As usual here, I will compare the GISS and earlier TempLS plots below the jump.
Here is GISS V4
And here is the TempLS V4 FEM-based plot
This post is part of a series that has now run for seven years. The GISS data completes the month cycle, and is compared with the TempLS result and map. GISS lists its reports here, and I post the monthly averages here.
The TempLS mesh data is reported here, and the recent history of monthly readings is here. Unadjusted GHCN is normally used, but if you click the TempLS button there, it will show data with adjusted, and also with different integration methods. There is an interactive graph using 1981-2010 base period here which you can use to show different periods, or compare with other indices. There is a general guide to TempLS here.
The reporting cycle starts with a report of the daily reanalysis index on about the 4th of the month. The next post is this, the TempLS report, usually about the 8th. Then when the GISS result comes out, usually about the 15th, I discuss it and compare with TempLS. The TempLS graph uses a spherical harmonics to the TempLS mesh residuals; the residuals are displayed more directly using a triangular grid in a better resolved WebGL plot here.
A list of earlier monthly reports of each series in date order is here:
Posts
The CFD engineer who doesn't have a clue penned a misguided post at Curry's blog. https://judithcurry.com/2022/12/02/colorful-fluid-dynamics-and-overconfidence-in-global-climate-models/ In fact all the standing-wave climate models can be modeled and cross-validated.
ReplyDeleteHi Paul,
DeleteYes, it appeared at WUWT as well. Unfortunately on the day I didn't have much time to comment.
That's the problem with social media -- if one doesn't comment immediately it disappears. Alas, climate science operates at a glacial pace so need to stay patient.
DeleteI don't see anything new. The atmosphere is not an airplane wing. The first thing they teach in fluids is the importance of length scale and geometry. Throw in differential heating and rotation and the "wing" analogy becomes even more stretched. Unlike weather, climate isn't a fluid motion problem. Over a long period of time the details of fluid motion are immaterial. Hence the "Energy Balance" model instead of the "Fluid Motion" model.
Delete"climate isn't a fluid motion problem." In fact, it's a significant fluid motion model at the scale of El Ninos. The issue is whether one thinks that understanding is important in the greater scheme of things.
ReplyDeleteI would classify enso as weather. Chaotic and difficult to predict, a fluid initial value problem. Climate on-the-other hand is non-chaotic. If a volcano erupts the climate trajectory doesn't change i.e. the fluid initial conditions aren't critical.
DeleteIs Arctic amplification changing how the jet stream behaves? This is a question regarding the motion of a fluid, and part of climate science research.
DeleteSimilar idea WRT to long time changes in ENSO behavior:
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2685/New-research-volume-explores-future-of-ENSO-under-influence-of-climate-change
"a fluid initial value problem" No, it's a boundary value problem. Just like tides are not initial value. There is a tidal force mapping that will generate quality emulations of AMO, ENSO, IOD, and QBO with minimal boundary condition changes. One can argue over such a bold assertion, but remember the words of Sir G.G. Stokes when peer-reviewing a paper by Osborne Reynolds: “very difficult to make out what the author’s notions are” but accepted it because “in his former paper did very good work” . Times are different now, no excuses.
DeleteI'll believe it when we have enso tables (like tide tables) or any prediction from boundary conditions that is more accurate than the predictions made with fluid initial conditions.
Delete"I'll believe it when we have ..." Don't hold your breath then. Science advances by others verifying the work and potentially improving on it. Stuff doesn't emerge from a vacuum.
Delete