Stealth paper: Association of parameter, software, and hardware variation with large-scale behavior across 57,000 climate models

OK, so I missed it, not that I was looking for it. Why did everyone else miss it? Because is obsolete? Since I don't have a subs to PNAS I can't read it except the abstract.

Here is the abstract so you don't have to follow the link and I show up on google:

In complex spatial models, as used to predict the climate response to greenhouse gas emissions, parameter variation within plausible bounds has major effects on model behavior of interest. Here, we present an unprecedentedly large ensemble of >57,000 climate model runs in which 10 parameters, initial conditions, hardware, and software used to run the model all have been varied. We relate information about the model runs to large-scale model behavior (equilibrium sensitivity of global mean temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide). We demonstrate that effects of parameter, hardware, and software variation are detectable, complex, and interacting. However, we find most of the effects of parameter variation are caused by a small subset of parameters. Notably, the entrainment coefficient in clouds is associated with 30% of the variation seen in climate sensitivity, although both low and high values can give high climate sensitivity. We demonstrate that the effect of hardware and software is small relative to the effect of parameter variation and, over the wide range of systems tested, may be treated as equivalent to that caused by changes in initial conditions. We discuss the significance of these results in relation to the design and interpretation of climate modeling experiments and large-scale modeling more generally.

More like this

I'm not going to say anything about this research because I've not read the paper, but it looks important. If someone out there writes something up I'll put a link here. Here's the deal. Climate sensitivity is, very oversimplified, how much the surface of the planet heats up as we add CO2 and…
JA is bored with climate sensitivity - because he knows the answer, 3 oC, and he may well be right. But other people don't seem to have realised. And (via James again, I think) I ran across Tung and Camp on climate sensitivity, and Knutti et al.. They too think its 3 oC (well 2.8 +/- 0.9; and about…
OK, the Knight et al. paper is here, thanks folks. Clearly they have had some jolly fun dividing the runs up into trees, but the paper is a disappointment to me, as it doesn't really deal with the main issue, which is the physical plausibility of some of the runs. It *does* talk about "Our findings…
Tuesday morning has at least 4 sessions I could have been interested in. Leave EPICA for later and start off (cos I happen to pass the room) with Latif on MOC; which to me provides more evidence not to worry about it. Thence into the climate sensitivity session, which is packed. Matt Collins talks…

Hello to each one! to tell you that amazing employees of this essay writers company have helped me at times with the handing in of my academic assignments and have made this job more than effectively.

You can also read the "Supporting Information" (that's some of the figures and some of the tables) free, linked from the Abstract page. Pretty pictures .... hope someone finds the text elsewhere eventually.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 02 Nov 2007 #permalink

I linked to Dr. Knight's home page; look down that page Publications for this paper and click "preprint"-- as you look, it's most interesting to see how many different areas the author's published in.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 03 Nov 2007 #permalink

No idea why I see only a blank page but google has a cached version.

Hmm that difference between the middlewares tested is rather large.