tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post7349571095872058744..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Should We Stop Modeling?Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-21591418608290306462007-10-01T14:33:00.000-07:002007-10-01T14:33:00.000-07:00James, agreed, it is certainly a legitimate questi...James, agreed, it is certainly a legitimate question. I would claim that it is worth pursuing even though success is not guaranteed.<BR/><BR/>I would also argue that there are reasons that progress of late has been limited, and that it is time for a fundamental re-examination of the computational strategy.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we'll get a chance to talk this out at AGU. I believe there's a Bayesian statistical component to a sensible strategy, if there is one at all.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87095153980389915572007-10-01T14:09:00.000-07:002007-10-01T14:09:00.000-07:00"The main applied science role of the large climat..."The main applied science role of the large climate models should be to inform adaptation."<BR/><BR/>It is legitimate to question to what extent the models can usefully inform on that process - especially, to what extent 10 years (say) of model development will provide significant improvements on where we are now. <BR/><BR/>At a recent workshop I attended, someone made the point that models can hardly be expected to predict changes in phenomena that they do not simulate at all reasonably at present (the specific example was atmospheric blocking patterns over the UK). It is certainly not an argument that can be dismissed with a hand wave.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84857469678304952922007-09-23T08:37:00.000-07:002007-09-23T08:37:00.000-07:00I'm not sure that global modeling is the best way ...I'm not sure that global modeling is the best way to go. IMHO downscaling is the more urgent issue. For example, the most important current questions include climate in the Arctic/Greenland/Antarctic peninsula, OTOH California is large enough to model, has relatively simple boundary conditions (I am being naive here) with an ocean on one side, a wall of mountains on the other and lots of nuts in the middle.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-68807226092032060242007-09-18T17:50:00.000-07:002007-09-18T17:50:00.000-07:00No doubt models will continue to improve, and to i...No doubt models will continue to improve, and to inform the debate. But it appears likely that such obvious empirical matters as the elimination (or not) of the arctic ice pack each summer will beat the models to the punch.DWPittellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02809996471988559374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16792925136663487112007-09-18T14:47:00.000-07:002007-09-18T14:47:00.000-07:00I just chipped in at the Rabett Run with my view t...I just chipped in at the Rabett Run with my view that adaptation, mitigation and an appreciation of nature, i.e. ecosystem connections, are all necessary.<BR/><BR/>Carry on modeling! (And please tell me more about your third paragraph.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com