New Excuse for Lack of Global Warming: ‘Planetary Waves’

Potsdam Institute’s Stefan Rahmsdorf trashes the concept of mean global temperature since it hasn’t worked for warmists in 17 years.

…Climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning does not bring a uniform global warming. In the Arctic, the warming is amplified by the loss of snow and ice. This in turn reduces the temperature difference between the Arctic and, for example, Europe. Yet temperature differences are a main driver of air flow, thereby influencing the planetary waves. Additionally, continents generally warm and cool more readily than the oceans.

These two factors are crucial for the mechanism now detected. They result in a changing pattern of the mid-latitude air flow, so that for extended periods the slow waves get trapped. The irregular surface temperature patterns disturb the global air flow. This analysis is based on equations that our team of scientists developed, mathematically describing the wave motions in the extra-tropical atmosphere. The conclusions drawn from the equations were tested using standard daily weather data from the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP).

During recent periods in which several major weather extremes occurred, the trapping and strong amplification of particular waves – like “wave seven” (which has seven troughs and crests spanning the globe) – was observed. The data show an increase in the occurrence of these specific atmospheric patterns.

This analysis helps to explain the increasing number of unprecedented weather extremes. It complements previous research that already showed that climate change strongly increases the number of heat records around the world, but which could not explain why previous records were broken by such stunning margins. The findings should significantly advance the understanding of weather extremes and their relation to man-made climate change…

Read more at the Conversation.

14 thoughts on “New Excuse for Lack of Global Warming: ‘Planetary Waves’”

  1. sounds to me like he has been smoking hash in a pot bar! your science is chicken little. man made global warming is a hoax as the earth has gone through cycles of heating and warming as it wants without humans present and running around. since the last 14 years we have been cooling as it looks like a ice age is coming. it could be a mini one like they had in the dark ages that lasted about 200 years but if it’s the big one we will be long gone as it takes thousands of years for the massive glacier to build and engulf our northern hemisphere. the sea shore property will become in land property! funny neanderthals lasted for over 100,000 years we have been around for just over 20,000. maybe gaia is about to replace us?

  2. It is interesting the whole point of the CO2 scare is that there is suppose to be massive positive feedback which will turn our planet into Venus – even though positive feedbacks tend to be for short lived systems (basically an atmosphere ruled by positive feedback would have blown away eons ago) h

    However all these “excuses” seem to be pointing out the negative feedback which reduces the effect of a stresser in the system. I guess they are proving that CO2 is no big deal after all, in the form of the excuse! I see this report as good news. Whatever warming may exist is being offset by other natural processes.

  3. I put this in the category of chimeras and deus ex machanae such as phlogiston, inter-planetary ether, punctuated evolution, and the early inflationary universe to explain gaping holes between theory and evidence.

    In the first two, scientists looked for “substance-X” that would neatly dovetail observation and theory. Too bad substance-X was never found and the theories were later proven dead wrong. In the latter two, we have observations, that in some cases, directly contradict the theory. So we invent a step or stage that is neither predicted or explained, but simply serves the purpose of making the theory work.

    Pick your choice with Global Warming. Carbon Dioxide as interplanetary ether or Wave 7 as punctuated evolution.

  4. That school of thought should try Oceans’ 11 or, who knows, even Ocean’s 13. Judging from their scientific deductions so far, it would appear that there would be much to extract of scientific value from those documents. To be serious, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NOA) has been know for quite some time so there is little fundamentally new in their present ideas. On the other hand, predcitng the development of a chaotic system is not all that reliable anyway.

  5. Oh, we can’t use global temperature as evidence for anthropogenic global warming – not that it ever was, it was merely evidence for WARMING (cause not definitely known) – so we’ll have to use ‘extreme weather events’ instead. Cobble up some dodgy ‘scientific’ theory based on planetary waves influenced in their pattern of behaviour by ‘uneven warming’ (that which rational minds perceive as NO net change in average global temperatures over the last 17 years, probably soon to turn to global COOLING) and hey presto! The beginnings of a new consensus to fool us all into believing that we should be taxed like mad for emitting ‘poisonous’ carbon. Er, no, sorry, it won’t wash.

  6. Such a large east-west (or is it west-east?) air current would be easily detectable with weather balloons or even as trade winds if they propogate to the lower atmosphere. Furthermore, I know of no mechanism or force that would cause such an unusual North/South Zig-zag in defiance of continents and oceans. The idea of resonance sounds good, but it requires something to resonate and some force causing it to oscillate. Then, there’s the question of how we have waves with thousand mile wavelengths in the first place.

    It’s a simple (well, no-so-simple) wave-form fitting to the data . Like epicycles in Copernican astronomy, it might make the data fit, and it might even work well predictively to some extent, but there seems neither rhyme nor reason for this to exist, no physical evidence is presented, and the linear extrapolation to disaster is unfounded at best.

  7. “wave seven” (which has seven troughs and crests spanning the globe) …

    And what is the opposite of this? Ice Nine?

  8. I think there are probably a lot of mistaking postulates and other incorrect concepts for proof. I do wonder if there is any science at all in this anymore. It’s not looking good.

  9. As far as I can tell, this sounds like someone postulated a mechanism and is taking the postulate for the proof.
    It’s true that sceptics have been pointing out the poor utility of a global average temp for years. Now that the average global temp, as measured by the alarmists, fails to support their concept, the alarmists are discarding what we said they ought not to use.
    That would leave extreme weather events, which support the sceptic position more than the alarmists’ position when evaluated as data instead of anecdotes.

  10. Hmm, interesting. Evidently they still havent noticed the lack of trend in extreme weather. Is it a characteristic of warmists to think that their lifetime is the entire history of the Earth?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.