|
Post by magellan on Sept 8, 2009 2:53:16 GMT
Early on in your first reference: "In this book I have chosen to deal only with aspects of climate that can be treated without consideration of the fluid dynamics of the Atmosphere or Ocean"Well there you go - lets pretend there is no flow or GLAAM because its too difficult and "That does not prevent me from entertaining a vision of adding one more at some point, as a sequel to the present volume. This sequel, entitled Things that Flow would treat the additional phenomena that emerge when fluid dynamics is introduced. It would continue the theme of taking a broad planetary view of phenomena, and of providing students with the computational tools needed to build models of their own. It would take a rather broad view of what counts as a ”flow,” including such things as glaciers and sea ice as well as the more traditional atmospheres and oceans. We shall see; for the moment, this is just a vision."So this first expert of yours has put modeling the atmosphere into the 'too difficult pile' In the model description from NCAR which is your second cite there is : "The CAM 3.0 cleanly separates the parameterization suite from the dynamical core, and makes it easier to replace or modify each in isolation. The dynamical core can be coupled to the parameterization suite in a purely time split manner or in a purely process split one, as described below."A parameterization suite that is subdivided into: "the total parameterization package in CAM 3.0 consists of a sequence of components, indicated by
P={M, R, S, T}
where M denotes (Moist) precipitation processes, R denotes clouds and Radiation, S denotes the Surface model, and T denotes Turbulent mixing. Each of these in turn is subdivided into various components: " So the best you can do is point at a partial model of the atmosphere that the author has a vision may include reality; or an NCAR model that allows the user to play with parameterised values to get the result they want? What I asked for was: " a quantification (or a link/citation to where it is) for the energy transport from the surface to the tropopause (not the TOA) by convection and by the latent heat of state changes of water vapor. This will be a variable dependent on surface temperature, surface type and humidity and the atmospheric lapse rate. So there should be a nice formula for the variance based on these metrics." Its OK SoCold - I know it doesn't exist - its too difficult that's why you always revert back to the simplistic radiation case and why the IPCC calculated radiatiive forcing by treating the atmosphere to be an unresponsive slab while magically CO 2 is doubled and added to that slab as a well mixed trace gas. Its EVER SO EASY to disregard reality but unfortunately that is the real world we are in. Touche! Also note complete sections missing on parametrization from the online limited content version of Trenberth's 1992 essay. I have quite a collection of papers and discussion on climate modeling. However, to put it into perspective and lay it all on the line, RPS throws down the gauntlet by this statement. pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/real-climate-misunderstanding-of-climate-models/Second, the only basic physics in the models are the pressure gradient force, advection and the acceleration due to gravity. These are the only physics in which there are no tunable coefficients. Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics. That is where socold will fall flat on his face because there is nothing to support his previous musings that climate models contain the physics necessary to correctly simulate earth's climate system. Poor socold hasn't a clue; his is on a mission of faith. There is a reason why neither socold or glc wish to discuss Lindzen's latest paper on climate sensitivity programmed into GCM's (no socold, they are not outputs). That reason is self-evident. He can't even quote IPCC because there too are serious misgivings about climate models ability to account for clouds and their behavior as that parametrization alone can account for why there is no replication between the 20+ models in AR4.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 8, 2009 8:35:44 GMT
There is a reason why neither socold or glc wish to discuss Lindzen's latest paper on climate sensitivity programmed into GCM's (no socold, they are not outputs). That reason is self-evident.
