Models, Climate Scientists Wrong Again…New Study Finds Jet Stream Strengthening, Not Weakening

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin 

Alarmist climate research centers like the Potsdam Institute and the unquestioning media have been claiming for years that the Jet Stream is weakening, hence this would lead to greater weather extremes across the northern hemisphere due to blocking. Responsible for this of course is man-made global warming.

Hat-tip: The Klimaschau

But a recent paper by Samantha Hallam et al published in the journal Climate Dynamics looks at the seasonal to decadal variations in Northern Hemisphere jet stream latitude and speed over land for the period 1871–2011. The authors were unable to find any weakening of the sort climate alarmists have been warning about.

Quite to the contrary, the authors in fact found that the winter jet stream over the North Atlantic and Eurasia has increased in average speed by 8% to 132 mph. The authors found the 141-year trends in jet latitude and speed show differences on a regional basis and that jet speed shows significant increases evident in winter (up to 4.7 ms −1 ), spring and autumn over the North Atlantic, Eurasia and North America. Over the North Pacific, no increase was observed.

Source: Figure 9, Climate Dynamics.

Moreover, the Jet Stream was found to have shifted northward by some 330 kilometers. Overall, the paper’s findings contradict the claims of a weakening Jet Stream regularly made by the climate alarmists and their media minions.

Applying climate alarmist science, we’d have to conclude now, due to the strengthening Jet Stream, less weather extremes should be expected. This would be good news of course. But don’t expect the fear-porn media to look at this.

4.9 41 votes
Article Rating
99 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
August 10, 2022 10:06 am

Paraphrasing Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “increasing.”

LdB
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 11, 2022 2:26 am

OR as we say Nick Stokes strikes again

DrTorch
August 10, 2022 10:07 am

This will suddenly be the “real” problem.

Last edited 1 month ago by DrTorch
Deano
Reply to  DrTorch
August 10, 2022 11:44 pm

…But there are so many “real” problems when after all
Climate Change causes too much rain, and too little rain
Climate Change causes heat waves and also deadly cold spells
Climate Change causes increased numbers of deadly storms, and the dearth of storms
Climate Change causes all manner of *weather* like.. well.. like Magic!
The whole idea of “the problem”, gets all muddied here.. heh.. you could say it’s a target-rich environment!!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Deano
August 11, 2022 4:50 am

Climate causes climate change.

The alarmists have it backwards.

Of course, I can tell you know that.

jeffery P
August 10, 2022 10:18 am

Strengthening, weakening, let’s not sniggle over petty details and mindless twaddle. Let’s agree it’s worse than we thought and we must do something now.

Mr.
Reply to  jeffery P
August 10, 2022 10:32 am

And will require at least $1trillion?

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  Mr.
August 10, 2022 11:03 am

A year 😱

Reply to  Dan Sudlik
August 10, 2022 2:46 pm

No, per week.

George
Reply to  Mr.
August 10, 2022 10:04 pm

Don’t forget 10% for the big guy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  George
August 11, 2022 4:51 am

And the “Big Gal”, too. Surely Nancy’s son shares the wealth with her.

mal
Reply to  Mr.
August 11, 2022 10:49 pm

Send me the money now!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  jeffery P
August 10, 2022 4:01 pm

“Mindless twaddle”.
I’ll have you know Justin Trudeau has a patent on that.
Expect a lawsuit.

n.n
Reply to  jeffery P
August 10, 2022 6:03 pm

Modulated through natural phenomena with known, unknown, and studied, chaotic (i.e. nonlinear and unwieldy) processes.

Joao Martins
Reply to  jeffery P
August 11, 2022 4:07 am

… or at least to make people believe that we are doing something now …

Danley Wolfe
August 10, 2022 10:26 am

Climate is by definition a many multivariable chaotic system, how can you model it.

Mr.
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
August 10, 2022 10:35 am

Apparently it’s no more difficult than a Lego model.

(which I must admit, always stymies me 🙁 )

Dr. Deanster
Reply to  Mr.
August 10, 2022 1:18 pm

But the problem with Lego Model is that while it comes with all the right parts, you still have to put it together correctly in order to be correct.

I’m afraid this is the case is with Climate Science, they have the correct parts, they are just purposely putting it together wrong.

Drake
Reply to  Dr. Deanster
August 11, 2022 8:56 am

I don’t think they have all of the correct parts.

