Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Acid rain anyone?
[YOUTUBEIF]aMd9tvZPKOk[/YOUTUBEIF]
[YOUTUBEIF]aMd9tvZPKOk[/YOUTUBEIF]
uh, you do understand that the culprits for acid rain happen to be china and india mostly and that prevailing winds bring that from the other side of the world. last i heard, the US had reduced emissions by 14%. pretty much why this admin has cut funding/regulations for EPA.
kickarse is technically correct that the oceans are alkaline and will never get more acidic until they become acidic.... < 7PH.
meanwhile the ice in the arctic is even with 2017, according to DMI
and temperature departures are up only .56C over the 1981-2010 average.
record cold across much of Eurasia/Mideast, with snow accumulation breaking 6 metres in places.
Greenland glaciers growing too...
https://electroverse.net/record-cold-and-20-foot-drifts-batter-turkey-syria-iran-and-iraq/
sounds alot like global warming doesn't it? brought to you by the same people who invented fractional lending and illegality of cannabis.
kickarse is technically correct that the oceans are alkaline and will never get more acidic until they become acidic.... < 7PH.
meanwhile the ice in the arctic is even with 2017, according to DMI
and temperature departures are up only .56C over the 1981-2010 average.
record cold across much of Eurasia/Mideast, with snow accumulation breaking 6 metres in places.
Greenland glaciers growing too...
https://electroverse.net/record-cold-and-20-foot-drifts-batter-turkey-syria-iran-and-iraq/
sounds alot like global warming doesn't it? brought to you by the same people who invented fractional lending and illegality of cannabis.
kickarse
Active member
No sane person or anyone with half a brain could believe in "man made global warming"
"climate change" what a CON, any drought, fire, flood, storm, heatwave, its Co2 to blame, not a word when its cold for days, weeks, months or years, that's just the weather
Co2 causes everything apparently, time will tell the truth, it already has
40 years of bullshit and nothing has happened, they have not got anything right, except made a shit load of $$$$ out of fear mongering
"climate change" what a CON, any drought, fire, flood, storm, heatwave, its Co2 to blame, not a word when its cold for days, weeks, months or years, that's just the weather
Co2 causes everything apparently, time will tell the truth, it already has
40 years of bullshit and nothing has happened, they have not got anything right, except made a shit load of $$$$ out of fear mongering
White Beard
Active member
Had no idea Boris Johnson did stand-up...I can understand why, he’s really bad at it
*Rapid ICE growth* Arctic sea ice reaches the largest early February ice area in the past 11 years! It even exceeds the 2001-2010 average size
By Andrej Flis | Global weather | 12 February 2020
-spread the word-
Overall, winter was rather mild across much of Eurasia and North America, with the exception of Alaska and parts of Canada. But, that means that a lot of cold air has stayed in the polar circle, helping to freeze more of the Arctic ocean and the surrounding areas.
The latest sea ice analysis shows that during this rather mild winter in the mid-latitudes, the trapping of the colder air in the polar circle was beneficial to the growth and recovery of the polar icecap. Every winter the Arctic ocean freezes, reaching a maximum sea ice extent around March. below is the graphic from NSIDC, showing the ice growth progress and a comparison with 2012, which had the lowest sea ice extent on record in September. We can see that the freezing season began at rather low levels, lower than 2012, but the stronger than normal polar vortex has helped to keep more cold air in the polar regions, promoting ice growth. The second graphic is a temperature anomaly analysis for the polar circle, showing the colder than normal phases during winter, and especially currently, greatly aiding in the sea ice growth process.
graphs and videos at this link:
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-extent-largest-february-fa/
By Andrej Flis | Global weather | 12 February 2020
-spread the word-
Overall, winter was rather mild across much of Eurasia and North America, with the exception of Alaska and parts of Canada. But, that means that a lot of cold air has stayed in the polar circle, helping to freeze more of the Arctic ocean and the surrounding areas.
The latest sea ice analysis shows that during this rather mild winter in the mid-latitudes, the trapping of the colder air in the polar circle was beneficial to the growth and recovery of the polar icecap. Every winter the Arctic ocean freezes, reaching a maximum sea ice extent around March. below is the graphic from NSIDC, showing the ice growth progress and a comparison with 2012, which had the lowest sea ice extent on record in September. We can see that the freezing season began at rather low levels, lower than 2012, but the stronger than normal polar vortex has helped to keep more cold air in the polar regions, promoting ice growth. The second graphic is a temperature anomaly analysis for the polar circle, showing the colder than normal phases during winter, and especially currently, greatly aiding in the sea ice growth process.
graphs and videos at this link:
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-extent-largest-february-fa/
St. Phatty
Active member
Doing spring planting in Southwest Oregon.
We got about 1/2 the rain we normally get, for the season. 1/4 inch of rain in February.
I meant to wait for the rains to drench my soil piles. But it never came.
It was so fvcking wierd to carry buckets of water to wet the soil, before planting the seeds, and after. In late February, this is a first for me.
I try to water every 3 days.
The National Weather Service is predicting rain for this weekend. That would save me one watering cycle. But I will still plan on doing bucket watering.
I can't find any records with lists of annual rainfall, so I don't know how rare it is.
My other source of information is old people at the Y, who have lived in Oregon a long time.
I don't have enough info to know if I'm describing just the weather, or a genuine climate change.
I bought generator motors to extract some electricity from the creek. But the way it's going right now there's only enough juice to power a smartphone.
We got about 1/2 the rain we normally get, for the season. 1/4 inch of rain in February.
I meant to wait for the rains to drench my soil piles. But it never came.
It was so fvcking wierd to carry buckets of water to wet the soil, before planting the seeds, and after. In late February, this is a first for me.
I try to water every 3 days.
The National Weather Service is predicting rain for this weekend. That would save me one watering cycle. But I will still plan on doing bucket watering.
I can't find any records with lists of annual rainfall, so I don't know how rare it is.
My other source of information is old people at the Y, who have lived in Oregon a long time.
I don't have enough info to know if I'm describing just the weather, or a genuine climate change.
I bought generator motors to extract some electricity from the creek. But the way it's going right now there's only enough juice to power a smartphone.
Freshwater flowing into the North Pacific plays key role in North America’s climate
https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/...acific-plays-key-role-north-america’s-climate
Picturing permafrost in the Arctic
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Ob...ur_climate/Picturing_permafrost_in_the_Arctic
Arctic 'doomsday vault' stocks up on 60,000 more food seeds
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-arctic-doomsday-vault-stocks-food.html
https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/...acific-plays-key-role-north-america’s-climate
Picturing permafrost in the Arctic
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Ob...ur_climate/Picturing_permafrost_in_the_Arctic
Arctic 'doomsday vault' stocks up on 60,000 more food seeds
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-arctic-doomsday-vault-stocks-food.html
Record coolest February for South Australia.
snow on ground here this AM. temps projected in the sixties by tomorrow. nope, nothing odd going on here...
nope, sorry. it's okay if you want to believe that, no skin off of my nose. everyone gets to believe what they want...
Original Research ARTICLE
Front. Earth Sci., 06 September 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00223
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Patrick Frank*
Introduction
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) has predicted that by the year 2100, unabated human emissions of CO2 could cause an increase in global averaged surface air temperatures (GASAT) by about 3 Celsius (Essex et al., 2007; IPCC, 2007, 2013). The validity of this warning depends upon the physical accuracy of general circulation climate models (GCMs). In this light, the reliability of GCM projections of global surface air temperature is central to the question of causality. This question is critically assessed herein.
