Forecasting climate?
The average value of a meteorological element over 30 years is defined as a climatological normal. Source: NOAA/NWS
It’s been done:

From the University of California – Los Angeles
Can scientists look at next year’s climate?
Is it possible to make valid climate predictions that go beyond weeks, months, even a year? UCLA atmospheric scientists report they have now made long-term climate forecasts that are among the best ever — predicting climate up to 16 months in advance, nearly twice the length of time previously achieved by climate scientists.
Forecasts of climate are much more general than short-term weather forecasts; they do not predict precise temperatures in specific cities, but they still may have major implications for agriculture, industry and the economy, said Michael Ghil, a distinguished professor of climate dynamics in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and senior author of the research.
The study is currently available online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and will be published in an upcoming print edition of the journal.
“Certain climate features might be predictable, although not in such detail as the temperature and whether it will rain in Los Angeles on such a day two years from now,” said Ghil, who is also a member of UCLA’s Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. “These are averages over larger areas and longer time spans.”
Long-term climate forecasts could help predict El Niño events more than a year in advance. El Niño is a climate pattern characterized by the warming of equatorial surface waters, which dramatically disrupts weather patterns over much of the globe and strikes as often as every second year, as seldom as every seventh year or somewhere in between.
A major issue addressed by Ghil and his colleagues in the PNAS research is the difficulty of separating natural climate variability from human-induced climate change and how to take natural variability into account when making climate models.
For the study, Ghil and his UCLA colleagues Michael Chekroun and Dmitri Kondrashov of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences analyzed sea-surface temperatures globally. To improve their forecasts, they devised a new algorithm based on novel insights about the mathematics of how short-term weather interacts with long-term climate. Weather covers a period of days, while climate covers months and longer.
As is customary in this field, Ghil and his colleagues used five decades of climate data and test predictions retrospectively. For example, they used climate data from 1950 to 1970 to make “forecasts” for January 1971, February 1971 and beyond and see how accurate the predictions were. They reported achieving higher accuracy in their predictions 16 months out than other scientists achieved in half that time.
The research was federally funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
Extreme climate, extreme events
Ghil also led a separate, three-year European Commission–funded project called “Extreme Events: Causes and Consequences” involving 17 institutions in nine countries. In a recent paper on extreme events, published this summer in the journal Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, Ghil and colleagues addressed not only extreme weather and climate but extreme events such as earthquakes and other natural catastrophes, and even extreme economic events. Their study included an analysis of the macro-economic impact of extreme events.
“It turns out, surprisingly, that it is worse when catastrophes occur during an economic expansion, and better during a recession,” Ghil said. “If your roof blows off in a hurricane, it’s easier to get somebody to fix your roof when many people are out of work and wages are depressed. This finding is consistent with, and helps explain, reports of the World Bank on the impact of natural catastrophes.”
Ghil spoke this past July about a mathematical theory of climate sensitivity at the International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, in Vancouver, a quadrennial event that showcases the most important contributions to the field over the preceding four years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
>>
Dave Wendt says:
September 12, 2011 at 8:26 pm
. . . something that is completely worthless . . . . Life’s too short.
<<
I agree. Life’s too short to waste on worthless nonsense.
Jim
Looks like the guys have invented a new roulette wheel.
So basically, as I’m getting from the comments, this is a veritable jungle of incredibly complex math, so dense and nigh-impenetrable it will takes weeks to months to hack through it and discover whether what’s on the other side is gold or guano.
This immediately brings to mind numerous examples, presented here and elsewhere, where much complex climate-related math, including whole models, could be replaced with simple one-line equations that reproduce the results with highly-acceptable accuracy. (Example, example, also read this.) The truckloads of tweaks and adjustments add up to self-canceling noise, as should be expected (one nudges up, next nudges down, etc). The incredibly complex math takes in a number, the result is always that number times 2, but the model is actually using 10,000 calculations involving advanced trigonometry, exponents and logarithms, and many 1st- and 2nd-order derivative functions. As is very easy to do in math (and computer programming btw), one can lose track of what is being done and how the different parts interact, resulting in further additions without figuring out the possible simplifications of what has done before.
Indeed, as mentioned here, simple models have been used to simulate the output of vastly more complex Global Climate Models, as was used for the IPCC TAR.
Unless it can be demonstrated the math has to be this complex, I’d consider this an interesting “first report” of something that may be highly promising, but much simplification is still indicated to make it truly usable for real science. “Black boxes” tend to be most profitable only for black box sellers.
I’m sorry but….have you ever seen anything so really truly completely and totally naff as that ‘Wheel of Climate’? There Are Not The Words to describe it, apart from, you know- naff.
Even David Appell couldn’t come up with anything so……. naff
And they’re stood there, (apart from the seated, proud and glowing mother of this circular stupidity) all smug and self satisfied with this monumental piece of naffness.
Lord help us.
There again, on a totally different level, I see a group of Mafiosi introducing some bizarre TV game show, probably quite close to the actuality when you think about.
Wheel looks like a Chuck-A-Luck in a 19th century Kansas cathouse. And them boys look gullible.
My complaint is not with the research itself, but with the press release. Do people here agree that the following claim is bogus?
“UCLA atmospheric scientists report they have now made long-term climate forecasts that are among the best ever — predicting climate up to 16 months in advance, nearly twice the length of time previously achieved by climate scientists.”
There is no “long term climate” forecast being made here! They have not yet demonstrated that they have definitely improved ENSO forecasts until they, in fact, make a forecast and later compare it with reality. And in any case, they can not say from their work whether next year’s growing season will be hot/cooler or wetter/dryer than this years. I would just as soon consult the farmer’s almanac!
The fastest way to turn people off to climate science (and science in general) is to make unsupportable claims like this. And it is up to the scientists involved to correct the spin in the press release, lest it damage their reputations in the long run.
From their pasty appearance, it looks like the Warming Models don’t even let their Wheel of Climate guys go outside! Probably so they won’t be ‘biased’ by real data…or real women?
Would it be wrong to suggest that the lack of rebuttal from The Team means this isnt real science?
“It turns out, surprisingly, that it is worse when catastrophes occur during an economic expansion, and better during a recession,” Ghil said. “If your roof blows off in a hurricane, it’s easier to get somebody to fix your roof when many people are out of work and wages are depressed. This finding is consistent with, and helps explain, reports of the World Bank on the impact of natural catastrophes.”
Well then… since we have 1) no direct control over climate, but now supposedly have 2) a way to predict impending natural disasters, the only usefulness of such an analysis is to encourage us to 3) ensure that we have a serious economic downturn at just the right time to coincide with the predicted disasters!
Brilliant!
To quote Burke Breathed, “No matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.”