We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

Models(4) Iconic Figure:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:42 AM GMT on February 13, 2008

Models(4) Iconic Figure:

Of the figures that I consider the Iconic Figures of climate, there is one based totally on models. A recent version of this figure from the IPCC 2007 is given here.

Figure 1: Observations and simulation of the past century from the IPCC 2007 Technical Summary (Working Group 1) (largish PDF).

This is a figure of, approximately, the last century. In this figure there are three traces. One of traces, the black one, is of the observed, globally averaged surface temperature record. In the bottom figure is a blue curve, which is a model simulation that does not include anthropogenic (human-related) forcing. That is, it is “natural” forcing. In the top curve there is a red curve that is a model simulation that includes both natural and anthropogenic forcing. The point of this figure is that both natural and anthropogenic forcing is important, and that the recent warming requires the inclusion of anthropogenic forcing to simulate the recent observed temperature increase.

Forcing: For the purpose of this figure, “forcing” are those things that change the ability of the Earth to absorb or reflect radiative energy. Another “forcing” is the radiative energy that comes from the Sun. “Natural” forcing starts with the variability of the Sun. Of special importance in the realm of natural forcing is the impact of volcanic eruptions. Large volcanic eruptions put aerosols into the atmosphere. Aerosols above the Earth’s surface can reflect more solar radiation or they can absorb radiation in the atmosphere. These help cool the surface of the Earth. Aerosols also impact the infrared radiation; that is, the radiation emitted by the Earth back to space. Other natural forcings include water in the atmosphere, in all phases, and carbon dioxide. In general, these model experiments assume that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere prior to, about, 1850 is “natural.” Of course, the amount of solar radiation that is reflected by the surface is also included – ice and land.

In contrast to “natural” forcing is anthropogenic or human-related forcing. This is change in the forcing relative to the natural forcing. The most important of the anthropogenic forcings is due to carbon dioxide, which is calculated as the additional forcing due to the increased amount of carbon dioxide relative to the “pre-industrial” amount of carbon dioxide. Pre-industrial forcing is linked to about the year 1850. There are other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, and the chlorofluorocarbons. Nitrous oxide increases are largely related to use of synthetic fertilizers. Other anthropogenic changes in the radiative balance of the Earth are related to changes in reflection at the surface due to how we use land.

The Plot: Here is my description of this plot. The dark red and the dark blue lines are averages from many model simulations. The light lines that surround the dark lines are all of the individual simulations. Prior to 1950 the natural and anthropogenic simulations are not much different from each other. After 1960 only the plot with anthropogenic forcing follows the temperature observations. Perhaps more importantly, the natural and anthropogenic curves diverge from each other as time goes along.

The light lines surrounding the dark lines give some idea of model variability. It is notable that, for the most part, this variability covers the range of variability in the observations. The models do not follow, point by point, the shorter scale variability in the observations, for example between 1920 and 1930. The models have variability, such as the El Nino – La Nina and North Atlantic Oscillation. The spread of the models suggests that the model variability covers this range of variability, but the models are not tracing this variability on an event-by-event basis. The comparable spread in the models and the observations also serve as a sanity check that the models represent variability in the same range as the Earth’s climate.

The simulations do show the impact of several large volcanic eruptions. The volcanoes do cause cooling of the globe. Volcanic eruptions, and especially the well observed Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, provide opportunities to evaluate processes in models.

It is also of interest to examine where the models and the observations do not agree. A most interesting period is from 1935-1940, a period when the planet was warm. (Thanks to crucilandia for pointing a reference to get me started.) A substantial literature is developing that examines this period. It seems to be associated with substantial Arctic warming. It is a period that demands more study. The cooling that all of the models calculate about 1915 is also interesting.

An important take away message from these simulations is that there are factors other than carbon dioxide that cause temperature variability. Hence, carbon dioxide and temperature are not necessarily correlated on shorter scales of variability. (This is a like my wave metaphor on this blog. )

Conclusions: This is a figure open to interpretation. Personally, I find this figure compelling. I know how difficult it has been to develop the models and to specify the forcing. There is also a huge depth of analysis at different levels of detail and averaging that support the conclusion that it is only with increasing carbon dioxide forcing that the recent temperature increase can be explained.

Others can look at this plot, and come to a different conclusion. One issue that many raise is what about the treatment of aerosols? This is a process in models which has substantial uncertainty in its quantification.

Looking forward to the comments.

Here are the previous blogs on models.
Uncertainty and Types of Models
Models (1) Assumptions
Models (2) Forgotten Layers
Models (3) Predictable Arguments

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

You be able to leave comments on this blog.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 339 - 289

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

To quasigeostropic:
Thanks for the comment. My comments were brief enough that most astute Scientists and Engineers would understand. And particularly that higher levels of CO2 FOLLOW the warming of the oceans, NOT precede it as Al GOre's "Chicken Little" story relates.

Perhaps you would be interested in the following which is a reference that EVERYONE should read because it offers energy solutons as well as historical data on multiple climate-connected phenomenon.


NOTE: Be sure to check for and delete any inserted spaces when you copy the web address into your browser, or the link will fail.

ABSTRACT: A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced NO DELETERIOUS EFFECTS upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 DO NOT CONFORM to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
You should check out the references cited.... they are valid studies and reports that are accurately summarized and displayed in the charts in the report I referenced. Data represent FACTS. FACTS support SCIENCE, which should be unbiased... but we all know it can be contaminated... Errrr... like in the global warming data scam of recent fame!!!!

I have participated in multiple "Think Tanks" in many fields of study, and the reports and their content surprised most, if not all, of the sponsors of the studies and analyses conducted. Yet invariably some major (generally political) faction opposed and declared the results "cooked" or "fabricated." This is the trap many apparently have fallen into.

FYI, the Oregon Institute (that wrote the summary report) has elite members with impeccable credentials and equally as impressive scientific accomplishments who produce "think tank" outputs perhaps once yearly... on subjects critical to humankind. They purposefully operate independently of outside influences to produce non-tainted results of their efforts. As independently wealthy men, they are NOT paid by institutions for their work of this nature, although they consult to other clients separately from the organization.

The report cited above contained 132 references to scientific studies conducted by over 30 different countries. The data from those studies was compiled and presented on the various subjects of the different studies. The scientifically collected and recorded data tells us the story. It has nothing to do with Al Gore, Barrack Obama, or others.... just the consolidation of multiple countries' studies in an easy to understand summary report. The factual results are displayed in graphs so the reader can easily grasp the significance of the data.

As to the veracity of the content of the summary report, I have spot checked approximately 23 of the references and found absolutely NO DEVIATIONS from the data reported within those reports. Therefore, I have confidence in the veracity of the entire summary report.

Good researching to you...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good points MikonCons!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
cyclonebuster noted, "Remember the difference in the solar cycle heating(BTUS)is only 1/10 of 1%. No big change there."
sullivanweather noted, "TSI has increased over the previous 70 years."
SteveBloom noted, "Direct measurements of TSI began around 1950." [i.e., ~70 years ago.]
rocketboy105 correctly stated, Water vapor and CO2 ... are the main greenhouse gasses."
Let's combine these considerations with some other realities.
- The Earth's overall absolute temperature is ~300 Kelvin. The "no big change" in TSI of ~0.1% represents a delta of +0.3 degrees Centigrade. That's a pretty good chunk of the +0.5 degrees Centigrade that has everybody in a snit.
- Multiple studies have indicated that massive amounts of CO2 is in solution (dissolved) in the Earth's oceans. And guess what, the oceans are made of WATER!
- Higher temperatures of the oceans does what? ... It vaporizes WATER and also drives CO2 OUT of solution. Interrestingly, water vapor is a STRONGER greenhouse gas than CO2, so we have a DOUBLE-WHAMMY!

So what do we deduce from these amazingly simple realities? Consider the following rationale.

Earth core samples have been taken by 32 different countries from all over the world. They include undersea samples and mountaintop samples as well. These samples clearly demonstrate a consistent 206-year Sun Cycle of warming and cooling as a subset of cycles between Earth Ice Ages. What they also clearly show is that CO2 levels increase AFTER an Earth warming, NOT before, as AGW alarmists would have you believe.

Because the CO2 dissolved in the oceans is forced OUT of solution by an increase in the water temperature. There have been many articles produced by the "alarmists" that warn of the release of CO2 from the warming oceans that will increase the rate of an Earth warming cycle (because it is a "greenhouse gas"). That reduction of dissolved CO2 will tend to REDUCE the acidity of the oceans in direct CONTRAST with the fears expressed by the alarmists. However, that release is a natural and inherent part of WHY we have these repetitive warming/cooling cycles on Earth.

WHY? (again)
Because this Earth provides a NATURAL control of the cycle limits. As the oceans warm, more water vapor is released. The water vapor ultimately increases the cloud cover over the earth. The clouds REFLECT the sunlight more efficiently than the oceans or the land masses of the continents, LIMITING further solar heating of the earth. Simultaneously, the increased CO2 in our atmosphere (released by the warming oceans) stimulates the growth of all vegetation which ABSORBS more CO2 out of the atmosphere. As the time lag necessary to increase/grow more vegetation passes, these factors of MORE sunlight reflection and MORE CO2 absorbtion combine to REVERSE the warming cycle and a cooling trend begins. In Engineering terms for control systems, this is called NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, which STABILIZES the system. GET IT???

Are you aware that the entire anthropogenic (man-made) energy expenditure trhrough the burning of fossil fuels for the last 150 years (the entire Industrial Revolution era) constitutes only 0.3% of the DAILY solar energy impingement on Mother Earth?

We are in the rising phase of the 206-year Sun Cycle, documented by over 100,000 years of Earth core samples from all over the World, so YES, there is some global warming,... but anthropogenic? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Someone noted that we have only 200 years of data... not true because of the core samples which ALL support the 206 year Sun Cycle period. Further, just reported last summer, the study of the California redwood tree rings (which cover the most recent 2,000 Earth years) show the SAME 206-year cycle. Additionally, it clearly confirms the hot, drought years in the 800-1300 AD period which led to the dessimation of the Mayan culture, long a major puzzle for anthropologists.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So why hasn't the rate of global sea level rise increased during the past 50 years? (above the rate of increase of the past several hundred years, which has actually been a slower rate of rise than several thousand years ago)? Global sea level is the ultimate barometer of global warming, and it's not getting warmer any faster now, than it has been for the past 18,000 years. (that's why it's not talked about by the man-made global warming fraudsters)

Time for a new crisis.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

I know how it 's difficult to modelise climate. I'm sure that humanity influences climate. BUT I can't understand how easy it is for GIEC experts or others to conclude that human activity (CO2) is the only thing that can explain climate change !!!!
And how they can affirm (without alternative) that the temperature will increase 2 °C ????

What about the influence of :
oceans, earth's core, magnetics activities, sun, trees, H2O, CFC, moon... ???

Can we see the results of their modelisations in 500 years, is this still realist ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It appears that the models were created and tweaked to “match” the previously believed temperature data of the last 100 years provided by our vaunted measurement system. Now that we have the benefit of Watt’s study of the actual realities of that system, which shows that when the changes to the original equipment and sites over the years are factored into the data, we can see that there has been virtually no long term warming over the last 100 years. Therefore the “observed” and extrapolated trends are false.
It seems that the only “anthropogenic warming” has taken place at the sensors in the terrestrial measurement sites. (Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It would seem when science can predict the weather accurately two days hence, might be the time predicting climate change might be in their grasp. Untill then......PLEASE!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
332. shemp
Quoting rocketboy105:

CO2 is unique in that visible light passes through (at a higher frequency),...then the energy under goes a frequency shift when its 're-emmitted" in the infrared spectrum.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If the energy passes through, how does it get re-emitted? Photons in the CO2 band are only produced at the surface and are used up within about 100 meters. Then, warm air rises. Convection. It's not in the models.

The reason the temperature at the surface of Venus is so high is because of the lapse rate and the fact the atmosphere is so thick.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting shemp:
Models are a joke. They don't even make clouds.

Anyone with any background whatsoever in thermodynamics should then see that they're irrelevant when it comes to reality.

Plus, there has been no warming this century according to satellites, which are the only objective measure we have.

I have a strong background in Thermodynamics,....and the model results seem completely resaonable to me. The physical mechanisms fit as well. CO2 is unique in that visible light passes through (at a higher frequency),...then the energy under goes a frequency shift when its 're-emmitted" in the infrared spectrum. CO2 "VIBRATES" like a tuning fork,..in this frequency range,...then,..at this higher energy state,...through collisions with the other gases in the atmosphere,...that additional energy is transferred to them,..raising their temperature.

Are you familiar with the "inverse square law' and its relation to radiation heat transfer? Please explain how Mercury which recieves 4 times the heat as Venus,..at 9,400 watts per square meter,..vs. 2600 for Venus,...and yet Venus is twice as hot,..thehottest planet in the solar system. It has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2. I think the "Thermodynamic case" for CO2 holding in the Sun's heat,..is closed. Mars has an atmosphere that is also 95% CO2,..but the effect is miniscule(sp?) because the atmosphere is nearly non-existant,...1/100th the thickness of earth,...earth's is 1/90th that of Venus. But clearly CO2,..does indeed hold in heat,....due to its 'resonant frequency' being in the infrared range,..(soft molecular bonds),..other gasses have stiffer bonds,..and resonate way outside this range,...and do not have this unique ability. Water vapor and CO2 both do this,..and are the main greenhouse gasses.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
330. shemp
Models are a joke. They don't even make clouds.

Anyone with any background whatsoever in thermodynamics should then see that they're irrelevant when it comes to reality.

Plus, there has been no warming this century according to satellites, which are the only objective measure we have.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
329. SteveBloom
6:17 PM PST on February 19, 2008
Just to add that most climate science papers from 2000 or earlier are substantially out of date by now. There's nothing unusual about Lean (2000).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
328. SteveBloom
6:16 PM PST on February 19, 2008
Re #327: Sull, there's a history to the development of the science on this.

It was thought up until recently that the sun had a major long-term role in climate because a) cold periods were associated with the three solar minima of the last five hundred years and b) an early '90s paper established that the Sun was likely a variable star. This all seemed to fit.

Subsequently, it turned out that the variable star paper was wrong since it was based on a categorization of the Sun with the wrong type of star. More recently, it was noticed that all three of those cold periods had major vulcanism, and that volcanic dust affects the 10Be proxy that's used to track irrdiance variations and likely interfered with sunspot observations of those times. Finally (although this wasn't known until very recently), the first TSI historical reconstruction (Hoyt and Schatten from IIRC the early '90s) had a major error that vastly exaggerated the apparent variability.

As a result, Lean's views have changed along with those of the rest of the field. BTW, given the nature of Lean's employment she's not too vulnerable to the kind of pressure you describe.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
327. sullivanweather
8:27 PM EST on February 19, 2008
Oh...it's out of date. I see...

I guess when you have a theory or data that goes against the mainstream global warming position the most likely result is you're put under enormous pressure to somehow retract your findings. I would imagine she has done this in order to win new grants that would otherwise be awarded to some other scientists that would rather further the GHG-only global warming theory.

I guess we'll find out if she was on target or off target if we enter a new prolonged solar minimum now that we have satellites to measure TSI, won't we?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
326. SteveBloom
5:19 PM PST on February 19, 2008
Re #325: Sull, *Lean* says it's out of date, although I doubt she would use the word hogwash.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
325. sullivanweather
7:26 PM EST on February 19, 2008

So I guess Lean's work is hogwash because it simply disagrees with your assertions.

Why don't you just admit that TSI has increased over the previous 70 years compared to the prior 3 centuries.

