Is this year what we can expect?
Is this year what we can expect?
In recent weeks a question I have been asked often, “is this year, the last couple of years, like what we can expect in the future?” The question is often asked quietly, perhaps by a planner, say, someone worried about water in their city. The question follows from not only a perception that the weather is getting “weird,”, but also some small aspect of experience in their job. For example, a water manager recently said they were seeing their local river showing a distinct change to sporadically high flow in the winter, smaller spring flows, and extremely small flow late in the summer. Is this what I should expect in the future? The short answer is yes.
This question of expectation has rolled around in my head for years. I am a gardener with aspirations for small farmer. Over the last 30 years, I have definitely pushed my planting earlier in the year. When I was in Maryland, I felt wet, cool Mays were becoming the “norm,” with my tomatoes sitting in sodden soil. At the same time I would recall plots I had seen in some recent presentation that showed modeled shifts in the warm-cold patterns suggesting springtime cooling in northeastern North America. These are the sorts of casual correlations that lead people to think are we seeing a new “normal.”
In 2008 I wrote a blog about the changes in the hardiness zones that are reported on the back of seed packages. These are the maps that tell us the last frost date, and there were big changes between 1990 and 2006. These changes in the seed packets caught the attention of a lot of people. Recently, NOAA published the “new normal.” This normal relies on the definition of climate as a 30 year average. (AMS Glossary) What was done - at the completion of the decade NOAA recalculated a 30 year average. That is, 1981-2010 rather than 1971-2000. This average changed a lot, with notable warming of nighttime minima. There was some regional reduction of summertime maxima; that is, cooling. All in all, the average temperature went up, with most of the increase in nighttime minimum, a fact that is consistent with both model simulations and fundamental physics. This also came with another update of those hardiness zones.
When trying to interpret climate information and determining how has climate changed and how will it change, the combination of observations, fundamental physics, and models provide three sources of information. The combination of this information and the determination of the quality of that information is subject to interpretation. In the case of determining whether or not we are already experiencing the climate of warming world and how that change will be realized in the next decades it depends on how we use the models.
In my previous entry on heat waves, I implied how to use these pieces of information together. There are fundamental physics in the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air; hot air holds more water; warm water evaporates more quickly. The question of the model is - how well does the model represent the movement of that moisture? For the heat wave example, it is important how well do the models represent persistent high pressure systems over North America in the summer? Are these high pressure systems represented well by the models for the right reasons? The answer to the model question has a range of answers. The model does represent these systems, but if you are an expert in summertime persistent high pressure systems, then you can provide a long list of inadequacies. How can we glean information about the quality of the model? If we look at weather models, then we were able to predict the heat wave – even with the inadequacies that the expert or skeptic can list. Returning to the climate model, do we see like events in the current climate, and do these events change as the planet warms? The answer is yes. Then can we use this to guide our development of plans to adapt to climate change? The answer is yes, if we can connect the model back to data and the fundamental physics. This does become a matter of interpretation – how strong or weak is that connection?
The more I work with planners the more I hear the need for interpretive information, expert guidance, advisories about climate and climate change. People start with the notion that they want digital data from climate models that looks like current weather data. Once presented with 1) the logistical challenges of using that data, 2) the complex nature of the uncertainties associated with that data, and 3) the relative importance of climate to other parts of their decision package – once presented with these facts, they move to the need for advice. This makes sense - most of us want a narrative weather forecast, rather than model output. And the models play the same role in the use of weather forecasts as they do in climate projection. The models guide our thinking, with the ultimate forecast based on that guidance refined by observations and fundamental physics.
This entry started with the question I hear more and more – is this year what we can expect more of in the future? I have a mantra which is that on average the surface of the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. What we are seeing here is weather changing in a warming, more energy laden, environment. The extraordinary extremes that we have seen in the last year and are seeing this year are quite solidly connected to both fundamental physics and the guidance from climate and weather models. Hence, my answer, as I walk around my garden, thinking how to get better tomatoes next year, thinking about my irrigation system in my doddering retirement, is yes, what we are seeing this year tells me about what to expect in a future that is relevant to me - not something far off.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
Who specifically says that? And where have the posted that?
I don't think I ever said that, nor have I ever read that. However, NOAA has long accounted for--and probably even overcompensated for--any bias. And even the much ballyhooed BEST project verified the extant thermometer readings. (Remember BEST? Up until the initial findings were released to the public, it was a denialist's dream. The funniest part was when Watts swore that no matter what the results, he would abide by them--but as soon as those results contradicted his ideological fantasy, he immediately pivoted and denounced the entire project.)
Watts can keep beating this horse all he wants, of course. It's silly and wasteful to be doing so. But he can do what he wishes.
On the plus side, he's only been a member since yesterday and has nearly 1,000 comments. Don't tell Taz... ;-)
.?
11 12:53 SE 12 G 17 10.00 Mostly Cloudy FEW040 SCT200 BKN300 95 72 95 83 29.88 1010.7
11 11:53 SE 10 G 18 10.00 Mostly Cloudy FEW040 SCT200 BKN300 92 73 29.89 1010.9
11 10:53 S 14 10.00 Mostly Cloudy FEW150 BKN250 90 73 29.88 1010.6
11 09:53 S 12 10.00 Fair CLR 87 73 29.87 1010.3
Looks like the streak will end today for DFW at 40. Outflow boundary currently passing through and should drop temps into the 80's.
Addendum: I mention this because I had been paying attention to this record in particular (family in Dallas, so I keep an eye on their weather).
I've seen some bad things, but this is the worst. I don't blog but lurk. It will be a shame cause this will shut the blogs down if a lot of trolls start doing it.
And this is EXACTLY why Admin needs to have a real live human monitoring the blog. But in all honesty? WU makes only a fraction of a fraction of it's profits from any of us on the blogs. Membership fees mean nothing when hundreds of thousands of dollars are being brought in from advertising, every month.
Don't believe me? Check into the cost of advertising on WU. I already have.
tell us how much it costs to advertise on wu please
Even if the spammer isn't telling others how to do this other trolls know it can be done now. This will be bad.
Here's the link to the beginning of contacting advertising for WU. Link
Wanna talk postage stamp size, a few hours a day, for a month? Do you own a small business? Know someone who does? Have them check it out.
Go do your own investigating, Drank. I don't ask anyone to do mine.
what? I'm just asking how much it costs to advertise. I'm not asking for a copy of their balance sheet.
its not important anyway. I just wanted a ballpark number.
sheesh
They don't make public thier advertising costs, and I probably should not, either. They deal with businesses, one on one.
My POINT IS, we bloggers and our silly membership fees MEAN NOTHING.
Link
Are you serious? Advertising rates aren't confidential and proprietary; if they were, no one would buy time or space. "Sorry, Mr. Advertiser. We can't tell you how much it will cost your for us to run your commercials; that's classified information. Just send us a signed, blank check." ;-)
Speaking of membership: I re-upped today.
LMAO!
Congratulations! You have managed to take a WUWT headline and article--itself already distorting the NCAR issue--and distorting it even further. That's quite a trick indeed! Now, let's see if we can follow your line of, er, "logic":
1) NCAR says their computer models show that, under certain unknown climate conditions, Arctic sea ice could stabilize or even increase in extent (though not thickness). The report also goes on to note that, regardless of any temporary stabilization or increase, ice will be gone entirely in summer not so many years down the road. NOTE: such a stabilization or increase has not happened; it is merely theoretically possible according to the models they used. (And, in fact, an MIT study to be published next month says that Arctic Sea ice is melting four times faster than predicted.)
2) WUWT ("We Use Wishful Thinking") picks up the story, but rather than state the obvious--that is, that the ice is disappearing sooner or later--it instead trumpets the possibility that the ice could stabilize or increase in extent.
