Roger J Smith

Here's one lonely cumulus cloud on an October afternoon near Peterborough, Ontario. This picture pre-dates global warming, can you tell?

This one is a morning panoramic view of central Yellowstone Park, showing some of the mudflats that are formed by small geysers and such, but the interesting part of this picture is probably the horizon of developing cumulus, more or less the daily view in this high altitude basin (2200 metres above sea level here in n.w. Wyoming) and a few hours later, most days, this kind of cumulus develops rapidly into thunderstorms that last until about midnight. Picture was taken in August 1998.

This, believe it or not, is the main street of Tombstone, Arizona. I took this in January 96 on a winter holiday, cloud formations are typical of dry weak cold fronts that tend to drift through this region every 2-3 days.

The only point I was trying to make about eastern Asia was that the Kyoto protocols tend to let the developing nations off the hook for the time being, and this seems to be a bad approach to a supposedly global problem. I've never argued that they are primarily responsible for rising carbon dioxide levels, but we do need to be aware that there are huge pollution issues developing in China in particular. I don't consider it "unfair" to hold China to the same standards as the rest of the world, they are becoming quite a wealthy country and they should maintain the same standards in all areas of life, what's the justification for giving them a better deal than the rest of the world? If the truth came out about China, I doubt that people would buy their products or want to attend the 2008 Olympics -- there are largely unspoken concerns about human rights and environmental issues in China, but our media tilts so far to the left that they are given virtually a free ride (just as the Soviet Union was for many years, until Chernobyl). Also there is no real recognition in Kyoto of the sooty deposition problem which is the one thing I would accept as already proven in this debate. But I'm not an apologist for carbon emissions, in fact I would like to see technological change proceed as fast as possible, for any number of reasons. There is no good reason to remain dependent on oil, not environmental, political or economic. As for Canada being my new home, well I moved here forty-nine years ago today, so I've lived here 90% of my life. Canadian political opinion on global warming tends to be divided right down the middle as with most other topics, but is more similar to European public opinion than American on most issues. There's a lot going on here in Vancouver on the alternate fuel scene, for example there's a company just a mile away from my house here that is trying to develop a workable hydrogen based fuel technology with considerable government support. I'm not sure how far along they are, but they haven't blown up yet, which is encouraging. The local air quality has been improved by 50% in recent years by strict regulations on automobile emissions -- you have to have your car tested every year here and if it doesn't pass you can't renew your registration until it does pass. I'm not sure if they have anything like that in Europe, but it's spreading to other urban parts of Canada. Also, there are a lot of hybrid fuel cars and light trucks on the road now, and city buses that run on cleaner natural gas. The other point that is worth making since this has become a politicized debate is that there is often no correlation between a political party's rhetoric on this issue, and its track record. Our Liberal Party in Canada got the boot recently, and one of the issues that came up was that while they were big fans of Kyoto, they had traded off pollution credits with developing countries and our emissions had dropped less than even the United States, while the former prime minister was running on how much better his values were than George Bush. Even Bono, who was a big friend of our former PM, said he found our record to be pretty grim.

