Diminishing Returns From Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Simulations
By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
I have posted that the NSF is funding grants which as part of (or all) of their focus is to provide multi-decadal global and regional climate model projections; i.e. see
The NSF is also perpetuating an erroneously narrow view of the climate system, as I posted in
These claims and projections are based on global climate models.
Judy Curry, on her weblog Climate Etc has very effectively summarized the diminshing scientific responses from the use of these models in her post
Decision making under climate uncertainty: Part I
where she wrote
“So it seems like we are gearing up for much more model development in terms of higher resolution and adding additional complexity. Yes, we will learn more about the climate models and possibly something new about how the climate system works. But it is not clear that any of this will provide useful information for decision makers on a time scale of less than 10 years to support decision making on stabilization targets, beyond the information presented in the AR4.”
I agree with this viewpoint. This culture of using models as the tool to communicate to policymakers is an inappropriate and misleading use of the scientific method. I also discussed this misuse of models in my post
Comments On Numerical Modeling As The New Climate Science Paradigm
where Dick Lindzen is quoted
“In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”
Hopefully, the NSF (and other agencies) will soon realize that most of this funding is a waste of taxpayers money and could be better spent on other research uses in climate and elsewhere.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Dr. Pielke for this interesting commentary.
Also, the more I read Dr Curry’s blog posts, the more I like them. I think she is both articulate and courageous, in the scientific sense.
This stie is the defintieiotn of dimishing returns.. I watch it and observe, calculate and know.. damn all of you. Looking back it was easy.. agree? *SHAKING MY HEAD*
IT IS EASY
Here we are…. together, hands joined to fight the good fight but will you remember ? 3 months from now… will your thoughts be lucid of what you see and KNOW?
REMEMBER WHAT YOU SEE.
Ah! But the team know how to sort that graph out. They’ve got a bit of previous…
diminshing
should be
diminishing
Ale Gorney says:
November 6, 2010 at 12:54 am
What was that all about?
To Ale Gorney – could you re-phrase that in English please?
Think Ale Gorney has had a bit much ale?
Ah, time to pass that over to Dr mann, to invert & rotate that proxy, then the graphed results will look just right!
Spend some of that money on all that heavy equipment needed to find & recore all those old lonesome pines?
This is all fine and well, but it doesn’t matter how refined the models get if they are still founded on guesswork and erroneous assumptions – the key one being that increased water vapour is positive feedback.
Jimmy – another sub-zero night in your old home town last night – clear skies but all that extra CO2 up there didn’t bounce the warmth back for some reason…
Why does anyone place any trust in the motivation, and therefore words, of Judith Curry when she lets the cat out of the bag with:
“But it is not clear that any of this will provide useful information for decision makers on a time scale of less than 10 years to support decision making on stabilization targets”
Roughly translated =
1. Keep giving us lots of money for the next 10 years
2. I am still telling you that mankind’s activities drive the climate
3. We will decide what has to be done to control the climate (after you have given us loads more money)
And in 10 years time? The scam will be truly busted as we shiver our way through the cooling phase which has already started. The guilty parties will be living out their retirements, using the stash of cash that we have provided.
Until Dr Curry has a Road to Damascus moment, and confesses her sins (well, it is a religion, after all) she is merely the slightly more acceptable persona of the Warming Cult.
The IPCC wrote this in a report (nothing has changed, however many faster and more expensive computers you through at it)
This statement appeared in the Executive Summary of Chapter 14 of the report produced by Working Group 1.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-says-climate-prediction-impossible.html
Forget the models and discredited CO2 propaganda. Understanding of the historical records and the natural forces is the answer.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
For the record see
de Wit, C.T. (1978). Summative Address: One. “Plant Relations in Pastures” (Ed. Wilson, J.R.) CSIRO. p 405.
“This leads to models of considerable complexity, the tragedy being that complexity usually does not pay for the holist”.
And other comments on models.
Mike Jowsey says: (November 6, 2010 at 1:45 am) Think Ale Gorney has had a bit much ale?
You think it should have been posted in Tipsy Notes, Mike?
Andrew P. says:
November 6, 2010 at 2:05 am
“Jimmy – another sub-zero night in your old home town last night – clear skies but all that extra CO2 up there didn’t bounce the warmth back for some reason…”
I never believed them about CO2 though so that’s why I shipped myself out to the tropics! Funny thing about all the global warmers – they always went on holiday to The Med to get away from the cold…
Roger Carr says:
November 6, 2010 at 2:42 am
You think it should have been posted in Tipsy Notes, Mike?
