BETTER MODELS: The U.S. government would like to develop computer models that would allow for regional predictions for the impacts of climate change, such as how sea level rise might impact the East Coast.
Image: © iStockphoto.com / Adam Kazmierski
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Nobody lives in the global average climate. Nor are the massive grid cells favored by climate models run on today's supercomputers as useful as they could be for planning purposes, given that they can encompass 10,000 square kilometers. Now the National Science Foundation (NSF), along with the U.S. Energy and Agriculture departments are teaming up to financially support the development of new computer models aimed at revealing the anticipated effects of climate change at the regional level.
"The impacts of climate change are becoming more immediate and profound than anticipated," NSF Director Arden Bement said Monday during a Webcast for journalists. "We must be able to predict how climate change will impact... regions in the next 10 to 20 years."
The goal will be to deliver a scientific basis for regional planning purposes, whether that involves adaptation to a disappearing coastline or to the expected severity of droughts. "Some will get down to parts of the U.S., part will get down to statewide levels. Some might even deal with megacities," Bement said. "That's going to take time as we continue to peel the onion down to smaller scales."
The agencies will invest nearly $50 million annually in the new program, dubbed "Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction Using Earth System Models," or EaSM for short, and expect to deliver improved versions within the next three years. Those models will look at impacts such as regional average temperature change, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and the sustainability of soils and water as well as the impacts of invasive species on food production and human health. Nor will it be confined to ecological concerns. "One really can't have energy sustainability without environmental sustainability. And you can't have either one without economic sustainability," Bement noted.
A big part of the effort will rely on advances in computer power; the Department of Energy (DoE) now hosts the world's most powerful supercomputer at its Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Such petaFLOP-scale (quadrillion-operation-per-second) computers will help scientists to improve both the time and spatial scales of their models. "We love to be able to go exoscale—another 1,000 times faster and bigger," William Brinkman, head of the DoE Office of Science, said during the Webcast. "Climate modeling is probably the driving force to continue up that direction, more than any other modeling."
Of course, such computer models are only as good as the entered data, so additional information from ongoing observation campaigns—whether that is the DoE's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program or the NSF's National Ecological Observatory Network—will be needed to provide a fuller understanding of how soot and other aerosols impact the global climate as well as the role of clouds.
Ultimately, the biggest impacts to be felt regionally may be on agriculture. "Producers of food will need to know what to expect in the future to be ready for the kinds of changes that are anticipated," said Department of Agriculture chief scientist, Roger Beachy. "We are concerned about the impact on our ability to grow food."
For its part, Agriculture hopes to be able to determine what the overriding impacts and concerns might be for a given multistate region as well as offer advice on farming practices that might curtail agricultural contributions to greenhouse gas emissions (via such processes as fertilizer production and use, plowing practices, and rice paddy methane release). "We need to have the data before we embark on big policy changes that will have impacts on all of us," Beachy said. "This will have long-term impacts for generations and generations. It's important to get this right."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentModels cannot be used to predict the future - period. They can only be used to say what might have happened under a certain set of forcing functions. Since the models are nonlinear and the potential sets of forcing functions are unlimited, there is no way to produce a set of forcing functions that have anything to do with what might happen in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering we can't even accurately forecast the weather for a full week, I'd say whoever reads this should do so with a grain of salt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have an elementary knowledge of the weather processes on this planet. It's not nearly sufficient enough to make such shock inducing claims as global warming.
@syncratio400:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you play dice you can't predict what your next throw will be, but you know if you throw a die 6000 times then you'll get about 1000 6's, 1000 5's etc. It's the same with weather (the next throw) and climate (many, many dice throws).
Good job USA. This is the kind of information we need. I just hope they leave the rest of the world alone because people will flock to the least affected areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate models may well be able to accurately predict regional weather at some point in the future, but my guess is that they will not be able to do so for an extended period. The truth is, there are still many variables that are not understood and therefore will need to be added into the modelling in order to increase their accuracy. It will be a lot of analysis, and will result in repeated failures, but eventually we should get reasonably accurate models developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, today there are no models that accurately predict future climate conditions. All the models that have tried to correlate increased carbon in the atmosphere to some dire future climate have been shown to be widely inaccurate. It is really interesting that many AGW alarmists who have developed models always seem to focus on negative vs. positive results. Pointing out the negative consequences of a warmer planet may be dramatic, but it certainly is not the whole story or even an accurate story.
@ candide- LOL to your comment. My comment was not self contradictory but factually accurate. In spite of your religion like belief of AGW being bad there are no models currently available that have accurately predicted future climate conditions. If you understand how these models are developed, then you would know that the models initially are run using historical data and compared to current weather conditions to determine the models accuracy. They are then used to predict future conditions to see if they hold true. So far nane of of models have sttod up. Sorry that is a fact even if you do not like to truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ candide-- and my guess may not be worth much, but I have developed models for use in the aerospace industry and understand their use and development. They are many more variables to be considered in the development of an accurate climate model and currently I do not believe we even know all the variables.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..that is a fact even if you do not like to truth."
To paraphrase Susan B Anthony:
I distrust those people who know so well truth, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
thats why I live in LAVA zone 2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a bit of interesting commentary from Michael Crichton, M.D.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
"What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After
that, any criticism becomes beside the point....And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done."
"Models cannot be used to predict the future - period." - Today's Conservative Kookfart #3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModels of planetary motion predict the position of the future posisions of the stars and planets with high precision.
Computational models of CPU's predict their future performance with high precision.
Without the ability of models to predict the future, springs wouldn't be predictable, and neither would clocks. Boats couldn't be designed to float, and aircraft designed to fly.
It is simply absurd KookFartism to claim that models can't be used to preduct the future.
Such statements are pure idiocy.
"We have an elementary knowledge of the weather processes on this planet. It's not nearly sufficient enough to make such shock inducing claims as global warming." - Today's Kookfart #4
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately climatologists don't forecast the weather. The model climate.
Apparently you don't know the difference, and are incapable of comprehending the difference when told.
Do you come upon your ignorance honestly? Or willfully?
"With volcanos erupting, great earthquakes shaking us, tsunamis banging on our shores, I think she's angry. Why?" - medusa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly it is because the second coming is at hand.
"Here's a bit of interesting commentary from Michael Crichton, M.D.," - Todays Kookfart #5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy should anyone care what a dead writer of poor science fiction thinds?
He has as much credibility on this issue as Colonel Sanders.
"but I have developed models for use in the aerospace industry and understand their use and development." - Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your models didn't work.
Now that we have established your lack of competence we should move alog........
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a very good initiative, i really appricaiate your work.
I am sure soon youu guys will be able to come to a conslusion abt the climatic change .
your project will definitely brings some big changes in govt policy.
I haven't made up my mind about (A)GW, but I have noticed that at least 90% of ad hominem attacks are from the pro-AGW camp against the anti-AGW camp. That is never a good sign for a group trying to make a point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the plus side, at least the belief in GW is spurring supercomputer development.
The number and type of "attacks" (subjective at best) has NOTHING to do with the veracity of the subject - even if there is a correlation. A correlation does not prove a cause-effect relationship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition I disagree with your 90% number - I see more attacks, and more personally directed attacks, from deniers.
@ vendicar9- Hey stupid, I see you are back throwing out your idiotic comments. You are a perfect example of a AGW nut who supports their belief as a RELIGION vs. a study of the science. You support AGW based upon faith regardless of the lack of factual data to support your doomsday predictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar9-- How about pointing out ANY quantifiable information that demonstrates how a warmer planet is bad for humanity OVERALL. Please try to demonstrate enough intelligence not to list the unsupported list of "potential disasters" that have been listed my others stating things like "it MAY cause more diseases due to a jump in insect populations". Those type of "MAY HAPPEN" ideas are purely unsupported guesses with ZERO real data to support their position. Those lists never seem to take into consideration offsetting positive changes and analyze the overall effect of a warmer planet.
So please vendicar9- show us what it is that makes you believe a warmer planet is bad for humanity overall!
candide: You bring up another point. You use the word deniers. Why? Has (A)GW been proven? I don't believe it has. I'm not saying it isn't true, but that it just hasn't been proven one way or another. It seems to me that word in itself is an attack on anyone who doesn't support your position. The only other reference I can think of off the top of my head is the one to Holocaust deniers, which I don't think many people would want to be lumped in with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think your efforts would be better spent at posting evidence rather than lashing out at opposing views. Or if you feel you can't sway opinion, maybe it's not worth your while wasting time on this post or any related to it.
I am not doubting that the planet is currently somewhat warmer than in recent history. I also believe it reasonable that humans have had an impact on the climate although I do not think there is any agreement on the degree of human impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I do not understand is the rush to eliminate the release of carbon when there is virtually no reliable data that shows that a warmer planet is bad. If your primary concern is that sea levels will rise? Are you aware that current sea levels are near to their historical lows when looked at over a period of 500 M years? Sea levels WILL rise independent of human actions based upon a historical analysis. (please look up either the Hallam or Exxon sea level curves. Both highly respected sources for long term sea level data) By the way, those of you that support AGW much like a religion and think anythink by Exxon is bad.....the data from their study actually is better for your argument.
So, since this potential sea level rise will happen over a period of many decades, will eventually happen in any case, and can actually be of a benefit to humanity overall...why the huge worry??? Do you believe that by some human action the we can maintain the environment as it is currently?
@ candide- how do my desires come into play at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally I have no desires on the subject of AGW except to make informed decisions based upon verifiable data. If the data exsisted, and showed a negative OVERALL impact on humanity, I would also support eliminating/vastly restricting carbon release.
"Models of planetary motion predict the position of the future posisions of the stars and planets with high precision."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly for a specific window of time. Even the relatively simple variables involved in planetary motion produce non-predictable chaotic results within a few tens of thousands to a few million years.
Ok, let's focus on one (of many) verifiable action, with decades of data to support it - sea level rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate models have predicted sea level rise, but the sea levels have risen MORE than climate models have predicted.
So, you and others may be correct in saying that the climate models are inaccurate, but do you even admit the possibility that climate models and science may be UNDERESTIMATING the consequences of a warmer planet?
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am not doubting that the planet is currently somewhat warmer than in recent history. I also believe it reasonable that humans have had an impact on the climate ..."
"... Do you believe that by some human action the we can maintain the environment as it is currently?"
As we agree on item 1, why is it that we have such difficulty on agreeing on item 2, particularly if the goal is only to manage that part of the natural environment on which we already agree that humans have had, and continue to have an impact?
"I have noticed that at least 90% of ad hominem attacks are from the pro-AGW camp against the anti-AGW camp. " - Clevis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe willfully ignorant are undeserving of respect.
The willfully deceitful are worthy of execution.
"I see you are back throwing out your idiotic comments." - Sisco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I see that the cartoon star base captian is still not smart enough to comprehend them.
"You support AGW based upon faith" - sisco
Yadda, yadda, yadda.... My faith resides with 200 + years of labratory measurement. Yours on 2 minutes of reading KookFart blogs.
"How about pointing out ANY quantifiable information that demonstrates how a warmer planet is bad for humanity OVERALL." - Sisco
Can't stay on topic can you?
That's the way KookFart denialists argue. Lose the issue on KookFart talking point 1, move to KookFart talking point 2. Lose that issue, move to KookFart talking point 3. Lose that issue and then move back to KookFart talking point 1.
It's pure idoicy of course.
"Has (A)GW been proven? I don't believe it has." - Todays KookFart #1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce science proves that you aren't a butterfly dreaming that she is a man, we will move on to proving that 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples. And then when that is established, we will move on to Global Warming.
Does that make you an idiot?
Why yes. Yes it does.
Sealevelgate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<snip>...
First, although the temperature scenarios of IPCC project a maximum warming of 6.4 ºC (Table SPM3), the upper limit of sea level rise has been computed for a warming of only 5.2 ºC – which reduced the estimate by about 15 cm. Second, the IPCC chose to compute sea level rise up to the year 2095 rather than 2100 – just to cut off another 5 cm. Worse, the IPCC report shows that over the past 40 years, sea level has in fact risen 50% more than predicted by its models – yet these same models are used uncorrected to predict the future! And finally, the future projections assume that the Antarctic ice sheet gains mass, thus lowering sea level, rather at odds with past ice sheet behaviour.**
** About the numbers stated above. Regarding the actual IPCC AR4 numbers, adjust the IPCC upper estimate of 59 cm by adding 15 cm to make it apply to 6.4 ºC warming (not just 5.2 ºC) and 5 cm to make it go up to 2100 (not just 2095). That gives you 79 cm. Add 50% to adjust for the underestimation of past sea level rise and you get 119 cm.
For the hypothetical case at the start of this post, just introduce similar errors in the other direction. Let’s add 31 cm by going up to 7.6 ºC and the year 2105 (in fact that is “conservative” but it gives a nice round number, 150 cm). Now assume you have a model compared to which actual sea level is rising 50% slower (rather 50% faster): now you’re at the 3 meters mentioned above. For details, see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/ippc-sealevel-gate/
See also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5716/1769
"Only for a specific window of time. Even the relatively simple variables involved in planetary motion produce non-predictable chaotic results within a few tens of thousands to a few million years." - Frgough
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, no... Not really... Digital models of planetary motion have been integrated forward over at least 4 thousand million years, and probably longer.
The 4 billion year figure was set back in the 1980's with custom built computing engines designed for that specific purpose.
I'm sure that record can be exceeded with a home network of reasonably fast PC's.
You do realize don't you, that the value of chaos is that it implies predictability and stability.
@Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe possibly agree to a greater degree than you think if we get down to discussing what we should actually do in the future. I believe our goal should be to become energy self sufficient as quickly as possible in a manner that is as environmentally friendly as is economically reasonable.
I simply do not believe there is evidence that a warmer planet is bad for humanity overall or that we know to what degree increased carbon in the atmosphere is affecting climate vs. other causes. Virtually all the AGW alarmists "analysis" of a warmer planet try to point out potential negative consequences of a warmer planet based solely on supposition and not anything reliable. Additionally, they never seem to consider positive results of a warmer planet.
"If the data exsisted, and showed a negative OVERALL impact on humanity, I would also support eliminating/vastly restricting carbon release." - Capt Sisco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who deny the right of existence to other species, immediately forfeit their own right to existence simply as a result of the immorality of their ideology.
That even applies to Cartoon characters, and fantasy space station captains.
vendicar
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are simply a religious fool. Your comment "Those who deny the right of existence to other species, immediately forfeit their own right to existence simply as a result of the immorality of their ideology." So is that a conerstone of your new religion??? Is eating other species contrary to your religion? gee, we should teach all other species on the planet to adhere to your beliefs. Enough responding to you, since you are simply a joke. I would love to meet you and bitch slap you however.
Re Models cannot predict the future- period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just looked at a large set of atmospheric models and they all say it's going to rain here tomorrow. Wanna bet??
Dan
"I just looked at a large set of atmospheric models and they all say it's going to rain here tomorrow. Wanna bet??" - Todays KookFart #2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just looked at a large set of averages and they all say that the next person who walks into this room is going to be 5 foot 10 inches tall.
Wanna bet?
Dan. From where does your pure idiocy come? Do you generate it yourself or do you purchase it from some American QuackFart surplus store?
"You are simply a religious fool." - Conservative Kookfart #3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMicroscopic dots cause disease? That is just religious nonsense. - Captian Sisco
Electrons and protons are as fake as angels. - Captian Sisco
Belief in Einsteinian Relativity is just a matter of religious faith - Captain Sisco.
I made incompetent models for the aerospace industry, and those models failed to work, so all models must fail to work, and those who claim otherwise are just religionists. - Captian Sisco
Yadda... Yadda... Yadda....
Just more pure idiocy from the fantasy space station commander.
vendicar9 is simply a fool who refuses to respond to valid points raised by others and goes on writing comments that are completely unrelated to what has been previously written.......what a fool
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/a-physics-mavens-take-on-skeptical-science/
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"we possibly agree to a greater degree than you think if we get down to discussing what we should actually do in the future."
While that is possible, the devil is in the details, if you'll pardon the figure of speach. See below.
"... I believe our goal should be to become energy self sufficient as quickly as possible in a manner that is as environmentally friendly as is economically reasonable ..."
Who should become energy self sufficient? The USA? The EU? China? All three? The planetary energy supply is, by definition balanced by the planetary energy consumption.
Who determines the appropriate degree of environmental friendliness? Industrialists? Tree-huggers? Scientists? Swedes or Somalis?Using what criteria? Who selects the criteria?
Who determines what is economically reasonable? Surely you would want that responsibility to reside in the hands of elected politicians.
"... I simply do not believe there is evidence that a warmer planet is bad for humanity overall or that we know to what degree increased carbon in the atmosphere is affecting climate vs. other causes ..."
There need not be hard evidence that harm will result from some set of activities to warrant avoiding those activities. The costs of repairing damage are often greater than the costs of avoiding damage. What degree of probability would you require of potential damage, particularly when the damage may include the loss of human life, before it would seem sensible or prudent to you to avoid those activities which would lead to that damage?
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but it remains true that the consensus opinion among practicing climatologists is that human activities have been and remain one of the drivers of the recorded increase in global temperature.
"... Virtually all the AGW alarmists 'analysis' of a warmer planet try to point out potential negative consequences of a warmer planet based solely on supposition and not anything reliable ..."
That is true of the AGW alarmist analyses, but you must realize it does not follow that all AGW analyses are performed by alarmists. If there are a set of AGW predictions which are made by "non-alarmists" or "realists" based on reliable physics, would you agree that those would be reasonable candidates for human management?
"... Additionally, they never seem to consider positive results of a warmer planet."
You are, of course, responsible for providing evidence that a warmer planet would be better - or at least not worse - than the one currently hosting humans
Models can affect us, directly and dangerously if our leaders fall the idea that they "prove" anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery model I've ever examined, and that's been more than a couple, prove exactly what the author wants to prove.
No more, no less. Global Warming? By cars? All since 1904? No problem.
Except the Ice Sheet has been receding for more than 10,000 years. So? Cars! Damn it. Cars.
"Vendicar9 is simply a fool who refuses to respond to valid points" - Capt. Sisco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I simply do not believe" - Capt. Sisco
Is not a valid point.
It's KookFart Claptrap.
"Except the Ice Sheet has been receding for more than 10,000 years. So? Cars! Damn it. Cars." - Todays Kookfart #1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI count ignorance three layers deep in that one statement.
How do they manage to feed themselves without dying of terminal spoon injuries?
"vendicar9- why do you keep writing comments back that have nothing to do with what others have written? " - Todays KookFart #1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quotes must be confusing you.
You see, I quote what others have said, and then respond.
That's the way we do it her on planet reality.
I know you people from planet KookFart do things differently.
"I used to be a star trek fan myself to some degree." - PokerPlayer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKing to queens level three?
Models can be ran in reverse. One way to ascertain the validity of a model is to run it backwards in time to a point where we know what the regional weather was like based on paleoclimatology. This has been done to show models were accurate in predicting that the area now known as the Sahara desert was green enough a few thousand years ago to support humans around lakes. Confirmed by archeology, e.g. stones used to grind grain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that is also based on inputting "knowns" as opposed to "variables" in the model. Models moving forward have considerably more variables and many fewer knowns.
People are talking about to get particular all the time what changes, what temperatures, and when. The where & when is not possible to except in the broad conditions, making deep planning a challenging nightmare. The increase in urban heat is not only by the natural causes in climate change but the Green house gases are the main cause of global warming. http://www.globalwarming360.net/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this