Jump to content
Summer Sun

Weather in the general media (Newspaper features etc)

Recommended Posts

Odd how the "children won't know what snow is" comment by a single scientist, in relation to future children, gets twisted into "climate science says no snow ever again, starting now".

Actually, it isn't odd at all, rather run of the mill for certain folk.

When people want to discuss how the jet stream changes over time, you need to look at more than just a few years and your own backyard.

For the latest science on the subject of the jet stream http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/1/014005/pdf/1748-9326_10_1_014005.pdf

 

Ok, but why is 'climate change'    based on "Just a few years"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd how the "children won't know what snow is" comment by a single scientist, in relation to future children, gets twisted into "climate science says no snow ever again, starting now".

Actually, it isn't odd at all, rather run of the mill for certain folk.

When people want to discuss how the jet stream changes over time, you need to look at more than just a few years and your own backyard.

For the latest science on the subject of the jet stream http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/1/014005/pdf/1748-9326_10_1_014005.pdf

 

I was more looking at how the media handles telling us that we are living in a time of climate change and how it's showing itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not!

 

Well I would say 25 years is "Just a few years" In the grand scheme of things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more looking at how the media handles telling us that we are living in a time of climate change and how it's showing itself

 

The media do a lot of harm in trying to relate everything to climate change when it's not necessarily justified. However, for our neck of the woods, I don't think the downward trend in snow cover can really be argued with.

The idea of the rapidly warming Arctic causing a reduction in the temperature gradient to more southerly latitudes, thus affecting the jet stream has gathered a lot of supporting evidence and numerous studies in recent years. It's becoming a very strong theory in and of itself.

 

Well I would say 25 years is "Just a few years" In the grand scheme of things?

 

Climate change is based of much more than 25 years data. It incorporates records (paleoclimate proxy records) going back many thousands, even millions of years.

Edited by BornFromTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media do a lot of harm in trying to relate everything to climate change when it's not necessarily justified. However, for our neck of the woods, I don't think the downward trend in snow cover can really be argued with.

The idea of the rapidly warming Arctic causing a reduction in the temperature gradient to more southerly latitudes, thus affecting the jet stream has gathered a lot of supporting evidence and numerous studies in recent years. It's becoming a very strong theory in and of itself.

 

 

Climate change is based of much more than 25 years data. It incorporates records (paleoclimate proxy records) going back many thousands, even millions of years.

 

 

Agreed: too soon to make any predictions regarding the future climate.

 

Last post in here regarding this(wrong thread) :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain to be hit by 250mph gales as fierce polar jet stream brings storms and flood fears

 

 

If only! As for all the climate-change crapola, who gives a monkey's anyway? Seriously - who gives a monkey's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The idea of the rapidly warming Arctic causing a reduction in the temperature gradient to more southerly latitudes, thus affecting the jet stream has gathered a lot of supporting evidence and numerous studies in recent years. It's becoming a very strong theory in and of itself.

 

 

Climate change is based of much more than 25 years data. It incorporates records (paleoclimate proxy records) going back many thousands, even millions of years.

Climate change has always occurred and always will.  And the Jetstream strength is being blamed on the temp gradient currently, well surely if the arctic has warmed so much the Jetstream should be nullified?  What next?  

 

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the the world is always undergoing a change to its climate. There's no question that the UK has been much warmer of late in general terms. Whether the world's climate is on a path to unstoppable upward movement in warmth, and what the reasons are for it....we shall see. Personally when I see articles such as one recently that said that volcanos might be the reason for the current apparent hiatus in warming, it makes me wonder how much emphasis was previously given to the extent volcanoes may have keeping things cooler before....ie have we been through a period of unprecedented low volcanic activity?


But anyway....back to the media!!!   And my point is this..  Today, with some many means to publication aligned with an obsession to know WHY things are happening, all kinds of crap gets put out there.


From 2001 to 2007 the UK had a record seven years without the monthly mean CET for a month coming in at 3.5c or lower.  As the "kids won't know snow article" came out in 2000, it did seem for a long while that the scientist in question (as latterly it only seems to have been one who was thinking this way) might have been onto something.  It's only in the latter years that the consensus among other "climate change experts" seems to have become dismissive of him.....i can't remember reading much criticism of him before that.

But I think it goes down well with the media.    Here was a long time with mild winters and there's a reason put forward and it's a "man is to blame angle" so it all gets lapped up.

However we've had runs of six years before......one from 1970 to 1975 and one from 1910-1915.  In those days I'd say that there wasn't this same obsession to have a reason why, and there wasn't such a widespread means of publishing things, so what was published was held upto greater account and scrutiny, before it was published.   Obviously, in 1915 there were other more pressing things that the UK press would have been concerned with!!!

Lately it seems that the press has to put out a reason for every storm, heavy snowfall, or period or hot sunny weather as an when they happen, not even a frequency in a short period of time!


 

Edited by Timmytour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timmytour, scientists tend to use research publications and the comments and review sections within them for critical analysis of other works. Very little debate occurs on newspaper articles between respected scientists.

 

I think it can generally be applied to all areas of science, but general media publications generally aren't the best medium for assessing the science. We know how easily things can be editorialised. Even within the independent article, Viner also said "snowfall would become a rare and exciting thing" and "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time". Both of these aren't far off being a reality, but at the same time, these kinds of predictions, especially back in 2000, wouldn't have had much confidence or evidence behind them.

 

Have a look at the notable months and seasons thread, there can be little doubt that we're going through and exceptional run of record breakers.  https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/79294-some-notable-months-and-seasons-since-2006/page-1

 

 

 

 

Climate change has always occurred and always will.  And the Jetstream strength is being blamed on the temp gradient currently, well surely if the arctic has warmed so much the Jetstream should be nullified?  What next?  

 

BFTP

 

What do you think is the primary driver behind the jet stream if not the temperature difference between the poles and lower latitudes? Magic? The guiding hand of God?

There is still a large temperature difference there, it's just been reduced compared to normal, especially in Autumn and Winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timmytour, scientists tend to use research publications and the comments and review sections within them for critical analysis of other works. Very little debate occurs on newspaper articles between respected scientists.

I think it can generally be applied to all areas of science, but general media publications generally aren't the best medium for assessing the science. We know how easily things can be editorialised. Even within the independent article, Viner also said "snowfall would become a rare and exciting thing" and "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time". Both of these aren't far off being a reality, but at the same time, these kinds of predictions, especially back in 2000, wouldn't have had much confidence or evidence behind them.

Have a look at the notable months and seasons thread, there can be little doubt that we're going through and exceptional run of record breakers. https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/79294-some-notable-months-and-seasons-since-2006/page-1

What do you think is the primary driver behind the jet stream if not the temperature difference between the poles and lower latitudes? Magic? The guiding hand of God?

There is still a large temperature difference there, it's just been reduced compared to normal, especially in Autumn and Winter.

The temperature gradient has always been there BFTV and as BFTP highlights this has decreased over the last 30 years,as its done countless time over many thousands of years. So that begs the question what other forcings are at work, UV output possibly? Edited by Hocus Pocus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The temperature gradient has always been there BFTV and as BFTP highlights this has decreased over the last 30 years,as its done countless time over many thousands of years. So that begs the question what other forcings are at work, UV output possibly?

 

Yes there has always been a temperature gradient, and yes it's always changed over long timescales. So why can't altering that temperature gradient influence the jet stream now? Also, the current atmospheric set up, with the polar, Ferrell and Hadley cells and a polar and sub tropical jet stream have not necessarily always been and can change based on the temperature gradient.

 

Yes, UV likely has a big influence too. Does that mean that a rapidly warming Arctic can't have and influence? So how do we work out how much of the changes have been due to UV and Arctic warming? Speculation is all well and good, but the scientific literature contains the evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there has always been a temperature gradient, and yes it's always changed over long timescales. So why can't altering that temperature gradient influence the jet stream now? Also, the current atmospheric set up, with the polar, Ferrell and Hadley cells and a polar and sub tropical jet stream have not necessarily always been and can change based on the temperature gradient.

 

Yes, UV likely has a big influence too. Does that mean that a rapidly warming Arctic can't have and influence? So how do we work out how much of the changes have been due to UV and Arctic warming? Speculation is all well and good, but the scientific literature contains the evidence!

Good point BFTV and I think denying any of the above as being factors would be foolhardy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point BFTV and I think denying any of the above as being factors would be foolhardy. 

 

The weather is very complicated, unfortunately (not directed at yourself) there are many out there that refuse to acknowledge changes to important aspects of what drives the jet stream, mainly due to the fear of potentially acknowledging our warming climate, and thus anthropogenic climate change.

 

Here's a useful, if slightly long, guide to the jet stream http://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am relieved to see the temp grad theory gaining more acceptance as more data pours in? Yes it has varied in the past but mainly by a lowering of the tropical temps as major volcanic activity around the equator chilled things over the short term? Krakatoa was one such event and it brought global extremes mirroring some we have seen recently ( stalled weather bringing huge flood events in eastern U.S./ last time we saw upland Greenland ice melt over most of the ice sheet). surely this in itself highlights just how extreme the change today is and that , unlike volcanic events, it does not have a few years of impact ( before the sulphates/soot drop out of the atmosphere?) but is a new 'trend' in extreme events driven by extra wavy jet/stalled weather patterns.

 

We need not do the AGW thing just note that a warming Arctic is impacting our world ( whatever has caused it) and prepare for the consequences?

 

what does happen when an extra large polar Jet trough bumps into the sub Tropical Jet ( surely such an event is drawing closer?) does it 'short out' the two jets allowing free exchange between equator and pole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appear to have fallen into one of the global warming/climate change threads by accident!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appear to have fallen into one of the global warming/climate change threads by accident!

 

No you ain't - it gets everywhere and is very popular with the 'general media', as is lots of other cobblers like celebrity/sport/fashion etc etc. Sign o' the times, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timmytour, scientists tend to use research publications and the comments and review sections within them for critical analysis of other works. Very little debate occurs on newspaper articles between respected scientists.

 

I think it can generally be applied to all areas of science, but general media publications generally aren't the best medium for assessing the science. We know how easily things can be editorialised. Even within the independent article, Viner also said "snowfall would become a rare and exciting thing" and "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time". Both of these aren't far off being a reality, but at the same time, these kinds of predictions, especially back in 2000, wouldn't have had much confidence or evidence behind them.

 

Have a look at the notable months and seasons thread, there can be little doubt that we're going through and exceptional run of record breakers.  https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/79294-some-notable-months-and-seasons-since-2006/page-1

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think is the primary driver behind the jet stream if not the temperature difference between the poles and lower latitudes? Magic? The guiding hand of God?

There is still a large temperature difference there, it's just been reduced compared to normal, especially in Autumn and Winter.

Not CO2 BFTV as that would certainly be magic....the Jetstream has got stronger so if the temp difference is less how the hell is it the temp gradient driving it??  Jetstream IMO is affected by solar and planetary magnetic field influences. 

 

BFTP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weather is very complicated, unfortunately (not directed at yourself) there are many out there that refuse to acknowledge changes to important aspects of what drives the jet stream, mainly due to the fear of potentially acknowledging our warming climate, and thus anthropogenic climate change.

 

Here's a useful, if slightly long, guide to the jet stream http://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html

No denying the warming or cooling of planet BFTV and no not thus of AGW.....totally separate, one is still unproven

BFTP

.

 

We need not do the AGW thing just note that a warming Arctic is impacting our world ( whatever has caused it) and prepare for the consequences?

 

 

Now that I can work with

 

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appear to have fallen into one of the global warming/climate change threads by accident!

 

Apologies. I do try to avoid bringing up climate change in non climate threads. But when misleading or anti-climate science ideas get posted, I just try to add a little balance.

Do feel free to report any offending posts though, I'd be more than happy to have all climate related posts moved to the appropriate area for further discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies. I do try to avoid bringing up climate change in non climate threads. But when misleading or anti-climate science ideas get posted, I just try to add a little balance.

Do feel free to report any offending posts though, I'd be more than happy to have all climate related posts moved to the appropriate area for further discussion.

 

Sure you would - but I'm banned from there! That's why I occasionally trouble threads like this.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We take the relentless mick out of the like of Madden and the Daily Express in this thread.  And no wonder because the rubbish they come out, which could worry the bejesus out of susceptible folk,  with is soon disproved.  But one day, they will be right just like the broken clock

However, I've seen a lot of scare stories connected with climate change come out.  They are not so easily proved or disproved. 

So, apparently the Independent article, claiming 15 years ago that our kids would not know snow and using Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire as sources, was ill-founded?

Well I never read any criticism of it from those within the "we must act on climate change" brigade UNTIL reference was made back to it after successive winters with snow.

Now, not to deny climate change or ponder about its causes, but the media report "likely consequences" of it the same way that the Daily Express will report Madden's beliefs about what the short term consequences of a certain weather pattern will be. 

We ridicule the latter.  Just because those who speculate on the consequences of climate change over a longer term, (but in some cases with a similar degree of panic instilled in the susceptible), are they, and those in the media who report it as gospel, not fair game to be subjected to the same kind of ridicule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not CO2 BFTV as that would certainly be magic...Jetstream IMO is affected by solar and planetary magnetic field influences. 

 

BFTP

And, as yet undiscovered, and highly mysterious 'planetary magnetic field influences' aren't magic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...