|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2009 5:13:08 GMT
The models contain a 3D grid of the atmosphere. All energy into and out of each grid cell is calculated. Convection, radiation, you name it, it's calculated. Is the code available? Dr. Hansen came to Socold with a black bag and told him the code was "in the bag". And socold looked like a bobblehead doll in agreeing with him.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on May 21, 2009 6:20:52 GMT
Yes, Kiwi - and Mercury, having an atmosphere less dense than Venus, is cooler than Venus, although closer to the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on May 21, 2009 8:40:42 GMT
Somebody show me like 400ppm of CO2 and 1% of water vapor create +33K effect on the Moon surface without any atmosphere and oceans.
You can not separate existence of atmosphere and oceans from GH effect and assign those theoretical 33K to so-called GHE. Moon is cold at night not because there is not that pesky CO2, but because there is not bulk N2+O2 atmosphere. And even atmosphere´s ability to retain daily heat is not so big - during the night, temps go down 15C (imagine if night would be double as long). Top 2.6m of oceans have the same heat capacity as whole atmosphere and help to dampen the summer-winter fluctuation. Atmosphere, oceans and water cycle also limit day temperatures to reach Moon´s +100°C by convection, scattering, reflection, evaporation. Atmosphere and oceans also distribute accumulated heat by air and sea currents from the equator to polar areas, partially equalizing temperatures around the globe. There is no job for CO2 in all of that, and water (vapor) has obviously much more functions than to backradiate from -60C troposphere to heat the surface already enjoying 20C, if you believe those cartoons.
If only greenhouse gases make +33K, clear day+night average with humid air (16,000ppm of water vapor) should be insanely hotter than the same place with dry air (4,000ppm of water vapor).
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2009 10:17:17 GMT
Ah the "I haven't seen it therefore it doesn't exist" argument. The models contain a 3D grid of the atmosphere. All energy into and out of each grid cell is calculated. Convection, radiation, you name it, it's calculated. Well then, the models MUST BE perfect and undoubtedly realistic! Wish they would transfer these perfect calculations over to weather models, since they tend to lose accuracy quickly into the future... This is moving on from nautonnier's original claim that the scientists somehow ignore evaporation and convection. The hydrological cycle is reasonably well modelled (that's what the forecast models do). This is what helps define the temperature and humidity profile of the atmosphere. The uncertainty is in the small changes to the cycle that occur as a response to warming and which affects the radiative balance by changing water vapour levels and clouds. When it comes down to it though, the earth is roughly a closed system except for radiation in and radiation out. And the amounts of radiation in and radiation out at any one time are not affected by the amount of energy being shifted about the sysem through convection and the like at that same moment.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 21, 2009 10:24:54 GMT
Well I have yet to see a calculation of the amount of heat carried by evaporation of water at the surface and its convection from the surface to the upper layers of the troposphere. Also the effect on convection of changes of state and the various latent heats. As your response shows there is only accounting for radiation and absorption. Ah the "I haven't seen it therefore it doesn't exist" argument. The models contain a 3D grid of the atmosphere. All energy into and out of each grid cell is calculated. Convection, radiation, you name it, it's calculated. Its calculated so it must be true argument It is not yet possible to model accurately the weather in a 10 km dome over a point in the surface more than a hour into the future. People are spending a LOT of time trying as it would save lives and lots of money. Accuracies of 1KM are difficult but almost achievable out to an hour Forecasting what will happen in 6 months time becomes an educated guess. There are many many industries that will pay extremely good money to know what will happen in a year or more's time. So as your modelers are SO capable I am amazed that they need any funding - they would be awash with eager industry customers. They are not sufficiently good - and so they are not awash with customers. Its easy to get politicians looking for a cause and media looking for a story convinced - but it gets to be different when you enter an industrial contract with real money involved and where it will cost you real money if you get it wrong..