In response to the question from Dawlish, what I was talking about was my experience that if you try to discuss any kind of research that involves postulated solar system magnetic field or lunar-terrestrial interactions in the climate field, some people automatically think this is an attempt to introduce astrology into the equation, and it doesn't help my situation that some people who are working on concepts in these areas actually boost astrology and talk about a hidden body of knowledge, although I do tend to agree that we are perhaps too quick to dismiss the possibility that some knowledge available to the ancients has been forgotten and some remnants of that were sublimated into what modern people call astrology. I've said this before here, but I am not a devotee of astrology in that sense, and I consider the research valid on purely scientific grounds. But I have found that many in the atmospheric sciences do not realize that considerable work has been done in astronomy in recent years to gain an understanding of field sectors in the solar system magnetic field, and how these interact with Jupiter and Saturn in particular, which have strong magnetic fields of their own (a lot stronger than the earth's). So all I'm saying is that, in a very busy and complicated research environment, this approach that I have been studying tends to get brushed aside with the one-word putdown of "astrology," which is going to seem ironic when eventually people get the proof of these interactions and see that there are real physical processes at work. I also think there is another taboo, not exactly astrology as such, where people working in this field don't want to contemplate outside energy sources with the sole exception of the Sun and its rather obvious input. That begins with a general skepticism about solar variations as being a possible cause of climate variations (this is not my own main field of interest but I looked at it in some detail on the way, and found only minor peaks of significance). But when one gets as far as more esoteric possibilities like complex interactions between atmosphere, magnetosphere and the solar system magnetic environment, this is too much external input for some peoples' liking, and disturbs the currently prevailing view that major processes are feedback from ocean to atmosphere. There is less acceptance for the equally valid view (in my estimation) that the ocean-atmosphere system not only has feedback loops but also are subject to responses to external energy regimes that proceed from atmosphere to ocean as much as the other way round. However, I'm old enough now that I have stopped being very concerned about the trends in the science, I would prefer to get my research to the most final point possible under the circumstances and try to get it published or at least available to younger researchers who will then have all the fun I've had being a scientific dissident (which is not much fun at all). For what it's worth, I will also repeat my view that our science at present is flirting with a non-scientific episode that will rival the phlogiston business or the ether as famous intellectual dead ends, with this insistence that everyone believe an unproven theory about global warming being a man-made phenomenon. For the record, I have serious doubts about this theory, and the intellectual climate that has followed, which seems suspiciously contaminated by political viewpoints. But that is not to say that I don't recognize the existence of warming. On the other hand, I have found that many are unaware of non-greenhouse sources of arctic warming, especially sooty particulate deposition on the ice cap. This is what is really causing the reduction in polar ice in the northern hemisphere, in my opinion, and the main source of this is eastern Asia where there is extensive pollution from coal and wood burning as well as low standards of pollution controls. So my objection to Kyoto has been that it is based on one set of faulty assumptions but at the same time ignores real problems of immediate significance.

With respect to what pottyprof wrote, I don't suppose that very many people in this field deliberately twist the evidence or speak conscious untruths, but as with anything else in the earth sciences, trends come and go at rather a sedate pace when compared to the more equation driven physical sciences. Take for example the generations-long belief that the evidence for ice ages could be ascribed to floating rafts of debris and not moving ice, or the long resistance to continental drift. I would mention evolution too, but that one hasn't been shifted from its foundation, and maybe it never will. Global warming as a scientific theory probably belongs in this general category, but I am unsure how resistant it may prove to be, since as a potential critic I am unsure how critical I want to be. Global warming theory co-exists with a science that is more or less openly in a state of flux, as you can see from the various LRF techniques and short range modelling concepts that are in play. There may be a magic bullet, and people continue to hint that they have one, or they are working on one, but it's a very complex machine, the earth's atmosphere, and we are working without a repair manual. If somebody was always right, I am perhaps naive enough to think that the community would notice this and act accordingly. There are so many people working in the field, it could very well be the case that somebody is right most of the time. I've noticed a few people on this board who post a lot of rather obscure long range forecasts, not necessarily very highly regarded people either, and I'm not sure if anyone has ever gone over their forecasts to verify them or not. It would be the supremely ironic if someone had "cracked the code" and there was just too much white noise in the general confusion for anyone to notice. This is why I keep arguing that in long range forecasting, we need to move to a standardized validation so everyone who goes to the bother of making one can be compared to a recognized standard. That way, the hidden Einstein(s) might be found a lot faster. Oh, and I'm not suggesting it's my methods -- I have always done validation studies on my work, and I don't claim a total breakthrough or anything close to 80 or 90 per cent accuracy which is what would satisfy me as being a breakthrough. My belief that magnetic fields are related to weather have been developed to some extent into a system, but the concept is better argued at this point from basic principles. Some of the things that I believe point to the validity of this concept would include the electric charge apparent in the atmosphere, observed electrical activity along frontal boundaries, correlations between magnetic and atmospheric disturbance, and just the rather obvious fact that there is no seal on the top of our atmosphere, interactions between it and the near-space environment, and between that and the solar system environment, are hardly an astounding leap of faith (to me, at least). I would argue that the cultural taboo of astrology artificially distorts the intellectual paradigm involved in this discussion, and even the funny-sounding names of solar system objects does not exactly help. But I didn't name all these objects, I just wandered into the middle of all this with nothing better to do than study it all, to what end I am not sure, since that's more or less out of my hands at this point. I also think there could be half a dozen other concepts I should be studying just as hard, and I wish I had the full opportunity to do so, but being a dissident scientist, I have to spend a good 50% of my working time finding other way to make money, so a lot of the things I would like to be doing will have to wait, and if it is not in the cards, then it may have to wait for many decades or longer until somebody more fortunate wanders into this mess. I wish the internet had been in existence when I started around 1980, because at least there is some way to discuss ideas now, before with a sort of informal blacklisting of my kind of research, there was nothing but silence. ___________________________________________________________________

