Via Eurekalert, a press release about projections of “Melting Marches” from the Heidi Cullen frozone team who says loss of freezing zones is “worse than we thought”. Minnesotans for Global Warming say “YES!”.
New Climate Central projection map shows local and national retreat of freezing temperatures in March
PRINCETON, NJ. On the last day of the month, Climate Central has just published an interactive animated map showing what we might expect in Marches to come as the climate warms. Developed by Climate Central scientists, the map uses special high-resolution projections covering the Lower 48 states to show where average March temperatures are expected to be above or below freezing each decade this century. The map also compares projections under a low, reduced carbon pollution scenario versus a high one that extends current trends.
Under the high scenario, Climate Central’s work shows majority or complete loss, by the end of the century, of these freezing zones in every state analyzed. Minnesota, Montana and North Dakota would lose the most total below-freezing area, while seven other states, from Arizona to Wisconsin, are projected to lose all they currently have. A table on the group’s website lists details state by state.
The projections promise earlier starts for gardeners, farmers, and golf enthusiasts. At the same time, they would mean earlier snowmelt. In the American West, early snowmelt years have already been linked to drier rivers and forests later in the summer, and very much higher wildfire activity – projected to intensify with further warming. Scientists also expect challenges for irrigation supplies and cold-water stream life like trout.
“These maps imply future changes the research community is only beginning to appreciate,” said Climate Central scientist Dr. Ben Strauss.
Climate Central is a nonprofit group of journalists and scientists dedicated to communicating the best and latest climate science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So is there any scientific validity to this or is it simply that somebody got a new power point tool they wanted to play with?
That is, is this anything more than “if my theory is correct, then this is what will happen”?
It would be interesting to have the past 80 years (1930-2010) similarly mapped as comparison. They probably to not have good records so they can only model the future and not show what happened in the past.
If the weather cannot be predicted with ANY degree of accuracy a mere one month in advance, then how does one pretend to declare what the weather will be 80 years hence?
Into what set of crystal gonads do those prognosticators gaze?
So is this another April Fool’s?
if not, why even pay attention to some group of clowns who claim to “know” what things will be like in the 2090’s? They’ve got as much credibility as Pachouri does.
I give up.
What is the basis for these projections?
A) Their best guess?
B) The fondest hope?
C) Reality…who could possibly know?
wws (20:55:07) :
I too thought that maybe they’d just screwed up on the time of release. (In the UK an April fools joke has to be before midday.)
These people are just living on a different planet.
DaveE.
Ed Patterson (20:53:25) :
It would be interesting to have the past 80 years (1930-2010) similarly mapped as comparison. They probably to not have good records so they can only model the future and not show what happened in the past.
Oh dearie me, Ed, Climate Change Science has done away with the need for past records. Anyway, don’t you know that modeling the future is the absolute best way to predict the past?
BTW, is Climate Central a subsidiary of Comedy Central?
This March was well above average here in southern Minnesota. I don’t recall hearing a single complaint.
And we should have any confidence in these models because?
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Tell this to my friends in North Dakota who never got their garden going this past year because of continued cold temps all summer long. LOL!
“On the last day of the month, Climate Central has just published an interactive animated map showing what we might expect in Marches to come as the climate warms.”
Here we go again. The authors of the above statement merely assume, without proof, that the climate will warm. There’s not a shred of evidence to support the contention that global temperatures will warm next year, next decade or next century. It’s pure speculation based on computer models that have been manipulated into a state of exhaustion.
Are the Climate Central scientists (who are “dedicated to communicating the best and latest climate science”) unaware of the fact that the IPCC’s predictions of rising temperatures have gone awry — that, in fact, temperatures have been flat or falling for over a decade despite steadily rising CO2 levels, which would imply a negative feedback from CO2? Are they also oblivious to the fact that hundreds of thousands of radiosonde measurements have failed to find the pattern of upper trophospheric heating predicted by the IPCC?
