People send me stuff. Lance Wallace writes:
Anthony, this short “Perspectives” report in Science seems to me to be worthy of a posting in WUWT. Not only is it a very clear indication of crucial problems with the GCMs, it appears in Science magazine, for years a dogged defender of the faith. I’m including the article (paywalled of course) because I think your readers will be blown away by the figure if you can run it.
The authors ran some extremely simplified CMIP5 GCMs, looking only at how they treated water (precipitation, cloud formation), and found extreme differences from one model to the next, as is evident from the figure.
In the final section titled Back to Basics, they make clear that the problem is a fundamental one of not understanding the coupling between water and general circulation. They specifically state it would be better to go towards numerical weather prediction rather than continue to expand the coverage of the GCMs.
By the way, they picked just two aspects–clouds and precipitation–to concentrate on, but they mention a few others, such as sensitivity and arctic amplification of temperature change. Then there are also aerosols, energy balance, and ocean circulation. I could see more examples of models simplified down to each of these aspects in turn and compared to see how they perform. – Lance Wallace
================================================================
Science 31 May 2013:
Vol. 340 no. 6136 pp. 1053-1054
DOI: 10.1126/science.1237554
What Are Climate Models Missing?
Fifty years ago, Joseph Smagorinsky published a landmark paper (1) describing numerical experiments using the primitive equations (a set of fluid equations that describe global atmospheric flows). In so doing, he introduced what later became known as a General Circulation Model (GCM). GCMs have come to provide a compelling framework for coupling the atmospheric circulation to a great variety of processes. Although early GCMs could only consider a small subset of these processes, it was widely appreciated that a more comprehensive treatment was necessary to adequately represent the drivers of the circulation. But how comprehensive this treatment must be was unclear and, as Smagorinsky realized (2), could only be determined through numerical experimentation. These types of experiments have since shown that an adequate description of basic processes like cloud formation, moist convection, and mixing is what climate models miss most.
Full text at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1053.summary (paywalled)
=================================================================
The figure from the article shows how four different models have wide variances on clouds and precipitation.
on the climate model, even in the simplest model confi guration. Shown are changes in the radiative effects of clouds and in precipitation accompanying a uniform warming (4°C) predicted by four models from Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) for a water planet with prescribed surface temperatures.
Clouds and water are central to our global atmospheric processes, and clearly, these models aren’t doing much better than dartboards at figuring out what the real atmospheric score is.
With wide variances like that, no wonder climate models can’t model reality, from Dr. Roy Spencer’s recent post: STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is this something else the climate modelers got wrong? Just speculation as the latest hight tech tools were not available between 1929 to 1940.
Ryan says (June 10, 2013 at 8:57 am): “I spend quite a bit of time reading all kinds of pseudoscience blogs.”
Aha, he has been to Realclimate. 🙂
“I think it is fascinating the way people come to believe absolutely in the weirdest things.”
You could cut the irony with a knife. 🙂
“I think most of the posters here on wuwt could learn a lot about themselves by spending some time in ICR forums.”
No thanks. Creationists remind me too much of climate alarmists.
Hoipefully soimeday people will come to the realization that ALL models, even those honestly attempted, are nothing but artiificial constructs driven by assumptions that can never approach reality.
The AGW crowd presents their models as “evidence,” which they are not. Only physical phenomena, observed and measured, are evidence – and as we all know, the real evidence is ignored or demonized by the alarmists because it quickly proves the falsity of their claims
http://conference2011.wcrp-climate.org/orals/B12/Taylor_B12.pdf
http://www.euclipse.eu/downloads/PresentationsExeter2011/Andrewsetal_CFMIPjune11.pdf
http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/mjuckes/meetings/reading2012/pdf/andrews_feedbacks.pdf
http://atmos.snu.ac.kr/swson/papers/Kim-etal-JGR2013.pdf
lots to read..
http://www.uib.no/People/ngfhd/EarthClim/Publications/Papers/Driscoll_etal_2012.pdf
(Please: we ask for a few words of explanation when posting a link. Thanks. ~mod)
Nice, and a promising new book to read: 6. S. Bony et al. , in
Climate Science for Serving Society:
Research, Modelling and Prediction Priorities
, G. R. Asrar, J. W. Hurrell, Eds. (Springer, Berlin, 2013).
Here is a nice quote from the article: Differences among the simulations in
the fi gure are especially evident in the trop-
ics, where the sign of cloud changes and the
spatial structure of the precipitation response
differ fundamentally between models.
“Sign of cloud changes … differ fundamentally between models.” Who’dathunkit?
Kim: I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
I like that.
Ryan: Which climate models do you think hit closest to home?
That is one question.
Another question: Is any climate model demonstrably reliable enough to support planning for the future? So far the answer is “No”. All the models are too inaccurate to credit, and their proponents offer diverse exculpations for their failures.
As far as models are concerned, this is the only reading kind of that matters:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.1/cam/docs/description/cam5_desc.pdf
Everything else is just fluff. Start at Chapter 2 and keep going. Notice the differential equations that are missing from the fluffy presentations from the Met Office…
If the climate models don’t agree, then they can’t all be right. However, the key question remains — Has any GCM been shown to accurately predict the future climate?
In reply to:
Steven Mosher says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:04 am
http://atmos.snu.ac.kr/swson/papers/Kim-etal-JGR2013.pdf
lots to read..
William:
Yes there is lots to read. And the conclusion of the 2013 paper which you quoted is the general circulation models have a ‘warm bias’ in the tropics that is not observed which supports Douglas et al’s conclusions.
Douglas et al was however more specific about the general circulation model warm bias. The general circulation models had a warm bias of 100% to 300% below 8km. At 8 km where there the GCM predict the most amount of warming the tropical troposphere has cooled rather than warmed.
It should be noted the GCM predict the planet should warm in tropics not in the high latitude regions particularly in the high Northern latitude. James Hansen notes that was one of the ‘surprises’ in his book. That ‘surprise’ also supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle modulation of the planetary clouds rather then the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The past cyclic warming and cooling had a cause. Past solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with past warming and cooling cycles. The past warming occurred in the same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 70 years.
The scientific details concerning how the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary cloud cover is quite interesting. The last solar magnetic cycle change inhibited the two of the mechanisms which makes it appear that low level and high level clouds (cirrus) are no longer modulated by levels of galactic cosmic rays (mostly high speed protons, which strike the atmosphere creating ions. The ions increase the amount of low level clouds and decrease the amount of high level cirrus clouds. Low level clouds cool the planet by reflecting sunlight off into space high level wispy cirrus clouds warm the planet by the greenhouse effect). The inhibiting mechanism only occurs when the is abrupt change in the solar magnetic cycle and explains why there is delay in cooling when there is an abrupt change to solar magnetic cycle.
As I noted there is now observational evidence that same regions that warmed in the last 70 years are starting to cool. What has happened before cooling when there is a slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle will happen again. I would assume you are familiar with the Little Ice age that followed the Medieval Warm period? See the other cyclic warm and cold periods in the Greenland Ice sheet data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions ….
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
William: This is a link to an excerpt from the paper Steve Mosher quoted.
http://atmos.snu.ac.kr/swson/papers/Kim-etal-JGR2013.pdf
The climatology, seasonality, and intraseasonal to interannual variability of the tropical tropopause layer (TTL) temperature field are examined using the state of the art climate models that participated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase (CMIP 5 ).
Nevertheless, the models have several notable limitations. First, almost all models have a warm bias in the climatological mean temperature in the TTL in the deep tropics (Fig. 1). Second, large inter model differences occur in the amplitude of the seasonal cycle in the TTL temperature (Fig. 3). Third, many models overestimate tropical lower stratospheric warming associated with volcanic aerosols (Fig. 4). Fourth, the amplitudes and phase speeds of equatorial waves are highly variable among the models (Fig. 7). Finally, a realistic QBO and MJO are missing in most of the models.
William: This is the paper by Douglas et al, that notes the GCM models incorrectly model the tropics. There is no amplification in the tropics and as Lindzen and Choi found clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist a forcing change. Bummer of the warmists. It appears they do not care if the science does not support their position. It appears they have not consider what will be the implications if the planet cools and everyone finds out by observation the warmist hypothesis is false.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
“(Please: we ask for a few words of explanation when posting a link. Thanks. ~mod)”
You must understand that the Great and Powerful Mosh is accustomed to confer, converse, and otherwise hobnob only with his brother wizards, to whom a gesture, a syllable, or a single link conveys volumes of ordinary mortal discourse. In short, he is in need of a spokesperson. Times being what they are, I’m auditioning for that very position, so I shall attempt to summarize the first three links (the only ones I’ve checked so far):
1) After decades of trying, the modeling community has not reduced the range of possible climate sensitivities;
2) The main disagreements among the models are related to clouds;
3) Send more money.
Ryan says:
June 10, 2013 at 8:57 am
I think it is fascinating the way people come to believe absolutely in the weirdest things.
Exactly. And the weirdest thing of all that people believe in is Manmade Climate Change. The lack of evidence for it only seems to make them Believe even harder. It’s bizarre, the way they cling to it. We skeptics/climate realists prefer reality. Different strokes, I guess.
@ur momisugly Ryan
Why do you think its necessary for “us” to have models? All we are doing is presenting data, the onus is on you to present proof of your hypothesis that we are affecting the planet in the manner you claim…
Our stand is that we do not have enough data to present a valid climate model.
You are claiming your models predict into the future. Yet this claim has been falsified on ~70 climate models.
So far your models dont line up with the real world data that we are presenting. What could go wrong….
Moderator! Where is the moderator!?
At 6/09/6:05 pm, Master_Of_Puppets posted an open incitement to mass murder.
No [/sarc] flag in evidence.
I’m weighing in with Pamela Gray 6/09/9:11 pm, rogerknights at 6/09/9:32 pm, Don at 6/09/9:44 pm, andrewmharding at 6/10/12:04 am and Matthew W at 6/10/7:40am. Please take out the trash.
REPLY: Fixed, Anthony
rgbatduke
With the growing trend of the jet stream moving south here in europe, then there is a real treat of the gulf stream moving south as well. Because l think its was this very set up over many years is the thing what caused the ice age in europe. Because as the jet stream moved south it drew the trade wind to the south as well. Which in turn made the gulf stream flow across the Atlantic further to the south.
This set up over a number of years would of brought climate cooling in europe for the ice sheets to expand south.
Gary Hladik,
Mosh is a model guy. He means well. But the models all fail.
Ryan says:
June 10, 2013 at 8:53 am
“Ryan has just expressed his blind faith in the deity of “models”.”
That’s actually the opposite of what I said. Are the models perfect? No, and nobody say they are. Are they better than non-existent sceptic models? Yea. Does every paper showing a problem in the models suggest we should toss them out? Lol no. It shows that the science is honest.
This is equivalent to an assertion that a bad model is better than no model. It also a serious fallacy. A “bad model” employed during a sailing trip or a wilderness hike could easily be a problem, even a fatal one. Consider the “models” that went into designing the racing yacht that recently failed catastrophically during trials for the America’s Cup competition. Models bias expectations. Bad models bias them badly.
The point of the criticism of GCMs here is that they have no predictive skill. In fact they don’t have hindcast skill either and need to be “tuned” to match even the known past. The sole conclusion that can be drawn regarding this is that our actual understanding of the planetary energy budget is to poor to be relied on to create a working – as in a useful – model. It is as useful for understanding climate as Ptolemaic astronomy would be for placing an orbiter around Mars, that is, “not at all.” A bad model is useless, no matter how “tuned” it is, or how often.
Dr. James Hansen on climate models – 16 May 2013
What about Antarctica?
FAIL. In the meantime have you seen what the stubborn Arctic sea ice extent is doing currently? Yeah, it may all melt away mid September but it is interesting.
@ur momisuglyBrant Ra says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:55 pm
@ur momisugly Ryan
Why do you think its necessary for “us” to have models? All we are doing is presenting data, the onus is on you to present proof of your hypothesis that we are affecting the planet in the manner you claim…
Our stand is that we do not have enough data to present a valid climate model.
You are claiming your models predict into the future. Yet this claim has been falsified on ~70 climate models.
So far your models dont line up with the real world data that we are presenting. What could go wrong….
+++++++++++
Let me add a little meat to help fortify your good statements.
you wrote: “Our stand is that we do not have enough data to present a valid climate model.”
More than not enough data, models used by the IPCC choose what data they want (they do not use ENSO else they’d find out that the oceans are responsible for most of it), and then adjust things so that it can be shown that CO2 done it.
you also wrote: “So far your models dont line up with the real world data that we are presenting.”
The models did worse than if they were random guesses. If you average them together they also miss the target. The only ones close, are the ones where CO2 would have to have been far lower than today. If they want to trumpet how well a couple of the models have done, they would also have to admit that those models which came close, are clear evidence that CO2 does not have an affect on climate.
Jimbo 4.18 pm: Look at Arctic mean temperatures: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
UK daytime peak yesterday was well below normal. The Met Office has delayed putting out May temperature data because they were so low!