Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Considered questions and comments arising from free to ALL "shape issue" pdf.
#21
I have also posted this (or similar) recently in a few places..

I think sceptics are loosing the "shape" argument with modeling BECAUSE they insist on a "flat disc".
Yes, the disc's surface is smooth (because MODTRAN can not handle the physics), and yes the disc is an area equal to the earth's entire surface area, BUT,
the disc is not flat, it is curved.
Later edit - I retract the above statement, as it is now obvious to me that
to date (April 2011) the question of what "shape" is actually modeled still can not be answered.


This way modeling has it's modeled shape at the right distance from the sun, and poles and an equator,
BUT, no seasons, no day, no night. AND a whole load more missing because of what the "physics" of MODTRAN can and can not handle.
Trenberth describes, or rather nearly describes, some of the modeling omissions on the below link,
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010...010a1.html

I have mentioned this curved disc shape a few times in various places recently and to date no one anywhere has responded.
I think it answers all the questions about what is and is not in the models, and explains why the AGW explanations are the way they are.


Illustration/s to be added soon.

AND,
with the emphasis on whether climate models rotate the earth realistically, you may find this movie interesting...
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/cl...video.html

:lol:

oh, and from where they boldly claim,
" The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century. "
http://climateprediction.net/content/modelling-climate
It's like going back to your old primary school many years later....
Angel


Attached Files
.pdf   Modelling the climate - CPDN.pdf (Size: 509.51 KB / Downloads: 456)
Reply
#22
BTW - THANK YOU Goose52 for asking me the question,
" Why do you describe climate models as modeling a "disc" shape? "

I had not realised no one has really tackled this question, sceptics just refer to it as a given known.
One that is not quite as "given", or "known" as well as it should be, in my opinion.
It is an important matter worthy of further consideration and discussion,
and
obviously it is a matter of central importance to my free to all pdf that this thread is about.
Reply
#23
After a first quick read through of the CPDN page linked to above (that I have made into a pdf attached to that post),
one or two obvious things jump out at me, some I "knew" some I did not know.

1) See figure 3 - note how surface pressure (cell boundary) is depicted as going all the way up to the top of a mountain...
[Image: CPDNFigure3.jpg]

No it does not in reality. AND, I think it almost impossible in the models because of the cells resolution in both physical scale, and time.
Another thought that occurs to me is, do the model cells allow air to move between them?

This figure seems to be just physically wrong AND impossible to model.

This seems to show if the figure is "correct" that the climate models model a flat surface.
I am actually quite shocked by this figure and it's obvious inaccuracy.
(Models can not cope with "disappearing and reappearing" amounts or complete cells due to terrain changes, I think is the obvious conclusion)
Should, when air asses move over mountains,
the bottom cells simply disappear on ascent, and reappear upon descent, or,
should they be squashed together as seeming is depicted?

Condensation of water vapour also is a major concern for modelling in regard of air masses going up and down mountains.
This subject is both massive and fraut with uncertainties which has been covered in some depth at Jeff Ids the Air Vent blog recently.
As a one stop link this recent post is as good a "starter" as I am aware of at present.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03...nds-paper/
Update on Winds paper
Posted by Jeff Id on March 13, 2011

Obviously I will have to go over the whole area again and try to dissemble some of the "nuggets" that are relevant here.
The paper in question is titled,
Where do winds come from?
A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences
atmospheric pressure and dynamics.
Authors
A. M. Makarieva, V. G. Gorshkov, D. Sheil, A. D. Nobre, and B.-L. Li.

(I certainly find the Air Vent threads and comments a little easier to read...)

2) Time steps - Different lengths of time steps are used in the same model for different things, hence some time steps take longer to calculate than others...
" However, some things in the atmosphere change more rapidly than others, and so need to be calculated more frequently.
So, for example, the dynamics (essentially the movement of the air) needs to be calculated every half hour, but
the radiation (the balance of incoming and outgoing energy) can be calculated less frequently.
This is why, if you watch the model running, it seems to complete some time steps much more quickly than others.
"
This also explains why the models can not model hurricanes, the air simply moves too fast in reality for the models to deal with in their resolution of virtual reality.


3) The unmentioned resolution issue. Resolution is only talked about in relation to grid square size, but,
resolution could also be altered by increasing time step sizes.
This is implied but not actually mentioned most obviously when "regional versions" of the models are briefly described.
ie,
" The most obvious difference is the resolution. Figure 1 shows the difference in resolution over the British Isles;
the resolution we are using would obviously be of no use at all for telling people how much it was going to rain in Manchester (for example).
"
Note how what time of day it will rain in Manchester is not mentioned.


4) The combining of resolution and time step issues.
This just made me, well, smile...
" The coupled model runs asynchronously, which means that the atmosphere model runs first for some time
then the ocean model runs for some time, taking turns.
In the case of the model used in the climateprediction.net experiment, the individual components run for one day at a time.

