MS @ The Hockey Schtick:
…while continuing to be faithful believers in the garbage output by said models.
Climate change models fail to accurately simulate droughts
By Ashutosh Jogalekar | April 18, 2013
Most of my day job involves simulating the behavior of molecules like drugs and proteins using computer models. The field is more an art than a science, partially because the systems that are being modeled are too complex and ill-understood to succumb to exact solutions. Success often depends on experience and intuition gained by working on similar systems. That does not mean there are no correct predictions, but it does mean that surprises are more common than we think and that many phenomena are impossible to model within a very precise window of accuracy. The failure of a model can sometimes be traced to a simple inability to simulate the behavior of an essential component of the system.In several cases this component is simply the water that surrounds a protein; water remains a substance that’s as enigmatic as any other. In other cases it could be the entropy of the system. The problem is that these factors are very hard to calculate even when we know that they are responsible for the limitations of our model.
A recent report on the failure of climate change models to predict the timing of major droughts in the Southwest made me think of some of the problems in my own field. Unfortunately the actual paper is not out yet so we will have to wait for the details, but the news piece in Nature has a good summary.
Sloan Coats of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, and his colleagues tested whether a state-of-the-art climate model could simulate the droughts known to have occurred in the southwest during the past millennium. The model incorporated realistic numbers for factors that affect temperature and rainfall, such as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, changes in solar radiation and ash from volcanic eruptions. It also incorporated changes in the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
The results were puzzling. Although the simulation produced a number of pronounced droughts lasting several decades each, these did not match the timing of known megadroughts. In fact, drought occurrences were no more in agreement when the model was fed realistic values for variables that influence rainfall than when it ran control simulations in which the values were unrealistically held constant. “The model seems to miss some of the dynamics that drive large droughts,” says study participant Jason Smerdon, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty who studies historical climate patterns.
Other climate models tested by the team fared no better, he says. In particular, the models failed to reproduce a series of multi-decadal droughts that occurred in the southwest during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a period between AD 900 and 1200 when global temperatures were about as high as they are today.
The team goes on to provide several possible explanations for the failure of the models, most likely related to their inability to account for details in the ENSO cycle. The researchers also note that the models may not capture some important features of the biosphere.
In addition to their failure to reproduce El Niño and La Niña, existing models do not fully capture other factors that influence rainfall, such as clouds and vegetation. But Smerdon adds that the atmospheric and oceanic dynamics that inhibit rainfall and favour prolonged drought may be essentially random and so almost unpredictable.
This is in fact a problem that has plagued computer models of climate since their very inception in the 1950s.
I was, once upon a time, a faithful reader and subscriber of SA; until, I realized I was being duped into reading an inordinate amount of Liberal propaganda under the guise of science. Now, I am content to read only the articles that deal with science, without paying to be immersed in propaganda written to promote the Liberal agenda with all its inane bleating.
There are some areas where business owners would be well-served to leave the politics alone and stick with the subject matter, but I assume that runs counter to the international Liberal agenda.
All computer models about open systems will be inaccurate.
Scientists, no matter how sincere, cannot account for all of the factors that might impinge on the live system.
Doesn’t have to be limited to climate computer models.
Dating sites probably have the same problems.
All scientific hypotheses have their detractors—even Einstein’s Theory of Evolution and
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution—until they account for enough data to call them facts. (And even then some people continue to brand them as false.)
There are differences between Einstein’s Theory of Relativity(I’m assuming that is what you actually meant to attribute to him), Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and the “theory” that the AGW crowd is pushing. One, Einstein and Darwin compiled their notes and facts, leaving a clear trail of evidence that supports their respective theories. Not so the AGW crowd, who have not allowed the entirety of their data supporting their “theories” to see the light of day, and who have purposely exempted, or disallowed, much of the data that would cause their “theory” to be laughed out of all scientific circles.
Another difference is that Einstein and Darwin did not intentionally mislead on their supporting data, or lead a crusade of other like minded individuals to forego evidence that didn’t support their theories. Not so for the AGW crowd, whose version of the scientific method would earn them a failing grade at any high school science fair project.
Trying to equate the lying weasel AGW “scientists” to Einstein and Darwin is like trying to equate Jose Canseco (a middling so-so talent that cheated) with actual greats like Ted Williams or Hank Aaron. It just doesn’t work.
Well, johngalt, in all fairness, there wasn’t billions of dollars to be made in proving the Relativity or Evolution theories; differences in motivation.
@johngalt: Great point, jg.
I went to an Einstein exhibit at a museum.
All his notes proving one of his lessor-known theories were arrayed out (under glass) so you could see them.
He typed all of it single space, no mistakes, before Whiteout, and long before WordPefect!
All his math work was shown, all his steps longhand among the typed portions.
Everything was there for other contemporary researchers to copy and verify or debunk.
Many jealous competitors did try to disprove his research.
They were welcome to try.
There is one major difference between Einstein and these GW’ers.
Modern-day GW’ers have hidden their raw data so no one could duplicate or disprove their conclusions.
They have also left big things out of their computer models: ocean currents, the SUN!, heat islands in cities and so on.
The difference is Darwin and Einstein were engaging in SCIENCE.
The climate change cultists are engaging in religious propaganda masquerading as science.
People like Liberal and his ilk think they are part of the hip/cool/enlightened/”with-it” crowd by bleating agreement with the mystical make-believe of yet another leftist canard designed to enslave the rest of us.
Einstein was a brilliant scientist, yet he was also a humble man. Relevant quotes for today:
And one for Congress: