North Atlantic climate far more predictable following major scientific breakthrough:
A team of scientists led by UK Met Office has achieved a scientific breakthrough allowing the longer-term prediction of North Atlantic pressure patterns, the key driving force behind winter weather in Europe and eastern North America.
[...] Published in Nature, the study analyzed six decades of climate model data and suggests decadal variations in North Atlantic atmospheric pressure patterns (known as the North Atlantic Oscillation) are highly predictable, enabling advanced warning of whether winters in the coming decade are likely to be stormy, warm and wet or calm, cold and dry.
However, the study revealed that this predictable signal is much smaller than it should be in current climate models. Hence 100 times more ensemble members are required to extract it, and additional steps are needed to balance the effects of winds and greenhouse gasses. The team showed that, by taking these deficiencies into account, skillful predictions of extreme European winter decades are possible.
Journal Reference:
D. M. Smith, A. A. Scaife, R. Eade, et al. North Atlantic climate far more predictable than models imply, Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2525-0)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 01 2020, @07:40PM (2 children)
Well, we know they haven't kicked in yet else that warming bias wouldn't exist. The climate could react to human activity worse than predicted through these feedback mechanisms. Or better. It's currently leaning towards the latter.
Why should we believe that error in these models is random in a way that can be removed with averaging?
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday August 01 2020, @08:55PM (1 child)
Practice? i.e. the jury can verify their results against known data?
I am confused here, khallow -- happens a lot, but usually over trivial things -- what do you mean with it's currently leaning towards the latter? Are you an avid nature.com reader, or something?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 01 2020, @10:47PM