Spinning the climate wheel

MetEireann

The following is an article from Ray McGrath, head of research & Applications, on Climate Modelling which I hope you'll find interesting.

“If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then to me.” Perhaps Banquo in Shakespeare’s Macbeth should first have asked about the reliability of the witches’ forecasts and then pinned down the details; oracular pronouncements often leave too much wriggle room in their interpretation. In the real world, of course, uncertainty rules. Edward Lorenz (1917-2008), eminent mathematician and meteorologist, famously highlighted the difficulty in making accurate predictions of the weather: sensitive dependence on the initial state of the system eventually destroys predictive skill as the forecast evolves; in a slightly frivolous example, he cited the minute disturbance created by flapping butterfly wings in Brazil conceivably influencing the later development of tornadoes in Texas (the ‘butterfly effect’, although the original, less poetic, metaphor referred to seagulls). As we can never hope to capture such initial detail, the seeds of uncertainty are forever present and grow with the forecast; the atmosphere is a chaotic system. Lorenz’s work applies not just to meteorology but to many other complex systems that we have an interest in forecasting. The global economy, for example, probably falls into this category; the pre-crash certainty that global markets were highly resilient and self-correcting echoes the dreams, shattered by Lorenz more than 45 years ago, that we might one day have accurate weather forecasts for weeks or months ahead.
The complete article is here

maquiladora

Thanks for that MetEireann.

global climate models such as EC-EARTH are not exploited to their full potential. The atmospheric component, for example, resolves details at a scale of about 16 km when used for daily weather forecasts that extend typically 10 days ahead. It is currently impossible to run EC-EARTH at this resolution as the computer requirements would be enormous for simulations stretching to the equivalent of hundreds of years; instead, the resolution is throttled back,

at this part do you know how by how much the resolution is "throttled back"? Hopefully improving computing technology will soon improve this. (quantum computing)

octo

Climate change deniers don't do nuance or subtlety. But if they did... it wouldn't be anything like this.

octo

octo wrote: »

Climate change deniers don't do nuance or subtlety. But if they did... it wouldn't be anything like this.

I dont think anybody denies that climate changes, what you post is merely a thinly veiled insult which brings down the tone of the otherwise excellent weather forum :mad:

octo

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think anybody denies that climate changes, what you post is merely a thinly veiled insult which brings down the tone of the otherwise excellent weather forum :mad:

Most people on this forum deny the proposition of anthropogenic climate change. That's what the article is about. How many times have I read about global cooling, conspiracies to raise taxes, the frost this morning disproving the theory, and other such simplistic rhetoric from the weather enthusiasts here whose certainty and passion is inversely proportional to their knowledge and understanding. Many of these same opinionaters will latch on to the latest 7-day ECMWF or NOAA model output for hints of approaching weather, and yet completely reject the climate projections built upon the exact same circulation models.

octo

Deleted User wrote: »

at this part do you know how by how much the resolution is "throttled back"? Hopefully improving computing technology will soon improve this. (quantum computing)

AFAIK, the resolution is at about 100 km grid points. Knowledge of local climate is then used to downscale the projections onto a smaller grid. I think this is what the c4i people were doing, although I'm not sure if they're still active.

Deep Easterly

octo wrote: »

Most people on this forum deny the proposition of anthropogenic climate change. That's what the article is about. How many times have I read about global cooling, conspiracies to raise taxes, the frost this morning disproving the theory, and other such simplistic rhetoric from the weather enthusiasts here whose certainty and passion is inversely proportional to their knowledge and understanding. Many of these same opinionaters will latch on to the latest 7-day ECMWF or NOAA model output for hints of approaching weather, and yet completely reject the climate projections built upon the exact same circulation models.

What others believe in should not really be your concern. There are hints of religiosity in your tone to be honest, and see's those that "deny" as being nothing short of heretics.

This is a weather enthusiasts forum, not a climate one, which, we are told by the climate speculators themselves, are 2 completely separate entities. We look at models, yes, but there is a big difference to a 7 day forecast than there is to a 100 year one.

A frosty morning, week or season does not prove anything, I agree. So maybe you could tell that to the UK met office who cited the warm summer's of 2003 and 2006 as being down to AGW.

octo

Deep Easterly wrote: »

What others believe in should not really be your concern. There are hints of religiosity in your tone to be honest, and see's those that "deny" as being nothing short of heretics.

This is a weather enthusiasts forum, not a climate one, which, we are told by the climate speculators themselves, are 2 completely separate entities. We look at models, yes, but there is a big difference to a 7 day forecast than there is to a 100 year one.

A frosty morning, week or season does not prove anything, I agree. So maybe you could tell that to the UK met office who cited the warm summer's of 2003 and 2006 as being down to AGW.

OK. Perhaps 'reject' would be a better word than 'deny', which I agree it has overtones of holocaust denialism about it. Unfortunately, the debate is usually framed as 'alarmists v deniers'.

Did you read the article? What did you think? One of the main topics was explaining the difference and similarities between climate and forecast models and how ensemble/probabalistic climate forecasting works. I just can't understand how you can reject the proposal of AGW so thoroughly and with such forthright certainty.

Deep Easterly

octo wrote: »

I just can't understand how you can reject the proposal of AGW so thoroughly and with such forthright certainty.

Nowhere did I say that I reject the proposal of AGW with the absolute certainty in which you seem to think I have?

I have only skimmed rather than absorbed the paper admitidly, but when I have, I shall opinionate on it.

Does the fact that you have read it give you leave to somehow insult all the weather enthusiasts here on Boards? I think your case would be a lot better received by us mere and unknowledgeable weather enthusiasts if you dropped the condescending tone which you seem to be assuming.

octo

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Nowhere did I say that I reject the proposal of AGW with the absolute certainty in which you seem to think I have?

I have only skimmed rather than absorbed the paper admitidly, but when I have, I shall opinionate on it.

Does the fact that you have read it give you leave to somehow insult all the weather enthusiasts here on Boards? I think your case would be a lot better received by us mere and unknowledgeable weather enthusiasts if you dropped the condescending tone which you seem to be assuming.

Well, first religious, and now condescending? Nothing like personalising your attack to avoid actually saying anything about the substance of the article.

Anything else? Unkempt, or anything? Please read the Weather Charter.

All of your remarks I've read on boards about climate change were firmly in the camp of rejecting the IPCC consensus that the earth has most-likely warmed and is most-likely to warm further primarily as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions.

Deep Easterly

octo wrote: »

Well, first religious, and now condescending? Nothing like personalising your attack to avoid actually saying anything about the substance of the article.

Anything else? Unkempt, or anything? Please read the Weather Charter.

All of your remarks I've read on boards about climate change were firmly in the camp of rejecting the IPCC consensus that the earth has most-likely warmed and is most-likely to warm further primarily as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions.

Ah yes, the typical response. No, there is nothing personal in those "attacks". Obviously you would like there to be. As to the weather charter, perhaps you should read through it again yourself. Because as far as I can see, you contribute nothing to the forum except to remind us that we are all ignorant. How someone such as you could ever see fit to be on such a lowly forum is beyond me.

Again I will say it, I do not deny that the earth has warmed. There is enough evidence out there to suggest so, so what are you talking about?

octo

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Ah yes, the typical response. No, there is nothing personal in those "attacks". Obviously you would like there to be. As to the weather charter, perhaps you should read through it again yourself. Because as far as I can see, you contribute nothing to the forum except to remind us that we are all ignorant. How someone such as you could ever see fit to be on such a lowly forum is beyond me.

Again I will say it, I do not deny that the earth has warmed. There is enough evidence out there to suggest so, so what are you talking about?

Jeez Man, what's your problem? You insist on sharing your own personal emotional subjective perception of me. Thanks. Now, one more time, do you have anything to add about the article which is the subject of this thread? No? Then go .... ........

Deep Easterly

octo wrote: »

Jeez Man, what's your problem? You insist on sharing your own personal emotional subjective perception of me. Thanks. Now, one more time, do you have anything to add about the article which is the subject of this thread? No? Then go .... ........

As I have said, when I have read it in full, then I might consider posting an opinion, but "jeez man", you need to loosen up and stop quoting people out of context, and if you don't want to, then toddle off like a good little man and find a climate forum to post on or something.

octo

Deep Easterly wrote: »

then toddle off like a good little man

What the hell is that?

nilhg

octo wrote: »

Jeez Man, what's your problem? You insist on sharing your own personal emotional subjective perception of me. Thanks. Now, one more time, do you have anything to add about the article which is the subject of this thread? No? Then go .... ........

Octo, I agree with an awful lot of what you say on weather topics on here, I'd think that you and I are on the same wavelength there, but TBH you're not doing yourself any favours with reactions like that.

OP, I read the article yesterday, interesting stuff, just goes to show no matter how much computing power you have (and I understand even with infinite capacity there is a limit to what can be achieved) you'll always need more.

And just on a side note, Bernie, a member of our camera club, supplied the picture at the bottom of the article.