Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?
Poll: Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?
Total Members Polled: 599
Discussion
Gene Vincent said:
So how do you pervert that particular aspect of radiative paths...
I have put my phone on speed dial for an important ++46 number waiting for this revelation.
From a line by line transfer model. See Myhre et al 1997 for example http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdfI have put my phone on speed dial for an important ++46 number waiting for this revelation.
hairykrishna said:
Gene Vincent said:
So how do you pervert that particular aspect of radiative paths...
I have put my phone on speed dial for an important ++46 number waiting for this revelation.
From a line by line transfer model. See Myhre et al 1997 for example http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdfI have put my phone on speed dial for an important ++46 number waiting for this revelation.
There I was all revved up thinking you knew what you were talking about had a new maths for how radiation works.
I almost feel like crying...
So, no new maths on radiative paths just a a load of tosh.
You are a piiss-poor Santa!
hairykrishna said:
Gene Vincent said:
So, no new maths on radiative paths just a a load of tosh.
Tosh? I thought we'd agreed that the line by line radiative transfer codes work and, in your words, are 'just simple maths'. Make your mind up.Look at my simple explanation, it is exactly how radiative paths work, no matter the size or incremental increase.
Gene Vincent said:
I have no problem with the line, my problem is that you have forgotten what radiative paths actually mean.
Look at my simple explanation, it is exactly how radiative paths work, no matter the size or incremental increase.
What is your calculation supposed to show? You're going to have to spell it out for me before I can explain how you're getting it wrong.Look at my simple explanation, it is exactly how radiative paths work, no matter the size or incremental increase.
Change the CO2 level and you change the effective temperature of radiation for each part of the longwave spectrum i.e you shift the average level from which the photons escape to space. Work it out with a radiative transfer code and you get ~1K for a doubling, assuming no feedbacks.
hairykrishna said:
Silver Smudger said:
hairykrishna said:
Silver Smudger said:
hairykrishna said:
So no evidence? The radiative transfer codes work. They've been tested repeatedly. They don't 'fail as a predictive model', that's just nonsense.
Can you give an example of a model published over 8-10 years ago, that correctly predicts the climate / weather events of the last 8-10 years? I would take this to show the effectiveness of a predictive model, its ability to predict!Your argument about this element of the modelling has been running now for nearly a week. You say it works one way, others say this is incorrect. If you just show some examples of how this modelling actually works, predicting the activity of the climate or weather in the real world, in advance, then you could end this argument right now.
Is that not what the model is for? To make predictions that we can use to modify our behaviour? Stop wittering on about how a component part is supposed to function and show what the machine can actually do.
As I said before, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and a taxpayer. I want someone to show me this theoretical plane taking flight, outside of a computer simulation - Or spend my money on something more productive.
Silver Smudger said:
You left my questions out of the quote, so I just popped them back in there.
Your argument about this element of the modelling has been running now for nearly a week. You say it works one way, others say this is incorrect. If you just show some examples of how this modelling actually works, predicting the activity of the climate or weather in the real world, in advance, then you could end this argument right now.
Is that not what the model is for? To make predictions that we can use to modify our behaviour? Stop wittering on about how a component part is supposed to function and show what the machine can actually do.
As I said before, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and a taxpayer. I want someone to show me this theoretical plane taking flight, outside of a computer simulation - Or spend my money on something more productive.
I haven't been arguing about the model as a whole. I've been arguing about radiative transfer, the reason being that this is the part we actually understand very well indeed. There are lots of bits of the GCM's which are poorly understood. I'm not really sure that debating the state of those bits, or the models as a whole, has much point when people won't even accept basic physics. Your argument about this element of the modelling has been running now for nearly a week. You say it works one way, others say this is incorrect. If you just show some examples of how this modelling actually works, predicting the activity of the climate or weather in the real world, in advance, then you could end this argument right now.
Is that not what the model is for? To make predictions that we can use to modify our behaviour? Stop wittering on about how a component part is supposed to function and show what the machine can actually do.
