Climate models aren't good enough to ...

Climate models aren't good enough to hindcast, says new study

There are 41 comments on the NorCalBlogs story from Mar 25, 2013, titled Climate models aren't good enough to hindcast, says new study. In it, NorCalBlogs reports that:

Models use systems of differential equations based on the laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry, and use a coordinate system which divides the planet into a 3D grid.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NorCalBlogs.

litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25 Apr 1, 2013
"fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' flops:
work.......
//////////
litesong wrote:
Can't be nice, if any AGW advocate wants to tell the truth about 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend'.
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.
At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.
PHD

Thornton, TX

#26 Apr 2, 2013
More and More Diarrheas from the “pinheadlitesout”.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#27 Apr 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
You are nice, Adrian but not mathematical.
Have a nice day.
Difficult to post the math on a 4000 character forum.

The workings of the models are relatively easy to interpret but in all cases of math models the scale is too coarse to model all but the basics.

Most brute force models do not even produce climate mode changes when circulation patterns change due to the ability to run the heat exchange engine on a different geometric fit and enable more efficient cooling to the system.

Of interest here is that the ~2deg C of cooling for a given CO2 level enabled by climate mode#3 is the fact that it may be able to drop the global temperature enough by its operation to bring the global oceanic temperature below its triggering point.
Climate mode#3 has previously jogged ON/OFF between mode#3 and mode#2 due to the current feather edge transfer between the modes due to heating during mode#2 and cooling due to mode#3.

NONE of the math models have been able to model that one.

It may happen again once the first peak of this cycle's solar double peaked max is past.

The trigger temperature between the continentally dominated mode#2 and oceanically dominated mode#3 is now well known, so that at least can now be put in the next gen math model.

Will also be fairly easy to do once the American top brass agree on a fossil record that extends past ~4000BC, and add university archive data to the modelling...(incidentally the Hebrew tribe that left a weighty tome behind, is actually older than that tel-evangelist lobbied date).

Have a nice day: Ag

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#29 Apr 3, 2013
The greenhouse effect works on molecular scales, the most refined computer climate models works on cells measured in kilometers.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#30 Jun 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The greenhouse effect works on molecular scales, the most refined computer climate models works on cells measured in kilometers.
No, jackbag, it works on all scales. This is nothing but hand-waving nonsense. Deniers scum will say anything to further denial, even if it's retarded.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31 Jun 2, 2013
b_gone is outrageously wrong in science because it lies freely.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#32 Jun 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The forces are unknown, that's why it can't "explain that rise".
Big Lie! One more time for the hard of thinking:

A_R_G_U_M_E_N_T_S__F_R_O_M__(_ Y_O_U_R_)__I_G_N_O_R_A_N_C_E__ A_R_E__F_A_L_L_A_C_I_O_U_S

The science is VERY sound and has been built up and tested from many angles. Just like the many lines of evidence that all fit together to support evolution by natural selection, the science tying the warming to the CO2 is UNDENIABLE.

As you've been told - as scientists have long concluded in peer reviewed science - the other forcings adequately explain global scale climate changes prior to the increase in CO2 yet cannot come ANYWHERE close to explaining the changes after the CO2 increased. In fact, they get the direction BACKWARDS without the CO2.

This, combined with the facts (in spite of your lies) that the models do not have ad hoc fudges to successfully hindcast, 100% of the terms in the equations are either backed by observations of the relevant phenomena and/or consistent with fundamental first principles of physics.

And don't forget the four slam dunk observations of the pattern of warming that are all MASSIVE evidence of the GHE. You know what I'm talking about because after being caught in a bald-faced lie on your first attempt to address it, you've ignored it multiple times.

So again, what makes your (actual or feigned) ignorance a valid argument? Others know what the hell they're talking about whether you do or will acknowledge that they do - or not.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#33 Jun 3, 2013
No model is perfect. Some have problems with equatorial climate. Others cannot handle the poles. But each has been PROVEN by 'hind casting' to be valid for some subset of the total climate. And the scientists that run them know what outputs are valid and which are subject to error.

This nonsense doesn't change that. They are a TOOL, not a prophet. And their value requires careful study by real scientists, not this hashed up critique.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#34 Jun 3, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
No model is perfect. Some have problems with equatorial climate. Others cannot handle the poles. But each has been PROVEN by 'hind casting' to be valid for some subset of the total climate. And the scientists that run them know what outputs are valid and which are subject to error.
This nonsense doesn't change that. They are a TOOL, not a prophet. And their value requires careful study by real scientists, not this hashed up critique.
Good point.

The best models to use are those with a past fossil record.

In the best cases these will be plant remains and soil conditions and either delta or bog deposits.

These are the "Climate modes" which leave a fossil record after a century or more of operation.

The Pleistocene is unusual in global perhistory in having 4 climate modes rapidly switching over and playing merry hell with global temperatures as a result.

Thus far all the Jason type models run allied to historic data which equates to climate mode#2 which was in operation for a fair chunk of the interglacial (~30000 Bp during very cold conditions through to the late 1990s).

Sad news is that the Jason type models now increasingly fail as the earth is now too hot to run in climate mode#2 and has switched to climate mode#3. The rainfall patterns and general chaos match the climate mode#3 fossil records but definitely don NOT match the models in operation.

Climate mode#3 was the default mode during @ least the late Triassic through to mid Tertiary and was much more efficient (~2 deg c cooler per given level of CO2) than climate mode#2. It has left a poor fossil record through the Pleistocene because it is only on for a short time interval at the end of the interglacial period before the gulf stream switches OFF.

Enjoy the warmth & weather chaos.

The weather chaos will continue & prpbably get worse but the warmth after the gulf stream switches OFF will be temporary.

Have a nice day: Ag
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#35 Jun 3, 2013
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point.
The best models to use are those with a past fossil record.
Interesting points. You are a climate scientist and much more knowledgeable than I am, so I would like to know more.

So far, we have been looking at hind-casting based on the STABLE state 2 climate of the past. But, as you say, we know from paleo-climate studies that the climate has 'modes' based partly on average temperature. If we transition to a new mode, the projections of current models will be inadequate.

Is that what the study is saying?
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
In the best cases these will be plant remains and soil conditions and either delta or bog deposits.
These are the "Climate modes" which leave a fossil record after a century or more of operation.
Is there somewhere that these modes are explained and documented? So far, I can only find them on Topix posts by you. Not that I don't respect your knowledge, but I would like to see a broader assessment of what these mode changes might mean to future climate change. I would especially like to see them discussed in the next IPCC report and so far I haven't seen any such detailed accounting.

Changing modes means for BIGGER climate change than we expected. The stable pattern 2 climate of the last few centuries has made for an irrational belief that climate cannot change much.
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
The Pleistocene is unusual in global prehistory in having 4 climate modes rapidly switching over and playing merry hell with global temperatures as a result.
Define 'rapidly' and what is the key change. The state of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation? I find generally that the Atlantic circulation is the key to most 'rapid climate change' and it is certain that we have changes in the THC/Gulf Stream as well as massive increases in the fresh water pouring into the arctic through ice melt and Siberian river systems. I mean, the Younger Dryas is one example in the 30,000 year period.

