Climate change theory barks up wrong tree, study shows
Alan
Tim Radford
Friday December 9, 2005
The Guardian
Climate scientists could be about to give oak, ash and maple a bad name. They
warn today that expanding forests in the temperate zones of Europe, the US and
Asia could add to global warming.
Johannes Feddema of the University of Kansas and six colleagues from the US
National Centre for Atmospheric Research report in Science journal that they
looked at changes in land use - the growth of cities, clearing of forests for
agriculture, and draining of marshes - and their impact on climate change in the
next 100 years. They confirmed something environmentalists have predicted for
decades - the destruction of the Amazon forest would make the local climate 2C
(4F) warmer because trees soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and
burning them releases it. But then the scientists looked at temperate zones and
found the opposite.
Simulations predicted the conversion of north American and European forests and
grassland to agriculture would cool the region and counteract the effects of
global warming by 25%-50%. This is because ripening corn and other staples would
reflect more sunlight back into space, and release more moisture into the air,
while dark forests would absorb sunlight and send thermometers soaring. Ken
Caldeira and a Carnegie Institution team backed the finding in Geophysical
Research Letters. "We were hoping to find that growing forests in the US would
help slow global warming. But if we are not careful, growing forests could make
global warming even worse."
In July, a Newcastle University team argued that forests soaked up water and
evaporated it into the atmosphere twice as fast as grassland or crops. In
September, European researchers showed that in the hot summer of 2003, most of
the carbon stored in forests in the previous four years was released back into
the atmosphere, to accelerate global warming and trigger yet more heatwaves.
Such findings could exasperate US utility companies that have planted forests to
compensate for fossil fuel use, and infuriate ecologists and conservationists
who wish to protect forests. The Kansas team called its study a "first step" and
Prof Caldeira said: "I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and
animals, and tropical forests are good for climate, so we should be particularly
careful to preserve them. But in terms of climate change, we should focus our
efforts on things that can really make a difference, like improving efficiency
..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1663414,00.html
Alan
Jo Schaper
This paragraph makes no sense. The researchers have mixed up forests,
grasslands and modern agriculture as if they were different aspects of
the same thing. Ecologically, they are quite different. And they have
neglected to include urbanization, a process which denudes the land
entirely for 20-30 years, depending how long it takes for the
grass/trees to become reestablished (if in fact they are not replaced by
concrete and asphalt. There also seems to be a discrepancy--the FAO of
the UN (data from USFS) says forests in the US have increased since 1987
by a factor of 11,000,000 acres, or 5,000,000 hectares, but nearly
every 'Save the Forests' org cite a 0.6% decrease in forested land. No
doubt this depends upon what one considers 'forest'--are we talking
working forests, or land with trees on it? suspect both are
correct--there are more preserved forests, but less land with trees,
largely due to urbanization--a process where trees are usually removed
from land to make it 'saleable'.
There isn't a lot of land being converted for ag use these days in the
US at least. More for subdivisions/condos/strip malls and parking lots.
>
> In July, a Newcastle University team argued that forests soaked up water and
> evaporated it into the atmosphere twice as fast as grassland or crops. In
> September, European researchers showed that in the hot summer of 2003, most of
> the carbon stored in forests in the previous four years was released back into
> the atmosphere, to accelerate global warming and trigger yet more heatwaves.
How? What mechanism causes forests to release carbon? (Other than forest
fires, of course).
> Such findings could exasperate US utility companies that have planted forests to
> compensate for fossil fuel use, and infuriate ecologists and conservationists
> who wish to protect forests. The Kansas team called its study a "first step" and
> Prof Caldeira said: "I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and
> animals, and tropical forests are good for climate, so we should be particularly
> careful to preserve them. But in terms of climate change, we should focus our
> efforts on things that can really make a difference, like improving efficiency
A lot of carbon is released from soil in till farming, not to mention
the farm equipment.
In short, this article does not impress me that the author knows what
he's talking about.
George
"Jo Schaper" <nospam4j...@34socketdot.net> wrote in message
news:11pjonc...@corp.supernews.com...
Good poiints. It also makes one wonders if this researcher has ever been
inside a temperate forest on a hot summer day. There is a lot to be said
for shade.
