the model has improved operational weather forecasts and as Dr. Ross Hoffman states, "more accurate simulation of cloudiness means more accurate forecasts of climate change due to carbon dioxide increases."

Nice.....

Once they figure out how to improve the accuracy of short term forecasts, perhaps the medium and long term forecasts will be better than a random number generator. (aka AGW funding generator.)

But I keep forgetting that weather and climate are unrelated.

Well.. on face value, sounds good more accuracy is always better, but a question persists, how do they really know if they are accurate in their representations of atmospheric gases? That is the rub here, model the gases, but put them in the wrong orientation and I would think you would get fouled up answers. But it does lead to the thinking that if this is an increase in accuracy... then the models currently being used are not that good....so maybe the're not that accurate....

And more importantly, a 5% increase in accuracy is still an increase, but 5% of a 40% current accuracy rate only increases it to 42%. Still kinda bad.

***Made up numbers here people, I have no idea how accurate modeling is but I would presume that it is pretty poor based upon shorter term weather models. You know the sort about 6 months out or so, and I think we all would agree that these systems are not that accurate***

you get the idea.

What some readers may not realize is that while Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and halocarbons are the primary drivers of global warming (about 2.5 watts/m2) the aerosol effect of increase water vapor is being modeled as cooling (about 0.7 watt/m2).

The cooling from water vapor is due to the increased albedo of clouds. However, the amount of uncertainity of this cooling component is any where from -1.6 to -0.2 watts/m2.

In other words, while scientist are higly confident that global warming is due to greenhouse gases, the largest uncertainity in the modeling of the long term consequences is due to the amount of clouds.

For further details review the IPCC Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis":

www.ipcc.ch

From AER's website:

"AER results to date do not support claims that the major mode of atmospheric variability is in a robust positive trend, or that it is contributing in a consistent manner to the global warming trend."

http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/cd/cd2.html

In other words, AER's research shows that global warming is primarily due to anthropogenic forcing.

Another intesting comment from AER:

"Early season snow cover remains the single most skillful predictor of the winter AO/NAO."

Unfortunately no comments from AER regarding the Greenland block and the ever thickening troposphere.

Andrew,

Glad to see that you found a souce other than the IPCC. I was beginning to think that maybe you were getting a kickback the way you were pushing their report. Now you need to branch out and take a gander at other sources including sources that do not support your obvious position.

Having said that, models are models. You know, GIGO. As long as they keep using their old assumptions, the results will be the same as was stated in the article. Case in point, the grid cell size, as I understnd it, used in many of the models is too large to accurately simulate the effects of thunderstorms, tornados, etc.

The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation. I am write a blog which gave complete information about Global Warming.

Andrew,

"the aerosol effect of increase water vapor is being modeled as cooling (about 0.7 watt/m2).

The cooling from water vapor is due to the increased albedo of clouds. However, the amount of uncertainity of this cooling component is any where from -1.6 to -0.2 watts/m2.

In other words, while scientist are higly confident that global warming is due to greenhouse gases, the largest uncertainity in the modeling of the long term consequences is due to the amount of clouds."

Great argument against the value of the models. H20 is also a greenhouse gas, and a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Yet various modelers have chosen to assume that H20 is having a net cooling effect, without (as you describe) having quantitative data to back that up.

Sounds like the precursor to:

"Opps we were wrong, its going to get deathly cold for the next 50 years" or " previous models may have amplified the current warming trend". Blah, blah, blah. There are way too many important things to worry about in this day and age, like some nut job setting of a suitcase nuke. Now that is some global warming to be concerned with. They have hard enough time with 5 day forecast, never mind the next 50 years. File the whole global warming thing under "Spare me".

jon

There are way too many important things to worry about in this day and age, like some nut job setting of a suitcase nuke. Now that is some global warming to be concerned with. They have hard enough time with 5 day forecast, never mind the next 50 years. File the whole global warming thing under "Spare me."

REPLY: GASP, Jon! How could you say such a thing? Why would anyone want to set off a suit case nuke? I thought everybody loved everybody, and joins hands and sings cum-by-ya in unison! File the whole global warming thing under "Spare Me?" How could you!....;-DDDDDDD.....

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

The climate modelers are at least good for a laugh...

News release
11 April 2007
Met Office (UK) forecast for Summer 2007

The latest seasonal forecast from the UK Met Office issued today, reveals that this summer is, yet again, likely to be warmer than normal.

