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.
Frank K. (11:54:34) :”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.”
I get the feeling that you don’t really understand what they are doing….they are using turbulent closure (i.e. parameterization) schemes in an attempt to REDUCE the computational requirement needed in direct simulations.
“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.”
That wasn’t really the purpose of my post. My point was that using modified models with tuneable parameters is quite common in CFD studies, turbulence closure models being a case in point.
Tom W wonders why we don’t believe NASA/GISS, or the newspapers that parrot what GISS reports. Here are a few reasons:
click1
click2 [takes a while to load]
click3 [satellite & HadCrut show flat to declining temperatures, but GISS shows rising temperatures – after their adjustment]
click4 [GISS “revised” temps]
click5
The “adjustments” GISS makes always show increased warming over the actual raw data. What are the odds, eh?
Smokey (14:18:04) :”The “adjustments” GISS makes always show increased warming over the actual raw data. What are the odds, eh?”
A claim that seems to be contradicted by your first link
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=50890
Tom W (13:52:12) :
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 didn’t believe the NOAA announcement that 2009 was *cooler* worldwide, and consistently avoided addressing the original point that your original link was to an article based on *satellite* data. GISS is badly compromised, NASA admits its data is less accurate than CRU’s, and the Washington Post has been a left-leaning propaganda rag since the 1970s.
You MO is clear.
My MO is to get people to address statements they’ve made and clarify them when there is an obvious conflict between what they originally said and what they said further down the thread.
Cheers.
Tom W (14:27:59),
If you notice, the earlier temperatures are artificially reduced, while current temperatures are not.
The resulting graph shows a steeper rise in temperature over time.
Tom W. (again)
“That wasn’t really the purpose of my post. My point was that using modified models with tuneable parameters is quite common in CFD studies, turbulence closure models being a case in point.”
You should have said that in the beginning rather than obfuscating the issue with confusing and meaningless points.
Still, I await your 747 simulation Tom (which is certainly easier than simulating the climate). Let us know when your solution converges…
Smokey. Scrap my last post.
Link 1: A single station out of thousands. By itself proof of nothing.
Link 2: Modification leads to a slight increase of the warming trend
Link 3: GISS is high by comparison and an outlier. Perhaps significant perhaps not. The period is too short to take the trend calculations seriously
Link 4 Another single station. By itself meaningless
Link 5: Not particularly convincing…if only because the early period temperature anomaly of -.5 around 1890 was eliminated completely between 87 and 07 so as to reduce the trend.
Tom W (13:52:12) :
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>>
..and with that scathing remark, he clasped his hat firmly upon his head, wrapped his cloak of indignation about him, and strode off firmly down the path in order that he find new, more receptive disciples to bring his message of doom and destruction to. He paused only once, to take a detour around an advancing glacier that cut across his path. He stopped, looked at it in rightous anger, and said “I guess you can’t read newspapers. Don’t you know that you don’t exist?”
The glacier offered no response. “Thought so,” said Tom to himself, “and now I have proof.”
As he stalked off, the glacier continued its silence. But with Tom’s back now turned, it slowly… began to advance…
Tom W (14:45:02),
We could have glaciers down to the equator, and you would still find reasons to believe in catastrophic AGW.
I know this won’t convince you either, but since your critique repeatedly mentions just a “single station”…
click
“I know this won’t convince you either, but since your critique repeatedly mentions just ‘a single station’…”
Smokey (14:55:43) : Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that you can find TWO stations out of THOUSANDS that confirm your suspicions means something?
“I know this won’t convince you either, but since your critique repeatedly mentions just ‘a single station’…”
Nope that link doesn’t convince GISS is biased either, especially since it’s just comparing Nov raw data with July raw data. Nothing to do with GISS.
Tom W (15:02:19) :
“I know this won’t convince you either, but since your critique repeatedly mentions just ‘a single station’…”
Smokey (14:55:43) : Are you seriously suggesting that>>
After stating clearly that he was “done”, Tom W returns. Pointing at the glacier he just stepped around, he asks “can’t you see that that glacier does not exist? Have you not read the reports from the newspapers and MET and GISS saying it is not there? Will you believe them or your own eyes?”
What will happen next? Will the glacier advance, slowly engulfing Tom as he points and proclaims it does not exist? Or will he be saved by hot air that melts the glacier before it gets to him? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode due in 2025 where Tom will be heard to exclaim “just because it is getting colder dsoesn’t mean that it is not global warming, just look at the polar bears their population has tripled again, at this rate they will soon be extinct!”
John Coleman (00:32:59) :
Dr. Cullen was dropped by The Weather Channel as part of the NBC cuts.
And yet Heidi started at Climate Central before the take-over, and the films she makes are still shown at the Weather Channel.
Frank K. (14:43:07) : “Still, I await your 747 simulation Tom (which is certainly easier than simulating the climate). Let us know when your solution converges…”
You seem to think that because a problem can’t be solved in its full complexity then nothing can be said. This is demonstrably false. It even impossible to describe simple gas in equilibrium in its full complexity because the trajectories are chaotic and impossible to predict very far into the future. Very few people who would claim that the problem of a simple gas in equilibrium is intractable however.
The mere fact that you can’t simulate the airflow around a 747 to your satisfaction does not mean that it is impossible to predict certain features of the climate.