Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[DogB]

No, but neither do I see the relevance of that.

At all.

I think we only discussed heat movement out of the oceans and into space.

Heat leaves the ocean as LW radiation. Which is partly adsorbed by CO2 which then transfers that energy (partly by collision, partly by reradiation) to the rest of the atmosphere. Thus warming the atmosphere.

It's called the greenhouse effect, you might have heard of it.

The warm atmosphere then warms the ocean. How effective is that warming, does anyone know?

 

[macdoc]

Here you go

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html

Effective is an odd word to use as there a variables such as location and how steep the gradient is but in the same fuzzy frame....I'd say not very.
It's kinda immaterial - the better frame is how effective is the atmosphere as a blanket??
Enough to make the planet habitable
Getting a bit too effective thanks to fossil GHG.

So the retained heat/energy of the system is creeping up steadily as is very easy to see.

 

[Dancing David]

Did Mhaze actual suggest that air temperature couldn't warm up water?

Frequently in the past.

 

[Dancing David]

It would be interesting to see that point of view's physical explaination, as that doesn't seem right.

In the past it has involved teaposts of hot water.

 

[mhaze]

Heat leaves the ocean as LW radiation. Which is partly adsorbed by CO2 which then transfers that energy (partly by collision, partly by reradiation) to the rest of the atmosphere. Thus warming the atmosphere.

It's called the greenhouse effect, you might have heard of it.

The warm atmosphere then warms the ocean. How effective is that warming, does anyone know?

COOLING OF THE GLOBAL OCEAN SINCE 2003
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. 2009

Not very effective.

 

[Wangler]

Not very effective.

Warming of the ocean, or the paper you referenced?

from the paper:

"The problem of instrumental drift and bias is quite complicated, however, Domingues et al. 2008; Gouretski and Koltermann 2007; Wijffels et al. 2008; Willis et al. 2004, 2008a) and it remains possible that the result of the present analysis is an artifact."

 

[mhaze]

Warming of the ocean, or the paper you referenced?

from the paper:

"The problem of instrumental drift and bias is quite complicated, however, Domingues et al. 2008; Gouretski and Koltermann 2007; Wijffels et al. 2008; Willis et al. 2004, 2008a) and it remains possible that the result of the present analysis is an artifact."

Regarding radiative effects:
Energy can easily move into the ocean through the visible light specturm in large amounts because of the depth of penetration. However, IR only penetrates a tiny fraction of a millimeter. In that layer, it can be considered a "surface effect" which will release its energy in that mm through a slightly increased evaporation. Similarly, IR energy from the ocean is limited in outflow capability. Now if you like, change the subject and take about conductive and convection. But that wasn't the question, was it?

Dogb:
Heat leaves the ocean as LW radiation. Which is partly adsorbed by CO2 which then transfers that energy (partly by collision, partly by reradiation) to the rest of the atmosphere. Thus warming the atmosphere.

It's called the greenhouse effect, you might have heard of it.

The warm atmosphere then warms the ocean. How effective is that warming, does anyone know?

Very ineffective. The first two or three meters of the ocean have as much heat as the entire atmosphere above it all the way into space. Using the pot of boiling water, this would be trying to bring the water to a boil by heating the air above the water. Difficult or impossible to do even with a welding torch. The rate of heat transfer from a gas to a liquid is extremely low compared to losses.

Of course heat can (not leave!) the ocean by melting ice at the poles, rather this makes the water locally cooler and (arguably) changes the albedo. And that takes us round robin to Lindzen's scientific results:

the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.

He sees an over reliance on IR radiative mechanisms in the climate models. Shortwave radiation is not convection or conduction. More clouds or less ice affects shortwave radiation balance. Only a tiny amount of shortwave equals a big amount of longwave due to the differences in energy levels.

 

[mitch088]

Greetings, fellow skeptics.

The recent article in Science magazine, "Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback", volume 325 page 460, with the abstract referenced in www_sciencemag_org compares the calculations of 18 climate models to observed cloud cover over the Pacific ocean for a 20 year time period. The observations were both from visual for 20 years and satellite for 5 years. Of the 18 models compared, only two models agreed completely on several criteria with the observed data.

The abstract states that there was only one model, but the full text states that two models, inmcm3_0 and ukhadgem1, simulate the correct sign correlation for all variables with observations.


End post #1 - mitch088

 

[mhaze]

Which shows computer climate models do poorly on clouds. But 2/18 is so low it could be chance.

What do you make of it?

Often when these climatolobotomists do their work, they use an "ensemble of climate models". The idea is that the group collective opinion (of the models) is more accurate than any of the individual opinions (of the models). But here the "ensemble" shows no correlation. So the researchers go to one or two of the 18 that provide results in accordance with preconceived and required bias. Then they report and publish results that said positive feedback?

This is kind of weird sciency thinking in my humble opinion.

This is followed by what, three separate posters to this forum presenting this study (apparently the second and third posters being unaware of the prior production of the link in this thread) ...

as evidence that clouds provide a positive feedback?

That's just too ridiculous. I must have missed something. Or I need to go debate these things somewhere else where the standards are higher.

 

[DogB]

Very ineffective.

That's what I figured. Common sense would seem to indicate that a warm atmosphere would keep your ocean warm also but I suspect if the atmospheric energy translates to lower humidity, higher wind speeds or larger surface area (due to wave action) then the system becomes considerably more complicated.

 

[DogB]

Of the 18 models compared, only two models agreed completely on several criteria with the observed data.

Honestly, this alone suggests strongly that computer modelling of climate is extremely unreliable.

16 of 18 models couldn't even get the sign of the feedback correct? Jeebus, I might go get some monkeys and some typewriters together, I could hardly do worse could I?

 

[macdoc]

Still drinking koolaid I see... any one with a smidgeon of understanding recognises models have limits to their complexity and also areas which they are focused on..

Why not learn something instead of stroking mHaze ego and looking foolish in the process...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/

The ongoing dynamic exchange between model outcomes and new observation is what science is about....

but you take the oh so intelligent approach of tossing baby and bathwater blindly....

Koolaid WILL do that....

all models are wrong, some models are useful..

 

[DogB]

Still drinking koolaid I see...

I'm tempted to believe that I know a bit more about real world modelling than you do. My models are of biological systems and are probably an order of magnitude less complex than even simple climate model, yet they still screw up royally sometimes.

Like it or not the inability of 16 out of 18 models to predict the sign (never mind the magnitude) of a major feedback mechanism tells me that they are long way from being truly predictive.


A very smart chap once said to me something like, "I'd rather no model at all than a bad one, at least then I know how little I know."

 

[mhaze]

I'm tempted to believe that I know a bit more about real world modelling than you do. My models are of biological systems and are probably an order of magnitude less complex than even simple climate model, yet they still screw up royally sometimes.

Like it or not the inability of 16 out of 18 models to predict the sign (never mind the magnitude) of a major feedback mechanism tells me that they are long way from being truly predictive.


A very smart chap once said to me something like, "I'd rather no model at all than a bad one, at least then I know how little I know."

In fairness I would say the article in question states the results accurately. The over reaching seems to me to be from blind believers who quote it seeming to think it supports them.

Macdoc, I've worked extensively with and designed computer models for waveform analysis and interpretation. Your juvenile antics and personal insults don't impress me, grow up.

 

[mhaze]

That's what I figured. Common sense would seem to indicate that a warm atmosphere would keep your ocean warm also but I suspect if the atmospheric energy translates to lower humidity, higher wind speeds or larger surface area (due to wave action) then the system becomes considerably more complicated.

I could add to the list but it would only confirm that guessing at net outcome is futile.

But one simple (geometric). Assume clouds are 2x wider than tall, typical puffballs. Consider reflectivity and IR emissions lat 10N and lat 45N.

guessing at net outcome is futile.....

Well, of course unless you have a preconceived bias.

In summary on Clements, what to make of the article? Perhaps that Clements agrees,

"Recent climate observations disagree with projections ."

 

[DogB]

...grow up.

Good luck with that.

I suspect in reply you'll get two garfields, one laughing dog and three (almost but not totally) irrelevant links. Enjoy!

 

[Wangler]

My models are of biological systems and are probably an order of magnitude less complex than even simple climate model, yet they still screw up royally sometimes.

Where I used to work, we did finite element modelling of non-linear metals deformation in aircraft structure.

We would limit degrees of freedom, control boundary conditions the best way possible, and still had difficulty emulating physical results from the lab.

Methinks that our models were alot simpler than climate models too.

 

[Geckko]

Where I used to work, we did finite element modelling of non-linear metals deformation in aircraft structure.

We would limit degrees of freedom, control boundary conditions the best way possible, and still had difficulty emulating physical results from the lab.

Methinks that our models were alot simpler than climate models too.

Ditto models of economic systems.

 

[macdoc]

That's all your slanted agenda driven comments are worth mHaze get used to it.

Is C02 a driver?

When you get past that - let us know - until then your grasping at straws for faint hope alternatives, cosmic ray woo and failure to acknowledge basic physics = laughing stock of your own devising in a science forum...

I respond appropriately....
•••

Geckko
Economic models I would not compare with models based on physics as there is no fundamental agreement on the underlying "physics" of the economic models in the first place...

While there is also discrepancies and lacunae in climate models as to various interactions the underlying physics is sound...

Not so in economic models IMNSHO as people are not gas molecules.

 

[Wangler]

.....as people are not gas molecules.

Boy, my dad emits quite a few, though.