Newsgroups: lter.ced Path: LTERnet!root From: "Bruce P. Hayden" Subject: Nov 92 CED Message-ID: <1992Oct29.202234.6207@lternet.washington.edu> Sender: root@lternet.washington.edu (Operator) Organization: Long Term Ecological Research Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 19:13:07 GMT ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *********** *********** ********** *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * ********* * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** *********** *********** ********** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Vol.1 No.9 :::::: file name:CED1.9 :::::: November 1, 1992 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** CED is the Climate/Ecosystem Dynamics bulletin board of the LTER network. In CED, you will find exchanges of ideas, information, data, bibliographies, literature discussions, and a place to get to experts within the LTER community. We are interested in both climate controls on ecosystems and ecosystem controls on climate. As this is an inter-disciplinary activity, we hope to provide things that you might not come across in your work at your LTER site. CED is a product of the LTER climate committee and contributions to CED for general e-mail release may be sent to either David Greenland of Andrews LTER [Greenlan@oregon.uoregon.edu] or to Bruce Hayden of the Virginia Coast Reserve LTER [bph@envsci.evsc.virginia.edu]. We expect that the scope of CED will evolve and reflect the interests of the contributors and users of this service. CED will be issued as the preparation work gets done (monthly?). Back-releases of CED may be requested from Daniel Pommert [daniel@lternet.washington.edu] by the file name given in the masthead. Daniel can also add people to the CED mailing list. Feedback on CED from LTER scientists is welcome (non-$$$$ contributions also welcome.) For example, please forward citations of climate & ecosystem publications on your site. We will keep a LTER wide bibliography on Climate/Ecosystem Dynamics that we pass on via E-mail. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** SHOULD WE TRUST MODELS OR OBSERVATIONS? *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** The title of this piece comes from a paper by Hugh Ellsaesser in Atmospheric Environment [Ellsaesser, H.W. (1982). Should we trust models or observations? Atm. Env. 16(2):197-205]. The compelling need for me to do this piece arose from a comment made at a recent conference on integrated regional models. The comment went like this: "The role of the biosphere on the atmosphere was not recognized until Shukla published his paper." Shukla is a late comer to this topic. Shukla's paper was a General Circulation Model (GCM) paper. There was not a lick of data in it. How is it that we have come to believe models and not the dozens of scientific papers using data that come the same conclusion? CED readers, readers-in-the-know that you are, know that vegetation impacts on the dynamics of the atmosphere are very real. A robust literature is available and it has a very long history indeed. Now, for a decade some of us have been pushing GCM modelers to recognize the role of sulfates in cloudiness and climate change. Paper after published paper implicated sulfate as a cloud maker. Then, Jim Hansen published a paper using the GISS GCM output statistics that included planetary albedo adjustments for the trend in atmospheric sulfate and found it largely offset CO2 warming. The IPCC report included it as fact. We need a new piece of jargon "model-fact." With time the hyphen in model-fact will disappear and it will appear in polite discourse as modelfact. It will then join metadata as a term we just can't do without. So here we are, if you can get a model to project it, somehow, it becomes larger than life. Chris Folland, an IPCC author, when questioned about this strange inversion of science noted that "The data don't matter." He went on to note that "global warming is model driven not data driven. The data just don't matter." Now I have been engaged in modeling of one sort or another for 15 years and will continue to participate. However, the standard long held in the atmospheric sciences is that the models must be proven to have skill! It must out perform chance, climatology and simpler models before you offer it as an icon for belief. For example, the GFDL GCM transient run with 1% CO2 increase per year puts out a global field of temperatures for each year. If the model begins with background CO2 circa 1820 and runs forward in time, one could ask the question how well has the model accounted for the variance in global temperature patterns that was actually observed. Such tests, here at the University of Virginia, show that the model explains 4% of the variance. Clearly, you would not want to use a model to make "predictions" about future conditions if you were only explaining 4% of the variance which equivalent to a correlation coefficient of 0.2! GCMs are wonderful tools of experimentation [change one thing and hold all else constant] and hypothesis generation but have yet to prove their stuff as prediction tools! ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** HOW DO YOU GET WEATHER *** *** OUT OF A GCM *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** The grid cells used in GCM models are bigger than the weather systems you see on the nightly TV weathercast. So how do you get high spatial resolution information out of your GCM to run your ecosystem models? This is the job of BAHC of IGBP! Your-obedient-servant has just joined the BAHC [Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle] working group of IGBP. One of the objectives of this group is to bring into being a "WEATHER GENERATOR." The Weather Generator would take the model output statistics of a GCM and translate, simulate, synthesize, divine, etc., the weather and climate numbers needed in ecosystem modeling. This is more of a stochastic endeavour rather than a deterministic number crunching undertaking. For those of you who want to look into the literature on this subject, here are some useful papers. Giorgi, F. and L. O. Mearns. 1991. Approaches to the simulation of regional climate change: A review. Rev.in Geophys. 