In North America, there has been more resistance in public opinion (and therefore among elected leaders) to the concept of climate change, because here the climate has always been highly variable, and so claims of increasing variability tend to be met with skepticism. The whole problem with Katrina, for example, as being Exhibit A for climate change, was that newsreel footage from Betsy in 1965 and the 1900 hurricane in Galveston naturally came into view, and these are not exactly obvious examples in favour of the new incarnation of global warming, "climate change." Indeed, in large sections of the population, the view is that okay it is getting warmer, and the statistics prove this, but either most of it is natural variations at work, or, you're asking for impossibly large shifts in technology to curtail CO2 without any assurance that this will have an effect, other than to produce economic depression. People also tend to note that China and India are not asked to cut back by the Kyoto accord, so therefore why should we -- and this view prevails in Australia as well. I am just reporting this, rather than stating my own views, which are as follows -- it is probably a mixture of natural and man-made warming at work; the higher variability concept is dubious and unproven, perhaps unprovable, but I could cite a number of counterexamples, for example, major tornado data tend to show a decrease in my estimation; for any number of reasons, it would be good to clean up the environment and improve technology as quickly as possible, even if the weather was stable, just for the general health of the population of large cities; for political reasons, it would be good to move beyond dependence on oil, and this is already dawning on even GWB so that shows the inevitability of progress in this area; and, I have sympathy too for the concept that climate is always changing, and that our adaptation to this change is a big factor in our general progress. Who knows how things will change in the very long term, say 50-100 years ahead? My own pet theory is that if the North Magnetic Pole drifts over the terrestrial pole towards your side of the northern hemisphere, then all bets are off, and the arctic vortex may show a new liking for Sweden and Finland. I wish these things would happen faster, because at the rate the NMP is drifting north (it has gone from 77 N to 83 N in the past 25 years) it will be long after yours truly is decomposing that any proof or disproof of this idea will be possible. But in case you're reading this in 2100, check it out -- where's the NMP and how's the weather?

