Is this year what we can expect?
Is this year what we can expect?
In recent weeks a question I have been asked often, “is this year, the last couple of years, like what we can expect in the future?” The question is often asked quietly, perhaps by a planner, say, someone worried about water in their city. The question follows from not only a perception that the weather is getting “weird,”, but also some small aspect of experience in their job. For example, a water manager recently said they were seeing their local river showing a distinct change to sporadically high flow in the winter, smaller spring flows, and extremely small flow late in the summer. Is this what I should expect in the future? The short answer is yes.
This question of expectation has rolled around in my head for years. I am a gardener with aspirations for small farmer. Over the last 30 years, I have definitely pushed my planting earlier in the year. When I was in Maryland, I felt wet, cool Mays were becoming the “norm,” with my tomatoes sitting in sodden soil. At the same time I would recall plots I had seen in some recent presentation that showed modeled shifts in the warm-cold patterns suggesting springtime cooling in northeastern North America. These are the sorts of casual correlations that lead people to think are we seeing a new “normal.”
In 2008 I wrote a blog about the changes in the hardiness zones that are reported on the back of seed packages. These are the maps that tell us the last frost date, and there were big changes between 1990 and 2006. These changes in the seed packets caught the attention of a lot of people. Recently, NOAA published the “new normal.” This normal relies on the definition of climate as a 30 year average. (AMS Glossary) What was done - at the completion of the decade NOAA recalculated a 30 year average. That is, 1981-2010 rather than 1971-2000. This average changed a lot, with notable warming of nighttime minima. There was some regional reduction of summertime maxima; that is, cooling. All in all, the average temperature went up, with most of the increase in nighttime minimum, a fact that is consistent with both model simulations and fundamental physics. This also came with another update of those hardiness zones.
When trying to interpret climate information and determining how has climate changed and how will it change, the combination of observations, fundamental physics, and models provide three sources of information. The combination of this information and the determination of the quality of that information is subject to interpretation. In the case of determining whether or not we are already experiencing the climate of warming world and how that change will be realized in the next decades it depends on how we use the models.
In my previous entry on heat waves, I implied how to use these pieces of information together. There are fundamental physics in the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air; hot air holds more water; warm water evaporates more quickly. The question of the model is - how well does the model represent the movement of that moisture? For the heat wave example, it is important how well do the models represent persistent high pressure systems over North America in the summer? Are these high pressure systems represented well by the models for the right reasons? The answer to the model question has a range of answers. The model does represent these systems, but if you are an expert in summertime persistent high pressure systems, then you can provide a long list of inadequacies. How can we glean information about the quality of the model? If we look at weather models, then we were able to predict the heat wave – even with the inadequacies that the expert or skeptic can list. Returning to the climate model, do we see like events in the current climate, and do these events change as the planet warms? The answer is yes. Then can we use this to guide our development of plans to adapt to climate change? The answer is yes, if we can connect the model back to data and the fundamental physics. This does become a matter of interpretation – how strong or weak is that connection?
The more I work with planners the more I hear the need for interpretive information, expert guidance, advisories about climate and climate change. People start with the notion that they want digital data from climate models that looks like current weather data. Once presented with 1) the logistical challenges of using that data, 2) the complex nature of the uncertainties associated with that data, and 3) the relative importance of climate to other parts of their decision package – once presented with these facts, they move to the need for advice. This makes sense - most of us want a narrative weather forecast, rather than model output. And the models play the same role in the use of weather forecasts as they do in climate projection. The models guide our thinking, with the ultimate forecast based on that guidance refined by observations and fundamental physics.
This entry started with the question I hear more and more – is this year what we can expect more of in the future? I have a mantra which is that on average the surface of the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. What we are seeing here is weather changing in a warming, more energy laden, environment. The extraordinary extremes that we have seen in the last year and are seeing this year are quite solidly connected to both fundamental physics and the guidance from climate and weather models. Hence, my answer, as I walk around my garden, thinking how to get better tomatoes next year, thinking about my irrigation system in my doddering retirement, is yes, what we are seeing this year tells me about what to expect in a future that is relevant to me - not something far off.
r
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 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index
I found it startling that Katrina sat there in the Gulf as a full Cat 5 with New Orleans clearly within its landfall cone while people in authority were discussing (not acting) what should be done. The failure goes deeper, a city expanded into zones well below sea level, dependent on 100% absolute integrity of a series of dikes, and abysmal response and resource deployment when the magnitude of the human disaster was abundantly clear. Apart from New Orleans though, I do seem to recall a rather substantial storm surge in the very eastern corner of Louisiana and Mississippi...pretty bad in spots. It might have been Cat 2/Cat3 at landfall there, but the water ahead of it might have had a Cat 5 memory.
I agree that government incompetence--on both sides of the aisle--made the situation far worse than it needed to be. But I wouldn't agree at all that "the storm wasn't even that bad". From the NHC's TCR on Katrina: "Katrina was an extraordinarily powerful...hurricane that carved a wide swath of catastrophic damage..."
New Scientist Article...
Seems some forgot to take their morning Med's for a self inflicted disorder and then end up with braggarts on an FOIA request that has been viciously fought against for many years and finally had to be honored.
Just like Yamal, another wall falls.......
SOS SOS SOS SOS SOS SOS SOS SOS SOS SOS TO THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
img src="
img src="
Just can't stop with the personal attacks, can you? That's okay; I understand your frustration.
Now, do you know the whole story? Have you read this article or others as to just why the FOIA requests have been "vicioulsy fought against"> You may wish to educate yourself before making a mistake of Bastardian proportions...
LOL, OK! \\
Wrong !
Done, next ?
L8R
Link
Most of the energy went east of N.O. There was a lot of wind, but I've seen worse. The rain amounts weren't much.
Hey, eddy. Good to see you here. Taking a break from destroying the earth for corporate profit, I see. Good for you!
As for your comment: do you really wanna try this "PWNED" thing again? Because, you know, it hasn't worked out well at all for you, at least not so far. But I do admire your persistence, I really do...
;-)
Anyway, please go back and read all the comments in temporal context, then get back with me so we can discuss, okay? Thanks!
A quick update: melting has picked up in the past several days, just as Dr. Masters predicted. In fact, yesterday's loss of 127,187 square kilometers was the sixth greatest one-day loss this season (the top five were in the first two weeks of July). In the past 10 days alone, 816,406 square kilometers (315,216 square miles) of Arctic Sea ice were lost. That's an area the size of Texas and Wisconsin combined.
FWIW, from 2002 through 2010, ice extent has only failed to drop below 6,000,000 square kilometers once (in 2003). The average date for breaking the 6,000,000 barrier for the remaining years has been August 19th. This year that line was crossed on the 10th--and the pace is picking up.
Ouch...
Viewing: 1401 - 1421
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 | 27 | 28 | 29 — Blog Index