As I said before, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and a taxpayer. I want someone to show me this theoretical plane taking flight, outside of a computer simulation - Or spend my money on something more productive.
hairykrishna said:
Silver Smudger said:
You left my questions out of the quote, so I just popped them back in there.
Your argument about this element of the modelling has been running now for nearly a week. You say it works one way, others say this is incorrect. If you just show some examples of how this modelling actually works, predicting the activity of the climate or weather in the real world, in advance, then you could end this argument right now.
Is that not what the model is for? To make predictions that we can use to modify our behaviour? Stop wittering on about how a component part is supposed to function and show what the machine can actually do.
As I said before, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and a taxpayer. I want someone to show me this theoretical plane taking flight, outside of a computer simulation - Or spend my money on something more productive.
I haven't been arguing about the model as a whole. I've been arguing about radiative transfer, the reason being that this is the part we actually understand very well indeed. There are lots of bits of the GCM's which are poorly understood. I'm not really sure that debating the state of those bits, or the models as a whole, has much point when people won't even accept basic physics. Your argument about this element of the modelling has been running now for nearly a week. You say it works one way, others say this is incorrect. If you just show some examples of how this modelling actually works, predicting the activity of the climate or weather in the real world, in advance, then you could end this argument right now.
Is that not what the model is for? To make predictions that we can use to modify our behaviour? Stop wittering on about how a component part is supposed to function and show what the machine can actually do.
As I said before, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and a taxpayer. I want someone to show me this theoretical plane taking flight, outside of a computer simulation - Or spend my money on something more productive.
I'm sure hairy will be along to put me right any time soon!
However, my take on radiative transfer is as follows:
First, slice the atmosphere up into 'layers' - this helps to conceptualise the problem, and helps the maths and modelling.
We then consider the IR emitted from one layer - it goes up and down (and sideways too - 360 degrees in a 3-D model)
At any one layer, therefore, you have radiation being emitted, and absorbed (from the layers either side).
You then apply some proportionality of absorption of IR to each layer, and calculate the energy therby retained - which will then raise temp and generate a little more IR etc. etc.
Then assume a steady state with boundary conditions, shove it all into a computer to do the numeric integration.
And there you go!
The above is horribly simplified!
Problem is...
Only the GHG's will radiate IR and the GHG property of CO2 is confined to 15 micron radiation. Also, all 15 micron radition emitted from the surface is already fully absorbed within meters of the surface - primarily by H20.
In addition, CO2 is unlikely to radiate, since it is more likely to collide with near neighbour molecules before radiating.
Even if CO2 can radiate 15 micron IR, this can only be due to there being a very small proportion of an already 'minuscule'
0.039% of the atmosphere being in an 'excited' state due to alrady being 'warm', and could only be 'warm' due to being part of an already warm atmosphere composed (primarily of N2 and O2).
Now how to square this with the radiative transfer equations? Not sure that they operate particularly well in the 15 micron range - but maybe I'm wrong.
However, my take on radiative transfer is as follows:
First, slice the atmosphere up into 'layers' - this helps to conceptualise the problem, and helps the maths and modelling.
We then consider the IR emitted from one layer - it goes up and down (and sideways too - 360 degrees in a 3-D model)
At any one layer, therefore, you have radiation being emitted, and absorbed (from the layers either side).
You then apply some proportionality of absorption of IR to each layer, and calculate the energy therby retained - which will then raise temp and generate a little more IR etc. etc.
Then assume a steady state with boundary conditions, shove it all into a computer to do the numeric integration.
And there you go!
The above is horribly simplified!
Problem is...
Only the GHG's will radiate IR and the GHG property of CO2 is confined to 15 micron radiation. Also, all 15 micron radition emitted from the surface is already fully absorbed within meters of the surface - primarily by H20.
In addition, CO2 is unlikely to radiate, since it is more likely to collide with near neighbour molecules before radiating.
Even if CO2 can radiate 15 micron IR, this can only be due to there being a very small proportion of an already 'minuscule'
0.039% of the atmosphere being in an 'excited' state due to alrady being 'warm', and could only be 'warm' due to being part of an already warm atmosphere composed (primarily of N2 and O2).Now how to square this with the radiative transfer equations? Not sure that they operate particularly well in the 15 micron range - but maybe I'm wrong.
Edited by Ali G on Thursday 20th December 17:17
Also I can discern a prediction concerning more attrition loops in yet more climate Groundhog Day threads. There may be a tipping point as from the recent flurry after IPCC AR5 SOD caused so much believer angst it looks worse than previously thought. When the recent climate Yadayadathon fizzled out I thought we might get a break.
hairykrishna said:
Change the CO2 level and you change the effective temperature of radiation for each part of the longwave spectrum i.e you shift the average level from which the photons escape to space. Work it out with a radiative transfer code and you get ~1K for a doubling, assuming no feedbacks.
Then because we are not seeing any significant Tropospheric 'hotspot' developing, we know that the average level of escape is not increasing. Or that something else compensates. Looks like the models have failed to include all the phenomena required. s2art said:
hairykrishna said:
Change the CO2 level and you change the effective temperature of radiation for each part of the longwave spectrum i.e you shift the average level from which the photons escape to space. Work it out with a radiative transfer code and you get ~1K for a doubling, assuming no feedbacks.
Then because we are not seeing any significant Tropospheric 'hotspot' developing, we know that the average level of escape is not increasing. Or that something else compensates. Looks like the models have failed to include all the phenomena required.If you twist the maths of radiative energy you can corrupt the result to about 4.3, the probable result of doing such would be hotspots etc etc, but the 3d cosmos is what we have and radiative energy will always attempt to propagate in all directions and factor out to 8.
Ali G said:
I'm sure hairy will be along to put me right any time soon!
However, my take on radiative transfer is as follows:
First, slice the atmosphere up into 'layers' - this helps to conceptualise the problem, and helps the maths and modelling.
We then consider the IR emitted from one layer - it goes up and down (and sideways too - 360 degrees in a 3-D model)
At any one layer, therefore, you have radiation being emitted, and absorbed (from the layers either side).
You then apply some proportionality of absorption of IR to each layer, and calculate the energy therby retained - which will then raise temp and generate a little more IR etc. etc.
Then assume a steady state with boundary conditions, shove it all into a computer to do the numeric integration.
And there you go!
The above is horribly simplified!
Problem is...
Only the GHG's will radiate IR and the GHG property of CO2 is confined to 15 micron radiation. Also, all 15 micron radition emitted from the surface is already fully absorbed within meters of the surface - primarily by H20.
In addition, CO2 is unlikely to radiate, since it is more likely to collide with near neighbour molecules before radiating.
Even if CO2 can radiate 15 micron IR, this can only be due to there being a very small proportion of an already 'minuscule' 0.039% of the atmosphere being in an 'excited' state due to alrady being 'warm', and could only be 'warm' due to being part of an already warm atmosphere composed (primarily of N2 and O2).
Now how to square this with the radiative transfer equations? Not sure that they operate particularly well in the 15 micron range - but maybe I'm wrong.
Go back, read my post from when I explained it to you last time.However, my take on radiative transfer is as follows:
First, slice the atmosphere up into 'layers' - this helps to conceptualise the problem, and helps the maths and modelling.
We then consider the IR emitted from one layer - it goes up and down (and sideways too - 360 degrees in a 3-D model)
At any one layer, therefore, you have radiation being emitted, and absorbed (from the layers either side).
You then apply some proportionality of absorption of IR to each layer, and calculate the energy therby retained - which will then raise temp and generate a little more IR etc. etc.
Then assume a steady state with boundary conditions, shove it all into a computer to do the numeric integration.
And there you go!
The above is horribly simplified!
Problem is...
Only the GHG's will radiate IR and the GHG property of CO2 is confined to 15 micron radiation. Also, all 15 micron radition emitted from the surface is already fully absorbed within meters of the surface - primarily by H20.
In addition, CO2 is unlikely to radiate, since it is more likely to collide with near neighbour molecules before radiating.
