A ridiculous paper on the uncertainty of climate models is under post-publication review at peerpub.com
What drives me more nuts is why everyone is trying to correct what a blithering idiot (P. Frank) is advancing instead of just solving the differential equations and modeling the climate variability. Does everyone think we will actually make any progress by correcting the poor sod’s freshman homework assignment?
Instead, let’s get going and finish off the tidal model of ENSO. That will do more than anything else to quash the endless discussion over how much natural climate variability is acceptable to be able to discern an AGW trend.
Recently two atmospheric scientists from
The Ohio State University published a paper called Switch Between El Nino and La Nina is Caused by Subsurface Ocean Waves Likely Driven by Lunar Tidal Forcing in Scientific Reports. This is the path forward that they recommend:
“Our findings suggest two possible ways to improve the current ENSO forecasts: (1) Adding the subsurface ocean wave to statistical ENSO forecast models and improving its representation in CGCMs, which may lead to an improvement of the 12-month ENSO forecast. Right now, none of the statistical models considers the subsurface ocean wave. In fact, the only two ENSO forecast models that can make good 12-month forecast, the NASA GMAO model and GFDL FLOR model (Supplementary Fig. 2), are assimilating carefully subsurface temperature. (2) Adding lunar tidal forcing to statistical models and CGCMs may provide important long-range predictability. Currently, the ocean-atmosphere coupled runs of climate models, such as the IPCC models historical runs and projection runs, are called “free runs” and are not expected to capture the timing of ENSO events in the real world. Adding lunar tidal forcing may help to simulate the correct timing of ENSO events, in addition to improving the simulated oscillation period and amplitude of ENSO. Recently, the ocean modelling community show strong interest in lunar tidal forcing because there are more and more evidences that tidal mixing plays a key role in global ocean circulation. “
We already have all this done via an analytical solution to Laplace’s Tidal Equations along the equator. This is described in several places:
- In Chapter 12 of our book : https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119434351.ch12
- In this ContextEarth blog which you are reading and which describes much of the effort leading up to the book
- In the more recent GeoEnergyMath blog, which continues with cross-validation of the book’s findings
- In the Azimuth Project forum thread, which is an ongoing discussion started by a group of scientists that actually wanted to understand ENSO.
- Twitter https://twitter.com/WHUT
So much effort is being expended in battling the purveyors of FUD instead of buckling down and getting to work validating the solution and forced response to these straightforward equations.
3 thoughts on “If you want to learn how to build a house, then build a house”
For more info on what I am proposing, send me your email address.
Paul, I just want you to know why I’ve stopped replying over on Tamino’s blog, after just one comment on the article he wrote about me.
It is because he has now apparently decided to delete all my other comments there. He deleted this short reply to ecoquant, a short one to Jim Java, and long ones to Mike Roberts and bindidon.
Changing topics… I’m new to this argument over ENSO, and I have a question: Do you think this work will enable you to predict the timing of El Niños and La Niñas, long in advance? If not, why not?
If you can do that successfully, it would certainly prove you correct. Right?
No one cares about predictions in this house
If someone wants to reproduce the model that would be fine. BTW, it would take at least 20 years to validate the model via prediction correlation (every year is equivalent to a day for conventional tides — one diurnal tidal cycle = 1 year long period solar tidal cycle )