Russian Heat Wave, Pakistani Floods Caused by “Blocked” Jet Stream, Not Global Warming

by geo on Aug.26, 2010, under Asia, Global Warming, Nature, Russia, Science and Technology, The Weather

According to meteorologists who study actual weather phenomena, as opposed to climatologists’ computer simulations, the Russian heat wave and Pakistani flooding are the result of a blocking event that held the jet stream in place, not global warming.

The jet stream is the high altitude band of wind that circles the globe from West to East in a wave-like pattern caused by spinning wind currents known as Rossby waves which push east to west. In an effect which some research has linked to low solar activity, the Rossby Waves sometimes hold the jet stream in place, creating “blocking events” that freeze weather systems in place, causing intense weather events.

Beginning in mid-July, a major blocking event created a huge swirling “anticyclone” over western Russia which split a low pressure trough, pulling a steady stream of hot air up from Africa over Russia and pushing a steady stream air south toward Pakistan. The blocking event coincided with the monsoon season in Pakistan, locking the weather system in place as rain continued to fall.

The jet stream is being held by the Rossby waves that normally produce its distinctive wave-like pattern. These powerful spinning wind currents are caused by the Earth’s shape and rotation and push the jet stream from east to west at high altitudes.

Now scientists believe that Rossby waves are acting against the jet stream’s usual pattern, holding it in place, according to a report in New Scientist. Since mid-July, when it would normally be moving eastwards the jet stream has been held in one place as strong Rossby waves push against it.

When the jet stream is held in one place it traps the weather systems that are caught between its meanders. Warm air is sucked north to the ‘peaks’ while cold air travels to the ‘troughs’

So while politicians like Hillary Clinton and global warming enthusiasts push  the conclusion that these severe weather events are caused by “climate change” resulting from greenhouse gas accumulation, based on computer models constructed with third-hand data which is unverifiable due to the loss or destruction of the original records from which the datasets were created, actual measurable physical phenomena say otherwise.


Normal July Jetstream Pattern


Jetstream pattern July 24 - 30, 2010



Interestingly, the unusual “blocking” action of the Rossby waves may be related to solar activity, which some scientists have also advanced as the primary actor in any climate change which may be taking place.

While it may seem counterintuitive to blame global warming for both intensely hot, dry weather and intensely wet weather, this is not unusual among the proponents of the man-made global warming theory of climate change. Global warming, rechristened “climate change” when it became apparent that temperatures were actually cooling between 2000 and 2008, is something of a “one-size-fits-all” theory. Scientists have produced “research” showing that global warming was responsible for warmer weather and colder weather, droughts and floods, increased snowfall and decreased snowfall, more hurricanes and fewer hurricanes … the list of opposite effects ascribed simultaneously to global warming goes on and on.

Is the earth warming? Yes. It has been, slightly and gradually, since the end of the most recent ice age. Does legitimate science dictate the conclusion that the current warming is either exceptional or caused by human activity? No.

Like a good conspiracy theory, the “man-made” global warming theory morphs over time as critics expose weaknesses. “Global warming” became “climate change” in the face of a decade of cooling temperatures. When widespread and highly publicized predictions that global warming would cause increasingly fierce hurricane seasons fell flat after a few years of exceptionally mild hurricane seasons, the global warming enthusiasts became more evasive in their predictions, until settling on the idea that global warming, now known as climate change, would cause “intensifying” weather systems and events. Thus, no matter what the weather does, it can be attributed to global warming. Unusually cold winter? Proof of global warming. Unusually warm summer? Proof of global warming. Unusually warm winter? Proof of global warming. Unusually cold summer? Proof of global warming. Lots of hurricanes? Proof of global warming. No hurricanes at all? Proof of global warming.

