The findings suggest that winters in Europe and in eastern US may get warmer and wetter
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI ROSENSTIEL SCHOOL OF MARINE & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
MIAMI–A new study led by scientists at the University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science provides evidence that humans are influencing wind and weather patterns across the eastern United States and western Europe by releasing CO2 and other pollutants into Earth’s atmosphere.
In the new paper, published in the journal npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, the research team found that changes in the last 50 years to an important weather phenomenon in the North Atlantic–known as the North Atlantic Oscillation–can be traced back to human activities that impact the climate system.
“Scientists have long understood that human actions are warming the planet,” said the study’s lead author Jeremy Klavans, a UM Rosenstiel School alumnus. “However, this human-induced signal on weather patterns is much harder to identify.”
“In this study, we show that humans are influencing patterns of weather and climate over the Atlantic and that we may be able to use this information predict changes in weather and climate up to a decade in advance,” said Klavans.
The North Atlantic Oscillation, the result of fluctuations in air pressure across the Atlantic, affects weather by influencing the intensity and location of the jet stream. This oscillation has a strong effect on winter weather in Europe, Greenland, the northeastern U.S. and North Africa and the quality of crop yields and productivity of fisheries in the North Atlantic.
The researchers used multiple large climate model ensembles, compiled by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, to predict the North Atlantic Oscillation. The analysis consisted of 269 model runs, which is over 14,000 simulated model years.
The study, titled “NAO Predictability from External Forcing in the Late Twentieth Century,” was published on March 25 in the journal npj Climate and Atmospheric Science. The study’s authors include: Klavans, Amy Clement and Lisa Murphy from the UM Rosenstiel School, and Mark Cane from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
The study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Climate and Large-Scale Dynamics program (grant # AGS 1735245 and AGS 1650209), NSF Paleo Perspectives on Climate Change program (grant # AGS 1703076) and NOAA’s Climate Variability and Predictability Program.
###
It’s models, all the way down.
I would suggest than the human influence came in writing the models, not the NAO actually behaving in the manner the models claim.
Modern science is the philosophy and art of the plausible. It’s one big hypothetical, and em-pathetic excuse for special and peculiar interests to consolidate capital and control. Deja vu.
As soon as I opened this article, Ctrl+F “model”. I was not surprised.
There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It’s a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you ‘play’ with them!
Richard P. Feynman
I think that programmers judge programs on how the program reflects what they think is right, which is why most valid experiments have some sort of “blinding” so one cannot unconsciously affect the outcome to favor expectations.
Only the ones that refuse to check program results agreement with reality.
Leaving a few programmers who do measure their by how well they agree with reality.
Mostly in private industry where there is Hades to pay if a model is wrong.
even in engineering these days if the results go green thats the answer
sorry the old adage garbage in = garbage out is more than true with the 140 character generation
Why do illiberals (leftists, socialists, Democrats, et al.) always believe their dogma and models are more truthful representations of reality than reality itself?
Oh, that’s an easy one! It’s because socialism actually works in models, whereas it doesn’t in reality. That means models must be more accurate than reality!
Exactly. It is never their policies that lost them an election it was the way the media presented them etc – if only the people (yep, us again) had understand properly they WOULD have voted for economic suicide….surely.
Don’t forget that the wind farms have a major influence by taking energy out of the wind. hence lower wind speeds.
Also remember that cities in the USA and elsewhere have built skyscrapers (which dwarf those of the previous century) and have a considerable drag on wind. Again lower wind speed.
“Scientists have long understood that human actions are warming the planet,” said the study’s lead author Jeremy Klavans, a UM Rosenstiel School alumnus.
That is the last line I read. Just more propaganda paid for by our tax dollars.
Yep, straight into the dumpster here too.
I just read that it was financed by the NSF – that’s all I needed to know.
Very sad, RSMAS used to do decent work. It sits right on the edge of Biscayne Bay, if they haven’t moved it since my Florida time. Although I would not be surprised at all if the computer labs are all located at the main campus in Coral Gables. People at my school were, even then, at the dawn of PCs, attempting to explain El Nino with models they were building on their mainframes. A bunch of oceanographers who never confused their minds by actually going to sea….
Human actions are warming the planet, is the claim of the alarmists.
Let’s look at the AMO chart, whose temperature profile is representative of all regional surface temperature charts from around the world:
The AMO shows several warm periods of about equal magnitude. There is the highpoint in the 1880’s, the highpoint in the 1930’s, the highpoint in 1998 and the highpoint in 2016. All four of these highpoints were equally warm.