George
Alan
nospam4j...@34socketdot.net (Jo Schaper) wrote:
That's easy. Whenever the sun goes down. Green plants respirate at night. They
only produce oxygen during daylight. I thought everybody knew that.
> > Such findings could exasperate US utility companies that have planted
> > forests to compensate for fossil fuel use, and infuriate ecologists and
> > conservationists who wish to protect forests. The Kansas team called its
> > study a "first step" and Prof Caldeira said: "I like forests. They provide
> > good habitats for plants and animals, and tropical forests are good for
> > climate, so we should be particularly careful to preserve them. But in
> > terms of climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can
> > really make a difference, like improving efficiency
>
> A lot of carbon is released from soil in till farming, not to mention
> the farm equipment.
>
> In short, this article does not impress me that the author knows what
> he's talking about.
Hey Jo, have you checked the CO2 output currently at Mt St Helens alone? Have
you checked how many volcanoes are currently erupting, and one assumes they are
spewing out similar amounts of CO2. For some reason these people never seem to
mention that, which leads me to think they are talking a load of shit.
Poor old Al was whining about there being no Geology stories, so I dug some up
and I always try to provide and link and the name of the author. I don't have to
agree with them to post them.
Alan
(George) wrote:
You tell me George. The guy comes from Kansas. I thought that was prairie
country, not forests. All I know about Kansas is that it is tornado alley and
that the Wizard of Oz doesn't live there; he live in Oz, which is where the
Kansas houses land after a tornado.
Jo Schaper
> Hey Jo, have you checked the CO2 output currently at Mt St Helens alone? Have
> you checked how many volcanoes are currently erupting, and one assumes they are
> spewing out similar amounts of CO2. For some reason these people never seem to
> mention that, which leads me to think they are talking a load of shit.
Some people tend to compartmentalize and analyze problems by breaking
them into small chunks. Active volcanoes generally have little to do
with trees or agriculture except to destroy them.
>
> Poor old Al was whining about there being no Geology stories, so I dug some up
> and I always try to provide and link and the name of the author. I don't have to
> agree with them to post them.
The article was not about CO2 from volcanoes. There have not been
volcanoes in Kansas for quite some time now. BTW, the Oz which Baum
spoke of allegedly came from the O-Z book of an encyclopedia, but I
prefer to think it was the tribute of a Nebraskan to the green Ozark
Mountains.
Every time a person takes up a topic, he/she thereby excludes literally
billions of other topics. Were you not paying attention to your English
teacher when she covered topic sentences, themes, and how to organize an
argument? One could as easily argue that the discussion about trees and
grass, CO2 and global warming disregards CO2 emitted by cigarette
smokers and serpentization. Both are irrelevant to the discussion at
hand, as are volcanoes.
Some discussions around here seem like icebergs which get struck by a
meteorite. There you go...iceberg just floating along, slowly melting
along the edges, and then ZING--sizzle...chunks go flying and suddenly
everyone is talking about the meteorite....
Jo
don findlay
Yeah, ..I know. I keep floating this ice berg past people
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/intro.html
as the only game in town worth talking about, and nobody's interested.
(Boo hoo! )
Meteorites and George's crack are far more spectacular (though I don't
know if they're as interesting). Makes you wonder what science is
supposed to be about (Wow!)
don findlay
Alan
nospam4j...@34socketdot.net (Jo Schaper) wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
> > Hey Jo, have you checked the CO2 output currently at Mt St Helens alone?
> > Have you checked how many volcanoes are currently erupting, and one assumes
> > they are spewing out similar amounts of CO2. For some reason these people
> > never seem to mention that, which leads me to think they are talking a load
> > of shit.
>
> Some people tend to compartmentalize and analyze problems by breaking
> them into small chunks. Active volcanoes generally have little to do
> with trees or agriculture except to destroy them.
Yes Jo! I do know! My wife had this wonderful plan about us retiring to live in
the house her father left her in San Narciso, Luzon, Philippines. When Mt
Pinatubo went up she refused to believe me about the amount of destruction it
had caused. She flew over there and found the roof had collapsed under the
weight of the volcanic ash on the roof, and of course, the torrential rain that
had followed the eruption had completely destroyed our retirement home. I
understand that San Narciso is approximately 200 miles from Mt Pinatubo. You
have no need to lecture me about the destructive power of a pyroclastic volcano.
