Climate models disagree on why temperature 'wiggles' occur

January 26, 2015, Duke University
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

A new Duke University-led study finds that most climate models likely underestimate the degree of decade-to-decade variability occurring in mean surface temperatures as Earth's atmosphere warms. The models also provide inconsistent explanations of why this variability occurs in the first place.

These discrepancies may undermine the models' reliability for projecting the short-term pace as well as the extent of future warming, the study's authors warn. As such, we shouldn't over-interpret recent temperature trends.

"The inconsistencies we found among the models are a reality check showing we may not know as much as we thought we did," said lead author Patrick T. Brown, a Ph.D. student in climatology at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment.

"This doesn't mean greenhouse gases aren't causing Earth's atmosphere to warm up in the long run," Brown emphasized. "It just means the road to a warmer world may be bumpier and less predictable, with more decade-to-decade temperature wiggles than expected. If you're worried about in 2100, don't over-interpret short-term trends. Don't assume that the reduced rate of global warming over the last 10 years foreshadows what the will be like in 50 or 100 years."

Brown and his colleagues published their findings this month in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

To conduct their study, they analyzed 34 used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fifth and most recent assessment report, finalized last November.

The analysis found good consistency among the 34 models explaining the causes of year-to-year temperature wiggles, Brown noted. The inconsistencies existed only in terms of the 's ability to explain decade-to-decade variability, such as why global mean warmed quickly during the 1980s and 1990s, but have remained relatively stable since then.

"When you look at the 34 models used in the IPCC report, many give different answers about what is causing this decade-to-decade variability," he said. "Some models point to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as the cause. Other models point to other causes. It's hard to know which is right and which is wrong."

Hopefully, as the models become more sophisticated, they will coalesce around one answer, Brown said.

Explore further: Study vindicates climate models accused of 'missing the pause'

More information: "Regions of Significant Influence on Unforced Global Mean Surface Air Temperature Variability in Climate Models," by Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li and Shang-Ping Xie; published Jan. 9, 2015, in the Journal of Geophysical Research: DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022576

Related Stories

Central European summer temperature variability to increase

December 18, 2012

More extreme heat waves have been observed in central Europe in recent years as summer temperature variability has increased on both daily and interannual timescales. Models project that as the climate warms throughout the ...

Separating signal and noise in climate warming

November 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

Recommended for you

Can China keep it's climate promises?

March 26, 2019

China can easily meet its Paris climate pledge to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but sourcing 20 percent of its energy needs from renewables and nuclear power by that date may be considerably harder, researchers ...

In the Tree of Life, youth has its advantages

March 26, 2019

It's a question that has captivated naturalists for centuries: Why have some groups of organisms enjoyed incredibly diversity—like fish, birds, insects—while others have contained only a few species—like humans.

Cellular microRNA detection with miRacles

March 26, 2019

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short noncoding regulatory RNAs that can repress gene expression post-transcriptionally and are therefore increasingly used as biomarkers of disease. Detecting miRNAs can be arduous and expensive as ...

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

24volts
5 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2015
Climate and weather are some of the most complicated physical processes that happen on this planet with probably about a million or more variables all of which have some effect however small. We still have much to learn but I think most scientists are doing about as well as they can with the information that they currently have available. I don't believe any computer program will ever be totally accurate. Their result mismatches just shows there is still a lot of work to be done with them.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2015
And another victory for my stupid "brass bowl," gedanken model.

@24 Weather is complicated, yet we predict that.
Climate is easy, the only reason you don't predict it is so that they create sides and no one can agree to make a decsion.

I've been predicting climate for 30 years accurately.
With an imaginary "brass bowl," water, ice and a candle.
altizar
2.5 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2015
That's pretty much because we don't know how the climate works. And probably 50%+ of our assumptions are wrong.
Wake
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2015
They cannot predict the actual weather a month away but they can predict the climate a century into the future. Oh, wait a minute, no they actually can't. But all it takes is a little fudging here and there and it will be perfectly accurate. So why is it freezing cold when you predicted 90 degrees? Oh, that's just a little problem in the prediction algorithm. So then why is it dry when you said that it would be raining? Oh, that's just a little problem that's easily fixed in the prediction software. OK, why isn't it working now? BECAUSE, YOU NITWIT.
Science Officer
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2015
Wait a minute......I thought the science was all settled.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015
It looks to me like they are saying the models are Concocted, Rank, Apocryphal, and Phony (CRAP). LOL
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2015
They are saying nothing that you think they are saying, and that is completely certain.

Aside from Whiffen_Poof's exhalation of damp, smelly, devoid-of-substance flatulence, the comments of altizar, Wake, Scioff, and LOLubaMORON are without even the glimmer of merit -just so much useless, unintelligible gibberish.

One supposes perhaps there was no need to differentiate theirs from Whiffen_Poof's, after all.

The Author provides this quite clear statement of the upshot of their findings:

"This doesn't mean greenhouse gases aren't causing Earth's atmosphere to warm up in the long run," Brown emphasized. "It just means the road to a warmer world may be bumpier and less predictable, with more decade-to-decade temperature wiggles than expected. If you're worried about climate change in 2100, don't over-interpret short-term trends. Don't assume that the reduced rate of global warming over the last 10 years foreshadows what the climate will be like in 50 or 100 years."

runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2015
Internal variability is the chaos on the system that nevertheless does not prevent the same end. The energy is in the system, an excess being kept there by anthro CO2.
Ocean current variability, atmospheric aerosols concentration and some others have a periodicity (even random in the case of aerosol) that CANNOT be predicted .... at least currently.
What this says it what any sensible science minded and none politically-blinded person would find intuitive. it is the long term term that is the indicator (correlation) never mind the ~150 yrs of empirical science that gives us the causation.
Think of a pan of water on a stove. We know exactly (to the millisecond) when it will reach boiling (given known input/start cond.) .... but cannot possibly predict hot spots in the pan as it does so. Same with the Earth's climate system, of which the Ocean's store ~93% .... and then pass it to the atmosphere. Oceans consist of water, which churns about. Now as you Americans say "go figure".
rockyrocky
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2015
One thing we do know. Every computer model and every climate prediction of the so called 'climate scientists' have missed the mark by more than a country mile for the last 30 years.

Time to pack it up, boys. the reason your computer models and climate predictions are laughable is because global warming is laughable. Global warming is complete and total nonsense based on junk science. Global warming was junk science yesterday, is junk science today and will be junk science tomorrow
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 27, 2015
One thing we do know. Every computer model and every climate prediction of the so called 'climate scientists' have missed the mark by more than a country mile for the last 30 years........


This for the scintifically literate and non-ideologically challenged (obviously absent in the above poster)

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

"Climate models make projections, not forecasts. They calculate climate over long time periods -- a few decades at least -- due to forcing variations, but aren't good at projecting internal variability like ENSOs and the PDO which take up or release heat (and which average out to zero over many decades). Slowdowns ("pauses") occur in the 15-year trends in the models, but forecasting one from, say, 1998 requires setting up a model with its ocean in that particular ENSO state."
PawlT
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2015
If some of these climatologists were stock brokers, we'd all go broke investing in their stock projections.
winthrom
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
Basic climatology started with historical information about locales around airports (who really need wx forecasting) based on time of year, time of day, similarity of weather systems to current weather systems. As late as 1969, climatology could predict (forecast) six hours into the future with 50% accuracy. (I was a weather observer in the US Air Force at the time working with weather forecasters for AF pilots) Forecasting models at that time, running on computers inferior to today's average laptop) were better than 80% accurate for the same six hour window. The models have improved drastically, and are tested by running old data as if it were current and seeing if it gives correct projections. Today that is good for about 36 - 48 hours.

These are forecasts, not climate models.

Climate models generalize on forecast models and retain the salient elements without the clutter of hourly observations. The loss of detail causes 34 models which agree generally but not specifically.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
These are forecasts, not climate models.

Climate models generalize on forecast models and retain the salient elements without the clutter of hourly observations. The loss of detail causes 34 models which agree generally but not specifically.
This was a good explanation, thank you!
winthrom
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
(continued)
The climate models add in variables that were negligible in the old forecast models such as el nino, etc. These longtime scale factors have helped modern forecasting a lot. The historical information on the long term factors is inferred rather than measured when dealing with CO2 concentrations, snow cover, etc. The science behind the long term factors is fairly strong, but not easily defended against "Vas you dere Charlie" doubters.
The strength of the climatology models is in using the geological record as the history, and predicting events that follow (similar to forecasting). As new models are developed, more historical long term factors are inserted and improvements in results are seen.
I think a factor that might be added is orbital Coriolis effect on weather systems. The earth orbit is not a perfect circle, and over time the apogee and perogee shifts from one season to another. The orbital Coriolis effect's strength shifts also.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
If some of these climatologists were stock brokers, we'd all go broke investing in their stock projections.

That is the fate of the stupid I'm afraid.
"A fool and his money are soon parted".
Read............
A selfish, sociopathic denier and his common sense are soon parted re climate science.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
(I was a weather observer in the US Air Force at the time working with weather forecasters for AF pilots)

Hello my friend. I did the same - both actually - with RAF pilots in the 70's and 80's.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
bias be thy name. it is irrefutable that we do not have the ability to predict climate. would appreciate a retort...


Wrong. It is irrefutable that we cannot predict weather, at least not beyond a threshold of a few days. Climate trends, on the other hand, are predictable, at least in an averaged, long term outlook.

Happy now?
winthrom
5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2015
@runrig: Weather wennies! I did radiosonde overseas (1965) then straight observation in Texas. I became a forecaster in 1972, and was assigned to Air Force Global Weather Central (AFGWC in Omaha, Nebraska) as a software expert supporting forecast model data insertion from weather observations (Synoptic, Airways, METAR) into the Real Time Operating System (Weather). Best job was wx observing. Getting paid to watch the weather! WOW
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2015
@runrig, is this still the same runrig from say 7 months ago, or does your account have a new user...
Why do I ask?
Well, a meteorologist would know weather is chaotic, but climate is not.
What's the story?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
@runrig: Weather wennies! I did radiosonde overseas (1965) then straight observation in Texas. I became a forecaster in 1972, and was assigned to Air Force Global Weather Central (AFGWC in Omaha, Nebraska) as a software expert supporting forecast model data insertion from weather observations (Synoptic, Airways, METAR) into the Real Time Operating System (Weather). Best job was wx observing. Getting paid to watch the weather! WOW

Hi, yes I think observing was best - less stressful. Mind I observed for the BAE Lightning jet which only had a flight duration of 50 mins at best. They flew to the area between Norway and Scotland to intercept Russian Bears and if the weather closed in - had to switch sharpish to a diversion airfield. I forecast for the RAF flying schools after studying further, then switched to the civil/commercial side of things from the late 90's until retirement in '06.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
@runrig, is this still the same runrig from say 7 months ago, or does your account have a new user...
Why do I ask?
Well, a meteorologist would know weather is chaotic, but climate is not.
What's the story?

if you mean the post where I said this...
"Internal variability is the chaos on the system that nevertheless does not prevent the same end."
I think it is clear enough my friend abut nevertheless, in more words.
Climate progresses on a mean path with internal variability played out as it goes along (has too because of ocean storage/ice melt buffering, and consequent variable land/ocean heat fluxes on inter-decadal scales. These average out (~30yrs) and climate is determined.... which is what GCM's project as the outcome. They cannot, and are not meant to get the ave global temp smack on the median curve, only to encapsulate it within error bars that the unknown climate cycles (PDO/ENSO chiefly) allow. Internal chaos is obviously inherent in climate.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2015
runrig,
Weather is chaotic, chaos mechanics/math.
Climate is not.

Intuitively, chaos means the same initial conditions can generate drastically different results. Like one of those Pachinko machines.

This is pretty patently NOT climate.
winthrom
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2015
@Water_Prophet:
Please realize that @runrig specified "mean path". The mean of a large number of years is a smoothing out of a more variable collection of shorter year segments. The list of variables (each with its' own cycle of years) is extensive and the mean is all we look at. The article says there are bumps and ripples in the overall picture, but in the last analysis, the warming trend is real. The "wiggles" just make the various models bounce around a bit. overall, the various models are on the right track, but the author warns against cyclic issues that skew some models.

Watch hurricane path prediction & you see that "the mean path" of a typical storm has a central line and an ever widening spread as the path is projected into the future. Even so, the bumps (wiggles) in the models are broadly on target. Now extrapolate this idea to time periods as long as ~30 years for climatological projections to encounter some of the wiggles. Nominal skew may occur, but the trend stays.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
runrig,
Weather is chaotic, chaos mechanics/math.
Climate is not.

Intuitively, chaos means the same initial conditions can generate drastically different results. Like one of those Pachinko machines.

This is pretty patently NOT climate.

Water, you are being willfully obtuse.
I said "internally chaotic" ... all systems are!
If you look at a graph of ave global temp vs time I think you will find there are, err, wiggles. That's IS internal chaos, caused by climate cycles within the system (vis ENSO).
It all comes out in the wash my friend, over ~30 yrs and the underlying climate is revealed.
Comprede now ??
This is where deniers get it wrong they look at the "chaos" and think it's the trend FFS.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
as we all know, averages mean very little. see the atom, NYSE, any sport, anything. in our arrogance, we have given far greater importance to our incomplete and inaccurate predictions regarding climate than deserved. far too many variables to be able to predict with any bit of certainty.

Averages (over~30 yrs) mean a great deal when applied to climate. It has overlying cycles consideration (we struggle to forecast the periodicity) - but these merely shift heat about.
The NYSE is entirely dependent on the whim of economics and human psychology. Both of those have no constancy. Climate has the Sun as its driver, which is constant (given millenial time scales/known bounds). I think you confuse chaotic with chance also.
GCM's do NOT have to predict climate (as in temperature exact to 0.1C in, say 50 yrs time, or even 1C). They are projections of the way climate is heading and that is unequivocally warmer and quicker than has been seen in the geological record to boot.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
runrig specified "mean path"
@winthrom
W-prophet AKA ALCHE is simply trolling & trying to be stupid
ALCHE claims to have multiple degree's and knowledge of chemistry as well, but cannot comprehend the simple physics of the feedback/cycle of W.vapor and CO2 (like shown in the study here: http://www.scienc...abstract )You will also note that he continues to make various claims about successful climate/weather predictions with no viable or credible links supporting his conclusions

To make a long story short, talking science to w_prophet/ALCHE is like trying to teach your dog to talk: you might get them to make similar sounds to things like "roof" or even "hoof" but you are far more likely to go mad because of the inability of the dog to comprehend even the basics of the exercise (a good demo of this: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp )

great knowing you are around here to spread knowledge!
Losik
Jan 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
runrig, i dont argue with the findings. i argue with making predictions that are consistently being viewed as a scared tactic. we are far too ignorant at this point in time

for every action...


@foolspoo,

While this may be true(of you, personally), what you seem to be missing is that modeling is an effort to understand what is going on with warming, and further, to be able to envision the long range consequences of warming.

Perhaps you don't see this as being of any importance, or as even being something that can be done, given the complexity of the climate system, but it hardly seems possible that you could think so, given that we know so much about past climate, and its effects upon the biosphere which have been demonstrably catastrophic more than once.

Given that we are warming, then we most certainly need to know not only to what degree so far, but into the future, as well, since our very survival depends upon it. So our best predictions are essential.

Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2015
@runrig-wasn't being deliberately obtuse, just a chaos-nerd.
foolspoo-Excellent, "All models ARE wrong, some models are useful." George Box.
We used to quote that all the time in the M&S world. Great memory thank you.

See, another blow for the brass bowl model, it is pretty obvious that IT can't predict all your problems, but it does what it does, well.

Stop crying skeptibullies, remember all of E&M can be predicted with 2 assumptions: Charge and the speed of light is constant.

I said, no crying.

Stop.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
runrig, i dont argue with the findings. i argue with making predictions that are consistently being viewed as a scared tactic. we are far too ignorant at this point in time

for every action...

That is the media.
The IPCC has various scenarios.
You cannot blame the science for the media's obsession with hyperbole. it's what sells my friend.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
"This doesn't mean greenhouse gases aren't causing Earth's atmosphere to warm up in the long run"
Of course it does - between dozens of another indicia.. But the belief in models which serve as the occupational generator and the goose that lays the golden eggs is stronger.

The "models" aren't the science - they are a tool that give some projected incite.
The science of GHG's is empirical my friend ... and not up for discussion. Get over it and argue about how best to move forward.
Denying science is, as we say here, "not big and not clever".
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
caliban, please recognize the argument before providing your misappropriated condescension. i have demonstrated in every arena of my life my firm understanding and recognition of our singular climate. my points are as valid as ever. my disagreement with the popular lauding of such models does not hint at my understanding or beliefs on the matter. it clearly permits one to make presumptions about my said position, which have proven inaccurate today.


Nothing "misappropiated", as you say, about it.

It may surprise you to know that I understand your "...disagreement with the popular lauding of such models...", but, where I disagree with you is that these models, taken together, are really the only tools available to us to help formulate a response to ongoing AGW.

Splitting hairs about how accurate they are in the short term is just that --hairsplitting-- because the TREND is clear, as is its cause.
ctd
Agomemnon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2015

Splitting hairs about how accurate they are in the short term is just that --hairsplitting-- because the TREND is clear, as is its cause.
ctd

yup. cause is giant thermonuclear ball in the sky....the sun.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2015
ctd

And while I certainly share your concern that short-term predictions could lead to many people rejecting both the usefulness of climate modeling and the veracity of AGW, runrig has the right of it in his above post --that's the media hyperbole, and not the claims of the scientists themselves.

So, Oreskes, et al -whether intentionally or not- are setting up what many use as a strawman argument to throw the baby out with the bath water, and -like it or not- your comments in this regard create the impression that you have fallen prey to this misconception. Besides which --what else is there for us to use?

Climate modeling, and the application(in a measured, constrained way) of the predictive power it provides us, is a way to respond to AGW in a cautious, reasoned approach.

Anything else is just whistling in the dark.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015

Splitting hairs about how accurate they are in the short term is just that --hairsplitting-- because the TREND is clear, as is its cause.
ctd

yup. cause is giant thermonuclear ball in the sky....the sun.

It's been cooling (slightly) for several decades my friend.
So no it's not the Sun....stupid.
RealityCheck
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2015
Hi Losik, Water_Prohet et al.

The Global Climate Change issue is too important for the future of Humanity, and thus not a suitable subject for the usual personal/political/mercenary etc 'attitudes' from EITHER 'side' in the debate on the science and the realities. You are patently wrong on this one, mateys. If you only have generalized opinions rather than recognizing the increasingly self-evident GW reality, then maybe you should leave this topic alone and concentrate on topics/issues where you may have a real case to pursue? No offense meant. Just a friendly suggestion for your own sakes as well as for the sake of this topic discussion based on the evolving reality humanity is facing as we speak. Good luck to us all.
Losik
Jan 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
3.6 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2015
Hi Losik, Agomemnon, Water_Prophet et al.

If you read my recent postings in other GW-related threads you would have seen where I made the case that IRRESPECTIVE of what other input/complication factors are involved, ultimately the 'system closing' effects of ubiquitous and ALWAYS ON CO2 effect will determine NET EFFECT OF all those other direct/indirect inputs/factors.

In short, more/less CO2 means more/less 'lagging' effect which prevents immediate loss to space 'overnight' of ALL input heat loads if not for CO2.

Look at MERCURY planet baked by sun. The 'dark side' is at 'cryogenic' temps because most of heat inputs lost to SPACE without sufficient CO2/similar 'greenhouse gas/effect' to make heat build up and stay high.

So again, please leave this topic alone if you are going to consider/push only YOUR 'side' and 'list of facts' in exclusion to ALL 'sides' and COMPLETE 'list of facts'. I trust my point has been made? Thanks for your attention to this matter. Bye. :)

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
If it is, why for example the theories of geothermal or cosmic origin of global warming aren't considered with caution?

They have been considered. What makes you think they haven't?
Why the logical flaws of "greenhouse model" are ignored?

What logical flaws? Your link didn't show any logical flaws.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2015
If it is, why for example the theories of geothermal or cosmic origin of global warming aren't considered with caution?
Another try at aether theory Zephyr? I will repeat what I have said to you many times: dark matter does not warm the oceans. Geothermic activity is not responsible for recent measured surface temperature warming. The latter has been considered, the former is pseudo-science.

The robustness of the scientific finding of CO2 driven global heating is why there is consensus. Stop trying to drag the discussion to AWT (or whatever you call it).
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2015
@reality,
Stop being a Stumpy: We are not wrong because we disagree with your opinions.

Actually there are very many simple proofs why CO2 does not have the effects AGW-ers believe.
1. You did not sufficiently examine the direct correlation between GDP and real temperature.
2. An experiment you can run yourself. Set the temperature in side your home equal to outside.
Under these conditions CO2 is 4x higher than outside. Humidity is ~40% from your AC. Feel how warm it is; test radiative transfer from you oven burners. Set up a yard-stick and feel the difference. You can even write down relative numbers.
Now open the window, turn of the AC. Humidity is now equal to outside, CO2 down to ~400ppm. Measure the radiative effects. Note ppm/humidity levels as you do.

You will find you can not even remotely sense differences in 4x CO2, but small changes in humidity you'll notice.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2015
Hi W_P. Mate, what are you doing? I have made my own case all along, based on logic and evidence and known science plus my own highlighting (in the past) of previously missed factors in the various models. Did you read my Mercury planet case supporting my arguments so far on this issue?...(unlike the Stump, who merely links and namedrops mainstream sites/sources without any real understanding/contribution of his own).

So your ignoring facts, and equating my commentary/argument to the Stumps (irrelevant uncomprehending parroting, gang-recruiting MO for trolling) betrays your own subjective and ego-attached prejudices affecting adversely your own case/argument/commentary to date. Please try to remove yourself from the equation; see that all my posts/observations in this area have been from a scrupulously objective, independent reality evidence base; uncompromised by any personal, political, mercenary or trolling motivation like some here on both 'sides'.

Rethink, mate. :)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2015
My opinion always evolves. And I've seen all the common place information time and time again for years.

Whereas, I am very positive you haven't seen what I just presented, clearly so you can run your own experiment, unless you heard it from me.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
you repeated this tone many times;
"Besides which --what else is there for us to use?"

do you still consume cocaine for a headache?
change is in the air. of course. change is inevitable. are we accelerating or decelerating these changes? or are we bringing about unprecedented changes? these incomplete models are only suggestive. a great deal can and should be learned from them, undoubtedly. the irrefutable lesson is that we are ignorant to all the intricacies of our singular climate. physorg is nearly the extent of media coverage in my life. media simply reports inaccuracies that favor their chosen argument of the day.


So here you make evident your real agenda, which is the same as that of the other trolls, namely, that you are denying the science, and only play at supporting AGW, while attempting to parlay your dissatisfaction with standard methodology into some soon-to-be-unveiled eureka! discovery.

And, only of course, knows what it is.

ctd
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2015
ctd

you have misinterpreted a great deal on here, caliban.


I'm sure you would like for that to be the case, but no.

besides my position, Naomi has never considered abandoning modeling. the issue is taking these fallible models as a defense against ignorance.


What is this statement even supposed to mean?

i am all for radical revolution in energy production, consumption and storage. but that should never allow a scientist to say the best available is the absolute


And nobody has, to my knowledge. But -like it or not- they're the best tools available to us us at this point, with regards to predicting future conditions by extrapolating upon ongoing trends.

So where is this alternative of yours?

Perhaps you would prefer a coin toss? Or Monckton, et al's pocket calculator "model"?

If you don't have a viable working method/mechanism to replace a tool(climate modeling), then get to work developing one or quit whinging.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2015
@reality
The "stumpy" was more of a gibe. I didn't mean it quite as seriously as it hit...
My apologies.
Respectfully,
W_P
Losik
Jan 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2015
@Losik

The higher gradient between atmosphere and surface of Earth is, the more stable the convection should be. If we are heating the water in the pot, then the water circulates rather randomly from the beginning. Once it becomes hot, the stable fast vertical convection will establish itself. So in general the global warming should enforce the short path vertical convection into account of this unsteady horizontal one.

The things aren't so simple though, because the circulation of atmosphere around Earth is quantized into a few relatively stable convective cells, the number of which would increase with increasing temperature gradient. And the switching of number of convective cells is metastable process affecting the circumpolar circulation with Rossby waves. So that the global warming should enforce the instabilities of atmospheric circulation rather to eliminate them in a given moment.


Excellent. I think if everyone just understood this, opinions would change.
winthrom
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2015
@WaterProphet:

L O L!

Take some meteorology courses and come back later. Say in about four years.

A quick look at http://en.wikiped...sby_wave will show you that the Rosby waves are related to the Jet stream. They meander and change quite frequently, and are found (northern Hemisphere) at the edge of the southern edge of the polar tropopause and the northern edge of the temperate "trop". Another jet stream is located at the southern edge of the temperate trop and the northern edge of the tropical trop. The polar trop is lowest, the temperate trop is several thousand feet higher, and the tropical trop is several thousand feet higher still. These vary in height with the seasons, warmer means higher. Now, the weather cells are caused by earth's rotation and Coriolis vector forces parallel to the poles and perpendicular to the equator. These form within the troposphere in association with the three trops just explained. Global warming raises all trops.

Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2015
Wake muttered & showed his ignorance of comparative integration & patterns
They cannot predict the actual weather a month away but they can predict the climate a century into the future. Oh, wait a minute, no they actually can't. But all it takes is a little fudging here and there and it will be perfectly accurate. So why is it freezing cold when you predicted 90 degrees? Oh, that's just a little problem in the prediction algorithm. So then why is it dry when you said that it would be raining?
Wake, U need to get a grip where local patterns have patterned properties commensurate with straightforward forecasting, where I live in Perth Western Australia, the weather services are pretty damn close to a couple of degrees often up to 5 days out, permutations in patterns are comparatively small for our local forecasting region.

Climate however, is a larger integration problem but, still has forecasts within error bars :-)

Why because the larger sums r far more stable !
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2015
@winthrom,
Thanks for your cultured & educated comments, a thoughtful & mature addition indeed, please keep up the good work & synchronous with runrig, thermodynamics, greenonions, maggnus & Captain_Stumpy.

FYI:
Water_Prophet went by name of TheAlchemist claiming to graduate in Physical Chemistry (PC) but shows its unlikely as he doesn't write like a PC, cannot articulate basic physics like a PC & often evades direct straightforward issues re gases, vibrational states, IR, etc which a PC would not evade.

He specifically claims a brass bowl heated by a candle predicted the 1998 shift in thermal flow re Enso & several other issues yet completely evades details overwhelmingly qualitative betraying his lack of education yet claims still from ppm & % alone that CO2 is anemic & a "red-herring" etc When challenged he brought up graphs of CO2 relation with insolation yet completely ignored CO2's effect on long wave IR to space.

Not best use of our time debating him :-(

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.