ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Geology & Atmospheric Science

A Case for Universal Climate Model

Updated on July 11, 2017
jackclee lm profile image

Jack is currently a volunteer at the Westchester County Archives. Jack has worked at IBM for over 28 years on museums and libraries.

Introduction

As a climate change skeptic, I often wonder why there are so many climate models that scientists seem to rely on. Their combined predictive records have been less than stellar. I fully recognize that global climate is very complex and require many disciplines. My hope is that a new initiative, taken by a reputable independent source, will come up with the ultimate climate model. One that will be much better than what exists today and that it will be open source and can be verified by anyone. This will go a long way, I believe, to resolve the current debate over climate change.

- March 2016

Background

In a recent talk on climate science, I posed a question to the speaker about why there are so many climate models. To my surprise, she did not know the answer. It seems to me, if this climate change or AGW theory is to be taken seriously, don't we need to know if the models are accurate? Currently, I believe there exist over 18 climate models around the globe by various groups. They are well funded by various governmental agencies and private foundations. They hold annual conferences and discuss / warn the dire consequences of AGW. Yet, we have little understanding the inner workings of these models, how they are implemented(coded) and what assumptions are made.

Apollo 11 Moon Landing

A Comparison (Analogy)

Let me digress and use the Apollo moon mission as an example. In 1961, President Kennedy issued a challenge to the scientific community to land a man on the moon. Within a decade, NASA was able to accomplish this with the landing of Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong. How did they do it? It was a team effort by many top scientists and engineers and programmers.

How much harder is climate science compared to landing a man on the moon and returning safely? We have spent the last 25 years discussing this and yet I don't see an end in sight. Yes, we had climate summits and Kyoto treaties and the Paris CO21 but they don't seem to have any teeth or impact. We need a new direction.

What Are The Objectives?

This new initiative should accomplish the following 3 things.

  • answer the question what percent of climate change is man-made.
  • able to predict climate variations going forward based on various "what if" scenarios.
  • able to regression test and validate current data collected over the past 50-75 years.

This is done by creating a "Universal" climate model that takes into account all known factors and drivers of climate on earth. A team of top scientists, engineers, programmers and climatologists should be assembled and given the task of creating this model.

Some Attributes of Climate Model

I believe an universal climate model should include some attributes. As an outsider, I would like to see all the known drivers of climate both natural and man-made accounted, including the effects of our sun. It should include all the known natural cycles of our solar system. It should include all known feedback both positive and negative of various elements. It should contain some "unknown" source which may accommodate any surprises. These may be "black swan" events that happen infrequently and perhaps only single event but may have long term effects on our climate.

The model needs to be extendable.

The source code should be open, allow for inspection and independent verification.

The model should be able to run simulations "what If scenarios" going both forward and backwards in time.

Another Analogy

This reminds me a little of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man was touching a different part of the elephant's body and trying to guess at the whole. It was impossible. A universal climate model is what is needed for us to understand the whole picture. As complex as this seems to be, we have the technology and the resources to accomplish this. This was not true just a short while ago. However, with the increased monitoring capabilities worldwide, collecting the vast amount of data, and the faster super compute power and the advances in AI software to tackle "big data," we are capable of achieving this.

TJ Watson Research Lab (Yorktown NY)

Who Should Lead?

The whole effort must be lead by an independent and reputable and unbiased group. I must rule out the United Nations (IPCC) as a lead because it has been so politicized in the past.

I do have an ideal group in mind that fits the bill. I believe an international company like IBM can take on this lead position. They have the resources, the reputation of an excellent Research Lab.,(which I was a proud member), and the skills and experience of Super computing processing and the recent announcement purchase of the Weather Company.

The lead role is to combine all the existing talents and modeling efforts and try to integrate all the pieces and eliminate duplication. The end result would be a more robust model that can be tested and verified and improved over time.

I'm sure other companies like Apple and Google and Microsoft may also fit the bill.

Regardless who is chosen to lead, the candidate must be impartial. They cannot start with any assumptions that might lead to a biased result. That is the key to the success of this effort.

Benefits of a Predictive Climate Model

Assume we have an accurate climate model that can be used for projections into the future. The benefits could be huge. For example, we can test various climate mitigation schemes to see how much of an effect they will have. It will help determine the cost/benefits of various proposals. It will lead to a smarter response to combating climate change. It may also detect some unintended consequences that we have not thought of. Sometimes, we can do more harm than good.

Assume a major catastrophe hit our planet tomorrow, man-made or natural. A model should be able to include this one event and project it's known effects going forward. For example, if a major volcano erupts tomorrow, we can measure the amount of impurities that is spewed into the atmosphere. We can estimate the effects on global temperature due to that one event. Just for argument sake, if the projected global warming due to increased CO2 is 0.1 degree per year over the next 10 years, and the predicted cooling due to this one event is -0.1 degrees over the next 2 years, the net effect would change the total temperature profile even if it is only for 2 years. By separating the natural and the man-made events, we can present a total picture. In the year when the warming fails to increase as predicted, we can account for it in a credible fashion. The same can be said about our Sun. If the sunspot cycle is weaker or stronger in any given 11 years cycle, we should be able to factor that into the total projections.

A new Study with Surprising Find

Here is a new study on climate modeling that is very revealing.

The Conclusion is included here:

"Climate modeling is not climate science. Moreover, the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models. In doing this it assumes that the models are basically correct, that the basic science is settled. This is far from true.

The models basically assume the hypothesis of human-caused climate change. Natural variability only comes in as a short term influence that is negligible in the long run. But there is abundant evidence that long term natural variability plays a major role climate change. We seem to recall that we have only very recently emerged from the latest Pleistocene glaciation, around 11,000 years ago.

