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.
Correction, it was Channel 4 not ITV that aired ‘What the Green Movement Got Wrong’ oops!
Joe Lalonde says:
November 6, 2010 at 3:56 am
—————–
The CO2 blindfold has stopped scientists using proper and respected process of elimination. There are numerous correlations LOD, GMF, SSN, etc ; the most recent one (I have not come across anywhere else before) I illustrate here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm
For time being ‘climate science’ defends itself with such epithets as lunacy, numerology, pseudoscience, astrology etc.
No matter how many times you pound nails into rotten wood, it’s still structurally unsound.
If the funds spent on conventional models are no longer producing proportionate returns in terms of the advancement of climate science then it’s time for a bit of lateral thinking.
I hereby put forward the development and testing of my New Climate Model as a deserving project for substantial funds and personnel support.
Any offers ?
At the World Climate Report site they had an article last year touching on climate models from a different perspective. How to get more form them. And how to allow anyone to play with them to determine an important thing never mentioned.
The author notes that in all the carbon-saving initiatives, we usually are presented with the amount of CO2 that would be “saved” by the measures being proposed. He notices that the web is full of “CO2 calculators” that allow you to get your “carbon footprint” for this and that. However, the most crucial piece of information by far, is NEVER given: the estimated effect it will have on actual temperatures, which after all should be what you ultimately should care about. This is so true: we are never told what all the proposed measures will do to actual temmperatures, either at the individual level or at the national or global level.
He proposes that certain “pocket” climate models that can run on your personal computer be made to interface with these CO2 calculators to allow everyone to play around and see the thermal “savings” of their individual or collective carbon saving proposals.
Then, “as a last resort,” he goes through some easy back-of-the-envelope calculations himself, attempting to get to this aspect of the matter that is never mentioned. (Christopher Monckton has done similar work.) It quickly leads to the exposure of the monumental absurdity underlying the whole process.
“We’ll determine how much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million (ppm), then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.”
At the end of the calculations we get the answer, which is as follows:
**quote**
Now we have what we need. It takes ~14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~1 ppm, and it takes ~125 ppm to raise the global temperature ~1ºC. So multiplying ~14,138mmt/pmm by ~125ppm/ºC gives us ~1,767,250mmt/ºC.
That’s our magic number: 1,767,250.
Write that number down on a piece of paper and put it in your wallet or post it on your computer.
This is a handy-dandy and powerful piece of information to have, because now, whenever you are presented with an emissions savings that some action to save the planet from global warming is supposed to produce, you can actually see how much of a difference it will really make. Just take the emissions savings (in units of mmt of CO2) and divide it by 1,767,250.
Just for fun, let’s see what we get when we apply this to a few save-the-world suggestions.
[…] And finally, looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt, so 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.
This is the type of information that we should be provide with. And, as we have seen here, it is not that difficult to come by.
The fact that we aren’t routinely presented with this data, leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is purposefully being withheld. None of the climate do-gooders want to you know that what they are suggesting/demanding will do no good at all (at least as far as global warming is concerned).
**end of quote**
Full article is here:
What Can’(t) You Do About Global Warming
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/#more-376
The negative implication of this is that they have pretty well described reality.
The positive implication is that they are stuck in a GIGO loop and are not going to get better until some of the assumptions and givens are corrected.
I choose the latter.
Judith and others seem to think that the “useful information for decision makers” is important. As if the “decision makers” are in control. These “decision makers” are faced with an undecided “science” with undecided courses of action, with unknown results. But the attitude of both the “decision makers” and the “information suppliers” is that it imperative to act now! Shakespeare wrote a play entitled “Much ado about nothing” a farce. In this new play by the climate alarmists I do not see the humor even though they cavort splendidly as fools.
Membership in the National Science Foundation needs to be restricted to High-School Graduate Grandmothers with at least 4 children and 8 grandchildren, who were married to “worthless-substance-abuse-addicts-who-couldn’t-hold-a-decent-job”, who had to hold down a full-time job themselves, who now live in a decent paid off home of their own, who drive a decent car, and who have family reunions every year where the whole clan shows up. Either that or- cut the NSF budget by 30% each year for the next two years, and do away with it altogether in FY13.
Just graph question. Are the accuracy and effort terms modeled? Would improved (more funds) modeling bring the graph closer to an inverted hockey stick?
The climate models are all going to make a certain prediction for 2050.
Because in 2050, they are al constructed to have 3.0 watts/m2 of extra energy held in at the tropopause because of the assumed increase in CO2/GHGs. They will all then build-in a 10% to 15% increase in water vapour levels which holds even more energy in – another 5.0 to 6.0 watts/m2.
They can be improved, the resolution can be increased and atmospheric processes can be modelled more accurately but it is not going to change the fact that there is an assumed net increase of 9.0 watts/m2 of energy held in at the tropopause.
The improved models are still going to predict warming. It is the theory that has to be tested. We have to find out what really happens when there is increased CO2/GHGs – we have to “measure” it rather than continue modeling it in exactly the same way.
The chart at the top is right about diminishing returns, but we were already at the flat part of it 22 years ago with Hansen’s 1988 model.
I went to the comment by David Randell, found the comments were “off”. But since it was cited, I’ll make what I hope to be an “on topic” comment on modeling and the effects of “land use”.
Any person who has flown small planes and gliders KNOWS that certain ground conditions lead to the formation of clouds at the tops of thermals on typical spring/summer (sometimes fall) days.
If these thermals did not form, the clouds wouldn’t either.
Depending on the frequency and amount, this (because of clouds reflecting almost 50% of incoming solar radiation) phenomenon certainly has some effect on the overall balances.
Thus, as Randell notes (obliquely) the influence of man’s land use is NOT inlcuded in modeling, and therefore puts a big “hole” in the models, rendering their value even less! (Than they currently have, which is questionable to begin with!)
Max
Jimmy Haigh:
Ian E:
Mike Jowsey:
Aw, quit picking on Ale Gorney. His comment stands on its own.
Let’s just leave him alone and let him sleep it off. He’ll be ok in the morning.
Let’s cutoff funding for cancer and AIDS research. I mean what’s the point, we are going to die anyway.
I agree with Dr. Pielke Sr., that wasting further money on producing ever more useless computer climate models should be stopped.
At best the models are useful for learning about how climate mechanisms work. At worst they are being used to give the impression to policy makers that more is known about climate than is the case and that models can be used to predict possibilities about what will happen to future climate, which is clearly false.
here’s a thought. Take the vast majority of the funds ear-marked for modelling and put it towards upgrading the weather station sites to at least catagory 2 status.
Nah that would mean realworld data to model with…
Mike says:
November 6, 2010 at 8:41 am
Let’s cutoff funding for cancer and AIDS research. I mean what’s the point, we are going to die anyway.
Cancer and AIDS are real problems that shorten the human lifespan.
Catastrophic AGW is a fiction used by phony scientist and Marxist ratbags to fleece the public and destroy wealth.
Rob W says:
“here’s a thought. Take the vast majority of the funds ear-marked for modelling and put it towards upgrading the weather station sites to at least catagory 2 status.
Nah that would mean realworld data to model with…”
***************
Excellent idea. How about getting some real-world data up in the Arctic – these so-called scientists need to get out of their offices and break away from their normal busy travel schedule (Copenhagen, Cancun, etc) and get out on the ground up in Greenland and the Arctic ice cap for some data-collection exercises.
I have a cost-effective carbon-free mode of travel to suggest:
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ZaO7zRVMhUK/Man+Attempts+Kayak+North+Pole/dbZLNnj43Mg/Lewis+Gordon+Pugh
Adam Gallon says:
November 6, 2010 at 1:48 am
Ah, time to pass that over to Dr mann, to invert & rotate that proxy, then the graphed results will look just right!
Do you mean something like this hockey sticky one?
inverted & rotated
Exactly. In fact the models have proven themselves remarkably inaccurate, thus demonstrating the need for more, likely many more, variables and data points. Accuracy cannot be achieved if the modelers have an agenda that causes them to toss out real data in favor of ‘homogenized’ or altered data or fail to include variables that moderate climate ‘warmth’. Even then the models will offer little if any predictive value. We have almost no grasp of mega-cycles that affect the Earth, nor can we predict mega events such as vulcanism, quakes, cosmic rays, unique solar activity, etc.
Tenuc says:
November 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
At best the models are useful for learning about how climate mechanisms work.
Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
Mike says:
November 6, 2010 at 8:41 am
“Let’s cutoff funding for cancer and AIDS research. I mean what’s the point, we are going to die anyway.”
I didn’t realize that scientists had to jigger the results of their various tests to prove that cancer and AIDS actually existed – you know, like how they jiggered the results in an attempt to prove AGW actually exists. Thanks for the tip.
There’s a slightly higher probability that congress will defund the NSF. In either case though, the probability is still very low.
Mike says:
November 6, 2010 at 8:41 am
I’d love to see a death certificate with the cause of death: ‘Climate’.
Mike says:
November 6, 2010 at 8:41 am
“Let’s cutoff funding for cancer and AIDS research. I mean what’s the point, we are going to die anyway.”
I have an even better suggestion. Let’s cut off funding for redundant climate modeling research (I’ll let the climate scientists decide which models are the crappy and/or superfluous ones) and give that money to cancer and AIDS research…
From Billy Liar on November 6, 2010 at 10:22 am:
I suppose someone could get crushed by a chunk falling off of a melting glacier. Hurricane Katrina was also cited as an example caused by global warming, so add in those victims. Actually since global warming is to cause an increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events, anyone who dies due to a hurricane, tornado, even powerful lightning storms or massive flooding, could qualify. Then there are all those old people who die in the too-hot summers. Come to think of it, since it was explained during the previous cold and snowy Northern Hemisphere winter that global warming can even cause extreme winter-type events, you could add in people dying from blizzards as well.
But, you know how dang technical and finicky those coroners and doctors can be. They’ll write on the certificate “gun shot wound” rather than the name of the person that shot the person with a gun. So despite the mountains of bodies piling up, climate, as in Anthropogenic Global Warming, shall continue to officially escape the blame that it is due.
☺