I mentioned about the difficulty in understanding and quantifying future atmospheric states in one of my previous blogs (see https://jrstalker.wordpress.com ). This blog elaborates on that difficulty with examples.
Most of us, earth system and atmospheric scientists, other scientists and engineers, and non-scientists of all other disciplines, can easily grasp the concept that the coupled Earth system is extremely complex to understand in its entirety and accurately quantify its future states, even on short time horizons. For example, our ability to accurately predict future atmospheric states is limited to two to three days at best. And yet, scientists have always tried to forecast future states on much longer time scales such as annual, decadal, and millennial scales. What is the basis for such claimed ability to predict future atmospheric states on much longer time scales accurately? It is all based on our presumed ability to separate scales, both spatially and temporally, and treat some of those scales independently of the others to perform predictive projections of future atmospheric states. This ‘separation of scales’ certainly helps overcome the inherent difficulty noted here in accurately predicting the coupled solar-earth system but it does not actually help us solve the underlying problem that we face.
In the old days of not too long ago when sparse observations were not uncommon and limited computational resources were a norm, such unsupportable scale separation was not only encouraged but was perhaps the only and most effective approach that could be employed. We have made tremendous strides on those two fronts, i.e., the density of observations has increased significantly, just as the available computational resource. Unfortunately, though, our legacy approach based on scale separation lives on. Unless we vehemently question this fundamentally flawed premise…to read the rest of the article titled “The Difficulty in Quantifying the Extent of Global Warming” click the hyperlink.
Please visit www.linkedin.com/in/resprincfounder to learn more about the author, Dr. James Stalker.
RESPR Weekly Blogs 
May 26, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
I’m confused. I know you have impressive scientific credentials, but when claim there is significant debate among the climate scientists about the existence/severity of anthropogenic global warming, you present NO evidence or even arugment.
In this particular post, you compare local weather forecasting (the 3-day rule) with global climate projections as if they are equivalent. You know better. I know you do. Comparing them is like comparing the ability to predict the precise volume and speed of my next inhalation with the ability to predict my total lung volume reduction over the next 20 years of my emphysema if I receive no treatment. The first if almost impossible to predict precisely, the second is a trend with Very clear trajectory that can, indeed, be modeled quite accurately.
With your education, why would do that?
May 26, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
You are right about your first point. I don’t present any evidence. But, then, you missed the point being made entirely. I rather elaborate on the limitations of the approaches used. In other words, those who try to quantify anthropogenic effects do not have the right tools to do so and that is one of the main points made in the blog posts. If I presented any evidence, I would make the same blunder as others. As for your comment on the lack of argument, you apparently missed it (see below for further explanation).
Obviously, you did miss the point, as many accomplished folks do in this field. The short-term effects account for the long-term trends in such way that the signal you are capturing in the long-term trends, without those effects, will be much smaller and, thus, meaningless.
For starters, there are more significant scales between your next inhalation and the climate scales being used. Most scientists get complacent about their ability to predict climate accurately. One needs a deeper understanding than currently available or employed to realize these limitations. And, yes, it is because of my education and expertise, I am able to expound on the current perpetuated myths.
I will be happy to elaborate. Go ahead and contact me at jrstalker@respr.com.
May 26, 2013 at 10:03 pm
I do understand your point. The same is sometimes true of research in my field, and I often argue a version of signal/noise desparity. You present no evidence or argument as to why your point might be true in this field. Do you have evidence that the models being used have produced entirely wrong results? Given that there is 97% consensus among climatologists publishing on the subject, without extraordinary evidence, your claim is just a whisper in the wind.
So, please do elaborate here, in public, where you made your claim.
May 26, 2013 at 10:26 pm
1. The 97% consensus has no value (please don’t use it). It may work to convince the public but not top notch scientists.
2. I know how deficient climate models are; you only need to delve in a bit to see it.
3. My argument was clearly stated and is based on all the spatial/temporal scales discarded from the climate models. This is also relevant to point 2 above.
FYI: It would require tremendous amount of computing and human resources, using my cutting-edge atmospheric simulation technology, to produce the evidence. Let me know if you have any ideas on securing such funding.
Finally, please read the posts closely, before raising an issue with them. The reason I asked you to contact me offline is to address your confusion, not to address the points of the discussion that others can benefit from.
May 26, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Thank you. I am no longer confused…
about your position or your motivations.
May 26, 2013 at 10:53 pm
You are welcome. To be clear, my motivation is for us all to be able to solve this problem scientifically someday and let people know conclusions, made based on incomplete approaches, are not that useful, in the meantime.
June 16, 2013 at 6:38 am |
Gewisn, This blog is a big inspiration for the up-coming scientists like me !!!
You mentioned “consensus” in one of your comments. Consensus may not be scientific word !!! It’s ok for the common public to give some smell of caution but, not for scientists as it drags them back on progressing on REAL science !!!
I always have some extent of doubt in believing scientific results irrespective of field of research. There is no exception for this ARTISTIC CLIMATE SCIENCE ( I feel climate science is an art as is for showing what we want, not science yet).
If scientists had accepted every thing that they have seen in scientific results, we would not have progressed scientifically and technically. And, same would be true with climate science one day if you progress much further.
July 11, 2013 at 10:56 am |
Simple example to explain James Stalker’s thought of how erroneously climate models are built.
Lets assume a forest is analogous to a climate model. Like forest has many living things from insects to wild animals, climate models have many physical processes having local scale to global scale, and time scales of fraction of seconds to centuries.
Some insects have foot-steps of a fraction of micro-meter and other animals have of few meters. Moreover, few animals are brisk and other are slow. That means, different animals have different temporal and spatial steps. For example, if we are to model a forest with all kinds of living things in the forest, we need to take all these steps (temporal and spatial) of all living things into account. For example, first lets assume we have chosen spatial resolution of 10 meters and time step of 2 sec. Lets imagine how reliable these resolutions for all living things in a forest. It may be right for deer but, can an ant jump 10 m in 2 sec? In the same way, each climate process analogous to each living thing in a forest, has different temporal and spatial time step. Hence, if we are to model climate, we need to take all these steps ( temporal and spatial) of all physical processes of climate into account.
If we don’t take these suitable resolutions(temporal and spatial) for various variables, we are going to ask an ant to jump few meters in second or two, and a deer to rolling on the floor and many more clearly visible blunders with animals. At the present situation, climate community is asking the models to do mistake as this forest model example, and artistic science is saying 97 % community is in agreement with anthropogenic global warming !!!