Fluxes of heat, wind, and freshwater are passed between the ocean model and the atmosphere model at the ocean-atmosphere interface.
"
Which presumably means "passed between" once a day....

So, even after just a quick read through of this one CPDN page I think it is obvious that
the climate models have some very difficult problems with themselves to address.
i) The models model a flat surface.
ii) The constraints of the surface modeled, resolution, time steps and scale mean that the models can not model,
hurricanes, the Indian monsoon, rain shadows, Fohn type winds, etc, etc, etc.

I will delve further to try to shed more light on my main interest though,
the "shape" actually modeled issue. Which will, if the shape modelled is other than a globe, by default lead to other modelling omissions obviously.
It does look promising though, I have to say, though I may have to "revolve" my curved disc suggestion, just because the models appear to do so, visually only that is.
Which again, seems most likely to be misdirection on their part, rather than for good modelling reasons to me.
with the emphasis on whether climate models rotate the earth realistically, you may find this movie interesting...
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/cl...video.html
:lol:

Just to put CPDN and it's climate models specifically for home computers into a more realistic perspective..
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/cl...dels2.html
Excerpt,
" There are various types of climate models. Some focus on certain things that affect climate such as the atmosphere or the oceans.
Models that look at few variables of the climate system may be simple enough to run on a personal computer.
Other models take into account many factors of the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere
to model the entire Earth system. They take into account the interactions and feedbacks between these different parts of the planet.
Earth is a complex place and so many of these models are very complex too.
They include so many math calculations that they must be run on supercomputers, which can do the calculations quickly.
All climate models must make some assumptions about how the Earth works, but in general,
the more complex a model, the more factors it takes into account, and the fewer assumptions it makes.
"
Underlining and size my emphasis.

I think there maybe a game of smoke and mirrors going in modelling circles, and the public descriptions of the models.
The CPDN models seem to have quite a small / fine resolution at first glance, but then
it becomes a little less clear how fine the "resolution" actually is.

Time steps appear to be down to 30 minutes, but in fact are up to 1 day in some cases, and maybe longer I do not know.
It is not stated if the ocean coupling is the longest process time step.
So, is the resolution the smallest time step employed by a model or the longest, I would suggest the longest.

I also notice the grid square size is not given in kilometers or miles, but in degrees of longitude and latitude.
" The resolution is 2.5° in latitude by 3.75° in longitude. "
I can see that this is actually a more accurate way to describe the squares on a globes surface, but
what is the size of the grid squares in units of distance "we" would be familiar with?
This excerpt gives a clue,
" in the climateprediction.net model, there are only 4 grid boxes over the British Isles. "
and this helps as well,
" The complete ocean model used by the climateprediction.net experiment 2 in fact
has the same horizontal resolution (2.5° in latitude by 3.75° in longitude) as the atmosphere, and 20 vertical levels,
with finer vertical resolution near the surface.
"

In the end the CPDN models appear to have a rather too large scale, or too low a resolution to be of any use really.
The assumptions hidden in the scaling of the models resolution are enormous when you think about them.

I have just found this page at CPDN..
http://climateprediction.net/content/reg...ate-models

Excerpt,
" Regional Climate Models

RCMs work by increasing the resolution of the GCM in a small, limited area of interest.
An RCM might cover an area the size of western Europe, or southern Africa - typically 5000km x 5000km.
The full GCM determines the very large scale effects of changing greenhouse gas concentrations, volcanic eruptions etc. on global climate.
The climate (temperature, wind etc.) calculated by the GCM is used as input at the edges of the RCM.
RCMs can resolve the local impacts given small scale information about orography (land height), land use etc.,
giving weather and climate information at resolutions as fine as 50 or 25km.

In regions where the land surface is flat for thousands of kilometres, and there is no ocean anywhere near,
the coarse resolution of a GCM may be enough to accurately simulate weather changes. However,
most land areas have mountains, coastlines, changing vegetation characteristics etc. on much smaller scales, and
RCMs can represent the effects of these on the weather much better than GCMs.
"

It seems the different model types use both grid square size, and time step "size" to adjust the models resolution.
Yet, only grid square size is mentioned in this regard.
Obviously the larger the grid square the more that is omitted, and this equally, or more so applies to the "size" of the time steps used by a model.
Given the time steps used (effectively at least 1 day, it maybe more), and the grid square size employed by the CPDN models
they are obviously very crude models, with much omitted, and many assumptions not mentioned having been made....

One last observation / query for today..
Looking through everything today I still can not see anywhere where the grid square size as displayed is definitely adjusted for longitude and latitude.
All the depictions seem to show squares laid over a curved, or a globes surface, and do not appear to be corrected for latitude and longitude.
ie, the squares are displayed on a globe, or curved surface for visual effect but appear to be a flat and regularly sized square "shape".

This again strongly points to my disc curved over a half cylinder suggestion as to the "shape" that is actually modelled.

I have also found in my travels today a copy of the Nature article mentioned in this article at the NIPCC website.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010...010a1.html
How Good Are Current Climate Models?
A pdf version of Kevin Trenberth's Nature article More knowledge less certainty, is attached to this post for reference.


Attached Files
.pdf   More knowledge, less certainty. Kevin Trenberth Feb 2010.pdf (Size: 343.47 KB / Downloads: 333)
.pdf   Where do winds come from - A M Makarieva.pdf (Size: 714.07 KB / Downloads: 351)
Reply
#24
This from the CPDN page I linked to earlier was bugging me.
" The resolution is 2.5° in latitude by 3.75° in longitude. "
Is this describing a square? As is so commonly depicted.

So, I visited,
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/b...degree.htm
Excerpt,
" What is the distance between a degree of latitude and longitude?
Degrees of latitude are parallel so the distance between each degree remains almost constant but
since degrees of longitude are farthest apart at the equator and converge at the poles, their distance varies greatly.

Each degree of latitude is approximately 69 miles (111 kilometers) apart.
The range varies (due to the earth's slightly ellipsoid shape) from
68.703 miles (110.567 km) at the equator to 69.407 (111.699 km) at the poles.
This is convenient because each minute (1/60th of a degree) is approximately one mile.

A degree of longitude is widest at the equator at 69.172 miles (111.321) and gradually shrinks to zero at the poles.
At 40° north or south the distance between a degree of longitude is 53 miles (85 km).
"

Which according to my simple maths makes sums for the gridded squares of -
2.5° (in latitude) x 3.75° (in longitude)
Interestingly at 40° north or south the figure for the distance between degrees of longitude is 85 kilometers.
So, I maybe wrong here, but my suggestion for working out the sizes of the "squares" modelled
as defined by CPDN in their climate models is as follows..

Equator
(2.5 x 110.567) by (3.75 x 111.321) = 276.4175 by 417.45375 kilometers

40° north or south
(2.5 x 111) by (3.75 x 85) = 277.5 by 318.75 kilometers

at the poles
(2.5 x 111.699) by (3.75 x 0) = 279.2475 by 0 kilometers

i) None of the above are "squares", they are all rectangles.

ii) Given the depictions of the modelled gridded systems,
it would appear to me that a "middle of the road" option, ie, 277.5 by 318.75 kilometers (in the CPDN models case)
has simply been applied to an area equivalent to the earths surface area.
When plotted on a flat surface (as modelled) next to each other, this would produce a flat disc shape.
Presumably this is a common approach used by all the climate models,
the size of the "square" (which is a rectangle) is merely smaller in higher resolution climate models.

Again once each latitude is corrected for the angle at which sun's radiation is received at,
then we come back to a smooth surfaced disc "shape" that is curved vertically into a half cylinder shape in cross section.
When displayed after being wrapped around a rotating globe (for visual effect), it is quite convincing that you are looking at a modelled globe,
when actually you are looking at a curved disc, merely wrapped around a spinning globe for visual effect..

What is modelled (in my area of interest, particularly the "shape") and,
what is displayed for (and in my opinion to intentionally mislead) you,
is not necessarily the same thing (particularly in regards of the "shape").


Later addition - Given CPDN define their models resolution as a grid size of " 2.5° in latitude by 3.75° in longitude. "
AND,
the example CPDN gives is,
" This is why, in the climateprediction.net model, there are only 4 grid boxes over the British Isles. "
In Figure 1 from the CPDN description it is illustrated that 3 (equally sized!!!!) boxes cover the area of roughly from Bristol to the top of Scotland.
This should be, according to CPDN's description (2.5 x 3) 7.5 degrees of latitude.
OK, so I can now go and find out the appropriate lines of latitude numbers and try to work out the actual size of the "squares" used in the CPDN models.
Will this
i) produce squares as is so clearly depicted,
if so,
ii)does this also show that this one size of square has been applied globally by CPDN,
and it this approach / method as is appeared to be described a modeling "norm".....

Back asap with results.
Some time later...

