Is this year what we can expect?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:38 PM GMT on August 03, 2011

Share this Blog
11
+

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

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 321 - 271

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 | 29Blog Index

Quoting JBastardi:


Another one of those blatherers who thinks she knows what transpired at Accuweather. Unless you have a contact there, you have absolutely no idea. From what information I can gather, JB left Accuweather because they didn't want to pay enough. After all, he was the star there and is probably one of the most highly-visible meteorologists in the country. He was the attraction and asked for more than they were willing to give. All of this innuendo that he was fired for his climate beliefs has no basis in fact. Hey, it's similar to global warming "science." It seems that all who believe in the fallacy of AGW detest Joe Bastardi, because he is an affront to their religion.

A star? Joe "The worst professional long-range forecaster on Earth" Bastardi. He wasn´t a star. Accuweather got tired of Bastardi's BS and fired him. Bastardi couldn´t even read a temperature anomaly map Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GiovannaDatoli:

As has been reinforced numerous times on this blog before, they is a vast difference between everyday weather and long-term observations and trends that is climate. Of course, Joe Bastardi will have you thinking otherwise. Just ask Accuweather how that turned out.

Maybe he should have just stuck to his bodybuilding skills.... ;-)


Another one of those blatherers who thinks she knows what transpired at Accuweather. Unless you have a contact there, you have absolutely no idea. From what information I can gather, JB left Accuweather because they didn't want to pay enough. After all, he was the star there and is probably one of the most highly-visible meteorologists in the country. He was the attraction and asked for more than they were willing to give. All of this innuendo that he was fired for his climate beliefs has no basis in fact. Hey, it's similar to global warming "science." It seems that all who believe in the fallacy of AGW detest Joe Bastardi, because he is an affront to their religion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just for fun, I used the same data set Spencer uses on his own site and made my version of his chart, this time with a linear trendline as well as the 13-month running average he shows:

CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE

Uh-oh


That works out to about 0.0132 degrees Celsius, or 0.02376 degrees Fahrenheit, per year for the past 32 years and some months. That is, by any measure, incredibly fast.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Dr. Roy Spencer's site:

CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE:

Uh-oh
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I would like to say to you all it has been fun exchanging points with everyone. My crane has arrived in Fort McMurray Alberta so it is off to work for awhile. Hopefully I will see you all in a couple of months. I also have to say I am sorry for the job as my Demag CC6800 crawler ( which is fairly big )will be picking material to increase production of the oil sands. All you AGWT folks can blame me now for actually helping contribute to Global Warming but hey it pays the bills. ROFL PEACE OUT signed The Edge

Hells bells, get busy so we don't pay another nickel to Chavez.

BHO's first good move.

By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
August 5, 2011
Reporting from Seattle— Shell Exploration was conditionally cleared Thursday to proceed with the most ambitious oil and gas drilling program ever attempted in the U.S. Arctic, a plan that would offer access to a crucial new domestic energy supply in one of the most environmentally fragile regions on Earth.

After years of legal wrangling by Shell and Arctic conservationists, the exploration plan in the Beaufort Sea off the coast of Alaska was tentatively approved by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which could clear the way for Shell to begin drilling three exploratory wells as early as next July.

Several key hurdles remain, including federal permits for discharging air pollutants and disturbing the whales, seals, walrus and polar bears that reside near the proposed drilling sites, and those hurdles could easily delay the drilling further, though opponents by now are running short of legal options.

A decision is expected as early as next week on the additional crucial issue of Shell's plan for cleaning up any oil spilled during drilling operations — a matter of concern because of the fragility of the Arctic environment and the difficulty in cleaning up oil amid ice floes, the towering waves of Arctic storms and the long hours of dark once the autumn drilling season winds to a close.

Conservationists also fear that drilling could disrupt a key resting and feeding area in Camden Bay for endangered bowhead whales.

Shell has a separate application under review to launch up to six exploratory wells in the nearby Chukchi Sea, an operation that also could get underway next year if approvals are in place.

"Shell has come back with the largest and most aggressive drilling proposal we've ever seen in the U.S. Arctic. We've never seen anything of this scale before in this country," said Holly Harris, attorney for the environmental law group Earthjustice, which has battled drilling plans in the Arctic.

"This is a disaster waiting to happen…. Scientific integrity and government accountability took their familiar back seat to oil company profits and power today," she said.

But officials in Alaska who have long been frustrated with lengthy court delays over opening production on what they see as a crucial and obvious new energy resource welcomed the federal agency's decision, which followed an earlier approval that was tied up by court orders for additional environmental reviews.