And I seem to remember something about 4 'modes' corresponding to four different paths for the THC current, moving southward in discrete steps, the last delivering it's current to about the Canary Islands instead of Western Europe.
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus far all the Jason type models run allied to historic data which equates to climate mode#2 which was in operation for a fair chunk of the interglacial (~30000 Bp during very cold conditions through to the late 1990s).
Jason type models? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
Sad news is that the Jason type models now increasingly fail as the earth is now too hot to run in climate mode#2 and has switched to climate mode#3. The rainfall patterns and general chaos match the climate mode#3 fossil records but definitely don NOT match the models in operation.
How extensive is this change. If this is just a matter of Europe, then it could be the THC moving heat southward, but if it is global, it suggests a counter to AGW of 2C but if we have no warming, how does the climate switch modes? There would be no forcing. And this is certainly a key confusion for the denialists who would be quick to take advantage of any claim of 'cooling'.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#36 Jun 3, 2013
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate mode#3 was the default mode during @ least the late Triassic through to mid Tertiary and was much more efficient (~2 deg c cooler per given level of CO2) than climate mode#2. It has left a poor fossil record through the Pleistocene because it is only on for a short time interval at the end of the interglacial period before the gulf stream switches OFF.
The Gulf Stream never switches off. As far as I have read, it merely moves Southward returning in the 'Canary Island loop, shutting down the more northerly branches.
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
Enjoy the warmth & weather chaos.
The weather chaos will continue & probably get worse but the warmth after the gulf stream switches OFF will be temporary.
Have a nice day: Ag
I'd hate to own beachfront property in Florida. Without the Gulf Stream, the swimming would be dang cold.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#37 Jun 3, 2013
Kyle wrote:
No, jackbag, it works on all scales. This is nothing but hand-waving nonsense. Deniers scum will say anything to further denial, even if it's retarded.
The greenhouse gas effect happens on the scale of infrared radiation warming a CO2 molecule, on a quantum scale. Not at all scales, not averaged in big model cells. The approximations are wrong, CO2 is good.
SpaceBlues

United States

#38 Jun 3, 2013
Jason is an American. Not an unkown to the IPCC process.

As to FL, it is the sun that warms up the beach. Worry about the northern latitudes, not FL.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39 Jun 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The greenhouse gas effect happens on the scale of infrared radiation warming a CO2 molecule, on a quantum scale. Not at all scales, not averaged in big model cells. The approximations are wrong, CO2 is good.
Nuts.

No logic, no science, you are a liar. Why are you here to lie for years?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#40 Jun 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The greenhouse gas effect happens on the scale of infrared radiation warming a CO2 molecule, on a quantum scale.
Incorrect. The temperature of the GHG is not affected.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> Not at all scales, not averaged in big model cells.
The greenhouse effect is 'coarse' enough to be well modeled in GCM's.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The approximations are wrong, CO2 is good.
You are a scientific ignoramus. And you have proven it once again.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#41 Jun 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The greenhouse gas effect happens on the scale of infrared radiation warming a CO2 molecule, on a quantum scale. Not at all scales, not averaged in big model cells. The approximations are wrong, CO2 is good.
No, dipstick, you're just handwaving; it;s all you got.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is because of radiation effects on individual molecules, but dummy, SO IS EVERY OTHER EFFECT ON ANYTHING, YOU SNIVELLING EMBICILE.

Heat conduction takes place from molecule to molecule, too, yet the physics of heat conduction are valid on any scale.

Copuld you possibly be just a little bit more desperate to DENY the obvious?
SpaceBlues

United States

#42 Jun 3, 2013
LOL. These deniers sans science guess scientists follow cookbook recipes. They mention here some equations, the scientific method, etc. to sound logical but they sound illogical and unscientific.

