From the “it’s worse than we modeled department”, a case of “head in the clouds” thinking:
From the University of Hawaii at Manoa via Eurekalert press release:
Study could mean greater anticipated global warming
Current state-of-the-art global climate models predict substantial warming in response to increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The models, though, disagree widely in the magnitude of the warming we can expect.
The disagreement among models is mainly due to the different representation of clouds. Some models predict that global mean cloud cover will increase in a warmer climate and the increased reflection of solar radiation will limit the predicted global warming. Other models predict reduced cloudiness and magnified warming.
In a paper that has just appeared in the Journal of Climate, researchers from the University of Hawaii Manoa (UHM) have assessed the performance of current global models in simulating clouds and have presented a new approach to determining the expected cloud feedbacks in a warmer climate.
Lead author Axel Lauer at the International Pacific Research Center (IPRC) at UHM notes, “All the global climate models we analyzed have serious deficiencies in simulating the properties of clouds in present-day climate. It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
To study the clouds, the researchers applied a model representing only a limited region of the atmosphere over the eastern Pacific Ocean and adjacent land areas. The clouds in this region are known to greatly influence present climate, yet current global models do poorly in representing them. The regional model, developed at the IPRC, successfully simulates key features of the region’s present-day cloud fields, including the observed response of clouds to El Nino. Having evaluated the model’s simulation of present-day conditions, the researchers examined the response of simulated clouds in a warmer climate such as it might be in 100 years from now. The tendency for clouds to thin and cloud cover to reduce was more pronounced in this model than in any of the current global models.
NOTE: Believe it or not, but this pathetic little graph is all that was provided with the press release, I have found no larger versions – Anthony
UPDATE: Author Axel Lauer kindly sends me the paper link here
and from that I have a larger version of the graph below:
Co-author Kevin Hamilton concludes, “If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.”
This research was supported by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), by NASA through Grant NNX07AG53G, and by NOAA through Grant NA09OAR4320075, which sponsor research at the International Pacific Research Center. This research was also supported by NOAA/CPPA Grant NA07OAR4310257 and DOE Regional and Global Climate Modeling (RCGM) Program Grant ER64840.
Citation: Lauer, A., K. Hamilton, Y. Wang, V. T. Phillips, and R. Bennartz (2010), The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific – A Regional Model Study, Journal of Climate, Vol. 23, No. 21, 5844�.
Researcher Contacts: Axel Lauer (808) 956-3631; email: lauera@hawaii.edu
Kevin Hamilton (808) 956-8327; email: kph@hawaii.edu
IPRC Media Contact: Gisela Speidel, (808) 956-9252; email: gspeidel@hawaii.edu IPRC/SOEST, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1680 East-West Rd., POST Building 401, Honolulu, HI 96822.
The International Pacific Research Center (IPRC) of the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa is a climate research center founded to gain greater understanding of the climate system and the nature and causes of climate variation in the Asia-Pacific region and how global climate changes may affect the region. Established under the “U.S.-Japan Common Agenda for Cooperation in Global Perspective” in October 1997, the IPRC is a collaborative effort between agencies in Japan and the United States.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
Indeed.
Clouds and convective systems just can’t be captured accurately on the horizontal and vertical scales used in GCMs or Regional models. It’s a bit like only having one RGB value, the result of an average of all the RGB values of the component pixels in a high res photo and then using that one average RGB value to figure out what the original photo looked like. In 3D.
And then there is the complexity of the actual physico-chemical processes involved: the links between gas phase chemistry, heterogeneous chemistry, dynamics, incident radiation, temperature and pressure. The experiments needed to derive decent parametrization of these processes simply cannot be done – probably ever.
But models are cheap and good measurements and experiments expensive and difficult. For me: more reason to focus on spending the money on how we adapt to whatever nature throws at us. The fundamental science is interesting, but academic. It should be left to compete with other areas of pure science and shed its pretension to be applied.
The really sad thing is there are plenty of atmospheric scientists who must know how flawed the AGW science is and they have just stood by without voicing the skepticism they should have.
H.R. says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:05 am
*If* my cat had 8 legs it would be a spider. I have a computer program that can visually change one animal to another in a seemingly perfect transition sequence.
Also, if my auntie had b****, she would be my uncle. Since she isn’t, at least she married him, and therefore forms part of my uncle’s great retinue, so technically she is my uncle.
So much for logic… I’m working on how to bluff the animal simulation
George E. Smith says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:01 am (Edit)
So their little toy model painted fire engine red predicts, projects, guesses, that the variations are much greater than they really are (black ops).
So instead of scrapping their junk model they publish a paper to tout it. Don’t they understand that the model is supposed to replicate reality; not the other way round.
#####################
no model, no physical theory replicates reality. Not even F=MA. Sometimes the residual is tiny. we call that “random error” sometimes the residual is larger, we call that an incomplete or low fidelity model. sometimes the residual is huge and we throw the model away. Looking at their model results it seems that whatever factors drive the transient response need some work. Given the complexity of the system being modelled, I’d say the model does a fair job.
The alternative? I see no alternative model that does a better job “replicating” observed cloud cover from 1985 to present.
JacobusZeno says:
November 24, 2010 at 4:24 am
@Anna V and @Paul Vaughan
I would like to see the measured atmospheric CO2 on this graph – any chance?
I do not understand what you mean. CO2 rise is an input for these models. The anomalies fit fairly well the data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GCM_temp_anomalies_3_2000.jpg for example, if you ignore the last decade. The absolute temperatures are all over the ballpark. Note the anomalies are 0.2C and the absolute temperatures in the models differ more than 2C
“”””” stumpy says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:29 am
From experiance, I also know that the climate models are totally incapable of getting current rainfall patterns right either, which is worrying – if you cant get current rainfall patterns right, how can you make forecasts??? “””””
Stumpy; I have no idea what your authority credentials are; your sayso here at WUWT is good enough for me.
So as to the rainfall which you say from your experience you know they can’t get right; doesn’t it follow from your observations, that if the rainfall ain’t right; then the cloud cover certainly can’t be either ?
“”””” Steven Mosher says:
November 24, 2010 at 9:15 am
George E. Smith says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:01 am (Edit)
So their little toy model painted fire engine red predicts, projects, guesses, that the variations are much greater than they really are (black ops).
So instead of scrapping their junk model they publish a paper to tout it. Don’t they understand that the model is supposed to replicate reality; not the other way round.
#####################
no model, no physical theory replicates reality. Not even F=MA. Sometimes the residual is tiny. we call that “random error” sometimes the residual is larger, we call that an incomplete or low fidelity model. sometimes the residual is huge and we throw the model away. Looking at their model results it seems that whatever factors drive the transient response need some work. Given the complexity of the system being modelled, I’d say the model does a fair job.
The alternative? I see no alternative model that does a better job “replicating” observed cloud cover from 1985 to present. “””””
“”””” no model, no physical theory replicates reality. “””””
Well Ithink I have said that so many times I can’t even keep count.
“”””” Not even F=MA. “””””
Well I believe that is essetially the definition of Force; and the definitions of Mass and Acceleration can be found elsewhere. All of those things are fictional things that we made up; but the equation you cited is the mathematical expression that relates those things; and it is exact. Presumably those model values are analogues of something we think we observe in the real universe; and yes we will always have difficulties at some level in relating the model parameters and values to the reality.
When you have a global variable like say “surface Temperature” which can have a total range of as much as 150 deg C (or more)from place to place on earth (simultaneously); and you are trying to observe believable changes of as small as 0.01 deg C in the global average; not of the Temperature, but of Temperature “anomalies”; I don’t think that a model which can have a 3:1 range (+/-50%) in its most important model parameter (climate sensitivity) is either credible or useful.
For example if I have a scatter plot of simultaneous Temperatures (or anomalies), versus atmospheric CO2 abundance (mole fraction or ppmv) recorded over some climatically significant time scale; the statistical analysts can take that data and compute a “trend” line which they can superimpose on the scatter plot. Well at least they seem to claim they can do that.
And a typical result of such machination is that they derive a “slope” (and position) for that trend line that the IPCC says comes out to 3.0 deg C per doubling of the CO2 abundance; well actually they say it is 3.0 +/- 50%; or 1.5 to 4.5 Deg C per doubling.
So I should draw three such trend lines; for their best guess, and their max and min extremes.
Well simply wonderful ! For the longest such data set that exists for actual measured real world physical obervations; it is impossible to determine conclusively that the relationship between CO2 and Temperature (or anomaly) , with that much slope uncertainty, is linear or logarithmic, or exponential, or inverse square law, or any other ordinary mathematical function.
Yet the disciples of such models still insist on declaring the relationship to be logarithmic. Not only does the observed DATA not support such a claim; but there is also NO theoretical Physical process or model, that even predicts that the relationship SHOULD be logarithmic; or for that matter, any other simple mathematical function.
How many times at this forum has it been stated that “Correlation” does not prove “Causation”.
So it is completely meaningless to say; “This is a good model; because no other model is any better.”
There is NOTHING WRONG with saying “WE DON’T KNOW.”
By the way; science could easily have consisted of a “Compendium of all Knowledge” wherein resides the results of every experimental observation ever made about anything.
So anyone would be able to look up exactly what numbers Marie Curie got in her lab while observing the apparently very strong radioactivity she observed that turned out to be Radium.
But instead of such a library approach, scientists chose to try and relate similar observations about similar systems; to see if there were any patterns to the data. This approach often leads to the ability to estimate the results one would get from an experiment that has never been performed; and such predictions; excuse me; projections, often pan out, when such experiments are actually performed, and confirm the estimate.
And that is wherein lies the value of scientific models or theories. A model is only as good as its ability to replicate results already known and predict the result of some future observation.
That is not the same as saying that the model “IS” the reality. Models don’t even have to be unique, or follow common sense.
It’s entirely possible to have more than one theory or model for some phenomenon; and those models could be totally different from each other, or be totally wierd. The only thing that matters is if they agree with reality. Well Einstein said that models (theories) should be as simple as possible; but no simpler !
So the point is that this new cloud theory of these Hawaiian researchers does not agree with reality any better than other so-called cloud models do; so it can’t be used to make any projections of future experimental outcomes; so it is worthless.
“”””” Alexander K says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Mt Taranaki (also formerly known as Mt Egmont) in New Zealand is a startling cone which is close to the idealised ‘proper’ volcano and similar in looks to Japan’s Mt Fujiama. The locals in the Taranaki region have a model that has been used for generations and puts the Climatologists in the U of Hawaii to shame. It’s totally reliable, too, as well as brief.
“If you can see the mountain it’s going to rain. If you CAN’T see the mountain, it IS raining.” “””””
Well Alexander, I wouldn’t say that Mt Egmont is quite Fuji like; there is that little speed bump on the side there that sort of screws up the shape.
As to the observational prowess of those nutcakes that inhabit that region; it is in keeping with their skiing habits.
On Mt Ruapehu, you could always identify a Mt Egmont skiier, since they just pointed their skis straight down the fall line; and then simply took the brakes off; total fruitcakes if you ask me. It’s amazinr that they aren’t extinct !
“”””” Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“I don’t need somebody’s bomb making super computer to tell me that clouds ought to increase with temperature.”
Strangely they don’t seem to: “””””
It is left as an exercise for the reader to explain the results of Wentz et al; where more precipitation was observed to accompany higher Temperature; yet clouds are supposed ot have decreased.
By the way; that is “precipitable clouds” we are referring to; aka those clouds from which rain or snow precipitates.