Excellent Roger! The standard of puns, here on WUWT, is definitelynbecoming more groanworthy!
Like many people here I don’t know what Ale Gorney was on about. Same with Al Gore…
Figuring out what makes the wind blow would be a start at augmenting returns.
==================
Commenters have ignored the obvious benefits of doing science with a computer:
1) the climate inside is stable – not too hot/cold, never wet and you get to sit in a cumfy chair
2)you don’t burn fossil fuel (electricity generation for the lab is wind powered – if you’re a real enthusiast you’ll use a bicycle generator on calm days) on pointless data gathering /quality control exercises.
3)you know the conclusions are going to be politically correct because you wrote the program
“Hopefully, the NSF (and other agencies) will soon realize that most of this funding is a waste of taxpayers money and could be better spent on other research uses in climate and elsewhere.”
I fear that is a vain hope. I suspect that in the NSF’s eyes the source of funding is the deep pocketed government, not the tapped out taxpayer.
vukcevic says:
November 6, 2010 at 2:34 am
You are so right!
Have you noticed a 1.25 billion year gap from the first Ice Age until the current cycle of Ice Ages?
The first must have been a massive meteor strike in the ocean as evaporation was not in process until the cycle of Ice Ages.
Rotation and centrifugal force was too fast to allow the chemical composition to the current salt water we see today. As the planet slows, it throws off salt to become fresher and fresher. This is needed to happen for evaporation to work. Too much salt would generate deserts as evaporation would be hindered.
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. & Anthony (& team),
This post is helpful for bringing the puzzle pieces together on climate modeling.
Now to sit down and enjoy plowing through it.
Thanks.
John
The above graph was intuitively obvious to scientists who grew up doing real physical experiments with real physical measuring tools and real physical sliderules. We’re only arguing about it now because most currently active scientists have grown up with digital modeling and digital calculators, which give you the illusion that the 100th decimal place is just as valid as the 1st.
Computer models are programmed by people who are not climate scientists per se, and therefore have no real knowledge of how to integrate the following main subject areas of that science:-
solar activity, oceanography, atmosphere, geology, physics, chemistry, and the Earth’s axis & orbit around the sun.
I’ve probably omitted a couple of topics, but that’ll do for starters.
How many times do we hear from the disciples of AGW that climate predictions are more accurate than weather predictions (or words to that effect)?
No one seems to challenge this concept. It’s just stated as fact, even though it can’t be tested. One of the strategies of the propagandist is to keep repeating an opinion as if it were an undeniable truth.
Next time some one tries this stunt on you, ask them how they know the statement to be true. They will nearly always say something like ‘cos so and so told me.
With the passage of time we can usually predict with reasonable accuracy single events within a given time frame, but not the outcome of interconnected linear and nonlinear events at specific time within a given time frame.
Computer models can only give projections based on known data and because the data is constantly changing as each aspect of the model is given new parameters by field researchers, they can never give better results than projecting the past into the future.
In other words they can only tell us what we already know. They can’t predict what we don’t know.
The weather and the climate are equally unpredictable because they both are based on what happened in the past and our understanding of all the conditions past can never be complete. Even if they were, future conditions can never mirror the past.
The same curve applies whether current accuracy is 5% or 95%. IPPC currently use 90% to 95% probability on certain of their pronouncements so why spend the extra cash? Scientists have made their point, only time will tell if they are right.
Maybe it’s time to step back from modeling and return to science? Or would that mean having to actually explain methodology in a manner that the taxpayer could actually understand. Now there’s a scary notion. Or maybe climate scientists are happy to go along with the idea the public are too dumb to understand the detail (well the detail that’s released) but smart enough to keep funding it all.
I think an Emperor’s got no clothes moment is coming along.
Here the in the UK the media are repositioning themselves with programs like ‘What the Green Movement Got Wrong’ on ITV. The BBC have gone completely silent on global warming recently.
In my humble opinion one more hard, cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere would kill AGW once and for all and I foresee a lot of folk who have made a good living out of AGW scrambling around trying to find a position that would save their salaries in this winter’s wilderness of government cutbacks.