Leaky Integrator Discussion

[SleepyJean]

Well it seems we are now of the opinion that not just the oceans came from off world but the majority of the atmosphere too!!!

Maybe a few comet tails heavy in CO2 ?

Or the odd Tunguska body?

As you say ,hard to plot out unless we have a regular swarm every so often..........2012?

I know it's been a while, just catching up on the thread, but I had to laugh. Ultimately didn't everything come from space? There are scientists out there who sidestep the question of how life began by suggesating that it was brought to earth by meteors! I was just grasping at straws, really, but is it not possible that if solar radiation is a main driver of the atmosphere and climate, then perturbations in the radiation caused by, for example, regular but infrequent comets, might have some effect. Probably only to the same sort of level as CO2 at most, but if we want to look at all of the possibilities then why not? I said the comment might merely reflect my lack of understanding, and apparently it does

Edit: Since the comment was otherwise totally ignored it was obviously not a useful suggestion. Fair enough

Edited January 23, 2010 by SleepyJean

[7andY]

I know it's been a while, just catching up on the thread, but I had to laugh. Ultimately didn't everything come from space? There are scientists out there who sidestep the question of how life began by suggesating that it was brought to earth by meteors! I was just grasping at straws, really, but is it not possible that if solar radiation is a main driver of the atmosphere and climate, then perturbations in the radiation caused by, for example, regular but infrequent comets, might have some effect. Probably only to the same sort of level as CO2 at most, but if we want to look at all of the possibilities then why not? I said the comment might merely reflect my lack of understanding, and apparently it does

Edit: Since the comment was otherwise totally ignored it was obviously not a useful suggestion. Fair enough

...Cheer up, SleepyJean, Oh what can it mean?...

It just means that replies don't come thick and fast on this thread. You have to wait - but it is an interesting thread nonetheless!!

Cheers, Andy E.

[SleepyJean]

...Cheer up, SleepyJean, Oh what can it mean?...

It just means that replies don't come thick and fast on this thread. You have to wait - but it is an interesting thread nonetheless!!

Cheers, Andy E.

Thanks Andy. I wasn't at all upset by the lack of response to my wildly "out there" suggestion, lol. I just thought I'd put it in there in response to Roger questioning why he had an apparent weakening of his signal on a semi-regular basis. If I read his theory right, then solar energy affects our climate. Perturbations of that solar energy would weaken the effect, and something that regularly perturbs the space around us might be the regular type of comets, like Halley's etc. But I could of course be just a nut with weird ideas, I'm quite happy to go with that and therefore if my suggestion doesn't merit a response then fair enough.

Anyway, what's a daydream believer to do....? ;-)

SJ

[SleepyJean]

There was an article in the paper the other day about water vapour as a major greenhouse gas and I remembered that somewhere on this thread (or the original LI thread) someone (Captain Bobski?) had suggested water vapour but not know how to get figures for it. I would guess you areralready aware of this and if you are interested in it for your LI you'll have looked it up and everything, but I thought it was interesting because it was something I didn't know until I read the LI thread! And the LI is so interesting I thought it would be nice if it didn't drop off the bottom of the page

[Admiral_Bobski]

There was an article in the paper the other day about water vapour as a major greenhouse gas and I remembered that somewhere on this thread (or the original LI thread) someone (Captain Bobski?) had suggested water vapour but not know how to get figures for it. I would guess you areralready aware of this and if you are interested in it for your LI you'll have looked it up and everything, but I thought it was interesting because it was something I didn't know until I read the LI thread! And the LI is so interesting I thought it would be nice if it didn't drop off the bottom of the page

Gawd bless ya, ma'am! There's nothing like a thread bump every now and again, is there? <_<

[Methuselah]

Gawd bless ya, ma'am! There's nothing like a thread bump every now and again, is there?

Good thinking, guys!!

[VillagePlank]

If the LI turns out to verify, then the suspicion is that the reason it works is related to water; either that temperature is 'taken out' by the oceans and put into deep-sea circulation, and/or, that the energy is 'taken out' by the evaporation of water. Probably both.

In both scenarios its reciprocal acts as the accumulator such that the system can feedback on itself over time hence produce a variable lag.

Can't say more - someone might nick me idea!

