There are two jet streams in the NH (which the image shows you).
Jet streams are not anomalous, jet streams a feature of the weather and is a constant, expected and ordinary.
It does not “drive” the weather, it is part of the weather. It is the difference between air masses that create the jet streams, not the other way around.
It is the difference between temperatures that create strong winds. Winter has a huge difference between polar and equator, hence strong jet streams.
We should probably keep this within the context of the Arctic Oscillation. We just happen to be in a “negative” phase right now, someday we’ll experience the “positive” phase.
I’d like to look at the average polar jet stream, and if I understand Try2B Comprehensive correctly, then this average position will move to a more southerly position. My question is what would the effect be on the Horse Latitudes, another of the convergence zones in our atmosphere. Would this also be pushed further south? I’m thinking a more energetic atmosphere would be pushing this further north, expanding the tropic climate zone. Combine the two and we have to narrow the temperate climate zone.
My problem with this scenario is that the tropics are far more energetic (per unit volume) than the poles. The extra energy naturally flows from areas of higher concentration to areas of lower concentration, and this is what sets up these convective cells in our atmosphere to begin with, energy flowing from the tropics to the poles.
We need energy collecting at the poles at a faster rate than it’s collecting in the tropics AND we need to be able to assign this mechanic to man’s activities. The extra CO[sub]2[/sub] is our villain, but how to we collect it at the poles and thin it out at the equator?
Two different issues. The CO2 distribution is likely to be fairly even (although I am not a climate scientist and am not sure.) It will certainly start out higher over the industrialized centers of population, but will diffuse outward from that readily. There is no need for CO2 to concentrate at the poles.
All the CO2 does is trap heat. Globally. Anywhere and everywhere.
This HEAT is what migrates preferentially, because of the large-scale convection cells of the earth’s seas and skies. Entirely different mechanism.
It’s pretty well mixed, and despite the seasonal fluctuations, it averages out. Near sources of CO2 it can actually be very high, like 800 ppm, and in active forest regions very low. I’ve read a growing field of corn will use up all available CO2 at groundf level in about 5 minutes, so with out convection and constant mixing, plants couldn’t actually live. Despite being heavier than air, CO2 is well mixed in the troposphere.
So you don’t think warmer air will rise faster? I’m pretty sure this is a gradient function, meaning the greater the difference, the greater the forces involved. Alternately, are you saying that whatever energy increase there may or may not be would equally distributed around the globe, thus this gradient would remain unchanged.
Extra credit: Would any difference in the average position of these convergence zones be less than 1% an average fluctuation, thus making this discussion moot?
But it’s not based on a single data point; global warming and its accompanying climate changes are based on innumerable data points, and even proxy data support the position.
I looked over some of these “alleged” data points, 106ºF for an all-time record high is actually a little low compared to neighboring communities (Macon, GA, sports a record 108ºF). Funny thing is that these temperatures are perfectly normal and totally expected in Atlanta’s current climate.
Here’s the funny part in case you’re wondering, Atlanta’s climate is based on three factors:
Å] Latitude - at 34ºN, Atlanta is in the Temperate Zone. Sure this changes all the time, albeit very very very very slowly,
ı] Continental - Atlanta is located on the eastern part of a large continent, I’m afraid you’ll have to wait until everything west of Memphis dissolves and evaporates first, a few billions years until that changes, and
Ç] Gulf of Mexico - Atlanta has a rather large body of water to her south, and this is probably the single most important factor to defining her climate. This is where all the humidity comes from. Shocking as this sounds, humidity is as important to climate as temperature.
As you can see, temperature isn’t even considered for Atlanta’s climate. It can be as hot as it can be in summer and the climate for Atlanta will remain exactly the same, it’s supposed to be hot and muggy, why the hell would anyone get alarmed when it’s hot and muggy in Atlanta?
These are all geologic conditions that establish Atlanta’s climate, and they will change, however these changes occur over geologic time scales. To change Atlanta’s climate we’ll have to fill in the Gulf of Mexico with the Rocky Mountains, and that would only spread the rainfall out over the entire year. Shocking as this sounds, precipitation is as important to climate as temperature, and it’ll still be hot and muggy (poor bastards).
Well for one thing, because if it’s already uncomfortably hot and muggy, it’s going to be even more uncomfortable if the temperature rises. I agree with you that a single record temperature here and there is nothing to be alarmed about, even if the record is broken in the same city twice or three times within the span of a few years - warm trends can occur.
The problem, however, is not that the warming trend is occurring, but that scientists already know why the warming trend is occurring. It’s not just a random event, but a widely predicted one.
And that even is not just occurring in Atlanta or the Southeastern United States, but all over the planet. And we’re seeing a warming trend that is occurring unnaturally fast. Sure, even 110 in Atlanta, while uncomfortable, may not even be all that remarkable. It’s Atlanta, after all. But if we see 112 two years from now, and 114 a few years later, and 115 in 2020…then we have something to talk about.
Meanwhile, weather patterns are effected by the dispersal of energy (heat). Jet stream flows are affected, with some regions of a country getting unusual amounts of precipitation on one hand and other regions getting almost nothing on the other. We’re seeing this now, in fact. A drought in California - even a fifteen year one at that - may be just another drought, and just the crap end of the climate lottery. But it’s not just California. It’s accompanied by unusually wet weather in states like Pennsylvania. And unusually hot summer days in London and Paris. And extreme heat in Australia and Iran.
I have a feeling you’re about to be introduced to my dear friend[sup][/sup] and extremely talented rhetorician[sup][/sup], FXMastermind. He’s one of the more skilled trolls here[sup][/sup], and I believe you’ll find that in conversation with him, the very word “conversation” can become a very…fluid term.
Enjoy, I guess?
[sup][/sup]Not true.
[sup][/sup]Quite true.
[sup][/sup]Entirely true, and I love him for it.[sup][/sup]
[sup][/sup]Not true.
I don’t doubt the warming tread, but that doesn’t automatically mean climate is changing. I’m just pointing out a particular location where higher average temperatures doesn’t change it’s climate in the least. There’s nothing about 120ºF temps at will make the rains stop in summer, nothing to stop Arctic air intrusions on occasion in winter. Climate here has more to do with geography than temperature.
+7ºF increase in average global temperatures in 5 years is kinda on the fringe of available estimates. 7ºF in 100 years would be serious if nothing bad happens due to the extraction of the material.
Emphases mine
These words I’ve highlighted above are not well defined in this context. Weather and climate data is notoriously “noisy”, individual points in the data set can and usually are quite removed from the average. There’s nothing unusual about how dry it is in California right now, it was this dry in 1978. The difference is the millions upon millions of acres now planted in water-intensive crops, yeah, they’re all dead now, duh.
Breaking all time record highs in completely normal in a period of global warming, nothing to be alarmed about.
I’m skeptical of this claim, and I can demonstrate my skepticism with a couple questions:
Do scientists know what caused global surface temperatures to increase from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries? If so, what is it and how do you know?
How do scientists know that the same cause is not responsible for a significant part of the warming in the late 20th and early 21st centuries?
Unless you have good answers for both of these questions, then you cannot claim with confidence that you or anyone else knows the cause of recent warming. (Edit: One can, of course, be reasonably confident, that some of it has been caused by mankind’s activities.)
There is no warming trend for Atlanta, or Georgia. There is no warming trend occurring there, fast or in any other way.
This is a hard fact, not even in dispute by any of the reputable data. Even with massive adjustments to the past readings, Georgia sits firmly in what is described as “the warming hole”. A strange name, because it means the area that shows cooling, not warming.
It’s understandable that most people know nothing about it, evidenced multiple times in this here topic. I’ve mentioned it, and sourced it, many times, but it won’t matter. Facts are the last thing that seem to matter in regards to global warming. Or climate change.
It’s about as hard science as you will find, the data on Georgia and the rest of the hole.
So the all time record low Tmax and Tmin recorded in 2013 actually fits a long term trend, it’s not an anomaly in fact. This is considered a scientific fact by researchers. Who of course want to know why.
The hole is obvious even using the GISS data set, which I have shown multiple times here.
Meet the Straight Dopes version of the Three Stooges, starring FX as Moe, Brazil as Larry, and WW as whichever third stooge was your favorite.
Please notice the forum location. The BBQ pit is usually not where a thread is relegated to when the intent is reasoned discourse and the exchange of information.
Please do not feed the trolls… ( But it is okay to point and laugh)
