Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Unusual weather

05 Jan 2020 07:32

I looked up the Berkeley data. 1911-1930 average: -12.6C.  No data before that.  Berkeley also has -9.9 for 1931-1960, but -13.3 for 1961-1990.  The warmest December on record was in 1938: -1.C.  The coldest in 1988: -22.4.

Looking up the annual temperature trends for Svalbard on Berkeley Earth, I actually get a record back to 1761:
svalbard-and-jan-mayen-TAVG-Trend.png
svalbard-and-jan-mayen-TAVG-Trend.png (103.51 KiB) Viewed 932 times


That is remarkable given that there were no systematic observations before 1911, and only very few scattered observations before that.  Indeed, prior to 1911 all stations are more than 1000 km outside the area:
svalbard-and-jan-mayen-TAVG-Counts.png
svalbard-and-jan-mayen-TAVG-Counts.png (89.84 KiB) Viewed 932 times


The graph shows a stable climate till around 1910, then there is a dramatic change and the climate suddenly began to oscillate.  1910 also marks the year when actual in situ measurements began.  Are we to believe that the stability prior to 1910 is the correct picture and the oscillation after 1910 is the signature of anthropogenic influence?  Frankly, I think the reconstruction prior to 1910 is utterly junk.  The 95% uncertainty range - seriously? 

I don't understand why researchers make such bold statements when there clearly is little data.

The fact that trends "happen" to change when we begin to measure something accurately is, of course, not a coincidence every time.  We see the same thing for arctic sea ice coverage.  Reconstructions show a steady ice cap until a decline since 1979, which also happens to be when satellite records start.  Even worse, 1979 coincides with the low of the last AMO cycle (assuming that the AMO is not a fantasy).  I've said it many times over the past decade: Don't be surprised if it turns out that the sea ice increases after 2020 (till the 2040's).  AMO probably turned again around 2015.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Unusual weather

05 Jan 2020 07:54

A sea ice montage of the situation around 3rd January for the past 12 years (2008 - 2020).  While this year (bottom right) certainly has the most ice in a long time, it remains to see if this continues into the 2020's.
x.jpg
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1916
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unusual weather

07 Jan 2020 09:08

midtskogen wrote:
I looked up the Berkeley data. 1911-1930 average: -12.6C.  No data before that.  Berkeley also has -9.9 for 1931-1960, but -13.3 for 1961-1990.  The warmest December on record was in 1938: -1.C.  The coldest in 1988: -22.4.

Looking up the annual temperature trends for Svalbard on Berkeley Earth, I actually get a record back to 1761:
svalbard-and-jan-mayen-TAVG-Trend.png

That is remarkable given that there were no systematic observations before 1911, and only very few scattered observations before that.  Indeed, prior to 1911 all stations are more than 1000 km outside the area:
svalbard-and-jan-mayen-TAVG-Counts.png

The graph shows a stable climate till around 1910, then there is a dramatic change and the climate suddenly began to oscillate.  1910 also marks the year when actual in situ measurements began.  Are we to believe that the stability prior to 1910 is the correct picture and the oscillation after 1910 is the signature of anthropogenic influence?  Frankly, I think the reconstruction prior to 1910 is utterly junk.  The 95% uncertainty range - seriously? 

I don't understand why researchers make such bold statements when there clearly is little data.

The fact that trends "happen" to change when we begin to measure something accurately is, of course, not a coincidence every time.  We see the same thing for arctic sea ice coverage.  Reconstructions show a steady ice cap until a decline since 1979, which also happens to be when satellite records start.  Even worse, 1979 coincides with the low of the last AMO cycle (assuming that the AMO is not a fantasy).  I've said it many times over the past decade: Don't be surprised if it turns out that the sea ice increases after 2020 (till the 2040's).  AMO probably turned again around 2015.

What you presented is very interesting- do you have access to New York City climate data?  Look up avg temp and precip.  The records go back to the 1870s I believe, maybe 1860s.  There is a noted stability between decades in NYC data also, prior to around 1950, when the variability increased.  As far as precip, it rapidly increased around 2000, averaging over 50 inches per year now, when before it was around 42 inches.
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Unusual weather

08 Jan 2020 00:22

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post What you presented is very interesting- do you have access to New York City climate data? 

You can look up Berkeley Earth's New York Data. Their data before 1890, certainly before 1850, is pretty worthless in my opinion, reflecting the compulsive thinking in climate science: "If obsvervations don't exist, there must be a way somehow to reconstruct them".

Do also look at data for individual stations.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 1849
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Unusual weather

08 Jan 2020 16:39

midtskogen wrote:
Source of the post the compulsive thinking in climate science: "If obsvervations don't exist, there must be a way somehow to reconstruct them".

The actual and reasonable thinking is: "If direct observations do not exist, then do there exist methods for reconstructing them by correlations to other observables, are the mechanisms behind those correlations testable, and do independent methods produce results that are consistent and sensible?"

