Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Wangler]

I see that Neptune's brightness is increasing:



If that is correlated somehow to Neptune's temperature, they might have an AGW problem too!

That can't be good!

 

[Herzblut]

No.

If you have a finite difference mesh, for example, the only way to solve a heat transfer problem is to have the nodes interdependent.

You might get the luck of having sparse matrices, which help you computationally by reducing the effective DOF, but you still have lots of DOF when you have lots of nodes, or lots of variables to track at those nodes.

That makes sense. Talking numerical simulations this definition of "degrees of freedom" is most adequate. I assume that in practical realizations DOF is not only reduced by observations and physical constraints, but also by parametrisations in expectation of the desired types of solutions. Something like hard limiting the temperature gradient of neighboring grid nodes to 0.1C or so.

 

[Wangler]

Something like hard limiting the temperature gradient of neighboring grid nodes to 0.1C or so.

Precisely.

If you have a model with a small number of nodes, you potentially have large delta-T between the points.

This could potentially reduce model stability (i.e., convergence suffers) and accuracy.

If you see that happening, you need to increase the number of nodes. Increasing the number of nodes may reduce the delta-t between nodes, helping accuracy and stability, with the drawback of adding DOF, and making your matrix larger...increasing solve time.

That is why folks like variable node spacing, as obtained via adaptive meshing algorithms.

This allows you to put more nodes in areas of high temperature gradient, or other areas where accuracy is paramount.

In these climate model descriptions, you see them often explaining the grid/mesh size they used, and why it was appropriate (accuracy constraints, perhaps) or necessary (computer resource constraints, perhaps).

 

[Wangler]

That's why I criticize the manipulation of the DOG concept by Google-is-your-friend-mHaze, who seems to have a Dirac delta shaped knowledge, tripping then in every Heaviside step he comes across, and behaving sometimes as he may fail Turing test.

This sentance is like reading a science encyclopedia.

This whole thread is maddening: with so many pieces of un-related information coming together like one big Fourier series, making something new out of so many sinusoids.

Oh, well, I'll try to put my Bessel foot forward........

 

[Wowbagger]

The irrational view which is in fact being discussed here is a myopic focus on CO2 taxation.

Perhaps someone can summarize what the issues are, with this? What are the key arguments for all this climate science/policy stuff being a "stealth tax" or not?

 

[macdoc]

In these climate model descriptions, you see them often explaining the grid/mesh size they used, and why it was appropriate (accuracy constraints, perhaps) or necessary (computer resource constraints, perhaps).

and the grid mesh that is appropriate say over the South Pacific would be hilariously wrong in other areas with less uniform conditions...

It is only recently that there is some development of regional models - the monsoon assessment is a vital goal

I'd not want to be modelling monsoon impact and timing on Himalayas with glaciation...

That Brit attempt was pretty cheeky.....out to 2080 as well

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2009/090618a.htm

Cutting edge??.....not so sure....maybe a grid too far.....


••

The myopic view around here is the denier crowd focused on temperature plots and conspiracies....

 

[BenBurch]

Sea level rise:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_235364a661cab94492.gif[/qimg]

I just don't see a trend that is much different from pre-1850.....

Not predicted to be ramping up for 30-40 more years. You have to get the arctic nearly ice-free in summer before Greenland REALLY starts to melt off. The open water becomes a heat sponge, and changes the circum-polar weather considerably.

 

[macdoc]

Sea level is marginal concern in the short term but once started is effectively unstoppable....maybe now already for Greenland and the Western Antarctic where a sizeable portion is grounded glacier already below sea level.

snip

The western ice sheet is of particular concern because enormous sections sit in inland basins on bedrock that is entirely below sea level.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2752/antarctic-collapse-may-affect-earths-rotation

This is already happening with the ice shelves at both poles - there are almost none left in the North

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aoH_QT2qLljM

IN addition the rise will not be even worldwide with the NE US getting hit early by up to 50% more than elsewhere....

But it's really up to generations out planning wonks like the Dutch to deal with...it's not near term...

The cost over time however will be enormous....

snip

By 2040, more than 50% of the global population is expected to live in urban coastal areas.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/abou...tation-global-exchange-experiences-21810.html

and the cost

snip

It is found that the increase in risk due to climate change is likely to be unacceptable in many cities, calling for an upgrade of flood protection in response to sea level rise.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-...quest-id=b526c9d6-bdb2-43fa-926c-fbb1266d8daa

and this analysis is for a city not in a high risk zone at all......

 

[CapelDodger]

That makes sense. Talking numerical simulations this definition of "degrees of freedom" is most adequate. I assume that in practical realizations DOF is not only reduced by observations and physical constraints, but also by parametrisations in expectation of the desired types of solutions. Something like hard limiting the temperature gradient of neighboring grid nodes to 0.1C or so.

The limiting gradient should depend on the node size. What node size were you considering for "0.1C or so"? Vaguely.

 

[Wangler]

The limiting gradient should depend on the node size.

In my experience, the reverse is true: node spacing should ideally be driven by the expected gradient.

Large gradient, more nodes, tighter node spacing.

Small gradient, fewer nodes, sparser node spacing.

 

[MattusMaximus]

It's amusing to read Poptech's claims in this thread about the infallibility of observed data while in the other thread Poptech is complaining about inaccuracies and biases in an observation network

I gave up a long time ago the notion of expecting Poptech to maintain any level of logical consistency in his/her arguments.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Not commenting either way, but asking. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I assure you it's an honest one.