"Approval of this exploration plan is fantastic news for Alaska's oil and gas industry and is a welcome shot in the arm for Alaska's long-term economic good health," Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said. "I'm confident this will ultimately be the first of many developments to keep oil flowing through Alaska's economic lifeline, the trans-Alaska oil pipeline."

Shell has pursued its Arctic exploration program for years and spent large amounts of money on scientific studies and response plans, only to face new delays based on continuing concerns that the remote, delicate Arctic region could perhaps not withstand industrial operations offshore and the kind of oil disaster that occurred with last year's BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

After its earlier exploration plan was held up once again last year, Shell came back this spring with an even more ambitious proposal and warnings that the company could not afford to wait forever to get them approved.

"The conditional approval of our plan of exploration is welcome news and adds to our cautious optimism that we will be drilling our Alaska leases by this time next year," Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.

But in a conference call organized by the Alaska Wilderness League, conservation leaders and Robert Thompson, an Inupiat resident of Kaktovik, an indigenous village on the Beaufort Sea, expressed doubts that even a small part of a major oil spill could be effectively cleaned up.



Link



Falling Gas Prices Create Unexpected Bounty but Are They Enough to Revive Economy? - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - December 08, 2008


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
long term is 30 years, right? according to nobel prize and oscar winners, it seems to be.

and is this long term in human lifespan years or long term for a 4.6 billion year old planet 93 million miles from its star?

is it science when a theory's predictions keep getting pushed further in time?

its the same with apocalypse doom sayers...when the anti-christ never shows up, they just move the goal posts.

on and on and on...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:


They left the site.

I scored pretty good in body language and "speech patterns".

:)


"Lie to me" ? - great show!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GiovannaDatoli:


Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate




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.


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.


Shush they will say that is a downward trend!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:


The government experts predicted that Arctic sea ice would be "gone" in 2008. In the link I posted a couple of posts back, the same expert is now not predicting the end of Arctic ice until 2030 when he won't be around to take the heat when he is wrong again.

Link



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Neapolitan and Algore must be related:

Link

Don't I wish; he's a Nobel Prize winner, an Academy Award winner, a Grammy Award winner, Time Magazine's Person of the Year, a wonderful humanitarian, and one the world's great statesmen, no doubt about it. So thank you. That's easily one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me. ;-)

However, after reading the nonsensical PDF to which you linked, I feel safe in giving it my very own seal:

Denialist Approved
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:



“The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50 percent of the current amount of sea ice, the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures,” he said here."

The bad news is it isn't predicted to be 50% less than what it is now. It is predicted to GONE. But then again there are those who like to sugar coat it.


The government experts predicted that Arctic sea ice would be "gone" in 2008. In the link I posted a couple of posts back, the same expert is now not predicting the end of Arctic ice until 2030 when he won't be around to take the heat when he is wrong again.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
Oh,I see! We are in trouble now,no sea ice for the first time ever. I highly doubt that. Link



%u201CThe good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50 percent of the current amount of sea ice, the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures,%u201D he said here."

The bad news is it isn't predicted to be 50% less than what it is now. It is predicted to be GONE. But then again there are those who like to sugar coat it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting robodave:
You need to do a bit of research yourself. Science did not start with Galileo like you imply, and nor did history's great thinkers solely turn to the bible for guidance. Believe it or not, but there's a history before, oh, 1500AD or so. Does it really have to be surprising that there's a marriage between great thinkers and religion and that religion happens to be the one that's always playing catch up?

So let me put it another way...

The Great Global Warming Scare inspires new age believers to reinvent society in their own image. Much time passes and now science has a new opinion. Suddenly the new age believers are fighting the science to retain control of things. Ultimately, they lose. Same thing happened when people like galileo and copernicus started to shake things up. They weren't just trying to convince the church, as you might claim, but they were also trying to convince their colleagues and other thinkers like them. This is because the earth-centered and sun-centered era was millenary. It was usurped in hundreds of years. What's so amazing is that in a short period of time we're already focused on the universe and now looking for other ones. In other words, it's almost as though this knowledge is moving exponentially.

