New Paper about models etc

[sigurdur]

Hi all.

I have not gotten a hard copy of this paper yet to read it all.

The abstract is very interesting tho.

www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012JD017557.shtml

"Radiation calculaions in global numerical weather prediction (NWP) and climate models are usually performed in 3-hourly time intervals in order to reduce the computational cost. This treatment can lead to an incorrect Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) at the Earth's surface, which could be one of the error sources in modelled convection and precipitation. In order to improve the simulation of the diurnal cycle of GHI at the surface a fast scheme has been developed in this study and it can be used to determine the GHI at the Earth's surface more frequently with affordable costs. The scheme is divided into components for clear-sky and cloudy-sky conditions. The clear-sky component has been described in part I. The cloudy-sky component is introduced in this paper. The scheme has been tested using observations obtained from three Atmospheric Radiation Measurements (ARM) stations established by the U. S. Department of Energy. The results show that a half hourly mean relative error of GHI under all-sky conditions is less than 7\%. An important application of the scheme is in global climate models. The radiation sampling error due to infrequent radiation calculations is investigated using the this scheme and ARM observations. It is found that these errors are very large, exceeding 800 W m-2 at many non-radiation time steps due to ignoring the effects of clouds. Use of the current scheme can reduce these errors to less than 50 W m-2"

[sigurdur]

Do you think the errors pointed out in the abstract above have provided an influence in the output which shows a wrong prediction???

www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025711.shtml

We used a simulated data set of hydro-climatological variables to examine for 20th century trends in soil moisture, runoff, and drought characteristics over the conterminous United States (U.S.). An increasing trend is apparent in both model soil moisture and runoff over much of the U.S., with a few decreasing trends in parts of the Southwest. The trend patterns were qualitatively similar to those found in streamflow records observed at a station network minimally affected by anthropogenic activities. This wetting trend is consistent with the general increase in precipitation in the latter half of the 20th century. Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century. The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where, notwithstanding increased precipitation (and in some cases increased soil moisture and runoff), increased temperature has led to trends in drought characteristics that are mostly opposite to those for the rest of the country especially in the case of drought duration and severity, which have increased.

[sigurdur]

The 2nd paper contradicts all the AGW modeled indications that the Central USA should be drier because of AGW. It is based on observations, rather than predictions.

I found this very interesting.

[icefisher]

Jul 30, 2012 2:48:55 GMT sigurdur said:

It is found that these errors are very large, exceeding 800 W m-2 at many non-radiation time steps due to ignoring the effects of clouds. Use of the current scheme can reduce these errors to less than 50 W m-2"

Hmmmm, and we are looking for the effect of a 3 watt/m2 change from a doubling of CO2 in the AGW debate? And thats a trend over an estimated 100 years!

Sort of gives some perspective to the challenge of the models actually adding anything to this debate for the foreseeable future. The 800w/m2 to 50w/m2 is impressive but doing that yet again gets you to about 3w/m2 error and since 3w/m2 is based upon a century of data we are a long ways from the models having hope of significantly adding to the debate on a decadal basis as it currently seems to think its capable of (estimating .2degC/decade warming). Obviously clouds are a force to be reckoned with and its going to be an issue for some time to come.

[sigurdur]

The take I get out of this icefisher is that at least someone is trying. A few years ago this paper would have never seen the light of day.

I find this refreshing and exciting that an attempt is now again being made to understand climate. The science is far from settled.

[sigurdur]

Ya know, this is actually funny but sad at the same time.

I had posted the above paper on SS site on the drought topic.

Apparantly this sort of knowledge is not to be shared.......for now they have not only deleted a couple of my posts, but am now blocked from even loading the site.

Is this really the attitude of the AGW crowd????? That they are so intent on agenda that science is just a by product?

To say I am disappointed is an understatement.

[throttleup]

Aug 6, 2012 2:01:15 GMT sigurdur said:

Ya know, this is actually funny but sad at the same time.

I had posted the above paper on SS site on the drought topic.

Apparantly this sort of knowledge is not to be shared.......for now they have not only deleted a couple of my posts, but am now blocked from even loading the site.

Is this really the attitude of the AGW crowd????? That they are so intent on agenda that science is just a by product?

To say I am disappointed is an understatement.

Welcome to 1984, Sig.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell

[sigurdur]

throttleup:
The sad thing is, there are folks that go to that site and think they are informed.

I have come to realize that to an AGW supporter, 2+2=5 no matter how many times you show them that is not correct.

No wonder some of the science is so crappy.