Surabi Menon, a climate modeler and an affiliate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, cautions that the simulations rely on relatively incomplete estimates of emissions. Menon has been exploring aerosols and the monsoon with the latest model from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and says that modelers can at least check their data against measurements of pollution, which were not available even a few years ago. “We are getting there,” she says. “Slowly.”
The global puzzle
As climate researchers test drive the new generation of models, they are particularly keen to measure the models' overall sensitivity: how strongly they warm up in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. The addition of indirect aerosol effects makes the new model at NCAR more sensitive to greenhouse gases, says NCAR researcher Andrew Gettelman. Simulations show that the additional cooling from aerosol pollution, as well as the direct effect of haze, masked some of the warming from greenhouse gases during the twentieth century; but the model shows enhanced warming in the twenty-first century as curbs on pollution expose the full power of greenhouse gases. In simplified runs that double greenhouse-gas concentrations — which could happen by the end of this century — the new atmospheric model projects a 4 °C rise in global temperatures, whereas the previous model showed a 3.1 °C increase.
The Hadley Centre model is moving in the same direction, but this is not the rule. A model at the Pierre Simon Laplace Institute near Paris produces less warming in response to greenhouse gases than did the previous generation, says Sandrine Bony, a climate modeler there. The improved treatment of clouds may help explain that change, but the researchers have yet to fully analyze the new results.
These are just the first wave of a deluge in modeling data. Scientists in the IPCC's physical science working group have until 31 July 2012 to submit papers for the IPCC process, so the literature will explode with results from climate simulations over the coming year.
Then the real hard work will begin — working out what to believe. Scientists must tease apart the subtle causes and effects in their models and, where possible, test their results against other models and observations. “What we need now is to really understand what the models are doing, and why they differ,” Bony says. “It's really by comparing the results from a spectrum of models that we can assess which results are robust.”
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on May 9, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add Comment"So it would be accurate to state that the models used up to now have been demonstrated to be unreliable and inaccurate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, the global mean temperature has not left the error bounds of the ensemble mean used in the last IPCC report.
What makes you think that models are the only way we have of knowing how the earth will behave in the future?
What makes you think the earth will behave differently now than it has in the past, under similar conditions?
For us non-scientist if I have this right, Al Gore's "decided science" far from decided but we better understand how human caused sulfate cooling partially offset human caused carbon warming. This offset was reduced with sulfur policy changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile still a skeptic, this article's honestly on what is know and unknown was refreshing.
"Winton warns that modelers could get the right answer for the wrong reasons."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEXACTLY!!!!
This really is the crux of my problem with believing the results of the climate models (or any model for that matter). The simple fact is that there are an infinite number of mathematical constructs that can provide an 'accurate' history match to a given data set. However, there is only one single solution, which may or may not be computationally possible, that is the 'correct' solution from a multidimensional model (like climate models).
Basically, you put in a bunch of data and equations to produce results and the see if the results match the observations. If so then what you have is a mathematically correct model but not necessarily one that represents the natural system, which it is intended to replicate, accurately.
In order to determine the relative 'correctness' of the results uncertainty analysis must be run (Monte Carlo). In order for that analysis to be run correctly the inherent error within the input data and all of the parameters within the model must be tested and most importantly the interdependancies must be considered. If this is not done then you get nonsense as a reasonable range of results.
Since it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually accurately model any natural system with the current computational tools that we have then you have to dumb the model down in terms of complexity (AKA upscaling) which induces another whole level of error into the results.
My expertise in this arena tells me that there are issues with trying to use the results of the climate models to create policy because there is are strong likelihoods that: (1) the models are wrong or (2) there is going to be a major non-man maid disaster that we cannot stop no matter what we do in terms of emissions, cutting down trees, etc.
For what it's worth, I myself am very much looking forward to the "major non-man maid disaster"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere in a heedless fashion until our models are flawless. Then, presuming we have not gone insane from the over-warm planet, we can decide what to do. (sarcasm)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoker- I don't see you ever accepting any models ever brought forth by anyone, for the simple fact that you seem to have an aversion to statistics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. He has an understanding of the complexity involved in modelling a chaotic system. If you think it is simple, I suggest you study fluid dynamics. Modelling the climate is many orders of magnitude more complex. Climate scientists to now have not been able to mathematically represent cloud & aerosols in their equations. There is how many other factors not accounted for? Cosmic Rays for example?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChek out: Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot: “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/svensmarks-cosmic-jackpot-evidence-of-nearby-supernovae-affecting-life-on-earth/#more-61941
Another fasinating article. The science of our planets climate with all the variables, known and unknown, shows just how difficult it is to predict from day to day what the weather will bring. I am sure it will be many years into the future and we will still be learning. One things for sure though, we (mankind) are making huge changes to the composition of the existing structures and these changes WILL have a profound effect on future climate. Why people continue to argue about the findings of science and scientists astounds me. These people study the details of their chosen fields and they are the best source of knowledge we have. They may not always be right but they are far better that the alturnative....that is back to the dark ages of quackery and superstition. I will continue to believe in science till something better comes along!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. I hate it when I have a misspelled word?!?!? maid=made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. You are 100% correct. The models are just mathematical games until they are proven with ground truth.
3. I agree that it may be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere but then again maybe not. Therein lies the problem. We do not know if what we are doing is truely 'bad' for the environment and even if it is what are the alternatives? 'Green' energy is anything but and even if we did go that way then the people complaining about the evil dirty oil companies will be complaining about dead bird/bats, wind mills changing surface weather patterns by robbing energy from the atmosphere, solar cells frying birds or even worse disturbing the habitat of some species in the desert and on and on.
We (mankind) cannot live without leaving an imprint on the planet and unless we wish to just cease to exist there is not much that we are going to do to change that fact. With that said I am all for conservation because there are just so many resources on this mudball. This leads me to my final point: instead of arguing about the damage we are doing to our home planet why are we not working together to move out into the rest of the solar system?
It is interesting the biased SA printed anything admitting their prophetic climate models are missing the effects of clouds and aerosols.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is the warmists will gerrymander the models to ensure the effect of clouds in their fantasy atmosphere supports their belief that humans are the sole and only cause of global warming and the means is only CO2 produced by fuel burning in vehicles and commercial energy production.
If SA is biased....why bother reading it?? BTW how can science be biased?? Science is based on measuring and comparing and making INFORMED choices based on the data and then doing it all again. STOP shooting the messenger just cause they are telling you something you don't like. If you don't like science STOP reading SA and go back to whatever fantasy tells you what you prefer to hear. Me, I'll stick to the real world of measuring the actuals and making informed decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe a good study for future scientific research....why do people who dislike a message shoot the messenger?
1) LOL, I liked 'maid'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) True, and when they are wrong (most of the time), then the models should be changed, not the data.
3) We do need to conserve what we have and not pollute our planet and
We have to get off this rock and establish multiple, permanent, self sustaining colonies. Sooner is better.
For Crasher - who has a lot of catching up to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2882181/posts
Or just go to climateaudit.org and use the Search box there and the keyword YAMAL.
Wow, guess I will never get that 30 minutes of my life back! Can only think of 2 words upon reading some of the info on those sites...mumbo and jumbo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the dribble in those pages is peer reviewed in the credible science journals by QUALIFIED scientists I will be interested. Till then it is just a lot of dribble by vested interests.
Stop shooting the messenger!
beginning?...there fore all of those 'predictiong models' were what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGarbage in and garbage out.
If the bias you suggest is correct, then what is the reason that SA is pushing to cut C02? What will SA gain? Since SA is a magazine (indeed an entire publishing co)that is based entirely on presenting current scientific thought and research it risks its entire credibility by pushing something that doesn't exist. If this is so then SA will soon be gone as the majority of its readers are only interested in current science. So SA must stand to make a lot of $$$ by pushing this false view that will spell its imminent demise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe proof of this will be if SA dissappears along with human induced climate change. Some how I think both SA and climate change will still be here long after we are gone.
BTW the reason there are lots of articles that support the science of human induced climate change is because this is what exists in the scientific community. Pretty simple really.
Absolutely agree
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's definitely refreshing to see an article in SA about climate that doesn't perniciously include evangelical statements about human-induced climate change from industrial CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI post on SA articles also to make a small contribution to counteract the misinformation constantly published in this formerly well regarded science magazine. SA changed ownership some years ago & adopted a Green Agenda. that is fine but they should also have changed the name of the magazine to reflect the fact. instead they have sullied the reputation of what was a great source of reliable scientific information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe redeeming features of this site are the instant publishing of posts & the opportunity it provides for discussion on scientific subjects. Often the posts are much more revealing than the articles being discussed.
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispresumably SA is operating in collusion with the climate scientists at the Australia CSIRO along with the majority of climate scientists working in other national scientific research bodies......
They are but if you google CSIRO failed climate predictions you will see that they have sullied their reputation in the climate field. Try the same test with other organisations too. Some of the reported failures are garbage of course. There are extremists on both sides of the debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe error bounds for the ensemble of IPCC AR4 climate models span more than the entire amount that the earth has warmed since 1850. The range is so wide that we'd require an unfeasibly large shift in global temperature for these predictions to be disproved. This is what makes this nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo answer the key question....who is profiting from the mis-information?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know who is financing and profiting from the deniers side, so who is doing in on the behalf of SA and the scientific community?
Guess we didn't land on the moon, that was just NASA after $$, Smoking doesn't cause cancer, just a way to get more cash for the health care industries or maybe O'bama care! CFC didn't cause ozone destruction it was just the competing industries muscling in. CSIRO is highly respected in Australia and remains so and is financed by the people of Australia so why would they publish findings if it wasn't real measurements and factual prognostications based on that evidence?
Tell me who stands to profit from the mis-information?
Basing a scientific hypothesis on models based on inaccurate data with limited understanding producing results that don't match reality, sounds exactly like quackery to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience isn't biased? That's true when a hypothesis is created, predictions made and observations match the predictions, but in this case they don't, which means we have scientists playing politics which is biased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLanding a rocket on the moon was based on established scientific laws. Linking tobacco to cancer was worked out by establishing correlation between cancer rates and smoking, and then comparing control groups of smokers and non-smokers. Climate change, meanwhile, is based on computer models that have failed to match observations. Science is all about forming hypotheses. The reality is that it is rare that a hypothesis is correct, and thus far we don't have a hypothesis which adequately explains the variability in the climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this27. Crasher
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to Carlyle
04:44 PM 5/12/12
So answer the key question....who is profiting from the mis-information?
Do a little detective work yourself. Follow the money. See who is getting the research grants & alternative energy grants. Check how many billions governments around the world have spent on green schemes & research associated with AGW as apposed to those seeking research funding for other possible natural climate drivers. Business has also spent billions on supporting research in support of AGW. After all, who do you think builds the solar farm & windmill parks? Private research grants overwhelmingly favour programmes designed to gain plaudits from the present craze or business opportunities in the alterative energy fields supported by government subsidies. For yeas the AGW movement & climate scientists claimed that water vapour & clouds had no role to play, nor the sun or cosmic rays any other phenomenon. It was all CO2. At last they are starting to abandon this ridiculous theory. CO2 is a minor climate driver. The positive feedback mechanism has proven to be false. More likely to be a negative feedback.
Finally, if you avoid sources of information because they are outside the AGW approved sites, such as WUWT & the links that site provides, you are condemning yourself to ignorance. No different to accepting the teachings of one philosophy or religion without examining others.
Here is an article that can help you find your answer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33114.html
Postman you need to post that link every time the claim comes up about funding for sceptics. It reveals another lie perpetrated by the AGW fan club.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan do!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA is biased in promoting the global warming dogma by only publishing articles in support of it. I know warmists like to believe the debate is over and their flawed computer models are not revealing anything factual only possible outcomes we might want to investigate with real observation. An example was last week with a model predicting warming under antarctic ice sheets over the ocean but no mention of any planned effort to actually see if the prediction is really happening. As long as SA only publishes pro human caused global warming dogma, then they are biased. Now if some real evidence supporting the warmist theory actually is observed, then SA would be correct to not publish anything that was contrary to proven fact. Unfortunately for you warmists you will never reach be publishing facts because you insist on using only guessed and manufactured statistical data, improbably assumptions and plugging it all in a computer model designed to prove their dogma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read SA otherwise because it is a good way to see a lot of new science summarized. If any of you have ever gotten a Nature or Science subscription, while those are great, I simply do not have the time to go searching for the few articles I would be interested in.
You warmists are the ones NOT observing any kind of reality. Last time I checked we all lived on earth NOT in your fantasy world as created by warmist computer models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might actually be interesting to read an article where a warmist has actually proven any of the effects their computer models and statistics predict. So far nothing has. You cant even simulate your linear trapping effect of CO2 in a lab.
Facts? We don't need your stinking facts! Why right-wing Americans are so stubbornly ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://idealistpropaganda.blogspot.com/2011/02/facts-we-dont-need-your-stinking-facts.html
"So answer the key question....who is profiting from the mis-information?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was recently revealed that the WWF has been on a campaign to create and profit from $$ billions in carbon credits in Tanzania and Brazil. Quite the scam; create a false problem, then sell a false solution.
In the case of Tanzania, the WWF was committing "eco-cleansing" by forcibly relocating thousands of Tanzanians off of ancestral lands and bulldozing their homes to gain carbon credits for "saving" mangrove swamps.
In Brazil, the WWF was crafting a deal to capture billions in carbon credits for a few pennies on the dollar and then sell them in Europe. Better gig than Facebook.
If any oil company bulldozed a single African's home to make way for an oil well the public outcry would be deafening. Apparently the WWF leveling villages for profit is no big deal.
That's where the $$ are at. The Eco-corporations are just that: corporations. And if you volunteer or contribute to them you are supporting programs such as "eco-cleansing". Even the Serbs and Bosnians would be proud of the WWF's ruthlessness.