Western U.S. Precipitation Extremes—How Did This Turkey Get Published?
By Dr. Patrick Michaels
When it comes to changes in future precipitation across the United States, climate models projections are all over the map. In other words, they provide no useful guidance for the future. But that doesn’t stop people from trying to sell them. Now comes a paper which clearly demonstrates a systematic failure of precipitation models and still calls the results “useful”. Reviewers…halloo??
A recent example of this comes from a research team led by Francina Dominguez of the University of Arizona who published the results of their study “Changes in winter precipitation extremes for the western United States under a warmer climate as simulated by regional climate models” in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Angels fear to tread on “Regional Climate Models”. In fact, Roger Pielke Sr. has been going to town on them relentlessly (see, for example, here) and has recently published a Forum article in the journal Eos titled “Regional Climate Downscaling: What’s the Point?” where he concludes that:
“It is therefore inappropriate to present [regional climate model] results to the impacts community as reflecting more than a subset of possible future climate risks.”
Dominguez et al. apparently didn’t take Roger’s advice to heart when describing the motivation for their work:
“We have analyzed future changes in extreme precipitation events as simulated by dynamically downscaled GCM projections with the goal of providing useful estimates for engineering design of water management structures.”
What is somewhat unusual about this is that unfamiliarity with Roger’s work cannot be an excuse, because one of the co-authors of the Dominguez work is Chris Castro, who got his PhD under Roger at Colorado State University a few years back. Even weirder is that Castro was the lead author of several papers which took a dim view of claims that regional climate models such as those used in the Dominguez study could add skill over that provided by full blown General Circulation Models (e.g., Castro et al., 2005). Which leads back to Roger’s question—what’s the point in trying to do so?
This question is even more germane in the cases where the regional climate models clearly fail to replicate observed reality—which is the situation with the Dominguez et al. study.
Consider Figure 1 (below) taken from the Dominguez paper. The top row shows two versions of the observed mean winter precipitation rate (in mm per day) over the western U.S. (the two leftmost panels) and the same thing produced by an ensemble of regional climate models (right hand panel). The bottom row shows the results for extreme precipitation—the precipitation amount from a 1-in-50 year daily storm event. Grossly the model pattern seems to resemble the observations, but grossly turns out not to be closely when you get down to specifics.
Figure 1. Top Row: Winter 1979–1999 precipitation climatology (mm/day) for two observed datasets (a) and (b), and the multi-model ensemble of eight downscaled simulations (c). Bottom Row: The daily precipitation amount for the 50-yr return period event from the same two observed data sets (d) and (e) and for the multi-model ensemble of eight downscaled simulations (f). (Source: Dominguez et al., 2012).
Figure 2 shows the results of spatial averaging the data in Figure 1. We colored the observations in red. The other symbols are the values from the individual regional climate models. Winter mean precipitation rate is in the left hand panel, the precipitation amount from a 50-yr storm in is the right panel. The amounts have been averaged for four subregions of the study area in Figure 1 (NW, NE, SW, SE) and over the entire region (All). Notice two things: 1) the models all produce more average precipitation than is observed, in some cases by more than 100%, and 2) the models produce extreme precipitation amounts that, in some cases, are routinely 2 to 3 times as heavy as the actual observations show.
Figure 2. Area-averaged mean (left) and 50-year return period (right) winter precipitation for the historical period (1979–1999) for the eight regional climate model simulations (black and white symbols) and the observations (red circle) (Adapted from Dominguez et al., 2012).
Clearly, the regional climate models fail at correctly simulating the processes responsible for producing heavy precipitation events in the western U.S.
Faced with these facts, one should conclude that the regional climate models serve no useful purpose, as Roger Pielke Sr. has been espousing.
Damn the data! Full speed ahead!
Dominguez et al. press on with their futile analysis and use the regional climate models to produce projections of the changes in winter precipitation extremes across the western U.S. for the period 2038-2070.
And you’ll never guess what they found–an increase in the model projected precipitation extremes!
Figure 3 shows the details. The solid black dots are the model average for the percentage change in winter precipitation (left) and in the amount falling in the 50-yr daily storm event (right). The changes in total winter precipitation projected by the individual regional climate models are all over the place—some predict 5, 10, or even 20% more precipitations in some areas, others project similar sized declines. But when it comes to extreme precipitation, virtually all the models project increases, some upwards of 20 to 30%.
Figure 3. Change in the area-averaged mean (left) and 50-year return period (right) winter precipitation between the future (2038-2070) and the historical period (1968–1999) for the eight regional climate model simulations (black and white symbols). The model ensemble mean is indicated as well (solid black circle). (Adapted from Dominguez et al., 2012).
This was a pointless exercise, since the models cannot even replicate observed precipitation extremes.
This is also another example of the shoddy state of peer review in climate science. Repeat after us, if models cannot accurately and robustly simulate the observed climate, they are worthless.
References:
Castro, C.L, R.A. Pielke Sr., and G. Leoncini, 2005. Dynamical Downscaling: Assessment of value retained and added using the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS). Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D05108, doi:10.1029/2004JD004721.
Dominguez, F., E. Rivera, D. P. Lettenmaier, and C.L. Castro, 2012. Changes in winter precipitation extremes for the western United States under a warmer climate as simulated by regional climate models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L05803, doi:10.1029/2011GL050762.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The results show that climate events will become more extreme due to climate change. Unless climate events don’t become more extreme, which is also due to climate change.
There. Now please give me my grant.
Maybe divide the precip amounts by 2, and try again?
From Dominguez’s paper: “…the goal of providing useful estimates for engineering design of water management structures.”
Remember the NOAA “needs assessment survey“? There were more of those, local-level ones. ,It seems to be not only about testing NOAA employees for correct climate beliefs. There seems to be an effort to push application of climatology, ready or not, into planning at various levels. The surveys involve planning’s needs.
It appears the models fail to account for topography. Just an observation.
Since precipitation levels are so tied into El Nino & La Nina events, have they finally model them and can they now tell us what causes them to switch back and forth?
I do not see how one can model continental rain without a firm model of hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
Way off topic.
I am currently listening to a CBC radio program called Demon Coal. Right now, at 9:47 EDT, there is a really excellent interview with Judith Curry. http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2012/03/12/demon-coal-part-1/ Judith has a post about it on her web site.
It is really important that the CBC is airing a program that examines AGW theory and finds it wanting or even just allows all sides to be fairly examined.
the amount of space The Atlantic gives to this, bereft of satire, is mind-boggling:
12 March: The Atlantic: Ross Anderson: How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change
A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.
Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.
The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally; rather, it is only meant to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change. He also emphasized the voluntary nature of the proposed modifications. Neither Liao or his co-authors, Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not technocratic mandates. What follows is my conversation with Liao about why he thinks human engineering could be the most ethical and effective solution to global climate change…
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/
@ur momisugly pat says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm
the amount of space The Atlantic gives to this, bereft of satire, is mind-boggling:
12 March: The Atlantic: Ross Anderson: How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change
A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series……………………..
====================================================================
That’s called “Conditioning” . Several ways to do it, beyond Pavlov’s experiments. It’s being done now, in case you haven’t noticed. Ding, ding, ding.
There is no hope that any of these climate models predict reality. Once you build in the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide as the source of warming, as they all do, you have invalidated your model. Resemblance to actual precipitation pattern then becomes simply a matter of manipulating arbitrary free parameters of which carbon dioxide is one. I say this because the work of Ferenc Miscolczi clearly shows that carbon dioxide does not cause greenhouse warming. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where CO2 absorbs has been constant for the last 62 years. During that same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that that the addition of this amount of carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Models using the greenhouse effect to predict warming are thereby invalidated. Carbon dioxide does not warm the world even if you double it, hence sensitivity to doubling is exactly zero. And predictions of a climate Armageddon caused by the greenhouse effect are just pure fantasy.
Why are these pretenders and rent seekers entertained, surly the a reasonably intelligent warmer must see through this constant barrage of BS and smoke?
I love the way the claims of future disastrous “extreme weather” have gradually changed from being storms, cyclones, typhoons and tornados to “…a bit more rain….. maybe”.
Curiousgeorge says: Re How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change…
That’s called “Conditioning” . Several ways to do it, beyond Pavlov’s experiments. It’s being done now, in case you haven’t noticed. Ding, ding, ding.
________________________________________________
Amen!
The object is to keep bring the idea up to make people comfortable with it at first and then gradually it will be recommended and finally enforced. We use the same method to train horse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVNbjYCWF2M
Sigh….. this is what we’ve come to. Why can’t they understand our models are useless, much less for regional…… scenarios.
Can’t these dumbasses figure out if the models are consistently and persistently inaccurate, then there is something wrong with them? How stupid are they? If they can’t backcast observations then why in God’s name to they believe they can forecast anything?
