|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 4:23:41 GMT
Magellan: I do think that Dr. Svalgaard is on the right track. I read Dr. Scafetta's papers when they came out. I am pretty cycnical....in case you haven't noticed. A lot of things didn't add up in Dr. Scafetta's papers.
I know that Dr. Svalgaard can be bull headed as well.
We all can be at times.
There is no question that the sun is the major driver of climate. And the UV spectrum has an effect on the strat which affects the jets.
I think what is important is that people acknowledge that TSI is pretty constant. However, the bands within are not, as Geoff has pointed out.
I don't have a Dr. in front of my name, so I don't have turf to protect. I try to take the best from everyone, think it through and come to a rational conclusion.
There are a lot of smart people examining this, a lot with PhD in front of their name. But, make no mistake, which I believe you don't, just because I don't have PhD in front of my name does not mean that I can't absorb information and rationaly think it through.
The school of hard knocks and common sense is a valuable education all in itself.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 31, 2012 4:47:58 GMT
"The school of hard knocks and common sense is a valuable education all in itself."
Yes it is. Education is a great thing but it can be a poor substitute for hands on experience. I think our Finnish friend is a perfect example of someone who has read how to dig a trench, has seen trenches dug, would argue for hours on just how to dig a trench but has never so much as picked up a shovel.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 31, 2012 4:52:41 GMT
Magellan: I do think that Dr. Svalgaard is on the right track. I read Dr. Scafetta's papers when they came out. I am pretty cycnical....in case you haven't noticed. A lot of things didn't add up in Dr. Scafetta's papers. I know that Dr. Svalgaard can be bull headed as well. We all can be at times. There is no question that the sun is the major driver of climate. And the UV spectrum has an effect on the strat which affects the jets. I think what is important is that people acknowledge that TSI is pretty constant. However, the bands within are not, as Geoff has pointed out. I don't have a Dr. in front of my name, so I don't have turf to protect. I try to take the best from everyone, think it through and come to a rational conclusion. There are a lot of smart people examining this, a lot with PhD in front of their name. But, make no mistake, which I believe you don't, just because I don't have PhD in front of my name does not mean that I can't absorb information and rationaly think it through. The school of hard knocks and common sense is a valuable education all in itself. A lot of things didn't add up in Dr. Scafetta's papers. A lot of things LS says doesn't add up. It's his way or the highway. He no more knows what GCR response in cloud formation should be instantaneous than the man on the moon. Is the response to the effects of ENSO instantaneous? Nor does he know what affects even small changes in TSI should have on both weather and climate. He cannot explain the solar/hydrological connection therefore it must be pseudoscience (his word). It is all dogma. So what makes LS right and say Richard Willson, the pioneer of TSI monitoring, wrong? I'd like to know. www.acrim.com/
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 31, 2012 7:31:29 GMT
I'm not sure .08 degrees of warming merits increasing energy costs via cap and trade or other more creative taxation schemes.
.08 degrees of warming is not indicated, if you read the statistics more carefully.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 31, 2012 13:23:18 GMT
iceskater,
Just to follow up on why I'm content that radiation components of models are simplified.
I've a reasonable amount of experience developing models to simulate physical behaviour. Often the problem is that your ideal solution takes too long to run. So you look to see where you can increase timestep, reduce resolution and so forth. You then test to see how sensitive the outcomes are to the changes that you have made. If the outcomes are similar, then the simplification is acceptable.
If you review the references that lie behind the radiation codes used by the models you may, like me, find that there are a number of different codes, that they all produce similar results, and that they are rooted in the high-fidelity HITRAN databases of radiative properties. Furthermore, you will find examples of the sort of sensitivity analysis that I've described. To me this ticks the boxes that they are sufficiently well peer reviewed.
Not sure why one would think radiation modelling in weather models is not important. A weather model will benefit from a good radiation model for predicting minimum temps for example. The difference is that you can probably parametrize your "greenhouse" effect a bit more - ie. the details of which gases and how much is less important - maybe that is the point you are making?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 31, 2012 14:25:49 GMT
numerouno, a quick trip to the IPCC and I got this:
"The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century"
Once again I am not sure that 1.1 degrees of warming merits higher energy costs via cap and trade or any other clever taxation scheme. Common sense solutions that will help lower our emmisions like increased cafe standards, solar, wind and a conversion to cleaner burning natural gas make much more sense economically.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 31, 2012 14:30:43 GMT
Glenkoks, I'm not sure if you understood the point that 1.1 C is not what was indicated. You will need to understand that the value is CONDITIONAL and STATISTICALLY derived, NOT ABSOLUTE.
