Climate Models Overheat Antarctica

[bruce]

Computer analyses of global climate have consistently overstated warming in Antarctica, concludes new research by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Ohio State University.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0507132855.htm

[screener]

Just what we needed to hear,

"Part of the reason that Antarctica has barely warmed has to do with the ozone hole over the continent. The lack of ozone is chilling the middle and upper atmosphere, altering wind patterns in a way that keeps comparatively warm air from reaching the surface."

Can you imagine what the cfc manufaturers are saying now....

[forfismum]

So this makes a point to me that most computer models are a waste of time as the inputs are all wrong,incomplete or just plain fabrications.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by forfismum

So this makes a point to me that most computer models are a waste of time as the inputs are all wrong,incomplete or just plain fabrications.

Garbage in = Garbage out

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by forfismum

So this makes a point to me that most computer models are a waste of time as the inputs are all wrong,incomplete or just plain fabrications.

As it happens, I use computer modelling on a frequent basis.
For all sorts of stuff.
When we submit a quotation we are often required to guarantee certain technical parameters like harmonics and efficiency. Failure to comply invokes serious financial penalty. To date, my computer models have been robust.

[Peter Ravenscroft]

The map world showing the core-mantle magnetic flux changes modelled by Jeremy Bloxham of Harvard in 1995, fairly closely matches the Antarctic Peninsula and eastern Siberia maximum warming trend anomalies, as per the NASA'GISS temperature trend maps. He did not make the climate-change inference, I am the guilty party there, I suspect. If geomagnetic changes are not the primary driver, this still rules out fossil fuels, as there is no way you can rev up old Holdens or run coal-fired power stations down there, not even if your name is Saint Nick. The ashtrays would melt.

See Is climate change linked to geomagnetic changes? | for the preliminary stuff, if interested. Or email P.S.Ravenscroft@gmail.com to debate it, or do so here. whatever suits.

The imminent problem is not climate change but oilout, with foodout as its offspring. I think. See Public Food Trees - Home for some ideas as to what to do.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

As it happens, I use computer modelling on a frequent basis.
For all sorts of stuff.
When we submit a quotation we are often required to guarantee certain technical parameters like harmonics and efficiency. Failure to comply invokes serious financial penalty. To date, my computer models have been robust.

I did use the word most Computers have their uses,I have quiet a family of them around me right now and fully understand the wonders that we can perform with their assistance.But but but,some,maybe too many.programs have the compilers bias built in .This seems to be the case with climate models which are built mainly on guesswork and whimsey.It is my understanding that the model used by the IPCC for example will "prove" AGW no matter what numbers you feed it.Spadlet has made the observation "garbage in-garbage out" and I for one can not see you,Besoker,feeding in garbage .
How can any climate model be correct when we do not yet fully understand the El Nino/La Nina cycles? Or when the newly discovered North Pacific cousin of the "Gulf Stream" has not been factored in? Or the possibilities of geomagnetic influences as mentioned by our new member?

[Windguy]

My guess!!!

A new study had shown carbon soot is a known forcing beyond what they thought (They originally thought it was 0.4W/m^2 but has now been measured at 0.9W/m^2). Compare that to CO2's 1.66W/m^2 and you can see driving dirty diesel vehicles are now a significant problem.

Now to relate that study to Antarctica and you'll see particulate matter doesn't blend like gases. What we do see is particulate matter runs a ring around the planet in the similar regions of China and Japan.

So the computer models were based upon CO2 increase measurements and the speed of heating. So by blaming CO2 and other gases they have incorporated Antarctica in the same realm.

But because 1/4 of our heating is from carbon soot and there is no fires in Antarctica, then there is less heating.

Why only Antarctica and not the Arctic is because the landmass underneath protects it from the heating ocean.

[cbacba]

windguy,

sorry but the diesel tends to sink to the ground very quickly and stay - yucking up around bus routes and freeways. However, for much of the spring, we have suffered from lots of smoke here, some from massive wildfires in the US, including some very near by. Most recently, it's been smoke coming from the burning in the yucatan - across the gulf of mexico which is also covered with smoke visible to satellites and being shown on the 10pm weather forecasts. This smoke is easily visible just looking down the road and sometimes is so strong here that you can smell it as well, despite originating from many hundreds of miles away in another country. We also occaisionally see dust in the air brought over to the western gulf of mexico from the Sahara.

[Windguy]

Yes unburnt diesel just leaves an oily residue over everything, truly dirty injectors do that. You can tell because the smoke can show up to be yellow.

But besides unburn't fuel there is three different types of combustion compared to oxygen saturation and their byproducts are CO2, CO, and C. Dirty injectors don't allow the fuel and air to mix well, leading to either the decreased combustion or at the worst unburnt fuel. C is obviously carbon soot which is a very fine black powder.