You could say that one changes my life completely Jo. It also changed hers too.
I had asked her to take me photographs of the volcano and instead of taking some
from a nice distance, she hired a man in a Jeepney to take her into the
exclusion zone, and was wading through the water, which of course was not water,
but sulphuric acid, and breathing in the dust. We all know what silica dust,
does don't we Jo? Officially she died of pneumonia caused by treatment for the
cancer she developed, but of course the doctors had no clue where she had been.
Please Jo, do not lecture me about the destructive power of a pyroclastic
volcano. I have a kind of love-hate relationship with them. I prefer to watch
them from a safe location via a webcam. I do wish my wife was still here to
watch them with me.
> > Poor old Al was whining about there being no Geology stories, so I dug some
> > up and I always try to provide and link and the name of the author. I don't
> > have to agree with them to post them.
>
>
> The article was not about CO2 from volcanoes. There have not been
> volcanoes in Kansas for quite some time now. BTW, the Oz which Baum
> spoke of allegedly came from the O-Z book of an encyclopedia, but I
> prefer to think it was the tribute of a Nebraskan to the green Ozark
> Mountains.
No, but the source of that article, in case you missed it, was Johannes Feddema
of the University of Kansas and six colleagues from the US National Centre for
Atmospheric Research. I suggest you argue with them.
> Every time a person takes up a topic, he/she thereby excludes literally
> billions of other topics. Were you not paying attention to your English
> teacher when she covered topic sentences, themes, and how to organize an
> argument? One could as easily argue that the discussion about trees and
> grass, CO2 and global warming disregards CO2 emitted by cigarette
> smokers and serpentization. Both are irrelevant to the discussion at
> hand, as are volcanoes.
Miss Button and I had terrible arguments you know? She threw me out of the class
for disrupting it, and I think I was supposed to grovel and ask to come back,
but in the end it was she who asked me to come back. I don't think anybody else
ever came to an understanding with Miss Button the way I did. My stupid member
of Parliament thinks she knew Miss Button better than I did, but she is so very
wrong, and I told her so, and informed her that she had met her Nemesis. This
will be the last time Phyllis Starkey serves as M.P. I promise you that. Nobody
else ever gave Miss Button a nickname either, but to me she was Aggie the
Dragon, but I made sure I attended her funeral, and I am now continuing her
political work, but of course, unlike Miss Button, I can use the internet.
> Some discussions around here seem like icebergs which get struck by a
> meteorite. There you go...iceberg just floating along, slowly melting
> along the edges, and then ZING--sizzle...chunks go flying and suddenly
> everyone is talking about the meteorite....
Yes indeed. It makes life so much more interesting, don't you think? We wouldn't
want life to be boring by concentrating on just one thing and not expanding the
discussion, would we?
George
LOL. I think I'll keep that one close by for later reference.
George
Jo Schaper
I am sorry for the loss of your wife under such circumstances. I
never meant to infer you were ignorant of volcanoes and their function.
I merely meant to point out that the first post had nothing to do with
volcanoes. You brought them up, not me.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that volcanoes put an awful lot
of gaseous stuff into the atmosphere. I have known this ever since
childhood, when reading about 1816 (?) or thereabouts--the 'year without
a summer' where short term global cooling was attributed to excessive
volcanic activity and particulates. Actually, I would cite this year as
evidence for what volcanoes do to the atmosphere, rather than speculate
unsubtantially on their global warming effects.
In any event, shouldn't the effects of volcanoes on global warming be a
separate thread?
best
Jo
L.Roberts
Jo Schaper wrote:
> Alan,
> I am sorry for the loss of your wife under such circumstances. I
> never meant to infer you were ignorant of volcanoes and their function.
> I merely meant to point out that the first post had nothing to do with
> volcanoes. You brought them up, not me.
>
> I don't think anyone disputes the fact that volcanoes put an awful lot
> of gaseous stuff into the atmosphere. I have known this ever since
> childhood, when reading about 1816 (?) or thereabouts--the 'year without
> a summer'
Yes, Jo, the 'year without a summer' was 1816. In Northern New England
they had a frost every morning right thru the summer according to some
reports. I learned of it while reading thru some handwritten, local,
very small town, histories. Some places in Southern Maine did manage to
grow some crops; for instance one area of Biddeford became locally
known as 'Little Egypt' because of some potatoes someone managed to
grow.
