"...A Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego-led research team analyzing satellite cloud records has found that the cloudy storm tracks on Earth are moving toward the poles and subtropical dry zones are expanding. Cloud tops are also moving higher in the atmosphere.
The record confirms computer climate models that have predicted these changes to have taken place during the past several decades as a consequence of the accumulation of societally generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"What this paper brings to the table is the first credible demonstration that the cloud changes we expect from climate models and theory are currently happening," said study lead author Joel Norris, a climate researcher at Scripps.
..."
So the climate models have been predicting these climate changes in advance of those observations that would confirm those changes and now we are observing exactly those same climate changes those climate models had predicted.
I think that's an excellent vindication of those climate models and a strong indicator (amongst others) that the climate models are at least broadly on the right track.
I am impressed.
And bear in mind that climate models are becoming ever more sophisticated and evolving and improving all the time.
Originally posted by humy http://phys.org/news/2016-07-clouds-higher-subtropical-zones-satellite.html
"...A Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego-led research team analyzing satellite cloud records has found that the cloudy storm tracks on Earth are moving toward the poles and subtropical dry zones are expanding. Cloud tops are also moving higher i ...[text shortened]... hat climate models are becoming ever more sophisticated and evolving and improving all the time.
"And bear in mind that climate models are becoming ever more sophisticated and evolving and improving all the time."
Translation: A little less horribly unreliable than they were. Still pathetic!
This is from a man that, unlike me and most of us here, doesn't know the first thing about real science let alone computer models thus obviously doesn't know in the slightest what he is talking about. All he does is constantly shout ignorant arrogant infantile assertions (not 'arguments' ) at us scientists, that know a LOT more about it than he will ever do, implying without justification we are the ones that are wrong about the science. What he stupidly never gets is that virtually everyone reading his posts notices he doesn't know what he is talking about and that he is constantly wrong all the time thus making it clear to everyone reading his posts what kind of person he really is.
Recent studies suggest that around 70 to 80 percent of people in Europe support wind farms, although there are still concerns regarding noise and aesthetics.
..."
I am just glad the vast majority of people look at the wider picture and not just local noise and aesthetics thus are in general supportive of wind.
Originally posted by humy This is from a man that, unlike me and most of us here, doesn't know the first thing about real science let alone computer models thus obviously doesn't know in the slightest what he is talking about. All he does is constantly shout ignorant arrogant infantile assertions (not 'arguments' ) at us scientists, that know a LOT more about it than he will ever do, im ...[text shortened]... ll the time thus making it clear to everyone reading his posts what kind of person he really is.
Ridiculous. You know nothing about computer models and you prove that. Computer models have failed miserably time and time again and that is a FACT! You do not like being confused by facts so you arrogantly try to speak for the entire forum which is extremely stupid and transparent.
Science is not a trend. You need to prove your assertions without false beliefs from the political spectrum. You have not done that. You are not a climate scientist and you know nearly nothing about the science that unlike you they know a lot about.
You are engaging in "group think" which is blinding you to the facts you should be considering in an unbiased way. You are constantly ignoring the facts you do not want to consider and embracing the few facts that do not make your case at all. Breaking heat records does not prove man is the "primary cause" of global warming and cherry picking one or two predictions that come close does not fairly represent the countless number of failures of computer models you choose to ignore. That is not good science.
You are a clearly a person who has his mind made up and does not want to be confused with facts.
Originally posted by Metal Brain ...You know nothing about computer models ....
I have studied computer modelling at university as part of my computer science courses and passed relevant courses with good grades + I am currently using computer models as part of my science research into statistical analysis and I have been doing so for years thus I have years of actual practical experience using computer models and am well familiar with what they can achieve.
You, in contrast, have no such credentials, thus you speak here with arrogant ignorance.
Please don't lecture to us science experts about computer models (or any other science), thanks.
observations confirm climate model predictions
17 Jul '16 07:146 edits
Back to Top