bdgwx

This thread was about the accusation that Bates leveled against Karl of fraudulently manipulating the NOAA GlobalTemp dataset to show more warming than there actually was. Here are the facts that have been discovered over the last two years as they relate to the accusation. - Bates first accused Karl of fraudulently manipulating the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset according to the Daily Mail outfit. - Bates was quoted as saying "it's not trumped up data in any way shape or form". - Bates actually accused Karl of rushing the publication through the review process. - These accusations are in direct reference to the Karl 2015 publication: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469 - The above publication is describing the change of Karl's datasets from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4. - Karl is not listed as a contributor to the ERSSTv4 dataset. The changes in ERSSTv4 are documented, available to the public, and were necessary to fix a few issues that were discovered since the previous version was published. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1 The conclusions from the formal investigation were as follows. - Not only did Karl (or NOAA in general) not fraudulently manipulate any data he didn't even commit the review blunders that Bates accused him of. Nevermind that he wasn't in control of the timing of the publication anyway. - The change from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4 was evolutionary in nature and was done to fix known issues with the inputs. It was not fraudulent nor was it stealthily done. The change described in Karl 2015 was submitted to the peer reviewed journal Science and is in the public domain. - NOAAGlobalTemp is consistent with all of the other conventional global mean surface temperature datasets including Cowtan&Way, NASA GISS, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, etc. - It was actually Bates that had authority over the review process and thus the blunders that he tried to pin on Karl were made him. He was not forthcoming about this in his correspondence with the public. - Although the MITRE investigation found no wrong doing (other than that committed under Bates' authority) they do have recommendations for policy changes for NOAA to implement to clarify ambiguous or contradictory procedures. I also feel it important to point out that the net sum of all necessary adjustments to the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset done by Karl actually work to reduce the amount of warming compared to the raw data. This is clearly documented in Karl's 2015 publication. Refer to figure 2B.

2018 data isn't in yet for the troposphere, but the hydrosphere data is now available. For those don't know the hydrosphere is important because it takes up > 90% of the excess heat. Land, ice, and atmosphere all combine to account for the remaining heat uptake budget. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-019-8276-x

New information related to this thread which was released just a few weeks ago... https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report.pdf It was concluded that there was no wrong doing or fraudulent manipulation of data on the part of Karl and that it was actually Bates who committed the review blunders that he accused Karl of. Here's Karl's original paper that is the subject of this thread. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

Looks good. I like the changes. It's getting a lot more usable.

I-70 in MO cashes in on the 9Z SREF.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen models this aggressive with QPF in St. Louis. I have my doubts that we'll see 10:1 ratios, but who knows. I will say that during the March 2013 storm the temperature remained above freezing during a huge part of the that event and that was after the daily high reached 41F and the day before was 58F and the airport still recorded 12.5" with 1.25" liquid.

Yeah. I hear you. Springfield has gotten the shaft worse than St. Louis these past several years. By the way, I went to high school in Republic so I'm very familiar with the area.

The FV3 is once again far more amped in terms of moisture than the GFS. St. Louis cashes in once again.

18Z GFS/FV3 QPF...

mag is op mageval is parallel The sites look exactly the same and the links are similar. Best to just click them below. http://mageval.ncep.noaa.gov - parallel http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov - op

18Z FV3 continues to look favorable for most of the subforum.

STL AFD is saying widespread 4-6" amounts with higher amounts possible.

FV3 runs at the same time as the GFS. There may be a distribution problem delaying products for 3rd parties. You can get limited FV3 products directly from the NOAA site. They are available at the same time as the old GFS products. They do provide the FV3 snow depth product. http://mageval.ncep.noaa.gov for parallel run http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/ for operational run

There's a night and day difference on the 12Z cycle of the op GFS and para GFS (FV3). The later is further north and significantly more amped up. Pretty much everyone in this subforum would cash in.

Euro has some snow...more on the east side of MO than the west, but Springfield is still in the ballpark right now for some accumulation at least as modeled.

Preliminary numbers show that the annual mean extents for the NH finished second lowest behind 2016. SH was similar...it finished second lowest behind 2017. The SH is whole different beast, but the fact that we had 2018 end badly lends a bit of credence to the idea that 2017 may not have a fluke. I wonder if we're beginning to observe the paradigm shift down there too. Any thoughts csnavy?

