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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Gives a fresh new meaning to mannsplaining….
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.
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.
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.
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.
Withdrawal battles.
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.
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
“Short of actually identifying the events in the climate models.”
Models don’t ‘identify’ events. Data does. Mixing fantasy with reality.
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.
I remember someone saying “The models don’t matter”…..:)
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
“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.
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.
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 .
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.
They are leading climate scientists, yes…
What authority or science do you have to back your assertion?
Some man on a blog?
No, a leading scientist myself discerning poor science. And you?
Geoff
Measurements.
micro6500
Ouch….that’s going to leave a mark. 🙂
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 !
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?
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.
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.
“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.
‘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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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???
M. Mann is an idiot.
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/
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/
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.
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.
““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…….
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