Archive for the ‘climate models’ Category

Climate model output is now "data"

08/16/2011

Both [Seth] Wenger [a fisheries researcher with Trout Unlimited in Boise] and [Dan] Isaak, a fisheries biologist at the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station in Boise, were a part of a team of 11 scientists who said trout habitat could drop by 50 percent over the next 70 years because of a warming world. The paper, published Monday in the peer-reviewed science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predicts native cutthroat habitat could decline by 58 percent.

The two men, who have devoted their lives to scientific research, say they depend on the scientific method and peer review to judge the quality of the research that underscores their findings. The climate predictions are based on 10 of the 20 climate models developed independently worldwide that all show the world is getting warmer.

The climate models have been right for 30 years and they are getting better all the time,” Isaak said.  …

The most dire climate models show temperatures in Idaho rising an average of 9 degrees in 70 years, Wenger said.  …

“I have to set aside my feelings and use the best data,” he said.  …

But what if all the climate models are wrong?

There just is not a lot of data supporting the alternative view,” Wenger said.  “Idaho trout face climate trouble, study finds

Advertisements

DOI issues new model-based alarmist report

04/26/2011

“Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today released a report that assesses climate change risks and how these risks could impact water operations, hydropower, flood control, and fish and wildlife in the western United States. The report to Congress, prepared by Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, represents the first consistent and coordinated assessment of risks to future water supplies across eight major Reclamation river basins, including the Colorado, Rio Grande and Missouri river basins.  …

The report, which responds to requirements under the SECURE Water Act of 2009, shows several increased risks to western United States water resources during the 21st century. Specific projections include:

  • a temperature increase of 5-7 degrees Fahrenheit;
  • a precipitation increase over the northwestern and north-central portions of the western United States and a decrease over the southwestern and south-central areas;
  • a decrease for almost all of the April 1st snowpack, a standard benchmark measurement used to project river basin runoff; and
  • an 8 to 20 percent decrease in average annual stream flow in several river basins, including the Colorado, the Rio Grande, and the San Joaquin.  …

To develop the report, Reclamation used original research and a literature synthesis of existing peer-reviewed studies. Projections of future temperature and precipitation are based on multiple climate models and various projections of future greenhouse gas emissions, technological advancements, and global population estimates.”  “Interior Releases Report Highlighting Impacts of Climate Change to Western Water Resources

Latest critter deemed threatened by climate modelers

02/03/2011

“The aggressive wolverine may not be powerful enough to survive climate change in the contiguous United States, new research concludes.

Wolverine habitat in the northwestern United States is likely to warm dramatically if society continues to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, according to new computer model simulations carried out at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).”  “Wolverine Population Threatened by Climate Change

Spencer on Dressler's new paper

12/09/2010

“[Andrew] Dessler’s [new] paper [here] claims to show that cloud feedback is indeed positive, and generally supportive of the cloud feedbacks exhibited by the IPCC computerized climate models.  …

Unfortunately, the central evidence contained in the paper is weak at best, and seriously misleading at worst. It uses flawed logic to ignore recent advancements we have made in identifying cloud feedback.  …

The answer lies in an issue that challenges researchers in most scientific disciplines – separating cause from effect.

Dessler’s claim (and the IPCC party line) is that cloud changes are caused by temperature changes, and not the other way around. Causation only occurs in one direction, not the other.

In their interpretation, if one observes a warmer year being accompanied by fewer clouds, then that is evidence of positive cloud feedback. Why? Because if warming causes fewer clouds, it lets in more sunlight, which then amplifies the warming. That is positive cloud feedback in a nutshell.

But what if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming? In other words, what if previous researchers have simply mixed up cause and effect when estimating cloud feedback?

What we demonstrated in our JGR paper earlier this year is that when cloud changes cause temperature changes, it gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback – even if strongly negative cloud feedback is really operating!

What we showed was basically a new diagnostic capability that can, to some extent, separate cause from effect. This is a fundamental advancement – and one that the news media largely refused to report on.  …

The weak reasoning the paper employs – and the evidence we published which it purposely ignores! – combined with the great deal of media attention it will garner at a time when the IPCC needs to regain scientific respectability (especially after Climategate), makes this new Science paper just one more reason why the public is increasingly distrustful of the scientific community when it comes to research having enormous policy implications.”  “The Dessler Cloud Feedback Paper in Science: A Step Backward for Climate Research

Lindzen: epic fail of climate models

11/17/2010

“Feedbacks as measured by ERBE and CERES
(after corrections described by Trenberth et al, 2009)

[see table on p. 39 here]  …

Note that feedbacks are negative.

For all models, the feedbacks are positive

[see table on p. 40]”

Global Warming:  How to approach the science

Paper by William Gray and Barry Schwartz: water vapor feedback is negative

05/06/2010

1.  INTRODUCTION

Global warming scenarios from CO2 increases are envisioned to bring about rainfall enhancement and resulting upper tropospheric water vapor rise. This initial water vapor enhancement has been hypothesized and programmed in climate models to develop yet additional rainfall and water vapor increase. This causes an extra blockage of IR energy to space (a positive feedback warming mechanism). This additional rainfall and IR blockage is modeled to be approximately twice as large as the additional rainfall needed to balance the increased CO2 by itself. The reality of this additional warming and extra IR blockage has been questioned by many of us. This study analyzes a wide variety of infrared (IR) radiation differences which are associated with rainfall differences on different space and time scales. Our goal is to determine the extent to which the positive rainfall feedbacks as are included in the climate model simulations are realistic.  …

This analysis shows they are not realistic.  …

2.  FINDINGS

a)
The albedo increase occurring over the top of strong precipitation and cloudy regions rises at a greater rate than does the rate of decrease of IR within these rainy and cloudy areas. Rainy and cloudy areas are local places of enhanced net radiation to space (Tables 1 and 2 and in idealized form in Figure 3). We have many other areas of rain differences which give similar results. In almost all rain and cloud areas we find that albedo energy flux rises at a greater rate than IR energy flux is reduced.  …

3.  IMPLICATIONS OF THESE OBSERVATIONS

The above measurements are at odds with the Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations of precipitation increase associated with rising CO2 amounts. Models show large tropical upper tropospheric temperature and water vapor increases to be associated with increased rates of precipitation (due to CO2 increases) that are similar to increased rates of precipitation that this study measures. We do not observe such upper tropospheric temperature and moisture increases for rainfall enhancements as do the modelers.  …

The climate modelers have assumed that as CO2 increases it will cause a progressive blockage of IR energy to space and, in addition, a further blockage of IR energy to space will occur from the original increase in upper-level water vapor. Increased IR blockage brings about a gradual increase in global temperature.  …

Our observations do not agree with these GCM scenarios. Our observations indicate that tropical RH [relative humidity] and moisture (q) rather than rising with enhanced precipitation do the opposite and actually go down as precipitation rates increase.  …

We find that there is not a positive water vapor feedback as the modelers have assumed. In fact we see the opposite. As rainfall increases upper-level water vapor contents are weakly reduced.  …

8. CONCLUSION

We find that as rainfall increases that there is not a reduction of global net radiation to space as most of the climate models have assumed. There is a weak enhancement of radiation to space with increased rainfall. We find no positive water vapor feedback.  …

A reduction of upper level RH of about 4 percent to go along with a lowering of the emission level of 7 mb would allow a doubling of CO2 to proceed with no warming (Figure 20). We estimate the extra precipitation from a doubling of CO2 to cause a negative (not positive) temperature feedback of about minus 0.6oC.”  “THE ASSOCIATION OF OUTGOING RADIATION WITH VARIATIONS OF PRECIPITATION – IMPLICATIONS FOR GLOBAL WARMING”  h/t Climate Realists

Lindzen and Choi's new paper out — confirms negative feedback, unlike AGW climate models

