http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2012/12/14/33-can-we-trust-simulations-of-tc-statistics-in-global-models/ Isaac Held's Blog Fri, 31 May 2013 13:51:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2012/12/14/33-can-we-trust-simulations-of-tc-statistics-in-global-models/#comment-1144 Isaac Held Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:25:13 +0000 http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/?p=4874#comment-1144 I agree with your comments, although with regard to the sensitivity of tropical cyclones to warming, in addition to global models such as this we also have regional models and theoretical insights into the genesis and potential intensity of tropical cyclones to work with. I agree with your comments, although with regard to the sensitivity of tropical cyclones to warming, in addition to global models such as this we also have regional models and theoretical insights into the genesis and potential intensity of tropical cyclones to work with.

]]> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2012/12/14/33-can-we-trust-simulations-of-tc-statistics-in-global-models/#comment-1126 observer Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:50:12 +0000 http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/?p=4874#comment-1126 Thank you for this insight in how TC simulations are done. I think one should always be aware that those models are not perfect, that many things in there are missing and the resolution is still very rough. But on the other hand we must decide now what to do about rising GHG levels and we dont have the time to wait for the perfect model and a 100% certain answer. And at least we can see e.g. from the distribution of hurricane counts in the figures in your post, that the models are doing at least some things not too bad. So IMHO we should treat models as what they are: They are the best we have for future climate prediction and therefore we should use their results (with care) in our decisions (and I don't see any reasonable alternative to that). Thank you for this insight in how TC simulations are done. I think one should always be aware that those models are not perfect, that many things in there are missing and the resolution is still very rough. But on the other hand we must decide now what to do about rising GHG levels and we dont have the time to wait for the perfect model and a 100% certain answer. And at least we can see e.g. from the distribution of hurricane counts in the figures in your post, that the models are doing at least some things not too bad.
So IMHO we should treat models as what they are: They are the best we have for future climate prediction and therefore we should use their results (with care) in our decisions (and I don’t see any reasonable alternative to that).

]]>