Sentences with phrase «discussion of climate models»

-LSB-...] Steve McIntyre: updated discussion of climate models vs observations: are models running too hot or not?

Saying that a map doesn't capture the true landscape or a portrait the true self is very confusing as a lead - in to a discussion of climate models.

Joe: «Saying that a map doesn't capture the true landscape or a portrait the true self is very confusing as a lead - in to a discussion of climate models.

Crichton seems unaware that the discussion of climate model validation is a common feature of publications utilizing these models and model errors and biases are often explicitly quantified and described.

I guess I don't understand why the «bet they are wrong, but they won't bet so that proves they are wrong» has any place in serious discussions of Climate modeling.

Tim Palmer's presentation was superb and very relevant to our discussions of climate model uncertainty.

many thanks for the link to your «old post»... IMHO, it should be on the required reading list for all of us participating in discussions of climate models

Not exact matches

In summary the projections of the IPCC — Met office models and all the impact studies (especially the Stern report) which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models.They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.For further discussion and an estimate of the coming cooling see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

The Mathematics of the Weather is a forum for the discussion of new numerical approaches for use in numerical forecasting, climate modelling and research into numerical modelling of the atmosphere.

And a proper discussion of climate change often does call for precise terms like external forcing and general circulation models, and other non-toddler friendly jargon.

-- 7) Forest models for Montana that account for changes in both climate and resulting vegetation distribution and patterns; 8) Models that account for interactions and feedbacks in climate - related impacts to forests (e.g., changes in mortality from both direct increases in warming and increased fire risk as a result of warming); 9) Systems thinking and modeling regarding climate effects on understory vegetation and interactions with forest trees; 10) Discussion of climate effects on urban forests and impacts to cityscapes and livability; 11) Monitoring and time - series data to inform adaptive management efforts (i.e., to determine outcome of a management action and, based on that outcome, chart future course of action); 12) Detailed decision support systems to provide guidance for managing for adaptmodels for Montana that account for changes in both climate and resulting vegetation distribution and patterns; 8) Models that account for interactions and feedbacks in climate - related impacts to forests (e.g., changes in mortality from both direct increases in warming and increased fire risk as a result of warming); 9) Systems thinking and modeling regarding climate effects on understory vegetation and interactions with forest trees; 10) Discussion of climate effects on urban forests and impacts to cityscapes and livability; 11) Monitoring and time - series data to inform adaptive management efforts (i.e., to determine outcome of a management action and, based on that outcome, chart future course of action); 12) Detailed decision support systems to provide guidance for managing for adaptModels that account for interactions and feedbacks in climate - related impacts to forests (e.g., changes in mortality from both direct increases in warming and increased fire risk as a result of warming); 9) Systems thinking and modeling regarding climate effects on understory vegetation and interactions with forest trees; 10) Discussion of climate effects on urban forests and impacts to cityscapes and livability; 11) Monitoring and time - series data to inform adaptive management efforts (i.e., to determine outcome of a management action and, based on that outcome, chart future course of action); 12) Detailed decision support systems to provide guidance for managing for adaptation.

However, there are lots of disagreements discussed here — in regard to climate sensitivity, hurricanes, aerosols, climate modelling etc. but most of these are serious discussions amongst people who are genuinely trying to come to an answer.

Finally, here's a brief video discussion of geo - engineering on The Wall Street Journal Web site, featuring Dale Jamieson and Alan Robock, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers who's been modeling the climate consequences of human atmospheric meddling — from global warming to nuclear winter — for decades:

In the next door session, there was interesting discussion on the philosophy of climate modelling (from actual philosophers!)

P.S., prior discussion of Harde's climate model: https://skepticalscience.com/denier-dinner-disaster-dessert.html#107243

Could you advance from thee generic discussion, above, of model - reality mismatch, to a more focused discussion of this specific case: climate models vs. observed temps mismatch?

GCMs have oceanographic components — see Kate's Skeptical Science post for a useful and accessible discussion of the architecture of climate models — which surely include currents as part of their «dynamical» modelling.

Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the methodology you've described, but I find the idea of delivering short term predictions from AR4 models a little strange, based on previous discussions made here about the Cox and Stephenson's «sweet spot» of climate model simulations of ~ 20 - 50 years.

This is a bit off topic, but, all this discussion of solar forcing has made me realize I don't have a good short - form mental model of transient climate dynamics.

As a physics student very much used to operating on the «make prediction; test prediction» model of determining the reliability of a theory, I appreciate thorough discussion of realistic expectations for these climate models.

Given some of the ongoing discussion, it obviously still needs to be pointed out that year - to - year fluctuations in any of the key metrics of planet's climate are mostly a function of the weather and can not be expected to be captured in climate models, whose «weather» is uncorrelated with that in the real world.

In a discussion of Hansen's latest paper over at CS, Willis E. made the following comment regarding the veracity of current climate models:

[Response: Refer to this post (and references therein) for a detailed discussion of how comparisons of proxy - based climate reconstructions with theoretical climate model simulations can inform our assessment of the role of both natural and anthropogenic factors in recent climate change.

In the coming months, ClimateDialogue.org will host discussions on such topics as climate sensitivity to CO2, sea level rise, the reliability of temperature measurements, the reliability and usefulness of climate models, and the extent to which oceans can store heat.

John, On the «Presentation: Precautionary Principle...» thread you told me that you think it's «unhelpful to conflate discussion of climate - science issues like the modelling of SO2, about which none of us here know very much, with discussion of economic projections, where we can have a useful discussion.»

I find concerned liberals are loath to talk about how consistently wrong climate models have been or about the «pause» in global warming that has gone on for over fifteen years, while climate skeptics avoid discussion of things like ocean acidification and accelerated melting in Greenland and the Arctic.

The bulk of the large spread in ECS across current climate models (the wide horizontal axis in Figure 1) arises because it is uncertain how low clouds respond to warming (see this blog post for a discussion).

Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.

Concerning the role of active scientists and skeptics in the present climate discussion, the paradoxical thing is that a very large part of scientists subscribe the first model of thinking.

What's lost in a lot of the discussion about human - caused climate change is not that the sum of human activities is leading to some warming of the earth's temperature, but that the observed rate of warming (both at the earth's surface and throughout the lower atmosphere) is considerably less than has been anticipated by the collection of climate models upon whose projections climate alarm (i.e., justification for strict restrictions on the use of fossil fuels) is built.

The take - away in the discussion (for me) is Christy's ``... the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time.»

The fact that we can't control China, India, and other countries makes all this discussion, the expensive satellites, expensive super-computer models, and money dumped on climate science an exercise in futility as far as mitigation of global warming is concerned.

As climate modelers prepare to gather in College Park, Maryland, during the first week of April 2018 for the annual US Climate Modeling Summit, one topic that is likely to dominate discussions is whether we need to rethink our approach to improve model performance and acclimate modelers prepare to gather in College Park, Maryland, during the first week of April 2018 for the annual US Climate Modeling Summit, one topic that is likely to dominate discussions is whether we need to rethink our approach to improve model performance and acClimate Modeling Summit, one topic that is likely to dominate discussions is whether we need to rethink our approach to improve model performance and accuracy.

We thank Claudia Tebaldi for statistical advice; Stanley Jacobs for discussion of Southern Ocean circulation; Nathan Gillett for guidance on the transient climate response to emissions; Mark Merrifield for tidal modeling applied to the Alaskan coast; and Michael Oppenheimer for thoughtful comments on the manuscript.

[5] William D. Nordhaus, «The «DICE» Model: Background and Structure of a Dynamic Integrated Climate - Economy Model of the Economics of Global Warming,» Yale University, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics Discussion Paper No. 1009, February 1992.

«The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,» said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester.

The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with... Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society... have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate and discussion... My interaction (over the years) with a broad segment of AMS members... have indicated that a majority of them do not agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming.»

And the type of comparison they make in the paper you linked to is * not * comparing statistics of the models with statistics of the real climate, but looking for * actual correlations * between individual model realizations and the actual climate — that's completely counter to the discussion we've just been having about chaos and probability.

The climate scientists that worry about these issues don't post here (much - Jeff made a single post) so you aren't really going to see a meaningful discussion on the role of chaos or stochastic processes on climates, how that is handled in model building, and what that means in terms of model verification.

Ford Foundation grant for «To organize discussions of the dyrad forest finance model to contribute to sustainable livelihoods development of new enterprise models and climate change resilience»

If I were for a moment to play the Advocatus Diaboli in the discussion, however, I would note in the defense of the climate scientists who might be in good will misled by Global Circulation Models whether or not you consider them «falsifiable» — and your asserting that they are not does not make that so — they are, generally, based on actual physics.

First, how is this relevant to the discussion about trust in climate models or — to extend the thought — of anthropogenically caused catastrophe, considering that the sea has been rising at approximately the same rate for about 7,000 years?

We have three excellent participants joining this discussion: Bart van den Hurk of KNMI in The Netherlands who is actively involved in the KNMI scenario's, Jason Evans from the University of Newcastle, Australia, who is coordinator of Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) and Roger Pielke Sr. who through his research articles and his weblog Climate Science is well known for his outspoken views on climate modClimate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) and Roger Pielke Sr. who through his research articles and his weblog Climate Science is well known for his outspoken views on climate modClimate Science is well known for his outspoken views on climate modclimate modelling.

The outputs of the IPCC models in fact provide no basis for any serious discussion of future climate.

Some discussion is provided on how to practically estimate the climate modelling uncertainty based on an ensemble of opportunity.

As for your V&V discussion, I don't see the relevance of it in this talk, but in the context of physical science of climate change we have overwhelming evidence of model usefulness and verification (water vapor feedback, simulating the Pinatubo eruption effects, ocean heat content changes, stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, etc).

It's an arcane discussion that creates confusion between validation of the climate models and their predictive ability.

That we tend to see much more discussion about global warming is I think because of the limitations of the climate models when they go to more regional and seasonal predictions and refinements of max versus min temperature trends.

This is where the understanding of climate modeling uncertainty is lost in the scientific communications to the public by the politicians and vocal advocates that drive climate change discussions.

The report organizes the discussion of these strengths and limitations around a series of questions, including: What are the major components and processes of the climate system that are included in present state - of - the - art climate models?