29:191-216. Hay, L. E., G. J. McCabe, Jr., D. M. Wolock and M. A. Ayers. 1992. Use of weather types to disaggregate general circulation model predictdions. J. of Geophys. Res. 97(D3):2781-2790. Knox, J.L. and R. G. Lawford. 1990. The relationship between Canadian prairie dry and wet months and circulation anomalies in the mid-troposphere. Atmosphere-Ocean 28:189-215. Moss, M. E. 1992. Bayesian relative information measure: A tool for analysing the outputs of Atmospheric General Circulation Models. J. of Geophys. Res., 97(D4):3711-3724. Wilson, L. L., D. P. Lettenmaier, and E. Skyllingstad. 1992. A hierarchial stochastic model of large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns and multiple station daily precipitation. J. of Geophys. Res. 97(D3):2791-2809. Wilson, L. L., D. P. Lettenmaier, and E. F. Wood. 1991. Simulation of daily precipitation in the Pacific Northwest using a weather classification scheme. Surveys in Geophysics 12:127-142. You may wince at the notion of taking the broad scale output of a GCM and getting detailed (in space and time) stochastic "weather" data out of a black box. Remember that we do that now with the daily weather forecast that come out of the machine forecasts from the National Weather Service. NWS products do not predict surface weather conditions directly. Rather, the NWS models predict conditions in the atmosphere above the surface and then use regression equations to translate conditions from the easier-to-predict air aloft to the very heterogeneous and hard-to-predict surface. The regression equations developed for each weather station out perform direct machine forecast and human, expert system, forecasts. They do a better job and so the NWS uses them. They work and will continue in service until the NWS finds a machine means of forecasting the difficult-to-forecast surface conditions. Roger Pielke of Colorado State University thinks that one of the reasons the models don't do the job with surface conditions is that the NWS models have no biosphere in them. Until they contain real time biosphere conditions, we will have to rely on statistical prediction based on a long record of real data. Some day every weather station may have to report local conditions of the biosphere to help run models that predict the weather. What might they have to report? Soil moisture, surface roughness, phenological stage relative to transpiration and sensible heating, crop harvesting phenology. There was a time when the weather service made such observations and published them with the weather reports. Below is an example of a station report to the national office: Report from Monthly Weather Review [January, 1879] Birds on the move: Geese at St. Meinrad, Ind. on the 16th, Fall River, Mass on the 12th, etc., ... Winter Wrens at Fallston, Md. on the 25th. Blue Birds at Plattsmouth, Neb. on the 24th, etc., etc. Frogs piping at Fort Barraneas, Florida on the 23rd; Okalooska, La on the 17th and Fayetteville, N. C. on the 24th. Bees at Fayette, Miss. on the 28th carrying pollen. Sacramento, California poplar in bud on the 23rd. Mayport, Florida oranges encased in 1/2 ice -- fruit uninjured. Georgia forsyth blooms on 29th, alder bushes in full bloom. Augsta, Georgia elms bud on the 25th. Why is the weather service reporting on the phenology of the biosphere? Well, in those days the weather service was part of the War Department!!! and was within the domain of the Office of the Chief Signal Officer. The reason for all this might become clear from a statement in the May 1897 issue of Monthly Weather Review ..."The phenologist must be allowed to consider his observations of plants as being a record of climate, just as the meteorologist does his observations of the atmosphere, and both of these students must be very careful about drawing hasty conclusion." Sound advice to us all. In the September 1896 issue of Monthly Weather Review Professor L. H. Bailey of Cornell University provides a useful essay on Phenology. On page 330 he makes the point ..."Nearly all phenological records in this country have been made by botanists, and they are printed in the botanical or natural history publications. This means that the subject is a biological one rather than a climatological one. I hope that this attitude may now be shifted, so as to place phenological records with the science of climate rather than with the science of organisms." Well, Roger Pielke at CSU may see the future and the biosphere will again become part of the data collection business of the weather geek! It would be nice to be able to use NOAAs network of hundreds of weather stations to collect phenology data! Dream on. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** Phenology & Climate Change? *** *** at the VCR LTER *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Not far from the current site of Virginia Coast Reserve facility at Oyster, Virginia is the townette of Birdsnest. This should not be confused with Bird-in-the-hand. That is a nice little town in Amish Pennsylvania. Birdsnest, Virginia was first a Smithsonian, then a Signal Service and then a Weather Bureau installation. Mr. C. R. Moore began keeping climate and phenological records at Birdsnest in 1868. By 1897 (Monthly Weather Review May 1897) he had concluded that the climate of the Eastern Shore of Virginia had changed. Phenological data convinced him it was so. Moore arrived at Birdsnest in 1867. He was told that when the older men of the area were boys you had to have your corn planted by April Court (1st Monday) or you would be behind. In the 1890s May court was the right time! The same old men said that in the first decade of the 1800s you could get a peach crop every year! In 1879 Moore set out an orchard of 2000 trees including 200 peach trees. In only one year in five could he get any peaches. Warm spells in February and March would bring out the buds and blooms and April frosts would kill them. Corn and peaches convinced Mr. Moore that the climate had changed. Today the average date of the last killing frost of spring (28 F) is March 30. There is a 1 chance in 5 as late as the 11th of April. The modern period thus would appear to be much more like the early 1800s than the late 