A new study appearing in Physica A (302: 2001), tests the accuracy of climate models and finds them lacking. The problem, say the authors, is that the models do not adequately take into account persistence in the climate system.
“The persistence of short term weather states is a well-known phenomenon: there is a strong tendency for subsequent days to remain similar, a warm day is more likely to be followed by a warm day than a cold day and vice versa,” say the authors. They also note that persistence can occur at time scales of several weeks due to stable high pressure systems that remain stable for long periods of time.
The authors also note that, “There have been also indications that weather persistence exists over many months or seasons, between successive years, and even over several decades. Such persistence is usually associated with slowly varying external (boundary) forcing such as sea surface temperatures and anomaly patterns.”
This issue of persistence is another reason why “separating the anthropogenic forcing from the natural variability of the atmosphere may prove to be a major challenge since the anthropogenic signal may project onto and therefore be hidden in the modes of natural climate variability.”
The authors tested several models. “We are interested,” they write, “in the way the models can reproduce the actual data regarding (a) trends and (b) long-range correlations. Of course, we cannot expect the models to reproduce local trends like urban warming or short-term correlation structures. But long-range correlations show characteristic universal features that are actually independent of the local environment around a station. So we can expect that successful models with good prognostic features will be able to reproduce them.”
“It turns out,” according to the study, “that the models considered display wide performance differences and actually fail to reproduce the universal power law behavior of persistence. It seems that the models tend to underestimate persistence while overestimating trends, and this fact may imply that the models exaggerate the expected global warming of the atmosphere.”
Etc.
Al Kamen in his “In the Loop” column in the February 15 Washington Post: “The Bush White House excels at keeping secrets from the press, opponents, and, sometimes, even friends, judging from a somewhat testy exchange Wednesday evening when White House Council on Environmental Quality aides and others briefed a dozen or so senior GOP congressional staff members on the administrations new environmental package.
“The Hill folks protested that they had not been consulted about the package beforehand. When the White House disagreed, one Hill aide apparently asked for a show of hands from those whod been consulted. None went up, were told. Then talking points were distributed. Bushs goal of reducing our greenhouse gas intensity by _____ will reduce overall U.S. emission by _____ million metric tons by 2012, one point said, calling it an extremely ambitious, yet realistic goal.
“Numbers would help, the Hill team said. After some reluctance, the numbers were supplied. Its like the Wheel of Fortune: you can buy a vowel, you can buy a number.”