3) WU's own "JB" takes that, and states unequivocally, "Looks like the Arctic ice 'death spiral' is 'temporarily' on hold".
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you spent a lot of time playing that children's game called "telephone" when you were younger. ;-)
Anyway, my bet still stands: barring some cataclysmic event such as a mega-volcano eruption, Arctic Sea ice will be gone entirely by as early as September of 2016, and no later than 2020.
And I thought there was something new and exciting going on to load up so many posts.
Nope, just a computer glitch and the same old same :)
Yeah, it looks like the end of the line for several consecutive-day hot streaks:
--Wichita Falls' 100-or-hotter streak will end at 50 (the previous record was 42). The 90-or-hotter streak will continue, however; today was #77. The city needs just three more 100-or-hotter days to tie the annual record of 79. (AFTER-EDIT: Wichita Falls shot up to 97 as of 4PM CDT, so it still has a chance of continuing the 100-or-hotter streak after all.)
--Oklahoma Cty's 90-or-hotter streak will end at 71, tying the old record. The city needs just four more 100-or-hotter days to tie the annual record of 50.
--Amarillo's 90-or-higher record will end at 50. The town has seen 39 100-or-hotter days this year, completely obliterating the previous annual total of 26.
--Ft. Smith, Arkansas' 100-or-hotter streak ended a few days ago at 35.
(Note: some heat over the next few hours could change some of what I just wrote, but I doubt it'll happen.)
And from this information you draw what conclusion?
edit: fixed typpoo
Link
I'm not sure what others would read into that, but the conclusion I'd draw would be that several near-record, record-setting, or record-tying consecutive day heat streaks are over.
You tell us:
4) Anthony Watts forgot this: ”an anthropogenic influence on the most extreme observed 1979-2010 negative trends is now evident for all trend lengths examined (2-54 years)”
Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world Link
I thought I remembered something like this before, so I went searching through my archives, and look what I found:
"Dr. Brinkhuis and many other veteran Arctic researchers caution that there is something of a paradox in Arctic trends: while the long-term fate of the region may be mostly sealed, no one should presume that the recent sharp warming and seasonal ice retreats that have caught the world's attention will continue smoothly into the future.
"The same Arctic feedbacks that are amplifying human-induced climate changes are amplifying natural variability," explained Asgeir Sorteberg, a climate modeler at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway.
"Indeed, experts say, there could easily be periods in the next few decades when the region cools and ice grows."
That was from October 25, 2005.
So, yes, Arctic Sea ice may temporarily stabilize or even increase--but it hasn't happened yet, and there's no guarantee at all that it will.
--Wichita Falls did officially make it to 100 degrees today, so the 100-or-hotter streak is extended to 51 days (previous record: 42). Just two to go to reach the record of 79 total in one year.
--Dallas officially made it to "only" 97, so the 100-or-hotter streak is indeed ended at 40.
Not according to this it won't and isn't!
..
Correct. But note that I didn't say it was going away for good by then; I said it would be gone in September, the annual low point for Arctic Sea ice extent. In fact, I've heard no one--not even the most over-reaching forecaster--predict that Arctic Sea ice will disappear for the entire year. That would simply require far more heat than GW alone would be able to produce.
But they also have many months of daylight in summer, and various positive feedbacks being observed, so I feel safe in making that statement, which, after all, isn't that bold.
Perhaps he will admit the weather pattern, not temperature, is responsible for the majority of the ice loss. That pattern has been in place for nearly a decade and is changing. Once the ice stops blowing out of the straits and melting in warm water, it will build rapidly. That just does not get much visibility for it does not pay the same dividends of attribution.
What is your best guess as to why the patterns are changing?
Here is some reading for you. It's weather and weather never stays the same for long :)
From 2007
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/q uikscat-20071001.html
New
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/755/2011/ tcd-5-755-2011.pdf
and
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011 /tcd-5-1311-2011.pdf
Back to work ~ L8R
Viewing: 1301 - 1351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index