From the “it’s worse than we modeled department”, a case of “head in the clouds” thinking:
From the University of Hawaii at Manoa via Eurekalert press release:
Study could mean greater anticipated global warming
Current state-of-the-art global climate models predict substantial warming in response to increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The models, though, disagree widely in the magnitude of the warming we can expect.
The disagreement among models is mainly due to the different representation of clouds. Some models predict that global mean cloud cover will increase in a warmer climate and the increased reflection of solar radiation will limit the predicted global warming. Other models predict reduced cloudiness and magnified warming.
In a paper that has just appeared in the Journal of Climate, researchers from the University of Hawaii Manoa (UHM) have assessed the performance of current global models in simulating clouds and have presented a new approach to determining the expected cloud feedbacks in a warmer climate.
Lead author Axel Lauer at the International Pacific Research Center (IPRC) at UHM notes, “All the global climate models we analyzed have serious deficiencies in simulating the properties of clouds in present-day climate. It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
To study the clouds, the researchers applied a model representing only a limited region of the atmosphere over the eastern Pacific Ocean and adjacent land areas. The clouds in this region are known to greatly influence present climate, yet current global models do poorly in representing them. The regional model, developed at the IPRC, successfully simulates key features of the region’s present-day cloud fields, including the observed response of clouds to El Nino. Having evaluated the model’s simulation of present-day conditions, the researchers examined the response of simulated clouds in a warmer climate such as it might be in 100 years from now. The tendency for clouds to thin and cloud cover to reduce was more pronounced in this model than in any of the current global models.
NOTE: Believe it or not, but this pathetic little graph is all that was provided with the press release, I have found no larger versions – Anthony
UPDATE: Author Axel Lauer kindly sends me the paper link here
and from that I have a larger version of the graph below:
Co-author Kevin Hamilton concludes, “If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.”
This research was supported by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), by NASA through Grant NNX07AG53G, and by NOAA through Grant NA09OAR4320075, which sponsor research at the International Pacific Research Center. This research was also supported by NOAA/CPPA Grant NA07OAR4310257 and DOE Regional and Global Climate Modeling (RCGM) Program Grant ER64840.
Citation: Lauer, A., K. Hamilton, Y. Wang, V. T. Phillips, and R. Bennartz (2010), The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific – A Regional Model Study, Journal of Climate, Vol. 23, No. 21, 5844�.
Researcher Contacts: Axel Lauer (808) 956-3631; email: lauera@hawaii.edu
Kevin Hamilton (808) 956-8327; email: kph@hawaii.edu
IPRC Media Contact: Gisela Speidel, (808) 956-9252; email: gspeidel@hawaii.edu IPRC/SOEST, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1680 East-West Rd., POST Building 401, Honolulu, HI 96822.
The International Pacific Research Center (IPRC) of the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa is a climate research center founded to gain greater understanding of the climate system and the nature and causes of climate variation in the Asia-Pacific region and how global climate changes may affect the region. Established under the “U.S.-Japan Common Agenda for Cooperation in Global Perspective” in October 1997, the IPRC is a collaborative effort between agencies in Japan and the United States.
Citizens of year 2010!
My name is Aldous Tenpenny. I speak to you from the year 2082 though I cannot disclose the means by which I do as I am already contravening several Space-Time Tampering(STT)laws.
I am writing to you on behalf of many people of my era with a simple request which I admonish you to heed:
Please continue to make confident forecasts of assured doom, we find them quaint and hilarious.
Kind Regards,
Aldous Tenpenney
Is it me, or does that pathetic lo-res graphic actually indicate that the model shows much greater extremes than observed, indicating that future predictions may overemphasize warming or cooling effects?
First let us postulate a warmer climate. See we told you warming would occur. If I turned in something like that in 10th grade science I would get a “F”.
This is what forecasters publish when THEIR personal an nontransferable end is approaching. It’s over kids!
Here’s the top secret source code to the model:
10 PRINT “GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY CO2”
20 GOTO 10
Aldous, while you are here could you post the lottery numbers for next week please 😉
Like the joke, if it is one !!!
So let’s see their graph for a future colder climate.
If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there’d be no work for tinkers’ hands
There are a few out of work tinkers in this article.
I get sick of hearing about models that were made up on a computer.
Don’t these researchers read the peer reviewed literature. How about actual measured data from out in the real environment.
To whit:- “How much More Rain will Global Warming Bring ? ” Frank Wentz et al ; SCIENCE july-7 2007. WENTZ is with RSS in Santa Rosa Ca. as in : giss-hadcrud-RSS-uah.
They had the temerity to actually measure the rate of INCREASE of water in the atmosphere GLOBALLY as a function of mean global surface Temperature rise (or some facsimile thereof). Result; the increase in global precipitation, global atmospheric water content, and global precipitation occurs at the rate of 7% (for each) per deg C rise in Temperature.
I’m told that the 7% per deg C just happens to match what one calculates directly from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation; and I believe one of the regular posters here recently posted that number (Bill Illis maybe ?); so that matches the atmospheric water content observation. The evaporation and precipitation must match overall; or else the oceans will end up overhead.
So this is actual satellite instrument based observations actually out there in Mother Gaia’s laboratory where real things happen.
Wentz et al didn’t specifically talk about clouds; but I conjectured that it is reasonable to expect that a 7% increase in precipitation is likely to be accompanied by a similar increase in (precipitable) clouds. I have no idea what fraction of global cloud cover can be classified as precipitable; but I suppose it is possible that it stays fairly constant as a fraction so maybe total cloud cover goes up by 7%. But that is a bit of a stretch; since the precipitable increase can comprise extra cloud area, or extra cloud optical density due to water content, or extra persistence time of the cloud; or some combination.
I don’t need somebody’s bomb making super computer to tell me that clouds ought to increase with temperature; based on Wentz et al’s paper; which I have not seen refuted in any peer reviewed paper. Can I get some sort of gummint grant to go to Hawaii to explain this to these folks.
According to recent NASA reports; global cloud cover is at about 70% of total area. I think that is higher than most of us had suspected; but assuming that NASA is reasonably competent at seeing clouds; I take it as the truth, until I hear different results.
So if you believe these folks who likely would be better occupied getting out on a surf board; they are saying in effect that natural climate variability may be even greater than was previously believed; so then what is all the fuss about a little bit of temperature cycling; well actually it is only Temperature anomaly cycling; since they don’t really know what the actual global Temperature is.
So, basically, they haven’t got a clue.
It’s funny how journals publish stuff: all alarmist papers were out before Copenhagen and realist papers followed it, probably hoping it would be drowned into Copenhagen’s success…
Now Cancun and the same happens: between this modeling “could” “if” novelty act and the GRL Cattiaux et al. 2010 “last winter was cold but in a warming climate” BS, the official science tries its best at changing a trend.
Oh and it’s really cold out there btw… probably Global Warming.
Hey Anthony
I have something interesting here,
….A1B simulations for each of the 16 GCMs with results that varied from −1.0 to +1.3 W m−2 K−……
-1,0 W* m^-2*K^-1………..(varied)
GCM models also have negative feedback
To investigate cloud–climate feedbacks in iRAM, several global warming scenarios were run with boundary conditions appropriate for late twenty-first-century conditions. All the global warming cases simulated with iRAM show a distinct reduction in low-level cloud amount, particularly in the stratocumulus regime, resulting in positive local feedback parameters in these regions in the range of 4–7 W m−2 K−1. Domain-averaged (30°S–30°N, 150°–60°W) feedback parameters from iRAM range between +1.8 and +1.9 W m−2 K−1. At most locations both the LTS and cloud amount are altered in the global warming cases, but the changes in these variables do not follow the empirical relationship found in the present-day experiments.
The cloud–climate feedback averaged over the same east Pacific region was also calculated from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B simulations for each of the 16 GCMs with results that varied from −1.0 to +1.3 W m−2 K−1, all less than the values obtained in the comparable iRAM simulations. The iRAM results by themselves cannot be connected definitively to global climate feedbacks;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
Every new paper scarier than the last one published.
Are they convincing anyone? With public confidence waning, I can only guess that they are trying to keep choir from ditching.
I suggest they start with CURRENT cloud formation/behavior and see where that gets them in say, 50, then 100 years. If it doesn’t predict climate conditions much different from those of today, then modeling with SUBJECTIVELY CONFIGURED clouds is an abject waste of time!
Besides, who except the CAGW annointed would ever believe a warmer earth would have LESS clouds! A warmer earth would undoubtedly have more overall evaporation and, consequentially, a more developed cloud cover.
If it’s once again “worse then we expected” how come all the models are already hotter then reality? Don’t they ever stop to think about this?
“Co-author Kevin Hamilton concludes, “If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.”
And if his model does not prove to be representative of the real global climate, then what?
The tiny graph suggests the model consistently predicts more extreme swings than actually occurred (i.e. it over estimates the effect changes in cloud cover).
It also mixes up the causality (i.e. did the 1998 El Nino cause cloud cover to descrease or did decreasing cloud cover cause the 1998 El Nino). I suspect the latter.
“If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate [which they’re not], then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict [which they aren’t], and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.” [which we won’t]
Airfix would be proud of this lot and their models.
So their little toy model painted fire engine red predicts, projects, guesses, that the variations are much greater than they really are (black ops).
So instead of scrapping their junk model they publish a paper to tout it. Don’t they understand that the model is supposed to replicate reality; not the other way round.
Wentz et al noted the same problem. Their measurements said 7% increase in evap/precip per deg C rise, but the GCMs predict,project, guess only 1% to 3% or (2 +/-50% ) %.
So the GCMs are off by a factor of 3.5 too low (+/-50%) and people still pay attention to such rubbish.
University of Hawaii is fully invested in the AGW hypothesis. They see signs where no one else can. Rising oceans, the acidification of the Pacific, horrendous hurricanes, drought, floods, etc. are all around us. But only the climatologists at the UH can see them. Not even the weather department at the Honolulu International Airport sees these signs. The climatologists must be very smart.
Co-author Kevin Hamilton concludes, “If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate,…”
If my granny had wheels, she’d be a wagon. I wouldn’t bet the farm that the model results really are representative of the real global climate. Would Kevin Hamilton care to bet his “farm” on the results?
Please note (my emphasis):
Co-author Kevin Hamilton concludes, “If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate…
The cynical amongst could view the word “if” as a “get out of jail free” card. The less cynical could say it signifies an attempt to return to the scientific method.
However, it’s difficult to not be cynical of yet another press release that appears designed to alarm, and with no apparent balancing statements. Science by Hollywood-type media really has started to shoot itself in the foot, repeatedly.
What the #%$@,
so are they saying that ALL the current modls are WRONG, and that all the policies our loopy govt are foisting on us are based on mdels that are WRONG!!
You couldn’t make it up could you. Oh hang on, thats what they have been doing isn’t it?
Co-author Kevin Hamilton concludes, “IF our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.”
Sure, and you could add just as meaningfully:
IF Al Gore is right, sea levels will rise 20 feet;
IF Hansen is right, New York will soon be under water;
IF WWF is right we are about to enter the sixth great extinction.
One could go on, but in the words of that immortal song, “I don’t believe in IF anymore.” No, no.
It is always ‘worse than predicted’, yet reality is never as bad as predicted. I wonder how long they can continue making money off of this obvious unexplained disparity?
True, the press release isn’t exactly convincing but I think you can be confident that Louise Gray – the Environment Correspondent of the Telegraph, the “Queen of the Press Release – will be forwarding it to the Telegraph printroom
“The researchers applied a model representing only a limited region of the atmosphere”
I have also made a limited model for a limited region of the atmosphere, presuming a constant influx of thermal energy and availibility to water, here’s the code:
if clouds then hot++, end
if hot then clouds++, end
My observations support it quite well, though I think there’s some negative feedback involved too, but considering I usually leave the Sauna before i sear my skin we can conclude the warming would be catastrophic before any such mechanism gets significant.
Alrighty then.
Roy Spencer published opposite findings about cloud feedback in 2007 Geophysical Journal.
I guess they’ll have to duke it out. May the better theory win.
One thing remains clear – the science isn’t settled.
You know, every few weeks/months there’s another new study….
…that shows that all of the previous models were wrong
More GIGO …ad nauseam.
George E. Smith says, at 9:52 :”I get sick of hearing about models that were made up on a computer. ”
I feel the same way. I think that most climatologists could accurately model a bouncing ball, but modeling a global climate is a little more complicated and intractable. Maybe they can give up on imaginary computer models and change their favored method of “prediction.” My preference would be for them to take up acrylics or watercolor. I can just see the headlines… “University of Hawaii scientists today released a 2 by 3 meter watercolor representation of what they expect the world’s oceans to look like in the year 2035. Art critics and graphic designers are united in declaring the painting to be one of the best creative works of the Maui Apocalyptic School.”
Watercolors give the same index of reliability that their computers do, but the angst factor is soooooo much lower.
From experiance, I also know that the climate models are totally incapable of getting current rainfall patterns right either, which is worrying – if you cant get current rainfall patterns right, how can you make forecasts???
So if it is worse than we thought, why hasn’t warming acclerated since 1995, as they predicted?
It should have accelerated even more than they predicted it would accelerate.
The only thing that is certifiably worse than we thought is the ability of the models to accurately predict anything.
….like here in Reno….
I’ve got +4″ of recreation-grade global warming since 6am this morning that I have to go shovel.
Awareness of the need to see past foggy assumptions appears to be increasing:
“It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
Clouds are now on the radar, but I see this not as a sign that climate science has suddenly acquired clear vision overnight, but rather as a sign that climate science has become more aware of the existence of obstacles to its vision.
I see no evidence from this press release that they have a handle on decadal variations. From the limited info released, they appear to simply have tweaked their model to mimic interannual variations over a short period …and then made a grand monotonic extrapolation (something any half-aware Stat 101 student will know is foolhardy). Question for anyone with access to the full article: Have they made a convincing case that they have a mastery of decadal variations? If the answer is “yes”, then this line of questioning is just getting started…
“Deviations from the average low-level cloud amount simulated in the IPRC model (red) compare well with satellite observations (black)”
First of all, i would make that “remotely resemble”; second, it would be interesting to find out whether their model simulates the latitudinal distribution of clouds better than existing models.
Here we go again – (doesn’t every new study threaten a ‘worse’ outcome than the last one..?) – the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP – who the hell are THEY, now..?) – has now said (BBC News Science/Environmental section) that, due to CO2 having ‘only’ reduced 1.3% in the last year, the global temperature ‘COULD’ rise by 4C by the end of the century…
Yeah – it could – it could also rise by forty degrees – or decrease by forty degrees… Don’t know about you folks, but I’m getting really tired of these figures being picked out of thin – or CO2-laden – air….
Is it possible to post a link to raw global temp data sites. I am tired of looking at adjusted data.
If the models show extreme warming for a minor Greenhouse gas (CO2) they will go ballistic with the real engine of climate. (H2O)!.
I wonder if they will refund you for your taxes spent in wrong models. 🙂
“no significant warming for 15 years” – phil jones
so their models, which are already wrongly overestimating increases, are now increasing the estimated increases?
Looking at that great, full detail and overall informative plot two things stand out:
#1 The extremes are larger in the model.
#2 The trend in observed values (black) seems to be near zero, while the modelled trend (red) seems negative.
I’d really like to see something as simplistic as a residual plot of the difference between observed and modelled values.
Vince Causey says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:12 am
IF WWF is right we are about to enter the sixth great extinction.
That partially happened in your last election.. 🙂
The folks in Seattle are praying these doofuses are right.
The clouds in this region are known to greatly influence present climate, yet . . .
The clouds in this region are known to greatly influence present weather,
yet . . .
There is a lot of wiggly room with this but in my mind clouds are not the primary driver of climate, they are just an intermediate link in the system. That they don’t have a clue . . .
The disagreement among models is mainly due to the different representation of clouds.
Some models predict . . . warming.
Other models predict . . .
. . . is pathetic (to use one of Anthony’s words).
[I notice someone keeps referring to Anthony as Andrew (not this posting); is that intentional, with meaning, or just sloppy writing?]
———————————————————————–
ZT says: at 9:42 am
10 PRINT “GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY CO2″
20 GOTO 10
~~~~~~~~~
I did something like the above loop back about 1966 or 67. I also had inserted the character used to advance the paper to the top of the next sheet. When the print started 3 of us were standing about 20 feet from the printer (wide fan fold). The paper arced out into the room because we did not have the cover closed. I think the computer was an IBM 7094 (?) and the printer stood about as tall as a refrigerator.
Modeling of models is simply substituting real sex with masturbation. It all amounts to the same thing much to do about nothing of any lasting value.
Reality is that Earth is entering on a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715. Conjoined with a cyclical chill-phase due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) plus an overdue end of the current 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch (which if not for the 1,500-year Younger Dryas “cold shock” would likely have terminated about AD 450, coincident with the Fall of Rome), odds are that Gaia faces a recurrent 102,000-year Pleistocene Ice Time just as she has for the last 2.6 million years.
Given overtly politicized projections, demonstrably irrational perversions of measured fact, climate cultists’ lack of context and perspective is as scientific as End Times proclamations by Anabaptists of Munster. By c. 2020 – 2030, after ineluctable Reality intrudes, this Warmist schtick will have become worse than laughing-stock– a cautionary tale of what occurs when Big Government handouts drive research projects as propaganda exercises.
Co-author Kevin Hamilton concludes, “If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate..”
Shouldn’t that already have been tested and confirmed? The real global climate exists now and could have been tested against the model’s output before the paper and press release.
Just more frantic garbage from the few passengers left behind on the Titanic!
latitude said at 10:21 am
… there’s another new study….
…that shows that all of the previous models were wrong.
Of course! The “How to get and justify Grants” manual specifies the process:
1. Find a Gov’mnt agency with funds (they’re printing it so fast, they all do)
2. Write a request (called a Grant) for it, being sure to tell them in your writings, you will come to the conclusion they want.
3. Hire some post-docs, collaborate, travel, do some research, get the money.
4. Write a report, which shows all previous studies and models to be generally wrong AND specific to the original requirements, being sure to extensively use the words; if, probably, mostly, may, might, could, perhaps, possibly, generally, typically, can, provided, often, seldom, conditionally (without specifying) and but – all for the purpose of justifying the need for more funds to “clarify” the uncertainties.
5. ALWAYS remember: No uncertainties, no future funds!
I’d give them an A- for following the prescribed process very well.
More Playstation “science.”
That’s the first time I’ve used the expression, but have seen it bandied around elsewhere. I’m beginning to believe it is an apt moniker. I’m actually beginning to derive some amusement from study after study relying on little more than computer models — these people actually believe they’re doing science, and that models can offer proof. I guess this is what they call post-modern science.
With the current land/ocean configuration, cloud cover can only vary by a small percentage because direct sunlight (Total Sunshine Hours TSH) affects evaporation profoundly more than the measely 0.5 or 1DegC rise in temperature.
And it is cloud cover that governs TSH
I emailed Axel Lauer seeking a larger graphic and he was kind enough to provide a link to the original paper (PDF) which includes a larger graphics.
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/kph/paper/2010jcliLaueretal.pdf
I haven’t had time to read the paper yet but thought I’d post it first for everyone’s benefit.
Steve
What predicts their playstation model for period 2002-2010? Because this is a reality.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut3_gl_2002:2011a.png
I would be interested in Dr Roy Spencer’s comments.
Of course, in the mean time (last 15 yrs), the real observed data shows far less warming than the current models would indicate. Yes, the models have problem, but the data shows the problem is in the opposite direction of what these authors would suggest.
Next climate warming report will be dramatically worse: UN
Robert Orr, UN under secretary general for planning, said the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming will be much worse than the last one.
http://tinyurl.com/3xmo2xg
And the connection with this finding and reality is?
Eurekalert has the large graphic here
There is a link from the press release to this page, where it says “Download this image file.”
REPLY: thanks, the author also sent me the image and paper. – Anthony
John Blake says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:15 am
Very well stated!
Should have said
“If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.
But, since all of the current models already overstate warming when compared to real world observations; out new model is almost certainly total crap.”
Anthony,
Do you know if that EurekAlert link to that large graphic I mentioned is new? Or was it there before and you perhaps didn’t notice it? If it’s the latter, in the interest of accuracy, you should correct your statement that the small graphic was all that was provided with the press release.
But if Eurekalert added that large-format graphic link after your post, it would be an even more interesting story.
REPLY: I looked around for the graphic in several places, even doing a Google image search, so it may be new, though I can’t rule out that I might have missed it somehow. The problem seems to be that the graphic submitted has a bunch of whitespace around it, and that cause the posting program to shrink it. The graphic in the actual paper doesn’t have this problem. – Anthony
“Having evaluated the model’s simulation of present-day conditions, the researchers examined the response of simulated clouds in a warmer climate such as it might be in 100 years from now.”
So, as I understand it, they are simulating their assumptions in an assumed future climate. Brilliant!
If there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming since 1995 (Phil Jones assertion in an email wherein he states that if he published this he would be howled down by his colleagues and Trenberth’s lament that it is a travesty that there has been no warming in ten years) then surely this study is based on nothing. Or, perhaps they are saying that warming will be worse than it has been during the last 15 years of no warming. A good test would be to see if their new model ‘predicts’ the 15 year hiatus in warming.
Mt Taranaki (also formerly known as Mt Egmont) in New Zealand is a startling cone which is close to the idealised ‘proper’ volcano and similar in looks to Japan’s Mt Fujiama. The locals in the Taranaki region have a model that has been used for generations and puts the Climatologists in the U of Hawaii to shame. It’s totally reliable, too, as well as brief.
“If you can see the mountain it’s going to rain. If you CAN’T see the mountain, it IS raining.”
Aldous,
We mean no harm to your planet.
I note two weasel words :
“low level clouds”
” deviation from the average”
for comparing with data.
a) If you look in the IPCC report cloud cover estimates are all over the place and differ from data. They did not have the foresight to use an “anomaly” there too. One has to see the paper and check how well they fit the absolute values. Temperatures do not fit the data as was shown by Lucia , and I wonder where this new model falls on Lucia’s plot.
b) They talk of fitting low cloud cover. What about high cloud cover? The albedo that is?
“I don’t need somebody’s bomb making super computer to tell me that clouds ought to increase with temperature.”
Strangely they don’t seem to:
During the late 20th century warming spell global cloudiness decreased as did global albedo (reflectivity as seen from space) which is consistent with poleward shifting jets
but the Earthshine project now shows us that both global cloudiness and global
albedo are increasing again since the late 90s which is now coming to be seen as the start of a cooling period despite the recent warmth in the troposphere as some ocean heat content was discharged to the air.
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf
So it may well be that jets shifting poleward reduces cloud cover to allow more energy into the oceans to cause warming.
The amount of cloud cover is not so much influenced by temperature as by the jetstream positioning. When the jets are pushed poleward the reduction in the circumference of the globe that the jets need to cover is reduced with less opprtunity for air mass mixing and so less clouds. When the jets shift equatorward lots more mixing and more clouds.
Anthony the link to the pper is busted. You need a dot before pdf. I downloaded it and couldn’t find the graphic anywhere in it. Warning. 12 meg download!
Went to their website looking for the money and found Masie somebody or other, US Representative from Hawaii, naturalized citizen of Japanese origin, Georgetown Law grad, and proposer of a $3,000,000 allocation of taxpayer funds to the IRPC. This was partially justified by the Japanese having allocated two million plus. So, these guys are probably down to their last 5 million or so and are desperate to make an impact. BTW, the funding proposal Masie wrote indicates there is an “applications” component to this research. Clues, anyone?
Went to their website looking for the money and found Masie somebody or other, US Representative from Hawaii, naturalized citizen of Japanese origin, Georgetown Law grad, and proposer of a $3,000,000 allocation of taxpayer funds to the IRPC. This was partially justified by the Japanese having allocated two million plus. So, these guys are probably down to their last 5 million or so and are 6 levels deep in the food chain, therefore desperate to make an impact. BTW, the funding proposal Masie wrote indicates there is an “applications” component to this research. Clues, anyone?
Also, another thing which struck me…
Isn’t it a bit odd to calibrate around El Niño /La Niña variations, which is a coupled sea surface and wind pattern phenomena, and then extrapolate to an increase of average temperature?
I’ve always wondered if these so called climate scienetists actually get out of their little offices and observe real weather. Where are the studies that show the rate of heat loss overnight depending on the location, time of year and cloud cover? that’s what we need
loved the seattle video!
that’s my old neighborhood, capitol hill.
and let me tell you, snow at thanksgiving in seattle is pretty unheard of.
such weather is rare even in dec/jan – maybe once every couple of years.
forecast low is 5f
Oi Vey!
Very interesting, and what makes this one area of clouds so special? Can I expect my temperature to drop in, say, the Sahara when the clouds in this area increase? Would not the clouds directly over top of me influence the ground temperature more? I am very interested to hear the justification for applying the effects/behavior of clouds in this one area to the entire planet.
From the Summary: The model results suggest that the
reduction in stratocumulus clouds (in the East Pacific) …. is caused by a drop in average inversion layer base height and a consequential decrease in cloud-top
height … because of global warming. Like in Timbuktu.
Excellent video Mr. Wendt. As a Canadian who loves the winter, I find this video absolutely hilarious!!! I am curious as to insurance companies who have put a lot of stock in the “coming warming”, whenever that is supposed to happen. Shades of financial models accuracy. The hubris is sickening. Do not bank on warming, State Farm !! P.S. – what do you think our chances of hearing from Mr. Hamilton are?
The study covers a slice of 30 degrees North to 30 degrees South, THE TROPICS. It has been somewhere around a year since I read an opinion of Dr Lindzen when he said that the evidence suggests AGW may result in some warming of the tropics. I believe for exactly this reason. The models also say that most warming occurs in the coldest regions at the coldest times. Understanding cloud feedbacks in the tropics isn’t near enough to tell us what we need to know.
This new model simply appears to be supporting what was already suspected.
Perhaps a service for science but useless to further warmest mania or answer the important questions.
tallbloke says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:42 pm
“Aldous, We mean no harm to your planet.”
Well, we didn’t. Now the ecoloons? – that’s a diferent story.
Here is a whole bunch of this data charted in one place.
Hadcrut3, Nino 3.4 Index, Cloud Cover anomalies, Column Water Vapour anomalies and Outgoing Longwave Radiation anomalies.
They are all tied to the ENSO and they mostly lag a little behind it.
There is an El Nino, cloud cover goes way up, water vapour goes way up, OLR goes way down, Hadcrut3 goes up.
But there is no trend in any of these numbers. They are flat (except for Hadcrut3 which is going up of course) .
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5413/ensocwvolrcloud.png
So, let’s think about what is happening here. First of all, all these numbers are closely tied to the biggest weather phenomenon on the planet, the ENSO. That means that any analysis of these measures needs to take this into account and the period chosen should try to minimize any ENSO-induced trend.
Second, as as El Nino starts to get going and, especially just after it has peaked, the tropical convection storm activity goes way up, global cloud cover goes way up. This will block more sunlight and, on average, clouds block about 28% of the sunshine, thunderstorms even more, so, a slight rise in cloud cover results in a large reduction in solar “forcing”.
Third, that extra cloud cover also results in less longwave thermal radiation escaping to space. The ENSO swings these numbers by huge amounts.
Fourth, all that extra heat and evaporation and cloud cover and storms of an El Nino results in a large increase in the total water vapour content in the atmosphere. A La Nina will do the opposite of course.
Fifth, an El Nino will raise Hadcrut3 temperatures. More cloud, less OLR, less solar forcing but temperatures rise a small amount lagging about about 3 months behind the ENSO.
That is alot of number crunching to tease out what is the net effect of all these changes in forcing. Given there is no trend in Nino 3.4, cloud cover numbers in these datasets, OLR, water vapour numbers in this NCEP dataset, One could not conclude the extra CO2 is having any effect on them. Ocean cycles, however, obviously do.
So, global warming leads to less clouds AND more storms and floods?
I see.
It must be due to a big reduction in environmentally-friendly fluffy white clouds and a smaller increase in horrible nasty black clouds. Black like carbon. That damned stuff gets everywhere…
Their graph looks like the inverse of temperature anomalies.
That tends to support Mr Illis’s position (and I think Dr Spencer’s)
No discussion of trade winds except that another study referenced them. What is really bizarre is that sensitivity is now local. Used to be that sensitivity was a magic average number that ignored weather and held worldwide (assumptions of constant RH and other averaged physics). Now they have a sensitivity for each little block being simulated and then average them for the whole thing.
That sort of recognizes that local weather is important but of course local weather is not modeled. Instead the weather is parameterized, there is insufficient resolution to model the convection that controls the clouds. So the result is merely a function of the inputs, the model parameters. Comparison with cloud measurements says nothing about cloud changes in a world with CO2 warming since it won’t have the same parameters as the current world, particularly since El Nino warming is going to be different from CO2 warming in several aspects like the winds.
Wow, this is Garbage Science. The model is based on 25 years of observations but is used to forecast 90 years into the future. Cool. Rots a ruck with that forecast.
Another thing – if you look at the chart [Anthony, thanks for going through the trouble to post], you can easily see that between the beginning of the time series and about 1997 the model’s residuals are negative about 80% of the time while from 1997 to the end of the time series the residuals are positive about 90% of the time. This means that there is some type of time related behavior in nature that the model is not capturing. In other words, the model’s results appears to be drifting upward relative to the actual observations over time. This is a model that needs fixing to correct this residual problem, either the use of dummy variables or a time variable. Unfortunately, using either approach poses a big problem for any forecast coming out of the model.
Amazing that such stuff gets published and even more amazing that the “results” are used provide a potentially catastrophic narrative. The world has way, way too many climate scientists.
“The world has way, way too many climate scientists.”
If you want pigeons, throw out bird seed. If you want climatologists, throw out grant money.
I recommend the authors modify their text as shown in [brackets].
“…To study the [model] clouds, the researchers applied a model representing only a limited [model] region of the [model] atmosphere over the [model] eastern Pacific Ocean and adjacent [model] land areas. The [model] clouds in this [model] region are known to greatly influence present [model] climate, yet current global models do poorly in representing them. …”
Otherwise the study seems pretty robust.
anna v, good notes – and this is hilarious.
>>
The regional model, developed at the IPRC, successfully simulates key features of the region’s present-day cloud fields, including the observed response of clouds to El Nino.
>>
Sorry , I can’t see any correlation to the red and blue bands , neither for the satellite data or the model. If there is an “observed response to El Nino” this is not the right graph to show it.
I would say that it does a reasonably good job of following the ups and downs, apart from being a bit too sensitive but also shows a steady drift downwards w.r.t the satellite data: c 1985 is it consistently above, after 2000 consistently below.
[Speculation: unwarranted “sensitivity to CO2 => more GW => less cloud cover ?]
However, glossing over the downward trend and then talking about what this means for 100 years hence and rolling out the “worse than we thought” mantra is not science.
What this graph clearly shows is a defect in the model that will presumably continue for the next 100 years of simulation and be very badly off. When your model does not fit the control period it is an amateurish mistake (or a fraud) to extrapolate almost FIVE times the control period into the future and start to make claims about what it means. It means NOTHING.
Their model seems to have some “skill” so there maybe some good science in there despite the flaws but it seems they are part of the growing trend of putting the obligatory AGW spin on their work in order to get published and ensure funds for next year.
After scientology came climatology. G.I.G.O never left us.
Good gawd amighty. Let’s get real. Send these AGWing scientists to Wallowa County. I’ll host them. I have bedrooms upstairs they can use. Tell them to send flowers to their spouses before they get here. In all likelihood, they will not survive the night. I can just see it now, “HELP ME” signs desperately scratched in the frosted windows. And just to be clear, the frost is on the INSIDE of the window.
Axel Lauer : ” It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
Well , that and not even attempting to model periodic variations in ocean currents. Having not taken account of ocean currents , failing to understand water vapour transport and cloud formation and precipitation (ie climate), it is indeed “unfortunate” that these same climate models are taken as being relevant in the slightest.
The disconnect, the irony, the completely illogical: Many of them froze to death protesting ‘global warming.’
F. Ross (6:33 PM):
If the study is robust, then the model must be robust. But since the model has systematic errors in the residuals, then the model is likely missing one or more (likely time based) variables. Therefore the model is not robust. The model may provide insight into the nature of cloud cover and climate variation but the systematic errors in the model means it likely has little ability to forecast. No econometrician would use a model with systematic residual errors to make economic forecasts but climate scientists seem not to be bound by such restrictions and seem happy to make forecasts with flawed models that have great potential economic impact.
My post was with tongue in cheek sarcasm; sorry if that was not clear.
Sorry about this, but it does cover the area….
https://windows2universe.org/vocals/results.html&edu=elem
is a rather elementary link about VOCALS, a study of just the sort of cloud this paper is about. I’m really looking forward to their results, even though it involves scientists working really hard! And long hours! And maybe saving the planet!
I suspect the key to AGW is just this, the stratocumulus. There’s a hell of a lot of it and it’s easily influenced by the ocean surface only a few hundred feet below.
JF
F Ross:
Sorry, you seemed to be arguing the opposite. My apologies.
Pamela Gray says:
November 23, 2010 at 7:21 pm
………… And just to be clear, the frost is on the INSIDE of the window.
Snicker
Sounds like my first apartment near Buffalo New York (1975). The house was build in the early 1800s and never had heat added to the upstairs bedrooms. – Thank Gawd for electric blankets, fluffy quilts and flannel PJs. You learn WHY the old Christmas poem starts with MA in her kerchief and me in my cap, had just settled down for a long winter’s nap.
Stocking caps are for sleeping in!
But do not expect these keyboard punchers to leave their nests. They would not know REAL world research if it bit them on the rear.
Aldous Tenpenney 2082 says:
November 23, 2010 at 9:28 am
Citizens of year 2082
Please continue to make confident forecasts of assured doom, we find them quaint and hilarious.
————–
That’s because Aldous is a dolphin.
@Anna V and @Paul Vaughan
I would like to see the measured atmospheric CO2 on this graph – any chance?
From the cited paper;
“The prognostic model variables are nudged to the NCEP
FNL analysis data within a 108 buffer zone along the
lateral boundaries. The buffer zone is not in the analyses
of the results shown here.”
Am I imagining it or does this sound a bit like an email I once read from one climatologist to another?
As I read this paper I could not get the image out of my head of John Conways game of “Life”. Three simple rules in a computer program give a myriad of “organisms” with totally unpredicatable “behaviours”. Aren’t computers wonderful ;-)?
Give them a tranquilizer and ask them to call Dr. Roy Spencer.
He can help them.
“…It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
Indeed.
Clouds and convective systems just can’t be captured accurately on the horizontal and vertical scales used in GCMs or Regional models. It’s a bit like only having one RGB value, the result of an average of all the RGB values of the component pixels in a high res photo and then using that one average RGB value to figure out what the original photo looked like. In 3D.
And then there is the complexity of the actual physico-chemical processes involved: the links between gas phase chemistry, heterogeneous chemistry, dynamics, incident radiation, temperature and pressure. The experiments needed to derive decent parametrization of these processes simply cannot be done – probably ever.
But models are cheap and good measurements and experiments expensive and difficult. For me: more reason to focus on spending the money on how we adapt to whatever nature throws at us. The fundamental science is interesting, but academic. It should be left to compete with other areas of pure science and shed its pretension to be applied.
The really sad thing is there are plenty of atmospheric scientists who must know how flawed the AGW science is and they have just stood by without voicing the skepticism they should have.
H.R. says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:05 am
*If* my cat had 8 legs it would be a spider. I have a computer program that can visually change one animal to another in a seemingly perfect transition sequence.
Also, if my auntie had b****, she would be my uncle. Since she isn’t, at least she married him, and therefore forms part of my uncle’s great retinue, so technically she is my uncle.
So much for logic… I’m working on how to bluff the animal simulation
George E. Smith says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:01 am (Edit)
So their little toy model painted fire engine red predicts, projects, guesses, that the variations are much greater than they really are (black ops).
So instead of scrapping their junk model they publish a paper to tout it. Don’t they understand that the model is supposed to replicate reality; not the other way round.
#####################
no model, no physical theory replicates reality. Not even F=MA. Sometimes the residual is tiny. we call that “random error” sometimes the residual is larger, we call that an incomplete or low fidelity model. sometimes the residual is huge and we throw the model away. Looking at their model results it seems that whatever factors drive the transient response need some work. Given the complexity of the system being modelled, I’d say the model does a fair job.
The alternative? I see no alternative model that does a better job “replicating” observed cloud cover from 1985 to present.
JacobusZeno says:
November 24, 2010 at 4:24 am
@Anna V and @Paul Vaughan
I would like to see the measured atmospheric CO2 on this graph – any chance?
I do not understand what you mean. CO2 rise is an input for these models. The anomalies fit fairly well the data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GCM_temp_anomalies_3_2000.jpg for example, if you ignore the last decade. The absolute temperatures are all over the ballpark. Note the anomalies are 0.2C and the absolute temperatures in the models differ more than 2C
“”””” stumpy says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:29 am
From experiance, I also know that the climate models are totally incapable of getting current rainfall patterns right either, which is worrying – if you cant get current rainfall patterns right, how can you make forecasts??? “””””
Stumpy; I have no idea what your authority credentials are; your sayso here at WUWT is good enough for me.
So as to the rainfall which you say from your experience you know they can’t get right; doesn’t it follow from your observations, that if the rainfall ain’t right; then the cloud cover certainly can’t be either ?
“”””” Steven Mosher says:
November 24, 2010 at 9:15 am
George E. Smith says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:01 am (Edit)
So their little toy model painted fire engine red predicts, projects, guesses, that the variations are much greater than they really are (black ops).
So instead of scrapping their junk model they publish a paper to tout it. Don’t they understand that the model is supposed to replicate reality; not the other way round.
#####################
no model, no physical theory replicates reality. Not even F=MA. Sometimes the residual is tiny. we call that “random error” sometimes the residual is larger, we call that an incomplete or low fidelity model. sometimes the residual is huge and we throw the model away. Looking at their model results it seems that whatever factors drive the transient response need some work. Given the complexity of the system being modelled, I’d say the model does a fair job.
The alternative? I see no alternative model that does a better job “replicating” observed cloud cover from 1985 to present. “””””
“”””” no model, no physical theory replicates reality. “””””
Well Ithink I have said that so many times I can’t even keep count.
“”””” Not even F=MA. “””””
Well I believe that is essetially the definition of Force; and the definitions of Mass and Acceleration can be found elsewhere. All of those things are fictional things that we made up; but the equation you cited is the mathematical expression that relates those things; and it is exact. Presumably those model values are analogues of something we think we observe in the real universe; and yes we will always have difficulties at some level in relating the model parameters and values to the reality.
When you have a global variable like say “surface Temperature” which can have a total range of as much as 150 deg C (or more)from place to place on earth (simultaneously); and you are trying to observe believable changes of as small as 0.01 deg C in the global average; not of the Temperature, but of Temperature “anomalies”; I don’t think that a model which can have a 3:1 range (+/-50%) in its most important model parameter (climate sensitivity) is either credible or useful.
For example if I have a scatter plot of simultaneous Temperatures (or anomalies), versus atmospheric CO2 abundance (mole fraction or ppmv) recorded over some climatically significant time scale; the statistical analysts can take that data and compute a “trend” line which they can superimpose on the scatter plot. Well at least they seem to claim they can do that.
And a typical result of such machination is that they derive a “slope” (and position) for that trend line that the IPCC says comes out to 3.0 deg C per doubling of the CO2 abundance; well actually they say it is 3.0 +/- 50%; or 1.5 to 4.5 Deg C per doubling.
So I should draw three such trend lines; for their best guess, and their max and min extremes.
Well simply wonderful ! For the longest such data set that exists for actual measured real world physical obervations; it is impossible to determine conclusively that the relationship between CO2 and Temperature (or anomaly) , with that much slope uncertainty, is linear or logarithmic, or exponential, or inverse square law, or any other ordinary mathematical function.
Yet the disciples of such models still insist on declaring the relationship to be logarithmic. Not only does the observed DATA not support such a claim; but there is also NO theoretical Physical process or model, that even predicts that the relationship SHOULD be logarithmic; or for that matter, any other simple mathematical function.
How many times at this forum has it been stated that “Correlation” does not prove “Causation”.
So it is completely meaningless to say; “This is a good model; because no other model is any better.”
There is NOTHING WRONG with saying “WE DON’T KNOW.”
By the way; science could easily have consisted of a “Compendium of all Knowledge” wherein resides the results of every experimental observation ever made about anything.
So anyone would be able to look up exactly what numbers Marie Curie got in her lab while observing the apparently very strong radioactivity she observed that turned out to be Radium.
But instead of such a library approach, scientists chose to try and relate similar observations about similar systems; to see if there were any patterns to the data. This approach often leads to the ability to estimate the results one would get from an experiment that has never been performed; and such predictions; excuse me; projections, often pan out, when such experiments are actually performed, and confirm the estimate.
And that is wherein lies the value of scientific models or theories. A model is only as good as its ability to replicate results already known and predict the result of some future observation.
That is not the same as saying that the model “IS” the reality. Models don’t even have to be unique, or follow common sense.
It’s entirely possible to have more than one theory or model for some phenomenon; and those models could be totally different from each other, or be totally wierd. The only thing that matters is if they agree with reality. Well Einstein said that models (theories) should be as simple as possible; but no simpler !
So the point is that this new cloud theory of these Hawaiian researchers does not agree with reality any better than other so-called cloud models do; so it can’t be used to make any projections of future experimental outcomes; so it is worthless.
“”””” Alexander K says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Mt Taranaki (also formerly known as Mt Egmont) in New Zealand is a startling cone which is close to the idealised ‘proper’ volcano and similar in looks to Japan’s Mt Fujiama. The locals in the Taranaki region have a model that has been used for generations and puts the Climatologists in the U of Hawaii to shame. It’s totally reliable, too, as well as brief.
“If you can see the mountain it’s going to rain. If you CAN’T see the mountain, it IS raining.” “””””
Well Alexander, I wouldn’t say that Mt Egmont is quite Fuji like; there is that little speed bump on the side there that sort of screws up the shape.
As to the observational prowess of those nutcakes that inhabit that region; it is in keeping with their skiing habits.
On Mt Ruapehu, you could always identify a Mt Egmont skiier, since they just pointed their skis straight down the fall line; and then simply took the brakes off; total fruitcakes if you ask me. It’s amazinr that they aren’t extinct !
“”””” Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“I don’t need somebody’s bomb making super computer to tell me that clouds ought to increase with temperature.”
Strangely they don’t seem to: “””””
It is left as an exercise for the reader to explain the results of Wentz et al; where more precipitation was observed to accompany higher Temperature; yet clouds are supposed ot have decreased.
By the way; that is “precipitable clouds” we are referring to; aka those clouds from which rain or snow precipitates.
I’m not aware that we have any global cloud monitoring stations; or that such may have existed in the late 20th century; they would come in handy in observing precipitable clouds.
Read their paper.
I am left baffled, as this paper adds almost nothing to anybody’s understanding of the issue, how do all these people get paid to do this?
In short its a model simulation of other model simulations,
Here is a scatter plot of Hadcrut3 versus the four datasets of Cloud Cover that are available (some of this data goes back to 1901).
Needless to say, there is little correlation between temperatures and cloud cover anomalies.
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/9148/hadcrut3cloudcover.png
I guess my position has always been that the climate is very complicated. The theory of global warming has some propositions that are defendable, that should work, but given how complicated the climate system is, we should be measuring as much of it as we can and trying to figure out what actually happens, what the climate actually does. it is not necessarily going to so what the theory says should happen.
The cloud data that is available says there is little change in clouds versus temperatures over this range of temperatures and time (and this should cover enough data and time). I think the theory would have the trends increasing twice as fast as the longest data trendline says.
Water vapour as well (according the NCEP dataset) is not rising as predicted either (about half again which seems to be a recurring theme every time I check the data against the theory’s predictions).
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7007/watervapourscattertemps.png
About 15 years ago, I “loaned” our Cray Supercomputer to a researcher from Stanford to do cloud modeling for his Ph.D. We were ‘closing down the shop’ and had some idle cycles. He was very tentative in asking if he could, perhaps, somehow get a couple of hours of CPU time… I gave him effectively unlimited. (It was fun when I offered even more to hear him with some difficulty decline as he needed to actually write his thesis now… I knew then that I’d “filled his cup” 😉
The point?
At that time it took about 10 hours of run time on a Cray X-MP 48 machine (one of the fastest then, and about what’s in an iPad now 😉 to model ONE well defined ISOLATED cloud. And even that gave dramatically variable results run to run.
Since then, Moore’s Law (computes double about every 18 months) has continued to work its magic. But…
Intractable problems with non-linear complexity and stochastic nature are still intractable. You could throw a million times more processing power at it and still not correctly simulate cloud dynamics in a system of moderate area coverage.
They don’t model clouds because we still can’t model clouds with any accuracy nor precision.
Oh, and I’ll start thinking they have a clue about clouds when they start modeling a world where the hydrological cycle dominates and CO2 is a bit player. The heat flow in a few megatons of water vapor rising from the tropics to form tropical storms makes CO2 look like a bad joke…
FWIW, I got about a 20 F range of temperatures in a 50 foot distance due entirely to the presence or absence of sun and water. The quantity of heat going into steam / water vapor at any one time makes CO2 irrelevant.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/an-example-of-fractal-temperatures/
It’s not about the temperatures, it’s about the heat. That “climate scientists” don’t get that and continue to use temperatures without clouds and the hydrological cycle just confirms that they have no clue what the future holds.
Yeah, and Cancun has stated that with the cuts in CO2 that was calculated to ‘do the trick’ has been shown not to be enough so cut more!!!!
If one bad bit of news fails to impress make the news worse.
HOW CLIMATE IS CHANGING ?
Massive Arctic iceisland drifting toward shipping lanes
The biggest Arctic “ice island” to form in nearly 50 years — a
250-square-kilometer behemoth described as four times the size of Manhattan
— has been discovered after a Canadian scientist scanning satellite images
of northwest Greenland spotted a giant break in the famed Petermann
Glacier.Canada.com – Aug 07 10:16am In another research, using Autosub, an
autonomous underwater vehicle, researchers led by the British Antarctic Survey
have captured ocean and sea-floor measurements, which revealed a 300 meter
high ridge on the sea floor. Pine Island Glacier was once sitting atop this underwater ridge, which slowed its flow into the sea. The warm water, trapped
under the ice, is causing the bottom of the ice shelf to thaw, resulting in
continuousthinning and acceleration of glacial melt. Lead author Adrian
Jenkins said, “The discovery of the ridge has raised new questions about
whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent
climate change or is a continution of a longer-term process that began when
the glacier disconnect from the ridge”.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620200810.htm
Not only warm water, but also concentrated Magnesium Chloride =7,100 p.p.m &
Sodium Chloride= 31,000 p.p.m. (de-icing agents) trapped under the ice, is
causing the bottom of the ice shelf to thaw, resulting in continuous thinning
and acceleration of glacial melt (under water glacier cutting).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGHlEBvKYw&sns=fb
Last Winter, Australian Glaciologist, Neal Young, declared that more than
300 icebergs are floating in the East Antarctica.
DISINTEGRATED ICE SHELVES DISINTEGRATION DATES
Worde Ice shelf March 1986*
* Larsen A Ice shelf January 1995*
* Larsen B Ice shelf February 2002*
* Jones Ice Shelf 2008*
* Wilkins Ice shelf March 2008*
If the Ice shelves are disintegrating during WINTER, it is not SUN or CO2.
U.N. Secretary General, BAN KI-MOON recently declared that ” Let me be
clear, the thread of Climate Change is real “.
“The Climate is changing” said JAY LAWRIMORE, Chief of Climate Analysing at
the National Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occuring with greater frequency and in many cases with greater intensity”.
The current Climate Change is due to the following:-
1. Mushrooming of Sea water desalination systems in the Middle East:
Discharging of desalination & Cleaning chemicals & Concentrated brine into Oceans & Seas.
2. Artificial Island developments in the Arabian Gulf since 1985: dredging,
drilling, dynamiting & excavation of sea floor shifted Magnesium Chloride, Sulfur & Sodium Chloride.The geographic position of the Arabian Gulf, Ocean circulations bringing it to Arctic & Antarctic Oceans during Monsoon seasons along with hot water of the Middle East.
Those who are having the Oceans water Analysis since 1980 will WIN the
Climate WAR. Concentrated 7,100 p.p.m. of Magnesium Chloride & 31,000 p.p.m. of Sodium Chloride are detected in the Arabian Gulf. These are De-icing agents which are helping to disintegrates the Arctic & Antarctic
Ice shelves. Now International Desalination Association (IDA) formed a committee to investigate about it.
If we enforce strict Environmental regulations, recover MgCl3 and NaCl3 at
Straight of Hormosa and Straight of Gibraltar and recover those at closed eddies of Baffin Bay & Green Land Sea. Sea ice & Ice shelves in Arctic & Antarctic are Natural Air Conditioners of the Planet EARTH. When more ice in both Poles, the third Pole, as Scientists described, Himalayas will have abundance of ice and Snow & Bolivia will have more Glaciers & water.
Book releasing soon in USA ” Environmental Rapes & H. R. abuses Lead to Climate Change Control”.
(Full color 450 pages) by Raveendran Narayanan also visit:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=358564892147&ref=ts SARVA KALA VALLABHAN GROUP in Face book.
Raveendran Narayanan, U.S.A.
Tel-1-347-847-0407
E- mail : bestfriend97usa@yahoo.com
narayananraveen@gmail.com
narayananraveen@yahoo.com
Below is a screen copy of a comment on the topic of this thread, that I made over at RealClimate, whilst it was waiting in moderation. For some inexplicable reason it did not emerge, despite that deliberately, I did not even mention the source; WUWT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
24 November 2010 at 7:22 PM
WRT various comments above about clouds and climate sensitivity, here follows an extract from a press release on a new paper:
“All the global climate models we analyzed have serious deficiencies in simulating the properties of clouds in present-day climate. It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uoha-scm112210.php
What I find most interesting is the strong criticism of existing models. However, from the press release it would seem that the paper itself is a rather flimsy affair, and probably not worth a read. (although good fodder for the “it’s worse than we thought” brigade).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would have thought that Gavin might have responded to explain any errors in my thinking.