Sunspots, record cold, warns NASA scientist

a reply to: TheRedneck

The locations of the jet streams are determined by the convergence of large air masses of different temperatures. The polar jet forms where the cold polar airmass meets the warmer temperate airmass. The subtropical jet forms where the warm temperature airmass meets the warmer tropical airmass. These large airmasses vary in extent and location and as they change shape the location of the jet streams change.

Now, clouds which form lower in the atmosphere can be entrained by the jet stream. So the jet stream itself can carry weather, but it does not produce it. It is the convergence of those air masses which creates weather. But the location of the jet stream makes a good "sign post", indicating where the weather will occur. Especially when there is a "kink" in the jet stream.



In general, TV weathermen don't really seem to understand it, or they just don't bother to explain how it really works.

www.weather.gov...

a reply to: Phage

Impressive!

However, I would suggest that since the jet stream is created by the different air masses meeting, and weather is created by the different air masses meeting, the statement that the jet stream does not create weather is somewhat semantic. The jet stream and the weather coincide.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Perhaps you should read the link.
The convergence of air masses produce the jet streams, and the weather.

a reply to: Phage

I understand what you're saying. I;m suggesting the difference in the two positions is semantic.

Not a big deal, really. I figured I'd bring it up before someone else did.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I;m suggesting the difference in the two positions is semantic.

It isn't.
Jet streams do not cause weather.

a reply to: Phage

OK... jet streams do not cause weather. But the coming together of air masses does, right?

The coming together of air masses is the jet stream. Show me one time two air masses of dissimilar temperatures collided that did not result in a jet stream. The jet stream isn't caused by the border between two air masses, it is the border between the two air masses. It defines that border.

On the other hand, the jet stream may or may not carry weather patterns, depending on the temperature gradient at the junction. That temperature gradient also correlates to the intensity of the jet stream, meaning that a weak jet stream will typically not carry/create as much severe weather as a strong jet stream.

Sheesh, I extend a hand of reason and you slap it away...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The jet stream isn't caused by the border between two air masses,

Incorrect. It is caused by the "border" between the two air masses. The polar jets are formed where two rising air masses converge and the subtropical jet is formed where two descending air masses converge.

That temperature gradient also correlates to the intensity of the jet stream, meaning that a weak jet stream will typically not carry/create as much severe weather as a strong jet stream.

Jet streams do not create weather. The stronger the convection, the stronger the jet stream and the "weather." Convection causes the weather. Not much convection, weak or no jet stream, no particular weather. If the weather (clouds) is lifted (by convection) to the jet stream, the jet stream will drag that weather away from its source in the lower atmosphere. If the weather doesn't get that high, it won't.

Sheesh, I extend a hand of reason and you slap it away...

No. I'm trying to get you to understand the process. Which you don't seem to be doing.

Contrary to popular belief, the jet stream does not "cause" weather conditions of a certain type to occur. Its existence is instead the result of certain weather conditions (a large temperature contrast between two air masses).

www.weatherquestions.com...

a reply to: Phage

No. I'm trying to get you to understand the process. Which you don't seem to be doing.

Oh,I understand the process. The jet stream is the result of the partial derivatives of the densities of the various air masses with respect to distance, combined with the derivative of the angular momentum (which is itself a function of the rotation of the planet and the viscous friction of the air masses, which goes back to the density) with respect to distance and time. I would post the full equation for you, but my keyboard is missing some of those symbols. It's fairly complex, containing two dissimilar derivative functions.

The solution to that equation states that a jet stream must exist wherever there is rotation of the planet and a sufficient gradient between air masses, with its intensity dependent on the intensity of the gradient. The jet stream is therefore inherent in the conditions you describe, not caused by it as most laymen define the word.

What you are referencing is a layman's explanation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


And warm are rises because of differences in density but it's not caused by heating I suppose?

The jet stream is caused by the conditions. The jet stream is not a cause. The jet stream is an effect.

a reply to: Phage

Sheesh...

If I flick my Bic, both heat and a flame appears. Now, which one is the cause of the other? Well, the average person might say the flame produces (aka causes) heat. A 'pop' scientist might say that the heat is exciting the molecules of butane sufficiently to create light, which is the flame, so the heat creates the flame. Neither is right, and neither is wrong. It is a question of perspective.

To an actual scientist... you know, the fellows who actually run these carefully controlled experiments and write up confusing journal articles... neither statement is true. The flame and the heat are integral with each other. One cannot have the amount of heat needed to have a flame appear without having the flame appear, and one cannot have a flame appear without having sufficient heat. Neither causes the other; they co-exist as multiple aspects of a single phenomenon... in this case, rapid oxidation of butane in an oxygen environment.

Now, if I touch that flame to my cigarette, the heat will cause the end of the cigarette to begin combustion. That is a cause and effect. The cigarette must be placed near enough to the Bic in order to ignite. The ignition of the cigarette is not integral.

No one is wrong in my example above, but neither the average guy or the 'pop' scientists are technically right either. Even trained scientists will often make those kind of statements outside their work... it's an aspect of the language. So you are not wrong when you say the air masses create the jet stream, but neither are you technically correct. The issue is that you attempted to use the colloquial description of cause and effect to establish that someone else was wrong because they used a colloquial expression.

Two air masses in close enough proximity are inherent with a density gradient and thus with the mathematics that accompany that gradient and define a jet stream. One does not cause the other. They are inherent. You can say the meeting of the air masses produces a jet stream; I can say the jet stream defines the meeting of the air masses... neither of us are wrong, yet neither of us are right either. They are inherent.

Now, you can sit there and argue until the cows come home, Phage, about the semantics, but all you are doing is showing how little you actually understand about real hands-on science when you do that. You're not wrong, but you're also not right, and therefore have no basis to chide another for also being not wrong but not right.

You're arguing semantics.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What a lot of words to say not much of anything.



Jet streams do not cause weather.

Contrary to popular belief, the jet stream does not "cause" weather conditions of a certain type to occur. Its existence is instead the result of certain weather conditions (a large temperature contrast between two air masses).

www.weatherquestions.com...

a reply to: Phage

Well, I tried. I can lead you to water, Phage, but I can't make you drink.

Enjoy your ignorance.

TheRedneck

During the past week we've had some of the coldest nights I can remember in my lifetime. We were on track to break records a couple of nights, but missed it by just a few degrees. 2 nights ago we had about 2 inches of snow, which I can NEVER remember happening in all my 50 years.

a reply to: [post=23966863]Phage

try this phage.www.youtube.com...

I don't trust 'scientific graphs' so easy to add or subtract a few numbers, I prefer reports from where its happening, like the populations of polar bears increasing, more ice than 'normal' , snow where it has not been seen for tens of years, as in New Zealand, Namibia, the Sphinx, other parts of the middle east, Best of all is Mr Gores prediction of an ice free north pole, still waiting. (Search engines are good for all the above.)

a reply to: Phage

Preparations for shooting or knocking off course, something headed towards Earth.

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: wantsome

So because something never happened in your lifetime means that it is unprecedented in all of geologic history?

Have you ever been out a mile from shore on a frozen lake with only 2 inches of ice. The ice is like standing on glass and when you looked down all you see is blackness. As you walk the ice would ripples from the waves you create when walking. Really it's a sight to see. I love watching the sun rise in the winter over a frozen lake as I'm drilling my fishing holes. I'll sit out on a bucket fishing from sun up to sun down in sub zero temps. The best fishing is as soon as the ice forms and as it's melting. I've seen 2 cars fall through the ice. One was a brand new dodge ram. The guy was screwed his insurance expired the second his tires left the shore. If you're from the south I guess you'd never know.

I'm from the South and I tried walking on frozen water a few times. Every time I attempted it, the ice busted and I fell through a couple inches of ice. It was in my ditch.

a reply to: pikestaff


Some very strange weather happening all over the world, Snow records in Turkey, floods in Saudi Arabia, it looks like the temperate zone has moved

I think I had a bit of an epiphany last night. Sunspots are places where the sun's magnetic field is especially strong, right? If the lack of sunspots is leading to cooler weather on Earth, then that means that at least a portion of the heat the Earth receives comes from the sun's magnetic field. Because of our planet's iron deposits, the Earth experiences inductive heating!

a reply to: Bluntone22

We've been dealt a break. Instead of runaway global warming, we get a some cooling to counteract it.

There are still record high water temperatures in certain areas of the Arctic.

With Carbon Dioxide at 400 ppm, do you really think we'll have record cold? The best we can hope for is a return to more normal temperatures.