L.Roberts.
jonathan
>
> This paragraph makes no sense. The researchers have mixed up forests,
> grasslands and modern agriculture as if they were different aspects of
> the same thing.
I think this article is best described as propaganda, or disinformation.
The global warming conference has been meeting last week and
the anti-do-anything-about-it-crowd likes to release timely nonsense.
This smells as bad as in the Reagan days when they said trees cause acid rain.
Now they cause global warming too. So I guess more concrete is a
good thing eh? Since it reflects sunlight and gets rid of those nasty
polluting trees at the same time.
s
Alan
nospam4j...@34socketdot.net (Jo Schaper) wrote:
Sorry Jo for not being clear. The effect of a volcano erupting is to lower
global temperatures. It is now known that the effects of a volcano erupting in
Iceland ended the war of the roses (I think it was) because it simply became too
cold for the soldiers to fight. When Krakatau erupted it caused famine in New
England and a worldwide drop in temperatures that is currently being
investigated in Royal Navy ship's logs, because at that time the Royal Navy was
the biggest Navy in the world and they always kept meticulous logs.
Now currently I see all these people making political mileage out of "Global
Warming" when in fact all it will take is a major eruption like Krakatau to drop
the temperatures down again, and Mt St Helens sits there doing its thing and
nobody seems to care, but that could possibly do like Pinatubo. As for Krakatau,
it is now called "son of Krakatau" and it is currently almost as big as the
original and still growing. Why is it that all these people writing about
"Global Warming" ignore this fact, and close their eyes to the number of
volcanoes that are currently in a state of eruption?
Alan
ozzca...@yahoo.com (L.Roberts) wrote:
>
> Jo Schaper wrote:
> > Alan,
> > I am sorry for the loss of your wife under such circumstances. I
> > never meant to infer you were ignorant of volcanoes and their function.
> > I merely meant to point out that the first post had nothing to do with
> > volcanoes. You brought them up, not me.
> >
> > I don't think anyone disputes the fact that volcanoes put an awful lot
> > of gaseous stuff into the atmosphere. I have known this ever since
> > childhood, when reading about 1816 (?) or thereabouts--the 'year without
> > a summer'
>
> Yes, Jo, the 'year without a summer' was 1816. In Northern New England
> they had a frost every morning right thru the summer according to some
> reports. I learned of it while reading thru some handwritten, local,
> very small town, histories. Some places in Southern Maine did manage to
> grow some crops; for instance one area of Biddeford became locally
> known as 'Little Egypt' because of some potatoes someone managed to
> grow.
>
> L.Roberts.
Yes! That was when Krakatau erupted. All these global warming "experts" seem
totally oblivious to this fact.
Alan
(jonathan) wrote:
>
> "Jo Schaper" <nospam4j...@34socketdot.net> wrote in message
> news:11pjonc...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
>
> > This paragraph makes no sense. The researchers have mixed up forests,
> > grasslands and modern agriculture as if they were different aspects of
> > the same thing.
>
>
>
> I think this article is best described as propaganda, or disinformation.
I would agree with you, and I keep pointing out that it was written by somebody
in Kansas. Now if you want to know what really causes "Climate Change" I
seriously suggest that you read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
Krakatoa (Indonesian name: Krakatau) is a volcano near the Indonesian island of
Rakata in the Sunda Strait. It has erupted repeatedly, massively and with
disastrous consequences throughout recorded history. The best known of these
events occurred in late August, 1883.
The 1883 eruption ejected more than six cubic miles (25 cubic kilometres) of
rock, ash, and pumice [1], and generated the loudest sound ever historically
recorded by human beings — the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far
away as Perth in Australia, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius.
Atmospheric shock waves reverberated around the world. Near Krakatoa, according
to official records, 165 villages and towns were destroyed and 132 seriously
damaged, 36,417 people died, and uncountable thousands were injured by the
eruption, mostly in the tsunami which followed the biggest explosion.
