Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Last Updated: 2:47 PM GMT on May 16, 2013 — Last Comment: 2:46 AM GMT on May 21, 2013

	Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (2)

Posted by: RickyRood, 5:47 AM GMT on February 10, 2012

Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (2)

Earlier articles in this series:

Extreme Weather: Can we use predictions to plan?

La Nina and the Missouri River (1)

Link to NCPP to Missouri River Basin Pilot

The purpose of this series of articles is to explore how we might use model predictions and projections to plan better for extreme events. It is a mix of seasonal climate prediction and decadal-to-centennial climate projections. What I want to do is to translate information from observational studies and model predictions and make that information usable by someone. From my teaching of climate-change problem solving, I have concluded that it is this translation of information that is the most essential missing ingredient in the usability of climate knowledge. There is a LOT of information and knowledge, but it is not easy to use. An interest of mine is to develop templates on how to use that knowledge – and of course, by doing so in these blogs to provide some transparency into the use of climate information.

The previous entry made a start on the problem, but as in many starts it was naïve. It did provide a sanity check that tells us that there is documented variability of precipitation in the Missouri River basin, correlated with La Nina. But, at first blush, the La Nina variability in this region is towards drier conditions. We also know that what determines a flood is far more complex than “it rains a lot.” So that start motivates me to step back and think about all of the pieces – or mechanisms – that might work in concert to produce a flood. I will start with a map and a few pictures.

Figure 1 is a map of the Missouri River Basin. The headwaters of the Missouri River are in the Rocky Mountains in a span from central Colorado to Montana. For the upper Missouri River, the ranges in Wyoming and Montana are the most important.

Figure 1: Map of the Missouri River Basin

I have marked up this figure a bit in Figure 2. I put in some triangles to represent the mountains. Based on the paper I discussed in the first entry, that naïve start, Item 1 points to the region where there is a late spring and early summer deficit of rain associated with La Nina. Up in the mountains of Montana I have marked Item 2, that La Nina is associated with more snow in the winter.

Figure 2: Missouri River Basin with mountains symbolically marked by little hats along with the locality of precipitation variability that is linked to the La Nina cycles.

So I want to do two things here. First, where did I get that information about La Nina and snow in Montana? The Climate Prediction Center keeps a remarkable amount of information. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it is not always easy to find the information, and when you do, sometimes it needs translation. Here is their page ENSO Temperature and Precipitation Composites. Figure 3 contains my markups of a couple of figures for the composite anomalies and the composite frequency.

Figure 3: From the Climate Prediction Center. These are composite pictures, meaning that a set of La Nina years are averaged together to show what La Nina looks like. The figure plots anomaly which is the difference from an average calculated for the years 1981-2010. Hence, the composite is the average difference of a La Nina year from the average of all of the years in 1981-2010. The frequency is what percentage of the years do you see this pattern of average differences. These are for January, February, and March.

If you compare carefully with the maps in Figures 1 or 2, especially in northwestern Wyoming, La Nina suggests larger amounts of snow. The frequency map says that this pattern of difference occurs about 80% of the time. There are also positive snow cover anomalies in northwestern Colorado, but the rivers here, flow into the Missouri relatively far downstream. The strong positive snow cover anomaly in the mountains of Idaho are not in the Missouri River Basin.

The second point that I want to emphasize here is the emergence of the fact that flood in a large river basin, like the Missouri, is related strongly to the accumulation of water in basin. Therefore, variables like snow cover and soil moisture are more directly important to evaluating flood risk than, say, instantaneous rain amounts. This has consequences for the type of information that is needed from climate models. More information is needed from climate models than temperature and precipitation. We need estimates of, in this case, the storage of water in the environment. It also points out that what happens in one region in an earlier season is an important part of the information that is needed; that is, we need to determine connections.

My goal in this series is to try to write down the process and a template to make it easier for me to think about this problem the “next time.” So what do I have so far – and this will be subject to revision

Plausibility: Do I have a plausible, observational or experiential, foundation to expect a relationship between a mode of variability (here, La Nina) and an impact (here, Upper Missouri River Flood)?

Geography: What happens to a place is strongly influenced by the geography. What are the characteristics of the geography that influence behavior? In this case, for example, mountains influence the storage of water that ultimately ends up in the Missouri River.

Knowledge: We need to identify the type of knowledge that is needed, and location of sources of that knowledge. We need to know if there are existing, trusted sources that synthesize existing knowledge. We need to know if we can find pieces of usable knowledge in from trusted sources. We need to know if we need to generate knowledge to fill in the gaps to complete the knowledge base.

Connections: What pieces are connected together?

