Climate Science, December 29, 2008 7:00 am
There was a recent Nature news article
Barratt, A., 2008: Forecasting the future of hurricanes. Nature News. Published online December 11, 2008. doi:10.1038/news.2008.1298.The article is titled
A meteorologist’s new model zooms in on how climate change affects Atlantic
storms. by Anna Barnett
“The world’s most advanced simulation of extreme weather on a warming Earth completed its first run on 5 December. Greg Holland at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, is leading the project, which nests detailed regional forecasts into a model of global climate change up to the mid-21st century. Under the model’s microscope are future hurricane seasons in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, along with rainfall over the Rocky Mountains and wind patterns in the Great Plains.”
This type of article perpetuates the myth that the climate science community currently has the capability to make skilled regional multi-decadal predictions [in this case of hurricane activity]. Such claims to not conform even to the statements by IPCC authors.
For example, see An Essay “The IPCC Report: What The Lead Authors Really Think” By Ann Henderson-Sellers where she reports that
“The rush to emphasize regional climate does not have a scientifically sound
basis.”
Even Kevin Trenberth, one of the Lead IPCC authors, has written (see)
“the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictionsThe Nature article Forecasting the future of hurricanes is yet another example of not critically and objectively assessing claims made by climate scientists. What ever happened to objective journalism in Nature?
of climate.” [see the Climate Science posting on the Trenberth essay - Comment on the Nature Weblog By Kevin Trenberth Entitled “Predictions of climate”.]
Posts
Erroneous News Article In The Times, by Roger Pielke Sr.
ReplyDeletehttp://climatesci.org/2008/12/30/erroneous-news-article-in-the-times
Climate Science, December 30, 2008, 7:00 am
Thanks to Andrew Forster of Local Transport Today in the UK for alerting us to the erroneous news article from the Times on December 27 2008 titled
The war on carbon - Arguments of 2009: Can Copenhagen save the planet?
An excerpt reads,
“The stakes at Copenhagen could not be much higher. Global surface temperatures have risen by a tolerable three quarters of a degree celsius over the past century, but the rate of increase is accelerating. The Kyoto Protocol has had negligible impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and projections for the mean global temperature rise in the next century range from 1.1 to 6.4 degrees. Whether fast or very fast, the Earth is heating up.
There will be continued argument about the science of climate change over the next 12 months, but not, except on the conspiratorial fringe, about the threat. Climate change is real and worsening, and there is an overwhelming likelihood that much of it is man-made.”
This is a erroneous report on the climate system! The rate of increase is NOT accelerating. There is absolutely no question that global warming has stopped for at least 4 years (using upper ocean data) ; e.g see
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf
and over 7 years using lower tropospheric data; e.g. see
Figure 7 TLT in http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html.
With respect to the surface temperature trends [which have a warm bias in any case, as we have documented in our peer review papers; e.g. see], a good set of analyses on this subject has been posted over the last few years at http://rankexploits.com/musings/ [you should scroll back over the last several months to view; it is an excellent comparison with model predictions]. As discussed on that website, even with the warm biased global average surface temperature trends, the models have over-predicted warming. The GISS data itself even shows recent cooling in the ocean sea surface temperatures [see their figure for Monthly-Mean Global Sea Surface Temperature; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ where it has cooled since 2002.
The writers of the Time article, and other journalists who write similar misinformation, damage the liklihood of responsible environmental actions as a result of their overstatement and erroneous communication to the public and policymakers of climate science.
Issue Advocacy By The UK Met Office And The University Of East Anglia. By Roger Pielke Sr.
ReplyDeleteClimate Science, Dec 31, 2009, 7:00 am
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/31/political-advocacy-in-the-guise-of-climate-science/
Staff at the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom continue to communicate erroneous information on the changes of heat content within the climate system. On December 30 2008, the UK Met Office website published the news article Pacific continues to influence climate.
The article reads in part
“2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record, despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Niña.
According to climate scientists at the Met Office and the University of East Anglia the global temperature is forecast to be more than 0.4 °C above the long-term average. This would make 2009 warmer than the year just gone and the warmest since 2005.
During La Niña, cold waters rise to the surface to cool the ocean and land surface temperatures. The 2009 forecast includes an updated decadal forecast using a Met Office climate model. This indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.
Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: “Phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña have a significant influence on global surface temperature. Warmer conditions in 2009 are expected because the strong cooling influence of the recent powerful La Niña has given way to a weaker La Niña. Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Niño develops.”
These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends as Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, explains: “The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44 °C, was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.”
Until and unless the major weather and climate groups can more accurately present accurate global warming/cooling assessments, the news media will continue to miscommunicate reality to the public and policymakers, as discussed, for example, in the Climate Science weblog Erroneous News Article In The Times. As I wrote in that weblog
“The writers of the Time article, and other journalists who write similar misinformation, damage the liklihood of responsible environmental actions as a result of their overstatement and erroneous communication to the public and policymakers of climate science.”
This communication of misinformation is not isolated to the media but is embedded within the climate science community, as illustrated by the December 30 2008 UK news release. Indeed, to assume that a La Niña can mask warming that otherwise would occur ignores the obvious that the La Niña is an integral part of the climate. Its controls on the global average temperature illustrate that other effects besides the radiative effect of added CO2 exert a major influence on the climate system.
Finally, the documentation that the UK Met Office is working as a political advocate is obvious from their webite. For example, they write (see)
“The Met Office offers world-leading expertise to help you make strategic decisions about weather and climate change impacts. We offer an understanding of the future through risk analysis and long-range forecasting, enabling you to make better informed decisions.”
and (see) where their training overview writes
“The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is warming. These changes will affect all organisations.
To plan effectively for the future, influencers and decision-makers in Government and the public sector need to understand how the climate will change and how this may impact their organisation. The new Met Office climate change seminars will equip you with the knowledge of climate change you need to:
Make the best decisions for your organisation, so that the plans you make today safeguard your future success in a changing climate.
Using the latest research from the world-leading Met Office Hadley Centre - the authoritative voice on climate change - our seminars will build an understanding of why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts.
Focusing on how we can plan for the future, our seminars also explore some of the options available for organisations to reduce (mitigate) and prepare for (adapt to) climate change.
What you’ll learn
By the end of our seminars, you will:
understand why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts
be equipped to dispel scepticism about climate change in your organisation and ensure your colleagues’ engagement
know the steps you need to take to factor climate change into the decisions you make for your organisation
Who should attend
This seminar is designed for professionals in Government and the public sector. It’s particularly appropriate for those with responsibility for, or interest in, planning, projects and policies. No prior scientific training is required.”
The UK Met Office would benefit by reading the book The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics by Roger A. Pielke Jr. in order to recognize that they are clearly “Issue Advocates” rather than a government agency that is presenting the diversity of perspectives on the climate issue to policymakers and the public.
Despite the silliness of the 1979 mark, it is interesting to read the last paragraphs on wind patters and thin ice:
ReplyDeleteSea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979, by Michael Asher
Daily Tech, Jan 01, 2009
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.
Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.
h/t: Drew Thornley, Planet Gore, http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODlkNGExZTM2MmZiYmJjODFhNzI1MWNkNzBmNzM2YTI=