Published GCM projections of the GASAT typically present uncertainties as model variability relative to an ensemble mean (Stainforth et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2007; Knutti et al., 2008), or as the outcome of parameter sensitivity tests (Mu et al., 2004; Murphy et al., 2004), or as Taylor diagrams exhibiting the spread of model realizations around observations (Covey et al., 2003; Gleckler et al., 2008; Jiang et al., 2012). The former two are measures of precision, while observation-based errors indicate physical accuracy. Precision is defined as agreement within or between model simulations, while accuracy is agreement between models and external observables (Eisenhart, 1963, 1968; ISO/IEC, 2008).
Propagating physical errors through a model is standard in the physical sciences, and yields a measure of predictive reliability (Taylor and Kuyatt, 1994; Bevington and Robinson, 2003; Vasquez and Whiting, 2006; ISO/IEC, 2008; JCGM, 2008; Roy and Oberkampf, 2011). However, evaluations of climate model projections typically neither discuss nor include propagated physical error (Gates et al., 1999; Covey et al., 2001, 2003; Giorgi, 2005; Gleckler, 2005; IPCC, 2007; Räisänen, 2007; Jin et al., 2008; Meehl et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2012). Examination of published representations of climate model performance reveals that apparently neither parameter uncertainties nor systematic energy flux errors are ever propagated through any step-wise simulation of global climate (Gleckler et al., 2008; Knutti et al., 2008; Fildes and Kourentzes, 2011).
In his evaluation of climate predictions Smith noted that, “[E]ven in high school physics, we learn that an answer without “error bars” is no answer at all” (Smith, 2002). However, projections of future air temperatures are invariably published without including any physically valid error bars to represent uncertainty. Instead, the standard uncertainties derive from variability about a model mean, which is only a measure of precision. Precision alone does not indicate accuracy, nor is it a measure of physical or predictive reliability.
The missing reliability analysis of GCM global air temperature projections is rectified herein. The logic of the work follows the standard method of physical error analysis. Thus, GCM global air temperature projections are first accurately reproduced using an emulation model. It is shown that advanced GCMs project global air temperature as a simple linear extrapolation of fractional greenhouse gas forcing. Extensive examples of accurately emulated GCM air temperature projections are then provided.
Next, GCM cloud simulation error is assessed and shown to be systematic across 5th phase Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) models. Cloud simulation error introduces a consequent error into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is a critical determinant of global air temperature (IPCC, 2013; cf. Figure 7.1). GCM tropospheric thermal energy flux error thus provides a calibration error statistic that conditions the accuracy of CMIP5 air temperature projections, and represents a lower limit of uncertainty in the simulated climate energy-state. Cloud error is only one of a number of large-scale GCM simulation errors (Soon et al., 2001; Wunsch, 2002; Wunsch and Heimbach, 2007; Koutsoyiannis et al., 2008; Williams and Webb, 2009; Anagnostopoulos et al., 2010; Wunsch, 2013; Yamazaki et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2016; Găinuşă-Bogdan et al., 2018).
Finally, the successful GCM emulation model is used to propagate GCM calibration error through CMIP5 global air temperature projections to produce the first measure of their physical reliability.
The logic of the analysis can be summarized as:
1. GCM air temperature projections are linear extrapolations of greenhouse gas forcing.
2. CMIP5 GCMs produce a systematic calibration error in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux.
3. Propagation of CMIP5 error through global air temperature projections reveals the uncertainty in, and thus the reliability of, global air temperature projections.
A brief discussion follows that addresses the meaning and impact of physical uncertainty with respect to predicting the terrestrial climate. The actual extent of our knowledge of climate futures is made clear in light of this analysis.
Results and Discussion
To be kept in view throughout what follows is that the physics of climate is neither surveyed nor addressed; nor is the terrestrial climate itself in any way modeled. Rather, the focus is strictly on the behavior and reliability of climate models alone, and on physical error analysis.
...
Conclusion
This analysis has shown that the air temperature projections of advanced climate models are just linear extrapolations of fractional GHG forcing. Linear propagation of model error follows directly from GCM linear extrapolation of forcing. The ±4 Wm–2 year–1 annual average LWCF thermal flux error means that the physical theory within climate models incorrectly partitions energy among the internal sub-states of the terrestrial climate. Specifically, GCMs do not capture the physical behavior of terrestrial clouds or, more widely, of the hydrological cycle (Stevens and Bony, 2013). As noted above, a GCM simulation can be in perfect external energy balance at the TOA while still expressing an incorrect internal climate energy-state.
The further meaning of uncertainty in projected air temperature is extensively discussed in Section 10.1 of the Supporting Information, “Why confidence intervals do not imply model oscillation.” Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of the Supporting Information provide an extended discussion of the meaning of confidence intervals, uncertainty, and propagated error.
Although other approaches to uncertainty in projections and simulations of climate futures have been carried out, most notably perhaps using Bayesian statistics (Tebaldi et al., 2005; Buser et al., 2009; Urban and Keller, 2010; Zanchettin et al., 2017), none of them propagate calibration error through model simulation steps into the projected future climate-state. In these studies, the impact of the continued evolution of simulation error on the uncertainty within the final projected climate state remains unevaluated.
It is now appropriate to return to Smith’s standard description of physical meaning, which is that, “even in high school physics, we learn that an answer without “error bars” is no answer at all” (Smith, 2002). LWCF calibration error is ±114 × larger than the annual average increase in GHG forcing. This fact alone makes any possible global effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions invisible to present climate models.
At the current level of theory an AGW signal, if any, will never emerge from climate noise no matter how long the observational record because the uncertainty width will necessarily increase much faster than any projected trend in air temperature. Any impact from GHGs will always be lost within the uncertainty interval. Even advanced climate models exhibit poor energy resolution and very large projection uncertainties.
The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.
you've been played...
Front. Earth Sci., 06 September 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00223
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
- SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA, United States
Introduction
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) has predicted that by the year 2100, unabated human emissions of CO2 could cause an increase in global averaged surface air temperatures (GASAT) by about 3 Celsius (Essex et al., 2007; IPCC, 2007, 2013). The validity of this warning depends upon the physical accuracy of general circulation climate models (GCMs). In this light, the reliability of GCM projections of global surface air temperature is central to the question of causality. This question is critically assessed herein.
Published GCM projections of the GASAT typically present uncertainties as model variability relative to an ensemble mean (Stainforth et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2007; Knutti et al., 2008), or as the outcome of parameter sensitivity tests (Mu et al., 2004; Murphy et al., 2004), or as Taylor diagrams exhibiting the spread of model realizations around observations (Covey et al., 2003; Gleckler et al., 2008; Jiang et al., 2012). The former two are measures of precision, while observation-based errors indicate physical accuracy. Precision is defined as agreement within or between model simulations, while accuracy is agreement between models and external observables (Eisenhart, 1963, 1968; ISO/IEC, 2008).
Propagating physical errors through a model is standard in the physical sciences, and yields a measure of predictive reliability (Taylor and Kuyatt, 1994; Bevington and Robinson, 2003; Vasquez and Whiting, 2006; ISO/IEC, 2008; JCGM, 2008; Roy and Oberkampf, 2011). However, evaluations of climate model projections typically neither discuss nor include propagated physical error (Gates et al., 1999; Covey et al., 2001, 2003; Giorgi, 2005; Gleckler, 2005; IPCC, 2007; Räisänen, 2007; Jin et al., 2008; Meehl et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2012). Examination of published representations of climate model performance reveals that apparently neither parameter uncertainties nor systematic energy flux errors are ever propagated through any step-wise simulation of global climate (Gleckler et al., 2008; Knutti et al., 2008; Fildes and Kourentzes, 2011).
In his evaluation of climate predictions Smith noted that, “[E]ven in high school physics, we learn that an answer without “error bars” is no answer at all” (Smith, 2002). However, projections of future air temperatures are invariably published without including any physically valid error bars to represent uncertainty. Instead, the standard uncertainties derive from variability about a model mean, which is only a measure of precision. Precision alone does not indicate accuracy, nor is it a measure of physical or predictive reliability.
The missing reliability analysis of GCM global air temperature projections is rectified herein. The logic of the work follows the standard method of physical error analysis. Thus, GCM global air temperature projections are first accurately reproduced using an emulation model. It is shown that advanced GCMs project global air temperature as a simple linear extrapolation of fractional greenhouse gas forcing. Extensive examples of accurately emulated GCM air temperature projections are then provided.
Next, GCM cloud simulation error is assessed and shown to be systematic across 5th phase Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) models. Cloud simulation error introduces a consequent error into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is a critical determinant of global air temperature (IPCC, 2013; cf. Figure 7.1). GCM tropospheric thermal energy flux error thus provides a calibration error statistic that conditions the accuracy of CMIP5 air temperature projections, and represents a lower limit of uncertainty in the simulated climate energy-state. Cloud error is only one of a number of large-scale GCM simulation errors (Soon et al., 2001; Wunsch, 2002; Wunsch and Heimbach, 2007; Koutsoyiannis et al., 2008; Williams and Webb, 2009; Anagnostopoulos et al., 2010; Wunsch, 2013; Yamazaki et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2016; Găinuşă-Bogdan et al., 2018).
Finally, the successful GCM emulation model is used to propagate GCM calibration error through CMIP5 global air temperature projections to produce the first measure of their physical reliability.
The logic of the analysis can be summarized as:
1. GCM air temperature projections are linear extrapolations of greenhouse gas forcing.
2. CMIP5 GCMs produce a systematic calibration error in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux.
3. Propagation of CMIP5 error through global air temperature projections reveals the uncertainty in, and thus the reliability of, global air temperature projections.
A brief discussion follows that addresses the meaning and impact of physical uncertainty with respect to predicting the terrestrial climate. The actual extent of our knowledge of climate futures is made clear in light of this analysis.
Results and Discussion
To be kept in view throughout what follows is that the physics of climate is neither surveyed nor addressed; nor is the terrestrial climate itself in any way modeled. Rather, the focus is strictly on the behavior and reliability of climate models alone, and on physical error analysis.
...
Conclusion
This analysis has shown that the air temperature projections of advanced climate models are just linear extrapolations of fractional GHG forcing. Linear propagation of model error follows directly from GCM linear extrapolation of forcing. The ±4 Wm–2 year–1 annual average LWCF thermal flux error means that the physical theory within climate models incorrectly partitions energy among the internal sub-states of the terrestrial climate. Specifically, GCMs do not capture the physical behavior of terrestrial clouds or, more widely, of the hydrological cycle (Stevens and Bony, 2013). As noted above, a GCM simulation can be in perfect external energy balance at the TOA while still expressing an incorrect internal climate energy-state.
The further meaning of uncertainty in projected air temperature is extensively discussed in Section 10.1 of the Supporting Information, “Why confidence intervals do not imply model oscillation.” Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of the Supporting Information provide an extended discussion of the meaning of confidence intervals, uncertainty, and propagated error.
Although other approaches to uncertainty in projections and simulations of climate futures have been carried out, most notably perhaps using Bayesian statistics (Tebaldi et al., 2005; Buser et al., 2009; Urban and Keller, 2010; Zanchettin et al., 2017), none of them propagate calibration error through model simulation steps into the projected future climate-state. In these studies, the impact of the continued evolution of simulation error on the uncertainty within the final projected climate state remains unevaluated.
It is now appropriate to return to Smith’s standard description of physical meaning, which is that, “even in high school physics, we learn that an answer without “error bars” is no answer at all” (Smith, 2002). LWCF calibration error is ±114 × larger than the annual average increase in GHG forcing. This fact alone makes any possible global effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions invisible to present climate models.
At the current level of theory an AGW signal, if any, will never emerge from climate noise no matter how long the observational record because the uncertainty width will necessarily increase much faster than any projected trend in air temperature. Any impact from GHGs will always be lost within the uncertainty interval. Even advanced climate models exhibit poor energy resolution and very large projection uncertainties.
The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.
you've been played...
M
moose eater
Interior Alaska set a record this winter for number of successive days without getting above 0 f or +5 f. (can't recall which). For ~7 weeks we were under a cold system, during which the mercury and glass on our front porch reached -45 f & -46 f about 3 times.
Lots of -30 to -35 f., and LOTS of -20 stuff, too.
That said, we never saw (in the region I'm in) the classic cold temps we saw 30-40+ years ago; no -50 to -65 f. Haven't seen temps in those ranges in years, though areas to the west and east of us saw near -50 during our extended cold snap.
We're back into a cold system for the last several days or so, maybe the last week (exceptional dark rum, fresh hashish, sampling of the September harvest, etc., helps to create a 'foggy curtain' of uncertainty where specific recollection of how long the current cold snap has lasted; 'anti-weather anesthesia', if you will... If things get seriously weird, there's always some hallucinogens hiding here some place..
We're headed east to Tok Jct., then into the Wrangell-St. Elias Range Sunday after tomorrow (8 days), with Monday being the day we enter the Nat'l Park & Preserve. NOAA says Wednesday through Friday nights this next week in Tok Jct. will see lows at night of -30 to -35 f.
Frankly, ice fishing for lake trout at those temps stopped being desirable maybe 30 years ago, or nearly that..
All of that said, and despite the extended cold systems we've had this winter, the AVERAGES here still spell warmer trends than the past, both recent and distant.
Anyway, 1 music post the other day, and 1 climate change post today, and I think I hit my quota. Back to pressing my hash; the press has been at 175 f. for the last couple hours, while I took a 15 minute break.
Lots of -30 to -35 f., and LOTS of -20 stuff, too.
That said, we never saw (in the region I'm in) the classic cold temps we saw 30-40+ years ago; no -50 to -65 f. Haven't seen temps in those ranges in years, though areas to the west and east of us saw near -50 during our extended cold snap.
We're back into a cold system for the last several days or so, maybe the last week (exceptional dark rum, fresh hashish, sampling of the September harvest, etc., helps to create a 'foggy curtain' of uncertainty where specific recollection of how long the current cold snap has lasted; 'anti-weather anesthesia', if you will... If things get seriously weird, there's always some hallucinogens hiding here some place..
We're headed east to Tok Jct., then into the Wrangell-St. Elias Range Sunday after tomorrow (8 days), with Monday being the day we enter the Nat'l Park & Preserve. NOAA says Wednesday through Friday nights this next week in Tok Jct. will see lows at night of -30 to -35 f.
Frankly, ice fishing for lake trout at those temps stopped being desirable maybe 30 years ago, or nearly that..
All of that said, and despite the extended cold systems we've had this winter, the AVERAGES here still spell warmer trends than the past, both recent and distant.
Anyway, 1 music post the other day, and 1 climate change post today, and I think I hit my quota. Back to pressing my hash; the press has been at 175 f. for the last couple hours, while I took a 15 minute break.
kickarse
Active member
Fair enough, but that's what you believers say about the cold weather
it goes both ways, if ya want to be fair about beliefs
I use to believe in Santa, but it was all bullshit in the end
I'm betting "Man Made Global Warming" will end the same way
C
Capra ibex
Fair enough, but that's what you believers say about the cold weather
it goes both ways, if ya want to be fair about beliefs
I use to believe in Santa, but it was all bullshit in the end
I'm betting "Man Made Global Warming" will end the same way
No one says you can't believe what you want to believe.... doesn't mean you're right though....
