Atmospheric Models

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: As it applies to so many things...

Post by MSimon »

Mumbles wrote:
drmike wrote:It might also be that the model is totally wrong.
You nailed it. It might be wrong. Or, the 'other' model might be wrong...

And your statement is applicable in so many different contexts! Gotta love it!

[That is why we want to actually build a polywell prototype. That is why we want physical proof that something works or doesn't, and which factors really influence the reaction.]
---------------
(Having said that, the converse is that 'It might be that the model is right." Which is what we base science and reasoning on - developing models, using them to make predictions and testing them out with repeatable experiments. If the predictions are consistently correct, we slowly gain faith in the accuracy of the model. If the predictions are consistently wrong, it is time to start over...

Be Safe
Mumbles
So far the CO2 warming model prediction value is zero. The sun driver model is doing a lot better. And that is totally crude. Which is actually and advantage.

"give me four adjustable parameters, and I can fit an elephant, give me five, and I can fit the tail".

There are hundreds of parameterized adjustments in current Climate Models.

We can start with clouds/water vapor in which the models use a range of values and positive and negative signs.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

MSimon wrote:
Roger wrote:
MSimon wrote: How come they didn't predict a 10 year stall in temps (I never heard about it - did you?).
Would that be a non linear effect?
Predictions:

2005 - hottest year ever - didn't happen
2006 - hottest year ever - didn't happen
2007 - hottest year ever - didn't happen

Latest prediction - up to 5 years of stalled temps or cooling. BTW despite increasing human produced CO2 current years CO2 has fallen off the trend line. Attributed to ocean cooling.

CO2 trend line

So it is possible that atmospheric CO2 has little to do with man and more to do with climate - i.e. it is a response not a forcing.

Let me add that the sunspots have not returned (so far all we have are remnants of the last cycle). And some solar scientists are predicting a Dalton Minimum type ice age.

So far the solar guys have a better prediction record than the CO2 folks.

As I say. I'm sceptical of everything. CO2 could be a forcing, but the weight of evidence seems against it.

Usually when the hysteria gets the greatest a shift is about to take place. Now I don't want to discuss politics but you see the same thing in that arena. Hysteria peaks and then disillusion sets in.
Just to bring it back to your attention.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Antarctic ice area

Post by bcglorf »

MSimon provided some links before to support record Antarctic ice area in winter 2007. I wasn't able to find a hard reference in the article but google led me to some NASA data hosted at the University of Illinios, you can check it out [url=htp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg]here.[/url]

I was a little surprised to see MSimon make the claim that Antarctic ice area was at a record high since satellite data was available since he is usually so thorough and I'd not come across the fact earlier. I'm gonna punch the next guy that rants about how arctic ice melt is strong evidence for GW with that link, thanks(again) MSimon.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Antarctic ice area

Post by MSimon »

bcglorf wrote:MSimon provided some links before to support record Antarctic ice area in winter 2007. I wasn't able to find a hard reference in the article but google led me to some NASA data hosted at the University of Illinios, you can check it out [url=htp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg]here.[/url]

I was a little surprised to see MSimon make the claim that Antarctic ice area was at a record high since satellite data was available since he is usually so thorough and I'd not come across the fact earlier. I'm gonna punch the next guy that rants about how arctic ice melt is strong evidence for GW with that link, thanks(again) MSimon.
Thanks!

I have most people at a disadvantage since I'm nominally retired (until I get the Polywell call - or if I get the call). So I can spend 12 hrs a day studying what interests me.

I started studying the stuff at Climate Audit and it looked to me like the warmists were cooking the books to increase their access to funding streams.

Bad statistics, bad data, bad models. And a willingness to shade the truth (at best) convinced me that something was not right.

At this point I see CO2 as a dependent variable (which tends to some extent to be a positive feedback with a small contribution). All the hysteria depends on water vapor/clouds being a positive feedback mechanism. Latest data points in the negative feedback direction.

Which means you can probably divide the estimates by 3 or 4 and come up with a more reasonable number.

However, that is all moot if solar output is in a declining phase. Which appears to be the case.

We no longer keep crop reserves for the seven lean years because we thought warming would go on indefinitely. We are now seeing wide spread crop failures not to mention, significant political failures. (Zimbabwe).

In addition to keep food prices from rising many grain producing countries are restricting exports muting price signals. Which will prevent additional crops from being planted (commensurate with market signals). So the steps being taken will make matters worse.

All this will make starvation more wide spread. All from a series of stupid moves including using crop land to produce auto fuel. Which was done to reduce the CO2 footprint of autos. All for a scare which is very likely a fraud.

The warmists will have a lot to answer for when the truth becomes self evident to 70 to 80% of the population. It will discredit sloppy science (good) with a spill over into real science (bad).

Waves of stupidity are nothing new. It is human nature.

BTW the enviros used to hate nuke power. Not so much any more. They are even turning around re: oil companies. Better late than never.

Simon
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Re: Antarctic ice area

Post by dch24 »

MSimon wrote:We no longer keep crop reserves for the seven lean years because we thought warming would go on indefinitely. We are now seeing wide spread crop failures not to mention, significant political failures. (Zimbabwe).
Just for the record, most local stores where I live that used to carry 50 lb bags of wheat flour are out. You can get unground wheat, but we are already facing food shortages. Right. Now.

Not to worry, though... prime time TV news says we're doing fine. :roll:

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Antarctic ice area

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:I started studying the stuff at Climate Audit and it looked to me like the warmists were cooking the books to increase their access to funding streams.

Bad statistics, bad data, bad models. And a willingness to shade the truth (at best) convinced me that something was not right.
It was a bit more prosaic for me. I finally found out about Global Cooling (I was doing my goo goo gaa gaas at the time) and, well, the opposite effects from the same mechanism, a mechanism widely demonized as virtually "evil?"

It screamed agenda.

Branched out to the data given that impetus.
MSimon wrote:We no longer keep crop reserves for the seven lean years because we thought warming would go on indefinitely. We are now seeing wide spread crop failures not to mention, significant political failures. (Zimbabwe).

In addition to keep food prices from rising many grain producing countries are restricting exports muting price signals. Which will prevent additional crops from being planted (commensurate with market signals). So the steps being taken will make matters worse.

All this will make starvation more wide spread. All from a series of stupid moves including using crop land to produce auto fuel. Which was done to reduce the CO2 footprint of autos. All for a scare which is very likely a fraud.
Zimbabwe destroyed itself. Anywhere in Subsaharan Africa is pretty hopeless. I'm not overly concerned about crop failure effects and starvation in the Second and First Worlds. The Third World may be SOL.
MSimon wrote:The warmists will have a lot to answer for when the truth becomes self evident to 70 to 80% of the population. It will discredit sloppy science (good) with a spill over into real science (bad).
If you hold to the Metahistorical models of history, that is virtually inevitable as the vital phase of a society passes. Most think it will begin with contempt for the various navel-gazing "social sciences" and proceed from there, but Global Warmingism may well be the trigger.

I do hope we get to a workable and credible GUT before the reputation of and support for scholarship collapses. And I have no respect for the metaphysics called "strings." String/ Brane/ M Theory is easy to validate so long as you have a particle accelerator the diameter of the galaxy. Otherwise, not so much.
MSimon wrote:BTW the enviros used to hate nuke power. Not so much any more. They are even turning around re: oil companies. Better late than never.

Simon
A Polish web friend of mine recently pointed out that when something reaches the crescendo of hysteria, you can usually be sure its on the cusp of being finished as an issue. Public exhaustion hits and there's a general "screw it all" reaction. Seems to be an up-spike in climate alarmism of late.

Duane
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

It peaked when Gore got the Nobel.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:It peaked when Gore got the Nobel.
I read that as another Jimmah Carter Nobel - a "screw the Bushies" statement of self-righteousness.

But all the "solve the climate crisis" and "oil is now green" commercials on tv of late are getting my attention.

Duane
Vae Victis

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

. I'm not overly concerned about crop failure effects and starvation in the Second and First Worlds.
Of course, these are not real concerns. The claims are always local and hypothetical (i.e. "area x may no longer be able to grow crop y"), because it's been long established that the overall effects of greenhouse warming (higher CO2 levels and higher temps) increase crop output: more rain, more CO2, longer growing seasons.

Ever notice people grow things in greenhouses?

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

About this lagging of CO2 behind climate change. There's a graph showing the two meassurements for the past 400,000 years

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2007/04/ ... rming.html

I'm not a climate scientist but I can see by eye that from 370,000 years ago to 340,000 years ago the CO2 rise leads the rise in temperature, after it peak at 330,000 years it then lags the fall in temperature until 250,000 years before present, at which point it leads the rise in temperature until 240,000 years ago where it peaks, it then lags the fall until 230,000 years and leads the subsequent rise at 220,000 years, it then lags the fall until 150,000 years before present where by it leads the rise in temperatures until 135,000 years, it then lags the fall until about thirty thousand years ago and leads the most recent rise up until the present.


If I was to be unbiased I would say that CO2 levels show a certain degree of correlation with temperature, but it is unclear which is the cause of which. I certainly don't see evidence that CO2 levels always lag temperature rises, it anything they seems to lead rises in temperature and lag temperature falls.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Prediction throuth Chaos.

Post by Helius »

Chaos dictates that we should put very little faith in climate models. We don't know what all the variables are, much less any details of projecting states in the future through the interrelationship of the variables.

We can count on the individual variables, however. We know this:
An increase in the level of CO2 will cause the thermal radiation budget of the planet to rebalance at a higher temperature.... Global warming.

The only way this is denied is to start adding variables to the CO2 levels, then claim that their "model" predicts on the other side of a chaotic system. We shouldn't count on any model. We should only trust the variables that we know.

Take one variable at a time, hold the others constant.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Helius,

No reputable scientists that I know of doubts that CO2 rise increases temperature.

The sceptics camp says about 1 deg C or less for a CO2 doubling with a time constant of around 5 years. The warmist camp says 3 deg C to 8 deg C (due to water vapor amplification) with a time constant of 20 to 40 years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

David_Jay
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Post by David_Jay »

Has anyone been following the discussions (CA and RC) about the Douglas paper?

The characteristic fingerprint of AGW is that the Troposphere warms faster than the surface. Only problem is, actual temperature measurements show that the surface is warming faster than the Troposphere.

The alarmist position: If you take the error bars of all of the models together, the actual temperatures are within the range of the projections, so the models haven't been proven wrong!

I love non-falsifiability :lol:
not tall, not raving (yet...)

Post Reply