How good were climate models 30 years ago?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...s-30-years-ago

Pretty good it appears.

In a piece back in April at RealClimate, guest bloggers Geert Jan van
Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma of the Dutch Meterological Institute
(KNMI) look at back at a 1981 paper by the now famous James Hansen and
others. At the time, of course, neither Hansen or global warming were
household names. Still the paper got noticed. As the Oldenborgh and
Haarsma explain:

"They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover
radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main
feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation
albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol
forcings; and ocean heat uptake."

The Hansen et al paper includes (among other things) a plot of
predicted global temperatures as a function of time. Oldenborgh and
Haarsem take this figure and overplot the actual real world data
gathered since the paper appeared. The fit between the Hansen et al
predictions and the behavior of the Earth's climate is remarkably
good. This is even more remarkable when you realize your iPhone now
might have comparable computing power to the machines they were
running their simulations on.

The lesson to draw from all of this is obvious. The basic principles
of climate science has been mature for a while. While there remain
significant issues to understand such as the local response to global
(human-driven) CO2 increases, the links between greenhouse gas
emissions and greenhouse driven climate change is decades old news.

Perhaps, during this crazy summer, that news is finally getting past
the denier screen and reaching the general public.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...s-30-years-ago

Pretty good it appears.

Yes. Even 30 years ago the models were very good at dealing with the
global energy balance, and with continental and oceanic scale climate.
As you note, that's because the primary forcers had all been
identified and were included in the models.

What has happened since is that more subtle forcers have been
included, and increased computer power has allowed for smaller cells
in the simulations. The result is that models are now good for
regional climate, where regions are on order of a million square
kilometers... and that is getting less all the time. In some cases
quite small areas are now well modeled (for instance, the central
Rockies in the U.S.) In addition, a better understanding of air and
ocean currents is increasing the temporal resolution of the models.
While the models used 30 years ago typically output results based on a
30-year floating average, current models use 10-year or even 5-year
resolution. Most researchers expect that they'll be operating 2-year
and 1-year models within the next few years.

There are a half dozen or so independently developed models, and all
yield very similar results, and those results quite accurately
describe the actual temperatures for the last couple hundred years,
and are increasingly good at predicting the water cycle patterns, as
well.

On Jul 18, 1:13*am, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...good-were-clim...

Pretty good it appears.


The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum as opposed to the planet Uranus which is almost exclusively a
polar climate.The older idea was that a planet with 0 inclination was
devoid of the seasons however this view is modified to a working
principle that 0 inclination reflects an equatorial climate while 90
degree inclination reflects a polar climate.

The polar coordinates turn in a circle/cycle to the central Sun so
that the old idea of precession as an axial trait is also modified and
placed into an orbital context for viewed from space,the polar
coordinates will turn through the circle of illumination over an
annual cycle denoting a separate orbital axis around which the planet
turns in a single cycle coincident with the orbital period of the
planet.

The modelers can't even model why the temperatures go up and down
daily and this is the real debacle,the most immediate experience of
planetary dynamics on global temperatures is the rotating Earth and
modelers who imagine a 24 hour day falls out of sync with rotations
enclosed in 4 orbital circuits must have a blind hatred of cause and
effect as they insist,to the point of illness,that the Earth turns
1465 times in 1461 days.

There is no crisis in climate,there is one in astronomy due to the
dominance of mathematicians and their speculative junk - the idea of
human control over global temperatures is mindnumbingly sordid and a
symptom of an exceptionally poor standard connecting astronomical
principles with terrestrial sciences.

BBC reported Scotland will not meet it's targets for greenhouse gas
emission control because of unseasonably cold weather in 2010-2011.
Ironic, isn't it?

oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:13 am, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...good-were-clim...

Pretty good it appears.


The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum
Rubbish. A large fraction if the Earth is within the Arctic and Antarctic
circles.

as opposed to the planet Uranus which is almost exclusively a
polar climate.The older idea was that a planet with 0 inclination was
devoid of the seasons however this view is modified to a working
principle that 0 inclination reflects an equatorial climate while 90
degree inclination reflects a polar climate.

The polar coordinates turn in a circle/cycle to the central Sun

No they don't. The Earth is a gyroscope pointing just now at Polaris.


so
that the old idea of precession as an axial trait is also modified and
placed into an orbital context for viewed from space,the polar
coordinates will turn through the circle of illumination over an
annual cycle denoting a separate orbital axis around which the planet
turns in a single cycle coincident with the orbital period of the
planet.


Viewed from space the Earth spins on it's axis with the North pole pointed
at Polaris.





The modelers can't even model why the temperatures go up and down
daily

Every day on the weather forecast I see the results of accurate
mathematical models of daily temperature.



and this is the real debacle,the most immediate experience of
planetary dynamics on global temperatures is the rotating Earth and
modelers who imagine a 24 hour day falls out of sync with rotations
enclosed in 4 orbital circuits must have a blind hatred of cause and
effect as they insist,to the point of illness,that the Earth turns
1465 times in 1461 days.

