The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?  (Read 3985 times)

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
feature=youtu.be&goback=.gde_104901_member_227251689

This is hard science.  Up until I saw this I was not open to any discussion on climate change. It was an proven fact. I have Googled "climate models," read the articles and  can say I do not know if either side has this "RIGHT!" with the degree of certainty implied by the word 'right' in quotes. The single fact that the most prevalent green house gas was not included in ANY model makes me throw out all models - none include it. That gas is water vapor.

How can any model be correct without all atmospheric gasses including the heaviest and most prevalent is not included??????????
« Last Edit: 21/04/2013 10:55:30 by chris »


 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1 on: 18/04/2013 21:33:28 »
Can you summarize the main points so I don't have to watch a 50 minute youtube view on it in order to respond?
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #2 on: 18/04/2013 23:17:05 »
jUST TWO, ONE ALREADY MENTIONED, THAT IS WATER NOT COUNTED  ( A 2 COMPONENT SYSTEM IT ISN'T)   AND THE WAY TEMPERATURE DATA FILTERED. Raw data is .... unknown?  - this video only source.
« Last Edit: 20/04/2013 22:36:09 by JimBob »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #3 on: 18/04/2013 23:51:27 »
As you pointed out in a thread on geology recently, every model has shortcomings and flaws, especially models for complex systems where it isn't easy to conduct experiments.  Pointing out these flaws doesn't invalidate the model.  The problem with a lot of these attacks on climate science is that they rely on pointing out flaws as scientific proof the model is invalid.  In fact, we know the models aren't perfectly accurate (if they were there would be no work left for climate scientists).  To make a useful critique of a model, one needs to not only point out specifically where it's flawed, but also how big an impact that flaw has on the model's predictive power.  That second part is lacking in most critiques on climate models.


How can any model be correct without all atmospheric gasses including the heaviest and most prevalent is not included??????????

From what I've read, it is included through feedback effects (higher temperatures = more water absorbed into the atmosphere), but not directly as a term that we can add, e.g. "we added 20 tons of water this month."  This is probably because it's extremely hard to actually count how much water is going into the atmosphere vs. how much is coming out so that temperature is a very good way to model this.  http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

I don't know much about the data filtering.  From what I understand there is a bit of an issue with the past 10 years of data--it's straining against the models a bit, but not so far that it invalidated the models (this has been checked, apparently, with rigorous statistical analyses).  Supposedly if the temperature doesn't rise for another few years, we'll have to re-think the models since the observations don't match them.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #4 on: 19/04/2013 16:23:45 »
J.P.  - exactly the type of critique I was looking to engender.


more anyone??
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #5 on: 20/04/2013 20:32:40 »
I don't know much about the data filtering.  From what I understand there is a bit of an issue with the past 10 years of data--it's straining against the models a bit, but not so far that it invalidated the models (this has been checked, apparently, with rigorous statistical analyses).  Supposedly if the temperature doesn't rise for another few years, we'll have to re-think the models since the observations don't match them.

You're not actually expecting a significant increase in the global temperatures before 2020, or perhaps 2030, are you?

I think that it seems that we are in a negative phase of the temperature cycles which I believe will last throughout the rest of Solar Cycle 24, and perhaps into Solar Cycle 25.

If, however, temperatures remain constant and do not cool off, that could be an indication for bad things in the future, and does not negate global warming, rather also emphasizes other climate influences.

As far as water, there are many feedback loops.  Atmospheric water vapor (not clouds) has a broad IR absorption. 

Clouds at night increase nocturnal temperatures.  Clouds during the day decrease diurnal temperatures.  There is a good chance that water and clouds could buffer the effects of climate changes.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #6 on: 21/04/2013 04:18:23 »
I don't know much about the data filtering.  From what I understand there is a bit of an issue with the past 10 years of data--it's straining against the models a bit, but not so far that it invalidated the models (this has been checked, apparently, with rigorous statistical analyses).  Supposedly if the temperature doesn't rise for another few years, we'll have to re-think the models since the observations don't match them.

You're not actually expecting a significant increase in the global temperatures before 2020, or perhaps 2030, are you?

I try to refrain from making any sort of inferences from the climate data, since I don't know the details of climate models.  Similarly, I can't comment on how well the models fit the measured data.  I stress the scientific treatment of this (and my inability to comment on it) because I know just enough of the models to realize that they are fairly complex beasts, which take into account direct and indirect influences on climate, and which involve plenty of assumptions and potential errors.  Much of the work in such a complex model goes into producing confidence intervals, which can be used to compare the model to measured data and figure out if the data is or is not consistent with the model. 

