What a relief! Just a few brief years and “skeptics” can stop spending so much time typing at their keyboards to save us from disaster.
er, you’ve got the rear camera on by mistake.
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by phatboy
↧
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by freeHat
Shame wp.com won’t allow you to turn off latex shortcodes for non-technical threads :)
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by Don Monfort
It’s easier being a consensus dogma drone, jimmy dee. Drone on, jimmy.
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by climatereason
Judith
Hey, it’s Saturday over here. What am I supposed to do now for my weekend entertainment? Perhaps we could have a ‘Best of Fan’ compilation?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by Vaughan Pratt
In <i>Ocean Circulation</i>, p.79, Rui Xin Huang estimates "the rate of work produced by the atmospheric heat engine" at about 2 W/m2. Based on a total heat flux through radiation of 238 W/m2 he infers an efficiency of 0.8%, corresponding to a Carnot efficiency of 33% (p. 151 <i>op cit</i>).
Efficiency of the ocean heat engine is harder to estimate or even define, being complicated by several factors.
1. The ocean has a considerable variety of mechanical energy components as listed in Fig. 3.19, p.203, <i>op cit</i>. Their balance is not well understood, making it hard to assess their contributions to the ocean heat engine's output.
2. Although geothermal energy is only a tiny fraction of insolation, it is a relatively large contributor to the kinetic and potential energy of the MOC. In particular a thermal vent can raise an abyssal parcel of seawater to the surface resulting in a huge increase in that parcel's gravitational potential energy, seawater being a thousand times denser than air The efficiency of that particular heat engine will therefore be relatively large, having a small denominator.
3. The MOC is driven to a considerable degree by thermohaline effects. However the meridional (north-south) components of the (nominally) Meridional Overturning Current predominate at high latitudes while at low latitudes the MOC travels westerly. Since the latter latitudes are where geostrophic balance (via the Coriolis effect) is strongest and acts westerly, some of the MOC's mechanical energy must be of mechanical origin and thus not produced by any heat engine. Unfortunately this mechanical contribution to the MOC has been less studied than the thermohaline one, making it unclear how much of the MOC's mechanical energy is of thermodynamic origin.
4. Huang (p. 151, <i>op cit</i>) makes a more explicit disclaimer: "The ocean is not a heat engine at all. Differential heating is only a precondition for the thermohaline circulation, and not the driving force of the circulation., [which is rather] the wind stress and tides which contribute the [requisite] mechanical energy. Thus the ocean is a mechanical conveyor driven by external mechanical energy that transports thermal energy, freshwater, CO2, and other tracers. The inability of surface thermal forcing to drive the oceanic circulation was recognized a long time ago. Sandstrom discussed this fundamental issue 100 years ago; his postulation is known as `Sandstrom's theorem' in the literature."
Them's fightin' words. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone's engaged Huang on them. I'd favor Huang's side were my pay grade in that area up to it.
↧
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by phatboy
Jim D:
He paints a picture of an unbelievably unstable climate that skeptics usually hate too, but not this time. Where’s the skepticism?
Well, a lot of us haven’t yet read it, having just finished breakfast on this side of the pond.
However, from the brief look I’ve had, it seems the ‘notch’ is merely an artefact of Evans’ methodology – we saw much the same thing with the Hockey stick.
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by phatboy
…or perhaps a ‘Worst of Fan’?
Or ‘Fanning the flames’
Or ‘When the **** hits the Fan’
The list is endless, eh Climate etc readers? ;-)
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by Belinda
phatboy,
Oh I do so like yer last suggestion, ‘When the **** hits the fan.’
Already I can think of so-o-o-o- many examples, historic, politic
and climatic!
↧
Comment on Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools? by M Seward
Unless the model mesh is sufficiently fine enough to model the local upwelling of evaporo-transpiration transfer of water vapour and air from the surface to the upper atmosphere, the models are not true GCM, just a cheap imitation. Its like not modelling viscous effects (i.e. turbulence) in cfd models, you only end up with a partial solution at best. That is fine if you have other robust methods for adding back in the viscous effects say from model tests.
Then there is the problem of the mesh not being fine enough ( too coarse) to converge to a proper solution anyway due to not being able to properly model large local variations in the remaining circulation parameters. The trouble with fine meshes is that they require lots more number crunching time.
It may well be that the GCM approach is just beyond us for the above reasons alone and then of course there is the old problem of not actually understanding the mechanism itself, you know, being obsessed with some of CO2 ‘s effects but ignoring others……
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by Shub Niggurath
“But they have done a quick turn around.”
Really?
I asked Zeke the same questions as Goddard. Got no answers. Zeke, Mosher, Stokes etc etc etc etc are just spreading confusion around.
The curse of the temperatures is that they are numbers. Everyone who has a spreadsheet or a calculator starts messing with it and passing themselves off as though they are knowledgeable experts. A lot of them should not be allowed near raw data of any kind let alone temperature data on which, unfortunately, a lot of important things depend on.
If your data handling and analytic philosophy is broken or non-existent, it does not matter that you are good at math. You should not do science.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by Rob Ellison
Read the methodology – several volumes worth. These are not automatic adjustments based on a computer program but rules based data quality assessment for data that is sadly lacking in homogeneity.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by Shub Niggurath
LOL.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by Ben D
….and the satellites have been in operation how long?
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by Nick Stokes
Paul,
All you have done there is give a table of USHCN final – USHCN raw for stations in one state in one month of 2013. No news there.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by ghl
Should TOBS be applied to Max/Min thermometer readings?
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by tallbloke
Judy: “Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention.”
Watts: ““There are quite a few “zombie weather stations” in the USHCN final dataset, possibly up to 25% out of the 1218 that is the total number of stations.”
Yikes. why wasn’t this picked up by people who’ve been studying RAW compared to ‘ADJUSTED’ data before now? Hasn’t Watts had a paper ‘in the works’ for the last 3 years?
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by tallbloke
“GHCN v3.2 adds not one, not two, but three whole degrees of warming to the Alice Springs record since 1880.”
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by climategrog
Yep, the way your cosines are warming it quite alarming.
BTW if you cherry pick 1975-2000 you may get climate sensitivity of 4C doubling. Could be worth trying !
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by climategrog
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=209
Cosine warming.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by Rob Ellison
Here’s one from Roger’s site – http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/2nbx5yx.png
Four different sites? It would be a miracle if the raw data was a reliable climate record.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
