View source for Talk:General circulation model

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=Mid }}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}
{{Technical|date=September 2010}}

== Improvement ==

WMC, "come on" is not informative as to what is wrong with the following. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&curid=164600&diff=0&oldid=0] You've seen the source quotations.  ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 14:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC))
* "Thousands of climate researchers around the world use climate models to understand the climate system. There are thousands of papers published about model-based studies in peer reviewed journals - and a part of this research is work improving the models. Improvement has been difficult, and progress has sometimes led to discovering new uncertainties."

: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 18:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)) ''Rv without understanding'' wasn't very helpful either. In this case, I reverted without reading your edit, on the assumption that "rv" meant revert. The first change is no great matter one way or another. Adding ''Improvement has been difficult, and progress has sometimes led to discovering new uncertainties.'' is more questionable. If you insist on putting it back in, I won't like it, but won't re-remove it for now. Much of the model accuracy section needs a rebalance sometime anyway.

:: Oh yes, please do improve the models so they are more accurate.  Although we won't know until AR4 how accurate the IPCC claims they are for their purposes. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 02:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC))

== Driver decisions ==

This is not true?  How did models explain these things? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 03:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC))
: "The computer models cannot decide among the variable drivers, like solar versus lunar change, or chaos versus ocean circulation versus greenhouse gas increases. Unless they can explain these things, the models cannot be taken seriously as a basis for public policy."

== To AOCGM or not to AOGCM ==

"Coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs are used to project/predict future temperature changes under various scenarios."

But the IPCC did not use that? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 04:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC))

: "AOGCMs can only be integrated for a limited number of scenarios due to computational expense. Therefore, a simple climate model is used here for the projections of climate change for the next century. The simple model is tuned to simulate the response found in several of the AOGCMs used here."[http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/339.htm]

([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) That was Silverbacks mistake, too. Read on. Its obvious that AOGCMs were used. See if you can work out the subtle distinction...

: Working from memory, I assume you're referring to the following mention of SRES.  I looked at that but didn't spot phrasing which indicated that SRES was the "simple climate model". ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 04:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC))

:: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 13:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) I'm baffled. What are you talking about? [[SRES]] are scenarios.

:: LOL Citing only the hottest A2 scenario is a bit biased isn't it, and calling the 1% compound CO2 concentration business as usual is also stretching NPOV. [[User:Hans Erren|Hans Erren]] 20:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

::: You need to laugh less and study more... 1% is clearly labelled "idealised"; A2 isn't the hottest, is92a is used as well... [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

I just did, see below,

<blockquote>
'The A2 scenario is characterized by a politically and socially diverse world that exhibits sustained economic growth but does not address the inequities between rich and poor nations, and takes no special actions to combat global warming or environmental change issues. This world in 2100 is characterized by large population ''(15 billion)'', high total energy use, and moderate levels of fossil fuel dependency (mostly coal). The A2 scenario is the most well-studied of the SRES scenarios that assume no attempt to address global warming.'
</blockquote>
A near ''tripling'' of world population? Ever heard of Lutz?
ref:
Wolfgang Lutz, Warren Sanderson & Sergei Scherbov, 2001, The end of world population growth, Nature 412, 543-545, 2 aug 2001 [http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/9B-World-Population-2070-F2.GIF]

I prefer, <u>for climate model intercomparison</u>, the pure mathematical 1% compound CO2 concentration rise over any SRES storyline.
BTW the graph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png] is called Global_Warming_<u>Predictions</u>.png. I suggest to change it (and the graph title) to "Climate model intercomparison".
[[User:Hans Erren|Hans Erren]] 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

: Good grief, I may agree with you here... firstly, that graph has on itself the correct word "projections" and the graph itself should probably be moved to G_W_projections rather than intercomparison. Put a note on the talk page there to be polite. I'm really note sure quite how important the variouis SRES stuff is... its better to just rescale from a time axis to a CO2 axis, which to first order works. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

== Not with my approval ==

([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 13:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) SEW added some stuff, apparently because he thought I recommended it. I'm not sure exactly what he meant, but I regard most of what he added as badly phrased and pretty much POV pushing (the POV being anti-model). So I've removed it.

== rm flat planet ==

SEW wrote: many models are based on a flat planet. This is so bizarre that I don't know what he meant, but its wrong. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 09:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC).

: Many models have been based on a flat planet. An example above, "1.25 degrees in [[latitude]] and [[longitude]]", uses a grid with the characteristic that grid areas become much smaller and closer together closer to the poles as lines of longitude converge. Conversely, there is less resolution around the climatically significant areas near the [[Equator]]. The first model to use a [[geodesic]] grid was announced in [[2001]]. [http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0924011.htm]

* I mentioned one example of a grid with a spacing of "1.25 degrees in [[latitude]] and [[longitude]]".  In what way do its lines of longitude not get closer together toward the poles? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 15:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

:: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 19:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Of course they get closer towards the poles. What has this got to do with a flat planet?

== rm history of conv param ==

I've removed:

: ''Convection parametrization was found to be necessary in the [[1950s]], as climate models otherwise became unstable after simulating a few weeks.  [[Akio Arakawa]]'s widely used solution was to ignore loss of [[kinetic energy]] and [[enstrophy]].  Although ignoring some basic physical behavior, the technique has been widely used in order to get results which resemble what is expected. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/arakawa.htm] [http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/modeldoc/amip/10Tbl2.10.html] [http://rainbow.llnl.gov/projects/modeldoc/cmip/table4.html]''

Most of this is history of GCMs, which doesn't belong there.

Of the bits that *aren't* history but are current, its impossible to determine. Current models do (I think) conserve KE, so leaving it in is misleading. And... the refs in the AMIP table... don't mean that the exact Arakawa 1972 scheme is being used. People tend to ref the paper when doing a brief description and not ref local improvemnts.

Also, the AIP page is a bit... mystical in that section. I slightly wonder if Weart is a bit out of his field there.

* A little background seems appropriate rather than just saying "Arakawa's computational trick is in use". ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 14:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
* Any sources that current models do conserve KE? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 14:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

:: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 19:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) You have abstracted, with no real understanding, a small fragment from the AIP history. This *isn't* the history of climate models page, please don't try to make it so. Start a page on that if thats what you want. The only reason you've dumped this in here (with absolutely no idea whether or not any of this is still current) is because it looks slightly dodgy. Please try to give up the instinctive septicism. Is A's "trick" still in use? You don't know. What is the trick? HYou don't know. Do models conserve KE? Models go to great lengths to conserve quantities that should be, so the default is, yes they do, unless you've got good evidence otherwise.

Getting into this one a bit late. The AIP page is hopeless, a mish-mosh of allusions to aliasing (not named as such) and quadratic-conservative schemes. In the real world KE cascades from larger to smaller scales and eventually is dissipated at the scale of molecular viscosity, which of course is too small to represent in a GCM.  The unresolvable part of the cascade is instead mimicked by viscosity-like terms that dissipate KE in the smallest resolvable scales. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== rm van Dorland ==

I removed:

: ''[[Rob van Dorland]], lead author of the IPCC report scheduled for release in [[2007]], stated "Truthfully, we are far from knowing with certainty how natural climate factors, such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity, affect the earth's climate" [http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf]''.

From the context, its clear that this statement isn't really about the *accuracy* of the models - its about the Hockey stick stuff. Also, the source is distinctly dubious: essentially propaganda.

== Parameters ==

There is a link to [[parametrization]] which redirects to Coordinate System which does not seem very relevant. I think linking [[Climate parameters, forcings and feedbacks]] is more relevant. However I am not happy with the quality of the page. Perhaps William Connolley could use his expertise to improve it then change the link.

: Hmm yes. I've moved (and heavily edited) Clim param... to [[Parametrization (climate)]] and will change the link to that. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 18:57:55, 2005-07-31 (UTC).

== Error Found in Models ==

I'm not sure how recent this China Daily article's information is, but it portends badly.  Into [[Global Warming]] I inserted the paragraph "In [[December]], [[2005]] it was revealed the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked.  This effect implies that pre-2006 models will underpredict future global warming. [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/23/content_505942.htm]"  However, I feel that more detail is merited in this article.  Does somebody get <i>Nature</i>? [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

: I've seen this. I would always prefer to let things settle in the literature for a while, for all but the most definite results. This one has the potential to be less exciting than it seems, but its hard to be sure at this stage. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

Follow-up: I contacted a researcher (Jerry Meehl) at NCAR: He replied that, as WMC suggested, the new estimates are within the uncertainty bands for models being used ror the next IPCC report.  (I wasn't aware that China had supercomputer-model capability.)  Specifically, the researcher said:
<blockquote>The exact magnitude of various forcings is uncertain.  The new estimates you refer to for aerosols are larger than what some models use (the magnitude of what models compute, for example, for sulfate aerosols varies depending on the nature of their sulfur cycle models or types of sulfate aerosol concentrations they use) but not out of the range of uncertainty for aerosol forcing used across all of the more than 20 models currently being assessed in the IPCC AR4.  This accounts for some of the range of model responses to the simulation of 20th century climate.  Even with this uncertainty in aerosols, the GHGs are still the largest forcing by far, and are the big driver for late 20th century warming and estimates of 21st century warming.  The latest simulations will be assessed in the IPCC AR4, but many modeling groups are publishing their latest findings in the peer reviewed literature now (for example, from our group see:  Meehl et al., 2005:  How much more warming and sea level rise?  Science, 307, 1769—1772).</blockquote>
[[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== Para to talk ==

I've rm'd:

: ''Accurate predictions of climate effects due to solar forcing and its associated feedbacks are important to prediction of effects due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, because models which fit observed temperature data but underestimate effects due to solar forcing will overestimate effects due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and vice versa.''

This para is somewhere between wrong and misleading. If models underestimate solar forcing, then they are likely to underestimate other forcing as well; so underestimating solar is just as likely to lead to underpredicting future change. It also (I think) rather misrepresents the D+A stuff. See-also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229 (and the comments) [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

== Techncal template ==

I've added the Technical template to this article largely because of the part under "A rather more complete discussion of climate models is provided by the IPCC TAR chapter 8, Model Evaluation (2001)." It really doesn't make much sense out of context, and needs cleaned up. [[User:Calion|Calion]] | [[User talk:Calion|Talk]] 06:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

== Predictive value? ==

Have there been examinations of the ''predictive'' value of climate models?  I'm pretty sure that early models were around in 1990, say, so how well did their predictions accord with the change in climate over the past 15 years or so?  "Postdiction" of facts known to the people who made the model isn't a terribly impressive achievement, I would say, and it surely isn't a good measure of how well the model will predict the future. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

: Not a lot, because the question isn't as sensible as it appears. People run coupled GCMs starting in about 1860 ish (for a variety of reasons) so thats not a good test of the 1990-now timeframe, because they aren't constrained at 1990. There is some stuff by Hansen in 1990 predicting to now; I think that came out OK though can't remember the ref. Also climate models aren't supposed to predict year-to-year variability [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:: What kind of time scale is more suitable to test the validity of a climate model? Are any other tests being performed (and links if possible)? Can any model claim to have any predictive value without being properly tested? I agree that creating outputs that match past data well should not at all be considered the same as making reasonable predictions of the future, even if it is very difficult and based on valid science. Why wasn't the above question as sensible as it appears? [[User:TheQuickBrownFox|TheQuickBrownFox]] ([[User talk:TheQuickBrownFox|talk]]) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

::: Hansen's 1988 predictions overestimate global warming. Try a google image search for "hansen 1988 prediction". I suspect that WC is very aware of this.

::: He considered 3 scenarios and only Scenario 3 - a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000 (which didn't happen) - comes close to the actual temperatures recorded. Since this decline in gasses did not happen, this scenario prediction is also a failure in the same direction as the others (overestimating warming). 

::: It would be reasonable and balanced to mention the failure of past climate models when considering the predictive value of current ones.

:::[[Special:Contributions/194.81.49.122|194.81.49.122]] ([[User talk:194.81.49.122|talk]]) 11:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

== Relation to weather forecasting ==

Cleaned this part up a bit.  Also removed the tangential comments on analog forecasting and such.  That material could be appropriate for an article on history of weather forecasting but has no relevance to GCMs. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 03:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== S+H 2003 ==

I've cut this to talk:

: ''As recently as 2003, Sun and Hansen were calculating and using flux corrections and parameterization of cloud models to achieve cold start of a simulation based on ''"the assumption that the planet was in radiative balance in 1951"''.''