Do they have an “energy” input for the electromagnetic reaction between the earth’s and sun’s magnetic fields as the Earth moves through that of the Sun?

Just asking.

Derg
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
August 10, 2022 12:21 pm

Clay

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
August 10, 2022 12:58 pm

“….. how can you model it.”

The trick here Danley is not to accurately and successfully model the climate, but to make people believe that you can. All cults are based on belief in the infallibility of those who create the articles of faith.

Deano
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2022 11:46 pm

Some people might call that a “Psy-op”…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Deano
August 11, 2022 4:56 am

Yes, there are a lot of “psy-ops” going on against the American people and the people of the Western Democracies. All have corrupt leftwing news media that lie to the public constantly for political purposes.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
August 10, 2022 1:27 pm

It’s easy when you just have to know what it MUST show.

MarkH
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
August 11, 2022 12:21 am

You start with the the goal of controlling everyone in the world through a totalitarian technocratic dictatorship, then based on the assumption that CO2 causes Climate Emergency.. then you parameterize all the things you don’t know about or can’t calculate (almost everything else) and fudge the numbers until you get a result that is scary enough to have the general population clamoring in fear for more government to “save” them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkH
August 11, 2022 4:57 am

Sounds like today.

ResourceGuy
August 10, 2022 10:43 am

It makes no difference for the climate bill and vote. Read what’s in it later and just go with the Party-approved science. We’ve got donors and promises to address.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 10, 2022 10:44 am

…and “It takes a (deceptive) village.”

taxed
August 10, 2022 10:50 am

The most interesting point here is that the jet stream has shifted northward.
As this explains the main thing driving the warming of the Springs here in England over recent years. What looks to be happening is that the annual shift northwards of the jet stream during the Summer is starting earlier in the season. Which allows more ridging of the Azores high up towards Europe during the Springtime, and so allows more of the Summer type weather to turn up earlier into the season.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  taxed
August 10, 2022 11:00 am

Until it goes the other way….

comment image

taxed
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 10, 2022 11:18 am

Yes the lack of a warming trend in my first snowfall of the season record for my local area here in England over the last 45 years. Suggests to me that the cold causing weather patterning during the winter months has not gone away, but rather that its just not turning up as often is it did in the past. So this along with the more northward shift of the jet stream during the Springtime. lt what l think is a large factor in what has been driving the warming of the English climate in recent years.

RickWill
Reply to  taxed
August 10, 2022 3:41 pm

The boreal winter cooling trend started 500 years ago. So far it is mainly affecting spring and autumn but it will eventually get cold enough in winter for ice to accumulate in Europe and North America.

Attached shows the change in solar EMR at 51N over the past 40 years. It is a small change over this short time but is perceptible in good records.

Solar_EMR_51N.png
Tom Abbott
Reply to  taxed
August 11, 2022 5:00 am

“The most interesting point here is that the jet stream has shifted northward.
As this explains the main thing driving the warming of the Springs here in England over recent years.”

That was the thing that stuck out to me, too.

A shift northward of 300 kilometers means everyone south of that jet stream will experience warmer weather, so a lot more of the Earth’s area is staying warmer because of the shift of the jet stream to the north.

James F. Evans
August 10, 2022 10:58 am

Another myth (weakening jet stream) bites the dust.

Another supposed model fails.

Par for the course.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  James F. Evans
August 10, 2022 11:12 am

Yes, but does the general public know of this new failure of the CAGW “theory”? Did politicians, “journalists”, influencers, opinion-makers, thought leaders, etc, get the message?

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 10, 2022 11:51 am

Next time you have the misfortune to converse with an alarmist, ask them how the search for the Hotspot is going.
They have no idea that the theory originally stated that there would be a hotspot over the tropics.
Failures of predictions are ignored. All they are interested in is fomenting fear so that the government can save them.

Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 10, 2022 12:32 pm

I tell Climate Howlers we love global warming here in Michigan and want more. That usually shuts them up. If not. I tell them Trump was the greatest American president. Then they go berserk. I don’t actually believe that, but making a leftist go berserk is so entertaining. If they are science or engineering savvy, I show them the USCRN temperature data for the US
Or a list of failed climate change predictions.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 10, 2022 3:57 pm

We get 6-8 weeks of summer in calgary so anything that extends our summer and especially makes our evenings warmer, sign me up for more please.

I thought that was what our new mayor was on about when she declared climate emergency as her first official act last October.
Sarc/ of course, she’s a climate moron like all the rest.

stewartpid
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 11, 2022 1:13 pm

Pat I call her Mayor Chicken Little … she was sure the sky was falling when we got rain in June … Calgary never had rain before in June.

Drake
Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 11, 2022 11:48 am

Spent time with a suburban Chicago leftist couple. SHE virtue signaled that she is on her second electric car, and her husband drove a hybrid.

He, a “scientist” who works on recertifying old nuclear power plants, told me that wind has “spinning reserves” when the wind stops blowing.

They lived in a small suburb with good schools and police, and primarily WHITE.

They moved out of Chicago when they decided to start a family 30 years ago.

All the above items are TYPICAL of liberals in my experience.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Drake
August 11, 2022 1:07 pm

I send my condolences for having your time wasted by drivel from hypocritical acolytes of the green faith.

The “scientist” must have information that the rest of us are not privy to, or he is a typical government employee that makes stuff up for the “better good”. More than likely he has a patronage job where he doesn’t actually do any calculations for nuclear safety – we should be glad if that is the case because I think that his work product would be hazardous.

The couple must be doing quite well for her to be on her second electric car. Those typically are pretty pricey and are only good for small trips.

They are not complete idiots though. They were smart enough to get out of Chicago to raise their family.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 10, 2022 12:28 pm

CAGW is a prediction that has not happened yet.
A prediction that dates back to the 1970s.
It’s been coming in 10 to 20 years
For the past 50+ years.
Got lost in Scotland or New Jersey.

Even 50+ years of wrong predictions don’t prove the current predictions are wrong. Nothing that happens in the present or past that can disprove a prediction. You need to wait decades to falsify a prediction.

So what if every prediction of environmental doom was wrong since the 1960s.

The predictions of global warming doom will stop when most people stop believing them. Then a new boogeyman will replace CO2 and new scary predictions will begin.

I am personally hoping for predictions of an alien invasion. From outer space — we already have an alien invasion from Mexico. With flying saucers and gray men with big heads. A new boogeyman that’s fun. Climate change is so 1990s.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
fretslider
August 10, 2022 11:16 am

All that Nitrogen whizzing around…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
August 11, 2022 5:07 am

That’s the problem. Humans need to stop eating or we are all doomed.

Ulric Lyons
August 10, 2022 11:18 am

The consensus of circulation models predict increasingly positive Northern Annular Mode conditions with rising CO2 forcing. Which should mean a more northerly and zonal jet stream, which is stronger and not weaker.

https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 11, 2022 4:33 am

AR4 is 15 years old now. The “Final / Approved” version of AR6’s WG-I contribution was released just 3 months ago (at the beginning of May).

The results of 15 (or so) more years of observational data was written up in section 2.4.1.1, full title “Northern Annular Mode (NAM)/North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)”, on page 370, starts with (and replacing italics in the original with underlining) :

The AR5 reported that the shift towards a positive NAO, a mode of variability in the North Atlantic that is closely related to the hemispheric-scale NAM, from the 1950s to the 1990s was largely reversed by more recent changes (high confidence).

Even AR5 (in 2013, AR4 came out in 2007) noted that “large reversals” of the NAM/NAO could occur on decadal timescales.

Section 2.4.1.1 concludes with :

In summary, positive trends for the NAM/NAO winter indices were observed between the 1960s and the early 1990s, but these indices have become less positive or even negative thereafter (high confidence). The NAO variability in the instrumental record was very likely not unusual in the millennial and multi-centennial context.

So up to 2020/2021 (the cut-off date for inputs to AR6) the NAM/NAO variations were not “unusual”, and could be explained as entirely “natural variability”, even though there was the equivalent of ~1°C of (anthropogenic) “CO2 forcing” since 1910 (/ 1980).

– – – – –

The consensus of circulation models predict

The overall understanding of the NAM is covered in section 4.3.3.1.1, “Northern Annular Mode”, on pages 577 and 578 :

Significant progress has been made since AR5 in understanding the physical mechanisms responsible for changes in the NAM, although uncertainties remain.

In addition to the effects of changing upper and lower tropospheric temperature gradients on the NAM, progress has been made since AR5 in understanding the effect of simulated changes in the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex on winter NAM projections.

