Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Climate Modeling using a Leaky Integrator


VillagePlank

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Here's an Excel file based on Ice core SO2 data, showing Northern, Tropical and Southern hemisphere eruption dates, from Marc Duran Prohom's PhD thesis, together with Mann et al's 1998 volcanic forcing data, references on the worksheets.volcanodates1.xls

Some large eruptions, like Mt St Helens, had virtually no climatic effect due to the lateral direction of the ash plume, rather than vertically upwards into the upper atmosphere, and relatively small amounts of sulphate aerosols emitted. Other eruptions like Laki had considerable duration of significant emissions compared to one-off explosive eruptions.

Thanks for that :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

I've integrated the volcanic data, and included the deviation from the mean of the entire CET set. Red line is CET deviation (x 100) and the volcanic data is multiplied by 0.65 to trim the numbers down a bit.

post-5986-1234800740_thumb.png

I suspect that the volcanic data will need have it's own memory (so combine the results of the sunspot leaky integrator, and the volanic leaky integrator) because I must presume that the effect a volcanic eruption has may last many years.

Any ideas for any further inclusions, please feel free to post :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

Why assume that a volcanic eruption will effect for many years.?

Some eruptions very major had very major effects , whilst some didn't, it depends on exactly where the volcano is, how high the plume, what the plume consisted of, how long the eruption went on for, whether the volcano is southern or northern hemi, whether the eruption occured in winter or summer etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Why assume that a volcanic eruption will effect for many years.?

Some eruptions very major had very major effects , whilst some didn't, it depends on exactly where the volcano is, how high the plume, what the plume consisted of, how long the eruption went on for, whether the volcano is southern or northern hemi, whether the eruption occured in winter or summer etc..

Don't suppose you've got that data to hand have you?

I've moved the date axis out of the way ....

post-5986-1234802740_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

No Sorry, but I've looked into this (briefly ! ).

And to be honest it was a complete nightmare to try and make head or tale of.

Some eruptions like pinatubo (Can't be arsed to spell it right !), had a net effect of -0.3C cooling over 12 months globally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
No Sorry, but I've looked into this (briefly ! ).

And to be honest it was a complete nightmare to try and make head or tale of.

Some eruptions like pinatubo (Can't be arsed to spell it right !), had a net effect of -0.3C cooling over 12 months globally.

Well, all I've done to plug in the volcanic data is to multiply the figure that was in Chris' spreadsheet, multiply it by 0.65 and deduct it from 'b'.

I almost fell of me chair ....

I suppose El Nino/La Nino is next .... anyone know where to get the data going back nearly two centuries (does it even exist?)

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
Well, all I've done to plug in the volcanic data is to multiply the figure that was in Chris' spreadsheet, multiply it by 0.65 and deduct it from 'b'.

I almost fell of me chair ....

I suppose El Nino/La Nino is next .... anyone know where to get the data going back nearly two centuries (does it even exist?)

I'm sure the US Army have data on this VP, good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

Here's a link to PDO data going back to 1950:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/anal...ensoyears.shtml

Ideally we want more, of course, so I'll keep digging!

:)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

There may be more useful data here:

http://icoads.noaa.gov/products.html

Unfortunately you need to register, log in and then apply for access. I'll give it a go and see if I can get hold of the info.

:)

CB

EDIT - is there anything you can use on this page? (goes back, I think, as far as 1882)

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/

Edited by Captain_Bobski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
There may be more useful data here:

http://icoads.noaa.gov/products.html

Unfortunately you need to register, log in and then apply for access. I'll give it a go and see if I can get hold of the info.

:)

CB

CB I'm sure the US. Army has a site regarding this, unfortunately I can't find anything on it now. Pretty sure I've seen data on there site regarding ENSO dating back over 200 years. Can you help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
CB I'm sure the US. Army has a site regarding this, unfortunately I can't find anything on it now. Pretty sure I've seen data on there site regarding ENSO dating back over 200 years. Can you help?

I'll have a dig around and see what I can find.

(Note to US Army personnel - I am not talking about hacking into any servers or anything! :) )

There's so much PDO info around that I'm not sure what I'm looking for - is any indicator of the magnitude of oscillation useful? There's the PDO Index, Air pressure at various altitudes, air temperature, ocean temperature.... I'll see what I can do.

:)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

Ah-ha!

Found a graph of reconstructed PDO from 1661-1991. Followed a link to the source and found the data here:

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

This is annual data (1 data point per year) up to 1991, from 1992-present there is data in previously posted links.

:)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

CB for the life of me I can't find the post up put up saying that the extra heat is in the air.(you made it yesterday), I was going to look at it and respond. Sorry probably an early morning moment.

Am I right in saying that we have a bucket half full with water with a drip-drip in and a drip drip out( A hole at the bottom), when solar is high etc the drip drip in is slight faster and the bucket fills a bit more than half way, when the drip drip in is lower i.e very low solar or lots of volcanos then the bucket starts to empty.

Replace the bucket with the earth and the half full water with a atmospheric heat content.

Simple I know but I am not very with it today.

Is the above a correct summery of the leaky interrigator and this is what VP has found could be responsible for recent warming ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
CB for the life of me I can't find the post up put up saying that the extra heat is in the air.(you made it yesterday), I was going to look at it and respond. Sorry probably an early morning moment.

Am I right in saying that we have a bucket half full with water with a drip-drip in and a drip drip out( A hole at the bottom), when solar is high etc the drip drip in is slight faster and the bucket fills a bit more than half way, when the drip drip in is lower i.e very low solar or lots of volcanos then the bucket starts to empty.

Replace the bucket with the earth and the half full water with a atmospheric heat content.

The basic premise of leaky integrator is, and forget about climate for a minute, that outgoing quantities is regulated by existing quantities. What this means, in terms of a bucket, the more water you have in the bucket the higher the pressure of the water leaking (the faster it leaks) and the lower the amount of water in the bucket the lower the pressure (the slower it leaks)

I didn't invent it - it's used for modelling membrane potential of neurons in neural networks

Is the above a correct summery of the leaky interrigator and this is what VP has found could be responsible for recent warming ?.

I haven't found anything, I've simply demonstrated an alternative proposal of how we can model warming without recourse to CO2; I think that perhaps this is related to hysteresis - which, I think, the leaky integrator models nicely.

I don't have a lot to say except :doh: , and why not send it to WUWT (on the basis that they get lots of traffic) for further comment?

Who?

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

So all I have done is I've used sunspot counts to be analagous to incoming energy (the hose filling up the bucket) and allowed such energy to stay a little (the water in the bucket) by restricting the size of the leak. When I added the volcanoes, all I did is I increased the size the of the leak proportionally to the magnitude of the volcanic effect ala Chris' spreadsheet.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
CB for the life of me I can't find the post up put up saying that the extra heat is in the air.(you made it yesterday), I was going to look at it and respond. Sorry probably an early morning moment.

Am I right in saying that we have a bucket half full with water with a drip-drip in and a drip drip out( A hole at the bottom), when solar is high etc the drip drip in is slight faster and the bucket fills a bit more than half way, when the drip drip in is lower i.e very low solar or lots of volcanos then the bucket starts to empty.

Replace the bucket with the earth and the half full water with a atmospheric heat content.

Simple I know but I am not very with it today.

Is the above a correct summery of the leaky interrigator and this is what VP has found could be responsible for recent warming ?.

Hi Iceberg :)

The post you're looking for is over in the Global Cooling thread, I believe. It sounds like you've got the basic gist of what I've been saying, yes.

I'd like to quickly point out that I am not trying to claim that this is precisely what's happening in the world today - what I am suggesting is that this could be an alternative explanation for 20th century warming, and that the only way to discount it is to examine it further and see whether or not it fits real world observations (which is, after all, at the very heart of science).

VP's kind assistance in this has shown graphically that, at least in principle, the leaky integrator is capable of generating realistic-looking results by using only sunspot data and volcanic data (no CO2 necessary!). Of course the figures (especially in terms of magnitude) may not be correct, and using only sunspots and volcanic data is a vast over-simplification, but it does show the basic concept very nicely.

Any thoughts?

:)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

OK I am slowly getting there.

According to VP, the formula would by x = a + (d - b - c)

x = global temperature

a = global temperature - time T (what ever the interval is).

b = the size of the leak

c = the additon of leak caused by the a (the leaky interrigator bit ! )

d = the dripping tap

Surely AGW thoery reduces the size of b ?. hence how do you differentiate this when plotting temperature.? what you have in an in built AGW thoery ?.

Also Thanks for replying CB, My thoughts around this at 3.00am this morning where along the lines of.

If the extra temperature is in the air, then when the air goes back to neutral globally, surely the leaky interrogator has then lost all it's extra heat that it can put into the system ?. If this is the case then back in Jan when the global temperature was probably at it's lowest for a long time all the lag must have left the system ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

Nay problem, Iceberg :)

I understand what you're saying about AGW reducing b, and the thought had occurred to me a while back, but the point is that the leaky integrator can potentially explain warming without having to reduce b.

A fluctuating value of b would cause a similar effect if the inputs remained constant (and obviously it starts getting extremely complicated if you start having varying inputs and a varying b ).

I have started from the premise that CO2 increases have little to no effect on the value of b. With that starting point, is it possible to mimic real world observations with varying inputs? VP's work has shown that, in principle, it is possible to do so without invoking CO2's supposed effect.

:)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Surely AGW thoery reduces the size of b ?. hence how do you differentiate this when plotting temperature.? what you have in an in built AGW thoery ?.

Yes, GHG's, under this model make the leak smaller. There is a premise, and I know we've all read about it, that GHG's although they make the leak smaller, the amount that CO2 affects the leak is so small, that it really doesn't disturb the overall trend. That's the idea, and I've in no way demonstrated anything either for CO2, or against CO2, simply that it is possible to arrive at the six nations with something looking like a rugby team without reference to CO2

If this is the case then back in Jan when the global temperature was probably at it's lowest for a long time all the lag must have left the system ?.

Yes, although I'm not sure all of the water would've drained out of the bucket, yet - in the grand scheme of things it hasn't been that cold, and neither has any cold we have had been that prolonged.

Extrapolating that, one could make a prediction and say that the bucket needs refilling again, and until it refills we should expected cooler climate - perhaps an extrapolation too far? - which means we need to hit a solar sunspot maximum for the refill before we could presume a warmer/warming climate again. If, and I really mean if that is the case we should not expect a warmer climate until the downslope after the next sunspot maximum, and possibly have to wait until we have another two sunspot maximums before we see any effect.

Anyway, under this model, I would expect the general trend to be gently downwards as the leak, well, er, leaks.

(Of course this lot is premise, conjecture, hypothesis, and a whole host of other things. What it is not, is a validated model!)

(The formula reuses 'x' so you need to add 'x' to the right hand side)

** EDIT: I should add that I am not married to this concept, particularly, apart from a curiosity, in the same way I would not get married to pocket bullets in a game of Texas Hold 'em **

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

If I move on a bit then.

Currently the general theory is x = a + (d- :) without any c.

This I can understand and makes sense.

Volcanism will reduce the amount of energy from the sun reaching the earth so increases b (the leak).

A higher solar amount will increase the drip d.

All this I agree with.

However with c the leaky interrogator we are in effect creating energy within the earths climate. It can't be increasing d as this is a given from space. It could be decreasing b but the life of me I can't see how.

The 2 Year lag(which is currently accepted) is largely attributable to the oceans.

The problem I have is that you can't create energy so we can rule that out, but how can b be decreasing by the magnitude shown by the leaky int.?

It's a cool math model but when trying to related to global energy balances it just doesn't seem to make any sense.?

I am quite prepared that I am being very slow on this and might not understand it.

BTW this is interesting and valuable, if we rule out c as being the leaky int that occurs naturally then it makes perfect sense to replace this with GHG variations. with would effect b, (I think we agree on this but it's just the amount it effects b ! ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
The 2 Year lag(which is currently accepted) is largely attributable to the oceans.

Well, that's essentially what is going on here, but, instead of a constant 2 year latency, I have varied the latency based on how warm it is at the time.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
Yes, GHG's, under this model make the leak smaller. There is a premise, and I know we've all read about it, that GHG's although they make the leak smaller, the amount that CO2 affects the leak is so small, that it really doesn't disturb the overall trend. That's the idea, and I've in no way demonstrated anything either for CO2, or against CO2, simply that it is possible to arrive at the six nations with something looking like a rugby team without reference to CO2

Yes, although I'm not sure all of the water would've drained out of the bucket, yet - in the grand scheme of things it hasn't been that cold, and neither has any cold we have had been that prolonged.

VP we have reached a negative global temperature anomaly (several in fact according to the MSU), this would mean that the bucket has lost it's warming capability. Therefore the current rise we have seen in the last 12 months when Solar has been low and ENSO negative would be unexplainable ????.

Pure guess work though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
VP we have reached a negative global temperature anomaly (several in fact according to the MSU), this would mean that the bucket has lost it's warming capability. Therefore the current rise we have seen in the last 12 months when Solar has been low and ENSO negative would be unexplainable ????.

Let me try and put it another way ...

We have a bucket, it has a hose going in, constantly refilling with water, and it has a hole in bottom, letting water out.

This model contends that the hose going in is analagous to sunspot count, and the size of the hole in the bottom varies according to volcanic influence.

Therefore, if sunspot count is low (so less refilling is going on) then level of water in the bucket, regardless of the size of the leak is going to fall. Depending on the size of the leak depends on how quick it that level will fall.

So for instance if we have a relatively quiet volcanic period and low sunspot count you might expect the level, for instance, to stay the same. If you have a high volcanic period and a high sunspot count you might expect the level to stay the same. It is the proportional differences between the two that allow high sunspot counts from years back to still affect the level of the water, today.

If I get time, I'll try and show a more detailed walk-through, later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
VP we have reached a negative global temperature anomaly (several in fact according to the MSU), this would mean that the bucket has lost it's warming capability. Therefore the current rise we have seen in the last 12 months when Solar has been low and ENSO negative would be unexplainable ????.

Pure guess work though.

What's the baseline for the temp anomaly? You're assuming that a negative anomaly automatically translates to the input being less than the output, but if the baseline is at a point where input exceeds output then even a negative anomaly will lead to the retention of some heat (albeit less heat than was retained during the baseline period).

I'm starting to see that this exercise is going to lead to precisely the same disagreement as AGW theory.

Skeptics like myself argue that CO2 has less effect on global temperatures than AGW theory states.

Effectively, AGW theory says that CO2 reduces the size of our leaky integrator hole, b.

My suggestion is that temps can be explained without CO2 reducing the size of the hole.

It's exactly the same argument as always - namely, how much of an effect does CO2 actually have?

The only difference is that, this time, we skeptics have graphs! (Artificial ones, I grant you!!)

Is there any way we can settle this fundamental issue?

:D

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...