The physics of climate modeling
by Gavin A. Schmidt, In Physics Today, January 18, 2007

Climate is a large-scale phenomenon that emerges from complicated
interactions among small-scale physical systems. Yet despite the
phenomenon's complexity, climate models have demonstrated some
impressive successes.

[ . . . ]

The task climate modelers have set for themselves is to take their
knowledge of the local interactions of air masses, water, energy, and
momentum and from that knowledge explain the climate system's
large-scale features, variability, and response to external pressures,
or "forcings." That is a formidable task, and though far from complete,
the results so far have been surprisingly successful. Thus,
climatologists have some confidence that theirs isn't a foolhardy
endeavor.

[ . . . ]

Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather
forecasting. Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's
situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible
differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically
different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary
value problem-a statistical description of the mean state and
variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.
Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates, which
implies that questions regarding the sensitivity of climate to, say, an
increase in greenhouse gases are well posed and can be justifiably
asked of the models. Conceivably, though, as more
components-complicated biological systems and fully dynamic
ice-sheets, for example-are incorporated, the range of possible
feedbacks will increase, and chaotic climates might ensue.

Testing climate models

Model assessment occurs on two distinct levels-the small scale at
which one evaluates the specifics of a parameterization and the large
scale at which predicted emergent features can be tested. The primary
test bed is the climate of the present era, particularly since 1979,
when significant satellite data started to become readily available.

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a good laboratory for
model testing (see the figure). Not only was the subsequent global
cooling of about 0.5 °C accurately forecast soon after the eruption,
but the radiative, water-vapor, and dynamical feedbacks included in the
models were quantitatively verified.

From:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html

Roger Coppock wrote:
The physics of climate modeling
by Gavin A. Schmidt, In Physics Today, January 18, 2007

Climate is a large-scale phenomenon that emerges from complicated
interactions among small-scale physical systems. Yet despite the
phenomenon's complexity, climate models have demonstrated some
impressive successes.

Bull****.


[ . . . ]

The task climate modelers have set for themselves is to take their
knowledge of the local interactions of air masses, water, energy, and
momentum and from that knowledge explain the climate system's
large-scale features, variability, and response to external pressures,
or "forcings." That is a formidable task, and though far from complete,
the results so far have been surprisingly successful.

Bull****.

Thus,
climatologists have some confidence that theirs isn't a foolhardy
endeavor.

[ . . . ]

Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather
forecasting.

Bull****. No difference.

Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's
situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible
differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically
different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary
value problem

A "boundary value problem?" Pure bull****.


-a statistical description of the mean state and
variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.

"Phase space?" The phrase, "phase space," is a meaningless phrase
used by con artists to pretend that they are saying something
sophisticated. More bull****.

Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates

Yield? What does this supposedly mean.

, which
implies that questions regarding the sensitivity of climate to, say, an
increase in greenhouse gases are well posed and can be justifiably
asked of the models.

Says who?


Conceivably, though, as more
components-complicated biological systems and fully dynamic
ice-sheets, for example-are incorporated, the range of possible
feedbacks will increase, and chaotic climates might ensue.

Bull****.

wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The physics of climate modeling
by Gavin A. Schmidt, In Physics Today, January 18, 2007

Climate is a large-scale phenomenon that emerges from complicated
interactions among small-scale physical systems. Yet despite the
phenomenon's complexity, climate models have demonstrated some
impressive successes.

Bull****.


[ . . . ]

The task climate modelers have set for themselves is to take their
knowledge of the local interactions of air masses, water, energy, and
momentum and from that knowledge explain the climate system's
large-scale features, variability, and response to external pressures,
or "forcings." That is a formidable task, and though far from complete,
the results so far have been surprisingly successful.

Bull****.

Thus,
climatologists have some confidence that theirs isn't a foolhardy
endeavor.

[ . . . ]

Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather
forecasting.

Bull****. No difference.

Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's
situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible
differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically
different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary
value problem

A "boundary value problem?" Pure bull****.


-a statistical description of the mean state and
variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.

"Phase space?" The phrase, "phase space," is a meaningless phrase
used by con artists to pretend that they are saying something
sophisticated. More bull****.

Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates

Yield? What does this supposedly mean.

, which
implies that questions regarding the sensitivity of climate to, say, an
increase in greenhouse gases are well posed and can be justifiably
asked of the models.

Says who?


Conceivably, though, as more
components-complicated biological systems and fully dynamic
ice-sheets, for example-are incorporated, the range of possible
feedbacks will increase, and chaotic climates might ensue.

Bull****.

I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.

Who has more money for science research, EXXON or YOU? Who has more
than 12,000 patents filed by staff scientists, EXXON or YOU. When they
say CO2 causes Global Warming Climate Change, you shut your dicksucking
mouth and accept it.

Exxon Surrenders but Claudius Denk keeps sucking their dead dick:
Exxon said
"Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to
climate change...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...balWarming-tob...

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create
Confusion

ExxonMobil Report
Read the Report
ExxonMobil Report (PDF)
Appendix C (PDF high resolution)
Appendix C (part 1)
Appendix C (part 2)
Appendix C (part 3)

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3-A new report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how
ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics,
as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the
scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the
issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16
million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations
that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists'
Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay
government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to
"Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil
company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific
evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance
of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change
contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest
for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal
policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of
individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors
that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate
change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance,
which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book
edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who
is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil.
Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate
change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is
affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not
changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13
scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper.
This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing
to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has
been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by
reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear
and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit,"
said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS
report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests,
ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent
groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about
global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific
understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound
science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce
heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted
unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from
successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush
administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do
eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate
change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure
the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the
steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last
century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though
solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions
while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our
national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate
change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful
action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation
campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and
Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior
on this issue is unacceptable and must change."

z wrote:
I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.

That's Groucho Marx, but I can remember the movie.
Duck Soup, maybe?

wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather
forecasting.

Bull****. No difference.

Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's
situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible
differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically
different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary
value problem

A "boundary value problem?" Pure bull****.


-a statistical description of the mean state and
variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.

"Phase space?" The phrase, "phase space," is a meaningless phrase
used by con artists to pretend that they are saying something
sophisticated. More bull****.

Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates

Yield? What does this supposedly mean.

OK, let's add differential equations and numerical analysis to
the list of things Mr. Denk/McGinn knows nothing about and
refuses to learn.

z wrote:
I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.


That's Groucho Marx, but I can't remember the movie.
Duck Soup, maybe?

On 18 Jan 2007 16:49:13 -0800, "Roger Coppock"
wrote:

z wrote:
I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.


That's Groucho Marx, but I can't remember the movie.
Duck Soup, maybe?

Horse Feathers.

Jon

Sam Wormley wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The physics of climate modeling
by Gavin A. Schmidt, In Physics Today, January 18, 2007

Climate is a large-scale phenomenon that emerges from complicated
interactions among small-scale physical systems.

Nope, climate is mostly regional.

Yet despite the
phenomenon's complexity, climate models have demonstrated some
impressive successes.

Where ? Did it predict last years hurricanes in Florida ?


Quick Study
The physics of climate modeling
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html

"Many challenging climate questions remain unanswered. Examples
include how climate conditions influence El Niño;

It doesn't ; its a function of sea currents.

how responses can
be predicted at the regional scale;

Meteorology can only predict to about 4 days (7 days max)

and how simulations of rare,
extreme events such as hurricanes and heat waves can be validated.

They cannot be predicted at all.

Such issues may require better encapsulations of, for example, the
turbulent behavior of the near-surface atmosphere, the effects of
ocean eddies, or the microphysics of clouds and aerosols. The
implementation of more sophisticated parameterizations and the
ongoing increases in resolution as computer resources increase
suggest that models will continue to improve.

So they can now predict up to 7 days in advance.

However, many results,
such as the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases that was
first demonstrated in much simpler models decades ago, have proved
extremely robust".

They haven't. What they do is pick data to support their forecasts.

Who has more money for science research, EXXON or YOU? Who has more
than 12,000 patents filed by staff scientists, EXXON or YOU. When they
say CO2 causes Global Warming Climate Change, you shut your dicksucking
mouth and accept it.

Exxon Surrenders but Right-Turd keeps sucking their dead dick:
Exxon said
"Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to
climate change...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...balWarming-tob...

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create
Confusion

ExxonMobil Report
Read the Report
ExxonMobil Report (PDF)
Appendix C (PDF high resolution)
Appendix C (part 1)
Appendix C (part 2)
Appendix C (part 3)

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3-A new report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how
ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics,
as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the
scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the
issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16
million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations
that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists'
Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay
government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to
"Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil
company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific
evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance
of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change
contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest
for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal
policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of
individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors
that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate
change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance,
which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book
edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who
is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil.
Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate
change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is
affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not
changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13
scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper.
This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing
to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has
been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by
reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear
and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit,"
said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS
report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests,
ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent
groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about
global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific
understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound
science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce
heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted
unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from
successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush
administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do
eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate
change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure
the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the
steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last
century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though
solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions
while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our
national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate
change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful
action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation
campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and
Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior
on this issue is unacceptable and must change."