Recently the Chief of the met office went on UK TV to say:
“OUR SHORT TERM FORECASTS ARE AMONG THE BEST IN THE WORLD.” (see video here)
Yesterday, the UK Met Office had to make a rare mea culpa, saying they had botched their own recent snow forecast, it is useful to point out that they aren’t the only one with egg on their faces.
In early October, the Arctic Oscillation (AO) took an unexpected dip into deeply negative territory, which led to the sixth snowiest October on record in the Northern Hemisphere and the snowiest on record in the US. If you look at the 14 day forecast at the bottom of the graph below, you can see that the dip caught NOAA forecasters off guard.
Source: NOAA Arctic Oscillation Forecast
According to Rutgers University Snow Lab, October, 2009 was the snowiest on record in the US.
| Contiguous United States | ||||
| Month | Rank | Area | Departure | Mean |
| 12-2009 | 1/44 | 4161 | 1292 | 2869 |
| 11-2009 | 39/44 | 585 | -512 | 1097 |
| 10-2009 | 1/42 | 538 | 385 | 153 |
| 9-2009 | 5/41 | 21 | 13 | 8 |
| 8-2009 | 12-41/41 | 0 | -5 | 5 |
| 7-2009 | 24-40/40 | 0 | -17 | 17 |
| 6-2009 | 32-42/42 | 0 | -64 | 64 |
| 5-2009 | 37/43 | 34 | -151 | 185 |
| 4-2009 | 17/43 | 859 | 106 | 753 |
| 3-2009 | 23/43 | 1964 | -18 | 1983 |
| 2-2009 | 17/43 | 3172 | 110 | 3062 |
| 1-2009 | 15/43 | 3696 | 185 | 3511 |
Source: Rutgers University Snow Lab
The director of NCAR captured the moment perfectly in this East Anglia Email – dated October 12.
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Philip D. Jones” <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
Once again, this begs the question – if the GCMs can’t forecast the AO two weeks in advance, how can they possible forecast snow and cold 70 years in advance? University of Colorado professor Mark Williams used climate models in 2008 to come up with a remarkable prediction (below) in a year when Aspen broke their snowfall record.
Study: Climate change may force skiers uphill
From the From the Associated Press
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
DENVER — A study of two Rocky Mountain ski resorts says climate change will mean shorter seasons and less snow on lower slopes.
The study by two Colorado researchers says Aspen Mountain in Colorado and Park City in Utah will see dramatic changes even with a reduction in carbon emissions, which fuel climate change.
University of Colorado-Boulder geography professor Mark Williams said Monday that the resorts should be in fairly good shape the next 25 years, but after that there will be less snowpack — or no snow at all — at the base areas, and the season will be shorter because snow will accumulate later and melt earlier.
If carbon emissions increase, the average temperature at Park City will be 10.4 degrees warmer by 2100, and there likely will be no snowpack, according to the study. Skiing at Aspen, with an average temperature 8.6 degrees higher than now, will be marginal.
Since the first of October, Colorado is averaging two to eight degrees below normal, as is most of the US:
Source : NOAA High Plains Regional Climate Center
In December 2009, Colorado averaged three to fifteen degrees below normal, once again correlating with a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation
Source : NOAA High Plains Regional Climate Center
Climate models are iterative through time, which means once they go off in the weeds they can not recover. If AO trends can not be forecast more than a few days in advance, it would seem problematic to make any sort of meaningful long-term climate projections using GCMs.
Pamela Gray (17:58:34) :
“Climate is a steady state entity unless your address changes.”
Well put! I see the same view. Over years the Earth is basically the same year after year after year except for displacements of pressure (air masses), energy (heat) and moisture, ignoring the sun’s variance.
See if you agree along the lines of your statement. The long term change in global temperature is throttled by overall albedo primarily. A lighter colored earth is cooler, a darker earth is warmer, over time. Albedo determined by amount of clouds, ice, snow, plant cover, new parking lots, roads, roofs, their specific colors, roughness of seas, etc. And weather has a large input into that, hence the chaos in the Earth weather / climate system. This is rarely even mentioned but to me seems prime.
Paul Vaughan (20:03:32) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:44:25)
You might read up on Ben Chao’s ideas about NAO.
I why would I like to do that? Your own graph clearly invalidates the correlation.
