“Climate System Scientist” Claims Jet Stream Crossing the Equator is Unprecedented

June 29th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Paul Beckwith has a masters degree in laser optics, which he has somehow parlayed into being a “Climate System Scientist” to spread alarmism about the climate system.

But his post “Unprecedented, Jet Stream Crosses Equator” suggests he knows little of meteorology, let alone climate.

A “jet stream” in the usual sense of the word is caused by the thermal wind, which cannot exist at the equator because there is no Coriolis force. To the extent that there is cross-equator flow at jet stream levels, it is usually from air flowing out of deep convective rain systems. That outflow often enters the subtropical jet stream, which is part of the average Hadley Cell circulation.


There is frequently cross-equatorial flow at jet stream altitudes, and that flow can connect up with a subtropical jet stream. But it has always happened, and always will happen, with or without the help of humans. Sometimes the flows connect up with each other and make it look like a larger flow structure is causing the jet stream to flow from one hemisphere to the other, but it’s in no way unprecedented.

We’ve really only known about jet streams since around WWII…one of my professors, Reid Bryson, was one of the first to advise the U.S. military that bombers flying to Japan might encounter strong head winds. The idea that something we have been observing for only several decades on a routine basis (upper tropospheric winds in the tropics) would exhibit “unprecedented” behavior is rather silly.

I especially like this portion of Paul’s post:

“We must declare a global climate emergency. Please consider a donation to support my work..”

Nice touch, Mr. Beckwith.

129 Responses to ““Climate System Scientist” Claims Jet Stream Crossing the Equator is Unprecedented”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. michael hart says:

    No comments needed, really.

  2. RAH says:

    Thanks for the lesson doc.

    During WW II the allies enjoyed more than adequate meteorological information for the European theater. But in the Pacific it was a far different story. With the Japanese occupying a great deal of China, Manchuria, Korea and the Russians unable to or unwilling to provided data or even allow Allied weather teams into their territory there was a severe lack of observational data. The USN and OSS managed to infiltrate a few teams into the Gobi but there simply was not enough data for very accurate forecasting.

    It was not only the flight of aircraft effected by the jet streams even the fall of bombs and the flight of heavy naval artillery were directly or indirectly effected by the weather and winds. Thus the accuracy of high altitude “precision bombing” by the B-29s over Japan was abysmal. In seven missions flow where the B-29s dropped 1,550 tons of bombs it was found that not even 2% had hit within a 1,000 foot radius of the target. The B 29s flew 350 sorties against Japans Musashino aircraft engine plant near Tokyo and the result was only 34 hits on the buildings themselves. During late 1944 and January and February of 1945 the standard Joke in Tokyo was that the US was trying to starve them by bombing the fish in the harbor.

    And thus the switch to low level incendiary raids which proved highly effective. In fact the first major incendiary raid flown 9-10 March, 1945 against Tokyo code named Meetinghouse” with the bombers flying at night at altitudes between 5,000 and 8,000 feet. It remains to this day the deadliest air raid in history and with at least 80,000 dead and about 1/4 of all structures destroyed in Tokyo by that single raid I don’t think anyone made jokes about the raids from that time on.

    • CC Reader says:

      I recommend reading “Flyboys: A True Story of Courage” by Bradley. You will find the Gen. LaMay(?) discovered that Japanese AA did not cover the area between10000-12000 ft. You will also find that more people were killed on that Tokyo bombing raid than Hiroshima and finally the real reason the war ended is Truman promised not to hang the emperor god and his general staff. The book was written after the 50yr secrecy act expired.

      • mpainter says:

        And Hirohito and Prince Asaka both deserved hanging.

      • RAH says:

        The 5,000 to 8,000 foot altitude figure comes from ‘BRINGING THE THUNDER, The missions of a World War II B-29 Pilot in the Pacific.’

        The author, Gordon Bennett Robertson, Jr. flew the mission as the aircraft commander of a B-29 in the 43rd squadron of the 29th Bomb group.

        Also for the first time on that mission each individual bomber flew in from different directions to confuse the Japanese and not in formation. It was a matter of strict timing that was recognized as impossible so each pilot was told to “fly it as he saw it” once he arrived at the target.

        He also says that “The low bombing altitude had two objectives: to ensure saturation of the target and, it was hoped, to put us at the extreme range of the smaller anti-aircraft guns but too low for the big anti-aircraft batteries to track us.”

        BTW each B-29 despite having all but the tail guns removed and leaving behind most of the gunners, flew the mission at 138,000 lbs take off weight which was 3,000 lbs over the specified design limit for the aircraft.

        Japanese AA, even during the day or night, even over Tokyo the most heavily defended city in Japan, never came close to putting up the defense the boys of the 8th and 15th USAF faced over the better defended targets in Germany.

        The 80,000 casualties was a rounding. The official Japanese government figure was 83,000 killed although there is reason to believe that considerably more were killed and perhaps as many 100,000.

  3. Michal says:


    Thanks for your continued endeavors to bring sanity to an insane world.

    It is much appreciated,

  4. mpainter says:

    Thanks for this, Dr. Roy. It’s always gratifying to see an example of the so-called climate scientists doing their work.

    Beckwith’s appeal for money tell us everything we need to know about the dubious scientists behind the dubious science.

    • Dennis Hlinka says:


      Does your first comment go for all those self-proclaimed psuedo-climate scientists that post out-of-their-expertise opinions here as well?

      In regards to your second comment, does that mean all those self-proclaimed climate experts that display a “donate” button on their web sites are spreading dubious science (e.g., Dr. Spencer, Bob Tisdale, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, ICECAP, etc.)?

      • mpainter says:

        My comment goes for the so-called “consensus” of so-called “climate scientists” who crank out the dubious science intended to prop up the collapsed AGW hypothesis and propagate alarms, whether they comment here or not.

        No to your tenditious, rhetorical and somewhat foolish second question, since I heartily support the efforts by all skeptical blogs.

        You fit the alarmist profile, Dennis, by ignoring utterly the crass alarmist appeal for $ by Beckwith. Such tactics seem to suit you fine. Thus the dubious types sort themselves out.

      • mpainter says:

        Of course, Dennis, I’m not complaining about your comment; in fact, I welcome it. It’s always helpful to have an illustration of the sort of mindset prevalent among the AGW crowd.

        So that you understand, I’ll be specific:

        Here comes Beckwith, not founded in meteorology nor any related field such as atmospheric studies, puts on a hat that says “climate scientist” and proceeds to pronounce on topics of which he is unfamiliar. “Climate mayhem” he shrills. “Climate chaos” he shrills. We’re all gonna be _________.(you fill in the blank, use your favorite doomsday screech).

        Then he asks for money. This was all lost on Dennis Hrlinka, who seems perfectly at home with such behavior.

        • Dennis Hlinka says:


          Nowhere in my comment did I say I condoned the comments and opinions of Mr. Beckwith. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

          You went off on a rant all because I questioned your comments just because I felt they needed some clarification. What kind of illustration does that type of behavioral response present to someone that simply asks you some questions you obviously didn’t like me to ask?

          In regards to my not formally questioning Mr. Beckwith’s background as being “not founded in meteorology nor any related field such as atmospheric sciences.” I can proudly say that my educational background and 40+ year professional expertience is in the field of meteorology. How qualified is your particular background that allows you to pronounce and provide any comments on this subject of climate science? Is it any more relatable to the subject than Mr. Beckwith’s?

          • Lewis says:

            Dear Mr. Hlinka,

            Lengthy experience in a subject does not qualify one as an expert or even good at the subject. It only proves that you were competent enough to not be thrown out. Best wishes.

          • mpainter says:

            I see no reason to modify any of my comments above. It’s pretty obvious that you have had second thoughts about defending the behavior of the reprehensible Paul Beckwith.

          • Dennis Hlinka says:


            No, I do not have any second thoughts about any of my comments. You are putting words in my mouth again. Do you do that often with others you don’t agree with?

            Your non-response to my question about your educational background is pretty typical of many that are close followers of the skeptical web sites. I have asked that same question to Bob Tisdale and others, and the response is always the same. No response.

            I have to say your behavior is ironically similar to the way you describe Mr. Beckwith’s behavior. A lot of shrill and complaining about a science you apparently have no real background in and yet feel you can express your opinions about a subject you are unfamiliar with or educated on. You only thing you are not doing yet is asking for a donation.

            By the way, I do not agree with Mr. Beckwith’s uneducated comment, but that was not the reason I was questioning you in the first place. I was just trying to get you see that you are not that much different from him.

          • mpainter says:

            You put sufficient words in your own mouth for anyone to read what you are about.

            I eagerly await the occasion when you comment on some aspect of science, Mr Dennis Hlinka.

      • Matthew W says:

        The list you give of “websites that are spreading dubious science…..” Pretty much ends any chance of a rational discussion..

        Having a “Donate” button is a far cry from “We must declare a global climate emergency. Please consider a donation to support my work..

        • Hugs says:

          – I’m writing a fund-raising letter.

          The secret to getting donations is to depict everyone who disagrees with you as the enemy. Then you explain how they’re systematically working to destroy everything you hold dear.

          It is the war of values! Rational discussion is hopeless! Compromise is unthinkable! Our only hope is well-funded antagonism, so we need your money to keep up the fight!

          – How cynically unconstructive.

          – Enmity sells.

          Bill Watterson saw this so clearly. U.S. has gone partly mad because NGOs successfully campaign all the time. See the Calvin & Hobbes strip in climate scope here:


          • Lewis says:

            Bill Watterson was a heck of a social commentator. I read the strip, then thought about the columnists in my NRA magazine and why I stopped subscribing. Rabid. Although they are one of the few reasons we still have the 2nd amendment.

  5. Ric Werme says:

    I was considering posting something over there, but I think his posts look just fine with zero comments.

    It looks like he even has a sidekick posting stuff about Paul, there are references to (dk).

  6. Jim Dean says:

    Dennis Hlinka, After rereading Dr. Spencer’s above report several times, no where could I find the appearance of scare tactics to garner support nor find any indication of a donation request. Straws must be hard to come by where you live, you seem willing to reach quite far to grasp them.

    • geran says:


      (Wish I’d Said That)

      • Ghung says:

        “…..nor find any indication of a donation request.”

        I guess you didn’t look very hard:


        Do we invalidate every blogger who asks for donations, or just those we disagree with? I guess it depends on ones character. Anyway, I found Dr. Roy’s response to this possible trend as remarkably simplistic; always a red flag when considering very complex issues. Me? I’ll file possible ‘anomaly’ under “deserves further study and consideration”.

        • mpainter says:

          Another wisp of straw grasped in the clutch of a foggy-brained AGW supporter. Go read Dean’s comment again, with better comprehension, if you can. But, maybe you can’t, Chung (any relation to Ghung Hoe?).

          • Ghung says:

            Your assumption; “foggy-brained AGW supporter” is as baseless as the rest of your post. Unlike most people here, I don’t indulge in confirmation bias. Always questioning, which leads me to question; why are YOU here?
            Fact: This site DOES have a “donate” link. Fact: The article IS short and simplistic, just as I stated. You have a problem with those facts as well?

          • mpainter says:

            You apparently did not strive for better comprehension. Typical AGW fogscreen is your two comments. Others can see what you are about, I don’t even have to point it out. Dean did not say what you insinuate to him.

          • Ghung says:

            He didn’t? It was a direct quote, copied and pasted from his post. An I’m the one with comprehension problems?

          • mpainter says:

            You are Beckwith? Right?

          • Ghung says:

            No. I’m Jimmy Inhofe’s shoe-shine boy.

          • mpainter says:

            Yes,yes, confess, you are Beckwith. You have come here to smear Roy Spencer. No science needed, just hype the climate emergency and “rolls in, rolls in, my god how the money rolls in, rolls in”.

          • Adrian M. Kleinbergen says:

            “You are Spencer! “

    • Dennis Hlinka says:

      Jim Dean,

      If you look to the right of my comment posted here and dated June 29, 2016 at 6:18 PM. That looks like a donate button to me.

      That seems pretty clear to me that Dr. Spencer is appealing for money on this site.

      However, I can agree with you that Dr. Spencer does not go into the scare tactics techniques and for that I give him credit. For that I should have listed him separately from the other sites listed in my comment to mpainter.

      With that said, I am not sure you can say the same about any of those other sites I listed. They have both a donate button and commonly use scare tactics of their own to rile up their followers.

      • mpainter says:

        Thanks for pointing out the donate button, Dennis. I had never noticed it. Roy never mentioned it and, despite what you falsely claim, he never appealed here for donations.
        It is good to know how I can support this most worthy of science blogs.

        I’m sure that you agree that Roy Spencer maintains the best blog on climate issues and that we should all help support this most excellent blog.

        • Massimo PORZIO says:


          Just to say mpainter, take it easier.
          I know you are passionate, but some times you are a little too much impetuous (IMHO of course).
          Have a great day.


          • mpainter says:

            The AGW types are to modern science as the Huns were to Rome. They are not civilized Italian gentleman, Massimo.

        • fonzarelli says:

          Massimo, i think of painter as being a “defacto moderator” (and everybody’s been sayin’ that dr. spencer’s blog needs moderation)…

          Painter, down thread i posted a link (new paper) on the role of dust in the ice ages that i thought you might enjoy…

          • mpainter says:

            Thanks, fonz, I have seen the paper and I’m afraid that it doesn’t stand up to a close look. Very rickety. We still await an explanation for the ice ages.

          • MarkB says:

            “Massimo, i think of painter as being a defacto moderator (and everybodys been sayin that dr. spencers blog needs moderation)”

            When accused of bad behavior by an adversary, it’s at least plausible to assume it’s a tactic. When one’s presumed ally suggests a line has been crossed, perhaps one should take notice.

          • mpainter says:

            Fonz, to continue, the study puts that the ice age was not drier than the Holocene. This assertion overturns what is solidly established: that cooler=drier and that the Holocene was wetter than the ice age; there is no controversy in this.
            To support this rather dubious assertion, the author cites some climate and “precipitation” models for the “western Gobi desert”, these models being impossible to validate, of course. The author should know better. There are others big problems with the study.

      • WizGeek says:

        Donation for support of a web site is far, far different than a solicitation for funds to act as primary income.

      • Jim Dean says:

        Hi Dennis Hlinka, I appreciate that you didn’t find the need to defend Paul Beckwith. I was simply pointing out that Roy didn’t ask for money at the end of his article (as Roy showed, Paul did). Roy took the time to point out the dooms day insinuation cited in Beckwith’s article, and debunk it. Roy also eloquently illustrated it is not unprecedented. The AGW crowd doesn’t compel attention unless they run in circles, screaming and shouting. May calmer heads prevail.

  7. Jos says:

    It would be funny if it wouldn’t be so sad. A proper scientist would first look in textbooks and literature to see if others have seen this and have an explanation answers:yes and yes), then investigate the statistics before claiming unprecedentedness and the world coming to an end (OK, he didn’t make that last statement, but you get the point).
    It just shows his lack of knowledge and his incompetence, a disgrace not only for climate science but for all scientists alike. What an idiot.

    • mpainter says:

      Maybe no idiot. There are millions to be made in AGW alarmism/pseudoscience. Government boola to be had for the asking. Beckwith: “Also interested in investment and start-ups in climate solutions, renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

      If Beckwith plays the game right, he could snag hundreds of $ millions.

  8. geran says:

    Somewhat OT, but since June UAH values are only a few days away, how about +0.38 for global?

  9. Paul Pukite says:

    I think the deal is that you and your fellow loser atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen never could figure out QBO. So it takes me to set you guys straight.

    • mpainter says:

      This is good☺

    • fonzarelli says:

      polite much, paul?

    • years ago we ran multi-year integrations of the ARPS cloud resolving model in 2D, for tropical conditions over the ocean on the equator. There was no periodic forcing of any type. It generated a clear QBO in the model stratosphere, which supports the traditional view that the QBO is driven by moist convection in the troposphere.

      • Paul Pukite says:

        Yet you can’t get the QBO period exactly right, because it maps perfectly to the seasonally-aliased nodal (draconic) lunar period. Of course your models based on Lindzen’s mess can come up with anything because you have dozens of degrees of freedom.

        • well, do let me know when you come up with a dynamical model that generates E-W wind oscillations that propagate vertically in the stratosphere from first principles.

          • Paul Pukite says:

            I see you are using the fallacious argument of “raising the bar”.

            You may not remember that Lindzen once asserted: “it is unlikely that lunar periods could be produced by anything other than the lunar potential.” from Lindzen, Richard S., and Siu-Shung Hong. “Effects of mean winds and horizontal temperature gradients on solar and lunar semidiurnal tides in the atmosphere.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 31.5 (1974): 1421-1446.

            Just because Lindzen couldn’t figure out how the lunar nodal period of 27.2 days aliases against the yearly solar signal to create the observed QBO period of 28 months is not my problem. The ball is now in your court to show how that forcing can’t work.

          • mpainter says:

            Well, Paul the obligation is on you to prove your theory. A rather inconvenient obligation, no doubt, but that’s the way science works.
            Or is supposed to work, the pretensions of the global warmers that it should be otherwise notwithstanding.

          • Paul Pukite says:

            “but thats the way science works.”

            Thanks for the setup.

            You may be able to prove mathematical theories, but you can’t prove scientific theories. However, what you can do is disprove a scientific theory. In this case, all you have to show is how the QBO period is not related to the lunar period. I am not able to do that because the periods match when one is aliased.

          • mpainter says:

            Paul, you can support your theory, provide evidence, argue from principles. A theory explains observations. Give the observations, show how the theory explains them. The way that I evaluate theory is to look for inconsistencies. I think that is true for many, perhaps most, scientists (except in climate science).

            The test of a scientist is whether he ignores observations contrary to his theory, or whether he modifies his theory to accommodate the contrary observations.

          • “A theory explains observations. Give the observations, show how the theory explains them. The way that I evaluate theory is to look for inconsistencies. I think that is true for many, perhaps most, scientists (except in climate science).

            The test of a scientist is whether he ignores observations contrary to his theory, or whether he modifies his theory to accommodate the contrary observations.”

            The theory I am using is from 1776, Pierre-Simon Laplace’s Tidal Equations. I solved them for along the equator, where they simplify tremendously. I then insert the known lunar gravitational forces interacting with the seasonal solar forcing to generate the QBO precisely.

            If you are intellectually curious (as I have noticed most denialists aren’t) you can understand the theory more in depth if you click on my handle. Or you can follow the QBO thread at the Azimuth Forum discussion group.

            Most scientific theories do not come from the ether, but are built from previous foundational principles and that’s what we are doing.

          • mpainter says:

            Well, Paul, so I am a “denialist” because I cite solid principles of science. You are now a cull.

          • I think I’ve seen your name pop up before, so I am pretty certain you are a denihilist. In any case I am not as interested in discussing this topic with you as you don’t seem to add any scientific value.

            I’d really like to get Lindzen’s opinion but I doubt that’s forthcoming.

          • mpainter says:

            Fine, cull yourself, that’s good enough. Your web site gives the impression of a mathematician who has no room in his thinking for observations, a sure sign of someone who lacks any foundation in science.

          • That’s good. Maybe people that are still reading this thread may want to stroll over to the Azimuth Forum, where you can interact with other PhD mathematicians, physicists, and engineers. We have been working on the topic of QBO and ENSO over the last year


            That’s the way many of do science these days. We contribute ideas within an open forum via markup equations, charts, and links to data.

            I am WHT over there.

          • mpainter says:

            I meant you, not your bloggers, as deficient in science. The fact that you imagine that the obligation is on others to disprove your science is a dead giveaway. Preposterous.

          • mpainter,
            It seems that you don’t understand how real scientific research operates. First of all, the longstanding tradition of physics research is that you have two classes of scientists — the Theorists and the Experimentalists. A theorist does not have to test out his theory, as he (1) may not be good at lab work, (2) may be more interested in working the math, etc.

            So the experimentalists are the ones that are generally good at lab work and/or data processing and enjoy that aspect of the science. These are the ones that pick up ideas from the theorists and try to find evidence to support or deny the claims.

            On that rare occasion, you will find scientists that are good at both. Enrico Fermi was considered both an excellent theorist and experimentalist.

            In grad school, I did both. I developed a theory and did experiments to demonstrate its utility for practical applications. Yet in this particular case and in the tradition of science, I wouldn’t necessarily have to verify my theory of lunisolar forcing of QBO, but can’t resist doing the data analysis, LOL.

          • mpainter says:

            Yep, a physicist, no surprise. And you aspire to be a climate scientist. No surprise again. And you model ENSO without reference to meridional overturning circulation. No surprise there, either.

          • The guy does not understand what a standing wave dipole is.

          • mpainter says:

            Paul, if you ask real nicely, I’ll explain why meridional ocean overturning is important to ENSO. But maybe you don’t want to hear about it.

          • You don’t seem to understand that a standing wave dipole is self-contained.

          • mpainter says:

            You seem to be happy to flaunt your ignorance,so be it.

          • Differential measurements such as the SOI measure of ENSO are largely immune to common-mode effects. That’s because whatever gets added to Tahiti and to Darwin as a consequence of other oceanic impacts disappears when the values are subtracted from one another. That’s why I kept on harping on the dipole.

          • mpainter says:

            And there you go, plying your data fiddle techniques on effects rather than cause, and saying “the ball’s in your court, prove me wrong”. To get up to speed, take some basic courses in meteorology and oceanography.

            Or don’t. Just keep kidding yourself.

          • Why don’t you take a course in geophysics?

            “… plying your data fiddle techniques “

            I believe that Spencer is guilty of that, right?

          • mpainter says:

            I did. Don’t need it for ENSO. Keep kidding yourself.

          • I believe the guy that was kidding himself was the denier Dick Lindzen. He happened to come up with a theory for QBO in the 1960’s that was clearly premature, as it has never been used to make any predictions.

            Another guy that was kidding himself was Anastosias Tsonis, a GWPF board member colleague of Lindzen who said that ENSO was impossible to deterministically model.

            Got a lot of geniuses working this stuff, eh?

          • mpainter says:

            Now you hit out in all directions. You will never take the trouble to inform yourself on the ABC’s of ENSO. Most likely it is because you lack the motivation to learn outside your particular field.

          • The problem is that no one knows much about ENSO. If they did, they would be able to predict it with confidence more than a few months in advance. In contrast, I am finding that it is in all likelihood not much more difficult to predict ENSO cycles than it is to predict tides. I am sure that Pierre-Simon Laplace was not that educated on all the aspects of oceans when he came up with his tidal equations in 1776.

          • mpainter says:

            It is true that the vast majority of those with an interest in climate and ENSO are clueless about what is going on. Some resort to fantastic explanations.
            Simply put, ENSO is about SST in the equatorial Pacific and its variation. This depends on meridional overturning circulation. This is the upwelling west of South America.

            Increased rate of MOC = La Nina
            Decreased = El Nino

            Topics for study:
            Eckman effect (or pump)
            Eastern Boundary current
            Walker Cell
            Humboldt Current

            If you delve into it, you will perceive that upwelling (meridional ocean overturning circulation) plays the most important role in ENSO. You will also learn that the Atlantic west of Africa has a sort of mini-ENSO, this also due to MOC (see Benguela current). It comes down to the behavior of eastern boundary currents as these approach the equator, and their rate of flow (which is highly variable).

          • “Simply put, ENSO is about SST in the equatorial Pacific and its variation. “

            Science is about describing the fundamentals of the behavior, not mixing up cause and effect as you are so sloppily doing.

            ENSO is a sloshing of the equatorial Pacific ocean volume caused by the sensitivity of water density differences above and below the thermocline to slight changes in the angular momentum of the Earth’s rotation. That’s geophysics.

          • mpainter says:

            Ah, you are a “slosher”, yes I might have known it. Well, stick to your sloshy science and forget about ocean currents.

  10. Sunsettommy says:

    I chewed out Mr. Beckwith on his own Facebook page,it was very civil.

    I basically stated that his Summer ice free Arctic predictions are painfully wrong,that he needs to drop the propaganda behind it and get back to science research.

    At first he asked if I had anything constructive to say, in which I replied that I am disappointed in his research since it is damaged by over the top propaganda approach he clearly favors.

    After that ALL of my comments were deleted.

  11. TA says:

    So this is what the author is talking about.


    It just popped up in the last few days.

    Let’s see how long it lasts.

  12. mpainter says:

    Note that paulbeckwith has crawfished and now has “…emergency?”
    But he did not change his alarms which still read “..climate mayhem..climate chaos..our climate continues to behave in New and scary ways…we must declare a global climate emergency” whereupon he turns his Palm up and asks for a donation.

    • mpainter says:

      Correction, not “emergency?” but “Unprecedented?”. In other words, he admits the fault of his science, yet does not change his alarmism, not a bit. I wonder how much moolah he will snare with his fumbling science/screeching alarms combination? Maybe millions, eh?☺

  13. Christopher Hanley says:

    At least Mr Beckwith was moderate enough to put a question mark after unprecedented in his headline.
    The usual CAGW technique, as with the recent coral bleaching claims, is to use an absence of evidence as unequivocal evidence of absence.
    BTW was his paper peer reviewed by other laser optics experts?

  14. John says:

    Beckwith operates outside mainstream climate science and is self-funded through donations. He can not only say whatever he wants, it benefits him to err on the side of the dramatic to gain eyeballs. Not unlike the author of this website.

    • mpainter says:

      Care to furnish any examples concerning “the author of this website.”?…

      Also, curious contradiction “self funded through donations”. I’ll bet you are an AGW type. They are quite comfortable with that sort of slap-stick phrasing.

    • fonzarelli says:

      rude much, john?

  15. Lewis says:

    Ladies and Gents: off subject
    HUMOR for you fuddy duddies.

    What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers? Mechanical engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.

    Understanding Engineers #5
    The graduate with a science degree asks, “Why does it work?”
    The graduate with an engineering degree asks, “How does it work?”
    The graduate with an accounting degree asks, “How much will it cost?”
    The graduate with an arts degree asks, “Do you want fries with that?”

  16. Richard KLABECHEK says:

    As I see here we have mostly spurts. that is they talk a lot and say mostly nothing. Hence they are a spurt and not an expert. There are very few experts, most people who claim to be experts are merely spurts……………………..

    • Mike Flynn says:


      A chap once told me that “x” was an unknown quantity, and a spurt was a drip under pressure.

      Hence expert.

      Richard Feynman said that science was belief in the ignorance of experts. Experts do tend to get things wrong from time to time, just like ordinary people.


      • fonzarelli says:

        An excellent definition, Mike, of the groupthink of (climate) science… ☺

      • crakar24 says:

        An expert is defined as “someone who has made every mistake possible in a very narrow field”.

  17. doctor no says:

    Roy, your post seems a bit petty.
    Surely there are peer reviewed papers to criticise rather than some obscure blogger.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      doctor no,

      Your comment seems a bit petty, and pointless as well.

      Surely there are facts waitting to make your acquaintance. They’re not always found in random peer reviewed journals.


      • doctor no says:

        “Surely there are facts waitting to make your acquaintance. Theyre not always found in random peer reviewed journals.”

        Sorry, I don’t read comic books for my facts.

        • mpainter says:

          What facts, pray tell.

          • Dr no says:

            Certainly not fantasies such as
            “The pause…..the pause…

            I seem to recall a publishing outfit called fantasy comics. Long time ago mind you. Maybe you still study them?

          • Lewis says:

            Dr. No.,

            At one time I was a veritable spurt on comics. Today I find many things resemble comic book characters and stories. Take, for instance, the (C)AGW story.

            Here we have a situation caused by bad guys (coal companies, oil companies, typical consumers etc.,) who are threatening to destroy the planet. Now come the good guys, (channel Men In Black) to save the planet from the dastardly bad guys. There are, of course, superheroes with unconstitutional powers (POTUS Obama – just ask him, he’ll tell you) who use their powers to do wonderful deeds.

            There are side stories – such as how the Great Igore let the people know of their danger and they rewarded him for his efforts with great riches. Or how the Elon Musk designed a new automobile whose great benefit to the planet is converting tax breaks.

            Comic book stories abound my friend. Just open your eyes.

          • mpainter says:

            The pause could turn to cooling for the next few decades. The El Nino spike is a coffin nail. Ma Nature has decided to nail the lid on. ☺ AGW RIP.

          • doctor no says:

            “The pause could turn to cooling..”

            Yes – and Donald Trump could become a hippy.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Mr. Beckwith is not a scientist, he is a propagandist.

  18. trwxxa says:

    Anyone look closely at the fine print of the “nullschool” data source? It’s the GFS! Nothing more to see here, folks.

  19. Adrian M. Kleinbergen says:

    What a clever little fellow you are…

  20. Simon PL says:

    Small offtopic – recently Forbes.com published an article entitled “New Theory: CO2 And Climate Linked — But Not In The Way The “Consensus” Tells Us” that isn’t available anymore on the portal. Does anyone know what it was about?

  21. barry says:

    I found Beckwith’s presentation a little too vague, in ind with the meandering, twinning and splitting behaviour of the various jet streams.

    He may have meant that the Polar jet stream had (perhaps) for the first time crossed the equator. But that can’t be gleaned from the maps he displays, as the ‘event could easily have been a twinning and splitting of higher and lower latitude streams in the NH. I don’t know if it’s ‘unprecedented for lower altitude jet streams to cross the equator, and the mingling of different altitude jet streams makes it rather difficult to posit that the Polar j/s had crossed the equator.

    But as he didn’t identify which stream he was talking about – if that’s even possible amid the chaotic behaviour – the presentation ended up being too vague to be meaningful. He seems to know that there are more than 2 jet streams (NH/SH), but didn’t make any useful commentary on that.

    Not much background information in that vid presentation, and therefore not much value. He way possibly have something useful to offer, but that presentation may as well be described as “not even wrong.”

    • not possible for the polar jet to cross the equator…or even a mid-latitude jet. The necessary temperature gradient cannot be supported in the tropics. Yet, atmospheric flows tend to have a continuous nature, but the forces involved in maintaining an upstream portion of the flow can be very different from those which maintain the downstream portion.

  22. barry says:

    Scuse typos.

  23. David L. Hagen says:

    Re: “A jet stream . . . which cannot exist at the equator because there is no Coriolis force.”
    In preparing a coconut processing feasibility study for Rabaul, I learned that there correspondingly are almost never any cyclones (aka hurricanes) within 4 degrees N/S of the equator and rarely within 7 degrees N/S!

    • fonzarelli says:

      As O’ Reilly might say, the equator is a “no spin zone”!

    • coturnix says:

      Wait till he sees the westerly flow at the jet stream altitude over the pacific during la nina (at least i seen it on gfs sourced maps, not sure how faithful their reanalysis is).

      However, while he was tipped off for nothing, his idea is not such a crazy. Despite not having observed jet streams for very long, it is not really ‘normal’ to have westerly flow at equator for any significant extent and duration since it may cause and/or is an indication of altered atmospheric dynamics that may change the climate significantly and even abruptly, especially if it is systemically caused by the rising co2 for example. The one observed in eastern pacific is as i understand related to walker circulation return flow and so its impact is mostly local, still it is interesting phenomenon.

      Am i wrong about this?

    • coturnix says:

      sorry it was supposed to go to main thread, this interface usability really sucks a$$

  24. dave says:

    “Jet stream crossing the Equator…”

    This is part of the publicity for the (completely unwanted) remake of Ghostbusters, right?

    Spengler: “Don’t cross the streams!”
    Venkman: “Why?”
    Spengler: “It would be bad.”
    Venkman: “I am fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing.
    What do you mean ‘bad’?”
    Spengler: “Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping
    instantaneously and every molecule in your body
    exploding at the speed of light.”
    Stantz: “Total protonic reversal!”
    Venkman: “Right. That’s bad. Okay. Important safety tip.
    Thanks, Egon.”

  25. Ric Werme says:

    Jason Samenow blasts Scribbler (we missed him) and Beckwith calling their claim “utter nonsense” but goes a bit overboard citing credentials of people he quotes.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/30/claim-that-jet-stream-crossing-equator-is-climate-emergency-is-utter-nonsense/ says in part:

    The two bloggers who have perpetuated this misinformation are Robert Scribbler, who describes himself as a progressive novelist, non-fiction writer and emerging threats expert, and Paul Beckwith, who is working on a PhD with a focus on abrupt climate system change at the University of Ottawa.

    This is total nonsense, said Cliff Mass, a professor of meteorology at the University of Washington. Flow often crosses the equator.

    Ryan Maue, a senior meteorologist with a doctoral degree who works at WeatherBell Analytics, agreed with Mass that the cross-equator flow is totally normal and not evidence of a joint hemispheric jet stream. Cross-equatorial flow at both upper and lower levels is part of the seasonal transition of the Western Pacific monsoon through boreal summer, he said.

    Sam Lillo, who is working on his PhD in meteorology at the University of Oklahoma, said the cross-equator flow evolved from twin areas of high pressure on either side of the equator while a parade of atmospheric waves in the Southern Hemisphere had pushed the subtropical (which is distinct from the mid-latitude or polar jet stream that Scribbler and Beckwith are discussing) jet stream northward, allowing the link to occur. None of this is unusual, he said. There isnt a wall at the equator separating the two hemispheres, and air is free to flow from one side to the other.

    • mpainter says:

      See Roy Spencer in the post and comments. No need to look elsewhere to figure out Beckwith.

  26. barry says:

    A few (non expert) places on the net have promoted the story, but experts of all stripes have called it unlikely, unvetted or nonsense.

    Looks like skeptics and the mainstream agree on this one.


    • dave says:

      “…(non expert) places on the net have promoted the story…”

      Still, reported on the radio in England (yesterday) with the familiar introduction,

      “Some scientists say…”

  27. Mike Flynn says:

    Maybe I’m wrong, but the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone wanders back and forth across the physical Equator during the year. This is no doubt due to the Earths axial inclination to the plane of the ecliptic.

    Weather and circulation patterns aloft, and on the surface, change as a result.

    More shrieking Warmist alarmism, by the sound of it.


  28. Ric Werme says:

    Beckwith updated his blog post – with a question mark:

    Fred Pickhardt says:
    June 29, 2016 at 10:33 am

    I dont think you can call this unprecedented. Perhaps there is some enhance flow due to conditions created by a rapidly weakening El Nino and developing La Nina.

    paulbeckwith says:
    June 29, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    I agree Fred. I modified it by adding a question mark: Unprecedented? and will put an explanation for change in the YouTube comments. Never say neverit was late

  29. Bill Marsh says:

    I’d like to ask a question.

    In your post you refer to the lack of ‘Coriolis Force’ @ the equator. I was always taught by my Physics Profs that there is no such thing as a ‘Coriolis Force’, it is a ‘Coriolis Effect’ that manifests as a result of other forces. I do understand that referring to ‘Coriolis Force’ is a colloquialism and people really mean effect. Am I wrong in this?

    • dave says:

      “Am I wrong in this?”

      You are right there is no such thing as a real ‘Coriolis Force’.

      I feel you are wrong to attribute it (directly) to any sort of Forces. It is merely a result of the differing Velocities* of different parts of the rotating Globe (which Velocities must have some ultimate origin(s) – which can be ignored for the time being) and is used to describe what you will notice if you are picked up from one spot where the ground is not moving under you and immediately put down on another spot which is closer or further away from the axis of rotation (in practice by moving up or down in a North/South sense along a Great Circle), with no change in your Velocity with respect to the fixed stars. What you will notice is that the ground IS now moving under you. If you hold to the mental fiction that ‘the ground’ is a great expanse of ‘stationary’ reference, you will tend to assume some force has accelerated you to bring this about.

      If you simply walk North, say, but do NOT notice a ‘Coriolis effect’ you will have been subjected to a real Force, an extra push sideways at your feet as your Velocity is automatically matched to that of the ground, but it is too small to be noticed; it is a real ANTI-Coriolis-effect force.

      This sort of thing is sometimes talked of in terms of a mixture of real and ‘fictitious’ forces in a non-stationary frame of reference – but that is merely a paradigm to help with the maths. As sometimes happens, better maths means muddled physics.

      Dr Spencer points out that the North/South movements of air are caused by warming by the sun, in the familiar scheme of circulation cells. The frictional force which applies to a solid man walking on a solid earth is not as strong for air moving over ground and is less strong the further the air is from the ground.

      Anyhow, that is the way I look at it.

      *Strictly, differing Speeds. The Velocity of any definite point of the solid earth, with respect to the fixed stars, is changing all the time but the Speed isn’t.

    • coturnix says:

      In general relativity, the coriolis force is on the same standing as the force of gravity: they are both apparent forces stemming from the particular choice of non-inertial coordinate system. However, the difference is that the effects of gravity can only be made vanish locally by choosing the free-falling coordinate system (though not sure if in some simple cases like shperically symmetric it can’t be chose to make everything look stationary) while coriolis force can vanish globally, since due to space-time curvature (which is real and not apparent) out choice of coordinate systems in GR is somewhat limited. So i’d say that using the word ‘force’ for coriolis force is actually quite appropriate.

  30. Enric says:

    I agree, it’s totally the immigrants fault.
    They have been lying to us telling us things about the climate while we all know that that the climate does not exist and is an invention of the Elites and the IPCC, the evil Illuminati Pokemon Collectors Club.

    Take back Control!

    We can use the 350m pounds per day that we pay to the IPCC to get eternal youth!

    • coturnix says:

      Build the wall to stop the jet stream crossing the equator! and make southern hemisphere pay for it!

  31. Ric Werme says:

    It looks like Beckwith isn’t done with the subject:


    Unfortunately, the sequel is never as good as the original.

  32. coturnix says:

    Dr Spencer, sorry to repost but it i originally posted under the wrong comment:

    Wait till he sees the westerly flow at the jet stream altitude over the pacific during la nina (at least i seen it on gfs sourced maps, not sure how faithful their reanalysis is).

    However, while he was tipped off for nothing, his idea is not such a crazy. Despite not having observed jet streams for very long, it is not really normal to have westerly flow at equator for any significant extent and duration since it may cause and/or is an indication of altered atmospheric dynamics that may change the climate significantly and even abruptly, especially if it is systemically caused by the rising co2 for example. The one observed in eastern pacific is as i understand related to walker circulation return flow and so its impact is mostly local, still it is interesting phenomenon.

    Am i wrong about this?