Massive failure here to understand the basics, apparently!
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 31, 2012 16:52:06 GMT
numerouno, I understand that the value is statistically derived and not absolute. If the number were absolute a decision on just what coarse of action is prudent would be easy to make.
What you and other alarmists are recommending is that we take potentially harmfull economic actions based on limited data. If we fully understood all of the factors and feedbacks involved the models would perform better than they do and our decision would be easier.
Private Companies will simply pass the cost of these radical tax measures on to the consumer which will hurt those least able to afford it the most.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 31, 2012 17:27:52 GMT
Iceskater, The Sun is relatively constant, but the transmission of the Sun's light through the atmosphere and transmission of infrared emissions of the surface and atmosphere are all dependent on the constituents of the atmosphere. These are what the radiation scheme deal with. I repeated some of my googling which I did a while back hopefully to give you some pointers (I'm claiming to be not-an-expert here - so you take what you want from my pointers). One of the radiation schemes is called the Edwards-Slingo radiation scheme. I found some documentation here, but there are a lot of scientific papers about it going back years: www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~lem/large_models/esrad/and here is a reference to it being used in weather forecast models - see the introduction on Page 2: www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_009.pdfAs I understand other techniques used are LBL or line-by-line models, and I've seen papers that compare the two. The commonly referenced figure of 3.7W/m^2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 comes from this paper which I briefly mentioned earlier. It looks at three different ways of modelling radiation transfer: folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2012 17:36:22 GMT
Not sure why one would think radiation modelling in weather models is not important. A weather model will benefit from a good radiation model for predicting minimum temps for example. The difference is that you can probably parametrize your "greenhouse" effect a bit more - ie. the details of which gases and how much is less important - maybe that is the point you are making?
I can agree with that. Atmosphere effects on the surface heading for minimums is not backradiation from a colder object to a warmer object but instead an expected transfer of energy from a relatively warmer atmosphere to a relatively colder efficiently emitting surface.
Odd that you would specify usefulness for weather minimums and not weather maximums.
Kind throws a big monkey wrench into the idea that sky radiation has an equal effect in both directions doncha think?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 31, 2012 17:46:09 GMT
I'm not a forecast expert but I was thinking here about radiative modelling of longwave rather than shortwave, so the balance between the energy lost from the surface as it radiates and the energy gained by the surface as it receives all the back radiation from the greenhouse gases (water vapour mostly) in the atmosphere will be used to help calculate the *net* rate of cooling of the surface.
Wouldn'tcha think I'da thoughta that, Icefisher?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2012 18:24:38 GMT
I'm not a forecast expert but I was thinking here about radiative modelling of longwave rather than shortwave, so the balance between the energy lost from the surface as it radiates and the energy gained by the surface as it receives all the back radiation from the greenhouse gases (water vapour mostly) in the atmosphere will be used to help calculate the *net* rate of cooling of the surface.
Wouldn'tcha think I'da thoughta that, Icefisher?
You just repeated yourself. By definition "net" rate of cooling has an atmosphere radiation factor to it because by definition in that instance the surface is cooler than the atmosphere above it.
Only when you talk about a "net" rate of warming would backradiation potentially be a factor and as we know when more moisture is in the sky the net rate of warming is slower, not faster as would be suggested by backradiation.
I would have thought you would have thought of that, Steve!
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 31, 2012 18:49:15 GMT
Atmosphere effects on the surface heading for minimums is not backradiation from a colder object to a warmer object but instead an expected transfer of energy from a relatively warmer atmosphere to a relatively colder efficiently emitting surface.
Icefisher, colder objects can warm warmer objects radiatively, just as poor people can send cheques to rich people to be cashed by them.
When objects in sight of each other interact radiatively, an equilibrium will be reached that will take into account the both.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 31, 2012 18:52:17 GMT
numerouno, I understand that the value is statistically derived and not absolute.
Glennkoks, then it will be pointless by you to repeat the other IPCC extreme ONLY. as the whole formula of likelihood, and the other extreme will need to be taken into account AS WELL.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 18:55:42 GMT
numerouno, I understand that the value is statistically derived and not absolute. Glennkoks, then it will be pointless by you to repeat the other IPCC extreme ONLY. as the whole formula of likelihood, and the other extreme will need to be taken into account AS WELL. Numerouno: What is the certainty of each model? Are they all fairly close? One must take that into account as well. The idea of running several models and taking the average doesn't make the average correct at all.
|
|