Forecast is for more snow in polar regions, less for the rest of us (Journal of Climate) Posted on February 22, 2013
By Catherine Zandonella, Office of the Dean for Research
A new climate model predicts an increase in snowfall for the Earth’s polar regions and highest altitudes, but an overall drop in snowfall for the globe, as carbon dioxide levels rise over the next century.
The decline in snowfall could spell trouble for regions such as the western United States that rely on snowmelt as a source of fresh water.
The projections are the result of a new climate model developed at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and analyzed by scientists at GFDL and Princeton University. The study was published in the Journal of Climate.
The model indicates that the majority of the planet would experience less snowfall as a result of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Observations show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has already increased by 40 percent from values in the mid-19th century, and, given projected trends, could exceed twice those values later this century. In North America, the greatest reductions in snowfall will occur along the northeast coast, in the mountainous west, and in the Pacific Northwest. Coastal regions from Virginia to Maine, as well as coastal Oregon and Washington, will get less than half the amount of snow currently received.
In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow. The researchers found that regions in and around the Arctic and Antarctica will get more snow than they now receive.
The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles. This finding clashes with other models which predicted declines in snowfall for these high-altitude regions. However, the new model’s prediction is consistent with current snowfall observations in these regions.
The model is an improvement over previous models in that it utilizes greater detail about the world’s topography – the mountains, valleys and other features. This new “high-resolution” model is analogous to having a high-definition model of the planet’s climate instead of a blurred picture.
The study was conducted by Sarah Kapnick, a postdoctoral research scientist in the Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at Princeton University and jointly affiliated with NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, and Thomas Delworth, senior physical scientist at GFDL.
Read a plain-language summary of the article on GFDL’s web site.
Citation: Kapnick, Sarah B. and Thomas L. Delworth, 2013. Controls of Global Snow Under a Changed Climate. Journal of Climate. Early online release published Feb. 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12–00528.1
This work was supported by the Cooperative Institute for Climate Science, a collaborative institute between Princeton University and GFDL.
More junk science from climate modelers.
Well, the North Pole Region must include the mountains of Arizona, Colorado, Buffalo NY as well as the ski slopes of Vermont.
As I understand global atmospheric physics: the movement of air is from the tropics to the poles at high altitude, dropping down onto the polar areas, sliding from pole to the tropics along the surface of the planet, and then back up again. Cold air in winter comes from the poles, where it has arrived by “falling” planetward, warming by normal adiabatic processes, which means that the air starts out high but colder and denser and at a certain relative humidity, and ends at the ground warmer, less dense (but denser than the air it displaces tropicward) and drier.
So in a warmer world, the air in the poles – still coming from the tropics at high altitude – continues to drop down and warm, dry as before, even if the relative humidity is higher than pre-global warming. The air picks up moisture, as before. As for the Great Lakes effect, this moisture drops out when the air encounters COLDER conditions, cools below the dewpoint, and snow (in winter) falls. Based on fundamentals, if less than dewpoint temperatures are encountered – say, around 0C, whether the final low temperature is -10C or -25C, whatever is excess moisture precipitates.
Unless the climate models say that rising temperatures are going to bring winter temperatures up to dewpoint temperatures, I see FUNDAMENTALLY that dewpoint conditions will be met as we are mostly below dewpoint temperatures for a MOIST air mass during winter. And if the models say that the atmosphere will be more humid in an absolute as well as relative sense, I see MORE snow in a globally warmed world where current winter-quality conditions still exist.
Doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Another climate model? Have these people not grasped the very simple concept that all the previous climate models were wrong?
An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of keyboards may eventually type out everything that Shakespeare ever wrote. Climate scientists seem to be attempting to try the same logic.
“This too I had foreseen”
The soothsayer, Asterix and the Soothsayer.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
MORE snow at the poles?
I am growing utterly sick to death of this SCAM. A NEW MODEL for Christ’s sake!
Now, I have been told that declining ice in the Arctic is causing more snow in the UK/. Now more snow in the Arctic. Yet, I was told that less snow in the UK was caused by global warming as well as more snow in the UK caused by global warming. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/snowjobs-are-just-a-thing-of-the-past-er-present/
“However, the new model’s prediction is consistent with current snowfall observations in these regions.”
I love that sentence! Hey, who needs models if we have observations?
first there’s not enough snow in the Arctic, Greenland, Antarctic, glaciers at high altitude and on and on…
…and that’s a bad thing cause we’re all going to die
now there’s going to be more snow at the poles and altitudes….
…and that’s a bad thing cause we’re all going to die
Three Bears………………..
“This finding clashes with other models which predicted declines in snowfall for these high-altitude regions.”
There can be only one explanation for this: Global warming causes climate models to produce erroneous and contradictory results. It also distorts the laws of physics and unravels the very fabric of the space-time continuum.
So we can all relax, then? – That’s a relief…whew\sarc !
…and the impact on sea level?
More duplicitous horse shit.
Look, let me tell you about model clashes and errors of serious concern.
My advice to any scientist who wants to have a good and steady income to go into climate astrology. You just press enter. print, submit to peer review, publish and voila! You are set with your ill gotten gains, you can feed your family in a dishonorable way and still feeeeeeeel you are saving the world with your crap.
Not everyone got the memo.
http://www.680news.com/2013/02/17/blue-mountain-to-invest-10-million-in-new-trails-terrain-and-chairlift/
Funny Northern Japan is not at the poles and they have recieved 5m over the last few days. I guess CO2 has moved Japan. Also The Northeast is having a top 10 snow season and Moscow is having the most snow in a century. All these places being pulled to the poles by a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Most excellent. The science is settled for the next 70 years. There is no need to fund any further research. Right? Right? Crickets.
Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years. So where, again, is the link between CO2 and temperature? It doesn’t exist.
Scientific soothsayers like Sarah Kapnick should take a peek out the window every now and then. They might notice that Mother Nature isn’t cooperating with their super-duper (but hopelessly inadequate and often times rigged) climate models.
I wish the hyperventilating Warmist scaremongers would put a sock in it. Their theory of CO2-induced runaway global warming has been discredited seven ways from Sunday by a growing body of skeptical scientists. They should acknowledge their misbegotten beliefs, set their egos aside and salvage what remains of their tattered reputations.
April 1st comes early this year.
Due to CO2, of course….
“The model is an improvement over previous models in that it utilizes greater detail about the world’s topography – the mountains, valleys and other features.”
But that would mean that previous models weren’t perfect. So how did 97% of climate scientists reach a consensus based on models that were all faulty? Is there still room for improvement in the models or have they finally corrected the last possible flaw? /sarc
But, but, but…….
I thought the extra snow we’ve been having in the UK (you know, the stuff we won’t get any more) was now known to be caused by global warming?
Since when is Anglesey in the Arctic circle???
As I expected, a slow moonwalk back from were all goanna die models, from no snow ever again to ……Bla… Bla…. I will bet any warmer especially our local alarmist millionaire David Suzuki That the Coastal mountains above Vancouver, BC will have record amounts of snow in 20 – 30 – 50 or 100 years. Never mind Whistler Mnt just 70 miles away. The mountains get huge dumps like the last 2 years and then slumps, its just weather.
I’m off to ski in bottomless snow tomorrow!
A new [fill in study type here] finds that [fill in climate phenom here] could [state type of change] as CO2 increases. In a warming world, [these kinds of things] may [increase decrease get worse] so [propose weird solution].
NOTHING new here. Saves on actual writing time.
My horoscope for today (New model)
Sometimes, you just have to go on faith. You’re at a crossroads right now — and time is running out. You need to decide which way you’re going soon, and you won’t have the luxury of knowing all the information you want to know about your options. The good news is that you’re in a very solid lucky phase, where your instincts can fill in the blanks and help you take a calculated risk. So even if you’re not completely sure, go in the direction that just feels the most comfortable now.
I’m off to bed. It’s “the direction that just feels the most comfortable now.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/horoscopes/sagittarius
More snow at poles leads to accumulation of several hundred meters of snow at the poles that leads to glaciers that decide to move south (and north) from the poles that leads to another ice age. Global warming = ice age.
Mushroom George says:
…and the impact on sea level?
That is an interesting question. More snow at the polls should result in an increase of ice on Antarctica. That should decrease sea levels or at least slow the rise. More snow for Greenland would have the same effect. But I’m not sure what it means for the Arctic. Would the extra snowfall help keep the ice cap from melting? Or does their new model still predict ice-free summers at the north pole in the future despite more snowfall?
In any case, If the results of this study can be believed, it would allow the world to relax somewhat about the effects of feedbacks on global warming. If more CO2 causes more snow and clouds at the polls, that would be a negative feedback and would argue against the idea of runaway global warming or catastrophic sea level rise.
Ha, wait till round 2 in the US again next week. The arctic snow keeps coming to a state near you, and its not Alaska (*¿*)
oh goody a new model and fresh speculation how spectacular!
This model fails – it doesn’t reflect the expected results when you look at the observations taken in the past. A Canadian study of temperatures in the Northwest Territory, at Inuvik, Fort Smith, Yellowknife, and Norman Wells, over the period from 1958 to 2005 shows the annual average temperatures have increased about 2.5C – Precipitation, on an annual basis, in the same areas has declined anywhere from 5.5 mm at Fort Smith to 86.3 mm at Norman Wells. ( http://nwtclimatechange.ca/nwtclimatechange/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Climate-Change-in-the-Northwest-Territories-Mar-2009.pdf ) A model which can not duplicate conditions we have already experienced is useless at predicting future events.
Well I guess more snow in the mountains means that glaciers will start growing again. And if the north polar regions get more snow, continental ice sheets may start to grow – all due to global warming! Now they have all their bases completely covered – global warming causes global cooling.
Well, I guess that fear of less water due to snowfall collides with warmist’s prediction of more
rainfall. And doesn’t warming of an area always result in less snowfall and more rain? I boldly predict that when Minnesota’s average winter temperature hits 60 degrees, it will get very little snow.
According to Environment Canada, there is less snow in the arctic due to increased CO2:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/11/05/environment-canada-study-snow-pack.html
“Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years.”
This is not necessarily as strong a statement as it might appear. An increase in net energy in a semi-closed system that doesn’t change the overall temperature may just mean that whatever heat-sink system of the Earth has been activated and temperature shall remain constant until that sink is overloaded and warming continues or another sink system is activated (or both).
Consider boiling ice. The systems stays at around 0 centigrade until all the ice is melted, then the temperature raises in response to the forcing and then remains constant at around 100 until all the water is steam…
So what’s the new model’s predictions for rainfall? Or can it only handle one kind of precipitation?
I also note a severe lack of specificity as to how much less, how much more,per degree of warming? J And that brings up the central issue, which is yet to be satisfactorily resolved : climate sensitivity.
Dave says:
February 22, 2013 at 5:37 pm
More snow at poles leads to accumulation of several hundred meters of snow at the poles that leads to glaciers that decide to move south (and north) from the poles that leads to another ice age. Global warming = ice age.
Yep! That’s the trigger for the next glaciation. If snowfall exceeds melt in the land areas surrounding the Arctic we are on our way. But fear not. Those climate engineering space mirrors designed to cool the Earth can be turned around and used to melt the accumulated snow.
It is my understanding that Antarctica (and a lesser extent the Arctic) is a desert with little to no precipitation. The build up of ice is due to sublimation of water vapour on existing ice. I am confused again, or still i am not sure if that isn’t confusing still more.
I am also confused that the prophetic models did not include the topography of the Earth into account. It would be nice if these important soothsaying models where released for public scrutiny,
But i guess that would not be scientific efficacy for the uninitiated. (sarc)
The decline in snowfall could spell trouble for regions such as the western United States that rely on snowmelt as a source of fresh water.
Not if that snow is falling as rain. Or is that “the wrong type” of precipitation?
“But that would mean that previous models weren’t perfect. So how did 97% of climate scientists reach a consensus based on models that were all faulty? Is there still room for improvement in the models or have they finally corrected the last possible flaw? /sarc
##############
no models are perfect. even models built to predict how a plane will fly before its even built.
if you look at previous climate model results you can see the areas where topography needed to be improved. One of the issues with models was resolution. You get good global results, but regional skill is spotty. Or you did well on temps and lousy on precipitation.
Kinda like early models that predicted how planes would fly and wings would work. Some cases solve easy.. others not so easy. Luckily smart folks dont give up just because results are not perfect.
Let do a simple example for you.
You probably have a trip computer in your car. Based on the gas in your tank, and your past miles per gallon, the model predicts : 126 DTE. Distance to empty. we put the same thing in fighter aircraft a long time ago. called “bingo fuel” It starts out as a simple model and gets refined.
Its always wrong but strangely enough, wonder of wonders, it saves lives. So, your car computer tells you that you have 126 miles before your tank is empty.
Does that model know about the Hill ahead? about the headwind you will face when you turn south in 36 miles. Nope. would it be more useful if it did? probably, but its still useful. All models, all physics is wrong. but some of it is useful.
Latitude says:
February 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm
A small snip …
Three Bears………………..
___________________________________________________________________________
The Bears are innocent leave them out of the discussion.
The modelers however need to look out the windows more often.
“From the I haven’t looked out the window lately department”
Brilliant.
—–
Louis refers to “More snow at the polls“. Yes indeed, it’s election year in Oz and the government will be doing a massive snow job. [Sorry, Louis, I couldn’t help it.]
Excellent statement!
A model which can not duplicate conditions we have already experienced is useless at predicting future events.
What I love about CAGW grant whores is that the more diverse the various scenarios proposed in a plethora of papers, the more likely one of them may reflect a particular phenomenon being experienced at any given time.
Snowfall increasing? “No problem, here’s the paper predicting that.” Less snowfall? “No problemo, here’s the paper.” Less rainfall? “We explained that with this paper.” More rainfall? That was addressed in this paper.” Lack of warming? “It’s buried in the deep oceans, here’s the paper explaining that.”, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum….
It’s hilarious! It’s like trying to nail Mercury to the wall; a theory seemingly impossible to invalidate…. That’s not science, that’s chicanery.
The IPCC is simply getting desperate as their CAGW theory is in tatters. They’re at the bargaining stage of acceptance, soon to followed by depression and ultimately defeat.
Time, people…just time…. They’ll soon destroy themselves, as is the fate for all despots.
Oh, G…d, please let us taxpayers stop funding of these so-called models – they’re mostly worthless.
Mike Bromley: You’ve got it!! May I have your permission to copy this statement in the future? It’s just captured 1000nds of junk “studies” perfectly.
From the weather model is not a climate model is not fully developed comes this astounding result of a model run:
February 22, 2013 Friday evening into Saturday morning
Snoqualmie Pass WA — 47.43°N 121.41°W (Elev. 3086 ft)
Snow showers. Low around 25. West wind 17 to 20 mph.
Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Total nighttime snow accumulation of 6 to 10 inches possible.
Thanks, Global Warming, we need the snow for irrigation water. Locally the water goes into hay that goes to Asia and the mid-East, there passing through the animals (cows, horses, camels), into the ground, back into the atmosphere, and back to the Cascade snow pack. The water goes out to the rest of the world in large containers (big ships), sort of slow, but comes back in streams of the atmosphere. A bit faster.
Program the round trip into your models for improved versions.
Another never-ending offal sausage ejaculated from a climate model-grinding machine. When will this ever cease? It’s becoming a total joke. Don’t these d…heads realize their reputations are just being shredded?
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
How about the model that tells you that the car you are driving, because it emits CO2, will incinerate at a certain raised level of CO2 emitted? So there’s a model predicting this, though it has NEVER been established that the ‘climate’ of your car has one — or the other — sensitivity to a raised CO2 level — that would lead to said car incineration. On the other hand, it HAS been established that when the level of gas in your tank lowers to a certain level, your car will cease operating.
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
………………………………………………….
Let do a simple example for you.
You probably have a trip computer in your car. Based on the gas in your tank, and your past miles per gallon, the model predicts : 126 DTE. Distance to empty. we put the same thing in fighter aircraft a long time ago. called “bingo fuel” It starts out as a simple model and gets refined.
Its always wrong but strangely enough, wonder of wonders, it saves lives. So, your car computer tells you that you have 126 miles before your tank is empty.
Does that model know about the Hill ahead? about the headwind you will face when you turn south in 36 miles. Nope. would it be more useful if it did? probably, but its still useful. All models, all physics is wrong. but some of it is useful.
——————————————————————————————————–
Great Scott !!- this is the sort of argument my 12 year old comes up with. What a load of naive rubbish.!! Mr Mesher has finally revealed how his synapses are connected.
Mr Mesher all climate models are useless! don’t kid yourself.
Kajajuk says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm
An increase in net energy in a semi-closed system that doesn’t change the overall temperature may just mean that whatever heat-sink system of the Earth has been activated and temperature shall remain constant until that sink is overloaded and warming continues or another sink system is activated (or both).
So let us suppose the heat sink is the deep ocean where the temperature is about 3.0 C. When will it get overloaded?
Kajajuk (at 6:22 pm) said: “Consider boiling ice. The systems stays at around 0 centigrade until all the ice is melted, then the temperature raises in response to the forcing and then remains constant at around 100 until all the water is steam…”
Damn! Here I was, all set to go off to bed for a good night’s sleep, and now you have me all scared and quaking at the thought that there may be some sort of natural “heat sink” that will eventually become saturated and then “we’re all gonna die!” Quite the pathetic statement, that.
Pu-leez.
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
———————-
I completely agree with you Steven. I think pursuing the models are worthwhile even if they aren’t of much use today. Maybe if we keep at it someday they’ll be more useful. However, I think this misses the point. What drives everybody insane IMO is that these models aren’t viewed as grossly imperfect tools that have a long way to go. Results from climate models are being used to justify policy changes that have a very real and severe impact on people as if they were already accurate today. This doesn’t change the truth of what you’re saying, but still leaves people with a pretty darn hostile attitude about climate models. Well, does for me anyways.
Kajajuk says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm
“Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years.”
This is not necessarily as strong a statement as it might appear. An increase in net energy in a semi-closed system that doesn’t change the overall temperature may just mean that whatever heat-sink system of the Earth has been activated and temperature shall remain constant until that sink is overloaded and warming continues or another sink system is activated (or both).
————————
One of the problems with your argument is that you seem to be operating under the premise that the burden of proof that CO2 doesn’t drive large temperature changes is on the skeptics. It is not. No theoretical account of AGW I’ve ever heard argues what you’re offering in speculation. If you want to argue that position, the burden is on you to support it with details. For skeptics, it’s enough to say, gee, CO2 levels are rising and temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years; that probably isn’t consistent with the theory of AGW we’ve been presented with.
Ditto on Mark Bofill’s statement! And also, in engineering everybody knows that models, using well known principles of physics, are very useful, to say the least. Current climate models are far from being useful.
Just when you think everyone in this industry is batsheet crazy they come out of the woodwork to offer proof.
New computer model == new best swag != evidence not in line with observation.
How many times does Dr. Pielke (Sr.) have to say it: Multi-decadal regional climate forecasts have no skill.
It doesn’t matter how much topography you add to a model without skill, the revised model still has no skill.
I think we should give the modelers a break. It must be very frustrating for them to be unable to figure out what warming causes without any warming to verify against.
Ditch all funding to anything to do with climate models. Ditch all climate models. Ditch the IPCC and the UN. Every last one of them is leading us deeper into the mire.
Let me see if I can put it another way…
THEY. DON’T. WORK.
Werner Brozek says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:36 pm
So let us suppose the heat sink is the deep ocean where the temperature is about 3.0 C. When will it get overloaded?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only temporarily when a mass of sufficient water squeezes the magma into the deep oceans, if we are supposing the least likely heat sink.
Sleep well dear Bennett.
We are all going to die. Not likely to be climate related….err…no metal hat wearing in July, though.
LOL!!!
“One of the problems with your argument is that you seem to be operating under the premise that the burden of proof that CO2 doesn’t drive large temperature changes is on the skeptics. It is not.”
Mark Bofill, unfortunately, the triumphant Leftist dominance of the media, the academy and governments DOES mean that the burden of proof is on the skeptics. Ah, for saner days…
I have a list of models which predict next weeks lottery numbers. I have had to produce a few possible scenarios of course but I am sure that one of my 40! / (34! 6!) models is correct.
Msg to climate modellers … your models are crap, keep them and the subsequent opinions to yourselves … when your models can predict ALL PARAMETERS with 95% accuracy you will have earned the right to be listened to. Until then, STFU !
February 22, 2013 at 8:19 pm | davidmhoffer says:
I think we should give the modelers a break. It must be very frustrating for them to be unable to figure out what warming causes without any warming to verify against.
——————
LOL, modellers should give us a break, we’re sick to death of their BS … paid enough taxes and incurred enough long term debt on account of their arrogance and ignorance.
Another half backed study when reading Leroux makes weather and climatology clear and logical…
Sure it’s settled science – it’s settled that modern whiz-bang computer models predict nothing and everything simultaneously…
I’m hoping the information that NASA gave to China is as messed up and confusing as the information we get from NOAA.
This window? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/in-drought-stricken-heartland-snow-is-no-savior.html?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=edit_au_20130222&_r=0
Mark Bofill says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:50 pm
No theoretical account of AGW I’ve ever heard argues what you’re offering in speculation.
If you want to argue that position, the burden is on you to support it with details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It was a postulate, with an analogy. The statement that i quoted was not the result of a strong argument because it is easily rendered not necessarily true by my very simplistic thought experiment. Rest assured that the statement i quoted could still be sufficiently correct. I did not prove or dis-prove anything, only tried to raised reasonable doubt.
OK i will try. Now i know from Monty Python that argument is not mere contradiction so i shall start off with an assumption, albeit a very naughty one hereabouts.
To wit, the Earth is warmed by the sun. This warming is the result of incident radiant energy.from the sun. Consider the Earth is in balance, as a whole, so that the net energy delivered is sufficient to establish a habitat for the lifeforms which exist on this orb. Now for some reason there is an increase in net energy to the system. The average global temperature increases. This increases the surface temperature of the vast oceans on the planet and the atmosphere. This takes a much longer time since the heat capacity of water is much greater than air. The partial pressure of water is greater for warmer air. The evaporation of water requires energy and the condensation releases energy to the air, but the clouds involved reflect sunlight. Meanwhile some of the warming air is moved to regions of accumulated ice and the ice melts, this requires energy too. Water vapour condenses and this releases energy that warms the warmed air and allows for more water to evaporate. The overall effect is to establish the system at a higher energy state like a massive quantum state. The new “quantum” state has a constant average global temperature that is not that much higher than before due the masses of matter involved. The ice region(s) continue to melt, but at a slower rate (possibly? hopefully?). As the water rises and the glacial regions rebound faster. The mass of water sinks the ocean floors. Meanwhile the distribution of mass on the spinning planet is being rearranged and the sun, the moon, and the sloshing water tug on the stability of the system. Earthquakes and volcanoes increase in frequency. Ejecta from the increased volcanism provides aerosols that reflect sunlight and increase water condensation. This would cool the system except that the air is getting warmer and warmer, which allows more water to evaporates…
No doom and gloom, necessarily, just an argument that the conclusions from, “Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years” is not necessarily true..
“So where, again, is the link between CO2 and temperature?”, it may be hiding in the complexity of the system you reduced to an average.
The current cold spell in my country should definitely be due to AGW, since the model is a brand new one and hence must certainly be correct. /sarc.
When I last looked at a map the UK was not a polar region. When I looked out of the window for more days this year than for a quarter of a century we have had serious levels of snow by our standards. Why do climate scientists not think to compare their models with reality before releasing them? Do they not think reality matters compared to the elegance of the mathematical tricks used to get the wanted answers?
So we can all relax as cold weather will return to the Poles whilst the rest of the world lives in warmth.
As regards Mosher and the 97%……unbelievable.
In 2002 NASA launched the Aqua Satellite and its first job was to look for hot spots in the Troposphere…none found. In 2004 and with no more warming the IPCC changed Global Warming to Climate Change. An all embracing catch all phrase that they could use for any weather event. This is documented in Climategate…one scientist is even caught saying Global Warming Freezing will not be believed by the media.
The 97% is pure fiction. They evidently only interviewed 77 people and 75 agreed but we don’t know what the question was or how it was put or who these scientists were.
In the real world….and backed up by last weeks survey only 36% believe in AGW…..meaning 64% do not.
As a back up to this the Oregon Petition signed by American scientists opposed to Kyoto has 31,000 signatures amongst them 9,000 with PhDs. All 31,000 have detailed their qualifications.
It should also be noted that the planet has been cooling since the Climatic Optimum……10,000 years ago. Empirical data….real time…real world.
What happens in the Arctic is very little to do with CO2
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic.htm
‘We had some grant money. We need to publish something to get some more’……….
Let me just clarify something, polar regions dont mean the poles. I live in the polar region (northern sweden).
Ahhhh, the Globalists have finally fabricated a study that predicts a pattern of precipitation that enables them to tax and overcharge for water, along with putting heavy restrictions on it.
They were having issues with the logical consequences of warming, that more moisture evaporates into the atmosphere and it rains more. But this, along with the empirical evidence of increased precipitation in many urban areas doesn’t fit their Orwellian world government resource strangulation and crushing of the economies in order to push through their world slave state.
Cherry picking a couple of areas and claiming they fit the models does not a validation make.
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“Let do a simple example for you.
You probably have a trip computer in your car. Based on the gas in your tank, and your past miles per gallon, the model predicts : 126 DTE. Distance to empty. we put the same thing in fighter aircraft a long time ago. called “bingo fuel” It starts out as a simple model and gets refined.
Its always wrong but strangely enough, wonder of wonders, it saves lives. So, your car computer tells you that you have 126 miles before your tank is empty.
Does that model know about the Hill ahead? about the headwind you will face when you turn south in 36 miles. Nope. would it be more useful if it did? probably, but its still useful. All models, all physics is wrong. but some of it is useful.
The atmospheric models are shown to completely wrong calculating the temperatures profiles in the atmosphere, we know that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/klotzbach-et-al-revisited-a-reply-by-john-christy/
Based on these calculation, and incremental from year to year error the models runs into a modellers nirvana far away from the reality.
It would be as if your car computer would have a bias at calculating a fuel consumption consumption based on extrapolating the last 300 meters with a continuous increase for each future meter, adding consumtion based on the increased slope. You’ll see suddenly you have gas for 5-10 miles before your tank is empty and 1 mile later a +2000 miles average before your tank goes empty.
With such computer you would ignore the model and look how empty/full is your tank.
How anyone here can judge this study is beyond me.
Firstly none of you non concensus huggers are worthy to question the climate sages and secondly more studies are clearly needed to solve this issue so we can build bigger better computers to ask more questions such as ‘if we keep asking stupid questions will the climate fearing sheep keep handing over their money?’ and ‘how long can we keep this scam up?’ or ‘do I actually get paid to make this stuff up?’. Thirdly we are the Chosen and only we may ask the questions.
You may say something about observation but seriously it’s far too scary to look out the window when we can create a CGI version that is much safer especially when someone else is picking up the tab for our raging climate paranoia.
/sarc
Less snow on inhabited places , more snow captured at Antarctica to mitigate sea level rise. More snow to feed glaciers and provide mountain streams with water. What’s not to like about this CO2?
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“ no models are perfect. even models built to predict how a plane will fly before its even built.”
What utter tripe! Models that predict (not “project” NOTE!) how an aircraft will fly are constructed using known engineering principles, physics and flight characteristics.
The models constructed for climate (i.e. general circulation models) “projections” are based upon nothing more than an individual programmer’s viewpoint of what climate parameters should be used. In short, scientists are trying to reduce the complex chaotic behaviour of the climate down to a set of mathematical equations, in the HOPE that they can then begin to understand the processes that are going on.
Here in North East England we have sub-zero temperatures and over an two inches of snow with more falling as I type this. We were told thirteen years ago that this would be “a rare and exciting event” and our children would never see snow. Well mine have seen it many times over the last three months and many more times over the last four winters. We were told by the “experts” that AGW would cause drought and that we should be digging up our gardens and replacing the plants with drought resistant ones. It is a good job I didn’t buy grape vines which would now be dead, which was one of the other recommendations.We have had one of the wettest summers ever, this winter will have temperatures well below average and these “experts” are still churning out misinformation about snow being confined to the poles, which they told us would be melting a few weeks ago. It is a pity that the domain name http://www.confused.com has been taken as it would be ideal for an AGW website!
The “experts” have made one very fatal, basic error in their predictions; they have confused climate with weather. Climate is very stable, weather is not, just because we have had a period in the nineties and noughties with above average temperatures does not mean that this will continue. The key word is “average”, meaning just that and nothing else. The odds are that we will have as many cold, snowy winters to come as we have had mild, dry winters in the past, but of course there may be exceptions, because that is what British weather does!.
More model crap!
I would expect more snow at the poles due to it being colder there. I do not need a model to tell me that.
I totally agree with James Griffin, above but never read Mosher.
‘A new climate model predicts’ words that increasingly sound like they have all the scientific validity of ‘knock, knock whose there ‘
It’s time to send all these folks a case of glue to sniff – maybe their models will actually start getting better.
Models all the way down. I thought that the Himilayan and other elevated glaciers were melting away. I thought the Arctic would be ice-free because of soaring temperatures. Don’t forget those wise words of Dr David Viner, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”.
“Kajajuk says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm
“Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years.”
This is not necessarily as strong a statement as it might appear. An increase in net energy in a semi-closed system that doesn’t change the overall temperature may just mean that whatever heat-sink system of the Earth has been activated and temperature shall remain constant until that sink is overloaded and warming continues or another sink system is activated (or both).”
Read what you just wrote. You are admitting that there are other forces in nature that have a stronger effect on our climate/weather than CO2 drives the climate hype.
I guess that I must be having a “Senior Moment” again. So now we are going to have more snow at the poles where we have just lost all the ice and the sea levels will Rise/fall/ go East/West what the hell. My brain can’t take all this contradiction.
I think I will stick with Weather. Whether on not there is global warming/cooling climate change, I still have to get up in the morning & the sun still rises. If the models are wrong, the designers are wrong yet they still keep coming back. I think it is all horsemeat!
I maintain that I don’t give a cent’s worth on climate model results until those who do them invest their retirement money in such a way that an economic computer model of their choice predicts. Until then I’ll consider them expensive numerical masturbation.
Computers are just fast idiots. They don’t care what makes up their instructions, yet they, and their instructions are not to blame. Thankfully, the slow idiots feeding rubbish into fast idiots just make themselves look idiotic faster.. 😉
I would be grateful if somebody who has access to the publication could give a link to the temperature fits of the model to the past and its future predictions, since in the abstract they are playing temperature against precipitation. I want to remind this very interesting curve that Lucia published on her blog sometime ago.
Seems that all models fail to predict or hind-cast the absolute value in temperature, and incidentally that is why they use anomalies to claim good fits for the past. The truth is that we live in temperature environments, not anomalies. I am curious what type of temperature fit they have with the data and what their prediction for the famous IPCC anomaly curve is. My intuition tessl me that in this model of theirs the predictions will be on the yellow line or a bit below.
The best models come from hobby shops and take several hours to put together. Everything fits perfectly and you can embellish it with your doodads but the essential elements are sturdy and robust.
“More snow at the poles”. This is a meaningless statement. “More” is a qualitative word (e.g. one more snowflake) and nobody lives at the poles. Besides if there was significantly more snow at the poles doesn’t this mean the Arctic ice extent would rebound and sea levels eventually drop as the world’s fresh water accumulated over the south pole once again?
Oh – its a new COMPUTER MODEL – in that case it must be right – all the others have been, haven’t they..?
Haven’t they..??
I saw the word “model” and I should have stopped reading.
However, I’m a glutton for punishment so I read it through to the end.
All I can say to the ‘researchers’ who hoovered up grant cash for this rubbish is, “have you no shame?”
old construction worker says:
February 23, 2013 at 4:45 am
Exactly! Thanks for noticing.
Like a chorus of angels, so many consensus’ in the land of “free” speech; precious
“The models may be able to push the envelope on any night television”, stay tuned.
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“no models are perfect. even models built to predict how a plane will fly before its even built.
if you look at previous climate model results you can see the areas where topography needed to be improved. One of the issues with models was resolution. You get good global results, but regional skill is spotty. Or you did well on temps and lousy on precipitation.”
So you seem to imply that they have a better model now. Now, here’s my offer: We wait another 20 years before dumping that model into the dustbin to see whether it is right.
In the meantime, no further taxpayer dough for climate modelers. Because the West is broke. If they manage to find a socialist billionaire who feels the need to pay them, fine.
And of course – no climate insanity subsidized projects until we have a little bit of proof of predictive skill of this new improved climate model.
Alternatively, we could lock the hole bunch of parasites up right now.
Kajajuk says:
February 22, 2013 at 9:59 pm
…
“So where, again, is the link between CO2 and temperature?”, it may be hiding in the complexity of the system you reduced to an average.
———————-
That’s all very well and good, but seems to miss the point I was making. It may be hiding in the complexity of the system. It may be lurking in the oceans. It might be shooting a mini-series in Hollywood. Or maybe it just isn’t there, for reasons we don’t understand. Maybe the AGW theory is just plain wrong somehow.
The point I was making is that the temperature record over the last 17 years isn’t making a very persuasive case for AGW. We can sit around and B.S. all day about what might maybe could be going on. What we can actually state though, is that the temperature record over the last 17 years isn’t making a very persuasive case for AGW.
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
if you look at previous climate model results………..
===================
You can say anything…….which results are you talking about Mosh?
Wetter or dryer, hotter or colder, more snow or less snow, more hurricanes or less hurricanes? and on and on……
It must be hell to work in a profession where you have no verification and validation……………
…..but no matter what happens….some model some where predicted it…..so you’re right
They are giving the “purpose” of the paper away right at the beginning, when they say:
” … as a result of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide”. Does CO2 have to DOUBLE to create warming? They are just throwing in some propagandistic buzzwords, a serious scientist would never use this kind of wording.
I found the definitive model; we are all DOOMED…get your check book out.
Mark Bofill says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Mark, I agree with all of this.
We’re using technology to post on a blog that was verified by models and simulators. There’s nothing wrong with simulation technology. But you have to understand the fidelity of your model. And GCM’s have very low fidelity, at least for now.
Mark Bofill says:
February 23, 2013 at 8:09 am
Yes, but it does not make AGW mute either.
The mass of the Earth is 5.97(10^24) kg. The mass of the atmosphere 5.3(10^18) kg, the oceans 1.4(10^21) kg, the surface area of the oceans 3.61(10^8) sq. km, land 1.4(10^8) sq. km… this is a profoundly huge and complicated system…then there is topography and … i cannot list all the variable related to climate on a global scale (have they all been discerned?) nor can i proclaim to know all the (likely) non-linear inter-relationship between these n variables … it seems as daunting a task as solving Scroedinger’s Equation in the early 1900s
The fact that the scientists created simple models and then began to speculate (like with the doom and gloom of the pending ice-age in the 1960s), their boiling planet speculation was picked up by the media as a commodity to exploit, the politician begin to see a boogie-man to distract the public and provide an income stream as well as an amulet to charm the masses, the academics see a new field to exploit (like the social worker craze of the last half century?) corporations jump in the band wagon or slap the politicians in the head and say look at this opportunity (leading the band wagon) blah blah blah.
What results is polarized belief systems too invested in to stop the gravy trains and faith based emoters.
I am not arguing that AGW is true, i am saying that it is a likely contributor to climate that will change (weather (pun) humans are in the audience or naught). My concern of late is that iff there is a kernel of truth to AGW it will be lost in this sea of incompetence and bluster.
Noticed that advocacy for many societal concerns are sweep aside by the hypnotizing boogie of the media machine.
Divide and conquer has become confuse and confiscate.
>>>old construction worker says:
February 22, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Well, the North Pole Region must include the mountains of Arizona, Colorado, Buffalo NY as well as the ski slopes of Vermont.
>>> So the model calls for more snow where it’s wanted, and less snow where it’s just a nuisance. Sounds like a good thing to me!
Unfortunately, it’s not going to happen.
Sorry mod; meant capitulate not confiscate…i should have proof read, like i usually do.
kjjk
vivendi says:
February 23, 2013 at 8:38 am
They are giving the “purpose” of the paper away right at the beginning, when they say:
” … as a result of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide”. Does CO2 have to DOUBLE to create warming? They are just throwing in some propagandistic buzzwords, a serious scientist would never use this kind of wording.
==========
Keep your eye on the pea…….not long ago it was tipping points……now it’s doubling
“The study was published in the Journal of Climate.”
>>> About thirty years ago, I wrote a paper modeling snow accumulation during the Pleistocene ice age. Based on the results, I offered a “projection” of future snow in the paper. “Too speculative”, the reviewers said, so I removed that section from the paper. The rest was published in the Annals of Glaciology – “Statistical-dynamical model of accumulation on the Greenland Ice Sheet”, Annals of Glaciology, 5, 69-74 (1984), to be exact. It was a nice, compact paper, and included an admission that it would be difficult to verify what the snow accumulation during the ice age actually was.
Times have changed. These days they triple cow farts, push a button to run a model, and the results are readily published without question, speculation be damned. The next year they triple dog emissions to keep their publication count active.
That’s one reason the journals are hardly worth reading any more, and future generations will find it frustrating to go through these journals looking for something of lasting significance. Of course, they could do a negative search for keywords “might” and “could” and “possible”.
Sometimes less is more.
The poles obviously now extend at least half-way to the equator, possibly further if required.
One point that Moshe and the other modelling supporters don’t take into account is this: While an airplane may be designed by models, if it fails the testing at any point in its production cycle the reason if found and the MODEL IS CHANGED. In climatology, it’s the data that is changed. Constantly.
You can only have it one way, either mock them for changing the model or mock them for adapting to new data. Climatologists aren’t working on an engineering project, they’re trying to accumulate data. Changing data is a good reason to alter a model designed to gather data to support, alter, or reject theory. As we all know the data is constantly changing. Right here, people get excited about snowstorms using them as evidence even while knowing that the weather could change next week and provide new supposed evidence. Stay with the data.
Collect and study.
“old construction worker says:
February 22, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Well, the North Pole Region must include the mountains of Arizona, Colorado, Buffalo NY as well as the ski slopes of Vermont.”
Well I might as well add Florida to the list
I thought that more snow at the poles and less elsewhere was the way it has always been.
I think their claim that they can resolve the snowfall signal due to changes in CO2 versus all other inputs in the blackbox of our cilmate is pure bull sh17. A demonstration is in order. Of course I am certain they will dare nothing in the present, we will have to wait and point it out to the charlatans. CO2 is irrelevant in the signal to the point that it cannot be resolved against the noise. This is more crap that we paid for. Thanks libtards.
Well, Theo say CO2 doubling implies less snow everywhere except for the poles, but implicitly it says doubling CO2 implies higher temp implies less snow etc… The second part of the reasonning could well be true: since there si no warming any more, we have as much snow as before!
For several years, I’ve been asking myself why a significant number of both scientists and laymen apparently place the same level of faith in computer models that they do in empirical evidence. After all, computer models are only predictions or simulations, often based upon unproven presuppositions. In order for a computer model to be true, it must be verified over time by data collection and by observation of real-world events.
Now that 17 years have gone by with no apparent increase in world temperatures, even while CO2 levels have continued to rise dramatically, it was inevitable that politicians, people in the scientific community and the MSM would simply redouble their efforts and resort to the only game that pays (and the only one they know how to play). All of us are, after all, creatures of habit and easily maintained in our behavior by whatever is reinforcing to us. So long as we continue to receive social or monetary reinforcement for whatever we do, we will continue to do it. You can take that to the bank. In fact, all of us do, on a regular basis, since money is a major reinforcement.
Climate that is controlled by CO2 is a climate modeler’s “one trick pony,” fast becoming a “dead horse” which will be beaten until the modeler sees no value in continuing to beat it. The value will go out of beating that horse once a critical mass of people say, “enough is enough,” and the government, through it’s various organs like the NSF, stops funding research in this area. It’s hard to say just when that will happen. It’s possible that the whole thing could implode sometime soon, or the Obama administration and its special interests may be able to keep AGW alive for another 4 years. Or the whole thing will simply spin down, and at some time in the future people will wonder what all of the hysteria was about.
In any event, it seems likely that the “climate,” will continue to be uncooperative, and the modeler’s predictions will continue to fail, even though they may adjust their models and data to reflect current conditions. The problem is that the whole theory that the models are based upon is just wrong.
You are correct “You can only have it one way,” Yet, for those of us paying attention Warmists have wanted both ways in regards to snow in the northern hemisphere.
Now click on the link below and inform those Warmists that the weather is just the weather and not the climate. Tell them that long term data is what counts and not weather events. Also remember this in relation to heatwaves like the recent Russian one etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/snowjobs-are-just-a-thing-of-the-past-er-present/
Secondly, can you please let me know right here what would falsify the theory of AGW? Would 16 years of no warming do it? What about 17 years do it? If it’s science then it has to have a way of being falsified.
Bob,
See these:
David says:
February 22, 2013 at 5:02 pm
What a neat idea. Create a (dynamic) map of the world that rearranges the planet’s geography to make it consistent with Alarmist claims.
Mark Bofill says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
———————-
“I completely agree with you Steven. I think pursuing the models are worthwhile even if they aren’t of much use today. Maybe if we keep at it someday they’ll be more useful. However, I think this misses the point. What drives everybody insane IMO is that these models aren’t viewed as grossly imperfect tools that have a long way to go. Results from climate models are being used to justify policy changes that have a very real and severe impact on people as if they were already accurate today.”
Mark nails the point exactly. If you admit that the models are seriously imperfect then he cannot claim that they are useful as tools for policy decisions. You cannot have it both ways.
I want to add that the models are being used as replacements for a scientific theory of climate that does not yet exist. The models are being sold as Scientific Tools when not one of them, nor an ensemble of them, can pass the basic test of confirmed predictions.
So, if the future temps at the poles go from a winter time average of -50 deg F to -45 deg F there will be a significant increase in polar snowfall? I don’t have the calculations handy, but at such low temps, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water is so low that a +5 F deg increment is meaningless.
There IS no warming anymore???
JP says:
February 24, 2013 at 1:28 pm
“So, if the future temps at the poles go from a winter time average of -50 deg F to -45 deg F there will be a significant increase in polar snowfall? I don’t have the calculations handy, but at such low temps, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water is so low that a +5 F deg increment is meaningless.”
Modelers don’t know this sort of thing. You must have an interest in the facts in the environment and, hopefully, some experience of the environment to acquire this kind of knowledge. I have never encountered a modeler who did not express contempt for facts and experience.
Adrien says:
February 24, 2013 at 4:06 am
Good observation. No doubt some Alarmist will steal your logic and misuse it in some tricky press release.
RESnape says:
February 23, 2013 at 2:15 am
“In short, scientists are trying to reduce the complex chaotic behaviour of the climate down to a set of mathematical equations, in the HOPE that they can then begin to understand the processes that are going on.”
This is the absolute truth about modelers. If the modelers had well confirmed physical hypotheses which could be used to predict some behavior of the climate then you can bet that those hypotheses would have been on the front page of the NYT long ago. For lack of a science, they use models in the hope that they can stumble into the beginnings of a science.
ALL climate models are nothing but contrivances to try to back up an untenable hypothesis, relying on the ignorance of uninformed people. Touting models is nothing but incontrovertible proof of mendacity.
Climate models are to mitigate inconceivable complexity. The problem with the models is the ignorance of the designers, and the apparent unscientific approach or perhaps a new mathematics is needed or the math exists and has not been applied. Perhaps group theory and statistical thermodynamics…
Where is the GLOBAL warming??? Co2 up and up for 16 years, temps flat for 16 years or more.