From the Georgia Institute of Technology:
Looking at El Niño’s past to predict its future
The El Niño Southern Oscillation is Earth’s main source of year-to-year climate variability, but its response to global warming remains highly uncertain.
Scientists see a large amount of variability in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) when looking back at climate records from thousands of years ago. Without a clear understanding of what caused past changes in ENSO variability, predicting the climate phenomenon’s future is a difficult task. A new study shows how this climate system responds to various pressures, such as changes in carbon dioxide and ice cover, in one of the best models used to project future climate change.
“All of the natural climate fluctuations are in this model, and what we see is that the El Niño responds to every single one of these, significantly,” said Kim Cobb, an associate professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
The El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenomenon controls how the climate changes in the tropics (and also influences weather patterns elsewhere, including the United States).
The study was sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). The study was published November 27 in the journal Nature.
In the study, researchers analyzed a series of transient Coupled General Circulation Model simulations forced by changes in greenhouse gases, orbital forcing, meltwater discharge and the ice-sheet history throughout the past 21,000 years. This is farthest in the past that this model has been run continuously, which required supercomputers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the National Center for Atmospheric Research to be dedicated to the simulation for months.
Some key findings of the new simulations of El Niño over the past 21,000 years:
- Strengthening ENSO over the current interglacial period, caused by increasing positive ocean-atmosphere feedbacks
- ENSO characteristics change drastically in response to meltwater discharges during early deglaciation
- Increasing deglacial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tend to weaken ENSO
- Retreating glacial ice sheets intensify ENSO
“The model gives some very clear predictions that are very much in line with some of the best understandings of the physics controlling the El Niño system,” Cobb said. “It shows that this climate system in the model is sensitive to a variety of different natural climate changes that occurred over the last 21,000 years.”
In order to understand how El Niño responds to various climate forces, researchers test model predictions of past El Niño changes against actual records of past ENSO activity. Kim Cobb published several such records, including a large fossil coral dataset published in Science last year.
“The more we can close the loop between what this model says happened in the past and what the data say happened in the past, then we can project forward our improved understanding to understand future El Niño,” Cobb said.
This research is supported by the National Science Foundation, under award number NSFC41130105, and the Department of Energy, under award number MOST2012CB955200. Any conclusions or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsoring agencies.
###
CITATION: Zhengyu Liu, et al., “Evolution and forcing mechanisms of El Niño over the past 21,000 years.” (Nature, November 2014). http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13963.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not sure how the model could possibly differentiate between “Increasing deglacial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tend to weaken ENSO” and “retreating glacial ice sheets intensify ENSO.”
Conclusion: GIGO is becoming more sophisticated.
Tea leaves may be more scientific. Oh – Tarot may be easier to model.
Yeah – it’s a model.
But – the article, or press release – above does at least say : –
QUOTE
In order to understand how El Niño responds to various climate forces, researchers test model predictions of past El Niño changes against actual records of past ENSO activity. Kim Cobb published several such records, including a large fossil coral dataset published in Science last year.
“The more we can close the loop between what this model says happened in the past and what the data say happened in the past, then we can project forward our improved understanding to understand future El Niño,” Cobb said.
END QUOTE.
Testing against actual data –
[I don’t know if this was homogenised data, or not; the last quote could be taken either way – change the data [that is – homogenise it] to make the models look better –
or –
change the models to more closely approach, if you like, ‘to better model’, what actually happened].
They are working with models certainly, but – it seems – with one version (or more) of real data – so one cheer – at least – for that!
And might it have been clearer – yes.
And I’m sure many of you think that about this post of mine, fair do’s!
Auto
I suggest they ask Bob Tisdale. It will be cheaper and require no more than one person.
I would bet that their results would be closer to reality if they removed the greenhouse forcing.
Meanwhile fossils fuel energy used for months to run the “best” models.
If they truely know which are the best models, why waste time on the others?
There is no way that the model can work as designed. It needs a super-duper-mega-computer to do all its zillions of calculations, all based on tiny little time-space slices. It is well known that such models diverge exponentially from reality. The only factor keeping these models within the bounds of reality are the controlling factors which force the model to stay within reach of what is already known to have happened. In other words, the models can hindcast just fine, because it is known what the climate did over the period being calculated and they have enough controlling parameters to keep it in line. [No, they don’t know in detail what the climate did over that period, but that doesn’t matter because all they have to do is make the model reult match what they thought happened].
As has been pointed out by Steve McIntyre and others repeatedly, the model isn’t tested until it runs beyond the “sample” period. Only then can it be seen whether the model works. But it is well known that the model can’t work, and this has been demonstrated extremely convincingly by the weather models, which can only predict weather successsfully a few days ahead. After that, the exponential divergence simply becomes too great. The “climate models” are exactly the same – they necessarily diverge disastrously after a few days.
From a PR perspective, the only way the model can be used successfully is to do a hindcast over a sample period that runs to today, then immediately publish the results (which will look really really good) and the predictions. That is exactly what has been done in this case. After publication, you do NOT wait to see if the predictions were accurate – you know that they can’t be except by fluke – instead you start another run of the model, so that in a while you can make another breathtaking announcement.
And that is how climate modelling has always operated.
PS, I put “climate models” in quotes above, because they aren’t really climate models. They are only weather models. A real climate model (they don’t yet exist) would operate very differently.
That does make a whole of sense…… Much of this seems confusing in a manner of our poorly written daily newspapers.
“in one of the best models used to project future climate change.” And “All of the natural climate fluctuations are in this model, and what we see is that the El Niño responds to every single one of these, significantly,”. In other words “The best useless model that still can not project the future climate change” and “natural climate change fluctuations we have knowledge about aprox 5%, are in the model”. This is just crazy?
Again, “The model tells us” and this is the latest and greatest model with 10^15th simulation runs on the latest and greatest computer.
This is the trumpet blare of the climateers.
These clowns do not understand what is going on until their oracle instructs them.
Your tax dollars at work.
Naysayer. This is the most bestest model eveeeeeeeer.
On a separate but related note, my little niece is now on her “pull my finger” phase. In just a few short years, I will teach her how to turn those mad skillz into grant applications.
First sentence: “The El Niño Southern Oscillation is Earth’s main source of year-to-year climate variability, …”
Third bullet: “Increasing deglacial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tend to weaken ENSO”
So, according to this study, ENSO is the MAIN SOURCE of CLIMATE CHANGE,
and
INCREASING CO2 tends to WEAKEN ENSO.
CONCLUSION: If climate change is bad, then more atmospheric CO2 is good.
Ira Glickstein
CONCLUSION: If climate change is BAD, then more atmospheric CO2 is GOOD
Conversely, if more atmospheric CO2 is BAD, then climate change is GOOD
This is a great study! Heads we Skeptics win, tails they Alarmists lose.
Ira
The AGW advocates should learn to like or love the CO2 gas, and if it was responsible for a part of the rising temperatures since the end of 19th century, even more so. In my view global warming (along with the advances in technology and medicine) is the best thing that happened to the humanity during the last 100+ years. – vukcevic at RC blog
only one lukewarm protestation from the hottest of the warmists
But hey, if we’re going to imagine that global warming is the best thing for humanity since, well, ever, then why strain at a couple of logical ‘gnats’?
Ira – you’re right – the implication is that CO2 causes cooling.
ENSO pumps equatorial heat polewards.
If CO2 slows ENSO then CO2 cools. And AGW sucks.
BTW ENSO is slowing now.
no it is climate variability, it is quite clear…. when climate changes naturally, it is climate variablility and when climate changes, it is climate change. and well when climate variability changes, for instance when climate doesn’t change anymore, it is climate change.
(Spoken with a British accent) “…and changes in these other changes changes climate changes…and so on and so forth…”
Perfectly clear in the gnostic AR5 chapter 9 verse 2 text which only climate change gorus are allowed to properly translate with regard to changes.
End Monty Python vignette.
Wonder if I could get a government job doing “Climate Variability Counseling”?
More models! Again based on false assumptions of physics. Again with poor ability to simulate the past, despite being able to retrofit the data to the model and once again, completely useless at predicting the future.
Someone please turn off the money tap!
The climate system in the model may indeed be sensitive, but only because of assumptions, particularly about CO2, or other greenhouse gases. I highly doubt these new models can forecast much of anything.
The forecast nearly everything by definition.
Pedantic much? Do you think he meant accurately?
Doesn’t make sense to me. Anyone have an idea what it means?
“All of the natural climate fluctuations are in this model,”
Cloud cover?????????
“All of the natural climate fluctuations are in this model…” said Kim Cobb, an associate professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
Really? How do they know that? How can anyone take them seriously when they make a statement like that?
It’s like “All of the natural climate fluctuations are in” the climate we are experiencing today, we just don’t know what all of them are or how they interact to create the present situation. But they’re in there. I need a grant so I can study how to get grants.
As they are playing video games, perhaps they meant “All your base are belong to us”
As good as anything else.
Garbage in -> Propaganda out
GIPO = Gypo!
That’s racially offensive.
Nothing personal here. I just note that “Gypo” refers to an ethic group and associates them with inauthenticity.
When you think about it, do you think these connotations you are promoting should be promoted?
I’m PC for thought through reasons.
What you do is who you are. If the truth – however negative – hurts, stop doing it. Some are becoming so PC and label-sensitive, that eventually we won’t be able to call criminals by their correct label.
Here are some interesting El Nino studies from the past. I see the same? Kim Cobb above, below too.
Most climate models cannot simulate the basic coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause El Nino and La Nina events, or that couple the ocean and atmosphere in the tropical Pacific. Unless those basic flaws have been corrected, they would undermine the entire study, making it simply a study of a planet that has no relationship to Earth.
To be kind, and I believe we should be, replacing ‘has no relationship’ with ‘has, at best, a tenuous relationship…’
Bob’s right. No relationship. But Bob’s wrong . No planet.
Coupled GCM’s is all I had to see to hit the BS button.
Who gets to review the code on these models anyhow?
“the wheels on the bus go round and around” etc…
Much like investing, “past performance is no guarantee of future performance”. I once read a really good article on-line about how using past records to “tune” a simulation is no guarantee that it will perform in the future, because it is inherently unpredictable. There are too many variables for a model to deal with effectively and accurately, it’s just as good as reading tea leaves.
“Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”
Maybe it should be “model performance is no guarantee of future or past results”?
One wonders sometimes if Climate Modellers actually understand much about computer modelling. Even if the model does replicate what they think the past has been it proves nothing. It cannot be proved that such replication is using the correct initial conditions as input to the correct computational methods to produce the correct output. Such replication may be accomplished but it will be by tweaking and fine-tuning to get a specific result which will prove nothing about the future. In fact, given all the unknown parameters that determine climate we can quite confidently assert that the models do NOT reflect reality and probably cannot be made to do so anytime soon.
This has been their premise for eveah . “If we can fiddle about with the model for long enough and get it’s output to look something like the past then we can be 100% sure we can forecast the future with tha model”.
Climate stupidity in a nutshell.
All true, but you forgot that he who controls the present, can rewrite the past. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/the-most-blatant-ipcc-fraud-of-all/
Really? Their computer model results are in line with the understanding that they programmed into the model? That’s really amazing! And so meaningful! Their predictions agree with their predictions! It proves so much! Here, take all of my money and tell me how to live my life!
I suppose that if we lived in that model, I’d give a rats ass about the climate system in that model.
People that say stuff like this should not be permitted to make or use models.
Yet these same GCMs struggle at predicting beyond two days in the future for present day weather events and rely on both model consensus and reiterative runs to establish a guess at what the immediate future might look like. Nice try, but just more ex[ensive BS!
ex[ernsive = expensive
Kim Cobb’s earlier work has to invalidate Kim’s current work or the current work invalidates Kim’s earlier work. The summary of Kim’s work invalidates Kim. That is self-documented here where she exposes her Gruber moment:
Good grief!
Gobsmacking!
Dangerous social climber. Slept her way into a very warm spot under the Sun, and won’t give it up even if she needs to rip the throats of all who threaten her funding. Good thing I’d never end up in the same boat with her somewhere in the Pacific. Imagine, how shrill is her laughter when she is drunk, doing her “science” on some atoll beach?
Yes dp, our miss has done a flip-flop and is stuck with it. A rambling wreck she is.
There’s nothing wrong with changing your opinion if you have new knowledge.
Now I’m not sure that computer models add any knowledge other than validation of an opinion but changing ones opinion on the basis of a model output is not necessarily feeble-minded.
If the opinion is modelled and found to be unrealistic then model another opinion.
No shame in that call.
She doesn’t have new knowledge. She has new funding.
She sure gets out a lot of words for each breath.
Al Gore? Seriously?
I learned three things from this:
1. there were el Ninos in paleo-history before CO2 was invented. who knew?
2. you can see the remote control antenna sticking out of the back of her head. I think this may be a not-very-sophisticated android programmed to regurgigate alarmist propaganda.
3. they get to do a lot of travelling to lovely and warm places. nice work if you can get it!
One of my closest Ohio boyhood friends went to GIT while I went to CITand he once told me about the Georgia Cracker who sent his son to GIT and then on Thanksgiving vacation asked his son, “Boy, what they learnin you at that expensive school?” The boy said, “Well Pa, I’m learnin algebra and geometry and calculus. ” His Pa said, “Son, say somethin to me in Geometry”. The boy said, ” Well Pa, Pi R squared. ” His Pa looked at him real close and said, “Boy, pie are round, cornbread are square”. Obviously figuring he was wasting his money at that school.
Meanwhile the best minds at NOAA/CPC remain perplexed as to why El NiNO hasn’t occurred during the last 10 months of El Nino Watch. Oh well maybe by winter they say.
So how is this all inclusive model doing forecasting this year’s conditions?
Well, the Saturday night letter writers did themselves proud; I don’t recall a better series of cogent responses from our skeptic brothers.
They brought more to the discussion than you did. Most of us are skeptics because of studies like these. Instead of causing scientific advance, they always imply better results if researchers are given more money for further study. Useable results never happen. Yet such studies become the tools of socialists and fascists who want to shape national and international policies based on them. The result is dangerous concentrations of political power and the waste of billions of dollars that could be used to address real environmental and human problems. In short, these models are a source of political and economic power for people who don’t care about the problems of humanity living in a real world. They are only about concentrating power in the hands of people who see themselves as the elites of the world. This will only end badly. It’s a disastrous misuse of computing power.
Succinctly stated. Excellent.
I had predicted that we were going to have another polar vortex this Winter like we did last Winter based on the rebound in arctic ice the last two years. NOAA predicted against it, instead predicting a strong El Nino event. It appears quite likely now we will have another strong polar vortex based on the extreme snow events and cold temperatures we’ve had in the U.S. and Europe, while a strong El Nino seems very unlikely if we have an El Nino at all.
If climate scientists had taken note of the strong rebound in polar ice instead of trying to disregard it concentrating only on the ice decline in the prior years their forecasts would have been more accurate. It is notable in this Georgia research they are taking into account the amount of polar ice in their predictions of El Nino events. But I think another key factor they should specifically take into account is the presence of polar vortex events.
Their interrelation should actually be apparent. They both occur in Winter. And while the polar vortex leads to lower northern hemisphere temperatures, El Nino leads to higher ones. In fact it maybe if we have a strong polar vortex we CAN NOT have a strong El Nino event.
Bob Clark
It makes no difference what they do and don’t take into account. Their results will always be wrong (except by fluke) until they understand the underlying mechanisms.
Bob – interesting possibility about el Nino and polar vortices being exclusive.
Antarctica and its vicinity are also now persistently cool and I suspect that this dampens the chances of sn el Nino also.
This would presume that they are actually capable of incorporating these data in their models. I do not have the expectation that they have the understanding that would enable them to do so.
The sad thing is we have only been able to detect el Ninos since about the mid 1990’s when sensing buoys were first dropped into the pacific ocean. This was pre-argo. Before then there were only guesses based on the wrong type of crabs appearing on beaches and such. How we can extrapolate derailed 100000 year models based on less than 20 years of data is just wild.
I remember reading an article in 1997 about that famous El Nino starting. It was in the San Jose Mercury News , which was already into Eco alarmism. It mentioned, this was the earliest an el nino was ever detected (shock!) Without explaining, that it was, at the time, the first and only el nino ever detected due to new technologies (the buoys and satellites that could measure sea level)
Even the short term dynamical ENSO models suck at it. Dynamical climate models don’t have a chance in hell. The best we have are the statistical models that use analogue ENSO events from the recent past, but even those are no good 3 months out.
What this paper really says is if you give us more big grant money we can continue to live in the manner we are now accustomed to and continue to pretend we are going to produce valuable results by enhancing our garbage producing models. GIGO will continue to rule.
… and keep the supercomputer centers running in those states/congressional districts.
In my time in the USAF, I saw acquisitions of systems the military didn’t want or need, but we got them anyway due to Congressional pork politics. Paying for and operating a system that is it’s own justification without external utility was called, “A self-licking ice cream cone.“
Garbage In –> Garbage Out –> Load of S*** = GIGOLOS
I like models. Especially in bikinis, and from behind.
Uh…gigolos are guys. I don’t think many of the readers here would want to see one in a bikini. (Something fundamentally wrong there. Just like CAGW climate “science”.)
But I like the acronym.
😎