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.
I too write fiction as a hobby I just don’t publish it on my professional web site or present it to my clients. It is baffle gab like this that gives my profession a bad name. Foolishness like this deflects attention away from the real problems and concerns faced by society.
“Tom W (09:21:03) :
[…]
“This page” is the table of contents of a document with 7 chapters and 3 appendices. So once again nobody has a clue what you are talking about.”
Sorry, i didn’t realize they’re using frames.
I meant to point to
“4.5.2 Description of the macroscale component”
Tom W (09:06:03) :
No, we DEMONSTRATE that certain models with deficiencies/omissions do a good job in reproducing the more important statistical properties of the atmosphere.>>
LOL. do you read your own arguments? If you DEMONSTRATE that CERTAIN models with deficiencies/omissions reproduce statistical properties of the atmosphere, all you have demonstrated is that if you throw enough darts in random directions, one or more of them will hit the bullseye. Then you want to leap upon on it and announce AHA! THIS ONE IS RIGHT!
All you have done is taken a random selection of darts, chosen the one that hit the bullseye, and announced it as accurately knowing where the bullseye is. The problem my friend, is that the bullseye called climate keeps moving, the factors that drive it have varying cycles, interactions, influences that are poorly understood, and if “certain” models got it right for a short period of time, then that is a testament to the number of models number being large enough that one of them got a hit.
If I buy every possible lotto ticket number, I am guaranteed to win the lotto. That doesn’t mean I knew what the winning number was in advance. When “certain” models get it right for 100 years or so, then I might be prepared to consider your argument.
I stopped watching the Weather Channel because of the regrettable Heidi Cullen’s shrill alarmism and arrogance (any meteorologist who disputes AGW should have their AMS certification stripped). I started watching TWC again but recently, Cantore was doing a piece on Barrow Alaska and started discussing the effects of AGW on the Arctic so I’m done with TWC, again. At least Mark Mancuso landed at Accuweather.
davidmhoffer (09:41:10) :
LOL. do you read your own arguments? If you DEMONSTRATE that CERTAIN models with deficiencies/omissions reproduce statistical properties of the atmosphere, all you have demonstrated is that if you throw enough darts in random directions, one or more of them will hit the bullseye.
False but given that reasoned argument is obviously not one of your strengths, I’ll leave it at that.
DirkH (09:11:03) :What does the link you gave say:
“They also consider, often in parameterized form, the physical processes within the boxes, including sources and sinks of these quantities. ”
Do you see a contradiction? I don’t.
Yep. You said the humidity was parameterized. Not so, although sub-gridscale SOURCES and SINKS of humidity are parameterized. A quantity and its sources and sinks are not the same thing. Subgridscal sources and sinks of heat are also parameterized but no one would say the temperature is parameterized.
MIke O (08:25:27) :
Living in Michigan, this looks awesome. I don’t see a problem. Maybe if I hold onto my house for another 50 years, it’ll be worth something …
I concur. Being from the UP of Michigan I am truly thankful for climate change else I am under several thousand feet of ice. If the freeze line heads north I will be literally a happy camper. (love camping) Not everyone on the earth thinks warmer temperatures are a bad thing. If only.
Frank K. (09:12:06):Errr…are we talking about “climate” here or short term weather phenomena? If the latter I would agree, if it’s the former, then that is called a “hindcast” – in my 20 year’s of experience with high end industrial CFD, knowing the answer beforehand has always led to superb results (after tuning the models, of course).
You apparently worked only on relatively simple problems. ‘Superb results’ are indeed almost guaranteed when the number of tuneable parameters is of the same order as the number of degrees of freedom of data you are trying to simulate. Such studies are worthless.
Definitely not the case for GCM’s…where the number of degrees of freedom of the output is vastly greater than the number of tuneable parameters.
Frank K. (09:12:06) : Climate modelers (some, not all) appear to suffer from what I call the “flat plate” syndrome. The belief is that if a CFD code can predict the correct shear stress distribution on a flat plate, then surely it should get the same level of accuracy when you solve for the flow over a 747 aircraft.
This is kind of meaningless until you specify the Reynolds number of two simulations. If they are the same then the computational effort for a given level of accuracy would be the same.
“Tom W (10:27:20) :
[…]
Yep. You said the humidity was parameterized. Not so, although sub-gridscale SOURCES and SINKS of humidity are parameterized.”
Why do i think of the sentence “Don’t look at the man behind the curtain” now…
“I see that everyone conveniently forgets the temperatures just a few weeks ago which were far below freezing across most of the country.”
And I see that many forget that the average temperature of the ENTIRE Southern Hemisphere was the HOTTEST ON RECORD in 2009.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/01/13-02.html
Hey Anthony, does this game play on X-box? Sounds like a fun game, I mean climate science.
Tom W;
False but given that reasoned argument is obviously not one of your strengths, I’ll leave it at that.>>
Certainty that your opponent has no credible argument of offer is established when the opponent resorts to insulting intelligence instead of offering additional explanation or rebuttal. You would have been better to not answer at all than to resort to insults.
