Public Release: 27-Dec-2018
The Madden-Julian Oscillation’s precipitation variations are likely to increase in intensity under a warmer climate, while wind variations are likely to increase at a slower rate
Colorado State University
Every month or two, a massive pulse of clouds, rainfall and wind moves eastward around the Earth near the equator, providing the tropics their famous thunderstorms.
This band of recurring weather, first described by scientists in 1971, is called the Madden-Julian Oscillation. It has profound effects on weather in distant places, including the United States. Atmospheric scientists have long studied how the Madden-Julian Oscillation modulates extreme weather events across the globe, from hurricanes to floods to droughts.
As human activities cause the Earth’s temperature to increase, reliable, well-studied weather patterns like the Madden-Julian Oscillation will change too, say researchers at Colorado State University.
Eric Maloney, professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science, has led a new study published in Nature Climate Change that attributes future changes in the behavior of the Madden-Julian Oscillation to anthropogenic global warming. Maloney and co-authors used data from six existing climate models to synthesize current views of such changes projected for the years 2080-2100.
Their analysis reveals that while the Madden-Julian Oscillation’s precipitation variations are likely to increase in intensity under a warmer climate, wind variations are likely to increase at a slower rate, or even decrease. That’s in contrast to the conventional wisdom of a warming climate producing a more intense Madden-Julian Oscillation, and thus an across-the-board increase in extreme weather.
“In just looking at precipitation changes, the Madden-Julian Oscillation is supposed to increase in strength in a future climate,” Maloney said. “But one of the interesting things from our study is that we don’t think this can be generalized to wind as well.”
Atmospheric science relies on weather patterns like the Madden-Julian Oscillation to inform weather prediction in other areas of Earth. For example, atmospheric rivers, which are plumes of high atmospheric water vapor that can cause severe flooding on the U.S. west coast, are strongly modulated by certain phases of the Madden-Julian Oscillation.
According to Maloney’s work, the Madden-Julian Oscillation’s impact on remote areas may gradually decrease. Degradation in the oscillation’s wind signal may thus diminish meteorologists’ ability to predict extreme weather events. In particular, preferential warming of the upper troposphere in a future, warmer climate is expected to reduce the strength of the Madden-Julian Oscillation circulation.
Maloney and colleagues hope to continue studying the Madden-Julian Oscillation using a broader set of climate models to be used in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment.
###
Co-authors of the Nature Climate Change study are Ćngel Adames of the University of Michigan and Hien Bui, a CSU atmospheric science postdoctoral researcher.
Link to paper: https://col.st/ine8t
“In particular, preferential warming of the upper troposphere in a future, warmer climate is expected to reduce the strength of the Madden-Julian Oscillation circulation.”
The tropical tropospheric hotspot?
McKitrick & Christy (2018) invalidated the IPCC’s predicted Tropical Tropospheric Hotspot by comparing model predictions against the UAH Satellite Temperature record.
McKitrick, R. and Christy, J., 2018. A Test of the Tropical 200āto 300āhPa Warming Rate in Climate Models. Earth and Space Science, 5(9), pp.529-536.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018EA000401
Now who will identify ALL the TypeB (systematic) errors involved in ALL models against the international BIPM standard GUM: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement?
https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html
Thank you for these! I’ll have to chew on GUM but looks very useful.
The Madden-Julian Oscillationās precipitation variations are likely to increase in intensity under a warmer climate, wind variations are likely to increase at a slower rate, and I’m likely to pay no attention to “predictions” cloaked in weasel words like “likely” …
w.
What I don’t understand is that this just looks like a negative feedback which will stabilise the temperature. Nothing to be scared of, even if they have cloaked it in the standard CAGW weasel words.
Precisely Hivemind:
All this is , is a great big (coffee) percolating process expressed in scientificy language. Albeit interesting.
Sadly, however it misses out the main point; namely that very large energies are being driven up through the atmosphere and beyond (into space?) in response to changes in energy input. IE: Negative feedback.
Due their obsession with the CO2 satanic Meme, these scientists appear to believe that temperature is an energy flux, when in fact it is merely a factor of state.
If they really wanted to know what is happening here they should ask a Chief Petty Officer with experience in the boiler rooms of Her Majestyās ships in the days of steam. They should ask him how he pumped extra energy into the sea(aka space) when the telegraph called for extra power, WITHOUT RAISING THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BOILERS.
It is all down to the way the Rankine Cycle works which is what is happening here in the atmosphere. But, of course, scientists generally donāt like asking engineers how things work.
Yes: classifying water as a positive feedback molecule is a travesty of conclusion.
Fact: Every Kilogram of water evaporated and returning to earth dissipates some 680 WattHrs. of energy into the atmosphere and beyond. (Just look at the steam tables). Compare that with the purported 1.6 Watts of the Greenhouse Effect.
Just hope some of the above will percolate up to bigger brains than mine.
Physical evaporation / precipitation does not receive enough credit as a way for energy to move skyward, completely bypassing the so-called “Greenhouse Effect.” We accept rain as something that just happens, and cools you off in hot weather and makes potatoes grow. It’s actually the main reason we can live on this planet.
To me this gets at the fundamental flaw in the CAGW models, which treat water vapor as a strictly positive feedback. But the evaporation-precipitation mechanism, especially when driven by convection in thunderstorms or tropical storms, moves a lot of heat from the surface to the tropopause. Every gram of water that evaporates absorbs 533 calories at the surface, then releases it at high altitude, as well as another 80 cal/g when it freezes. In a rainstorm, the latter 80 cal/g is re-absorbed before the precipitation reaches the ground, but this still contributes to moving mass amounts of heat to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, bypassing the so-called “Greenhouse Effect” of heat being repeatedly reabsorbed and re-radiated in random directions by certain atmospheric gasses.
Thus, as warming creates more and more water vapor, it becomes a negative feedback that helps to correct the warming.
Right! The convection from a thunderstorm punches right through the atmosphere, regardless the composition of that atmosphere. Yes, CO2 may be a green house gas, but that doesn’t matter in the face of convection.
“Likely” is the correct word here. This is a review article which summarises the currently state of knowledge regarding the MJO. Since there is still some debate over whether it will get stronger or weaker the authors are correct to say that it is “likely” to get stronger – which again is backed out by observational evidence. The authors are not making a prediction they are summarising other people’s work.
If there is ‘still some debate over whether it will get stronger or weaker’ then it is NOT correct to say ‘it is likely to get stronger.
One cannot pick the direction if the debate for either direction is continuing, unless one offers more convincing evidence/data (not model outputs) to convince the other side of your position.
Missing the point as usual. If it’s only “likely” there is little need to do anything about it now.
When you have actual confidence in these predictions, come back and we’ll talk.
Nonsense.
Now, specifically list the “current state of knowledge” and specific research.
Otherwise you are likely throwing in more opinion.
šI second that emotion, lol.
Willis … at 10:07 pm
BINGO!
āWhat can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.ā
Damn, I’ve been waiting a long time to find an appropriate discussion to use “Hitchen’s Razor,” and you beat me to it! š
After “100 authors against Einstein” was published, Einstein said
The Ultimate Quotable Einstein 2010, p 170
Willis, at least this bunch is smart enough to use their “data” to make predictions about a time when they will be safely in the grave, and won’t have to defend it against data. (Note where the quotes are…)
Actually, if the Greens have their way, our surviving heirs won’t even have the technological civilization to dig up this paper for well-deserved mockery of their memories.
Potential win-win.
What is likely is that we now have firmer confirmation that the modelers have no freaking idea what is going to happen to the climate in 60-80 years.
Which probably explains why meteorologists have trouble predicting the path and strength of even a single hurricane more than 24 hours in advance.
GIGO
Joe Bastardi has lately been better than most at hurricane predictions (based on analogous historical conditions). If folks watch weatherbell.com they will get warned earlier.
Joe D’Aleo’s analog “Pioneer” models have been impressive these past 18 months using the MJO and Southern Oscillation Index historically established teleconnections to NH jetstream patterns and geopotential heights, particularly pressure patterns around 500mb. No climate model mathematics involved.
More can be learned at MAD Teleconnections-
http://madusweather.com/teleconnections/
You’ve nailed it Willis!
This is not research, it is opinions masquerading as findings.
“synthesize” … pretty much says it all.
Why use six models? If 4 show +x and 2 show -x, we have an attenuated +x, right? However, what if the 2 are more accurate about x than the 4? I’m sure they have some sciency-sounding explanation.
Of all the models, why those six? Why not use all of the IPCC CMIP5 climate models and get a vast improvement in the “synthesize current views?” Would that give them the same view as the six models? Inquiring minds gotta know!