because I dont know what it means. There is some mixing of flux corr and clouds? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:you should read the article.  parameterization of the cloud model was used to achieve the flux correction.--[[User:Poodleboy|Poodleboy]] 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Um. And you think that will make sense to the reader of the article? The text already says *most* recent models don't use FC; so listing *one* that does (and not even telling us which model it is) doesn't make much sense. I haven't read the article; it shouldn't be necessary, to understand what you are on about. I suggest that if you really want the text in (and I can't see what it gains you) you need to make it comprehensible. So... they are using FC; but they weren't using the normal method, they were including the clouds? (''were calculating and using flux corrections and parameterization of cloud models'' doesn't mean what you're now saying; if you mean param of clouds (clouds are always param!?!) was used to generate the FC... then I'm still baffled) In what way? Do tell [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:: OK, reading the paper: Ocean A is imposed SSTs, so no FC. ''We apply no flux adjustments with ocean E because such nonphysical adjustments can have a significant effect on the simulated climate (Neelin and Dijkstra 1995; Tziperman 2000).'' And ocean B has imposed horiz fluxes, which is FC. So this is a sensitivity study on different models... your text is misleading for that alone. And I don't see your point about the clouds... please quote chapter and verse [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

== grids ==

I took out:

: ''The grid can either have a fixed resolution, or can be specified as a [[gaussian grid]], where the latitude resolution is not constant. ''

Its confusing as written (many people will interpret "fixed" and "constant" as meaning in time). Its also wrong, in implying that this exhausts the possibilities: as mentioned later, its perfectly possible to have a grid with any variation in latitude. What I think it means is that FD models tend to use constant-spacing and Spectral ones use gaussian... [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 08:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, I sort-of see why you have removed this twice. This section of the article is about ''grids'', and I feel that it is worthwhile to mention some ''common'' grid types, such as gaussian grids (e.g., [http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cdc/data.ncep.reanalysis2.gaussian.html NCEP-DOE reanalysis 2], [http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/data/grids/geom_llg_96x48.shtml CCCma], [http://www.ecmwf.int/products/data/technical/gaussian/ ECMWF]).  I'm not a climate modeler, but I was very confused when I first encountered NCEP's ''fixed'' and ''gaussian'' grids about 1/2 a year ago. So I read up on them and created the [[gaussian grid]] article to help me, and others, understand what they are. To me, it would be more confusing to ''not'' mention a few common grid types, as they are encountered by non-climate modelers. Certainly, there are many types of grids, such as polar, etc, and these do not need to be described here, as they are very climate modeler niche material — better suited in technical books and journal literature rather than Wikipedia. Much of the content in this article is very technical by nature, so I don't feel that adding a mention of a few common types of grids would contribute to much more confusion. Also, I was sure to specify "latitude" when using "constant", thereby reducing the confusion with other dimensions (such as time). <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">+[[User:Mwtoews|mwtoews]]</span> 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Maybe I was too harsh. Sorry. How about the current version? BTW: re NCEPs grids: as I understand it (and I'm sure of this for ECMWF) there is the "native" grid (which is gaussian; and indeed reduced-gaussian to boot) which is actually used by the physics. Then there are various other grids - 2.5 degrees, say - onto which the output can be interpolated [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Perfect, I think that is all that is needed, thanks. I thought that the "native" grid would have been the gaussian grid, but I was never really sure until now. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">+[[User:Mwtoews|mwtoews]]</span> 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

== New Paper ==
Anyone see this: [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability]. How does this get worked into the article and is the full paper out yet? <span style="font-family:Times;">[[User:DJ Creamity|<span style="color:#003">DJ Creamity</span>]]</span><small><sup>''[[User Talk:DJ_Creamity|Oh Yeah!]]''</sup></small> 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

: I don't think its out yet. I do think the paper is dodgy ([http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/12/tropical_trends.php here] for my opinion) [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Yeah, but thats a blog .... we cant use it, right? <span style="font-family:Times;">[[User:DJ Creamity|<span style="color:#003">DJ Creamity</span>]]</span><small><sup>''[[User Talk:DJ_Creamity|Oh Yeah!]]''</sup></small> 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

== Koutsoyiannis Et Al ==

I would like to add this new peer reviewed and published scientific paper concerning the predictive power of climate models.
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671

The data on page 9 is of particular importance. I know original interpretation is not allowed and I will find a credible source for that.

The data is very obvious, however, as the correlation numbers are absurd.   <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mickeyklein|Mickeyklein]] ([[User talk:Mickeyklein|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mickeyklein|contribs]]) 19:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Wikiproject Earth ==

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Earth| Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name.]] --[[User:Iwilleditu|Iwilleditu]][[User talk:Iwilleditu|<sup>Talk :)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Iwilleditu|<sup>Contributions</sup>]]  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== page has wrong title ==

This page should be titled 'General Circulation Model'.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.165.95.70|216.165.95.70]] ([[User talk:216.165.95.70|talk]]) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Why? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 12:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

: Yes, there is already a page on climate models, so this page should concern itself with the general circulation model, which is a component of a climate model. That would both be more correct than merging the two pages. [[User:Eric Salathe|Eric Salathe]] ([[User talk:Eric Salathe|talk]]) 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

: Indeed, at first sight the article needs to split up, one specifically about general cirulation models (GCMs), and one about climate models.  Since there already is an article about [[Climate model|climate models]], the best approach in my opinion is to move a large part of this article to the Climate Model article (and remove redundant parts).  Note that even though there is some ambiguity in literature about the term GCM (general circulation model vs. global climate model vs. some variants), in the scientific literature GCM means "general circulation model".  Therefore I also agree with anonymous. [[User:Hulten|Hulten]] ([[User talk:Hulten|talk]]) 10:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

: I also agree, and since most recent discussion seems to agree, I have moved the page to "general circulation model" and updated links pointing to "global climate model." The "climate model" page is preserved as the page concerning global climate models in general, while this page is reserved for general circulation models in particular. Redirects from pages seeming to search for climate modeling in general, specifically "Climate change modeling" and "Climate change model," have been changed to direct to "Climate model." [[User:Beezorphlegmon|Beezorphlegmon]] ([[User talk:Beezorphlegmon|talk]]) 22:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

==weaknesses section==
I've added this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Weaknesses_of_Global_Climate_Models
Needless to say, WMC reverted all my work without attempting to improve it.  Please can people look at the text i added (try history if it's been axed again) and comment/improve on it. [[User:Andrewjlockley|Andrewjlockley]] ([[User talk:Andrewjlockley|talk]]) 15:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:"Needless" to say that he reverts you... Perhaps you should reflect a bit about ''why'' he reverts you. (and why i just did the same)
:Could it be:
:*Bad representation (to direct misinterpretations) of references?
:*Undue weight?
:*One sided focus?
:*Original research?
:etc etc? --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
::Same as it ever was.  [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not disputing it needed improvement, I'm asking for something constructive that I can work with - not just blanking everything I've added.  The list above is just a scattergun criticism with no effort made to apply it to the actual text.  How am I supposed to actually work with that? [[User:Andrewjlockley|Andrewjlockley]] ([[User talk:Andrewjlockley|talk]]) 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you don't understand the material you are adding. Your "model" of the situation is, or appears to be from the outside, "fling stuff at the article and hope someone will fix it up". Our model is "if people add stuff that is wrong, remove it, and ask them to discuss on the talk page before they re-add it". You now have a solid repuation for failing to understand the references you add, so no-one trusts your refs to actually support what you say. Your task is to force us to revise this reputation [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

:Another thing you need to work on is structure and logical order.  You have a history of plopping material into articles without regard to context or flow (again, presumably because you don't understand it well enough to gauge how different aspects of a topic relate to one another). So not only do we have to fix your references, and fix your prose, we have to figure out the right place for it. It's not reasonable to demand that of other people. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire thing was badly broken. This bit ''[[Carbon cycle]] modelling, notably the impact of [[climate change]] on [[methane clathrates]] and [[methane]] stored in [[permafrost]].<nowiki><ref></nowiki>Harvey, L. D. D., and Z. Huang (1995), Evaluation of the potential impact of methane clathrate destabilization on future global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 100(D2), 2905–2926.</ref>'' is perhaps the most obvious - but please don't assume from that I mean the rest of reasonable. Most carbon cycle models do ocean carbon, and soil carbon, and some representation of vegetation. I don't think anyone does oceanic clathrates (probably because it would be dull: the ocean is too cold to release them, and will stay that way for a while) in GCMs and I don't think anyone does permafrost carbon but I could well be wrong about the latter. If anyone *is* doing it, it wont be in a ref from 1995. Without a doubt that ref (which I haven't read, any more than AJL has) says nothing about what happens when you add MC to GCMs [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
::The reason I added that reference was that they attempted to do some basic modelling of MC.  I'll use another reference (perhaps referencing permafrost modelling) as that's probably a better example.  Now, what else needs cleaning up before the section gets rebuilt?  Guys, I really value your advice and help and comments - I just wish you could be a bit less brutal with the editing when you give it.  I'm not here to mess up WP, and whilst my edits are rarely perfect they aren't usually complete drivel either. [[User:Andrewjlockley|Andrewjlockley]] ([[User talk:Andrewjlockley|talk]]) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:::New section seems to address a lot of these concerns.[[User:Andrewjlockley|Andrewjlockley]] ([[User talk:Andrewjlockley|talk]]) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== Weart ==

Might use http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH6-50S8C4F-1&_user=870092&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=4&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%236058%232010%23999589996%232436735%23FLA%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=6058&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=11&_acct=C000046800&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=870092&md5=44592835a9247366ae32ffba471562f6&searchtype=a someday [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 11:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

== Merge - argh ==

I've just noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&diff=353737320&oldid=352611861], which appears to "merge" (actually, copy - the original is still there) text from [[Climate model]]. I'm not at all convinced that made sense.

In the course of which, I notice that ''Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To “run” a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.'' is at http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html, though they may have copied us. That text came in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_model&diff=170667382&oldid=170663603].

[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 11:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Referencing the above post, Gobal Climate Models do not "calculate"  winds, etc.  Those are affected by convection and other latent heat factors such as precipitation which are "estimated".  The estimates are in turn applied to parameters, which in fact are not parameters of the real world at all, but only of the model.  To actually "calculate" those factors would required computational ability in excess of what is available at this time, as although the phyusics is known, the grid sizes are much too large to accurately reflect reality, especially in terms of increased heat retained at the surface which would alter convection, precipitation, etc. [[User:Stevehhll|Stevehhll]] ([[User talk:Stevehhll|talk]]) 16:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

== Artificial initial conditions. ==

Why do you object to indicating that the climate models begin from an artificial (i.e. human constructed even if they are based on data) set of initial conditions?  --[[User:The great sluggo|The great sluggo]] ([[User talk:The great sluggo|talk]]) 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:Because if they are based on data, they are not artificial. We aim for [[WP:NPOV]], and the word "artificial" would suggest that general circulation model results are fake. [[User:Awickert|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert|talk]]) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:: You seem to have a misunderstanding about the definition of {{linktext|artificial}}.  Please follow the link.  The reality is that the initial conditions are first and foremost a man-made construct (even if in some sense they were derived from some natural measurements) which means that the term artificial is the appropriate one to describe them.  They most certainly are NOT a {{linktext|natural}} formation or construct.  Are you truly suggesting that they are?

:: Nothing in that statement suggests that the models are fake and the fact remains that they are inherently an artificial construct including their initial conditions.

:: Please suggest an acceptable wording to make the above point clear to the reader. --[[User:The great sluggo|The great sluggo]] ([[User talk:The great sluggo|talk]]) 21:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Followed the link, and the word is still unacceptable ("false, misleading"). "The initial conditions are parameterized from field data" would be acceptable. [[User:Awickert|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert|talk]]) 22:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

== Edit request from Stevehhll, 26 October 2010 ==

{{tlc|edit semi-protected}}
<!-- Begin request -->
In the phrase: "Atmospheric models calculate [[winds]], [[heat transfer]], [[radiation]], [[relative humidity]], and surface [[hydrology]] within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.]]"

Please change "calculate" to "estimate" because grid sizes are too large to realistically calculate those factors, so they are parameterized or affected by parameters.  The parameters are artificial inputs to the model.  They are not calculations, so it is logically incorrect to say those factors are "calculated".  They may be calculated in the model, but to say they are calculations of real world physical processes is inaccurate.

Thank You.
[[User:Stevehhll|Stevehhll]] ([[User talk:Stevehhll|talk]]) 10:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

<!-- End request -->
[[User:Stevehhll|Stevehhll]] ([[User talk:Stevehhll|talk]]) 10:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

: I think this is an edit that was tried but reverted the other day. I'm not innately opposed to this but I'd need to see examples of this terminology in use by modelers themselves (and since it's been called into question, the same applies to the word "calculate"). While I recognise the distinction and I would use verbs like "estimate", "approximate", "simulate" or even just plain "model" in describing the computed numerical components of my own (non-climatological) models, I'd like to see what the terms of art are used in climate modeling. [[User talk:Tasty monster|Tasty monster]] (=[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] ) 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

== Reorganization and additions ==
A history section was added, which was mostly from the recently-upgraded [[numerical weather prediction]] article.  The section of GCM, within the GCM article, was giving the article the look of a nesting doll, so content from this section was subdivided between the history, computation, and accuracy sections.  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 01:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Title–lead sentence mismatch ==

Given that this article's title is "Global climate model", it's confusing to have the opening sentence of this article begin, "''A '''General Circulation Model''' (GCM) is a [[mathematical model]] of the general circulation of a planetary [[atmosphere]] or ocean...''". I would encourage someone familiar with the subject matter to rewrite the lead to introduce the term "Global climate model" ''before'' "General Circulation Model". - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] <small>([[User talk:Dcljr|talk]])</small> 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

:I believe that this is part of a bigger issue, namely that the initialism ''GCM'' is used for this page that is mostly about global climate models (or Earth system models).  The original meaning of GCM is ''General Circulation Model''.  I have tried to put this information under "Note on nomenclature" in the article.  This clarifies the issue on GCM somewhat, but for the page as a whole it may be confusing.  I'd suggest a separate page on General Circulation Models (GCMs), the models that describe circulation (chiefly AGCM and OGCM) and not things like interfaces (e.g. air-sea), chemistry and biology. [[User:Hulten|Hulten]] ([[User talk:Hulten|talk]]) 11:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

== Inhofe on accuracy? ==

I removed the last sentence from the [[Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming|Accuracy]] section...
<blockquote style="border:1px solid gray; padding-left:8px; font-size:90%">
Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain. Even the degree of uncertainty is uncertain, a problem that stems from the fact that these climate models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behavior. [http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/ClimateChange.pdf]
</blockquote>
... with an edit summary of ''"Removed "...Even the degree of uncertainty is uncertain..." statement. Inhofe does not satisfy [[WP:RS]] on the topic"''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&diff=446929638&oldid=440351913 diff]. This was reverted with an edit summary of ''"rv unexplained removal of text"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&diff=next&oldid=446929638 diff]. I'll bite. When did [http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/ClimateChange.pdf The Facts and Science of Climate Change] by U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe become more than a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source for the political opinions of Inhofe? Without a better source the statement cannot remain. - [[User:ArtifexMayhem|ArtifexMayhem]] ([[User talk:ArtifexMayhem|talk]]) 06:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
:It's undoubtedly true, but I agree, it cannot remain.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 13:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

== IPCC citations. ==

There is a wide spread pattern of deficiences, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies present in most existing citations of the IPCC AR reports.  I have developed a replacement set of complete, verified citations, which can be seen at [[Global warming]].  If there are no objections I propose to appy them to this article. - [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:Yes I had noticed that too. Its a lot of work. Great idea. Go ahead. Good on you. [[User:Mrfebruary|Mrfebruary]] ([[User talk:Mrfebruary|talk]]) 01:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

::Done. I have also tagged several "citations" that consisted of a mere URL (or URL+title). In an article as high-level as this, with such a preponderance of editors with serious scientific experience, I am surprised that there is any tolerance of such a shoddy practice.  A citation needs to ''identify the source'', not just point to where the text is found on the Web.  This includes the author(s) or organization behind it, and identifying information such as ISBNs or DOIs. Otherwise the material is not sourced. Hopefully someone will fix those soft spots. _ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 19:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

== Reference for study ==

Anyone wanting to study this topic furhter might want to see "A Vast Machine" by Paul Edwards, reviewed in ''Science'' (14 Jan. 2011, p. 149). {{ISBN|9780262013925}}  ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

== Climate sensitivity ==

I am baffled by the results listed under zero-dimensional models.  How in the world could the temperature be twice as sensitive to albedo as it is to incident intensity?  This is clearly an error. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 21:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

== Confuses Climate Models with Circulation Models ==

This article is confusing, because it uses the acronym GCM to mean both "General Circulation Model" and "Global Climate Model", and it is the article that is reached by searching for either term.  I attempted to clarify this a little.

The structure is a little odd as well; it starts out with the most complicated models, and then after many screens of complicated models, without warming switches to discussing very basic models.  I tried to clarify this by putting in a new heading "Simplified Models of Climate", and putting all the models that previously had their own headings as subheadings under this. 

I will also note that as far as I can tell, the text here is cut-and-paste identical to the text in the Wikipedia [[Climate model]] article, even to the extent of including the same climate sensitivity error.  Why do we have this material here?  These aren't circulation models.  Can't we just link to the Climate model article?

I would suggest renaming this article "General Circulation Model", and making the term "Global Climate Model" redirect to the [[Climate model]] article. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 21:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, but then all the non-GCM things (i.e. everything that is not either an ocean general circulation model or atmospheric general circulation model, without interfaces, chemistry and so on) should be removed from this article on General Circulation Models (GCMs). [[User:Hulten|Hulten]] ([[User talk:Hulten|talk]]) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

::I agree, and believe that these should be removed. There is little value in including descriptions of zero-point and other models in this article unless in the background section, as there is significant overlap with the page on climate models in general. I suggest removing the entire section "Simplified models of climate." [[User:Beezorphlegmon|Beezorphlegmon]] ([[User talk:Beezorphlegmon|talk]]) 08:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

== Proposed Rename ==

I did a google search, and found 1.15 million hits for the search term gcm "general circulation model", 307 thousand hits for the search term gcm "global climate model", and 329 thousand hits for the search term gcm "global circulation model."  It seems pretty clear that GCM is used to mean "general circulation model" much more than that other uses of the phrase.

Therefore, I propose renaming this page "General Circulation Model," and redirecting "Global climate model", and "Global circulation model" here.
[[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 20:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

:I agree for the most part.  Following your reasoning, we should indeed rename it to "General Circulation Model" (and maybe redirect "Global circulation model" to this page.  However, a global climate model is something else and is already pretty well described in the page [[Climate model]], so I'd refer it to that page. [[User:Hulten|Hulten]] ([[User talk:Hulten|talk]]) 11:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


==any comment on recent nature climate paper on model accuracy==
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years, J C Fyfe et al, Nature Climate Change, vol 3, page 767 (2013)
Their Figure one suggests that climate models dramatically overpredict temp rise; this is in contradiction to 
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.91.51.31|24.91.51.31]] ([[User talk:24.91.51.31|talk]]) 01:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Agree Accuracy section needs to be rewritten to reflect scientific data. In particular, it must be noted that despite the positive review of climate models (currently discussed in the article) in 2001, more than 95% of them have proven incorrect a decade later. A good figure for inclusion would be something along the lines of http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image013.jpg ALso references http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm In the end these are supposed to be scientific models, subject to falsifiability. [[User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] ([[User talk:Mrdthree|talk]]) 02:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::: You can't use the Torygraph, or WUWT, as a source for science [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 08:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[General Circulation Model]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678565536 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080503014123/http://www.ecmwf.int:80/index_forecasts.html to http://www.ecmwf.int/index_forecasts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 05:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on [[General circulation model]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781556907 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229170731/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/hoursahead/mesoscale.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/hoursahead/mesoscale.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Ffigspm-4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330214626/http://grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527001324/http://www.hadleycentre.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/talks/sld017.html to http://www.hadleycentre.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/talks/sld017.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330214626/http://grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330214626/http://grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Findex.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503014123/http://www.ecmwf.int/index_forecasts.html to http://www.ecmwf.int/index_forecasts.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013015915/http://www.hadleycentre.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeltypes.html to http://www.hadleycentre.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeltypes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[General circulation model]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=798599445 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206085956/http://grads.iges.org/reps/rep27/colarep27.html to http://grads.iges.org/reps/rep27/colarep27.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on [[General circulation model]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=805022126 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112230927/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2F309.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2F309.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303212120/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-3.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303170118/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-5.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified (January 2018) ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[General circulation model]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/821855973|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218141613/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/348.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/348.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 01:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

== Rainfall and circulation errors in models? ==

Section on 'Model Accuracy' focuses on temperature - is there scope to include information on generally decent performance on large scale rainfall, but also to include info on rainfall error (e.g. double ITCZ) or circulation biases (e.g. latitudinal biases in subtropical jet)? [[User:Nzadi|Nzadi]] ([[User talk:Nzadi|talk]]) 18:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)