Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Admiral_Bobski

Leaky Integrator Discussion

Recommended Posts

Please continue the LI discussion here. (I'll just paste in the last post in the LI thread :yahoo: )

C-Bob:

As I said on another thread, I am leaning towards the idea that the mechanism that is being sought is nothing more than the long-established greenhouse effect - no need to change the basic principles there. The change to AGW theory would be that the greenhouse effect is not significantly altered by small changes in CO2 concentration - rather, the greenhouse effect's basic ability to retain heat, and how it reacts to changes in incoming energy, is sufficient to explain global warming in conjunction with the sun's varying output.

we need to be much clearer about this; 'greenhouse effect' is no more than a (dodgy) name used to provide a convenient analogy to the global climate system. You seem to be suggesting that the system's record of temperature change might be disconnected from the CO2 content - to a greater or lesser degree - if it can be shown that 'heat memory' from the Sun is in some way the cause of changes to the temperature record. But why would this phenomenon suddenly come into being since the 1950's, and not before?

If the system is retaining more heat than it used to, and the rate of retention is increasing, there must be some physical cause. Thermometers measure current conditions (+/- some short-term hysteresis); other than that, there is no 'memory' in the measurement tools, surely?

:yahoo: P

Hi P3,

I shall skip the hysteresis bit, since VP has answered it already and knows far more about it than I do! So, in response to that quoted above...

In this sense I am referring to the "greenhouse effect" as the effect by which the atmosphere helps to maintain a comfortable temperature for life on Earth. It blocks a certain amount of incoming energy, thereby preventing the daytime temperature from soaring to around 120C. It also blocks a certain amount of outgoing energy, thereby preventing the nighttime temperature from plummeting to around -230C. (These figures are the night- and daytime temperatures of the Moon - since the Earth doesn't stay illuminated on one side for as long as the Moon then these extremes may not be reached in the event of there being no atmosphere, but it illustrates the point.)

So, if you like, the greenhouse effect is the term used for the atmosphere's ability to even out the Earth's surface temperature.

We know that the greenhouse effect stops all the energy (heat) from rushing away from the Earth all at once by, if you like, cushioning the release of energy. (There's more to it than that, of course, because the ground absorbs radiation, the oceans absorb radiation and every object on the Earth absorb radiation, in addition to the atmospheric absorption.)

The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells us that as something heats up it radiates more energy, but its temperature at equilibrium will increase as well (since the emissivity does not increase quite as rapidly as the absorptivity).

So, my thinking which led to this Leaky Integrator idea is that if solar activity remains above a certain level then the absorptivity of the Earth increases a bit more than its emissivity, meaning that the Earth will warm even if the Sun's output remains constant until it reaches its new equilibrium.

As I say, the Sun's average output over the past 60 years or so has been higher than any other 60-year period since records began.

As I have said before (though you may have missed it since you've been away, P3) the temperature increase over the last 100 years or so would require the Earth to retain no more than an extra 1/1000th of a degree Celsius every month, which is not a great deal. Temperatures can still give us peaks and troughs as they always would, but those peaks and troughs would all be 1/1000th of a degree per month higher than they would otherwise have been, giving an increasing temperature trend.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea :yahoo:

It might be worth a friendly moderator, editing the other LI thread and just leaving the walkthrough (and then closing the thread) leaving this one for the chit-chat? I understand that it might be a bit of a mammoth task ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea :whistling:

It might be worth a friendly moderator, editing the other LI thread and just leaving the walkthrough (and then closing the thread) leaving this one for the chit-chat? I understand that it might be a bit of a mammoth task ...

be right with you... sorry if there are delays; i don't have the time i once had...

:unsure: P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To move this forward, can anyone see a way to derive the observed global carbon dioxide curve from the available data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On hold for the foreseable.

Well, not on hold, we've had a breakthrough, thanks to CB, so lots of work, and not much chat, I'm afraid.

So no Q&A for now - and I've asked CB to do the same, of which he agreed -so, please, no questions about the LI at the moment.

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preliminary introductory LI thoughts published on the thread at the top of this section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, there are several people on these boards (naming no names) who complain that skeptics don't have a single piece of evidence against, or an alternative explanation for, the commonly-held AGW hypothesis.

Well, VP and I (especially VP) have put a lot of time and effort into expanding the idea of solar time lags into a coherent and self-consistent hypothesis that could, potentially, rival AGW.

And, apparently, almost nobody is the least bit interested (excepting good ol' Pete, who is always willing to explore others' views).

Comments?

Questions?

Suggestions?

Anything?

You wanted an alternative explanation? Well, here it is - anything to say at all?

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll kick start it off.

Given the right constants - you do not need the leaky integrator - it is there because it aids analysis, and provides cleaner results. Similar results can be achieved using only the Stefan-Boltzmann law and suitably associated constants (which must remain private at the minute because the derivation of those is the key)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always had an issue with the parameters both adherents and skeptics place on AGW. Surely we are currently beyond our post glacial optimum? (more water out than in) and surely we've been impacting climate since the Ozzie Abbo's first started their augmentation of wildfires over 35,000yrs ago? If we're not going to play ball there then what of deforestation in NW Europe over the past 8,000yrs? or Asia over the past 3,000yrs? ,or Meso America over the past 3,500yrs?

I'm not moved by mechanicals aping human movement /behaviours.... I want Cyborgs, I want Replicants, I want a realistic facsimile!smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always had an issue with the parameters both adherents and skeptics place on AGW. Surely we are currently beyond our post glacial optimum? (more water out than in) and surely we've been impacting climate since the Ozzie Abbo's first started their augmentation of wildfires over 35,000yrs ago? If we're not going to play ball there then what of deforestation in NW Europe over the past 8,000yrs? or Asia over the past 3,000yrs? ,or Meso America over the past 3,500yrs?

I'm not moved by mechanicals aping human movement /behaviours.... I want Cyborgs, I want Replicants, I want a realistic facsimile!smile.gif

Have you read the paper on the main LI thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the paper on the main LI thread?

I'm on it but you must realise you are far more intimate with it than I am at present and as such it is still a stuffed bird in a cage with a few cogs,wires and bird whistles to me at present.

I'm sure I'll come to a fuller appreciation but my skirmishes with Macro economics have me wary of 'all other things being equal' as a way to model reality (though insights may be gained that way).

You must appreciate at this point that though I do appreciate your efforts, over the months, on this project I will have to be granted enough time for this addled brain of mine to make a better sense of things if I am to be of any use with constructive criticisms.smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaky Integrator now open for discussion...!

If this LI is right what is the change (if any) in calculated 'forcing' due to a doubling of CO2 (effective or just CO2 itself)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this LI is right what is the change (if any) in calculated 'forcing' due to a doubling of CO2 (effective or just CO2 itself)?

If I'm understanding things the model only uses selective natural forcings in an attempt to mimic the current warming without CO2. I'm still sticking at the Absorption model (dark surface/light surface and it's 'self limiting function) as I fail to understand how it can be used to mimic nature?

I think I've come across it in 'vacuums' before now but never whilst trying to 'model' a multi variable surface with dynamic absorption/reflection properties?

Once I've overcome my difficulties in visualising it's usefulness I'm sure the rest falls into place???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this LI is right what is the change (if any) in calculated 'forcing' due to a doubling of CO2 (effective or just CO2 itself)?

At the moment, CO2 isn't even included in the LI. The variables used are sunspots, ENSO, volcanic activity and albedo (using ice extent as a proxy).

We are using a perturbative approach, meaning that we start by inputting the (assumed) largest factor first and then add in other factors, one at a time, to refine the output.

With a perturbative method (if properly applied) one can determine whether the assumptions made are valid or not. If subsequent factors have a greater effect than earlier factors then the output should diverge more and more from reality. So far, starting with the assumption that solar effects are greatest, we have an output which seems to tally rather well with reality. The addition of ENSO, vulcanicity and albedo seems to have brought the output closer to reality.

And all this without even needing to incorporate CO2.

Any thoughts?

:good:

CB

If I'm understanding things the model only uses selective natural forcings in an attempt to mimic the current warming without CO2. I'm still sticking at the Absorption model (dark surface/light surface and it's 'self limiting function) as I fail to understand how it can be used to mimic nature?

I think I've come across it in 'vacuums' before now but never whilst trying to 'model' a multi variable surface with dynamic absorption/reflection properties?

Once I've overcome my difficulties in visualising it's usefulness I'm sure the rest falls into place???

I'm not sure I understand your concerns. Why do you not believe that the "self limiting function" can be used to mimic (I prefer the word "describe") nature?

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment, CO2 isn't even included in the LI. The variables used are sunspots, ENSO, volcanic activity and albedo (using ice extent as a proxy).

We are using a perturbative approach, meaning that we start by inputting the (assumed) largest factor first and then add in other factors, one at a time, to refine the output.

With a perturbative method (if properly applied) one can determine whether the assumptions made are valid or not. If subsequent factors have a greater effect than earlier factors then the output should diverge more and more from reality. So far, starting with the assumption that solar effects are greatest, we have an output which seems to tally rather well with reality. The addition of ENSO, vulcanicity and albedo seems to have brought the output closer to reality.

And all this without even needing to incorporate CO2.

Any thoughts?

:good:

CB

So, you can explain climate without any CO2 GH effect? I'm not sure?

So, are you saying CO2 isn't the GHG we think it is? Again, I don't think you are?

So, what do you think the effect of CO2 is? Do you accept the usual view that doubling it's conc from 280ppm would cause ~1C warming effect? Do you think going from zero CO2 to 280 ppm is about a ~7C warming effect? I do :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment, CO2 isn't even included in the LI. The variables used are sunspots, ENSO, volcanic activity and albedo (using ice extent as a proxy).

We are using a perturbative approach, meaning that we start by inputting the (assumed) largest factor first and then add in other factors, one at a time, to refine the output.

With a perturbative method (if properly applied) one can determine whether the assumptions made are valid or not. If subsequent factors have a greater effect than earlier factors then the output should diverge more and more from reality. So far, starting with the assumption that solar effects are greatest, we have an output which seems to tally rather well with reality. The addition of ENSO, vulcanicity and albedo seems to have brought the output closer to reality.

And all this without even needing to incorporate CO2.

Any thoughts?

:good:

CB

I'm not sure I understand your concerns. Why do you not believe that the "self limiting function" can be used to mimic (I prefer the word "describe") nature?

CB

CB have you yet included aerosols in the LI?

Also what about all that excess heat stored within the oceans, due to the high solar activity over the last 30 years. Will this be included also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you can explain climate without any CO2 GH effect? I'm not sure?

So, are you saying CO2 isn't the GHG we think it is? Again, I don't think you are?

So, what do you think the effect of CO2 is? Do you accept the usual view that doubling it's conc from 280ppm would cause ~1C warming effect? Do you think going from zero CO2 to 280 ppm is about a ~7C warming effect? I do :)

I do find the LI model quite fascinating. Especially, as we all know that global temperatures have been much higher, in the past, than they are now (without any input from us!)??? So, in that respect at least, it should come as no surprise that any 'good' model should be able to account for that... <_<

That said, CO2 is a GHG, we are adding it and it must, at some point, be included??

But, surely the best point to start is with Nature...We need to understand Nature first, IMO? Only then can we ever hope to understand what our 'tinkerings' do... :D

CB have you yet included aerosols in the LI?

Fly spray??? :p:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find the LI model quite fascinating. Especially, as we all know that global temperatures have been much higher, in the past, than they are now (without any input from us!)??? So, in that respect at least, it should come as no surprise that any 'good' model should be able to account for that... :shok:

That said, CO2 is a GHG, we are adding it and it must, at some point, be included??

But, surely the best point to start is with Nature...We need to understand Nature first, IMO? Only then can we ever hope to understand what our 'tinkerings' do... :D

Fly spray??? :p:)

Your a bugger Pete! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you can explain climate without any CO2 GH effect? I'm not sure?

So, are you saying CO2 isn't the GHG we think it is? Again, I don't think you are?

So, what do you think the effect of CO2 is? Do you accept the usual view that doubling it's conc from 280ppm would cause ~1C warming effect? Do you think going from zero CO2 to 280 ppm is about a ~7C warming effect? I do smile.gif

Well, firstly I don't think that the LI necessarily explains climate - not yet, at least. I think it might be able, at present, to model it, which is a rather different thing. Do I think that the LI can model climate to any degree of accuracy? Yes, I think it could do. Do I think it can do it without invoking CO2? So far it seems to be doing a rather good job of it, yes. Maybe not without any CO2 effect, but maybe with a CO2 effect that is negligibly small.

I suppose, really, that I am saying that CO2 might not be the GHG we think it is - not that it isn't a GHG, but rather that we may need to redefine its effects in the climate system. You see, it's all very well and good to show that CO2 causes warming by filling a bottle with it and showing that the air inside gets hotter than in a similar bottle without CO2, but how does that relate to CO2's effect in the real world - a world with sinks and sources, positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks, a world without a solid barrier between the atmosphere and outer space: in short, a world which is dynamic?

I am well aware that you accept the usual view of CO2's effects. I'm sure that I have made it abundantly clear by now that I do not accept the usual view: at least not in the real world. What do I think the effect of CO2 is? I'm not sure. Small, I think. Perhaps very small. Certainly in the quantities about which we are speaking.