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54158.html
Circumference at a Given Latitude
Excerpt,
" = (equatorial circumference) * cos(L). "

http://www.mapsofworld.com/lat_long/unit...ong-b.html
Latitude and Longitude of Important Cities in United Kingdom
Bristol, City of 51°27'N

John o' Groats 58°38'N 03°04'W minus (3 squares) 7 .5 degrees is 51.08, or, minus (2 squares) is 53.38, or minus (one square) 2.5 is 56.08
so,
3 squares south from John o' Groats = Quantock Hills 51°08'N (way down south, south even of London 51°30'N)
2 squares south from John o' Groats = Rochdale 53°38'N (just, North of Oldham....)
1 square south from John o' Groats = Somewhere between Alloa 56°07'N and, Forth 56°09'N. ie, Loch Lomond (village) 56°08'N

For ease of calculation (all moved by 8 minutes south from the above given examples of towns)
what is the length of a line of 3.75 degrees longitude at the different latitudes of,
51°, 53°30', 56°, and 58°30'.?

Latitude......Cosine....Longitude length.......x 3.75
51.............0.6293..........70.053.............262.700 kilometers
53.5..........0.5948...........66.213.............248.298 kilometers
56.............0.5592...........62.250.............233.437 kilometers
58.5..........0.5225...........58.164.............218.117 kilometers

So top to bottom of the CPDN's supposed modelled "squares" the lengths are all different according to their own given definition.
The CPDN models appear not to be modelling "squares".

The sides of whatever shape is actually being modelled are reasonably even at,
2.5 x 111 = 277.5 kilometers.

BUT, nowhere on planet earth will the definition given by CPDN make a "square",
because there will always be a difference between the length of the top and the bottom of the gridded cell.
Yet clearly the illustration given by CPDN is of modelled "squares", see figure 1.
If the illustration given is correct and "squares" are modelled,
then the CPDN definition of it's models resolution is wrong.
But it could be just a "the projection type used in the illustration" issue,
as Figure 2 seems to point to.
Whichever of the above is correct, does not explain why the differences that are so apparent, whether they exist or not.
There are also raised further questions about how do the models handle the reducing size (in volume and surface area) of the grid cells with increasing latitude from the equator.


NB - I do realise that the earth is actually eliptoid in shape, ie,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Excerpt,
" 40,075.017 km (equatorial)[7]
40,008.00 km (meridional)[10]
"
Which will effect my calculations somewhat.
As I understand at present the discrepancy is a lot smaller (less than 1%) than the differences my calculations have highlighted.
If anyone knows how I can correct my excel sheet calculations attached, please let me know how to, and I will happily do so.


Attached Files
.xlsx   Latitude calculations Derek March 2011.xlsx (Size: 29.75 KB / Downloads: 311)
Reply
#25
Having found out how to calculate the circumference at a given latitude,
it then became quite easy to do one or two other calculations.
Firstly, having worked out the length of the cell division at each latitude,
one could divide the globes circumference at that latitude by the length of each cell, and at every latitude I get 96 cells.
So, the figures appear to add up.

It may well be that the illustrations are of a primitive "cylinder" projection, so the illustrations given by CPDN, and the Hadley Centre appear to be "squares",
when in reality they are not.
However, now the length of a cell can be calculated for each latitude, then times that length by 96 gives all the cells on that latitudes length added together.
Again a check as such, but it does make an interesting plot..
I first divided the resulting total length for each latitude by two to make plotting easier.
I assumed the cells start at the equator, and go north and south in 2.5 degree steps, finishing at 87.5 degrees.

[Image: ShapeofCPDNoriginalplot.jpg]

How the last bit is modelled (from 87.5 degrees to 90 degrees) I have not a clue, so I have left the top of my plot flat.
CPDN / modelling may use a different starting point, so far I have not found this out.
It maybe a line of 96 cells of a cosine for 88.75 is used.
If Stieg had anything to do with it, they may have just used one "big square", with a hidden volcano in it..LOL.

From the above plot it is quite simple to copy and paste it, "flip it" and fit them together to get a complete plot, as below.

[Image: ShapeofCPDN1.jpg]

I then simply outlined the "shape" depicted, and coloured it in, as below.

[Image: ShapeofCPDN2.jpg]

With the reservations as I have already described, the above is my best understanding at present of the "shape" that is actually modelled.
I think this would apply to all climate models.

Now, how do the climate models correct for the angle at which solar radiation is received?
An equally distributed P divided by 4 does not explain an equator or poles does it, that the models apparently model.





Reply
#26
OK, so the above plot is not actually perfectly correct, but it is pretty close to what I understand is the flat shape that is modelled.
How do I correct what needs to be corrected, AND how do I illustrate how I understand the disc shape modelled is curved?

Well, it occurs to me to use an approach I have previously used in my "tangerine projection" of how to view the world oceans, that some may remember from here.

[Image: TE.jpg]

I am not sure now if the appropriate thread was on the old forum, so is no longer available, but
the photobucket folder is still a public one.
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...20project/
Photobucket - DerekJohn photos - Tangerine project.

I think in the case of climate modelling it should be possible to use the "technique" in reverse to
produce a 2 page pdf that could be printed off, and then,
in the best traditions of Blue Peter (UK), and Sesame Street (USA) you could
make your own model of what the climate models actually model "shape" wise..
Maybe you could stand in the middle of a room and rotate your model, and see if
the visual trick employed by climate modelling (wrapping a disc around a globe, then spinning the resulting globe) to
display the models "output" is really quite as good, or convincing, as it has appeared to be, so far.

(Having a friend run around the outside of the room in time with your models revolving would help,
especially if they are dressed in a mock "sun" costume)
Reply
#27
I have taken CPDN's definition of cell size, ie,
" The resolution is 2.5° in latitude by 3.75° in longitude. "
and applied it to a "shape" that is a perfect sphere along a line of latitude,
and an even eliptoid alone a line of longitude.
(This does not account for earth tide, and is not absolutely correct, but I think it is "near enough")

From the above I have produced the below table in excel (attached to this post)
Ooops cell height wrong.. redoing table.
This is the corrected table.
[Image: CPDNCellareacorrectedtable.jpg]

Which if I "zoom in" shows the cell sizes as modelled according to CPDN's definition.
Ooops cell height wrong.. redoing table.
This is the corrected table.
[Image: CPDNCellareacorrected.jpg]

Not exactly "squares" are they, but that is probably the main effect (and reason why it is used) of
the primitive cylinder projection they use to show the gridding system of climate models.

As an initial "impression" the below is probably "more correct", as to the composite shape modelled alone a single line of longitude from Equator to Pole.
(repeated 96 times in each hemisphere)
Ooops cell height wrong.. redoing table.
Image not complete yet, but this plot is hopefully useful in the meantime.
[Image: CPDNCellareaplot.jpg]


Before I go further I will have to check that what I have done so far is correct, and
that the Poles in particular are handled by the models as the CPDN definition seems to imply (to me).
However, Figure 1 attributed thusly " [Figure courtesy of the Hadley Centre] " on the CPDN explanation page
appears to show one of the cell lines at what I interpret as 51.25 degrees North? Rather than 50 or 52.5 degrees North.
If so, then presumably there is one cell straddling the equator, and
what happens with the resulting 1.25 degrees at the poles is not explained.
It could be the regional models use a different base line to start from, and
this may account for the apparent difference in the illustration to the definition given by CPDN of at what latitude the cell line should / could be at.
Literally the illustration depicts the cells as about half a cell out (approx 1/2 a cell hieght) from,
their actual modelled positions according to CPDN's definition as given, vertically speaking.


Attached Files
.xls   Updated CPDN cell area calcs Derek Mar 2011.xls (Size: 203 KB / Downloads: 349)
Reply
#28
Checking what I have done so far is not as easy as it may first appear it should be...
Elsewhere "things" are not going well.

However, I am progressing, sort of..

Other "things" of immense interest / relevance overall are also intervening..

TIME STEPS
Something else has occurred to me in this respect.
If the lowest common denominator time step used in the CPDN model is half an hour, as they state,
and,
the cell size is 3.75 degrees longitude, ie 417.44809375 kilometers at the equator.
THEN
In 24 hours, or rather 48 time steps, the models have rotated a distance of cell length times 48 time steps,
which is,
417.45 x 48 = 20037.5085 kilometers.

According to Wiki as stated earlier,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Excerpt,
" 40,075.017 km (equatorial)[7]
40,008.00 km (meridional)[10]
"

40,075.017 divided by 20037.5085 = Exactly 2.....
The CPDN model appears to have the earth rotating at half a revolution per 24 hours.....
Is this proof that the models actually model a constant solar irradiance?
AND,
that the models do not model actual day or night at all.
Reply
#29
Quote:The CPDN model appears to have the earth rotating at half a revolution per 24 hours.....
Is this proof that the models actually model a constant solar irradiance?
AND,
that the models do not model actual day or night at all.

Does this mean that the models are not even trying to cover a true 24 hour earth rotation period.And therefore does NOT even know what the weather is doing at night?
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
#30
In all honesty SST, I am not sure what it shows,
maybe (after a little further reflection) it just shows the cells jump laterally a cell distance per time step.

The fact the total distances did not tally in 24 hours shocked me,
and that the the difference is exactly half also seems odd.
I doubt I will be the only one who has to consider if it actually means anything though.

I feel an excel sheet coming on, that may show if there is any difference..
Again though that might only give the same answers calculated differently.
So, I think I am back at,
untill someone who understands what the models model explains how the models correct for solar radiation received at the earths surface per cell, per time step,
explains to me or us what is modelled then I and all of us are still left guessing as to what is actually modelled.

Maybe the usefulness of this is that it shows given the present explanations there are several possibilities for what is actually modelled.
Reply
#31
UPDATE - I have received an email from Richard S Courtney, as below.

You ask:
In a message dated 25/03/2011 19:57:47 GMT Standard Time,
Derek@hisemailaddress.com... writes:
This excerpt may help.
" until someone who understands what the models model explains how the models correct for solar radiation received at the earths surface per cell, per time step,
explains to me or us what is modelled then I and all of us are still left guessing at what is actually modelled.
"

I have been searching / asking as is my usual manner to no avail,

RSC -
Only the modelers can answer that by releasing their pertinent codes.
If you can get them to do it then many will be grateful.
But, simply, what they say they do is this.

Adopt a forcing at the tropopause provided by the solar flux at each grid point. Then,
determine the solar effect at each grid cell by running the program to iterate until quasi-stability is achieved.


Please note that this procedure must be wrong because if it were right then
each model would provide a correct value for global temperature,
but none of them does (which is why they report anomalies).

I hope this helps.


End of quote.

Boy, does that help, I mean WOW...
1) The models "start" from the top of troposphere and then model DOWN.
The resulting surface temperature is then modelled as radiating UP.
ie, the top of the troposphere is the starting point, NOT the earth's surface.
(Quite handy if you want to add "back radiation" in I suppose...)

2) The "point" system used for power of energy received is "averaged", or rather "averages".
A "nice" way to confuse matters..

If I have understood RSC's comment correctly then it is very enlightening, so,
I have posted it elsewhere to see the response.

Some responses follow, that I will not directly attribute to the person/s, but, the person/s are well known and "respected"..

Firstly a plot given in response.
[Image: JBPlotsolarinsolation.jpg]
Update - The source for the given plot has now been given as,
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Physical-Cl...279&sr=8-1
which is copy righted stuff.
Unfortunately I can not see the plot / explanation of it in the free previews of the book either.
Not that that seems to bother Science of Doom, presumably he has the appropriate permission..
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/26/find...k-reviews/
for me however I think it is better for me to delete the image, so I have..


And some comments..
" There is a very full account of what goes into the models in Chapter 8 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007.
Google for IPCC and you can download the Chapter.
"
:lol:
I replied - Really ****, that would appear to be news to many people,
who have obviously already looked there..

In response to RSC's quote of what modellers say they do,
" This is broadly true, but it is very difficult to give a full account in one sentence. "
:lol:

" In the GCMs the Earth rotates properly and in each grid cell time passes as it really does.
Essentially, the grids are represented by a K/T type arrangement of flux densities that changes with time.
The properties of the grids over the variety of atmospheric and oceanic strata are computed and that part is relatively straightforward.
There are difficulties entering the full physics and there are various parameterizations adopted and
these are one source of disparities between models.

The big problems are associated with how the grids interact with their immediate neighbours,
i.e., the general circulations in the atmosphere and the ocean.
"
I have to draw attention to -
" Essentially, the grids are represented by a K/T type arrangement of flux densities that changes with time. "
and,
" The properties of the grids over the variety of atmospheric and oceanic strata are computed and that part is relatively straightforward. "
:lol:
Which no one will explain, otherwise this discussion would not be ongoing / unanswerable yet....

All in all, the above represents some progress, but not much.
That said, given the explanations so far the models could still be modelling a "shape" that is,
a globe, a double hemisphere, a curved disc, or a flat disc.
The answers to date have not been clear enough to be able to determine which yet, which is "news" (nearer confirmation of what "we" suspected really) in itself.
Furthermore, it means that any ad homs on someone who questions the actual shape of what is modelled are ad homs because,
no one has to date given a clear enough description for us to be able to determine which "shape" is actually modelled.
Plainly K&T type plots do depict a flat disc (374 million miles away from the sun), that much we do know.
Some appear to be dishing out such ad homs to rubbish some people who question what shape is modelled and how,
also it appears that these ad homs are an attempt to undermine the credibility of the CO2 Dragon Slayers book and
authors specifically individually in this case and in the hope it will rub off on the whole.

Simply getting the modellers to release their pertinent codes would put it all to rest.
Elsewhere someone has suggested that,
" Not even in the Climategate mails themselves?
Mind you a 63 MB compressed file takes a while to read everything it contains
Wink "
Reply
#32
My apologies to all, Blush
Post 27 has had some major revisions when I noticed I had made a rather silly mistake.

I had calculated cell height by multiplying by 3.75, and not the proper 2.5.
I have corrected and posted the corrected plots and tables now.
One plot is still outstanding though. It will be posted asap.

Update - It occurs to me that I need to check thoroughly the latitude heights, and distances,
to see if I have used chords rather than great circle route distances.
(A great circle curve presumably also applies to the cells vertical sides and may effect area slightly.)
I am reasonably certain I have the cell base and top distances correct,
so I do not think any remaining errors will be large.
But, if they are there I will try to spot and correct them.

