AMS TV weathercaster survey on climate raises eyebrows

The number 1 controller of weather is water in all of its phases, and meteorologists, unlike climatologists, deal a lot with water.
Annual rainfall (I believe this is from Trenberth’s energy balance
paper) averages 1m/year
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/trenberth_mine.jpg
Latent heat flux = 1000kg/m2*2.26MJ/kg/3600/24/365= 71.6 W/m2
The forcing for water vapor is supposed to be about 15 watts for a
doubling.
The increase in temperature from from a doubling of CO2, without
feedback, is acknowledged by everyone to be about 3.8 watts/m^2, which
would result in an increase of around 1C. I’ve seen actual estimates
ranging from 0.7 C to 1.2 C. With a 1C increase, the saturation level
of water vapor would increase 7%. That 7% increase implies a
[(ln 1.07)/(ln 2)] * 15 watts = 0.0677/0.6931 = 1.47 watts/m^2.
So an initial 3.8 watt CO2 increase results in a Water Vapor multiplier of
(3.8 + 1.47)/ 3.8 = 1.39. The final effective warming due to the multiplier effect would be
1/(1-.39) = 1/.61 = 1.64
1.64 * 3.8 = 6.23 watts.
(235/228.77)*390 = 400.62 watts
Correction for non blackbody earth:
(235/228.77)*368 =378.02
(378.02/368)^0.25 =289.94
That’s if there was NO increase in precipitation, NO change in convection, No
change in clouds.
Trenbeth’s figures give about 390 watts in heating the surface
directly, 22 watts convection, and 78 watts in latent heat, somewhat
higher than my computed estimate of 71.6 watts/m^2. Climate models
predict an increase in precipitation less than the increase in
humidity, around 3% rather than the full 7%.
Multiplying my 71.6 watts by that 1.03 increse in precipitation gives
73.75, for an increase in watts of 2.1 in latent heat of
vaporization. Using Trenbeth’s 78 watts gives a 2.34 watt increase. The net increase in SURFACE
flux with a doubling of CO2 and water vapor feedback would be
6.23 -2.34= 3.89. If there was a 3% increase in clouds in addition to 3% increased
precipitiation,
that same 3% increase would increse earth’s albedo from about 0.3 to 1.03*0.3 = .309.
The net wattage hitting earth’s surface from the sun would drop from about
235 watts to 0.691/0.7 or 0.987*235. Multiply the wattage increase from the CO2 and water
vapor positive feedback by the cloud negative feedback and you get
(396.23/390)*.987 = 1.003 or a net increase of 1.17 watts, and a temperature increase of
(391.17/390)^ 0.25 = 1.00075 * 288 = 288.216
with a doubling of CO2-
a drop in the bucket-
Note that John Christy reported on an acutal experiment in increasing water vapor, due to
irrigation of the San Joaquin Valley.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/68739.pdf
Daytime temperatures dropped slightly during the summer, nighttime temperatures increased
significantly due to vapor condensation at night, preventing large drops in nighttime
temperatures- A. McIntire

twawki (20:40:18) : Thanks for that, a good resource. The pro AGWers are today ramping up their doomsday propaganda for Copenhagen, we should reach our elected representatives with a response.

The Weather Channel should stop all the green shows. Jim Cantore can drop the looks of doom about global warming. He may not be aware that most meteorologists don’t agree with him.

We should undertake our own survey and ask the questions in reference to the data, not the IPCC references.
Besides that, I think the outcome is quite positive for a subject as politicized as Climate Change and the fact that some tv personalities have lost their job for openly taking a stand against the Climate Change doctrine.

I wonder if this can force Heidi Cullen to think one more time about freedom to think sceptical about AGW?
http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html
“Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval”.
Aah! This Medieval time of ours, I hate it!

Meteorologists are not climate scientists. Whether they feel it’s their role to disucss and understand climate or not. Many TV meteorologists do not have degrees in a pure scientific sense, many have degrees that focus on communications and in the liberal arts.
I have a MS in meteorology from a research institution and would not consider myself an informed climate scientist.

