From the ECMWF is kicking your butt department: This legislation directs NOAA to prioritize its research
House Approves Weather Forecasting Bill
WASHINGTON- The U.S House of Representatives today unanimously approved the Senate amendment to H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, introduced by Science, Space, and Technology Committee Vice Chair Frank Lucas (R-Okla.). This legislation directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to prioritize its research to improve weather data, modelling, computing, forecasting, and warnings.
Vice Chairman Lucas: “When a major storm or tornado is quickly approaching your community, every additional minute of preparation time counts. This legislation strengthens our country’s commitment to severe weather forecasting and ensures NOAA has access to the best weather data. I am proud the bill also includes a dedicated Tornado Warning Improvement Program that will help develop detection and notification systems.
“The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act is a major step toward more accurate and timely weather predictions, and I am eager to see these life-saving policies signed into law soon.”
Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “Today we took a major step to transform our nation’s weather forecasting. The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act will enable new weather research, models, and technologies to better protect lives and property. With this bipartisan effort, we will improve forecasting by looking to the private sector for new technologies and weather solutions. This bill gives NOAA a clear vision and allows them the flexibility to buy new, affordable, and potentially better sources of data. With more and better options, we can finally make needed improvements to our weather forecasting capabilities. I look forward to the president signing this critical legislation so that we can make our weather industry great again.”
Background
This legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort. It directs the NOAA administrator to focus resources and effort to:
- Prioritize NOAA research on next generation weather data, modeling, and computing;
- Emphasize developing much more accurate forecasts and longer warning times for high impact weather events;
- Support proactive technology transfer of weather research into operations to protect lives and property;
- Create focused programs to extend warning lead times and improve forecasts for tornadoes and hurricanes specifically;
- Develop a plan to utilize observing system simulation experiments and innovative technology to regain U.S. superiority in weather modeling and forecasts;
- Employ new commercial data options and private sector weather solutions; and
- Enhance coordination among various federal government weather stakeholders.
The legislation also authorizes and extends a NOAA pilot program already under way thanks to a partnership between the House Science and the House Appropriations Committees. Under this pilot program, NOAA has already issued two contracts to procure commercial satellite weather data. This pilot program could bring about a paradigm shift in how NOAA makes decisions about future procurement of critical weather data and systems.
Forecasters have seen for several years now that the European ECMWF forecast model has routinely outperformed U.S. Forecast models. For example, the ECMWF model correctly projected Hurricane Sandy’s left turn into the New Jersey coast about a week in advance, whereas the US based GFS model didn’t project that path change until the storm was much closer to the East Coast.
“What the European modeling community is doing is just amazing,” Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with WeatherBell, told Ars. “This is the golden age of weather forecasters. It’s an absolute wonder of computer modeling technology.” source
Part of the problem is that NOAA has put too much funding priority on climate forecast models, that’s about to change, dramatically, since climate models aren’t verifiable until years later, and offer no short term operational usefulness to the United States economy or safety.
From UCAR today:
“This landmark legislation will save lives and property while providing business leaders with critical intelligence,” said Antonio J. Busalacchi, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). “Today’s bipartisan vote underscores the enduring value of scientific research to our nation.”
The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act is the first major weather legislation since the early 1990s. It calls for more research into subseasonal to seasonal prediction, a priority for business and community leaders who need more reliable predictions of weather patterns weeks to months in advance. The bill also will strengthen short-term weather forecasts and smooth the way for research findings to be adopted by forecasters and commercial weather companies.
More: https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/126206/ucar-praises-passage-weather-research-and-forecasting-innovation-act
UCAR may not be so enthusiastic when they see how much their climate programs get hammered.
We may finally get good models. Hooray!
Weather, as opposed to climate, models have been improving over the last few decades.
One factor is that we can judge the output of the models in just hours or days, instead of decades or centuries.
That was the correct solution. To forecast weather is not any easy, but at least we can check the assumptions in a weeks or days. Why all this theory of AGW was a stupid thing. We cannot check if the assumptions programmed in the computer models were right or wrong. In fact the results of the computer models were giving out quite disparate predictions.
I suspect the two factors that have accounted for the biggest improvement in weather forecasts has been first more computing power allowing smaller grid cells.
Secondly, computers with more bits in the data path. This allows for more digits of accuracy in your calculations, so it takes longer for rounding error to make your results meaningless.
There have also been increased understanding of how all the factors interplay.
Excellent. Climate modeling has just resulted in crap out, without regard to observed data. At least weather models yield useful, actionable information.
And we save a lot of money.
Hmm. ECMWF has a new radiation model that improves its skill.
RRTM..
where does that model get used?
too funny
What’s funny is that it takes just a few days to verify a weather forecast model for that period, but years or decades for climate models. You can be a smug SOB all you want, and it won’t change that basic fact.
EC 45 day and seasonal model forecasts have a warm bias that all Mets know about. Where does that warm bias come from? Oh wait….
Prove that it improves it’s skill.
SOB’s can and do make all kinds of claims. Science is about proving you are right.
“What’s funny is that it takes just a few days to verify a weather forecast model for that period, but years or decades for climate models. You can be a smug SOB all you want, and it won’t change that basic fact.”
Well,
Hansens model from 1988 did pretty well. Much better than a weather model.
I work with GFS and ECMWF… man they are off by 1C or 2C when I look at predictions.
hansen did the whole globe and was off by less.
Hansen outperformed weather models? Are you drinking again?
You realize that
1. you praised ECMWF
2. ECMWF got a new radiation model.
3. They took the model (RRTM) from the GCM work.
4. RRTM and ALL RADIATION CODES in weather forecasting codes, rely on the physics of C02
Doesn’t matter what you think, Steven. So what if they share some base components? The real issue is Climate models aren’t verifiable like weather models are…which is why weather models keep getting better and climate models diverge from reality.
Climate models are verifiable, but if you are impatient and cannot wait for Earth to do it’s thing, then of course you’ll claim they diverge from reality……hold tight and wait a decade….you’ll see that the climate models are spot on.
Steve Mosher
What is the evidence that the better skill of European weather models is due specifically to the CO2 radiative bit? You might find that part to be a political decoration only, irrelevant to the model output.
In this case, “performed pretty well” means that they weren’t 100% wrong.
Steven — 2 Words
Spaghetti Plot
As opposed to the myriad of Climate Fictions [some would call them models] which are just played against each other [with unknown and unknowable adjustments and free parameters] — at least the Hurricane Spaghetti plots eventually can be compared against nature. Several times a year we get a real comparison of the models against nature — in general the models are found wanting — when forecasting more than a couple of days out.
“Climate modeling has just resulted in crap out, without regard to observed data. At least weather models yield useful, actionable information.”
Climate models and weather models are basically the same. GCMs are weather models run for longer at lower resolution.
Nick,
Essentially true. Which doesn’t inspire any confidence in their forecast skill, since weather models suck at any time scale longer than a few days. IOW, WX satellites show us what’s coming within the effective time frame of the models’ skill, so they’re basically useless.
Wrong. GCMs incorporate an assumed, completely mythical forcing from manmade CO2, which is why they are so monumentally wrong.
GCMs are weather models…with a whole lot more made up crap put in them
“GCMs are weather models”
Climate is a series of weather events.
Andrew
Lets see, climate model = low resolution weather model that runs longer. Weather models fail about 5 days out. So running it longer with lower resolution tells us the average temperature in 2100…..
Is that your claim ?
I think categorizing the output of climate models as crap is more believable.
I hope NOAA is wise and follows this new direction from Congress (You know those elected representatives of the people).
/sarc on
I look forward to planning all of my summer picnics months in advance and not having to take rain gear along because we can tell 3 months out which days will be wet….
/sarc off
Cheers, KevinK
Bruce Cobb April 4, 2017 at 4:45 pm
Even those with lower ECS assumptions are wrong, just somewhat less so.
They have to keep in the assumptions that lead to preposterously high implied ECS, because without them the (statistically meaningless) mean of all models wouldn’t produce scary levels of warming.
They are unphysical and based upon GCMs which lack skill even in forecasting weather a week out.
Gloateus,
” weather models suck at any time scale longer than a few days”<.i<
They suck at forecasting weather. But they still balance all the forcings and other physics that go to make up climate, which is what GCMs report.
Bruce,
“GCMs incorporate an assumed, completely mythical forcing from manmade CO2”
No, they don’t. Like weather models, they include radiative heat transfer, else they couldn’t work. You can use them to see what would happen if CO2 is added. They don’t assume it.
Nick Stokes April 4, 2017 at 5:24 pm
No one knows all the “forcings”, if such things exist, that go to make up weather, let alone climate. They can’t even do clouds.
All weather modeling is a waste of money at this stage in the infancy of climatology and meteorology. And for that matter computing power.
Nick Stokes April 4, 2017 at 5:24 pm
“GCMs incorporate an assumed forcing from manmade CO2.
No, they don’t. Like weather models, they include radiative heat transfer, else they couldn’t work. You can use them to see what would happen if CO2 is added. They don’t assume it”.
They include radiative heat transfer hence CO2 effect is assumed [incorporated]. On top of this they make positive adjustments for feedback which double to triple the forcing.
These unwarranted and obviously wrong assumptions are the root cause of the problem.
Nick said “You can use them to see what would happen if CO2 is added. They don’t assume it.”
Nick, it is GIGO. Models ASSUME CO2 causes warming because the programmers assumed it before they put the CO2 erroneous assumption in. And the longer time frame you run the model for climate the more error you get as we see in the IPCC temperature forecast.
Gloateus,
“All weather modeling is a waste of money at this stage in the infancy of climatology and meteorology. And for that matter computing power.”
Your view. But the Bill says the opposite.
Nick,
Models are the least of it.
This is mainly an anti-tornado bill. Members of Congress from OK and TX want NOAA to do useful things like improve tornado warning time rather than model weather or climate. Models are mentioned, but the bill clearly means that there will be less money available for GCMs, which the GOP members know are a worse than worthless waste of taxpayer dollars.
Gloateus April 4, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Nick,
Models are the least of it.
This is mainly an anti-tornado bill. Members of Congress from OK and TX want NOAA to do useful things like improve tornado warning time rather than model weather or climate. Models are mentioned, but the bill clearly means that there will be less money available for GCMs, which the GOP members know are a worse than worthless waste of taxpayer dollars.
I think you should read the bill! Subseasonal forecasting is not about tornado warning time.
“The National Weather Service must collect and utilize information to make reliable and timely foundational forecasts of subseasonal and seasonal temperature and precipitation. Subseasonal forecasting is forecasting weather between two weeks and three months and seasonal forecasting is between three months and two years.
The bill provides for technology transfers between the National Weather Service and private sector weather companies and universities to improve forecasting.
NOAA must complete and operationalize the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (a weather satellite program which develops observational techniques using global navigation systems).”
Phil,
Forecasting WX weeks or months in advance does not mean support for climate modeling.
A very minor part of the bill funds modeling. NOAA will be wasting a lot less money of climate modeling under this administration.
Well I am waiting to get my comment through moderation
ECMWF uses a new radiation model.
It calcualtes the effects of C02
It improves foeecasts
the model is TAKEN FROM A GCM
its called RRTM
I’ve explained this many times here. but you guys dont read or remember.
Go read about the unified model that ECMWF is a part of.. basically its a GCM.
In any case its easier to model the climate than the weather. Thats why climate models are more
trustworthy than weather models or hurricane forecasting.
GCMs are weather models run for longer at lower resolution.
==============
Nick you have forgotten about climate model “hindcasting”, which attempts to substitute pattern recognition for “the unknown”. However, pattern recognition does not and cannot work on quasi-periodic data such as long term climate, because the pattern only repeats at infinity. Any time period less than infinity, the pattern is always unique, and thus cannot be predicted by model training (hindcasting).
“NOAA must complete and operationalize the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate”
How odd, Phil!
You appear to have left out a significant part of that line.
The bill has this statement:
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary shall complete and operationalize the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate–1 and Climate–2 (COSMIC) in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act—
(i) by deploying constellations of microsatellites in both the equatorial and polar orbits;
(ii) by integrating the resulting data and research into all national operational and research weather forecast models; and
(iii) by ensuring that the resulting data of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s COSMIC–1 and COSMIC–2 programs are free and open to all communities.”
Climate is not mentioned nor described as anything other than a small part of a larger mission.
The full title and subsections clearly defines what Congress desires and that is not tracking/measuring/defining or proselytizing climate.
COSMIC-2A and COSMIC-2B are expected to support weather; whether short term or sub-seasonal.
Nick Stokes;
You can use them to see what would happen if CO2 is added.
What utter tripe. The only thing you can see is how any given model’s results change with varying levels of CO2. Presenting this is some sort of definitive representation of the actual planet defies the observational evidence and is utter BS.
“Climate modeling has just resulted in crap out, without regard to observed data.”
And that’s OK? Just crap out. We’re paying what, three trillion dollars for that jobs program? Why not let the H1B visa guys put a whole lot of people on the problem for half the price? Why build one when you can have two twice at twice the price?
You folks will continue to get the nonsense you pay for and it won’t be Trump or anything like him that wakes you up. That’s something you need to do for yourself.
Bruce Cobb ist right. Weather forecast and climate models are not the same. There is a long-running weather model of CFS (V2, daily) which predicts the weather for up to one year. Results, even tendencies of this model are usually useless. However, climate models of the mainstream use the input CO2 in different scenarios and resulting changes in the water vapor content as main driving factors, so you call that one scenarios (climate models) and the other / weather models) predictions. One (weather model) is based, at least in part, on the physical conditions of the atmosphere, while the other (climate scenarios) requires an input of a theoretical nature, which has not yet been fully understood or verified (dependence of the water vapor content on heating by CO2).
Another aphorism:
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
ATheoK April 4, 2017 at 8:33 pm
“Phil. April 4, 2017 at 6:40 pm
“NOAA must complete and operationalize the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate”
How odd, Phil!
You appear to have left out a significant part of that line.
I was quoting from this summary of the bill, I didn’t leave out the ‘significant part’ you refer to.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/353
Exactly.
So when you see the GFS totally flip a day 10 forecast in sequential model runs, you simply can’t believe anything it has to say about day 11.
I’ve tried planning a road trip using the CFSV2. That was not a happy experience. The CFSV2 insisted that it would be slightly warmer that average with much less precipitation than average. The reality was cold and wet.
My faith in the GFS runs to about 6 hours from now. Longer, lo res runs to predict climate… yeah right.
Nick, even you aren’t dumb enough to actually believe the nonsense you just wrote.
There are core differences between climate and weather models. The things that matter the most to climate models aren’t in weather models, the things that matter the most to weather models aren’t in climate models.
Weather models run for shorter periods of time and have resolutions orders of magnitude higher than anything climate models are capable of.
Oh! Isn’t that sweet!?
Phil quoted from a summary, not directly from the language of the bill.
Next time Phil & ilk harass a commenter because someone quoted from a ‘press release’ or a summary instead of the actual research or law; Phil will apologize and give them a pass.
Yeah right…
Really? Nick – how much does CO2 change within the normal time frame of weather prediction? Do they account for the massive seasonal changes in CO2? I want to see the code. How about some comparison results with and without CO2 in the models for short time frames. Should be easily doable.
Since climate is nothing but a generalization about weather at some particular geographical scale and region, any improvement in understanding weather would necessarily improve our “understanding” climate. The entire “climate science” approach is a cart-before-the-horse attempt to ignore what the science is worst at – short term precision – and move the uncertainty off into a temporal space where it no longer is considered an immediate issue by practitioners. Push the “testing” of you prediction far enough off into the future and it becomes someone else’s problem. You might term this the paradigmatic method as opposed to the scientific method per Kuhn. Science continues to happen but names are sacred until after they are safely dead.
BTW, even more money could be saved by relying on the Farmer’s Almanac rather than NOAA for seasonal forecasting. Or the private firms with so much better records than NOAA.
There are many private companies, which in turn are commissioned by companies (e.g. in the energy sector) whose business lines depend on long-term forecasts. This makes a long-term forecast but still not sure. Even though, some progress has been made in this area. These advances, however, lie less in the deterministic prediction routines of weather models than in the boundary conditions, Are important for a winter prediction. E.g. snow cover over the American and Eurasian continents in the early and late autumn as an indicator of wave movements of the polar jet later in the winter. Also, ice coverings in the late autumn can reveal snowfall events in the winter. However, no weather model alone can make a useful statement for more than 4 weeks from the purely physical conditions. There are only comparative values. E.g. That in many years a greater snow cover over Siberia in early October led to colder weather over large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. But the weather system is so chaotic that such a prediction can also be noise and smoke.
It’s funny because IMO the NOAA has been my choice for the agency under which the administration should consolidate federal climate basic research.
If it is of any value at all. 1) the models to date have resulted in undeserved hysteria, and 2) the errors are atrocious. If a model can have the CO2 element eliminated, and suddenly start matching observed data, then clearly the model is flawed. But those are the models we live with.
They didn’t say eliminate climate modeling – they direct them to focus on weather. So, some low level climate work could continue, but stop with the hysteria – tied to crappy models.
Rob Dawg. In my opinion, there is no “climate basic research” in the federal government or in any of its grants and contracts. The federal government should not waste any more taxpayer money on climate change as long as people such as Karl (of bucket surveys rather than Argo buoys infamy or similar data manipulations) are around and in NOAA or any US government or, government funded climate research programs. It might be better to zero all climate funding until there is no more climate change research in the USA. Then, if NOAA no longer has climate change people, perhaps we could then fund a modest basic climate research program on a trial basis. And, keep it on a modest basis until we were sure that the funds wouldn’t be diverted to proselytize Global Warming or its alternative name of climate change.
Looking good so far.
ECMWF, yup you are right to praise it
I’m dying laughing from the irony.
Also
“This bill gives NOAA a clear vision and allows them the flexibility to buy new, affordable, and potentially better sources of data. With more and better options, we can finally make needed improvements to our weather forecasting capabilities. I look forward to the president signing this critical legislation so that we can make our weather industry great again.””
the current data ingested from surface stations is a hodge podge of the good and the bad
WORSE YET is that they use data no one can check or access.. private data they pay for but cannot
check. So now, It’s suggested that they pay more more closed data?
Back to ECMWF… got an improved radiation model…RRTM
A model none of you have a clue about, but the model improved ECMWF
wonder where RRTM came from? I’ve mentioned it before.. Then of course people change the topic.
http://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2016/16901-ecrad-new-radiation-scheme-ifs.pdf
So yes, Better Weather models like ECMWF, need better radiation models..
like RRTM… opps
The problem with climate forecasting is not the quality of radiation models. The problem is in trying to predict a non-linear dynamic system from first principles beyond a very short time window. We don’t have the mathematics. We cannot solve the n-body problem efficiently.
We can’t do it for ocean tides, so why expect we could do it for climate? No one in their right mind would try and predict the tides 10 years in the future from first principles the way the climate models try and predict climate.
Instead, we predict ocean tides 10 years in the future with a VERY HIGH degree of accuracy, but we don’t do it anything like the futile methods used on the climate models.
I would have thought that , like CO2 scenarios, radiation models ignore orbital and spatial conditions. This simplifies calculations but does nothing for reliability. I am thinking especially of the effect on the water cycle and cloud cover from variations in cosmic ray intensity, which are completely out of the loop.
Am puzzled by “I’m dying laughing from the irony.”
Are you suggesting that better modeling of radiation is something that skeptics would not also share in embracing?
Better modeling of radiation is better modeling……..period.
Better modeling of radiation is actually something that all scientists should embrace, if the changes lead to improved skill, thus providing solid, verifiable evidence that the new radiation equations are dialing in a better understanding of radiation physics in the real world…….not just the theoretical world in 50 years.
Yes, I really like this idea.
Waiting to see how the department perverts the legislation. A religion is not going to go away peacefully.
But the faux-climate theologians will have to scale back the sermons with a lighter collection plate.
Dose that mean NOAA will increase weather stations in US? That would be a great idea.
And also check and confirm the appropriate locations of existing stations!
They didn’t say anything about NOAA’s “homogenizing” the raw data, did they say that the data changes must be applied through “rigorous application of the scientific method” AND confirmed by independent scientific auditors?
there are 10s of thousands of stations in the US.
if you take all the “bad” stations and then take all the good stations (CRN and Mesonets)
you can see that good stations dont differ from bad stations.
In any case
At the end of 2017 the Skeptics will own every bit of data produce by NOAA.
Every paper written by NOAA, every bit of data, and every data correct.
All under skeptical control
You alarmists have had all that data for years and done sod all with it.
A station that hopelessly polluted by micro and macro site issues, goes up and down on a day to day basis the same as a nearby pure station.
From that you conclude that there is nothing wrong with the bad station.
“A station that hopelessly polluted by micro and macro site issues, goes up and down on a day to day basis the same as a nearby pure station.
From that you conclude that there is nothing wrong with the bad station.”
1. No, you havent even looked at actual data.
2. If the stations are all bad, you just defined the LIA out of existence
1) I have looked at the actual data. Even more importantly, I’ve looked at the actual stations that record the actual data.
2) First off, the LIA was determined by a lot more than thermometers. Secondly, the evidence shows that they took much better care of their equipment back then. So you belief that because there are problems with the modern network, that this proves that the older network was problematic as well, fails.
Like the rest of your beliefs, it’s not backed up by the evidence.
This is the correct way to start moving things in the right direction. Focus on what we CAN do to improve things in the near future. We can leave the far future to the future generations. If history is any guide, they will be better equipped to deal with any potential problems than we are now.
“Prioritize NOAA research on next generation weather data, modeling, and computing;”
Modelling and computing. I can see why UCAR likes it.
Nick. Weather research and development, not climate change, is the key concept here.
It doesn’t say that.
whereas the US based GFS model didn’t project that path change until the storm was much closer to the East Coast……start with the cone of death from Rio to Maine, change it every 4 mins….then claim accuracy
What a shame when you have to make a law telling a government agency to do their job.
Three day forecasts are as good as 2 day forecasts 20 years ago.
not in the uk when it comes to wind speed and direction,the reverse appears to be true.
I was specifically talking about hurricane forecasts, which is what Latitude mentioned.
Regardless, in the US, 5 day forecasts are about as accurate as 3 day forecasts 50 years ago.
No tricks GOP. Fund this with the money being wasted on climate baloney. “Bipartisan”is often a euphemism for everybody’s pork gets funded.Can anyone point to the opposition rolling over easily anything?
Just saying.
There is an incredible amount of economic benefit to be had in optimizing what seed and when to plant it each season. Just a few months of pretty good weather forecasting would be very valuable.
Here is how crazy things have gotten.
Tesla is now worth more than Ford and GM. Losing $1.0 billion a year on 73,000 cars versus making $8.0 billion per year on 5,000,000 cars. Don’t add up.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/04/tesla-now-worth-more-than-gm-making-it-the-most-valuable-u-s-automaker/
I remember when the 2001 dot.com bubble burst. It was the day the headline was that Yahoo was worth more than Walmart. Boom.
At some point, the big money people will see that hype has vastly overtaken reality.
They made 25,000 cars last quarter. That’s 100,000 cars per year. Not bad but they need five times that. Does the market exist?
So far this year 213,000 luxury cars have been sold in America. That’s around 800,000 per year. Based on that, I would say that there are enough folks with the money to buy a Tesla.
It’s not actually impossible for Tesla to be viable … assuming they can become profitable any time soon.
The big money people know Tesla is doomed after Musk forced the swallowing of the Solar City poison pill. The Mom and Pop investors (who think it will be another Apple) are the ones who will suffer when that green scheme collapses under the weight of reality, not the Goldman’s of Wall Street.
I saw an article this morning that Amazon is worth more than Wal-Mart. Is it time to get out of the market?
When NOAA can accurately tell me what tomorrow’s average temperature across the country will be to a 1/10 of a degree consistently for a whole year, then we’ll have a discussion about predicting the climate 20-30 years in the future.
You are having difficulty differentiating between weather and climate.
None
Maybe you are correct about ScienceABC123.
However, even if you are, the point is irrelevant. ScienceABC123 points up an obvious problem (or 2) that need to be addressed for successful CLIMATE (not weather) models.
Climate is easy to predict. Weather is hard.
For example: in AR4 the climate for the next 100 years or so was predicted. 10 years after the answers are pretty dang close.
1. Climate is global ( local variation is all smooth out)
2. Climate is long term ( short term temporal is all smoothed out)
Just in simple terms the global prediction for 50 years from now is 16C as opposed to the current 15C
Just easier to to be right about that as opposed to predicting, say, micro weather in San Francisco 1 hour from now, at the beach.
So. CLimate? easy , heck Guy Calendar in the 1930s predict todays climate. And hansen in 88 did a
fair job. Much better than hurricane forecasting. Climate’s easy. Weather is tough
which is why resources should be shifted to improving weather forecasting skill
When does global weather become climate, precisely?
It’s easy to say that climate is easy to predict when working with historical, observed weather data. How about looking at all the weather predictions, rather than observations, then work out a climate model.
For example, 2 days ago, the weather forecast for where I live, was that it would be around 12 degrees centigrade with one day of full rain and the other overcast. Both days have been blazing sunshine and around 16 – 18 degrees centigrade.
Our local ‘old wife’ isn’t a scientist, but her seaweed based predictions were more accurate. If you can’t get the simple stuff right, why would anyone have any faith in predictions of climate 50 or 100 years hence?
Much of the climate hysteria was whipped up by Mann’s hockey stick prediction based on flawed tree ring measurements with observational data tagged onto the end. If palaeoclimatology is so accurate, why would Mann need to supplement it with observed data?
And in terms of climate measurement, whilst the US is well provided with surface station measurement, as flawed as it is, by comparison, the rest of the world has scant few surface measurement stations. Vast areas of Russia, China, the Middle East and South America with an occasional site.
But that’s fine, we’ll base our planet’s future on mainland USA’s demonstrably inaccurate surface station measurements.
Meanwhile, NASA satellites tell us the world has greened by 14% over the past 30 years, 70% of it directly attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 (Net 9%). Did any alarmist predict that? Indeed, can you point me to any individual event (Sea level rise, Hurricanes, Tornado’s, droughts, temperatures etc.) that have come close to a 9% increase in the last 30 years? Indeed, do the collective negative impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years add up to 9%?
It’s easy, and simplistic to dismiss climate predictions as “easy”, when you are unlikely to be around to establish if they were accurate or not.
This lie really keeps on going, doesn’t it.
Yes, there are things that weather models have to worry about that climate models don’t.
However there are many things that climate models have to worry about that weather models don’t.
Let me get back to my discussion of the 5 spheres.
Hydrosphere
Atmosphere
Lithosphere
Cyrosphere
Bioshpere
How the atmosphere affects the biosphere is not something that weather models have to worry about, but it is critical for climate models to get it right.
Changes in any of these spheres will impact all of the other spheres.
Let’s assume that warmer temperatures reduce snow cover. Less snow means the ground warms more, which means the atmosphere warms more. However warmer weather and less snow will impact what types of plants live in an area. Changes in snow and temperature along with changes in plant life will impact what animals live in an area, which in turn will impact what happens to the plants in an area.
Plant life in an area will impact the atmosphere, they can also impact how much sun hits the ground which will impact the ground temperature, which will impact the atmosphere.
Until climate models can get right the way changes to any of these spheres impact all the other spheres and how those impacts in turn feedback and modify all the other spheres, then climate models will never be accurate.
The problem with climate models is that they have simplified the earth beyond the point of recognition both because they still don’t understand all of the feedbacks, and even if they did, they don’t have the computing power to resolve all the impacts.
PS: In my above example, I failed to talk about how changes to atmosphere and biosphere can impact how water reacts in the local environment, both more or less run off, which impacts everything, and more or less evaporation, which impacts everything.
How changes in the biosphere can impact the ground and the rocks in the ground over time.
As I said, it’s hideously complex, and not well understood at all.
Ahh Yes, Bipartisan funding, where everybody gets a piece of the action.
Background:
Word on the street is that NOAA weather programs have been so starved of funding that they are coming apart at the seams. So throwing a big pile of money at these programs is seen as well justified.
Now, is this new money, or a rebalancing of priorities? Bipartisan means “Spend Like Crazy”, so I would bet nobody is going to see their funding cut here. Unless you were born yesterday, you can see plenty of room for bureaucrats to maneuver.