Some may have noticed the figure I used (1.910923408052) in the calculation V-T*U/1.910923408052, whilst calculating cell surface area.
("calculated" by long winded trial and error....)
This I think is not 2 because of the great circle route difference.
In the end the cell surface areas are only for a smooth surface, terrain makes the figures bigger.
- Think of a plain sheet of paper, it has a surface area.
Scrumple the sheet of paper up, and then open in out again, without smoothing it.
The sheet of paper has "terrain", and, covers a smaller surface area of the table top than the sheet of paper had before it was scrumpled up.
Therefore the Wiki quoted surface area for the globe must be a minimum surface area,
the real globe with terrain will have a bigger actual surface area..
That said, I will consider the excel sheet correct when I have checked the lat. and long. figures, and the cell surface areas, AND
that the cell surface areas sum up to the same as for the real (but smoothed presumably) global surface area quoted.
The table at present does actually do this, but I think there are a few detail changes that may be needed (as described) to check for first.
Reply
#33
(03-28-2011, 11:24 AM)Derek Wrote: Update - It occurs to me that I need to check thoroughly the latitude heights, and distances,
to see if I have used chords rather than great circle route distances.
(A great circle curve presumably also applies to the cells vertical sides and may effect area slightly.)
I am reasonably certain I have the cell base and top distances correct,
so I do not think any remaining errors will be large.
But, if they are there I will try to spot and correct them.

Whilst doing a bit of searching around I have come across,
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/srlocat.cgi
which worked yesterday...
From that I found,
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/SOLAR/SRERROR.TXT
Full excerpt,
" SRERROR.TXT 2000/03/28
Model ERRORs in calculating Solar Radiation at top of Atmosphere

Calculation for insolation in the Atmosphere-Ocean Model has
inaccuracies that should be kept in mind. These are roughly
ordered according to importance.

1. We assume the Earth revolves through its orbit in exactly 365 days.
2. We assume that the Vernal equinox always occurs on March 21, hour 0.
3. We calculate the Earth in its orbit only once a day.
4. Instead of integrating insolation over a GCM grid box, we integrate
insolation over a single latitude line within the box. That line
is the area weighted latitude of the box. This error causes global
insolation to increase by .0001 and is accentuated at the poles.
5. We keep the orbital parameters fixed during long runs.
6. We keep the meridion where the sun is overhead on noon Greenwich
mean time as the Greenwich meridion. (That meridion is calculated
but not used.)
7. We treat the Sun as a point; its radius does not affect our
distance to the sun.
8. We treat the Earth as a point; its radius does not affect the
distance to the sun.
9. We ignore the existence of the Moon, and assume that the center of
the Earth-Moon system is the center of the Earth.
10. We assume that the Earth is spherical.
11. We assume that the orbit is a perfect ellipse; other heavenly
bodies do not affect it.
12. We use Berger's orbital parameters.
"

It would appear that Point 10 has implications for my calculations, BUT,
I note it is dated 28th March 2000, so it maybe out of date?

Update - I have downloaded and will read Chapter 8 of the IPCC's AR4 report (attached to this post),
where any such improvements to the climate models should be described.
To date a quick glance through shows no such improvements, so
the errors described seem to be although old, quite correct of what is presently modeled.



Attached Files
.pdf   ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf (Size: 5.85 MB / Downloads: 329)
Reply
#34
I think it worth recapping on a couple of points.

Firstly in the SRERROR.TXT 2000/03/28 file above,
9. We ignore the existence of the Moon, and assume that the center of
the Earth-Moon system is the center of the Earth.


This would seem to almost entirely explain why David Dilley and his Global Warming Oscillations theory has been ignored.
Global Warming – Global Cooling.
Natural Cause Found Controls Climate Cycles
Free ebook.


In post 23,
4) The combining of resolution and time step issues.
This just made me, well, smile...
" The coupled model runs asynchronously, which means that the atmosphere model runs first for some time
then the ocean model runs for some time, taking turns.
In the case of the model used in the climateprediction.net experiment, the individual components run for one day at a time.

Fluxes of heat, wind, and freshwater are passed between the ocean model and the atmosphere model at the ocean-atmosphere interface.
"
Which presumably means "passed between" once a day....

Which might explain why my illustration
[Image: Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg]
is ignored, even though it is intuitively and obviously correct.
Literally, surface (land and ocean) heating, retention, and varying later release is totally ignored.

It seems whatever climate models do actually model is quite hard to discern,
further what can be discerned as modeled or not modeled is being made to blinker our mental approach, breadth of thinking,
and what is allowed to be considered, or not allowed to be considered.
This is many things, but what it most definitely is not, is scientific.
Beyond any doubt applying the scientific method (as described in post 1 on this thread) to climate models soon confirms this,
beyond any reasonable doubt.

