy at varying temperatures so we do not disturb the “normal” temperature variants! But which “normal” temperature variants is Mickey Mann talking about ?? The ones for the past decade? Or the past century? Or the past 1,000 years? Or since the last Ice Age???

Les Segal
March 27, 2017 9:22 am

once this whole CAGW debacle is debunked (given that it’s adherents have a cult like attachment that’s emotionally based rather than fact driven, this will take some time yet), people like James Hansen and Michael Mann need to be put on trial for this massive scare and the ensuing billions of dollars in wasted spending.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Les Segal
March 28, 2017 3:56 am

once this whole CAGW debacle is debunked
They never will let this happen. They will perpetually come up with new and improved nonsense to keep us busy.

March 27, 2017 9:22 am

Which came first: cause or effect?

Ron Williams
Reply to  Slywolfe
March 27, 2017 11:34 am

The egg…

March 27, 2017 9:24 am

The other thing is this:

Have these models given up on the Hot Spot?

If the Hot Spot actually occured, it would increase the jet stream level thermal gradient, but of course, the Hot Spot hasn’t panned out for the satellite era:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpotGradient.png

Also, Hansen has been arguing for an increased thermal wind.
Which is it?

For the cause, it doesn’t seem to matter, as long as some one’s peeing their pants.

pochas94
Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
March 27, 2017 9:31 am

The “hot spot” is impossible. The temperature of the atmosphere is determined at the level where the hot spot is supposed to occur (the equivalent emissions height). All temperatures at other levels are simply related to the temperature (the planck temperature) at that height. The settled science is wrong because it is based on a faux radiation balance at the surface based on false assumptions which ignore relevant atmospheric physics.

Brett Keane
Reply to  pochas94
March 27, 2017 10:57 am

Bravo!

Clyde Spencer
March 27, 2017 9:25 am

From Global Business Times:

“Global warming is driving this trend in two ways, the authors say. The first is because the planetary waves depend on the temperature difference between the cold Arctic and the warm equator. This difference is DECREASING with climate change, leading to slower-moving waves.”

“Second, the difference between land and sea is getting LARGER with climate change, as the oceans absorb and circulate heat much better than the land. This also makes the planetary waves slower and larger.”

Which is it? Is the difference between Arctic land and the oceans increasing or decreasing? Or does it depend on the day of the week?

Leopoldo
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 27, 2017 10:55 am

they are deciding if it is one or the other. Sometimes is increasing and sometimes decreasing. It depends on the week we are. This is why they have so difficult task to guess it right.

Menicholas
Reply to  Leopoldo
March 27, 2017 11:25 am

I do not think they have so much difficulty…since they start with the conclusion and discard any results or data which do not fit in with the hypothesis du jour.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 27, 2017 1:37 pm

It depends on which non-existent problem they are pitching. Once again, you have to remember that CO2 is a magic molecule!

Michael Jankowski
March 27, 2017 9:25 am

“We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events”

So you failed, but you are going to act like you were successful.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 27, 2017 10:13 am

Yeah but he only missed it by that much.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2017 10:43 am

He should work harder, like this fellow…

AndyG55
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2017 12:33 pm

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2017 12:44 pm

Don Adams’ shoe was the first smell phone.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2017 12:53 pm

Adams’ most climatic role was as the voice of “Tennessee Tuxedo”.

Resourceguy
March 27, 2017 9:28 am

Well, someone had to buttress extreme weather scare tactics. Who better to tap than Mann with models du jour to keep the science link alive in the arguments. Not right or good science mind you; that would be a whole different level of argument and science.

troe
March 27, 2017 9:29 am

The usual suspects plodding along in the same old computer modeling groove. We can now tell this and that because we heaped on more models. Interestingly we have had the hard claims for years but now we have the supposed proof. Political activists playing at science. Worse than useless.

March 27, 2017 9:38 am

Of course it is all nonsense.
There are three cyclical variables ‘operating’ in the N. Atlantic: sea surface temperature (SST- AMO), the Arctic atmospheric pressure oscillation and the far N. Atlantic tectonic activity.
All three variables were at minimum at beginning of 20th century, but being of different periodicities, one hundred years later at the beginning of 21st century, the variables moved out of phase, as graphically demonstrated in this LINK

chze
March 27, 2017 9:38 am

during the LIA, the climate and weather variability was higher than over the last decades and the arctic was very cold. More extreme weather events occurred over the NH, extremely cold months and years followed by dry and hot events. M. Mann never recognised this facts!

March 27, 2017 9:40 am

AHA! We have finally found that 97% climate consensus! It is about the models, not the scientists.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  philjourdan
March 27, 2017 1:41 pm

I don’t think the models achieve 9.7% agreement! Unless of course they get the Michael Mann “special math” treatment.

botosenior
March 27, 2017 9:41 am

during the LIA the climate variability was much higher, more extreme events occurred and the arctic was very cold. M. Mann is an so called denier, denier off scientific understanding!

pochas94
Reply to  botosenior
March 27, 2017 10:14 am

Yes it was. One year near normal, the next cold as the seventh circle. We can expect the same in the future. Why? because the polar vortex becomes unstable in periods of low solar activity. One year the vortex goes south over Europe, the next it hits the US. Once it starts going, it all goes. And the warm air that replaces it makes it seem like the arctic is warming rapidly, feeding the “Global Warming” hysteria.

March 27, 2017 9:50 am

“We don’t trust climate models yet to predict specific episodes of extreme weather because the models are too coarse,” said study co-author Dim Coumou of PIK. “However, the models do faithfully reproduce large scale patterns of temperature change,” added co-author Kai Kornhuber of PIK.

(bold is mine)

“Faithfully”?? Not “consistently” or “predictably” but “Faithfully”.
Truly the anointed holy and pious and righteous models have spoken
Divert your gaze!!.
Amen (genuflects, crosses self)

Jeremy
Reply to  RobRoy
March 28, 2017 5:19 am

When the Oracle (aka model) speaks, Mann must listen. When 50 Oracles speak, man must listen.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 27, 2017 10:05 am

Mark from the Midwest, your Swiss bank account number keeps coming up under the name Mann, is this significant or is it just a model?

michael hart
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 27, 2017 10:42 am

It’s Manndacious.

Bryan A
Reply to  michael hart
March 27, 2017 12:25 pm

Climate Science needs a Mannectomy

Bryan A
Reply to  michael hart
March 27, 2017 12:26 pm

Or just a Mannema

jeanparisot
March 27, 2017 10:13 am

At least his earlier efforts had at least one tree as a data point.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  jeanparisot
March 27, 2017 1:47 pm

A piece of one tree! And it was the wrong tree! In the wrong place!

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
March 27, 2017 10:17 am

and if I stare into a sack of coffee beans long enough, I’ll see what………
Anything I want to see, that’s what.

It might be referred to as ‘Confirmation Bias’ or ‘Snouts in the Trough’ or ‘Fame & Fortune Seeking’ or….

I say it is Magical Thinking, as practised by depressed brains, stuck on an addiction to a depressant substance. Sugar.

In the huuuuuuuuuuge biiiiiiiiiiig picture, is it not of ‘some concern’ that these are supposedly highly educated people with the ears of our (equally depressed and magically thinking) leaders.

We worry about future energy supplies, wind, solar, thorium, fusion and are quite convinced that the technological equivalent of sucking blood out of a stone (fracking) is some sort of sustainable future.

With brain-deads like these in charge, we ain’t gonna get there.
These turkeys are not only going to Vote For Christmas, they’re gonna light the stove and get dressed for the occasion.

BallBounces
March 27, 2017 10:34 am

“We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events”

Which is, of course, what they set out to do. Confirmation-driven science™.

March 27, 2017 10:36 am

Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Oh no! Not blocking highs causing extremes of weather…they never changed before..It must be…comment image

Leopoldo
March 27, 2017 10:50 am

we can make some exorcism to stop those calamities. I saw in a video a scene in which a glacier in Switzerland was menacing to crash a small hamlet and coming near. The peasants asked the monks to make an exorcism, assuming the glacier was possessed by a demon. We can exorcise the CO2 to cast away the demons it contain and sleep in peace.

Art
March 27, 2017 10:52 am

“Warming caused by greenhouse-gases from fossil fuels creates favorable conditions for such events, an international team of scientists now finds.”
——
But the same warming caused by natural cycles doesn’t?

And greenhouse gasses from ocean outgassing don’t do it either, only from fossil fuels?

And the evidence that the warming comes from greenhouse gasses is??????

Ron Clutz
March 27, 2017 10:56 am

“Does rapid Arctic warming have tangible implications
for weather in lower latitudes? The jury is still out.
While there is a growing consensus in the model-based
literature that that Arctic warming can, in isolation,
significantly influence the midlatitude circulation, this
neither implies that it has in the past, nor that it will in
the future. This is because internal atmospheric variability
may obscure the influence of Arctic warming
and/or the Arctic influence may be small compared
with other factors that control midlatitude weather.

“We suggest that it useful to frame inquiries using the
‘Can it?’, ‘Has it?’, and ‘Will it?’ approach. The ‘Can
it?’ and ‘Will it?’ questions are potentially tractable as
we continue to improve our mechanistic understanding
of the high-to-mid- latitude connections, and as
our models improve in their ability to simulate the
related dynamics.

“However, the ‘Has it?’ is likely to
continue to be more challenging to answer given the
short observational record and large internal variability
of the midlatitude atmosphere.”

http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES/MANUSCRIPTS/Barnes_Screen_2015_WIREsCC.pdf

Mark - Helsinki
March 27, 2017 11:01 am

Mann? Atmospheric science? wut?

Mann is no atmospheric scientist

fretslider
March 27, 2017 11:10 am

The ever faithful Guardian manages to hype it up to doom level 3.

The fingerprint of human-caused climate change has been found on heatwaves, droughts and floods across the world, according to scientists. (No cold?!)

“Human activity has been suspected of contributing to this pattern before, but now we uncover a clear fingerprint of human activity,” said Prof Michael Mann

And best of all

Other climate research, called attribution, is increasingly able to calculate how much more likely specific extreme weather events have been made by global warming.

Climate change: ‘human fingerprint’ found on global extreme weather

Attribution in action..

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report concluded that, “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” The report defines “very likely” as a greater than 90% probability and represents the consensus of the scientific community.

TomRude
Reply to  fretslider
March 27, 2017 11:32 am

The Guardian is such a presstitute.
Following the Jets on http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
One can see over the course of one year that jets are convoluted yet more powerful in boreal winter than in boreal summer, invalidating the Guardian mickey Mouse graphics and much of poor Coumou’s straw man arguments.
Moreover claiming that there are no warm air advections to the poles in winter with a strong jet stream is beyond ignorance as anyone watching satellite animations can see.
Pure ideology at work and media to serve it.

mothcatcher
Reply to  TomRude
March 27, 2017 12:51 pm

Good comment, Tom Rude/
I’m almost tempted to read the full paper to see what their explanation of the seasonal disparity might be.
I said ALMOST. Don’t think I will actually bother.

SocietalNorm
Reply to  TomRude
March 27, 2017 9:51 pm

Thank you, TomRude for the jet stream link. I’d been looking for a good graphical representation of it.

Berényi Péter
March 27, 2017 11:14 am

The increase of devastating weather extremes in summer is likely linked to human-made climate change, mounting evidence shows.

I can’t see the increase of devastating weather extremes in summer is a proven fact. If it is not, it is extremely unlikely it could be linked to anything, mounting evidence notwithstanding.

Devastating increase, anyone?

https://waterwatch.usgs.gov/2014summary/images/fig_01.svg

Average runoff in the Nation’s rivers and streams during water-year 2014 (8.91 inches) was very close to the long-term annual mean for the United States (9.29 inches). Nationwide, 2014 streamflow ranked 52nd out of the 85 years in the period 1930-2014.

see: USGS — Streamflow of 2014 – Water Year Summary

M Courtney
March 27, 2017 11:19 am

While the models do not reliably track individual extreme weather events, they do reproduce the jet stream patterns and temperature scenarios that in the real world lead to torrential rain for days, weeks of broiling sun and absence of precipitation.

So the models cannot reliably reflect the real world but they can do something else…
Therefore that something else must be happening for the reasons modelled? In the real world?

Surely the correct assumption is that the “jet stream patterns and temperature scenarios” cannot be understood as to their cause. If it could then the models would reliably track individual extreme weather events.

troe
March 27, 2017 11:54 am

Mis- named Clean Power Plan expected to be taken for a ride tomorow. Please send donations instead of flowers to We Suck At Buying The Law.

March 27, 2017 11:58 am

Whatever happened to the Aleutians Low, Icelandic Low, Siberian High, Azores High and Hawaiian High semi-permanent pressure cells. Their strength and position determine basic circulation, and the ever-changing mid-to-high latitude ocean temperatures play a key role. Look for the AMO, PDO and other patterns for relationships. I was teaching these basics starting in the 1960’s. The jet patterns of zonal and meridional flow also were known. We used to teach that when a given pattern persisted for a period of time, whatever weather pattern occurred relative to any given location also persisted for a period of time. The axiom was 3-6 weeks in a stalled pattern. So, if a meridional pattern looped down into Texas during January we froze our Canadian prairie butts off under the influence of a continental arctic air mass dragged from the north (whatever happened to air masses?). When a zonal pattern occurred we had more moderate maritime Pacific air. There is very little new in this paper. All they have done is attribute long established patterns to AGW. Event data, however, does not validate their premise – so their paper and suppositions are unprecedentedly worthless.

Ron Williams
March 27, 2017 12:00 pm

“We are now able to connect the dots when it comes to human-caused global warming and an array of extreme recent weather events,” said Mann.

And the premise of the warming is human induced CO2, right? (As is implied throughout your entire paper) So how come you only report some weather events in the northern hemisphere, and not one word on the southern hemisphere? Presumably, CO2 is mixed throughout the atmospheres of both southern and northern hemispheres and these “weather” related events should also be present in both hemispheres and be able to be demonstrated as such. Your failure Doctor Mann et al… is stunning. You will at least be remembered in history as one of the scientific charlatans of the ‘Anthropocene’ period!

Bill J
March 27, 2017 12:03 pm

If climate scientists truly understood what they were modeling they would only need ONE model. Using 50 models proves that they don’t have nearly enough understanding to create an accurate model.

BTW 2016 was a below average year for wildfires in California in terms of acres burned despite the exceptional drought. I believe 2015 was also.

March 27, 2017 12:03 pm

I am stunned such drivel is allowed to be published. I personally did a download of all rainfall for california since 1850 when records have been kept. The recent drought was NOT particularly severe. The average drought lasts 4 years and xummulatice rainfall for this drought is well above several others. There is nothing record setting or extreme about the drought. It may have been perceived as worse than it was because there are more people living in california which puts a huge increased demand on water but through various means california has also increased its water supplies.

We know that extensive study has been done of storms and drought and floods and there is no evidence ive seen and there are studies that show over and over that there is no increase in these events. In fact for many of the events we’re seeing decreases. So this is utter indefensible garbage propoganda. Yet no one even makes the slightest attempt in the media to call Mann on the over the top statements.

Of course this is also a long long long line of “news stories” that basically are “we looked at our climate models which have no accuracy for anything” and using them can show proof positive that this will occur even though nothing we ever predicted from these models ever came to pass.

Unbelievable.

Frank
Reply to  jdm064
March 29, 2017 3:12 pm

JDM064: Your statements about the recent California drought (2012-2015) appear seriously. The state received the 3rd least amount of rainfall since 1900 in 2014. 1924 and 1997 received modestly less rainfall than 2014, but were (with the exception of 1976) surrounded by year of near normal rainfall. During the four year period 2012-2015, the southern half of the state received an average of 37-50% of normal rainfall and the northern half 50-62% as much as normal, making it the worst four-year period since 1900.
comment image
comment image

Drought is frequently defined as a combination of lack of rainfall and increase in evaporation due to high temperature and or wind. The higher temperatures in recent decade have made combined indices of drought even worse than the deficit in rainfall.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 27, 2017 12:04 pm

“The unprecedented 2016 California drought”

What, at all, was unprecedented about the 2016 California drought?

Well, I will tell you because based on observations and written records, you wouldn’t notice anything unprecedented about it. The unprecdentedness was that it was the first short term Calilfornia drought that was blamed on anthropogenic global warming.

If you have never read anything about the history of California droughts and floods, you might be conned into believing that it was something ‘unusual’ and ‘unprecedented’. Otherwise, you will know immediately that the claim is a load of horse puckey.

May a funding drought linger over the brows of the sources of this particular road apple.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 27, 2017 2:24 pm

I think I remember reading that the last bison died out in Southern California around 1400 AD as a result of a major drought.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 28, 2017 2:28 pm

I’m trying to work on my ability to “Mann up” (even though I’m a woman). Clyde’s statement about bison seems like a good opportunity to practice.

Since today, in 2017, the precedent is that bison do not live in Southern California…if I was to see a bison in Southern California, it would be scientifically accurate to state that it was “unprecedented event”, and I could write a paper, have it peer reviewed, and published, and the scientific world would send out a press release claiming “Global Warming causes unprecedented citing of bison in Southern California”.

How did I do?

troe
March 27, 2017 12:06 pm

We do know that a fellow who made his fortune in the oil business is funding the Center at Penn State right. Check yourself Dr. Mann.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 27, 2017 12:08 pm

In another example of Mannian Claims, Al Jazeera is running a piece that claims that anthropogenic global warming is causing a rise in the water level and consequence beach erosion in LAKE MICHIGAN! Probably exacerbated by errant jet streams making the waves they showed us.

I guess sea level rose to overwhelm Niagara Falls and reach Saulted Ste Marie while I was away in Bishkek. I had better hurry home to bail out the cellar.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 27, 2017 12:15 pm

It looks like circular arguments.
Climate change changes the jet stream that causes extreme weather that is a sign of climate change.
All the times we have nice and normal weather, is that also because of the jet stream and climate change?
“Global warming theory is in fact so malleable that it predicts anything. More cold, less cold. More snow, less snow.

What a powerful theory.” Roy Spencer.

Menicholas
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
March 27, 2017 1:24 pm

Indeed. A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.

Reply to  Menicholas
March 27, 2017 1:53 pm

I’ve noted for years that a change in jet stream location is good for about a 10 or 15F change in temps South of Lake Erie, when it’s north, we tend to get air out of the gulf, warm and humid, and when it’s south of us, it’s 75 or 80F summer afternoon temps, with low humidity. And it’s entirely reasonable that just a shift in the jet stream, altering the ratio of tropical vs non-tropical air masses due to the direct the wind blows, would explain all of the warming.

So Mikey is taking stuff that actually caused what was reported as climate change, which was actually natural ocean cycles, and turns it into more fake panic.

Paul Maxit
March 27, 2017 12:18 pm

Just hilarious :

1/ You program the models so that they takes into account as “feedbacks” the supposed greenhouse gases effect on extreme weather.

2/ You run the program and find out that greenhouse gases create more extreme weather.

What a joke.

Has Mann read Marcel Leroux, he would have learned that Jet Streams are just the consequence off the lower level circulation, and especially Mobile Polar Highs strength, speed, and direction, which are more speedy, numerous et large in winter time.

TomRude
Reply to  Paul Maxit
March 27, 2017 2:17 pm

Had Leroux been read by many, the CAGW scammers would have never been successful in brainwashing people.

March 27, 2017 12:48 pm

I’ve been telling you all about jet stream variability for the past 10 years. Initially AGW was supposed to push the jets poleward into a more zonal pattern but I pointed out that since 2000 I had noticed increasing meridionality.

The variations appear to be solar induced:

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

Smart Rock
March 27, 2017 1:02 pm

Do these people actually believe this rubbish? If they do, they must be so intellectually challenged that getting up in the morning and going to work would present serious obstacles.

More likely, they are cynically trying to manipulate public opinion by the endless repetition of “extreme weather” and “unprecedented” until it becomes accepted as fact. What is frightening is how many people seem to have already accepted that this stuff is real.

Reply to  Smart Rock
March 28, 2017 2:37 pm

Good call Forrest! Trump Rolls Back Obama Era Climate Change Policies!

March 27, 2017 1:06 pm

It was a combination of El Nino’s, and a positive AMO, and there was a change that led to the step during 2000, you can see the change here.
I started showing this off a couple years agocomment image

https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/

Reply to  micro6500
March 27, 2017 1:21 pm

The step change around 2000 also coincided with increased global cloudiness as per Earthshine data. Thus I formed the view that global cloudiness is controlled by the level of jet stream zonality / meridionality because that changes the length of the lines of air mass mixing. That idea is much preferable to the rather woolly Svensmark idea relying on cosmic rays increasing cloud condensation nuclei.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 27, 2017 1:33 pm

A bit OT, but a comment on the settled science:
“… a new study in Nature finds that approximately half of the platelets found in the human bloodstream are created in the lungs. If accurate, this is a striking correction of the longstanding medical opinion that platelets — essential components in the clotting process that stops wounds from bleeding — are produced in bone marrow. (See examples of the consensus here, here, here, and here.) Happily for the study’s authors, their field isn’t climatology. So they can expect to be saluted for usefully challenging what was thought to be settled science, not condemned as “deniers” for questioning a popular consensus…”

Sorry, but the links don’t seem to have copied over.

Here is the new study:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature21706.html?ex_cid=SigDig&s_campaign=arguable:newsletter

And here are the four consensus links:

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=160&ContentID=36&s_campaign=arguable:newsletter

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3069519/?s_campaign=arguable:newsletter

https://www.ouhsc.edu/platelets/platelets/platelets%20intro.html?s_campaign=arguable:newsletter

http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Basics/?s_campaign=arguable:newsletter

Looks like classical science is still alive somewhere.

fah
March 27, 2017 1:52 pm

I am convinced.
Rahmstort clearly must know his stuff.
Just look at all those hardcover journals and books he sits in front of and must use a lot for great thinking.

knr
March 27, 2017 2:02 pm

said Michael Mann, if he said it was raining you go outside and check for yourself
anything he gets his fingers on you can take a sick joke at best .
Still given all the court cases his involved I am surprised he has got the time.

March 27, 2017 2:13 pm

Someone translate how the bolded words affect the first sentence?

“We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State. “Short of actually identifying the events in the climate models.”

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Aphan
March 27, 2017 3:57 pm

Maybe he means that random extreme weather events are too chaotic to model correctly, so we’ll just attribute them to climate change.

GREG in Houston
March 27, 2017 3:04 pm

They did not say they had discovered anything revolutionary, only that ““We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link…” But of course, no one can in fact demonstrate such a link.

fretslider
Reply to  GREG in Houston
March 27, 2017 3:36 pm

no one can in fact demonstrate such a link.

The Guardian quotes Mann thus, “Human activity has been suspected of contributing to this pattern before, but now we uncover a clear fingerprint of human activity” It seems pretty sure!

Meanwhile the BBC has this…

Science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778

But don’t worry, climate science seems is in the clear, this is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39357819

Reply to  fretslider
March 27, 2017 4:01 pm

“Human activity has been suspected of contributing to this pattern before, but now we uncover a clear fingerprint of human activity”

Only because they planted the fingerprint in both the data and the models, well duh!
I can show warming from co2 for most land surfaces has to be less than half the estimated forcing, and it’s likely not different over water.

Hugs
Reply to  GREG in Houston
March 28, 2017 11:54 am

This is very much like socialism was in the seventies. There were departments at universities filled with communists that could not tolerate any criticism against the Soviet Union.

They were wrong.

They are also all green now. They are wrong again.

Gerald Machnee
March 27, 2017 3:20 pm

The dates:
Received:
03 January 2017
Accepted:
20 February 2017
Published online:
27 March 2017
So was it peer reviewed? Was it even pal reviewed, the more likely choice?
Of course CBC will pass anything on if it is AGW or CAGW.

James at 48
March 27, 2017 3:37 pm

Read all about it …. killlllllllllerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy geeeeeeeeeeee doubllllllllle youuuuuuuuuuuu …. WILL cause more killllllllllllllllerrrrrrrr torrrrrrrrrrnadoooooooooooes …. killlllllllllllerrrrrrrrrr blizzzzzarrrrrrrrrrrrrds …… heat waaaaaaaaaaaaaves …… hailllllllllllllllll ….. fllllllllloodingggggggg!!!!!

Read all about it!

Menicholas
Reply to  James at 48
March 27, 2017 6:04 pm

Might want to have that keyboard looked at.

Reply to  Menicholas
March 28, 2017 2:40 pm

It’s been caused by global warming. Everything is.

Pop Piasa
March 27, 2017 4:20 pm

Wow! Jet streams were identified by science less than a century ago and we already know everything about the phenomena.
Too bad gravity research hasn’t been as expeditious.

March 27, 2017 4:52 pm

Having lived in California, most of the time in Southern California, for 61 years, I can assure everyone that this last drought was not “unprecedented”. California has a long history of cycles of 2 to 7 years of drought usually followed by a year or two of torrential rainfall, and then settles into a few years of normal rainfall. I’m no scientist, but I can and do observe what is happening around me and have a memory that lasts more than 10 years. The current water crisis here in California was caused by Governor Moonbeam the first time he was governor. See, I do remember. His father Governor Pat Brown implemented the California Water Project to increase the storage capacity of dams across the state. Shasta Dam was supposed to be 20 feet higher than it currently is as an example. When Moonbeam took office in the ’70s, he cancelled the California Water Project. We need a “Brownout”!

James at 48
Reply to  oneblockwonderwoman
March 27, 2017 4:58 pm

Yep, a real drought would be like one of the mega droughts during the 1st Millennium AD.

i110gica1
March 27, 2017 4:58 pm

Gives a fresh new meaning to mannsplaining….

TA
March 27, 2017 5:52 pm

This claim about the jet streams is the same kind of amorphous, unproven, barely quantified, claim that fits with the CAGW narrative, similiar to arctic sea ice, and ocean acidification. There is enough uncertaintly in all these claims that the CAGW promoters can blythely claim to see patterns where no patterns exist.

From the article: “Unprecedented summer warmth and flooding, forest fires, drought and torrential rain — extreme weather events are occurring more and more often,”

There is no evidence of “unprecedented” weather occurring. This is a flat-out lie. If anything, the weather is getting milder. Certainly around my house.

