![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”
AW the 50 to 1 project I think will eventually be VERY successful and will be used in posterity to define the AGW scam in its entirety… well done . I speculate that MAJOR TV stations will eventually show the interviews with Singer, Evans. I expect the even the BBC, Australian ABC ect when the scam is totally finished probably 2 years from now. The Guy Topher hopefully will become a millionaire he deserves it. The Video interviews will be be viewed by more and more because they are the truth and have been done very professionally so that the commoner can understand them. Type 50 to 1 project Topher you will see all the videos there.
I’ve thought they haven’t been useful for at least thirty years since this thermageddon stuff was just getting started. Three decades of gigo must mean something but I don’t know what given that so many still are desperate to believe in AGW no matter what the evidence. It must be awful to have such a strong need for the world to go to hell.
So does this mean the NSA and Big Climate are going to be fighting over the supercomputers?
cool. they are listening.
I think this is more than a justification for future modeling funds. Seems like it could also be clearing the path to continue justification for radical policy whether the climate behaves according to the models or not.
I expect some statement similar to this will be forthcoming in short order: “It’s not that CO2 isn’t the problem we’ve always said it was. It’s just that the models aren’t accurate enough yet to reflect every nuance of our CO2 induced catastrophically warming planet. We can’t believe the models. But we can believe that CO2 is as evil as we’ve always said it is.”
I sense a crunch coming.
AR5 BS, failed climate models, wild weather claims, calamatologists screeching, ‘goberment’ questions, whitewash plenty, diplomatic language, more consensus (98%+), we must act now!, acid water, hellfire, the end is nigh, doooooom.
a;dofvnaidofnvaidofnv;nbxlm
” meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades.”
Wonderful truthspeak from a government agency when it has just been plain wrong.
I like it. Instead of a whole bunch of researchers explaining why their particular model is right and all the other ones are wrong, we’ll reduce the discussion to all researchers explaining why their one model is right and the earth is wrong.
We will figure it out.. First we have to track and understand everything, then we have to figure out how they interact with each other.. Then you look for a pattern.. My guess is 200 years before we can play god..
Then its likely that the climate sciences itself might bring about greater damage than CO2 could ever dream of.. Messing with earth’s ability to regulate itself.. Lets all hope the people in charge really know what they are talking about, and are not playing politics..
They also need to quit fudging with the historical data or they will never get a working model. Part of the problem, in their zeal to prove we are warming in an unprecedented way, they are destroying the raw data that would help to build those models.
The hole they have dug is filled with money. They don’t want out. They want the hole to be deeper so it will hold more money.
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm
cool. they are listening.
*
No. If you read carefully, you’ll realize they are not listening at all. They are covering their rear ends and/or laying the grounds for their next assault. They are still clinging to the same assumptions that screwed up all the other models. They still want “climate change” (AKA CAGW) to be a policy pusher. It’s still about control. It’s still about funding. They have not learnt a thing and don’t intend to.
Jay Davis says:
September 13, 2013 at 4:23 pm
“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 NAS has erroneously assumed that GCM’s are scientific tools. They are not; they are entirely political tools; and as such, extremely useful from day one; as Carl Sagan could attest, who used a completely unrealistic model to whip up the great Nuclear Winter panic of the early 80ies, which was enormously successful in boosting his book sales and TV career.
http://www.textfiles.com/survival/nkwrmelt.txt
Hang on. As far back as 2010, they were certain they knew what was happening:
“A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities,
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/87-2/
Now, they’re telling us that the models are useless? What a clown car crash!
Bill Illis says:
September 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm
“Climate Science Solution to a problem 101.
The problem is those who deny climate change.”
The climate hasn’t changed a bit in the last 15 years.
The problem are those who deny that it hasn’t.
They are either clinically stupid or criminally corrupt; possibly both.
I find this statement incredible: “Overall, climate modeling has made enormous progress in the past several decades,”
I was taught that X times zero no matter how many times you do it, still equals zero. Progress? The only progress is that quite a few folks doing the modeling have had their mortgages paid by this from the public trough; so to call this progress is absurd .
Why are they among the last to catch on if catching on is in fact what this represents?
This sure reads like a money manifesto to me, where it should be a mea culpa. I love this one, “…U.S. climate modelers will need to address an expanding breadth of scientific problems …”
In fact, they can’t come to terms with the problems inherent in forecasting climate, so what NEW problems does this brain trust propose to tackle?
This is the problem. There is no “the climate”. There are local and regional climates, and they’re changing all the time, within a fairly narrow variable range.
From the winter of 2008 (that’s twenty oh eight, not two thousand and eight) through most of 2012, the US Pacific Northwest was abnormally cool and wet in the spring and summer. During the late fall and early winter months (November and December) we saw a LOT of snow during those years. This past winter we got none to speak of. This summer we’ve been more in the average range for our area. So yeah, climates change constantly.
The problem is we get this stupendously moronic and amazingly useless “global mean temperature” or the like thrown at us all the time, even from this site, which tells us absolutely nothing about climate. It only tells us that taking the mean of a bunch of numbers gives you the mean of a bunch of numbers. Both sides are guilty of this.
Isn’t it crass to discuss the performance of the computer models and not admit how badly they have failed to date to predict the temperatures. You never fix a broken concept unless you acknowledge it’s problems and limitations.
Second, it is indicated that “the models are too coarse to make useful predictions”. Did they tell the taxpayers that when we invested all those dollars in the useless computers? We screwed up, send us some more money. Actually I don’t think they can do any better since they don’t have a grasp on the fundamental equations to put into a model with higher resolution. Since the system is chaotic I don’t think they have a chance especially since they arbitrarily discount natural cycles.
Time to stop the nonsense and discontinue funding such wasteful activities that are destined to fail because of flawed preconceived ideas.
George Box: “All models are wrong but some are useful.” Not climate models.
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm
cool. they are listening.
———
I think I missed that part.
The 294 page report just jumps to the solution of more money and greater resources without even noting that models have failed so far (as in not mentioning it even one single time).
The best solution to the problem appears to be that the NAS should be defunded of all climate change research funding. If you can explain why that is not the solution, please explain why more funding (rather than no funding) will solve whatever problem it is that we are trying to solve.
“….there are still efficiencies to be gained….”
Dear God. Such abuse of the Bard’s language. Clinton would be proud.
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.
Clearly their sense of history stops short of the Medieval Warm Period. Or maybe it just covers the satellite period and conveniently allows them to ignore the Dust Bowl years. These guys need to buy a clue, but giving them cash would be throwing good money after bad.