Posted on 01/27/2023 5:29:42 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
A new project led by researchers at Texas A&M University is seeking to understand how changes to the climate and oceans will impact fisheries in the U.S. and around the world.
Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the project aims to develop medium to long-term fishery forecasts, driven by some of the highest-resolution coupled climate forecasts ever run.
The TAMU team, led by oceanographer Piers Chapman, includes computational climate modelers, marine biogeochemical modelers, fishery modelers, decision support system experts, and risk communications scholars from academia, federal agencies, and industry.
They use the Frontera supercomputer at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC)—the fastest academic supercomputer in the U.S.—to power their research.
The TAMU-NCAR project will be one of the first to incorporate biogeochemical models of the ocean and fisheries models into Earth system models at 10 km resolution.
“Our goal is not routine forecasts. What we want is a better understanding of the Earth system dynamics that are missing in current climate models to make our model and our methods better. Without Frontera, I don't know if we could make simulations like we do. It's critical."
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
GIGO
There is no way to validate these models.
Detailed climate models have not been validated, and cannot be validated in a period where we do not have accurate data to compare the models to. Such data does not exist, and probably cannot exist, at least for decades in the future.
Basing models on the output of models you cannot validate, only results in the output the modelers want to see.
If all this BS was a certainty, there would only be one model and it would be correct. That there are numerous models with differing outputs shows their half assed guesswork.
I have worked with the modelers in NCAR, although it is now a decade old.
To give them credit, they state they are not attempting to create "routine forecasts".
What they are attempting to do is to see how dynamics of potential situations may work.
My best judgement is this is too far from reality, based on too little real data, and too little actual information about the potential interactions, to actually be useful.
Keeps the modelers busy and well paid, though.
it doesn’t matter how super their computer is; because their initial parametric values are based on estimates instead of empirical measurements, their outcome will necessarily be inaccurate; and the more iterations they run, the greater the inaccuracy. This is why models can suggest hypotheses for study, but projections about the distant future are always wrong.
They’re only adding to their unbroken string of forecasts that proved wrong.
And since this is specifically about global warming impacting the waters, I suggest we change the argument to something that is verifiable. Basically we should demand no more worrying about rising sea levels until the current sea levels rise up to what they were historically in the past few thousand years.
At the height of the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 700-800 years ago) prisoners were drowning in the notorious "Sea Gate" of Pevensey Castle in the UK. If you were a prisoner on the ground floor it was only a matter of time before the tide came in and drowned you. Now if they were to drown prisoners at the ruins of the castle they'd have to pipe in the water because the shoreline has moved out a mile. The cooling period known as the Little Ice Age (AD 1300 to 1800's) lowered sea levels more than our Modern Warm Period has made levels rise. We haven't even caught up to what used to be normal!
Same with Pisa, Italy (old loading docks are today about a mile inland). Same with the ancient Greek city of Ephesus (it was a port city during both the Old Testament and New Testament using a canal about 1/2 mile long to the waters, but now it's miles from the water and the city emptied).
There’s nothing wrong with seeking the truth.
However, there’s something very wrong with half truths, or even lies, being used to dictate policy and freedoms.
I think you know “Science” is bastardized often for political purposes.
Especially when you have a background in the field.
If you’re bored, the below is a talk Michael Crichton gives on complexity, modeling, and associated concepts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOu8akBowTg
But it is not just the starting data.
There is tremendous uncertanty about feed back loops, and how the mechanisms in the atmosphere, oceans, and animal populations actually work and are interrelated.
Those are critical as well. Our depth of ignorance there is great. It makes models very unrealistic and unreliable.
Would be easier just to clean up the Ganges and Yellow rivers and be done with it. Will be cheaper and show better results.
But they still, to my knowledge, do not account for water vapor in the atmosphere in their models. As post #2 stated - GIGO.
My gawd
It constantly moves from
Its for the children
To
It’s for the whales
To
It’s for the trees
To
its for the fish
To
It’s for the erf
I think what it’s really for is
For the
Communist narrative
and war on freedom.
Not a Single “climate model” has EVER been even close to being accurate, they are ALL Fraudulent and wildly wrong
These idjits. Everyone knows the proper way for divination is to cut open a cockerels innards at midnight to study for signs.
Forecasts?
Oh, they mean “predictions”. As in guesses.
As we ALL know, they can not “predict” the weather even just a few minutes in advance.
They certainly can not “predict” ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, or earthquakes. (been waiting for the predicted “big one” in California all my life (73), still waiting.
We want to understand God
When I think of fishing the first thing that comes to mind is Texas A&M and computers. /s They can go eff’n pound sand. They have zero credibility and no business in controlling our food supply.
Mo, you have a point there. But if they want to be correct a majority of the time, they need to do what the hurricane forecasters have done. They have 20+ models. Each model increases the chance that one will be right. But even then they are not right 100% of the time. The hurricane forecasters actually need more wild-ass models to cover all the bases to be right all the time.
It should be noted that there’s a fundamental difference here. Models don’t stop hurricanes, but a single model can stop fishermen if enough lazy ass, unelected, government employee regulators buy into this bull 💩.
Yep. It’s like letting a new puppy run all through a house with white rugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.