The eruption destroyed two-thirds of the pre-existing island of Krakatoa. New
eruptions at the volcano since 1927 have built a new island, called Anak
Krakatau (child of Krakatoa).
The 1883 Eruption
Prior to Krakatoa's massive eruption of 1883, the volcano lay dormant for two
centuries. In the years preceding the event, seismic activity around the volcano
was intense, with some earthquakes felt as far distant as Australia. Beginning
20 May 1883, three months before the final explosion, steam venting began to
occur on a regular basis.
By early August, three vents were regularly erupting on Krakatoa; tides in the
vicinity were unusually high, and ships at anchor were moored with chains as a
result. 11 August saw the onset of larger eruptions, with ashy plumes being
emitted from as many as eleven vents. On 24 August, eruptions further
intensified, and the cataclysmic phase began on Sunday 26 August, near midday.
Ash clouds from the eruption reached a height of 36 km, and the first tsunamis
were generated.
The 27 August eruptions occurred at 5:30 A.M., 6:42 A.M., 8:20 A.M., and 10:02
A.M. local time. The last of these eruptions opened fissures in the walls of the
volcano, allowing sea water to flood the subterranean magma chamber. The
resulting phreatic eruption of superheated steam all but annihilated Krakatoa,
leaving only the southern tip (Rakata.) The blast was heard as far distant as
the island of Rodrigues, near Mauritius, 4,800 km away; the sound of Krakatoa's
destruction is believed to be the loudest sound in recorded history.
Although no one is believed killed as a result of the initial explosion, the
tsunamis it generated had disastrous results. Some 36,000 people were killed and
many settlements destroyed, including Telok Batong and Ketimbang in Sumatra, and
Sirik and Semarang in Java. The areas of Bantam on Java and the Lampongs on
Sumatra were devastated. It is estimated an additional 1,000 people died from
the effects of volcanic fumes and ashes. Ships as far away as South Africa
rocked as tsunamis hit them, and the bodies of victims were found floating in
the ocean for weeks after the event. There are numerous documented reports of
groups of human skeletons floating across the Indian Ocean on rafts of volcanic
pumice and washing up on the east coast of Africa, up to a year after the
eruption. Some land on Java was never repopulated; instead, it reverted to
jungle and is now the Ujung Kulon National Park.
The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa is among the most violent volcanic events in
modern times (a VEI of 6, equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT. In contrast, the
biggest bomb ever made by man, the Tsar Bomba, had an explosive power of around
50 megatons.) Concussive air waves from the explosions travelled seven times
around the world, and the sky was darkened for days afterwards. The surrounding
ocean floor was drastically altered. The land masses of Verlaten and Lang were
increased, and volcanic ash continues to be a significant part of the geological
composition of these islands. Polish Hat disappeared. A new rock islet called
Bootsmansrots was left: it is a fragment of Danan. Two nearby sandbanks (called
Steers and Calmeyer) were built up into islands by ashfall, but the sea later
washed them away.
It should be noted there exists an alternate theory for the final explosion:
Overpressurization of the magma chamber. Some evidence suggests that Krakatoa's
magma chamber may have been infused with newer, hotter magma, during the course
of the event; as a result, the hotter magma may have expelled gas dissolved
within the cooler magma and created an unsustainable level of pressure, leading
to a cataclysmic explosion. Evidence for this theory is the existence of pumice
consisting of light and dark material, the dark material being of much hotter
origin.
[edit]
Long-term effects
The eruption produced erratic weather and spectacular sunsets throughout the
world for many months afterwards, as a result of sunlight reflected from
suspended dust particles ejected by the volcano high into Earth's atmosphere.
This worldwide volcanic dust veil acted as a solar radiation filter, reducing
the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. In the year following
the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degree
Centigrade on average. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and
temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. British artist William
Ashcroft made hundreds of color sketches of the red sunsets half-way around the
world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. In 2004, researchers
proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893
painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after
the eruption.
Now do you see what these "Global Warming" scam artists are ignoring?
I really do not know how to make it much clearer.
And I do seriously advise that you click on this link.