Even if CO2 can radiate 15 micron IR, this can only be due to there being a very small proportion of an already 'minuscule'
0.039% of the atmosphere being in an 'excited' state due to alrady being 'warm', and could only be 'warm' due to being part of an already warm atmosphere composed (primarily of N2 and O2).Now how to square this with the radiative transfer equations? Not sure that they operate particularly well in the 15 micron range - but maybe I'm wrong.
Edited by Ali G on Thursday 20th December 17:17
They work perfectly in the 15 micron range.
s2art said:
hairykrishna said:
Change the CO2 level and you change the effective temperature of radiation for each part of the longwave spectrum i.e you shift the average level from which the photons escape to space. Work it out with a radiative transfer code and you get ~1K for a doubling, assuming no feedbacks.
Then because we are not seeing any significant Tropospheric 'hotspot' developing, we know that the average level of escape is not increasing. Or that something else compensates. Looks like the models have failed to include all the phenomena required. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/ab...
hairykrishna said:
They work perfectly...
'They' work perfectly.If only climate models did, rather than being grossly inadequate, and (as attested by IPCC) future climate states are not predictable anyway. Currently climate models only succeed either by fluke or when a single variable is targeted in a sub-optimisation process which throws everything else out, or when adjustments are made after the fact.
If climate models were successful there would be 1 not 21 and it would get all variables right on all timescales. Check...nope, that's a warmist wet dream at the mo. Pure GIGO is where we're at.
There was a list of 13 model problems a few pages back that believers have treated like the plague...when that baker's dozen is sorted - not a snowball's chance in a hell suffering Hades Warming - I have more.
Bump.
On 04 December I said:
The first six:
1. Are the time intervals in global climate modes are still between 1 and 3 hours in stepwise evolution, due to lack of computing power and resulting cost? This would be wholly inadequate (see 6 and 13).
2. What's the atmospheric cell size these days, is it less than 100km yet? I doubt it very much. Sandy may have been too big, size matters, and the warming said to have spawned it hasn't existed for 16 years anyway unlike the information pollution emerging from models.
3. Is the ocean cell size even bigger?
4. Do the climate models still treat the planet's hemispheres as identical for symmetry purposes i.e. as a short-cut, when they have such contrasting land-ocean make up?
5. Any progress with rigid paramaterisation and the vertical profile problem?
6. Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't even get surface solar radiation right, with an error more than 20x the claimed forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. What are the modellers doing about that?
Another 7:
7. Drawing partly from Sun et al as above, have errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations been addressed?
8. Is anything happening on underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport?
9. Where have advances in the treatment of poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations got to?
10. How about overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes?
11. The initial value problem, that'll be tricky...
12. How many of the 20+ natural forcings are now modelled and how many have a high LOSU (level of scientific understanding)?
And finally
13. Has computing power suddenly increased by many orders of magnitude recently?
1. Are the time intervals in global climate modes are still between 1 and 3 hours in stepwise evolution, due to lack of computing power and resulting cost? This would be wholly inadequate (see 6 and 13).
2. What's the atmospheric cell size these days, is it less than 100km yet? I doubt it very much. Sandy may have been too big, size matters, and the warming said to have spawned it hasn't existed for 16 years anyway unlike the information pollution emerging from models.
3. Is the ocean cell size even bigger?
4. Do the climate models still treat the planet's hemispheres as identical for symmetry purposes i.e. as a short-cut, when they have such contrasting land-ocean make up?
5. Any progress with rigid paramaterisation and the vertical profile problem?
6. Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't even get surface solar radiation right, with an error more than 20x the claimed forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. What are the modellers doing about that?
Another 7:
7. Drawing partly from Sun et al as above, have errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations been addressed?
8. Is anything happening on underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport?
9. Where have advances in the treatment of poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations got to?
10. How about overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes?
11. The initial value problem, that'll be tricky...
12. How many of the 20+ natural forcings are now modelled and how many have a high LOSU (level of scientific understanding)?
And finally
13. Has computing power suddenly increased by many orders of magnitude recently?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff