==> “Pat’s claim might be more interesting if he’d quote the relevant argument. I suspect the usual one against parametrization.”
Indeed. And counter-critiques that point that out are valid.
And then there’s the other laughable responses in the sub-thread.
sameolsameol.
interestingly enough, jim2’s wasn’t that bad!
Peer reviewed paper on the impact of the closure of the Isthmus of Panama on thermohaline oceanic circulation. I have been looking for something like this for quite some time. If anyone finds anything similar – the impact of continental change on paleoclimate – it would be great if you would share it somewhere on Judith’s blog.
Role of Panama uplift on oceanic…
Gates
Gates
What you have written is not based on the output of GCM’s. You are merely writing your concerns about AGW.
Are you claiming that the output of a GCM has led you to believe that the rate of sea level rise will be increasing beyond the current observed rate? Which one are you referencing?
“ I would not invest in any activity which requires a regular sustained water supply in many areas. (CA and SW USA, water is going to be a big issue– even bigger than it has been up to now)”
You have written more general bologna. You seem to be taking any generally unfavorable weather condition and claiming it will get worse faster due to AGW.
Gates writes- “The GCM’s are exceptionally useful for dictating policy”
WRONG- Government policy involves knowing reasonably accurately what is likely to occur over the next few decades. For a GCM to be useful it would need to be able to reasonably accurately forecast what regions within nations will get substantially more vs. less rainfall. They are not reliable for this purpose are they?
Gates writes- “general intensification of the hydrological cycle as accompanies all rising GH gas climates”
You make many unsupportable claims.
Interesting…too bad Sharyl’s story didn’t seem to generate much buzz in the MSM.
“All GCMs are able to predict the climate.”
So can astrologists, phrenologists, and tea leaf readers.
And do we really need to deal with this hackneyed argument again?
“pragmatic decisions cannot be made in a vaccum.
They are made in a space where alternatives are offered.
Unless you have an alternative, you dont get to play the game.
sorry.”
No. No one can model the Earth’s climate with the precision, accuracy and certainty claimed by those who would have the government seize control over the global energy economy.
No one has to propose an alternative method of predicting that which cannot be predicted (accurately – obscurantists can so boring in their consistency sometimes), in order to reject the enormous public policy proscriptions of those who have no ability to do so themselves.
“Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. ”
Always good when your paper on verifying your model begins with this.
Interesting…pink noise. But we humans like to find phantom patterns – in star positions (constellations), clouds, and maybe climate. Is that Jay Zuz I see in the tree bark?
Willard – Pat’s claim might be more interesting if he’d quote the relevant argument.
Here it is:
In the lack of other Earths, ’scientific simulation’ could be proposed. The above experiment [examining other Earth’s under different forcings] could be performed by climate model simulations rather than with other Earths. Nevertheless, conclusions on the hypothesis that “increased atmospheric GHG affects the global climate” on the basis of this approach are not valid. The climate model is a mathematical formulation of the hypothesis (together with some auxiliary hypotheses and physical laws) we want to test. The hypothesis is explicitly added to the climate model. So, the hypothesis is tested by a formalisation of the hypothesis itself.
Hmmm…Oreskes and model validation. Maybe she changed her mind, or her mind is changing.
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/feda/papers/Oreskes1.pdf
I can help her…
a difference that makes no difference makes no difference.
or
a charitable interpretation of
‘it makes no sense”
is
‘it makes no sense to me”
But you never were big on charity
I like this one from page 490 of the BAMS pdf:
“Users of CMIP5 model output should take note that decadal predictions with climate models are in an exploratory stage.”
Now, imagine that I read Mann’s dissertation and made those bald assertions?
My experience with Regional climate models is pretty much the same as detailed in the dissertation.
What is your experience like?
What about Willard’s?
What about Pat’s
Judith works with ECMWF. Day to day works with it to give advice to folks who want direction. You think her experience using models to give advice might be more relevant that Pat whats his face, or you? or Willard?
Those of us who have actually worked with this data have reservations.
That’s not nothing.
Nit pickers lose points by being less than perfect.
glass houses and all.
Of course willard offers charity to Pat.
No charity for the author.
he’s a stingy prick that willard.
zero honor.
Jim D… appreciate the explanation
so a ‘climate signal’ is observed data
that differs from some previous set of observations
is there a non ‘signal’ norm?
I’m suspicious that if your graph shifted to the left it would not be considered a ‘signal’
I’ll give Namoi a little lesson in verifying your model.
Take your pde. Take an analytic function (perhaps one that mimics a solution) and plug it into your equation. Move everything that remains to the right hand side. This becomes your forcing function. Note your boundary conditions (inherited by your choice of function).
Now if you put these boundary conditions and this forcing into your model and solve you should get approximately your original function back. Now do a grid refinement study. Compute the L2 error between your solution and your known solution. You should start to see a convergence rate. Verify that it matches the known rate for your solution method.
Oh but thats insane you say. How can we do such a thing for a massive code like a climate simulation? This is your out, yes?
No. This is exactly how we verified our massively parallel solvers at Sandia. Fluid solvers, fire solvers, coupled elastic material/fluid solvers, etc etc…. Solvers much more complex than a climate model.
However, a caveat. This requires your code to be well designed and flexible. It requires using a solution framework that can be separated from your code. It requires adaptivity and that your code be grid independent.
Long live fortran.
@ Curious George
“Berkeley and Stanford faculty: 96% Democrat, 4% Republican.”
Do you really think that 4% of the Berkeley and Stanford faculty actually admit, in public, that they are Republican?
If so they must be fully tenured and near retirement. And brave.
OT but a response anyway:
CaptDallas says:
“btw, just about every building complex has/had pretty comprehensive TAB reports that detailed “as installed” versus “as designed” performance. The TAB company can survey the system in a fraction of the time and cost while”fixing” as in re-balance the systems by finding out which dampers are failed, belts are slipping, RPMs are off, fans are rotating backwards, pump flows that are off etc. etc. then with that information engineers might be less irritated.”
This view is typical of the industry problem: BIAS, BLINDERS, and BLUNDERS.
Companies only look for issues they can sell their specific services for, they are not capable of seeing the building as a whole – WHOLISM.
What would happen to TAB/CX/engineers/contractors/modelers if every building held off any work for 18 months after fixing envelope and associated issues? Most would fold.
“Fraction of the time and cost” – as compared to what?
TAB, and CX, is sometimes complicit in the original problem. I’ve seen reports that intentionally hide engineering/construction problems to prevent liability issues from surfacing. Companies who expose such issues tend to have short lifespans in the community they serve.
Who says the original TAB/CX report, or latest version, is valid for the current tenants? Who says fan speed or pump flow is wrong?
Who usually makes changes to the systems? The operators, and why? Typically because of tenant complaints. Making changes back without acknowledging this will just result in future tenant complaints, which will force the operator to make the system change again back to where it was before the TAB/CX contractor came in and spent the owner’s money.
TAB/CX companies are not design engineers and typically do not have liability insurance to make system design changes.
> No charity for the author.
Which author?
A quote might be nice.
> a difference that makes no difference makes no difference.
A difference that makes a difference does.
Next.