A bit wide of the mark, here, Magellan. It was me who rew arrention to the Lindzen paper in the "Climate Links" thread
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 8, 2009 16:44:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 8, 2009 18:33:52 GMT
Socold: the nordita link is built upon model after model. I can see that you will always believe a model rather than question said model. This isn't about questioning models. It's about skeptics dismissing them out of hand. Trying to find silly ways to ignore them. But did the Boeing 787 model show it couldn't fly? Equating imperfection as uselessness is the primary false argument skeptics make against climate models.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 8, 2009 18:53:18 GMT
Early on in your first reference: "In this book I have chosen to deal only with aspects of climate that can be treated without consideration of the fluid dynamics of the Atmosphere or Ocean"Well there you go - lets pretend there is no flow or GLAAM because its too difficult and Quite obviously your complaint is fallacious because what you claim is not even what you quote. You've fabricated a claim and put a quote from the book in front of it to give the illusion that it follows from the book. It doesn't. You don't understand the physics laid out in my sources. I understand, more on this later because this was the key lesson. No he hasn't. Again you claim something not supported by the quote you pull from the book. Nice failed attempt to dismiss it though. I knew you would try, but putting words in the authors mouth is particularly pathetic tactic. Check figure 10.9 in the book on page 339 to see why your assumptions of the nature of parameterizations are wrong. Realclimate performs a service to us laypeople of spelling it out in summary form: What are parameterisations?Some physics in the real world, that is necessary for a climate model to work, is only known empirically. Or perhaps the theory only really applies at scales much smaller than the model grid size. This physics needs to be ‘parameterised’ i.e. a formulation is used that captures the phenomenology of the process and its sensitivity to change but without going into all of the very small scale details. These parameterisations are approximations to the phenomena that we wish to model, but which work at the scales the models actually resolve. A simple example is the radiation code – instead of using a line-by-line code which would resolve the absorption at over 10,000 individual wavelengths, a GCM generally uses a broad-band approximation (with 30 to 50 bands) which gives very close to the same results as a full calculation. Another example is the formula for the evaporation from the ocean as a function of the large-scale humidity, temperature and wind-speed. This is really a highly turbulent phenomena, but there are good approximations that give the net evaporation as a function of the large scale (’bulk’) conditions. In some parameterisations, the functional form is reasonably well known, but the values of specific coefficients might not be. In these cases, the parameterisations are ‘tuned’ to reproduce the observed processes as much as possible. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/So the typical skeptic play (and the one I believe you are trying to make) that parameterization is just another word for "parameter" allowing the model user to just plug any value they want into the model is false (and of course using common sense that is surprisingly absent in many "skeptics" minds we can see it can't be the case or else someone would have just plugged in low climate sensitivity causing values) Then why ask for something you think doesn't exist? Obviously it's a ploy. You are trying to play the game that if socold can't summarize complex physical concepts into a simple formula on this forum, therefore GCMs don't calculate convection. Ridiculous. Has the book link made it clear yet that you and me don't have the knowledge to assess the physics of the models in the detail you demand? Which is more nonsense because the GCMs don't treat the atmosphere as a slab. It's ridiculous how you are just fabricating claims out of mid air and expect noone to call you on it. Yes you are a case study in that.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 8, 2009 19:00:22 GMT
Equating imperfection as uselessness is the primary false argument skeptics make against climate models. Uselessness is your word. There are miles and miles between uselessness and ready-for-primetime.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 8, 2009 19:00:55 GMT
I have quite a collection of papers and discussion on climate modeling. However, to put it into perspective and lay it all on the line, RPS throws down the gauntlet by this statement. pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/real-climate-misunderstanding-of-climate-models/Second, the only basic physics in the models are the pressure gradient force, advection and the acceleration due to gravity. These are the only physics in which there are no tunable coefficients. Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics. The critical phrase there is "the only basic physics" What advanced physics isn't he mentioning? This statement is part of the skeptics agenda to talk only in absolutes. Or in other words "if it's wrong in some little way, it must be totally wrong" They are outputs. The reason I won't discuss it is that I don't have the expertize to critique it. Unlike AGW "skeptics" I don't simply find silly reasons to dismiss anything that goes against the "party line" like the case with that book which clearly none of us have the expertize to critique yet curiously that didn't put people off.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 8, 2009 19:06:07 GMT
Equating imperfection as uselessness is the primary false argument skeptics make against climate models. Uselessness is your word. There are miles and miles between uselessness and ready-for-primetime. Maybe you don't but plenty of skeptics try to dismiss models out of hand by calling them "useless" or "modelling is not science", "garbage in garbage out" or any other number of buzzwords. If they had to admit models have some utility even though they don't capture the physics perfectly it's far more difficult to dismiss them.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 8, 2009 19:18:56 GMT