“Progress has been made”, NOT “we now fully understand it and can predict exactly how the NAM will definitely evolve under various emissions scenarios”.

“Near-term” (2021-2040 for the IPCC) they conclude section 4.4.3.1.1 (titled “The Northern Annular Mode” this time, on page 588) with :

Considering these new results since AR5, in the near-term it is likely that any anthropogenic forced signal in the NAM will be of comparable magnitude or smaller than natural internal variability in the NAM (medium confidence).

“Mid- to long-term” (out to 2100) they conclude section 4.5.3.1.1 (also titled “The Northern Annular Mode”, on page 609) with :

We conclude with high confidence that in the mid- to long-term, the boreal wintertime surface NAM is more positive under SSP3‐7.0 and SSP5‐8.5, while under SSP1‐1.9 and SSP1‐2.6, the NAM does not show any robust change.

.
.
.

A reminder from section 1.6.1.4, “The likelihood of reference scenarios, scenario uncertainty and storylines”, on page 239 :

Among the five core scenarios used most in this report, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 are explicit ‘no-climate-policy’ scenarios (Gidden et al., 2019; Cross-Chapter Box 1.4, Table 1), assuming a carbon price of zero. These future ‘baseline’ scenarios are hence counterfactuals

SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 aren’t the “consensus” inputs to be used by “circulation models”, they are the “completely un-realistic outliers”.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Mark BLR
August 11, 2022 10:01 am

So they have admitted that natural variability dominated with negative NAO (NAM) from the mid 1990’s, but they have no idea that it was due to weaker solar wind states since 1995. But the circulation models still stand the same, they predict increasingly positive NAM with rising CO2 forcing. That is why the Met Office still predict drier UK summers with rising CO2 forcing.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 12, 2022 2:46 am

But the circulation models still stand the same, they predict increasingly positive NAM with rising CO2 forcing.

SSP1‐1.9 and SSP1-2.6, the “new and improved” variants of the CMIP5 / AR5 RCP2.6 pathway, still have increased “CO2 forcing” (compared to 2022) over the 21st century, they just (allegedly) “limit” the maximum warming to +1.5°C and +2°C respectively.

The IPCC’s “circulation models” say that in those “rising CO2 forcing” cases the result on the NAM is to “not show any robust change”.

The “predictions” aren’t for an “increasingly positive” NAM, but going from “no discernable [ or zero ] change” to “slightly positive”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Mark BLR
August 12, 2022 11:04 am

“The IPCC’s “circulation models” say that in those “rising CO2 forcing” cases the result on the NAM is to “not show any robust change”.”

Link for the quote?

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2022 2:35 am

Link for the quote?

Please re-read my post again.

All quotes therein are from :
” The “Final / Approved” version of AR6’s WG-I contribution [ which ] was released just 3 months ago (at the beginning of May). ”

The specific “… while under SSP1‐1.9 and SSP1‐2.6, the NAM does not show any robust change” quote came from :
” section 4.5.3.1.1 (… on page 609) “.

All AR6 WG-I chapters can be downloaded from the following webpage :
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 12, 2022 3:09 am

That is why the Met Office still predict drier UK summers with rising CO2 forcing.

Technically correct, but incomplete.

From the MET’s “UK and Global extreme events – Heavy rainfall and floods” webpage (direct link) :

Overall, the UK is expected to experience wetter winters and drier summers.

However, rain that does fall in summer will likely be more intense than what we currently experience.

However, an increase in severe flooding is not necessarily a certainty by the end of the century. By significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using a combination of natural and man-made barriers, the worst effects of flooding in the future can be lessened.

In the UK (and elsewhere) managing to

1) overcome environmentalist (and NIMBY) opposition to building new dams (AKA “man-made barriers” …) and reservoirs, and

2) forcing water companies (by no-compernsation / failure-to-respect-contract-conditions privatisation if that’s what it takes) to FIX THE LEAKS in the water (and sewage) pipes

would go a long way towards “lessening the worst effects of flooding (and summer droughts)”, even without “significant” reductions in GHG emissions.

– – – – –

PS : The above extract copies the journalistic tendency to write lurid media articles that can be summarised as :
“You see that ‘Bad Thing’ that is happening (/ just happened) ? Well scientists say that ‘climate change’ means it will happen not only more often by 2100 [ / 2050 / 2030 / 2025 / next week / … : Delete as appropriate ] … BUT WORSERER ! ! !”