Alarmists don’t look at anything before 1979, when the satellites started recording global temperatures. They don’t look at the past because the Temperature Data Manipulators have distorted the past and artificially cooled the past to make it appear that temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter and hotter throughout the entire recorded temperature record of several hundred years.
But the AMO, and other regional charts put the lie to the data manipulation and artificial cooling of the past.
The alarmists want us to believe that we are currently experiencing unprecedented warming, but the AMO chart clearly shows this is a distortion of reality, and I would say it is a deliberate distortion of reality done to promote a political agenda.
The unprecedented warming the alarmists are trying to get people to panic over, doesn’t exist. The AMO shows this clearly. The world just went through a decades-long warming trend starting in the late 1970’s, almost identical to previous warming periods in the 1880’s and 1930’s, and now it appears we might be starting on the downhill side of the current cycle like happened from the 1880’s to the 1910’s and from the 1930’s to the 1980’s.
The Earth warms for a few decades, and then it cools for a few decades and this pattern repeats within upper and lower limits, at least since the warming began after the Little Ice Age.
There is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in the 1880’s and the 1930’s, yet the temperatures are no warmer now than they were then. This shows CO2 is not the control knob for Earth’s temperatures.
Here’s a link to a NASA page where you can see a US surface temperature chart (on the left of the page) next to a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era, computer-generated Hockey Stick chart.
The US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) shows the same temperature profile as the AMO chart.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart shows the past temperature record has been artificially cooled into insignificance, and makes the temperature profile look like things have been getting hotter and hotter for decade after decade and shows the Earth to be at the warmest temperatures in human history.
And it is all a BIG LIE perpetrated by people with political and personal agendas. They are intent on selling the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.
But the regional surface temperature charts show the Hockey Stick is a lie.
This “hotter and hotter” lie is costing the world $Trillions of dollars in wasted spending to solve a CO2 problem that does not need solving. CO2 is a benign gas, essential for life and it is being demonized without any evidence, for political purposes.
Well, isn’t that the Blues. I tried this link out before posting it and the page came back “not found”. Perhaps NASA has decided to erase this embarrasing webpage from their computers.
You try it, and see what you get:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
“Not found.”
NASA censors their own webpage. Cowards. They can’t stand the truth, so they erase it.
Maybe the Wayback Machine has a copy.
After I saw that “not found” message (I must say I wasn’t *that* surprised to see this webpage disappear), I was looking around for a good example of a Hockey Stick I could use as an illustration, and in the process I ran across the GISS temperature values for the years 1880 to the present, and they currently show 1998 as being about 0.62C above the average for this period and show 2016 to be 1.02C above the average for this period.
The UAH satellite chart shows 1998 to be statistically tied with 2016 for the hottest year since the Early Twentieth Century, which just goes to show how much NASA Climate artificially cooled 1998 with their computers in order to sell their 21st century “hottest year evah!” meme.
The weather balloon temperature data correlates with the UAH satellite records.
Obviously, the weather balloon temperature data do not correlate with the bastardized Hockey Stick charts.
The UAH satellite chart is the only one we can trust.
I can’t help but wonder how long it will be before wayback is compromised too.
Where’s the Beef? Absolutely zero evidence of anything
Evidence is so overrated.
The evidence is in the future. They almost made a verifiable prediction:
“we may be able to use this information predict changes in weather and climate up to a decade in advance,”
Once they can show this is so, it may be time to pay some attention.
Of course we will need to be wary that any correct prediction is based on something more than just being able to identify normal patterns.
So they admit that they cannot yet “…predict changes in weather and climate up to a decade in advance…” but expect us to believe their predictions for 2100.
Get with the program Paul, it’s a post-evidence world now, or as you may have heard it called “making shit up”.
evidence is racist…
“used multiple large climate model ensembles”
Why should I believe the multiple large climate models? If valid, one would be enough.
That statement is supposed to make you grow all weak at the knees … “multiple large climate models” goes with “lions and tigers and bears, lions and tigers and bears”.
“Come -on maaan!” this is serious stuff.
Don’t forget the “269 model runs, which is over 14,000 simulated model years.“.
Given their emphasis on the model runs and simulated years, you know their mathematical skills are nonexistent.
Why 269 model runs?
Multi Model runs?
Why the disparity of how many times each model was run?
Could it be that many of their runs were ‘inconvenient‘?
Should have done 270 model runs and 14,001 model years to be even more accurate!
Yes, I would prefer one good, reliable model over several models with little or no skill.
Logically, there can be only one best model. Averaging its results with all the lesser-quality models just reduces the accuracy of the forecast.
“How does one identify that ‘one best model’,” you ask? By comparing past forecasts with today’s climate and weather. Validating models seems to be a novel idea that hasn’t occurred to any of the modelers!
They don’t want to hurt the feelings of the lesser-quality models.
It’s all about being inclusive
Hey, I just had an idea! Maybe this is all by design to promote diversity among the models — just like the TV shows with actors that don’t look anything like what I experience in my daily life.
You could well be correct, it’s certainly not a reality show
> “How does one identify that ‘one best model’,” you ask? By comparing past forecasts with today’s climate and weather.
As investment brokers will tell you: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” 🙂
The only people who don’t say this are climate “scientists” and betting system touts.
I would prefer empirical physical evidence and falsifiable hypotheses over even the most sophisticated model. You know, the way Science used to be performed.
To be fair, it would be desirable to be able to know what the future holds. It is the same reason we take the trouble to look at the weather forecasts. However, to be useful, we have to be able to trust the models, and, ideally, have some idea of what the false-positive and false-negative rates are. As it is, the credibility of Global Circulation Models is less than the credibility that Cassandra had, even though she was right.
its like trying to mix dog poop flavored ice cream with cat poop flavored ice cream and thinking you’ll get vanilla …
It sounds good for the grantor and the pal review.
Same reason for having lots and lots of authors plus a ‘star’ name such as Mann who probably only dropped by for coffee on your report. Impresses people – so they think. Wow! All those grant troughers, ooops I mean scientists. Must be good.
As the NAO alternates from cold to warm and vice versa, and humans cause warming, why the NAO has cold phases ?
I ask for a model… 😀
Here’s a model –
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.UY1ATC0nFXdB1-AURYWRQwHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1
& a few more –
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.fM5VTn1K9-P1KxBIIlxKPwHaD4%26pid%3DApi&f=1
Well you did ask !
Ooh, you are awful ….
And then they proceed to explain that they ran a number of MODELS to arrive at said “information”.
I see.
Naval guns can be very accurate at considerable distances..This is achieved by butting some measured data into a model that provides the gun settings as output. Any engineering prediction is the result of data manipulation by a model. One just has to have a GOOD model.
those “models” for naval guns were all tested vs the real world and adjusted to correct for INVALID assumptions in the model … none of these climate models go thru that iterative process
try that with bows and arrows
“. . . releasing CO2 and other pollutants into Earth’s atmosphere.”
The standard narrative rears its ugly head again–no surprise there.
Jim
As a forester since 1973, I can affirm that trees LOVE CO2- the way we love oxygen.
Yes, as soon as they referred to CO2 as a “pollutant,” their credibility instantly became ZERO. Then came the models, underscoring how vacuous the claims of this “study” are.
Give them some slack. It was spring break time and all the good looking girls were in Miami so they took some shortcuts.
They found nothing.
That’s not fair. They found the answer they thought of at the start.
Good grief. Here we go again. The only man-made change to winds I can find are the altered winds that have to go around trash mountains — and they smell too. Beyond that, my recent video exposes a couple other claims … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/Z2odgVf
We could just change our diets. I’m pretty sure we could make significant changes in man-made “winds”.
Oooops, that’s as far as I got. I thought this was going to be science. I’m not really interested in politics any more. Whatever it is they’re saying … it’s wrong.
Someone needs to take the computers away from these fools and teach them how to do some real science for a change.
They should learn to code…
Or put them in a sand box with some plastic spades and buckets.
Bugger … I just snorted my coffee.
Diversity (i.e. color judgment), inequity, and exclusion. The problem progresses from non-uniform emissions of greening CO2. If only there was a greenhouse effect to make the Earth bloom.
They use multiple models because they are just not able to tell which one (if any) is correct. And they can’t tell which one is correct because they don’t know enough about the climate.
But they can predict the weather and the climate a decade ahead. Yeah, right!
Which Representative Concentration Profile was used in the models? Yet another omission in their story.
They are Quantum Models run on a Quantum Computer. They contain all possible answers.
“Study finds humans are directly influencing wind and weather over North Atlantic”Yes, sorry about that as I had the Dyson fan on 10 with an upstairs window open. I’ll close the window and it should all calm down.
Your fan only goes to 10? Mine does 11.
Then it’s your fault. Close the bloody window!
“In this study, we show that humans are influencing patterns of weather …”
Climate crooks and politicians generate indeed a lot of hot air.
“Scientists have long understood that human actions are warming the planet,”
“The findings suggest that winters in Europe and in eastern US may get warmer and wetter ”
Nope I’ve not seen any observed evidence for a warming been getting colder and wetter,
the two above quotations are contradictions you can’t say human actions ARE warming the planet ,then SUGGEST MAY be getting warmer.
This ridiculous paper is hastily drawn up horse shit to manure the maybe cop26 participants,
Cob them into a wall of unified self contamination.
