The latest CPC long range outlooks have been released and there isn’t too much write home about. No significant trends are indicated for our area of the country (Wisconsin) except for the upcoming winter.

June Temp Forecast

For the 3rd year in a row the CPC models are forecasting a significant chance of above normal temps from approximately December through March. Of course, as we all know, during the last two winters temps were well below normal and snowfall was above normal. We had periods of La Nina during the last two winters and that might have influenced things.

June-July-Aug. Forecast

 Right now the ENSO index is neutral (neither La Nina or El Nino) and it should stay that way through the summer. Hard to say how it will change by this Fall and Winter. Just by eyeballing the historical ENSO episodes, it looks like the typical neutral period lasts between 1 to 2 years with the longest being a bit over 4 years. So it would not be unusual if we had neither El Nino or La Nina this winter.

Looking at the CPC long range outlooks and highlighting the poor forecast performance over the last two winters again brings me back to the AGW topic (and I promised I would continue the discussion today). Some people would naturally ask “how can we trust a computer model forecasting conditions 100 years from now when it can’t even get the trends correct looking only a couple months into the future?” It is a legitimate question and one that has been brought up many times in the past. The models that attempt a hundred year forecast and a 100 day forecast are a bit different but they do both suffer from the non-linear nature of the equations that are used. Many assumptions have to be built into the models before we can get any useful output. Also, trying to predict a general climate trend is somewhat easier than forecasting short term changes. The climate changes slowly. The average temperature of the earth has only gone up about 1 degree F over the last 100 years. In contrast, during a typical summer day, the temperature here in town will go up 25 degrees between daybreak and late afternoon. Speaking of climate models, this is no shortage of articles referencing forecasts of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Here is one calling the model a “gold standard” and assuring everyone that there is a 90 percent chance AGW will be worse than expected and possibly “much worse”. MIT researchers are forecasting a 90% chance of a temperature increase of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. They ran their computer model 400 different times with slightly different inputs, including inputs for human activity. It sure would be nice to know what inputs were used. Back in 2004, one of the IPCC working groups was expecting oil consumption by the world to rise well above 100 million barrels a day over the next couple decades. Oil use topped out at about 85 million barrels a day in 2007 and has been in decline recently. Discovering this made me a bit skeptical of the inputs into the climate models. The worst case scenarios/forecasts are always based on “business as usual”, assuming nothing (or very little) changes between now and 2100. We still drive cars. We still burn coal. We still use incandescent lights. We keep using more oil. We keeping burning more and more coal. I am sure most of you would say this is unlikely and I would agree with you. I suspect fossil fuel usage will increase over the short term (next decade) but then dramatically decline by the middle of the century - even WITHOUT draconian regulations or taxes. There are many new technological developments on the horizon that could speed the adoption of alternative energy source. Just in the last few days: New lithium-air battery could hold ten times the energy density of regular lithium batteries; If lithium-air batteries do not pan out, how about lithium sulphur batteries?; The Churchill Club projects battery development will continue to be hot over the next two years; In Japan, the world’s first battery switching station was revealed just last week - helping to move the more efficient electric car market closer to reality; Not only is our transportation becoming more efficient, our gadgets are as well - this new DSP computer chip could run up to 75 times more efficiently than current versions; Investment in solar energy production is growing even through the economic downturn - First Solar recently announced a new power plant in Australia; Skyline has jumped into the solar business with a solar concentrating set-up that could be much cheaper than existing models. NREL is investigating the use of inkjet printing methods to make cheaper solar cells; and lastly for today - by using micro inverters, Enphase could bring down the cost and up the efficiency of traditional silicon solar panels.

The MIT researchers in this study make the claim that things could be much worse due to feedback mechanisms that could develop - such as methane being released from the permafrost. This is another minor criticism I have in regards to many AGW discussions and articles. There are always feedback cycles to make things warmer, but no mention of any feedback cycle to make things cooler. It is as if temps can only move and accelerate in one direction - which isn’t true. Cold feedback cycles exist. It is often argued that the loss of ice at the poles would accelerate warming - which is logical. Whould not gaining ice at the poles lead to a colder feedback cycle? It should, if the same logic applies.

Yikes. I ran out of time once again today and I didn’t get to the very exciting update to the AGW list. Will have to wait until tomorrow.

In the present weather, most of the holiday weekend is still looking good with high temps around 70. At this point there is only a slight chance of showers in the far southern part of the area on Friday and in most of the area Monday afternoon and evening.

Have a good Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, CPC Outlook, ENSO Update