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Mark BLR
August 12, 2022 11:06 am

“Technically correct, but incomplete.”

Big deal, it’s the general rule and not the exception which matters here.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2022 2:28 am

… which matters here

I at least attempt to provide references (or even links) to support my idle musings.

Please provide “supporting evidence” for the conjecture that :
The person posting under the username “Ulric Lyons” gets to determine what is, and is not, the thing that “matters”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Mark BLR
August 13, 2022 5:43 am

The fundamental point here is that those who have claimed that ‘global warming’, i.e. the modeled rising CO2 forcing, would make the jet stream wavier, have directly contradicted what the consensus of standard circulation models have predicted, and still predict.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ulric Lyons
Mark BLR
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2022 10:02 am

those who have claimed that ‘global warming’, i.e. the modeled rising CO2 forcing, would make the jet stream wavier

The IPCC says (in section 4.5.3.1.1) that under “high CO2 forcing” scenarii (SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) “the boreal wintertime surface NAM [should become] more positive.

The IPCC says (in section 4.3.3.1.1, on page 578) that :

The NAM index computed from the latitudinal gradient in SLP is strongly correlated with variations in the latitudinal position and strength of the mid-latitude westerly jets, and with the spatial distribution of Arctic sea ice (Caian et al., 2018).

In other words the IPCC says (effectively) that “more CO2 forcing” => a “more positive” NAM => more “variations” in the (/ a “wavier” …) jet stream.

– – – – –

THE IPCC is included in your “those who have claimed that …” group !

What, exactly, are these “predictions” being made by “the consensus of standard circulation models” that you keep talking about ?

You know, the ones that are NOT actually part of the “consensus” …

PLEASE PROVIDE A REFERENCE IN YOUR NEXT POST.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Mark BLR
August 14, 2022 4:08 am

“In other words the IPCC says (effectively) that “more CO2 forcing” => a “more positive” NAM => more “variations” in the (/ a “wavier” …) jet stream.”

You pulled that from your backside, negative NAM causes a wavier jet stream.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 15, 2022 4:19 am

negative NAM causes a wavier jet stream

And you just pulled that from your backside !

Please PROVIDE A REFERENCE (or link) to A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER, or at least a “summary / commentary” piece in a “serious” scientific journal, that unambiguously states “negative NAM causes a wavier jet stream”.

I cited the IPCC AR6 WG-I report. In another post I supplied a link to where you (and everybody else) can download those PDF files in order to check my claims.

Why are you (seemingly) incapable of doing something similar in support of your BALD ASSERTIONS ?

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Ben Vorlich
August 10, 2022 11:25 am

Which is cause and which is effec?
Has it speeded up because it’s further north
Or
Is it further north because it’s speeded up?

Richard Page
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
August 11, 2022 9:13 am

Good point – I was thinking along the same lines. If the jet stream moves further north then it has less distance to travel around the earth – would that not slow it down a little, or would it speed up? Enquiring minds want to know.

Meisha
Reply to  Richard Page
August 12, 2022 5:32 am

You’d think based on conservation of momentum that the jet stream mvoing north with then less distance to travel a complete revolution would have to go faster. Think an ice skater with outstretched arms who pulls them in…what happens?

Alan
August 10, 2022 11:44 am

Couldn’t a stronger jet stream bring extreme weather?

Richard Page
Reply to  Alan
August 10, 2022 1:28 pm

Probably not. Extreme weather is a product of extreme high and low pressure systems and the way in which they try to equalise the pressure. A faster, stronger jet stream should mix the air more efficiently, leading to fewer areas of high and low pressure, I think. Not sure how it moving further north might affect things – perhaps the recent warm weather was a product of high and low pressure systems forming away from the tropics, allowing the warm air to move further north than in previous years?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Richard Page
August 10, 2022 2:07 pm

Jet stream marks the boundary between highs and lows so wouldn’t a stronger jet be more of a barrier to mixing?

Richard Page
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 10, 2022 3:42 pm

I thought it was a product of cold air at the pole and hot air at the equator, rather than specifically a boundary between high and low pressure – I was under the impression either could occur, whichever side of the jet stream you happened to be. I thought that a strong jet stream occurred at a higher altitude than the high or low pressure systems, but could ‘drag’ air from one to the other, equalising pressure at a higher altitude. Not sure if that is correct, though – I don’t know enough about it to do more than ask these questions really.

MarkW
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 11, 2022 10:18 am

It has more to do with the jet stream helping to push weather fronts. When the front isn’t under the jet stream, it tends to run out of energy and stall out.

tgasloli
August 10, 2022 12:24 pm

Oh, they will just change the model, change the predictions, and claim climate change increases the jet stream, and that means we are all going to die.

It is just scientists lying for money from those who gain money & power from the corrupt system we at stuck living in.

Ireneusz Palmowski
August 10, 2022 1:01 pm

It’s necessary to check how the western component of the velocity of the jetstream over the Atlantic is changing, because I’m afraid it’s dropping. That’s why there is a drought in Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/08/11/0400Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-37.51,53.18,562

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Jørgen F.
August 10, 2022 1:05 pm

…one of the papers retrieved from Melania’s wardrobe. Now accessible to the public.

Richard Page
Reply to  Jørgen F.
August 10, 2022 1:30 pm

Damn those FBI agents for checking her lingerie drawers, have they no shame!

CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2022 1:18 pm

Question from this non-scientist regarding the jet stream speed graphs in the post:

How could they measure the speed of the jet stream over North America and the North Atlantic in the late 19th and early 20th century with no satellite technology or aircraft?

Thanks in advance for all replies.

Peter W
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2022 1:42 pm

Details, details, always those pesky details!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2022 2:15 pm

I thought they only discovered it in ww2 when flying large bomber formations and they found their estimates for time to target to be out to lunch sometimes and they started looking closer

Izaak Walton
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2022 3:42 pm
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 10, 2022 5:41 pm

So no tree rings then?

Richard Page
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2022 3:45 pm

So, when was weather balloon technology invented? Just askin’.

Pat from kerbob
August 10, 2022 2:02 pm

Due out shortly, 37 papers on how strengthening jet stream is due to AGW

Richard Page
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 10, 2022 3:48 pm

Mikey Mann will no doubt appear somewhere to mannsplain how he coined the term ‘jet stream’ and how a strong jetstream is a big climate driver!

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Page
Newminster
Reply to  Richard Page
August 11, 2022 3:03 am

Until it isn’t!

alastair gray
August 10, 2022 3:34 pm

how did they measure jet stream speed in 1880. I thought that the jetstream was discovered by aviators making Pacific bombing raids in WWII

Richard Page
Reply to  alastair gray
August 10, 2022 3:57 pm

1883 and the Krakatoa eruption – weather watchers were able to view it directly and called it the ‘equatorial smoke stream’. Then in 1920, a japanese researcher was the first to use balloons to track it. The japanese incendiary balloons launched across the Pacific against USA used the, already known, jetstream. If the aviators in Pacific bombing raids think they ‘discovered’ it then they were somewhat late to the party.

tygrus
Reply to  Richard Page
August 10, 2022 7:24 pm

Before 1920 you just have a few months of measurements (probably less). After 1920 how often were the baloons tracked? If it wasn’t daily then it too is only a rough guide. There is no significant negative trend, it still looks very natural. You can be selective in picking end-points. I see people elsewhere picking short-term natural variability to support their chosen opinion but then look elsewhere when their earlier indicator reverses it’s trend.

Richard Page
Reply to  tygrus
August 11, 2022 4:30 am

Apparently the ‘equatorial smoke stream’ after Krakatoa could be viewed for several years, not months. The japanese incendiary balloons are interesting in that they managed to get the speed and distance just about right (given the ones that actually got to their target) even if the results were poor. Certainly the studies done in recent decades are more thorough and accurate but don’t dismiss the early work quite so readily – they got the basics right and enough observations were made to establish speed and locations.

August 10, 2022 5:54 pm

Ah, but if you pick 1990 (approximately, eyeballing the plot) as your starting point – the speed HAS decreased.

I’m sure the Usual Suspects will be along soon to tell us this. Alternatively – or in addition – they’ll eventually produce a plot using the numbers for before 1990 that have been properly adjusted by the Real Scientists at NOAA.

n.n
August 10, 2022 5:56 pm

The very model of a recurring, natural ozone thinning. Also, petroleum catalyzed through solar insolation and digested by lower-orders in the food chain. Perhaps hexavalent chromium, toxic in laboratory, model environment, with a net-zero effect in the wild. Release the CO2 for a green and viable world. Reuse the carbon for our Posterity.

