Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:
Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:
In the last article I wrote that the extreme events of 2011 were providing us with the opportunity to think about climate and how to cope with a warming world. The U.S. is experiencing an extreme heat event this week (Masters @ WU). This heat wave is the consequence of a strong, stationary high pressure system over the central U.S., and it will move to the east over the next few days. Back on July 14th The Capital Weather Gang did a nice write up on the forecast of the heat wave. At the end of this blog are links to my previous blogs on heat waves and human health.
When thinking about weather, climate, and extreme events an important idea is “persistence.” For example, a heat wave occurs when there are persistent high temperatures. Persistent weather patterns occur when high and low pressure systems get large and stuck; that is, they don’t move. In the Figure below, you need to imagine North America and the United States. There is a high pressure center over the proverbial Heartland. With blue arrows I have drawn the flow of air around the high pressure system, and in this case moist air. There is moisture coming from the Gulf of Mexico and, in fact on the date when this was drawn, from the Pacific. This is common in the summer to see both the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific as sources of continental moisture.
Figure 1: Schematic of a high pressure system over the central United States in July. While generic, this is drawn to represent some of the specifics of 2011. The green-shaded area is where there have been floods in 2011. The brown-shaded area represents sustained drought in the southern part of the nation.
At the center of this high pressure system there is a suppression of rain, because the air is moving downward. This sets up a situation where the surface heats from the Sun’s energy. There is not much mixing and cooling, because of the suppression of the upward motion that produces rain. Hence, if this high pressure system gets stuck, then there is persistent heat. This is a classic summer heat wave.
Let’s think about it some more. There is lot of moisture being drawn around the edge of the high pressure system, and this moisture contributes to the discomfort of people. People – just a short aside about people: if we think about heat and health, then we are concerned about people’s ability to cool themselves. It is more difficult to cool people when it is humid because sweat does not evaporate. Suppose that in addition to this moisture, there is a region where the ground is soaked with water from flooding. Then on top of already moist air coming from the Gulf, there is local evaporation into the air being warmed by the Sun. If on the interior of the high, where the rain is suppressed, there is hot, wet air, then it becomes dangerous heat.
It’s not easy to derive a number that describes dangerous heat. But in much of the eastern U.S. a number that somehow combines temperature and humidity is useful. Meteorologists often use the heat index. It’s the summer time version of “it’s 98 degrees, but it feels like 105.” For moist climates, the heat index is one version of the “it feels like” temperature. Jeff Masters tells me that in Newton, Iowa yesterday, July 17, 2011, the heat index was 126 degrees F. (see here, and 131 F in Knoxville, Iowa on July 18)
Another measure of heat and humidity is the dew point; that is, the temperature at which dew forms, and effectively limits the nighttime low. The dew points in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are currently very high and setting records. Here is a map of dew point for July 19, 2011.
Figure 2: Exceptionally high dew points centered on Iowa.
Now if I was a public health official, and I was trying to understand how a warming planet might impact my life, then here is how I would think about it. First, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are going to be warmer, and hence, there will be more humid air. This will mean, with regard to human health for the central U.S., heat waves will become more dangerous, without necessarily becoming hotter. It is also reasonable to expect heat waves will become more frequent and last longer, because those persistent, stuck high pressure systems are, in part, forced by the higher sea surface temperatures. If I am a public health official here is my algorithm – heat waves are already important to my life, and they are likely to get more dangerous, more frequent, and of longer duration. But by how much? Do I need to know by how much before I decide on a plan for action?
If I think about the air being more humid, then I might expect to see trends in the heat index. I might expect to see trends in dew points, and trends in the nighttime minimum temperatures getting higher. (That’s where a greenhouse effect really matters.) I worry about persistent heat, warm nights, and the inability of people and buildings to cool themselves. I worry about their being dangerous heat in places where people and emergency rooms are not used to dangerous heat – not acclimated to heat – not looking for heat-related illness.
Let’s go back to the figure. Rain is suppressed in the middle of the high pressure system, but around the edge of the high pressure system it will rain; there will be storms. (see Figure 3 at the end) The air around the edge of high is warm and very wet. Wet air is energetic air, and it is reasonable to expect local severe storms. (See Severe Storm on Lake Michigan) And if the high pressure is persistent, stuck, then days of extreme weather are possible. If this pattern sets up, then there is increased likelihood of flooding. If I am that public health official, then I am alerted to the possibility of more extreme weather and the dangers thereof. But, again, can the increase of extreme weather be quantified? Do I need to quantify it before I decide on a plan of action?
Still with the figure - what about that region of extended drought and the heat from the high pressure system? Dehydration becomes a more important issue. As a public health official, I start to see the relation of the heat event to other aspects of the weather, the climate. I see the relation to drought. I see the flood, and it’s relation to the winter snow pack and spring rains.
So what I have presented here is to look at the local mechanisms of the weather – what are the basic underlying physics responsible for hot and cold, wet and dry – for moist air? If I stick to these basic physics, and let the climate model frame the more complex regional and global picture, what can I say about the future? Do I have to have a formal prediction to take action? Here in 2011, I see drought and flood and hot weather and warm oceans that interact together to make a period of sustained, dangerous heat. It does not have to “set a record” to convey the reality of the warming earth. It tells me the type of event that is likely to come more often, of longer duration, and of, perhaps, of greater intensity. If I am a public health planner, then I can know this with some certainty. The question becomes, how do I use that information in my planning?
r
Figure 3: Radar loop showing precipitation around the edge of the large high pressure system in the middle of the continent. July 19, 2011.
Previous Blogs on Heat Waves
Hot in Denver: Heat Waves (1)
Heat Waves (2): Heat and Humans
Heat Waves (3): Role of Global Warming
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 — Blog Index
TThe fossil fuel industry makes hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit every minute of every hour of every day. Does anyone truly believe that a corrupt scientist--that is, one willing to trade on his credibility, experience, and education--would grovel after those oh-so-lucrative grants when he could earn 20 times as much working the denialist circuit?
Puh-leez...
Oh, so you alone are able to submit comments without being logged in? That must be nice... ;-)
Um.. maybe this is true. I've often thought that the only thing more useless than one philosopher is two of them.
But a lot of the professors that you are refering to are in the 'hard science' side of academics. They are not debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin, they are working on models that are open for inspection. To date, none of these models have been proven false.
Further, a lot of hard science in academics is tied to university/industry partnerships. This creates a motivation for overstating results but it also creates a market feedback mechanicsm that is much more honest than the popular press.
I think if you lined up the predictions from academics against politicians and other pundits, youwould find the academics are much closer to reality.
I also find it amusing that global warming can be considered alarmist theory by the same people that think that imaging a global conspiracy in the face of open data is not rational.
By James Taylor | Forbes – 21 hrs ago
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold- global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Yeah but the pay off for professors is working with intelligent people and dating liberal chicks. If you work for big oil you have to date Sarah Palin types and sneak your fun in through the backdoor.
I haven't been inclined to visit the ex small-market TV weather reader's site today, but this must be all over it, huh?
A politically-motivated investigation with no specific charges--ie, a "witch hunt"--doesn't prove anything, of course. Now, I wonder whether WUWT (and the other 4,000 denialist websites parroting this story today) will print a full retraction/apology when the Monnett is over? Nah, I don't really wonder that; if history is any lesson, we won't hear a word. After all, smear-and-run has been a denialist tactic from Day One.
Well there's a recent study that proved models false, that I just posted
sorry
Seems you forgot a few things:
"James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The [Big Energy Funded] Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News [a monthly publication from the Big Energy funded Heartland Institute]."
There. Now people can have the whole story. At least, as much as one can get from a profit-over-all magazine like Forbes...
I thought its all about science? Science isn't supposed to be accepted if its reported in a business publication? Should politics not be accepted if its reported in a Rock & Roll publication?
So the models were off in their predictions. It doesn't mean the debate is over!
Get yourself together man, science is only emotional when you make it emotional.
*Green font to make it go down easier
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold- global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
now that NASA is losing federal funding for various programs, they don't feel they have to "tow the company line"
+like
Do you remember Tom DeLay? Well, here we go again!
I think it's more along the lines that the scientists who work for NASA might be finding themselves out of a job soon, and they are jumping to restore any sort of credibility that they might have left (if that is possible) now that the light of independent study is now squarely upon them. They also are worried about their reputation because they might be soon be in the job market.
Rachel Maddow or Megyn Kelly
no contest
Link
I don't know them so no comment. However, I will give you Bellatrice Lestrange.
She casts a spell on me : )
seems she is some sort of a death-eater
??
Food for thought:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Link
When their Big Polluting masters play a tune, the puppets do just as they're expected: they get up and start dancing a lively little jig, and the puppet masters smile. Of course, the whole world pays the price for the festivities--but so long as the puppets can get a few more dollars in their campaign war chests and their masters can see a few extra dollars in their stock portfolios, who cares, right? :-\
It's true: cities are heating up even faster than rural areas as a result of AGW. Not very comforting...
Oh, it wouldn't be the concrete, steel, asphalt and other known heat-retaining substances. No, that couldn't be it, especially the higher temperatures at night. Of course it's CO2. You alarmists should be the deniers. Denying real science itself.
Are you of the opinion that somehow CO2-induced warming is mutually incompatible with city-induced heating? Do you believe that the existence of the latter disproves the existence of the former? And if so, can you please explain to us all why that would be? Thanks!
Allrighty then. Thought the NASA data was worth at least a look by you folks, but I guess you all think that since I haven't been taking sides in the matter, my input isn't relevant.
I put the link up for discussion. Have a nice night.
I appreciate the links, Ossqss, but why do you give me links to Roy Spencer's comments on this? He wrote the article in the link I supplied. This is kind of like asking someone to grade their own test with no other resources at their disposal to use.
If you disagree, that fine, but it makes no matter as to the facts, as they remain, the facts.
Where doe the 90plus million tons of Pollutants daily pumped into Earths Atmosphere go?
I believe some think the RNC Fairy's and Elve's come out at night,wave their Harry Potter Wands and POOF it all away.
Kinda like Tax Cuts create Jobs u could say?
LoL
Get a grip, get up to speed on the Science of Climate Change.
Or at least bring something other than a watts up wit dat article of "udder" nonsense to sway the Overwhelming Science of climate Change.
Enjoy yer evening.
Oh, here's a good place to start..
Created with your Tax Funded science dollars, NOAA.
I believe a few, if not all posters here Taxes went to pay for the Graphs as well.
Money well spent, TYVM
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators
Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.
The left-wing Associated Press reported the story as well. How are you going to skew that one?
Link
Take a look at the peer reviewed, published paper producers names.
That just doesn't read right, sorry :)
No, my bus is still looking at the GPS, traffic, and the weather outlook to determine the way-points.
Let's look at this from a different perspective.
GISS, the predominant tool for land temps.
Tell me,,,,,,
Who looked at, documented, and then who calibrated/verified those global temp readings from say,,,, 25,50,75,150 years ago?
We are talking about 1.4F over 160 years!
How confident are you with the starting line?
Remember, 1,200 Km smoothing, Homogenization, and in particular, above 80, extrapolation.
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.
These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.
The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
VOLUME 90 NUMBER 48
1 DECEMBER 2009
PAGES 453–468,,, Have Large Dams Altered
Extreme Precipitation Patterns?
What about Levee's? >?
While I am posting, check page 739, interesting, no?
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf
Well, that's a different story, of course; in #1008, I was referring to the James Taylor piece in Forbes where he stated "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism", not the one about the Arctic scientist who's the subject of a political witch hunt.
Now, so long as we're talking about that Forbes story: while the denialosphere blew up yesterday with trumpeting Spencer's latest, scientists around the globe have been pretty unanimous in their reaction. Some quotes from a LiveScience article:
"It is not newsworthy" Daniel Murphy, NOAA cloud researcher
"I cannot believe it got published" Kevin Trenberth, NCAR senior scientist
"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct...[however] it makes the skeptics feel good" Andrew Dessler, atmospheric sciences professor at Texas A&M
"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime. Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record." Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard scientist
And from the text of the article:
"Mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct."
"No climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed [with Spencer's conclusion]"
"Researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an 'unrealistic' model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites."
"Spencer himself is up front about the politics surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job 'has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism, and said he viewed his role as protecting 'the interests of the taxpayer.'"
- - - - - - - - -
Many scientists seek scientific truth; I suppose Spencer should at least be given points for being honest enough to admit that that search for truth isn't his first priority.
By James Taylor | Forbes %u2013 Wed, Jul 27, 2011
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Live Science Article...
And with that, it's back to the drawing board for the denialists, I suppose. Better luck next time, guys! Though frankly I don't need a teardown of the Spencer paper; anyone who can with a straight face work for Big Energy, support "Intelligent Design" over evolution, say that ideological motives are his primary concern, and still claim authority is someone who definitely does not deserve to wear the title "credible". Or "scientist", for that matter.
Silly denialists.
Link
I've read the transcripts elsewhere, and it sounds like a couple of scientists doing their job diligently and honestly. If observational or calculation errors were made, that's why scientific results always need independent verification. So no loss. At the end, Monnett himself notes that even if they were "sloppy", that doesn't mean there was any intent to deceive.
The entire Monnett witch hunt is very clearly timed to obfuscate the truth about climate change, to sully the waters so decisionmakers can't see the bottom. Big Energy wants to drill up thataway, and they'll stop at nothing to please their shareholders, even if that means destroying a man's professional career.
But I do award the opinion page to which you linked the coveted seal:
Ah, don't read your own comments then?
Funny, how (assuming you are right) one example makes you feel validated while all the hundreds of links to trash slanted articles that you have posted are ignored.
I'm being really serious, not trying to attack you, though it probably sounds like it. But this really is what you have done. Doesn't it bother you 1) to do it. and 2) that you are so hypocritical?
Before you attack me, which I probably deserve, can yuo please stop and consider the question: why is it ok for you to publish these links to articles that you know are biased?
The article was simply a transcript of how a so-called scientist invented the drowning of many polar bears due to global warming, when he only saw three dead bears that drowned due to a severe winter storm. Al Gore used this fraudulent science as the basis for part of his movie. If that isn't bias, I don't know what is. This "scientist" is now under investigation for that fraud. Did you even read the transcript? As for bias, anything released by the government is biased. A culture of corruption exists among gov't-employed climate scientists. If they don't spout the gov't propaganda, they don't eat. The more the info they release is scrutinized, the more it is seen that they manipulate the numbers. Even NASA scientists themselves are starting to doubt the veracity of their info. If you have read the previous links on this blog posted by me and others, you can see how this charade is slowing falling apart.
As far as my articles being ignored, they are only ignored by people with a preconceived notion that AGW is real. No one with an open mind ignores them. As far as attacking you, it would do no good. That's the modus operandi of warmists. Snide comments because they can hide behind that computer monitor.
Edit: Belief in AGW usually goes hand in hand with liberal ideology. Several psychologists and psychiatrists have recently written books explaining the mental disorder of liberalism.
haha
Viewing: 1001 - 1051
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 — Blog Index