Global warming enthusiasts have also learned to couch their predictions, warnings and analysis in terms of “indirect effects”. This serves a couple of purposes. Since there is no “direct” link, the existence of a link can not be disproven, and actual causation need not be proven. Thus, global warming proponents can stand at a safe distance and say things like, “while there is no direct link, the Russian heat wave and Pakistani floods are likely the result of climate change.” They need advance no scientific evidence to support the conclusion, and since no data to support the conclusion is put forth, the data supporting the conclusion can not be examined, tested, or disproven. The “indirect” linking method also tends to nullify evidence which might be interpreted as contrary to the theory and bolsters the “whatever happens, it’s climate change” idea. Frozen iguanas falling out of trees and manatees dying in the unusually cold waters off Florida can’t be considered as tending to disprove the theory, because unusually cold weather is actually caused by global warming, even though there is no scientific data advanced to connect the events.

The connection becomes implicit in any discussion of the weather. So a report of “the hottest year on record” implicitly supports claims of global warming, and reports of the “coldest winter on record” not only fail to disprove the theory, they actually support the theory.

Global warming proponents have also developed a habit of excluding inconvenient data. If the timeline extends back far enough to include the well-documented Medieval Warm Period, Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph becomes pretty much a flat line, with the “dramatic temperature increase” of the late 20th century leveling out. Temperature data from many of the coldest weather stations have been routinely excluded from their calculations, and the placement of a large proportion of temperature recording stations in urban heat islands is ignored. The scientific fact that warming causes increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide rather than resulting from such increases is simply disregarded, as are 2,000 years of actual temperature records from China which show modern temperature trends to be well within the norm. Global warming proponents take no note of the fact that where glaciers and ice caps have receded in the Alps, in Greenland, and in the arctic they have revealed the remnants of human habitation, meaning men lived there, in temperatures at least as warm as today, before the ice came. And the theory simply takes no note of the fact that the earth has been warmer – much warmer – in periods long before man burned fossil fuels, or even walked upright on two legs.

The theory of man-made global warming has become an all-encompassing overarching universal “truth”, unsupported by and not dependent on any specific scientific data with respect to any specific phenomena and able to explain seemingly opposite effects without going into scientific detail, while simply ignoring a wealth of evidence that calls the theory into serious doubt.

The entire theory is based on computer simulations and projections, every one of which has thus far been demonstrably wrong in one or more aspects and all of which are based on dubious input data. Tree rings, for example, only give an approximation of how wet or dry a year was. From this an approximate temperature figure is somehow derived, despite the fact that it could just as easily be 40 degrees and rainy as 80 degrees and rainy. Multiply that possible 40 degree difference in temperature over 800 years and you have one seriously substantial error. And then the temperature “estimates” are “adjusted” by some formula or other before being fed into a computer to create a model.

How accurate are computer models as compared to observable phenomena? During the recent Icelandic volcanic eruption air travel over much of Europe was suspended due to the immense cloud of volcanic ash. But the grounding of air travel, and the cloud of volcanic ash, was based entirely on computer simulations derived from scientific estimates of what should have happened based on what scientists know about volcanic eruptions. Later examination of satellite photos revealed that the “immense cloud of volcanic ash” never actually existed.

The idea that computer simulations based on about 100 years of very doubtful temperature data and about 1000 years of even more doubtful temperature “estimates” can accurately predict the behavior of the earth’s incredibly complex, and very poorly understood, climate mechanics is laughable, even without the deliberate and possible accidental distortion of the data used in those simulations.

Garbage in, garbage out.

The computer models upon which the theory of man-made global warming is based are garbage. And the theory of man-made global warming is pseudo-science, a collection of assumptions, agenda, wishful thinking and guesswork dressed up in the trappings of science.

For a fascinating look at an extensive collection of links to phenomena claimed to be caused by global warming, ranging from acne to cancer to traffic jams to to gender imbalances among crocodiles, visit “A Complete List of Things Caused by Global Warming” at Number Watch.

NOTE:  When I started work on this piece I visited New Scientist and read the original article. When I returned to make sure it was still there and get the link, it was behind a screen requiring a subscription to the magazine to access the article.  So the link in this post is to the Daily Mail summary rather than the original article, HERE. New Scientist may have a “one visit free” policy, so the article may be accessible to you.