Some physics in the real world, that is necessary for a climate model to work, is only known empirically. Or perhaps the theory only really applies at scales much smaller than the model grid size. This physics needs to be ‘parameterised’ i.e. a formulation is used that captures the phenomenology of the process and its sensitivity to change but without going into all of the very small scale details. These parameterisations are approximations to the phenomena that we wish to model, but which work at the scales the models actually resolve. A simple example is the radiation code – instead of using a line-by-line code which would resolve the absorption at over 10,000 individual wavelengths, a GCM generally uses a broad-band approximation (with 30 to 50 bands) which gives very close to the same results as a full calculation. Another example is the formula for the evaporation from the ocean as a function of the large-scale humidity, temperature and wind-speed. This is really a highly turbulent phenomena, but there are good approximations that give the net evaporation as a function of the large scale (’bulk’) conditions. In some parameterisations, the functional form is reasonably well known, but the values of specific coefficients might not be. In these cases, the parameterisations are ‘tuned’ to reproduce the observed processes as much as possible. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/So the typical skeptic play (and the one I believe you are trying to make) that parameterization is just another word for "parameter" allowing the model user to just plug any value they want into the model is false (and of course using common sense that is surprisingly absent in many "skeptics" minds we can see it can't be the case or else someone would have just plugged in low climate sensitivity causing values) Not exactly! I think a better analogy of the kinds of parameterizations we are seeing might be compared to the world first stock assessment for a marine fish. Somebody cuts open a fish, counts eggs and then builds a model for the reproductivity of the entire stock of the fish. Of course you need parameters for how many fish there are now, now many eggs get fertilized, how many actually hatch, how many get eaten, how many newly hatch larvae have enough to eat to survive, and 6 years later you have a number of fish ready to be caught. Should work for entire world's at least as well as it worked for the first stock assessment. . . .which is of course is it didn't. So into this world of uncertainty creeps doubt and doubt is manifested in some kind of ludditic madness calling for precaution. Its a preoccupation of the idle rich that they have no worries about having to make a living so why should anybody be able to make a living if it in any way threatens my living. Thus they form foundations buy scientific publications, fund studies all designed to make sure somebody trying to make a living doesn't threaten their future. Next comes the army of whoars. Mostly government workers and academics that have zero accountability or personal risk attached to whether their work is complete garbage or not. You now have a complete socialistic system destined as all such systems are for complete meltdown. Yeah! Miles and miles between totally useless and ready for primetime is exactly the way it should be.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 8, 2009 19:27:38 GMT
Some physics in the real world, that is necessary for a climate model to work, is only known empirically. Or perhaps the theory only really applies at scales much smaller than the model grid size. This physics needs to be ‘parameterised’ i.e. a formulation is used that captures the phenomenology of the process and its sensitivity to change but without going into all of the very small scale details. These parameterisations are approximations to the phenomena that we wish to model, but which work at the scales the models actually resolve. A simple example is the radiation code – instead of using a line-by-line code which would resolve the absorption at over 10,000 individual wavelengths, a GCM generally uses a broad-band approximation (with 30 to 50 bands) which gives very close to the same results as a full calculation. Another example is the formula for the evaporation from the ocean as a function of the large-scale humidity, temperature and wind-speed. This is really a highly turbulent phenomena, but there are good approximations that give the net evaporation as a function of the large scale (’bulk’) conditions. In some parameterisations, the functional form is reasonably well known, but the values of specific coefficients might not be. In these cases, the parameterisations are ‘tuned’ to reproduce the observed processes as much as possible. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/So the typical skeptic play (and the one I believe you are trying to make) that parameterization is just another word for "parameter" allowing the model user to just plug any value they want into the model is false (and of course using common sense that is surprisingly absent in many "skeptics" minds we can see it can't be the case or else someone would have just plugged in low climate sensitivity causing values) Not exactly! I think a better analogy of the kinds of parameterizations we are seeing might be compared to the world first stock assessment for a marine fish. Somebody cuts open a fish, counts eggs and then builds a model for the reproductivity of the entire stock of the fish. Of course you need parameters for how many fish there are now, now many eggs get fertilized, how many actually hatch, how many get eaten, how many newly hatch larvae have enough to eat to survive, and 6 years later you have a number of fish ready to be caught. Should work for entire world's at least as well as it worked for the first stock assessment. . . .which is of course is it didn't. So into this world of uncertainty creeps doubt and doubt is manifested in some kind of ludditic madness calling for precaution. Its a preoccupation of the idle rich that they have no worries about having to make a living so why should anybody be able to make a living if it in any way threatens my living. Thus they form foundations buy scientific publications, fund studies all designed to make sure somebody trying to make a living doesn't threaten their future. Next comes the army of whoars. Mostly government workers and academics that have zero accountability or personal risk attached to whether their work is complete garbage or not. You now have a complete socialistic system destined as all such systems are for complete meltdown. Yeah! Miles and miles between totally useless and ready for primetime is exactly the way it should be. Come on everybody. How about we focus on some experiments please. Just simple experiments. Can it really be so hard?