.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#43 Jun 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL. These deniers sans science guess scientists follow cookbook recipes. They mention here some equations, the scientific method, etc. to sound logical but they sound illogical and unscientific.
.
They are EXACTLY like creationists in this respect as well. they just love to get all sciency while constructing a mountain of dishonest horseshite, too.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#44 Jun 5, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting points. You are a climate scientist and much more knowledgeable than I am, so I would like to know more.
So far, we have been looking at hind-casting based on the STABLE state 2 climate of the past. But, as you say, we know from paleo-climate studies that the climate has 'modes' based partly on average temperature. If we transition to a new mode, the projections of current models will be inadequate.
Is that what the study is saying?
<quoted text>
Is there somewhere that these modes are explained and documented? So far, I can only find them on Topix posts by you. Not that I don't respect your knowledge, but I would like to see a broader assessment of what these mode changes might mean to future climate change. I would especially like to see them discussed in the next IPCC report and so far I haven't seen any such detailed accounting.
Changing modes means for BIGGER climate change than we expected. The stable pattern 2 climate of the last few centuries has made for an irrational belief that climate cannot change much.
<quoted text>
Define 'rapidly' and what is the key change. The state of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation? I find generally that the Atlantic circulation is the key to most 'rapid climate change' and it is certain that we have changes in the THC/Gulf Stream as well as massive increases in the fresh water pouring into the arctic through ice melt and Siberian river systems. I mean, the Younger Dryas is one example in the 30,000 year period.
And I seem to remember something about 4 'modes' corresponding to four different paths for the THC current, moving southward in discrete steps, the last delivering it's current to about the Canary Islands instead of Western Europe.
<quoted text>
Jason type models? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
<quoted text>
How extensive is this change. If this is just a matter of Europe, then it could be the THC moving heat southward, but if it is global, it suggests a counter to AGW of 2C but if we have no warming, how does the climate switch modes? There would be no forcing. And this is certainly a key confusion for the denialists who would be quick to take advantage of any claim of 'cooling'.
part 1:
The modellers are generally using brute force computer modelling of the weather data collected over roughly the past century and plug ins of old weather reports of late mediaeval and diary entries from earlier than that date.
Both the climatological modellers and the long term meteorologists using the data for climate studies do not even realise that there is more than one climate mode for the typical reason that their timeframe is ephemeral (years), whereas the fossil record is centuries to tens of millennia.

Have a nice day: Ag

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#45 Jun 5, 2013
part 2:
Rapidly: Definition; The climate mode can change (has done so in the timespan 1990 to 2012) in the space of 6 days beginning with a change point @ approx equator and expanding out in a widening bean shape to cover initially a hemisphere in another mode before wrapping round to join up on the opposite side to put global climate into a new mode. There have been several examples as a result of oceanic temperature being @ the point of being warm enough to transfer from the default mode#2 to mode#3. The main chaos factor has been the rate of insolation which varies on the classic 11 yearc cycle & also ENSO oscillation & volcanic H2SO4 aerosol pall, which dumps the Earth back into mode#2.
The greater efficiency of cooling has also by paradox has in the case of rapid global cooling (same volcanic activity or solar superminimum) caused a jump from a warming trend mode#2 to a more efficient cooling mode#3 until the Earth has become too cool to run mode#3.
Final chaos here is that the Earth can stick @ the point of change termperature threshold with mode#3 in a hemisphere over a hot pool (such as Indonesia-Philippines) with the opposite hemisphere in mode#2... for months such as in the early months of 2012 causing blocking weather systems major droughts & major floods.

Final part:
Jason apparently was a military model set up during the Reagan era dealing with threats to the USA, and the results of the warming scenario were ignored with military efficiency immediately after presentation. Jason did not apparently EVER model self regulation economics.
The climate modes are definitely global and the roughly 2 degc of cooling per CO2 level is the REASON why there has been a report of little atmospheric warming during the 1990-2012 time span.
There HAS however been a continuing trend of oceanic warming which is the real heatsink driving the climate. The fact that this has been largely ignored is that as H2O has a massive heat capacity, oceans are always cooler than the land where temperature measurements are taken, with the sole exception of the arctic shoreline where the sea is warmer than the land for at least 6 months in a year. The forcing is the atmosphere drawing on the heat in the oceans (hence a sudden shift [interglacial] to mode#3 in a response to a major dust pall and sudden atmospheric cooling resulting from albedo effect reflection). A notable effect occurred after the 1815 tambora eruption, and also in 535AD after 2 small asteroids landed in the Gulf of Carpentaria Australia.

That should do.

Have a nice day: Ag

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Physics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Equivalence Principle & Elevator (Nov '13) 47 min nakayama 6
Where is Lorenz contraction ? (Dec '15) Jun 19 nakayama 51
News Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant After All, P... (May '13) Jun 18 nakayama 87
News Science Shock: Electromagnetic fields from mobi... Jun 16 Johan 2
Relativity of Simultaneity (Dec '14) Jun 11 nakayama 36
Help with Physics Assignment! 911 May '16 RobertsMadeline 1
e=mc2 (Sep '07) May '16 RobertsMadeline 50
More from around the web