The Big 5 Causes of Natural Climate Change Part 2-JET STREAMs AND EXTREME WEATHER

Jim Steele

Jet streams are key to understanding climate change because they both create weather and steer weather around the globe. Unlike global warming, jet streams undeniably cause both extreme heat waves and extreme cold snaps as well as directly causing droughts and floods.

Jet streams cause extreme weather when their waviness increases and causes weather patterns to linger over a region longer than normal. Examinations of the jet stream’s cycle of waviness were first published by MIT’s Carl-Gustav Rossby in the 1940s.

A transcript of this video is available at https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-big-5-natural-causes-of-climate.html

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

5 18 votes
Article Rating
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
griff
May 3, 2022 2:07 pm

But of course on top of all the natural climate change processes which have always changed the climate, there is the new additional climate driver, human CO2.

Bob Hoye(@subtle2)
Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 2:22 pm

Hi Griff
Do you get paid to set there as a poised troll?
After all of your time spent reading these qualified articles why can’t you understand how climate and weather really work.

4caster
Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 3, 2022 2:31 pm

He doesn’t WANT to understand, because he won’t get paid. I’ve always wondered how these paid trolls divvy up the shifts…8 hour shifts, or 12 hour shifts? Days, evening, midnights rotating weekly? Is there a 401k contribution?

Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 3, 2022 2:50 pm

To be fair, Griff may not being saying all his ignorant things just for pay. It is very possible he is just extremely stupid. But then we don’t know if he is mentally challenged due to genetics or a poor upbringing or both. Does anyone know his mother?

Redge
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 3, 2022 10:14 pm

I knew his mother 40 years ago but haven’t seen her since that one night.

Wait a minute………

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 4, 2022 2:46 am

Nope he’s a troll, possibly a stupid one as well, but definitely a troll. Symptoms are:-
Standard responses It’s CO2, Windturbines are magic
No response to questions
No response to requests for data
Repeating the same thing over and over

The fact that in the face of insults and facts that counter the claims Griff keeps coming back suggests payment. As does Griff’s comments elsewhere which follow the same pattern.

There’s probably a bonus if he can elicit more that 20 responses to a single comment and divert the discussion.

D Boss
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 5, 2022 4:30 am

Jim is correct. Griff proves Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity:

https://sproutsschools.com/bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity/

“Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that stupid people are more dangerous than evil ones. This is because while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones we are defenseless — reasons fall on deaf ears.”

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 3, 2022 4:50 pm

time spent reading

There’s your problem. He doesn’t spend any time reading the articles, he just reads the headlines.

PaulID
Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 4, 2022 6:41 am

I wonder if Griff is actually a sceptic and is making these idiotic statements to show how tenuous the alarmist argument is.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 4, 2022 3:21 pm

It would be one thing to be paid to post his brain-dead drivel. Dishonest but rational.

What does it say if he’s not even being paid? It’s hard to imagine anyone seeing any value in paying griff to post his self-refuting, self-parodying nonsense that is so evidently unpersuasive. (Except maybe Anthony Watts).

Rud Istvan
Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 3:03 pm

Griff, you made an assertion. Now provide some real observational support. You know you cannot, so likely will not respond to this reparte.

Here are some more similar inconvenient facts for you to ponder:

  1. Climate models predict a tropical troposphere hotspot that does not exist.
  2. Wadhams predicted the disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice by 2014 (or maybe 2016) thanks to AGW ‘Arctic amplification’. It hasn’t as of 2022.
  3. Sterling predicted the resultant decline of polar bears. They thrive instead.
  4. Viner of MetUK predicted in 2000 that UK children would soon not know snow; yet they still do.
  5. Nerem has been predicting sea level rise acceleration for his whole career, yet there isn’t any. (In case you can read, see Kip Hansen’s recent post here for some really fun details on how pathetic Nerem ‘science’ is.
Doug
Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 3:15 pm

Once you can prove that CO2 can drive a climate change ( instead of being an effect) ; you then must explain how such a microscopic amount can ad to the millions of tons produced by a single volcano. With out a model you can prove either of these things. Intelligent people know that models can’t supply evidence, so just keep your wacky thoughts to yourself griff

Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 3:32 pm

Once all the natural causes are accounted for, there remains no significant effect of any additional climate drivers like human CO2, to account for what is being observed. Griff is just mindlessly repeating a narrative, because he is ignorant about the far-reaching effects of natural climate change

Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 3:42 pm

Not challenging the assumptions that support your beliefs is why you are so wrong about so much.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 4:48 pm

You keep claiming that, but to date you have consistently failed to provide any evidence to support your beliefs.

paul
Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 5:16 pm

bullshit

b.nice
Reply to  griff
May 3, 2022 5:50 pm

“there is the new additional climate driver, human CO2.”

You have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of that.

It is a fantasy.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
May 4, 2022 3:12 am

But of course …

Ironically Slashdot’s “Quote for the day” today is …

“It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.” — John Wooden

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  griff
May 4, 2022 3:45 am

Griff is a disciple of the new Archbishop Byron Allen CEO Media Enterprises interviewed on CNBC yesterday and broadcast on World Wide Exchange. Byron “Climate Change will kill millions:” https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/02/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-weather-channel-owner-byron-allen.html.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
May 5, 2022 11:54 am

What Byron fails to mention is his lie by omissions: First, by omitting the word “Hypothetically” at the beginning of his statement. Second, by omitting the truth that is NOT hypothetical: “Climate POLICIES will kill billions.”

Reply to  griff
May 4, 2022 6:36 am

Griffter, there is no climate crisis….man made or otherwise….this means your quest to save mankind is in vain…sorry….you are tilting at windmills….again, to no effect….you may receive a record no. of negative comments this time…..for your contributions to CO2.

Rick C
Reply to  griff
May 4, 2022 10:01 am

Well, at least Griff admits there are natural drivers to climate change that have always existed. That’s progress. His claim regarding new human caused drivers lacks any supporting evidence as there has been no change in variability of weather that is outside the historical normal range. The warmists keep trying to fabricate such evidence, but have failed miserabely.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  griff
May 4, 2022 1:59 pm

CO2 isn’t a driver of anything it has little warm forcing effect left at the 430 ppm level thus your claim was never rational.

John Shotsky
May 3, 2022 2:48 pm

If you can get a good view of the jet stream, you can get a preview of the weather coming your way. Weather is indeed ‘steered’ around the earth by the jet streams. Weather forecasters talk in terms of ‘troughs’ and ‘ridges’, but they would be better off talking about the jet stream and it’s moving lobes. Oh, and CO2 has nothing to do with weather.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Shotsky
May 4, 2022 5:04 am

Here is a current view of the jet stream. It looks a little less wavy to me.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-82.51,72.35,264

I didn’t understand how the weather worked when I was younger until a local meteorologist started explaining the jet stream during his weather forecasts (Gary Shore/Tulsa) and the weather finally started making sense to me. Now I can pretty much tell what the weather is going to do in the near future by looking at the jet stream configuration.

Last edited 16 days ago by Tom Abbott
Rud Istvan
May 3, 2022 2:50 pm

JS, the meridional versus zonal jet stream transition is a known big deal as you point out. Less well known is what causes the transitions from one to the other, because is apparently a complicated multi factorial weather pattern problem.

But since we can look at weather records for CONUS and observe many implicit jet stream shifts from zonal to meridional happening long before IPCC AR4 SPM fig. 4 said CO2 could have had any real influence, we can rest assured that it ISN’T AGW.

Nice post.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 3, 2022 5:41 pm

Its constantly amazing how CliSciFi practitioners can ignore mountains of information and believe speculative UN IPCC climate models, Rud.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 4, 2022 5:10 am

They believe what they want to believe, driven by many motivations, none of which are truth-seeking.

Mike McHenry
May 3, 2022 3:02 pm

Jim Steele was it jet streams that caused the extreme weather of the 1930’s in North America?

Reply to  Mike McHenry
May 3, 2022 3:10 pm

As I crafted this post that same question came to my mind. There were several people talking about experiencing the dust bowl drought in the midwest but also baffled by floods further east which is consistent with a jet stream disturbance, I’ll be looking in to it.

Last edited 17 days ago by Jim Steele
Burl Henry
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 3, 2022 5:21 pm

Jim Steele:

You will find that the 1930’s Dust Bowl warming (June-Sept 1936) was due to a stalled high-pressure weather system.

See “Stalled High-Pressure Weather Systems”

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.3.0264

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 4, 2022 5:13 am

Yes, the Dust Bowl was caused by persistent high pressure systems over the same general area.

If a high pressure system sat over the western half of the U.S., then the clockwise circulation pattern, coming out of Canada, could and would bring cooler, wetter weather to areas east of the high pressure system. So you can have hot and dry areas sitting right next to cooler and wetter areas in such a situation.

Probably the same type of weather pattern that drove the 1930’s Dust Bowl also drove the long periods of drought that occurred during California’s past where it was extremely dry for hundreds of years.

It would have to be a persistent high-pressure system causing these droughts and hot spells. What would cause it to be persistent for so long?

Last edited 16 days ago by Tom Abbott
Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2022 7:28 am

Tom Abbott:

By the “hundreds of years of drought”, I assume that you are speaking of the world-wide droughts of the MWP.

The warming then was not due to .a persistent weather pattern, but was due to the lack of volcanic eruptions (only 31 VEI4 and higher over a 300 year period)

With few dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, the clean air
allowed temperatures to soar, just as also happens when the SO2 aerosols within a stalled high-pressure weather system.settle out of the atmosphere.

Mike McHenry
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 4, 2022 6:16 pm

A NASA paper send it was persistent La Nina conditions in the Pacific. Do you agree?

Reply to  Mike McHenry
May 5, 2022 6:08 am

As I say in the video La Ninas affect the jet stream waviness. I believe La Nina was certainly a factor.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Mike McHenry
May 4, 2022 10:49 am

The warm AMO phase is associated with the continental interior drought, but the extreme heat of 1934 and 1936 was felt in many locations around the northern hemisphere, because those events were discretely solar driven.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub

May 3, 2022 3:04 pm

A demonstration that humanity’s contribution to the modest rise in average global temperature is NOT due to increasing carbon dioxide is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Johne Morton
May 3, 2022 3:07 pm

Here in Colorado this is definitely true. ENSO stacks the deck, and the Arctic Oscillation deals the hand, jet stream-wise.

Scissor
Reply to  Johne Morton
May 3, 2022 3:18 pm

I’d like a little more water dealt. Yesterday’s rain was nice, perhaps we’ll get some more tonight and tomorrow.

Johne Morton
Reply to  Scissor
May 3, 2022 8:25 pm

Yeah, we need to get out of La Nina, hopefully later this year.

Bob
May 3, 2022 3:31 pm

Magnificent Jim.

Ulric Lyons
May 3, 2022 3:56 pm

So Greenland warmed since 1995 due to negative NAO conditions and a meridional jet stream, but climate models predict increasingly positive NAO conditions with rising CO2 forcing and a more northerly and zonal jet stream. The logic has escaped them.

comment image

Last edited 17 days ago by Ulric Lyons
Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
May 3, 2022 8:19 pm

Hello Griff, so you admit that a change of weather is normal, but then add that there is the human caused CO2 as a additional driver.

So what about all of the None Human caused CO2.

Does that also cause the Weather to change.

So lightening causes a forest fire, lots of CO2. What effect does that have ?

What about all the animals who breath out CO2, including us humans., does that also cause the weather to change.

