How close are climate scientists to useful predictions of "the big climate picture"?

Question

This question was asked by Jacquie Burgess of UEA in Climategate email 3111. The following is an answer from Andrew Watson:

"I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time."

Here are some other emails talking about climate models:

5131 Shukla:
"["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability."

0850 Barnett:
"[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer."

4443 Jones:
"Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds."

Yet, if you head over to skepticalscience.com or most other pro-agw websites, you can read statements like this:

"Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

Or this from the latest IPCC report:

“There is considerable confidence that AOGCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales.”

Is there any consistency in these messages?

Answer 1

@Hey Dook... ROFL...this from a guy whose only argument against facts from skeptics is a copy and past straw man argument about Holocaust deniers. As pathetic as most of the alarmist are on these boards are, I would have to say you take the top stop. Not something I would be proud of but congratulations.



@Gary F... This makes me a lying sack of sh!t?



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png



I guess if I was living in your "The model IS reality" world where you have sh!t for brains like you it does.



Lol...Nice try. I said temperatures have been going down SINCE 1998. I'm sorry you can't read English but that actually makes you the idiot :-)



Lol...Can you point out where I'm wrong? Can you please point out which year using satellite data is hotter than 1998?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png



You lying sack of sh!t :-)

Answer 2

I don’t know about the Dookies economic models (or why he chose to answer a different question to the one asked), but the GCM’s currently in use are still far too simplistic to get even close to mimicking the climate… which is a shame because it will be in a model that climate sensitivity will be first convincingly demonstrated, and this is essential in providing a secure foundation for any commitment to mitigation efforts.



“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. . I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.



The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions. Of course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases”

Answer 3

Hey Dook --



I was going to answer in the same manner, only using physics and brain biochemistry as analogies.



In any case, Mike, it's a misleading question because it makes the implication that if we do not know the whole answer then we have no certainty in any aspect of how the system works.





======



Ian --



>>@Hey Dook... ROFL...this from a guy whose only argument against facts from skeptics is a copy and past...<<





I guess you mean like these "facts" of yours:



>>Of course with more accurate measurement with satellites it shows that 1998 was the hottest year on record and the temperatures have been dropping slightly since then. This is also occurring during increases in man made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and again goes totally against the catastrophic AGW theory.<<



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20111216172132AAzbNmW





However, in the real world - 2005 and 2010 are tied as the warmest years recorded and 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html



http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html



And - that makes you a lying sack of sh!t.



=====



Ian ---



Your graph shows that over the past four decades the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled - which is exactly what should occur with increasing atmospheric CO2.



So, you're not a liar - just stupid. My mistake.



=====



Ian --



>>I said temperatures have been going down SINCE 1998. <<



And I pointed out that you are wrong - see above, and:



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Answer 4

How accurate do climate predictions have to be? Are you suggesting that you would be willing to drive a Smart Car and not have an accident in your pants whenever the toilets back up at nuclear power plants if sea levels will rise 4733mm but not if they only rise by 4732mm?



Do we need computers to tell us that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? If yes, here is the result of my Excell calculation



Electonegativity of Carbon 2.5

Electonegativity of Oxygen 3.5

Difference -1

Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas? Yes



However, if scientists want to spend $20 million on a supercomputer, I would like for them to justify such an expense.



Turd







If you are interested in hard core facts acquired thru hard core research, here they are



Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/warmingindicators.jpg

And we are causing it

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/



The ten warmest years in history are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004 and 2001.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/







You mean like denialists who choose a year with a strong el Nino as a reference to say that it stopped warming.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html



Real scientists do not have to make derogatory remarks about scientists they disagree with. All they need is evidence that global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/warmingindicators.jpg

And we are causing it

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/



And that the ten warmest years in history are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004 and 2001.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Answer 5

Even more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in political activism than in science. In many of the emails they seem to out right admit that they have a weak argument, but that didn't stop them propaganda.



Global Warming is just a money scam that Liberals want to use as an independent source of funding for UN Social programs. They are Socialists, Communists, Marxist that really believe half of the population owe the other half a free ride in life just because their alive. Their latest idea is the "New International Climate Court" to compel reparations for "Climate Debt". I pay my taxes so the US Military will defend the US Constitution to the letter. Lemmings really these liberals are really trying to defend the earth from disaster. Their to blind to see anything based on reparations for 3rd world countries is the typical "Redistribution of Wealth" Marxism their entire philosophy is based on.



Global Warming is a phony scam liberals use to screw people out of their money.

Answer 6

There are still some ignorant scientists who still believe in global warming or a flat earth.

Answer 7

After many decades of theory and megamillions poured into computer models, analysts and scholars are still not greatly better at forecasting future trends in the stock markets than is the proverbial blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a dartboard.



It DOES NOT (N.O.T.) therefore follow that



1. The field of economics is a hoax.

2. Tim Geithner prints the U.S. money supply in the basement of his vacation home.

3. Milton Friedman falsified data.

3. Paul Krugman and Robert Barro are co-conspiring socialists who want to tax away your pension fund.

5. Any junior high school dropout with a computer knows more than the Nobel Prize winners in Economics. Because some talk-show charlatan tells them so.

6. Endlessly recycling the same cut-and-pasted nonsense about financial markets from conspiracy kook websites eventually makes them accurate and non-moronic.

Answer 8

Clever men are good, but they are not the best.

Answer 9

Guess what They don't know squat about the Climate its just one big guess.

They would have the same luck at a school carnival with a mother using a light bulb as

a crystal ball . Or somebody with tarot cards .



Maybe read the insides of a chicken for a climate reading.

Answer 10

To call them "Scientists" is an insult to real scientists.

Real scientists rely on hard core facts acquired thru hard core research. Another thing real scientists rely on is this thing called INTEGRITY. That means they don't pick & choose what data to include in their findings and what data to omit. Anybody who omits acquired data on the basis of financial or political gains is a disgrace to the real scientific community.

Answer 11

It's propaganda versus science.



Guess which one these yokels are listening to. "The science is settled."

Answer 12

not very close at all