Your illness only.




There is no crisis in climate,there is one in astronomy due to the
dominance of mathematicians and their speculative junk - the idea of
human control over global temperatures is mindnumbingly sordid

Does it numb your mind? It doesn't affect mine.


and a
symptom of an exceptionally poor standard connecting astronomical
principles with terrestrial sciences.

You have to learn the difference between science and philosophy.
Science is based in fact not just abstract thinking.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:57:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

BBC reported Scotland will not meet it's targets for greenhouse gas
emission control because of unseasonably cold weather in 2010-2011.
Ironic, isn't it?

Not at all. The models show quite accurately how increasing the total
stored thermal energy in the global climate system leads to shifts in
regional heating, regional cooling, and regional precipitation.

It's not a complicated concept, although the science deniers clearly
choose to ignore it: global warming produces climate change.

On Jul 18, 2:13*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:13 am, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...good-were-clim....

Pretty good it appears.

The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum

Rubbish. A large fraction if the Earth is within the Arctic and Antarctic
circles.


It is good that you don't have the type of ability to discern that the
old 'no tilt/no seasons' ideology is replaced with the new perspective
of 0 inclination denoting an equatorial climate and 90 degree
inclination reflecting a polar climate.A polar climate does not mean
it is cold and an equatorial climate represents a hot climate,it
represents the latitudinal swings in temperature over the course of an
annual circuit with the Earth's equatorial climate tending to have
gentler swings in temperature fluctuations whereas a polar climate
those swings would be pronounced over large areas of the planet.

It is a matter of intelligence and talent,you occupy yourself with the
others talking about carbon footprints and cars,the real story of
climate hasn't even begun yet ,not even the designation of the Earth's
climate as largely equatorial due to its 23 1/2 degree inclination.

oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 2:13 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:13 am, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...good-were-clim...

Pretty good it appears.

The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum

Rubbish. A large fraction if the Earth is within the Arctic and Antarctic
circles.


It is good that you don't have the type of ability to discern that the
old 'no tilt/no seasons' ideology is replaced with the new perspective
of 0 inclination denoting an equatorial climate and 90 degree
inclination reflecting a polar climate.A polar climate does not mean
it is cold and an equatorial climate represents a hot climate,it
represents the latitudinal swings in temperature over the course of an
annual circuit with the Earth's equatorial climate tending to have
gentler swings in temperature fluctuations whereas a polar climate
those swings would be pronounced over large areas of the planet.

Your terminology is silly. The areas within the arctic and Antarctic
circles have a polar climate.
Within the tropics a tropical climate. In between the temperate zones.


It is a matter of intelligence and talent,you occupy yourself with the
others talking about carbon footprints and cars,the real story of
climate hasn't even begun yet ,not even the designation of the Earth's
climate as largely equatorial due to its 23 1/2 degree inclination.

I agree about the intelligence and talent. You need to develop some. Your
mental problem -lack of visual imagination- is a common one but you should
realise that other people have a talent you don't possess. The ability to
visualise from another viewpoint,
Science and technology are what makes us human. Your life depends on those
whom you despise as empiricists. It's about time you stopped insulting the
scientist, technologists, engineers and mathematicians who make your life
so easy.
And why did you snip my comments about the weather forecast as a successful
mathematical model of daily temperature? Was it too difficult for you to
explain away.
I await your apology and recantation.

On Jul 18, 7:22*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 2:13 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:13 am, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...good-were-clim....

Pretty good it appears.

The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum

Rubbish. A large fraction if the Earth is within the Arctic and Antarctic
circles.

It is good that you don't have the type of ability to discern that the
old 'no tilt/no seasons' ideology is replaced with the new perspective
of 0 inclination denoting an equatorial climate and 90 degree
inclination reflecting a polar climate.A polar climate does not mean
it is cold and an equatorial climate represents a hot climate,it
represents the latitudinal swings in temperature over the course of an
annual circuit with the Earth's equatorial climate tending to have
gentler swings in temperature fluctuations whereas a polar climate
those swings would be pronounced over large areas of the planet.

Your terminology is silly. The areas within the arctic and Antarctic
circles have a polar climate.
Within the tropics a tropical climate. In between the temperate zones.


You poor thing,probably the majority have already realized that the
'no tilt/no seasons' assertion doesn't work and the better description
divides a planet's climate into equatorial ( 0 degree inclination)
and polar ( 90 degree inclination) .A planet with a predominantly
equatorial climate will have moderate latitudinal swings in
temperature at different orbital points whereas a predominantly polar
climate will generate large swings between opposite orbital points.







It is a matter of intelligence and talent,you occupy yourself with the
others talking about carbon footprints and cars,the real story of
climate hasn't even begun yet ,not even the designation of the Earth's
climate as largely equatorial due to its 23 1/2 degree inclination.

I agree about the intelligence and talent. You need to develop some. Your
mental problem -lack of visual imagination- is a common one but you should
realise that other people have a talent you don't possess. The ability to
visualise from another viewpoint,
Science and technology are what makes us human. Your life depends on those
whom you despise as empiricists. It's about time you stopped insulting the
scientist, technologists, engineers and mathematicians who make your life
so easy.

The connection between astronomy and terrestrial sciences is separate
to all else and that is my territory son,if you wish to destroy your
grandkids because you have no feeling for astronomical /terrestrial
affairs then that is your own business,there are many like you with no
talent and a lot to say and inevitably it emerges as a hatred for
anything good.

Uranus has a polar climate as the polar coordinates turn in a circle/
cycle to the central Sun just as the Earth's North/South poles act as
a beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth ,it takes nothing more
than basic interpretation and a simple imitation analogy to extract
the quasi-rotation which in turns abolishes precession as an axial
trait and redirects it towards an orbital component -

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...nus_zoom2.html





And why did you snip my comments about the weather forecast as a successful
mathematical model of daily temperature? Was it too difficult for you to
explain away.
I await your apology and recantation.

Daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period respond to the
rotation of the Earth and always keep in step outside exceptions where
local influences dominate,those fluctuations occur 1461 times in 1461
days and enclosed in 4 orbital circuits.You bunch of unrepentant Nazis
have such a hatred of astronomy and eager to influence kids but each
nation must now look to itself and determine that a society that can
reason properly and accept known facts will have an immeasurable
advantage over nations unwilling or unable to adjust.

oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 2:13 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:13 am, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...good-were-clim...

Pretty good it appears.

The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum

Rubbish. A large fraction if the Earth is within the Arctic and Antarctic
circles.

It is good that you don't have the type of ability to discern that the
old 'no tilt/no seasons' ideology is replaced with the new perspective
of 0 inclination denoting an equatorial climate and 90 degree
inclination reflecting a polar climate.A polar climate does not mean
it is cold and an equatorial climate represents a hot climate,it
represents the latitudinal swings in temperature over the course of an
annual circuit with the Earth's equatorial climate tending to have
gentler swings in temperature fluctuations whereas a polar climate
those swings would be pronounced over large areas of the planet.

Your terminology is silly. The areas within the arctic and Antarctic
circles have a polar climate.
Within the tropics a tropical climate. In between the temperate zones.


You poor thing,probably the majority have already realized that the
'no tilt/no seasons' assertion doesn't work and the better description
divides a planet's climate into equatorial ( 0 degree inclination)
and polar ( 90 degree inclination) .A planet with a predominantly
equatorial climate will have moderate latitudinal swings in
temperature at different orbital points whereas a predominantly polar
climate will generate large swings between opposite orbital points.







It is a matter of intelligence and talent,you occupy yourself with the
others talking about carbon footprints and cars,the real story of
climate hasn't even begun yet ,not even the designation of the Earth's
climate as largely equatorial due to its 23 1/2 degree inclination.

I agree about the intelligence and talent. You need to develop some. Your
mental problem -lack of visual imagination- is a common one but you should
realise that other people have a talent you don't possess. The ability to
visualise from another viewpoint,
Science and technology are what makes us human. Your life depends on those
whom you despise as empiricists. It's about time you stopped insulting the
scientist, technologists, engineers and mathematicians who make your life
so easy.

The connection between astronomy and terrestrial sciences is separate
to all else and that is my territory son,if you wish to destroy your
grandkids because you have no feeling for astronomical /terrestrial
affairs then that is your own business,there are many like you with no
talent and a lot to say and inevitably it emerges as a hatred for
anything good.

Uranus has a polar climate as the polar coordinates turn in a circle/
cycle to the central Sun just as the Earth's North/South poles act as
a beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth ,it takes nothing more
than basic interpretation and a simple imitation analogy to extract
the quasi-rotation which in turns abolishes precession as an axial
trait and redirects it towards an orbital component -

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...nus_zoom2.html





And why did you snip my comments about the weather forecast as a successful
mathematical model of daily temperature? Was it too difficult for you to
explain away.
I await your apology and recantation.

Daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period respond to the
rotation of the Earth and always keep in step outside exceptions where
local influences dominate,those fluctuations occur 1461 times in 1461
days and enclosed in 4 orbital circuits.You bunch of unrepentant Nazis
have such a hatred of astronomy and eager to influence kids but each
nation must now look to itself and determine that a society that can
reason properly and accept known facts will have an immeasurable
advantage over nations unwilling or unable to adjust.

When you write majority I assume you are referring to the majority of
occupants of your brain since nobody else in the world agrees with you.
That's because you are wrong!

And don't you dare call me a Nazi.

I have no wish to influence children or I would be a teacher. You however
seem to want to brainwash children since you can't convert any adults to
your views. A society accepting your views would soon fail for lack of
competent scientists and engineers.

I note that you have returned to your patronising mode. That's always a
sign that you're losing the argument and is often followed by a "threat" to
withdraw from usenet.