Billions of research dollars are being spent in this single minded process. In the meantime the central scientific question – the proper attribution of climate change to natural versus human factors – is largely being ignored."

Summary

The above chart speaks for itself. There are too many models and moreover, they are not accurate enough for us to make any predictions about the future. That is the main function of a simulation model. It is only as good as the model maker. I am hoping to stimulate interests in calling for the creation of a universal climate model.

© 2016 Jack Lee

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 17 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, Do you think migration of over 1 million people anywhere is a good idea? Do you know that most of the people affected did not want to leave their home country? All they needed was some help to keep them safe and help with fighting off ISIS. This refuge crisis is a man made creation. Yes, drought may have played a role but we have drought all over and throughout history. We deal with it as we dealt with other natural disasters. Somehow, I don't think this mass migration of refugees were not orchestrated. Look at the problems that are being inflicted on western Europe.

      I remember clearly a few years back when everyone was warning the Obama admin. about the rise of ISIS and he chose to do very little to "contain" them. He could have wiped them out and stop all this genocide and destruction of antiquities...

      As a Christian, I am ashamed of our country for not doing more, to help them with refuge camps, for creating a safe zone... Where are the UN in this effort? I don't expect anything from that corrupt organization. When it comes down to actually making a difference, in the past it was the USA, but no longer true under this adminstration

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 17 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Well, I won't prolong the UN debate unduly, as it is somewhat off topic. I, too, am pragmatic about it, however, I assess the balance of positives and negatives and conclude that the imperfect institution we have is better--maybe much better--than nothing. It's interesting at least that the list you present says in its introductory paragraph that "Consisting of 192 members (for now), the UN has been largely successful in ending various conflicts and wars."

      Since it's more on point for a climate Hub, I'll briefly remark that I think you have the causality of the Syrian crisis somewhat backwards: it wasn't that an insurgent ISIS led to a refugee crisis, it was that a drought-caused internal refugee crisis (quite possibly induced or worsened by climate change, FWIW), mishandled by the government, led to the civil war, which in turn afforded ISIS political and military space to expand. ISIS, other Jihadis, and the Syrian military continue to kill, oppress and threaten civilians on a widespread scale. That, together with the 'saturation' of refugees in neighboring states such as Jordan and Lebanon, has led to the export of the crisis to the EU.

      Do I think that the observed outcome is 'the best we can do?' No, I don't. But blame doesn't rest solely with the Administration; Congressional opinion in 2013 clearly meant that intervention by the Administration would have resulted in bitter political divisions, and probably a completely 'lame duck' Presidential term since (as well as an even more bitter and divided political climate in the US.) From that perspective, President Obama's non-intervention, graceless as it was, and unhelpful to the developing crisis as it was, may have been the lesser evil.

      And in a wider sense, I can't even blame Congress too much, though I do think that overall they richly deserve their current 13% approval rating. On further US involvement in a Middle Eastern war, their ducking of responsibility was reflective of public sentiment; IMO, we pretty much got the government we voted for.

      Here's where Congress stood on the vote to authorize the use of force in Syria:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_th...

      Public opinion:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_th...

      Of course, the resolution died on the Senate floor.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 17 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, we have gotten a little off topic here but I will respond to this because I brought it up in the first place. The UN is a failure and there is no denying.

      They do have a peace keeping force which have done little if not harm.

      Here are a list if it's top failures -

      http://listverse.com/2013/01/28/top-10-failures-of...

      I am pragmatic, if on balance, the UN has done some good, I weight the positive vs. the negative. I've reached the conclusion a long time ago that it is a total failure and corrupt organization. It need to be dismantled. You mentioned UNICEF, but there are many other great charities such as Catholic charities that have done more to help the poor around the world.

      The problem with the UN is systemic, it is structured to do nothing. The current climate change debate is top on that list. The IPCC is a political animal and it should not be. I am not one that think the US should be the police of the world but unfortunately, we are the only super power. In some cases, we have no choice but act. The current administration of lead from behind has been disastrous. Just look at the current crisis in Syria. It is our inactions to stop ISIS that lead to this refuge crisis. Do you think it is the best we can do?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 17 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      I guess that will be another 'agree to disagree' issue, then; I don't see how the UN is supposed to prevent every terrorist atrocity. Nor do I see that that is its charter; it has no armed forces of its own, after all. (Imagine how any proposal to give it one would be received by US conservatives!) Its military forces are always 'on lease' from various member states, and limit their activities to peacekeeping, not out and out conflict.

      Nevertheless, the UN has been an important mechanism for resolving conflict over its life, as the example I gave above illustrates (and it's only one of the more recent ones.) And let's not forget sterling work done by various UN agencies: the UNHCR is routinely the 'first responder' to all manner of refugee crises, and has been so since the second world war; WHO has done great work for public health (most notably the global eradication of smallpox); UNICEF has done much for children's welfare over (again) many decades; and the WMO is an important coordinating body for national weather services. Of course, I view the Paris Treaty as an extremely important accomplishment, and one that may be (if implementation is successful) of inestimable benefit to the world.

      Don't mistake me: I could certainly criticize various aspects of UN function, policy, and personnel. It would be very nice if the Security Council were not so sclerotic, and IMO it's highly unfortunate that the Russians have a permanent seat. UN peacekeepers have not always acted when they should (Rwanda comes to mind), and have been guilty of various failings of conduct at various places. (Though so have military personnel of all sorts, including Americans--chronic tensions in Okinawa come to mind as illustration of that.) There have been incidents of serious corruption and the abuse of power.

      There are going to be such, in any international body. It's the price of 'doing business'--particularly since, by definition, all the worst governments get a vote (and a 'piece of the action'.) I think that disappointment with the UN often proceeds from 'utopian' expectations on the part of critics.

      You say that "The world was better when US leads," which is an interesting mixture of past and present tense--rather as if you're not sure whether or not the US still does. At any rate, I don't disagree; American policy is no more perfect that anyone else's--for instance, the constant meddling with Latin American affairs for most of the 20th century under the Monroe Doctrine proved to be a disaster for democracy and human development in that region of the world. (I don't think it even served US interests very well, but that's another story.) Yet America at the end of the day does stand for democracy and the rule of law, and that's invaluable--even if, like other human institutions, it does not do so perfectly.

      But it's not the liberals who have been saying for the last couple of decades that the US can't be 'the world's cop', or decrying 'nation-building.' It's conservative opinion, and the likes of Trump, or Rand Paul certainly wouldn't disagree today. So, does the world need a cop? And if so, who should it be? In the UN, it at least has a social worker.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 17 months ago from Yorktown NY

      You have more faith than I. The UN is a failed agency and has not lived up to its charter. Think of all the genocides down thru the years including the recent ISIS beheading Christians. The UN is sadly missing in action. The only one able to put a stop or a dent on these atrocities is the US, and only when we had a strong president, not Obama or Carter. The UN is one of those utopia solutions that don't exist. The world was better when US leads.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      I think you'll find numerous examples of UN-brokered peace agreements which have, in fact, brought conflict to an end.

      Just one recent example to get you started: last year's ceasefire in Mali, which is more or less holding:

      http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/f...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_confli...

      The situation remains unsettled, however:

      http://www.theworldweekly.com/reader/view/storylin...

      There are many, many more such examples down through the years, as you will be able to verify. I don't mean to suggest that the UN is perfect, or that to deny that there have been serious instances of corruption or political bias, nor to defend abuse of parking laws. ;-)

      But the fact is, that UN work has been reducing and helping resolve conflict for decades.

      So, ask yourself--why the UN's successes are denied, and by whom? Whose interest is served in promulgating these myths?

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      If it is not the IPCC, it is people in government that rely on their assessment and recommendations. The UN is a prime example of this failed organization. They have not stopped one single conflict around the world and yet have engaged in abuses and crimes that exploit the people of these corrupt countries they are charged to "protect".

      I live in NY and I see the UN building in Manhattan where the diplomats use their diplomatic status to abuse the parking privileges...

      They are useless and toothless when it comes to stopping dictators and tyrants (due to the unanimous votes of the security council).

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Just one quick comment: the IPCC does not advocate policies. Never has, never will--policy is the realm of the nation members of the UNFCC. The IPCC will advise on the possible effectiveness of policies, telling the UNFCC member community what the probable effects of doing X, Y or Z might be, but that is as far as their brief extends. You won't find them going beyond that.

      Of course, individual scientists may feel that as citizens, it is their duty to advocate. (We've talked about James Hansen as an example in the past.) I think we'd both agree that if they choose to do so, that is their democratic right. But they aren't speaking for the IPCC when they do so, even if they have participated in an Assessment Report in some way.

      So I'm not sure who the 'they' may be whom you speak of in sentences like this:

      "...they ignore the corruption and waste in many third world nations that would make their proposed solutions useless if not harmful."

      It sure ain't the IPCC.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, there is distortion on both sides as often the case when arguing a position. I have been proposing conservative economic principles from the start. I believe the only way alternative energy sources can be adopted is by winning in the free market place without government subsidies. I don't know some of the people you mentioned in your post but I'll take you at your word. It does not change how I feel about the current impasse. We have a politicized international organization IPCC who is trying to influence world policies which they have much to gain. There one sided bias against developed nations does not take into account the many positive elements. On the other hand, they ignore the corruption and waste in many third world nations that would make their proposed solutions useless if not harmful. That is the primary reason for my proposal of a universal climate model. I want to know the facts for sure before acting. Unlike the other side, I think we have the time and the technology to figure it out.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      The article may be 'clear', but that doesn't make it correct. Go back to the original Edenhofer interview, part of which was rerun in WUWT, back in 2010:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-officia...

      You'll find that he is NOT saying that the goal is economic redistribution, but rather that the mitigation necessarily *involves* some degree of economic redistribution--or as the interviewer puts it, "expropriation.' But what is the actual goal?

      "Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

      So the goal is keeping to "the 2-degree target", not the creation of a New World Order.

      Moreover, adaptation to climate change means integrating climate policy with many other aspects of policy, and particularly development:

      "[Interviewer]: Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

      [Edenhofer]: It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies."

      Similarly, the de Figueres quote was bandied about by the same assortment of usual suspects, similarly ripped from context, to show that she 'must' be saying that, as you put it, 'capitalism is the enemy'--the "system" that she said must change. But it's much more logical to think that the "system" is that of an economy based upon the unlimited exploitation of fossil fuels--particularly since Ms. Figueres is herself a lifelong member of the economic elite in a capitalist country, Costa Rica, and was educated at the London School of Economics and Swarthmore College.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiana_Figueres

      I must say that for me, one of the persuasive facets of this whole fake 'debate' is that, when you dig a bit with these 'gotcha' items circulated by folks like Breitbart, the GWPF, WUWT and so on, you virtually *always* find that they are distorted in some significant way. That this is so pervasively true makes its own argument. Why would they need to distort if their case were a strong one?

      Conservatism is good--there needs to be a stabilizing force in the political process to counterbalance the dynamic force of progressivism. The tension between the two is a productive one, even if the resultant political process can be messy and even distasteful.

      But in the realm of climate change policy, conservatism as it is often practiced today seems too often to fall into the fallacy of arguing from consequences--if to save the climate carbon pricing and economic transformation are needed, then the climate must therefore not really need saving, because, well, it would simply be 'too awful if it were true.'