Weird Science has a whole new meaning now. Communist Science is exceptional at consensus, All hail the mighty molecule!
“The researchers used multiple large climate model ensembles”……stop right there! J None of these people do real science!
Study finds some humans are directly influencing other humans to think they are influencing wind and weather over North Atlantic. In democracy people are free think exactly as they are told to do, if they choose to do so. Sad state of affairs is that propaganda from authorities trumps logic and truth at 100 to 1.
I have an idea where peoples live, no one lives in the North Atlantic
not even in Iceland? The Faeroes?
Do they live in warm or cold North Atlantic water or live they on land ? 😀
“Sad state of affairs is that propaganda from authorities trumps logic and truth at 100 to 1.”
It’s actually a dangerous state of affairs. Dangerous enough to put a traitor and criminal and delusional idiot back in the Oval Office.
The Doomsday Clock has moved closer to disaster. Biden’s weak, possibly compromised actions, are putting the dictators of the world in an expansionist mood. They think they see some easy pickings out there in the greater world with no oppostion to speak of.
If I were a new president in this current situation I would tell the Chicoms there will be no limited nuclear war. I would tell them if they detonate a nuclear weapon in anger, that the United States will launched a full-scale nuclear attack on the Chicoms and specifically in an effort to destroy the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Xi won’t walk away from this one.
That ought to cause them to give up their limited nuclear war strategies. Of course, the president would have to convince the Chicoms he meant business. Biden doesn’t fit that bill. He may be subject to blackmail from the Chicoms. That’s probably a pretty good bet considering what we already know about the Biden family influence peddling.
Ah, so nothing observational, but 269 model runs. Along with the comment that ‘scientists have long understood that human actions are warming the planet’ why do I feel sceptical?
What fun! When these people get bored with their Role-Playing Games, they can run a different computer game called a climate model and pretend they’re SCIENTISTS!
While wearing white lab coats, no doubt.
OBiden’s white house will provide the coats for the photo opp.
As long as they don’t play doctor! There are far too many of them already!
CO2 and other pollutants were found to have a strong effect on winter weather.
The quality of crop yields (was reduced by 0.0001% but was offset by 0.001% increase in quantity from the 0.1% additional CO2) and productivity of fisheries in the North Atlantic (dropped by 0.0001 because of the 0.001 deg C increase in surface water temperature compare to 50 years ago. Additional funding is required to better define the results).
Maybe they were talking about winter wheat.
“However, this human-induced signal on weather patterns is much harder to identify.”
And much harder to predict. Hope they succeed because I rely a lot on weather predictions that help a lot but not always accurate. But is much appreciated. Predicting climate and weather a decade in advance looks a lot like predicting the winning lottery numbers. Look for revisions in predictions.
Predicting the climate 100 years into the future is a lot like weather prediction. You start out with an initial prediction, update it annually with the expectation of changes, and finally, as the centennial date approaches, gain more confidence in the prediction — which may or may not come to pass.
Flatulence? Vegan emisions are a first-order-forcing of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/549013-author-of-the-sixth-extinction-says-earth-is-on
Author of ‘The Sixth Extinction’ says Earth is on verge of new mass extinction as big as dinosaur wipe-out
Will humans go extinct?
Either the critters writing these kinds of articles are becoming more self-assured about publishing BS, or they are becoming more desparate.
They make money on clicks writing this crapola, in the old days editors found that content was what sold newspapers, and misleading headlines caused sales to fall, except for maybe supermarket aisle tabloids. In the new media clicks on salacious headlines is what brings in the pennies…result…junk hype journalism.
With President Biden hosting a virtual climate summit this week, I am surprised we have not seen more ridiculous papers come out. Meanwhile, there is an April snow storm making its way through the country and as the previous article noted, Germany is having the coldest April in a100 years. More problematic for the alarmists, year-to-date global average temperature is running slightly below the 30 year average.
“With President Biden hosting a virtual climate summit this week, I am surprised we have not seen more ridiculous papers come out.”
Yes, it’s about time for those “It’s worse that we thought!” articles to start coming out. What disaster will it be next?
“It’s worse than we thought” right on cue: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/20/un-the-climate-is-changing-and-the-impacts-are-already-too-costly-for-people-and-the-planet/
Meanwhile, off topic- sorry, but: “Announcing the Leadership of Columbia University’s New Climate School”
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/announcing-leadership-columbia-university-s-new-climate-school
“We’re thrilled to share that today Columbia University President Lee Bollinger announced the appointment of Jason Bordoff as a Co-Founding Dean of the Columbia Climate School, a role he will hold while continuing to serve as Founding Director of the Center on Global Energy Policy and Professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs at Columbia SIPA.”
“Climate change is among the most important crises humanity is facing today. Recognizing the breadth and severity of climate change’s myriad impacts, President Bollinger recently announced the creation of the Columbia University Climate School, the first new school in 25 years at the university. As a friend of CGEP, you know how deeply energy shapes the global economy and fosters rising prosperity while at the same time contributing three-quarters of global carbon emissions. As such, energy policy solutions informed by rigorous research and dialogue are key to addressing not only the urgent threat of climate change, but the challenge of increasing access to energy to end poverty and create economic opportunity around the world.
That’s why, since its establishment, CGEP has worked to engage with diverse stakeholders to develop policy tools and inclusive, actionable solutions to address our most pressing energy and climate challenges. We’ve worked to bridge the gap between academia and policy through research, dialogue, and education, and have developed innovative new tools and programs to train the next generation of leaders and deliver research insights in formats and timeframes that are accessible and useful to decision-makers outside of academia.
Going forward, the Center on Global Energy Policy will redouble its efforts across the broad range of energy and climate change challenges that deeply impact the environment, global economy, geopolitics, equity and justice imperatives, and more. In partnership with the Climate School, CGEP will continue to serve as a model for how to apply academic knowledge to real-world solutions and impact. ”
Wow, it looks like they’ll fix everything- even things that don’t need fixing.
Yes, a real vomit provoker…
and I hear that Columbia has a graduate program in Underwater Basket Weaving…
Get with the times! The proper title is “Gender-Neutral Underwater Basket Weaving.”
James Hansen is still involved with Columbia- maybe he’s running that program!
He does have experience with weaving intricate webs of intrigue and subterfuge.
And a “Journalism” School.
That POS Bollinger was the president of the University of Michigan. Fortunately we got rid of him and Columbia has to contend with him now. His Wiki entry is quite entertaining. I’m sure he hasn’t read it.
https://www.wikicu.com/Lee_C._Bollinger
Wake me up when the models improve to 1%. Until then, 1,000,000,000 times 0 is still 0. If you ran a model with 0% accuracy 1 billion times, you will never get a correct output. If someone is never right, it does not matter how many times you ask, you will never get a correct answer.
Oh, I can believe it if the model included all the wind from the Boston Baked beans consumed in the Northeast
As I understand it, that’s why there’s a perpetual chop off the coast of Massachusetts.
(😜)
I thought the air is now cleaner than it was back in the 60s, before scrubbers and EPA and such, but never clean enough for those whose job it is to complain about something…anything.
Because climate systems should always be “normal” and never vary.
Grant hunting in the Atlantic is a serious overfishing problem. Thanks NSF for the laugh.
Could we just shut down Delaware and Rhode Island to compensate?
I almost stopped reading at this false statement “CO2 and other pollutants”. It is profoundly ignorant to call an odorless, tasteless, harmless gas that is the basis for all life on this planet a pollutant.
They get part credit for this one “Scientists have long understood that human actions are warming the planet,” because human activity has resulted in an increase in water vapor (about 90% of WV increase is from irrigation) which has contributed partly to the approximately 1.2 K of planet warming since the depths of the LIA. Their mistake is thinking CO2 contributed anything significant to climate.
The final blow came when they admitted this “researchers used multiple large climate model ensembles”. CO2 has no effect on climate. Any model that says it does is faulty.
Most (if not all) GCMs assume constant relative humidity to determine WV which is wrong but even if it was done correctly using the increase in saturation vapor pressure with temperature of the liquid water, the actual measured WV is about 43% more. Comparison of assumed with measured WV is shown in this graph. This and much more is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Was Baron Münchhausen playing around?
I did pass gas- FYI. That is a fact. Everything following in the “article” is conjecture following the non-scientific consensus.
The only people who think man has any influence on nature are the garbage elite who see themselves as godlike, despite abundant evidence that they are some of the most useless people in history.
“Human influence” is particularly evident in the upper stratosphere above the 65th parallel.
Noisy paper “The analysis consisted of 269 model runs, which is over 14,000 simulated model years.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00177-8
From the abstract
“Overall, we suggest that improving climate models’ response to external radiative forcing may help resolve the known signal-to-noise error in climate models.”
From the paper
“As exhibited by Fig. 2a, these positive values may be a matter of good luck, given the low signal-to-noise ratio in the NAO and the negative ensemble mean ACC in CSIRO-Mk3 may simply be the result of its small ensemble size (for the purposes of this problem)……[last line] Therefore, the influence of the NAO on climate around the North Atlantic basin is likely too weak in these projections. Given the predictive value that we find for the NAO in external forcing, we expect that devoting effort to the difficult and uncertain task of improving the response of climate models to external forcing will improve the signal-to-noise ratio in climate models and therefore projections and predictions of future climate. ”
I used to have students each analyze a scientific paper. Wish I had a time machine, most of them would have had a ball!!!
I do not believe that humans are responsible for this or that anything has been proven here.
“However, this human-induced signal on weather patterns is much harder to identify.”
Perhaps the reason the human induced-signal is harder to find, is it’s so small as to be practically insignificant?
OK, early models left a lot to be desired and we now know so much more about climate! Therefore, here’s my suggestion for finding the best model.
Take the latest and greatest model Mark V (and all of its competitors), and if necessary, train it for the period of the oldest reliable weather data to 1991. Then, assume it is 1991 and run it forward in time to today. Compare the decadal moving-average predictions with actual history and see which model comes closest to reality, using a least-squares difference measure.
Determine what makes the best model different from the others.
If no model does better than the nominal 3X amplification of temperature anomalies and at least gets the sign of the change in precipitation right at regional scales, then chuck them all and start over. Don’t bother using RCP-8.5 as a scenario.
You know very well that no one is interested in real accuracy or actual prediction. The entire thing is just for show. It’s all about furthering the agenda and maintaining the narrative.
Actually, I wouldn’t go that far. I’m sure that there are some individuals that have the hubris to think that they can model chaotic systems with parameterizations and assumptions about processes that are not well-characterized. But, whether they have agendas, or are just naive, they are behaving unethically to make claims that can’t be substantiated by experiment and falsifiable hypotheses. The Media is complicit in this, probably out of ignorance, because they are, after all, know nothing wordsmiths.
Yes, you’re right. I made a hasty remark and your version is a far more reasoned view of the situation … but at the same time more disturbing. Mine was a cynical, gut reaction. I sort of assumed that no trained scientist could have missed the past 20 years of evidence falsifying their entire position. Yet you point out the true believers and the morally bereft. I’ll try not to let my anger show so much in future.
Clyde,
That’s an insult to know nothing wordsmiths like poets and songwriters! Media urinalists were the folks who were too stoned or stupid to succeed in tough subjects like business, law or STEM! They’ve become the trash heap of the university system; fantasy writers with a nebulous grasp of the world around them!
Actually, it is my experience that a lot of song writers have a better grasp of psychology and the human condition than academics.
What a complete load of bollocks. Started from a point of bias and proved absolutely nothing.
Looks at only the last 50 years, and ignores the past few thousand years when it was frequently warmer than now. Not real science, just political science.
They left out the part about how wind turbines are taking energy out of the wind and slowing it down. However, the fertility of the soil is being increased from all the dead birds, bats, and insects decomposing under the turbines.
Yes, diversity (i.e. numeric), inequity, and exclusion. Worse, forcing local, and perhaps regional, micro-agressions through turbulent flows.
Now the North Atlantic Oscillation is the fault of humanity too. Next we’ll find ourselves on the hook for solar activity, the wobble of the Earth’s rotation on its axis, galactic cosmic rays and the movement of the Solar System through the spiral arms of the Milky Way.
Think about it! The solar system is a part of the milky way galaxy. It moves with it not thru it. The sun orbits the center of the milky way galaxy just like all the rest of the stars that make the galaxy up. The position of the sun (our local star) with respect to the arms cannot change.
Goodness, where to begin on this.
Says ““Scientists have long understood that human actions are warming the planet,” said the study’s lead author Jeremy Klavans, a UM Rosenstiel School alumnus. “However, this human-induced signal on weather patterns is much harder to identify.”
So where is the causation…. you know as in hypothesis, test hypothesis, see the data support drawing a conclusion of “cause and effect. It is so disgusting to see this kind of behavior.
I am more surprised that he didn’t quote Greta Thunberg.
Hypothetical conjecture lacking evidence and proof.
I believe that is called b.s.
Maybe Klavans can “see” invisible water vapor and CO2 like Greta. That’s proof enough in their minds–don’t need no stinking evidence.
Jim
The researchers used multiple large climate model ensembles, well in the older days it would have been chicken entrails and called divination and to be fair it’s a method as accurate as those climate ‘science ‘ likes to use included the all-time classic . Heads you lose, tails I win, approach to prediction.
Of course the ‘model ‘ approach does cause less harm to animals , if not reducing the amount of BS as an end product.
At this point I think the climate change studies can be done by robots. Just name the climate topic and area and desired bad outcome or negative influence for the climate grantors and the robot slaps it all together and prints the author’s name on it. Direct billing to the grant account is also available. You still need biased human operators to set up the pal review and pal grant program at the agency though.
The problem is though, that the human idiots won’t be content with just getting paid to look out of windows, even if we have to fit them with ankle bracelets. They’ll be out telling people how brilliant they are whatever. You can’t fix elitist stupidity.
I’ve been toying with the idea of using a program like Corp Speak to generate a satire on climatology claims.
WOW, they really do leave themselves open to complete MOCKERY, don’t they !
I wonder if they realise JUST HOW DUMB they make themselves look !
“The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is predictable in climate models at near-decadal timescales. Predictive skill derives from ocean initialization, which can capture variability internal to the climate system, and from external radiative forcing.”
So they are using AMO anomalies which are driven by NAO anomalies, to predict NAO trends, that’s a fine circular reasoning project.
“Though the results here imply that external radiative forcing is a major source of predictive skill for the NAO, they also indicate that ocean initialization may be important for particular NAO events (the mid-1990s strong positive NAO)”
The NAO had a distinctly negative regime from 1995-1999, due to a decline in solar wind temperature/pressure from then, but the positive NAO regime in the early 1990’s was in fact partly influenced by the Pinatubo eruption. There is not a word either about how northeast Pacific warm blobs hold the NAO positive when the AO goes negative, like in winter 2013-2014.
I have been predicting NAO anomalies at weekly scales since 2008, they can be just as positive or negative with a warmer or a colder AMO. The Atlantic SST anomaly pattern drives atmospheric blocking patterns, it doesn’t dictate the sign of NAO trends. They have a signal-to-noise paradox because they have no idea that short term changes in the solar wind drive the NAO noise, and which is actually the most predicable component and with far more utility than their trend modeling.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00177-8
As soon as I read the word model I completely lost interest.
“The analysis consisted of 269 [garbage] model runs, which is over 14,000 simulated [garbage] model years.” There, fixed.
The mathematical formula is: X garbage model runs x 52 = total number of garbage model years. No matter what X is, it’s still all garbage.
Interesting. I thought heat waves and extreme cold was associated with blocking, and blocking associated with negative NAO. Here https://www.princeton.edu/news/2019/05/08/occurrence-back-back-heat-waves-likely-accelerate-climate-change they “ran climate simulations on an advanced model” an found “that as global temperatures increase, heat waves will become more frequent and the time between them will become shorter” which should mean more negative NAO. Am I wrong? Is it a matter of picking the ‘right’ model for the result one want to see?
How does this compare with record low temps in Europe (incl. recent article about Germany), USA 48 states observations, global changes (before adjustments)?
It doesn’t matter how many models are used and how many runs are done. These toy models are based on garbage in, garbage out. The more you run them, the more garbage they produce with a thin veneer of scientific justification & “looks like” it reproduces natural variability. The many models&runs averaged together hides the detail like wearing foggy glasses.
They need to improve the models so they can pick a winner and have something reliable for prediction (if that’s possible).
Congratulations! You’ve proven that a computer will spit out whatever numbers you program it to spit out. I wonder how anyone can consider this valuable without any actual real-world observations backing it up, and I wonder even more how much taxpayer money was spent on this garbage.
Model runs = evidence. Science?
Being a climate scientist is so easy. Identify anything that has changed over recent history. Blame it on CO2. Collect money.
muh model.
Somebody must have slipped ’em an audio book of Damnation Alley by Rodger Zelazny cause I doubt they are capable of reading.
Or did they get their hair caught up in their personal Religious token the Whirling Crucifix of Doom?
That scientific Method,must be as taboo as mathematical skills.
All hail the New Oracle..G.I.G.O.
Garbage In Gospel Out.
So lets pretend that humans are directly influencing the WX. Humans also directly influence land so rather than laying barren or sustaining weeds the land is selfishly manipulated to produce beneficial crops. Ice breakers directly influence ice accumulations so that trade made commence. Humans dig canals, construct dams, extract minerals from the ground and do all sort of things that directly influence events and the physical nature of Earth.
Only lunatics and destroyers want to characterize any human activity as cataclysmic, always assuming that every modification is an existential threat to all living beings.
So if humans are directly influencing the WX, how is it always a bad thing? And if it is axiomatic that any human change is bad, how is it that we tolerate Bill Gates and the other Malthusians who talk about filling the atmosphere with dust and smoke to lower temperatures? How are their lunatic ideas “sustaining” while those that promote human flourishing are always characterized as evil?
”“In this study, we show that humans are influencing patterns of weather and climate”
Errr no.
The paper can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00177-8.pdf.
As far as I can see its all about models and damn-all about the real world. They use the words ‘observations’ a number of times but don’t actually say what they are. Itseems to be nothing but computers and models all the way down. No real suggestion that ‘mankind did it’. In fact, it is not quite clear what the paper is saying.