Where will it go? How FAR will it go? I bet they asked the same question a thousand years ago or even more. It's not as though imagination only emerged just recently. But either we hit a limit and everything stops, or it keeps going and going.... And we, ofc, either resist like the church people resisted to see a larger universe or we go down that dark eerie road to puzzle over its mysteries.


robodave – Might I suggest you try to improve your reading comprehension skills? I never once used the word “science” nor did I claim anyone to be a scientist in my response to you. What I spoke of was of inventions and observers. Please show where I even “implied” the word science. I am not responsible for what you take out of a conversation but, since I never used the words science, scientist or even scientific studies you will need to show me how I implied it. Should you be able to interpret the words invention or observations into the word science then you imply much more than I did.

Many think of Albert Einstein as a brilliant scientist. They would only be half correct. Einstein was not a scientist. Einstein had an uncanny ability to ask, “what if” and form theories based upon these thought experiments. Einstein never tested any of his theories. He left this to others to do.

You are also absolutely incorrect in your statement that Galileo was not "the start of science". He is credited with not only being the father of science but, also, the father of modern science. - Link - Try doing a little more reading before making such absurd and non factual comments. Perhaps that would dissuade you from making such comments, in the future. Perhaps but, probably not very likely.

Yes, there was history before 1500 A.D.. Did you skip over my reference to the date of 1440 A.D.? Guess what. There is a RECORDED history before 1500 A.D. as well. Again, you imply much more than I have.

Does it really have to be surprising that there's a marriage between great thinkers and religion and that religion happens to be the one that's always playing catch up?” A marriage? Really? I never it saw it this way. Truly, there are those with devout religious beliefs that are also great thinkers. The problem lies with their religious beliefs influencing their thinking ability. Albert Einstein, for instance, was devout in his religion and whenever he tried to come up with “a theory of everything” he always kept his thought processes along the lines of how God would have done it. He firmly believed that God would not have a universe that contained randomness and that everything would need to be orderly. This was Einsein's greatest problem in believing in quantum physics. Perhaps, just perhaps, if he had not tried to envision how God did it then he may have actually devised his own “theory of everything”. Even his best friend once told Einstein to quit telling God what to do.

As for the rest of your comments? When you can give me proof of the following, I will listen to you. Until you do so, you have only proven yourself less knowledgeable of the science than am I.

1. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
2. Industrialization has not increased the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere beyond what is naturally occurring, in nature.
3. Trees, and other plant life, are not natural carbon sinks.
4. Man’s activities have not caused deforestation beyond the natural influences of nature.
5. A warming Earth will not melt the Arctic permafrost.
6. Methane is not released as a result of a melting permafrost.
7. Methane is not a greenhouse gas.
8. The world’s oceans are not natural carbon sinks.
9. CO2, when introduced into the oceans does, not form carbonic acid.
10. Acidification of the oceans is not occurring and, even if it were, is not caused by increasing amounts of carbonic acid.
Yes, you could ask me to prove the reverse of these but, has scientific studies already not done so? Would you take my word/opinion over that of the scientist that have dedicated their education and studies to these fields? Am I really that much more knowledgeable than they are that you would take my word/opinion on this over there studies and findings? ... I would hope not but, I Do have an idea that I would like to sell to you. Interested?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Another failed prediction by a government propagandist. Now he's going to push back his date of an ice-free Arctic by a couple of decades hoping he won't be around when his prediction fails yet again.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
It's Hot,,and getting hotter.

No truer words have ever been spoken...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

In reference to the real JB's use of temperature charts that only begin in 1996 or 2001:
Cherry-picking (chair'-ee--pik'-ing) - verb (trans-intrans) 1. the activity of selecting and/or presenting only that data which supports ones point of view, while intentionally omitting and/or de-emphasizing that which does not.
As to the rest of the Meteorological Muscleman's rant: within the denialist echo chamber, the accepted line is that global warming has somehow been discredited. That's what they keep telling each other, but it's a "fact" only within the fantasy-based Denialosphere they've made for themselves. But out in the real world--you know, where truth is constructed through facts, open debate, and research--scientists are increasingly convinced that a) the global climate is changing much more quickly than expected, and b) our burning of fossil fuels is driving that change. In fact, the climate continues to behave pretty much as climate models have been predicting for the past 25 years, so JB's--and Watts', and Pielke's, and Spencer's, and etc.--anti-scientific nonsense means nothing.


Why don't you put that "cherry-picking" definition away unless you want to use it to describe yourself? You are definitely a legend in your own mind calling the aforementioned scientists' work "anti-science." You can sit in your little cubicle for the rest of your life telling yourself that it's warming and the sky is falling, while dwelling on models and fraud that, as you say, have been "thoroughly debunked". The only anti-science around here is what you and your cohorts post. I don't know what your game is, but your world is crashing down on you quickly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oh,I see! We are in trouble now,no sea ice for the first time ever. I highly doubt that. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's Hot,,and getting hotter.

