New computer model advances climate change research
From an NCAR/UCAR press release
BOULDER—Scientists can now study climate change in far more detail with powerful new computer software released by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The Community Earth System Model (CESM) will be one of the primary climate models used for the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The CESM is the latest in a series of NCAR-based global models developed over the last 30 years. The models are jointly supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR’s sponsor.
Scientists and engineers at NCAR, DOE laboratories, and several universities developed the CESM.
The new model’s advanced capabilities will help scientists shed light on some of the critical mysteries of global warming, including:
- What impact will warming temperatures have on the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica?
- How will patterns in the ocean and atmosphere affect regional climate in coming decades?
- How will climate change influence the severity and frequency of tropical cyclones, including hurricanes?
- What are the effects of tiny airborne particles, known as aerosols, on clouds and temperatures?
The CESM is one of about a dozen climate models worldwide that can be used to simulate the many components of Earth’s climate system, including the oceans, atmosphere, sea ice, and land cover. The CESM and its predecessors are unique among these models in that they were developed by a broad community of scientists. The model is freely available to researchers worldwide.
“With the Community Earth System Model, we can pursue scientific questions that we could not address previously,” says NCAR scientist James Hurrell, chair of the scientific steering committee that developed the model. “Thanks to its improved physics and expanded biogeochemistry, it gives us a better representation of the real world.”
Scientists rely on computer models to better understand Earth’s climate system because they cannot conduct large-scale experiments on the atmosphere itself. Climate models, like weather models, rely on a three-dimensional mesh that reaches high into the atmosphere and into the oceans. At regularly spaced intervals, or grid points, the models use laws of physics to compute atmospheric and environmental variables, simulating the exchanges among gases, particles, and energy across the atmosphere.
Because climate models cover far longer periods than weather models, they cannot include as much detail. Thus, climate projections appear on regional to global scales rather than local scales. This approach enables researchers to simulate global climate over years, decades, or millennia. To verify a model’s accuracy, scientists typically simulate past conditions and then compare the model results to actual observations.
A broader view of our climate system
The CESM builds on the Community Climate System Model, which NCAR scientists and collaborators have regularly updated since first developing it more than a decade ago. The new model enables scientists to gain a broader picture of Earth’s climate system by incorporating more influences. Using the CESM, researchers can now simulate the interaction of marine ecosystems with greenhouse gases; the climatic influence of ozone, dust, and other atmospheric chemicals; the cycling of carbon through the atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces; and the influence of greenhouse gases on the upper atmosphere.
In addition, an entirely new representation of atmospheric processes in the CESM will allow researchers to pursue a much wider variety of applications, including studies of air quality and biogeochemical feedback mechanisms.
Scientists have begun using both the CESM and the Community Climate System Model for an ambitious set of climate experiments to be featured in the next IPCC assessment reports, scheduled for release during 2013–14. Most of the simulations in support of that assessment are scheduled to be completed and publicly released beginning in late 2010, so that the broader research community can complete its analyses in time for inclusion in the assessment. The new IPCC report will include information on regional climate change in coming decades.
Using the CESM, Hurrell and other scientists hope to learn more about ocean-atmosphere patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which affect sea surface temperatures as well as atmospheric conditions. Such knowledge, Hurrell says, can eventually lead to forecasts spanning several years of potential weather impacts, such as a particular region facing a high probability of drought, or another region likely facing several years of cold and wet conditions.
“Decision makers in diverse arenas need to know the extent to which the climate events they see are the product of natural variability, and hence can be expected to reverse at some point, or are the result of potentially irreversible, human-influenced climate change,” Hurrell says. “CESM will be a major tool to address such questions.”
Does this mean that all previous models were wrong?
The CESM builds on the Community Climate System Model, which NCAR scientists and collaborators have regularly updated since first developing it more than a decade ago.
I is this based on the same model that blew the winter forecasts for entire continents?
If so, CESM ‘s purpose might be viewed as saving the CCSM, which was invented to save the Planet.
Should we look for a newer, steamier novel to go with the burger?
It appears that the new model has built-in (assumed) warming. Presumably this new unvalidated model will be able to calculate garbage at greater cost and with even more precision.
Another set of birds’ entrails to bamboozle the public with.
To verify a model’s accuracy, scientists typically simulate past conditions and then compare the model results to actual observations.
Now, I wonder where they get those data?
there dreaming
“The new model’s advanced capabilities will help scientists shed light on some of the critical mysteries of global warming, including:………….”
Did I read correctly? So is the science settled or not? Or was it settled and now has been unsettled by Climategate and those criminal skeptics and deniers who are killing babies and grannies while pumping that poisonous gas into the atmosphere, killing all life in the process?
How many billions$ did this model cost?
And if it can simulate global climate over years, it should be able to make predictions for the next few years so we can evaluate it’s accuracy. Validating a model against the past is easy, because you can always ‘tweak’ things to ensure it matches observations. The real test is how well it does in predicting the future.
Since they’re reporting scales less than decades, it should be able to make predictions in the scale of years that can then be tested against observations.
Have they got new data to feed these powerful machines with, or is it still the same GIGO?
GI-GO. Models only work based on what parameters are programmed (i.e. there are assumptions made). If any of those assumptions are wrong (if, instead of CO2 drives climate, it turns out climate drives CO2, for example), the model is worthless. If data is left out (as another commenter stated, what about cloud cover), the model is skewed and probably worthless.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be modeling climate and attempting to understand it, but I am saying we should recognize the limitations of the model.
I applaud the construction of such a complex piece of software but it cannot take the place of the nuts and bolts of scientific investigation whether theoretical or practical. Trying to predict the future is like trying to find the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow.
