Ask a Climatologist

[RickG]

First the disclaimers. I am not a practicing climatologist, having spent most of my professional career as a chemist and educator. However, one of my graduate degrees is in the field, having concentrated in paleoclimatology and presenting my Masters Thesis on the attributes of continental glaciations. I am also quite familiar with current research and published literature in the area. I am not claiming to an expert, but my knowledge in the area is well established.

Global warming, or climate change if you prefer, is a highly charged debate, especially in political arenas and agenda based groups. Where it is not highly debated is in the climate science community itself. Yes, there is some discussion in the details, but the overall science is settled. What I want to do in this thread is to discuss the actual science and only the science involved in climatology. There are many myths and misunderstandings circulated in the media and throughout the internet. So stick to the science and only the science.

Others working in the field, possessing credentials, or familiarity with the published literature, please feel free to contribute.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who is La Niña?

 

[RickG]

Who is La Niña?

You mean what?

It is unusually cool ocean temperatures in the equatorial pacific which also tend to lower surface temperatures in the area as well. Its opposite is El Niño. It is also what is referred to as an oscillation. Therefore, it only moves heat around, rather than contributing to Earth's heat budget.

 

[RickG]

<edit>

El Nino = warmer than usual water in the equatorial pacific.
La Nina = cooler than usual water in the equatorial pacific.

Those conditions oscillate back and forth over a variable period from several months to a few years. They affect long term weather, but not climate as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I'll ask you one more time. If you have a question about climate science, please ask it and dispense with the off topic nonsense.

Fair enough -- would you please pick and explain any one of these for me?

Here are some facts -- you decide:

• 30 October 1991: The Halloween Monster, a.k.a. The Perfect Storm, strikes the U.S. amid the "land-for-peace" Madrid peace talks; President Bush's ocean-side home destroyed.
• 23 August 1992: President Bush moves Madrid talks to U.S. soil; that very day, Hurricane Andrew devastates southern Florida.
• 16 January 1994: President Clinton meets with Syrian President Hafez Assad to discuss more "land for peace" arrangements; less than 24 hours later, a 6.9 earthquake pulverized southern California.
• 1 September 1993: President Clinton announces a meeting with Arafat for the Oslo peace accords, to be held on 13 September; after a week of meandering in the Atlantic Ocean, Hurricane Emily hits North Carolina on that very day.
• 21 January 1998: while waiting to meet with Arafat at the White House, President Clinton's sex scandal breaks out.
• 27 September 1998: Arafat is meeting with the president in Washington; Hurricane Georges hits Alabama and stalls. The hurricane stalls until Arafat leaves and then it dissipates. Parts of Alabama declared a disaster area.
• 17 October 1998: Arafat comes to the Wye Plantation meeting; incredible rains fall on Texas, which cause record flooding. Parts of Texas declared a disaster area.
• 3 September 1999: Secretary of State Albright meets with Arafat in Israel; Hurricane Dennis comes ashore on this very day after weeks of changing course in the Atlantic Ocean.
• 12-26 July 2000: Arafat at the Camp David meetings. Powerful droughts throughout the country. Forest fires explode in West into uncontrollable fires. By the end of August, 7 million acres are burnt.
• 9 November 2000, two days after the presidential election: Arafat meets with President Clinton at the White House to try and salvage the peace process; worst election crisis in over 100 years occurs.

Thank you.

 

[Nabobalis]

@AV: Events that happened at the same time. No connection.

@Rick: How accurate are the climate models?
Should climate scientists get more involved in the politics in-order to make sure that governments take real and relevant action on climate change?

 

[RickG]

@AV: Events that happened at the same time. No connection.

@Rick: How accurate are the climate models?
Should climate scientists get more involved in the politics in-order to make sure that governments take real and relevant action on climate change?

I have a thread on that very topic already but here is a bit of additional information. There are many different types of climate models that are used to predict different things using specific scenarios. There is not a one size fits all.

The most criticized climate models are those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However when one looks at what they actually present, that criticism is not warranted. The key word to focus on in these model presentations is "scenario". In other words, "if carbon emissions continue at X pace we can expect global average temperature (GAT) to increase by Y amount". Each model will run a number of different scenarios levels or rates of carbon emissions. The model scenarios that over the years that have most closely mimicked those actual carbon rate emissions did most closely predict the real world.

What most layman don't realize is that climate models utilize real climate data, that is climate sensitivity based on actual records and proxy's going back hundreds of thousands of years. For example, based on paleoclimate proxy's and instrumental records coupled with the well known physics of carbon dioxide, we can expect the GAT to rise on average 3.5 deg C, per doubling of atmospheric CO2 content, assuming all other climate forcings remain the same.

A really good example is a paper by Wally Broecker published in the Journal Science in 1975, “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”. In his model he had predicted CO2 levels to be 373 in 2000 and 403 in 2010. The actual levels were 369 and 390, giving an amazingly close prediction to what actually occurred.

