this isn't really news, it's just "doing the math" on something understood, with one exception: these timescales point to natural factors underlying these wide fluctuations, and demonstrate that the fluctuations we're experiencing right now are not in any way unprecedented.

that upholds lockwood over francis. but, that was already clear.

is there a dialectic in francis v lockwood? there might be. except that the reason she's getting so much push back from the academic world is that the physics underlying the idea is very strange. what she wants you to believe is that the heat propagates from the ocean into the upper atmosphere in the form of a wave, and then falls off somewhere else, in tact. that's really the perfect example of something that you can demonstrate the math of, but that is in the realm of imaginary physics. most of what she's demonstrated or suggested using these mathematical models has not been detected by actual experiments, and most physicists are beyond skeptical of the claims.

but, this isn't new. it's been happening for centuries. and, so one needs a more naturalistic explanation than climate change to explain it in it's entirety, going back to the maunder minimum.

(edit: actually, i need to be a little bit more careful about this. what i said ought to be correct, except that she very conveniently cut the tree ring dates off around 1725. saying there is increased fluctuations in the latter half of the twentieth century does not imply warming as the mechanism, as that is the same period that the sun decreased in output - that is why we needed a theory of global warming in the first place: we had global warming and decreasing solar activity, requiring us to look for an alternate cause of the warming. so, in order for this research to have any meaningful input into the lockwood v francis debate, she'd have had to construct the records back before 1725, to include the last period of low sunspot activity. that should have been the actual point of this. but, the truth is that comparable records already exist, so this convenient oversight is of little consequence - we should expect somebody or other to reconstruct the same wavy jetstream over the 1600s that we're seeing today, because we've already done that research, and we already know that that was the case.

i don't know why she picked 1725. she might not be aware of lockwood's work, as lockwood is a solar scientist. so, she might not have realized the importance of presenting the data from the 17th century. she may have consequently misinterpreted the importance of doing this work as a distraction, and avoided it.

somebody should fill in the holes rather quickly and demonstrate the point: not only is the waviness not unprecedented, but it was even more intense during the maunder minimum, demonstrating the (already well known, amongst solar scientists) correlation between solar intensity and jet stream waviness.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02699-3

jagmeet singh must cut his beard