|
Post by hereandthere on Oct 21, 2009 17:34:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 21, 2009 22:30:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hereandthere on Oct 22, 2009 23:40:46 GMT
Went to the source... NOAA:
Hi Richard,
We were forced to change the initialization of the production model on Friday 18 Sept due to severe instabilities in the existing initialization. The new initialization significantly reduced the surface eddy activity in the model, most of which was anomalous in nature and not reflected in physical observations of the Atlantic Ocean. The re-initialization also corrected severe errors in the Gulf Stream path and transport values. We are in the process of testing an upgrade to the RTOFS model that incorporates a number of other improvements.
A notice went out on the RTOFS Users List in September:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:09:36 -0400 From: Avichal Mehra <avichal.mehra@noaa.gov> Subject: [rtofs-users] RTOFS- Atlantic operational upgrade To: ncep.list.rtofs-users@noaa.gov Cc: Dwight Gledhill <Dwight.Gledhill@noaa.gov>, "Allen, Arthur" <Arthur.A.Allen@uscg.mil> Message-ID: <4AB3F710.9070108@noaa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
A new initialization was implemented today for the RTOFS- Atlantic operations. This was needed to fix numerical problems near the southern open boundary of the model domain. A significant change with improvements in the overall ocean state is expected.
The product line remains the same as before.
Please note that this change today is independent of the already planned upgrade of RTOFS-Atlantic production next month.
======================================================== Dr. Avichal Mehra Avichal.Mehra@noaa.gov W/NP2, NOAA, WWB #207 5200 Auth Road Camp Springs Ph. 301-763-8000 x7208 MD 20746-4304 Fax: 301-763-8545
-- Dr. Todd Spindler Support Scientist - SAIC Todd.Spindler@noaa.gov Marine Modeling and Analysis Branch NOAA/NWS National Centers for Environmental Prediction
I was getting a little concerned, also!
R.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 23, 2009 13:45:48 GMT
Thanks for the update. It would appear that the new model doesn't envisage much of a Gulf Stream current either though
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Oct 23, 2009 18:05:00 GMT
Something must have gone wrong with the "calibration" then.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 23, 2009 22:52:55 GMT
Wait...you're telling me models aren't infallible?
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Nov 2, 2009 23:25:02 GMT
Hate to do this, but look at this piece. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/Apparently there is no global cooling (according to statisticians). The report claims that the Earth is still warming at a rapid rate. I'm trying to find out who these guys are. Nothing as of yet. Is this another move by the politicians? I can't tell.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 2, 2009 23:52:45 GMT
Its not "still warming at a rapid rate" as that wouldn't require statisticians to determine if it was rising or falling. It's just the latest attempt to try to justify a lack of warming. If nothing else the behavior of the climate system has changed quite a bit over the past decade. As so many have pointed out to the true denialists of the world (those worried about SUBSTANTIAL anthropogenic global warming) any attempt to explain away the temperature plateau of the 2000's necessarily increases the amount of natural warming during the warm period.
If they say it's the solar minimum...then the sun caused some of the temperature increases of the last century. If they say it's the ocean currents going into a cooling mode they must acknowledge that the warming period was also partly from those same currents. There's no question that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than suggested by the IPCC. Everyone's just deluding themselves into believing otherwise in spite of observational evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 3, 2009 9:19:08 GMT
Hate to do this, but look at this piece. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/Apparently there is no global cooling (according to statisticians). The report claims that the Earth is still warming at a rapid rate. I'm trying to find out who these guys are. Nothing as of yet. Is this another move by the politicians? I can't tell. It should be noted that MSNBC is owned by GE whose CEO works closely with the Obama Administration and is set to make a huge amount on the so-called 'green economy' such as the 'smart grid' and wind turbines etc.
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Nov 3, 2009 12:08:12 GMT
Hate to do this, but look at this piece. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/Apparently there is no global cooling (according to statisticians). The report claims that the Earth is still warming at a rapid rate. I'm trying to find out who these guys are. Nothing as of yet. Is this another move by the politicians? I can't tell. It should be noted that MSNBC is owned by GE whose CEO works closely with the Obama Administration and is set to make a huge amount on the so-called 'green economy' such as the 'smart grid' and wind turbines etc. That probably explains it. Where do you think they got their data from?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 3, 2009 14:29:42 GMT
It should be noted that MSNBC is owned by GE whose CEO works closely with the Obama Administration and is set to make a huge amount on the so-called 'green economy' such as the 'smart grid' and wind turbines etc. That probably explains it. Where do you think they got their data from? There is a lot of massaged data or suspect data about then there are clever statistical games that can be played with any data (look at Mann's hockey stick). The problem is that we are in the run up to the Copenhagen Treaty discussions. I expect to see many highly publicized studies in the next few weeks hoping that there is insufficient time for any 'errors' to be found before politicians use them for their arguments.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Nov 3, 2009 19:41:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Nov 3, 2009 21:56:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 4, 2009 2:58:51 GMT
I presume that the start image of the set is an observation then that is followed sequentially by forecasts further out. So the start conditions for the model are valid. Not a pretty thought if the Gulf Stream is getting hiccups
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 4, 2009 4:13:58 GMT
[Snip] Not a pretty thought if the Gulf Stream is getting hiccups For this non-scientific type, could you give a short explanation, please?
|
|