Climate Modeling using a Leaky Integrator

[Iceberg]

But where is the heat in the atmoshphere during a negative anomaly. ?

I agree that we can leave CO2 out for now. As that is a issue we have been over many times. With or with out the issue of CO2. As I previously state

"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."

I am still trying to fathom a mechinism for the leaky int to allow it to add energy to the system, particularly when the atmosphere doesn't have that energy i.e a negative anom, it can't just create it.

[VillagePlank]

But where is the heat in the atmoshphere during a negative anomaly. ?

I agree that we can leave CO2 out for now. As that is a issue we have been over many times. With or with out the issue of CO2. As I previously state

"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."

I am still trying to fathom a mechinism for the leaky int to allow it to add energy to the system, particularly when the atmosphere doesn't have that energy i.e a negative anom, it can't just create it.

The graphs I've posted are simply the measure of how much water is in the bucket; the water comes from the hose in the top, and leaves via a leak in the bottom. It's not creating anything, and external 'things' are regulating the level of water.

Edited February 17, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

But where is the heat in the atmoshphere during a negative anomaly. ?

I agree that we can leave CO2 out for now. As that is a issue we have been over many times. With or with out the issue of CO2. As I previously state

"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."

I am still trying to fathom a mechinism for the leaky int to allow it to add energy to the system, particularly when the atmosphere doesn't have that energy i.e a negative anom, it can't just create it.

You're focusing on the fact that it's a negative anomaly. It's only negative because of where we have chosen to place zero on the scale.

A negative anomaly on a 1961-1990 scale is going to be different from a negative anomaly on a 1971-2000 scale, but does that make the actual raw value different? No - it just means that it is comparatively low on one scale and comparatively lower on another scale.

If global average temperatures are relatively high - which they must still be or else we would all agree that we have been in a cooling phase - then the negative anomaly is meaningless. It's negative by comparison to a high baseline.

CB

[VillagePlank]

You're focusing on the fact that it's a negative anomaly. It's only negative because of where we have chosen to place zero on the scale.

Yes, the negative anomaly, in the case of a LI, means that the level of the water is falling, nothing else; it certainly doesn't mean the bucket is empty.

[Iceberg]

Sorry VP, probably being dense here, but I though the level of water effected the leak or drip ?, this is the whole point of the leaky int and if the temperature is negative against a base/normal then it nolonger has an enhancing effect on global temperatures.

[VillagePlank]

Sorry VP, probably being dense here, but I though the level of water effected the leak or drip ?, this is the whole point of the leaky int and if the temperature is negative against a base/normal then it nolonger has an enhancing effect on global temperatures.

Forget signs (+/-) the weight of the water in the bucket is proportional to how much water it leaks, yes; so as less water is added, the level of the water drops, and less water is 'leaked'

EDIT: If you go here, the second graph in that post shows what happens to the level of the water if all incoming water is switched off.

Edited February 17, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

I am getting confused, but for the record the msu baseline is 79 to 2000 hence the amount of stored heat in the atmosphere must have been below the 79 to 2000 average. ?.

[VillagePlank]

I am getting confused, but for the record the msu baseline is 79 to 2000 hence the amount of stored heat in the atmosphere must have been below the 79 to 2000 average. ?.

Huh? What mean, where? The only means I've used is a CET anomaly against the mean of the entire CET set, and mean of monthly sunspot data to derive annual figures.

Edited February 17, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

I am getting confused, but for the record the msu baseline is 79 to 2000 hence the amount of stored heat in the atmosphere must have been below the 79 to 2000 average. ?.

What was the Jan temparture anomaly compared to the 1880-1910 baseline?

CB

[Iceberg]

So are you using global temperatures or CET ?. Sorry I though you where using global.

Maybe I am not explaining myself probably, I am sure there will be a Eureka moment soon !.

CB said that the store of heat that the leaky int uses to cause it's effect on temperature was in the atmosphere, but if the atmosphere is negative then this store must be at least reduced to the baseline of the negative anom.

I think the problem comes when transfering the maths model to the real world, in a maths model the mechanism exist through creation in the real world we can judge their existance.

[Admiral_Bobski]

But it's only a negative anomaly because of the baseline used! If you compare your negative anomaly with the 1880-1910 baseline (for example) you'd probably find a positive anomaly, yes?

The baseline is an artificial concept and in no way related to the Earth's radiative capacity (which is what the "leaky hole" actually is).

CB

[Iceberg]

Yes I agree but it represents a limitation on the scale on the leaky int component. Whether that limitation is to a baseline of 1880 to 1900 or 1979 to 2000 is relavent but there is still that limitation without it being re-fueled.

I should add if we are down to 79-00 level then there will be alot less warming around at the moment and I would be surprised if 2009 where a top 10 year with low solar i.e a small drip.

[VillagePlank]

Iceberg - treat the LI model as an abstraction. The values that the y axis represent are meaningless. That some might fall below zero and others might not is not useful; I can remove the axis if it makes life any easier. At a push this represents the effective number of sunspots energy reaching the earth; ie a measure of insolation - but that's a real push.

Consider the bucket to be identical in spirit to a thermometer; as the level increase, so the mercury rises, and as the level decreases so the mercury drops.

At this very early stage it is essentially useless to try and attribute any of this to the real world apart from overall trend. That is, using a leaky integrator shows a method of increasing temperature in the christmas pudding without recourse to CO2.

And that's about all it is, really.

That it might describe climatological hysteresis is interesting which is why I've kept going on this; note the neuron refractory period in this article which is how the LI is used in neural networks. If you click here, you'll see this is nothing new, and plenty of people are looking to it to explain phenomena where reaction simply isn't 'instant' and to demonstrate systems that appear to have a 'memory'

If you look carefully, some are using hysteresis to amplify the effectiveness of CO2 as a GHG - I have used it to amplify the effectiveness of sunspots.

Edited February 17, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

You know what the most disheartening thing is?

That I can produce a relationship between sunspots and rising temperatures, and not one - yes, not one, of the proponents of CO2 here on NetWeather has anything to say about it. Also, what's disheartening, is that this uses the simplest of simplest of calculus and people seem to be having such a difficult time in understanding the concepts. I can assure you that the mathematics underpinning the CO2 hypothesis are much much much more complex.

It leads to some very difficult questions that, I suspect,some people will have to start asking themselves.

Very disappointing indeed; and, it remains, that there is a simple relationship between sunspot data and rising temperatures.

Edited February 18, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

VP, no need to be insulting.

A relationship there might be, but a mechanism there is not.

You have not demonstrated that there is the addition of the magic x factor, what you have shown is that you have a fancy math model and if you change how much goes in and out using figures that are best guesses, and then apply a magic number which you have created then temperature changes.

You seem to think that you can create energy, the difference between CO2 and sunspots is that CO2 has a proven lag in that it reduces the leak for 200 years or so(hence memory hence hysteresis whereas sunspots have no proven mechanism for the lag or memory(hence no hysteresis), but you seem to want to create one.

[VillagePlank]

A relationship there might be

Thanks

[VillagePlank]

You have not demonstrated that there is the addition of the magic x factor, what you have shown is that you have a fancy math model and if you change how much goes in and out using figures that are best guesses, and then apply a magic number which you have created then temperature changes.

You seem to think that you can create energy, the difference between CO2 and sunspots is that CO2 has a proven lag in that it reduces the leak for 200 years or so(hence memory hence hysteresis whereas sunspots have no proven mechanism for the lag or memory(hence no hysteresis), but you seem to want to create one.

There doesn't need to be the magic x factor. Sunspots do it on their own

I don't think that I can create energy. That is wholly misrepresentative of the entire thread. I've said this before, too. At what point have I said "and, hey presto, water magically appears in the bucket?" This is what you are claiming, it's plain wrong.

Temperature does have a lag. You said so yourself - in the oceans. I presume that is proven? So, at a guess, I presume that there is at least one mechanism that acts like a leaky integrator (not interrogator like you keep on saying) in the natural climate system.

You are also incorrect in that this a "fancy" mathematics model. It's about as simple as they come.

Edited February 18, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

No not at all, because the Ocean does not contain the energy that you would need, nor does the atmosphere hence for your additonal lag/memory you would need to create that energy in the real world.