Jo Schaper
> In article <bWxmf.2169$Y72....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, wr...@bellsouth.net
> (jonathan) wrote:
>
>
>>"Jo Schaper" <nospam4j...@34socketdot.net> wrote in message
>>news:11pjonc...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>This paragraph makes no sense. The researchers have mixed up forests,
>>>grasslands and modern agriculture as if they were different aspects of
>>>the same thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>I think this article is best described as propaganda, or disinformation.
>
>
> I would agree with you, and I keep pointing out that it was written by somebody
> in Kansas.
I don't understand what this anti-Kansas thing is here. Are you perhaps
a closet graduate of UM-Columbia aka "Mizzou" which officially has had
this 'rivalry' with KU since 1863 when Missouri Civil War outlaw
Southern sympathizer William Quantrill and the "Missouri Tigers" burned
the town of Lawrence and killed all but two males living there?
As I understand it, a KU professor got badly beaten up a few days ago by
some 'christian' (sic) moron who didn't like the fact that the prof came
out publicly against the latest Kansas Board of Education nonsense. KBE
pronouncements apply mainly to primary and secondary schools, not the
Kansas universities.
The whole article is based on climate change modeling for the next 100
years. I have a great deal of skepticism of any model which goes beyond
the next 48 hours (the usual range of weather predictors, which only
have a 60-70% accuracy--slightly more than break-even).
The further out you run any model, the greater the inaccuracy.
Hey, science fiction writers have known that for the last 100 years.
Hey, that would be a great dual career path-- computer model builder
with a science background and access to big multivariable computers AND
an sf author... oops, wait-- didn't Asimov write a story about how every
4 years a computer with exquisite statistical trend analysis
capabilities and a single human, selected to be the most representative
of all, determined the outcome of all US elections...
Computer analysis is grand, but modeling does not constitute proof to my
mind.
Landy
>totally oblivious to this fact.
Krakatao (west of Java) erupted in 1886.
cheers
Bill
Landy
Aidan Karley
> wait-- didn't Asimov write a story about how every
> 4 years a computer with exquisite statistical trend analysis
> capabilities and a single human, selected to be the most representative
> of all, determined the outcome of all US elections...
>
--
Aidan Karley FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Alan Johnson
> oops, wait-- didn't Asimov write a story about how every
> 4 years a computer with exquisite statistical trend analysis
> capabilities and a single human, selected to be the most representative
> of all, determined the outcome of all US elections...
Multivac?
Regards
--
Alan Johnson, Geotr@ns
www.geotrans-online.de
German-English, Geosciences/Technical
http://geotransblog.blogspot.com/
Terminus Est
Aidan Karley
> (memory not what it used to be).
>
Robert Grumbine
Alan <al...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Hey Jo, have you checked the CO2 output currently at Mt St Helens alone?
Dunno about Jo, but I have, and for the global total from volcanoes.
Have you, or are you merely being rhetorical? Present your work.
Also present the figure for human emissions.
>Have
>you checked how many volcanoes are currently erupting, and one assumes they are
>spewing out similar amounts of CO2. For some reason these people never seem to
>mention that, which leads me to think they are talking a load of shit.
[snip]
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
L.Roberts
Even though it may not be proven that human activity has exacerbated
natural trends, in say, global atmospheric conditions, what can not be
denied is that we, humanity taken collectively, have been shitting
right where we eat and must needs be doing something to stop being that
freaking stupid.
L.Roberts.
Robert Grumbine
In article <11popp7...@corp.supernews.com>,
Jo Schaper <joschape...@2socketdot.no5net> wrote:
[snip]
>The whole article is based on climate change modeling for the next 100
>years. I have a great deal of skepticism of any model which goes beyond
>the next 48 hours (the usual range of weather predictors, which only
>have a 60-70% accuracy--slightly more than break-even).
You have three statements there, all of which are out of accord with
my understanding
* The usual range of weather predictors is 48 hours
* Weather prediction is only 60-70% accurate
* This is only slightly more than 'break-even'
I've worked with numerical weather prediction models, and on means
of verification/testing/evaluation of them and related models (my
real interests are other than weather). The models are run, with skill*,
to at least day 7 -- 168 hours.
'accuracy' is a term that people use, but usually without any
particular definition. What definition were you using? In the
literature I've read, 80% or better is the figure, and might be for
day 3.
