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.
###
“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?