What difference does it make where the funding comes from if the science adds up?

If the science is sound and validated by the consensus of the scientific community, the source of the funding shouldn't really matter at all. The problems arise when the funding comes from a group or organization with a predetermined ideological stance on the science, which subsequently influences the research in order to come to conclusions in keeping with said ideology.

And now that it seems as if the thread is devolving, yet again (as what happens to most AGW threads here), into a mud-slinging fest about socialism vs. capitalism...

**Sits back and gets the popcorn ready**

 

[MattusMaximus]

Warmers all smear and attack the likes of Heritage Foundation and CEI, and other free market and capitalism advocacy groups. Then they link to and naively, gullibly present as Truthy such sources as Sourcewatch, MediaMatters, and Realclimate - associated with and or funded by far left political operations.
What does that tell you?

Since when is the United Nations - which sponsors the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change research - considered a "far left political operation"? Wow...

 

[macdoc]

You're so blinkered with foolish Von Mises ideology Poptech you wouldn't know a blanket condemnation if it bit you

Rational fools
These important caveats, however, should not obscure the fact that two central parts of the discipline—macroeconomics and financial economics—are now, rightly, being severely re-examined (see article, article). There are three main critiques: that macro and financial economists helped cause the crisis, that they failed to spot it, and that they have no idea how to fix it.
The first charge is half right. Macroeconomists, especially within central banks, were too fixated on taming inflation and too cavalier about asset bubbles.

Financial economists, meanwhile, formalised theories of the efficiency of markets, fuelling the notion that markets would regulate themselves and financial innovation was always beneficial. Wall Street’s most esoteric instruments were built on these ideas.

But economists were hardly naive believers in market efficiency. Financial academics have spent much of the past 30 years poking holes in the “efficient market hypothesis”. A recent ranking of academic economists was topped by Joseph Stiglitz and Andrei Shleifer, two prominent hole-pokers. A newly prominent field, behavioural economics, concentrates on the consequences of irrational actions.

So there were caveats aplenty. But as insights from academia arrived in the rough and tumble of Wall Street, such delicacies were put aside. And absurd assumptions were added. No economic theory suggests you should value mortgage derivatives on the basis that house prices would always rise. Finance professors are not to blame for this, but they might have shouted more loudly that their insights were being misused. Instead many cheered the party along (often from within banks). Put that together with the complacency of the macroeconomists and there were too few voices shouting stop.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=14031376

you're just representative of the second part of the descriptor Poptech......sans rational......

clip

In a recent lecture, Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel prize in economics in 2008, argued that much of the past 30 years of macroeconomics was “spectacularly useless at best, and positively harmful at worst.” Barry Eichengreen, a prominent American economic historian, says the crisis has “cast into doubt much of what we thought we knew about economics.”

In its crudest form—the idea that economics as a whole is discredited—

What you think you know about economics Poptech fits that perfectly

“spectacularly useless at best"

 

[Tapio]

If the science is sound and validated by the consensus of the scientific community, the source of the funding shouldn't really matter at all. The problems arise when the funding comes from a group or organization with a predetermined ideological stance on the science, which subsequently influences the research in order to come to conclusions in keeping with said ideology.

So...the most basic conflict in the differing opinions of, say macdoc and Poptech, is essentially (once again) what counts as evidence and why?

 

[BenBurch]

So...the most basic conflict in the differing opinions of, say macdoc and Poptech, is essentially (once again) what counts as evidence and why?

Epistemology.

 

[lomiller]

Since when is the United Nations - which sponsors the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change research - considered a "far left political operation"? Wow...

You need to understand the current "language" of those on the far right. "Far left" in this strage language is defined as any organization or data they dislike.

 

[lomiller]

So...the most basic conflict in the differing opinions of, say macdoc and Poptech, is essentially (once again) what counts as evidence and why?

Pretty much. Poptech has no independent standard for what he considers scientific data. In his interpretation anything that supports his desired conclusion is science and anything that disputes it is not. In his mind, therefore, the science really does support his position. To any skeptic, however he’s simply redefining science to rationalize a predetermines position.

 

[BenBurch]

Since when is the United Nations - which sponsors the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change research - considered a "far left political operation"? Wow...

Oh, the UN has been a chew toy for the fascists since it was begun by a Democratic administration.

They allege that it is a surrender of US Sovereignty, that it is a foot-in-the-door for a communistic one-world-government, and that covert UN military ops happen in the USA to further those nefarious ends.

You have clearly missed the John Birch Society's many "US out of UN" signs. They are fairly common around here.

 

[macdoc]

Tapio....

Look at observed evidence of change from multiple disciplines ( biome in particular ) with the longest possible baselines ( some go back over a hundred years ) across as many regions as possible.
Here's are two examples amongst hundreds - from different continents
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4541429.stm
http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/02/20-species-that-are-moving-north-due-to-climate-change/

Look at observed changes in climate regimes again from multiple disciplines and mainstream science sources.
This is a prime example
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Biosphere, cryosphere notably are robust signals.

Look for supporting measurements from satellite and ground stations - with the longest baselines ( Australia's in particular as it's considered canary in the coalmine )

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/impacts/trends/temperature.html
you can look at it yourself and pick your range of dates and what you are looking for -
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/...able=tmean&region=aus&season=0112&period=1900

Look at the known physics of GHG and and apply Occam's razor. It's not a matter of opinion.