Well, that was dramatic, but if you live here in N America as I have for 49 years (today, as it turns out), you don't necessarily need to chase storms, sooner or later they will find you. I just thought it might be interesting to recount the story of the one supercell that managed to find me (out of about ten marginal cases, this was a definite qualifier). Friday 14 July 1995 was the hottest day of the year in Ontario, where we were living (actually starting to pack up our home for the big move west to B.C.). It was about 36 C most places, including the small town of Lakefield where we lived, about 150 km northeast of Toronto. Because the internet had not yet started up, I was doing my research mostly on the long-term statistical scale, and was not necessarily following daily weather patterns very closely. But I knew from watching the TV weather at 11 p.m. that a dry cold front was over Lake Huron, with a slight risk of thunder being predicted before it cooled off slightly for Saturday. This is quite common in the Great Lakes area, a dry cold front cooling down from the low 30s to the high 20s with less humidity. So because it was so hot I was downstairs at 2:30 a.m. reading when I noticed some lightning on the western horizon. For a while, it amounted to little, and at that time I had no ready source of weather data or radars, so I only realized something out of the ordinary was about to happen when the thunder started to sound very loud and became continuous. About 3:00 on the button, the lightning became so frequent that it was basically daylight outside, and the thunder sounded like a freight train going by at 70 mph. The trees in our back yard (as we call gardens over here) were swaying almost all the way down to the ground and back, and rain was blowing sideways. Somehow, we missed the hail but this was definitely a supercell, winds were probably about 75 mph and the lightning and thunder just kept up more or less non-stop for twenty minutes. Rain was moderate rather than heavy, but by this time the two of us were standing by the kitchen door with the basement door open, ready to make a run if we saw the winds getting any worse. My daughter was off camping with some friends about 100 km north of our location, and she later told us they had roughly the same kind of storm there and ran for the cars, perhaps a slightly safer location than the tents. The next morning, we heard that the storm had produced an F2 tornado in the nearby town of Bridgenorth, where it had destroyed most of a marina and then gone down the main road towards Lakefield and taken out most of the trees in front of the houses, but luckily had not damaged the houses although one person died of a heart attack. This was reported to have been at 2:50 a.m. while I was watching the lightning coming my way. So that's what happens when storms chase you, and there is nowhere to go but the basement. Although that's the worst storm I have seen, it is only slightly worse than about half a dozen others. Some of you should consider storm chasing in Canada in the summer, both Ontario and Alberta-Saskatchewan get major severe weather, and in the case of Alberta-Saskatchewan, you get the sort of wide open country and good visibility of storms that people like in the central U.S. The height of the season in both cases is probably June to August, so you get the warmest weather, and if you were chasing storms in Alberta, you'd have the Rocky Mountains for scenery on the days when mother nature was failing to provide storms to chase. Alberta has had two major tornadoes since 1987, one in Edmonton which killed 29 people on July 31, 1987, and one that killed ten near Calgary at a campground called Pine Lake. That was on July 14, 2000. Way back in 1912 when Regina, SK was just a small town but still the provincial capital, an F4 tornado ripped through the heart of the town and killed 30 people. And just to complete the list, Manitoba's worst tornado was in 1922 and hit the town of Portage la Prairie in June, several killed there, while Ontario's worst tornado was 31 May 1985 in Barrie, north of Toronto, an F3 verified, with eight dead there, and two killed in other parts of Ontario. That one also went over my house in Peterborough near Lakefield, although in a weakened form (but still strong enough that we went down to the basement). The worst hailstorm I have seen was way back on August 2nd, 1964, travelling east across the prairies with my parents on summer holidays. We drove into the back end of a black cloud and found out that it was dropping baseball sized hail, so we kept stopping and following along, all afternoon long finding new examples of damage that this storm had caused in small towns along the highway, broken windows and whole trees that were shredded of their leaves. And as for heavy rain, I know you get your share in the UK, but when it rains in Ontario, it comes down like 100-200 mm an hour sometimes, so I've seen that on many occasions, and once I was at a golf course where at the end of the storm, there was generally three feet of running water all over the course. The next day, people were out playing again, so I guess the drainage system was pretty good. There was a reliable reading of 388 mm of rain at a summer resort town called Gravenhurst north of Toronto in the summer of 2001. That took about six hours to fall, from a line of stalled out thunderstorms.

Well, it seems locked in now somewhere around 13 C. I had a look at the 00z GFS, anomalies from today to the 31st all appear rather small, the average could drop marginally today, then may drift up very, very slightly to Saturday, then down again to Monday, then up again to the 31st, but no changes more than 0.1 per day. It actually looks quite warm for the last two days of the month, otherwise, I'd have to say this has been more like a cool September than a warm May, it keeps getting colder and wetter (and windier) with every week. However, the sun keeps getting higher, so this next week, even though the warmth spreads in rather slowly and in subdued fashion, it could feel quite warm in the south on Thursday and Friday.