I will complete and refine this in future entries in the series.

r

Link to NCPP to Missouri River Basin Pilot

Permalink | A A A

: Top of Page :

	Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

153. NeapolitanFan 12:21 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: It's long been known that an ice sheet can take decades to millennia to fully response to a change in climate, so it comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever to scientists that the Antarctic continental ice sheet hasn't changed noticeably. Remember, there's two miles of very frigid ice at the center, so it's going to take a bit of time for it to start showing the reality of the situation. However, Antarctic ice is melting pretty swiftly at the edges, particularly along the peninsula--precisely as predicted some years ago. Take millenia? Of course. Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

154. Ossqss 2:17 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: It's long been known that an ice sheet can take decades to millennia to fully response to a change in climate, so it comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever to scientists that the Antarctic continental ice sheet hasn't changed noticeably. Remember, there's two miles of very frigid ice at the center, so it's going to take a bit of time for it to start showing the reality of the situation. However, Antarctic ice is melting pretty swiftly at the edges, particularly along the peninsula--precisely as predicted some years ago. Lets have a peek/ Interactive chart? So far so good eh?....... unless the post stretches the blog for some. If so, I will fix it in about an hour unless it gets hammered with flags and disappears. BTW rookie, your assumptions are just that on CO2 at this point. That's pretty much the Lowdown! :) Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154

155. NeapolitanFan 3:05 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
This is a little off-topic, but I remember a while back reading that Neapolitan planned to attend one of the "Occupy" "protests." To me, the "occupiers" share many ideals with warmists. I'd like everyone to read this synopsis of the "protesters" ideology: Link Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

156. nymore 3:17 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
It seems I was wrong about the report I posted last night. The actual number by how much the world would warm is not 1/20 of 1 degree C. but 1/33 (0.03) of 1 degree C. even less than I claimed last night. It also claims burning all the known oil reserves in the world would result in less than 1 degree C. Oh those big bad oil companies causing all this GW. LOL Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

157. Neapolitan 3:18 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: This is a little off-topic, but I remember a while back reading that Neapolitan planned to attend one of the "Occupy" "protests." To me, the "occupiers" share many ideals with warmists. I'd like everyone to read this synopsis of the "protesters" ideology: Link I've partaken in several Occupy get-togethers, and I can tell you that the vast majority of people involved are very polite, clean, intelligent, and sensitive, and to a person each is very concerned about maintaining civility, decorum, and a non-violent attitude. Now, the wacky, birther-obsessed, Obama-hating, ultra-right wing Western Journalism Center--aka "World Net Daily"--is of course going to disagree with Occupy; after all, WND part of the very establishment that Occupy aims to dismantle. And as I mentioned earlier, the right knows it has squandered any good will it built up, in part by putting up Presidential candidates who have absolutely no chance of taking back the White House. So we can expect the hysterical and screeching attacks to continue on through November. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11148

158. Neapolitan 3:52 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting nymore: It seems I was wrong about the report I posted last night. The actual number by how much the world would warm is not 1/20 of 1 degree C. but 1/33 (0.03) of 1 degree C. even less than I claimed last night. It also claims burning all the known oil reserves in the world would result in less than 1 degree C. Oh those big bad oil companies causing all this GW. LOL I planned to not address you any further until you change your ways--you do a bit too much name-calling for me to waste much time with you--but you've misrepresented the report, and I feel a correction is in order. --First, the report was only concerned with the CO2 directly released from burning the hydrocarbons currently stored in the tar sands; it didn't even begin to touch on the extraordinary amounts of CO2 that is released during the extraction, transport, or refining of those tar sands. --Second, the authors of the paper have put up a webpage--http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_Oil_ Sands_climate.html--because they knew that denialists would twist and distort their paper out of sheer desperation, and they wanted to set the record straight. Those hoping the new study says that Tar Sands are just peachy would do well to read both the paper and the website. --Third, they also put up this video: In short, what Hansen said some time ago is every bit as true today as it was earlier: it's "game over" if the Tar Sands are exploited as some would like. Hansen said this of the report: "The argument that the currently known amount of carbon in the tar sands pit is small compared to the total fossil fuels burned in two centuries is fallacious and misleading — every single source, even Saudi Arabia, is small compared to the total. If we once get hooked on tar sands and set up infrastructure, the numbers will grow as mining capabilities increase. Tar sands are particularly egregious, because you get relatively less energy per unit carbon emitted and there is associated environmental damage in the mining.” Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11148