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Sept 8, 2009 19:50:00 GMT
How dessert (or Arctic) city CO2 and H20 monitoring during the day and at night and under different seasonal/humidity/alitude/ambient temperature conditions?
One would expect that such as study of the temperatures downwind of a city with lots of CO2 emissions (and H20 emissions) would be able to at least provide SOME evidence for/against the AGW hypothesis. I seem to remember a posting here about such a study for the city of Phoenix, AZ. I believe that the conclusion of the study was that water vapor did affect the temperatures but that CO2 did not. However, I also remember that a responder on the board suggested that the altitude profile of the study was inappropriate to show the effect of CO2.
SOrry I don't have a link for the study, but I suspect that it was on "Watts up with that", or something like that.
Hope this helps.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 8, 2009 19:56:03 GMT
Socold: the nordita link is built upon model after model. I can see that you will always believe a model rather than question said model. This isn't about questioning models. It's about skeptics dismissing them out of hand. Trying to find silly ways to ignore them. But did the Boeing 787 model show it couldn't fly? Equating imperfection as uselessness is the primary false argument skeptics make against climate models. Socold: The 787 does fly, but it does not respond as the models indicated that it would. The climate models do not "fly" well enough to be used as the bases of scientific publications. This creates the ponzi scheme that is happening. The models need to be run over and over and when the retro-analysis corresponds to the past, then they .....might...be ready for prime time. To publish and make forcasts with the current understanding is foolish. I read that the 787's response to controls during test flight almost caused it to crash. This was not seen in the models at all, and the only reason it didn't crash was because of a human pilot. Had it been a drone, it could very well have hit the earth prematurely. With that analogy in mind, it becomes imperative not to have public policy based on the outcome of the models at this time. That would be pure and utter insanity. And worse of all, I do fear the public at large has heard the sky is falling a few to many times now. Why do you think I went from being an AGW advocate to a realist? What I read was going to happen with climate didn't, so I investigated the reasons it didn't. The US public at least, remembers when it has been decieved.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 8, 2009 21:04:55 GMT
How dessert (or Arctic) city CO2 and H20 monitoring during the day and at night and under different seasonal/humidity/alitude/ambient temperature conditions? One would expect that such as study of the temperatures downwind of a city with lots of CO2 emissions (and H20 emissions) would be able to at least provide SOME evidence for/against the AGW hypothesis. I seem to remember a posting here about such a study for the city of Phoenix, AZ. I believe that the conclusion of the study was that water vapor did affect the temperatures but that CO2 did not. However, I also remember that a responder on the board suggested that the altitude profile of the study was inappropriate to show the effect of CO2. SOrry I don't have a link for the study, but I suspect that it was on "Watts up with that", or something like that. Hope this helps. Ian I must admit that deserts are interesting me more and more as i try to work out how all of this stuff is working I just learnt that oxygen nitrogen and argon do not radiate heat. dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11211Which then throws another spanner in my understanding of this subject. Effectively therefore in a desert situation once the air is heated there is very little to radiate heat from that air at night. But we know that dry deserts get very cold at night. What we also know is that there is nothing in the dry desert air to warm the ground other than the small amount of water and co2 present so presumably once the ground is cold via radiation to space because there is very little absorbing gas present to prevent that it then cools the air by contact while warmer air remains at a higher altitude slowly transferring its heat energy to water and C02 which then radiates the heat to outer space otherwise that hot air has to return to the earths surface for cooling. But what we know already is that air only a few thousand feet up is cooler and soon gets very cold. No doubt a few weather balloons would show us what is happening and give us some temperatures The situation away from deserts is then equally unique. In these situations there is usually a massive water vapour presence at the warm surface just millimetres from the ground which helps to cool the earth as the water evaporates and humidifies the air. This warmed humid air then moves away from the earths surface and rises to altitude and is the principal method of radiating heat to space. Curious then that a cloud if my reasoning is correct is one of the principal radiators on our earth to cool the atmosphere. Curious too that at least one green house gas plays a major role in cooling the earth other than its role as a reflector from clouds and ice
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Sept 8, 2009 22:18:17 GMT
Radiant,
All materials emit heat radiation of some sort. They are not perfect black bodies but if they didn't emit heat, they would increase in temperature forever (not possible). I think the article is saying that since atoms (e.g. Ar) and diatomic molecules (e.g. N2, O2) do not have the extra geometric degrees of freedom of polyatomic molecules (e.g. H20 and CO2), they do not absorb and emit in discrete IR lines that are characteristic of the stretching and bending modes of those larger molecules. An IR spectrum of the Earth's atmosphere shows those characteristic lines of the polyatomics (especially water vapor!!!).
There is argument from Kiwi about the effectiveness of any atmosphere to "blanket" a planet and warm the surface. He argues that since Mars' atmosphere has a partial pressure of CO2 that is orders of magnitude higher than the partial pressure of CO2 in our atmosphere and the Greenhouse effect of Mars is much less than that of the Earth, it follows that the higher concentration of other molecules in Earth's atmosphere (including N2 and O2!!) contributes to the greenhouse effect on the Earth. I find his arguments relatively convincing. However, the main argument is not the atmospheric absorption of the CO2 and H20 (which is relatively uncontroversial), it is the response of the atmosphere to that heating. Since the atmosphere is highly non-linear in its response and includes the gigantic effect of water evaporation which cools the surface VERY effectively, the NET effect of the radiative absorption of CO2 is definitively not obvious. Also, the Beer-Lambert law of radiation absorption (studied that one in school) implies that once the absorption lines of CO2 are saturated (and they certainly are near ground level ==> the absorption to extinction of the main CO2 band in the IR is 10 metres!!!), there will be further effect. EVEN IF THERE IS an effect of increasing the CO2 concentration, there is certainly a logarithmic effect of increasing concentration (that is the Beer-Lambert law) which would imply that increasing CO2 concentration above current levels would have very little effect.
Hope that is not all review for you, but I thought I would put it out there just in case.
Ian
P.S. The politics of AGW are probably a lot more of a problem than the Science (IMO)
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 8, 2009 22:43:17 GMT
Radiant, All materials emit heat radiation of some sort. They are not perfect black bodies but if they didn't emit heat, they would increase in temperature forever (not possible). I think the article is saying that since atoms (e.g. Ar) and diatomic molecules (e.g. N2, O2) do not have the extra geometric degrees of freedom of polyatomic molecules (e.g. H20 and CO2), they do not absorb and emit in discrete IR lines that are characteristic of the stretching and bending modes of those larger molecules. An IR spectrum of the Earth's atmosphere shows those characteristic lines of the polyatomics (especially water vapor!!!). There is argument from Kiwi about the effectiveness of any atmosphere to "blanket" a planet and warm the surface. He argues that since Mars' atmosphere has a partial pressure of CO2 that is orders of magnitude higher than the partial pressure of CO2 in our atmosphere and the Greenhouse effect of Mars is much less than that of the Earth, it follows that the higher concentration of other molecules in Earth's atmosphere (including N2 and O2!!) contributes to the greenhouse effect on the Earth. I find his arguments relatively convincing. However, the main argument is not the atmospheric absorption of the CO2 and H20 (which is relatively uncontroversial), it is the response of the atmosphere to that heating. Since the atmosphere is highly non-linear in its response and includes the gigantic effect of water evaporation which cools the surface VERY effectively, the NET effect of the radiative absorption of CO2 is definitively not obvious. Also, the Beer-Lambert law of radiation absorption (studied that one in school) implies that once the absorption lines of CO2 are saturated (and they certainly are near ground level ==> the absorption to extinction of the main CO2 band in the IR is 10 metres!!!), there will be further effect. EVEN IF THERE IS an effect of increasing the CO2 concentration, there is certainly a logarithmic effect of increasing concentration (that is the Beer-Lambert law) which would imply that increasing CO2 concentration above current levels would have very little effect. Hope that is not all review for you, but I thought I would put it out there just in case. Ian P.S. The politics of AGW are probably a lot more of a problem than the Science (IMO) I agree it sounds probable that common gases can radiate heat but you can only heat a poor absorber of heat radiation via conduction. It can only get as hot as the surface it touches At this point in time it seems true to me that other than water and c02 air does not radiate heat very effectively so it needs to be in contact with a cool conductor such as the earth or co2 or water to cool it. And the fact it is very cold a few tens of thousands of feet in the atmosphere shows that the air must find cool conductors. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmissivityN2 and O2, do not absorb or emit in the thermal infrared.
|
|