"Latest paper by Micheal Mann" Topic

link

Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been shown to be associated with the presence of high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves within a particular wavelength range (zonal wavenumber 6–8). The underlying mechanistic relationship involves the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA) of synoptic-scale waves with that wavenumber range becoming trapped within an effective mid-latitude atmospheric waveguide. Recent work suggests an increase in recent decades in the occurrence of QRA-favorable conditions and associated extreme weather, possibly linked to amplified Arctic warming and thus a climate change influence. Here, we isolate a specific fingerprint in the zonal mean surface temperature profile that is associated with QRA-favorable conditions. State-of-the-art ("CMIP5") historical climate model simulations subject to anthropogenic forcing display an increase in the projection of this fingerprint that is mirrored in multiple observational surface temperature datasets. Both the models and observations suggest this signal has only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability.

Chris Mooney vulgarization of the paper:
link

Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it's correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes, where hundreds of millions of people live.

The idea is that climate change doesn't merely increase the overall likelihood of heat waves, say, or the volume of rainfall — it also changes the flow of weather itself. By altering massive planet-scale air patterns like the jet stream (pictured above), which flows in waves from west to east in the Northern Hemisphere, a warming planet causes our weather to become more stuck in place. This means that a given weather pattern, whatever it may be, may persist for longer, thus driving extreme droughts, heat waves, downpours and more.

This basic idea has sparked half a decade of criticism and debate, and at the cutting edge of research, scientists continue to grapple with it. And now, a new study once again reinforces one of its core aspects.[…]

The paper is open access, so anybody can download it and read it if they are inclined.

I'm cheering for Mark Steyn.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP 28 Mar 2017 7:24 a.m. PST

I'm cheering for Mark Steyn.

Duly noted, and it will be read into the record. Anything more substantive John of the Friars Minor?

Everybody has something to sell.

I don't put much enthusiasm behind articles which use the phrases "…persistent episodes" and "…observation suggests" and "…possibly linked" and "…work suggests" and "…historical climate models"…. all in the same paragraph.

Observations of my parakeet suggested that based on historical models of his persistent episodes in picking winning lottery numbers work suggests I could possibly link his keen perceptions to the elimination of all loosing entries leaving me with just the winning numbers.

Sounds convincing….doesn't it?

JSchutt, if you want absolute 100% metaphysical certainty in science, you're barking up the wrong tree – go see religion. Can one be reasonably certain of a thing in the absence of proof? To be concise, science is all about testing hypotheses, checking to see if observations support (not prove, support) the idea, or disprove it. Everything in science is provisional, but we can still use it to make useful predictions about reality. For example nobody has a fully proven theory of gravity, but if I were to take a mid-90s GW Chaos Dreadnought (or 28mm full-lead Alexandrian Successor elephant) and drop it over my bare foot… Do I need to fill in the ellipses? Does the answer appreciably change if I use Newtonian Mechanics or General Relativity?

The best we can do is get to credible theories that usefully explain reality, and can be used to make valid predictions. As Mike Mann said a few year ago, if you want proof, go to math and alcohol.

We're still in the land of "Yeah? No kidding? So what?"

The information being shoveled out by the many is meaningless if it does not bring about sufficient action to do something to solve the problem.

You can cop out with "That's politics, not science" but how much of the funding comes from politically motivated sources? From the government itself? Science does not exist in isolation.

I'll once again kick the dead horses that:
(1) Scientific results leading to politicians and the IPCC celebrating a non-binding, non-enforceable non-treaty that would not even do what science calls for is Kabuki for the masses, but totally meaningless.
(2) Politicians will not economically commit suicide when they have real world needs that are growing for energy that can at present only be provided by evil fossil fuel sources
(3) This need will continue to grow as millions will continue to flood the EU.
(4) Paris Agreement countries are already bowing to reality and backing off on their promises.
(5) Political decisions will always deal with the alligator biting your leg vs the promise of much bigger ones swallowing someone whole in a century.
(6) While Emil Faber would say "Knowledge is Good" all of this research doesn't change the facts that if the truthspeakers preaching the gospel here are 100% correct, it doesn't matter. The folks doomed in the future can take great solace in knowing that science knew.

JJ, did you read the paper by Mann et al. or the write-up by Chris Mooney? It show that there's compelling evidence that Arctic warming (caused by AGW) is messing up the jet stream, and that's messing up weather patterns causing extreme weather events that directly impact humans. This has nothing to do with proving whether AGW is true or not, but it tries to take observations and tries to explain the consequence of said observations.

This whole kerfuffle about continually showing conclusive evidence that AGW is real was started by the denialists that inhabit this corner of the web.

Martin, did you read my post? Doesn't seem so.

NOTHING in my post questioned whether the warming is taking place. Just that knowing it and getting anyone to deal with it are two entirely different things.

How do you disagree with my numbered points?

JJ did not say a word about denial. Did you see any denial in what JJ said? He's saying that it doesn't matter. Because nothing effective is going to get done by anybody. End the discussion……..

Even I started a warming thread. The conclusion is, "warm is good, cold is bad"……………

Or do you see ice sheets as preferable to "locked in place weather trends"?

I certainly do not!…………….

By kerfuffle, I was referring to our Franciscan friend and JSchutt…

GWA, the warming IS bad, because the weakening of the jet stream can be linked to increased extreme weather, which could lead to crop failure and other nasty situations such as heat related deaths, and failure of commercial air conditioning since as temperatures approach 45-60 degrees c, AC units stop working.

It show that there's compelling evidence that Arctic warming (caused by AGW) is messing up the jet stream, and that's messing up weather patterns causing extreme weather events that directly impact humans. This has nothing to do with proving whether AGW is true or not,

Internally inconsistent. See if you can figure out why. Glaringly obvious to me.

GWA, the warming IS bad, because the weakening of the jet stream can be linked to increased extreme weather, which could lead to crop failure and other nasty situations such as heat related deaths, and failure of air conditioning since as temperatures approach 45-60 degrees c, the Carnot efficiency of the system approaches 0.

Or approx (rough conversion) 120 – 150 degrees F.
We're still in the land of "Yeah? No kidding? So what?"

Don't see those as taking precedence over other concerns yet. Until they do, nothing happens. At that point, who knows how many "tipping points" and "points of no return" will have been passed?

A kerfuffle? Because I support free speech?

@Martin: We already have crop failures due to weather shifts or extremes. So what? We export food all over the world. Other than inconvenience and disappointment from time to time, there is no reason why, in the technological and cooperative world of the 21st century, that anywhere should starve because of crop failure. I don't see that altering to undoable because of any amount of real global warming. If you want to talk about apocalyptic levels of global warming, write a sci-fi novel.

We are adaptable. High or low ocean levels will not change life for people of the future: they will already be moving in or out of the affected areas fast enough to keep right on living.

Different weather will still not produce consistent snow in summer or Saraha heat in winter. Crops will grow, and fail in some places, and thrive in other/new places. None of this will happen so fast that we can't keep up.

But the "ride" will be bumpy. Was there ever a time when the "ride" wasn't bumpy?…………..

+1 for JJ

And as has been repeated on numerous occasions cold kills more people than heat…

Tell that to the drought stricken…Syria's a good example!

A kerfuffle? Because I support free speech?

Last I checked, defamation is an exception to the first amendment…and the judge agreed in the anti-SLAPP ruling letting the case go forward.

from the case p.58 : PDF link

Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming. That the challenged statements were made as part of such debate provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards. But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.

link

Not that he has any requirement to do so, but I see that Martin has assiduously avoided to respond to my question as well as finding fault with the specific points I raised.

As have all of the other "usual suspects."

Now why could that be? Hmmmmm……

JJ, when you want to talk about the science, then I'm all in. But if you want to talk (more like rant) about public policy (and their appalling failures) then I'm all OUT. I get too much of that crap in my workday, thank you…

Now why could that be? Hmmmmm……

Charlie 12 nailed it.

He didn't "nail" anything. Y'all are more than welcome to not discuss the realities that surround the science. But if the science doesn't drive the political decisions, which it clearly does not, then welcome to Faber University!

Political decisions will always deal with the alligator biting your leg vs the promise of much bigger ones swallowing someone whole in a century.

While Emil Faber would say "Knowledge is Good" all of this research doesn't change the facts that if the truthspeakers preaching the gospel here are 100% correct, it doesn't matter. The folks doomed in the future can take great solace in knowing that science knew.

Martin, did you read my post? Doesn't seem so.

NOTHING in my post questioned whether the warming is taking place. Just that knowing it and getting anyone to deal with it are two entirely different things.

How do you disagree with my numbered points?

Yes you did, since the the jetstream is caused by the delta in temperatures of different Hadley cells…

He didn't "nail" anything.

Yes he did.

Y'all are more than welcome to not discuss the realities that surround the science.

Thanks for the permission. If those realities are politics then they belong on another board.

The folks doomed in the future can take great solace in knowing that science knew.

The "why didn't you tell us earlier?!?!?" whine is hilarious.

Climate science has been tracking (and publishing about) the warming trend since the '70s. And the Kyoto Accords date from 1992. So if you want to lay blame, don't lay it at the science community's doorstep…

Thanks for the permission. If those realities are politics then they belong on another board.

As there isn't one, and since they are intertwined, I'll continue to post here.

So if you want to lay blame, don't lay it at the science community's doorstep…

Didn't do that. I blamed the politicians and just saying that the efforts of the scientists is pointless given the pragmatic realities.

As there isn't one, and since they are intertwined, I'll continue to post here.

It's the Fez for politics. Post anywhere you want. Just don't get pissy and insulting to those who don't want to engage in political threads and have pointed that out to you. Which you have had occasion to do.

I blamed the politicians and just saying that the efforts of the scientists is pointless given the pragmatic realities.

That's a change in your outlook. One I agree with.

And the actual efforts of the scientists are not fruitless just because others don't know how to deal with the information made available. I'm not sure how applicable the discovery of the Higgs Boson is right now. Maybe one day there will be practical applications for this understanding. Doesn't mean research into high energy particle physics is fruitless.

Even though the Texas supercollider would have been more powerful than CERN's Large Hadron Collider, the biggest bottleneck at CERN was information distribution and processing, generating up to 25gb of data per second. As as result, they have been at the forefront of grid computing.

link
home.cern/about/computing

And the actual efforts of the scientists are not fruitless…

Actually they are until they bear fruit. Once you get to that point one can look back and see what steps got you there. But until something comes of it, nothing has come of it.

Actually they are until they bear fruit.

Ahh, now you are just being literal.

But until something comes of it, nothing has come of it.

Knowledge and understanding has come out of it. Which is literally what science means.

As as result, they have been at the forefront of grid computing.

Yes, but that is a spin off application and not the raison d'etre for the hadron collider. Finding the Higgs-Boson was. Kinda like getting Tang out of the Moon landings (and yes, I know that is actually a common misconception. You get the point).

An interview with Michael Mann is featured in this segment from today's Science Friday broadcast:

link

Beats a mile of ice on top of the Great Lakes
( I'm a Steyn guy myself)

Beats a mile of ice on top of the Great Lakes

Both extremes are bad.

I'm a Steyn guy myself

Yes, why listen to scientists when we have political commentators?

Yes, why listen to scientists when we have political commentators?

Yes indeed. For the first you have to actually THINK and understand the concepts and be open to having your understanding challenged. For the second you can sit back and have pre-digested pablum (with little to no factual basis) poured into your ear that reaffirms your already preconceived (and often flat WRONG) biases…