tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post1085451197053788588..comments2024-03-29T08:29:55.105-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Does the Cold Wave Imply Anything About Global Warming? The Answer is Clearly No.Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-8508513180640688242014-03-21T08:19:57.490-07:002014-03-21T08:19:57.490-07:00Nice work, except for the claim that warming is go...Nice work, except for the claim that warming is going to resume: "Global warming will occur over the coming century and only can be determined statistically since there is a lot of natural variability in the climate/weather system. One event proves nothing. Furthermore, the real warming is in the future."<br /><br />All the evidence is that the "real warming" has ended, because all the evidence says that the bulk of 20th century warming was caused, not by CO2, but by the 80 year "grand maximum" of solar activity that began in the 1920's. Almost everyone agrees that CO2 has a very modest forcing effect. For this forcing effect to explain more than a small amount of 20th century warming it has to be multiplied up several times by water vapor feedback effects and there is absolutely NO evidence that water vapor feedback effects are even positive. <br /><br />That's the fraud aspect of the IPCC. Their "estimates" of the water vapor feedback (climate sensitivity) are derived by ASSUMING that virtually all 20th century warming was caused by CO2. To be specific, solar variation is assumed to have 1/56th the forcing effect of increases in CO2: .05 w/m^2 vs 2.83 w/m^2. That is from the radiative forcing chart on p.696 of AR5:<br /><br />http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf<br /><br /> This is on the INPUT side of the models, which then just take the amount of observed warming and calculate how sensitive to CO2 the climate would have to be in order for the warming to have been caused by virtually entirely CO2, in accordance with their assumptions. <br /><br />Sorry but the ASSUMPTION that warming was caused by CO2 cannot provide EVIDENCE that warming was caused by CO2 (that sensitivity is high). <br /><br />The assumption that temperatures have been CO2 driven is the reason why sensitivity estimates have been dropping precipitously in the wake of the 15+ year "pause" in global warming. As the rate of warming that is being presumptively explained by CO2 falls the implied warming effect of CO2 falls accordingly. But these estimates are still FAR too high because the real implication of "the pause" is that late-20th century warming was NOT caused by CO2 but by the solar turn from grand maximum to deep minimum. That would leave little warming left to be explained by CO2, implying that water vapor feedback effects are either close to zero or possibly even negative (as cloud formation induced by increased evaporation both serves as an effective heat pump from the surface to the upper atmosphere, and serves to block incoming solar radiation).<br /><br />That's what the ACTUAL evidence points to, both in the paleo data (lots of paleo correlation between solar activity and temperature but a discernible paleo correlation between CO2 and temperature only in the temp-causes-CO2 direction), and in current observations (the absence of the upper-tropospheric "hotspot" fingerprint of positive water-vapor feedbacks and other missing "fingerprints"). So no, if you follow the actual science instead of the IPCC psuedo-science, if you follow the EVIDENCE, the best estimate is that we are now at the peak of the modern warm period, with cooling coming next.Alec Rawlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14660406756291016118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-80198821274692196332014-03-16T02:41:52.001-07:002014-03-16T02:41:52.001-07:00Cold and ice are mankind's enemy. At no time i...Cold and ice are mankind's enemy. At no time in geologic history has the earth's land area been too hot for life to survive. It has been too cold though. Nothing can grow on ice, it is a death sentence for mankind. A gradually warming planet is a blessing. It turns glaciers it no alpine valleys where Heidi can tend her cows. It pushes the tree line north where nothing but lichens can grow today. Even polar bears seem to be able to change their diets ( they are bears after all ) and can eat caribou or other large grazing animals.<br />Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/01/europe-dumps-global-warming-efforts.html#qb0m0gSW1Jjslwkd.99<br /><a href="http://publichealth101.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">global warming</a><br /><a href="http://publichealth101.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">drug addiction</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14000518131742076908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-87639193880670387352014-02-08T14:49:48.075-08:002014-02-08T14:49:48.075-08:00"Global warming will occur over the the comin..."Global warming will occur over the the coming century"<br /><br />Says you and King Canute.