Climate Modeling using a Leaky Integrator

[VillagePlank]

Right, I know nothing about climate particularly, but I've now included all of the LI ouput.

Only sunspots and volcanic starts the chart, enso comes in at 1817 (but the data is sparse), and ice comes in during 1970.

What do you guys think? Here's the chart ...

Of note, is that it looks very cold around 1830? Did something happen then?

Edited April 22, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

Of note, is that it looks very cold around 1830? Did something happen then?

It was pretty durned cold round then - in 1830 there was a potato famine in Ireland

As far as I can see this model does not take into account contrails, deforestation, black soot, aerosols, brown clouds, urbanisation etc etc (some of which obviously have both +ve and -ve effects).

Therefore, if it attempts to explain all warming/climate change it must logically be wrong. Just as any model which does not take into account solar activity, volcanism, ENSO etc must be.

You are quite correct - this model does not take those things into account. The point is that so far it hasn't needed to and yet it still makes a pretty darned good match for observed temperatures.

Clearly the model doesn't explain all warming (and cooling) since, if it did, it would (potentially) match the HadCRUT perfectly. Perhaps all those other factors would add further refinements to the overall shape of the graph but are not, in and of themselves, overwhelmingly significant?

CB asks for 'any questions you may have' I post my view and some questions and get the above from you for my trouble? I've not posted to this thread for ages for fear of such an attack as yours, I post and what happens...

Ok, right, no more questions from me in this thread.

When I asked for any questions I meant ones that pertained to the model itself. Your incredulously-phrased question of whether or not this model purports to explain GW without the aid of GHGs was not the kind of question I was after. The answer, though, is that fundamentally this model is exploring the possibility that temperature trends can be explained without needing to invoke GHGs.

As VP has said, it doesn't actually claim anything as yet. It is an exploration of an idea - the idea being that maybe natural factors are the fundamental drivers, and changes in GHG concentration have little effect.

If you have any questions about how the LI works then please do ask. If you have any questions about the input data, or any suggestions about further work or refinements then please do say.

CB

Edited April 22, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

Right, I know nothing about climate particularly, but I've now included all of the LI ouput.

Only sunspots and volcanic starts the chart, enso comes in at 1817 (but the data is sparse), and ice comes in during 1970.

Sorry guys, a correction: ice comes in at 1870.

It was pretty durned cold round then - in 1830 there was a potato famine in Ireland

Well there is a cold spell registered at a similar time on the CET, here, although I'm not so sure it's useful - we need some proxy records!

[VillagePlank]

Time for a prediction (until 2015, that is!) - for a bit of fun ....

• For sunspots to 2015 I have used data from here
  
• For volcanoes I have simply copied volcanic forcing from 1975->1994 to 1995->2015
  
• For ice I have assumed no change - zero deviation from mean
  
• For enso I have assumed an index of zero
  

Here's the chart:

What do you think? A bit chilly in the next few years? Note that it takes time for the high sunspot energy levels to leave the system before we get to even an anomaly of zero (which won't be reached, according to the LI before 2015, and even beyond), which is expected behaviour for the LI system.

Does anyone have any predictions of ice, and enso, that I can incorporate in?

Edited April 22, 2009 by VillagePlank

[SleepyJean]

Hello Village Plank,

I find this all fascinating, and it seems to show the global warming happening due to natural factors rather than co2. I was just wondering if you could clarify what "tweaking" you have done for those of us who don't fully understand that aspect. It's just that is seems like adjusting the figures to make them fit the theory, (which I am sure you are not doing, you being as interested in seeing where this goes as anyone) and I think that if you could explain it as simply as possible it would be very helpful. The correction factors and things is what I am talking about (I think!)

Thanks,

SJ

ps, I do understand why you have made adjustments 1945-50 and 1960, that's all very well explained.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Does anyone have any predictions of ice, and enso, that I can incorporate in?

What will you ask for next - the Golden Fleece?

But seriously, that's proving to be a bit of a toughie. I've found an ENSO prediction here, but it only extends to January/February next year. In fact that's the only ENSO forecast I have found so far that gives any figures at all (perhaps I'm not looking hard enough) - most just say "El Nino developing late 2009."

Ice estimates are, again, hard to pin down with actual figures - found some graphs which show that ice is disappearing faster than projected, but no data. (Again, I may not be looking hard enough - I'll go and round up my Argonauts and try again!)

Would it be possible to use some assumed figures for now? Can we extrapolate ice data by extending the trend in the graph I posted earlier (which would assume a worst-case scenario of ever decreasing ice).

And can we recycle ENSO data from about 2 years into the last negative-dominated period onwards, thereby assuming that this ENSO cycle will be identical to the last ENSO cycle?

It would clearly be an entirely artificial prediction, but we could incorporate it into a list of potential scenarios!

CB

[VillagePlank]

Hello Village Plank,

I find this all fascinating, and it seems to show the global warming happening due to natural factors rather than co2. I was just wondering if you could clarify what "tweaking" you have done for those of us who don't fully understand that aspect. It's just that is seems like adjusting the figures to make them fit the theory, (which I am sure you are not doing, you being as interested in seeing where this goes as anyone) and I think that if you could explain it as simply as possible it would be very helpful. The correction factors and things is what I am talking about (I think!)

Thanks,

SJ

ps, I do understand why you have made adjustments 1945-50 and 1960, that's all very well explained.

You are quite right - I am modifying constants in order to make the LI a better fit to the HadCru3. This does not affect the integration of the various components included apart from changing their magnitude of importance. One does a similar exercise when one creates a trend line. The mathematics involved, in both, unfortunately, require quite a good understanding of all sorts of things, so, I think, it is inprudent to publish it here where it would only serve to confuse things. In the same vein you might ask how the hell different sources, with different measuring techniques have been managed to be combined in a single model ....

When you look at one of the charts, the multipliers are listed at the top, as well as the constants. These are being changed regularly. The multipliers must be changed in order to account for scale as their is no consistent published theory in how to combine the various factors together without smoothing to w/m2, something I did not want to get into at this stage (it's fraught with errors and introduces further non-linearity into an already non-linear system - it is easier to understand, say, that the ice extent has quite a large figure range so I've multiplied it by 0.2 to reduce it - which is not the case, here, of course)

I have omitted some constants regarding scaling and initial starting factors as it will end up being put into a paper that will be surrendered for peer review for publication.

This is not unusual activity. The model makers from whence the IPCC derive their reports from do exactly the same - that is the essence of creating models - they are never perfect.

What will you ask for next - the Golden Fleece? :lol:

Yes, please :lol:

[SleepyJean]

Thank you for the explanation. Of course you can't go into all the little details of the maths, but scaling I understand. You need do that so that everything fits within the parameters of the same graph, yes? I think that is essentially what you are saying.

I am very good at asking stupid questions, lol, but I like to make sure I understand what is going on properly.

I have omitted some constants regarding scaling and initial starting factors as it will end up being put into a paper that will be surrendered for peer review for publication.

Wow, so this really is "science in action" as it were. Of course you don't want to publish every detail, someone else might steal your work! Keep it up :lol: .

SJ

[VillagePlank]

... you don't want to publish every detail, someone else might steal your work ...

It's only the detail that ties it to stuff that's specific and concrete - most people on here would be able to figure it out on their own anyway, given the detail I've already given, but it does create a 'barrier to entry' that might put some journeymen off.

I am very good at asking stupid questions, lol, but I like to make sure I understand what is going on properly.

I think you'd be surprised by the number of readers who would want to know the answer to what, in my mind, is far from being a stupid question.

[SleepyJean]

Right, I know nothing about climate particularly, but I've now included all of the LI ouput.

Only sunspots and volcanic starts the chart, enso comes in at 1817 (but the data is sparse), and ice comes in during 1970.

What do you guys think? Here's the chart ...

Of note, is that it looks very cold around 1830? Did something happen then?

1850: The Little Ice Age ends around this time. (from schools-wikipedia.org)

Your chart drops by a largish step at the time the ENSO data comes in. Bearing in mind the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19thC, the fact that your temperatures before 1817 are similar to those after 1850ish, this would suggest to me that the enso data has a significant effect in the LI. Or what I am trying to say is that it suggests the chart before 1817 is a lot less accurate and the drop in 1830 isn't quite as big as it seems.

SJ

[Chris Knight]

You are not alone VP see here

[VillagePlank]

You are not alone VP see here

Good find! Not quite sure they've taken it as far as we have, but excellent work Ck! Nice one :lol:

Incidently, there is a mathematical relation between the climate budget equation and the leaky integrator; I think that the sunspot ground is starting to gain strength - such that, I am revising the equations by the hour such that it fits new findings.

How cool is that! :lol:

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's interesting to see that others are (of have been) barking up the same tree...

Anyhoo - I'm still looking around for prediciton data for ENSO and arctic sea ice (and the whereabouts of the Golden Fleece), and in my travels I came across this page:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/tr...uctions/pdo.txt

On it you will find reconstructed ENSO data stretching from 1991 all the way back to 1661. Will that be of any use for filling in gaps?

I'll keep searching for anything else that may be relevant.

CB

EDIT - I beg your pardon - it's PDO reconstruction, not ENSO. Still...any use?

Edited April 24, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Same of course applies to IPCC models.

No they are already wrong.

BFTP

Of note, is that it looks very cold around 1830? Did something happen then?

Excellent stuff VP and supports what I believe in. Re 1830, I take it that is tongue in cheek question? If not it was the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830. With lag effect 1830 would be coldest period.

Re projection 2015 it wil be obvious we are in global cooling, and new Minima peak/bottoming is around 2032 of at least Dalton proportions. 2020 to 2030 will be very cold decade.

BFTP

Edited April 26, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[VillagePlank]

Re 1830, I take it that is tongue in cheek question?

The stuff before the HadCru3 series - I didn't think it was 1C cooler around 1830? I can't find (because I am generally useless) detailed records of global temperature before the beginning of the Hadley series. Can you post a chart if you have one, please?

EDIT: just seen your explanation - so the 'extreme' has been observed and documented for around 1830?

Re projection 2015 it wil be obvious we are in global cooling

That's the problem - it won't be, we will still be posting above average anomalies, and, by 2020, the claim will be that it's been falling, yes, but not by 30 years, which is what the mean is measured against, and we're still posting positive anomalies, so AGW is not dead.

2040 might be a more realistic time scale, I think, where, whatever the future holds, it will be beyond doubt - although, with 11 years of a projected downward trend (if it happens) might make a few more sit up and listen.

Edited April 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The stuff before the HadCru3 series - I didn't think it was 1C cooler around 1830? I can't find (because I am generally useless) detailed records of global temperature before the beginning of the Hadley series. Can you post a chart if you have one, please?

EDIT: just seen your explanation - so the 'extreme' has been observed and documented for around 1830?

That's the problem - it won't be, we will still be posting above average anomalies, and, by 2020, the claim will be that it's been falling, yes, but not by 30 years, which is what the mean is measured against, and we're still posting positive anomalies, so AGW is not dead.

2040 might be a more realistic time scale, I think, where, whatever the future holds, it will be beyond doubt - although, with 11 years of a projected downward trend (if it happens) might make a few more sit up and listen.

Taken from late 90s to early 2000s to layman it will be IMO 'clear' we are cooling. It is to me already we are heading down now. As per Dalton Minima period there are step downs and not linear drop, that is my thought having read research by astrophysicists. I love this thread...well done mate very very sit up and take notice stuff

Here is linkt to Dalton Minima.

http://sesfoundation.org/dalton_minimum.pdf

BFTP

[VillagePlank]

I love this thread...well done mate very very sit up and take notice stuff

Sunspots are caused by magnetic activity inside the sun, which then, points to a path to the hypothesis that you and Roger have supposed. If you can cross correlate this activity, throughout the solar system, then you might have a general theory that might be able to predict weather and climate - which, to my mind, is a very powerful, and motivating notion.

Edited April 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

This is, of course, hypothetical. I have no evidence that it's the magentism from the sun that did it, just a correlation, that sunspots seem to be rather important.

[Methuselah]

This is, of course, hypothetical. I have no evidence that it's the magentism from the sun that did it, just a correlation, that sunspots seem to be rather important.

Yes, I think they [sunspots] are too...There is a causal relation to solar output from sunspot activity and thus from solar magnetism (I think!); but, I can't yet see how magnetism per se can drive climate? Electromagnetic radiation though - definitely. It's where 99.999999....% of all the climate's energy comes from.

I'm still reading the Beryllium paper. Fascinating!

[VillagePlank]

Yes, I think they [sunspots] are too...There is a causal relation to solar output from sunspot activity and thus from solar magnetism (I think!); but, I can't yet see how magnetism per se can drive climate? Electromagnetic radiation though - definitely. It's where 99.999999....% of all the climate's energy comes from. B)

Yup - we can all agree on that! It's what happens to that energy when it arrives is the question.

The LI presupposes that it is not released at the same rate at which it arrives such that r=0.06, and o=0.05, so, in effect, a multiple of 1/100ths of the energy from the sun is staying around (perhaps in the ocean, perhaps in vegetation, perhaps in mechanical energy - probably all three). That is all that is needed to create this effect 0.01 difference between in and out - and that is all that is needed to create a lag and produce the modern warming without recourse to CO2; in fact, the LI supposes the 'greenhouse' effect to be constant.

Edited April 27, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

EDIT - I beg your pardon - it's PDO reconstruction, not ENSO. Still...any use? :wub:

Is their a linear relationship between the two? Perhaps it's a better indicator, anyway ... I'll try it later.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Is their a linear relationship between the two? Perhaps it's a better indicator, anyway ... I'll try it later.

I'll double check in a little while, but I believe PDO matches ENSO, but precedes it by about 6 months or so. As far as I am aware, annual averages should make the difference negligible.

CB

Having said that, I came across this website:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:j1wiD...=clnk&gl=uk

It states that:

The correlation between ENSO & PDO is r = 0.79

and defines ENSO & PDO as:

Antecedent Pacific SST Anomalies – ENSO & PDO

ENSO: Equatorial SST Anomalies in Pacific Ocean

PDO: ENSO-like SST Anomalies in North Pacific

Any help, or does bringing in PDO complicate things?

:wub:

CB

[VillagePlank]

As an update - we're not standing still, here - I have someone who is proof reading a method to fill in the gaps of missing entries.

Essentially, we are going to have a go at generating high-degree polynomials to represent the data sets and then try and combine them, and see where we go. The maths is a little bit tricky, and I'll post a little article once approved by the proof reader of how it's actually done.

Edited April 29, 2009 by VillagePlank

[pottyprof]

Are there any figures available as to how much area tarmac and concrete has increased by? I would imagine that the storage effect there would be noticeable.. ? Can't find any figures though at the mo.. Or is there a way to factor in the re radiation of stored heat?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't have any stats unfortunately, but I also imagine that, in particular, large areas of dark concrete (such as the dark grey road surfaces that are widespread in the UK) would also increase the surface albedo.

Another point re. albedo that I don't think has been fully accounted for in the scientific literature- could urbanisation be contributing to global warming, be it through albedo, the output of heat via the urban heat island etc? It would certainly be interesting to see what climate models made out of the effects of adding urban heat sources to the mix. However I don't know if that would be within the scope of the leaky integrator model or not.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers