"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"-Albert Einstein
I am enthusiastic about severe weather.
I am passionate about winter storms.
I am enraged by the AGW scam.
People like Al Gore, and groups like the IPCC, serve no other function than to
Rank: F5 Superstorm
Joined: 11-January 08
Profile Views: 11,715*
Last Seen: 17th January 2017 - 01:59 PM
Local Time: Feb 26 2017, 10:43 PM
770 posts (0 per day)
* Profile views updated each hour
27 Mar 2014
Look, I have seen this on both EURO and GFS for the last 2.5 days. Believe me I dont want to see this as April snow is just plain annoying. Several Mets are suggesting that there will be a reinforcing cold shot that comes down after the 3rd/4th period and a negative NAO to boot. Favorable Ridging out west and blocking potential in Eastern Canada. Here are the most recent shots from both GFS and EURO.
9 Feb 2010
Well, lets start talking about this. The dynamics are pretty good and the temps should still be well in line to support. We shall see. Here's the GFS at for the 21st. Huge bomb potential Matt can post the image when he gets a chance as I am having trouble doing so.
7 Aug 2008
Look how this title is positioned. It could have easily titled: New Research shows how climate models are worthless.
Instead it puts a very positive spin on Climate Modeling.
You almost need to be in the CIA to be able to sift through most of this spin.
Anyhow, very telling stuff here on how poorly climate models have done. Also of note is that NASA is partly funding this research. I wonder how Hansen feels about this? I have underlined some of the highlights of the research.
Forward step in forecasting global warming
Science magazine article details improvements needed for climate-change prediction
TEMPE, Ariz. – Arizona State University researchers have made a breakthrough in understanding the effect on climate change of a key component of urban pollution. The discovery could lead to more accurate forecasting of possible global-warming activity, say Peter Crozier and James Anderson.
Crozier is an associate professor in ASU's School of Materials, which is jointly administered by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering. Anderson is a senior research scientist in the engineering school's Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.
As a result of their studies of aerosols in the atmosphere, they assert that some measures used in atmospheric science are oversimplified and overlook important factors that relate to climatic warming and cooling.
The research findings are detailed in the Aug. 8 issue of Science magazine, in the article "Brown Carbon Spheres in East Asian Outflow and Their Optical Properties," co-authored by Crozier, Anderson and Duncan Alexander, a former postdoctoral fellow at ASU in the area of electron microscopy, and the paper's lead author.
So-called brown carbons – a nanoscale atmospheric aerosol species – are largely being ignored in broad-ranging climate computer models, Crozier and Anderson say.
Studies of the greenhouse effect that contribute directly to climate change have focused on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But there are other components in the atmosphere that can contribute to warming – or cooling – including carbonaceous and sulfate particles from combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, salts from oceans and dust from deserts. Brown carbons from combustion processes are the least understood of these aerosol components.
The parameter typically used to measure degrees of warming is radiative forcing, which is the difference in the incoming energy from sunlight and outgoing energy from heat and reflected sunlight. The variety of gasses and aerosols that compose the atmosphere will, under different conditions, lead to warming (positive radiative forcing) or cooling (negative radiative forcing).
The ASU researchers say the effect of brown carbon is complex because it both cools the Earth's surface and warms the atmosphere.
"Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall," Crozier says. "This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models."
A key to understanding the situation is the light-scattering and light-absorbing properties – called optical properties – of aerosols.
Crozier and Anderson are trying to directly measure the light-absorbing properties of carbonaceous aerosols, which are abundant in the atmosphere.
"If we know the optical properties and distribution of all the aerosols over the entire atmosphere, then we can produce climate change models that provide more accurate prediction," Anderson says.
Most of the techniques used to measure optical properties of aerosols involve shining a laser through columns of air.
"The problem with this approach is that it gives the average properties of all aerosol components, and at only a few wavelengths of light," Anderson says.
He and Crozier have instead used a novel technique based on a specialized type of electron microscope. This technique – monochromated electron energy-loss spectroscopy – can be used to directly determine the optical properties of individual brown carbon nanoparticles over the entire visible light spectrum as well as over the ultraviolet and infrared areas of the spectrum.
"We have used this approach to determine the complete optical properties of individual brown carbon nanoparticles sampled from above the Yellow Sea during a large international climate change experiment," Crozier says.
"This is the first time anyone has determined the complete optical properties of single nanoparticles from the atmosphere," Anderson says.
It's typical for climate modelers to approximate atmospheric carbon aerosols as either non-absorbing or strongly absorbing. "Our measurements show this approximation is too simple," Crozier says. "We show that many of the carbons in our sample have optical properties that are different from those usually assumed in climate models."
Adds Anderson: "When you hear about predictions of future warming or changes in precipitation globally, or in specific regions like the Southwestern United States, the predictions are based on computer model output that is ignoring brown carbon, so they are going to tend to be less accurate."
The research was funded for a six-year period with grants to ASU from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Chemistry Program ($319,000) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Radiation Science Program ($327,000).
The work is part of the Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACE) program, which encompasses three projects to date carried out by hundreds of researchers from multiple countries.
Crozier and Anderson have been involved in the U.S. component of the ACE-Asia experiment, a large-scale, multi-agency effort to characterize aerosols from East Asia, involving the NSF, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and others.
Peter Crozier, email@example.com
School of Materials
James Anderson, firstname.lastname@example.org
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
31 Jul 2008
At the request of a fellow poster, I have decided to start a thread discussing James Hansen's 1988 testimony and, more specifically, he's projections of future warming. The only way to see how is predictions have panned out is to look at the observed data from the various reading instruments.
There are 4 Measurement sets that we can use: GISS, HadCrut, UAH, and RSS. UAH and RSS are the satellite measuring tools and GISS and HadCrut are land/ocean measurements. It is generally agreed upon that the satellites do a much better job of getting more accurate measurements.
The point of this excercise is to be able to 'prove' or 'disprove' a theory that was brought out by Hansen in 1988. While we are unable to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything like this within a 100% certainty, we are able to get statistically close one way or the other. Keep in mind that the IPCC uses much of the same data and information, both directly and indirectly, of Hansens. This movement rests on the foundation of Hansens projections and of the IPCC's. If Hansen is correct, than we all have some serious problems ahead and should develope a strategy to address the problem. If he is wrong, than we need to come to terms with the fact that we have invested billions of dollars into something that doesnt exist and that international policies addressing AGW need to be stopped and reversed.
The best way to find out which way the wind blows is to look at the data.
Here is Hansens projections:
Here are the actual observations:
It is here that we are able to see how Hansen did. We are below his best case scenario.
In previous posts we have talked about confidence intervals. I have picked up a great deal of insight into determining how likely we are to achieve any of Hansen's projections based on simple statistical equations. Lucia Liljegren has done a fabulous job of doing these analysis's and has clearly shown how Hansen's projections, and more importantly the IPCC's, have completely missed the boat.
Is it right to base policy from real world data/observations or projections that have a known flaw?
As a society, we are currently choosing the second. That is scarey stuff.
****updated with images below. Hansen's first. Observations second.
As we can see, he bombed. The closest he got was with his scenario C option. Scenario C concluded that CO2 levels would undergo a rapid reduction.
More details will follow in my next post.
21 Jul 2008
This is a very disturbing development with our friends in England. How is it possible for there to be any sense of honesty coming from our press and mass media when this kind of thing is allowed to happen. The mass population is bombarded by a dissinformation campaign on a DAILY basis from the AGW movement. The 'Dis-information' that comes out to us is so far over the top that its a joke that something like this is even possible. How naive is our society that we could be so blind as to not see the hypocricy here. Seriously, we handed out Nobel Peace prizes to people that, quite literally, have peddled out wrong information to the world. Nobel Peace prize!!
So if you fit the agenda you are awarded and praised. If you counter that agenda you get censured. Huh?!?!
After you read this, think about who/what/why this happened. Focus on trying to think about the 'who'. Someone with some pretty big pockets is controlling this.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy fanatic but I dont know how else to express my disbelief. Here's the report.
Channel 4 to be censured for controversial global warming film
By Laura Clout
Last updated: 9:35 AM BST 19/07/2008
The makers of a Channel 4 documentary which claimed that global warming is a swindle misrepresented the views of some of the world's leading climate scientists, the media watchdog is expected to rule next week.
In a judgment at the end of a 15-month enquiry, Ofcom is expected to censure the channel over The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast in March last year.
The film sparked outcry from environmentalists and led to a complaint from a group of senior scientists about apparent errors, distortions and misrepresentations.
It is thought that complaints about privacy and fairness from the Government's former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Nobel peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be upheld on almost all counts.
But the Guardian reported that a separate complaint about accuracy will find that Channel 4 did not breach the regulator's broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers.
The controversy over the film, made by director Martin Durkin, has continued to rage in newspapers and online.
Critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research and employed misleading arguments.
At the time Channel 4 defended the programme, saying it was a useful contribution to a well-timed debate and that it had also aired programmes supporting the opposite side of the argument.
A spokesman for the network refused to comment before the ruling was published.
Story from Telegraph News:
8 Feb 2017 - 16:43
17 Jan 2017 - 14:03
20 Apr 2016 - 19:12
19 Jan 2016 - 23:45
19 Jan 2016 - 17:44
18 Jan 2016 - 16:37
9 Feb 2015 - 14:30
24 Jan 2015 - 22:31
24 Jan 2015 - 19:20
24 Jan 2015 - 19:16
Your mailbox is full....lol...makes it hard to send you a message
24 Dec 2009 - 14:56
2 Feb 2009 - 19:34
Have a Happy Birthday Monsoon!! Enjoy your day!!
2 Feb 2009 - 16:54
Happy birthday to you! Happy birthday to you! Happy birthday dear monsoonevans! Happy birthday to you!
2 Feb 2009 - 9:27
Happy B'day monsoon!
2 Feb 2009 - 8:51
Active: 22nd February 2017 - 07:54 PM
Active: 4th March 2008 - 11:11 AM
Active: 22nd February 2017 - 12:25 PM
Active: 13th February 2014 - 12:34 AM
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 26th February 2017 - 09:43 PM|