<br /><br />It may get warmer. It may get cooler. The trend may be flat. I don't know, you don't know, the IPCC doesn't know.<br /><br />There has never been any reason to think the centennial global temperature trend is even predictable in the ranges claimed, let alone that any model actually predicts it within the ranges claimed.<br /><br />Sheer hubris. And very, very bad policy.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11877699517690934530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-64279374025718325542014-02-06T06:48:20.687-08:002014-02-06T06:48:20.687-08:00Something that I am concerned with is how everyone...Something that I am concerned with is how everyone around me has claimed that all this cold weather disproves global warming to the T. I have political friends on Facebook that actually get angry about the thought of global warming and how all this weather proves that global warming scientists are just blowing hot air into the ears of government officials. <br /><br />The fact is, just like this article implies, this "extreme" weather does not prove or disprove global warming. Weather varies. It happens. Sometimes it is colder than previous years. On the other hand, has anyone actually seen the documentary An Inconvenient Truth? Al Gore has predicted this stuff. His research and contacts have predicted these 'extreme' weather patterns, these 'polar vortexes,' and other weather phenomenon that has been happening for the the last five years. <br /><br />Extreme weather has been seen across the globe, ocean temperatures have risen, polar ice caps are melting, tornadoes are getting worst across the United States, extreme drought and heat is present in the summer months, yet people, especially political figures, are still arguing whether any of it really exists. Ask your grandparents and great grandparents how the weather was when they were a kid. There is a huge difference today compared to the weather fifty years ago. Yes, weather varies, but usually it takes thousands of years for weather patterns to change and shift as much as they have just in the last fifty years. Things are changing, and I still cannot believe that people are denying that. It is happening before our eyes. Open your eyes people! Open them up and quit denying what is going on around you! Charles Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937247563264627067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-88389261029876137542014-01-21T10:45:11.188-08:002014-01-21T10:45:11.188-08:00I know little of science but I do know how the med...I know little of science but I do know how the media can distort a story. I have been looking for an objective website on global warming.<br /><br />I don't trust the media. I know that winters seem to be less severe than they were when I was a kid. I grew up on a farm and have a tendency to watch the weather more closely than some people.<br /><br />I remember very well the Global Cooling scare of the 70's which they announced during a severe winter.<br /><br />I also remember the media announced we were having Global Warming during the summer of 1988 when we had a severe drought and heat wave all across the USA.<br /><br />So folks, I hope you'll pardon me for not jumping on either bandwagon. The report that some GW advocates faked some statistics does not help. On the other hand I've seen where deniers fake stats too.<br /><br />I tend to believe in the warming scenario but I have an extreme dislike for those who smugly proclaim we are dumb if we don't believe in it.<br /><br />As I see it the main stream media has done a lot of damage to those who believe in global warming. They have done it by assuming that the masses are stupid and must be scared into believing. They make it sound like GW will happen tomorrow and we are all going to die. However, we can stop global warming only if we listen to them. Any voices of dissent are stupid and must be mocked.<br /><br />There is one site that says in order to prevent GW all non-believers should be killed. I don't want people like that ruling over me. <br /><br />People don't realize it but Russia and China would really like to see the USA fully adopt all measures to prevent Global Warming. That's because it would leave us in a less strong position industrially and militarily. Go read the English version of Pravda if you do not believe me. These two countries have no intention of following any standard that might weaken them. They are not above using the internet to influence Americans. <br /><br />I just want to know the truth either way. If we have to change how we live then everybody better change and not just this country. I also don't want to see the 'elites' living it up while I'm shivering in a cave with everybody else.<br /><br />No I don't believe I'll be living in a cave but I have actually seen the warming people say that several families must share one car. Also we must get rid of all our pets because even a small dog like my dachshund puts out the pollution of three SUV's yearly.<br /><br />In closing I just want to say that I don't trust the motives of many organizations involved in this issue be they warmists or deniers.Carl Belkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05877374556839784306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-1610573696344545342014-01-12T09:57:31.969-08:002014-01-12T09:57:31.969-08:00Jennifer,
