Connect with us

Climate related computer models.

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Eeyore, Nov 25, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    "Timothy Wootton, from Chicago University, said scientists found that
    acidity levels increased at more than 10 times the rate predicted by
    computer models designed to study the link between atmospheric
    concentrations of carbon dioxide and ocean acidity."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/acidic-seas-threaten-coral-and-mussels-1033805.html

    So if the computer models can be that far out one way, what's to say
    they're not as far out the other way about something else.

    And the IPCC case relies on this garbage.

    Graham
     
  2. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    You incorrectly presume I would promote agenda 2. For a host of reasons I am very pro energy efficiency
    for example. However constructing wind turbines which each require an identical amount of conventional
    fall-back generation for example or even worse damn PV Solar is plain crazy. It's attacking the effect
    not the cause and doing so in a massively expensive and wasteful way. It just shows how little the
    'greens' understand anything.

    Graham
     
  3. Fred

    Fred Guest

    This is old news. All the carbon dioxide is turn the seas into a big
    vat of carbonic acid.

    But, there's good news, sort of. Global warming is due to more than
    just humanities presence on the Earth. Global warming is part of a
    solar system scale event. The polar caps are melting on Mars too!

    Fred
     
  4. Guest

    Eeyore thinks that the IPCC case relies on garbage, but Eeyore is too
    ill-informed to notice that the article in the Independent newspaper
    is about the way that rising CO2 levels in the air affects the acidity
    of the oceans.

    The computer models of the chemical behaviour of the oceans may be
    wrong, but this doesn't say anything about the computer models of the
    atmosphere which predict how much the surface temperature of the globe
    will increase for a given increase on the carbon dioxide content of
    the atmosphere, which is what anthropogenic global warming is all
    about.

    For those who know a bit more about science than Eeyore does, the
    computer models of the oceans are essentially chemical - carbon
    dioxide dissolves in water as carbonic acid, and precipitates out as
    calcium and magnesium carbonates, mostly in plankton shells. The
    computer moels of the atmosphere are all about physics - mostly about
    heat transfer by radiation, convection and evaporation/condensation.
    Complicated as they are, the physical models of the atmosphere are a
    lot simpler and more reliable than the computer models of the ocean,
     
  5. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Which your precious computer models got *COMPLETELY WRONG*. Incidentally, this
    was a study of only one small area. I hear the corals are doing fine
    generally.

    Did you not know that life has this thing called 'adaptability'. A certain
    Charles Darwin noted this and was pilloried for challenging 'consensus' ! I
    suppose you'd rather live in stasis ! Actually if we could freeze you in LN2
    and bring you back a thousand years later I bet you'd find all was well.

    Graham
     
  6. Guest

     
  7. Guest

    Eeyore - always the master of the unmarked snip - continues to ignore
    the point that the computer models for the influence of rising
    atmospheric CO2 levels on the pH of the oceans are completely
    different kinds of models of vastly different kinds of processes from
    the one the IPCC uses to try to predict the influence of rising
    atmospheric CO2 levels on the temperature of the surface of the earth.

    As pig-ignorant confusions go, this is exceptionally daft, even for
    Eeyore
    Adaptability has it limits, as has been demonstrated from time to time
    in the geological record. The end-Permian mass extinction was more
    thorough than most, and it does seem likely that greenhouse warming
    played a significant part.

    None of the species alive at the time seem to have gone in for oil-
    extraction and coal-mining, but the event does seem to haved coincide
    with massive vulcanism, that not only introduced lots of carbon
    dioxide into the atmosphere in the usual way by pyrolysing carbonate
    rocks, but also managed to erupt through extensive coal fields,
    producing the Permian equivalent of today's heavy inustry.
    A thousand years isn't enough for all the over-confident ignorant to
    have been winnowed from the gene-pool, unless their over-confident
    blundering managed to wipe them out before that, along with the rest
    of us.

    One of the ways in which you could lose your bet would be for us to
    have instigated an mass extinction and got rid of everything bigger
    and slower breeding than a rabbit. It takes about ten million years
    for adaptive radiation to refill all the ecological niches, so that
    world would be pretty dull and close enough to static that you'd be
    hard-pressed to detect evolution in action.
     
  8. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    I assume that means something rude you're too foolish to write in English.

    Graham
     
  9. Mark

    Mark Guest


    Bill,

    you mean the "simple and reliable" physics computer models discussed
    here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

    the models that that have this result:

    "The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water vapour is
    the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the
    greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and
    85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%,..."


    So the simple reliable physics models of the greehous effect tell us
    that the greenhouse effect contribution due to C02 lies within the
    range of between 9% and 26%...

    That seems to me to be a large variation of uncertainty for something
    so simple and reliable...

    Mark
     
  10. Guest


    Are there any climate models that can take an arbitrary run of twenty
    years of climate data and produce the next five years of data? If the
    models cannot replicate climate that we have already experienced, how
    can we have any confidence in their predictions?
     
  11. No, he wouldn't. All is well right now, but since the facts are contrary
    to his faith, he denies them.

    I don't know why you keep feeding this troll.

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
  12. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest

    Climate models are consistently wrong about future
    events, but, with continuous adjustment, they're
    pretty good at predicting what's already happened.

    Cheers,
    James Arthur
     
  13. Guest

    No. There are a bunch of climate models that produce a range of
    predictions for the next five years of data and these predictions
    cluster around what actually happen.

    When turned loose on our current situation they all predict further
    warming - anything from 1.1C to 6.4C over the next century

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    which is enough to give us reasonable confidence that anthropogenic
    global warming is a real problem and one that we'd better do something
    about. Obviously, the models could do with more work, but they are
    never going to be perfect and hanging around waiting for more precise
    predictions would constitute procrastination.
     
  14. Guest

    Read what I wrote. The atmospheric models are not simple and while
    they reliably predict more warming, different models predict different
    degrees of warming - from 1.1C to 6.4C over the next century (from the
    IPCC report).

    They are still a lot simpler and more reliable than the models of what
    is going on in the ocean, which is very complicated indeed, and Eeyore
    was being more than usually foolish in claiming that problems with the
    computer models of ocean water are evidence of comparable problems in
    the models of the atmosphere.
     
  15. Guest

    Like every other kind of computer model.

    The current generation of climate models are good enough to make it
    clear that we do have problem and that we ought to get on and do
    something to slow down and eventually reverse the rise in the level of
    CO2 in the atmosphere.

    It would be nice if we had better models, but the inconsistent
    predictions that our various models do make all tell us that the
    climate is getting warmer. The IPCC says the predictions range from
    1.1C of warning over the next century - which is enough to create
    problems - to 6.4C which would be catastrophic.
     
  16. JosephKK

    JosephKK Guest

    I remember the "great barrier reef scare", it seems it is coming back
    with a vengeance in a majority of areas. Just the same, large coral
    formations all over the world are having "interesting times". Is it
    news in the sense of "something terrible is going on", or is it in the
    sense of "gosh, we had not noticed this before (and it has been going
    on for millennia or longer)"?
     
  17. However, there are sources of acidity besides CO2, such as nitrogen
    oxides and sulfur oxides and other pollutants.

    And oceanic CO2 itself can be measured and is anyone saying that one is
    out of line with these models?

    - Don Klipstein ()
     
  18. The polar icecap melting on Mars has only been going on a few or several
    years as part of a cycle of a couple decades or so. Solar output has
    been monitored *extremely well* by satellites since the late 1970's and
    has not had a rising trend since then.

    - Don Klipstein ()
     
  19. So the computer models only got ocean acidity wrong in one small area?

    - Don Klipstein ()
     
  20. In <>,
    A five year stretch is at the mercy of El Ninos and La Ninas, as well as
    any extreme burpings of the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic
    Oscillation. Those last two look more to me like random noise through a
    mildly resonant bandpass filter than like oscillations.

    There is another oscillation, the Multidecadal Oscillation - at least
    that one has a period of about 60 years and some data indicates some good
    periodicity. However, for all I know, if it was studied over several
    centuries it could look more like random noise through a resonant bandpass
    filter than an actual oscillation. And some effects one could blame on
    that one may be from an 80 year cycle (amone the many) in sunspot
    intensity instead.

    But if at a time close to 60 years from now when sunspot activity is
    about where it is now, filtered over about a decade for the shorter term
    random "oscillations" and the 11 year sunspot cycle, see if global lower
    atmospheric temperature is close enough to where it is now.
    I expect whatever difference turns up by then (or turns up 40 or 50
    years from now - a lot of atmospheric, solar and oceanic factors have been
    studied well since 1979) - will show which of the models are better. Not
    only for global temperature, but also for regional temperature and regional
    precipitation. Keep in mind that regional temperatures in different
    regions are affected differently by the different phases of the
    multidecadal osccilation, and the multidecadal oscillation also affects
    some years/decade-or-2 scale precipitation trends and hurricane trends.

    - Don Klipstein ()
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-