The 'break even' comment is also interesting. Usually meteorological
skill measures are pre-scaled such that a null forecaster (climatology,
chance 'break even', ...) has a score of 0. Accuracy is a measure of
being not just close to reality, but closer than climatology.
*The skill measure for that 7 day skill is the anomaly correlation in
500 mb heights for the large scale pattern. Anomaly being deviation
from climatology -- you get no credit for correctly getting that seasonal
shifts in high and low pressures. About day 7, the score has declined
from a correlation of nearly 1.00 to about 0.60, which is considered
the limit of meteorologically useful guidance. The models are still
better than nothing, a 0.00 correlation, just not good enough for
forecasters to make use of.
If your 2 day 'predictor' is your radio/tv sources, I'm surprised,
as forecasts are commonly given to at least day 5, c.f.
http://www.wunderground.com/
http://www.weather.gov/ (National Weather Service)
>The further out you run any model, the greater the inaccuracy.
As a rule. Which is why climate models aren't trying to predict
the temperature in your back yard on Noon, June 13th, 2105. There
does seem to be the common impression that that's what climate models
either do, or are supposed to do. Either way, it's an incorrect impression.
Jo Schaper
Well, Robert, you may live where the weather is more predictable
according to the model. Here in the armpit under where the Missouri
meets the Mississippi we generally have fronts from the north, moisture
and warm air masses from the south, and prevailing winds from the
west, and only rarely do the three collide according to plan.
I admit I am neither a climatologist nor a meteorologist and am using
accuracy and prediction as a typical layman does--if the weatherman says
it should rain, it should happen, and no I don't have any faith in the
TV weatherguy who says there will be a half-inch of rain in the next 24
hours. I concur with you that most weather forecasts are run to a 5 or
7 day extension, but it has been my personal observation that the timing
or the magnitude of an event is usually off, and the only reliable and
later verified hits are no further out than 24-48 hours--at least so
much as to plan one's outdoor activities by.
If I really need to know what's going on, I'll look at the NOAA zone
forecasts which give percentages of probability (can't remember what
decade it was when all but one of the local TV/radio weatherguys quit
doing that--and the exception is a Ph.D. meteorologist at St. Louis
University who has moonlighted as a weather person for the last 30-40
years) and look at the radar myself, comparing it with what I know of
the topography of the land beneath the storm. One of the odd things
about the Ozarks is I've seen one valley get 3 inches of rain in 6
hours, and 2 miles away, it stays bone dry. One night in 1997 we
literally watched on computer radar as a storm circled over a 10 mile
(on a side) square area, dumping 9 inches of rain in 16 hours, while at
my house,(allegedly in the path of the predicted storm) we got about an
inch. As you know, the Ozarks aren't that high--one wouldn't think such
a pattern would develop here. What with homeland security, my town
invested in automatic weather alert loudspeakers--the worst thunderstorm
in the last two years with straightline winds of 70-80 mph we were never
alerted to, whereas it goes off if 4 gray clouds congregate.
Actually, as far as climate models go, I looked at way too many climate
modeling papers (at least 20 books worth) a couple years back while
researching predicted increases in atmospheric CO2 from the points of
view of forestry, agriculture, urban emissions, and geobiochemistry
symposia proceedings and text a couple of years ago. Including looking
at the statistical analysis of the data generated. The margins of error
on most of the predictions were enormous. (At least the researchers had
the veracity to include those margins of error.) At that point, I
decided that climate modeling was an exercise in possible trends, not
the hard and fast 'future' that some in the media portray their results
as being. A few of the climatologists in the climate models had Iben
Browning syndrome: "Because it is statistically likely that the New
Madrid fault zone will cut loose with another big quake in the next 50
years, I am predicting it will happen on Dec. 3, 1990." Right. Not!
It has been my personal experience that weather forecasting is also an
exercise in short range possible trends, in which the forecaster plays
the percentages, within a range of error, not a situation (as presented
by the local weatherguy)that "it will begin raining at 8 a.m tomorrow so
take your umbrella". It is rare when they get the temperature range, the
atmospheric disturbance activity and its magnitude correct.
I am happy if you have better forecasting in your area.
best,
Jo
Alan
joschape...@2socketdot.no5net (Jo Schaper) wrote:
Weather forecasting is easy Jo :-)
Red sky at night; sailor's delight! Red sky at morning; sailor's warning!
You can substitute shepherds for sailors if you like.
Robert Grumbine
Alan <al...@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Sorry Jo for not being clear. The effect of a volcano erupting is to lower
>global temperatures.
For a brief period -- a year or two, detectably for a bit longer.
Tambora, responsible for the 'Year without summer' in 1816 (much larger
than Krakatoa), left its mark for only a couple years. There was only
1 'year without summer'.
[snip]
>Why is it that all these people writing about
>"Global Warming" ignore this fact, and close their eyes to the number of
>volcanoes that are currently in a state of eruption?
'all' which people? Journalists? Ask them. Scientists studying
climate? They don't ignore it. You can find a section on volcanic
influences on climate in the IPCC report, for instance: http://www.ipcc.ch/
(Before buying anything, wait for the 4th report, which is due ...
don't remember detail, but soon.)
One feature, however, of the volcanic influence is that it is much
shorter lived, relying on aerosols, than the anthropogenic effects on
stable gases. 1-3 years vs. decades-centuries. (Same short period
for the anthropogenic aerosols.)
Robert Grumbine
So you're agreed that your initial comment, to which I was reacting,
that the usual range of prediction is only two days is not correct.
Ok.
That you don't trust the predictions beyond two days based on strictly
seat of the pants recollection and verification is a different matter.
Also ok, but not science. Since this is a science group, I was hoping
for something better than seat of the pants.
[weather snip]
[climate snip]
>A few of the climatologists in the climate models had Iben
>Browning syndrome: "Because it is statistically likely that the New
>Madrid fault zone will cut loose with another big quake in the next 50
>years, I am predicting it will happen on Dec. 3, 1990." Right. Not!
If you have a cite to a scientist saying things like this, please
provide it. I haven't seen such things from the scientists, though
I've seen journalists do such things.
It was a fun time at the 1990 AGU meeting, where we negotiated
Browning's forecast disaster period.
>It has been my personal experience that weather forecasting is also an
>exercise in short range possible trends, in which the forecaster plays
>the percentages, within a range of error, not a situation (as presented
>by the local weatherguy)that "it will begin raining at 8 a.m tomorrow so
>take your umbrella". It is rare when they get the temperature range, the
> atmospheric disturbance activity and its magnitude correct.
>
>I am happy if you have better forecasting in your area.
Since it seems you want all met. parameters forecast precisely,
to the minute, for (at least) the next 48 hours, it doesn't matter
where you live or how good the forecasters are, you're going to be
disappointed.
Jo Schaper
Jo Schaper wrote:
>>I am happy if you have better forecasting in your area.
>
>
> Since it seems you want all met. parameters forecast precisely,
> to the minute, for (at least) the next 48 hours, it doesn't matter
> where you live or how good the forecasters are, you're going to be
> disappointed.
You misunderstood me, Robert. I'm not disappointed, because I don't
expect much from weather forecasting. The truth is, I consider computer
model weather forecasting advisory only unless tempered with the
judgement of an experienced weather observer. Too many TV
'meteorologists' (most of whom look pretty) just read the printout from
the box, but only a few understand anything about the science. They try
to dazzle the viewer with lots of big words, hi-tech phrases, and they
totally turn me off as they 'play the expert' based on their toys.
All I expect out of weather forecasting are probabilities, trends and
their best guess at what is happening 12 hours from now as I figure out
what coat to wear (or not). I do not appreciate weather people who claim
to be omniscient in all the niggly details.
To be fair, I don't necessarily believe my calculator either, until I've
cross-checked the answer with pencil and paper, too. Too many people
'believe the box' (either computer models or TV, take your pick) instead
of being somewhat self reliant.
Climate models have the same problem..what is seen as a trend
(increasing CO2 at Mauna Kea, for example) is predicted ad infinitum
into all sorts of things which it is not, including an immutable future.
I continue to think that once a problem is recognized, something can be
done about it. Had all the couples on the planet continued to have 10+
children as they did in the 18th and 19th century, we would have
overwhelmed the planet a long time ago. But humanity saw the folly of
its ways, and I expect we'll see the same thing happen on climate issues
once it becomes uncomfortable around here.