Now to address the overall content of your question, "how good are climate models", let's look at some past predictions.

1. That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
2. That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
3. That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
4. That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
5. Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
6. That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
7. The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
8. They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
9. They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
10. The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
11. The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
12. The expansion of the Hadley cells.
13. The poleward movement of storm tracks.
14. The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
15. The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
16. The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
17. The expanded range of hurricanes and cyclones--a year before Cyclone Catarina showed up off the coast of Brazil, something which had never happened before.

(Source: OSS Foundation / Barton Paul Levenson)

 

[RickG]

Fair enough -- would you please pick and explain any one of these for me?
Here are some facts -- you decide:

• 30 October 1991: The Halloween Monster, a.k.a. The Perfect Storm, strikes the U.S. amid the "land-for-peace" Madrid peace talks; President Bush's ocean-side home destroyed.
• 23 August 1992: President Bush moves Madrid talks to U.S. soil; that very day, Hurricane Andrew devastates southern Florida.
• 16 January 1994: President Clinton meets with Syrian President Hafez Assad to discuss more "land for peace" arrangements; less than 24 hours later, a 6.9 earthquake pulverized southern California.
• 1 September 1993: President Clinton announces a meeting with Arafat for the Oslo peace accords, to be held on 13 September; after a week of meandering in the Atlantic Ocean, Hurricane Emily hits North Carolina on that very day.
• 21 January 1998: while waiting to meet with Arafat at the White House, President Clinton's sex scandal breaks out.
• 27 September 1998: Arafat is meeting with the president in Washington; Hurricane Georges hits Alabama and stalls. The hurricane stalls until Arafat leaves and then it dissipates. Parts of Alabama declared a disaster area.
• 17 October 1998: Arafat comes to the Wye Plantation meeting; incredible rains fall on Texas, which cause record flooding. Parts of Texas declared a disaster area.
• 3 September 1999: Secretary of State Albright meets with Arafat in Israel; Hurricane Dennis comes ashore on this very day after weeks of changing course in the Atlantic Ocean.
• 12-26 July 2000: Arafat at the Camp David meetings. Powerful droughts throughout the country. Forest fires explode in West into uncontrollable fires. By the end of August, 7 million acres are burnt.
• 9 November 2000, two days after the presidential election: Arafat meets with President Clinton at the White House to try and salvage the peace process; worst election crisis in over 100 years occurs.

Thank you.

Last time AV. If you have a climate science question ask it, otherwise stop posting off topic nonsense in this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is one:

Does the "east wind" in the region of Jordan mean anything special in the climate pattern of the region?

 

[RickG]

Here is one:

Does the "east wind" in the region of Jordan mean anything special in the climate pattern of the region?

I must admit that I am not familiar with the micro-climate attributes of that region. However, an "east wind" would indicate a prevailing wind coming from the east, which would in all likelihood be responsible for the dry climate of the region. If there were a prevailing wind coming from the west, one might expect wetter climate conditions, as it would be picking up moisture from the Mediterranean Sea.

 

[juvenissun]

I must admit that I am not familiar with the micro-climate attributes of that region. However, an "east wind" would indicate a prevailing wind coming from the east, which would in all likelihood be responsible for the dry climate of the region. If there were a prevailing wind coming from the west, one might expect wetter climate conditions, as it would be picking up moisture from the Mediterranean Sea.

So the east wind in that region should be the prevailed wind in the winter season? Or should it be in the summer season?

 

[RickG]

Rick: How accurate are the climate models?
Should climate scientists get more involved in the politics in-order to make sure that governments take real and relevant action on climate change?

Unfortunately, almost all politicians regardless whether they are conservative or liberal have only two goals in mind. (1) Do what it takes to get elected and (2) do what it takes to get re-elected. There have been congressional hearings where one side invites climate scientists to testify and the other invites some climate scientists and others that think they know climate science, like Christopher Monckton. Wow! don't get me started on him.

But what I want to do now is show an animated graph that plots predictions made by both mainstream climate scientists and climate change skeptics.

Lindzen, Easterbrook, Akasofu, and McLean are well known climate skeptics. The question is, why are those skeptics so far off from reality? Perhaps, their science is a little less scholarly and more agenda oriented. The basic fact remains, most people believe what they want to hear and seldom check the actual facts for themselves.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If the science is settled why isn't anything substantial being done about global warming? Restating positions with charts and graphs does little to address the problem. It seems to me that everyone is waiting for someone else to do something about it. So with everyone sitting on their hands the science becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What sort of computational algorithms are used in weather prediction? Here, I am talking about your average nightly weather report type predictions.

For example, do they use neural nets or a more straightforward differential equation type analysis? Or something else?

Thanks

 

[Jade Margery]

If the science is settled why isn't anything substantial being done about global warming? Restating positions with charts and graphs does little to address the problem. It seems to me that everyone is waiting for someone else to do something about it. So with everyone sitting on their hands the science becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

A lot of people ARE trying to do things, but they are significantly hampered by those with a vested interest in doing nothing. Really reducing carbon emissions would require more government regulation of industry and cost a lot of people a lot of money, not to mention making most of the tea party start frothing at the mouth.


Legit questions: I don't know much about climate, but there are some things that I have been told which I would like to know if they are accurate or not. I'm sure these questions will betray my utter ignorance of the subject, which is why I have not taken a particular side in this matter.

1. We have relatively recently come out of a mini ice age; the winters of George Washington's time were way harsher than what we have now. He moved troops across iced rivers which haven't frozen over again in the last hundred and fifty years. If this is the case, how much do climatologists attribute global warming to the natural cycle of the earth and how much to human activity?

2. I have heard, from people who think human-induced global warming is bunk, that Mars is going through similar upward temperature changes, and the higher temperatures on both planets may be explained by variations in the sun. Do you know if this is the case and again, if so, how much can we attribute global warming to this as opposed to human activity?

3. This isn't one I've heard, but one I'm just mildly curious about. There have been over two thousand nuclear detonations from bomb testing alone, most of increasing size and capacity, across the world. I'm sure they have a very big effect on local climate, especially the atmospheric detonations, and in a butterfly-wing fashion on the rest of the world, but are they contributing in any meaningful way to global warming?

Last question: The climate scientists seem to be in agreement that the earth is warming up, for one reason or another. Has any general consensus been reached about what, if anything, should be done about it? What course of action would be most effective?

 

[RickG]

If the science is settled why isn't anything substantial being done about global warming?

That would due to the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry and the politicians pockets which are lined by those lobbyist. They contribute quite a bit to conservative election campaigns. The same thing happened in the tobacco industry.

Restating positions with charts and graphs does little to address the problem. It seems to me that everyone is waiting for someone else to do something about it. So with everyone sitting on their hands the science becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

Amazing, isn't it.

 

[RickG]

What sort of computational algorithms are used in weather prediction? Here, I am talking about your average nightly weather report type predictions.

For example, do they use neural nets or a more straightforward differential equation type analysis? Or something else?

Thanks

I'm not a meteorologist, I haven't a clue.

 

[Upisoft]

What sort of computational algorithms are used in weather prediction? Here, I am talking about your average nightly weather report type predictions.

For example, do they use neural nets or a more straightforward differential equation type analysis? Or something else?

Thanks

The one I've looked at was written in FORTRAN. The code base was huge. Software with similar size and written in less error prone language usually has about 1000 active bugs, most of them minor. Also it was quite amusement to read the code about cloud generation. They actually say they know nothing about it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm not a meteorologist, I haven't a clue.

That's OK.

Here's another: Distinguish for the layman, e.g., me, the difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist.

Thanks.

P.S. As soon as I saw your answer, I grasped my mistake. Still it would be nice to have your answer to as to that distinction.

 

[RickG]

1. We have relatively recently come out of a mini ice age; the winters of George Washington's time were way harsher than what we have now. He moved troops across iced rivers which haven't frozen over again in the last hundred and fifty years. If this is the case, how much do climatologists attribute global warming to the natural cycle of the earth and how much to human activity?

Approximately 70 to 80%, especially over the past 60 years. The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a result of a temperature change of less than 1 deg. C. A little change make a big difference.

2. I have heard, from people who think human-induced global warming is bunk, that Mars is going through similar upward temperature changes, and the higher temperatures on both planets may be explained by variations in the sun. Do you know if this is the case and again, if so, how much can we attribute global warming to this as opposed to human activity?

There is not enough data to establish any kind of trend of warming on mars. If one were established one would have to conclude for two completely different planets with extemely different conditions would have to have something in common. That one thing would be the sun. The fact is that the sun has actually declined in TSI over the past 40 years.

Kind of hard to argue its the sun when TSI is decreasing while GAT is rising.

3. This isn't one I've heard, but one I'm just mildly curious about. There have been over two thousand nuclear detonations from bomb testing alone, most of increasing size and capacity, across the world. I'm sure they have a very big effect on local climate, especially the atmospheric detonations, and in a butterfly-wing fashion on the rest of the world, but are they contributing in any meaningful way to global warming?

Most of those detonations occurred during the 50s & 60s, many being underground. During those years GAT was slightly declining. There is no substance to the argument. If anything they would cause cooling the same as aerosols and volcanic ash.

Last question: The climate scientists seem to be in agreement that the earth is warming up, for one reason or another. Has any general consensus been reached about what, if anything, should be done about it? What course of action would be most effective?

Cut greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2 from fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a long lived greenhouse gas. Even if GHG emissions suddenly decreased to zero, GAT would still increase for another 30 to 60 years due to thermal inertia stored in the oceans. Future generations are in trouble, especially considering that global population recently exceeded 7 billion. There is only so much room for agriculture and GW is already affecting some climate zones, not to mention ocean acidification.