160. nymore 4:40 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: I planned to not address you any further until you change your ways--you do a bit too much name-calling for me to waste much time with you--but you've misrepresented the report, and I feel a correction is in order. --First, the report was only concerned with the CO2 directly released from burning the hydrocarbons currently stored in the tar sands; it didn't even begin to touch on the extraordinary amounts of CO2 that is released during the extraction, transport, or refining of those tar sands. --Second, the authors of the paper have put up a webpage--http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_Oil_ Sands_climate.html--because they knew that denialists would twist and distort their paper out of sheer desperation, and they wanted to set the record straight. Those hoping the new study says that Tar Sands are just peachy would do well to read both the paper and the website. --Third, they also put up this video: In short, what Hansen said some time ago is every bit as true today as it was earlier: it's "game over" if the Tar Sands are exploited as some would like. Hansen said this of the report: "The argument that the currently known amount of carbon in the tar sands pit is small compared to the total fossil fuels burned in two centuries is fallacious and misleading %u2014 every single source, even Saudi Arabia, is small compared to the total. If we once get hooked on tar sands and set up infrastructure, the numbers will grow as mining capabilities increase. Tar sands are particularly egregious, because you get relatively less energy per unit carbon emitted and there is associated environmental damage in the mining.%u201D Sheldon Maybe because it would be double counting. This was pointed out by Weaver. He also says there is debate about the WTW estimates because of the large uncertainties in the conversions. This is why they were not included in the paper. Also everything I claimed is in the report. When did the researchers put out the video, oh that is right they did not as you claimed (made up or as most call it lied about). It is an OLD video of the researcher from GREENPEACE. These are a few quotes from Andrew Weaver about the NEW report " I was surprised by the results of our analysis I thought it was larger than it was" end quote. Also this quote " The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming" end quote. I find this one the best and I quote " We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tar sands it's going to lead to this,that and the other. We thought, well, lets take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are" end quote So I guess your old GREENPEACE video and Hanson and Mckibben are out of date. I sense some cracks developing when Trenberth goes after Loeb for his study and now Hanson going after Weaver, you can bet Mckibben will not be far behind. He also says Unconventional Natural Gas and Coal are the big problems not oil. Still having trouble with the actual truth I see. Here is an idea do some research before you shoot your mouth off. It will save you a lot of embarrassment. FWIW I could not care less if you ever respond to me again or not because there is no way possible to care less. I also think you would stop because every time you have the last couple of weeks you have been pOWNd. Mr. massive cranium beat again by a lowly construction worker. LMFAO as always its been a pleasure. Edit: I also know why you think you are always the smartest one in the room, because you are the only one in the room. My sides hurt from laughing so hard. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

161. Neapolitan 11:31 AM GMT on February 21, 2012
Quoting nymore: Sheldon Maybe because it would be double counting. This was pointed out by Weaver. He also says there is debate about the WTW estimates because of the large uncertainties in the conversions. This is why they were not included in the paper. Also everything I claimed is in the report. When did the researchers put out the video, oh that is right they did not as you claimed (made up or as most call it lied about). It is an OLD video of the researcher from GREENPEACE. These are a few quotes from Andrew Weaver about the NEW report " I was surprised by the results of our analysis I thought it was larger than it was" end quote. Also this quote " The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming" end quote. I find this one the best and I quote " We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tar sands it's going to lead to this,that and the other. We thought, well, lets take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are" end quote So I guess your old GREENPEACE video and Hanson and Mckibben are out of date. I sense some cracks developing when Trenberth goes after Loeb for his study and now Hanson going after Weaver, you can bet Mckibben will not be far behind. He also says Unconventional Natural Gas and Coal are the big problems not oil. Still having trouble with the actual truth I see. Here is an idea do some research before you shoot your mouth off. It will save you a lot of embarrassment. FWIW I could not care less if you ever respond to me again or not because there is no way possible to care less. I also think you would stop because every time you have the last couple of weeks you have been pOWNd. Mr. massive cranium beat again by a lowly construction worker. LMFAO as always its been a pleasure. Edit: I also know why you think you are always the smartest one in the room, because you are the only one in the room. My sides hurt from laughing so hard. Ignoring the usual third grade-level ad hominems, I can't help but be astonished again at your thorough use of cherry-picking. You make an unsubstantiated claim about a peer-reviewed article; I provide reference to an explanatory piece about that article written by the authors of that article wherein they state that the article definitely does not say what you claim it says; you reject that explanation outright, and instead cherry-pick a few quotes from a popular news source. Pretty incredible, really. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11148

162. georgevandenberghe 12:44 AM GMT on April 12, 2012
I'm not going to deny global warming. There is just too much evidence from many sources. However the plant zone maps did shift south from 1972 when I first saw them to 1990 when "newer" ones were published. THis was probably due to several intense arctic outbreaks in the 1980s. The shift north again is slightly larger than the shift south was in the 1990 version so the net shift from the 70s when I was a kid to now is slightly north. It is ONLY ANECDOTAL but the two hottest summers of the past 140 years in the DC metro area were 2010 and 2011 (ranks 1 and 2) These are FAR warmer (1 degree F) than any previous summer (summer 2009 by the way was on the cool side of normal) Member Since: February 1, 2012 Posts: 3 Comments: 248

Viewing: 151 - 162

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index

: Top of Page :

	New Comment

Post Your Comments

Create a username. (Required) Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.