
Claim that jet stream crossing equator is ‘climate emergency’ is utter nonsense - Tomte
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/30/claim-that-jet-stream-crossing-equator-is-climate-emergency-is-utter-nonsense/
======
Sebguer
Just to provide some context, Roy Spencer (one of the experts quoted in the
WashPo article) doesn't 'believe' in Anthropogenic climate change, and is in
fact an ardent denier who compared those who do believe that climate change is
a serious threat 'nazis'.

He also favors intelligent design to evolution.

I hope all of the author's other sources were equally distinguished.

~~~
vixen99
Further context: Spencer partly runs the satellite-based temperature
monitoring system at Huntsville. Given his stance favoring intelligent design
to evolution, would you therefore have some doubt about the values reported
for the troposphere or might that perhaps be using totally fallacious logic?

Newton believed in alchemy and according to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies)
"Newton considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were
specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture".
What does this mean for calculus and the Newtonian laws? Precisely nothing.

~~~
CamperBob2
Newton didn't know any better.

Spencer doesn't have that excuse.

~~~
baddox
How is that true?

------
VLM
Something I find rather unsettling is the very peculiar word choices by both
sides.

One says its an emergency.

The other side says it has happened before.

Something that fits both sides statements is a hurricane, or a drought both
long term and short term. There's a lot of really bad stuff that happens only
rarely.

Its like both sides are trying to act out a scripted dramatic play. "Here's
your weird lines to talk past each other, now get on stage and make it look
good"

Another thing that's weird is the reported statements exclusively come from
cranks outside the field, and people inside the field where its well known
that any doubting of official belief means permanent removal of funding, so
anyone trusting either side is a fool. Wheres the quotes from a reasonable
disinterested 3rd party, perhaps a TV meteorologist or a fluid dynamics
physics professor (although retribution if the admit lack of faith in belief
could still impact them, they're probably less personally financially
motivated). We're dealing with religious-style beliefs on both sides, rational
thinking didn't get them there nor is it going to get them outta there, belief
isn't controlled by reason. So where's a non-belief based observation and
discussion? I suppose that's not good clickbait so it may exist but we won't
be permitted to read it.

~~~
nikdaheratik
Except, with a hurricane, we all know _why_ that's an emergency: high winds,
large amounts of rain, and potential for massive destruction and loss of life.
I have yet to see a claim as to why the jetstream near the tropics moving in a
slightly unusual way qualifies as an "emergency". It's not like there's some
wall around the equator to suddenly got broken down and all the weather is
going to go crazy now. It just doesn't make sense, and they didn't say
anything to make it credible.

------
mcguire
Nice to see Roy Spencer quoted in a spirit of glorious ecumenism.

------
kijin
> _The claims are unsupported and unscientific, and they demonstrate the
> danger of wild assertions made by non-experts reaching and misleading the
> masses._

What damages? You just thoroughly criticized their claim, on a major newspaper
no less. The reddit thread is already tagged as "Editorialized & Misleading
blogspam." Meanwhile, the earth spins as usual, scientists keep working, and
life goes on. In a week or two, nobody will even remember this debate. At
worst, some people who are already prone to believe anything they read on the
web may have acquired another incorrect belief. At best, people like me have
learned a few more things about our wonderful planet thanks to this incident.

> _Such information viewed through the lens of a non-specialist may come
> across as both credible and alarming but damages the reputation of the
> science when ultimately shown to be flawed._

The reputation and credibility of science comes precisely from the fact that
it consists of an exchange of bold conjectures and ruthless refutations, all
carried out in front of many watchful eyes, both scientists and laypeople.
Thanks to you, we just witnessed such a public refutation. More cycles of this
exchange, with more time and more data, will ultimately determine who is
right.

Why would this display of science-working-as-intended (regardless of who turns
out to be right) damage the credibility of science, except in the eyes of
those who already hold nothing but contempt for science, or those who want to
use science as a blunt-force weapon in their petty political games?

You don't get closer to the truth by trying to shut up people whom you
disagree with. We, collectively, get closer to the truth by finding and
presenting better evidence than one another.

Now who's the alarmist?

~~~
saosebastiao
> Why would this display of science-working-as-intended (regardless of who
> turns out to be right) damage the credibility of science, except in the eyes
> of those who already hold nothing but contempt for science, or those who
> want to use science as a blunt-force weapon in their petty political games?

If you haven't noticed, there isn't just a desire to use science as a
political weapon. It actually _is_ a political weapon, and it is used
regularly to win political wars. That's why extremely loud pissing matches
with politicized goals masquerading as science are problematic for the science
community...it is too easy, for too many people, to end up confusing the quest
for truth and knowledge with a pursuit for power and control.

There are plenty of climate scientists that resent the peon role they've been
placed into by politicians that nominally agree with them. By mixing up cause
and proposed solutions which happen to be perfectly politically aligned with
one side's dogmas, it makes it far too easy to vilify the cause and nullify
any chance at a solution.

You may see this as science working as expected, but the wide publication of
bullshit and subsequent politicization of it is absolutely a problem for
science.

------
labrador
Free link: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jet-stream-
crossin...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jet-stream-crossing-
equator-global-climate-emergency-dismissed-debunked-a7113241.html)

------
aniijbod
I had all sort of 'philosophical' reactions as I watched the video. One was
'wait and see' if this proves to be widely accepted. Another was 'even if this
proves to be unrealistic' his concerns appear to be heartfelt and his
commitment to pursuing them diligently seems to be strong, so dismissing them
out of hand 'in ignorance of respected opinion elsewhere' would probably be
hasty. Don't we need to offer a little extra patience with our fallible but
often conscientious independent amateur researchers? Aren't these just our
peers?

~~~
mikeash
They certainly aren't my peers. I don't make poorly researched misinformation
go viral and reduce the level of knowledge within the public.

I saw this nonsense posted on Facebook by the same people who post anti-
vaccine rants and cry about chemtrails. That's exactly where it belongs.

------
throwwit
If the flow dynamics of the wind are taken into account, how much effect does
extra rotational energy further away from the axis have on the conservation of
momentum?

------
exabrial
These alarmists and extremists do nothing but block any progression to real
change. Stop making it an all or nothing battle: perfection is the enemy of
progress.

Speaking of, anyone been to China or India lately? These folks need to be held
accountable.

------
percept
"Utter nonsense" is usually a clue.

------
Aelinsaar
The desperation in this article, to peddle a narrative that essentially no
reasonable person can afford to buy anymore, is a little embarrassing.

~~~
eugeneionesco
What narrative? That the "climate experts" are FUDing all the time for
attention?

~~~
Aelinsaar
No. And frankly the desperate "Big Climatology" conspiracies are about as
pathetic and credible as "Big Abortion" conspiracies. How desperately sad that
you've tried to 'follow the money', and it led you to climatologists rather
than say, petrochemicals.

~~~
reitanqild
That second thing is _actually_ cruel, esp. late ones. Hitler would have liked
all of it as he was in the quest of getting rid of not only non-Arians but
also chronically ill members of his own "race". It should have been shunned,
instead it is defended like some human right.

Edit: I see parent is downvoted and upvoted time and time again. I did not
downvote, as my issues are not with the fact that some people have weird ideas
about big X, but rather with almost how parent is almost jokingly throwing
this issue around.

And don't worry about me, my downvotes on this are expected, earned and worn
with pride although I don't usually make comments luke this.

------
nxzero
>> "claims are unsupported and unscientific, and they demonstrate the danger
of wild assertions made by non-experts reaching and misleading the masses."

Maybe I missed it, but if it's so obvious that it's not unusual, then why're
the "experts" unable to use science/data to prove it in the article.

Realize this isn't a popular opinion, but "peer review" is not science.

~~~
gus_massa
I'll copy a comment by doener in a previous related article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12012612](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12012612)

> _Ok, seems like this isn 't really unprecedented:_

>
> _2015:[https://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/06/24/1700Z/wind/isobaric...](https://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/06/24/1700Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectan)
> ._

>
> _2014:[https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/10/14/1500Z/wind/isobaric...](https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/10/14/1500Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa)
> ._