I can't agree with you on this...Jennifer,<br /> I can't agree with you on this. Libby Barnes pointed out an essential methodological problem with your paper: the fact you based you evaluation of the amplitude of the waves NOT with instantaneous amplitude (the amplitude of waves at a particular time, which is what really counts in a weather situation), but based on seasonal excursions, which means nothing for individual cold waves. She demonstrated that the correct and seasonal methods give different answers. Thus, the conclusions in your paper about a wavier jet stream are problematic. And I should note that temperatures on the ground agree with Libby..there is NO evidence of increased cold waves as the polar areas warm. You have to agree with that...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-12773278056473393302014-01-12T09:17:14.136-08:002014-01-12T09:17:14.136-08:00Cliff,
Your points about Libby Barnes’ 2013 paper...Cliff,<br /><br />Your points about Libby Barnes’ 2013 paper are correct *only if* her claim that the 500 hPa contours we used for our analysis were incorrect, a claim that I respectfully dispute for reasons I stated in an earlier comment. Using the contour that best tracks the path of the jet stream, rather than the waviest contour that occurs well north of the jet stream (she compared analyses using both in her paper), then she *does* find increased wave amplitudes (see gray bands in her Fig. 3), she *does* find significantly slower wave propagation speeds (her Fig. 4b), and she *does* find slower zonal wind speeds (her Fig. 4a), all of which agree with our results and support our hypothesis. <br /><br />Regarding the possible increase of cold waves in response to a wavier jet stream, it must be made clear what is meant by a cold wave. I was *not* referring to record-low-temperature-breaking cold extremes. I am referring to events of below-normal temperatures, which occur in deep jet-stream troughs. We know that “normal” is based on the mean over the previous 3 decades, so as the climate warms, the mean with which anomalies are calculated is also warming. The threshold for a “cold wave,” consequently (say, 1 standard deviation below the mean), will also rise, and the temperatures in a future cold wave will be warmer than in one today, on average. But it will still feel relatively cold, as nicely explained in Seth Bornenstein’s piece last week.<br /><br />Jennifer<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06007412484503701255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-73997330173477748922014-01-11T22:01:44.723-08:002014-01-11T22:01:44.723-08:00Ted,
I understand you are unhappy with me criti...Ted,<br /> I understand you are unhappy with me criticizing Holdren, but I really think his video was highly counterproductive. This is very weak speculative science and only provides a large target for skeptic groups that can easily show why it doesn't make sense...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-83760229604994899502014-01-11T10:59:48.202-08:002014-01-11T10:59:48.202-08:00Jennifer,
My point, and the results of Libby ...Jennifer,<br /> My point, and the results of Libby Barnes' research, is that there AREN'T increased daily excursions of the jet stream and height lines. Your work is being used by well-meaning folks to suggest that global warming will result in increased cold waves. Libby's work shows that increased excursions are not happening and the surface temperature data shows that increased frequency of cold waves are not happening.<br /><br />As I noted before, the claims of increased cold waves under global warming have been a field day for those who believe GW is unfounded. And it is directly opposite to what is claimed by the IPCC. ..cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-10097065943867145792014-01-11T10:54:05.204-08:002014-01-11T10:54:05.204-08:00Ted,
The first part of Holdren's message w...Ted,<br /> The first part of Holdren's message was fine--that one event proves nothing. But then he goes off saying that such cold waves are what we might expect from global warming. This is where he crossed the line into unwarranted (and scientifically unsupported) speculation. This is a boon to global warming deniers. On one hand the IPCC says cold waves will be less frequent (makes sense) and Holdren says they could be more frequent. Leaves me scratching my head..cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-83124897363409732222014-01-11T09:56:35.830-08:002014-01-11T09:56:35.830-08:00@Papa Zu: Obama's science advisor says nothing...@Papa Zu: Obama's science advisor says nothing like that. Watch the video and listen carefully. @Cliff Mass, you are too quick to pass judgment on Holdren's message.