Hi Brett,

The relevance of his work is that the climate system is not predictable - which refutes the climate models that are the foundation of this discussion. Changes in CO2 are only one input into a constantly changing climate equation which includes a dynamic sun, land use changes, volcanoes, fires, clouds, butterflies, etc.

To avoid the discussion going off on a tangent here, I'll throw in that almost all scientific computing these days use 64 bit precision - which is much more precise than the 32 bit precision Lorenz was using in 1961. 64 bit numbers are accurate to about 16 decimal places.

One of the lead researchers of the project, Ken Caldeira, personally thinks this change in the jet streams is a result of global warming, but he cannot say for sure ......

Is this what science has become ? ? (personally thinks......cannot say for sure .....)

Again, what has happened to the integrity, responsibility and accountability of this discipline ? ?

I woke up this morning feeling a little foggy headed. May I attribute this to Global warmening or must I blame a little too much wine last night while watching Santana dominate the Phillies last night?

Since virtually ANYTHING that happens these days is the result of your SUV's (not me, gang, I walk or take the subway) I think I'll blame it on AGW.

Very Nice information, So, that when warming shifts, people should take care more cause about environment usuage.

Please check this recent news about Global Warming... News about Global Warming...

Regards,
Joseph

This article was in my local newspaper too. I found it strange to see it there since there have been other reports that are much more meaningful and even provable (from both sides) that never made it to local print. Perhaps it's because they picked it up from the Washington Post. I feel the only reason its being mentioned by the MSM is a jet stream moving more north was predicted by the IPCC. With recent reports showing holes are developing in that report, the AGW side needs something to boost its members.

What was most funny for me besides it trying to tie this to GW, was it reported a 1.25 mile move towards the north per year. Than ended to try to increase the scare tactic with, " a rate of 1.25 miles a year doesn't sound like much, but that works out to about 18 feet per day". For me, that makes it seem even less!

I can only imagine what Patrick Henry will do with this one. I think I will just sit back, read, relax and enjoy.

A question for the group.

Why is it that when the ENSO graph is red, Hansen is all over the temperature data as a sign that mankind faces catastrophe. Yet when the ENSO data is blue, it is just "La Nina" and needs to be ignored?
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif

Over the last ten years, La Nina and El Nino have been just about balanced in frequency and intensity. It is grossly deceptive to downplay half the data.

Two topics in one! Ken Caldeira "cannot say for sure" but he is willing to publish speculation. I say, go back to the lab and observations and come up with something more than an assumption before publishing. Jetstreams were only discovered in 1944, so there is not a lot of historical data to draw from. Item two: Dr. Lorenz did not say that a small percentage of CO2 would make a dramatic difference, he pointed to the unreliability of the computer models in that rounding mere thousands of a unit rendered them in error.
Reply: The article, nor did I write that Dr. Lorenz said anything in regard to C02. Brett

Snow on Vancouver Island today - six months after the first snow of this winter last November. Is six months close enough to climate? It sure is too much weather!

I always have entertained the idea that if you add energy to the atmosphere in the form of heat, that the jet streams would get longer not neccessarily wider or faster. I think it would get longer therby undulating more causing more wild swings in it's behavior. Leading to unpredictable variations in local weather patterns. Ugghh!

Mj

Sorry to hear about Dr. Lorenz, but hey 90 is a pretty good run.
However claiming the jet stream shift is a result of global warming, well let us check the records. (Reply: The authors indeed think that gw is to blame, but they make it clear that they are not totally sure about that. Keep that in mind. There is nothing wrong with that type of thinking in my opinion. That's part of scientific thought. Meteorologists such as myself make statements like this quite often. We make our best guess after looking at the data. There are a lot of unanswered questions still out there when it comes to GW. Brett.)
wait
we don't have ANY.
We didn't even realize it was there until like 80 years ago.
Here is my bet, every single event that happens is due to GLOBAL WARMING, well you can always make that claim right?
And who is around to disagree?
If they do they must be in the pay of big oil.
It sickens me to watch this sham go on and in the process discredit the real problems of pollution, clean water etc because a few cultists see this as a way to "try to take over the world, Pinky!"

Beware the wind from the wing of a butterfly!

You knowm, just when I take hope from seeing that Patrick Henry eats organic and believes in grass fed beef, I then go on to read a post from Mary who stopped eating oragnic lettuce because it was dirty and she had to take time to clean it. I am reminded of the selfishness of people who won't change their light bulbs to CFL's because "the light doesn't come on right away and it doesn't go with my decor." I could save the planet but I can't be bothered because it soesn't go with my color scheme! Coem on Patric Henry, explain to mary about the nexus between global climate uncertainty and peak oil!

that some may want to consider when they proclaim that the tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly cause a major change the future behavior of the global climate system.........

Also, on the other side, some of the proposed *solutions* to AGW could have unintended consequences, perhaps worse than the problem, doing something stupid to the oceans for example.

What about windmills (if you get enough of them) changing the weather and eventually climate, which is possible. The kinetic energy of wind diminishes and the kinetic energy of the blades increases. Can't take all the wind but the wind on the other side of a particular windmill decreases so wind patterns could change. Is there a theoretical *maximum* number of windmills that can be on the earth and/or in a specific location before the wind decreases substantially and changes local weather?

The jetstream is a 3-dimensional entity. In order to measure the height or location of the jetstream, one would need to measure its thickness via the differences in constant pressure levels. I'm sure the researchers modeled the jetstream over the time period and recorded the results. However, I have yet to hear that the 850/500mb or 700/500mb thickness levels has significantly changed. Atmospheric thickness is a function of density, which in turn a function of temperature. It would be interesting to chart raw rawinsonde data from individual sounding stations over the 20 year period.

Another problem is that this study does not really support AGW theory. The tropical tropesphere remains either neutral or even cooled.

While I would agree that just the slightest deviation can create an answer very different than expected, I would have to wonder about the the model itself. It seems to me that if we are to feel confidence regarding global forecasting, we would need to know what makes up that model and are there all the components in that model that mother nature works with every single day. So that model would need to mirror exactly the same recipe that nature provides, yes?

For Mary, and anyone else who thinks not having oranges is just an inconvenience, here is a link that will put you on the right track.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=7c4c8ea9-ad1f-48a7-b4dd-515a63372c88

�At this point we can�t say for sure that this is the result of global warming, but I think it is,� says Caldeira. �I would bet that the trend in the jet streams� positions will continue. It is something I�d put my money on.�

The jet stream was only discovered in 1945. To come to a conclusion that global warming may be causing it to shift around, without centuries of data, shows how sad a political and funding frenzy state that science (and it's scientists) has allowed itself to sink to. Reply: Again, he was obviously asked the ultimate question and his best guess was that gw probably has something to do with it based on his research, but he makes its clear that he is not sure which is important to note.

Follow the money!!! If you can fit a theory into another popular theory, you continue to get funded by the powers that be.

The full text of the paper is here.

Brett, as an AW scientist you should be a bit more careful in discussing findings like this. A couple of key points:

1) You say that you "agree [the movement of the jets] is very small, but also pretty meaningless[.]" Who are you agreeing with? Not the authors, certainly. Or is this just a matter of advance agreement with famed climate scientists Oiznop, Patrick Henry and Joe Bastardi?

Sorry Steve, I guess I am agreeing with Carnegie Institution press release of the study by Caldeira who is from the Carnegie Institution. And, yes it is a small change (shift of 12 miles per decade) I have been tracking the jet stream 6 days a week for the past 20 years. When you add up those 12 miles/decade up after a few hundred years then we may be talking significant changes to the climate.

This passage explains why the authors did not describe the effect as small, even though the quoted numbers may have made it seem so: "In general, trends of jet stream properties found in this study are consistent in sign, but smaller in magnitude, with those found in previous studies. This suggests that the weighted averages over large volumes used to characterize the jet streams in this study correctly capture the jet properties, but they must be considered conservative lower-bound estimates for larger trends that may manifest themselves in subsets of these volumes."

Also, didn't some guy named Lorenz have something to say on the subject of seemingly small chnages having large effects? Hmm, wherever did I read about that... Reply: You are right, you got me there.

2) You say "The authors note that if the trend continues then it could cause some problems.....but when?" Reply: I do not know for sure, and I doubt the authors really know that answer.

Well, already, with more to come: "These changes in jet stream latitude, altitude, and strength have likely affected, and perhaps will continue to affect, the formation and evolution of storms in the midlatitudes and of hurricanes in the sub-tropical regions."

Note that your post somewhat confused the four jets and their behavior. Most significantly, while the southern polar jet has shifted position like the others, it has strengthened rather than weakened. This is more evidence that Antarctic clinate is not responding to warming like the rest of the planet.

Finally, re Ken Caldeira's willingness to bet, this presents a wonderful opportunity. I hereby volunteer to help work out the terms and arrange the bets. Can we perhaps have a separate thread for this purpose?