H.R.
August 10, 2022 7:03 pm

Ha! This is a new twist.

Instead of finding “yet another thing that isn’t in the models” someone is going to have hunt for “something in the models that shouldn’t be there.”

Maybe the models need a parameterectomy.

Ireneusz Palmowski
August 10, 2022 10:29 pm

A strong jet stream in the north will cut off the loop of an upper-level low moving from over western Ukraine over Poland. The loop will move westward over southern Poland. It can be said that there will be a reversal of zonal circulation over Europe. Here is the 500 hPa level, as this is the depth the jet stream will reach.
comment image

Mightaswellgohome
August 11, 2022 12:16 am

Moving 330km northward is not great though and where’s the data for the summer? I’d like to know more please!

Alba
August 11, 2022 1:32 am

How soon before “climate scientists” are claiming that both the strengthening of the Jet Stream and its northward movement are due to climate change?

Greytide
August 11, 2022 1:57 am

The strenthening matches the rise in CO2 exactly so that must be the cause. Everyone stop breathing and we will be OK!

michael hart
August 11, 2022 4:33 am

“But a recent paper by Samantha Hallam et al published in the journal Climate Dynamics looks at the seasonal to decadal variations in Northern Hemisphere jet stream latitude and speed over land for the period 1871–2011.”

I’m not that old, but I am having some difficulty believing they could even define, much less track meaningfully, the Northern Hemisphere jet stream in 1871.

Don’t tell me. They did with turnip proxies?

michael hart
Reply to  michael hart
August 11, 2022 5:03 am

And they did do something similar. A few air pressure measurements in 1871, a bit of mathematical jiggerey-pokery using today’s measurements and, hey presto, we can say what it was doing in 1871, cause and effect be damned.

To be fair, their final paragraph in the conclusions does almost break reasonable ground:

“…To simulate a realistic climate, models would need to be able to reproduce the regional characteristics of the jet stream and interannual variability. An inability to do so (in a statistical sense) would cast doubt on the ability of such a model to generate reliable prediction of regional weather and climate patterns.”

As if that was needed to cast doubt on the ability of such models.

August 11, 2022 8:08 am

less extreme weather, more precipitation, more livable area, higher crop yields, more arable area, fewer temperature-related deaths, lower energy costs

welcome to the climate crisis, everyone

Last edited 1 month ago by TallDave
August 11, 2022 12:02 pm

This paper is about strength of the jet stream and changes in that during a period that started in 1871. However, this phenomenon was discovered in incrementing stages from the 1920s to WWII, and significant meteorological measurement coverage of this started with the 1937 start (in the US) of the routine weather balloon radiosonde usage we have now.

Meanwhile, the northern polar front jet stream is powered by horizontal temperature gradient in the atmosphere from its level downward through the atmosphere below it. The Arctic has been warming more than the tropics at least since about the beginning of 1979, according even to UAH v6.

August 11, 2022 11:14 pm

Anyone know where the 2022 hurricane season went?

Mark BLR
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 12, 2022 3:20 am

Anyone know where the 2022 hurricane season went?

It decided to keep quiet, just like the Arctic sea-ice extent isn’t drawing attention to the fact that it is relatively high for the middle of August (~6.4 Wadhams, when the extent on 11th August in the “record low” year of 2012 was around 5.2 Wadhams).

NB : Link to “supporting evidence”. Griff et al please take note …

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Julian Flood
August 12, 2022 6:24 am

Sorry about this – when all you have is a hammer…

Since the early 1920s the North Atlantic has been increasingly polluted with oil and surfactant spills and smoothed, reducing breaking wave amount and preferentially increasing laminar flow. (This is not big leaks, it’s small drops accumulating.) See SeaWifs data – out of date but indicative.

Less friction/turbulence, higher wind speed.

JF

Jeroen
August 13, 2022 12:32 am

Moreover, the Jet Stream was found to have shifted northward by some 330 kilometers. Overall, the paper’s findings contradict the claims of a weakening Jet Stream regularly made by the climate alarmists and their media minions.

This has caused most warming in Western Europe. Now is this because of global warming or is this causing it? Chicken and egg.

Philo
August 22, 2022 1:52 pm

despite all the different studies, there is one overall, non-ignorable fact|;

THE CLIMATE CONSTANTLY CHANGES EVERY YEAR

%d bloggers like this: