What happend to spring? I had to scrape my windows this morning!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bah humbug!

The world is flat and that is that!

[Sister Fracas 5]

People say this every year when they can't wait for summer...this is nothing unusual to me. We are only going to be 3-4 degrees below the normal of 69degrees today. It's spring, this is what spring is about...cool one day, HOT the next, COLD and rainy the next, then warm. This is nothing but a typical spring here.

[HAL 9000 96]

Bah humbug!

The world is flat and that is that!

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

People say this every year when they can't wait for summer...this is nothing unusual to me. We are only going to be 3-4 degrees below the normal of 69degrees today. It's spring, this is what spring is about...cool one day, HOT the next, COLD and rainy the next, then warm. This is nothing but a typical spring here.

No kiddin sister... yesterday was just too damn wet! At least it cleared up later in the day for our stroll in Evanston and Rogers Park.

[Sister Fracas 5]

No kiddin sister... yesterday was just too damn wet! At least it cleared up later in the day for our stroll in Evanston and Rogers Park.

Yeah, it actually felt milder and warmer at 8:30 last night, than it did at 10:00 in the morning when it was pouring and WINDYYYYYYYY

[GaryC 7]

Really?

Is that why the same literature you cite as argumentative for your point of view actually disproves your conclusions?

Keep hanging onto to your bias. Refuse to re-examine your data.

New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change "forecasts" from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

"Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere," said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

"When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast."

The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

The atmospheric temperature data were from two versions of data collected by sensors aboard NOAA satellites since late 1979, plus several sets of temperature data gathered twice a day at dozens of points in the tropics by thermometers carried into the atmosphere by helium balloons. The surface data were from three datasets.

After years of rigorous analysis and testing, the high degree of agreement between the various atmospheric data sets gives an equally high level of confidence in the basic accuracy of the climate data.

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

"The question was, what would the models 'forecast' for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?" said Christy. "To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

"As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

"Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend," Christy said. "Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

"We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71211101623.htm

[almaty 19]

it was blustery and windy all day yesterday....

[HAL 9000 96]

Really?

Is that why the same literature you cite as argumentative for your point of view actually disproves your conclusions?

Keep hanging onto to your bias. Refuse to re-examine your data.

New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change "forecasts" from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

"Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere," said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

"When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast."

The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

The atmospheric temperature data were from two versions of data collected by sensors aboard NOAA satellites since late 1979, plus several sets of temperature data gathered twice a day at dozens of points in the tropics by thermometers carried into the atmosphere by helium balloons. The surface data were from three datasets.

After years of rigorous analysis and testing, the high degree of agreement between the various atmospheric data sets gives an equally high level of confidence in the basic accuracy of the climate data.

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

"The question was, what would the models 'forecast' for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?" said Christy. "To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

"As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

"Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend," Christy said. "Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

"We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71211101623.htm

Ask the plant biologists, then. Since you refuse to have an open mind to actual, simple, relevant science.

But in the meantime, perhaps the readers can judge for themselves.

FYI- the models, like everything else in science, is subject to revision based on more accurate observation. How we confuse conclusions based on a different set of observed patterns and confuse yet again what is causative and what is reactive is clearly an important clarification that needs to be made.

Edited May 12, 2008 by maviwaro

[GaryC 7]

Ask the plant biologists, then. Since you refuse to have an open mind to actual, simple, relevant science.

But in the meantime, perhaps the readers can judge for themselves.

Yeah right, open mind. Call me when yours opens.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ask the plant biologists, then. Since you refuse to have an open mind to actual, simple, relevant science.

But in the meantime, perhaps the readers can judge for themselves.

Yeah right, open mind. Call me when yours opens.

I already invited you over to the lab. Like I said, we can do the experiment together.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Modern Physics Is Critical To Global Warming Research

ScienceDaily (Mar. 14, 2008) — Science has come a long way with predicting climate. Increasingly sophisticated models and instruments can zero in on a specific storm formation or make detailed weather forecasts -- all useful to our daily lives. But to understand global climate change, scientists need more than just a one-day forecast. They need a deeper understanding of the complex and interrelated forces that shape climate.

This is where modern physics can help, argues Brad Marston, professor of physics at Brown University. Marston is working on sets of equations that can be used to more accurately explain climate patterns. He makes the case that statistical physics can provide a better understanding of global weather patterns -- information critical for more accurately predicting climate change.

"Climate is a statement about the statistics of weather, not the day-to-day or minute-by-minute fluctuations," Marston said. "That's really the driving concept. We know we can't predict the weather more than a couple of weeks out. But we can turn that to our advantage, by using statistical physics to look directly at the climate itself."

Take the drying of Lake Mead in the western United States. Scientists think the lake, which straddles Nevada and Arizona, may already be getting less rain due to shifting weather patterns caused by a warming world. Computer models can follow those rainfall patterns and forecast the likely effects on the lake. But current models obscure the larger mechanisms -- such as shifting storm tracks -- that can drive changes in rainfall.

"If we're just mesmerized by the details of the model," Marston said, "we could be missing the big picture of why it's happening."

Marston's statistical approach can be used to help crack the code of complicated, dynamic atmospheric processes poorly understood through models, such as convection, cloud formation, and macroturbulence, which refers to the currents, swirls and eddies in the global atmosphere. More fundamentally, Marston said this approach can help to deepen understanding of what is happening in today's climate and what those changes can mean for climate in the future.

"We're trying to make the models more robust, to give better insights into what is actually going on," he said.

Marston's research, on which he teamed with former Brown undergraduate Emily Conover and Tapio Schneider of the California Institute of Technology, was selected last fall for publication in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Marston's ultimate research goal is to create a more realistic rendering of the global atmospheric system that can be used to understand the atmosphere of the past and to gauge future changes.

"We're improving the statistical methods themselves, so that they're more accurate," Marston said. "At the same time we are applying the methods to progressively more complete models of the Earth's atmosphere."

Marston will explain his research as part of a panel discussion titled "The Physics of Climate and Climate Change," scheduled on March 11, 2008, at the American Physical Society's meeting in New Orleans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80311130811.htm

[Amby 490]

I don't mind it cooling off a bit for a day or two

[HAL 9000 96]

Take home message:

"Climate is a statement about the statistics of weather, not the day-to-day or minute-by-minute fluctuations"

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Ask the plant biologists, then. Since you refuse to have an open mind to actual, simple, relevant science.

But in the meantime, perhaps the readers can judge for themselves.

Yeah right, open mind. Call me when yours opens.

I already invited you over to the lab. Like I said, we can do the experiment together.

you're still working on nursing, remember?

[HAL 9000 96]

[?]

[something like that]