Sometimes the answers are "no" and that line of research hits a dead end, but surprisingly often and with a bit of ingenuity they can be "yes", which is what makes paleoclimate science possible.  A good example is reconstruction of surface temperatures across Antarctica.  Obviously there are few direct observations before the satellite era, and ice core sites are few and far between.  But Antarctica has a lot of topography, and there is a powerful correlation between altitude and temperature (the lapse rate), which among others (e.g. with latitude and distance from the coast) helps produce an interpolation method for temperature between sites.  An important area of paleoclimate research is the formulation and testing of models that connect sparse and localized data to regional and continuous climate variables.
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Unusual weather

09 Jan 2020 03:52

Watsisname wrote:
Source of the post Sometimes the answers are "no" and that line of research hits a dead end, but surprisingly often and with a bit of ingenuity they can be "yes", which is what makes paleoclimate science possible.

By "compulsive thinking" I mean that there seems to be an unrest and lack of willingness to accept that there's too little data.  And I think making observations has become too little valued in science.  Researchers are not content with only collecting data valuable for future generations.  They want to see the fruits of their work right away.  There is an incentive to publish results, not to publish non-results or simply bare observations. Reconstructions are great, but they can't replace actual data.  There is an uncertainty factor every time new results are derived, which frequently gets overlooked.

For instance, do you really think the Berkeley Earth graph for Svalbard is as confident as claimed before 1910?  And for data after 1910 I notice that Berkeley Earth uses the Svalbard airport record, which is interesting since it offers a complete record from 1911 till date.  The trouble is, and this is hidden, that the airport and weather station were established in 1975 and the data before that was reconstructed from a number of other weather stations, for some periods only a few km away (although in a different microclimate), for other periods from stations tens or hundreds of km away, or even around 1000 km away (during WWII).  And the data from the individual stations has in turn gone through quality control to correct data and insert missing data. So you get these reconstructions derived from reconstructions derived from reconstructions, every layer hiding uncertainty.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1916
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unusual weather

10 Jan 2020 08:16

midtskogen wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post What you presented is very interesting- do you have access to New York City climate data? 

You can look up Berkeley Earth's New York Data. Their data before 1890, certainly before 1850, is pretty worthless in my opinion, reflecting the compulsive thinking in climate science: "If obsvervations don't exist, there must be a way somehow to reconstruct them".

Do also look at data for individual stations.

Well for Central Park (KNYC) in particular, they've been keeping an unbroken record of actual data since 1870.  I dont know about anything before then.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1916
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unusual weather

10 Jan 2020 08:18

Watsisname wrote:
midtskogen wrote:
Source of the post the compulsive thinking in climate science: "If obsvervations don't exist, there must be a way somehow to reconstruct them".

The actual and reasonable thinking is: "If direct observations do not exist, then do there exist methods for reconstructing them by correlations to other observables, are the mechanisms behind those correlations testable, and do independent methods produce results that are consistent and sensible?"

Sometimes the answers are "no" and that line of research hits a dead end, but surprisingly often and with a bit of ingenuity they can be "yes", which is what makes paleoclimate science possible.  A good example is reconstruction of surface temperatures across Antarctica.  Obviously there are few direct observations before the satellite era, and ice core sites are few and far between.  But Antarctica has a lot of topography, and there is a powerful correlation between altitude and temperature (the lapse rate), which among others (e.g. with latitude and distance from the coast) helps produce an interpolation method for temperature between sites.  An important area of paleoclimate research is the formulation and testing of models that connect sparse and localized data to regional and continuous climate variables.

analyzing ice cores can reconstruct ancient climate data with an amazing level of precision.  we can even tell pretty accurately what gases comprised our atmosphere back then and their relative proportions. tree rings also work quite well (we can also tell when ancient volcanic eruptions occurred.)
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Unusual weather

10 Jan 2020 13:13

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post analyzing ice cores can reconstruct ancient climate data with an amazing level of precision.  we can even tell pretty accurately what gases comprised our atmosphere back then and their relative proportions. tree rings also work quite well (we can also tell when ancient volcanic eruptions occurred.)

I think you're somewhat overconfident when saying "amazing level of precision".  How do you know that?

Calibration is not straight forward.  There are no direct measurements to compare with.  There is a long mixing period (low temporal resolution).  And dating must be accurate.  Then an ice core is a sample for only one location.  And that location might not have been located precisely the same place, and the elevation will also have varied through the centuries.  I can think of a number of things that affect the accuracy.  This is not to say that ice cores don't give much useful information, but you can't compare it with direct temperature measurements, and even those are difficult to get with an "amazing level of precision".

Tree rings have their own set of problems.  They only record the growth season.  And growth depends on a number of factors: temperature, moisture, sunlight, CO2, soil, disease, and so on.  The divergence problem/"hide the decline" controversy highlight some of the issues.

We can certainly extract clear indicators for what the past climate was like based on ice cores, tree rings, pollen, sediments, and so on, but the precision is limited, and the temporal resolution is often low.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 1849
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Unusual weather

11 Jan 2020 14:34

An interesting local weather phenomenon is about to strike my area -- the Fraser gap wind (also sometimes called outflow winds or squamishes). When cold arctic air comes down out of Canada, it gets dammed up on the east side of the Cascade mountains, except at narrow terrain gaps like fjords, and in particular along the Fraser River valley.  Tomorrow the air will be forced through there at up to 55 knots, which shows up dramatically in the high resolution model forecasts:

Image


In extreme cases the Fraser gap wind can sustain hurricane force, and drop temperatures from a typical 5C to below -20C in just a few hours.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1916
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unusual weather

17 Jan 2020 14:04

midtskogen wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post analyzing ice cores can reconstruct ancient climate data with an amazing level of precision.  we can even tell pretty accurately what gases comprised our atmosphere back then and their relative proportions. tree rings also work quite well (we can also tell when ancient volcanic eruptions occurred.)

I think you're somewhat overconfident when saying "amazing level of precision".  How do you know that?

Calibration is not straight forward.  There are no direct measurements to compare with.  There is a long mixing period (low temporal resolution).  And dating must be accurate.  Then an ice core is a sample for only one location.  And that location might not have been located precisely the same place, and the elevation will also have varied through the centuries.  I can think of a number of things that affect the accuracy.  This is not to say that ice cores don't give much useful information, but you can't compare it with direct temperature measurements, and even those are difficult to get with an "amazing level of precision".

Tree rings have their own set of problems.  They only record the growth season.  And growth depends on a number of factors: temperature, moisture, sunlight, CO2, soil, disease, and so on.  The divergence problem/"hide the decline" controversy highlight some of the issues.

We can certainly extract clear indicators for what the past climate was like based on ice cores, tree rings, pollen, sediments, and so on, but the precision is limited, and the temporal resolution is often low.

By "amazing level of precision" I meant in a relative sense compared to how long ago we're talking about.  As a matter of fact, trends can be gleaned when comparing different eras, rather than actual temperatures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/01/15/2010s-hottest-decade-world/?arc404=true

NEW: 2019 marked the end of the world's hottest decade on record, with a slew of ominous signs. 

The only warmer year was 2016, a super el nino year and 6 of the 10 years were amongst the hottest on record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... rc404=true

For a 4th consecutive year, extreme weather tops the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report in terms of likelihood. Additionally, failure to adapt to climate change ranks the #1 risk in terms of impact.

Full report: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global ... t_2020.pdf
Last edited by A-L-E-X on 17 Jan 2020 14:11, edited 2 times in total.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1916
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unusual weather

17 Jan 2020 14:07

Watsisname wrote:
An interesting local weather phenomenon is about to strike my area -- the Fraser gap wind (also sometimes called outflow winds or squamishes). When cold arctic air comes down out of Canada, it gets dammed up on the east side of the Cascade mountains, except at narrow terrain gaps like fjords, and in particular along the Fraser River valley.  Tomorrow the air will be forced through there at up to 55 knots, which shows up dramatically in the high resolution model forecasts:

Image


In extreme cases the Fraser gap wind can sustain hurricane force, and drop temperatures from a typical 5C to below -20C in just a few hours.

I heard that snow has been making it down to sea level in Washington State!
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Unusual weather

17 Jan 2020 14:24

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post By "amazing level of precision" I meant in a relative sense compared to how long ago we're talking about.

Well, it's interesting data in the sense that climatic changes do get recorded.  But you can't really compare that with today's measured climate with much precision.  You get some ideas what whole centuries were like, but not that much better.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1916
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unusual weather

17 Jan 2020 14:29

midtskogen wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post By "amazing level of precision" I meant in a relative sense compared to how long ago we're talking about.

Well, it's interesting data in the sense that climatic changes do get recorded.  But you can't really compare that with today's measured climate with much precision.  You get some ideas what whole centuries were like, but not that much better.

The other thing I find intriguing is sometimes we can even tell with relative precision when a cataclysmic astronomical event occurred- for example there was an outburst of the sun's somewhere around 2,600 years ago....
https://www.livescience.com/64964-huge-ancient-solar-storm-hit-earth.html

A couple of other large proton storms that occurred in the first millenium AD are also mentioned.
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Unusual weather

17 Jan 2020 14:34

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post I heard that snow has been making it down to sea level in Washington State!

Whilst in Scandinavia there is hardly any snow at the sea level now.  You need to go north of the arctic circle for that.  Here in Oslo we had a decent amount of snow in November, but since Christmas the NAO has sent a steady stream of lows with more rain than snow and the snow is now all gone in lower elevations, below 3-400 meters.  It's looking very much like the winters of 1989/90 and 1991/92, which were pretty unique in the 20th century.  Today we've had about 40 mm of rain and the temperature is stuck at +4C.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest