Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What do you think climate models model?
#1
Hello All,
I would genuinely like to know, what do you think that it is that the IPCC's climate models actually do?
What do they model, and what are they projecting?

There are no wrong answers to my mind as such, I just want to know what people think the IPCC'S climate models model.


Richard Patton answered on fb that -
They are modeling the Navier-Stokes differential equations for fluid flow. These are some of the wickedest equations to work with. Mostly engineers use empirical tables as general solutions to these equations do not exist.

The GCMs are coupled land and sea computer models based on these equations. They are not "solutions" in the sense of a mathematical equation - they actually run the equations with a bunch of parameters. They make a 3d grid and then run the inputs and outputs of the grid calculation - step at a time with some delta-t (change in time).

Of course, as they assess the changes the grid cells don't all balance out - that is there is always some residual energy that they simply spread out. The last I looked into it the amount of residual energy was on the order of the effect being measured. This was all I needed to see.

Folks who are more experienced than I regarding compute solutions of differential equations argue that the problem being solved is "ill-posed" and thus not a valid procedure. I cannot validate this claim myself but the argument was pretty persuasive.

In either case, any modeling problem is only as good as what it can predict "out-of-sample" - that is it can only be verified to the extent it actually predicts future events accurately (hindcasting is not a valid verification procedure) and even here only provisionally. Obviously these computer model are in a big fail mode at the moment - they are statistically significantly wrong at the moment in their predictions.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#2
I believe what the climate models actually model is a lot more restricted than most people think, in both complexity, and timescale.
I will try to explain, with what I refer to as my SRES - Bern - GCM line of argument / reasoning.

I attended Professor Murry Salby's lecture in Edinburgh on the 7th November 2013.
He has given this presentation many times now, most notably in Hamburg April 18, 2013.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

After watching his presentation I produced a very rushed article for PSI.
http://principia-scientific.org/index.ph...Itemid=146

A couple of weeks later I followed up on some ideas and found myself reading -
IPCC - Special report on emission scenarios
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i.../emission/

"Foreword
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.
"

In other words the IPCC starts from the "accepted notion" or "settled science" that climate change is humanities fault.

In 1992 the IPCC released emission scenarios to be used for driving global circulation models to develop climate change scenarios.
The so-called IS92 scenarios were pathbreaking. They were the first global scenarios to provide estimates for the full suite of greenhouse gases.
Much has changed since then in our understanding of possible future greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Therefore the IPCC decided in 1996 to develop a new set of emissions scenarios which will provide input to the IPCC third assessment report but
can be of broader use than the IS92 scenarios.


Bold emphasis is mine. It is worth repeating and noting that the most important word in this quote is driving.
"In 1992 the IPCC released emission scenarios to be used for driving global circulation models to develop climate change scenarios"

Please see attachment to this post, in which I have very briefly laid out most of the relevant information.

In short,
The SRES produces emissions scenarios.
The Bern model CO2 concentration contribution to the emissions scenarios are the only part of the scenarios that the GCM models actually respond to.
CO2 levels are inputs throughout the model run of a GCM climate model run, produced by the unphysical Bern model and it's undescribed variants. The GCM's do not model the carbon cycle or CO2 levels.

The GCM model runs are tethered to the Bern model CO2 scenarios, throughout their model runs, because as Murry Salby has shown in the GCM model world, CO2 = temperature.
The GCMs therefore are left to merely model an amount of weather between CO2 level inputs from the emissions scenarios. The input of CO2 concentration as calculated using the Bern model is at most on an annual basis, and probably a lot less. So each 100 to a 1,000 year GCM model run is not such at all, it is merely that number of steps following on from each other as if one, when they are most definitely not one model run.

This is all rather different to the impression one is supposed to have, of what is modelled by the GCMs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

Later edit - excerpt from Wiki page.
"Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change."

Yup, upper tropospheric humidity = water vapour, and in the GCM's water vapour is modelled as a positive feedback, when it is a negative feedback.
"worriesome" = Shhhh, we are modelling the wrong paradigm.


Attached Files
.pptx   SRES Bern GCM plots TAR Invalidates IPCC modelling - Derek.pptx (Size: 1.4 MB / Downloads: 0)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#3
http://climateaudit.org/2013/12/09/does-...cr-ranges/

It would have be a lot easier just to put in the modelled world CO2 = temperature...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#4
UPDATE: It took me so long to write this post I missed Derek's last two comments but I think I have not duplicated anything.
Note I have not mentioned CO2!

(12-11-2013, 02:13 PM)Derek Wrote: . . . what do you think that it is that the IPCC's climate models actually do?
What do they model, and what are they projecting?

Phew! That is a question! For what it's worth from this layman, the answer is NOTHING!!!

There are only two facts that might be considered valid data, one the TSI, and two, the outgoing LWIR flux from five or six kilometres up in the atmosphere, certainly NOT from the surface!. As per satellite measurements these data appear to agree and show the Earth is not warming or cooling, yet the claim from various GCMs is the global surface temperature will rise by some 3 degrees celsius by 2100 or so because of an uncertain increase in atmospheric CO2. Poppy cock!

This is a very complex problem that requires multi-compartment model scenarios. Get just one compartment wrong and the answer is GIGO.

I have tried several times to write what I think is wrong and end up tying myself in knots. Not surprising really considering my limited understanding of the climate. So I will limit myself to one area that has been bugging me since I first started reading about AGW.

The OCEANS, covering 71% of the earth's surface with a volume of some 300,000,000 cubic miles, preferentially absorb shortwave radiation from the sun, long wave radiation not so much. That shortwave radiation penetrates a hundred metres or so. Thus roughly HALF the incoming energy is accumulating in a huge volume of water, not simply impacting on one square metre at the top. But the sea can only lose energy through each square metre of the surface and then over an extremely limited temperature range. Another path for energy loss is melting polar ice. That works well. Therefore, to me, the oceans are a BIG heat sink, slow to warm up and cool down.

Water is essentially a transparent material and NO transparent material lets sunlight through completely at any angle of incidence below 45 degrees. In fact it seems that when the angle of sunlight to water is less than 45 degrees 90% and more of the sunlight is reflected, NOT absorbed. This indicates that maximum absorption can only occur for six hours in any day.

How is this accounted for in the global albedo data? And then CLOUDS. When ever I see a satellite picture of the earth on TV I am always impressed by the cloud cover, looks much, much more than the claimed average.

Okay. Non of this is any help really. I don't know how any of the above might be accounted for in GCMs. Whatever 'they' are doing, I don't think 'they' are doing it right. Snow! In Cairo! In December! Right! Must be GLOBAL WARMING!
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#5
Thank you Richard111, great answer. I want to know what people think, and now I have a good idea of your thoughts / understanding.

You mention oceans, and whilst looking into Bern I noticed one of it's assumptions, that Joos himself briefly notes is somewhat suspect, is that oceanic biota is held as a constant.

This subject has come up in the comments on a recent WUWT thread, which I will have to read, for many reasons.
CO2 Residence Times, Take Two
Guest essay by Joe Born
Posted on December 11, 2013 by Anthony Watts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/co...-take-two/

Within the comments (which I have only briefly skimmed) I like how it is suggested that dissolved oceanic CO2 concentration is, in effect, a constant (that's Henry's law so to speak), and (I do not like this bit) therefore so is oceanic biota. It occurs to me that they might be looking at the subject area the wrong way around.

The implication, as I understand from the WUWT thread comments is that oceanic biota always has more than enough dissolved CO2 available, therefore dissolved CO2 conc is not a limiting factor to oceanic biota. Seems reasonable, but I am not sure this is a good enough reason to say that means oceanic biota is also constant. However, when whatever is limiting oceanic biota (other than dissolved CO2) changes (think plankton blooms) then the biota will either use more, or less, CO2. BUT, Henry's law means the oceans will simply absorb or de-gass, to maintain the dissolved CO2 conc as a constant. So, whether the oceanic biota changes are a sink or source is masked by Henry's law / chemistry.
Apparently chemists prefer doing things in solution, because it is so much quicker.

Sorry, this is poorly explained / rushed after a long shift, but I hope the basic idea comes across.
When I get more time to word it better, I might try it out on the WUWT thread.

IF, I am on a correct train of reasoning, then oceanic biota changes are a separate model within the Bern model, that is currently held as a constant.
Furthermore, this sink / source is extremely variable, and massive, potentially dwarfing many times over human emissions of CO2.
So, the Bern model would be found to be rather "wanting".....
Maybe that is why Joos did not want to dwell on the subject area.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#6
CO2 and the oceans! Wow! There's a doozy. I wonder if these people have ever heard of algal blooms? Do they ever look at the geology of the White Cliffs of Dover and similar around the world? Don't they know volcanoes vent CO2? Where does that CO2 come from? The ocean floor going down the subduction zones. CO2 and hydrogen in water plus high temperature and pressures creates hydrocarbons which end up as gas and oil. Haven't they noticed old oil wells are slowly refilling?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#7
(12-14-2013, 05:05 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Water is essentially a transparent material and NO transparent material lets sunlight through completely at any angle of incidence below 45 degrees. In fact it seems that when the angle of sunlight to water is less than 45 degrees 90% and more of the sunlight is reflected, NOT absorbed. This indicates that maximum absorption can only occur for six hours in any day.

How is this accounted for in the global albedo data?

Amazing Richard111.
I have not heard anyone else say this. I will be checking, it could have implications that Joe and Alan will find very interesting. To put it politely..
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#8
(12-14-2013, 10:39 PM)Derek Wrote:
(12-14-2013, 05:05 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Water is essentially a transparent material and NO transparent material lets sunlight through completely at any angle of incidence below 45 degrees. In fact it seems that when the angle of sunlight to water is less than 45 degrees 90% and more of the sunlight is reflected, NOT absorbed. This indicates that maximum absorption can only occur for six hours in any day.

How is this accounted for in the global albedo data?

Amazing Richard111.
I have not heard anyone else say this. I will be checking, it could have implications that Joe and Alan will find very interesting. To put it politely..

What Richard states is even more significant when you include the polar regions. Where Sunlight from a very low sun is mostly reflected back up.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#9
If you have a sea or lake view towards the setting sun; WARNING: USE DARK GLASSES; compare brightness of reflection from the water against the actual sun.

So much cloud where I am. But when I get a sunny afternoon will attempt to take a picture of the effect. I've been dazzled many times by the sun off the water here in Milford Haven.

As SST points out and I SAW LAST NIGHT!!! BBC Channel 4 and Attenborough with his 'Thin Ice' documentary about melting polar ice. He talks about 'DARK' water absorbing sunlight and heating up and melting the ice!!! Convenient time is high summer and sun is behind the camera. Even if the sea looks dark it is still water, not a layer of rock.

The whole program, from beginning to end, was blatant doom and gloom global warming propaganda. AND NOT A SINGLE CLAIM WAS CORRECT!!
Example: penguins dying in Antarctica because there is not enough ice!!!!
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#10
Have a look at this... could be worse than I thought.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/water.htm

Interesting. Very much an environmental site but not warmist.

Still hasn't answered the 45 degree 90% loss question but getting close.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#11
(12-15-2013, 04:24 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Still hasn't answered the 45 degree 90% loss question but getting close.

Alan Siddons sent me the following link.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocn...ig6-18.htm
Which I have quickly made into an image.
[Image: 4590incidenceangle_zps079314a9.jpg]
He notes that in regard of the 45 degree question you raise - "Ha! That’s an interesting observation — very commonsense."
and continues that, in the above plot,
"I, II, and III show light transmission at a 90° angle of incidence , but for 1 through 9 — at 45° — the transmission is still pretty high.
To get your bearings, 300µm is ultraviolet, 500 green, 700 red.
I imagine that transmission continues to fall in the infrared because absorption goes up.

Water’s reflection, refraction, and absorption is surely a subject in itself
. "

plots from,
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocn...s/book.pdf
In which in Chapter 6 I also noticed.
Excerpt -
"11. Light is rapidly absorbed in the ocean. 95% of sunlight is absorbed in the upper 100 m of the clearest sea water.
Sunlight rarely penetrates deeper than a few meters in turbid coastal waters.

12. Phytoplankton change the color of sea water
"

I "get" Richard111's glare observation (even for turbid, and / or "mucky" waters), but I am struggling to equate that with the above.
Any help / explanation from you Richard111 would be greatly appreciated.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#12
Whooa! I am a layman! No official education on any subject discussed on this blog. Wink

I picked up the 45 degree idea from here. I've also done some scuba diving in the dim and distant past and noticed the loss of light underwater when a cloud moves in front of the sun. I also remember we didn't do much diving early morning and late afternoon. This got me thinking. Anyway, will come back to you if I can work out those graphs on your post above.

Then there was the eclipse of 2006 which shows air temps barely follow surface temps. Air thermometer was only a foot above the desert sand! So basically I have no confidence what so ever in any global climate model.

[Image: eclipse.gif]

In a cooling world equator to pole wind movements increase which cause increase in severe weather events. We are forecast for the winter from Hell this Christmas here in the UK and a serious deep freeze in late January. So much for global warming.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#13
Ach! Phooey! I am battling with that data from Alan Siddons. Rather beyond my present competence level. I suspect we might work out some sort of answer from Martin Chaplin's site.

DW is giving me looks Angry so I must go and do some Xmas decorating and such. Postings will be light till end of period of good cheer.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)