1800s. While we get three crops a year on Virginia's Eastern Shore, orchard crops are not the choice of farmers. Flowering in February and March is not the orchardist delight! **************************************************** * * *** One would rather see a wolf in February *** *** Than a peasant in his shirt sleeves. *** and *** A February spring is not worth a pin. *** and *** March flowers make no summer bowers. *** and *** A year of snow, Fruit will grow. *** and *** Year of snow, Year of Plenty. *** and *** January blossoms fill no man's cellar. *** * * **************************************************** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** Reply: Pinhead or Fathead? *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** One of the Alaska CC meeting participants passes on this to all concerned about the hat-button classification. "I looked at all the hats in my closet and found that the number of buttons showing varied a lot." My. My. Here are some explanations. 1] The hats are a long-term data base (the 6th core area of an LTER!) and should be viewed in their proper chronological sequence (a chronosequence). It is possible that the sequence will show a succession from fathead to pinhead or pinhead to fat head! 2] Like the diameter of a tree there may be variations in head diameter proportional to the level of scientific production when the hat was last used. 3] Graduate students, they come in all cephlometric dimensions, have had access to the hat collection and have used them in the mistaken belief in the osmosis theory of education. 4] Graduate students, they come in all cephlometric dimensions, have had access to the hat collection and have used them in the mistaken belief in the theory of reverse osmosis. 5] Hat button size on a specific day my be a function of days since last trip to the barber shop. Academics are notorious for stretching out the time between haircuts! 6] Hat manufactures do not follow Hatcher-Capson-Dunce Baseball Cap Size Control Act of 1988. Violation of this federal law requires that the breacher run for the office of Vice President in the next available election. There was only one law breacher in 1992! There is a substantial rush to the old, non-plastic-fastener, baseball cap. This may be due to the now recognized and feared pinhead to fathead scale that was a product of LTER research. The old style hat had a small white hat size tag inside with a hat-size resolution in eighths like the stock market. These hat sizes are not visible to the public. The return of the old style caps may also be because they cost a lot more and the marginal profits are better. Who would pay $22.75 for a baseball cap? LTER, thick-skinned cheapskates will probably continue to wear the size-detectable, plactic-fastener, style cap they have come to depend on. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** PRAIRIE FIRES *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Prairie Fires were reported in Monthly Weather Review on a regular basis during the late 1800s. The location, dates and durations of the fires were reported. Sometimes the extent of the fire was also noted. Report from Monthly Weather Review [January, 1879] Prairie Fires at North Platte, Neb. (24th-26th); Independence, Ia. (29th); Fort Sill, Ind. (22nd); Eagle Pass, Texas (15th & 16th), etc., etc. Now I am not a specialist on prairie fires but perhaps the Monthly Weather Review reports are the only national record of prairie fires to be had. As this might be of value to our prairie-LTER friends I pass it on for what it is worth. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** NEW ADMONITION ON SUNBATHING *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** From Reuters October 1992 -- The Chilean Government has warned residents at Punta Arenas (53 S latitude) against sunbathing between 10 AM and 4 PM. That old devil ultra violet light (remember the blind sheep incident) is at its pesty best again. According to a local professor, the UV radiation has increased 200% since July as the south polar ozone hole slipped across the southern most part of Chile. A check of the radiation tables indicates the why of this story. The average radiation at 45 S is 11 megajoules per day in July. In October, the average value is 22 megajoules per day. 200% increase between July and October is what comes naturally! At 55 S it is 250%. The Chilean government might well have checked the mean temperatures in this southern-most, sunbathing Mecca. In October, the 10 AM to 4 PM average temperature is 46 F. Nice brisk sunbathing. Being a generous fellow, I assumed that the average wind speed in this climate, the "frantic 50s," [a bit breezier than the roaring 40s] is but a modest 15 mph. The wind chill would be below freezing. Think of the sunbathing costs. At a toasty 60 F and 15 mph and in your all-togheher, you would need 22 lbs/hour of good high fiber, low-calorie cabbage to replace the losses in body heat. Unless you are addicted to cabbage, you should only take part in only short periods of ray catching in Punta Arenas. When you use Reuters as you publication medium what chicken little has time for fact checking? ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** CED Measures UP?? *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** For our readers who care here are some statistics on the November issue of CED. The Flesch Reading Ease Score is 54.0. That falls into the "standard" category. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 9.5. 83% of U.S. adults should have been able to read this issue of CED. How will we get it to them all? The Gunning Fog Index was 12.9. That means that this CED could be shot with buckshot at 100 yards! Flesch wrote the book Why Johnny Can't Read. I don't know who Gunning was but anyone who invents a fog index for writings isn't a laywer. ----------------+--------------------------------+------------------------- Bruce P. Hayden | Dept. Environmental Sciences | bph@virginia.EDU (804) 924-0545 | Clark Hall, Univ. of Virginia | bph@virginia.BITNET (804) 924-7761 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 | (804) 982-2137(fax) ----------------+--------------------------------+-------------------------