Semper Fi.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Or this!


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Or like this also!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
You mean like cherry picking the summer of 2011 out of a million summers! Wow,always look at (since records been kept)usually the year 1880 average for U.S. cities.


No like the ability to identify a downward trend like this since 1979! That is not cherry picking! Comprende?





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You mean like cherry picking the summer of 2011 out of a million summers! Wow,always look at (since records been kept)usually the year 1880 average for U.S. cities.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
Space Weather Message Code: SUMX01
Serial Number: 70
Issue Time: 2011 Aug 09 0812 UTC

SUMMARY: X-ray Event exceeded X1
Begin Time: 2011 Aug 09 0748 UTC
Maximum Time: 2011 Aug 09 0805 UTC
End Time: 2011 Aug 09 0808 UTC
X-ray Class: X6.9
Optical Class: 2b
Location: N17W69
NOAA Scale: R3 - Strong



However.Infinitesimal effect on climate!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
There's an interesting article in a Netherlands newspaper today. It's in Dutch, but the translation--with the help of Google--is as follows (I've converted all temps to Fahrenheit):

"Not to make that dreary Monday morning you want a little sadder, but the Arctic is currently hotter than the Netherlands. Resolute Bay, which lies in the Arctic north of Canada, last week saw record temperatures up to 65.6 degrees.

"Flower fields are in bloom and climatologists are running around in short sleeves, according to a Belgian newspaper. The average year-round temperature in this northern town is just above zero at about 2.5 degrees, while the average daytime temperature in August is about 39 degrees. The highest temperature so far in this place was 65.1 last month, which was five degrees higher than the previous record from 2000. (The lowest temperature ever recorded in this area was -62 degrees in 1966.) The hot wind from North America and the fact that now is high summer, with almost 24 hours of light at the North Pole, explain the phenomenon.

"The word 'Arctic' sounds cooler than it is," says weatherman Eddy De Mey. Moreover, Resolute Bay is at the same latitude as Greenland, and not in the middle of the Arctic per se. But still, 65.6 degrees at that spot is a record figure, which makes it a true Arctic heat wave. This is the current somewhat bewildering landscape: no barren snowfields, but a land of flowers, including pool poppies."


Indeed, this image shows spots of very anomalous warmth in and around nothern Canada.

Uh-oh

What this means for the ice is anyone's guess...


Here is what it means!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Space Weather Message Code: SUMX01
Serial Number: 70
Issue Time: 2011 Aug 09 0812 UTC

SUMMARY: X-ray Event exceeded X1
Begin Time: 2011 Aug 09 0748 UTC
Maximum Time: 2011 Aug 09 0805 UTC
End Time: 2011 Aug 09 0808 UTC
X-ray Class: X6.9
Optical Class: 2b
Location: N17W69
NOAA Scale: R3 - Strong

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There's an interesting article in a Netherlands newspaper today. It's in Dutch, but the translation--with the help of Google--is as follows (I've converted all temps to Fahrenheit):

"Not to make that dreary Monday morning you want a little sadder, but the Arctic is currently hotter than the Netherlands. Resolute Bay, which lies in the Arctic north of Canada, last week saw record temperatures up to 65.6 degrees.

"Flower fields are in bloom and climatologists are running around in short sleeves, according to a Belgian newspaper. The average year-round temperature in this northern town is just above zero at about 2.5 degrees, while the average daytime temperature in August is about 39 degrees. The highest temperature so far in this place was 65.1 last month, which was five degrees higher than the previous record from 2000. (The lowest temperature ever recorded in this area was -62 degrees in 1966.) The hot wind from North America and the fact that now is high summer, with almost 24 hours of light at the North Pole, explain the phenomenon.

"The word 'Arctic' sounds cooler than it is," says weatherman Eddy De Mey. Moreover, Resolute Bay is at the same latitude as Greenland, and not in the middle of the Arctic per se. But still, 65.6 degrees at that spot is a record figure, which makes it a true Arctic heat wave. This is the current somewhat bewildering landscape: no barren snowfields, but a land of flowers, including pool poppies."


Indeed, this image shows spots of very anomalous warmth in and around nothern Canada.