I seriously doubt the impact of a warmer atmosphere can explain the increased warmth in the oceans better than increased TSI can.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
323. SteveBloom
4:25 PM PST on February 19, 2008
Re #320: That one's history, Sull. I gave you a link a while back which had you followed it would have led to a description of a presentation by Lean from a big solar science conference a week or so ago. See here. While things are far from settled, the upshot is that there is probably much less long-term solar variability than Lean showed in 2000. Note that the relative certainty about post-1950 solar influence on climate (not much) vs. pre-1950 (maybe a bit more) is because direct measurements of TSI began around 1950. "Decadal" refers to the 11-year cycle.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
320. sullivanweather
6:51 PM EST on February 19, 2008
It probably isn't running any higher for one thing

I suggest the following paper

Lean, Judith 2000. "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum." Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 2425-2428
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
319. hurricanecrab
11:42 PM GMT on February 19, 2008
An otherwise unremarkable fellow once said "if you set out to test a circumstance with preconceptions in tow, you will find them."

Hey, I just report it.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
318. SteveBloom
3:35 PM PST on February 19, 2008
Re #314: "If TSI, on average, is running 1-2 W/M2 higher now than it was from 1700-1900 (smoothed values) would not a fair percentage of this able to be absorbed by the oceans, hence, warming them, in turn, warming the atmosphere?"

It probably isn't running any higher for one thing, but for another GHGs and solar have different signatures. The most obvious difference is that GHG warming warms the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere, but solar warming would be more uniform.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
316. sullivanweather
6:14 PM EST on February 19, 2008

How not so??

GHG's (namely CO2) absorb outgoing infrared radiation and scatter it in all directions. Hence some of this radiation is reflected back towards the surface of the Earth. Of course it has an effect. It is how much of an effect. That's the big question.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
315. crucilandia
11:05 PM GMT on February 19, 2008
I do not think GHG is a part of it.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
314. sullivanweather
5:55 PM EST on February 19, 2008
It is the vastly greater heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere that makes it possible for climate oscillations to affect global surface temperature over the short-term.

So what you're basically saying is that increased TSI over the previous 70 years should have an effect namely in the oceans. The oceans are able to absorb a much greater percentage of insolation than the atmosphere.

If TSI, on average, is running 1-2 W/M2 higher now than it was from 1700-1900 (smoothed values) would not a fair percentage of this able to be absorbed by the oceans, hence, warming them, in turn, warming the atmosphere?

Sure GHG's are a part of it, but to dismiss the effect of TSI is foolish.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
313. crucilandia
10:59 PM GMT on February 19, 2008
so what would happen if heat from a large pool start to be transferred to the small one?

Yes, but CO2 must start it otherwise it is not possible. (sarcasm)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
312. SteveBloom
2:42 PM PST on February 19, 2008
Re #s 299/300/301: It is the vastly greater heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere that makes it possible for climate oscillations to affect global surface temperature over the short-term. I hope this wasn't news to anyone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
311. SteveBloom
2:31 PM PST on February 19, 2008
Re #304: "Bloom dates are also an integrative phenomenon"

See, I would always tell them that but it hardly ever worked. After a while I had to resort to stuff like complimenting their choice of clothing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
310. sebastianjer
5:01 PM EST on February 19, 2008
Albert Einstein

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
309. crucilandia
10:00 PM GMT on February 19, 2008
I agree
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
308. sullivanweather
4:56 PM EST on February 19, 2008
I still don't understand how God falls into these conversations.

I usually leave the God comments alone. Although, I must say, they have no place in a climate change discussion.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
307. crucilandia
9:58 PM GMT on February 19, 2008

you are not a scientist.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
305. sebastianjer
4:32 PM EST on February 19, 2008
I'm a scientist looking for scientific explanations of natural phenomenon. I reserve God for matters of the spirit not the flesh (or earth).

In other words Quasi, God has no place in nature, earth, or God forbid science, lol I wonder what Einstein would of thought of such sentiments.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
304. streamtracker
9:27 PM GMT on February 19, 2008
261. Sullivan, I agree about growing season length, but not ice-out data since it is based on an integrative phenomenon, which makes it a strong indicator since it evens out abrupt, temporary, ups and downs. Bloom dates are also an integrative phenomenon, as is season average snow depth and snow moisture content. The fact is there are multiple indicators of changing NE climate and finding fault with one doesn't change the overall conclusion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
303. streamtracker
9:18 PM GMT on February 19, 2008

Easy answer: WE DONT KNOW! And we most likely will never know. The only Being that knows everything PERFECTLY is God.

I'm a scientist looking for scientific explanations of natural phenomenon. I reserve God for matters of the spirit not the flesh (or earth).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
301. quasigeostropic
7:13 PM GMT on February 19, 2008
It makes sense that the oceans would play a HUGE part in climate since they cover the most area on earth(~70%). But what makes things difficult is the fact that the oceans have the LEAST amount of data obs. So in summary, 70% of the earth's surface have the LEAST amount of obs. Now we know why it is impossible to prove man-made GW. Because you first have to prove Co2 induced GW. Then you have to break it up into "man-made" and "natural" constituents....Something entirely out of our abilities.....And when you have a MASSIVE part of the puzzle missing to start with, its almost impossible to prove the first point! And the number of data obs only decreases rapidly as we go up in the atmosphere too!

This is why the only conclusion I can come up with in regards to global warming is that AGW is not possible to prove, but that the sun and our oceans hold the ultimate key to what the climate has done in the past and what it will do in the future! The problem arises that our data records are so flawed that this "key" will never be found.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
300. sullivanweather
1:21 PM EST on February 19, 2008
The top 6 feet of the ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere.

But no, the oceans have no effect...

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
299. crucilandia
3:27 PM GMT on February 19, 2008

As sully has pointed many times throughout, the ocean is a major player in the climate system and little has been done to understand its role.

You have dismissed it and counterargumented with false or unsubstantiated facts as well as with statments of personal beliefs.

The heat content of the oceans is 10x that of ATM and cryosphere combined. In the past 50yrs the oceans have been heating. Especially in the N-ATL ocean all this heaing was explained by natural variability of the NAO. The effects of anthropogenic warming due to gases is so small that its signal is lost in the natural noise.
Note that in the high latitudes the surface waters of the N-ATL are cooling while the tropics are warming in the past 50 yrs.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
298. sullivanweather
3:17 AM EST on February 19, 2008
Let's hope so...

The latest GFS/ECMWF model runs leaves our potential storm unphased and weak.

Meanwhile the GGEM (Canadian) model blows this system up into a whopper with an inland track that would bring a changeover for many and leave a lot of folks unhappy. This model also has another BIG storm coming by this time next week for a 1-2 punch. If this model comes to fruition someone could be in for a whole lot of snow.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
297. moonlightcowboy
8:11 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
Hey, Sully! AGW or not, China is taking a beating! Not a fan of our China/US trade, but I do have compassion for the people there! They've been hit really hard.

Also, looks like you're going to be right again for more winter up in the neUS, too!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
296. sullivanweather
3:03 AM EST on February 19, 2008
I saw this happening again.

I was mentioning in MichaelSTL's blog that the same pattern that had developed in mid January was renewing itself.

This confirms that assertion.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
295. moonlightcowboy
7:48 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
Feb 18, 2008
180,000 Stranded in Southern China as Cold Weather Returns

AFX News Limited, Forbes.com

Icy temperatures have swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts, just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in mountainous but usually temperate Yunnan province, struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster release office told Agence France-Presse.

In Yunnan, 12 people have died, the official Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday. The snowfalls over the past few days have cut off 14,000 kilometres of roads in Yunnan, stranding large numbers of people, the newspaper said, citing provincial transport authorities.’As the bad weather continues, the rescue work is becoming much harder,’ said the official from the provincial disaster release office, referring to helping stranded passengers, clearing roads and getting power back up.

‘Among all the cities affected by the snow disaster, Qujing city suffered from the greatest economic losses,’ the official added. Some 180,000 people were stranded in south China due to the latest weather troubles, the government and state media reported. Usually warm and sunny Yunnan was one of the areas hard hit by the frigid weather in January and early February, which pummelled China’s south, southwest and east, in the worst winter weather seen in five decades. The three weeks of severe weather left millions stranded, as the nation’s power and transport networks were unable to cope with the blizzards and sub-zero temperatures.
Read more here.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
294. moonlightcowboy
6:38 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
2001. MichaelSTL 8:05 PM GMT on February 18, 2008
Yeah, yeah, yeah... we all know how you are about improperly placed stations, and especially thinking that the IPCC only uses those (hmmm... what about the oceans, which are 70% of the globe... or the fact that obvious environmental changes linked to warming have occurred, like earlier springs, plants blooming in January, animals not hibernating/migrating/doing so later, etc - which has nothing to do with stations not properly situated, and in any case, moving a stations almost always results in a temperature change - for St. Louis, this apparantly resulted in a reduction of average temperatures).

For every station that reads too warm, there are stations that are the opposite:

Cooler stations, too! LMAO! All that simply reaffirms that the data is simply bad, faulty, wrong! As far as the oceans go, I've already commented on that one! It'd be kind of difficult to effectively measure 70 percent of the earth's ocean surface for the past, what shall we say, the last couple of hundred years anyway! LOL.

And, STL, I've only referred to specific surface stations a few times. However, I have said several times that the IPPC's conclusions are not consensus, not based in fact and have political agendas. Still, I'm not the only "skeptic" on WU or otherwise that has frequently discounted the SST data! I'm just one of many! btw, I didn't opine with the article you commented on in Fish's blog, but rather only just submitted the piece. But, it is funny how more and more of these AGW-refuting stories just keep coming up almost daily now! Truth surfaces.

... and, yeah, yeah, yeah(yourself)! I see you've still got a childish, immature, disrespectful attitude towards any opinion that doesn't agree with yours! Why don't you just drop the child-like behavior and just state your opinions without antagony? It would sure make your opinions appear more believable! Not to mention, it is the "civil" way to carry on mature, responsible discussion! It's better than going out in the school yard like little boys! Michael, you're too smart to be carrying on in such a manner! We can disagree and still respect each other. If you don't like what I post, just put me on "ignore" please, and you won't even see them! Thanks.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
293. quasigeostropic
12:47 AM EST on February 19, 2008
Because the sun is the major force controlling natural climate change on Earth.

Spot on. I wonder why people automatically discount the sun, like it has minimal role in climate...after all, the reason why there is life on earth is because the sun gives us warmth!!!

Just because AGW scientists dont see sun activity correlating with climate change in their futile graphs doesn't mean they should automatically discount the sun.

But logic says that in the grand scheme of things, the sun is the biggest source of energy for the earth and should therefore contribute a lot to our climate.....

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
292. moonlightcowboy
4:48 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
LMAO - EVERTHING is worthless unless it supports AGW! Good grief! Lat, Edna is soooooo right!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
291. sebastianjer
11:15 PM EST on February 18, 2008
More worthless studies done since the science is settled

We are at the verge of the next sunspot cycle, solar cycle 24. How intense will this cycle be? Why is this question important? Because the sun is the major force controlling natural climate change on Earth.
Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high speed charged particles that originate from exploding stars. Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field that extends to the edges of our solar system. This magnetic field is wrapped within the solar winds. The field deflects many of these cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system. As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Low level clouds reflect sunlight back into space. A large increase in Earth's cloud cover produces a global decline in temperature.

The Nature of the Sun’s Influence on Climate Change
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
290. latitude25
2:13 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
289. SteveBloom 2:07 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
Re #288: That's OK, lat. Just remember that every time I see you comment I'll think of tou drinking Edna. It's quite the image -- thanks for focusing it.

having a little trouble typing?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
289. SteveBloom
6:03 PM PST on February 18, 2008
Re #288: That's OK, lat. Just remember that every time I see you comment I'll think of you drinking Edna. It's quite the image -- thanks for focusing it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 339 - 289

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

46 °F

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.