I'm basing the above quoted comments on an article I read in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions), which in turn was based off of recent studies by climate scientists.  They found that the previous decade of temperature measurements, when rigorously fit into the model, are pressing up against the edges of the model's fit.  In other words, if temperature continue not to rise, then the models are wrong.  Right now, the data is still consistent enough with the model that the model can't be thrown out (though it's a warning sign that scientists might want to start tweaking the model).  So it's not what I expect at all, but a reading of an article that reports recent research articles.

Regarding the solar cycles, I again can't comment on it much better than a layperson who's read up a bit on the subject, but from what I read, the general consensus is that solar cycles do have a non-trivial impact, but it is small compared to greenhouse gasses at this point in time.  (Pre-industrial times were a different story.)  There are a few scientists who believe otherwise and a lot still understood.  Do you have details on rigorous models (hopefully including confidence itnervals) that add this in on top of other climate effects and do predict flat temperatures through 2020 or 2030?  I find it a bit difficult to see how the solar cycle could fit both modern data and historical data without discarding the effects of greenhouse gasses, since presumably if it is overwhelming the effects of greenhouse gasses to keep temperatures flat (or decreasing) today, it would have a much larger impact than what is seen historically.
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
For anyone out there who is really interested in this area, I would recommend that you read an excellent wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model.

I was present at the first SPARC (stratospheric processes and their role in climate) general assembly held in Melbourne in December 1996. Several papers presented there addressed issues relating to the interfacing of stratospheric processes with the global climate models then in use. I am not an expert on global climate models (my main interest was in ozone chemistry), but at that meeting I thought I gained several insights.

• The global climate models (between 8 and 20 of them) had all been developed relatively independently. This independence arose from (1) a different grid size and grid arrangement to model a continuous surface (2) different simplifying mathematical tricks to make the models tractable (3) different sets of assumptions about little understood earth systems. However there had been a lot of effort put into benchmarking them both against one another and against short term changes and past changes in the Earth's climate.

• Although few of the models considered the greenhouse effect of water vapour explicitly, it was implicitly included in all of them. If it had not been, the models would have been out by 35°C! Water enters into the equations in many different places: evaporation at the sea surface, precipitation onto land and sea, reflection off cloud tops, reflection of far IR off the cloud base, and. of course. the greenhouse effect.

• Global climate models (in 1996) were performing in only a mediocre way: they could account for the broad features of atmospheric circulation, but not the fine detail.
 

Online evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4103
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
I would be very surprised if climate models did not include water vapour. After all, computerised climate models are an extension of the computerised weather models that we use to predict the weather up to 5 days in advance, taking into account factors like the amount of solar radiation, the mixture of land, sea & mountains, wind currents and water vapour in the air.

It seems that the most important parts of the weather forecast to us are:
  • Temperature: What clothes do I wear?
  • Water vapour & resultant precipitation: Do I take an umbrella? Even more important to farmers, swimmers or skiers
  • Wind strength: Important to pilots, kite-flyers and tornado-watchers
Water vapour could not have just been dropped from computer models when short-term weather models were extended to model longer-term climate.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
"Weather" and "Climate Change" are not necessarily the same. 

That is one of the problems with looking at the historical weather data.  Extraordinary temperature records were recorded in many places around the world, but were not designed to detect an average of 1/2 degree temperature shift over the course of decades, and averaged around the globe.

Of course, weather and climate are also interrelated.  While I am curious about whether it will rain tomorrow, I also want to be sure that my well doesn't run dry, and any crops I plant will get adequate sunlight, and adequate water.

What we know is that droughts are often associated with heat waves.  However, that may be that the water is just going somewhere else, so heat doesn't necessarily cause drought.  Although, is the converse true?  Does drought cause heat?

I think there is effort to make the models more accurate, and better model weather that is caused by temperature increases on a global scale, but they still need some work. 