Why don’t they just consult their tea leaves and beg for money like the rest of the charlatans?
So now NOAA is going to use worse than useless models to help local cities come up with ordinances on water… ARRRRRGHHhhhh!
Once again, it’s models all the way down, no data were harmed in the writing of the paper. We know this because no data were involved in the writing of the paper.
Nicely done, my congratulations.
w.
Some of you must be reading Luboš Motl’s trf and lost track of things!
A fundamental problem for climate modelling is that so much money has been invested in this work now, that it is very difficult for them to come back to policy makers and admit that there is nothing to show for it.
To echo an earlier totally off topic comment as a Canadian CBC listener I’m genuinely and deeply shocked after having listened to a CBC program on global warming entitled “Demon coal.”
The damn thing is rational, non-political, unbiased and sane.
Dr. Curry’s considered and well delivered opinions are aired apparently unedited.
I’m at a loss to explain how an informative program such as this made it through the CBC bureaucracy.
Wow, just WOW!!!!
I need a drink!
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/Ideas/1453660136/ID=2208383550
Curiousgeorge says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm
“@ur momisugly pat says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm
the amount of space The Atlantic gives to this, bereft of satire, is mind-boggling:
12 March: The Atlantic: Ross Anderson: How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change
A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series……………………..
====================================================================
That’s called “Conditioning” . Several ways to do it, beyond Pavlov’s experiments. It’s being done now, in case you haven’t noticed. Ding, ding, ding.”
We could give ourselves sweat glands. Oh, wait…
It looks like the field of Ethics leads itself naturally to attract crooks, forgers, crackpots and freedom-haters.
DD More says:
March 12, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Since precipitation levels are so tied into El Nino & La Nina events, have they finally model them and can they now tell us what causes them to switch back and forth?
***************************************************************************************
DD – After years of studying it these guys still have no idea what El Nino & La Nina are. Big shots like Hansen and Trenberth have put in their two cents worth but reading theirs and others papers reminds me of the blind men and an elephant: many observations but no coherent theory. ENSO is a resonant oscillation of ocean water from side to side in the equatorial Pacific. If you blow across a glass tube you get a resonant tone determined by the dimensions of the tube. The trade winds are the equivalent of blowing across the tube and the ocean answers with its own resonant tone – about one El Nino wave every four-five years or so. The equatorial currents driven by the trade winds are blocked from entering the Indian Ocean by New Guinea and the Philippines. The warm water they pushed across the ocean piles up there and forms the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, said to be the warmest water in the world. Periodically this piled-up water forms an El Nino wave that crosses the ocean along the equatorial counter-current and runs ashore in South America. There it spreads out north and south along the coast and warms the air above it. Warm air rises, interferes with trade winds, mixes with general circulation, and we notice the start of an El Nino. But every wave that runs ashore must also retreat. As the El Nino wave retreats sea level drops behind it half a meter or more, cold water from below wells up, and a La Nina has started. This has been going on as long as the present configuration of currents has existed which means since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. I published this in 2009 in “What Warming?” but it is too much for these guys to read something that is not written by a member of their club. As a result we get absurdities like the claim that the Pliocene had an El Nino-like climate. That is an oxymoron because you can’t make an oscillating wave stand still.
Thanks, Willis! U R A King!
I can see how this got conflated with Liao craziness. They’re all of a bunch, aren’t they? For anyone who wants to see the how the Volk movement and the rise of green thought got us to where we are today, do read the first 80 pages of Anna Bramwell’s “A History of Ecology in the Twentieth Century” (after 80 pages she starts to perseverate).
Liao really scares me, I admit. But so do Wigley (who has to cultivate looking like Lenin), Santer, Mann, Overpeck, etc…all so imbued with their own rectitude, trapped in their models that we paid for.
PJM
The models need more snake oil!
The climate modeles, global or regional, cannot accurately be fitted to historical data for temperature, thus cannot predict future temperatures. Now when they shift to precipitation, the inherent higher variability of precipitation at spatial and temporal scales from point to global and hourly to decades makes it much harder to model that temperature. If they cannot model temperature, they surely cannot model precipitation. This paper demonstrated that quite nicely.
Whatever happened to the UK Met Office and their decision NOT to publish longer-range forecasts after the disasters of several summers and winters? I know they said the problem was they didn’t have powerful enough computers to do the job. Perhaps they are in a “legitimate” research decade while they get, understand and determine that the new computers are not good enough still.