We have different sources of uncertainty in climate models, which could affect different parts of model outputs. so now what are the main sources of uncertainty in climate models, specially in LUMIP?!
Dear Dennis;
I mean Land Use Model Intercomparison Project by acronym LUMIP. It also may be written as Land Use MIP.
Dear Kenneth;
You are right, and I mean uncertainty in the base line period. but you mentioned just the main source of uncertainty in climate models, temperature. So what are the other sources, especially in Land Use.
I mean land use is dynamic, and its changes are more notable when we study climate change, so the changes could make so much uncertainty in outputs. now what's your idea?!
Ken
apologies: my question app is not working anymofe and I can only type like a line-writer that is add to the text and not correct, etc etc; if this keeps on I am off ResearchGate unless the helpdesk heeds my request to do something
Exactly, This is what I am searching for. So, WHAT THE CERTAINTIES ARE? if we know what they are, how could we enter them in a model, in a climate model, in a land surface model, ...?
How could we make a dynamic land surface model, that could be able to change by new situations?!
I think that could be possible. like a real time model. but we don't have that in climate modeling. so maybe new ideas could be useful.
we have different land use types, jungles, lakes, snow, etc. that will change by climate change. I want to study how biosphere will change by climate change?!
I mean as a dynamic model, that could change land use type if the situation change. so now what is your idea?
Dear Kenneth;
I totally could understand what you mean, so as you said: " it is certain that the natural variations will change ", which is the physics of climate change:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/3play_1/climate-change-101-with-bill-nye-the-science/
and as you continued: " but it is uncertain in which direction they will go ", which I think you mean the uncertainty in climate scenarios:
https://vimeo.com/85531490
SO, NOW we know we have change in our climate, which will change our biosphere, and so changes in biosphere will change climate - e.g. absorption of carbon dioxide and etc. - so we will have change in our climate in a new rate, and so and so, like a cycle.
NOW, Do you have any idea to make a dynamic climate model which be able to consider this cycle?!
Tabatabaei,
uncertainty would suggest the model successfully reflects the reality, in a way the measured reality is within the bounds of model uncertainty. Sadly, it is not so with climate models. You can't find measured values anywhere near the model values, and as time passes the discrepancy becomes wider.
If biosphere is your area of research, I suggest you to favour measured data instead of models - you'll get a verifiable result. Perhaps it will be best to open a different topic asking for sources of measured data. There are many databases available free on the internet, but if you ask nicely, you'll get raw data from the source.
(It is my dream to pass through Turkey and roam all over Iran on a motorbike, or a car. I like gaz.)
Although I am not directly involved in LUMIP, the protocol for this CMIP6 experiment is set out to quantify the common response and uncertainties across the different land use and biogeochemical models used in coupled earth system models. In summary, LUMIP is set up to provide an answer to your question.
This uncertainty is in addition to the uncertainty in the physical response to greenhouse gas changes such as the rate of global warming or regional differences in future climate. This uncertainty (and the common response across models) will be given by the other MIPs and the core DECK experiments where different climate models are given the same emissions scenarios for greenhouse gases, aerosols and other boundary forcing.
You can see the protocol here:
https://cmip.ucar.edu/lumip
The peer reviewed LUMIP experiment description is here:
https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/9/2973/2016/
Best,
Adam
Davor
As always on this subject you utter a hots of words without any quantitavive statement
He is asking for FUTURE develoments: how would YOU do that with only measurements
That is the question
Virkes;
What do you mean by word 'near' in: " You can't find measured values anywhere near the model values " ?! Do you mean systematic error of a model?!
I think we run the model in Historical periods for calibration and validation, therefore it could be used for biosphere too.!!
and thanks for your suggestion to asking for databases.
I am waiting for your answers.
Best
(I hope see you soon in Iran, to have a great adventure on motorbike, and also I want suggest you to test Doogh as a great Iranian drink ;) ).
Aleš;
Thank for you answer; as you said: " The second uncertainty is biosphere. "
I climate modeling biosphere is the green cover of the land (forests, pastures, etc) as its spatial scale _ and maybe temporal too -, so the extremes will have a great impact on that and the biosphere will have its feedback. so now how could we estimate its feedback and its effect on other elements ?!