Uh-oh

What this means for the ice is anyone's guess...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting idontknowforsure:


You ought to write a book and call it the "Cherry Pickers Guide To Climate Change." LOL!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 282


Below I'm providing a comparison of ice thickness estimates from PIOMAS and the Navy PIPS2 and ARC models. I'm also providing comparisons of ice thickness for last winter using the aforementioned models, as well as the observational data from the Cryosat-2 satellite. Unfortunately the color legend for the PIPS2 and ARC models didn't appear with the graphs I'm linking, so it was just easier to provide the links the source following each map, where the corresponding color legends can be seen as well. The color legends for the PIPS2, ARC, and Cryosat-2 data are somewhat different, but I think are similar enough to enable a reasonable side-by-side comparison between the maps, which is why I'm including the maps inline. Note that the PIOMAS graph is given in № 282 so I'm using data from there.

Currently, the IARC-JAXA shows the arctic sea ice area as just under 5x10⁶ km²; So, with PIOMAS suggesting that current ice volume is only 6000 km³, this would mean that the average ice thickness is only about 1.2 metres. This is in stark contrast to both Navy models that give estimates of ice thickness, as shown below.

The above is the Navy PIPS2 model for August 5th, which is the latest available. Note that the source for map as well as the color legend are available here. I'll assume that the ice thickness wouldn't have changed too significantly in three days time.


The above is the Navy hycomARC model for ice thickness for August 8th. Map source and legend are here.

I know that there is some dispute whether the PIPS2 model is intended for estimating ice thickness, but it is my understanding that the newer ARC model is intended to be, and both Navy models seem to agree reasonably well. Moreover, both models suggest that PIOMAS significantly underestimates the volume of arctic ice; as can be seen by the fact that both models show the average ice thickness to be far greater than 1.2 metres.

Similiarly, when one looks at the Cryosat-2 data from last winter, which is not a model but based only on observational data, it agreed very well with both Navy models as well. All three graphs are shown below for comparison.


Map source and legend are here.


Map source and legend are here.


Map source is here.

Meanwhile, it can easily be shown that for the same time frame IARC-JAXA shows arctic ice area to be about about 12.5x10⁶ km² while PIOMAS shows the corresponding volume to be about 18000 km³, yielding an estimated average thickness of only 1.5 metres. This is obviously far less than Cryosat-2, PIPS2, and the ARC graphs suggest.

Furthermore, the PIOMAS model is suggesting that the ice volume is currently only about 2/3 that of 2007, and assuming that the 2011 curve mirrors the 2007 for the next month or so, that 2011 will have about 1/2 the ice volume that 2007 did--yet somehow 2011 extent and area will be at worst similar to and most likely greater than 2007.

It seems rather unlikely to me, and I think I'm more inclined to believe the Cryosat-2 observational data and the two Navy models, which all seem to reasonably agree, than the outlier, namely the PIOMAS model.


Fine and dandy. However, what about the downward trend on all of them?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Thought I'd make one last post on the AGW fraud just so I can let Neawacko and the USMC wannabe stew in their juices overnight. I wonder how they are going to feel when they discover that they were duped using their own emotions by the New World Order cabal? After all, liberalism/environmentalism is a mental disorder. They will never admit it anyway, even if snow were falling in Naples in July.

Link

In reference to the real JB's use of temperature charts that only begin in 1996 or 2001:
Cherry-picking (chair'-ee--pik'-ing) - verb (trans-intrans) 1. the activity of selecting and/or presenting only that data which supports ones point of view, while intentionally omitting and/or de-emphasizing that which does not.
As to the rest of the Meteorological Muscleman's rant: within the denialist echo chamber, the accepted line is that global warming has somehow been discredited. That's what they keep telling each other, but it's a "fact" only within the fantasy-based Denialosphere they've made for themselves. But out in the real world--you know, where truth is constructed through facts, open debate, and research--scientists are increasingly convinced that a) the global climate is changing much more quickly than expected, and b) our burning of fossil fuels is driving that change. In fact, the climate continues to behave pretty much as climate models have been predicting for the past 25 years, so JB's--and Watts', and Pielke's, and Spencer's, and etc.--anti-scientific nonsense means nothing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Neapolitan,

That's an incredible stat for Oklahoma. I was expecting them to come in close to their hottest on record but to go into hottest ever statewide monthly average is historical by any metric.

As noted in the previous blog, this heatwave will be noted for the high humidity which accompanied it, likely making for a shattering of the record high minimum temperatures and a top 5 high max temperature yielding the new record mean for Oklahoma. Every event has its own characteristics. The monthly average temperature came in at 77.0°F for the US as a whole, or 4th place; top 5, as I said a case will need to be made for. The summer thus far (June-July) is tied for 6th.

What the stats show is that this heatwave is severe, right around a top 5, but not the worst ever. Even when August gets added into the summer average it won't be. We're about a half degree behind 1936/2006 and August thus far doesn't seem to be making a run at that record.


But one shouldn't necessarily try to make comparisons between the severity of a particular heat wave and the average temperature of the US as a whole. As you can see from the NOAA map I posted, the five westernmost states in the Lower 48--California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and especially Washington--have been very cloudy and thus very cool, and that's obviously dragged down the nation's average.

So far as August is concerned, the heat is not just continuing where July left off, but increasing. Not everywhere, true, but in the midst of the area that's been most severely affected by the heat wave and drought. Through yesterday--and the final numbers are not yet in, of course--record daily highs alone have outnumbered record daily lows by 1,509 to 54, or 27.9 to 1. (Record daily highs and high minimums are beating out record daily lows and low minimums by 3,569 to 112, or 31.87 to 1.) With that in mind, I don't think August as a whole will have any problems holding its own. (Too, the SPC's outlook calls for a cooldown in the upper Midwest and Mississippi Valley, but a warmup elsewhere, with the Southwest and Inter-mountain West finally getting in on the action.)

A few other tidbits:

--Dallas set no record highs in July; it's seen five in the first eight days of August.

--Oklahoma City saw four record highs in all of July; it's also had five this month.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 282
Quoting cyclonebuster:
OUCH!




Below I'm providing a comparison of ice thickness estimates from PIOMAS and the Navy PIPS2 and ARC models. I'm also providing comparisons of ice thickness for last winter using the aforementioned models, as well as the observational data from the Cryosat-2 satellite. Unfortunately the color legend for the PIPS2 and ARC models didn't appear with the graphs I'm linking, so it was just easier to provide the links the source following each map, where the corresponding color legends can be seen as well. The color legends for the PIPS2, ARC, and Cryosat-2 data are somewhat different, but I think are similar enough to enable a reasonable side-by-side comparison between the maps, which is why I'm including the maps inline. Note that the PIOMAS graph is given in № 282 so I'm using data from there.

Currently, the IARC-JAXA shows the arctic sea ice area as just under 5x10⁶ km²; So, with PIOMAS suggesting that current ice volume is only 6000 km³, this would mean that the average ice thickness is only about 1.2 metres. This is in stark contrast to both Navy models that give estimates of ice thickness, as shown below.

The above is the Navy PIPS2 model for August 5th, which is the latest available. Note that the source for map as well as the color legend are available here. I'll assume that the ice thickness wouldn't have changed too significantly in three days time.


The above is the Navy hycomARC model for ice thickness for August 8th. Map source and legend are here.

I know that there is some dispute whether the PIPS2 model is intended for estimating ice thickness, but it is my understanding that the newer ARC model is intended to be, and both Navy models seem to agree reasonably well. Moreover, both models suggest that PIOMAS significantly underestimates the volume of arctic ice; as can be seen by the fact that both models show the average ice thickness to be far greater than 1.2 metres.

Similiarly, when one looks at the Cryosat-2 data from last winter, which is not a model but based only on observational data, it agreed very well with both Navy models as well. All three graphs are shown below for comparison.


Map source and legend are here.


Map source and legend are here.


Map source is here.

Meanwhile, it can easily be shown that for the same time frame IARC-JAXA shows arctic ice area to be about about 12.5x10⁶ km² while PIOMAS shows the corresponding volume to be about 18000 km³, yielding an estimated average thickness of only 1.5 metres. This is obviously far less than Cryosat-2, PIPS2, and the ARC graphs suggest.

Furthermore, the PIOMAS model is suggesting that the ice volume is currently only about 2/3 that of 2007, and assuming that the 2011 curve mirrors the 2007 for the next month or so, that 2011 will have about 1/2 the ice volume that 2007 did--yet somehow 2011 extent and area will be at worst similar to and most likely greater than 2007.

It seems rather unlikely to me, and I think I'm more inclined to believe the Cryosat-2 observational data and the two Navy models, which all seem to reasonably agree, than the outlier, namely the PIOMAS model.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is not a necessary condition to drill in the Northern Arctic with Gulfstream Kinetic Energy just a few miles off shore. Tunnels can produce many times that amount of energy easy. Oil is not needed anymore.






A Necessary Condition for Arctic Drilling
Published: August 8, 2011


The Obama administration%u2019s decision on Thursday to give %u201Cconditional approval%u201D to Royal Dutch Shell%u2019s plans to begin drilling four shallow-water wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska alarmed many environmentalists. Cleaning up an oil spill in the frigid, turbulent waters of the Arctic Ocean is likely to be far more complicated than it was in the comparatively benign waters of the Gulf of Mexico.We have misgivings about this plan for just that reason. But President Obama, who indicated last year that he would honor Shell%u2019s leases if it passed various environmental reviews, seems determined to proceed. The administration should require that Shell meet basic safeguards before it receives final permits to begin punching holes in the ocean floor.

The most important safeguard, spelled out in an Aug. 4 letter from the Department of the Interior, is that Shell demonstrate the capacity to quickly contain a blowout %u2014 not with skimmers, relief wells or other surface equipment, all of which Shell promises %u2014 at the source. Perhaps the most shocking discovery in the gulf disaster is that nobody, federal regulators included, knew how to contain the leak once the blowout preventer failed. The result was a devastating 86-day gusher.

It will presumably be easier to plug a leak at 160 feet %u2014 the average depth of Shell%u2019s projected wells %u2014 than it was at 5,000 feet. But any well drilled below the ocean surface will generate great pressure, with the risk of a blowout. Shell%u2019s celebratory press release Thursday said it %u201Cremains committed to fabricating an oil spill capping system.%u201D That%u2019s much too vague. Ken Salazar, who as the interior secretary is responsible for giving the final go-ahead, must insist on a functioning capping system.


Link







.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:



OUCH!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Perhaps a little further reading is in order?

Link

Link

Link

Link

You will discover that it was not the people that were telling the Church but, rather, it was the Church telling the people about Heaven, Hell and Earth and how these were all arranged in the universe. One must remember that only the clergy had Bibles centuries ago. The "flock" depended on the clergy to tell them what was in the Bible. The invention of the printing press finally made it possible for the masses to have access to the Bible. The printing press was not invented until around 1440 A.D. - Link - While the invention of the printing press greatly reduced the labor of hand scribing, it was not until the invention of the modern printing presses before books could be massed produced. Everyone that now wants their own copy of the Bible can now do so. This has only been true for fairly modern history and not so true for the centuries before that. Until then, it was the Church that told the "flock" what the Bible contained. This was not the other way around, as you seem to state. Several observers of their day faced heresy charges brought against them by the Church. Two such "observers" was Leonardo Da Vinci and Galileo.
You need to do a bit of research yourself. Science did not start with Galileo like you imply, and nor did history's great thinkers solely turn to the bible for guidance. Believe it or not, but there's a history before, oh, 1500AD or so. Does it really have to be surprising that there's a marriage between great thinkers and religion and that religion happens to be the one that's always playing catch up?

So let me put it another way...

The Great Global Warming Scare inspires new age believers to reinvent society in their own image. Much time passes and now science has a new opinion. Suddenly the new age believers are fighting the science to retain control of things. Ultimately, they lose. Same thing happened when people like galileo and copernicus started to shake things up. They weren't just trying to convince the church, as you might claim, but they were also trying to convince their colleagues and other thinkers like them. This is because the earth-centered and sun-centered era was millenary. It was usurped in hundreds of years. What's so amazing is that in a short period of time we're already focused on the universe and now looking for other ones. In other words, it's almost as though this knowledge is moving exponentially.

Where will it go? How FAR will it go? I bet they asked the same question a thousand years ago or even more. It's not as though imagination only emerged just recently. But either we hit a limit and everything stops, or it keeps going and going.... And we, ofc, either resist like the church people resisted to see a larger universe or we go down that dark eerie road to puzzle over its mysteries.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OUCH!


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OUCH!



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
July Arctic sea ice melts to record low extent, volume

The impacts of a sweltering July extended well beyond the eastern two-thirds of the continental U.S. Both the extent and volume of ice in the Arctic were lowest on record for the month according to data and estimates from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and Polar Science Center.

NSIDC reported: Arctic sea ice extent averaged for July 2011 reached the lowest level for the month in the 1979 to 2011 satellite record, even though the pace of ice loss slowed substantially during the last two weeks of July.

Arctic sea ice typically begins declining in March or April, and bottoms out in September before mounting a recovery. Its lowest extent on record occurred in September 2007. Will the depleted extent in September 2011 rival that year?

Walt Meier, a scientist at NSIDC, told Bloomberg: will be another low year, very likely one of the five lowest. One year doesnt say too much in and of itself, but the long-term downward trend and the series of very low years is indicative of a thinner ice cover and warming temperatures.

Temperatures were, in fact, very warm in the Arctic for at least part of July. Wunderground meteorologist Angela Fritz wrote: In the first two weeks of July, air temperature over the North Pole was 11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit above average. During the last two weeks of July, low pressure took over and brought cooler temperatures, although it appears this also acted to push the ice around, which resulted in a larger but thinner area of ice.

Indeed, while extent provides an idea of the sea ice coverage over the surface of the Arctic, the volume metric provides information on ice thickness as well - offering a more complete picture of whats happening to the ice. It is not measured directly, but estimated by a model (from the Polar Science Center out of the University of Washington) that assimilates data from a variety of different measurements (taken at different times/locations) from satellites, Navy submarines, mooring and field observations With respect to July thickness, the Polar Science Center reported: Monthly averaged ice volume for July 2011 was 8.900 cubic kilometers. This value is 51% lower than the mean over this period, 62% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.5 standard deviations below the trend.

From the image above, its clear the sea ice volume is on track to be the lowest on record.

The ice retreat opens up new navigation opportunities for ships. According to NSIDC: Over the past few weeks, the sea ice edge has retreated from the shores of Siberia and Eurasia, potentially opening up much of the Northern Sea Route, the shipping lane that runs along the Eurasian Arctic coast from Murmansk on the Barents Sea, along Siberia, and through the Bering Strait.

We have additional updates when new data become available in September and October.


Link
















.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi



Dude!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

It appears to me that your conclusion assumes the nonexistence of empirical science. The thing is, neither the observed climatic changes nor the primary theory used to explain those changes are based on anything so subjective as human egocentricism; they are, rather, based entirely on thoroughly verified and validated observation and experimentation performed by numerous independent lines of research.

I do find it amusing how you've turned the true story on its head. In reality, it was the establishment of the day that denied the increasingly overwhelming science showing that earth was not after all the center of the Universe. And it was science that was then, and forever should be, that "light at night" of which you spoke.
Empirical or Imperial? Careful.

Actually, the science of that day was stuck in the earth-centered and sun-centered universe for a long, long while. You make out scientists to be some kind of special breed, but they're just like anyone else. They could only work with the tools available to them and knowledge in those days was not what it's today. What's remarkable to me is how things seem to have started with the earth then moved to the sun, followed by the galaxy and the universe itself. What's even more interesting than that is that it might go even further: multiple universes. It's amusing that we're always stumbling to find our center.

We didn't start with copernicus. Look at alchemy. It may not be as 'empirical' as you'd like it to be, but they were scientists in their own right. They were the forebears of modern chemists. Aristotle wasn't right either, but what he said made sense back then. He among many others are our forebears.

Many people say science started during the renaissance or the scientific revolution for whatever reason. As though science didn't exist before that because everyone was so enamored by religion there was no time for rationale thought. I think this is just a sign of how thick people can be. Reminds me of a bear contemplating the universe. No human being alive today can say when science started.

If you want to make religion your boogeyman, go ahead. But I suspect that the real boogeyman is inside each person, and it has nothing to do with religion; it's human nature. We're the monster.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi



And that is what happens when you take Christ out of the schools.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Thought I'd make one last post on the AGW fraud just so I can let Neawacko and the USMC wannabe stew in their juices overnight. I wonder how they are going to feel when they discover that they were duped using their own emotions by the New World Order cabal? After all, liberalism/environmentalism is a mental disorder. They will never admit it anyway, even if snow were falling in Naples in July.

Link


You mentality is that of a frogs! How about stewing in this overnight?

img src="">
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Ya know of all the non-verbal communication classes I have taken over the years, none of them covered Beerception! That must be my problem after taking a 600+ point beating on my now 301k today (☼¿☼)


Only at closing time Ossymon.

Only at closing time.

:))
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Overall, this Summer would be a top 5 to me.

Yes, humidity in this particular event has stretched the heat index.

I suppose now we want to address the fact that these Top 5 record waves are happening at a faster rate since xyz-year record keeping began.

Rate?

Maybe the computers are just faster today than in 1979. You remember ColecoVision? Something about as powerful as that was recording data in 1979. And the results had to be plugged into a Lite Bright and then sketched by hand.

No wonder we think we're geniuses today. My XBOX can do what a whole pannel of instruments could do back in 1979.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 321 - 271

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 | 29Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
62 °F
Partly Cloudy