Following the trend set throughout 2006 and the first part of 2007, seasonal forecasters say there is a high probability that summer temperature will exceed the 1971-2000 long-term average of 14.1 �C.....there are no indications of an increased risk of a particularly dry or particularly wet summer.....Through the summer we can experience periods of very hot weather
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070411.html

Now they are saying it is probably going to be one of the coldest and rainiest summers on record in the UK.

NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted

NOAA image of NOAA's 2007 Atlantic hurricane season outlook.May 22, 2007 � Experts at the NOAA Climate Prediction Center are projecting a 75 percent chance that the Atlantic Hurricane Season will be above normal this year�showing the ongoing active hurricane era remains strong. ..."For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to 17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher"
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm

End of July, no hurricanes. They will need to have about two hurricanes a week through September to get caught up.

Think we should raise taxes and elect Al Gore based on this hard core science?

Paul,

I saw an interesting version of GIGO that fits AGW quite well. Garbage In, Gospel Out.

I'm not so sure we should be buying into a company that is Big Anthropogenic Global Warming. Their research is done solely to make themselves profits. No doom & gloom, no reason for most to buy there products/services. Actually, I'd like to see one bit of proof that AGW exists. Currently, there is as much proof that aliens are crashing into our planet as CO2 is causing GW.

Andrew,

I encourage you to read the entire Scientific Basis from the IPCC, before you continue to use it as a source. The IPCC reports are the biggest hunks of crap written on this subject. I'm curious as to why you are referencing the "ever thickening troposphere"? What significance does this have and why do you think it is occurring?

Regards,

Steve

good post mr henry,

i dont know if i could ever be a meteorologist...they are never right...i guess thats why they deal in 20 %, 30 % chances of precip because they need to cover their backsides...but low and behold, when it comes to agw, there are scam artist's out there saying trust us, we can predict 50 years in the future within 1 degree of temperature...keeping pointing out how often the weathermen are wrong on their big near future forecasts mr henry because the scamsters will try to drown you out with their hocus pocus maybe's, might be's, could be's, what if's, some scientist's say, i heard it thru the grape vine's, my sister's best friend's 3rd cousin heard at the beauty shop, and lets play make believe movies...have a nice sunny warm day, its a good thing!!!

It's interesting how deniers, through sheer ignorance, automatically assume that if a climate model will be incorrect, it will err on the side of overestimating the warmth. Thus far, the most glaring inaccuracy in the climate models is how they've underestimated the impressive warmth in the Arctic. The models had predicted about a one or two degree rise; instead, what we've seen is a 7 to 10 degree rise in temperature up there just over the past 20 years. The models have also significantly underestimated the amount of ice loss that has already occured.

But hey, it was a little cool this morning -- surely, this means AGW isn't real. Nothing to see here, move on.

NGW Steve,

Garbage In, Gospel Out is exactly the result of my models. They have been that way for quite some time.

Mark,

You must alway assume that a model is incorrect by their very nature. Models are put together to mimic a complex system through simplistic means. The glaring inaccuracy in the models is the fact that they haven't been able to duplicate the past. You can't predict the future without duplicating the past. It's called calibration. Therefore by not being able to duplicate the past the models have no realistic starting point.

It certainly has been a cold few months across portions of southern South America. The frequent passage of cold fronts with chilly air straight from Antarctica has led to a very chilly late fall and early winter in the Argentine capital. Beginning on May 6; there has been only one day, June 5, when daily temperatures have averaged above normal. That means that of the 70 days that have passed since May 6; 69 of the 70 have been at or below normal on average.
http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0®ion=worldnews&date=2007-07-14_13:48

Record cold in Australia and South America in June. Russia and eastern Europe was cold in June, as was most of Greenland and the central US.

None of this stopped the NOAA political arm from declaring June to be the "warmest ever."

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Ah, statistics, aka sadistics, or how to lie with numbers.

Despite all the nonsense press releases about record warm ocean temperatures this year, ocean temperatures remain normal in Caribbean Basin and South Atlantic. And of course, no hurricanes this year.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly.html

Reply, actually Patrick, the latest Reynolds sea surface anomaly from July 21st shows much of the Caribbean basin slightly above normal, about +1 celsius on average, and this has been fairly constant over the past few months. Brett

This underscores my point Patrick that natural variability can offset human additions of ghgs. But this has no bearing on the overall warming trend. We must wait and see.