Speaking of bets, this is interesting. I suspect Ken was rather less casual about his offer than Bill Gray seems to have been. Anyway, let's see the denialists queue up!

kevinag

Tee Hee, do I bug you? Why waste water when you don't have to. Eating organic lettuce doesn't prove anything. Organic just means you don't use pesticides, and in many cases, it takes more energy to produce organic. It is the old guilt trip, look at me, I'm saving the planet. Whoopee! Also, it is a necessity for me to have oranges, definitely not an inconvenience.

I chose not to have children (no CO2 emitters) and I live in a very small house and I live very frugally probably more than you and most every American. And my carbon footprint is very small, probably smaller than yours.

I don't really care about peak oil and if we run out of oil, who cares? I certainly don't. If humans can't adapt, then it wasn't meant to be. If you are so worried about global warming, then stop using fossil fuels.

Brett, re the "small" business, the release said in significant part:

'The poleward shift in their average location discovered by the researchers is small, about 19 kilometers (12 miles) per decade in the northern hemisphere, but if the trend continues the impact could be significant. "The jet streams are the driving factor for weather in half of the globe," says Archer. "So, as you can imagine, changes in the jets have the potential to affect large populations and major climate systems."'

IOW, small in absolute terms, but large enough to have an impact. Your phrasing of "very small, but also pretty meaningless" imparts a quite different meaning. You don't say so specifically, but I suspect you're looking at this long-term average change relative to the comparatively much larger short-term changes in local jet stream position (which can be on the order of hundreds of miles IIRC). I would suggest that this comparison is apples and oranges and a good way to fool yourself. I would further suggest that the authors would strongly disagree with your further remark that it would take "hundreds of years" for this effect to amount to much.

Reply: I don't think I'm fooled Steve. I applaud the study whether or not it is related to gw. I thought it was interesting. That's fine if the author's disagree with what I said. Actually, I am sure they could care less about what I think. I just offered my own opinions (nothing more than that), which I am free to do. Brett.

Here's a different example: On a given day a temperature change of 3C is barely noticeable, i.e. small. As a long-term average, though, it's enough to pop the planetary climate into or out of a glaciation.

Finally, bear in mind that it's not possible for the jets to shift like this without a whole set of related changes in the climate system, including the already-noted movement of the storm tracks. As the release quotes one of the authors: 'The observed changes are consistent with numerous other signals of global warming found in previous studies, such as the widening of the tropical belt, the cooling of the stratosphere, and the poleward shift of storm tracks.'

So if man is responsible for global warming and seemingly just about everything that seems a bit out of whack these days is attributable to GW, can scientists assert at this point what is occurring naturally? Is there a percent of blame pinned to man and nature?

On a somewhat related subject, these new results are completely unexpected:

"Tiny tremors can track extreme storms in a warming planet"

"Data from faint earth tremors caused by wind-driven ocean waves -- often dismissed as 'background noise' at seismographic stations around the world -- suggest extreme ocean storms have become more frequent over the past three decades, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America.

"The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other prominent researchers have predicted that stronger and more frequent storms may occur as a result of global warming trends. The tiny tremors, or microseisms, offer a new way to discover whether these predictions are already coming true, said Richard Aster, a geophysics professor at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

"Unceasing as the ocean waves that trigger them, the microseisms show up as five- to 30-second oscillations of Earth's surface at seismographic stations around the world. Even seismic monitoring stations 'in the middle of a continent are sensitive to the waves crashing all around the continent,' Aster said.

"As storm winds drive ocean waves higher, the microseism signals increase their amplitude as well, offering a unique way to track storm intensities across seasons, over time, and at different geographical locations. For instance, Aster and colleagues Daniel McNamara from the U.S. Geological Survey and Peter Bromirski of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography recently published analysis in the Seismological Society of America journal Seismological Research Letters showing that microseism data collected around the Pacific Basin and throughout the world could be used to detect and quantify wave activity from multi-year events such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean disruptions.

"The findings spurred them to look for a microseism signal that would reveal whether extreme storms were becoming more common in a warming world. In fact, they saw 'a remarkable thing,' among the worldwide microseism data collected from 1972 to 2008, Aster recalled. In 22 of the 22 stations included in the study, the number of extreme storm events had increased over time, they found.

"While the work on evaluating changes in extreme storms is 'still very much in its early stages', Aster is 'hoping that the study will offer a much more global look' at the effects of climate change on extreme storms and the wind-driven waves that they produce. At the moment, most of the evidence linking the two comes from studies of hurricane intensity and shoreline erosion in specific regions such as the Pacific Northwest Gulf of Mexico, he noted.

"The researchers are also working on recovering and digitizing older microseism records, potentially creating a data set that stretches back to the 1930s. Aster praised the work of the long-term observatories that have collected the records, calling them a good example of the 'Cinderella science' -- unloved and overlooked -- that often support signi