Cb agreed that the energy was not in the Ocean it was in the atmosphere, where do you think it is ?.

Do you think the more water in the bucket the more the leak slows down ?. Probably not, do you think that the more energy you put in it the more you get in the future, again probably not. Where then does the energy come from ?

[VillagePlank]

No not at all, because the Ocean does not contain the energy that you would need, nor does the atmosphere hence for your additonal lag/memory you would need to create that energy in the real world.

Cb agreed that the energy was not in the Ocean it was in the atmosphere, where do you think it is ?.

Do you think the more water in the bucket the more the leak slows down ?. Probably not, do you think that the more energy you put in it the more you get in the future, again probably not. Where then does the energy come from ?

If the atmosphere is warmer does it contain more energy?

Yes, it does, because temperature is a measure of energy; why is it that in the CO2 world energy can be 'kept' in the atmosphere, but everywhere else it cannot. The oceans also "have" a temperature - if they warm, they contain more energy. So does grass, concrete, the sun - everything that can be attributed mass, in fact.

I am getting tired if this implied accusation that I am somehow breaking fundamental physical laws.

And if you've read carefully, which you clearly haven't, I have said that the water in the bucket is analagous to temperature. Sunspot energy adds to that energy, and volcanic interactions effectively take it away.

Where is all that energy that CO2 stops escaping held? Don't tell me you think that the CO2 hypothesis, in your opinion, has to create energy to be valid???

I am going to go for - the energy is stored in exactly the same place as the CO2 hypothesis claims. Where is that?

Edited February 18, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

No not at all, because the Ocean does not contain the energy that you would need, nor does the atmosphere hence for your additonal lag/memory you would need to create that energy in the real world.

Cb agreed that the energy was not in the Ocean it was in the atmosphere, where do you think it is ?.

Do you think the more water in the bucket the more the leak slows down ?. Probably not, do you think that the more energy you put in it the more you get in the future, again probably not. Where then does the energy come from ?

Iceberg, perhaps I was being too subtle in my post where I said the "extra heat" wasn't being stored in the oceans. Let me just go through this again. I said:

"That slowly accumulating extra energy is responsible for the measurable increase in temperatures - the heat isn't "stored" anywhere: it is the extra heat that we define as global warming."

You seem to be suggesting that the accumulated heat is somehow "hidden", and that it suddenly enters the system later on. This is not what I am saying. When I retracted my "the heat is stored in the oceans" comment it was because it seemed to back up the idea that the energy is "hidden".

When we talk about global warming we are talking about the warming of the Earth's climatological system - the climatological system includes the atmosphere and the oceans. The extra energy is not hidden anywhere - it is there, plain to see, in our increased temperature measurements.

No doubt that there is some energy being "hidden" in the oceans by the process of ocean overturning, but this isn't what we're talking about.

We are told that the atmosphere is warming, on average, globally. Where does this heat come from?

We are told that the oceans are warming, on average, globally. Where is this heat coming from?

Is it magically created? No.

AGW suggests that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere is effectively "reducing the size of the hole in the bucket," though if we are to be more accurate it is actually reducing the Earth's radiative capacity - that is to say that, due to CO2, the Earth can't get rid of the same amount of heat that it used to.

What I am suggesting is that the Earth's radiative capacity has not reduced at all - the hole in the bucket is the same size - but any energy that comes into the Earth system that exceeds the Earth's radiative capacity is trapped, in the same way that a leaky bucket will fill with water if it is being filled faster than it is leaking.

Your negative anomaly, of which you spoke yesterday, just means that there is less water filling the bucket than there was, on average, between 1970-2000. But if the amount of water filling the bucket between 1970-2000 was in excess of the rate of leak then the negative anomaly has no bearing on whether the bucket is emptying or filling, only upon the rate at which it is happening.

Does that clear things up at all?

CB

Edited February 18, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

Here's something else for the mix.....

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/200...solar_wind.html

[Iceberg]

Back in Jan 08 according to Hadley global temperatures were at their 69-90 average and sea temperatures were below their 69-90.

IF these are the store for energy that is used by the integrator then surely this store could only be as full as it was on average during this timeframe ?. ergo there has been very little hysteresis factor in the last 12 months !)

The store of energy for hysteresis, (as the hysteresis factor you mention has no lag effect itself on the balance of the system unlike CO2 which has both a lag due to the length of time in the system and a cumulative albeit non linear effect) must be in the system, this is the key difference as to why it works with CO2 and is valid and why it does not work with temperature per se.

Hysteresis can be applied to any system like this, but it's meaningless unless you find a driver for it and or a mechanism.

It's not the case that it has a negative effect if the temperature drops below the mean because of the above.

CO2 is a very good example, if we managed to remove 50% of the man made CO2 in the atmosphere then their would be a reduction in the hysteresis factor, however it would still exist at a lower rate and would still be positive.

IF you reduce the level of atmospheric and oceanic heat then global temperatures would still equal the amount in plus the amount out. All things being equal, you would need a mechanism attached to the increased or decreased heat that would effect the in or out of the system such as water vapour. Which you have not mentioned nor factored in.

Your model is a self fulling prophesy but it means nothing in the real world.

I am not cross btw, just trying to get a point across

Here's something else for the mix.....

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/200...solar_wind.html

You and me might get shot for taking this off topic, but ENSO(El Nino/La Nina) has no warming effect on global temperatures over a climatic timeframe, it takes the heat down into the ocean during a La Nina Phase and then it pops back up again in a El nino phase. It essentially balances itself out, therefore I fully agree that solar winds might have more effect on global temperature trends than ENSO, but it's not saying much. ENSO has been netural over the last 30 years.

I fully accept that ENSO has a largest(the largest) effect on short/medium term global temps changes.

Cheers

[Admiral_Bobski]

Iceberg, it would appear that you are trying to refute the leaky integrator idea we have here on the basis that it is oversimplistic and lacking in detail. So let's try this again...

I first proposed the leaky integrator idea (but without that name - thanks to VP for showing us the mathematical form of what I was trying to describe) as a potential alternative explanation to AGW. Note the use of the word "potential". Skeptics are always being asked to propose an alternative to AGW (the CO2 hypothesis, if you like), so I started to look at alternative explanations.

It is known that there is a correlation between solar activity and earth's climate, so I thought I'd look into it a little deeper. I found a number of proposed time lags in the relationship between the Sun and Earth, varying between a few months and a century or so. Note that this isn't specifically a huge range of uncertainty - rather, different features of Earth's climate respond to solar activity at different rates; some respond quickly (with responses of up to a few months), while others respond very slowly (with lags of decades or more - for example we can think of the oceans as a massive spitroast, slowly turning under the heat of the sun).

These proposed lags got me thinking that perhaps solar effects can be used to explain current warming despite the relative lull in solar activity. Note that solar activity, averaged over the past, say, 40 years is still relatively high by comparison to the early 20th century and before. The peak of solar activity came in about 1956, but the subsequent solar cycles have all been higher than any cycles in the century (or more) prior to 1956.

So, if solar activity can add just one-thousandth of a degree C more heat per month, say, than the Earth is capable of shedding, how quickly will that heat build up? Well, we can multiply 0.001 by 120 (12 months a year for 10 years) and arrive at a figure of 0.12C per decade, which is roughly in line with what has been observed.

Note that this supposed 0.001C per month would be an average over 120 months, or ten years. Some months the Earth might lose 0.001C per month, but other months it might gain, say, 0.003C per month. This would depend upon solar activity, but also on things such as volcanic eruptions (blocking out solar energy, in the long run), water vapour (certain clouds would block incoming radiation, while others might trap it) and so on.

So, where to begin with the investigations? First of all I needed to put the idea out there, which I did. VP suggested the leaky integrator function, which is a viable (and, as it happens, naturally occurring) process. After a bit of discussion, VP kindly constructed a graph to show the principle (just the principle) on the basis of solar activity alone. His graph showed that, assuming a leaky integrator function, it is possible (hypothetically speaking) for solar activity to have a cumulative effect.

We decided to take this further and VP produced another graph which also took volacnic activity into account. Again, this only showed the principle, using ballpark figures, to see how vulcanicity would affect the graph. Adding in volcanic effects seemed to bring the graph even more in line with observed temperatures. Not necessarily the right degree (since our y axis has no units), and not necessarily over the right time frame either.