CFD is a set of mathematical theories waiting to be proven. The use of simulation is used across a broad field of endeavour from video gaming, formula one car design to VFX in the film industry. However I do wonder how many on us would set foot inside an aeroplane if CFD modelling where the only tool being used to create reliability.
I trust flying because I know engineers dedicated to solving the aviation industries problems post simulation. They are a small breed who still use blue tack, talcum powder and small scale models to solve the problems they investigate.
It would be nice to see some of these vast sums of money spent on simulation design channelled to better use?
I don’t have a problem with people attempting to “predict” the future climate. I have a problem with their lack of humility.
“Interesting however, isn’t this just a case of even more garbage in and even more garbage out?”
No. Not at all. It is new, more sophisticated garbage in; same pre-programmed garbage out.
AngusPangus, Not to mention that the baseline data against which they test the model data is the same inaccurate temperature data that is regularly flagged on this site as being inadequate and error-filled and showing a significant confirmation bias in the figures all on the warming side.
But if the science is already settled beyond argument why do they need a new model and how could the existing ones possibly be improved? Surely this is a tacit admission that the current models might not be right and the science is not settled?
The new model’s advanced capabilities will help scientists shed light on some of the critical mysteries of global warming, including:
* What impact will warming temperatures have on the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica?
* How will patterns in the ocean and atmosphere affect regional climate in coming decades?
* How will climate change influence the severity and frequency of tropical cyclones, including hurricanes?
* What are the effects of tiny airborne particles, known as aerosols, on clouds and temperatures?
——————————————————————————-
What about putting on Long Johns, boots and parkas, taking shovel, bucket, anemometer, barometer and thermometer and go out to study the effects of weather LIVE in the environment?
This whole computer-modelling-stuff more and more appears to me like some kind of – pardon – scientific cybersex: Nice to look at, feels good, but no connection to real life whatsoever.
Les Francis says:
August 19, 2010 at 1:18 am
Doesn’t matter how good your computer and software are, G.I.G.O. still applies
Dont you know that the warmaholics have redfined GIGO. For their models it now means Garbage In Gospel Out.
At least we will now see “proof” of AGW so much faster………
This ‘news’ is all a bit sad, really, and reminds me of small and nerdy boys arguing the merits of their own model racing cars and aeroplanes. Is there any chance that, one day, these model-reliant fantasists may grow up and do real science?
Geoffrey Hoyle says:
August 19, 2010 at 3:09 am
I applaud the construction of such a complex piece of software but it cannot take the place of the nuts and bolts of scientific investigation whether theoretical or practical. Trying to predict the future is like trying to find the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow.
CFD is a set of mathematical theories waiting to be proven. The use of simulation is used across a broad field of endeavour from video gaming, formula one car design to VFX in the film industry. However I do wonder how many on us would set foot inside an aeroplane if CFD modelling where the only tool being used to create reliability.
I trust flying because I know engineers dedicated to solving the aviation industries problems post simulation. They are a small breed who still use blue tack, talcum powder and small scale models to solve the problems they investigate.
It would be nice to see some of these vast sums of money spent on simulation design channelled to better use?
I doubt whether Boeing would agree with you since they rely on Tony Jameson’s CFD code for their wing design.
http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/jameson/boeing.html
“It is in recognition of those many contributions that The Boeing Company, on the occasion of his 60th birthday, presents to Antony Jameson a model displaying the many Boeing airplanes whose aerodynamics design was carried out with the aid of CFD technology and codes developed by him. The list of those airplanes begins with the Boeing 767, designed in the late 1970s. That was followed by the 757, the 747-400, the new Boeing 777, and the recentlyannounced Boeing 737-700 which embodies a new wing and other advanced features. Each of those airplanes is displayed on the model.
Within the spirit of modern airplane design practice, the model also contains room for growth. There is one model position reserved for a future Boeing 787 airplane, and another for a 797. Those airplanes are presently only a gleam in our eye, but when they are designed and built, they undoubtedly also will contain the imprint of Jameson’s computational methodology.”
Geoffrey Hoyle says: (August 19, 2010 at 3:09 am) Trying to predict the future is like trying to find the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow.
But it is a crock they find, Geoffrey; so perhaps it will work to expectations…
The CESM is one of about a dozen climate models worldwide that can be used to simulate the many components of Earth’s climate system, including the oceans, atmosphere, sea ice, and land cover.
They need to be reminded that simulation is not replication. I have a picture of a roll cloud which formed where — theoretically — no roll cloud could possibly have formed.
They could have a computer 10 or 100 times faster than what they have today and it wouldn’t help their predictive accuracy. To mangle the words of the great playwright, “It is not in the computer to hold our destiny but in our understanding of climate.”
UK Sceptic says: August 19, 2010 at 1:04 am
What part of global warming has stopped do these people not understand?
The part where global temperature is at record or near record levels across the last twelve months in all the major temperature measuring systems…
Quote:“Thanks to its improved physics and expanded biogeochemistry, it gives us a better representation of the real world.”
There is no care what-so-ever about using correct physics or data. The current physics in motion is incorrect in a major way as there was two paths to this area.
One being perpetual and the other a slow energy release. Science currently being used is in the perpetual of moving forever with NEVER a change. The slow energy release is the actual correct path as due to constant energy change as bodies slowdown and chemical compositions change.
Have they included that we travel at 1669.8 km/hr at the equator?
That this speed is faster as you move to the poles due to size changes on the rotational axis with the shape of this planet?
Planetary mechanics has NEVER been included as scientists flunked that lesson.