Climate crisis may be increasing jet stream turbulence, study finds
 

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

​​​​

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.

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

http://www.iata.org/events/Documents...ate-change.pdf

Sincerely.

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".

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

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.

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.

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!

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..

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

Actually an interesting idea
 

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

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

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!

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.

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.

In the opening post of this thread.

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

So, which is it?

@Timmy Tomkins
 

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.

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 ****.

Evidence? What Evidence?
 

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.

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 :}

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."

Weather Constant
 

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