A Lid for the Can of Worms. Good Heavens, We'll Freeze to Death! 41

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

Take that, Mr. Gore.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

TGS4,
Great description of the difficulties. As you say, F does equal m*a. That is a mathematical model of the force of an impact. Now run that for every droplet of water in a hurricane (oh yeah, you have zero basis for the number of droplets in a hurricane, so make something up). Now add a random interaction between droplets at random angles and random velocities. Now predict how many of those droplets will coalesce and how many will become aerosols. Now include the buoyant forces on the aerosols. Now include the F=ma term for a coalesced droplet hitting a buoyant aerosol droplet and coalescing, or maybe exploding (there are statistical models to help predict the likelihood of either). Run it a hundred billion times until it converges with your pre-defined results. Run the simulation 24 hours a day for 30-40 days and then multiply the result times zero and add the right answer. And these guys have the effrontery to argue over whether the warming will be 1.8 or 1.85 C in 40 years. Yep it is just like basting a turkey.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[SomptingGuy]

Moving into my area now. Hate the politics, but love the maths. Specially when they spill into simulation.

- Steve

 

[cvg]

or to dumb it down

"all computer models are wrong, some are useful"

 

[zdas04]

cvg,
That is a quote I can get behind.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - so you don't do numerical methods/numerical simulations. Understood.

I don't think that you even understand how they work, let alone what it takes to get a correct answer. I have run numerical simulations for all sorts of things, both FEA and CFD. No, you don't need to model every single molecule - not only is the suggestion absurd, we DON'T KNOW the physics responsible for the transition from individual molecules to a continuum fluid.

These climate models are NOT just discretizations of PDEs. Not even close. Sure, some of the physical processes contained in the control volumes may be described by PDEs, but many of the processes cannot. The cloud example is perfect - we (the current state of science) doesn't really understand why clouds form into discrete fluffy-white cloud (think cumulus clouds on a summer day). Some may point to Lorenz attractors in chaos space, others have other opinions, but the reality is that we don't know.

But, since you, 2dye4, have no knowledge of the kind of computational simulation that I am talking about, I think that you are a little outta your league. There's a reason that people with real-world computational simulation experience are so skeptical of the "mainstream" climate model-worshipping. But, I get it - you don't really know what I'm talking about - some of these concepts may be a little over your pay-grade.

So, why my focus on clouds? Well, the albedo difference between tropical clouds forming at 1pm vs 2pm is sufficient from a W/m² perspective to overwhelm any "forcing" from CO2. If any simulation can't get clouds right (and even the IPCC puts the confidence level in understanding clouds as "low"), well then it's error margin must be pretty high.

 

[SomptingGuy]

zdas04

Dave, Just add a third order term.

- Steve

 

[cvg]

excellent dissertation on hydrologic models and accuracy

http://books.google.ca/books?id=yVm...=onepage&q=hydrologist jokes how many&f=false

 

[TGS4]

Remember the important number is the overall climate temperature. It is by nature an averaged value so the swings of heat around the globe, which are zero sum transfers when taken together are just not necessary to proclaim an expected mean forcing due to CO2.

I'm going to assume that you, as an engineer, have some training in thermodynamics/heat transfer. Focusing solely on the atmosphere first, we have air temperatures that range between -89.2°C (Russian Vostok Station in Antartica on July 21, 1983) and 56.7°C (Furnace Creek Ranch (formerly Greenland Ranch), in Death Valley, California, United States on July 10, 1913). At the extreme end of that temperature range, the air is likely quite dry. However, in the intermediate range, the RH can vary from ~7% to 100%. The specific heat capacity of humid air is thus 1.005 + 1.82H where 1.005 kJ/kg*K is the heat capacity of dry air, 1.82 kJ/kg*K the heat capacity of water vapor, and H is the specific humidity in kg water vapor per kg dry air in the mixture. In a strict sense, knowing the temperature and RH, we can measure the heat (in J) contained in the atmosphere. Calculating that by an average temperature does not achieve that end. And yet, somehow, that is the measure used. Does this not trouble you in the slightest?

The other issue that I have with your statement is that the outward radiation loss is governed by the absolute temperature to the fourth power. Using an average temperature totally destroys the nuances in this heat transport. No, swings of "heat" around the globe are not zero sum. There is continual transport of energy into and out of the system. Your "average temperature", in fact varies quite a lot over the seasons - the higher proportion of landmass in the northern hemisphere being responsible for a less-stable condition. Do you really understand that the reason that temperatures are presented as anomalies is because if they were presented as actual quantities (not seasonally-adjusted), the "signal" would be lost in the noise.

This static/stasis assumption on your part is so unbelievably wrong, all I can do is shake my head. For all the climate models have wrong with them, at least they are trying to not make this mistake.

 

[JJPellin]

Perhaps we should focus on the facts that can be demonstrated without the use of any models:

CO2 levels are rising drastically.
The CO2 increases are a result of the combustion of fossil fuels.
CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.
The temperature of the atmosphere is increasing.
The temperature of the oceans is increasing.
Ocean levels are rising because of the expansion of water as it gets hotter and because of ice melting.
Glaciers are receding.
Ice volumes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are dropping.
Oceans are becoming more acidic.
Permafrost is melting which releases Methane which is also a very strong greenhouse gas.

In combination, all of this makes sense. It fits together. It would be difficult to say that these points are true, but unrelated. All of these are demonstrable facts that do not require any climate models. As climate models get better, they may be very useful to help us understand what changes we should expect and how quickly those changes will occur. But, the climate models did not generate the facts that I have listed above. Global warming is a fact. It is occurring.

