Posted on 02/09/2018 6:48:42 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Just a few years ago, the conventional wisdom held that you couldn’t attribute any single extreme weather event to climate change. But now scientists increasingly can and do state the odds that human actions caused or exacerbated specific droughts and hurricanes.
One big reason for the change is that the science of climate modeling is becoming increasingly powerful as improvements in technology, techniques, and data sharing allow researchers to set up novel experiments or simply run many more of them.
Climate models are sophisticated computer simulations that approximate how the planet responds to various forces, like surges in carbon dioxide. They break down the oceans, surface, and atmosphere into 3-D boxes and calculate how shifting conditions track across time and space.
Modeling advances have occurred as a result of a three-decade effort under the World Climate Research Programme, known as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Under this program, research institutions are asked to conduct a common set of experiments with a common set of inputs, and publicly share the results.
The petabytes of resulting data have enabled researchers around the world to carry out studies that dive into specific areas of interest without having to secure their own time on supercomputers.
But for all these vast improvements, even a 25-square-kilometer box is still far too large to capture small-scale processes like the behavior of individual clouds. And scientists are well aware that the models don’t perfectly represent complex natural processes.
It’s why they generally speak in terms of ranges in climate-change scenarios, and why events in the real world can still occasionally occur outside those bounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at technologyreview.com ...
Here’s the simplest global model changers rely on.
When the weather is _________ than average, it is proof of man made climate change. When the _________ ice sheet is __________, it is consistent with models and proof showing climate change.
A climate model is a made up POS to advance the agenda of the ahole who made it up!!!
I've been saying this for years, and people REFUSE To believe me: Climate models cannot predict the formation and behavior of CLOUDS! Without that ability, they are pretty much useless for long-term prediction of response to forcings like CO2.
Climate Models.................
I've been saying this for years, and people REFUSE To believe me: Climate models cannot predict the formation and behavior of CLOUDS! Without that ability, they are pretty much useless for long-term prediction of response to forcings like CO2.
The only reason for “global warming” is the hot air being spewed to promote the idea it is real. Phony science!
4, 6 & 9.
8....................
The obviuous question here is who paid for this "programme"?
Did the people who paid for this "programme" have a specific result when they purchased it?
Was the result designed to increase their own power, profit and prestige?
Finally, have any of these models actually predicted anything accurately other than if its cold its AGW, if its hot its AGW, too much rain obviously AGW, too little rain proof of AGW. AGW as far as the eye can see!
So what would be happening w/o AGW? Sunshine, rainbows, popcicles, soft kitties and marmalade.
Anything you want it to be - $$$$$$
They can’t tell me the weather 2 days from now, but their “model” from 5,000 years ago, tells me it was cooler. OK.
Oh good gravy. Who cares how small a box one uses? Precision is not relevent in processes that are inncacurate. If you use the wrong formula to calculate something it doesnt matter how many decimal places you calculate it to.
The article needed some editing.
Technology Review is yet another outlet for the liberal propagandists. It still manages to cover some interesting tech, but many articles have had a leftwing at least as far back as 2008.
In 2008, TR put Barack Obama on their cover in an obvious attempt to influence the election in his favor. As if BO had the remotest link to technology, to say nothing of being worthy of a cover.
Pathetic.
Yes. Your models ARE better than the IPCC’s.
Science requires use of the scientific method, which entails the conduct of controlled experiments yielding reproducible results.
It is impossible to conduct controlled experiments on climate, much less obtain reproducible results.
There can therefore be no such thing as “climate science.”
“Garbage in, garbage out” applies.
yep ,very Hot ,LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.