Climate models are not good enough, researcher says

Mar 25, 2013

Only a few climate models were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years. This is the finding of a doctoral thesis from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Climate models are the only means to predict future changes in climate and weather.

"It is therefore extremely important that we investigate ' own performances in simulating extremes with respect to observations, in order to improve our opportunities to predict future weather changes," says Tinghai Ou from the University of Gothenburg's Department of .

Tinghai has analysed the model simulated extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years.

"The results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China between 1961 and 2000," he says. "Only half of the 21 analysed climate models analysed were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China. Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change."

China is often affected by . Such as, the flooding of 1998 in southern and north-eastern China caused billions of dollars worth of , and killed more than 3,000 people. And the drought of 2010-11 in affected 35 million people and also caused billions of dollars worth of financial losses.

"Our research findings show that events have increased in most areas of China since 1961, while the number of dry days – days on which there is less than one millimetre of precipitation – has increase in eastern China but decreased in the western China."

Cold surges in south-eastern China often cause severe snow, leading to significant devastation. Snow, ice and storms in January and February 2008 resulted in hundreds of deaths. Studies show that the occurrence of cold surges in southeast China significantly decreased from 1961 to 1980, but the levels have remained stable since 1980 despite global warming.

Explore further: Treat sofas like electronic waste, say scientists

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Technology, economics may counter climate impact

Feb 24, 2011

The impacts of climate change on corn yields in the United States and China in coming decades may not be all bad, according to a new Cornell and University of Tokyo study published in a recent issue of the ...

Regional models expect drier, stormier western United States

Mar 31, 2012

As American southwestern states struggle against ongoing drought, and the Northwest braces for a projected shift from a snow- to a rain-dominated hydrological system, climate researchers strive to provide precipitation projections ...

Climate change: When it rains it (really) pours

Aug 07, 2008

Climate models have long predicted that global warming will increase the intensity of extreme precipitation events. A new study conducted at the University of Miami and the University of Reading (U.K.) provides ...

Climate change evident across Europe, report says

Nov 26, 2012

Climate change is affecting all regions in Europe, causing a wide range of impacts on society and the environment. Further impacts are expected in the future, potentially causing high damage costs, according ...

Progressively wetter in Norway

Feb 27, 2013

Climate change will make life wetter for most Norwegians in the years to come. A rainier climate is expected nationwide, with the possible exception of southern Norway in the summers.

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

22 hours ago

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

Peru's carbon quantified: Economic and conservation boon

22 hours ago

Today scientists unveiled the first high-resolution map of the carbon stocks stored on land throughout the entire country of Perú. The new and improved methodology used to make the map marks a sea change ...

How might climate change affect our food supply?

23 hours ago

It's no easy question to answer, but prudence demands that we try. Thus, Microsoft and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have teamed up to tackle "food resilience," one of several themes ...

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2013
Climate models are not good enough, researcher says
Finally, an honest assessment.

Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2013
Climate and computer models may not be 100% accurate, however do you need a computer model to know if you get a brick dropped on your head from 100 feet you have a high likelihood of serious head trauma?

CO2 traps heat. Human civilization puts out a lot of CO2. It's going to be hotter than it otherwise would have been with the "extra" CO2. How much hotter is a matter of debate but that it will be hotter is a GIVEN...
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 25, 2013
CO2 traps heat.

How many joules/ppm?
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2013
OMG I can just imagine the twist that is going to be put on this article. Here we go, in 3 - 2 - 1........
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 25, 2013
Finally, an honest assessment.


Yes! To go along with all the other honest assessments. Modelling is not perfect, and probably never will be. Every little bit of knowledge added to the model, combined with adjustments for the little bits they miss, makes them ever more accurate. Its good that some models predicted the conditions, allows scientists to exclude or revise more of the models that didn't.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 25, 2013
This video of Bill Nichols of the NWS explains what is missing in the climate models, without accounting for this variable all hopes of the models being accurate will remain unfullfilled.

http://youtube/jqIo4WJJL90
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2013
Oh great, so now global warming is the result of electricity. Good ole cantdrive, you can count on him to believe anything he's told through you-tube videos or pseudo-science, but try to get him to look at REAL science, and he tells you you've been fooled by "them bad scientists".

I wonder if it will ever get through to him that the person most gettng fooled is the one he looks at while he brushes his teeth?
radek
2.2 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2013
Oh great, so now global warming is the result of electricity. Good ole cantdrive, you can count on him to believe anything he's told through you-tube videos or pseudo-science, but try to get him to look at REAL science, and he tells you you've been fooled by "them bad scientists".

I wonder if it will ever get through to him that the person most gettng fooled is the one he looks at while he brushes his teeth?


Earth is not closed system. We have to take into account energy reaching our planet expecially from Earth-oriented CME. We measured solar activity only by number of sunspots so far which is flawed approach

BTW - we have coldest March in many European countries including Germany and GB. Monthly avarage is 4 degrees (!) below 100 years avarage recorded. And the solar activity in the peak is much lower than previous one....
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2013
Both the US and UK want to put NIST/NPL traceable radiometers in orbit to better measure Earth's radiance.
The project names are CLARREO and, appropriately THRUTHS.
Look them up.
If the 'science was settled', why waste the money?
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2013
OMG I can just imagine the twist that is going to be put on this article. Here we go, in 3 - 2 - 1........


OMG I can just imagine how fast the GW Alarmist Turds would appear with a statement like the above.. Here we go, in 1..
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 25, 2013
Climate and computer models may not be 100% accurate, however do you need a computer model to know if you get a brick dropped on your head from 100 feet you have a high likelihood of serious head trauma?

Hmmmm... someone had a brick dropped on their head!
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2013
Oh great, so now global warming is the result of electricity. Good ole cantdrive, you can count on him to believe anything he's told through you-tube videos or pseudo-science, but try to get him to look at REAL science, and he tells you you've been fooled by "them bad scientists".

You're getting to be as good as Q at twisting an argument, why then aren't the models good enough? I know how those atmospheric scientists who helped develop stealth technology and solve problems related to America's nuclear arsenal are just pseudo-scientists (Mr. Nichols claims to have done this but I wasn't there). I've pointed you to the peer reviewed papers that show how the solar environ affects the Earth's EM field, atmosphere, and planet itself, just because you choose ignorance doesn't change the facts. This video just gives a real world view of a high level atmospheric scientist's experience in solving problems related to it. It's dynamic, and not just thermo.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
R2 says:
Both the US and UK want to put NIST/NPL traceable radiometers in orbit to better measure Earth's radiance.
The project names are CLARREO and, appropriately THRUTHS.
Look them up.
If the 'science was settled', why waste the money?

Isn't that very like ryggesogn2 asking for government handouts to spend money. I guess all we need to do is spend a few billion dollars just to prove R2's point of view. Well, R2, maybe if you weren't so anti-government anti-science, these projects (and ones like them) might get funding and you might get your answers about EXACTLY what the solar radiance is every second of the day.

But noooo... only when YOU need to make a point do you support any government sponsored science. Hypocrite.


ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
"Climate models are not good enough, researcher says"

In other words, let's keep throwing money at it.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2013
"GW Alarmist Turds"
"...someone had a brick dropped on their head!"
Nothing like the sober, polite, rational discussion of the 5th grade recess, is there?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2013
asking for government handouts to spend money.

I am not asking for money to fund CLARREO and TRUTHS.
The climate modelers are asking because they know they don't have the hard data needed to justify their doomsday predictions.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
"TRUTHS is the first satellite mission to calibrate its EO instrumentation directly to an SI 'primary standard' in orbit, overcoming the usual uncertainties associated with drifts of sensor gain and spectral shape by using an electrical rather than an optical standard as the basis of its calibration."
"Assessments of climate change depend on data collected over decades in order to detect very small often subtle changes."
"Satellites should provide enough information to support national and international legislation. However, in most cases they are not accurate enough to distinguish between the predictions of different environmental models, and scientists cannot agree on their conclusions. "
http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2013
To be honest R2, I never heard of the TRUTHS or CLARREO satellites until your posts, but looking at them, they look like good science projects. They will certainly provide some new data and provide new points of view on to the earths atmosphere.

http://clarreo.la...ment.php
http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS

R2 says:
I am not asking for money to fund CLARREO and TRUTHS.
The climate modelers are asking because they know they don't have the hard data needed to justify their doomsday predictions


Why do you think global warming proponents are trying to justify their DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS? Could it be that is what science is predicting??? The hard truthful data at this point is looking pretty ominous and right now, only the selfish seem to deny that outlook.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2013
Why do you think global warming proponents are trying to justify their DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS?

Because their science is NOT settled.
"Their models are weak but their faith is strong. Yes, Al Gore loves me, yes...."

To be honest R2, I never heard of the TRUTHS or CLARREO satellites

Why not? Afraid to have your faith challenged? After all, these projects are promoted by the church of AGW.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2013
"GW Alarmist Turds"
"...someone had a brick dropped on their head!"
Nothing like the sober, polite, rational discussion of the 5th grade recess, is there?

Absolutely correct. That's the level I must descend to, so that I may communicate with the GW Alarmist Turds.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2013
Why do you think global warming proponents are trying to justify their DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS?

Because their science is NOT settled.
"Their models are weak but their faith is strong. Yes, Al Gore loves me, yes...."

To be honest R2, I never heard of the TRUTHS or CLARREO satellites

Why not? Afraid to have your faith challenged? After all, these projects are promoted by the church of AGW.


98% of climate scientists agree that the science of AGW is settled. Your denial is irrational. Yes Anthony Watts loves me, yes ...

Mr watts and I know that those 98% know nothing about their discipline and to boot all basic scientific theories of radiation and gas laws stretching back to the early part of the last century are wrong - Just because, well, we know better.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2013
98% of climate scientists agree that the science of AGW is settled.

Except those who support TRUTHS and CLARREO.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2013
98% of climate scientists agree that the science of AGW is settled.

Except those who support TRUTHS and CLARREO.


What? so to back/push for more climate date requires being a skeptic ..... Err, of course it does. Science is about being skeptical and looking ever more closely. It is only settled in so far as current thinking goes within reasonable doubt. There remains a possibility that it could be wrong and as this has a larger political element now than scientific - the likes of yourself need to be persuaded - maybe these experiments will do it ( well not you obviously but reasonable skeptics anyway ). Like a weather forecast the sensible go with that as being the most likely outcome. Point is we have gone from the 5-10 day forecast period into the 2 to 3 day period and the probabilities of a correct outcome are now irrational to deny.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2013
probabilities of a correct outcome are now irrational to deny.

Depends upon where you live and the models used.
And this is daily weather, NOT 100 year climate forecasts.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2013
probabilities of a correct outcome are now irrational to deny.

Depends upon where you live and the models used.
And this is daily weather, NOT 100 year climate forecasts.


Where you live is irrelevant as AGW affects the whole globe by definition. And climate forecasts are easier to do as weather is just random noise in the climate system.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2013
Where you live is irrelevant as AGW affects the whole globe by definition.


Technically yes we'll all be affected to some extent, however I think you'll find people living along the coast lines will have a quite convincing argument that their location is more uncomfortable than other places might be.

I wouldn't use the word irrelevant with respect to location :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2013
probabilities of a correct outcome are now irrational to deny.

Depends upon where you live and the models used.
And this is daily weather, NOT 100 year climate forecasts.


Where you live is irrelevant as AGW affects the whole globe by definition. And climate forecasts are easier to do as weather is just random noise in the climate system.

Only random noise in climate?
Predicting climate 100yrs from now is easier than predicting weather one week from now?
A quality, validated model should 'retrodict' as well has predict.
What model can retrodict climate from MWP to today?
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2013
Predicting climate 100yrs from now is easier than predicting weather one week from now?
A quality, validated model should 'retrodict' as well has predict.
What model can retrodict climate from MWP to today?


Yes, in the sense that the trend line for rising global temperature is upwards. Of course there are error bars on the slope of the rise and the local effects of the rise 100 yrs from now are unquantifiable to a certain extent - bar that they will not be good.

The MWP was a warm event and so fits in with a general warming scenario. The LIA was tied in with low solar/volcanic ash, which of course is outside of current models. However the CO2 signal will swamp the known variation in solar output.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
the trend line for rising global temperature is upwards.

So?
NOTHING is EVER going to change this?
Ever here of negative feedback loops?

Then there is NO need to improve climate models according to runrig.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2013
So?
NOTHING is EVER going to change this?
Ever here of negative feedback loops?

Then there is NO need to improve climate models according to runrig.


That's not what he said Rygg. As usual playing the idiot I see.

This happens to everyone that tries to discuss anything with Rygg - he retreats into misrepresentation and accusatory suggestions of conspiracy.

And yes Rygg we have heard of negative feedback loops. Have you heard of positive feedback loops?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2013
the trend line for rising global temperature is upwards.

So?
NOTHING is EVER going to change this?
Ever here of negative feedback loops?

Then there is NO need to improve climate models according to runrig.


No,of course models will be improved, that's inevitable, they are not going to get worse by us investigating climate science further are thay? Just that we have enough evidence from them that the world needs to take it's head out of the sand and it's finger out the proverbial a^$* and your type are a major obstacle in that - at least in your own country ( if it's the one I think it is )
BTW: I know of no negative feed-back loops that can come into play that could out-way the positive ones, given the latent heat locked up in ice and in permafrost/methane deposits.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2013
I know of no negative feed-back loops that can come into play that could out-way the positive ones, given the latent heat locked up in ice and in permafrost/methane deposits.


Then the science is settled, no need to look for any are there?
But there ARE negative feedback since the earth IS radiating heat. How is earth radiating heat into space?
Dry deserts can drop over 40F during the night. Where does that heat go and why only over deserts? Look at the highs/lows of Singapore and they vary little.
This why climate scientists want TRUTHS and CLARREO. To seek out and measure what is really happening and not depend upon runrig's 'expertise'.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2013
Then the science is settled, no need to look for any are there? But there ARE negative feedback since the earth IS radiating heat. How is earth radiating heat into space? Dry deserts can drop over 40F during the night. Where does that heat go and why only over deserts? Look at the highs/lows of Singapore and they vary little.
Your concept of settled must differ from mine. Here I take it to mean that the argument about whether AGW is/is not occurring is settled - It is and it is. No one is saying that the science is settled in the sense that it's possible to forecast exact numbers down the line. Just that an imbalance is present in the climate system and will continue to grow.
Radiation to space is not a loop in the sense it is feeding back from excess warming. Deserts radiate well because of a lack of moisture in the air and a sandy surface. WV is GHG but is in balance in the air in a cycle of a few days. It responds to temperature by increasing it's presence, not vice versa.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
98% of climate scientists agree that the science of AGW is settled....

It's why they push their agenda, with such vitriolic hate for those who question them. Currently, it's only a small tax pie to divide up amongst 98%, hence they would go to any lengths to impose a carbon tax. Like fabricate a hockey stick.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2013
"That day appears to have arrived. The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity. That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now. A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages."
http://www.powerl...ight.php

Shocking, shocking, media were in on the scam.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2013
It's why they push their agenda, with such vitriolic hate for those who question them.

Only a POS as weak as your walnut would even dare comment on something you are clueless about. If you prefer a world that will look like Soylent Green, please stay stupid and say stupid things. Your future generations will admire you for your lack of foresight about the environmental cluster fxxk that is global warming.

Currently, it's only a small tax pie to divide up amongst 98%, hence they would go to any lengths to impose a carbon tax. Like fabricate a hockey stick.

Just like every wingnut that attacks the hockey stick graph, your oviously not well educated in your ability to tell truth from fiction. Hell, you probably don't even pay taxes and live in a trailer. The only reason to for the carbon tax is to keep companies run by wingnuts like you from destroying the planet the rest of use need!

Anybody that tells you hockey stick is wrong is full of it.
Howhot
4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2013
R2 says:
Shocking, shocking, media were in on the scam.

What is really shocking R2 is how the Tea Party and it's looser crowd is in on your scam. As the population grows, people are fouling the worlds atmosphere more and more. It really is shocking how the Libertarians have sided against the environmental movement(s) when we are the ones that respect the property rights to have clean air to breath, clean water to drink, clean lands to grow food.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2013
And phycisist agree models can NEVER be good enough.

"So if experiments on quantum phenomena are reliable, then Bell concludes that determinism is false. Most physicists agree."
"Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very moment of the Big Bang. "
http://www.realcl...499.html
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2013
R2, while loosing an argument again, says:
Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us ...


In the context you put it, I think your describing chaos theory. Quantum Mechanics is definitely not chaos my friend. In the context of the article's controversial title; "Climate models are not good enough, researcher says" I can say yes he/she is right. Climate models are not good enough. We need better data, better science, better education.

Right now, pretty advanced crude models have been spot on. Politics though has made them even more conservative than where they should be. So predicted temps are showing up as less than actual records.

It doesn't matter, I'm just preaching to the Devil's choir.