As Nick Stokes notes:
And:
Think “bureaucrat” not “science”, here and you can see where this is going.
Just for example, “high impact weather events” would be the recent California Permanent Drought caused by Global Warming followed by the more recent California Floods also caused by Global Warming.
We need more information, but this hardly seems like a “Swamp Draining” moment.
Observations from the insect world are illuminating.
“it would be a brave alarmist to take a contrary approach”
Termites do their work hidden away from sight. They do the greatest damage when they remain undetected.
An anthill, when faced with an invader, sends a swarm of ants to confront the invader. The ants overwhelm the invader and literally rip it to pieces.
The US is now governed by a medium sized army for middle managed, cubicle dwelling bureaucrats. The bureaucracy is expert at defending itself and it’s interests. An instinctive reaction of the bureaucracy to anything with even a hint of “reform” about it is to swarm it and Red Tape it to death.
Administrations come, and administrations go, but the bureaucracy lives on forever.
Biggest supporter of renewable power mandates and wind subsidies in the Senate: Republican Charles Grassley if Iowa. Lots more republican names could be mentioned.
Dr. Ball. This as you know is a big part if why we have to fight so hard. Our leadership is chock full of General Mereau types raining shells down on us.
My thumbs can’t spell. Of twice and Moreau.
While they’re at it,Congress should tell the blizzard and hurricane forecasters to tone down the alarmism. (E.g., re that recent squib of a blizzard, and re the threat of Matthew to Florida and Georgia.
Jane Lubchenco spewed forth some mighty mangled junk trying to equate the need for national weather service with her proposed National Climate Service.
Her advocacy could not be more mendacious. It’s quite a read.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110622_climateservice.html
“NOAA’s short term weather forecasts of conditions on an hourly basis to about two weeks out are a key component of our mission to protect American lives and property. Likewise, NOAA’s long range weather and seasonal forecasts, also known as climate forecasts, inform advance planning decisions, from weeks to months ahead of time, that allow for a rapid response to the onset of events such as severe storms, droughts, and floods.”
The only accurate forecast you can make about the climate costs nothing. The interglacial will end.
so how come the climate models cannot tell us when the interglacial will end? seriously, we are told it becomes easier to predict future climate, the further you go into the future, so why can’t the models predict the interglacials?
because it the interglacial is going to end in 100 years, do we really need to worry about CO2?
I can’t find anywhere in here that it says climate research funding will be cut. so I have to ask why the misleading headline? Wishful thinking perhaps….
Congress is responding to Trump’s budget cuts to NOAA’s climate “research”, which of course models aren’t:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/?utm_term=.c7b873c5f406
NASA’s climate sc@m will get hammered even harder.
So I take it you can’t find any reference in this article to climate research being cut either?
It’s Another Great Day For America!
Forecast, not prophecy, of prevailing winds and conditions. Back to science.
Please. it was Tropical Storm Sandy by landfall.
The most important thing this week is Scott Pruitt’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox-
Full interview-
Comments see- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-wallace-skewers-epa-chief-scott-pruitt-on-fox_us_58e1697ae4b0ca889ba1a73e
And http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/02/delingpole-epas-scott-pruitt-gets-eaten-alive-by-fox/
Pruitt looked worried and evasive. Below are typical questions and statements put forward by the AGW lobby and used by Mr Wallace. He was not asked about China taking over world leadership on climate change but this should also be addressed.
I am putting together my draft responses to these items but other readers might like to step in with their ideas.
1. The Obama Clean Power Plan promised 90,000 fewer asthma attacks, 300,000 fewer missed days in school and work, 3,600 fewer premature deaths. Carbon pollution from the power sector would be reduced by 30 percent. It would be one-third lower than it was in 2005.
The American Lung Association says, “Half of all Americans now live in counties with unhealthy air.” There are 166 million people living in unclean air and you are going to remove some of the pollution restrictions, which will make the air even worse.
2. China has already begun reducing its carbon emissions from coal power plants and
3. UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.
4. There is more CO2 now than in the last 400,000 years.
5. 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years on record.
For #3..
The 1910 ton1940 warming rate and amount is a match for the current warming. Since the prior warming was before a significant CO2 effect, then it was natural.
Thus the IPCC is wrong. None of the current warming can be asserted to be other than due to natural causes. Such assertions are called wishful thinking, not science.
“3. UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.”
Thanks to increased atmospheric CO2, man made or otherwise, the planet has greened by 14%, net 9% as 70% of the greening is directly attributed to the increase alone. Isn’t this what the environmentalist’s and greens want? The planet is also around the coldest it has ever been without entering an ice age. 80% of earth’s history has not had ice at the poles.
“4. There is more CO2 now than in the last 400,000 years.”
At a point in the planets history when it has never had less atmospheric CO2. 100 years ago we were a mere 80ppm away from all meaningful plant life beginning to die, 130ppm away from certain human extinction.
“5. 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years on record.”
The planet has been considerably warmer in the past according to palaeoclimatology, the very science Michael Mann used for his hockey stick graph. Contemporary temperature measurements of weather (I believe what you are discussing here is weather, not climate) go back over 100 years and include the 30’s when much of the USA was hotter than 2015/16.
Try getting things in perspective, and get your facts right before running around with your hair on fire.
“Carbon pollution from the power sector would be reduced by 30 percent.”
Isn’t carbon pollution controlled by capturing soot in filters?
That is actually a practice due more to acid rain concerns. It has repercussions ignored in the carbon frenzy. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_waste
Sure Litt: I believe all those casualty predictions. That’s because I’ve already died twice: I was told in 1970 that I’d starve to death by 2000. Then I was told I’d freeze to death in the late 70’s. So I must be in heaven, blissfully enjoying breathing air that is much cleaner than when I was a kid in the 40’s and 50’s, fishing the same lake as the 40’s (and it is cleaner), sitting under the same big oak tree enjoying a beer as in the 60’s, eating food produced from the same garden Mom taught me how to manage, and “gittin around” just fine on my new knees. I can only imagine how much better it will be when I die yet again!
It’s colder in winter, warmer in summer and somewhat in between spring and fall. It’s called “The seasons” or over a day to day, hour to hour period? It’s called weather. What a waste of time, money and energy.
Soot is wasted power. Better to make sure you have complete combustion and not produce soot in the first place.
Moshers link: http://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2016/16901-ecrad-new-radiation-scheme-ifs.pdf
The abstract states the new radiation model is using improved cloud handling.
Do you now accept it is ‘clouds are more important than CO2?’
It is flexible, allowing the spectral resolution, the description of cloud and aerosol optical properties, and the solver, to be changed independently of one another……
…changing the width and shape of the sub-grid cloud water distribution, and for the first time representing 3D radiative effects.
The summary contains something you do not see in climate models: “measurable increase in forecast skill” they are increasing the accuracy of short term forecasts…
Looks like a solid bit of work and they do not mention CO2 once!
Co2 has nothing to look for in a weather model. Since the weather model assumes shorter time frames, this would be completely meaningless, because neither CO2 nor the resulting radiation changes so quickly. But what changes very quickly and often several times a day is cloud cover. This is already of great importance in the weather forecast, be it temperatures or developments on fronts or at all much depends on the weather forecast at the cloud cover. The solar input is easy to predict, but the elimination of this input by clouds is very difficult to predict. Therefore, every weather model is all the better as the cloud cover can predict and take into account.
And I also have to break a lance for GFS. It is not so that EZ is always and in any case better than GFS. On a shorter period, up to 3 days, GFS is even superior to EZ. Above all, the high-resolution (0.5 degrees, 1 degree) runs of GFS are better. In addition, GFS can better record changes in the medium-term since it runs four times a day, while EZ only twice. As you see, all its two sides of the coin.
“Looks like a solid bit of work and they do not mention CO2 once!”
Got get RRTM. READ THE FRICKIN CODE.
Do you even know what radiative transfer is?
here a cartoon version for you
http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtm_description.html
modeled molecular absorbers are: water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, methane, oxygen, nitrogen and halocarbons.
fluxes calculated by RRTM agree with those computed by LBLRTM within 1.5 W/m2 at all levels, and the computed cooling rates agree to within 0.1 K/day in the troposphere and 0.3 K/day in the stratosphere (see above plot).
“READ THE FRIKIN CODE”
My God you’re a computer programmer – that means you understand climate?
No – it means you understand climate models.
Modelling a column of air is a start but it’s still not climate.
Do you even know what dissipative structures are?
Do you even know what Prigogine’s nonlinear thermodynamics was all about?
Do you even know what the nonlinear Lyapunov stability of clouds is?
Do you even know what the emergent nonlinear dynamics of a rotating fluid layer (e.g. the ocean) are?
Do you even know what photosynthesis is?
All of the above consign to insignificance your FRIKIN radiative transfer.
It’s not just getting the warning out earlier, it’s also avoiding false alerts.
Too many false alerts and people start to ignore the warnings.
One should not establish a weather model by failing an event. The next time the other fails. The quality of weather models is measured on longer time scales and on larger geographical covers. E.g. Northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere.
This is good news — there was some risk that the doom-mongering by climate activist-scientists had so soured Congress that they would “throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater” in NOAA funding. Instead they have done the right thing — increased focus on weather forecasting.
Kudos to Congress (and, boy, has it been a long time since I’ve been able to say that!)
Sanity returns cyclically, just like the AMO.
As opposed to Minbari, who go mad as a whole but only return to sanity individually.
Is ARGO funded through NOAA? We should support the ARGO project since the oceans will eventually integrate the heat over time and are key to understanding the climate. This is basic research.