Certainly the heat/water is an important feedback loop, and perhaps climate buffering system.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?
« Reply #10 on: 23/04/2013 22:06:01 »
We're not going to get a perfect model ever, I think. We live on a planet that is open ended to space, and filled with complex chaotic behavior. What we can do is to try to narrow it down as good as we can and try different parameters tweaking the models. And that one is being done, constantly, sometimes by finding new fact to put in, but also from a purely theoretical point of view in where you try to look at what statistics can tell you about most probable outcome, from comparing tweaking models. What is true though is that I know of no model that support a cooling :) or global warming disappearing. Read that Hansen is leaving NASA to fight on his own, sort of. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

One thing that struck me reading that article was "Half the world’s population is now too young to have lived through the last colder-than-average month, February 1985. "

Time moves on :)
==

http://climateprediction.net/
when it comes to statistics this one is one of the coolest things I know on the web, if not the coolest.
apropos global warming :)

And if you wonder why it exist, this one is good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climateprediction.net
« Last Edit: 23/04/2013 22:42:34 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?
« Reply #11 on: 23/04/2013 23:08:32 »
On a totally unrelated subject, although environmental.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22075182

the take home news here is "What is becoming clearer with time is that the chemical dispersants typically used in clean-up efforts to break masses of oil up into small droplets does more harm than good."

And as this was a very limited try for Geo engineering, anyone want to see us do it on a global scale?
It also reminds me of those gene modifying plans and seeds. Not that it need to be harmful, but I would prefer more caution, as well as independent research, before seeding someones land, making that profit.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?
« Reply #12 on: 23/04/2013 23:31:01 »
The funniest thing about all those irritants, to me, is that they are presented as solutions, and that we 'need them'? We don't need any of it. Earth has been working perfectly well for millions of years, how come we think that over some decades of research we suddenly can do it 'better'? And none of our economic 'sciences' and plans for a needed constant growing of the gross national income etc, is proven from a point of a living Earth. It's like 'money', something we invented at a time when everyone thought of Earth as a pool of infinite resources. We don't live in those times any more, and I don't expect Geo engineering, genetically or otherwise, to be anything more than one of those human folly's we love to integrate ourselves in. It's like the idea that 'money solves everything', for you personally it might, but for the rest out there? Nah, there's a limited cake out there, and either we start to share it, or we go to war. Both can be seen as natural reactions, but it's also so that we call ourselves intelligent :) sometimes even capable of empathy and compassion.

War, many small arm wars, or a big one 'final one' will only lead us to cement a attitude building on greed, money, and 'unlimited resources', relative those surviving. We better wake up.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2013 23:36:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?
« Reply #13 on: 23/04/2013 23:48:55 »
We can easily correct the population globally, without a war, also keeping the proportions that already exist, just by agreeing on limiting the amount of children we get. A very simple solution that will have a direct effect on everything, from environment to ?  in about twenty to thirty years. and we don't really need to become some super nation to implement it. We're pretty weird.
=

I was wrong in stating that it would keep the proportions btw. Thinking some more I have to admit that those nations being undeveloped also tend to be those nations making the most kids, both from child mortality and economical reasons as it is the kids that support their elders. They will see the most drastic reduction in population, (relative what the population otherwise would become in 20-30 years). But that will also make them more resource-ful, relative their population. For a 'modern country' with already low birth rate it won't make that much of a difference as a guess. But I don't think there will be any big losers in such a solution.
=

counting on that not all want kids, or create families a ratio of one kid per person would work splendidly over a hundred years, as I suspect? And it would make the one that's yours so much more precious, and loved, wouldn't it? Ah well :) Don't think we ever will implement it, just wanted to point out that we have a much better solution in it, than any 'carbon taxes' or similar ever will make. They are a scam, this isn't.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2013 00:39:26 by yor_on »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?
« Reply #14 on: 24/04/2013 01:41:33 »
counting on that not all want kids, or create families a ratio of one kid per person would work splendidly over a hundred years, as I suspect? And it would make the one that's yours so much more precious, and loved, wouldn't it? Ah well :) Don't think we ever will implement it, just wanted to point out that we have a much better solution in it, than any 'carbon taxes' or similar ever will make. They are a scam, this isn't.

I have no idea why that hasn't been implemented in the USA, and many other countries.  Some countries like India perplex me.

With an aging population, one may still experience a bit of a bulge in population, but not as much as if one did nothing.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?
« Reply #15 on: 24/04/2013 02:02:23 »
One thing that struck me reading that article was "Half the world’s population is now too young to have lived through the last colder-than-average month, February 1985. "

It is, of course, a moving average, so even that may not have been below average.

However, back in the early 70's, we had some of the chilliest winters on record, at least locally, and there was talk about the coming ice age.

Of course, it has never been clear, but we may be considered to still be IN an ice age, just a relatively glacial free phase.  Certainly temperatures are far below what is termed as the Eocene Optimum.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How is water vapour factored into models of climate change?
« Reply #15 on: 24/04/2013 02:02:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums