Climate crisis may be increasing jet stream turbulence, study finds

[PAXboy]

Researchers say previous studies of the speed and location of the fastest part of the north Atlantic jet stream have found only small changes over time, although there are signs it is slowly shifting northward. Experts say the lack of dramatic alterations is because climate change produces competing effects at different altitudes.

The latest study, however, took a different approach. “Just because the speed isn’t changing, doesn’t mean the jet stream isn’t changing in other ways,” said Prof Paul Williams of the University of Reading, the lead author of the research.

His study, published in the journal Nature, looked at the change in wind speed with height, known as vertical shear. “The higher up you go, the windier it gets,” he said. Using three different datasets based on satellite observations, the team say they identified a 15% increase in vertical shear between 1979 and 2017, consistent with what would be expected from climate change.

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/08/climate-crisis-may-be-increasing-jet-stream-turbulence-study-finds)

[oceancrosser]

...consistent with what would be expected from climate change.

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/08/climate-crisis-may-be-increasing-jet-stream-turbulence-study-finds)

How did they figure out that consistency?

[PAXboy]

I posted the article and quoted directly as I wanted to see if there was any real world experience reported here. It might be that some folk will say that they have noticed these effects, or, may now watch out for them. I considered the likely reaction before posting.

[qwertyuiop]

I say bollox!
would like to say more but bollox just about sums up this climate horse ****e.

[BEA 71]

I say bollox!
would like to say more but bollox just about sums up this climate horse ****e.

Thank you. This statement is the best I have read so far.

[Strimmerdriver]

I started flying across the pond in 96, the difference i see between now and then is that the jets tend to be snake like rather than an arc. Thus, you cross more areas of different wind conditions therefore more turbulence.

As to the cause of the changing jets, I blame airline management.

[Atlas Shrugged]

It might be that some folk will say that they have noticed these effects, or, may now watch out for them.

Noticable??????? 0.0004% - or whatever it is - of the earths atmosphere... FFS! :ugh:

[RickNRoll]

So the addition of 0.01% of CO2 to the atmosphere causes a 15% increase in vertical shear? Is there anything that CO2 cannot do?

dg

If you do not undestand science that is not anyone else's problem, it is your problem.

[RickNRoll]

How did they figure out that consistency?

There is more energy in the atmosphere since the temperature is rising. Since most of the world interacts with the atmosphere on a daily basis then most of the world is going to be affected in various ways.

[RickNRoll]

Noticable??????? 0.0004% - or whatever it is - of the earths atmosphere... FFS! :ugh:

It's physics. The same thing that keeps a plane in the air.

[Raffles S.A.]

This just goes to prove that "climate change" is a big scam. Sure it's happening but man doesn't stand a snowball's hope in hell of doing much about it, although the arrogant fraudsters are trying to scam the masses into believing that they can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzZQHRjn8_Q

[Rated De]

‘In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is’

-Benjamin Brewster 1882


Whether or not CO2 production is responsible for the climate variation we are witnessing, or simply it is the cycle doing what cycles do, it is not relevant.
What is relevant is that in practice, governments ever aware of new sources of revenue are realising that "carbon budgets" could well be nice little earners.

[rob_ginger]

I like to compare climate change with fire insurance - most people have fire insurance on their house because they *really* don't think it's going to burn down. BUT, the financial risk is so great you can't afford to chance it and the cost of insurance isn't that great. Same with climate change - most of the world's scientists say there's something to worry about, so I say let's take out some insurance. Maybe it's a waste of money - but the consequences if the scientists are right are pretty dire, so it's worth insuring against it.

But unfortunately climate change deniers are not rational....

[Timmy Tomkins]

This is your opinion and "Most of the worlds scientists" is something you have just spouted off the top of your head and cannot even hope to prove and then of course you had to get the nasty little dig in at the end eh?

I have read quite a lot on this subject and listened to many interviews with scientists who specialise in climate and related areas. I can't recall any who say man made climate change is bollox.

[Hotel Tango]

Climate has never been a stable entity since day 1. Climate has changed constantly over the centuries and did so long before man could be held accountable for those changes. So forgive me if I remain unconvinced that we, the human race are the catalysts.

[777Nine]

There is no denying that man in the modern era has contributed to CO2 emissions which have heated up the earth, and most scientists agree on this point.

What they all can't agree on is to say it's the sole reason for climate change, and unfortunately too many people have run with it and made what they want out of it.

​​​​

[RickNRoll]

Climate has never been a stable entity since day 1. Climate has changed constantly over the centuries and did so long before man could be held accountable for those changes. So forgive me if I remain unconvinced that we, the human race are the catalysts.

The state of science these days is such that scientists can attribute the reason for the current change. Much as they can send a rocket to the moon or invent modern materials or discover the Higgs Bosun. The reason for the change is beyond resonable doubt.

There is the IPCC reports are the result of collaboration between scientists around the world. The worlds peak science bodies agree with it. I have read some of them and they make sense to me to my ability to understand it.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

The scientist doubters are a rag tag bunch that are slowly dying out. Much as those who never accepted relativity died off. Climate science is taught in Universities around the globe that is consistent with the IPCC reports.

[aixois]

I say bollox! would like to say more but bollox just about sums up this climate horse ****e.

Below you have a survey of IATA statement on climate change :

www.iata.org/events/Documents/sfo2019-day3-climate-change.pdf

Sincerely.

[Hotel Tango]

RickNRoll, you believe what you want to mate, it's your right. Scientists have also been known to change their minds as time goes by. There's plenty of evidence of that too. I'll stick to my personal deduction: "climate changes and always will no matter what".

[SOPS]

First it was global warming. Then it’s was climate change. And now it’s a climate crisis? Spare me.

[172_driver]

How about we just stuck to what we're good at, such as driving planes? :ok:

[JCviggen]

RickNRoll, you believe what you want to mate, it's your right. Scientists have also been known to change their minds as time goes by. There's plenty of evidence of that too.

Quite. They usually refine and improve theories and predictions to become more accurate a time goes on.

[megan]

I'd just like to know why those flogging the global warming message (eg Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio) have no concern for their own carbon footprint, just had Al in Oz preaching the message and travelling in his private jet, as does Leonardo, Europe to the US in a private jet to collect a prize for his global warming work. And you wonder why some in the populace are sceptical about the message they broadcast.

[oggers]

RickNRoll, you believe what you want to mate, it's your right. Scientists have also been known to change their minds as time goes by. There's plenty of evidence of that too. I'll stick to my personal deduction: "climate changes and always will no matter what".

the climate has always changed

[OldnGrounded]

I'd just like to know why those flogging the global warming message (eg Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio) have no concern for their own carbon footprint, just had Al in Oz preaching the message and travelling in his private jet, as does Leonardo, Europe to the US in a private jet to collect a prize for his global warming work. And you wonder why some in the populace are sceptical about the message they broadcast.

That's a classic example of the ad hominem logical fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem)

[Timmy Tomkins]

Climate has never been a stable entity since day 1. Climate has changed constantly over the centuries and did so long before man could be held accountable for those changes. So forgive me if I remain unconvinced that we, the human race are the catalysts.

The stats are out there; take a look. The graph of increasing global temps starts soon after WW2 and just climbs, more or less in a stright line. Before then there were fluctuations up & down for various reasons (sun spots etc) but in the ast 70 years it's only gone one way. Seems clear enough.

[Reluctant Bus Driver]

Total non sense. If there is an orginazation thats needs to be put to death it's the IPCC and all their little troll followers that write stuff like that. Pretty soon they will say that flatulence and breathing are threats to climate. Enough is enough. Wake up people!

[Reluctant Bus Driver]

The stats are out there; take a look. The graph of increasing global temps starts soon after WW2 and just climbs, more or less in a stright line. Before then there were fluctuations up & down for various reasons (sun spots etc) but in the ast 70 years it's only gone one way. Seems clear enough.

Not true. Temp and C02 historically have not correlated. Nor in the last 20 years. Quite the opposite in fact..Just one of the many smoking guns against serious AGW is that after glacial periods temperature rose first and Co2 followed 800 years later. In addition, during our own Interglacial, there have been 4-5 warm periods above what we are experiencing now with less CO2. The current interglacial is also cooler than the 4 previous ones with more C02. On and on the evidence piles up but the theory lives on due to never ending funding regardless how rediculuos the claims become...Religion masquerading as science..

[Hotel Tango]

Guys, don't waste your time trying to convert me, I won't change my mind on this very exaggerated issue! ;)

[20driver]

I posted the article and quoted directly as I wanted to see if there was any real world experience reported here. It might be that some folk will say that they have noticed these effects, or, may now watch out for them. I considered the likely reaction before posting.
I wonder how far back digital flight data goes and what flight parameters might be proxies, trim movement? I am guessing there might be some current DFR data might have something relevant but nothing going back 30-40 years which is what you would need.
I a lot of respects I put more credibility into observed and measured impacts that the theory.
20driver

[Water pilot]

I don't think that many here (including myself) have the technical background to discuss the physics of a very complex subject like climate change, but anybody around my neck of the woods can see the effects of climate change simply by walking to one of our nearby glaciers. They have retreated within human memory. Places that were covered with ice year-round when my parents went hiking are now ice free in summer. This is aside from other data, such as Seattle regularly setting temperature records.

Old panoramic photos show glacier retreat around Mt Ranier (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/see-how-mount-rainier-glaciers-have-vanished-over-time-with-this-eye-opening-photo-project/)

But on the other hand, the ice cream in my freezer is frozen and it still snows in the winter, so climate change is a hoax!

[SARF]

Unless I missed it the old photos don’t have dates on them. Just the year..
Also for a proper comparison the new ones should be in that weedy 1930’s black and white as well..
The difference is fairly minimal. And as for the third one. I’ve seen changes like that on a days sking in April Which of course I went to on foot after my container ship ride to the continent

[VFR Only Please]

Climate has never been a stable entity since day 1. Climate has changed constantly over the centuries and did so long before man could be held accountable for those changes.

Beautifully crafted strawman. Who said that climate doesn't change all the time?
But to paraphrase 777Nine, what a strange thing that this (sudden massive Arctic melt, whatever) is happening on a Gargantuan Scale just after the Industrial Revolution and an unprecedented population explosion. Mighty coincidental.

First it was global warming. Then it’s was climate change. And now it’s a climate crisis? Spare me.

Don't worry. It's probably too late already.

Water pilot makes an excellent point. Same stark evidence where I live -- a wide continent and an ocean away. When I first moved to these parts four decades ago, you could go up to the Mont Blanc glacier on the ancient cog railway and amble down to the thing. Since then they've had to build a freaking cable car from the station up there down to the glacier, then it kept retreating so now it's additional metal stairways every year. (Only the fittest survive the climb back up.) And they've conscientiously painted each year of the retreat on the bare rock. Pretty graphic.
Again ---- funny old case of synchronicity that this should be happening just now in this era of truly massive consumption of fossil fuels. SUCH a coincidence.

Anyway, to the thread topic, I haven't a clue, and whoever said probably none of us can speak with authority on this is certainly right. Though generally speaking, more energy in the system (extreme weather) would make more turbulence unsurprising, I suppose.

What I've read is that the jet stream is generally weakening because what drives it is the stark interface between arctic and tropical air masses. When the Arctic was all frozen up, the air above it was Cold, collapsed in on itself. So the atmosphere (let's say troposphere) there was compact. Contrast this with the tropics, where the sun drives everything to tremendous heights. So there was always a slope downwards from equator to pole (Why else would wind want to blow north in the northern hemisphere, Coriolis notwithstanding)?