<br /><br />“The fact is that no single weather episode can either prove or disprove global climate change.” – President Obama’s science advisor John Holdren, 1/8/14<br /><br />That sounds very much like the clarity I expect to encounter regularly here on Cliff's blog.Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853016282304793773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-47664566030696837732014-01-10T19:10:59.993-08:002014-01-10T19:10:59.993-08:00A warming arctic leading to a weaker jet stream wi...A warming arctic leading to a weaker jet stream with larger Rossby waves is a theory, right? Jeff Masters writes "the research linking climate change impacts in the Arctic to more extreme jet stream patterns is still very new, and we need several more years of data and additional research before we can be confident that this is occurring." So are you saying there is data showing that it is definitely not occurring? Theory disproven?Mark Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00928440758872959707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-59951129095147181932014-01-10T17:13:46.751-08:002014-01-10T17:13:46.751-08:00Cliff –
First, I never said that this week’s cold...Cliff –<br /><br />First, I never said that this week’s cold spell was related to climate change. In fact, when asked this question by numerous reporters, I have said “no” consistently and emphatically. <br />Second, I agree with you that record warm temperatures have been broken much more often in recent decades than have record cold temperatures. This makes all kinds of sense as the globe warms overall, and especially as Arctic airmasses warm even faster than the global average. This is NOT what our hypothesis addresses. What we are suggesting is that in response to a relaxed poleward temperature gradient, the jet stream’s trajectory will become more amplified, which will cause more frequent excursions of cold air southward and warm air poleward. The air within those troughs will be warmer on average, and the warm air in the ridges will be also warmer. The duration of these anomalous excursions will also likely increase, as we know that waves in amplified jet-stream patterns tends to progress eastward more slowly, and thus the weather they create persists for longer periods.<br /><br />Third: Regarding Libby Barnes paper, did you read my earlier comment about her claims that our metrics were flawed? And did you notice that the results in that same paper support our hypothesis, namely that wave propagation speed is decreasing significantly in fall (statistically speaking) and also that amplitudes are increasing? Her claim that we’re using the wrong height contour just does not make sense – the height contour we used rests squarely in the path of the jet stream and tracks its trajectory, while the “waviest” contour she identifies is well north and tracks a very different wave character. She’s a very talented dynamicist and communicator, but on this particular point, I respectfully disagree with her assessment. Please check again.<br /><br />Fourth: I have read all of her work showing convincingly that blocking highs are not increasing in the real world and are projected by climate models to decrease under global warming. What I see in the reanalysis data, however, is that most extreme weather events associated with persistent weather patterns (e.g., extremely snowy winter in AK during 11/12, flooding in Spain in 9/12, very stormy pattern in the UK last month, very warm winter so far in AK, very warm winter in the eastern US in 2012, floods in Alberta, just to name a very few) are NOT associated with blocking highs, but rather are just a highly amplified jet trajectory or a cut-off low. This type of pattern IS increasing over time. What’s not clear is whether the models adequately capture these patterns.<br /><br />Finally: I have stated a zillion times that this line of research is in its infancy, and we have so much more to learn. I am thrilled that so many excellent minds are focusing on this topic, so I’m confident that progress in attribution and mechanisms will be made in short order. <br /><br />We are on the same side here. I keep coming back to the fact that 75% of Arctic sea ice has been lost and the region is warming 2-3 times faster than the mid-latitudes. This MUST have an impact on the large- scale circulation system. What I see is the pile of evidence supporting our hypothesis is growing, while the pile contradicting it has nothing in it. Honest skepticism is welcome, as the jury is clearly still out. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06007412484503701255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-25203483007373650702014-01-10T02:50:25.592-08:002014-01-10T02:50:25.592-08:00Cliff -- I referenced your article/blog posting i...Cliff -- I referenced your article/blog posting in an article I just posted at my blog.<br /><br />Is the polar vortex linked to climate change? -- National Weather Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-polar-vortex-linked-to-climate-change <br /><br />Thanks for what you posted the other day. Some of us still have to include a little science in what we do.<br /><br />Best, <br /><br />Mike<br /><br />(see you at AMS?)M-cubed (a.k.a. Meteorologist Mike Mogil)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16601002550892371152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-65116099386401163722014-01-09T17:21:36.089-08:002014-01-09T17:21:36.089-08:00One way we determine body temp is with a thermomet...One way we determine body temp is with a thermometer under the tongue. How do we measure the Earth's temp? Is there one thermometer reading we can look at?Salhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04547499826272576251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-49357725558503979382014-01-09T10:08:03.415-08:002014-01-09T10:08:03.415-08:00For my money the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridg...For my money the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridge" (or RRR, as they're calling it at the California Weather Blog) is much more interesting anomaly than the not-so-unusual "polar vortex." <br /><br />http://www.weatherwest.com/archives/1038#disqus_thread<br /><br />-Douglas<br />Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400304542602805292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-39720631808317570802014-01-09T10:07:48.180-08:002014-01-09T10:07:48.180-08:00I don't see how you can look at the second-to-...I don't see how you can look at the second-to-last graph, the one showing the plot of "the % of the country with a extreme low minimum temperatures" and say that, on average, winters aren't getting warmer.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03680677482567795165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-44447287593872090592014-01-09T06:00:26.693-08:002014-01-09T06:00:26.693-08:00Jennifer,
A strong contradiction to your theor...Jennifer,<br /> A strong contradiction to your theory is the fact there is no evidence of increased cold waves during the past decade, which you wold expect from increased amplification. Can you provide any evidence of such a reflection in the thermal fields at the surface or 850 hPa? And as you probably know, Elizabeth Barnes had completed a new paper documenting that the amplitude of blocking has not increased. Furthermore, the ice/snow field has been dropping for decades over the arctic. Why haven't we seen the cold waves increasing before. Thus, both direct and indirect evidence suggest that your hypothesis is not correct..It did stir up a lot of discussion, which is good...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-41030712709782203582014-01-09T04:23:50.506-08:002014-01-09T04:23:50.506-08:00Thanks, Cliff.....
Agree that we keep losing the ...Thanks, Cliff.....<br /><br />Agree that we keep losing the science with all the hype (on both sides).<br /><br />Let me add my online article<br /><br />http://www.examiner.com/article/the-polar-vortex-is-the-prime-suspect-the-case-of-the-recent-arctic-outbreak <br /><br />to the mix. Just trying to keep us focused on the science.<br /><br />MikeM-cubed (a.k.a. Meteorologist Mike Mogil)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16601002550892371152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-24684757606859085002014-01-09T02:14:15.942-08:002014-01-09T02:14:15.942-08:00In response to Ms. Francis defense of her paper co...In response to Ms. Francis defense of her paper countering Barnes via Mass in this blog post thread, while I have not yet read the Barnes paper, Ms. Francis's recent work has been cited several times in recent years by some meteorologists who have taken a liking to it, such as Jeff Masters at the Weather Underground (now owned by The Weather Channel which itself is owned by GE's NBC, et al and let us not forget GE's NBC is in the media business and they will go all out to capture the attention spans of people in order to sell advertisements). <br /><br />With that said, good scientists should be careful not to have love affairs with their own or others hypotheses. Good scientists should be skeptical (note: skepticism does not equate to cynicism). The challenge I see for Ms. Francis, et al hypothesis is this notion of blocking patterns and "stuck" / often "extreme" weather. The media circus about the "polar vortex" doesn't actually help Ms. Francis support her case from the perspective of most common people, because this recent "polar vortex" is in fact not hanging around very long. It sure doesn't look like its being blocked or part of a blocking pattern. So it looks like a tough sell to most people who don't have enough educational foundation of synoptic and dynamic meteorology. Gravity Wavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17427314985641662420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-81926432940810611322014-01-08T22:28:14.445-08:002014-01-08T22:28:14.445-08:00Rob Dekker,