The climate models are unrealistic, unphysical, and to date totally unreliable.
The climate models are also unverifiable.
So, climate models are unscientific, AND they have made the
modeling based / derived / extrapolated / etc / etc AGW climate science at present into something that is totally unscientific, hence,
many now refer to AGW, completely correctly, as a pseudo science.

Reply
#35
Quote:The climate models are unrealistic, unphysical, and to date totally unreliable.

Yes because the climate dynamics are not that well understood to be making realistic models on.

Quote:The climate models are also unverifiable.

Sure they are.

They have been proven wrong!

Big Grin

Quote:So, climate models are unscientific, AND they have made the
modeling based / derived / extrapolated / etc / etc AGW climate science at present into something that is totally unscientific, hence,
many now refer to AGW, completely correctly, as a pseudo science.

It is the use of climate modeling to create data,that are then used to create more climate models with.

That is pure stupidity.


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
#36
(04-10-2011, 04:04 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: It is the use of climate modeling to create data,that are then used to create more climate models with.

That is pure stupidity.

This reminds of a central point most have missed, that is central to the "shape" issue, most have also completely missed, and
that proves some have known for a long, long time that the whole of AGW
was, is, and has always been a deliberate fraud.

The central point I refer to is
dividing the power of solar insolation received at the top of the atmosphere by 4.
ie, 1368 W/m2 divided by 4 = 342 W/m2.

Why is this so obviously, and therefore was known all the time to be, wrong?
In my "shape" pdf and it's accompanying excel workbook I wrote,
" A disc and a sphere are obviously two different shapes,
yet most planets and stars are the same shape, namely a sphere.
However there is a basic difference between stars and planets,
that is commonly missed or ignored, (and frequently dismissed),
where does the energy at the objects surface “come from”. ???
A star (ie, our sun) produces the energy “in house” all over it’s surface, reasonably evenly.
A planet however mostly receives it’s surface energy (“surface” please see Joe Postma pdf)
from an external source, usually, and in the case of earth, from only one star (ie, our sun).
Does where the energy at the planet’s or stars surface come from make a difference to
how we should “view”, or rather attempt to “calculate” our planet’s climate system, or our sun’s surface temperature. ?
Yes, a massive difference.
In short,
Using a “disc world” figure in the star’s case is (probably) perfectly OK, but
in the planet’s case it is definitely, and completely wrong
"

Put another way, ANY astrophysicist WILL KNOW that to construct a model of earth's climate system,
that includes dividing P by 4 means,
you are assuming that what you are modelling can be approximated as
an atmosphere that is a plane-parallel system with some average input temperature.
That is correct for stars.
That can NOT be correct for the Earth.

[Image: PDIVIDEDBY4PLOT.jpg]

Stars emit evenly over their whole surface area.
Earth receives P as a planet, on only 50% of it's surface, over any and all timescales one could care to mention..
Therefore dividing P by 4 is wrong, because it immediately is using unphysical averages that do not apply in reality.

The often given "justification" by AGW for P / 4 is that the sceptic does not understand rotation of a planet.
This is incorrect, it is AGW that does not understand the meaningless averages P / 4 inevitably generates and uses.
(As I noted earlier in Post 34 with the use of time steps and atmosphere / ocean interactions
which are only allowed to happen in models once every 24 hours....)
It is one of the greatest circular arguments that AGW has got away with for such a very, very long time.
But hopefully not for much longer.

This is literally a case of the earth is not a star, IT IS A PLANET...


Reply
#37
Thread "stuck".
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
#38
Might as well add my personal wrinkle. Carbon dioxide is identified by three emission/absorption lines, 2.7, 3.4 and 15 micron bands.

All three bands absorb when the sun is shining. 50% up 50% down means those three bands of sunlight are reduced by half.

At night only the 15 micron band is active. (check temperature range of bands) So again 50% up 50% down but this time in a band that covers a vastly lower radiation temperature band (think power).

So my dumbo reasoning tells me CO2 is some 90% more effective at reducing incoming sunlight than reducing outgoing long wave.

CO2 cools the planet. Q.E.D.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Considered comments and questions rising from getting the maths pdf. Derek 31 42,865 05-20-2012, 03:06 AM
Last Post: Derek
  Considered comments and questions arising from In equals Out, or else BOOOM pdf. Derek 1 5,187 01-19-2012, 10:52 AM
Last Post: Derek
  A critical and mostly overlooked issue - Condensation of water vapour Derek 8 12,600 09-09-2011, 01:28 PM
Last Post: Derek
  What is the shape of earth's atmospheric diurnal bulge? Derek 0 9,589 08-18-2011, 12:05 AM
Last Post: Derek
  The free to ALL "shape" issue pdf. - Derek. Derek 2 9,978 12-19-2010, 12:50 PM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)