Snow_Miser Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 No, your jumping up and down in glee seeing that the models project a cooling over the next 192 hours. Wonder why that might be? Maybe you think it's another nail in AGW's coffin? Think again. Don't Worry. The next El Nino should warm things up for you.... but until then.... we must deal with the short term. And -.6 is nothing to sneeze at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Who's reality? I have little doubt the GFS will generally verify. I also have little doubt the GCM's will generally verify, being that they are grounded in well established physics. In both cases the divergence will likely be found only in the details. Any supporting evidence to back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Any supporting evidence to back this up? You changed the post two times on me. The models incorporate sound physical principles at their core, but also make use of "parametrization" of various uncertain quantities which can be manipulated to help determine how changing those variables alters the output. The GCM's do a pretty good job of simulating past climates. This provides confidence in their predictive skill. Of course they are not perfect but many different models all converge on the same general conclusions. The climate models fundamentally differ from short term weather models such as the GFS which are sensitive to initial conditions. The climate models are not sensitive to initial conditions, they are boundary condition models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Who's reality? I have little doubt the GFS will generally verify. I also have little doubt the GCM's will generally verify, being that they are grounded in well established physics. In both cases the divergence will likely be found only in the details. Doesn't matter if you're right about that or not. Those maps didn't relate to his at all. Short term vs. very long term. But apparently you couldn't handle the sight of cold anomalies, even if just in the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Doesn't matter if you're right about that or not. Those maps didn't relate to his at all. Short term vs. very long term. But apparently you couldn't handle the sight of cold anomalies, even if just in the short term. I have no problem with people tracking weekly or monthly global temps as long as it is recognized that this is nearly completely irrelevant to the subject of climate change, except insofar as they are a tiny part of more meaningful trends. But when it is accompanied by comments such as "back in reality" that implies that somehow this is a point against AGW - which it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I have no problem with people tracking weekly or monthly global temps as long as it is recognized that this is nearly completely irrelevant to the subject of climate change, except insofar as they are a tiny part of more meaningful trends. But when it is accompanied by comments such as "back in reality" that implies that somehow this is a point against AGW - which it isn't. This thread is about 2011 global temperatures. Rusty's post was irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 You changed the post two times on me. The models incorporate sound physical principles at their core, but also make use of "parametrization" of various uncertain quantities which can be manipulated to help determine how changing those variables alters the output. The GCM's do a pretty good job of simulating past climates. This provides confidence in their predictive skill. Of course they are not perfect but many different models all converge on the same general conclusions. The climate models fundamentally differ from short term weather models such as the GFS which are sensitive to initial conditions. The climate models are not sensitive to initial conditions, they are boundary condition models. Sorry, I thought the 2nd remark was a bit too personal, so I decided to delete it. Now how is predicting the past climate remotely similar to predicting the future? How do the variables change when no data is ingested into the computer model and it has to rely on no data at all? Why is past data essential to predicting the future? Climate Models are very different, as you stated in your third paragraph. It seems that their best function is to apparently predict the past, not the future, despite all of the billions of dollars being spent on climate modeling.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Don't Worry. The next El Nino should warm things up for you.... but until then.... we must deal with the short term. And -.6 is nothing to sneeze at. but its a model, not reality at this point. Sure, all the LR (7 days out+) models have global temps dropping to -.6C to -.7C (pretty insane), but that looks waaay overdone. ECMWF weeklies are scary, LR bejjing Model is crazy too. Wouldn't it be something of global temps drop to -1C? Holy shat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 You are very tall? 6 foot 4, but I'm actually the shortest dude in my family. My bro who helped me train is 6 foot 7, my other bro is 6 foot 5, my dad is 6 foot 10. I'm actually heading out to McHenry Maryland to visit the family, been years since I've seen them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 but its a model, not reality at this point. Sure, all the LR (7 days out+) models have global temps dropping to -.6C to -.7C (pretty insane), but that looks waaay overdone. ECMWF weeklies are scary, LR bejjing Model is crazy too. Wouldn't it be something of global temps drop to -1C? Holy shat Agreed. But it's more likely to verify being the short term, than the long range computer modeling. And -1 Deg C!? OMG! Do you have a link perchance to that model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Agreed. But it's more likely to verify being the short term, than the long range computer modeling. And -1 Deg C!? OMG! Do you have a link perchance to that model? Was told Via email thru ECMWF pay site my brother has. I don't see why he would lie to me, he never has before. "Around -1C" was the quote. I have a hunch the models are overdoing things, but regardless, the globe is about to cool to levels not seen for decades. We have an moderate la nina, weak -PDO raging +AMO, and yet we see this ridiculous drop??? Solar definitely having its impact. To think, this is only Intracycle cooling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Meanwhile, cosmic ray forbush (CRF) going on at the moment. Will see how this affects global temperatures down the line, would show up as Warming if GCC were to drop. Also will be interesting to see if ISCCP picks up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 This thread is about 2011 global temperatures. Rusty's post was irrelevant. Meanwhile, back in reality from the alarmists' hypothetical If that's not speaking in the pejorative then I don't know what is. It ticked me off just a bit! We who align with the science are supposed to take shots without dishing anything back? His graphic was on topic, his comment was in reality a not so well disguised disparaging one from an obvous denier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 If that's not speaking in the pejorative then I don't know what is. It ticked me off just a bit! We who align with the science are supposed to take shots without dishing anything back? His graphic was on topic, his comment was in reality a not so well disguised disparaging one from an obvous denier. If my comment offended you, I am sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 If that's not speaking in the pejorative then I don't know what is. It ticked me off just a bit! We who align with the science are supposed to take shots without dishing anything back? His graphic was on topic, his comment was in reality a not so well disguised disparaging one from an obvous denier. whats with all these labels? "denier", "alarmist", gets old fast, although I admit to using "warmist" on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 If my comment offended you, I am sorry. I realize a lot of what we do here involves a bit of gamesmanship. That's fine, it comes with the territory. My issue was not really so much with you, no apology required. The follow up commentary directed at me is really what annoyed me. Actually my graphic response to yours was given somewhat tongue in cheek and everyone dragged me through the mud for it when all I did was respond to you in like kind. Ok, back to the debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Was told Via email thru ECMWF pay site my brother has. I don't see why he would lie to me, he never has before. "Around -1C" was the quote. I have a hunch the models are overdoing things, but regardless, the globe is about to cool to levels not seen for decades. We have an moderate la nina, weak -PDO raging +AMO, and yet we see this ridiculous drop??? Solar definitely having its impact. To think, this is only Intracycle cooling Yeah, it's pretty amazing the cooling we're seeing...the massive arctic outbreak currently in Western Asia and the predicted brutal cold over Canada and the Western CONUS in late February/early March. It's really impressive looking at the GFS and seeing large pools of -30C 850s over Central Canada for the early March timeframe, when you'd expect it to be warming up a bit with the rising sun angle. I definitely feel the long spotless streak in 2008 and the continued low levels of solar activity are the major factor making the cooling potential in this La Niña different from 98-99 and 99-00, and perhaps even 07-08. The recent burst of solar activity may halt this trend slightly with the CME, but at the same time it may also produce brutal weather in the mid-latitudes if we see a drop in the AO/NAO back towards negative, which some forecasters have been discussing for early March. Lots to think about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 the earth is not going to cool anywhere near levels "not seen for decades" even using UAH which is the coldest of any source and is disputed by newer analyses of MSU and AMSU data like STAR which use SNO to improve calibration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 This thread is about 2011 global temperatures. Rusty's post was irrelevant. Well regardless I don't think we should be accompanying every daily update on global temperatures with snarky comments like "back in reality away from alarmist's fantasy." Now if someone wants to post some statistical verification for IPCC models, that would be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 the earth is not going to cool anywhere near levels "not seen for decades" even using UAH which is the coldest of any source and is disputed by newer analyses of MSU and AMSU data like STAR which use SNO to improve calibration. If the models are correct, we'll be at least -0.7C globally for a time, this time next week, and ECMWF weeklies have the cold growing even stronger over the next month. We have not seen readings like that since Pinatubo. Latest GFS (00z) has trended even colder with the upcoming drop, plunging temps colder than -0.7C, and has been trending colder for the past several days. Now, If the "extreme" models are correct, this gets pretty freaky in mid March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Meanwhile, cosmic ray forbush (CRF) going on at the moment. Will see how this affects global temperatures down the line, would show up as Warming if GCC were to drop. Also will be interesting to see if ISCCP picks up on it. That looks a lot like the Electron Flux Plots for the 18th. I suppose that could be a symbol of the entire global warming debate.... The classic "hockey stick". It appears as if nothing has changed for a very long time. Then a minor fluctuation happens And everyone is scrambling for an explanation. In this case, it appears as if the issue will resolve itself within a day or so. And, I have no doubt that these drops and recoveries have happened in the past, although I haven't been watching the data for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Oh yes, its very short term with these CME's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 If the models are correct, we'll be at least -0.7C globally for a time, this time next week, and ECMWF weeklies have the cold growing even stronger over the next month. We have not seen readings like that since Pinatubo. Latest GFS (00z) has trended even colder with the upcoming drop, plunging temps colder than -0.7C, and has been trending colder for the past several days. Now, If the "extreme" models are correct, this gets pretty freaky in mid March. We only have monthly values to compare to... none of the monthlies for UAH, GISS, RSS Had will be as low as the early 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 We only have monthly values to compare to... none of the monthlies for UAH, GISS, RSS Had will be as low as the early 90s. Who said anything about the upcoming Monthly? Readings alone, -0.7C or colder (if it verifies) will be the coldest reading in quite awhile. No chance to break records with the FEB monthly, since the 1st 2/3 of the month will avg right around Normal, while the last 1/3 could average between -0.3 to -0.4C......MAR is the month to watch though. It seems we have another 0.2 - 0.3C to drop overall, this taking a conservative approach on LR modeling, since It is likely overdone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Who said anything about the upcoming Monthly? Readings alone, -0.7C or colder (if it verifies) will be the coldest reading in quite awhile. No chance to break records with the FEB monthly, since the 1st 2/3 of the month will avg right around Normal, while the last 1/3 could average between -0.3 to -0.4C......MAR is the month to watch though. It seems we have another 0.2 - 0.3C to drop overall, this taking a conservative approach on LR modeling, since It is likely overdone. Since you have no idea what daily or weekly values were back in the early 90s you can't go running around saying we're going to be the coldest in decades. I'm a big fan of comparing apples to apples. Show me a data source now that shows colder than early 1990s, otherwise you are just making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Since you have no idea what daily or weekly values were back in the early 90s you can't go running around saying we're going to be the coldest in decades. I'm a big fan of comparing apples to apples. Show me a data source now that shows colder than early 1990s, otherwise you are just making things up. You do realize I'm discussing Models such as the GFS, ECMWF, and their forecasts for global temps 1 week from now.....right? It hasn't happened yet, so how could OBS show cooling that has yet to commence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Since you have no idea what daily or weekly values were back in the early 90s you can't go running around saying we're going to be the coldest in decades. I'm a big fan of comparing apples to apples. Show me a data source now that shows colder than early 1990s, otherwise you are just making things up. Apples to apples wouldn't really apply to the early 1990s, since we were experiencing .5C of cooling from Pinatubo then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Apples to apples wouldn't really apply to the early 1990s, since we were experiencing .5C of cooling from Pinatubo then. In terms of making a fair comparison then, yeah, you know I am a stickler about Pinatubo too. We still can't be making blanket statements about "coldest in decades" based on model projections of daily or weekly surface temperatures unless we have records of daily temperatures for the last several decades, which I am not aware of. ERA-40 might have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 You do realize I'm discussing Models such as the GFS, ECMWF, and their forecasts for global temps 1 week from now.....right? It hasn't happened yet, so how could OBS show cooling that has yet to commence? Yes I do and even if it verifies, you have nothing to compare daily surface temperatures to over the last few decades. What is the basis for your comparison? You are comparing forecasted global temperatures for next week of -.7C to what exactly to conclude that that will be "the coldest in decades." It's also a 1979-2009 baseline which means you need to add .3C when converting to the 1951-1980 baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 In terms of making a fair comparison then, yeah, you know I am a stickler about Pinatubo too. We still can't be making blanket statements about "coldest in decades" based on model projections of daily surface temperatures unless we have records of daily temperatures for the last several decades, which I am not aware of. ERA-40 might have it. Agreed. Think there is a good chance this is the coldest February in quite awhile, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.