I’m not aware that we have any global cloud monitoring stations; or that such may have existed in the late 20th century; they would come in handy in observing precipitable clouds.
Read their paper.
I am left baffled, as this paper adds almost nothing to anybody’s understanding of the issue, how do all these people get paid to do this?
In short its a model simulation of other model simulations,
Here is a scatter plot of Hadcrut3 versus the four datasets of Cloud Cover that are available (some of this data goes back to 1901).
Needless to say, there is little correlation between temperatures and cloud cover anomalies.
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/9148/hadcrut3cloudcover.png
I guess my position has always been that the climate is very complicated. The theory of global warming has some propositions that are defendable, that should work, but given how complicated the climate system is, we should be measuring as much of it as we can and trying to figure out what actually happens, what the climate actually does. it is not necessarily going to so what the theory says should happen.
The cloud data that is available says there is little change in clouds versus temperatures over this range of temperatures and time (and this should cover enough data and time). I think the theory would have the trends increasing twice as fast as the longest data trendline says.
Water vapour as well (according the NCEP dataset) is not rising as predicted either (about half again which seems to be a recurring theme every time I check the data against the theory’s predictions).
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7007/watervapourscattertemps.png
About 15 years ago, I “loaned” our Cray Supercomputer to a researcher from Stanford to do cloud modeling for his Ph.D. We were ‘closing down the shop’ and had some idle cycles. He was very tentative in asking if he could, perhaps, somehow get a couple of hours of CPU time… I gave him effectively unlimited. (It was fun when I offered even more to hear him with some difficulty decline as he needed to actually write his thesis now… I knew then that I’d “filled his cup” 😉
The point?
At that time it took about 10 hours of run time on a Cray X-MP 48 machine (one of the fastest then, and about what’s in an iPad now 😉 to model ONE well defined ISOLATED cloud. And even that gave dramatically variable results run to run.
Since then, Moore’s Law (computes double about every 18 months) has continued to work its magic. But…
Intractable problems with non-linear complexity and stochastic nature are still intractable. You could throw a million times more processing power at it and still not correctly simulate cloud dynamics in a system of moderate area coverage.
They don’t model clouds because we still can’t model clouds with any accuracy nor precision.
Oh, and I’ll start thinking they have a clue about clouds when they start modeling a world where the hydrological cycle dominates and CO2 is a bit player. The heat flow in a few megatons of water vapor rising from the tropics to form tropical storms makes CO2 look like a bad joke…
FWIW, I got about a 20 F range of temperatures in a 50 foot distance due entirely to the presence or absence of sun and water. The quantity of heat going into steam / water vapor at any one time makes CO2 irrelevant.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/an-example-of-fractal-temperatures/
It’s not about the temperatures, it’s about the heat. That “climate scientists” don’t get that and continue to use temperatures without clouds and the hydrological cycle just confirms that they have no clue what the future holds.
Yeah, and Cancun has stated that with the cuts in CO2 that was calculated to ‘do the trick’ has been shown not to be enough so cut more!!!!
If one bad bit of news fails to impress make the news worse.
HOW CLIMATE IS CHANGING ?
Massive Arctic iceisland drifting toward shipping lanes
The biggest Arctic “ice island” to form in nearly 50 years — a
250-square-kilometer behemoth described as four times the size of Manhattan
— has been discovered after a Canadian scientist scanning satellite images
of northwest Greenland spotted a giant break in the famed Petermann
Glacier.Canada.com – Aug 07 10:16am In another research, using Autosub, an
autonomous underwater vehicle, researchers led by the British Antarctic Survey
have captured ocean and sea-floor measurements, which revealed a 300 meter
high ridge on the sea floor. Pine Island Glacier was once sitting atop this underwater ridge, which slowed its flow into the sea. The warm water, trapped
under the ice, is causing the bottom of the ice shelf to thaw, resulting in
continuousthinning and acceleration of glacial melt. Lead author Adrian
Jenkins said, “The discovery of the ridge has raised new questions about
whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent
climate change or is a continution of a longer-term process that began when
the glacier disconnect from the ridge”.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620200810.htm
Not only warm water, but also concentrated Magnesium Chloride =7,100 p.p.m &
Sodium Chloride= 31,000 p.p.m. (de-icing agents) trapped under the ice, is
causing the bottom of the ice shelf to thaw, resulting in continuous thinning
and acceleration of glacial melt (under water glacier cutting).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGHlEBvKYw&sns=fb
Last Winter, Australian Glaciologist, Neal Young, declared that more than
300 icebergs are floating in the East Antarctica.
DISINTEGRATED ICE SHELVES DISINTEGRATION DATES
Worde Ice shelf March 1986*
* Larsen A Ice shelf January 1995*
* Larsen B Ice shelf February 2002*
* Jones Ice Shelf 2008*
* Wilkins Ice shelf March 2008*
If the Ice shelves are disintegrating during WINTER, it is not SUN or CO2.
U.N. Secretary General, BAN KI-MOON recently declared that ” Let me be
clear, the thread of Climate Change is real “.
“The Climate is changing” said JAY LAWRIMORE, Chief of Climate Analysing at
the National Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occuring with greater frequency and in many cases with greater intensity”.
The current Climate Change is due to the following:-
1. Mushrooming of Sea water desalination systems in the Middle East:
Discharging of desalination & Cleaning chemicals & Concentrated brine into Oceans & Seas.
2. Artificial Island developments in the Arabian Gulf since 1985: dredging,
drilling, dynamiting & excavation of sea floor shifted Magnesium Chloride, Sulfur & Sodium Chloride.The geographic position of the Arabian Gulf, Ocean circulations bringing it to Arctic & Antarctic Oceans during Monsoon seasons along with hot water of the Middle East.
Those who are having the Oceans water Analysis since 1980 will WIN the
Climate WAR. Concentrated 7,100 p.p.m. of Magnesium Chloride & 31,000 p.p.m. of Sodium Chloride are detected in the Arabian Gulf. These are De-icing agents which are helping to disintegrates the Arctic & Antarctic
Ice shelves. Now International Desalination Association (IDA) formed a committee to investigate about it.
If we enforce strict Environmental regulations, recover MgCl3 and NaCl3 at
Straight of Hormosa and Straight of Gibraltar and recover those at closed eddies of Baffin Bay & Green Land Sea. Sea ice & Ice shelves in Arctic & Antarctic are Natural Air Conditioners of the Planet EARTH. When more ice in both Poles, the third Pole, as Scientists described, Himalayas will have abundance of ice and Snow & Bolivia will have more Glaciers & water.
Book releasing soon in USA ” Environmental Rapes & H. R. abuses Lead to Climate Change Control”.
(Full color 450 pages) by Raveendran Narayanan also visit:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=358564892147&ref=ts SARVA KALA VALLABHAN GROUP in Face book.
Raveendran Narayanan, U.S.A.
Tel-1-347-847-0407
E- mail : bestfriend97usa@yahoo.com
narayananraveen@gmail.com
narayananraveen@yahoo.com
Below is a screen copy of a comment on the topic of this thread, that I made over at RealClimate, whilst it was waiting in moderation. For some inexplicable reason it did not emerge, despite that deliberately, I did not even mention the source; WUWT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
24 November 2010 at 7:22 PM
WRT various comments above about clouds and climate sensitivity, here follows an extract from a press release on a new paper:
“All the global climate models we analyzed have serious deficiencies in simulating the properties of clouds in present-day climate. It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uoha-scm112210.php
What I find most interesting is the strong criticism of existing models. However, from the press release it would seem that the paper itself is a rather flimsy affair, and probably not worth a read. (although good fodder for the “it’s worse than we thought” brigade).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would have thought that Gavin might have responded to explain any errors in my thinking.