From ETH, Zurich - Climate model (Ruddiman, 2001)
Posted on 04/07/2010 7:57:08 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Guest post by Stephen Wilde
From ETH, Zurich - Climate model (Ruddiman, 2001)
Even those who aver that man’s activity affects climate on a global scale rather than just locally or regionally appear to accept that the existing climate models are incomplete. It is a given that the existing models do not fully incorporate data or mechanisms involving cloudiness or global albedo (reflectivity) variations or variations in the speed of the hydrological cycle and that the variability in the temperatures of the ocean surfaces and the overall ocean energy content are barely understood and wholly inadequately quantified in the infant attempts at coupled ocean/atmosphere models. Furthermore the effect of variability in solar activity on climate is barely understood and similarly unquantified.
As they stand at present the models assume a generally static global energy budget with relatively little internal system variability so that measurable changes in the various input and output components can only occur from external forcing agents such as changes in the CO2 content of the air caused by human emissions or perhaps temporary after effects from volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes or significant changes in solar power output.
If such simple models are to have any practical utility it is necessary to demonstrate that some predictive skill is a demonstrable outcome of the models. Unfortunately it is apparent that there is no predictive skill whatever despite huge advances in processing power and the application of millions or even billions of man hours from reputable and experienced scientists over many decades.
As I will show later on virtually all climate variability is a result of internal system variability and additionally the system not only sets up a large amount of variability internally but also provides mechanisms to limit and then reduce that internal variability. It must be so or we would not still have liquid oceans. The current models neither recognise the presence of that internal system variability nor the processes that ultimately stabilise it.
The general approach is currently to describe the climate system from ‘the bottom up’ by accumulating vast amounts of data, observing how the data has changed over time, attributing a weighting to each piece or class of data and extrapolating forward. When the real world outturn then differs from what was expected then adjustments are made to bring the models back into line with reality. This method is known as ‘hindcasting’.
Although that approach has been used for decades no predictive skill has ever emerged. Every time the models have been adjusted using guesswork (or informed judgment as some would say) to bring them back into line with ongoing real world observations a new divergence between model expectations and real world events has begun to develop.
It is now some years since the weighting attached to the influence of CO2 was adjusted to remove a developing discrepancy between the real world warming that was occurring at the time and which had not been fully accounted for in the then climate models. Since that time a new divergence began and is now becoming embarrassingly large for those who made that adjustment. At the very least the weighting given to the effect of more CO2 in the air was excessive.
The problem is directly analogous to a financial accounting system that balances but only because it contains multiple compensating errors. The fact that it balances is a mere mirage. The accounts are still incorrect and woe betide anyone who relies upon them for the purpose of making useful commercial decisions.
Correcting multiple compensating errors either in a climate model or in a financial accounting system cannot be done by guesswork because there is no way of knowing whether the guess is reducing or compounding the underlying errors that remain despite the apparent balancing of the financial (or in the case of the climate the global energy) budget.
The system being used by the entire climatological establishment is fundamentally flawed and must not be relied upon as a basis for policy decisions of any kind.
A better approach:
We know a lot about the basic laws of physics as they affect our day to day existence and we have increasingly detailed data about past and present climate behaviour.
We need a New Climate Model (from now on referred to as NCM) that is created from ‘the top down’ by looking at the climate phenomena that actually occur and using deductive reasoning to decide what mechanisms would be required for those phenomena to occur without offending the basic laws of physics.
We have to start with the broad concepts first and use the detailed data as a guide only. If a broad concept matches the reality then the detailed data will fall into place even if the broad concept needs to be refined in the process. If the broad concept does not match the reality then it must be abandoned but by adopting this process we always start with a broad concept that obviously does match the reality so by adopting a step by step process of observation, logic, elimination and refinement a serviceable NCM with some predictive skill should emerge and the more detailed the model that is built up the more predictive skill will be acquired.
That is exactly what I have been doing step by step in my articles here:
for some two years now and I believe that I have met with a degree of success because many climate phenomena that I had not initially considered in detail seem to be falling into line with the NCM that I have been constructing.
In the process I have found it necessary to propound various novel propositions that have confused and irritated warming proponents and sceptics alike but that is inevitable if one just follows the logic without a preconceived agenda which I hope is what I have done.
I will now go on to describe the NCM as simply as I can in verbal terms, then I will elaborate on some of the novel propositions (my apologies if any of them have already been propounded elsewhere by others but I think I would still be the first to pull them all together into a plausible NCM) and I will include a discussion of some aspects of the NCM which I find encouraging.
Preliminary points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
This is an EXCERPT of a lengthy article....
Interesting.
This is why any advanced science must, by definition, be multi-disciplinary. “Climatology” studies should include physicists, statisticians, chemists, etc.
Also....a PDF file (small) :
*****************************************
1.3 Conclusions
********************************************
Humankind is having a considerable influence on the condition in the atmo- sphere, even in areas that are very far removed from the pollution sources.
Most surpris- ingly and unexpectedly, over Antarctica during September–October, enormous damage is done to the ozone layer due to a remarkable combination of feedbacks: radiative cool- ing, giving very low winter and springtime temperatures, and the presence of chlorine gases in the stratosphere at concentrations about six times greater than that of the nat- ural background provided by CH3 Cl. The cold temperatures promote the formation of solid or supercooled liquid polar stratospheric cloud particles consisting of a mix- ture of H2 SO4 , HNO3 , and H2 O, on whose surfaces, or within which, reactions take place that convert HCl and ClONO2 (which do not react with ozone) to highly reactive radicals Cl and ClO. The latter rapidly remove ozone from the lower stratosphere by catalytic reactions. Nobody predicted this course of events.
(9-13 November 1998)
Conclusions
From 9-13 November 1998 an important workshop was held at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. This workshop on the subject of Geosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate was concerned with those environmental and climatic changes which may pose a threat to human society during the course of the next century. The general public knows about this subject in terms of the greenhouse effect, tropical deforestation, and a broad range of environmental problems. Human society has now reached a state where it might bring about changes in the conditions of human beings in ways which have never been experienced before.
This meeting of world experts at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences summarised our present-day knowledge about the subject and identified gaps in our understanding of how the earth's climate is affected by greenhouse gases, deforestation, and the circulation of the oceans. The carbon cycle was examined by the working group and the ability of the world's oceans and vegetation to absorb carbon dioxide was described and investigated by a number of advanced computer models.
The gathering also discussed an even more controversial and disturbing question. Several of those taking part in the meeting presented data and models which demonstrated that both the world's climate and the earth's life support system may be liable to abrupt and major changes during the course of the twenty-first century. The experts present were worried about this alarming possibility and were also concerned about our lack of understanding about what actually brings about drastic climatic change.
During his paper given on Thursday evening on the subject of the ozone hole, the Nobel prize winner Professor Paul Crutzen pointed out that the existence of the ozone hole had come as a surprise to the scientific community. He strongly urged that the scientific community should devote itself to studying and understanding abrupt and major climatic changes. Small and even neglected changes may be important, as indeed is the case with the ozone hole.
On the last day of the meeting a plenum discussion made clear that cutbacks in basic science in many countries was the wrong step to take at a time when basic research into the earth's life support system was so urgent. The workshop also stressed the need to involve scientists from developing countries in present-day research projects on the subject of global change. This is especially important because many of these countries are in the tropics where the consequences of climatic change and changes in vegetation will have their greatest impact.
The papers delivered at this conference, and the discussions which took place, will be published in book form as soon as possible.
Bush's UCI 'warming' advisers upset with 'adapting' approach
From the local Orange County paper.
ping
Bookmarked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