“six existing climate models to synthesize current views of such changes projected for the years 2080-2100.”
Garbage in Garbage out, 40 years in the computer field I’m still amazed at the ‘Educated’ people that don’t understand such a simple concept.
Except it’s “alarmist views in, alarmist views out.”
Same, same.
Models. Again.
Madden-Julian Oscillations precipitation variations are likely to increase, they say. They seem to imply that this will be a bad thing. Of course, silly me, it has to be a bad thing because it’s going to be caused by human CO2 emissions. But would it really be a bad thing? Assuming the models are true simulations of global weather, which is, well, you know……
Of course they use models. How else do you make a prediction?
Tea leafs, tarot cards, crystals, seaweed, chicken bones…far more accurate & reliable !
I could have sworn they made “projections” not “predictions”.
” How else do you make a prediction?”
Past experience?
Agree..”As human activities cause the Earthās temperature to increase”….could have simply said.. “As the Earthās temperature increases.” Ie from whatever cause agent…
It’s amazing how climate models, which can’t even model could, are able to tell with such certainty how could and train will be affected by CO2.
Impressive stuff!
*clouds (grrrr)
Since I know what I meant to write, I often miss my typing errors. Try “cloud” vs “could” and “rain” vs “train”.
I’m waiting for computers that know what I want to write even before I write it.
I predict that the models will be completely accurate about the same time as it requires less effort to use auto-complete than to type out a word yourself. In other words, never…
ZIgZagW – perfectly stated – no correction was necessary. š
cheers edi
Wot happens if it gets colder?
š Ask no obvious questions that cannot be considered.
I don’t see the planet doing anything that would cause this; I think time it takes to complete one rotation (day/night) would have to lengthen for this to happen. “Degradation in the oscillationās wind signal may thus diminish meteorologistsā ability to predict extreme weather events. In particular, preferential warming of the upper troposphere in a future, warmer climate is expected to reduce the strength of the Madden-Julian Oscillation circulation.”
And how will 0.18C difference lead to CAGW?
http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.
When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.
So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).
So all we have to do is calculate Twet.
Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.
Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C?
Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The increase in measured observed nighttime temps from 1950 until 2018 you quote, of only 0.65 degree (Celsius I believe) can entirely be attributed to siting errors and heat island effects from population growth. This negates your entire premise and all calculations derived from it.
Case in point; in the 1950, the small airport in Gilbert, AZ was surrounded by farmland. Today it is surrounded by houses, shopping centers, and businesses. The farms have been pushed farther out by population growth. The average nighttime temp reading for that airport has climbed significantly as a result, clouds be damned. A short drive through the countryside with the windows down in the summertime would be enough to convince any ‘climate scientist’ of this basic fact. The land-based temperature records in the United States are junk because of this, and only getting worse due to errors in digital thermometer calibration and component drift/failure from sub-par electronics). I view the likely margin of error in temp measurements to be far greater than claimed. Precision in instrumental record is useless if you’re measuring in the wrong place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohF6K2avtY
Salby demolishes Al Gore’s Church of Climatology. The most devastating critique of CAGW ever made.
Not sure it’s the most devastating critique ever made, as the warmists only need to overturn conservation law to prove Salby wrong.
Moderator: The headlines for threads like this, which summarize a warmist claim, should be preceded by “Claim:”
I agree that it would be a good approach to recommend to CTM, however, don’t you think that “Eurekalert” is a sufficient disclaimer that the information is munitions grade highly enriched bovine excrement?
I have identical feelings about your use of “claim” as I do about the sarcasm tag or a laugh track on a comedy.
Here’s how I parsed that, hope you’ll let us know if I’m off base.
The laugh track on a comedy is for people too dumb to realize they should laugh. The /sarc tag is for people too naive to realize something is sarcasm. The idea of prefacing posts with “Claim: ” is for people too clueless to realize that Eurekalert has never once posted anything sensible?
Looks like another reason to regard warming as a benefit. The only problem is that warming is not happening as fast as promised.
Note the send more money paragraph at the end.
So, the “likely” scenario, predicted by climate models is future warming will alter this pattern. Well, we have been warming since the mid 1700’s. Have there been ANY observed changes over the last two and one half centuries that support this? “Don’t be afraid. Just shout ’em out when you know.” – Vinnie Gambini
“Well, we have been warming since the mid 1700ās. Have there been ANY observed changes over the last two and one half centuries that support this?”