Artur;
Fortunately my supervisor is one of the best mathematician in my country, so I am not worry about mathematical parts of my research. and I know it's a complex topic, but I think extremes could have a great impact on biosphere, thus may I ask you to read my previous answer to Aleš, please!.
MuhammadReza,
yes, "near" would account for natural variation criss-crossing the mean of a model all the time, yet it happens only when El Niño warms everything up, and at almost no other point at all. With some models it does not happen even during El Niño. It is a systemic error.
In my view modelling works for seeing how historical changes in one (or more) system influence the other. Saying the same for modelling the future would require demonstrating some level of a model skill, which is precisely something climate models do not have. Running predictions too hot all the time is not a sign of a model with predictive skill.
One thing you may model in future with high skill is rising CO2. Relevant point is that you don't have historical data on current or future CO2 levels, but the gradient is fairly predictable. But climate not so much. True climate mostly ignores the rise in CO2. Decorrelating past climate against past CO2 with regard to biosphere to obtain a clean CO2 related signal could work.
Davor
Well we found out now: you claim to be the expert on climate change modelling
What are your credebtials
What do you know about the models
What in a general way makes you a modeler or an expert to jug=dge models and model outcomes
or is it just hybris
Harry,
Now you make me feel violated. I never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling, God forbid. Please don't confuse me with that lot. Trust me, we have nothing in common. I like my statistics the way real scientists use it.
I do use climate data for mid term energy consumption models, and funny thing those seldom travel beyond 2 sigma boundaries.
I'm not at all interested in your credentials though.
Davor, Kenneth;
Let's make the problem more complex. Added CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. Climate change will cause more extreme events. More extreme events will cause more drought and more floods. more floods and more droughts will cause more deforestation. More deforestation will cause less absorption of CO2 and therefore the cycle will continue.
So now, do the current climate model considering this cycle?!!!
Muhammad,
The whole point is that the very opposite is in effect. The Earth biomass is growing larger. Deforestation is happening almost exclusively in countries with dominantly lateritic soils in which there is no regulation on logging or cutting trees for fuel. If for example you observe the border between Haiti and Dominicana, you won't need the drawn border lines, as the Haitian side of the border is akin to a Moon surface, while Dominicana is quite green. That has nothing to do with climate but with immensely stupid politics.
Same goes for Madagascar.
But in general the Earth is greener than before. Floods etc happen as ever before, but deforestation is solely a process initiated by an axe, and a human wielding it, preferably in a forest growing on lateritic soil where forest recovery will take a few hundreds of years. If ever.
Ken
What do you mean with "predicting" future variability?
Have you an idea how a climate model workds?
@Aleš, a few days ago i heard on radio that Slovenia is about to impose a 50g CO2/km limit for vehicles after 2030 (or something in that line) implying that electric vehicles are magically without emissions, and the 50g is a viable goal. Fuel cells, provided those suddenly start accepting at least methane, could most certainly meet that goal, but charged battery ones... I'm not so sure. If everyone is obliged to drive a battery powered car, a grid must be completely redesigned to accept ~3 times the current load, and the demand will most certainly not be met with renewables. Right now Slovenia has perhaps over 70% electricity from renewable sources in the mix, dominated by hydro, but enter the battery cars, and it will become less than 30%. Unless Slovenia is prepared for a massive scale rape of science and common sense, and continues believing that electricity is magically clean, and energy mix is of no consequence, the 50g limit is achievable. Otherwise... not so much.
Germany today has over 60% of fossil fuel in their mix, mostly from lignite. Their electric cars today run with over 50g CO2 per km.
When I analysed energy per country, Slovenia was a bit confusing as the methodology wasn't the same as in other countries. I concluded renewables + hydro + nuclear must be over 60% but I stand corrected. It is also about 60% in Croatia, varying only due to hydrology conditions of a year.
Kenneth, don't bother, it makes no difference. More often than not the alarmists are in broken record mode. In every case it is something in line with “Four legs good, two legs bad.” Or "IPCC... IPCC...IPCC... IPCC...IPCC... IPCC...IPCC... IPCC..."
Pointless.
Dear Harry, Dear Virkes, Dear Kenneth, Dear ALL;
I believe we all are here to solve our problems, to make new friendships by helping each other to solve problems. it's my word of apologize to all who participated in this discuss, for what happened.
I want ask you agian to have a warm discussion about climate modeling.
So, up to the last answers the role of human was discussed, when
Aleš said:
"Human response is also potentially notable climate driver. ..."
so I had a suggestion from one of my professors, Dr. Javad Bazrafshan (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Javad_Bazrafshan) to have naturalization in my model. It may help me to control human forces on climat and espicially, the biosphere. so now what's you idea?!
Thanks
Ken
I get annoyed when this guy utters his unfunded opinion about me as he does again without once reading what my opinion is. Now he is calling me names again while I quote and support the analysis of Vaughan Pratt.
As for modelling: that is a team effort in which I was involved for 20 years
Dear Harry;
Thank you for your participation. I've searched about Vaughan Pratt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughan_Pratt
and may I ask you, what was your modeling expertise?. Because I am now searching for some experts in biosphere modeling whom could help me.
Regards
You can find that at my site here at Research-Gate: parameterisation of aerosol cloud precipitation
Ken
Thanks for the ref: we are in there for the novel constituent nitrate: Schaap et a.: my PhD student at the time. BUT: IPCC 2013 has a lower value for aerosol and a lower uncertainty. Have a look. Recent estimates are also lower
Of course they are, the political reality of a political outlet demands such updates to be a constant, e.g. whenever some real science happens elsewhere. Karl Popper called such flexibility that yields to whims a conventionalist strategy, which is ultimately unfalsifiable, and therefore not a science. We know IPCC will never divorce itself from politics, because politics is what it is, and therefore not science. It may work on the gullible though.
Davor
I bet you never even perused the report of WG1, yet you ventilate your critics: that is not Popper byut yur own scientific aopproahco
Dear Harry;
I was readout IPCC AR4 WGI these days, and I realized that there was no bisphere modeling in climate model before AR4; So does adding the biosphere to climate models make a significant change in the outputs?!!!
Harry;
I master thesis was based on EC-Earth outputs. the downscaling moodel was RCAv4. but I don't know which biosphere model was coupled to the EC-Earth or RCAv4. I had searched for their refrence manual, but I didn't find anything. also when I searched for refrence manual of RegCM, It was easily reachable, I so easy to understand.
Do you have any idea to have a connection to climate modeling centers?!
Ken
What do you mean?
I always gave you chapter number and page number
I do not present a clipping out of context
Ken
the advice was to Davor, who can write out IPCC 20 times in one sentence and denounce "it", but never bothered to have a look inside a reoport. Thu my advice to him to do that once.s
Dear Kenneth;
Sure, The RegCM doesn't use a marine module, this part is being drived from Initial, boundery conditions (ICBC) of MITgcm / ROMS ocean models.
RegCM is a RCM not a GCM so its common that the model doesn't have any marine module.
Also the land surface modules are BATS1e and CLM. So now what is your suggestion to chose a climate model to improve its biosphere module?!
Dear Kenneth;
What do you mean by "marine biosphere"?!!
If you mean the Hydrosphere, which is 70% of the globe, so I think its different with marine biosphere, so what do you mean by "marine biosphere"?!
Also, as you know, the RegCM is a regional model, so it doesn't have any ocean model, there how it could model the life in the oceans?!!!
Dear Kenneth;
I attached the definition of Biosphere from IPCC AR4 WGI, page 942.
Now I am trying to modeling land surface biosphere in CLM which is one of the land surface models of RegCM. Do you have any suggestion to chose the climate model?! and which part of a land surface biosphere model could make the most bias in a climate model?!
Dear Kenneth;
Sure, so as a climate modeler, how could I decrease a model bias, especially in land surface; I mean which part of a land surface model in most important to be improved by a climate modeler?! (because I decided to do in my Ph.D. thesis)
They are uncertainties in any aspect of science. It is not a show stopper.
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-215719276.html
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change