That is as far as our hypothesising has gone!

The basic principle - that the Earth has a maximum rate at which it can emit radiation - is an absolute given. In fact AGW theory uses this principle, by saying that CO2 lowers that maximum rate. My suggestion is that CO2 doesn't have to lower that maximum rate during a period of higher-than-normal solar activity to achieve the same effect.

What VP has done is shown my suggestion mathematically. It is far from accurate, and it is far from complete. Water vapour has not been taken into account, but in all fairness AGW theory does not fully understand or utilise water vapour's effects. The specific numbers that have been used are purely speculative, but by remaining constant (or at least varied by known amounts) they adequately show the principle.

I am not claiming - and nor have I ever claimed - to have stumbled upon THE answer, or to have a fully-working hypothesis. What I am claiming is that there is a viable alternative to the AGW theory - one that has not been explored and should be looked at in greater detail.

Your suggestion that energy is somehow being created in the leaky integrator is wrong. The leaky integrator is a mathematical function that utilises only what is put into it - it can no more create energy than pythagorean theorum can create hexagons.

Your suggestion that temperatures are at or below the 1969-1990 average are spurious, since that average only gives us an artifical baseline and is not related to the Earth's emissivity. Temperatures can still fall in a leaky integrator. This does not negate the principle in any way whatsoever.

The "driver" that you keep mentioning is nothing more than a detailed description of the Earth's heat budget - as long as the incoming radiation is greater than the outgoing radiation then the Earth will warm. When the incoming radiation is less than the outgoing radiation it will cool.

Right now we are at a period of low solar activity, so one would expect the incoming radiation to be lower than at solar maximum. The earth may very well cool. Does this mean that the stored up energy has suddenly disappeared? No, it does not. It simply means that the Earth will cool, and it will do so from a high baseline due to stored heat.

Has this cleared anything up?

CB

[Iceberg]

I think your still missing my key point CB.

What your describing is heat distribution within the globe and a lag where by the oceans etc can keep that heat for longer. But please see by anomali point.

Hysteresis is different and where the amount into a system or out of a system is determined by what is in that system.

Regardless of the current temperature of the earth under VP's example 10 measures in will lead to 10 measures out as temperature by itself won't reduce the leak. Therefore there is no hysteresis.

With CO2 10 measures in won't mean 10 measures out, the out will depend on the CO2 effect. this effect is hysteresis and is what I believe VP is modeling.

If your not increasing the amount in and your not effecting the amount out then the amount in the system MUST be the same the only way you can get extra additional warming is by creating energy.

This is NOT the same with CO2 as it directly effects the amount out..Unless VP has a method in his model for temperature to reduce the leak or increase the drip he must be creating energy out of nothing, you can do that in a maths model but not in real life.

"Right now we are at a period of low solar activity, so one would expect the incoming radiation to be lower than at solar maximum. The earth my very well cool. Does this mean that the stored up energy has suddenly disappeared? No, it does not. It simply means that the Earth will cool, and it will do so from a high baseline due to stored heat."

No if the earth at a point in time globally (oceans and air) is at a lower baseline then it does not mean that stored energy has been used up, but it does mean that the store of energy is only at a 69-90 baseline unless it's re-filled.

[VillagePlank]

VP's example 10 measures in will lead to 10 measures out as temperature by itself won't reduce the leak. Therefore there is no hysteresis.

The amount of water leaking is directly proportional to the amount of water in the bucket.It is not 10 in, ten out, and the system exhibits hysteresis.

If you look at PAGE ONE you will see graphs depicting this behaviour and being demonstrated in that the rate of fall of the level of water diminishes as the water level reduces given an immediate cessation of water being put into the bucket.

I didn't post those graphs because it would be fun, or that I thought I'd struggle with crappy Excel for an afternoon, I did it to illustrate the concept of the change of the rate of change depending on quantity of water - hence dx/dy=-Ax+b (I've omitted the constants, and am using the more general form, now)

Can I respectfully suggest that you start from page one, post one, and then ask any questions - this stuff has already been covered in detail and, I think, adequately illustrated.

Edited February 18, 2009 by VillagePlank