You could not have read these pape...Rob Dekker,<br /> You could not have read these papers very carefully. Barnes' paper effectively disproves the claims of the Francis and Varvus paper, which claims that blocking situations with strong cold-air advection have gotten more frequent due to a weakening of the jet stream. And the fact that temperatures do not show such an increase in cold events confirms Barnes' findings...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-74106348488499681812014-01-08T22:25:13.109-08:002014-01-08T22:25:13.109-08:00Papa Zu,
I cannot believe why Holdren, the Pre...Papa Zu,<br /> I cannot believe why Holdren, the President's Science Adviser, would put out such an ill-informed video. Completely undercuts his credibility as a scientists. Kind of sad really...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-84922120282271821372014-01-08T20:01:20.584-08:002014-01-08T20:01:20.584-08:00Cliff FYI if you are interested. WH/Holdren puttin...Cliff FYI if you are interested. WH/Holdren putting out the message that warming is causing the cold we are having. <br /><br />http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/08/we-geeks-polar-vortex-and-extreme-weatherPapa Zuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07035651427992181047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-42761725348131403092014-01-08T15:34:26.479-08:002014-01-08T15:34:26.479-08:00Jennifer Francis,
Thank you very much for posting...<br />Jennifer Francis,<br /><br />Thank you very much for posting a comment on the Barnes paper !<br /><br />I had a chance to read both papers, and for starters, I found both your and Elizabeth's papers of great quality and clarity.<br />Very easy to follow the pionts being made and methods being used, even for a layman like myself, <br /><br />Let me say that it is refreshing to witness an actual scientific debate between actual scientists on the influence of a warming Arctic on NH weather patterns, and done so in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.<br /><br />I found it interesting that there were many common findings between the two papers, such as reduced wind speed and wave velocity in fall, which strongly suggests that additional merit in your hypothesis of a jet-steam link to Arctic amplification.<br /><br />Also, it was interesting to read that Elizabeth found an increase in altitude of the large 500mb waves, consistent with gradual atmospheric warming, but did not find increased amplitude with the waviest contours. Kind of like the whole Rossby wave pattern is lifted up but not moving closer or further from the pole.<br /><br />The main disagreement seems to be on the "amplitude" of the waves and if they are changing or not. But the amplitude may not be the biggest issue for the effects on the surface ? After all, if the amplitude of these waves stays the same, but the pattern is blocked, then we still will have prolonged extreme weather events. <br /><br />Seem that for example here in California, it's been bone dry over the raining season, apparently because of a blocking high that's been sitting in the North Pacific off the Washington coast for, what is it, almost a year now ?<br />Now, I don't think that particular high has much to do with Arctic amplification, and Barnes 2013 did not find an increase in 'blocking' events.<br /><br />But blocking events, the jet-stream and the relation to Arctic's changing climate are often discussed at Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog (where I'm a regular), and I'm very much interested in presenting your list of papers there and open a discussion at Neven's.<br /><br />Thank you much, and keep up your amazing work !<br />Rob Dekkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955911975945629265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-86971957913113212592014-01-08T15:14:40.058-08:002014-01-08T15:14:40.058-08:00Hi Cliff,
Thanks for the scientific analysis. Alt...Hi Cliff,<br /><br />Thanks for the scientific analysis. Although you are a scientist and report on facts I think it would be responsible for you to add a disclaimer that just because there is no evidence for something specifically is not a reason to do nothing at all.<br /><br />In the UK we take the stance that regardless of whether Anthropogenic Climate Change is real or not we would rather take a 'pro-active' approach and "do something" than nothing at all. Certainly we aren't still having this elementary debate on whether "peter killed paul or paul killed peter first" :/<br /><br />By appearing to dismiss such extreme weather events one encourages complacency. Explain this to those who live on the west coast of England for example who had their houses destroyed due to the highest tides in 17 years, perhaps you can explain this?? I think we are fortunate to have a progressive government and public support to take action rather than squabble like a group of spoiled children, although America does resemble a restless teenager socially.<br /><br />~DixonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com