Once a photon is "captured" by a polyatomic molecule via molecular vibration it ceases to exist. The quantized energy of the photon is added to the molecule by increasing the kinetic energy of the chemical bonds by causing the individual atoms to vibrate. One way the molecule can "use" this added energy is by creating a new photon with the same frequency as the original (sort of). This new photon is emitted in a random direction. So whereas the original photon may have had an escape vector any resultant photon would only have a 50%'ish probability of having an escape vector. The short answer to your question is that the photon doesn't continue moving away from Earth because it no longer exists. CO2 is IR active at two primary wavenumbers. They are 667 and 2349. 667 is the most interesting because it lies right in the heart of the highest outgoing radiation flux channels Refer to skierinvermont's plot above. And notice that the molecule is absorbing radiation at both higher and lower frequencies. This happens for several reasons, but I believe the two primary reasons are due to pressure broadening and doppler shifting. Pressure broadening happens when two or more molecules "share" energy. This allows the molecules to work together to capture a photon. The higher the pressure the closer the molecules are and the more likely they are to successfully capture a photon that isn't exactly 667. Doppler shifting refers to the way a molecule will perceive the photon frequency. If the molecule is moving toward/away from the photon then the photon will be blue/red shifted from the molecule's perspective. Again notice in skierinvermont's graph that the breadth of the absorption spectrum is larger at 300K than it is at 220K. This is due in part to both doppler shifting and pressure broadening because higher temperatures are associated with both higher pressures and higher molecule velocities. It only takes a few ppm of CO2 to completely saturate the ~14 µm channel (wavenumber 667). Additional concentrations beyond the first few ppm then work to broaden the absorption spectra. The higher the temperature the more the absorption spectra will broaden if given repeated pulses of CO2. This in itself is a type of internal feedback. The more CO2 warms the atmosphere the more the absorption spectra will respond to increasing CO2. But that feedback, like most, is self limiting. All other things being equal this broadening of the absorption spectra will equilibriate. For the lower troposphere this requires a lot of CO2...far more than is currently in the atmosphere. The takeaway here...depending on your precise meaning of "the CO2 effect is saturate" the answer can either be yes or no. Yes, in that the ~14 µm channel is definitely saturated already, but no, that doesn't mean the entirety of the CO2 effect is saturated because there is plenty of longwave radiation surrounding ~14 µm that is still up for grabs. All of the above (plus other reasons) is why the CO2 effect is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. Specifically, the radiative forcing is about 5.35 * ln(Cn/Cb) where Cn is the new concentration is Cb is the baseline you want to compare it to. For example, a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would yield 5.35 * ln(560/280) = +3.7 W/m2 of additional force on the climate system. By the way, side note, the ABI instrument on the new GOES-R satellites is very sensitive to CO2. In fact channel 16 (widely available online) is called the "CO2 channel" because it lies near 14 µm (13.3 µm to be precise). The irony here is that if CO2 or H2O weren't really GHGs then a significant portion of the GOES-16 and GOES-17 satellites would be useless!

It captures the photon in a process called molecular vibration. For example, CO2's bending mode is activated at wavenumber 667. However, due to the nuances of quantum mechanics, doppler shifting, etc. the bending mode isn't always activated at precisely 667. There is partial absorption on the fringe frequencies. So while adding CO2 may not increase absorption at precisely 667 it will increase the probability of photon capture at the fringe frequencies. See skierinvermont's post above. Anyway, this is how polyatomic convert quantized energy into thermal energy. Google for molecular vibration for more information. Yes! Molecular vibration works in reverse. The molecule can relax back into a lower energy state and emit a photon in the process to carry away the energy. This photon is emitted in a random direction. Half of the emitted photons have downward vectors while half have upward vectors. This is how the radiation gets "trapped". This is the greenhouse gas effect. This is probably a good time to mention the smoking gun signal for GHG warming. As IR radiation is trapped with increasing magnitude it should work to warm the lower geosphere at the expense of cooling the upper geosphere. Bingo...that's exactly what we observe. That is the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming while the stratosphere cools. No other physical process can explain this unique observation.

0Z UKMET looks intriguing as well; perhaps more so than the Euro even.

This actually isn't true. This myth has it's origins in an experiment Angstrom and his assistant Koch performed shortly after Arrhenius quantified the greenhouse effect of CO2 and actually predicted it would occur as a direct result of human behavior in the distant future. While the Angstrom/Koch experiment was technically correct in proving that the CO2 effect does saturate the interpretation of how this plays out in the atmosphere got badly bungled for multiple reasons, but mostly because scientists at the time treated the atmosphere as if it were a single homogeneous layer...which it isn't. There are a lot of very physics'y related details involved here but the main takaways are this: 1) Even if a layer of the atmosphere is subject to the saturated CO2 effect itself it will STILL warm via other radiation, conduction, and convection processes through the addition of CO2 because not all layers are subject to the saturation effect and 2) It's not even true that the CO2 effect is saturated to begin with.

And combined SH and NH sea ice extents are now 2nd lowest. And aside from a couple of brief blips global sea ice has remained below 2σ from the mean for about 2.5 years now. And much of that time it was actually 3σ below the mean.

Those are probably top-down I'm guessing.

I've seen media outlets trying to sell this publication as an epiphany by researchers as if the bottom-up hypothesis is somehow new and surprising when it actually isn't. Trapp and Davies-Jones did research on the topic back in the 1990's. The jargon in use for the top-down model is often referred to as the Dynamic Pipe Effect. They called this type of genesis Mode I. The other type they examined was where there was sufficient low level vorticity already in place to make the tornado form either at all levels simultaneously or even at the surface first (bottom-up). They called this type of genesis Mode II. I think what is new here is that whereas Trapp and Davies-Jones felt that DPE was important (though maybe not necessarily mandatory) in supercell tornadoes based on numerical simulations this publication is presenting observational based evidence that of the tornadoes they reviewed (one being the El Reno tornado) they all appeared to form as Mode II. Here is that Trapp and Davies-Jones paper I referred to. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<0113%3ATWAWAD>2.0.CO%3B2

I looked at the data this morning. Assuming I didn't miscalculate at the current pace 2018 is on track to have the 2nd lowest annual mean sea ice extent. The top 3 lowest would be 2016, 2018, and 2017.

We'll see what the 12Z EPS has to say, but the signal for a trough to the west and ridge to the east type of scenario past D7 is looking pretty strong based on the ensemble runs I've seen in recent days. The evolution of the pattern on both the EPS and GEFS with the persistent troughing leads me to believe that either the ejection of energy/vorticity through the long wave has chaotic timing or perhaps more likely is that there could be multiple pockets of energy/vorticity translating through the long wave and into the heart of the CONUS. Either way a period of active weather between Christmas and New Year for parts the CONUS is looking like a pretty reasonable call to me. I'm just hoping we don't see these hypothetical pulses of energy cutting off and burying themselves in the southwest. I have to be honest...I'm not liking how the EPS is currently showing the troughing pattern getting stuck to the west.