|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 14, 2018 19:04:29 GMT
" An “Exceptionally large amount of winter snow in Northern Hemisphere this year” Anthony Watts / 1 hour ago March 14, 2018
From the Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past department and the Finnish Meteorological Institute comes this press release today.
Exceptionally large amount of winter snow in Northern Hemisphere this year
The new Arctic Now product developed by the Finnish Meteorological Institute shows with one picture the extent of the area in the Northern Hemisphere currently covered by ice and snow. This kind of information, which shows the accurate state of the Arctic, becomes increasingly important due to climate change. The Arctic region will be discussed at the Arctic Meteorological Week which begins in Levi next week."wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/14/an-exceptionally-large-amount-of-winter-snow-in-northern-hemisphere-this-year/
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Apr 3, 2018 7:28:57 GMT
Satellite temp fig for end March: +0.24 degC
Tad higher than last month, to my surprise.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Apr 4, 2018 2:45:05 GMT
Satellite temp fig for end March: +0.24 degC Tad higher than last month, to my surprise. Dougavers, back in December 2017 when the UAH6 anomaly was at 0.41C, my analysis lead me to project that the average for the first half of 2018 would fall below 0.18C which is my predicted average temperature for 2007-2037. For the first 3 months of 2018, the average anomaly fell significantly to 0.23C which is notable progress but as you note March was a smidgen warmer than February. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 4, 2018 3:47:24 GMT
Satellite temp fig for end March: +0.24 degC Tad higher than last month, to my surprise. I think that what you are seeing is the weighting that the so called 'global average temperature' metric puts on the arctic temperatures. March had the back end of the spike due to SSW and the wildly meridonal jets. In any case, averaging temperatures is a mathematical nonsense as they are intensive variables. 'Averaging' (really finding the mathematical mean of) maximum and minimum observations is meaningless as they are merely measurements of peak values of an intensive variable that does not alter in a continuous sine wave.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 4, 2018 9:12:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Apr 9, 2018 15:50:26 GMT
Some wiggle watching for anyone who's interested....
The official UAH6 monthly anomaly for March was 0.24C. According to my calculations which are generally within about 0.05C of the official UAH6 numbers, the daily anomalies near the end of March were quite high with a value of 0.45C on March 29.
Since then the daily anomalies per my estimate have fallen rapidly, all the way down to -0.02C on April 6 and the April average which started very warm is now down to 0.13C.
These daily numbers do bounce around, so the final average for the month of April is still hard to estimate, but there's been a lot of cooling since the end of March.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Apr 21, 2018 18:52:44 GMT
The daily satellite anomalies are going wild. Per my calculations, they (UAH6) fell from 0.45C on March 29 to -0.03C on April 6. Since then they have risen to 0.50C. This chart shows the large swing and no sign yet of reversal although that's bound to happen soon.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 18, 2018 16:52:44 GMT
Almost hidden in the WUWT scroll rate... Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling Anthony Watts / 1 day ago May 17, 2018
The drop in temperatures at least merits a “Hey, what’s going on here?” story.
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/17/dont-tell-anyone-but-we-just-had-two-years-of-record-breaking-global-cooling/Nothing to see here - move along - these aren't the results you've been looking for....
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 18, 2018 18:52:25 GMT
Almost hidden in the WUWT scroll rate... Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling Anthony Watts / 1 day ago May 17, 2018
The drop in temperatures at least merits a “Hey, what’s going on here?” story.
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/17/dont-tell-anyone-but-we-just-had-two-years-of-record-breaking-global-cooling/Nothing to see here - move along - these aren't the results you've been looking for.... But these pesky Deniers keep showing awkward cooling data using official numbers. Adjustment algorithms have been exposed. Either the majority of the rank and file professionals were never involved in the adjusting per se. You need an adjustment section to do a really good job ... a team of specialists by government definition ... "the blend and smooth and trend section". Culling by exile to some very cold instrument installation suggested ... and many are deciding perhaps to see a new light.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 24, 2018 13:12:22 GMT
Is that the first time Chinese scientists have published anything alarming?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 24, 2018 18:11:59 GMT
Is that the first time Chinese scientists have published anything alarming? If you wanted America to continue to waste resources on bogus projects, that's what I'd tell my scientists to publish. And then I'd ignore it. BONUS - your scientists could get fancy, all expense paid travel to the West to speak before adoring crowds ... and maybe some grants too.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 25, 2018 0:53:56 GMT
Is that the first time Chinese scientists have published anything alarming? If you wanted America to continue to waste resources on bogus projects, that's what I'd tell my scientists to publish. And then I'd ignore it. BONUS - your scientists could get fancy, all expense paid travel to the West to speak before adoring crowds ... and maybe some grants too. Good point!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 26, 2018 0:51:24 GMT
Impact of Physics Parameterization Ordering in a Global Atmosphere ModelAbstract
Because weather and climate models must capture a wide variety of spatial and temporal scales, they rely heavily on parameterizations of subgrid‐scale processes. The goal of this study is to demonstrate that the assumptions used to couple these parameterizations have an important effect on the climate of version 0 of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) General Circulation Model (GCM), a close relative of version 1 of the Community Earth System Model (CESM1). Like most GCMs, parameterizations in E3SM are sequentially split in the sense that parameterizations are called one after another with each subsequent process feeling the effect of the preceding processes. This coupling strategy is noncommutative in the sense that the order in which processes are called impacts the solution. By examining a suite of 24 simulations with deep convection, shallow convection, macrophysics/microphysics, and radiation parameterizations reordered, process order is shown to have a big impact on predicted climate. In particular, reordering of processes induces differences in net climate feedback that are as big as the intermodel spread in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. One reason why process ordering has such a large impact is that the effect of each process is influenced by the processes preceding it. Where output is written is therefore an important control on apparent model behavior. Application of k‐means clustering demonstrates that the positioning of macro/microphysics and shallow convection plays a critical role on the model solution.That sounds somewhat similar the processes that chaotically affect climate/weather. Does all this suggest that CMIP5 is a waste of time?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 26, 2018 1:02:25 GMT
Impact of Physics Parameterization Ordering in a Global Atmosphere ModelAbstract
Because weather and climate models must capture a wide variety of spatial and temporal scales, they rely heavily on parameterizations of subgrid‐scale processes. The goal of this study is to demonstrate that the assumptions used to couple these parameterizations have an important effect on the climate of version 0 of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) General Circulation Model (GCM), a close relative of version 1 of the Community Earth System Model (CESM1). Like most GCMs, parameterizations in E3SM are sequentially split in the sense that parameterizations are called one after another with each subsequent process feeling the effect of the preceding processes. This coupling strategy is noncommutative in the sense that the order in which processes are called impacts the solution. By examining a suite of 24 simulations with deep convection, shallow convection, macrophysics/microphysics, and radiation parameterizations reordered, process order is shown to have a big impact on predicted climate. In particular, reordering of processes induces differences in net climate feedback that are as big as the intermodel spread in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. One reason why process ordering has such a large impact is that the effect of each process is influenced by the processes preceding it. Where output is written is therefore an important control on apparent model behavior. Application of k‐means clustering demonstrates that the positioning of macro/microphysics and shallow convection plays a critical role on the model solution.That sounds somewhat similar the processes that chaotically affect climate/weather. Does all this suggest that CMIP5 is a waste of time? This is basic software engineering 101.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 19, 2018 0:07:51 GMT
|
|