Another NSF waste of funds debacle.
These yahoos actually believe they can predict NAO based upon their playing with bogus models imitating NAO data?
I suggest that they should be given access to online trading, so long as they are restricted to their own bank accounts.
Then they can prove their ability to predict future movements.
One wonders if these model geniuses have been programming EV car’s simulated artificial intelligence self driving modes?
CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis because CAGW’s hypothetical global temp anomaly projections, and all other catastrophic predictions (ocean pH, severe weather, sea level rise, etc.,) have been so devoid from reality that the hypothesis has already surpassed the criteria necessary for official disconfirmation.
Sure, an excellent case can be made that manmade CO2 emissions have contributed to some of the beneficial global warming we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, but all the catastrophic predictions not only haven’t occurred, a much better case can be made that manmade CO2 emissions have had a net positive affect for all life on earth.
Unfortunately, we’ll soon be experiencing 30+ years of global cooling from PDO & AMO ocean cycles reentering their respective 30-year cool cycles which will have a net negative impact on all life on earth..
CAGW has become a joke.
“science” like this is rather depressing.
Not only is the study a complete waste of time and money, it’s doubly wasteful to devote resources to people like Jeremy Klavans, Bad enough the lack of real talent and insight into science (there will always be the elevated untalented yes men), the lack of integrity all for kudos and funding, is the really depressing reality
And back when the fixation was all about the comming Ice Age…
“These variations, perhaps more than any underlying trend to a
warmer or colder climate, create difficulties for the planning age in
which we live. They may be associated with the increased meridionality
of the general wind circulation, the greater frequency of blocking, of
stationary high and low pressure systems, giving prolonged northerly
winds in one longitude and southerly winds in another longitude sector
in middle latitudes.
Over both hemispheres there has been more blocking in these
years… The most remarkable feature seems to be the an intensification of
the cyclonic activity in high latitudes near 70-90N, all around the
northern polar region. And this presumably has to do with the almost
equally remarkable cooling of the Arctic since the 1950’s, which has
meant an increase in the thermal gradient between high and middle
latitudes.”
HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – pp 267-270
And it was not only Lamb.
“In 1975, CC Wallen, Head of the Special Environmental Applications
Division of the World Meteorological Organization, had this to say about
the consequences of the cooling trend since 1940:
The principal weather change likely to accompany the cooling trend is increased variability-alternating extremes of temperature and precipitation in any given area-which would almost certainly lower average crop yields.
During cooler climatic periods the high-altitude winds are broken
up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers,
causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small,
weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing
unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on
the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate
season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.”
From the article: ““Scientists have long understood that human actions are warming the planet,” said the study’s lead author Jeremy Klavans, a UM Rosenstiel School alumnus.”
Well, there you go, the lead guy starts out assuming things not in evidence. That doesn’t bode well for any scientific inquiry he is involved in.
The description has a huge lie in the text: They say these researchers provide “evidence” mankind causes these weather changes.
Simulations are NOT evidence, they are speculation or supposition. Often based on incomplete or incorrect modeling parameters, and without properly addressing the error ranges inherent in using incomplete or incorrect input parameters.
Actually, a model is a complex hypothesis. It is part of the Scientific Method. Which means, it should be falsifiable, and to be of any value should be subjected to testing; if found wanting, it should be modified, or completely rejected if not salvageable.
The problem is that the modelers do minimal testing and the Media treat each iteration of a computer implementation as though it were Settled Science. The modelers tend to over-rate their contributions out of enthusiasm, and the Media are uncritical out of ignorance.
Well, I keep wondering when I see this sort of study whether, if there REALLY has been a change, it is due to the butterfly effect and the presence of enormous numbers of wind turbines. Clearly these will perturb local air currents and maybe that can have knock-on effects on more global wind patterns.
Ironic if the ‘green’ solutions are actually the problem!
“green” solutions are always the problem, that is their plan, cause problems.
Just more crap and lies. Co2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food and we need more.
You have only to look at the dismal record of storm and flood in the UK over the last 20 years to see that yes, we have changed the UK climate.
You are a Britisher who fails to learn your own history, I showed it to you a few months ago that there were far stormier decades than the recent ones. You are a terrible student who fails to remember and learn.
Not so Tommy: just look at the record since 2000
Why the year 2000? Is that when they started keeping records?
>20 years is prehistory
Recent flooding caused by the greenie agenda of not allowing the proper maintenance of channels
You KNOW that, griff… .. so why keep LYING through your rear orifice !
more likely the heat islands on the of Florida due to bitumen rather than water
How many iterative calculations are performed in 14,000 simulated years?