German meteorologist Dominik Jung writes at wetter.net that the first preliminary forecast for Central Europe for the upcoming summer issued by the NOAA does not look very favorable. Expect a “grisly summer”, he writes.
He writes that over the last 10 years spring has generally been on the warm and sunny side, but that Central Europeans have had to pay a price for that by having to put up with wet and variable summer weather.
Models wrong 11 out of 12 years!
Jung then reminds us that the climate models have been very wrong with their 2003 predictions that Central Europeans in the future would have to expect hot, barbecued summers like the one seen in 2003. Back then climatologists warned the public to get used to such summers, as it was all consistent with global warming. Turns out that prediction has been a complete flop. Jung writes:
Do you recall the climate prophets after the hottest and driest summer of all time in the 2003 prophesizing more drought summers? None of that has occurred. Of the 11 summers that followed, 7 were wetter than the long-term mean, i.e. too much rain. Moreover predictions of sustained heat waves failed to come true. Four summers turned out to be almost normal and only one single summer was about 15% too dry. The majority of the past summers saw no large heat waves. It was hot only for a few days, with really cooler days with thundershowers in between.
That could be again the case this year. According to the long-term trend of the US weather service, March and April could turn out to be warmer, sunnier and drier than normal. A few days ago the first trend for the months of June, July, August was calculated by the US colleagues and things don’t look better than the past – in fact it looks a little worse!
This year could be a grisly summer. The US long-term model sees no summer month that will be warmer than the long-term average. All three summer months should be at near normal temperatures and accompanied by more precipitation than normal. August is forecast to be especially wet.”
But Jung warns that these are only long-term projections and that one should not put too much stock in them. Many readers here are aware that the seasonal forecasts made by the US weather services (and those of the UK Met Office) often leave much to be desired.
In fact assuming the opposite would likely be a better prediction.
“Many readers here are aware that the seasonal forecasts made by the US weather services (and those of the UK Met Office) often leave little to be desired.”
Often leave much to be desired?
Thanks! fixed.
“August is forecast to be especially wet.””
Let’s hope so! August is top production month for Solar Power in Germany. August 2014 was extremely cloudy, Solar produced nothing, wrecking production so much that electricity prices stayed constant for 2015!
Due to the perverse incentive nature of the German FIT, the LESS electricity we produce via the subsidized sources, the WEALTHIER we get. (or, the less our losses mount)
(Maybe this is the nature of government in a nutshell)
Don’t assume the opposite of the official predictions, that would be just as unwise as believing them.
In fact, they are of no predictive value at all, one way or the other.
That’s worse odds than a random guess.
What is the sensitivity for each 1% of the most prolific “greenhouse gas” (namely water vapor) in Earth’s atmosphere?
To help any of you answer the question, here are some facts:
Fact 1: Water vapor absorbs a significant amount of incident solar radiation as shown here. The atmosphere absorbs about 20% of incident solar radiation and that absorbing is not by nitrogen, oxygen or argon. (Carbon dioxide also absorbs incident photons in the 2.1 micron range which each have about 5 times the energy of 10 micron photons coming up from the surface. On Venus over 97% of the energy from incident solar radiation is retained in carbon dioxide molecules.)
Fact 2: The concentration of water vapor varies between about 1% and 4%. (The concentration of carbon dioxide above Mauna Loa is 0.04% and, as this graph shows, temperatures there have not increased since 1959.)
Fact 3: The IPCC claims that water vapor does nearly all of “33 degrees of warming” of Earth’s surface. It must do most of it because it dominates CO2 in concentration and also in the number of frequency bands in which it absorbs and radiates. But in fact water vapor lowers the “lapse rate” so that the temperature profile rotates downwards at the surface end, making the surface cooler. (In fact, as per my paper, there is no 33 degrees of warming being done by any back radiation because it is gravity which props up the surface end of the temperature profile.)
When you have answered the question, work out how much hotter the IPCC conjecture implies a region with 4% water vapor would be than a similar region with 1% water vapor at a similar altitude and latitude. Then look up the study in the Appendix of my paper and see what real world data tells us about how water vapor cools rather than warms. And if you don’t believe my study, then spend half a day doing your own.
Finally, note that it is quite clear in the energy diagram here and the text I wrote beneath it that they have certainly added 324W/m^2 of back radiation to 168W/m^2 of solar radiation in order to use this in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the temperature of the surface. Obviously they worked out by difference what the back radiation figure had to be and made it 66% greater than the 195W/m^2 of upward radiation from the atmosphere to space. They need not have bothered, because their whole paradigm is wrong, because they ignored the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that gravity forms the temperature and density gradients – which represent the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.