Info on Climate Models

[Johnny Punani]

Good read...

Global Cooling Consistent With Global Warming

For a while now I've been asking climate scientists to tell me what could be observed in the real world that would be inconsistent with forecasts (predictions, projections, etc.) of climate models, such as those that are used by the IPCC. I've long suspected that the answer is "nothing" and the public silence from those in the outspoken climate science community would seem to back this up. Now a paper in Nature today (PDF) suggests that cooling in the world's oceans could that the world may cool over the next 20 years few decades , according to Richard Woods who comments on the paper in the same issue, "temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere", and this would not be inconsistent with predictions of longer-term global warming. more...

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001413global_cooling_consi.html

On a side note: I would bet that the "10 year cooling period" will be more like 20-30 because of an already studied, natural, and cyclical climatic pattern called the PDO or Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

[Sarge]

But, but, but........I thought we were all going to die a hot, miserable death tomorrow?

[SkinsGuy]

But, but, but........I thought we were all going to die a hot, miserable death tomorrow?

It was called on a count of snow.

[Thiebear]

We must prevent this cooling so we can get back on track.

[Smoot Point Really]

But, but, but........I thought we were all going to die a hot, miserable death tomorrow?

You mean... "The Day After Tomorrow"...

[speardog1]

temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"

[SkinsHokieFan]

Damnit, I want my global warming

[DeanCollins]

Random thread to distract from the oil/gas crisis, brought to you by "W" and company

[Popeman38]

Random thread to distract from the oil/gas crisis, brought to you by "W" and company

Crisis? And it is W's fault so he needs to distract? Please prove.

[Smoot Point Really]

Random thread to distract from the oil/gas crisis, brought to you by "W" and company

DISTRACT!!! I guess I know where you get your cue cards from...

[chomerics]

Sorry Johnny, but this tells us nothing more than the UofC is anti global warming, which they have been since the onset. Also, this does not detract anything from global warming, it recognizes it, and says that it expects the greenhouse gasses to cause a temporary cooling effect before taking off again, so how again does this detract?

[China]

Good read...

On a side note: I would bet that the "10 year cooling period" will be more like 20-30 because of an already studied, natural, and cyclical climatic pattern called the PDO or Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Johnny, are you a meteorologist? Do you use any of these models, or does your work only involve shorter term forecasting? Am I to take it that you agree witht the contention of the author that these climate models are essentially worthless except as a tool for generating predictions for political use?

I would generally agree with the premise that if nothing is inconsistent with global warming in these models then the models are flawed.

For a while now I've been asking climate scientists to tell me what could be observed in the real world that would be inconsistent with forecasts (predictions, projections, etc.) of climate models, such as those that are used by the IPCC. I've long suspected that the answer is "nothing" and the public silence from those in the outspoken climate science community would seem to back this up.

Who is the author, and does he have interactions with the modelers? That is, are the people doing the modeling even hearing his criticism? He says that he has asked them, is that just through his web writing or is he being personnally ignored (i.e., does he know them and talk to them in person?) If they are ignoring him in person, that seems a bit strange. I would think if that were the case then either they think he's got no standing or credibility or that he is in fact correct and they are afraid or don't have a good answer.

[Sarge]

I think I'll file a class action suit against AlGORE, Prince Charles, Ed Begley, Leonardo Decaprio and all the other loons for the mental anguish I've gone through these last few years thinking I was going to die a slow, hideious death with the crop dust in my mouth slowly choking the life out of me

[Johnny Punani]

Sorry Johnny, but this tells us nothing more than the UofC is anti global warming, which they have been since the onset. Also, this does not detract anything from global warming, it recognizes it, and says that it expects the greenhouse gasses to cause a temporary cooling effect before taking off again, so how again does this detract?

It detracts because none of the IPCC models forecasted a drop in global temps. Also, you need to re-read what the impetus is for the drop in global temps. It isn't "greenhouse gasses" but the 30 year PDO cycle.

[Johnny Punani]

Johnny, are you a meteorologist? Do you use any of these models, or does your work only involve shorter term forecasting? Am I to take it that you agree witht the contention of the author that these climate models are essentially worthless except as a tool for generating predictions for political use?

I would generally agree with the premise that if nothing is inconsistent with global warming in these models then the models are flawed.

Who is the author, and does he have interactions with the modelers? That is, are the people doing the modeling even hearing his criticism? He says that he has asked them, is that just through his web writing or is he being personnally ignored (i.e., does he know them and talk to them in person?) If they are ignoring him in person, that seems a bit strange. I would think if that were the case then either they think he's got no standing or credibility or that he is in fact correct and they are afraid or don't have a good answer.

I am a hydrometeorologist tech/meteorlogist tech whatever term you want to use. I work with the raw surface data that is the basis of all forecasting models. If you look in the comments on the blog there is someone who works has the technical background to comment directly on the models themselves.

"This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy."

As someone who has been involved with computational fluid mechanics, numerical analysis, and software design for most of my professional career (20+ years), I believe you have hit the nail on the head here.

I have studied some of the climate codes and, while many (like CAM 3 at NCAR) appear to be well documented and reasonably well tested, others (like model E at the NASA GISS) are not. I have not found any detailed descriptions of these codes where they relate the differential equations and supporting parameterizations (e.g. tracers, cloud and ocean models, etc.) they are purportedly solving to ** specific ** subroutines and functions contained in the codes. It is also not clear what validation and verification tests have been done on individual subroutines.

In the end, most of what I see are research grade codes of various qualities - that is, those codes that have the source listings available online (most do not, for whatever reason). Consequently, I am personally very cautious about the predictive claims made by the code's authors...

Frank

[Jumbo]

JP, I was listening to a very "well-respected" relevant scientist speaking on this very matter on local radio yesterday (Richard something--but I don't think it was "Woods"--he has a new book out) and I apologize for not knowing who he is automatically or remebering his name (I tired to find a pen in the car and couldn't) and he was very convincing, reasonable and authoritative. It was an excellent and intelligent interview, with no partisan politics or academic back-biting involved. I confess his dialogue appealed to my current leanings on the matter. They also mentioned Project Petition:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

What's your take on that "movement" ?

[Special K]

Thanks for the article. I'm going to print it out and bring it to my environmental health class...should provide for some interesting discussion.

[Johnny Punani]

JP, I was listening to a very "well-respected" relevant scientist speaking on this very matter on local radio yesterday (Richard something--he has a new book out) and I apologize for not knowing who he is automatically or remebering his name (I tired to find a pen in the car and couldn't) and he was very convincing, reasonable and authoritative. It was an excellent and intelligent interview, with no partisan politics or academic back-biting involved. I confess his dialogue appealed to my current leanings on the matter. They also mentioned Project Petition:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

What's your take on that "movement" ?

There are more people in my profession that have serious disagreements with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. I think the media is biased in their coverage because reports of "doom and gloom" increase ratings and depending on the media outlet, support geopolitical ideologies.

On the petition, I have no doubt there are people with a professional scientifc background who signed it. Whether or not all 30,000+ are legit is another topic for discussion. I don't know any method of validation for the people signing that petition or if they went through it to weed out obvious fake signatures.

[speardog1]

There are more people in my profession that have serious disagreements with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. I think the media is biased in their coverage because reports of "doom and gloom" increase ratings and depending on the media outlet, support geopolitical ideologies.

On the petition, I have no doubt there are people with a professional scientifc background who signed it. Whether or not all 30,000+ are legit is another topic for discussion. I don't know any method of validation for the people signing that petition or if they went through it to weed out obvious fake signatures.

I don't doubt that the media reports "doom and gloom" scenarios. The media, in combination with the left has grabbed on to the global warming scenario and sorta has anthropogenic contribution set in stone as the only contribution. I don't think you could find a single scientist though that will deny natural contributions. Do your climatologists believe that anthropogenic contributions play a part in global warming or do they just disagree with some parts?

In terms of climate modeling. If you're not skeptical, you should be. I can't imagine how many variables that have to be accounted for. But I will say that you should be just as skeptical about models that say there isn't a big anthropogenic contribution than models that say there is.

I've been in the field of oceanography (which includes paleoclimatology) since 1999. I've met maybe 1 guy that doesn't believe in anthropogenic contribution (out of many many scientists, with PhDs). Every paleoclimatologist I've met, including my fiancee, all say that it's the current rate, compared with the past, of change that's so alarming. I guess my point is, since climate modeling is so difficult, I would listen to a paleoclimatologist before a climate modeler. I'm not saying that climate modeling isn't important, just that it's very very difficult, enough that it would be hard to conclude anything.

That petition is a crock of poop. google those OISM cats, straight shadyness.

[IHOPSkins]

A model showed Global Warming that will cause major Issues in the next 10 years (Al Goredoom)

That was an exaggeration so the timeline for Doomsday was lengthened (read "climate change" now)

That model has now been "Modified" to show Cooling

And now that Cooling will last longer then originally thought

If we give a Nobel Prize out now to the "Latest Model" creator will it save the Planet from the next Ice Age?

:doh:

Thank You Johnny for the post

[speardog1]

A model showed Global Warming that will cause major Issues in the next 10 years (Al Goredoom)

That was an exaggeration so the timeline for Doomsday was lengthened (read "climate change" now)

That model has now been "Modified" to show Cooling

And now that Cooling will last longer then originally thought

If we give a Nobel Prize out now to the "Latest Model" creator will it save the Planet from the next Ice Age?

:doh:

Thank You Johnny for the post

You should be officially banned from commenting on any global warming issue after posting that OISM crap.

[IHOPSkins]

You should be officially banned from commenting on any global warming issue after posting that OISM crap.

More Global Warming Hysterical Censorship

"There be Monsters"...if you don't believe

All Hail Al GoreDoom

[speardog1]

More Global Warming Hysterical Censorship

"There be Monsters"...if you don't believe

All Hail Al GoreDoom

This just shows your ignorance, chief. It's obvious that you don't look **** up before you post it. You reach, you're biased, based on the OISM post you post anything that even hints at debunking it, all of the above. Just come out and say it, the only reason why you don't believe is because of personal incredulity.

Oh, and the science was there before Al Gore came along. I'm sure you're convinced I'm wrong, but Al Gore didn't invent the idea of global warming.

[PeterMP]

Good read...

Global Cooling Consistent With Global Warming

For a while now I've been asking climate scientists to tell me what could be observed in the real world that would be inconsistent with forecasts (predictions, projections, etc.) of climate models, such as those that are used by the IPCC. I've long suspected that the answer is "nothing" and the public silence from those in the outspoken climate science community would seem to back this up. Now a paper in Nature today (PDF) suggests that cooling in the world's oceans could that the world may cool over the next 20 years few decades , according to Richard Woods who comments on the paper in the same issue, "temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere", and this would not be inconsistent with predictions of longer-term global warming. more...

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001413global_cooling_consi.html

On a side note: I would bet that the "10 year cooling period" will be more like 20-30 because of an already studied, natural, and cyclical climatic pattern called the PDO or Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

1. I don't believe that he's asked a climate scientists to tell him what could be observed that would be incosistent with forecasts and hasn't gotten an answer (other than nothing) because I'm not even a climate scientists and I can give him the answer:

I. Over long periods of times given on average the same amount of radiation reaching the Earth's atmosphere, the time period with the higher green house gas levels will on average have a higher temperature.

II. Over shorter period of times, on average given the same amount of radiation reaching the Earth (e.g. it is not fair to compare years that were solar mins to years that were solar maxs as so many like to do when the compare 2006 and 2007 to the late 1990's and early 2000's because of the suns 11 year solar cycle) AND similar global conditions (e.g. the PDO or other such affect (i.e. El Nino)) the years with a higher green house gas level on average have higher temps.

2. Try reading the article yourself (or even just the abstract) because they don't predict global cooling:

"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

(changes in font and bold are mine).

3. The general conclusions of the paper are misrepresented. The largest issue as near as I can tell is that their models assumes a 1%/year increase in CO2 since 2000. Of course, we know based on what has happened in the last 8 years that is a completely ludicrious assumption (not to blame the authors. It is a common modelling technique). So they were saying temps might NOT increase given a much lower CO2 level than we in fact have.

For more comments see:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/02/nature-article-on-cooling-confuses-revkin-media-deniers-next-decade-may-see-rapid-warming/

For example:

"They are predicting no increase in average temperature of the “next decade” (2005 to 2015) over the previous decade, which, for them, is 2000 to 2010!"

[IHOPSkins]

....Al Gore didn't invent the idea of global warming.

Yup

He got the Internets thing

But

He did get a Nobel Prize for his Propaganda Piece "an inconvenient HYPOCRITE"