Tonight, I'm going to talk about Temperature Anomaly maps and how they are constructed, used, misused and abused for weather and climate including science and advocacy. This should be fun.
Using weather models or historical observation data, grids are formed of daily, monthly and annual temperatures over a given time period maybe 20 years or 100 years+.
This Period of Record (POR) dataset is then used to select or construct the baseline climatology e.g. 1991-2020.
This map is month-to-date gridded Japanese reanalysis data -- a type of weather model output from forecasts run consecutively using a modern model but the original data from decades ago. This is meant to faithfully represent the true state of 3D atmosphere & ocean.
The baseline used here is 1991-2020 called the Climate Normal period. You may often see 1981-2010 or 1961-1990 or even 1951-1980. These 3 decade chunks are designed to represent the climate regardless if there are rapid changes or not.
Let's compare with a previous December 2015 during El Niño. The global anomaly is +0.53°C over the 1991-2020 mean, while this December 2021 is +0.27°C. Yes, that is a cooling of 0.25°C if compared directly.
But you wouldn't say global warming stopped because December 2021 is cooler than December 2015. That would be misinformation w/o proper context -- and that is the long-term data trend convincingly upward.
Here's every day T anomaly since 1990 from same Japanese dataset.
This is the daily global temperature anomaly smoothed by running 30 day mean. You should see dramatic spikes on weekly and monthly time scales against backdrop of slow trend of background global warming.
What causes spikes? Ocean and atmosphere primarily thru weather.
Let's zoom in closer to see the sub-daily changes in global temperature meaning capturing 4x daily the temperature anomaly when Earth is half dark / half sunlight.
Check out the wild swing from -0.4°C to +0.4°C from March 2021 to April 2021. That's +0.8°C in a month. Whoa!
Here's a current example from ECMWF operational weather model. Global T anomaly drops from +0.21°C to -0.12°C in 10 days, a dramatic global cooling by 0.33°C. Yeah, that's entirely weather related on such short time scales -- and this is b/c of how cold/warm air affects land.
But I see more red than blue, it's obvious which one is warmer. I'd say that's misleading as the maps are flat projections, and the most extreme values are most assuredly concentrated in narrow or small regions. Plus, this is a snapshot instant while 24-hours different story.
But, I see extremely warm temperatures in United States and the global anomaly is +0.20°C so that's proof of climate change.
That's misleading for 2 reasons:
You can't point to 1% of the Earth and say "climate change" when there's obviously balancing cold elsewhere.
And, you can't compare raw temperature anomalies on different parts of the globe at the same time!
Why? The background variance or typical temperature change on a given day may be +/- 50°F in Alberta or Minnesota vs. only +/- 1°F in the tropics.
You must normalize!
Together, comparing small areas of temperature anomalies on different parts of the globe is doubly misleading, a cardinal sin.
Remember you need to look at the global anomaly on long time scales, not compare daily weather maps.
Next, the color scale 🎨🖌
If you colored the daily temperature anomaly map by only 1 color representing the global anomaly of -0.12°C it would be gray, no signal. A blank gray map. All of the anomalies ranging from -24°C to +30°C all average out globally to gray. Amazing!
Let's do the same thing for Year to Date. The color scale is chopped in half so gray is +/- 0.25°C but the global temperature anomaly fits just the same.
You can certainly pick out the dominance of La Niña in the Tropical Pacific (colder blue).
Let's do the same thing for Year to Date. The color scale is chopped in half so gray is +/- 0.25°C but the global temperature anomaly fits just the same.
You can certainly pick out the dominance of La Niña in the Tropical Pacific (colder blue).
By now, you may have picked up on the overarching thing that's fouling up this whole temperature anomaly map business. The baseline climatology is 1991-2020! There is no information on any 2021 map from before 1991 to show global trends or context. But ...
If I show you December 1962 with the 1991-2020 baseline, it is much colder at -0.63°C. Now, look at the 1981-2010 baseline, it's -0.49°C and it's very difficult to see the difference between the maps.
Why? The gray scale is washing out -1° to +1°C.
Thus, to show climate change [w/o misleading the audience] daily weather maps w/recent climate baselines are the worst option -- and the purveyor is engaging in cherry picking 🍒 every time.
Here is an example of using global temperature anomaly maps from weather models. The model is GFS and baseline climatology is 1979-2000 from CFSR reanalysis.
"big, anomalous red blob"
global anomaly +0.4°C averages to "white space" on color key
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Remember I was talking about the "Final Boss" of Arctic blasts? NOAA GFS 00z 👀 Obviously, historic cold potential.
Just pay attention to the "potential" down the road -- by Feb 10th or so, matching the coupling of the stratospheric polar vortex stretching with the troposphere below.
Predictability is very high right now through 10-days > 0.8 with high latitude blocking. Into Day 13
And, with that PV tail dragging through Texas, would mean potential for explosive cyclogenesis along the Gulf Coast or off Southeast coast. This would be a complete rewrite of history books from a 990 mb blizzard over Pensacola.
40-50 years since we've even approached this weather pattern plausibility
Evening update: I don't think people appreciate what's coming to Texas --> Southeast and the Carolinas over the next 10-12 days. Hide the women and children.
Some of the model solutions are historic / catastrophic and previously thought impossible.
We can handle snowfall -- mostly.
Next 6-days: large area of 12-18" stretches from Oklahoma to the Carolinas along Interstate 40 through Nashville.
This "battle ground" may adjust north/south.
Temperatures will not be warming anytime soon so this snow will remain on ground.
What we can't handle is "heavy freezing rain" and ice accumulation south of this "snow zone"
Boatloads of subtropical moisture out of the Pacific + Gulf of Mexico will overrun Arctic air in the 20s (°F) and fall through it --> Saturday into Sunday.
Climate chaos helped spark the French Revolution --> and another massive "oozing" eruption of a flood volcano like Laki in Iceland could greatly disrupt European society today.
The "Greenhouse" Summer of 1783 featured a toxic sulfuric acid cloud over England and Europe.
I'm sure you've seen headlines like this: 'Climate Change Made Hurricane Melissa Four Times More likely'
But what does this mean? You'll be surprised to learn -- "not much" for this particular event -- or really any event.
First, we do not have counterfactual Earths to compare what might have happened had humans not industrialized in the late 1700s. In that world, hurricanes, typhoons, or cyclones caused enormous loss of life due to lack of warning, 18th Century infrastructure, and inability to evacuate quickly.
Second, Jamaica and the rest of the Atlantic basin have experienced devastating hurricanes of major (Cat 3) to Cat 5 intensity especially during colder decades of the Little Ice Age. Paleotempestology research shows MORE tropical cyclones during colder centuries.
Jamaica's written history shows disastrous hurricanes in 1722, 1744, 1780, etc. but before barometers, we can only rely upon news reports, and possibly proxy evidence like silt.
Thus, our task is to determine how a hurricane prior to industrialization or during the 18th Century would have behaved in a similar circumstance as Melissa.
While climate models are typically used to produce counterfactual Earths, they are not particularly reliable for tropical cyclones and have highly uncertain outcomes for the past, present, and future!
For floods in the U.S. and elsewhere, catastrophe models are built to understand the recurrence intervals of extreme events. Hence, we need as much historical data as possible -- as far back in time. That's mainly dependent upon inhabitation by people.
In Europe, we have detailed river level levels back to the 1600s, and can use hundreds of years of records to determine if an event was unprecedented, and provide a more accurate Return Period (RP).
But for hurricanes in the Atlantic, that is not the case. While we have mostly complete records for hurricanes while making landfall -- especially in populated areas -- we have to infer (guess) existence, tracks, and intensity of storms in the open ocean away from shipping lanes, and later in the 1940s and 1950s, outside aircraft observations.
Even then, our records are only "pretty good" when satellites came online in the 1960s with improving quality and coverage in the late 1970s.
Today, we have 1-minute updates at 1-kilometer resolution from GOES-19 geostationary satellite + frequent aircraft sampling. However, even with all of our fancy tools, the hurricane is constantly fluctuating and measurements 15-minutes ago could be not longer representative of the present situation.
But excellent test for climate attribution pseudoscience in the courtroom.
NY Times fails to mention that the car's air conditioner broke, and weather forecasts clearly detailed the day's high temperatures.
The research study that concluded this heat wave event was "virtually impossible" without climate change does not provide an analysis of all "heat dome" events from the past 2,000 years -- instead focusing on model data since 1950.
"The summer of 1601 was among the coldest in the Northern Hemisphere during the last six centuries, and the impact may have been comparable to that of the 1815 Tambora, 1452/1453 mystery eruption, 1257 Samalas and 536 mystery eruptions."
214 years from Huaynaputina --> Tambora
We are 210 years since Tambora.