Even though Ball is wrong, there are lots of problems with climate models. One of the biggest is that clouds are sub-grid scale processes in most models, so they must be parameterized. Things are improving on this front, though. Not only are the grid scales getting smaller, but there are promising new techniques for getting around this problem. One of them is to run a portion of the model in a cloud resolving fashion and then use that to build a parameterization on the fly.
Another problem is the initial value problem that Lorenz identified (the "butterfly effect"). While this may not be as large a problem in climate models, since the exact details are unimportant, the best thing to do would be to run the model many times. This is done, to some extent, but it is difficult with climate models because they take more time to run than NWP models. Nevertheless it is an important thing to do.
Atmosphere-ocean coupling in models is relatively new, and I'm sure those aspects of models can be improved.
Generally things should improve as computers gain more memory and run faster, that should allow smaller grid scales and enable greater numbers of runs.
But just because there is room for improvement doesn't mean that climate models aren't useful. The same sorts of criticisms can be made of weather prediction models, but they have vastly improved in accuracy over the last 25 years. You see the same accuracy at 5 days that used to be seen at 2 days. It used to be that the human forecaster was needed to interpret and improve on the computer forecasts, but in most cases that degrades the forecasts these days--computers beat the humans. Similarly we should not expect a climate forecast such as "persistence" (the future will be like the present) to beat the models when we KNOW that the boundary conditions are changing.
Reading the papers about climate models, you start to notice that they have a section on how well their model agrees with the results of other models. So a degree of conformity is required.
Then there is a bigger issue, the output of the models is determined by the people running the models, who adjust input parameters to get the results they desire. RealClimate had a post evaluating KeystoneXL, and they casually mention that they used a model 'tuned to yield a 3C response'.
The models amount to glorified curve fitting.
There is nothing wrong with the climate models, Ian. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do- secure the next grant for the scientists who created them. See, it doesn't matter if they are out in left field when predicting climate conditions. As long as they suggest a climate emergency is coming, climate scientists will continue to get big grants to improve the models. As Pegminer said, there is still a lot we don't know. And we are going to pay handsomely to find out.
Basically, it is that there is so much that the programmers don't know and don't want to know. For instance, the Sun. The programmers treat it as a Constant. All scientists know that the Sun puts out different amounts at times. This is an important factor, yet it is ignored. Jimmy Hansen even admitted that he programmed the Sun as a Constant rather than a Variable. That is blatantly wrong! Horribly wrong! But if you factored in the Sun as a Variable then you have no accurate way of predicting what the Sun's output would be on a given day or month. We just don't know enough about this subject so the easy and lazy man's way is to use this as a Constant.
Then there is the political aspect of using the Sun as a Variable. It has been proven that the Sun has more of an affect on Earth's temperature than CO2 but then you can't tax the Sun. (But I'm sure they are working on it.) They haven't figured how to globally tax the water. Although, in Maryland I hear they have. It doesn't say much for Marylanders to elect people evil enough to do that.
Then there is the real issue. These scientists would have to admit that Maxx was right all along. And that would be a fate worse than your tongue turning black and falling out.
But the fact remains that the computers are wrong. John Barnes,a climate scientist bemoans this very fact : “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.
Yet another scientist admits that it is fiction, but useful fiction, nonetheless. Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
Well, they have proven useful in the political world but garbage in the real world. So you can see how this subject really going. They are using the political aspect of it and calling it science. That is an abomination! That is horrible but that is a good tool to scare people. So that is what they are doing. That proves their objective is not saving the world but manipulating mankind.
There are so many more factors involved in how to program a computer to predict accurately. But it is obviously not a concern of the miscreants who are hawking the AGW crap.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Data and facts don't matter. The important action is to get everyone's money and take away their liberties.
If the scientist were really concerned and honest they could go after the actual numeric value of CO2 as a Variable or forcing. We do have enough information to reverse program. We know what the CO2 value was at, let us say, 1970. And we know that value today. Put all known factors into the computer and let it number crunch until it comes out with a closer to real value for CO2 forcing. You learned this in grade school Arithmetic. 7-4=3 and to check this out you would add 3 and 4 to come up with your original number of 7. Of course the computer would put this on a grander scale but the basics are the same.
They may have done this and don't want us to know how little influence CO2 has or maybe they just aren't that smart.
But going back to the answer to your question. Computers are just glorified adding machines. They only can do what is programmed and data entered. We don't know enough about the data, in fact, I don't think we know even 1% of what we should know in order to have a computer mimic the Earth's environment.
“Sagebrush the Brainless” apparently is not only confused about the difference between solar constant and solar irradiance, he clearly does not know the meaning of either. Amazingly, but hardly surprising, is his ignorance of the fact that solar variability has been included in climate models for decades – and continues, see:
Stephens, G. L., The parameterization of radiation for numerical weather prediction and climate models, Mon. Weather Rev., 112, 826-867, 1984.
“The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1...
“Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate”
http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf
======
kano --
>>Two reasons, their input of CO2 sensitivity is way off.<<
Do you mean climate sensitivity calculated for the last 10 years – 20 years – 40 years – 80 years – or what? You don’t even know what climate sensitivity is – or, would you care to explain how it matters in the long-term since it is a multiple-time-variant function of CO2 and climate system component feedbacks?
>>Second climate is basically a chaotic system, modelling a chaos system doesn't really work<<,
Tell that to the authors of the countless textbooks on Nonlinear Physics. Better still, maybe you should try reading one.
It is really interesting, how many non scientific, non technical people know so very much about climate models.
It's almost as if they went to the church of The Climate is Not Changing, and are looking for more converts.
"Here, put this stupid hat on and join the cause."
That's pretty much what WUWT writes.
Two reasons, their input of CO2 sensitivity is way off.
Second climate is basically a chaotic system, modelling a chaos system doesn't really work, even if you could enter every event that could alter climate, ie solar TSI, solar wind UV AP magnetic index, GHG gases, orbital angles, clouds, ocean cycles, volcanoes, ozone, albedo, aerosols, seasonal winds, vortex and jet streams, it still wouldn't compute reliably.
Their input of CO2 sensitivity is way off.
it is not the models that are wrong. it is tim ball.
Unless you're a die hard alarmist who is totally detached from reality you realize that most multi million dollar climate models are garbage. But why are they spewing out garbage?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/16/a-simple-truth-computer-climate-models-cannot-work/
