|
Post by nautonnier on May 16, 2010 19:29:35 GMT
From SoCold's reference: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/"It is well established that climate models exhibit Arctic amplification of future climate change (see Fig 3). In addition, averaging over numerous hindcasts from a single model started with differing initial conditions (known as an ensemble average) yields significant Arctic amplification in simulations of the last century. However, single realizations with a climate model do not universally show Arctic amplification in the past [Bitz and Goosse, in prep]. Thus models and observations alike show uncertainty in Arctic amplification in the last century. Nonetheless Arctic amplification in models (and most likely in nature too) is a robust result of forced climate change, provided the forcing is sufficiently large to overcome internal climate variability." So we have: In yellow - the validation hindcast showed the models were wrong BUT Nonetheless we believe the models ( most likely) are correct for the future? As I have said before - please do not let any of these people do anything safety related!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 16, 2010 19:34:55 GMT
We are lucky they are where they are it would seem. Must be the same folks working for BP.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 17, 2010 2:24:58 GMT
From SoCold's reference: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/"It is well established that climate models exhibit Arctic amplification of future climate change (see Fig 3). In addition, averaging over numerous hindcasts from a single model started with differing initial conditions (known as an ensemble average) yields significant Arctic amplification in simulations of the last century. However, single realizations with a climate model do not universally show Arctic amplification in the past [Bitz and Goosse, in prep]. Thus models and observations alike show uncertainty in Arctic amplification in the last century. Nonetheless Arctic amplification in models (and most likely in nature too) is a robust result of forced climate change, provided the forcing is sufficiently large to overcome internal climate variability." So we have: In yellow - the validation hindcast showed the models were wrong BUT Nonetheless we believe the models ( most likely) are correct for the future? As I have said before - please do not let any of these people do anything safety related! Was that written by Gavin?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 17, 2010 8:49:31 GMT
"In yellow - the validation hindcast showed the models were wrong BUT"
How'd you get that? It looks like to me it is saying the models and observations are uncertain about arctic amplification over the 20th century. The models are clear on it by 2100. Which makes some sense because the level of warming they are projecting for 2100 any patterns in the warming trends will become more obvious.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2010 16:21:20 GMT
"In yellow - the validation hindcast showed the models were wrong BUT" How'd you get that? It looks like to me it is saying the models and observations are uncertain about arctic amplification over the 20th century. The models are clear on it by 2100. Which makes some sense because the level of warming they are projecting for 2100 any patterns in the warming trends will become more obvious. Where did that come from? In the "safety" business you have to not only test your SWAGs but you need consistent positive confirmation. Saying it doesn't work now but will later is. . . .uh. . . .irresponsible and an unbelievable level of hubris.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2010 16:51:52 GMT
If I model the throwing of 1000 coins, I will get some heads and some tails.
In previous experiments, I threw 5 coins lots of times. Most times I got some heads and some tails. A few times all of the 5 coins ended up tails.
Nonetheless "some heads and some tails" is a robust result providing the number of coins is sufficiently large to render the probabilities of all tails to be astronomically small.
In the safety business, one doesn't radically change the formulation of the atmosphere of your only planet without being sure...
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2010 17:20:48 GMT
In the safety business, one doesn't radically change the formulation of the atmosphere of your only planet without being sure... A .04% change is a radical change in your book?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 17, 2010 23:23:33 GMT
In the safety business, one doesn't radically change the formulation of the atmosphere of your only planet without being sure... A .04% change is a radical change in your book? Does kind of redefine the concept of radical doesn't it?
|
|