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