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on May 21, 2009 15:03:14 GMT
When it comes down to it though, the earth is roughly a closed system except for radiation in and radiation out. And the amounts of radiation in and radiation out at any one time are not affected by the amount of energy being shifted about the sysem through convection and the like at that same moment. When it comes down to it though, the earth is roughly a closed system except for radiation in and radiation out. And the amounts of radiation in and radiation out at any one time are not affected by the amount of energy being shifted about the sysem through convection and the like at that same moment.Okay! Then why do they need models (with cells, etc. etc.)? Do they just make these models for fun (eyewash)?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2009 15:22:11 GMT
When it comes down to it though, the earth is roughly a closed system except for radiation in and radiation out. And the amounts of radiation in and radiation out at any one time are not affected by the amount of energy being shifted about the sysem through convection and the like at that same moment. When it comes down to it though, the earth is roughly a closed system except for radiation in and radiation out. And the amounts of radiation in and radiation out at any one time are not affected by the amount of energy being shifted about the sysem through convection and the like at that same moment.Okay! Then why do they need models (with cells, etc. etc.)? Do they just make these models for fun (eyewash)? hiddigeigei, this discussion started with nautonnier claiming that the radiative forcing arguments are faulty because things including movement of energy by convection/latent heat etc. aren't taken into account. The models are used to help understand where the convection/latent heat ends up. The way that convection etc. moves the heat affects where radiation emanates from, and hence affects the rate of energy into space.
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on May 21, 2009 16:07:49 GMT
The models are used to help understand where the convection/latent heat ends up. The way that convection etc. moves the heat affects where radiation emanates from, and hence affects the rate of energy into space. You can write a model of a system which oscillates about a mean with a few simple forcing functions based on observations and measurements; such as a tidal model of a bay, or wolf/moose populations on Isle Royale. These are not long-term predictive models. You can not write a valid long-term predictive model of a complex non-oscillating system with numerous feed-back loops, many of which must be random probability functions (with probabilities that change with time and state). You have to make too many arbitrary assumptions, or else, simplify your model to such an extent that it is meaningless. The earth is not a simple choo-choo train.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2009 17:18:28 GMT
The models are used to help understand where the convection/latent heat ends up. The way that convection etc. moves the heat affects where radiation emanates from, and hence affects the rate of energy into space. You can write a model of a system which oscillates about a mean with a few simple forcing functions based on observations and measurements; such as a tidal model of a bay, or wolf/moose populations on Isle Royale. These are not long-term predictive models. You can not write a valid long-term predictive model of a complex non-oscillating system with numerous feed-back loops, many of which must be random probability functions (with probabilities that change with time and state). You have to make too many arbitrary assumptions, or else, simplify your model to such an extent that it is meaningless. The earth is not a simple choo-choo train. You can make it sound as complicated as you like, but when add more energy to a system than you remove from it, it tends to warm up. Imagining that some unknown change to the climate will, this time, stop it from warming up in response to a known cause of warming is unbridled optimism. In the first instance the model is merely attempting to quantify how quickly the extra warming we are applying will impact us. Roughly, the climate has been relatively stable within certain bounds: it has various modes of variability on a range of time scales. If extra heat is added, it warms. If heat is taken away it cools. In the past, the response to a bit of warming or cooling has been stronger than you'd expect from just looking at the change in warming or cooling, but in general, things appear to tie up reasonably well with other phenomena such as Milankovitch cycles, amounts of greenhouse gas, solar strength and ice coverage.
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on May 21, 2009 17:54:47 GMT
You can make it sound as complicated as you like, but when add more energy to a system than you remove from it, it tends to warm up. Imagining that some unknown change to the climate will, this time, stop it from warming up in response to a known cause of warming is unbridled optimism. In the first instance the model is merely attempting to quantify how quickly the extra warming we are applying will impact us. Years ago, as a lark, I wrote a model of prey-predator populations on a coral reef in BASIC using an 8K Commodore PET computer and showed it to bunch of government-employed fisheries biologists. They seemed quite impressed until I asked them if they would like to see the code. It amounted to about ten lines of BASIC. “Is that all there is to it?” they asked in surprise and disappointment. I could almost hear the humphing. I wonder why Hansen won’t show people his climate models’ coding. Socold tells us it has “CELLS.” I came to the conclusion that if I ever wanted to sell a model to a bunch of biologists, I would break it up into a zillions cells, sprinkle the code with reference to general systems theory and von Bertanlanffy equations, and all sorts of confusing bells and whistles. Of course it wouldn’t be any better (certainly less elegant), but it sure would sell better. I never did it though ... honest Injin.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2009 18:11:36 GMT
Well The models contain a 3D grid of the atmosphere. All energy into and out of each grid cell is calculated. Convection, radiation, you name it, it's calculated. The models contain a 3D grid of the atmosphere. All energy into and out of each grid cell is calculated. Convection, radiation, you name it, it's calculated.Very interesting! How big are these cells. Are these cells equal-sided or do they vary shape. Does each cell have only six neighbors? Does each cell changes state depending on its state and the state of neighboring cells based on a bunch of linear differential equations calculated by multiprocessors in discrete time steps... (Euler integration) or are the equations solved mathematically for varying lengths of times? Are there probability functions for each cell; say to determine whether a dust particle causes condensation of water vapor or perhaps cosmic rays form raindrop nuclei? In the latter case, would the probability function change based on solar flux or even sunspot numbers predicted by Dr. Hathaway? Inquiring minds would like to know. Different models can (and are) implemented differently. here's the details of one: www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/node11.html
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2009 18:16:38 GMT
Ah the "I haven't seen it therefore it doesn't exist" argument. The models contain a 3D grid of the atmosphere. All energy into and out of each grid cell is calculated. Convection, radiation, you name it, it's calculated. Its calculated so it must be true argument It is not yet possible to model accurately the weather in a 10 km dome over a point in the surface more than a hour into the future. People are spending a LOT of time trying as it would save lives and lots of money. Accuracies of 1KM are difficult but almost achievable out to an hour Forecasting what will happen in 6 months time becomes an educated guess. There are many many industries that will pay extremely good money to know what will happen in a year or more's time. So as your modelers are SO capable I am amazed that they need any funding - they would be awash with eager industry customers. They are not sufficiently good - and so they are not awash with customers. Its easy to get politicians looking for a cause and media looking for a story convinced - but it gets to be different when you enter an industrial contract with real money involved and where it will cost you real money if you get it wrong.. "Forecasting what will happen in 6 months time becomes an educated guess" It can be forcasted that in 6 months time northern hemisphere will be entering a cold period known as winter and the southern hemisphere will be entering a warm period known as summer. This can be forcasted from the physics alone. So the idea that forcasting anything 6 months ahead is impossible is false. The mistake you are making is thinking weather models which look at small scale stuff like the paths of individual storms are equivalent to climate models which involve far bigger processes.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2009 18:18:33 GMT
The models are used to help understand where the convection/latent heat ends up. The way that convection etc. moves the heat affects where radiation emanates from, and hence affects the rate of energy into space. You can write a model of a system which oscillates about a mean with a few simple forcing functions based on observations and measurements; such as a tidal model of a bay, or wolf/moose populations on Isle Royale. These are not long-term predictive models. You can not write a valid long-term predictive model of a complex non-oscillating system with numerous feed-back loops, many of which must be random probability functions (with probabilities that change with time and state). You have to make too many arbitrary assumptions, or else, simplify your model to such an extent that it is meaningless. The earth is not a simple choo-choo train. Your argument is at odds with the fact that different cliamte models all show a similar result. If the climate was too complex and chaotic to possibly model anything consistently then a slight tweak to the models would produce wildly different results.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2009 18:24:16 GMT
You can make it sound as complicated as you like, but when add more energy to a system than you remove from it, it tends to warm up. Imagining that some unknown change to the climate will, this time, stop it from warming up in response to a known cause of warming is unbridled optimism. In the first instance the model is merely attempting to quantify how quickly the extra warming we are applying will impact us. Years ago, as a lark, I wrote a model of prey-predator populations on a coral reef in BASIC using an 8K Commodore PET computer and showed it to bunch of government-employed fisheries biologists. They seemed quite impressed until I asked them if they would like to see the code. It amounted to about ten lines of BASIC. “Is that all there is to it?” they asked in surprise and disappointment. I could almost hear the humphing. I wonder why Hansen won’t show people his climate models’ coding. Socold tells us it has “CELLS.” The source code is available for download.
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on May 21, 2009 18:31:50 GMT
The source code is available for download. Where can I get it?
|
|