- The Washington Times - Saturday, March 5, 2005

Want to raise the blood pressure of an entire region? If you’re within a few hundred miles of Washington D.C., just say “snow” into a TV camera. But if you’re more interested in planetary hypertension, simply substitute “global warming.”

It turns out the forecasting methods for both snow and global warming are quite similar. And what happened with the Feb. 28 Mid-Atlantic snowstorm tells us much about the climate of the next 100 years.

Both snowstorms and global climate change are predicted by computer models. For snow, the computer starts out with a global “snapshot” of the atmosphere, produced simultaneously, around the world, by weather balloons at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. They sample temperature, humidity, altitude and wind. Once these variables are measured, the computer goes to work, shoving moisture and heat around the planet, creating what we call “weather.”

What changes from day-to-day in these models is the “snapshot” that puts the whole shebang in motion.

Climate change models have similar physics. But because they are concerned with 100-year (rather than 100-hour) time frames, they all start with the same initial conditions and slowly modulate them with the warming effects of the main human “greenhouse” emission, carbon dioxide, along with the cooling effects of the particles that go in the air while we burn fossil fuel. Together, these produce changing patterns of surface temperature and rainfall as the years progress.

For both weather and climate, there are a number of different computer models. That’s because we have only a partial knowledge of how the atmosphere truly works, requiring different models to make different assumptions.

For example, we know some clouds cool the surface, while others warm, but we really don’t know how much. So different models use different values, which may change their rate of projected snowfall (in the case of weather) or annual temperature (when dealing with climate).

The Feb. 28 snowstorm was one of those many cases in which different models predict different outcomes. One of the two main federal models, the Global Forecasting System (GFS), projected modest amounts of moisture. The other, the North American Model (NAM) had nearly 13/4 inches of liquid coming down not far from Washington D.C. If that fell as snow, D.C. could have experienced its biggest storm since the paralyzing whopper of January 1996, which set the all-time record for a single snowstorm at Dulles Airport.

What do we teach forecasters to do in such a situation, where two equally sophisticated computer models say such different things? “Look out the window, stupid.” Literally.

When models differ, forecasters look to see which tracked more correctly, or which was right when a similar storm last threatened. In this case, NAM was consistently placing the center of the storm too far west. So it was thrown out in favor of GFS, and the forecast for much of Northern Virginia and Maryland was for 4-8 inches of snow — enough to cause the usual panic, but hardly a paralyzing blow.

Indeed, that’s largely what fell, with the exception of urban Washington, where the city’s heat melted some of the snow when it hit the surface. The District averaged 2-3 inches rather than the minimum of 4. Frankly, given all the uncertainties in snow forecasting, the National Weather Service forecast indeed was good enough for government work.

For the 100-year global warming window we have dozens of climate models to choose from. So which one (if any) is right? Hey, look out the window again.

These models tend to share a characteristic: Once warming starts from human activities, it tends to occur at a constant rate. All one need do is demonstrate there is a warming and see if it has a uniform clip to know what model to select.

Greenhouse effect theory predicts warming happens inordinately in cold, dry air in the winter and much less in the humid summer. Over the last several decades, indeed, the largest warmings in our hemisphere are in Siberian, Canadian and Alaskan winters, where the air is coldest and driest. OK. Greenhouse warming.

Now, is it a constant rate? No doubt. The trend line couldn’t be straighter. What is the rate? About 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degree Fahrenheit ) per half-century, rather modest.

So there’s your long, long term climate forecast. All we have to do is adjust the models for reality, something that happens most every day with the short-term weather forecast.

And before getting into a snowstorm panic about this, remember the same amount of warming occurred over the 20th century. Lifespan doubled, some crop yields quintupled, and the average U.S. citizen became wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the historians of a century ago.

Rather than react hysterically, we survived and prospered. So why get upset about a similar warming in the next 50 years?

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide