If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   The long winter can be blamed on one thing: a changing jet stream   (nation.time.com) divider line 36
    More: PSA, jet streams, middle latitudes, winter  
•       •       •

6795 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:07 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-16 01:41:48 PM  
4 votes:
thisishistorictimes.com
2014-02-16 02:26:11 PM  
3 votes:

TopoGigo: Look, I'm as much of a believer of science and evidence as anyone. So, let's see some. What the hell evidence is there that this is a "changing pattern" as opposed to an anomaly this year? One data point doesn't make a pattern.


While I suspect the first half of your post is not exactly genuine, I will give it a shot.

Nobody is saying that this is a long term change for sure. They are putting out possible explanations of this year's anomalies based on our understanding of how things work and our evidence of what has changed for sure.

The press will run with any extremist story so you really should ignore anything in the press. If something they say is interesting then look up the actual science ... the press always gets the science wrong.

What we know:
- the jet stream drives the polar vortex
- the polar vortex tends to hold the arctic air within itself - occasionally pockets of cold air escape
- the jet stream is created by a temperature difference between the polar region and the mid-latitudes
- the polar regions are heating up 2x to 3x times faster than the mid-latitudes

So the theory goes like this:
If the delta-T drops due to faster heating of the arctic then the velocity of the jet stream will drop. That in turn will reduce the intensity of the polar vortex. Which would then cause more events of arctic air escaping. Which could explain this winter.

Note that these are just preliminary theories. It is scientists' jobs to figure this stuff out and they do this by analyzing the the events and coming up with theories as to how they happened. The press and political web sites take these theories and fit them to their agenda. Scientists are not claiming anything as fact ... although individual scientists are free to hold personal opinions.

In a case like this it will take years to decide if the events of this winter are freak weather or are long term climate related with any real level of certainty. But it is natural to look at the long series of freak weather events and remember that one of the primary predictions of AGW/GCC is unpredictable, atypical weather.
2014-02-16 01:51:26 PM  
2 votes:
This is news? The jet stream has been shifting to these long-period longitudinal orientations for a few years now. Get stuck on one side and you're hot and dry, the other cold and wet. We used to call these cold and warm fronts and they'd sweep across the country, spreading the weather out. But lately, they look more like a goddamn standing wave and some place is getting repeatedly hammered, while some place else is bone dry.
2014-02-17 12:33:59 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: Scattershot: Yes: wasting a lot of money on a complete lie. The irony is that this lie was constructed to do two things:

1. Make money for corporations
2. Accrue political capital for the left

If the right engaged in this behavior, even on the same topic, the left would scream bloody murder about greedy capitalists and political shenanigans. But because the left packaged their lie in the bubble wrap known as the environment, that makes it ok.

So you are saying that scientists from around the world are involved in a grand conspiracy to help an American political party? And you actually believe this?? Seriously, you are so blinded by your politics that this actually seems like a reasonable position to take?


Don't forget, said conspiracy started in the 1800's. It's the Illuminati man.
2014-02-17 10:43:45 AM  
1 votes:

Notabunny: HighZoolander: But, but, I heard from people who hate Al Gore as the inventor of climate that the ever-changing climate can't change now!

I blame Al Gore. If he'd won the vote, we'd be doing something about this.


Yes: wasting a lot of money on a complete lie.  The irony is that this lie was constructed to do two things:

1.  Make money for corporations
2.  Accrue political capital for the left

If the right engaged in this behavior, even on the same topic, the left would scream bloody murder about greedy capitalists and political shenanigans.  But because the left packaged their lie in the bubble wrap known as the environment, that makes it ok.
2014-02-16 11:52:56 PM  
1 votes:
ccundiff: This dude is owning you guys. Even after he states he gets his data from here  http://www.jir.com/, y'all keep biting.  (The print version of, but still the same thing)

Where would you get information about what that organization finds absurd enough to satirize, in this case the hearings results?
2014-02-16 11:47:31 PM  
1 votes:
Not a single coment from the warmer crowd on my link about ocean dominance of the climate.
you folks are lame
2014-02-16 09:19:42 PM  
1 votes:
static.guim.co.uk
Comparison of the observed NASA temperature record (black) with temperature predictions from Dr. James Hansen's 1988 modeling study (red), and with my reconstructed temperature prediction by Dr. Richard Lindzen based on statements from his talk at MIT in 1989 (blue). Hansen's Scenario B projection has been adjusted to reflect the actual observed greenhouse gas concentrations since 1988.

How do Lindzen and The Weekly Standard justify dismissing the 97 percent expert climate consensus? With conspiracy theories, of course.

"[Lindzen] says it mostly comes down to the money-to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open."

Lindzen would have us believe that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world are all tossing their ethics aside and falsifying data in order to keep the research money flowing, even though contrarian climate scientists like Lindzen have had no trouble obtaining government research grants. Is this more plausible than the alternative explanation that 97 percent of climate research is correct, and Lindzen, whose claims have consistently been disproved by observational data, is wrong?


Puffing Lindzen
2014-02-16 09:09:00 PM  
1 votes:

yakmans_dad: Do you know the difference between being wrong and lying? I just want to make sure.


Unfortunately the US Senate and environmentishy correct forces ensure that scientists must pretend to be certain - or "99% certain", even when those who at all understand statistics know that they aren't Cassandras. Is that lying?
2014-02-16 08:45:05 PM  
1 votes:
I would have figured it was because it's winter
2014-02-16 05:35:11 PM  
1 votes:
Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: Little problems with your doomsaying
It is not my "doomsaying". It is what the leading scientists in the field predict based on the evidence of what has already happened.


No, you're doomsaying based on your interpretation of what they predict representing disaster rather than opportunity.

SwiftFox: - Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain. There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!
Fertilizers will not help you grow wheat on the canadian shield. You're "aw shucks", from the gut "science" is no replacement for the evidence based science that real researcher do.


This isn't a case of "evidence based science".  It's a case of you picking one area. Wheat-appropriate soil notwithstanding, there'll be a lot more hay and cattle in the clay regions where they are produced now given a longer growing season.  And high-latitude, long summer days. Note, of course, that the fertilizers are a fact of life in all modern farming.

SwiftFox: The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise
Yes, a hypothesis based on evidence. This is how science works. You can deny it all you want ... the thing about science is that it doesn't care what you think or what your politics are.


A hypothesis based on the conclusion that water will magically appear from nowhere to replace that lost to deposits in still-cold, now wetter regions.  You can deny it all you want. Yep, science won't care.  Those spreading your BS do.

SwiftFox: Politically, to preserve their jobs they seem to have to take the "it will be a disaster" stance.
Ahh here it is. The idiotic "all scientists are lying to get juicy grants" crap. I knew your politics would show up eventually.

Anti-science people like you are trying to drag us back to the dark ages.


Not lying. Just not saying that which will cause a tide of idiots to arise, demanding they be fired for actually advocating dealing with the climate change which will occur rather than supporting those who don't. "97% consensus" against being skeptical is a blaring alarm bell, and not in favor of scientific inquiry.
2014-02-16 05:10:48 PM  
1 votes:
I wonder how long people will freak out over every season. Probably til they get older and realize its a fluctuating pattern. But then there will be more college kids getting scared by older people on TV.
2014-02-16 05:07:09 PM  
1 votes:
This isn't an unusual winter, it's a normal winter.
2014-02-16 05:03:42 PM  
1 votes:

SwiftFox: Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.

Little problems with your doomsaying:
- Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain.  There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!

- Perhaps the Alpine Screw-tailed Marmot that only lives at high altitudes in already warm (at lower levels) regions will be blocked from finding more northerly mountains to live on, but "unable to migrate fast enough" isn't going to be common at the rate of climate change occurring, that is as stupid as blaming a particular winter on GCC or belittling GCC based on one.

- The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise, given the possibility of more precipitation at Greenland's ice cap altitude and in Antarctica) and changes will similarly be glacial (no pun intended) compared to the ability of man to build and adapt, or the financial impact of the infrastructure aging and having to be replaced. ...


Climate myth #3 "It's not bad
2014-02-16 05:03:31 PM  
1 votes:

SwiftFox: Little problems with your doomsaying

It is not my "doomsaying". It is what the leading scientists in the field predict based on the evidence of what has already happened.

SwiftFox: - Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain. There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!

Fertilizers will not help you grow wheat on the canadian shield. You're "aw shucks", from the gut "science" is no replacement for the evidence based science that real researcher do.

SwiftFox: The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise

Yes, a hypothesis based on evidence. This is how science works. You can deny it all you want ... the thing about science is that it doesn't care what you think or what your politics are.

SwiftFox: Politically, to preserve their jobs they seem to have to take the "it will be a disaster" stance.

Ahh here it is. The idiotic "all scientists are lying to get juicy grants" crap. I knew your politics would show up eventually.

Anti-science people like you are trying to drag us back to the dark ages.
2014-02-16 05:00:54 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: SwiftFox: Prehistoric evidence indicates that warm periods have always been golden ages for those living

Who told you this?




Denialist blogs.
2014-02-16 04:38:49 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.


Little problems with your doomsaying:
- Yes, there are regions with poor soil which will get more rain.  There isn't that much land with "no soil". Gosh, they'll have to use fertilizers!

- Perhaps the Alpine Screw-tailed Marmot that only lives at high altitudes in already warm (at lower levels) regions will be blocked from finding more northerly mountains to live on, but "unable to migrate fast enough" isn't going to be common at the rate of climate change occurring, that is as stupid as blaming a particular winter on GCC or belittling GCC based on one.

- The "loss of coastline infrastructure" is merely a hypothesis that sea levels will rise, given the possibility of more precipitation at Greenland's ice cap altitude and in Antarctica) and changes will similarly be glacial (no pun intended) compared to the ability of man to build and adapt, or the financial impact of the infrastructure aging and having to be replaced. "Population shifts" taking advantage of the new climate could be good or bad overall, this is the "change must be bad" assumption I was pointing out. I would compare your "many more" prophesied "negative effects" to many more possible positive effects.

- "infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas" - wow, you're really reaching on this one.  You think railroads can't be built and silos erected as fast as the change is occurring enough? Silly as shiat, that one.

At this point the scientists have gotten the message.  Politically, to preserve their jobs they seem to have to take the "it will be a disaster" stance. At least keep their mouth shut and let people like you blow things like  "population shifts" and "replacing infrastructure" (which must be done anyway) into something so disastrous that any attempt to mitigate or take advantage of the opportunity is attacked as, incredibly, not addressing the problem and somehow supporting climate change deniers.
2014-02-16 04:26:24 PM  
1 votes:
PDO
AMO
look them up
2014-02-16 04:12:12 PM  
1 votes:
Oh blah, climate scientist are probably all failed physicists, chemists, etc. probably even meteorologists.
2014-02-16 03:35:39 PM  
1 votes:

SwiftFox: I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.


Of course you are frustrated.

You have not read the extensive library of scientific papers on this exact topic and have decided that you've thought of something that nobody else has. Sitting by your mailbox day after day waiting for your Nobel prize cheque must get very frustrating.

The scientists that have looked into this see problems with your alleged golden age. Little things like:
- no soil in the new growing regions - apparently you need more than just the right temperature
- massive loss of species of flora and fauna that are unable to migrate fast enough
- loss of coastline infrastructure causing massive financial impact, population shifts, and many more negative impacts
- the infrastructure shift to move all the food grown in new areas

You keep waiting on your Nobel prize. Someday they'll recognize your brilliance.
2014-02-16 03:21:19 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.

A common denier lie.

The term Climate Change is commonly used in the scientific literature back in the 1970s (here is a reference from 1956). It is a correct term which describes some of the impact of Global Warming. The terms Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are still in common use. There has been no substitution.

The term Climate Change became more common during the G.W. Bush administration when they finally decided to admit that the average planetary temperature was rising but decided to set a policy to use the term Climate Change because they felt it was less scary.

Repeating denier lies makes you look like an idiot.

More details


I'm frustrated by the idiocy of people assuming global climate change means disaster, or overall negative effects for mankind, which is as absurd as denying the increase in anthropogenic CO2 levels.  Prehistoric evidence indicates that warm periods have always been golden ages for those living then compared to cooler times before or after, an unalloyed boon to human survival, the development of agriculture, and civilization.

Still people pick out the likely fact that things will change and expect everyone to act as though Virginia orange juice and Iowa cotton and a Siberian breadbasket to the world would be horrible.

Act as though vastly rising sea levels are inevitable when Greenland and Antarctica are already assumed to be receiving more snowfall (see your own linked map), Greenland's ice cap being too high altitude and Antarctica too cold, warming or not, to likely do anything but accumulate ice. Ignore those big "more rainfall" regions and the lushness that warmth plus water will result in, because they aren't agriculturally usable now as they will be when it becomes drier in other regions.

It's like acting as if the major impact of penicillin is uncounted deaths from accidental allergic reactions.  It's time to begin determining how we will adapt to and gain benefits from this opportunity, not pretend that not doing so will somehow magically stop it.
2014-02-16 03:09:01 PM  
1 votes:

Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.


The first known use of the term "Global Warming" came 20 years after the first known use of "Climate Change". Stop repeating lies.
2014-02-16 02:54:24 PM  
1 votes:

Lee451: We had over a foot of snow last week and the one thing that surprised me the most was that I only saw 1 kid playing in it and he was on an ATV. No sledding, no snowball fights and the only snowman was created by my niece and her daughter. When I was a kid we did all of those things, my father used a tractor to make the snow into a giant "fort" we could play in. As I got a little older there were bonfires, night sledding and usually a fifth that someone "borrowed" from their dad's liquor cabinet.

/I guess today's little snowflakes are frightened by a few wet snowflakes.


My father and I were just complaining about this the other day, and we both realized...if we had Xboxen when we were children, we damned sure wouldn't have been out in the snow, either.
2014-02-16 02:40:55 PM  
1 votes:

Gentoolive: I like the jargon change from global warming to climate change. Guess we gotta make sure we keep a crisis going.


There has been no jargon change - Global warming and climate change are different things and we are talking about different things. Global warming is when the temperature, averaged over the whole planet, over the whole year goes up from one year to the next, or has an upward trend. This is a GLOBAL value. Climate change is when the long term weather patterns (and thus the plants and animals that can survive there) in a specific area changes. This is a LOCAL variable. Global warming drives climate change.

Being ignorant and not learning the vocabulary before you talk only makes you look stupid. It doesn't hurt Al Gore at all.
2014-02-16 02:30:02 PM  
1 votes:
This is not a long winter. It's an unusually cold and snowy winter in a lot of the country, but it's not actually longer than usual.
2014-02-16 01:56:22 PM  
1 votes:

MemeSlave: The winter isn't long, the winter is winter.   It's winter until March 21 or so.   Snow falls in winter.   Is our cultural memory so short that we don't remember previous epic winters?


Last year, especially late winter, sucked too. Same pattern. I went back and did some rough (anecdotal, really) analysis using weather station plots from the last thirty years or so of winters and I could not find a prolonged, stationary setup like this. And certainly not twice within 12 months.
2014-02-16 01:56:08 PM  
1 votes:

ZoSo_the_Crowe: If current weather patterns are really part of a long-term shift then this will have horrific ramifications on America's food supply, as the current weather pattern is drought in the San Joaquin Valley.


This pattern also results in a "Pineapple Express" stream of moisture from around Hawaii which has in the past been known to cause flooding, rather than drought. In 1850 one of these things destroyed a quarter of the taxable property, and after drowning 200,000 cattle the state switched over permanently from ranching to farming.

I wouldn't be surprised if a couple decades from now the climate will simply have shifted to one where California is dependent on the summer monsoons to water a real pineapple crop.
2014-02-16 01:53:22 PM  
1 votes:
The winter isn't long, the winter is winter.   It's winter until March 21 or so.   Snow falls in winter.   Is our cultural memory so short that we don't remember previous epic winters?
2014-02-16 01:38:17 PM  
1 votes:
Long winter? We had a month of fall and then skipped directly to late spring.

/Californian
2014-02-16 01:30:29 PM  
1 votes:
You know what else the "long" winter can be blamed on?  It's farking February.
2014-02-16 01:30:00 PM  
1 votes:
When are climatologists going to throw up their arms and just say "We don't know what the fark is going on"?
2014-02-16 01:26:21 PM  
1 votes:
so if anything happens, you can blubber about global warming  climate change  climate instability

/ climate instability
// that's the ticket
2014-02-16 01:24:40 PM  
1 votes:
Looking forward to a debate on Meet the Press over whether or not there is a Jet Stream.
2014-02-16 01:20:42 PM  
1 votes:
It's been great for Colorado. Spectacular snow year.
2014-02-16 01:13:36 PM  
1 votes:
Change.
Things change.
Like climate and weather.
2014-02-16 12:16:46 PM  
1 votes:
Well, as a positive benefit on climate change, this winter has been absolutely beautiful in FL this year.  We've had a few nice chilly days to remind us that different seasons exist, but it hasn't dipped below freezing (well, at least here) to endanger any of the landscaping or crops.

Plus, my AC has had to run a lot less.  My electric bill was only $45 last month, that's a little more than half of the normal winter level and a fifth of the normal summer level.

Of course, the downside is if this shiat keeps up eventually the ice caps are going to melt and my house is going to be under water, so hopefully the storms up north keep driving folks south so I can sell it for a nice profit and move to a higher elevation before that happens.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report