Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Is Altering Global Air Currents (independent.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent: One of the scientists who demonstrated conclusively that global warming was an unnatural event with the famous "hockey stick" graph is now warning that giant jetstreams which circle the planet are being altered by climate change. Jetstreams are influenced by the difference in temperatures between the Arctic and the equator. But the Arctic has been warming much faster than tropical climates -- the island of Svalbard, for example was 6.5 degrees celsius warmer last year compared to the average between 1961 and 1990. The land has also been warming faster than the sea. Both of those factors were changing the flow of these major air currents to create "extreme meanders" which were helping to cause "extreme weather events", Professor Michael Mann said. In a paper in the journal Scientific Reports, Professor Mann and other researchers wrote that evidence of the effect of climate change on the jetstreams had "only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability." They said that projections of the effect on the jetstreams in "state-of-the-art" climate models were "mirrored" in "multiple" actual temperature measurements. The jetstream normally flows reasonably consistently around the planet, but can develop loops extending north and south. The researchers, who studied temperature records going back to 1870 as well as satellite data, said these loops could grow "very large" or even "grind to a halt" rather than moving from west to east. The effect has been most pronounced during the past 40 years, they found.
Those air currents are playing hell with my golf score!
There is tons of it.
Didn't read the study, did you.
Your house is on fire. Do you:
A. Call the fire department?
B. Accuse the neighbor of telling you your house is on fire that "Fire is just somebody's religion!"
C. Convene a study to determine if the house really is on fire, and if so, if it was due to spontaneous combustion or if there's a arsonist about?
D. "Blame Liberals!"
E. Post to Facebook or instagram?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
No, there's not.
Some compelling evidence, yes, but I've seen nothing that's convincing.
Of course some probably are more easily convinced than others.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
If you don't want to be convinced, not even a shot in the face will convince you that firearms can be dangerous. So it goes with anything else.
Obviously D, E, B, followed by the calling the cops and reporting that a suspicious hippie was seen in the neighborhood last week and is probably responsible, followed by A. C is for librals.
No, there's not.
Some compelling evidence, yes, but I've seen nothing that's convincing.
Peer reviewed research? There is oodles of it, check out TFA for one of them.
Of course some probably are more easily convinced than others.
I can't argue with that, you conspiricy theory types are the most gullible people on the planet, all you need is a badly written website, a few poorly researched facts and people like you will believe anything.
Of course some probably are more easily convinced than others.
While others are fatally slow to appreciate danger and take evasive action ... In this particular case, however, so well publicised and so overwhelming is the evidence that a failure to be convinced more likely reflects a studied ignorance than any natural lack of perspicuity.
Your house is on fire. Do you:
A. Call the fire department?
B. Accuse the neighbor of telling you your house is on fire that "Fire is just somebody's religion!"
C. Convene a study to determine if the house really is on fire, and if so, if it was due to spontaneous combustion or if there's a arsonist about?
D. "Blame Liberals!"
E. Post to Facebook or instagram?
F. Call the police to report a drunk/delusional hippie running around the neighbourhood who thinks the houses are on fire?
Added to that the all too common cognitive failure which causes people not to look too carefully at the sources of information which confirm their bias.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Clickbait.
This is the /. version of "One simple trick to herp your derp" that people who don't run adblock see around the internet.
And it worked. We clicked. Even though we all knew all of the comments in advance, including your version of the classic "how is this news for nerds?", we all clicked on the link.
See that "Preview" button?
Eastern Standard time is a hoax that needs to die in a fire. Fuck people are dumb.
why isn't there more recent material published showing the proven change?
For the same reason physics journals are not filled with recent papers investigating whether falling objects move towards or away from Earth. The human contribution (established not only by the C12/C13 ratios but also by estimates of rates of fossil fuel consumption) is no longer a matter of serious dispute. The argument has moved on to issues of climate sensitivity; just what the actual effect will be on tropical storm formation &c. If you want to see the original work establishing the human fingerprint you would need to look at papers from last century, when this was still a live issue. You are better off going to the most recent IPCC summation of the science (which will link you through to original papers), which in this case would be Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 of the 2015 WG1 report of AR5.
In the meantime that link provided gives a very nice concise summary of one of the lines of evidence by which the human fingerprint was established.
I would think that ...
... you would have thanked OP for that informative link. Or were you not the AC who wanted to know how we know about the anthropogenic contribution to observed warming?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
so whats your field of excellence that makes you smarter than the scientists in evaluating the evidence?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
how do you equate this to "leftist morons"? there is no left or right, its either correct or incorrect. and being a moron has no boundaries when it claims someone.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Uhh, yeah lots of climatologists driving around in Ferraris... Those guys are way too smart to use their brains in the financial or military sectors. The real money is in siphoning pennies from government grants. Good thing Trump sees through the lies.
And the soil around Fukushima was always radioactive, but somehow we managed to make it worse...
The time scale to get an ice age really rolling would be on the order of thousands of years. But don't worry, CO2 levels would have to drop well below 300 ppm before a new ice age could commence. However if the Gulf Stream shuts down it could cause northern Europe to cool down quite a bit.
I've been modded down already
Well it wasn't one of your more accurate contributions was it? Oooops.
Beside the confusion between Penn State and the University of East Anglia, to say Dr Mann is "really really bad at statistics" is perhaps to overstate the actual criticism leveled at his now infamous 1998 paper. In any case subsequent reconstructions, --and the last word, I presume, goes to Marcott et al. 2013 --more or less confirm the original conclusions of Mann et al.. I'm would assume you (and I genuinely respect your intelligence and erudition phantom) are already aware of that.
it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models
And, invaluable though they may be, we would certainly exercise caution when considering the findings of simulations. In any case, we would naturally be sceptical of any only recently published paper. It's the weight of the extant literature of course, including the examination and perhaps replication by the entire profession of newly published work, that forms the best available science.
I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature (not just uncomfortable but frightened that the vehicle and air-con might give out).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The answer is: about 1/3 of the noted increase in temperature is directly due to humans, about 1/3 is the result of natural variation, and 1/3 is unaccounted for.
Where did you get those numbers? It sounds like something you just pulled out of a stinky place.
Since the 1950s all known natural causes of temperature change have been slightly declining. That means it is likely that 100% or more of the temperature increase is due to human causes since the 1950s.
If climate change is real, why is there no peer-reviewed research that shows it?
Why would your ignorance of the evidence convince us that there is none? Quite the opposite : you are one of the leading denialists on slashdot, and when I read that I think "this guy hasn't even looked at the evidence" and convinces me, all the more, that your movement is just the corrupt leading the blind.
Sounds legit.
We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to the temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.
Our current conditions are not identical to the MWP. The current rate of warming is much faster than during the MWP and it's likely that globally temperatures are warmer now than they were back then.
We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch frozen crops, famine, disease, and plague.
There has been some recent research that indicates the main cause of the Little Ice Age was a series of large volcanic eruptions in the 1200s. The Maunder Minimum may have exacerbated the LIA some but probably wasn't a primary cause.
Yes. It is. And a few million years ago it was WAY warmer than it is today.
A few million years ago, though, humans didn't want to survive on this marble.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He has an MBA (Multiple Blog-reader Award) and a PHD (Plentiful Hogwash and Disinformation)
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You and I see this: here is a theory with a lot of evidence. The deniers make a claim, it gets debunked so they make another claim and the cycle repeats endlessly as one bullshit claim after the other gets debunked.
But the people who believe the deniers don't see that. They see "For everything the scientist say the deniers make a counter-argument that sounds convincing to me".
At least part of the reason they see it so differently is that it's a helluva lot easier to sound convincing when you don't try to be accurate. Explaining complex science so laymen can understand it is hard - to do it convincingly as well is very hard. Reality doesn't care about your individual biases. It's the same reason people are scared of investing in long-term proven ways to grow your money - but will give their life savings to a conman after one meeting.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I can't really explain it, but it's at least interesting to ponder. Take a look at Climate change opinion by country.
Awareness that there is something like this is pretty much as one would expect: People in countries with a free or mostly free press and open and affordable access to the internet are way more informed about it than people in countries where information is scarce, hard to come by or government controlled. Also, the more spare time people have to waste, the more informed they claim to be.
The map on whether it's caused by humans is interesting. Why is practically all of South America convinced that humans are the source of global warming? There is also an interesting difference between Western/Middle Europe and Eastern Europe/Russia, with the former being more convinced of human caused global warming than the latter. It's not quite the divide the Iron Curtain formed, rather it seems to be more a matter between former USSR countries being less convinced than the Rest of Europe, with some noteworthy exceptions in the BeNeLux states and England. And Japan being a real puzzle, being absolutely convinced of human-caused global warming and it being a threat.
Really interesting is now, though, when you compare that map (human caused yes/no) with the last map that deals with the question whether people think that global warming is a threat. It looks like whether people consider climate change a threat is more dependent on the country having a free press than whether they think it's human made. It's also interesting that in Western Europe more people think it's a threat than people think it's caused by humans.
All in all, pretty interesting.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, why work for oil corporations and say everything's great when you can get a fraction of the money predicting doom.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If it means they don't have to stop driving around in their SUVs and not change their way of life, people are quite ready to believe anything you throw at them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least part of the reason they see it so differently is that it's a helluva lot easier to sound convincing when you don't try to be accurate.
That is simply not the reason. It's a helluva lot easier to be convinced when someone tells you what you want to hear. THAT is the reason. These people are running almost entirely on cognitive dissonance, day in and day out. They beg the question all day, every day. Everyone is driving an SUV, so I have to drive an SUV to be safe! But wait, does driving an SUV actually make you safer? (No.) I'm just one little person whose output is minuscule so I can't possibly be harming the climate! But wait, is their output actually minuscule? (Not when you add up all their economic activity.) etc etc.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
correlation is not causation
It's a little more complicated than that. The underlying mechanism involves the relationship between changing zonal mean temperatures and the strength and position of maxima in the mid-latitude westerly jet. The main condition for resonance is the formation of a zonally-directed waveguide for a particular zonal wavenumber k, which depends only on the wavenumber and the shape of the zonal-mean zonal wind (U) profile. Such a waveguide is present when a mid-latitude region of positive squared meridional wavenumber l2 is bounded by latitudes both north and south where l2 vanishes, inhibiting the dispersion of wave energy and trapping excited planetary waves in the upper troposphere (300–500mb). This can occur for zonal wavenumbers k=6–81,2, with the waveguide found at the equatorward flank of the subtropical jet at latitudes around 30–45N.
Such conditions are typically associated with a profile for U characterized by two maxima in the Northern Hemisphere, i.e. a double jet latitudinal structure. In contrast to a single jet, a double jet regime associated with a profile for U is characterized by a confined sub-tropical jet with sharp edges wherein wind speeds change rapidly with latitude3. Such sharp sub-tropical jets are highly effective waveguides30,31, a central requirement for QRA (quasi-resonant amplification).
The team here has isolated 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.
I'll get modded down for this, but reason is not the way to convince people like that to act. Money is.
That's why taxes on pollution and CO2 emissions are so effective. Of course, deniers will claim it's a conspiracy by LED lightbulb manufacturers and the mighty wind power lobby that seems to have completely eclipsed the underfunded, ineffective oil lobby.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
From now on, I only trust peer-reviewed Slashdot comments.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Competence is also irrelevant if you have a prestigious name and say what someone with deep pockets wants to hear.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If your work in climate prediction is accurate or wildly wrong, nobody knows in your lifetime
I see you've never looked into climate science, research or peer reviews before.
If it means they don't have to stop driving around in their SUVs and not change their way of life, people are quite ready to believe anything you throw at them.
You know, that's a very valid point. It's so freaking simple to listen/read/see anything you want about impending doom as long as you don't have to do anything yourself to prevent yourself from being harmed. Psychological basics!
I'd love to see, just for kicks, what would happen if a governmental panel forced a law through that made SUVs and Pickup trucks illegal for anyone who doesn't have an investigated and licensed need for one. God, that would be hilarious to see how many tables would turn.
The conclusion remains the same when more appropriate statistical methods are used.
Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions.
The nice thing about science is that other people can duplicate the research if necessary. In this case, it was necessary to lay those methodological concerns to rest.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.