Two bloggers have made a stunning claim that has spread like wildfire on the Internet: They say the Northern Hemisphere jet stream, the high-altitude river of winds that separates cold air from warm air, has done something new and outrageous. They say it has crossed the equator, joining the jet stream in the Southern Hemisphere. One said this signifies that the jet stream is ‘wrecked‘, the other said it means we have a “global climate emergency.”
But these shrill claims have no validity — air flow between the hemispheres occurs routinely. The claims are unsupported and unscientific, and they demonstrate the danger of wild assertions made by non-experts reaching and misleading the masses.
Source: The Washington Post
Related: Gigantic Gravity Waves to Mix Summer With Winter? Wrecked Jet Stream Now Runs From Pole-to-Pole
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @03:34AM
Here's the CV [paulbeckwith.net] of one of the bloggers.
I noticed two things:
- it falls short of being impressive. He's not a tenured professor nor does he have a Ph.D. And he's not a young guy.
- There's a *lot* of self promotion ("over 5000 followers", "excellent performance review from students", "climate change expert"). What did Shakespeare say about the lady doth protesting too much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @03:47AM
Totally right. The PhD is the new minimum credential essential in our globalized social economy. You can't even get a job working as a janitor without a PhD these days. A century ago you needed a high school diploma to function in society. Today you need a PhD.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday July 02 2016, @04:59AM
Actually, what I believe employers are looking for is someone with an onus to pay back one helluva debt.
The candidate has already shown he is obedient and will "do whatever it takes" to please authority figures.
Even to the point of footing all the expenses one may incur in order to be what they want.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @04:13PM
You really don't know how those science Ph.D.s work, do you? I incurred ZERO debt obtaining mine. English majors and such aren't as fortunate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:06PM
You really don't know how those science Ph.D.s work, do you? I incurred ZERO debt obtaining mine.
And I see you're putting it to good use by trolling on SN.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:46PM
Must be testing a hypothesis for his social science Ph.D.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @03:58AM
Its over a decade after teh day after tomorrow!!!
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Saturday July 02 2016, @04:23AM
I had not heard this news but I also had not looked out the window in a while. Thanks for the reminder that the world hasn't ended yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @03:32PM
Don't look out the window! The Earth is going to stop and change its rotation, sunrise will be in the west, sunset in the east. Canada will be in the southern hemisphere, causing mexicans to be confused and wanting to migrate there. Trump will build a wall at the Canadian border, Clinton will break out of prison through a tunnel under a bathtub leading to Canada, which is now where mexico is. The good news... Rocky XXVII comes out in theaters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @05:02PM
Would it be Creed XVII?
Anyway, you forgot about the magnetic poles flipping [wikipedia.org], which is an unprecedented event that will bring about the apocalypse!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @04:37AM
Why is this even here?
First we give credence to a bunch of "scientists" on personal missions to make us all environmentally responsible. Now it's gospel.
And today, a bunch of tosses with zero cred make stupid pointless claims, with no merit, no basis, and no science. And we know it's horse shit. And we still publish it.
Forgive me, but I'm about to become a climate change denier.
But yeah. 1 century worth of data, from a history of billions of years, makes climate change real.
There is just zero proof or evidence.
In fact, there is proof of humanity becoming soft in the head. Just look as US politics, or UK politics, AU politics, etc.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @04:44AM
Humanity has always been soft in the head. See religion.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 02 2016, @02:32PM
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/infants-flexible-heads-stretch-back-millions-years [sciencemag.org]
If humanity weren't soft in the head, there would probably be no humanity.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @04:57AM
Fuck you, dumb mod. Flag it down "troll" or "flamebait", but it's not "off-topic".
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 02 2016, @05:48AM
There isn't just "1 century worth of data." Data from ice cores from Antarctica are believed to go back 900 000 years. Bubbles of gas trapped in the ice can tell us about past concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/special_pol/01/print_article_2590_en.html [europa.eu]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday July 02 2016, @07:56AM
There isn't just "1 century worth of data." Data from ice cores from Antarctica are believed to go back 900 000 years.
It's dishonest to just say that without speaking of the quality of the data. For example, there's really only something like four decades of satellite data that directly measures global climate; 150 years of data that actually directly measures weather temperature; and a variety of other paleoclimate proxy data of lesser quality, some which goes back hundreds of millions of years. One of the problems here is that this other data is based on the assumption that we understand the correlations between modern measurements of global parameters and these proxies. If we don't or we have some sort of significant observational bias, then we can make such proxies say whatever we want them to say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:06PM
I didn't just say that. I had also written "Bubbles of gas trapped in the ice can tell us about past concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." I see nothing dishonest about what I wrote. If you felt that something needed to be said about the quality of data from ice cores, you could have done so yourself, yet you did not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 02 2016, @09:04PM
It's dishonest to just say that without speaking of the quality of the data.
I didn't just say that. I had also written "Bubbles of gas trapped in the ice can tell us about past concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
Which was my point. You didn't speak of the quality of the data. Sure, that gas can tell us about past concentrations of carbon dioxide. It can also tell us about our current observation and confirmation biases via a long tenuous and subjective chain of correlation and assumption to the best data, which is of the near present.
If you felt that something needed to be said about the quality of data from ice cores, you could have done so yourself, yet you did not.
I did say something about the quality of data from ice cores and such in my post (describing it of "lesser quality").
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 02 2016, @10:11PM
Data gathered by humans, or by machines made by humans, are always going to be biased and subjective, hence there can never be proof or evidence of anything, is that your point? Or is there something specific about a column of ice that brings out the worst in people?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 03 2016, @08:56PM
Data gathered by humans, or by machines made by humans, are always going to be biased and subjective, hence there can never be proof or evidence of anything, is that your point?
No. Human science being imperfect is not the point. Ignoring the degree of imperfect of this particular data and the conflicts of interest that encourage scientists to interpret that data in a particular way is my point.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 02 2016, @02:35PM
I'm a little more on khallow's side than your side. Those ice cores are valuable, but, there's a problem with all of them. Those ice cores are "interpreted" according to our best understanding of conditions in prehistory. That is - we've guessed at a lot of the data we've pulled from those cores.
Question: does CO2 drive temperature, or does temperature drive CO2? Mankind has made an assumption, which remains unproven.
(Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Saturday July 02 2016, @02:56PM
Answer: Carbon dioxide drives temperature and temperature drives carbon dioxide. That process is pretty well understood.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 02 2016, @03:39PM
First part seems to be correct - it seems that they can drive each other. The assertion that it is well understood is less correct. https://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm [aip.org]
I think it more accurate to say that people are afraid of climate change BECAUSE they don't understand WTF is happening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @04:21PM
What about the tree rings? What about the sediment layers in the ocean? It's like arguing with a creationist where they latch on to one thing, say carbon-14 dating, and beat the hell out of that emphasizing its shortcomings to invalidate the whole shebang. But its more than just the ice cores, just like it is more than just carbon-14 dating. It is a large, disparate set of data that are all consistent with the same general story. That's what makes it compelling; not because a few models that are built up on only ice core data.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 02 2016, @09:06PM
What about the tree rings? What about the sediment layers in the ocean?
What of them? It's quite easy to make data consistent with any general story when you control how the data relates to the story.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday July 02 2016, @11:38PM
What of them? It's quite easy to make data consistent with any general story when you control how the data relates to the story.
That's what they WANT you to think! Might as well go the full conspiracy theory, khallow!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 03 2016, @08:56PM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 03 2016, @11:45PM
an elaborate conspiracy theory
Too late, you already have! Once you mention "control", you are implying intent, not confirmation bias, which would not be intentional, so we have already crossed the line into Climate-change Denying Cuckoo-cloud Land. Intention means deception, deception means fraud, and fraud means hoax!!
The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, 1st Edition
by Senator James Inhofe
Wow, I did not know Republican Senators could actual right bookes!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 03 2016, @11:48PM
Once you mention "control", you are implying intent, not confirmation bias
Just like the drunk driver intended to wrap his car around a tree? There is a bit of nuance here which can summarized by definition under the label of "unintended consequences".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 04 2016, @04:17AM
Oh, boy! A car analogy right here on SoylentNews!! Be still my beating heart!
But it fails. Drunk driver does not intend to so wrap, but you seem to imply that control of how data relates to the story is like the drunk not intending to go around both sides of the tree? So it is not the fault of the climate scientists, that their data supports anthropogenic global warming? Or are they controlling how the data relates to the story, so they are doing more than confirmation bias? I am confused about what you are trying to say, khallow.
The better analogy is the "tar baby". Do you remember this from Disney's "Song of the South"? Anyone who touches climate-denial will get stuck to it, they will have to admit that they are anti-science, pro-petroleum, maybe fundamentalist christian, and probably owned by the Koch Bros, Halliburton, and the Dark Lord. This has nothing to do with control, in fact, it is the antithesis of control, it is being out of control, and attempting to wrap the whole planet around a tree: but at least it is not intentional. How could it be, because why would anybody punch a tarbaby?
Impasse! Either climate scientists are in control, and intentionally deceptive, or they are not, so unintentionally proving AGW is true. Or Conservative Deniers, what if I told you that deniers know exactly what they are doing? Would they not be Marco Rubio?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 04 2016, @04:43AM
s not the fault of the climate scientists, that their data supports anthropogenic global warming?
Like it is not the fault of the drunk driver that the tree darted right in front of them? Who knew something that big could move so fast?
So it is not the fault of the climate scientists, that their data supports anthropogenic global warming?
While I'm sure there is someone out there who doesn't believe in AGW, that's not the real problem to me. The real problem is calls for costly restructuring of society on the basis of flimsy evidence.
Anyone who touches climate-denial will get stuck to it, they will have to admit that they are anti-science, pro-petroleum, maybe fundamentalist christian, and probably owned by the Koch Bros, Halliburton, and the Dark Lord.
I notice that hasn't happened yet. No one has had to admit anything.
Impasse! Either climate scientists are in control, and intentionally deceptive, or they are not, so unintentionally proving AGW is true. Or Conservative Deniers, what if I told you that deniers know exactly what they are doing? Would they not be Marco Rubio?
It has to be one extreme or another, but not an excluded middle? Pay no attention to that excluded middle.
I'd take these arguments more seriously, if they weren't fallacy-ridden, and gave greater weight to consensus, credentials, references, and all the other superficial trappings rather than evidence. There have been many terrible and unscientific reasons given by scientists and laymen for why we should take AGW more seriously than all those other problems of man and nature. We don't need a thousand crappy reasons for acting on global warming, we need a few good ones.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 04 2016, @07:20AM
I'd take these arguments more seriously, if they weren't fallacy-ridden, and gave greater weight to consensus, credentials, references, and all the other superficial trappings rather than evidence.
Oh my poor lost and wandering khallow! Your sickness is more serious than I first thought! Tarbaby fully engaged! You are hosed, bro! Even without control, especially without control, the consensus of the credentialed experts to whom everyone refers (except, evidently, Republican Senators from Oklahoma!!) are the evidence, they are the experts, they are the ones who have an objective view of the question at hand.
So, our question is, who is lying? Those with evidence, but also control over the "story" (also known as the "scientific consensus"), or those who take campaign contributions from oil companies, and cite the bible to prove Global Warming is not biblically possible? Who, khallow? The tarbaby wants to know, and nobody can lie to a tarbaby!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 04 2016, @12:37PM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 05 2016, @07:42AM
Tarbaby, khallow! You are stuck now. Not answering the question is just digging in deeper. Who is lying? The Scientists, or the Republicans? (Hint, to actually be lying, you have to know you are lying, the intent to deceive is an essential part of the lie.) So now you are permanently branded as a climate-change denier. You did your best to mask it as reasonable scientific scepticism, but that is not fooling anyone. Even frojack has sort of given up on this ploy lately. So happy Fourth, and roll some coal for me!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @05:05PM
Oh wow, this is great! “Publishing” == posted to some guy's blag.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @02:36PM
The central premise of On the Beach is gradual mixing of the atmosphere from northern to southern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere is poisoned by radioactive cobalt(etc) after WWIII, those cities are largely intact but dead, ghost towns. The characters live in Melbourne, far south Australia, which is possibly the last major city to survive for a year or so after the war. Radio signals from more northern cities gradually go off air as everyone dies.
Not a pleasant premise, but Shute is a master story teller.
If the jet stream mixed the hemispheres quickly there wouldn't have been time for the story to unfold...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:38PM
Don't cross the streams.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wrEEd1ajz4 [youtube.com]