The theory of CAGW, weak from the start, has been falsified again and again. But these experts natter on about warming temperatures as if they were a foregone conclusion, regurgitating talking points from the officially sanctioned charlatanism practiced by the likes of Jones, Mann and Hansen.
The elites behind the CAGW money-making scam are deadly serious. They and their hopelessly lazy and gullible mouthpieces in the mainstream media will continue to push the climate-scare campaign until they have frightened the world into accepting a global cap-and-trade system that will make all of them (bankers, brokerage houses, politicians, NGOs, energy companies) fortunes. Trillions of dollars are at stake. They won’t “go quietly into the night.”
The True Believers (Lenin called them “useful idiots”) won’t be satisfied until the landscape is awash with ugly windmill farms from sea to shining sea, and the common folks are putt-putting around in electric cars and lighting their homes with new-fangled mercury-filled lamps that are too dangerous to throw in the kitchen trash.
While a cabal of oligarchs gets fabuously rich from carbon-offset trading, the rest of us poor souls will have to content ourselves with sitting around the dinner table, eating by candlelight and griping about the latest round of rotating black-outs announced by the Ministry of Energy.
The American people are unaware of the disaster awaiting them if the U.S. government agrees to massive CO2 reductions through the imposition of cap-and-trade restrictions and carbon taxes.
A dangerous game is afoot. There is much at stake.
Here’s a more accurate prediction for March – –
With the ever-lengthening college basketball season,
“March Madness” will be completely in April by 2090.
100% Alarmism in support of a political ideology that is based on 100% Alarmism.
That’s how houses of cards are made.
I just wonder if by then they’ll still be saying “Two thousand Ninety” or “Twenty Ninety”
Semi OT: France’s Lysenkoism?
In France, IPCC vice-president Jean Jouzel, now directly working under the Prime Minister, and many state climate studies scientists, often involved with IPCC had enough of being increasingly questioned on TV screens during debates and in bookstores.
So a message had to be sent said Jouzel.
The French media have had a reputation of being pro-warmist, a grip that Climategate and Copenhagen started to loosen. Among their contradictors, former Minister and polemist Claude Allegre, a geochemist Crawfoord recipient and the director of the IPGP, geophysicist Vincent Courtillot, specialist of Earth geomagnetism. Although Courtillot published at least 6 papers in peer reviewed journals in the last 5 years, both have published recently vulgarization books, Allegre being the most aggressive “the climatic imposture”… Courtillot’s, as usual, is much more moderate -he has been called the Temperate Climate Sceptique- and keeps the high road. Courtillot never referred to anything linked to climategate. Although both books have drawn criticisms -a documented one by Delaygues for Courtillot’s chapter on climate for instance, criticism well relayed in the pro-warmist media, Allegre’s has been a lightening rod and for some reasons since casual mistakes, approximations were made and curves redrawn -to the ire of researcher H. Grudd-. Clearly a weakness when one pretends to denounce imposture.
Yet the state scientists released a petition against both men, both Academicians, asking no other than the French Minister of Research, i.e. the financier of all French research, to support their employees and the official climate science in France and to bring the two men to accountability for their fast selling books that according to Valerie Masson-Delmotte LSCE did not pass the peer reviewed system…
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/2010/04/climat-400-scientifiques-signent-contre-claude-all%C3%A8gre.html
Courtillot responded briefly in a RTL radio interview that he refuted all accusations leveled against him and could not believe that now, in France, one could be censured for its scientific opinions. More to come as a debate at the Academie of Science on climate science will take place in the near future at the demand of the Minister.
The timing of this petition coincides -of course-with the exoneration of Phil Jones, Jouzel UK IPCC colleague and email “comrade”.
On a funny note and no April fool’s joke, Gavin’s signature is on the petition!
Ah yes, Heidi Cullen, “Climate Expert”
http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people-bio/heidi_cullen
If I womp up a model that shows a new ice age coming, can I make projections and get funding too? I can make a model say anything I want, so just let me know what will ‘sell’ and I’m “good to go”…
“enough detail to make different projections for places as close as ten miles apart. This is important because people want to know climate forecasts for the specific places they live, work and visit”
Wow, people want to know climate forecast now, not weather and these guys make it for the next 80 years and within 10 miles. Maybe with more funding it will even be 5 miles soon?
But it means already
– my city, or one I want to visit
– in any year between today and 2090
they know all about it’s climate already. Morning, afternoon, evening.
Should I be impressed? Yes I am.
But wait, their work is useless:
German climate change cancellor adviser Schellnhuber has predicted that the planet Earth will “explode” in 2050, because world population has reached 9b then and in case they all want decent quality of life.
It can’t get more stupid from here … but maybe I am wrong.
yawn. Another in a stupefying rerun of the same old story.
Statistic A from the last 80 years shows decreasing frost lines in March, so run that line with a ruler and season with “worse than we previously imagined”.
Therein lies the problem.
The models are wrong.
In the 1840’s, rivers in Cascadia went to historic low flows or dried up due to lack of precipitation, rain or snow. It was much colder then out West.
In the 1860’s, deluging rains hit and temperatures went up. In the 1870’s, some areas saw temperatures soar to levels not seen since, go really dry, and all without any help from C02.
The models assume that wamer climate is a drier climate. They forgot to check to see if a warmer climate can also be a wetter climate.
4 possibilities in real life, in the models there are only two.
Result: Models are pre-crippled.
E.M.Smith (21:56:52) :
Certainly. Models are able to do whatever you desire them to do. What do you want the model to say? Moon is hollow and showing signs of cracking? Sierra Nevada is set to tilt a 5th time and pour buring lava into the Sacramento Valley?
As long as you promise to waste as much money as possible and make dire predictions that can only be solved by a one world government.
Sure. You can do that.
But I’d rather you didn’t. I’d prefer to see you get big funding to rescue the history of climate and put all the rural stations back online, and we’ll come join your new research unit.
O my daughter, o my ducats! On the one hand, I’d like to see Roger Miller’s old character, Frazier Ossoff, go visit those guys. On the other, I think the world actually needs to get a bit warmer. Looking back through history; “golden” ages generally seem to come during warm periods while cooler times are characterized by famine, plague, and barbarian invasions.
This quote just says it all;
“” Because climate models make projections only at a broad regional level, we used established methods (see technical explanation) to add fine, local detail to these future climate estimates — enough detail to make different projections for places as close as ten miles apart. This is important because people want to know climate forecasts for the specific places they live, work and visit; and we all know that even nearby locations can be quite warmer or cooler, wetter or drier than each other.
We also allowed for the fact that year-to-year changes can go in either direction — that is, even if the trend is toward warmer temperatures in general, a given year might be colder than the one before. So to reveal trends more clearly, the temperature shown for a given year at each map location is actually the average of projected temperatures for the same month in ten consecutive years around and including the focal year.
It is important to remember that climate model outputs are always projections and never predictions; we can use them to anticipate general trends, but never to foretell the exact temperature or precipitation at a particular place and time.””
They have done what I do by generating detail in the fine scale by using fine detailed input. My assumption is that the patterns I have found repeat at a base level, that if compared to the future / present time, and any shift in the background bias (warming or cooling) is a finding to be studied.
What they have done is assume a background bias of warming and making the detailed data contouring shift by the preconceived biased of warming they expect.
What they will get are errors that don’t fit the bias, what I will get is the real changes that are happening, with out a preconceived bias, that we can learn from.
http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/
I suppose that if one assumes that feedbacks are strongly positive and the models are correct, this is one possible future. A few too many assumptions though for my delicate sensitivities.
I like this so much I’ll never support anything to “stop” global warming. This is great, if only global warming were true.
What a load of cobblers.