This modeling the big melt reminds me of the story published by the Independent newspaper 10 years ago about snowfalls in the UK to become a thing of the past.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Polar 5 found it to be thicker than expected in 2009.
http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/research_aircraft_polar_5_finishes_arctic_expedition_unique_measurement_flights_in_the_central_arc/?cHash=e36036fcb4
Why was the ice so resistant to disintegration in the last two Septembers?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
“You apparently worked only on relatively simple problems. Superb results are indeed almost guaranteed when the number of tuneable parameters is of the same order as the number of degrees of freedom of data you are trying to simulate. Such studies are worthless.”
This statement makes no sense at all…have you done any computational analysis, Tom?
“This is kind of meaningless until you specify the Reynolds number of two simulations. If they are the same then the computational effort for a given level of accuracy would be the same.”
You can make the Reynolds numbers the same if you want. Go ahead and compute the drag coefficient for the 747 Tom and tell us what you get…
Tom W (11:08:02) :
And I see that many forget that the average temperature of the ENTIRE Southern Hemisphere was the HOTTEST ON RECORD in 2009.
The article says “…in the modern instrumental record…”
Which means “in the last thirty years.”
joe (11:22:47) :
Hey Anthony, does this game play on X-box? Sounds like a fun game, I mean climate science.
Yup, but if you’re the AGW side, you have to memorize the starting screenshot and play the rest of the game with your eyes closed.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not Anthony, but I *have* stayed at a Holiday Inn managed by a gentleman named Tony.
irkH (0 2 04 2010)
Now if there is not already a name for a unit of bogosity, i would suggest “Hansen” for it.
According to the Jargon file, the unit is the microLenat.
John Coleman (00:32:59) :
Dr. Cullen was dropped by The Weather Channel as part of the NBC cuts. However, to some extent the pro Global Warming stand has continued there. But, lo and behold, yesterday TWC actially included a brief debate of climate change by two meteorologistfs. I was unable to stop my work and turn up the volume. Did anyone here happen to see it?
===========
I’m assuming this is THE John Coleman of KUSI/TV, if so, i want to say thanks for your efforts towards climate sanity.
I get better info. here, so i didn’t bother watching the TWC “climate debate”.
I’m sure it would’ve just been “weather is not climate” BS.
Bill Tuttle (12:15:18): The article says “…in the modern instrumental record…” Which means “in the last thirty years.”
Wrong. The modern record begins in the 1850’s.
The last decade was the warmest on record, according to a report issued Thursday by the World Meterological Organization. The United Nations’ agency findings echo the recent findings of NASA’s
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which concluded the period from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest since modern temperature record keeping began in the 1850s.
http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/03/last_decade_warmest_on_record.html?hpid=smartliving
DirkH (11:03:42) : Why do i think of the sentence “Don’t look at the man behind the curtain” now…
Because you are incapable of admitting you are wrong?
“Tom W (15:25:04) :
[…]
Because you are incapable of admitting you are wrong?”
Oh, Tom, yes i was wrong when i assumed that they still work with a constant humidity. And thanks for pointing out what the state of the art is now! I surely value your input, and this is not a joke!
Still, i have the feeling that their parametrizations allow for a lot of leeway… we will see whether the predictions will materialize.
Frank K. (11:54:34) :This statement makes no sense at all
I see. So you can’t understand that the more tuneable parameters you introduce the more you can control the output? Can’t make it any simpler than that.
Go ahead and compute the drag coefficient for the 747 Tom and tell us what you get…”
No need there are plenty of other people already doing it….
“The state-of-the-art in CFD drag prediction was recently assessed by an international workshop on the subject….
….
While this indicates that the industry as a whole is closing in on the ability to compute accurate absolute drag levels, in general, the errors are not to the level desired by aircraft design teams.”
http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/fatica/papers/jameson_fatica_hpc.pdf
Tom W;
Wrong. The modern record begins in the 1850’s.>>
Wrong. The instrumental record starts in the late 1800’s. The MODERN instrumental record begins in 1979.
Further, just what is the hang up over “the warmest decade” anyway? We’ve been in a warming trend since the 1700’s. If I put $10,000 into a savings account every year for 10 years, that’s some significant savings. If I put ONE dollar into the account every year for the next ten years, each year is a RECORD new account balance. The last 10 years are insignificant, but they are still records. The warming of the last 20 years or so is insignificant, but sure, have a record or two if you think it that important.
Further, the instrument record is for the lower reaches of the atmosphere. The long term temperature of the earth is determined by the amount of heat in the atmosphere, land mass, and oceans compared to their mass. With ocean heat content dropping, and ice and snow extent increasing, it is blatantly obvious that the planet is in a cooling trend, and atmospheric temperatures will follow the ocean and land masses (which outweigh atmosphere by thousands to one) whether they like it or not.
Sharon (21:14:47) :
“modeling the future is the absolute best way to predict the past?”
============================================
That’s great !!!
davidmhoffer (16:30:24) :” Wrong. The instrumental record starts in the late 1800’s. The MODERN instrumental record begins in 1979.”
When people keep repeating the same thing over and over without even attempting to offer evidence, it’s a good bet to assume they have none.
Here’s another link that says the modern temperature record begins in the 19th century
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
So that makes GISS and the Washington Post.
In fact if you google “modern temperature record” you get a bunch of hits and a cursory examination indicates that those that define when the record began invariably place it the 19th century.
“Further, just what is the hang up over “the warmest decade” anyway?”
I think the idea is that if there is warming, the most recent years will tend to be warmer…plus or minus a little stochasticity.