Leif Svalgaard (15:44:25) “[…] spectacular breakdown of a correlation […] On the junk heap it goes […]” / Leif Svalgaard (20:24:18) “[…] graph clearly invalidates the correlation.”
Zhou, Y; Zheng, D.; Zhao, M.; & Chao, B.F. (1998). Interannual polar motion with relation to the North Atlantic Oscillation. Global and Planetary Change 18, 79-84.
Chao & associates point out that the main north-south NAO axis is near the Greenwich meridian.
Note that the 88-98 phase-concordance here…
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/GLAAM_LOD_AO_NAO.png
…corresponds with the sharp jog here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumAO70.png
The commencement of coupling (& related sudden drop in Arctic ice) coincides with the crossing here…
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/NutationLongitude.png
The discrepancy here …
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/-LOD_aa_Pr._r.._LNC.png
…also corresponds with the pattern here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/NutationObliquity_.png
…so I gained appreciation for what the experts say: EOP are affected by celestial bodies and it takes a minimum of 3 EOPs to complete the picture …but it seems 2 can account for most of the variance and that even 1 can do well over long intervals ….but gamblers should be aware of serious risk when placing bets on forecasts based on a single EOP, since such forecasts eventually break down (due to missing conditioning) after long runs of success.
Paul Vaughan (21:25:36) :
since such forecasts eventually break down (due to missing conditioning) after long runs of success.
Due to spurious correlation in the first place.
tucker (10:29:23) : “Be careful. Bastardi always gravitates toward cold and snow. So, he is tends to be correct in a cold winter.”
That is a simplistic statement. He was predicting this winter WAY back in July.
“I know dozens of long range mets and none predicted this winter to be cold and snowy FOR THE REASONS that turned it into a cold and snowy winter in the NH.”
That’s a nice copout, EH? Hmm….maybe JB, for all his faults, is on to something.
“Most selected the Nino as the overriding factor this winter, when in fact we now know severe negative AO’s/NAO’s can trump a strong Nino in large part in the cold dept, and use the sub-tropical jet from the Nino to produce lots of snow.”
Maybe they were assuming Hansen’s Super El Nino prediction?? Hmm. What happened to that? Notice one doesn’t hear that prediction in the news anymore.
Point is is that even the best scientists today are swayed by the “appeals to authority” in the form of goons like Jim Hansen, who truly is going down the wrong path, even though he thinks he is on the right, and is dragging much of the forecast world down with him with his NASA stature.
HE NEEDS TO BE FIRED.
“Simplistic explanation for sure, but generally correct for this post.”
Glad to see you fess up to the word “simplistic”, because many of us will not disagree there.
“Most mets are honest enough to admit that they’re still in a learning process regarding weather.”
But I can most agree with you on this point. There are plenty of damn good met minds out there.
And Bastardi is one of them….and he predicted the general outcome of this winter…..long long ago.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Leif Svalgaard (17:37:31) :
tallbloke (17:02:14) :
[I could be wrong] (another set of square brackets to bypass)
Heh. If we keep this up, you’ll run out of bracket styles eventually. 🙂
It was actually a serious question. Was I wrong?”
Even though you guys don’t typically get along (haha sounds like us right?) I think he was playing along with your sense of humor, Leif. If you go back to the posts….you will see.
You offered some humor/seriousness at the same time…and he did the same.
I mean….your [ ] bracket system I gotta confess I find myself using it too. And we all appreciate your sense of humor.
Then sometimes I use the ( ).
So the next one is…..TAH DAH! { }
At this point I just have one thing to say, parenthetically, that is.
( [ { } ] ) but also
{ [ ( ) ] ) !!!
🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Paul Vaughan (21:25:36) :
Hey Paul I posted this question on another thread and I can’t remember where I posted it.
Can you give me some links to good papers on the GLAAM and the QBO?
Thank you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Keith Minto (16:24:14) :
anna v (06:18:51)
I am intrigued, “chaos tools” and “deterministic chaos”. Can we tool and determine chaos or is weather best described as ’something indeterminate going on within boundaries?’.
…..
Can chaos be defined or is it indeterminate? and just another way of saying “I don’t know” (within boundaries) ?
Chaos as a mathematical theory exists and is well defined.
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
For tools in handling chaotic conditions have a look at the thread here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/16/synchronized-chaos-and-climate-change/ .
Richard M (09:15:46) : | Reply w/ Link
anna v (08:35:50) :
“I would add that once one has deterministic chaos in one scale, the larger scale is also chaotic. I think it is one of the theorems.
It makes no sense to say weather is chaotic in the small time scales but climate is not.”
Very true, however the timescales are different. If you look at weather on a nano-second basis it doesn’t appear all that chaotic. The same holds for climate. While it will be chaotic over millions of years, smaller time frames will not display that chaotic nature. For example, we may be heading into the next ice-age at this very moment. While we can’t see this at our timescale, it might be obvious at another scale. That still does not mean the climate will be significantly different in 2100.
This means we have a reasonable chance of predicting changes to short timescale climate (100s of years) if we knew all the deterministic factors. The big problem is we aren’t even close to understanding those factors.
Hmm. I have the impression that once chaos sets in in one scale, all larger scales are chaotic. I will have to read up to make sure it is a theorem. If true, it means that what your are saying does not hold.
anna v (00:40:11) :
Richard M (09:15:46) :
And chaotic systems can approach long term stability if they also have internal balancing or limiting feedbacks to keep from wandering far off-track (into the weeds as stated above).
Richard M,
“If you look at weather on a nano-second basis it doesn’t appear all that chaotic. The same holds for climate. While it will be chaotic over millions of years, smaller time frames will not display that chaotic nature.”
I’m not sure of the point of this statement. It may be true that at sufficiently small time scales, climate or weather will not APPEAR to be chaotic, but that does not mean it is not chaotic. If something is chaotic when viewed over a long time scale, it must be chaotic in all smaller time scales, because by definition, chaos exhibits a fractal structure.
savethesharks (23:51:02) :
Paul Vaughan (21:25:36) :
Hey Paul I posted this question on another thread and I can’t remember where I posted it.
Can you give me some links to good papers on the GLAAM and the QBO?
Chris, mosey over and have a look at Paul’s more recent posts on various threads here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com
Steve Goddard (16:22:25) “On the other hand, North America, Europe and Asia covered with snow for months – has a huge effect.”
Hi Steve, not really. Most of the albedo is gone around here (Northern VA) in a few sunny days unless there is cold air flowing down from Canada or in the case of Europe from Siberia. The global radiation budget change from the snow reflecting sunlight is dwarfed by other variables like El Nino. Look at Roy’s satellite temperatures for example. They dropped in December in response to negative NAO and other blocking factors before there was much snow. They having been rising in January despite all the snow on the ground.
I am not denying that snow and ice albedo has an effect, it does. But its effect is mostly as added feedback from much larger forcings, like icing on the cake.
Eric,
The earth’s radiation budget is almost completely determined by the amount of short wave radiation which is absorbed by the earth’s surface and atmosphere. If a lot of short wave radiation is being reflected by snow, much less is absorbed. As a result, temperatures drop and outgoing long wave radiation is reduced.
You are confusing temperature with the radiation budget.
Ref – Pascvaks (07:21:27) :
“Just listening…
“There must be something between Micro and Macro. Mucro? Mecro? Mocro?”
_______________________
OK! I believe we’re all agreed then, Mecro it is. (No sense overusing meso.)
Re Leif Svalsgard’s thread:
As often, Leif S’s comments expose a key issue—-the key issue for this website. But his conclusion confuses the issue:
Of course, water ultimately runs downhill, and pebbles fall from the mountain into the valley. There is gravity.
But to accept the GCM”S, one is accepting that CO2 forcing of the Earth’s climate is as established as gravity—-but CO2 forcing is not established.
Therefore, every test of the GCM’s against measured weather data represent more data points for or against the “truth” of the models. Over time the weather data will either confirm or deny the truth value of the models. The recent relative cold over the last decade, compared with the universal predictions of the Warmest models for steady warming in the due to rising CO2, indicates those models are broken. Minor tinkering with the models is unlikely to fix them.
And the nature of many of the models is that periods of weather set the stage for future weather—-eg, warming to some extent, through positive feedback will exacerbate more extreme warming in the future. (This is the “iterative” process referenced in the initial comments.) So the failure of warming in the last decade doubly destroys the Warmists’ extreme predictions: no warming for the last decade, plugged into their models, will show less extreme warming in the future—-Important for the political/economic decisions that need to be made.
KW
keith winterkorn (08:39:33) :
But to accept the GCM”S, one is accepting that CO2 forcing of the Earth’s climate is as established as gravity—-but CO2 forcing is not established.
I don’t think even the models assume that. As far as I know, the GCMs try to calculate the climate from ‘first principles’ as far as they can. They parameterize what they can’t compute [clouds, for example], but I don’t think they put in CO2 forcing as a given. That is supposed to become an output of the model. If someone out there can show that CO2 is assumed in the Model, I would like be corrected. Mosh? you have looked at the code IIRC.
GCMs include CO2 as one of a dozen or so gases which are used in calculating the radiation budget. CO2 absorbs something like 20% of LW radiation emitted from the surface, so it is a very important part of the calculations.
You can download one of the most commonly used radiative transfer models here:
http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtm_frame.html
Steve Goddard (09:48:43) :
What? Impossible I think. You (or the GCM you are quoting) speak as if a CO2 molecule can keep absorbing and absorbing and absorbing heat over and over again. A CO2 molecule, or conglomerate of molecules, can only absorb once per band. Once excited in a band it must re-radiate at some point. If prompted by another photon of that same frequency both photons will leave with the same direction as the later photon, always toward space. If you disagree please show to me the science behind this while conserving the momentum of this LW radiation. Seems you can only heat that way ONCE (may be 20% from cold state) not 20% of the earth’s heat output!
Steve Goddard (09:48:43) :
GCMs include CO2 as one of a dozen or so gases which are used in calculating the radiation budget. CO2 absorbs something like 20% of LW radiation emitted from the surface, so it is a very important part of the calculations.
So you are saying [as I thought] that the models do not assume the ‘forcing’ effect of CO2, but rather calculate the flow of radiation in the atmosphere from underlying well-understood physics.
It is albedo that is supposed to come out of the models and is not parametrized.
Steve, I see your point. Yes, I was referring to temperature, specifically the difference in a given location like mine between having snow on the ground and not having snow. Other than extra radiational cooling and heat absorbed by melting snow during the day, there’s not much difference in weather, especially after a few days.
But the albedo effects (reflected shortwave) mostly go away after a day or two of sun as well. I see it on the south facing surfaces here with the exception of large storms like we had on December 19th. I also see it in the visible satellite photos, which have a lot less whiteness from snow after a few days. I guess a lot of that has to do with how far south I am (Virginia). Our snow doesn’t last long in direct sun (shaded snow lasts longer, but shade doesn’t matter).
Steve Goddard (09:48:43) :
GCMs include CO2 as one of a dozen or so gases which are used in calculating the radiation budget. CO2 absorbs something like 20% of LW radiation emitted from the surface, so it is a very important part of the calculations.
From the spectra, 20% for the CO2 share seems too high.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png?w=509&h=411
wayne (10:51:21) :
I think we have been through this before. The CO2 molecule when it absorbs a photon in the range it can as seen in the plot referenced above, goes into a higher rotational or vibrational level and deexcites promptly since it is not a ground state and it can decay with usually two or more photons to reach the ground state, or can transfer the energy through collisions to other molecules, N2 and O2 which are most probably its neighbors.
If prompted by another photon of that same frequency both photons will leave with the same direction as the later photon, always toward space.”
This might happen with very low probability, because CO2 will have returned to the ground state before meeting another appropriate photon. It is not a laser situation, too few CO2 and no currents, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser.
Momentum is conserved by the bulk of the atmosphere, that is why the temperature will rise a bit.
Re: savethesharks (23:51:02)
Hi Chris – dropped a note for you here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/
[See Paul Vaughan (14:04:14) (Jan.16).]
Also, some discussion here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/
Leif Svalgaard (22:46:58) “[…] spurious correlation […]”
Conditioning as explained & snipping off wavelet edge-effects:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/-LOD_aa_Pr._r.._LNC_NL.png
This is why it is important to analyze relationships between residuals and other variables. For example, I provided an example upthread [Paul Vaughan (04:11:59)] where something as basic as the terrestrial year appears to have been overlooked. In that case there is no denying the seasonal bias (see the systematic January spikes). The errors were cut in half simply by adjusting for the difference between winter & summer – something to which everyone can relate, even if they don’t know what partial phase-residuals are.