Spot The Scientist
By Paul Homewood
In the red corner, we have Dr Paul Williams of Reading University.
Williams has received Royal Society Fellowship grants worth £739K since 2009, to research climate models.
According to him, the jet stream is speeding up because of climate change.
And in the blue corner we have Dr Jennifer Francis of Rutgers.
She claims the jet stream is slowing down:
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, an effect enhanced when the sea ice that normally cools the Arctic air melts away. Because of this, the air currents that come from that region are getting disproportionately warmer too, narrowing the temperature difference between the Arctic and southerly winds, and thereby weakening the jet stream itself. “The winds have weakened by 10 per cent over the past three decades in the west-to-east wind of the jet stream”
Will the real scientist please stand up?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well, if arctic air is indeed warming and slowing the jet stream that means that aircraft fying east to west on the most heavily used route in the world, across the atlantic , will now use much less fuel opposing the jet stream and thus much less co2 entering the atmosphere . A real plus for global warming , bring it on !!!
Brilliant!
No doubt the computer models prove both cases.
As Wilfred would have said, “Give them the money Mabel”!
Did you know that the pianist on ‘Have a Go’ for 6 yrs was Violet Carson ( Ena Sharples in Coronation Street)
It’s all so confusing 🙂
Standing up. However, also not a scientist!
Here is UAH NoPol until just before the El Nino spike
And here is UAH NoPol from 1980 to just before the 1998 El Nino
Data does not help these people.
+1
You can’t use satellite data. It’s too accurate.
Neither is a scientist in the true definition. Neither is following the scientific method nor trafficking in the truth.
Joan, absolutely correct. If they were true scientists they would actually measure the speed of the jet stream using objective and unbiased methods. They wouldn’t simply make calculations (or maybe just a SWAG) and claim the result to be the truth.
Maybe Dr Williams should have a chat with his Reading colleague Prof. Mike Lockwood, who told us the jet stream blocking in the cold 2010 winter was due to low solar activity.
Low solar activity link to cold UK winters
More jet stream variations caused the big Moscow heatwave and the Pakistani floods that same year.
Now in 2016 we’re getting back to low solar activity conditions, and the NH jet stream has been especially sinuous lately.
On this issue I nominate Judah Cohen as the scientist who understands jet streams.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/warm-is-cold-and-down-is-up/
Sounds like settled science to me
Settled Science? Yes, and for the first time ever in the long history of science? These guys are not just good they must be better than any of their scientific predecessors to have settled a science. Next scientific problem please.
I’m sorry, my typo, it was should have read –
Sounds like UNSETTLED science to me
I could make that decision if I had the appropriate multi-year grant.
Just possibly, as remote as that might seem, Jennifer Francis could be an advocate!
“One of the paper’s coauthors, Jennifer Francis, has gotten quite a bit of mileage out of this paper. She has been involved with Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, and was recently invited to give Congressional Testimony (discussed here). Francis has also been the chief proponent of a link between the Arctic sea ice decline and Hurricane Sandy:”
https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/21/arctic-sea-ice-and-weather/
Never mind the results, feel the money.
Employ the proles to pump a trace gas into a hole in order to create jobs shocker. Someone’s been at the Buckfast early:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/12/parliament-calls-for-carbon-capture-to-revive-british-industry-a/
There an old saying:
The first lawyer into a town will starve. The second lawyer into the town will make them both prosperous.
A possible solar effect on the jetstreams…
‘In 2008, the sun entered a deep lull in magnetic activity. Spacecraft measurements show that this caused a belt of sluggish particles, known as the slow solar wind, to thicken….As solar activity dwindles, the belt thickens, and we spend more time passing through it. The speed of the slow solar wind affects the temperature of Earth’s upper atmosphere, and impacts climate.’
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24851-sleepy-sun-thickens-the-slow-solar-wind/
Are the two protagonists factoring this into their jetstream thinking?
Brian Cox…oh, alright then… I’ll get me coat:
“An Open Letter to an Alarmist Shill”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/11/an-open-letter-to-an-alarmist-shill/
These “scientists” just make it up as they go along. That is the beauty of having “a theory of everything”, like AGW. If it is warmer/colder; wetter/dryer- fill in the blanks- it is all “consistent” with climate change.
PS please give me some more money.
Meanwhile, here comes La Nina?
I’ve been reading just today that La Nina now won’t be happening, so I shall be watching with some interest to see how that might play out across the globe over the coming months.
http://komonews.com/weather/scotts-weather-blog/skiers-take-notice-predictions-of-la-nina-winter-for-northwest-dropped
However, having seen just how much NOAA rather alarmingly adjust their SSTs from one week to the next, I no longer have much faith in their forecasts.
Sorry … I give up…the copy and paste is not working properly…
The latest figure (Sep 11) is -0.976 C.
Until these “scientists” follow the scientific method as clearly stated in the following by a real scientist, Richard Feynman, they are nothing but shills for the wealth redistribution politicians:
“• There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science**. … It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
** Cargo cult science comprises practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method.