Now, with rapidly heating poles (bare, radiation-absorbing rock instead of reflecting ice) you have the "ice-albedo positive feedback loop" that is the lifting upper limit of the polar troposphere and flattening the slope. The jet stream is weakening and starting to meander, like the stream from a garden hose with the water pressure radically reduced. So it meanders down south in eastern North America in winter and you have -40° in Chicago (and the climate-deniers say "See?!? What'd I tell ya!!") and then meanders north last month, bringing tropical air to Alert, a Canadian military base and the world's most northerly settlement. They had temperatures in the mid-20s celsius, whereas usually they're lucky to get much above 5° in July.

That's what I've read, anyway.

[Hotel Tango]

The latest study, however, took a different approach. “Just because the speed isn’t changing, doesn’t mean the jet stream isn’t changing in other ways,” said Prof Paul Williams of the University of Reading, the lead author of the research.

In the opening post of this thread.

What I've read is that the jet stream is generally weakening because what drives it is the stark interface between arctic and tropical air masses.

According to VFR Only Please from what he's read.

So, which is it?

[CHfour]

I have read quite a lot on this subject and listened to many interviews with scientists who specialise in climate and related areas. I can't recall any who say man made climate change is bollox

Really? I think you need to read some more then. Here are 3 to get you started. Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Patrick Michaels, Prof. Ivar Giaever. You won't see them on the mainstream media though as they're off message.

[OPENDOOR]

When the next climate change/crisis summit is attended by people using virtual reality headsets only rather than a Gulfstream or Phenom I might just, possibly, start to listen to these clowns. Until then stop taking the ****.

[swordfish41]

Really? I think you need to read some more then. Here are 3 to get you started. Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Patrick Michaels, Prof. Ivar Giaever. You won't see them on the mainstream media though as they're off message.

Prof Giaever, like some others on this thread denies that temperatures are rising at all. There are quotes from him saying "It is amazing how static temperatures have been over the past 150 years." So it's just not happening. Others say that it is happening but its not caused by anything that man is doing. The United States Navy has its own view, and I commend their document http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf for everybody to read. I am not sure where this puts Prof Giaever's opinions.

[PAXboy]

Gosh, even stronger reaction than I expected! However, it doesn't matter what we think as the climate change - however driven - is upon us and the next 50 years will be interesting for our children and grandchildren.

The chances of changing the behaviour of mankind across the planet and reducing dependence on fossil fuels is Zero. As the fuel runs out, people will take that problem seriously but the climate change will have happened. Now back to this outpost of JetBlast :}

[OldnGrounded]

The chances of changing the behaviour of mankind across the planet and reducing dependence on fossil fuels is Zero. As the fuel runs out, people will take that problem seriously but the climate change will have happened.

Indeed. The best available evidence suggests that civilization-threatening (at least) climate change is already baked into the atmosphere and the oceans. Given that humans are effectively incapable of taking the steps that would be needed to -- perhaps -- avert some of the very worst consequences, it's simply not worth arguing with the deniers.

As you indicate, the fuel crisis is going to, once again raise its ugly head, fairly soon, as well. We've had a few years of smug confidence as a result of a large, short-term increase in production of tight oil (and gas) as a result of fracking and horizontal drilling. That's not going to last much longer. Those who doubt that should try a bit of research beginning with googling "depletion rate of fracked wells."

[capngrog]

Weather changes constantly, and it will always be a topic of lively discussion. This thread is proof of that. Speaking of proof, it's about time for that evening cocktail.

Cheers,
Grog

[VFR Only Please]

(...) So, which is it?

Dunno. And of course I have no blessed memory of where I read that.

Instead, I found this brief thing (5 min.) on youtube by a meteorology prof at Rutgers, who makes much the same points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo

[Torquetalk]

“Air tends to want to flow downhill”

Not only is silly gumpf, it is completely off for the phenomena she wants to explain: It flows “downhill” because there is a massive area of laterally offset cooler air below. Come on, this is a pilots’ forum, how can you post this?

[fdr]

The exponential growth rate of humans over the last century followed industrialisation and increased food supplies at the same time as changes to the longevity of the population above prior levels. This has placed civilisation in the hot seat of being dependent on substantial levels of energy and the associated environmental effects of increased energy use.

40 years ago, we were talking about CO2 causing temperature changes, recent analysis strongly suggests that the CO2 emissions captured in samples lag, not lead temperature changes. That is an interesting quandary, but doesn't alter the fundamental problem civilisation faces.

Climate is in constant flux, and sadly, the romantic notions of Carson of there being a basic harmonious balance in nature doesn't look good in the data that exists. Climate is stochastic in it's behaviour, and non linear feedback is a real threat, with the potential to cause rapid change in conditions, and this itself is the real problem that civilisation faces. There is a natural rate of change that civilisation can accomodate; exceed those boundaries, and population collapse is a probable outcome. Human ingenuity alters the rate of change that can be accepted, however we have entered a curious stage of our own evolution, where the structure of the system we have established acts to regulate innovation even as the knowledge base underpinning development has expanded at unprecedented rates, and the ability to access knowledge has become extraordinary.

There is a short term expanding supply of hydrocarbon fuels that permits further expansion of the population, which increases the energy needs and places further pressure on food supply, and increases the pollutants and threat of disease that affects food supply, potable water, and increases the risk of pandemics. When(if...) we do finally achieve post peak on the Hubbert curve, the impact will be, well, interesting.

The fundamental assumptions of our society are problematic, growth that is unchecked is akin to cancer... not a good thing. Economic models assuming the need for continuous growth assume no limits exists in the system, and that is patently erroneous. Its going to be a surprise to get any unanimity in any forum that suggests that the direction and rate of change of population and economic activity or energy use needs to be changed. That's politically a 3rd rail.

So.. our climate is changing, as always. The rate that it is changing looks to be higher than historical rates excluding calamities. Anthropogenic or natural/external change causation is still argued while we dig a deeper hole in which to climb out of in due course; we are asking the wrong question. The only good news is that the response for defence of climate change is appropriate as a defence to the management of the rate of change of population and energy constraints. Business as usual is a recipe for a nasty surprise.

[White Knight]

Dunno really. Some flights no bumps. Some flights really bumpy! Like always!

[Smythe]

you believe what you want to mate, it's your right. Scientists have also been known to change their minds as time goes by.

remember when Thatcher used the 'scientific data" of the day, that showed the CO2 from the coal fired power plants contributed to global cooling?

Used that "scientific data" to bust the coal union and build nuclear power.

[RickNRoll]

The IPCC Data Distribution Centre. Knock yourself out.

DDC Home (http://www.ipcc-data.org/)

[VFR Only Please]

“Air tends to want to flow downhill”
Not only is silly gumpf, it is completely off for the phenomena she wants to explain: It flows “downhill” because there is a massive area of laterally offset cooler air below. Come on, this is a pilots’ forum, how can you post this?

Yeah, I suppose Prof. Francis dug her professorship out of a crackerjack box. So if the statement that air tends to want to flow downhill is "silly gumpf", perhaps you could explain why air pressure behaves the way it does.
This is a pilots' forum, and pilots learn their meteorology from meteorologists.

Have (glaciers) ever (melted) in the history of the earth?...appears it's changing...are WE causing it seems to be the discussion point, and there it gets murky...

See my post (33) about Mont Blanc, or ask any mountain person over, say, 60 and they'll tell you glaciers are melting down to near-nothing with gobsmacking swiftness. Now, has this ever before happened in planetary history? No doubt. But what a freaking coincidence that it just happens to be occurring right now when our species' population has exploded (after hundreds of thousands of years of perilously low levels) and we've just started pumping gargantuan quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I mean, it is a coincidence, right?

[Torquetalk]

Yeah, I suppose Prof. Francis dug her professorship out of a crackerjack box. So if the statement that air tends to want to flow downhill is "silly gumpf", perhaps you could explain why air pressure behaves the way it does.
This is a pilots' forum, and pilots learn their meteorology from meteorologist?

Well, I think I‘ll skip the air pressure explanation for all our sakes. And state my objection in other terms: The climate change debate is important. Unless that is, you are a convinced denier who wants to shout it down. I don’t doubt the erstwhile professor’s credentials, but I do doubt if trite explanations from an academic in a short video help support an argument that climate change is real and that human activity is the most significant contributory factor: Air tends to stay where it is unless there is a reason for it to move. It can move up, down or sideways. We know this and most of us are neither meteorologists or scientists.

[marsk]

Climate has never been a stable entity since day 1. Climate has changed constantly over the centuries and did so long before man could be held accountable for those changes. So forgive me if I remain unconvinced that we, the human race are the catalysts.

(Full disclosure: I am not a pilot, I'm an atmospheric scientist, and have been for 30 years. I'm not a "climate scientist", but I did do a few years of paleoclimatology in graduate school. My educational background is in math and physics).

It is correct that Earth's climate cannot generally be considered stable, even though for extended periods of time it actually has been just that. That does not mean that it changes randomly - it generally responds to things like variations in the Earth's orbital parameters (e.g.eccentricity, precession of the axis of rotation), major volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, and sometimes - in particular as concerns the chemical composition of the atmosphere - even to the presence of life on the planet. However, the question of intrinsic climate stability is in my opinion somewhat irrelevant to the topic. We humans are obviously not the catalysts for ALL climate change, but we are with near certainty the catalysts of some of it! So if we assume this is the case, how should it frame our actions?

Think of a river that sustains agriculture, and therefore life, in a vast area surrounding the lower part of its basin, but that has a nasty habit of fluctuating, sometimes almost drying out, at other times flooding with devastating consequences. This happens infrequently and unpredictably and is entirely due to natural causes - droughts, excessive rapid snow melt, near-stationary summer thunderstorms, slow-moving tropical cyclones, whatever. Now imagine a manager of a dam somewhere upstream with a past reservoir behind it that could be used to irrigate potential farmland the size of Oklahoma. Even though the river does whatever it does in its natural state, most people would probably agree that this manager does not have the right to neither suck the river dry, nor to flood the downstream areas by releasing excess amounts of water on a whim, just because "this could have happened anyway due to natural causes". The manager would be considered responsible for his actions and their consequences, regardless of the potential of nature to do even worse.

The fact that "climate has always been changing" does not negate the link between CO2 concentration and temperature, nor does it alleviate our responsibility for changing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. So should we, the human population, hold ourselves accountable for our actions and their environmental impact, the same way we would with the hypothetical dam manager? And more importantly, would this merit serious and potentially costly action? This to me is an issue of political or moral persuasion, and not one of science.

At the large scale the science is settled on this. Trust me, it is getting very, very difficult these days to find anyone with even a basic understanding of physics who is willing to contest the link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the rise in global temperature. The climate system is at one level incredibly complex, namely if you want to understand the details of locally prevailing weather and how that changes over time. At that level very substantial uncertainty remains. However, at sufficiently macroscopic level the climate system is remarkably simple. The link between CO2 concentration and global mean temperature was first quantitatively - and remarkably accurately - described by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, obviously without needing to rely on any of the massive progress made within atmospheric science in particular or physics in general over the last 125 years.

[PAXboy]

Wow! Thank you marsk for an informed view. Sadly, as I have said, the chances of mankind changing their ways is Zero. In the future, history books will be amazed that we knew all this and did nothing but human nature is what brought us to this point.

The early discussion about over population is also valid. Once again, nothing will change and large numbers of people will die (directly and indirectly) through flooding and heat that will remove food and habitat. As that is going on, millions will migrate to neighbouring countries to try and escape. This will be on a scale never seen before.

As to air travel? It will diminish as the world's population goes through this enormous crisis for which the words to describe it do not yet exist.

Right, back to life as normal - until it is no longer normal ...