New paper finds climate models are getting worse rather than better
Via the Hockey Schtick: A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the latest climate models are performing even worse than the earlier generations of climate models in predicting
“…both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming.”
The author hypothesizes the reasons for this are that attempts in the latest generation of models to reproduce observed changes in Arctic sea ice are causing “significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic,” i.e. they have improved Arctic simulation at the expense of poorly simulating the rest of the globe. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models.
The paper:
Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations
Kyle L. Swanson
Abstract:
Climate change simulations are the output of enormously complicated models containing resolved and parameterized physical processes ranging in scale from microns to the size of the Earth itself. Given this complexity, the application of subjective criteria in model development is inevitable. Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations.
Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution.
This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate. It is hypothesized that this bias is driven by the desire to more accurately capture the observed recent acceleration of warming in the Arctic and corresponding decline in Arctic sea ice. However, this convergence is difficult to justify given the significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whoops! The correct line is “weather data”
BTW, the folks at NOAA are in a predictive mood again in re Arctic sea ice
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/index.shtml
May 17, 2013
Arctic nearly free of summer sea ice during first half of 21st century
“There is no one perfect way to predict summer sea ice loss in the Arctic,” said Wang. “So we looked at three approaches that result in widely different dates, but all three suggest nearly sea ice-free summers in the Arctic before the middle of this century.”
James Overland of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and Muyin Wang of the NOAA Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington, recently published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters which looked at three methods of predicting when the Arctic will be nearly ice free in the summer.
They predict a nearly ice free summer arctic before 2050, sooner than many previously thought. The term “nearly” ice free is important as some sea ice is expected to remain north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland.
“Rapid Arctic sea ice loss is probably the most visible indicator of global climate change; it leads to shifts in ecosystems and economic access, and potentially impacts weather throughout the northern hemisphere,” said Overland. “Increased physical understanding of rapid Arctic climate shifts and improved models are needed that give a more detailed picture and timing of what to expect so we can better prepare and adapt to such changes. Early loss of Arctic sea ice gives immediacy to the issue of climate change.”.
Learn more from the NOAA press release
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130412_arcticseaice.html
“potentially impacts weather throughout the northern hemisphere,”
They are spreading the usual FUG (fear uncertainty and guilt). Figure 2 here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1256/qj.03.91/asset/200513160608_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=hguv5azq&s=104a88cf239f598e99f594c655ff8bf831c42934 shows the contribution of feedback from baroclinicity which is partially created by the ocean-ice boundary. But there was always an ocean-ice boundary which is now shifted in some cases. The idea that a shift in baroclinic zones would impact weather more than trivially is ludicrous. It is mostly the other way around, the weather patterns including cyclones dictate the baroclinic zones with the exception of a minor amount of feedback to Rossby wave activity.
The global temperature is the equilibrium temperature at which incoming and outgoing energy balance. The climate model projections are based on the incoming energy being constant and the temperature rising because of increased atmospheric insulation from CO2.
OLR measurements show that this is not the case with a net increase in OLR of over 2W/m^2 since 1980 (consistent satellite measurements)
Since TSI has only decreased overall since 1980 the only possible explanation for the increase in OLR is reduced albedo which in turn could only result in a reduction in cloud cover.
Project Earthshine has provided a measure of the Earth’s albedo demonstrating a decrease in albedo to 1997 and an increase since which matches the global temperature perfectly.
All that is needed to make the climate models work is to replace the fabricated CO2 forcing parameter with an albedo forcing parameter and then calibrate the model with an appropriate climate sensitivity factor.
Since CO2 is still increasing but the global temperature has been decreasing since 2002 as long as the CO2 forcing parameter with its unidirectional forcing is in place the models will always produce warming.
On the other hand with albedo changing from decreasing to increasing in 1997 a model based on this parameter will provide a match to observed global temperature changes.
This of course will only help with the short term projections because the longer term global temperature cycles are dependant on factors other than albedo or even CO2.
Could it just be that as was said a quarter of a century ago the geological disturbances in the Arctic area initiate the global changes by altering the ocean currents. After all the climate scientists never took any account of geological effects of biological CO2 cycles in their models which is why real computer modellers had such contempt for them..