Introduction - Models are not All Wet: Models, Water and Temperature (2)
Introduction - Models are not All Wet: Models, Water and Temperature (2)
I am starting a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature.
A couple of entries ago, I wrote a somewhat muddled blog, Difference Between Night and Day. My major goal in that blog was to look at how water, especially water vapor, enters into the climate and climate change problem. I used some regional differences in climate, say Florida's and Arizona's, with the hope of suggesting that we have some intuition of how water vapor modifies regional climate. For example, due to the absence of water vapor, Arizona's extremes of daily temperature are larger than in a much wetter Florida.
This simple intuitive notion, however, quickly falls into complexity. It is the typical complexity of climate science, where the members of a set of simple physical processes combine in many different ways to produce a difficult-to-untangle knot of observations. I will come back to this later, but first, here are some of the other ideas I had in mind in that first blog.
At the end of that blog I referred to the paper by Kukla and Karl, 1993, Nighttime Warming and the Greenhouse Effect (from Rood’s Class Website). This paper investigates the observed decrease in the range between nighttime lows and daytime highs. At the writing of that paper in 1993, the models of 20 years ago did not simulate this observation especially well. How does one respond to fact that models don’t represent a particular observation? A common way to respond, sometimes put forward by commenters on this blog, is that the models fail to represent the observations; hence, the model is wrong, and to base any conclusions, actions or behavior on model results is grievous failure of reason.
I, of course, reject this conclusion. When I get the result that the model does not represent an observation especially well, then I take this as a piece of information that motivates further investigation. The scientific investigations of my career have been based on the process that we develop a model from a set of physical laws that are expressed as mathematical expressions. The physical laws and the construction of the original model are based in their most fundamental way on observations. If the model has been developed properly, then it offers an approximation of that observed behavior. If this is the case, then we have an experimental tool that can be used for further investigation. That investigation is motivated both by the shortcomings in the model’s ability to represent observations we already have and by new observations that come along. In this approach models evolve as a tool that help us explore and manage the complexity of the climate system. They also help guide our thinking about the future based on the projections that come from the models. Models are, therefore, devices to help us think; they do not provide the answer.
Another idea that I introduced in the Difference Between Night and Day was that large changes in the amount of water at the surface, for example, the Dust Bowl and irrigation in the Corn Belt, might have significant regional impacts on climate. The place I am going with this, ultimately, is the Midwest Warming Hole (2 MB if you click), and that requires thinking about water. The Midwest Warming Hole is an observed feature in the center of the United States that is not warming up as fast as the regions around it or as fast as the models predict. This is not a newly discovered feature, but it is a feature that I think takes on new interest as we think about this hot summer, the last hot summer, and how to use the observations today to think about the climate in the future and how to adapt to a warming climate. The Midwest Warming Hole, and the ability or inability to represent it in models, is also a great example to help people think about how to describe model uncertainty.
The last big theme that I want to follow from the original blog is the improvement of ways to discuss and understand the role of water – solid, liquid and vapor – in climate and climate change. I did a series Just Temperature ( one, two, three) which was motivated by the stunningly warm spring in 2012 in the continental United States and my thinking of extreme events as climate change case studies. The Just Temperature series used the fact that the warming of the Earth has become large enough that it is possible using temperature observations alone to make a compelling case the Earth is warming. But once we make it beyond that fact, we have to think about water to understand the complexity of both the spatial and temporal structure of the observed trends.
So here are three big themes that I want to organize around:
1) Doing science with models
2) Communicating the role of water in climate and climate change
3) Thinking about changes in land use and its impacts on water
These will be interspersed, of course, with some tangents to interesting subjects here and there. But those who know this blog know that eventually I get there.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index
That report will certainly set some portions of the Denialist Industry into a tizzy. In addition to announceing that he was suspending publication, comments and e-mails on his website, he said he was suspending his family vacation. I'm wondering if he's gotten himself into a situation that is involving lawyers. If he's planning on publishing something inflammatory, he may be locked up with his lawyers to word it in a way that is not libelous. Or, maybe he is being sued for previous libelous accusations and needs to stay home and plan his defense.
Just some uninformed thoughts on my part.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified scientific issues that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Now, after organizing an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I’ve concluded that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that cause is human.
My turnaround is the result of the careful and objective analysis by the “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” team, founded by me and my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, and one and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase is due to the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the IPCC concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC consensus statement, that the warming before to 1956 could be due to changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophistical statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist Robert Rohde, and which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), data selection (prior groups selected less than 20% of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100%), poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones), and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. ...
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect – extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide. ...
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. With a simple model (no tipping points, no sudden increase in cloud cover, a response to gases that is “logarithmic”) I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about 1.5 degree F over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid growth (it has averaged 10% per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (typically adding one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
Link
The warming part was revealed some time back when a draft of the paper was released (IIRC). Attribution to green house gases is, I think, new info. And it is very important.
Muller is one of the very few people who can be claimed to be a climate scientist who has been on the doubter side. With this the denier group looses major support for their arguments.
It's also important because Watts seems to have gone on record as being willing to accept Muller's findings.
Now, the drama will unfold. Will Watts stay true to his word or will he create some reason to toss the work of Muller's group?
The comments on Watts site should be fun to read. As much fun as back when Rush got his first big contract and had to do a 180 on taxing the rich. He had to "re-educate" his listeners away from the position he had pushed the day before. The one where the rich weren't paying their fair share.
Stay tuned....
No "Bob".
The term fits quite nicely.
Show me a post I've made that reflects "me" in your scenario.
Pack a lunch...rookie has already backed out of that during our July 4th encounter.
He failed...so will you.
Show me.
Live with it.
I suppose your post makes sense to you.
I find it rather cryptic...
--
eta: Weren't we carrying on without you? How can you be here when you're gone?
"...if Anthony Watts has even a shred of honesty, he will have to accept BEST's reaffirmation of what the climate research community, the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Academies of all other industrial nations, etc. have all already concluded: that human-caused climate change is a reality and a threat. There is room for a good faith debate over what to do about the problem. There is no longer room for a debate about whether the problem exists." (bolding mine)
So maybe that's what Watts is doing after all: penning a long confessional letter.
Maybe?
No?
No, I didn't think so either. But one can always hope, right? ;-)
so it's not a rumor anymore.
Link
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientic evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and inuential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science. Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic fndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientic findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists."
IOW, our struggle to help denialists get over their "skepticism" probably can't be won by us simply repeating the facts to them over and over and over again, for the simple reason that those facts aren't facts to denialists. In effect, they live in a world removed from reality--so if we're to help them, we'll need to enter their world and talk to them in the language of their self-erected fantasy. Scary thought. But at least there may be hope...
I'm too much of a cynical old curmudgeon to have any hope of AW ever seeing the light. Just keep on doing what we can.
The people doing the duping are paid well because they are accomplished at duping people. Even very smart people may be duped by an accomplished and skilled liar.
Honesty -brutal honesty- and critical thinking are the only defense against being duped. Even then, it's possible to be duped due to unrecognized bias or a lapse in critical thinking.
How many of you actually run a business, right now, that reports taxes?
Bain too, OUCH! :)
Thanks for posting that. I love the Chipmunks!
Did somebody say something about understanding business?
How many of you actually run a business, right now, that reports taxes?
Not me.
I started my business long ago, built it up, sold it for enough money to never need to work again. Retired at the age of 44.
(Actually I had three separate corporations. And paid a boat load of taxes.)
Thanks for asking....
I hear that..
Just went through the DR discussion on "Missing Cloud" issues, and was met with a blank stare by everyone. Like it can never not work! I was not good with that.......
If you base your whole business channel on the Cloud functioning, what do you do when it doesn't.....
Watch out for Microsoft Surfacing again....it is coming.
I will let you do your own homework on Office and Windows 8.
Could be quite good. . . .
You try to defend the indefensible. I will not waste anymore time on such.
That's the lie that Romney has been repeating, that Obama said that business owners had not built their own businesses. Which is absolutely not what PBO said.
That a candidate for president would take a phrase so obviously out of context and present it as his opponent's position tells you a lot about Romney's character.
--
Interestingly, Romney has put up an ad featuring various business owners who emphasize that they built their own busninesses. Of course they don't give their fellow citizens credit for the electric grid, the roads, the water and sewer systems that they used. Or for the public schools that educated their employees (and most likely them).
But what's even more fun is that all of the (I think all) have received various help from the federal government in terms of low cost business loans, government contracts, etc.
Here...
Ken Seilkop, CEO of Seilkop Industries, a company that, just last year sought and received government assistance to expand its business.
PlunderBund (http://s.tt/1j4Sh)
"Rebecca Smith owns a Tampa, Fla., construction-management firm that does a lot of work overseeing the building of schools and jails, and other projects for state and local governments.
But even though much of her firm's $80 million in annual revenue comes from contracts with government agencies, she says she was "disgusted" by President Obama's thesis that government had a significant role in her business achievements.
...
For instance, there was Jack Gilchrist , the New Hampshire small-business owner featured in a Romney ad.
It turned out Gilchrist's metal-fabrication business received substantial government assistance, including tax-exempt government revenue bonds and a Small Business Administration loan.
...
Ball Office Products CEO Melissa Ball participated at a Romney event in Virginia.
Ball was featured in a 2009 document from Virginia's Department of Minority Business Enterprise produced during the Democratic administration of then-Gov. Tim Kaine.
In the document, Ball credits her company's certification by the state agency as a "small, women- and minority-owned business (SWaM)" for allowing her to compete successfully for state contracts. Indeed, she said it was key to her ability to win a bid to supply a new dormitory at a state university. An excerpt from the document:
" 'Basically, certification allows me to play in the game,' " she explains. 'It's not a free ticket. It's still the responsibility of every supplier to be competent, but at least this gets us the opportunity to prove what we can do.' Recently, Ball found out Longwood University was building a new dorm — through a Quick Quote that came across on her computer — and she won the sizeable order.
'I hadn't met them before,' she says. 'I never would have even known the need existed if it hadn't been for SWaM.' "
Link
Yep, Mitt and all these folks built the hospitals into which they were born. Built them with their very own womb-hands. Then they paved the roads on which they rode home from the delivery room....
Back to climate change...
Here's a very good article about Greenland melting. Chock full of information and nice graphs.
It's not good news....
Link
NY Times Op
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
(BTW - Richard Muller is the director (Berkeley) of the Koch Bros. funded study)
This was quoted from Dr. Mann's FB page at Rabett Run:
"Some additional thoughts about Muller and 'BEST':
Muller's announcement last year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date w/ where the scientific community was in the the 1980s. His announcement this week that the warming can only be explained by human influences, brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s. At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years!"
Link
While the BEST PROJECT may not be very important scientifcally, it may have some effects on policy and politics.
I think it is very important for "political" reasons.
Muller was arguably the most credible scientist on the denier side. And his undertaking to review the accumulated data was major, not some scribbling on the dinner napkin, he had a large team that worked for a long time.
It knocks the pins out from under the argument that "some scientists disagree" when your leading guy grinds through the numbers and reports "Oops, we were wrong".
The denier "experts" are more and more becoming non-scientists.
--
Anthony, today's the day is it not? Noon? What time zone? If it's EST then I might get to enjoy his post with my morning coffee...
--
eta: I put political in quotes because most of the stuff that comes from the denier side cannot be called science. They make most of their claims devoid of data or with distorted data.
The strong claims from the denier camp then get used by political friends of fossil fuel industries to hamper our transition to clean energy and transportation.
I believe the time is about 12:00 PST.
2007 is the current record holder. Take a look at how the ice was on July 25, 2007 and the same date this year.
There's much less "purple and lavender" 80% and 100% concentration. The light green and yellow ice should melt away in the next few days. The rest of the melt season is likely to wipe out much of the red.
Additionally, the open water is going to be hotter than five years ago which should lead to a longer melt season.
2011 is the record holder for sea ice volume. That record will almost certainly fall this year.
BTW, most of the North West Passage is open. This year the ice, rather than be transported out in big chunks, largely melted in place. Temperatures in the area were very high for several days. It's possible that the NWP will open for non-icebreaker assisted ships before the Northern Passage.
Shipping through the Northern started some weeks ago, but with icebreaker assistance.
Did I report that Russia plans on shipping through the Northern Passage 12 months per year starting in 2018? In six years they figure that the ice will be so thin even in the coldest part of the year than they can cruise through it with hardened hulls.
Note that the July red 60% concentration ice largely vanished. Winds apparently compacted the remaining ice creating more 100% concentration areas. Some of the 80% concentration fell to 60%, thus leaving those areas more vulnerable to the last weeks of the melt.
2007 had a very heavy "weather" input. 2012 has not had the same weather extremes. That it has kept up with the 2007 melt speaks to how thin the ice has become over recent years.
Dr. Yurganov just updated this chart the other day, to include June 2012 data. This chart clearly shows the increasing methane emissions beginning in 2007/2008. This time frame is coincident with the dramatic sea ice changes in the arctic. In reading some of the material in a draft report by Dr. Yurganov, there is the implication that there is a correlation between temperature increases in the arctic regions and increases in methane releases.
Wih the elevated SSTs in the Arctic Regions this year, we may have a longer melt season this year and slow ice recovery during October/November.
Have they teased apart the methane from Arctic melting and from new natural gas and oil wells?
There's another factor which may come into play. Warmer air temps mean more water vapor present to form clouds and clouds trap heat from being radiated away from the ocean surface.
I'm sure not betting against a summer Arctic sea ice melt out in the next 4-5 years. Wouldn't be amazed to see it happen next year, the year after I'd be much less than amazed.
We're watching the largest geological event to occur while man has walked the Earth?
In what I've read, there is no mention of oil/gas drilling being a significant source of methane emissions in the arctic.
From Dr. Yurganov's Draft Report:
The graph you posted shows northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere plus combined. The NG would not be Arctic-only, I would suspect.
--
eta: I dug around a bit for some history of natural gas fracking. I didn't find 'production per year' or 'new wells per year', but I did get the impression that drilling into the Marcellus Shale formation took off about the same time as methane levels jumped.
Natural Gas production in the US was declining steadily until 2005 into what many perceived as an irreversible trend with an implication of persistent shortages. Enter the knight in shining armor; horizontal resource drilling. Daily gas production increased from 51 bcfd in 2005 to an average of 66.2 bcfd (billion cubic feet per day) in 2011. Some months have even spiked above 70 bcfd. The natural gas rig count peaked at 1,600 in the summer of 2008.
Link
Lots of new wells created that extra supply and leakage during drilling is a problem. Large enough to show up on the graph? I don't know.
--
I started reading this piece because it's from Forbes (a fairly untrustworthy publication when it comes to clean energy and EVs). Forbes is predicting a movement from <$2 per mcf to $8 per. If that happens it should have a major impact on wind and solar installation.
Right now renewables are meeting a lot of competition from very cheap natural gas. The good thing about that, new NG plants are replacing the least efficient (dirtiest) coal plants.
If natural gas goes up in price, more wind and solar will come on line. NG use will decline and become less of a 24/365 provider and more of a way to fill in between wind and solar variable inputs.
Bob,
I've hesitated posting these methane concentrations maps because the latest updates have changed the legend for the color scales. However, since you asked about the Marcellus Shale formation, I though I would go ahead and post the maps. You will note that there is no noticeable concentrations from that area of the US. The primary anthropogenic sources are, rice paddies, livestock and landfills in that order.
The link to all Nortern Hemisphere CH4 concentrations since 2002 is here:
NH CH4 Concentrations 2002-2012
Source: U.S. Department of Energy's Methane Hydrates R&D Program.
Found this chart from the DOE which was in the following article published by the USGS:
Gas Hydrates and Climate Warming—Why a Methane Catastrophe Is Unlikely
My only concern about the USGS article is that it is heavily dependant on the IPCC 2007 report.
Agreed. Things are changing quickly and the IPCC tends to publish rather conservative statements - things that can get wide political consensus.
Lots of good info - thanks.
WUWT PRESS RELEASE – July 29th, 2012 12PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Continued here Link
Well, it's going to be interesting to see how climate scientists review this piece of research.
I'd expect first reviews to start appearing within 48 hours.
Tony's Tap Dance....
I would not be surprised to see some "Congress Puppy" call a Hearing and use it as an opportunity to call NOAA on the carpet and accuse them of manipulating climate data.
The timing of this announcement is to deflect attention away from the BEST report, which is far more significant in the big picture.
This was NOT good news!!
I decided to don my HAZMAT Suit and jump into the WUWT Septic System for a few minutes. To read the comments, you would think that Tony Watts had just parted the Red Sea thereby protecting the ignorance of the un-washed masses and the Millions $$$ of his masters. What a Sock Puppet!!
I'm anxious to read what Neapolitan will have to say about this........once he recovers from apoplexy.
"Everyone who works at NOAA, the NCDC, or the NWS is a lying liar. The readers of WUWT say so. Also, Al Gore is fat."
The paper's author list alone is enough to send one into howls of laughter: Watts, Stephen McIntyre, and John Christy? Either Watts is so removed from reality that he thinks anyone other than his mouth-breathing sycophants will think the paper has science behind it, or he's so deceitful that he's hoping no one notices. (My money is on both.)
I do find it helpful that at least he/they acknowledge that the nation is getting hotter. That's something, anyway...
John Christy signed on to this paper. I thought him a soft-core denier. 'Twill be interesting to see how his reputation is 'adjusted' by all this.
I'll give Anthony the benefit of the doubt and let knowledgeable people take a look at his paper. I don't have much hope for him, but let the process play.
The fourth author listed, Evan Jones, doesn't inspire any confidence either. Google Scholar lists his professonal affiliation as:
Evan Jones
IntelliWeather, Chico, California, USA.
IntelliWeather is Watts' weather service.
Nice one.
John Christy is, of course, uber-denialist Roy Spencer's partner in slime. He may not be as vociferous as McIntyre or Spencer, but I don't know that I'd classify him as "soft-core", either.
I've
littleno doubt that the Watts et al paper, if reviewed and published as-is, will be quickly debunked and discredited. A poorly-written, error-filled paper authored by a small handful of denialist bloggers and discredited scientists, supported only by the ideologically-driven work of several hundred obsequious blog readers, containing not much more than a few dozen paragraphs proclaiming most scientists stupid and/or fraudulent, and primarily citing Watts' earlier work as an authoritative source, simply won't stand up to scientific scrutiny.That's amazing. Did anyone tell the satellites...or are they too close to airports, too?
Anyway, speaking of Watts, a few weeks ago he had a breathless entry asking, "Coldest July in history for Anchorage?", explaining that month-to-date, the city was on its way to a record cold month.
Not so fast there, silly boy.
The average temperature so far this month in Anchorage has been 55.4 degrees. That's a full degree higher than the coldest July ever there (in 1920). If the official forecast for the last two days of the month pans out, Anchorage will end with a July average temperature of 55.6 degrees. Given that the July average for 2008 was 55.4, I wonder whether Watts will again suspend his vacation plans, only this time to loudly and breathlessly announce "Coldest July in four years for Anchorage!"
Viewing: 351 - 401
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index