Skip to content

Micky Mann’s Meandering Jetstream

April 16, 2017

By Paul Homewood



One of the “scientists” who demonstrated conclusively that global warming was an unnatural event with the famous “hockey stick” graph is now warning that giant jetstreams which circle the planet are being altered by climate change.

Professor Michael Mann said extreme weather events – such as the “unprecedented” drought in California last year, the flooding in Pakistan in 2010 and the heatwave in Europe in 2003 – were happening more often than they should do, even taking the warming climate into account.

This, he said, meant there had to be an additional factor.

​Jetstreams are influenced by the difference in temperatures between the Arctic and the equator.

But the Arctic has been warming much faster than tropical climates – the island of Svalbard, for example was 6.5 degrees celsius warmer last year compared to the average between 1961 and 1990. The land has also been warming faster than the sea.

Both of those factors were changing the flow of these major air currents to create “extreme meanders” which were helping to cause “extreme weather events”, Professor Mann said.


Junk scientist Micky Mann has now come with a new wheeze. Unfortunately his new study is as bent as his hockey stick.



He, along with some Dutch researcher called Dim and some other grant addicts, now claims to have proved that a “warmer Arctic” has led to more extreme weather, all caused by a meandering jet stream.

As the video explains, this can bring cold weather to one region and much warmer weather to another next door. When these meanders get stuck, we end up with weather blocking, and a few days of warm, cold, wet or dry can turn into weeks.

All sounds plausible?

Well, maybe not. After all, we have been here before.

This is what HH Lamb wrote in 1982:



Over the years since the 1940’s, it has become apparent that many of the tendencies in world climate which marked the previous 50 to 80 years or more have either ceased or changed…. It was only after the Second World War that the benign trend of the climate towards general warming over those previous decades really came in for much scientific discussion and began to attract public notice.





Such worldwide surveys as have been attempted seem to confirm the increase of variability of temperature and rainfall [since 1950].’’

In Europe, there is a curious change in the pattern of variability: from some time between 1940 and 1960 onwards, the occurrence of extreme seasons – both as regards temperature and rainfall has notably increased.

A worldwide list of the extreme seasons reported since 1960 makes impressive reading. Among the items included:







This shortened list omits most of the notable events reported in the southern hemisphere and other parts of the world where instrument records do not extend so far back. Cases affecting the intermediate seasons, the springs and autumns, have also been omitted.



These variations, perhaps more than any underlying trend to a warmer or colder climate, create difficulties for the planning age in which we live. They may be associated with the increased meridionality of the general wind circulation, the greater frequency of blocking, of stationary high and low pressure systems, giving prolonged northerly winds in one longitude and southerly winds in another longitude sector in middle latitudes.

Over both hemispheres there has been more blocking in these years… The most remarkable feature seems to be the an intensification of the cyclonic activity in high latitudes near 70-90N, all around the northern polar region. And this presumably has to do with the almost equally remarkable cooling of the Arctic since the 1950’s, which has meant an increase in the thermal gradient between high and middle latitudes.


HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – pp 267-270


And it was not only Lamb.

In 1975, CC Wallen,  Head of the Special Environmental Applications Division of the World Meteorological Organization, had this to say about the consequences of the cooling trend since 1940:

The principal weather change likely to accompany the cooling trend is increased variability-alternating extremes of temperature and precipitation in any given area-which would almost certainly lower average crop yields.

During cooler climatic periods the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.




And he even gave us these diagrams.


Chilling Possibilities


Mann will be arguing that black is white next, and the gullible readers of the failed Independent will no doubt believe him!

  1. Coeur de Lion permalink
    April 16, 2017 7:12 pm

    I’m waiting for an eighty ton ship to be blown over the Chesil Beach into Portland harbour. Oops that was 1703.

  2. April 16, 2017 7:21 pm

    I’ve been on to this for over ten years now.

    See here for most recent version:

    The problem for Mann and others is that meridional jets are associated with more clouds and cooling such as the LIA whereas the MWP had more zonal, poleward jets.

    Prior to 2000 the AGW fraternity were blaming poleward, zonal jets on CO2 so this represents a complete turnaround.

  3. Broadlands permalink
    April 16, 2017 8:07 pm

    “Jetstreams are influenced by the difference in temperatures between the Arctic and the equator.”
    Could it possibly be the reverse? Do the natural jet streams create the difference in temperatures between the Arctic and the Equator? After all, this has been happening for thousands of years…like El-Ninos.

    As for ozone… the lowest total column ozone values are at the equator, the highest at the poles.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      April 17, 2017 9:08 am

      Agreed. I always thought that jet-streams control weather patterns – and when they’ve been doing it for 30 years or so we can call it ‘climate’. It’s a bit of a leap then to claim that climate affects the jet-stream.

  4. tom0mason permalink
    April 16, 2017 8:28 pm

    The caption from your, (warning the link just gives a file called 8983, you’ll have to rename it to ChillingPossibilities.pdf, or something similar)

    The cause of this increased variability can best be seen by examining upper atmosphere wind patterns that accompany cooler climate. During warm periods a “zonal circulation” predominates, in which the prevailing westerly winds of the temperate zones are swept over long distances by a few powerful high and low pressure centers. The result is a more evenly distributed pattern of weather, varying relatively little from month to month or season to season.
    During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.
    If global temperatures should fall even further, the effects could be considerably more drastic. According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a fullblown 10,000-year ice age, a real possibility. Again, this transition would involve only a small change of global temperature — 2 or 3 degrees — but the impact on civilization would be catastrophic.

    My emphasis on the 1970’s style climate alarmism.

  5. CheshireRed permalink
    April 16, 2017 9:03 pm

    He’s doubling down on almost everything. Jail is too good for this cretin.

  6. April 16, 2017 9:28 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    His science is of about the same dubious level as his house testimony

  7. Ross King permalink
    April 17, 2017 2:29 am

    More ‘JUNK SCIENCE’ / Fake News/ tendentious Intellectual Dishonesty…. does anyone believe this promotion of untested /untestable, self-promotional B.S. any more.
    I’ll believe it when it has been THORO’LY and iteratively tested by the good folks — in blogs such as this — with far more education & experience in CLIMATE SCIENCE than i have.
    If and when Mann re-educates himself with Paleo-climatic Science Studies, I might just *start* to listen to him!`

  8. AlecM permalink
    April 17, 2017 8:10 am

    Mann de lifeboat!

  9. Europeanonion permalink
    April 17, 2017 8:27 am

    In essence it is as alluded to here, pay people to come up with a result, reverse engineer all that is about us, and you will get as much verbiage as you can stand. What if the real test was to have a moratorium on green initiatives for a defined period and actually test, scrutinise, that which is observable; a test that could be interrupted if bounds were exceeded. Until that sort of comparison is adopted we are bound to be in a situation that climate is ‘where dragons be’.

    I look at the reportage on North Korea and that country’s bellicose leader and compare that with the AGW agenda. There are so many points of comparison, the same threatening behaviour and the same certainties of outcome. The same conjuring of the worst case scenario. It seems that, in both cases, appeasement only leads to more excess and a continual movement of the yardstick towards the regards of the insinuator.

    This is not diplomacy and, in the green sense, it is not science. If all we have is coercion then our future science, on all fronts, will not be to do with enquiry and a natural scepticism but that abandonment of the scientific method (that some world religions may promote citing the actually unknowable direction of a deity which, being beyond our knowing) and then becomes the insinuation of politics and self-interest.

    • AlecM permalink
      April 17, 2017 9:01 am

      Agreed: climate alchemy is based on easily-provable fraud in 1964, repeated in 1976 by a GISS team which included Hansen. Also, Hansen in 1969 had failed to understand that there is an additional optical process in clouds with large droplets that Mie theory fails to consider.

      This inverts the sign of the 2nd AIE, the real AGW, mistaken for a CO2 effect. That is offset to near zero by the water cycle. Later, GISS claimed the necessary temperature drop surface to near surface air to give the Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation ‘back radiation’ was too difficult to measure, so they** model it including the incorrect cloud aerosol physics to produce the atmospheric window component. The same bad cloud physics gives positive feedback as a modelling artefact.

      **Done by the late husband of the recent CEO of UKMO.

  10. Chris Lynch permalink
    April 17, 2017 9:24 am

    I remember hearing this twaddle on BBC’s Country file, when the presenter and and an “expert” from the UK Met Office were trying to explain away a run of severe winters in the UK a few years ago – think it was 2013. It sounded hokey to me then – thanks for explaining why.

  11. April 17, 2017 11:39 am

    It seems as though we are reaching the point where the general public is catching on to the hoax in a big way. Now, for those of us who ARE scientists, we have an opportunity to “teach” the public real science. And that requires that we drop the detailed technical terminology we might use in a meeting with colleagues. I have always known that I could bury someone in botanical terminology–they might be impressed with all the big words I can bandy about, but will be totally clueless about what I said. Instead, I have sought to explain something accurately, but in terms understandable to the layman. After all, we are all laymen in every field except out own. We need to make certain we are explaining to the “laymen” and not talking down to them. The general public is far more savvy than given credit by the faculty lounge, of, say The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

    • Old Englander permalink
      April 17, 2017 2:09 pm

      Agreed, but don’t discount the power of saturation-level propaganda. Recently I attended a “panel discussion” closing a series of “lectures” on “climate change” at a world-renowned university. Of course I was attending a meeting of political activists finding it convenient to masquerade as scientists (and getting paid for it too). Agenda: close down the fossil fuel industry (explicit), and roll back the industrial revolution everywhere (implicit). Identifying the actual politicos was quite easy. Less easy were the innocent youth who seemed genuinely to believe they were doing something noble and inspirational. And there was a whole lecture room full of them.

      Similarly we have our famous BBC, paid for out of a hypothecated tax, with an obvious policy not to give any airtime to dissenting views on “climate change”. That’s what the general public are fed. More skillful than North Korea, because it’s made to look so plausible, with the imprint of a “respectable” institution, still committed (in its Charter) to balance and impartiality. There are very few moments, in most peoples’ experience, of sufficient “cognitive dissonance” to put their BS detectors onto red alert.

  12. Al Shelton permalink
    April 17, 2017 12:09 pm

    Important, distinguished, credible people, should be contacting Penn State, and demanding the removal of Mann and fraudulent claims.
    An e-mail from me will just be deleted.

    • Old Englander permalink
      April 17, 2017 1:51 pm

      Sorry, the only thing that counts these days in academia is research grant $$$. So long as those keep flowing no university anywhere is going to do anything other than congratulate the bringer of income, from which the host university stands to peel off a percentage for its general “overheads”.

      Since most “important, distinguished and credible people” in the scientific world (if you mean those with lots of gongs, titles, and prizes) understand this very clearly, and are dependent on the same criteria themselves, they tend to keep their heads down.

      The same attitudes, sadly, propagate into the learned societies, most of whom, including the Royal Society of London, and the US National Academy of Sciences, have bought into the AGW party line wholesale, even in the teeth of objections from vocal minorities within them.

  13. April 17, 2017 1:38 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  14. April 17, 2017 3:01 pm

    So to sum up: they reckon climate change is causing climate change. Very enlightening – not.

  15. April 18, 2017 3:27 am

    Poles that warm more than mid-latitudes (and tropics) cause less of a temperature/pressure gradient and therewith less extremes: less pressure gradient =less wind for starters. More “extreme” weather, which has been found to not have increased btw, is thus caused by cooling. Mann can’t have it both ways.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: