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

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
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.

So they looked really, really hard and found a correlation.
(p > 0.45)
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!
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.
@ur momisugly sommer do you have a link to the CBC story? Thanks
@ur momisugly 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….
Re TomRude
It was on the CBC News network (bell 502) with Johanna Wagstaffe commenting. She likes that sort of stuff.
Thank you Gerald
“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.
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?
Maybe we provoked the wind gods! Or maybe CO2 bothers their noses. Michael Mann is looking into it.
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???
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.
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.
Which came first: cause or effect?
The egg…
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.
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.
Bravo!
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?
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.
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.
It depends on which non-existent problem they are pitching. Once again, you have to remember that CO2 is a magic molecule!
“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.
Yeah but he only missed it by that much.
He should work harder, like this fellow…
Don Adams’ shoe was the first smell phone.
Adams’ most climatic role was as the voice of “Tennessee Tuxedo”.
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.
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.
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
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!
AHA! We have finally found that 97% climate consensus! It is about the models, not the scientists.
I don’t think the models achieve 9.7% agreement! Unless of course they get the Michael Mann “special math” treatment.
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!
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.
(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)
When the Oracle (aka model) speaks, Mann must listen. When 50 Oracles speak, man must listen.
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?
It’s Manndacious.
Climate Science needs a Mannectomy
Or just a Mannema
At least his earlier efforts had at least one tree as a data point.
A piece of one tree! And it was the wrong tree! In the wrong place!
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.
“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™.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Oh no! Not blocking highs causing extremes of weather…they never changed before..It must be…
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.
“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??????
“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
Mann? Atmospheric science? wut?
Mann is no atmospheric scientist