      Conservatism would better serve itself and the body politic if it avoided that fallacy, and advocated for conservative, market-based approaches to the problem, as conservative figures like George Schultz and Bob Inglis have done.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, sorry to hear you are a stock holder of SUNE. I hope you are not invested in TSLA or SCTY. Elon Musk may be a smart guy but relying on government subsidies is never good long term.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      The article is pretty clear. The ultimate goal of climate change is to control the world and re distribute wealth as in socialism. The rich countries like the US, are to be taxes to help pay for the poorer countries. Capitalism is the evil corp. that plunder the earth for profits at the expense of our environment... Does this sound familiar?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      1) Yes, burning wood releases CO2, but it is not 'new' to the climate system, since the trees sourced it from the atmosphere in building those woody tissues.

      2) Edenhofer is an economist. Everything is going to look like economic policy to him. You can get a more balanced (and less economically alarmist) view of him and his views from good old Wikipedia:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer

      I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "this "equality" goal"--I don't see that word anywhere in the piece you linked. If you really want to know my position on it, you'll have to explain it a bit more.

      I, too, put human welfare first, but one must remember that you can't ignore environmental well-being if you want to advance the well-being of humans. We depend on a functioning ecosystem, not vice versa.

      3) As to Sun Edison, tell me about it--I'm a stockholder. :-(

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Another solar company on the verge of bankruptcy -

      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sunedison-plummets-p...

      When will they learn?

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      A disturbing interview on climate alarmist's real goal -

      http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/anoth...

      I hope you don't buy into this "equality" goal... I am a conservative and a capitalist. Climate change should be addressed on its merit.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, burning wood is also co2 generator. Your view may not be extreme as enviromentalists but it does lead to quality of life issues for people around the world. In some third world countries, cheap energy is the only thing keeping them alive and advancing. If your livelihood is dependent on burning fossil fuel, you will choose it everytime. Our views may not be that far apart. My choice is always, human first, animals second, and environment third.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Interesting link, but I have no idea why you think I'm unaware that there's 'no free lunch.' I keep stressing that the transition away from fossil fuel is not easy or cheap. That's precisely why we can't shirk it--if it were either easy or cheap, I'd be much less worried about getting it done.

      However, it's nonetheless necessary. It's not 'my' anti-FF mind-set that says so--it's the overwhelming consensus of the mainstream science.

      As to camping without a gas stove, I did precisely that for years--all through the '80s our standard vacation was to canoe trip through the Canadian Shield country of Ontario. All cooking was done over a wood fire, so all we had to pack was a couple of containers of waterproof matches.

      You are right that things have to make economic sense. But I fear that you may be taking too narrow a view of 'economic.' Fossil fuel combustion in China, for example, lifted many tens of millions out of poverty. But the cost to the environment has been huge, and the cost to the economy itself has become considerable--estimates run to several per cent of GDP, and millions of premature deaths. (About half a million annually, IIRC, but with pretty wide uncertainties.) It's bad enough that abatement has become a visible priority of the Party--which is why China is now turning away from coal at a surprising rate. Here's a story about the tension between economic and mitigation goals--and how, nevertheless, the conversation is based on recent observed change--most concretely, the 2.7% drop in coal consumption in 2015:

      http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060033755

      One last thing: I agree that we are not 'near the 100%.' In fact, if you look back at our conversation, you'll find I've made that same point repeatedly. However, that doesn't mean that you can't have prosperity, or Mars missions, or a non-Stone Age lifestyle for that matter, without using fossil fuel. It just means that it takes time to 'get there.'

      It also takes thought, effort and, yes, investment--and in large amounts. As mentioned, it's a non-trivial task. As the proverb has it, though, no matter how long the journey, one starts with a single step. And actually, we've taken several already. We just need to keep clear in our minds where we really want to go: toward a world where a decent living for everyone does not also degrade the environment upon which we and our descendants depend.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, here is a link on how much energy is required to build the batteries to store renewable solar power.

      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/store-ele...

      As with all these alternative energy sources, there is no free lunch. In fact, everything we do today, including our homes, our clothes, our foods and leisure activities require fossil fuel of one form or another. Try going camping without gas stove...

      Your anti fossil fuel mind set is miss guided. Sometimes, fossil fuel is the most efficient and economic solution. I welcome other fuel sources when it makes economic sense. For example, I use a solar power night light. It is called the Luci - I even wrote a hub to promote it.

      https://hubpages.com/technology/A-Great-Idea-to-He...

      There are other applications that makes perfect sense but we are no where near the 100%.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      I strongly disagree. Everything that can be done with fossil fuel can be done with some form of renewable energy or energy storage--and, increasingly, it will be. And it will happen, IMO, precisely because of "advances in technology." Conversely, the only "sure" thing with the fossil fuel path is biological, cultural, political, and economic impoverishment.

      To address your example of the Mars mission, a non-FF launch vehicle capable of Mars transfer orbits now existing is the Delta-IV Heavy:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV_Heavy

      It uses LH2/LOX fuel--no FF there.

      It's often claimed that manufacturing such things is reliant on fossil fuel. That, to my mind is a completely unsupported claim. Decarbonize the electric grid--a process visibly underway today--and you also decarbonize the majority of the manufacturing process. Where high-temperature process heat is needed, combustion can be used, either with non-FF-sourced hydrocarbons such as landfill gas, biofuel or synfuel, or possibly with RE-made hydrogen. We may still want to pump oil and natural gas, or mine coal, for use as industrial feedstocks--organic chemistry has certainly done a lot to transform our lives. But we don't need to emit carbon to the atmosphere in those processes. In fact, in principle such processes could be coupled with air-captured carbon to become carbon-negative, as in this project:

      http://carbonengineering.com/air-capture/

      (Note that their pilot project is up and running today, and they are working on replacing the initial natural-gas process heat with renewable energy. Whether this project succeeds economically remains to be seen--but it almost certainly would under an economic system in which carbon emissions to the atmosphere were not free--that is, a system in which FF combustion was not subsidized.)

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      My comment on environmental extremists were in jest. There agenda to drive fossil fuel out of our lives will prevent progress. It is ironic that they want to stop the only chance we might have to save our future. Our advances in technology may be the only way to solving many of our challenges natual or otherwise. The only sure path is with reliable and sustainable and economical and efficient fossil fuel.

      For example, if we want to colonize Mars, the only way we can get there is with fuel and energy provided mostly by fossil fuel. The NASA moon mission could not happen in an all renewable energy world.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "Doc, the survey is to counter the myth of the 97% agreement amount scientists of AGW."

      Yes, I thought so, but it doesn't, because the 97% figure is not a 'myth.' It's come up in several different surveys, as summarized here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o...

      It also doesn't counter it because, as mentioned before, the AMS survey is not of 'climate scientists' but primarily of 'broadcast meteorologists--only 37% of whom even self-described as 'expert.' Apples to apples, please!

      "I guess the environmental extremists wouldn't mind…"

      *Everybody* would be 'devastated', including 'environmental extremists.' It's the 'extremists' who warn of such knock-on effects in the context of climate change, so why would they be less worried if some similar effects were induced via super flare?

      I think you actually underestimate the effect of losing the grid. Most cities only have a few days worth of food warehoused, so it's at least conceivable that there could be a very sudden, sharp famine, accompanied, inevitably, by civil disorder and conflict. It could be very, very ugly--which is why I say that the climate effects are probably not the main concern in the case of a superflare or Carrington-style event.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, the survey is to counter the myth of the 97% agreement amount scientists of AGW.

      As to solar flairs, the unintended consequences could have more impact than one might think. For example, if the power grid is taken down, it would cause mass panic not to mention the reduction of fossil fuel in use by power plants and autos and general commerce. I guess the environmental extremists wouldn't mind that so much but the rest of us would be devastated.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      I think you are putting the survey result a bit disingenuously.

      67% think climate change is at least 61% due to human activity. 14% think it's about 50/50. 12% think it's mostly natural or entirely natural, 6% don't know, and 1% deny that it's happening. That's a pretty overwhelming majority in agreement with the mainstream science.

      There were 4,092 completed surveys. Counting the '50/50' folks, 33% fall into the 'not convinced' crowd, for a total of 1,362. I suppose you could call that 'many'--even if about 36% still see a significant proportion of human influence. But obviously, twice as many believe the opposite.

      And AMS opinion has shifted toward greater acceptance of the mainstream opinion, apparently: 17% said that their opinion had shifted in the last 5 years, and of those, 87% say that they are more convinced that climate change is happening.

      It's worth noting that this is not a group that is at the highest pinnacle of expertise in climate science, although it's certainly a scientifically literate one: only 37% considered themselves 'expert' in climate science.

      Turning to the superflare question, where's the influence on climate? There was nothing in the link that suggested a superflare would have significant climatic effects, disastrous though it would likely be for our technological infrastructure and our economy. True, the story hysterically suggests that it could threaten the 'stability of our atmosphere', but the link supposedly supporting that just talks about a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere, provided no evidence for the claim.

      Searching farther afield, I found a Wikipedia article on superflares, which says that:

      "Significant depletion of the ozone layer with increased risk of cataracts, sunburn and skin cancer, as well as damage to growing plants. The recovery time would be of the order of months to years. In the strongest cases there would be severe damage to the biosphere, especially to primary photosynthesis in the oceans."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superflare#Effects_o...

      I'm not sure to what extent current GCMs include the ozone layer, but I do know that there is an extensive history of modeling stratospheric ozone and its effects:

      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_...

      (That's an oldish page, I believe--probably 10 years or more. But it has some good information.)

      Bottom line for me: the superflare scenario seems a little tangential to your project. Yes, there would be some effect on climate, but in the (very low probability) event of a superflare, we'd be much more affected by its devastation of our power grid--which would also hamper our ability to run supercomputer models at all. So if we're planning for such an event, I think what we need is a power grid recovery plan, not a climate model. (I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just giving my perspective.)

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      If there is external influence, a universal model should account for it. If you go back in history, a major natural disaster have affected global climate even if it lasts only a few years. It also high lights the resilience of our earth. It seems to move towards equilibrium all by itself somehow...

      A new survey of AMS shows many are not convinced that humans are primary cause of climate change -

      https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Yep. Cf., the "Carrington event" of 1859, which was not a solar superflare but rather a coronal mass ejection (CME), and which would certainly cause widespread havoc today.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

      (There was a similar event in 2012, but luckily it missed the Earth, or we still might not be back to Hubbing, depending upon how the economic and security consequences played out.)

      However, this is not a black swan that your universal model would help with. Economic modeling, maybe--possibly there should be some sort of contingency plan. US DOD would probably be the best agency to create it.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Another possible black swan event that has nothing to do with man made - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/sc...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Yes, natural sinks and sources are and will be very important. Natural fluxes are much larger than human ones--it's just that they mostly offset each other, whereas ours are mostly accumulative.

      A "we get lucky with the carbon cycle" scenario remains possible, I believe, but unlikely, based on paleoclimate data. If most deglaciations proceeded without stay, why should the current anthropogenic one behave differently?

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I stand corrected, CO2 concentration is what I'm talking about. However, it does not change my observation. The point is, there exist other contributing factors, natural or otherwise that affect climate. Perhaps there are natural carbon sinks that kicks in when the CO2 level rises to a certain level interacting with increased forests growth. The oceans may create a new flow pattern that affect el nino cycles. Whatever the case, I just don't think we know what is going on enough to determine how to deal with all of it effectively. Hence the call for a universal model.

      Here is my bigger argument. What if when all is said and done, CO2 concentration is not as big a deal as the theory proposes? What then?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "How can this be true when we know CO2 emissions have been going up steadily?"

      I presume you meant to write "when we know CO2 *concentration* have been going up steadily?"

      I actually talked about this very thing in my second-to-last comment above, so I won't repeat everything I said in that paragraph. But in a nutshell it means that natural emissions (or human but non-fossil fuel changes, such as the Indonesian fires) must have been up, or natural sinks must have been down.

      In principle, there's always the possibility of error, of course. But while we know of some specific instances--like the fairly big upward revisions of Chinese coal consumption a couple of years ago--so errors definitely do occur sometimes, the IEA has been doing this sort of analysis for several decades now, and are considered pretty good at it. Obviously they try to be as thorough and methodologically consistent as possible. So I'd say the numbers are unlikely to be perfect, but also unlikely to be trash.

      The IEA analysis does say that renewable energy is part of the emissions plateau. I hope they are right. But if past modeling work (economic as well as climate) is correct, then we still need to work urgently to speed the conversion, as the current pace of change is not sufficient to reduce emissions as quickly as it is thought that they need to fall in order to avert the most dangerous climate change. So it does seem we are on our way, but in a dawdling sort of pace.

      As I said earlier, the worrisome possibility is that the biggest reason for the rising concentrations is a decreasing efficacy of natural sinks. I say 'possibility' but I think that's almost certainly what is going on. I should really have written "*structural* decrease in efficacy". I hope (and think likely) that what we are seeing is largely a *temporary* decrease, due in large part to El Nino, with other factors such as I mentioned in the above comment.

      On the other hand, if concentrations keep climbing at any accelerated rate year on year in the future, despite human emissions slowing, then you are going to see me (and a lot of people much more important than me) really sweating. That would be a really, really, bad omen for our future.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, this article surprised me. What do you make of this?

      https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601055/global-c...

      How can this be true when we know CO2 emissions have been going up steadily?

      Could this be another excuse for the "missing" heat? Or is renewable energy conversion really making an impact? If so, does that mean we are on our way to solving this problem?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, I think your added explanatory material is clear enough, and does help explain your reasons.

      As I mentioned, we do have some of the capabilities you call for now--I'm thinking of modeling of volcanic effects; as I mentioned previously, that was pretty successfully done by Dr. Hansen back in the 90s with the Mt. Pinatubo. (Of course, that doesn't mean that there is no scope for improvement; there probably is.)

      And as far as solar input goes, I don't think that is a problem at all from the climate modeling side; that is, I believe we can readily calculate the effect of any given change in insolation on global temperature. As I understand it, the problem is not having a model of the sun's physics sufficiently detailed that we can predict solar radiation over decadal timescales. Without that, we don't have the 'future input data' on the solar part of the influence. (Luckily, the range of solar variation has been pretty small compared to the other variables--here's hoping that relative stability continues!)

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, thanks for your response. I have sent Dr. Schmidt an email at NASA to ask for his opinion on this topic. I look forward to his reply. I realize he is very busy and may not respond to an average citizen's request. I do hope he would consider this proposal and perhaps address this in some official capacity with NASA.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, I try to cast a wide net in my reading, so that I can assess the degree to which there is some consilience of results. But of course, there are severe limits to my time and also my educational preparation for this. But I have learned a lot from Gavin Schmidt at Realclimate, and from statistician 'tamino' at Open Mind.

      I'm afraid that there will continue to be surprises like the increased ocean heating during the 'slowdown' period; while there's a lot known, there's also a lot still to be discovered. Hopefully, none of those will involve 'tipping point' disasters; it may be a cliche, but it could happen.

      I'm actually a tad nervous about last year's CO2 emissions as they relate to the observed rise in atmospheric concentrations: human emissions held roughly steady for the third year in a row, according to the IEA, despite considerable economic growth.

      But the concentrations still increased by a record amount. Most likely it's mostly an artifact of El Nino and non-El Nino warming, both of which tend to boost CO2 a bit, combined perhaps with it being a bad year for wildfire (the Economist recently reported that the Indonesian fire season produced emissions larger than the total USA contribution, and North America had a record wildfire season as well. I hope so. Decreased natural carbon sinking is a nightmare scenario, since it could take any real control out of our hands.

      I'll have a look at your addition and get back to you.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I just added a new module to this hub - Benefits of a Predictive Climate Model. I wanted to explain a bit more of what I had in mind. I would appreciate your comment.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, so who exactly in the scientific community do you trust and rely on most of your information? I would like to include them in this effort. As I said in my hub, I want to get at the truth which ever it ends. If we can get all the smart people into a room, I have confidence they can solve this problem without the various distractions on both sides of the debate.

      I also don't like surprises. I want to know what is known and what is unknown at this point in time. I don't like the fact that some have discovered of late that the extra heat is in the oceans. Why was that not figured into the models? If that is the case, what else we may be missing? I hope you see my point.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      You'll be shocked to hear this, I know, but I disagree. It may be true that Dr. Trenberth used the phrase "missing heat", but the response to that phrase was exactly to gin up a 'debate.' No-one tried to find out what Dr. Trenberth actually meant, though I think anyone can find his email addy online; rather there was a flood of triumphalist blather and 'gotcha' soundbiting.

      So I don't think that climate scientists lost their intellectual honesty, as you suggest, and the loss of credibility that did occur was largely the result of a concentrated and unscrupulous propaganda campaign.

      As I've pointed out numerous times, the observed temperature trends are quite consistent with modeled ones, despite the spin from folks like Monckton. So who "doubled down?"

      From my perspective, it's folks like Watts. They trumpeted the slowdown in warming, although it was no secret that observations remained in a range consistent with natural variability. Then, when the inevitable happened, and variability turned toward the warm side again, reinforcing rather than bucking the warming trend, we didn't get from them the 'deep breath' you recommended.

      We got "2014 isn't really a record because it has error estimates attached, we got "It hasn't warmed for 18 years because 1 out of 5 datasets says so," and we got a whole bunch of pure slander and conspiracy allegations.

      Now we have 2015 in the record books as a stunning new warm record in all the instrumental data, and after the usual El Nino lag, the sat temps are following suite. Most 'skeptical' commenters I've been seeing seem not to have even noticed--which is why it seems logical to conclude that they are in some kind of denial. They just don't seem to be able to *look.*

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      The fact that it was a topic of debate tend to support my claim. We skeptics did not create this controversy. The climate scientists brought this upon themselves. If they only take a step back and take a deep breath, they may have saved their credibility and intellectual honesty. They projected increased heating on a grand scale, it failed to materialize, they then doubled down and look for all kinds of explanation for the missing heat...So it is now in the oceans supposedly. Why did it get lost in the original projections? Perhaps their models were incomplete?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "One that can explain the recent "missing" heat..."

      No longer missing, apparently.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, Bill Nye is a scientist who knows how to communicate and speak to the common man. He makes the complex easy to understand and be entertaining at the same time. However, he has a hard time convincing me that humans are mostly responsible for climate change. He is more reasonable in the respect that he would accept all forms of carbon reductions including increasing nuclear power. That is something the environmentalist will never accept.

      I still believe a universal model will move us closer to understanding the whole picture. I've contacted Bill Nye via his website and will share his response if he respond.

      I am also optimistic by the advances made in analyzing "big data" and artificial intelligence. It may be, the answer we are looking for. Among all the vast collected data over the years, there may be some pattern that have eluded scientists so far. One that can explain the recent "missing" heat...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Possibly his 'proving of your points' is less unintentional than you think. It's hard to tell from just one example, but the albedo manipulation you describe would come under the general heading of "geo-engineering" (and is one of the less clearly plausible strategies proposed, at that.) Geo-engineering is not considered to be a form of 'mitigation'--that term is customarily reserved for efforts that decrease carbon emissions.

      The reality is that none of the proposed geo-engineering measures that I've read about are all that promising. Some could be accomplished from a technical point of view, but most are temporary and would require ongoing effort and expense, most if not all have effects that are incompletely known and could or would involve moral or physical hazards, and all are incomplete, if only because none of them address ocean acidification. And in many cases, the benefits and costs wouldn't align well for the various nations that would be affected, creating potential political or even military hazards as well.

      So discussions of geo-engineering options usually end up emphasizing the comparative desirability of actual mitigation efforts--permanent, low-risk, and addressing all aspects of our carbon problem, oceanic as well as atmospheric. I suspect that Bill Nye is well aware of all that, and was so even before he started writing his book.

      But I may be reading too much in to what you wrote.

      At any rate, when you consider the magnitude of geoengineering options needed to address the problem, I think you should also consider the magnitude of what we do currently to create the problem. According to a link I read today, we produce and consume 96 million barrels of oil every day--that's close on the order of 15 billion litres, if my math is to be trusted. And that's just the oil; on top of that there's the coal and natural gas. According to wikipedia's article on this--a quick and easy reference that should be close enough for our purposes--the most recent year for which figures are given show global carbon dioxide emissions at roughly 5 tonnes per capita.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

      Of that, about half is taken up by marine or terrestrial organisms. If you look at the trends over time and do the math, it's quite clear that we have caused the observed 40+% increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-Industrial times. That increase is consistent with the theoretical understandings and predictions about the radiative properties of GHGs and the atmosphere, and with the observed warming, seen since about 1970.

      If you want more detail, I have a series of 4 Hubs that look at different parts of the "how do we know we need to act on climate" question.

      https://hubpages.com/politics/How-Do-We-Know-That-...

      https://hubpages.com/politics/How-Do-We-Know-That-...

      https://hubpages.com/politics/How-Do-We-Know-That-...

      https://hubpages.com/politics/How-Do-We-Know-That-...

      I expect Bill Nye knows all that stuff, too.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, I just finished reading a book by Bill Nye the Science Guy called "Unstoppable." I highly recommend it. In it, he explores many novel ideas to combat climate change. What is telling about this book is that he actually makes the argument that proves many of my points - unintentionally. For example, on one hand, he propose an idea such as creating micro bubbles by using 40,000 cargo ships that are sailing our oceans, (increase the albedo effect), but it will only cover 1/10,000th the surface of the earth... Very small effect compare the size of our earth.

      In almost all examples after examples, it shows how ineffective these mitigation proposals seems. I do commend him for at least being open to new ideas and using advanced technologies to try and combat this.

      I do hope you see the irony of this. If we are so ineffective in combatting this perceived problem of climate change? why is he so sure that we can cause it in the first place?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "Don't you think 80-120% is a pretty poor estimate? That tells me Climate change is pretty much due all to man-made(average 100%). We know just based on common sense that it can't be true.

      "We know this for a fact because the other planets in our solar system have varying temperature as well."

      No, that doesn't follow at all. The estimate was explicitly based upon magnitudes of forcing and natural variability. So it's a distortion to interpret it to mean that there's no natural variability. (Inadvertent, I'm sure, but still a distortion.)

      Also, note that Dr. Schmidt's estimate is particular to the last few decades, in the sense that while it's possible to estimate the magnitude of the variability, it's hard to know at any particular time how much it is reinforcing or diminishing the climate signal.

      Let me also clarify what I wrote about Mr. Watts. I'm not saying anything about your views toward him, just noting him as a salient example as to why I don't think that your proposal would end 'debate.' To put it plainly, I don't think that any amount of proof could ever satisfy him.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      The "black swans" I'm talking about is like that of Krakatoa eruption and Tungustra event in Siberia on the natural side. On the man-made side, there could be giant solar sails, and a slew of technological advances that may affect our efforts of mitigation...

      Don't you think 80-120% is a pretty poor estimate? That tells me Climate change is pretty much due all to man-made(average 100%). We know just based on common sense that it can't be true.

      We know this for a fact because the other planets in our solar system have varying temperature as well.

      I respect Anthony Watts but I don't agree with everything he may say or does. I have my own ideas and they are based on the totality of what I've learned and hope to continue to learn.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      What sorts of 'black swans' do you have in mind? Climate forcings, temperature excursions, mitigation technologies? Can you expand a bit?

      Here's an answer to your question about how much of the warming is anthropogenic: 80-120%. That's from Gavin Schmidt of NASA:

      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/12/02/205059...

      As you see, that's not directly based on a single model. My sense is that improving Dr. Schmidt's estimate requires a broader program of research--an example of which would be the Marvel et al paper of which Dr. Schmidt was a co-author.

      I'm not against your project, just less than optimistic about it a) happening, and b) its being accepted by folks like Tony Watts.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, the surprise events I mentioned are the black swans. Also, I am not aware of current models that answer the first question, what percent of climate change is due to human activity? I've heard vague descriptions such as mostly... I want to know a per cent estimate. I gathered by your comments that you don't support an independent effort to validate climate models. There will always be people who are ideologues on both sides. The point of this exercise is to make sure the ideologues don't run the show.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Jack, I think that most of your conditions are met by existing models, which can do everything you ask (albeit not perfectly), and some of which model just about everything you ask to be included. I don't know about provisions for 'surprises,' and am really not quite sure what you mean by that.

      I'm also afraid you may be right about the politicization problem; the history of the BEST project does not inspire much confidence in that regard.

      (For those who don't know about that, it was meant as an independent replication of the extant thermometric records, such as GISTEMP and HADCRUT, and featured skeptic physicist Richard Muller as a prominent team member. Contrarians such as Anthony Watts pledged they'd support its results no matter what, but failed to do so when its results turned out to be in agreement with the mainstream.)

      And building a climate model is, if I understand it correctly, a much larger challenge than building a data set. The existing models embody an awful lot of effort and know-how, and have long developmental histories.

      Still, who knows? Modeling efforts won't stop, and maybe someone will include some of the aspects you'd like to see. For instance, there's a lot of movement in the direction of making relevant code available online in climate research, I notice. I believe that's the case with the Karl et al revision to the NOAA data set, and think that may have been true of the Fyfe et al paper we talked about, too.

    • jackclee lm profile image
      Author

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, thanks for the references. I needed to take some time to read up. What do you think of my proposal? Do you think it would be beneficial? Or it would muddy the water more and have one more source of contention? I'm afraid that this topic have been so politicized by both sides that it would be hard to start from zero.

      I also get the impression from climate scientists that they are not sure about many things and still scratching the surface... They appear to be less committed to these dire predictions than some AGW activists. They are just going along with the current talking points because they believe in the cause and not because they are convinced by the science. I could be wrong but it seems that they are just as much in the dark as the rest of us.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 18 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      Thanks for an interesting proposal, Jack. A couple of quick comments to launch your comment thread!

      "...not accurate enough for us to make any predictions about the future. That is the main function of a simulation model."

      Actually, there are not a few who would disagree with that. Take, for example, this lead sentence on the topic of scientific modeling:

      "Scientific modelling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge."

      You'll note that there's nothing in there about forecasting--though of course forecasting does require some sort of model to work. I've often heard it said that the main purpose of a model is to enable or further understanding of a process or a problem. Of course, if understanding is achieved, forecasting is enabled.

      I think your chart 'speaks for itself' a bit less clearly than you think. Those lines on the chart are not individual models, but individual model runs. If you go to Dr. Spencer's blog entry, you can read the labels and see this. So there aren't quite as many models as you are thinking--not in this graph at least.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMI...

      That also brings up a more important point: individual runs of *the same model* are not going to follow the same trajectory; each run has its own 'weather history'. That follows from the chaotic nature of weather, with its 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions.' The mean of the runs is usually taken to give the best estimate of the expected course of climate, even though there are caveats to that assumption.

      Yet that mean will not display the same degree of variability as any individual run might; those variations get averaged out. But the observations should have the same variability as do the individual runs. That means that observations at any given time may not be close to the mean, due to simple variability, even though they do follow the trend of the mean over time.

      That means that apparent 'failures' to follow the mean are to be expected--and that their significance is easy to over-estimate.

      As a partial corrective--partial because there are other issues that have been raised about this graph--one could update the observations. A "quick and dirty" way of doing that is just to plot the (approximate) value of the latest UAH anomaly (February 2016, as of this writing.) I've done that here:

      http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h402/brassdoc/...

      Rather a different picture.

      On another topic, you can rest easy about the IPCC creating any climate model; they do not have the funding to do anything like that, and their brief is not to do primary research, it is to synthesize the existing literature. Some folks think that there are 'IPCC climate models', but that is not the case. Present models are funded and maintained by a variety of institutions around the world, such as Australia's CSIRO or the uVic model at Canada's University of Victoria, not the IPCC.

      Some lists of extant models:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model#Climat...

      http://climate.calcommons.org/list-models