Maybe I'm not the right Guy to ask, but based on the 12z GFS run, I think the CET value will stall somewhere between 12.8 and 13.1 for about a week now, then resume its slow upward climb around Friday of next week, possibly getting into the 13.5 range as the month ends, thanks to a few warmer days around next weekend.

We have been enjoying (?) a heat wave here in British Columbia (and Alberta). Tuesday's highs in British Columbia set records with 28 at Vancouver airport which is very close to the water, and 33-35 C inland. Even Rollo (who's on a cruise up the coast to Alaska) tells me he's had sunny, warm weather. Today it continues quite warm, more of a sea-breeze for the first 10 km inland, but looking like another 28-32 C day inland (17 at 0830 under some patchy cirrus).

14 May 1710z Currently some severe storms just south of Waco TX, next few hours this activity should spread to south and southwest although cells are moving ESE. As for TX-NM border areas later, could be some activity, looks rather marginal but the ingredients are there for some storms, let's hope they "blow up real good" as John Candy used to say.

13 May 1830z Just a slight risk of TRW+ development later to the west of San Angelo, pretty much bone dry across Texas with the exception of one or two build-ups in the Pecos valley. I think there may be one cell of interest eventually, but it would be a 3-4 hour drive.

13 May 0400z Full moon tonight, and that's Jupiter right beside it. Had a look at the current situation and 00z progs, it does seem that Saturday will be a day of intense heat building up with a weak frontal wave and some local supercell development possible if it can consolidate in the 40 C (104 F) plus fairly dry heat. Would be most likely in the San Angelo region, will post an update after 1500z should I stumble out of bed at such an ungodly hour on a Saturday. Seems like a day of interesting if not awfully intense thunderstorm development, as you say, probably good for pictures. Sunday looks more active although quite a ways south. This month strikes me as being more typical of midsummer severe weather than classic spring severe weather, the usual battleground in KS-NE-MO-IA has been relatively quiet for May. Split flow over North America is keeping storminess either north or south of the usual maximum thunderstorm area. A tornado was reported the other day in southern Manitoba, probably an F1 from the damage reports.

It remains true, however, that if the paradigm is to assume that all forecasts are guesses, then there will be no way to recognize non-random predictive ability, since it will be assumed that correct forecasts are lucky guesses. Hence the lack of progress in long range forecasting. Just thought I would mention that one last time before I totally lose interest or go senile.

My actual prediction is 13.72849012592587238126123870000023125512321251251 but that could be thrown off if a ladybug goes into heat at the wrong moment.

I agree, their earlier location suggests they may be heading into MS, and in any case, they seem aware that activity is building across n LA. The action currently in AL and e MS will probably fade out somewhat and the action over LA and e TX will probably intensify later, so they may find themselves right in the middle of developments somewhere in MS in about an hour or two. TN is not out of the picture however, the rapid intensification of the surface low between 00z and 03z will probably set off severe storms further north as well. Despite the severity of storms across central Alabama past 2-3 hours, I think the worst is yet to come today and in fact tonight could be a time of widespread damaging storms across Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia. The usual diurnal energy cycle is being offset by stronger dynamics as the upper level winds start to force quite sharply tonight. Progged 500 mb values in the severe weather zone increase from 65 knots at 18z to 80 knots at 06z and 95 knots at 12z. Later tonight it's possible that tornadic storms will also erupt over KY and OH with this rapid development. The surface low is progged to deepen from 998 mb at present to 983 mb at 12z over Michigan. This creates a blast of cold NW winds across IL and MO into the storm zone, creating massive lift despite the absence of solar heating. Dew points in the warm sector are another indication of high potential (23-25 C common).

Did you guys mean Jackson TN or Jackson MS? I would head for eastern MS although you may have to drive through heavy action to get in front of the storms.

10 May 1820z Strong lines of heavy to severe storms now forming across MS and AL -- eventually a new batch may fire from s AR across LA and that may reach w TN in severe form, but if I were chasing today I think MS-AL border is the prime location, between Meridian MS and Birmingham AL. Nevertheless, if the team is in w TN, they may eventually find severe weather heading in from the southwest, but not from existing cells. The actual cold front is still a fair distance west, running from about the n.w. corner of LA across southern Texas. This is still forcing very humid air into the developing storm zone, and the current activity is definitely pre-frontal instability capable of generating F2-3 tornados. Further development could be even stronger, extreme caution will be needed today for safety.

Resistance remains futile.

10 May 06 _ 1625z The set-up continues to look very promising (or threatening) for major tornadic development across KY, TN and MS into AL in a few hours time. Current TRW+ clusters are mainly southeast of developing risk zone or along remnants of last night's front now in w/c Arkansas. The rest of this front running across nw LA into se TX will activate rapidly in about 2-3 hours and draw energy from hot, humid air mass still in place over the region, dew points are widely into the mid-70s F. Today's situation will be very dangerous for storm chasing. If the team gets a chance to read this before arriving in Jackson TN, the terrain is similar to southern England with rolling hills and mixed landscape of farms and wooded areas. The danger to storm chasers will come from the fact that these storms may blow up very rapidly and would be dangerous for "core punching" as I understand the term. I have PM'd Paul Sherman with a phone number he can feel free to call if the team is in the field and wondering about the shape or extent of severe storm echoes at a given time between 1900z and 0000z, after which darkness will be falling in TN and AL. Another ready source of info in the absence of internet connections would be CNN -- they tend to show live radar updates in these major outbreaks at the beginning of each half hour news cycle. Will post an update on developments around 1820z.

10 May 0430z Still some life left in the severe cells, including some well out to the west of Wichita Falls at this time. Assuming you may be planning a night drive, watch out for continuous lightning at some point as a signal of advancing tornadic cells. Would suggest Tuscaloosa AL as a staging point as supercell potential appears highest across n.e. MS, n half AL, and central TN into s KY. It's not quite the "perfect storm" set-up (00z prog run backs off by 5-10% but that's not a big change). However, I am sure it is borderline moderate to high risk by SPC standards, meaning a widespread severe tornado outbreak. Development should be fairly early compared to most days so far, for one thing, you are almost one time zone east by Alabama, but also, with Gulf moisture totally involved and frontal dynamics much stronger, development cycles begin earlier. Could be quite active as early as 15-17z (10 a.m. to noon CDT) although peak will come around evening. Still looks like an overnight tornadic onslaught for AL, GA, e TN, into Carolinas for Thursday. Will post an update with analysis from 12z prog package at about 1500z.

Just got back in, and found a tornado warning for McAlester OK. Here's the current radar: << http://www.weatherimages.org/radar/ktlx.shtml >> This will update but as of 0020z the word "McAlester" has disappeared behind the middle of the three severe cells on the radar image. These appear to be moving east at about 30-40 knots. I assume the NW team are still in the area chasing the cell. Will post any public damage reports.

2120z 9 May Cap remains in place but OKC and DFW forecast offices are both mentioning imminent break-down in about an hour, so rapid development could proceed from about OKC south to FTW about 23z, with resulting cells moving east at about 20-30 knots through s.e. OK and n.e. TX before sunset, although most severe phase may come around sunset or during darkness tonight. As Gorky was saying, whatever happens, would strongly advise a move overnight or at least at very early hour towards tomorrow's max risk zone which I would estimate 50-100 miles south of Nashville TN towards Huntsville AL. Radars in OK and TX are all corrupted by ground clutter at the moment, will post one when cells develop.

1815z 9 May The situation continues to appear volatile for later today in northeast TX as the hot, humid air continues to pool from DFW east. Currently temp/dew point readings in the DFW area are around 32/25. This hot,humid air is at the surface in southeast OK and over-running slightly cooler air around Tulsa. No development in this zone yet, the storms continue to fire further east in n/c AR. However, I think that the dynamics appear very good for tornadic storm development between Dallas and Longview TX around 21z to 00z. Update around 21z.