Anyway how can a tiny Parts per Million gas like CO2 do it, compared to the big one, the gasies water vapour, H2O.

Griff read up on William Harper, he say forget about India & China pouring out
billions of tons of CO2, as it is still far too small to make any difference other than Greening the World.

Nichael VK5ELL

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
May 4, 2022 11:00 am

I’m definitely not Griff. But to comment on your points, there should be naturally higher CO2 levels during a low solar period because of a warmer North Atlantic reducing CO2 uptake, and increased El Nino conditions making tropical forests drier which makes them release lots of CO2.
Similar weather extremes occur over a range of global mean temperatures, the idea that global climate change means changes in the weather is supposition. ENSO and AMO phases affect regional weather, but they have nothing to do with CO2 levels.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
May 4, 2022 5:24 am

It looks like Greenland is in a temperature downtrend.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2022 8:06 am

That would be the positive NAO conditions 2017-2018:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/month_nao_index.shtml

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
May 5, 2022 12:03 pm

Logic and reason have nothing to do with ‘climate’ pseudo-science.

May 3, 2022 10:13 pm

I’ve been persistently mentioning the significance of jet stream variability for the past 15 years.

Ireneusz Palmowski
May 4, 2022 12:44 am

The latitudinal jet streams influences the development of the La Niña phenomenon. The pattern of the jet current depends largely on the strength of the solar wind, the effect of which can be seen in the form of aurorae. It looks as if the solar wind’s magnetic field is rejecting ozone from the Earth’s magnetic pole (the shape of the aurora is quite symmetrical and circular). Ozone in the troposphere creates waves that affect the pattern of jet streams. This is seen in two areas in the Northern Hemisphere – the North Pacific and the North Atlantic. As the jet stream current weakens, it falls southward in the eastern Pacific and east of Canada.comment imagecomment image
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 4, 2022 12:55 am

Since the solar wind strength increases very slowly in the 25 solar cycle from 2020, a strong La Niña cannot form. This is affected by fluctuations in the jet stream in both the northern and southern hemispheres mainly during the winter season when the stratospheric polar vortex is active. The reaction to a strong La Niña (with strong solar activity) would be the appearance of El Niño. As you can see, this is unlikely with the current strength of the solar wind.comment imagecomment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 4, 2022 1:15 am

Because of the decrease in high-energy UV radiation in the 24th and 25th solar cycles, we do not yet know what changes will occur in the stratosphere and how this will affect local climate. In any case, these are long-term changes. In general, changes in the strength of the solar magnetic field are long-term (as are changes in the Earth’s magnetic field).comment image
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 4, 2022 5:48 am

“The latitudinal jet streams influences the development of the La Niña phenomenon.”

La Niña appears to be strengthening according to the ENSO meter on this page.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2022 8:02 am

I think that starting in mid-May, the circulation in North America will already be typical of La Niña. The Arctic jet stream will descend over North Dakota and meet the tropical jet stream.comment image
https://geography.name/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nino_nina.webp

Tom Abbott
May 4, 2022 4:56 am

From the article: “Jet streams are key to understanding climate change because they both create weather and steer weather around the globe. Unlike global warming, jet streams undeniably cause both extreme heat waves and extreme cold snaps as well as directly causing droughts and floods.”

Are you reading this, Griff? Here’s your explanation for extreme weather. It’s has nothing to do with CO2.

joe x
May 4, 2022 5:29 am

excellent presentation jim. a simple plain english description of a complex system.

JCM
May 4, 2022 7:15 am

Never underestimate the massive effects of land cover, soils, and hydrology on pressure dynamics. For the dust-bowl period mentioned upthread, the persistent high pressure domes were a consequence of uneducated cash croppers with new powerful tractors disrupting soils to a depth that was never before possible. Massive impacts on the biotic pump. Desiccated soils, persistent humid hazes, few precipitation nuclei, little rainfall. This, as a direct consequence of soil erosion.

%d bloggers like this: