Of course, it fails to actually state what is causing the cold snaps
(Weather Channel) After a brutal winter that left parts of the country buried in record-breaking snow, many were looking for a culprit to blame.
According to a new study, climate change might be off the table as the reason when it comes to the unusually harsh winters we’ve seen in recent years.
A team of scientists from Swiss university ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology say that, contrary to previous scientific thought, climate change doesn’t cause cold snaps.
The study, published in the Journal of Climate, overturns the previous hypothesis that rising temperatures in the Arctic weaken the polar jet stream, which in turn leads to higher temperature variability and harsher winter seasons.
Rather, the scientists say, a warmer climate will mean a lower range of temperature fluctuation and increasingly rare cold snaps. The team used climate simulations and “theoretical arguments” to back their statements.
Huh. So, warming (despite an 18+ year Pause) isn’t causing cold. Go figure. But, hey, it will cause “a lower ranger of temp fluctuations” in the future and cold snaps will be rare. Per their “models”. Strange how the real world seems to always create contradictions. We even get “In theory there would no longer be any temperature variability.” So, Canada will have the same temps as Barbados.
Let’s be clear on one thing: this could happen. They could be correct. However, the debate is not about results, but causation.
Oops, Ben Santer showed that there isn’t any significant warming since 1993:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html
Cue little jeffy.
That looks pretty “sciency”!
Can you help us out and explain the methods and results of what they did?
Here’s a help. Here’s what RSS says about their TLT measurements: TLT is a more complex data set constructed by calculating a weighted difference between measurements made at different Earth incidence angles to extrapolate MSU channel 2 and AMSU channel 5 measurements lower in the atmosphere.
So what was Dr. Santer measuring exactly? In the “raw” TLT data (fig 1a) do you see the big dip about 1992-1993 and a big peak in 1998. I think they mathematically modeled in fig 1b and 1c to eliminate the effects of volcanic aerosols and ENSO. If I remember correctly that dip in 1992-1993 was attributed to Mt. Pinatubo’s release of aerosols causing some cooling. And 1998 was a whopper of an El Nino where the Pacific gave up lots of heat to the atmosphere. When they subtracted those effects they ended up with figure 1c, which shows no warming after the early 90s for the TLT measurements.
Will you please explain TLT measurements to us? Where is it measured? And how? Thanks.
Thermometers on the Earth’s surface showed warming over that same time period.
Maybe you should ask Ben Santer if it’s still not clear to you.
Dr. Santer didn’t post it here, did he?
But I understand why you answered as you did.
On cue, the cult members leap to defend their cult by appealing to the authority of their cult leader’s heavily doctored “data”.
Exactly like Tom Cruise yelling that psychiatry is a sham because the Truth can only be found via auditing sessions using The Two Cans and an ohmmeter.
JGlanton,
Thanks. Can you explain what was described in the Santer paper that dp brought up?
What do you mean by this??
That’s an interesting analogy to something. Can you relate it in even a small way to climate science or did you comment in the wrong post?