I’m not selling myself short. Climate science is not about predicting the weather, it’s about looking at long term trends from a variety of records. Conclusions are then drawn to attempt to correlate variables and interpolate them into the future.
This has almost nothing to do with running a week long weather model that predicts atmoshperic fluid dynamics.
Meteorologists, in my opinion, know just enough about climate issues to make them dangerous, but are not well enough informed to let them decide public policy or serve as a proxy for climatology.

Frank K (20:28 11/17) “The more disturbing theme of this article, however, is the notion that since meteorologists haven’t universally drunk the AGW koolaid, some “reeducation” is necessary so that they too can go out to their TV audiences with the AMS approved global warming propaganda…”
I commented on an earlier thread on Eric J. Barron’s editorial in the 10/30/09 Science Magazine. His point is about ABSOLUTE CONTROL of “climate” science/information. “Will U.S. cities or states simply pick one climate model as a basis for decisions? Will information be defensible as the best available? The level of authority required DICTATES [my emphasis] that a National Climate Service be established.” Barron is director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, UCAR, Boulder CO.
With this information in mind, read the original article that Bill Murray analyzes. It is by Kris Wilson with a copyright to the American Meterological Society. “…This sample of AMS weathercasters repeatedly expressed their desire to have access to ‘independent’, ‘unbiased,’ and ‘reputable’ sources of data and information that present ‘both sides’ of the issue.” (p. 1463) Guess who will educate them? UCAR with its National Center for Atmospheric Research!!! “‘Weathercasters want a really good reference list, especially sources they can go to for up-to-date information…so we’ve added that, as well as the graphics for on-air and the PowerPoints that can be adapted to the large amount of public service they perform.’ The new climate-change course, ‘Fitting the Pieces Together’, is available online at http://www.meted.ucar.edu/bmet_training.php.”
I know my conspiracy radar keeps working overtime. But…if more and more TV weathercasters have less and less science/climate education, and if they get their climate education from unfriendly (to science and to the U.S. ) folks like Eric Barron who choose climate dictatorship….Well, Anthony’s readers can take from here.
Anthony, do any of your readers with national outreach have actual (not pseudo-) climate science information with “graphics for on-air and PowerPoints” for educating both TV weathercasters and for the general public about the scientific method, that the science is never settled?
Also would these UCAR courses for “weathercasters” be interesting for review by WUWT?

Meteorologists are not climate scientists?
So the climate scientists like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer aren’t qualified. Meteorologists aren’t qualified.
Looks like no one is qualified, I reckon. 😉
Send an email to the Weather Channel letting them know they better stop talking about global warming and to get rid of that green emblem they use sometimes. They aren’t qualified.

for Bulldust (19:03:02) and Keith on Aussie weather presenters:
Heck Yeah!
Oh and these girls probably don’t have degrees in climatology either, but they do raise temps a bit:
http://www.chron.com/sports/photogallery/NFL_cheerleaders_2009.html
Best Regards,
Chuck