From the article: “The unusual weather events that piqued the researchers’ interest are things such as the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 Pakistan flood and Russian heatwave, the 2011 Texas and Oklahoma heat wave and drought and the 2015 California wildfires.”

The 2011 heatwave in Oklahoma was as hot a summer as I have ever experienced, and I’ve experience a lot of hot Oklahoma summers. The reason it happened is because a high pressure system sat over the central U.S. for months at a time and created a huge heatwave and drought underneath it. But that was only one year, and the next year and those after, up until this year, have been very mild in comparison. If CAGW were at work, we would expect a huge heatwave like 2011, to be followed by the same kind of extreme heat in the following years of 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Like the extreme weather during the decade of the 1930’s, when the middle of the U.S. dried up and blew away. But this kind of weather didn’t happen in the 21st Century, supposedly, the hottest on record. Mann cherry-picks one hot year and wants us to believe this is a sign of humans causing the weather to change. It’s actually laughable for those who actually understand the situation.

Mann and cohorts are continuing to perpetrate this mass hallucination. It’s amazing: Millions of people are living in a false reality and don’t even realize it. The completely oblivious, led down the primrose path by charlatans and liars.

SocietalNorm
Reply to  TA
March 27, 2017 9:33 pm

Even worse, he picked small portions of the globe separated geographically from each other, separated by years in time, and with different types of weather. Also, fire is not even weather, much less climate.
A couple of heat waves, a flood, and a drought over a ~13 year period do not a statistically significant climate trend make.
Real charlatans would be embarrassed by this.

Reply to  TA
March 29, 2017 5:17 am

Yes it is amazing. The NY Times and the Guardian carry catastrophe stories; the Smithsonian magazine has an article about how southern Louisiana is losing the battle against climate change, ignoring the real and dominating effects of land use mentioned in the article itself.

chilemike
March 27, 2017 6:38 pm

So the models can’t predict anything but they can tell you what caused the event after it happened? So it’s an Armchair Climate Prediction Model? I eagerly await the next phase when they predict the future. I guess if you run 50 models first and then match the actual results later you can probably fool enough people to get more grant money anyway.

Johann Wundersamer
March 27, 2017 8:04 pm

Withdrawal battles.

March 27, 2017 8:20 pm

I just downloaded the wind data from the 20th Century Reanalysis Project V2. The northern jet stream has become more zonal (i.e. less meandering) since 1950.

TA
Reply to  climateadj
March 28, 2017 5:09 am

And Mann said more extreme weather was caused by the jet stream blocking the normal flow of high and low pressure systems. But here in the supposedly hottest year ever, there is no evidence of any blocking taking place by the jet stream. Mann is not describing the planet Earth, he is describing some fantasy planet.

Now, when summer comes and we get a high pressure system sitting stationary over the U.S., don’t think this verifies Mann’s predictions. This happens nearly every summer. It would be unusual if it didn’t happen. But you can be sure that when it does happen, the CAGW promoters will be pointing at it as evidence of CAGW, just like they did in 2011.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=261.19,61.51,265

thingadonta
March 27, 2017 8:44 pm

“Short of actually identifying the events in the climate models.”

Models don’t ‘identify’ events. Data does. Mixing fantasy with reality.

SocietalNorm
March 27, 2017 9:25 pm

The first half of the first sentence is blatantly false. The second half of the first sentence is a wild claim with nothing to substantiate it. It just gets worse from there.

March 27, 2017 10:01 pm

I remember someone saying “The models don’t matter”…..:)

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
March 27, 2017 10:12 pm

Jet Streams are natural manifestations in global weather systems. They are not constant. They vary with time and thus influence weather. The natural cycles in ocean temperatures influence the general circulation patterns and thus jet streams. Also, solar phenomenon has cyclic pattern and this also contribute to jet stream variations. Global warming so far is not significant to influence the general circulation patterns and thus jet streams.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

TA
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
March 28, 2017 5:18 am

“Global warming so far is not significant to influence the general circulation patterns and thus jet streams.”

I agree. Yet here we have Mann claiming just the opposite. With no evidence, I might add. It’s pathetic.

willhaas
March 27, 2017 11:00 pm

They are using 50 climate models that have to date all been wrong so any analysis using these models cannot be believed. They are talking about a make believe world but we are living in the real world. Until they narrow the number of models down to the one correct model can we give such analysis any credibility. Real data shows that as CO2 has been rising, extreme weather events have not been changing in either frequency or sevarity. There is no know climate regime where extreme weather evernts do not exist.

knr
March 27, 2017 11:48 pm

This would be the same jet stream at until WWII the experts did not existed , but oddly their happy to use historic weather records which is odd given Mann life’s work was all about trashing them by claiming events like the MWP never existed because his models ‘proved it ‘
I really hope this guys live a long time , so they can see their work held up has joke as its taught on courses of how not to do science and how personal arrogance has always to be watched out for when practicing good science.

Nothing could be sweeter than Mann and co seeing their life’s work trashed before their own eyes with their universities kicking them out of door because bad science no longer brings in hard cash .

Geoff Sherrington
March 28, 2017 12:09 am

Do not now about others here, but I turn off when I see papers authored of Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf et al from Potsdam Institute ans M Man from wherever.
These are among the leaders in the climate system for making unsupported dogmatic statements based on little or no evidence, then cherry picking to try to provide (questionable?) supporting evidence.
Science has to return to the formalism of proposing hypotheses, then testing them with good data. There also has to be more formalism in the estimation of errors and their propagation according to established formal standards.
Beliefs have no place in the scheme of things.
Geoff.

Griff
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 28, 2017 1:02 am

They are leading climate scientists, yes…

What authority or science do you have to back your assertion?

Some man on a blog?

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Griff
March 28, 2017 2:30 am

No, a leading scientist myself discerning poor science. And you?
Geoff

Reply to  Griff
March 28, 2017 4:24 am

What authority or science do you have to back your assertion?

Measurements.

Reply to  micro6500
March 28, 2017 12:05 pm

micro6500
Ouch….that’s going to leave a mark. 🙂

mike
Reply to  Griff
March 28, 2017 6:08 am

As far as I’m concerned, the ClimateGate papers showed many of these turkeys to be frauds, a virtually incurable academic situation for the individual. All that follows a known fraud is considered rubbish.

“Identifying the human fingerprint on this process is advanced forensics.”
Not really, probably it’s the Piltdown Mann’s thumbprint on the scales…

Penn State’s best rehabilitation would be to see that department transferred to the state pen !

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Griff
March 28, 2017 8:12 am

Griff, it’s the other way around – instead of

Griff on March 28, 2017 at 1:02 am

They are leading climate scientists, yes…

What authority or science do you have to back your assertion?
____________________________________

It’s: Griff, what insight or information do you have to resent others assertions?

Reply to  Griff
March 28, 2017 8:57 am

Your leading climate scientists just admitted to coming as close as possible to establishing a direct link between two things…and failing to do so.

Your leading climate scientists just admitted that they need to “further investigate this there is some good evidence, but also many open questions.”

Your leading climate scientists just admitted that the models currently do not reliably track individual extreme events (they couldn’t actually identify the events themselves in the models) so anything they predict about future extreme events at this point are also not reliable.

Oddly enough, Dim Coumou seems to forget that the earth is a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic system” as he insinuates that lowering human emissions will somehow “prevent” Earth’s non-linear behavior

So yep. Climate changes. Always has, always will. Temperature gradients included. We’re still living in the era of the LEAST amount of climate change in Earth’s history.

Reply to  Griff
March 29, 2017 7:00 am

Where did they get their degree in climate science? Note, I am not asking about getting “a degree”, but specifically their “climate science” degree.

be specific.

TA
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 28, 2017 5:25 am

“Do not now about others here, but I turn off when I see papers authored of Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf et al from Potsdam Institute ans M Man from wherever. These are among the leaders in the climate system for making unsupported dogmatic statements based on little or no evidence,”

And that’s exactly what they did here. Unsupported claims.

What did Mann say?: “We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events,” said Michael Mann”

In other words, he has yet to produce a demonstrable link. “Coming as close” isn’t quite there yet, Mann, especially considering your theory doesn’t even come close to describing the real world.

Robertvd
March 28, 2017 2:02 am

‘The increase of devastating weather extremes in summer is likely linked to human-made climate change’

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-27/learning-from-history-five-of-the-worst-recorded-cyclones/8389558

So what was wrong with the jet stream in1899 and 1918 ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/cyclone-debbie-wind-speed-tracker/8392288

TA
March 28, 2017 6:06 am

From the article: “The increase of devastating weather extremes in summer is likely linked to human-made climate change, mounting evidence shows.”

Likely. Now there’s a definitive statement. What would a real scientist say about this?

jclarke341
March 28, 2017 6:46 am

These men are clearly activists, posing as scientists. Scientists attempt to understand the world by observing it and developing theories based on those observations. Then a scientist will test that theory against additional observations. They look at all the evidence. Activists make up their minds and then search the world for only the evidence that they may be right! Any evidence that they are wrong is completely ignored.

Mann has always engaged in creating ‘designer science’, i. e. propaganda designed to look like science that supports a specific political agenda. The purpose of this latest paper is clearly to build support for a theory where there is none in the actual observations.

Mann and Rahmstort are political activists, and should not be funded under the false pretense of being scientists.

Joe - non climate scientist
Reply to  jclarke341
March 28, 2017 9:48 am

Mann also had a paper 2 years ago (maybe three years) with the conclusion that the pause was caused by the cooling phase of the AMO. While at the same time maintaining that the warming of the 80’s-90’s was not enhanced by the warming cycle of the AMO.

Peter Salonius
March 28, 2017 7:09 am

The explanation that I find most plausible is that when solar activity / wind is strong the northern jet stream is pushed at high speed and it tends to maintain a fairly straight path in a northern band – but when solar activity /wind weakens the jet stream generally drifts south, slows down and tends to meander with larger waves in its path / sometimes introducing cold air masses as far south as Morocco and Mexico.

In summer the northern hemisphere faces the sun so the northern ionosphere is more compressed by solar wind and the jet stream is pushed northwards – but in winter when the northern hemisphere receives less solar wind , the ionosphere above it relaxes/ decompresses and allows the jet stream to move back southwards.

Typically the jet stream blows roughly along 45 degrees north latitude in winter and roughly along 60 degrees north latitude in summer – however in recent years with decreased solar activity and weaker solar wind a weaker than normal jet stream has drifted further south and meandered more – occasionally stalling – exposing the temperate latitude to ‘polar vortices’ that cause somewhat extreme weather events .

Peter Salonius

Steve Oregon
March 28, 2017 7:48 am

Progressives are disabled. They cannot evaluate.
Weighing proportions, significance, value and impacts is not possible. They have no scales.
They will not even recognize the futility in being futile.

Robertvd
Reply to  Steve Oregon
March 28, 2017 11:30 am

They don’t need to. Their only goal is more power. They would sell their soul if they had one to climb the ladder. NEVER trust them. They don’t give a shit about the climate it is just a tool to rule.

aaron
March 28, 2017 12:18 pm

March 28, 2017 12:37 pm

I fixed the press release:

“In our lifelong quest to save the world no matter what, we found another phenomena that we expected to always be consistently the same, had briefly changed. We looked around and found several things that we think could possibly be reasons why it unexpectedly changed, and determined that the ONLY factor out of the many that affect the jet stream that is “likely” the culprit, is the one we’ve been trying to pin exclusively on humans for 20 years. Also without success. ”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/

I wonder which 50 of the 90 CMIP5 models they used….since only a handful have ever even been close to real time observations…and at the moment there’s only two whose predicted temperatures are even close….and their trends are nowhere near reality…..???

Oh wait….
“We looked into dozens of different climate models – computer simulations called CMIP5 of this past period – as well as into observation data, and it turns out that the temperature distribution favoring planetary wave airstream stalling increased in almost 70 percent of the simulations since the start of the industrial age.”

70% of the 50% of CMIP5 models (not the observational data) they actually examined. Did Cook do the math for them again???

March 28, 2017 3:34 pm

M. Mann is an idiot.

Chuck Wiese
March 28, 2017 11:32 pm

The truth is always something close to the opposite of what incompetent climate hysterics and propagandists like Michael Mann claim. They continue to try and resurrect this nonsense to claim any severe weather is proof of their climate swill, but as I explained below, this is not true:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/13/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/

co2islife
March 29, 2017 3:03 am

Michael Mann needs to read his climate history. Climate is changing all the time and none of the pre-industrial changes can be blamed on man. What is past is prolog.
Climate Changed Caused the Pre-Industrial Bronze Age Collapse
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/climate-changed-caused-the-pre-industrial-bronze-age-collapse/

March 29, 2017 5:32 am

It’s called blocking and is caused by natural, internal variability in the atmosphere. We’ve known about it for 60 years. We know it causes warm weather and floods. Nothing revolutionary here.

Chuck Wiese
Reply to  David Small
March 29, 2017 10:54 am

But remember this blocking is caused by strong latitudinal temperature gradients from equator to pole, or the opposite of what Mann is claiming, and that Francis and Vavrus claimed in their 2012 paper. For academics like this to make such fundamental mistakes in atmospheric science is unforgivable, especially when they use this crap to claim severe weather exonerates their position on CO2 warming. Nothing could be further from the truth.

getitright
March 29, 2017 10:20 am

““We came as close as one can to demonstrating a direct link between climate change and a large family of extreme recent weather events,”

Stupid non scientific non sequiter.

Ah yes.
I too came as close as one can to defeating Usain Bolt in the 100…….

Joe Bastardi
March 29, 2017 10:25 am

His comments about the weather indicate he is frighteningly unaware of what happens and what has happened and will continue to happen with a system that resolves natural imbalances through conflict. He should forecast for 2 years, trying to apply the knowledge he claims to have, rather than make statements that are. to be blunt, ignorant of what the weather is capable of, but are typical of those who think they know, but do not do. Its a shame because it diminishes the value of research, but researches should not talk as if they know it UNLESS THEY APPLY IT IN A WAY THAT CAN TEACH THEM THAT ARE NOT INFALLIBLE

Frank
March 29, 2017 6:01 pm

Mann’s analysis forgets that correlation is not causation.

The most extreme summer heat waves of the past half-century – 2003 in Europe, 2010 in Russian (linked to flooding in Pakistan) and 2011 in the US (Texas) – were produced by unusually strong and stable undulations in the jet stream (Rossby waves); also called blocking events. Persistent blocking events also cause flooding. Climate models produce fewer blocking event than we currently observe and no increase in the future.

Mann has identified a “temperature fingerprint” (or correlation) between NH temperature and some types of summer undulations in the jet stream. His “temperature fingerprint” simply consists of unusual warmth at high latitudes. Increased warming at high latitudes (Arctic amplification) means that this “temperature fingerprint” will occur more often in the future.

WHAT MANN DOESN’T KNOW IS WHETHER HIS “TEMPERATURE FINGERPRINT” PRODUCES UNUSUALLY STRONG AND STABLE UNDULATIONS IN THE JET STREAM OR WHETHER UNUSUALLY STRONG AND STABLE UNDULATIONS IN THE JET STREAM PRODUCE HIS “TEMPERATURE FINGERPRINT”. The stronger meridional winds associated with this phenomena could easily transport more heat to higher latitudes. He can’t separate cause and effect. Therefore, without proof of the direction of causality, he has no basis for predicting changes in extreme weather.

Looking more deeply, theory suggests that having exactly 6, 7 or 8 undulation in the jet stream produces a type of resonance that amplifies and stabilizes these waves. Mann developed his temperature fingerprint during periods with only 7 undulations. The historic events mentioned above involve 6, 7, and 8 undulations. So it is possible that Mann’s fingerprint was cherry-picked from three possibilities. (:))