But this is all rather beside the point. The idea behind the LI is to see whether or not CO2 is actually necessary to explain changes in climate. The original plan was to keep on adding things to see if we could get a good match with reality - we managed to get a pretty good match with reality after adding only a couple of things. We haven't actually needed to add CO2 yet.

:air_kiss:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the LI was conceived to show that 'natural forcings ' alone could mimic the warming we have been seeing but I'm not sold on some 'aspects' as being 'faithful to nature.Anyone following the Arctic sea ice thread will know that 'extent' is not only open to 'mis-interpretation' but is also now a different beastie to what it was 10yrs ago (due to observed salinity differences and the lack of/fragmentation of the perennial .Ice extent should increase with 'cold' (you'd expect) but if warm the perennial collapses and spreads out (satisfying the 15% rule)......the past 6 years has seen a lot of 'Barber-esque collapse' of perennial floes leading to the formation of the 'rotten ice' we will be hearing so much about across the Arctic basin.In essence had we not witnessed the final collapse of the perennial ,and it's spreading out across the basin in wide areas of 'rotten ice', we'd be repeating the 07' min's each year (if not exceeding it!!).

What was once a useful tool is no longer acceptable?

As for the absorption/reflection/self limitation model. With both land surface undergoing change (in use /reflectivity/moisture retention),atmospheric composition undergoing change and atmospheric height increasing (troposphere) I struggle to accept the oversimplification of the chosen model.If you start out with unacceptable errors built into the calcs how can the results do anything other than amplify the errors?

As I said earlier it is a fine way of approaching the complexities of climate to allow folk a taste of the width of the discipline but maybe understanding it's failure to do such would bring us more knowledge than claiming any replication of the observed worlds working will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very good questions :)

However, these are rooted in practical climatology, and the LI is theoretical climatology. That is to say, the assertions are

(i) All dynamical systems must exhibit hysteresis

(ii) The SB law exhibits hysteresis

(iii) The LI can be modelled as an abstraction of (ii)

The output of such a set of assertions is a 0.91 correlation. For comparative reasons the CO2 hypothesis sits at 0.71.

How can we account for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, firstly I don't think that the LI necessarily explains climate - not yet, at least. I think it might be able, at present, to model it, which is a rather different thing. Do I think that the LI can model climate to any degree of accuracy? Yes, I think it could do. Do I think it can do it without invoking CO2? So far it seems to be doing a rather good job of it, yes. Maybe not without any CO2 effect, but maybe with a CO2 effect that is negligibly small.

I suppose, really, that I am saying that CO2 might not be the GHG we think it is - not that it isn't a GHG, but rather that we may need to redefine its effects in the climate system. You see, it's all very well and good to show that CO2 causes warming by filling a bottle with it and showing that the air inside gets hotter than in a similar bottle without CO2, but how does that relate to CO2's effect in the real world - a world with sinks and sources, positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks, a world without a solid barrier between the atmosphere and outer space: in short, a world which is dynamic?

I am well aware that you accept the usual view of CO2's effects. I'm sure that I have made it abundantly clear by now that I do not accept the usual view: at least not in the real world. What do I think the effect of CO2 is? I'm not sure. Small, I think. Perhaps very small. Certainly in the quantities about which we are speaking.

Of course this is where we part company because, if you're right, it's a case of rewriting a whole science and such things don't happen very often.

But this is all rather beside the point. The idea behind the LI is to see whether or not CO2 is actually necessary to explain changes in climate. The original plan was to keep on adding things to see if we could get a good match with reality - we managed to get a pretty good match with reality after adding only a couple of things. We haven't actually needed to add CO2 yet.

:)

CB

But, climate is the sum of it's parts and to explain it you need all the parts (or a large % of them) not a sample of them?

However, I'm not an expert. I think you need to get it contact with someone at Exeter, or a uni who is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is where we part company because, if you're right, it's a case of rewriting a whole science and such things don't happen very often.

I think that that's a little unfair. At most, the LI would suggest that the GhG effect is more or less constant. Not that it doesn't exist, not that a complete new era of science is upon us. Indeed, the whole CO2 hypothesis is based upon measurement that the average temperature of the moon is 45C. A faulty assumption for sure, but I still won't discount it - but there certainly is (rather like the LI) core problems with it. You can check out the 45C claim in Arrhenius' paper.

However, I'm not an expert. I think you need to get it contact with someone at Exeter, or a uni who is.

I've tried. Nearly everyone isn't interested in alternate hypothesis'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×