From the University of Tennessee at Knoxville this gives a whole new meaning to “release the Kraken”.
University of Tennessee study predicts extreme climate in Eastern US
Results show the region will be hotter and wetter
From extreme drought to super storms, many wonder what the future holds for the climate of the eastern United States. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, does away with the guessing.
Results show the region will be hotter and wetter.
Joshua Fu, a civil and environmental engineering professor, and Yang Gao, a graduate research assistant, developed precise scales of cities which act as a climate crystal ball seeing high resolution climate changes almost 50 years into the future.
The study found that heat waves will become more severe in most regions of the eastern United States and, that both the Northeast and Southeast will see a drastic increase in precipitation.
The findings are published in the Nov. 6 edition of Environmental Research Letters.
Harnessing the supercomputing power of UT’s Kraken and Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) Jaguar (now Titan, the fastest in the world), the researchers combined high-resolution topography, land use information and climate modeling. Then they used dynamical downscaling to develop their climate model results. Dynamical downscaling allowed the researchers to develop climate scales as small as four square kilometers.
“Instead of studying regions, which is not useful when examining extreme weather, dynamical downscaling allows us to study small areas such as cities with a fine resolution,” said Fu, who is also a professor within the UT-ORNL Bredesen Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education (CIRE).
The researchers evaluated extreme events along with daily maximum and minimum temperatures and daily precipitation. For the 23 states east of the Mississippi River, they analyzed the present-day climate from 2001 to 2004 and predicted the future climate from 2057 to 2059. This is the first study to predict heat waves for the top 20 cities in the eastern U.S. For example, Nashville will see a temperature rise of 3.21 degrees Celsius and Memphis will see a rise of 2.18 degrees Celsius.
In comparing present climate to future, the researchers found that heat waves will become more severe throughout the eastern part of the nation. The Northeast and eastern Midwest will experience a greater increase in heat waves than the Southeast, which will almost equalize the temperatures between the future North and current South.
“Currently, the mean heat wave duration is about four days in the Northeast and eastern Midwest and five days in the Southeast,” said Fu. “By the end of the 2050s, the Northeast and eastern Midwest will be gaining on the Southeast by increasing two days.”
In addition, the Northeast and eastern Midwest are likely to suffer from steeper increases in the severity of heat waves.
“While the Southeast has the highest intensity in heat waves, the northeast is likely to experience the highest increase,” said Fu. “We are looking at temperature increases of 3 to 5 degrees Celsius, with New York experiencing the highest hike.”
Both the Northeast and Southeast will experience an increase of precipitation of 35 percent or more. Most coastal states will see the greatest increase, of about 150 millimeters a year. Taking into consideration heat waves and extreme precipitation, the Northeast shows the largest increases in precipitation. This suggests a greater risk of flooding.
“It is important that the nation take actions to mitigate the impact of climate change in the next several decades,” said Fu. “These changes not only cost money—about a billion a year in the U.S.—but they also cost lives.”
Fu and Gao collaborated with researchers at Emory University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They received assistance from the National Center for Computational Sciences, the UT-ORNL Joint Institute for Computational Sciences and UT’s National Institute for Computational Sciences.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention, that when they get this supercomputer online at Oak Ridge, it will take even more guesswork out of climate and weather prediction. – Anthony
To repeat the punchline of an old joke, and ever so slightly paraphrase it:
“If the ‘Fu’ $hits, wear it”
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/479113.html
This is what happens when adults are left to play with the children’s toys.
Its a total misunderstanding of Computer Modeling with datas from only some years to Look Long years in the Future. Its total nonsense. The Same is valid for all this Junk Science for Extreme temperature increase by 5 and more degrees Celsius in Europe in the next 60 years.
Nashville will see 0.642 c per decade increase. We have almost one decade since 2003. How did the prediction do?
Also note the prediction is accurate to 0.01 C. Wow!!! That is 500 – 1000 times better accuracy than IPCC.
Remarkably deep CACC.
Will Nitschke says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:22 am
It is claims such as these, in conjunction with recent claims relating to extreme weather events, that has made me conclude that climate science is presently a junk science field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me correct that statement for you
“…hat has made me conclude that climate science is actually ALCHEMY …”
Alchemy, Climate Science, who can see a difference.
Joshua Fu, a civil and environmental engineering professor…
IF “scientist” = “”warmist”
THEN “research”= TRUE
ELSE nul
They really need to learn the difference between artifical intelligence, and natural stupidity !!!
Published article available at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044025?fromSearchPage=true
Not paywalled.
Interesting that Fu says: “These changes not only cost money—about a billion a year in the U.S.—but they also cost lives.”
“about a billion a year”, that’s two Solyndras. That’s massively less than is spent on ‘climate” research each year. If this guy can’t get orders of magnitude right in his press release, why should his article be better?
Also, what lives? More people die from cold than heat. How many heat related deaths in Las Vegas where summer time temps can top 115 F?
Well, I couldn’t get time on a super computer so I had to resort to the next best thing.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi
I asked the 8 ball this question: Question: Will the weather be 3 degrees hotter in 2050?
Magic 8 Ball answer: No Way!
So I call on your crystal ball and raise you a magic 8 ball…
“A study conducted by researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, does away with the guessing.”
Good!! I hate guessing!
Garbage in is garbage out .
Mike Strong said:
December 17, 2012 at 11:44 am
Super Computers: Garbage in —-> Garbage Out
—————————————————————-
Super Computers: Garbage in —-> Super Garbage Out
No need to guess what Anthony Watts thinks of this! (:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/23/friday-funny-new-noaa-supercomputer-gaea-revealed/
It seems everyone fails to realize the Urban Heat Island Effect is real and therefore predictable.
One mans extrapolation is another Fu’s prediction.
This prediction is an illustration of a dominance of style over content. Usage of a supercomputer or not is in itself insignificant next to the astronomical inaccuracy resulting from extrapolating from 4 years, but, by saying they used a supercomputer, a giant pile of GIGO impresses the naive. On topics flooded by environmental activists, for who flocks to employment at the corresponding institutions, what the “peer review” process primarily consists of really is just ensuring a formal style of writing and presentation to
give the illusion of authority, so few question assumptions (plus, of course, weeding out presentation of unpopular inconvenient results).
Often data isn’t even uploaded for verification, nor does a single person do solid critical review of content (as opposed to superficial style) for years if ever; the history of Mann’s hockey stick paper is an example.
For instance, in one of many other examples, the Doran & Zimmerman 97% concensus paper was patently BS if actually read by a moderately intelligent unbiased person, with it concluding that debate about CAGW is over because 74 of 76 climatologists answered yes to 2 trick questions of whether temperatures increased since the pre-1800s (since the crippling cold of the Little Ice Age) and whether humans have a significant effect on temperature (where significant in a scientific sense essentially means just non-zero, from a garbage bag on someone’s lawn to Urban Heat Islands). Take away the formal style of writing; don’t imply “peer review” means much; and it is just something said by a couple dumb and/or dishonest activist guys. They went to college, but anybody who has gone to college knows it doesn’t magically make everyone with a degree never lie about anything for the rest of their life. (There is not even any strong reason to conclude they didn’t just make up their numbers, although the questions are so slanted that they probably didn’t need to do so). But the style is enough for fools to auto-trust and the media to present it as authoritative, carefully never mentioning the specifics of the actual questions.
Someday I would like to find out what kids are being taught in schools today about “peer review,” or whether the false memes about it are coming primarily from the media, or both.
Much of advancement of true science occurred before modern journal-based “peer review” arose in recent decades. Abuse of the label by many who don’t deserve the term “scientists” is a growing problem. (Someone like Dr. Feynman or Dr. Shaviv does; not so much these guys).
I would be too ashamed to put my real name anywhere near this paper. Unbelieveable !!
If they need suggestions as to where to store their crystal balls, I have at least one really good idea.
On the other hand, I see that April 13, 2049 in Chattanooga will be sunny, light winds of 4.2 mph from the NNE with a temperature of 68.23 F between 2:12 pm and 3:07 pm. Not bad…
It boggles the mind. They really did what I guessed and have the audacity to publish it.
But – if the computers are 100% failsafe, why didn’t they anticipate the end of the world in 2012?
“they analyzed the present-day climate from 2001 to 2004 and predicted the future climate from 2057 to 2059.”
I reckon my 7th grade kid would get an F if he had turned this work in to his science teacher.
These clowns deserve a place in the Guinness Book of Records for the silliest “science” of all time.
“Currently, the mean heat wave duration is about four days in the Northeast and eastern Midwest and five days in the Southeast,” said Fu. “By the end of the 2050s, the Northeast and eastern Midwest will be gaining on the Southeast by increasing two days.”
Oh NOOOOOO!!!!!!! Six whole days of heat wave rather than four by 2050? Why aren’t we destroying our entire economy and standard of living to prevent this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/Sehr Grosse SARC
Computers are wonderful tool and can tell a thing or two if you know what you are doing
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-06-30/
Since they are so accurate with the 2057 data why don’t they use that data to predict what the climate will be like in 2100 etc etc. …….
Garbage in is garbage out!!!!
There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D physicists (at least 4). Ph.D. Chemical engineers (at least 2 at last count) and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”
The Greenhouse Effect Explored
Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”
Another important website is www. The Great Climate Clash.com -G3 The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.