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.
Further, just what is the hang up over “the warmest decade” anyway? – dave
This bugs me also. Some decade has got to be the warmest decade on record if such a thing can be said to exist.
davidmhoffer (16:30:24) :”With ocean heat content dropping, ”
Obviously. The heat content of the ocean.
http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif
Gee…it was cooling in the early ’60’s too which explains why it is much hotter today.
Get serious…
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.
Except NZ and a substantive part of the subantarctic convergence ocean to the east where the anomaly was -0.225.
But as both HADCRU and GISS use a spherical cow (idealized geometry where the earth is a equal sphere in longtitude and latitude) and this reduces the surface area by 5mk^2 missing areas around the IDL this would be expected,
Tom W (20:33:59) :
davidmhoffer (16:30:24) :”With ocean heat content dropping, ”
Obviously. The heat content of the ocean.
http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif
Gee…it was cooling in the early ’60’s too which explains why it is much hotter today.
Get serious…>>
Here’s the surface temperature record. Look, omigosh, ocean heat content dropping in the 60’s followed by temp drops. Omigosh rise in OHC followed by rise in temps. Omigosh flattening out of OHC recently followed by flattening out of the temps.
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/500px-instrumental_temperature_record_svg.png
Your attempt to argue the drop in OHC while ignoring the corresponding drop in temps seems a bit “designed”
As for your references to “modern” instrumental record sufficient googling will yield any start date you want. a lot of satellite data started to be available around 1979 which is why you will find everything from hurricane intensity to ozone holes to sea ice extent referencing data starting in 1979. Here’s a couple of examples.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Tom W (15:22:17) :
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 “modern record” may have begun in the 1850s, but the “modern instrumental record” — which is what your linked article was addressing — began in 1979.
You’re welcome.
“You’re welcome.”
Sorry but I don’t thank people who keep making the same unsubstantiated claim over and over without evidence. I ignore them.
“Here’s the surface temperature record. Look, omigosh, ocean heat content dropping in the 60’s followed by temp drops. Omigosh rise in OHC followed by rise in temps. Omigosh flattening out of OHC recently followed by flattening out of the temps.”
My point wasn’t that there was no relation (lagged or otherwise) between global temperature and ocean heat content. My point was that BOTH signals involve a low frequency warming trends plus noise. The fact that the ocean heat content noise is correlated with the global temperature noise surprises no one
“Your attempt to argue the drop in OHC while ignoring the corresponding drop in temps seems a bit “designed”
The drop is high frequency noise the kind that has occurred many time in the past.
[snip]
“Deniers” is not acceptable here. ~dbs, mod.
Montreal temperature yesterday 25 C, THATS NINE DEGREES CELSIUS or SIXTEEN degrees fahrenheit above its previous record.
Must be all that global cooling…
Tom W (08:06:51) :
“You’re welcome.”
Sorry but I don’t thank people who keep making the same unsubstantiated claim over and over without evidence. I ignore them.
Care to substantiate *your* claim that we had data from satellites 100 years before anyone ever launched a satellite?
The modern *instrument* record — which you insist on reading as the modern record — uses *satellite* data.
The article which you so breathlessly pointed to was about *satellite* data.
You’re welcome anyway.
Tom W (08:57:45) :
Montreal temperature yesterday 25 C, THATS NINE DEGREES CELSIUS or SIXTEEN degrees fahrenheit above its previous record.
Must be all that global cooling…>>
West Palm Beach just reported its coldest Jan-Mar on record and Miami Beach just recorded its coldest March on record.
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/weather/hurricane/blog/2010/04/report_south_floridas_winter_w.html
That is no more indicative of warming OR cooling than is a record high in Montreal on a single day. Really, start reading the articles here with the intent to learn something. I started out a long time ago right where you are now, and having having learned that mutch of what was taught as fact was just misdirection, exageration, or just plain wrong, I started to wonder why that was.
Yo, Tom — lookee what I found in the NOAA link your Science-dot-com article cited.
“While middle tropospheric temperatures reveal an increasing trend over the last three decades, stratospheric temperatures (14 to 22 km / 9 to 14 miles above the surface) have been below average… January-December 2009 was the 17th consecutive year with below-average temperatures (an anomaly of -0.53°C/-0.95°F), the eighth coolest year on record. ”
So, even though the Southern Hemisphere — at a .49C increase — was evidently burning like a rain forest being cleared to plant palm oil trees, the average global temp was — cooler.
And, just for the record, three decades equals thirty years.
You’re still welcome.
Bill Tuttle :”While middle tropospheric temperatures reveal an increasing trend over the last three decades,”
The three decades refers to the increasing trend not the length of the record.
Some people are unteachable, I suspect [snip] is one of them.
Tom W (16:07:46) :
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.”
No Tom – your sentence has nothing to do with calculating flow field solutions with CFD methods. You sound confused… have you done any CFD before? Perhaps not, so I can understand your confusion.
“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.”
I am familiar with the DPW (I have seen the papers, the meshes, and solutions), and that is about an order of magnitude below what is required to computed the entire 747. Do they have jet engines in the nacalles? No. How about calculating forces during dynamic turning, or pitch up/down maneuvers? No. The wind tunnel models they are simulating are very simplified versions of the real thing.
Anyways, I look forward to YOUR solution to the 747 problem. You can at least show us your mesh and tell us what turbulence model you plan to use…
“That is no more indicative of warming OR cooling than is a record high in Montreal on a single day.”
I was being sarcastic.
By the way this the same davidmhoffer who offered a ONE MONTH reduction in arctic sea ice cover (a regional phenonenon) as evidence for global cooling?
Tom W (08:46:14) :
[snip]
“Deniers” is not acceptable here. ~dbs, mod.
But ‘alarmist is? That’s what I like, objectivity.
REPLY: “alarmists” has no purposeful connotation, such as the connection to “holocaust deniers” which is why the term is used: to make people who disagree with you look like some sort of evil fringe.
Don’t like it? Tough noogies – Anthony
Tom W (11:15:56) :
The three decades refers to the increasing trend not the length of the record.
What we have here — is a failure to communicate.
One. More. Time.
The Science-dot-com clearly stated it was the “modern INSTRUMENTAL record” — meaning *satellite* data — not (now read very carefully, Tom) the “modern record.” The NOAA article also referred to *satellite* data.
Now, if you keep insisting that the modern *instrumental* record extends back to the 1850s, I’d like you to explain where NASA’s sub-Equatorial ground stations were located, and which routes the thousands of GISS clipper ships took while they were cruising the South Atlantic and South Pacific taking temperature measurements and e-mailling the info back to Goddard.
Some people are unteachable, I suspect [snip] is one of them.
One more reply from you insisting that we had exact knowledge of the temperature of the entire Southern Hemisphere in the 1850s and I’ll concede your point — some people are, indeed, unteachable.
Bill Tuttle (09:11:19) : “Care to substantiate *your* claim that we had data from satellites 100 years before anyone ever launched a satellite?”
Nope, given that I never made such a claim.
Ooooh. Manners.
You’re welcome, Tom.
“The Science-dot-com clearly stated it was the “modern INSTRUMENTAL record” — meaning *satellite* data ”
As I said repeating an unsubstantiated claim adds nothing to its credibility.
Let’s try a different tack. Forget about the terminology. My original point was the new records being announced referred the temperature record going back to the 19th century.
Why do I believe that? Because THAT’S WHAT THE PRESS RELEASES SAY…
For example
“Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). ”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
In fact it turned out to be number 5.
The current nominal ranking of 2009 places it as the fifth-warmest year since the beginning of instrumental climate records [in 1850],” Mr. Baddour said yesterday.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34188&Cr=wmo&Cr1=
NASA has just announced that the period from January 2000 through December 2009 has been the hottest decade since record-keeping began in 1880.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
Last decade the warmest since records began in 1850
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/past-decade-the-warmest-since-records-began-in-1850-20091208-khqv.html
You will note that different groups use somewhat different starting dates…that’s because they restrict their attention to dates for which reliable global averages can be calculated. The differences are due to differing definitions of ‘reliable’.
Tom W (11:42:33) :
Bill Tuttle (09:11:19) : “Care to substantiate *your* claim that we had data from satellites 100 years before anyone ever launched a satellite?”
Nope, given that I never made such a claim.
Ah — you *do* pay attention to sarcasm.
Tom W (11:29:22) :
“That is no more indicative of warming OR cooling than is a record high in Montreal on a single day.”
I was being sarcastic.
By the way this the same davidmhoffer who offered a ONE MONTH reduction in arctic sea ice cover (a regional phenonenon) as evidence for global cooling?>>
If the only way you think you can score points is to misrepresent what others have said, then you already know the answer and you are being deliberately obtuse. Several people have provided very good information to you, along with detailed explanations. They have volunteered THEIR time to help YOU. They haven’t lied to you, they haven’t twisted your words around, they have instead provided information and the links to the relevant data so you could see for yourself. Yet you continue with invective, sarcasm, and misrepresentation, and not a shred of evidence to back up your claims, or further explanation to clarify a point that may have been misunderstood.
Who are you trying to fool? Me? Or yourself?
Here’s why I used the reductio ad absurdam:
Tom W (20:12:56) :
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
Note that we’ve all been drawing your attention to the phrase, “modern instrumental record” — which was the exact phrase used in the original article — which you kept reading as the “modern temperature record.
You’re welcome.
Tom W (12:07:59) :
“The Science-dot-com clearly stated it was the “modern INSTRUMENTAL record” — meaning *satellite* data ”
As I said repeating an unsubstantiated claim adds nothing to its credibility.
Okay — you *do* realize that you just said that the entire article which announced that 2009 temps in the SH were the warmest *evah* was based on an unsubstantiated claim, don’t you?
Let’s try a different tack. Forget about the terminology. My original point was the new records being announced referred the temperature record going back to the 19th century.
But the article you used to back up that statement was speaking about *satellite* data, and was specific about that.
Why do I believe that? Because THAT’S WHAT THE PRESS RELEASES SAY…
How nice. I have a framed press release on my wall back home announcing that I’d been killed in a helicopter crash off the coast of Nicaragua.
Don’t believe NASA, don’t believe GISS, don’t believe the World Meteorological Organization, don’t believe the Sydney Morning Herald, don’t believe the Washington Post…
You MO is clear.
I’m done.