Johnny Pellin

 

[zdas04]

Johnny,
Let's take your "facts" one at a time
[ul]
[li]CO2 levels are rising drastically. They are rising. "Drastically" is a bit of an overstatement. [/li]
[li]The CO2 increases are a result of the combustion of fossil fuels.Nonsense, see below[/li]
[li]CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.So say the computer models. I don't accept that the computer models can prove anything and i find the greenhouse gas model to be seriously lacking.[/li]
[li]The temperature of the atmosphere is increasing.No it is not[/li]
[li]The temperature of the oceans is increasing.No they are not[/li]
[li]Ocean levels are rising because of the expansion of water as it gets hotter and because of ice melting.Mass of ice has increased this year at the fastest rate recorded. Ocean levels are not demonstrably increasing. Hell, the "climate scientists" can't even agree on how to state the sea level[/li]
[li]Glaciers are receding.Not really, many of them are advancing[/li]
[li]Ice volumes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are dropping.Increasing[/li]
[li]Oceans are becoming more acidic.Not according to the data I've seen[/li]
[li]Permafrost is melting which releases Methane which is also a very strong greenhouse gas.OK, so there is your vector for increasing atmospheric "greenhouse gases", it isn't mankind, but it is a powerful positive feedback loop in nature--temperatures rises, the permafrost melts, the captured organic material begins decomposition, the byproducts of decomposition feed the greenhouse effect, temperatures rise, more permafrost melts, we all die of boiling atmosphere in about 4 iterations of this loop. What poppycock. The organic mass in the permafrost is simply the strongest argument against greenhouse gases causing global warming that exists.[/li]
[/ul]

I find your list of "verifiable facts" to be anything but either "verifiable" or "facts". Most of them are the output from computer models, not the input. "Global warming" is anything but a fact and it is clearly not occurring. It is a media wet dream and is a fantasy that you and too many others have bought into. Consensus does not make it true, it just makes it "widely believed", which is as far from a proof as it is possible to be.


David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[KENAT]

JJPellin, they may not require models but they do require believing data sets that some believe have been adulterated.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[JJPellin]

CO2 is only believed to be a greenhouse gas because of computer models? This has been proven in laboratory experiments for over a century. Any of us could verify this in the lab with simple instruments. Have you heard about the clock that struck 13?

Johnny Pellin

 

[GregLocock]

"•CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas."

Depends how you measure it. It doesn't dominate the earth's greenhouse effect because there isn't very much of it. Water vapor is far more important (by a factor of 4 or so) due primarily to mass.

Other gases are much stronger greenhouse gases than CO2, but since they are present in even smaller quantities they don't matter as much.

As contributors methane and ozone and NOx are at least in the ballpark. That is, if you account for the 5 gases I've mentioned then you pretty much have the chemical side of things covered.

The global warming potential of water vapor per unit is only 1/10 that of CO2, but 1.96% of the atmosphere is water vapor, and 0.04% is CO2. So crudely we'd expect 5 times the contribution from water vapor than from CO2.

But this is all a bit silly, because the atmosphere is so thick that all the relevant incoming wavelengths get absorbed before they hit the ground, so adding more GHG to the mix has only a smaller (second order) effect, which is why the headline rate of CO2 contribution is quoted as a temperature change per doubling of CO2 level, rather than a linear relationship.








Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

JJPellin,
Are you saying that a lab-scale experiment will automatically scale up to global scale? There are a lot of things I've done in beakers that didn't work so well when I tried them in evaporation ponds. That is only a scale up of a few thousand times.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[2dye4]

How about coming at it from the other side.
CO2 is known to absorb infrared energy. Solar radiation entering the atmosphere is absorbed by CO2 making
it hotter. It absorbs infrared from the ground on its way out to space, again making it hotter.

What case can anybody make for CO2 not warming the atmosphere, and by obvious extension the surface of the Earth.

How could the Earth temperature be stable despite an increase in a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs IR energy and is warmed in the process.

BTW it is well known that if the Earths atmosphere did not trap heat it would be significantly cooler and we likely would not
be living here.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> What case can anybody make for CO2 not warming the atmosphere, and by obvious extension the surface of the Earth.
Here is just such a case from climate experts:
UK Meteorology Office numbers show Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years
From that article:

Professor Judith Curry agrees. She is one of America’s most eminent climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

"The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."

"When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years."

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering global temperature trends.

"Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.

It's clear, to me at least, that we don't know nearly as much as we think we do.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[2dye4]

Cajun

that is not what I meant. I mean from first principles ( physics and math ) explain how it could be that 100% of warming of the greenhouse gasses escapes back into space and therefore creates no warming.

I mean as we are engineers we are all experts at physics and math right ??

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - two words for you: feedback processes.

Your statement should be prefaced with "All other things being equal..". In which case, I would agree with you. But all else is not equal. In case you haven't noticed, our atmosphere is a rather dynamic system.

Of course, that's not something that your simple little, poorly-discretized simulations can model, either.

 

[cvg]

of course, certain gases, water vapor and other compounds absorb infrared energy. I dont think anybody is arguing that. however, with increased absorption you will have less energy reaching the ground which could reduce warming and reflectance. First principles are fine, but you need to consider all of the interactions, not just a few to get a complete picture. of course, this is one of the major drawbacks to every model I have seen. Algorithms are simplified because a) lack of data or b) lack of understanding of the process or c) lack of time or d) lack of computing power. Simplified models are easier to construct and run. However, the degree of simplification is often directly related to the degree of accuracy of the output.

 

[TenPenny]

Do you really believe climate models are designed to fit the data and not engineered from basic principles.

Absolutely, they are. It is impossible to build a mathematical model of the global climate based on 'basic principles', since even the scientists involved admit that they don't fully understand how one factor influences the global scheme, because it is so complex and not well understood. Models are developed, then tested by using existing data, then refined to give results that match observed data.