It was hotter in the 1930’s than it is today, about 1C hotter going by US temperature records. How did this particular weather system fair during that time? Did these scientists take history into account? No? Why not?
They could probably learn a lot just by reading old newspaper headlines of the times. It would give them a feel for the time period and if they are logical, it should show them that current times are not hotter than past years, and that the weather was much more extreme during the 1930’s than it is now. All without the stimulus of large amounts of CO2 back then.
These scientists have apparently been looking at too many bastardized Hockey Stick charts which gives a false picture of the world around them, making them think the Earth has never been this hot and will get hotter judging by the upward curve of the trend. So they have been fooled into operating on false assumptions. Their conclusions are suspect as a result.
If they were honest scientists, the language they used would sound something like “Given our current hypothesis (as represented in the models ) of the functioning of the Madden-Julian Oscillation, we predict the precipitation variations will to increase in intensity under a warmer climate, and wind variations will increase at a slower rate. If this does not happen then our hypothesis is incorrect and our models are wrong.”
“Maloney and co-authors used data from six existing climate models to synthesize current views of such changes projected for the years 2080-2100.”
There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, “data from climate models”. Models produce potential scenarios or projections.
GIGO- garbage in, garbage out. Am surprised that computer-based modeling programmers are not laughing all the way to the bank as they attempt to create the factors and adjustments needed to massage raw data into line with CAGW doctrine.
You tend to get a lot of drips in the tropics during the wet season.
I think they are climate scientists.
What these āscientistsā call āstudyingā is really just modelling – only a few steps away from casting bones in a bowl, viewing the entrails of a sheep or reading oneās palm to discern the future. Science is done otherwise by people with integrity and honest motivation. Modelling is fine if it is used to generate hypotheses of how the natural world works, but the true science is in testing the hypotheses against real world observations. The reason we are certain that casting bones, viewing entrails and reading palms is not predictive of the future is because the real world doesnāt correspond to those observations.
It’s not just upper atmosphere temps, its the DURATION of the hot tower uplift action which drives storm intensity, and directly affects wind potential and rainfall amounts. I cannot believe that knowledgeable scientists of any stripe cannot grasp the mechanical aspect of time being a factor in how much air and humidity can be transported upward. In the second diagram, the TALLER clouds will have more available time to ingest wet air from the surrounding environment, equalizing the eventual output compared to the shorter clouds climbing into a cooler atmosphere more violently for a shorter duration.
Secondly, as our upper atmosphere expands and contracts in response to solar cycles, the amount of time required for IR to radiate back out to space must therefore decrease as molecules are squeezed closer together (improvement in transfer efficiency, yes?). This MUST necessarily control how the troposphere influences storm tops, although by what amount I cannot say. All I know, based on observation from the desert southwest is that, in the last decade, the desert monsoon storm top heights have NOT been as tall (only 45k ft now versus 60k ft a decade ago), and the storm overall duration has decreased in time and they have not been continuing to propagate much after sundown (loss of input energy from sunlight). The decrease in height lessens the available outflow wind energy necessary to destabilize the next area enough to cause continued propagation westward as far as where I live, even in overwhelmingly moisture “primed” atmospheric environments.
āIn just looking at precipitation changes, the Madden-Julian Oscillation is supposed to increase in strength in a future climate,ā Maloney said. āBut one of the interesting things from our study is that we donāt think this can be generalized to wind as well.ā
“Maloney and colleagues hope to continue studying the Madden-Julian Oscillation using a broader set of climate models to be used in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment.”
__________________________________________________
“But one of the interesting things from [their ] study”
is
“that we [do] think this can be generalized”
to
“Maloney and colleagues hope [to] continue studying the Madden-Julian Oscillation
using a broader set of climate models”
WON’T ANY GOOD.
It’s Ouija board science.
From the article:
I might as well copy myself from the last ridiculous “study” that addressed “turtle feminization”. In fact, I think I will: “So once again, running a āmodelā with tuned parameters to artificially āmatchā real data, but no actual data inputs to the model, and using the output from that model as āinput dataā for your own model, without allowing any contamination by actual empirical data, and publishing those results as āresearchāā¦?ā¦!ā¦?ā¦!ā¦. Iām really not sure what you call that, but you canāt call it āScienceā. *shrug*”
Scrolling through the comments, I think some of you other commentors may have said remarkably similar things. If so, I apologize for my plagiary (though it can’t be plagiarizing if I didn’t actually see the allegedly quoted text before I wrote my text, can it?).
Given that most AOGCMs do a lousy job of creating a realistic Madden-Julian Oscillation and the today’s weather prediction models can’t predict the MJO more than a month in the future, how can anyone publish meaningful predictions of how the MJO is going to change decades from now? Paper appears to be behind paywall, so I couldn’t answer this question.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022375
“While great progress has been achieved in the development of general circulation models (GCMs) in recent decades, the MJO, however, still remains poorly represented in these stateāofātheāart GCMs, even in their latest versions [e.g., Kim et al., 2009; Hung et al., 2013]. Meanwhile, our predictive skill for the MJO remains limited, with a typical scale of 2ā3 weeks [Seo et al., 2009; Vitart and Molteni, 2010; Rashid et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2013; Neena et al., 2014], in contrast to its intrinsic predictability of about 4ā5 weeks [Waliser et al., 2003; Ding et al., 2010; Neena et al., 2014]. As GCMs are essential tools for projection of future climate changes, large model deficiencies in depicting this fundamental form of atmospheric variability leave us greatly disadvantaged in undertaking climate change studies, particularly in projecting future activities of extreme events that are significantly modulated by the MJO.”
Speaking of the tropics. Has anyone yet found a persistent hot spot in the upper troposphere? You know that hot spot or spots that the physics upon which the climate models are based requires to appear and stay?
āIn just looking at precipitation changes, the Madden-Julian Oscillation is supposed to increase in strength in a future climate,ā Maloney said. āBut one of the interesting things from our study is that we donāt think this can be generalized to wind as well.ā
āMaloney and colleagues hope to continue studying the Madden-Julian Oscillation using a broader set of climate models to be used in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment.ā
__________________________________________________
āBut one of the interesting things from [their ] studyā
is
āthat we [do] think this can be generalizedā
to
āMaloney and colleagues hope [to] continue studying the Madden-Julian Oscillation
using a broader set of climate modelsā
WONāT DO ANY GOOD.
I am making real-time predictions about the lunar influence upon Madden Julian Oscillations (MJOs) right now at the astroclimateconnection blogspot web-site! So far, my predictions have been 100 % correct.
MJOs can be thought of as a complex atmospheric wave that moves from west-to-east along the equator. It is most evident when it couples with atmospheric convection/precipitation between East Africa and the Solomon Islands. It consists of an active region of enhanced precipitation/uplift followed by a region of suppressed precipitation
The slow-moving complex MJO wave can be thought of as a combination of an easterly moving Kelvin-wave and a westerly moving equatorial Rossby wave. The MJO wave complex moves with a group velocity of about 5 m/sec from west-to-east. Within the large MJO wave complex, Kelvin waves move from west-to-east with a phase velocity of 15 to 20 m/sec, and the equatorial Rossby Waves travel from east-to-west at roughly 5 m/sec.
I propose that the westward-moving Rossby-waves are generated in the active region of the MJO every time lunar-induced changes in the Earth’s rotation rate occur over the monthly cycle (i.e. roughly once every 6 – 7 days). These changes in the Earth’s rotation speed occur every time the Moon either crosses the equator or reaches lunar stand-still (i.e. when the Moon is at its maximum distance from the Equator). The westerly moving Rossby waves are visible as paired low-pressure cells that straddle the Equator.
In addition, I propose that the easterly moving Kelvin-waves that are embedded within the MJO wave complex are produced by the relative timing between the thunderstorm activity that peaks during the mid-afternoon (around 3:00 p.m.) in the MJO’s active region and the daily lunar tidal peak that arrives roughly 48 minutes later each afternoon. I think that the difference in timing between these two phenomena produces a disturbance that propagates towards the east at a speed of 15 to 20 m/sec – which just happens to match the speed of the Kelvin waves.
My collaborator and I are currently submitting a paper that shows that lunar influence upon the MJO leads to the initiation of moderate to strong El Nino events roughly once every 4 to 5 years.
To date, an increase in the frequency and severity of weather events as a function of global warming has not been detected. What has actually happened invalidates their theory.
The Madden-Julian Oscillationās precipitation variations are likely to increase in intensity under a warmer climate
How does a variation change in intensity?!
What does that even mean, if anything?
Variations or oscillations have amplitude, and frequency and wavelength.
But not āintensityā.
Are they even trying to make sense?