![climate-model-1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/climate-model-11.jpg?quality=83)
Computer models that simulate the climate are an integral part of providing climate information, in particular for future changes in the climate. Overall, climate modeling has made enormous progress in the past several decades, but meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades.
…
The fundamental science of greenhouse gas-induced climate change is simple and compelling. However, genuine and important uncertainties remain (e.g., the response of clouds,
ecosystems, and the polar regions) and need to be considered in developing scientifically based strategies for societal response to climate change.
Description:
As climate change has pushed climate patterns outside of historic norms, the need for detailed projections is growing across all sectors, including agriculture, insurance, and emergency preparedness planning. A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling emphasizes the needs for climate models to evolve substantially in order to deliver climate projections at the scale and level of detail desired by decision makers, this report finds. Despite much recent progress in developing reliable climate models, there are still efficiencies to be gained across the large and diverse U.S. climate modeling community. Evolving to a more unified climate modeling enterprise-in particular by developing a common software infrastructure shared by all climate researchers and holding an annual climate modeling forum-could help speed progress.
Throughout this report, several recommendations and guidelines are outlined to accelerate progress in climate modeling. The U.S. supports several climate models, each conceptually similar but with components assembled with slightly different software and data output standards. If all U.S. climate models employed a single software system, it could simplify testing and migration to new computing hardware, and allow scientists to compare and interchange climate model components, such as land surface or ocean models. A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling recommends an annual U.S. climate modeling forum be held to help bring the nation’s diverse modeling communities together with the users of climate data. This would provide climate model data users with an opportunity to learn more about the strengths and limitations of models and provide input to modelers on their needs and provide a venue for discussions of priorities for the national modeling enterprise, and bring disparate climate science communities together to design common modeling experiments.
In addition, A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling explains that U.S. climate modelers will need to address an expanding breadth of scientific problems while striving to make predictions and projections more accurate. Progress toward this goal can be made through a combination of increasing model resolution, advances in observations, improved model physics, and more complete representations of the Earth system. To address the computing needs of the climate modeling community, the report suggests a two-pronged approach that involves the continued use and upgrading of existing climate-dedicated computing resources at modeling centers, together with research on how to effectively exploit the more complex computer hardware systems expected over the next 10 to 20 years.
h/t to Steve Milloy of junkscience.com
Related articles
- Global warming wildly off (foxnews.com)
- Climate models over predicted global warming (indiavision.com)
See also this video from Bob Tisdale: A Video Preview of “Climate Models Fail”
National Academy of Sciences: climate models still ‘decades away’ from being useful
Yep!
let me guess……they will need more funding to work on this problem.
Step 1 in sorting out today’s climate computer programs would be to outlaw the practice of having pre-determined results in order to get ‘research’ funding.
This question needs to be answered – If they are still decades away from being useful, why then are they being used to tax us and price electricity out of reach of the common man?
“The fundamental science of greenhouse gas-induced climate change is simple and compelling. ”
compelling — synonyms: coercive, compulsory. Fundamentalist, to be sure. Just not fundamental science.
“However, genuine and important uncertainties remain …”
Translation: We don’t know the boundary conditions or attractors of our chaotic system.
“… and need to be considered in developing scientifically based strategies for societal response to climate change.”
Perpetual motion machines are scientifically based also. But ‘based on science’ doesn’t necessitate ‘science.’ Just something in a white smock; much like when the Pop takes off the funky hat.
One would think that the indictments against climate alarmism have reached the point of being impossible to ignore, yet that’s just what’s happening to them.
The body should have recommended that all government funded model codes be placed in the public domain.
Is this a gentle row back from an alarmist position?
Will the IPCC recognise this?
Decades away in a world where time is money? Think think think – what could that mean? Keep the gravy coming, maybe. Surely nobody is going to suggest we not have a solid understanding of the greatest challenge to mankind (/snarc), so dig deep and often.
The National Academy of Modeling “Sciences” can’t even get the “Description” right. GIGO!
Translation: “We’ve blown tens of $ billions on worthless climate models. We think we can do better. We’ll need tens more $ billions and lots of time. This is very exciting and rewarding work!”
Looks like just another puff piece to justify more funding to me. e.g.: “… U.S. climate modelers will need to address an expanding breadth of scientific problems while striving to make predictions and projections more accurate.”
More from Junkscience:
But AR5 is almost ready. What to do?
PS I have to wonder about the “Enormous progress has been made in the past several decades in improving the utility and robustness of climate models”. What is their use when they have failed?
Overall, climate modeling has made enormous progress in the past several decades
And how exactly did they measure that progress?
IMO, all they have done is fall into the widespread error in computing circles that increasing complexity is progress.
Throwing good money after bad is never wise.
All GCMs fail because the grid scale resolution you post (same image used in my book) is far too coarse to resolve things like tropical thunderstorm convection cells (which is why GCMs cannot resolve Lindzens adaptive iris, and therefore why CMIP5 still gets the water vapor feedback wrong, therefore why they still predict an equatorial troposphere hot spot when there isn’t one), or clouds.
This is inherent in the most powerful supercomputers, which are a couple of orders of magnitude not powerful enough to be able to adequately model these necessary phenomena on suitable small gridscales. Leaked AR5 WG1 SOD Chapter 7 (clouds) even said they may never be powerful enought to do so, before concluding that cloud feedback was significantly positive based on (and this is a direct quote) “unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for.”
IPCC cargo cult science.
So this formal appeal for GCM consolidation has very little real appeal. First rule of holes if you are in one and want out: stop digging.
Public Policy Solution to a problem 101.
Define problem.
Explanation of potential causes of the problem.
Assessment of the likelihood of each potential cause contributing to the problem.
Examine alternatives to resolve the likely cause(s) of the problem.
Implement alternatives that are feasible and more likely to produce a resolution.
Examine results and go back to step 1.
———-
Climate Science Solution to a problem 101.
The problem is those who deny climate change.
More funding and a national strategy will “blank / as in nothing is in this space” in the far distant future.
“As climate change has pushed climate patterns outside of historic norms, the need for detailed projections is growing across all sectors, including agriculture, insurance, and emergency preparedness planning.”
That first sentence shows they haven’t learned the lesson of preconceived end points prior to starting.. Did they do some science to find out if it really was outside norms?
I’m sorry but when the opening line is the party line the rest doesn’t have a whole lot of meaning.
So according to the National Academy of Sciences “decision makers” are
which have failed. Do decisions arising from such reliance lead to ‘good’ outcomes? I don’t know, you decide but Policy Makers be warned. You might end up looking like fools. Actually, many of you are fools. Fooled by what looked like a walkover. It’s not so simple is it.
““The fundamental science of greenhouse gas-induced climate change is simple and compelling. ”
Ummm… Until they get away from this baseless idea, they are doomed to failure.
You mean they’ve said, “Dang! We’ve dropped the ball this time around. Give us MORE MONEY and we’ll lay the foundations for the next time through, this time with super-duper models upgraded to the pinnacle of understanding, guaranteed to bring you Whatever Truth you PAY for, this time with a Whole Host of Ready-Made Excuses for When It Doesn’t Work.”
…Or am I just being cynical?
Fail. No need to read any further.
I got an “F” last week in school. I made enormous progress and still got an “F” today. Have I made progress? Yes, but I am still useless.
Simple and compelling. These two words get tossed around a lot in association with a multi-dimensional chaotic heat-engine that the tossers pretend to understand. Compelling, alright. “We compel you to believe this, or else”
IS THIS A JOKE OR A SCAM??? What!!!!!
I could hit this thread with lots of references to expose this nonsense but today I will hold off.
How much funding does the NAS receive each year?
“National Academy of Sciences: climate models still ‘decades away’ from being useful”
Where exactly did they say the models are still ‘decades away’ form being useful?