05/03/2010

Abstract: To estimate climate sensitivity from observations, Lindzen and Choi [2009] used the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent responses in the top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation from the ERBE satellite instrument. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SST were used to evaluate feedbacks. This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009], much of which was appropriate. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper in which the various criticisms are addressed and corrected. In this paper we supplement the ERBE data for 1985-1999 with data from CERES for 2000-2008. Our present analysis accounts for the 36 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper which simply used what may have been undue smoothing. The present analysis also distinguishes noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. Finally, a more reasonable approach to the zero-feedback flux is taken here. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics and extend the effect of these feedbacks to the global climate. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zero-feedback fluxes thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric GCMs [global climate models] forced by the observed SST are less than the zero-feedback fluxes consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The observational analysis implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”  “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications”  h/t The Hockey Schtick

Posts on Lindzen and Choi 2009 here, here, and here.

Stephen Wilde's new climate model

04/07/2010

“In my articles to date I have been unwilling to claim anything as grand as the creation of a new model of climate because until now I was unable to propose any solar mechanism that could result directly in global albedo changes without some other forcing agent or that could account for a direct solar cause of discontinuities in the temperature profile along the horizontal line of the oceanic thermohaline circulation.  I have now realised that the global albedo changes necessary and the changes in solar energy input to the oceans can be explained by the latitudinal shifts (beyond normal seasonal variation) of all the air circulation systems and in particular the net latitudinal positions of the three main cloud bands namely the two generated by the mid latitude jet streams plus the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).

The secret lies in the declining angle of incidence of solar energy input from equator to poles.

It is apparent that the same size and density of cloud mass moved, say, 1000 miles nearer to the equator will have the following effects:

i) It will receive more intense irradiation from the sun and so will reflect more energy to space.

ii) It will reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface compared to what it would have let in if situated more poleward.

iii) In the northern hemisphere due to the current land/sea distribution the more equatorward the cloud moves the more ocean surface it will cover thus reducing total solar input to the oceans and reducing the rate of accretion to ocean energy content.

iv) It will produce cooling rains over a larger area of ocean surface.

As a rule the ITCZ is usually situated north of the equator because most ocean is in the southern hemisphere and it is ocean temperatures that dictate it’s position by governing the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air. Thus if the two mid latitude jets move equatorward at the same time as the ITCZ moves closer to the equator the combined effect on global albedo and the amount of solar energy able to penetrate the oceans will be substantial and would dwarf the other proposed effects on albedo from changes in cosmic ray intensity generating changes in cloud totals as per Svensmark and from suggested changes caused in upper cloud quantities by changes in atmospheric chemistry involving ozone which various other climate sceptics propose.

Thus the following NCM will incorporate my above described positional cause of changes in albedo and rates of energy input to the oceans rather than any of the other proposals. That then leads to a rather neat solution to the other theories’ problems with the timing of the various cycles as becomes clear below.”

Read more here:  “A new and effective climate model

AGW climate models blow another prediction

03/26/2010

“New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years. The data suggest the circulation may have even sped up slightly in the recent past.

The findings are the result of a new monitoring technique, developed by oceanographer Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., using measurements from ocean-observing satellites and profiling floats. The findings are reported in the March 25 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

The Atlantic overturning circulation is a system of currents, including the Gulf Stream, that bring warm surface waters from the tropics northward into the North Atlantic. There, in the seas surrounding Greenland, the water cools, sinks to great depths and changes direction. What was once warm surface water heading north turns into cold deep water going south. This overturning is one part of the vast conveyor belt of ocean currents that move heat around the globe.  …

Willis found evidence that the circulation had sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009. This is the longest direct record of variability in the Atlantic overturning to date and the only one at high latitudes.

The latest climate models predict the overturning circulation will slow down as greenhouse gases warm the planet and melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean.”  “NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing

Paper: water vapor feedback NEGATIVE

02/14/2010

Abstract: The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.”  “Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data