In response to AlanG. From the earlier post by Willis Eschenbach, there’s a link to Trenbeth’s figures. About 490 watts hits the earth’s surface – a combined total from the sun and from the atmosphere. Of this total, 22 watts goes into
convection, 78 watts into latent heat from water vapor, or 100/490 =20% of the total. AGWers have stated hurricanes will increase in frequency with global warming. I figured that if rainfall increased 7%, with a doubling of CO2, that 78 watt total would have to increase 7% also, for a 5.46 watt increase. That’s more than the IPCC figure of a 3.8 watt increase from doubled CO2, so obviously water vapor increases have a huge negative feedback.
I wanted to understand where the 78 watt figure came from. I remember a high school experiment where we heated water for so many minutes until it started boiling, and plotted the linear increase in temperature. After the water
started boiling, it stayed at the same boiling temperature. What we were doing was measuring the latent heat of vaporization. It takes over 5 times as much heat to vaporize water as it does to raise the temperature from 0 C to 100 C.
I did a google search and read that average rainfall over earth’s surface averages 1 meter per year. 1 square meter covered 1 meter deep in water
contains 1000 kg of water. For 1000 kg to rain out, heat will have to go into evaporating that 1000 kg per square meter of water. It takes 2.26 thousand kilojoules per kilogram to evaporate water. Watts is a measure of joules per
second, there are 3600 seconds in an hour, 24 hours in a day, and 365 days in a year.
(1000kg/m2)*2.26Million J/kg/3600/24/365= 71.6 W/m2
So the abve equation was computing the number of Joules per second averaged over the year going into evaporating water. My figure was 71.6 Watts per square meter assuming an average rainfall of exactly 1 meter per year. Trenbeth’s figure was 78 watts, so I was in the right ballpark in estimating 1 meter per year of rain.
AGWers also assume a water vapor feedback. I read that a doubling of water vapor is supposed to result in a 15 watt increase in surface temperature, so I used that figure.
From an algebra class many years ago I remembered that a series
1 + 1/2 + 1/4… = 2
1 + 1/3 + 1/9 = 1.5
and in general
1 + 1/n + 1/(n^2)=… sums to 1/(1-n).
I assumed water vapor would increase 7% with a doubling of CO2, resulting in
a feedback. The next part was computing the feedback amount.
The increase in temperature from from a doubling of CO2, without
feedback, is acknowledged by everyone to be about 3.8 watts/m^2, which
would result in an increase of around 1C. I’ve seen actual estimates
ranging from 0.7 C to 1.2 C. With a 1C increase, the saturation level
of water vapor would increase 7%. That 7% increase implies a
[(ln 1.07)/(ln 2)] * 15 watts = 0.0677/0.6931 = 1.47 watts/m^2.
So an initial 3.8 watt CO2 increase results in a Water Vapor multiplier of
(3.8 + 1.47)/ 3.8 = 1.39. So water vapor has a 1.39 multiplier effect.
That increased water vapor will lead to additional warming, leading to the
series I referred to above. The sum of the series will be
1 + 0.39 + (0.396)^2 +….. etc.
I plugged that into the 1/(1-n) equation to get a multiple of
1/(1-.39) to get a 1.64 multiplier for water vapor.
You WOULD get that large feedback if there were no increase in rainfall, no increase in clouds, but some of that additional heat will have to go into evaporating water, hence the negative feedback.

David D is absolutely right. Meteorologists study how local variables will influence weather patterns over the next few days. Climatologists study how many more variables interact over time on a global scale – a much more complex endeavor. For example, a meteorologist might be able to tell you how current ocean currents will affect rainfall next week, but I’m going to guess that few of them have ever studied how heat exchanges between the deep ocean and the surface affect changes in ocean currents over time. It’s the difference between being an expert on one component of a system, and understanding how the entire system functions as a whole.
Also note that few TV meteorologists are RESEARCH scientists – they are not actively pursuing new knowledge. To make judgments on the most recent science, you have to be actively participating in its production, not relying on the science learned in school 30 years ago.
Also, a primary reason meteorologists tend to be skeptical is that they’re well aware of the difficulties predicting the exact weather a few days out. But ironically, it’s actually easier to predict the climate 50-60 years from now than it is to predict next week’s weather, because over longer time periods, short-term variability (the part that’s hard to predict) doesn’t have any effect. No one’s trying to predict what the global mean temperature will be in 2050 – what matters is whether between 2045 and 2055, that figure is a couple degrees warmer than today.
And Smokey – I’m going to trust the guy with the MS in meteorology when he says studying weather and climate are apples and oranges. David D is probably pretty qualified to recognize his own limitations.
(Note: this does not logically imply the opposite–that if you trust David D’s claim that meteorologists are not qualified, then you must also trust the poll respondents who say they ARE qualified. Psychologists have well-documented humans’ tendency to overstate their qualifications – it’s called the “Dunning-Kruger Effect.” The less competent someone is, the more they lack the self-awareness to recognize their own limitations. On the other hand, Dunning and Kruger found that the MOST competent people tend to sell themselves short. So when you have two people with the same degree, one of whom claims that degree qualifies him as an expert while the other one claims it does not, you should likely trust the person who says he is not an expert.)
*What’s the over-under for the # of comments saying I must be suffering from Dunning-Kruger myself? 🙂