Edited February 2, 2010 by VillagePlank

[sunny starry skies]

Just had a look at the discussion that VP pointed me to from the general discussion page. Very interesting correlations (though most here know my questions regarding the difference between mechanism and correlation, whihc VP has already acknowledged). I wonder, what is the forecast from the LI. When you posted in April the graph which you had tweaked in order to get it to fit HadCRUt3, it showed a sharp drop-off in temperature post-2009, which is what I would expect, given the inputs. Yet VP has said that he expects the LI to rise in the next decade? What has changed between April 2009 and now to alter that?

sss

[VillagePlank]

Just had a look at the discussion that VP pointed me to from the general discussion page. Very interesting correlations (though most here know my questions regarding the difference between mechanism and correlation, whihc VP has already acknowledged). I wonder, what is the forecast from the LI. When you posted in April the graph which you had tweaked in order to get it to fit HadCRUt3, it showed a sharp drop-off in temperature post-2009, which is what I would expect, given the inputs. Yet VP has said that he expects the LI to rise in the next decade? What has changed between April 2009 and now to alter that?

sss

Reducing sea-ice extent, that isn't modelled in later years on that graph, and the resumption of sun activity in later years also not modelled on that graph. I won't be producing another graph until the experiments are complete, and I can actually say something concrete, with a quantified degree of certainty.

It could well turn out, once complete, that the temp could simply flatten off - I don't know, I'm not there, yet - this is all conjecture, hyperbole, assertion, and, dare I say it, hot air. I hope that there is modicom of interest, though, since that graph is entirely reproducible from the run-throughs already published (the trick, and 'secret' is how to derive the parameters)

Edited February 10, 2010 by VillagePlank

[sunny starry skies]

Reducing sea-ice extent, that isn't modelled on that graph, and the resumption of sun activity also not modelled on that graph. I won't be producing another graph until the experiments are complete, and I can actually say something concrete, with a quantified degree of certainty.

It could well turn out, once complete, that the temp could simply flatten off - I don't know, I'm not there, yet - this is all conjecture, hyperbole, assertion, and, dare I say it, hot air. I hope that there is modicom of interest, though, since that graph is entirely reproducible from the run-throughs already published (the trick, and 'secret' is how to derive the parameters)

Cheers VP. I'll be very interested to see how your parameters stack up when you tell the world! I suppose it is an interesting issue if solar activity in general (ie averaged over the 11-year cycles) is on a sharp decline, as some are suggesting, then it means we'll very soon be able to rule out or rule in solar activity as a major player (as in the LI), or a minor player (generally-accepted AGW theory). I would say a drop in solar activity can't come soon enough, if only so that such debates can be resolved!

sss

[VillagePlank]

Cheers VP. I'll be very interested to see how your parameters stack up when you tell the world! I suppose it is an interesting issue if solar activity in general (ie averaged over the 11-year cycles) is on a sharp decline, as some are suggesting, then it means we'll very soon be able to rule out or rule in solar activity as a major player (as in the LI), or a minor player (generally-accepted AGW theory). I would say a drop in solar activity can't come soon enough, if only so that such debates can be resolved!

sss

Yeah - the problem I face is that some of this flies in the face of some received (consensus) wisdom. It has to be done right. I use CB as my proof-reader, and, I'm sure, he is willing to testify to the amount of false-starts we've already had! Perhaps one of my (many many) mistakes is to try and keep it as open as possible which has the direct consequence of seeing ideas flip-flop around manically.

Indeed, this is proposing something extraordinary, so, in my opinion, the work behind it must also be extraordinary.

Edited February 10, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

Yeah - the problem I face is that some of this flies in the face of some received (consensus) wisdom. It has to be done right. I use CB as my proof-reader, and, I'm sure, he is willing to testify to the amount of false-starts we've already had!

Indeed, this is proposing something extraordinary, so, in my opinion, the work behind it must also be extraordinary.

You know what, VP??? It's admissions like that one, that make real science so invigorating!!! :lol:

Can I sell you a 'Salt Lamp'??? Don't ask!!

[Devonian]

Yeah - the problem I face is that some of this flies in the face of some received (consensus) wisdom. It has to be done right. I use CB as my proof-reader, and, I'm sure, he is willing to testify to the amount of false-starts we've already had! Perhaps one of my (many many) mistakes is to try and keep it as open as possible which has the direct consequence of seeing ideas flip-flop around manically.

Indeed, this is proposing something extraordinary, so, in my opinion, the work behind it must also be extraordinary.

Extraordinary claims and all that.

Of course a problem for those who seek to fly in the face of consensus is that if they are successful they become the consensus to be flown by? Another is that the consensus used to be that mankind could not have a significant effect on the planets climate - so the current consensus was, not all that long ago, something extraordinary itself.

So, on that basis I don't think I have a problem with the current consensus per se or your questioning of it.

[Methuselah]

Just to inject a bit of humour, I though I'd post this in here: Al Gore's Global Warming Update song -

[VillagePlank]

Quick update. Many apologies for the lack of replies, I have had to do mucho reading to fill in gaps; hopefully I am there, now, and can plough ahead. So, hopefully, something soon!

[VillagePlank]

Leaky integrator has been used to model land/climate coupling before, here (PDF) It seems like Carson (1982) was the very first ... (but can't seem to get hold of that paper - any helpers?)

In Cox et al (1999) reference is made, as well as weaknesses in the generality (it is referred to as 'obvious limitations') to model criteria that use the leaky integrator (here called a leaky bucket - but it's the same thing) to model soil moisture.

Interestingly, it also models the 'overflowing' of the bucket - something I have not considered, since the LI model assumes an infinitely large bucket. This seems to open up the notion of a limiting maximum with respect to quantity in the bucket. This is an observable phenomena in the Vostok ice core record (Petite et al) where we can observe that there is an apparent maximum temperature of the climate.

This is something that the VP/CB LI model didn't really do. More work to do!!

Edited March 13, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Hiya]

Leaky integrator has been used to model land/climate coupling before, here (PDF) It seems like Carson (1982) was the very first ... (but can't seem to get hold of that paper - any helpers?)

In Cox et al (1999) reference is made, as well as weaknesses in the generality (it is referred to as 'obvious limitations') to model criteria that use the leaky integrator (here called a leaky bucket - but it's the same thing) to model soil moisture.

Interestingly, it also models the 'overflowing' of the bucket - something I have not considered, since the LI model assumes an infinitely large bucket. This seems to open up the notion of a limiting maximum with respect to quantity in the bucket. This is an observable phenomena in the Vostok ice core record (Petite et al) where we can observe that there is an apparent maximum temperature of the climate.

This is something that the VP/CB LI model didn't really do. More work to do!!

That Carson (1982) reference is probably a book not a paper.

[VillagePlank]

That Carson (1982) reference is probably a book not a paper.

Ah - didn't realise that. Will search on Amazon with me credit card

[Admiral_Bobski]

Leaky integrator has been used to model land/climate coupling before, here (PDF) It seems like Carson (1982) was the very first ... (but can't seem to get hold of that paper - any helpers?)

In Cox et al (1999) reference is made, as well as weaknesses in the generality (it is referred to as 'obvious limitations') to model criteria that use the leaky integrator (here called a leaky bucket - but it's the same thing) to model soil moisture.

Interestingly, it also models the 'overflowing' of the bucket - something I have not considered, since the LI model assumes an infinitely large bucket. This seems to open up the notion of a limiting maximum with respect to quantity in the bucket. This is an observable phenomena in the Vostok ice core record (Petite et al) where we can observe that there is an apparent maximum temperature of the climate.

This is something that the VP/CB LI model didn't really do. More work to do!!

Important to note (or rather to emphasise) that this previous use of the leaky bucket, Cox et al 1999, does not use the leaky bucket the same way that we are using it. We, of course, are using the leaky bucket to model the total heat capacity of the entire planet, whereas Cox taks about its use within the Earth climate system.

(Just thought I'd underline that before anyone jumps up and says that the LI has already been discredited! )

I had assumed that an overflowing would occur at some point, since the peak temperature of the Earth appears to be around 22C (historically, the Earth has spent far longer at 22C than it has at its lowest point of about 12C - we're now at somewhere around 14C, I believe). It hadn't occurred to me that this would have any relevance to the LI in the temperature region that we're looking at, since it's well below the 22C "cutoff" point. But would a limiting factor at the top end cause other limitations, or different behaviour, further down the scale?

CB

That Carson 1982 thing is, indeed, a book - or rather it is a section within a book entitled "Land surface processes in atmospheric general circulation models" by PS Eagleson. The link below links to places (in the US) where you can buy it. Pre-owned off Amazon.com for around $80 - you can get a preowned copy from Amazon UK for about £80. Yikes! It's a better deal off Amazon US, but I don't know if it's worth chasing up.

http://openlibrary.o...culation_models

EDIT - Not sure if this page might be of some help in the LI:

http://www.unu.edu/u...5e/80635E0j.htm

It references Carson 1982, and it has a table of average monthly values for albedo at various latitudes (which is the point where Carson comes in).

Edited March 15, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[7andY]

Important to note (or rather to emphasise) that this previous use of the leaky bucket, Cox et al 1999, does not use the leaky bucket the same way that we are using it. We, of course, are using the leaky bucket to model the total heat capacity of the entire planet, whereas Cox taks about its use within the Earth climate system.

(Just thought I'd underline that before anyone jumps up and says that the LI has already been discredited! )

I had assumed that an overflowing would occur at some point, since the peak temperature of the Earth appears to be around 22C (historically, the Earth has spent far longer at 22C than it has at its lowest point of about 12C - we're now at somewhere around 14C, I believe). It hadn't occurred to me that this would have any relevance to the LI in the temperature region that we're looking at, since it's well below the 22C "cutoff" point. But would a limiting factor at the top end cause other limitations, or different behaviour, further down the scale?

CB

That Carson 1982 thing is, indeed, a book - or rather it is a section within a book entitled "Land surface processes in atmospheric general circulation models" by PS Eagleson. The link below links to places (in the US) where you can buy it. Pre-owned off Amazon.com for around $80 - you can get a preowned copy from Amazon UK for about £80. Yikes! It's a better deal off Amazon US, but I don't know if it's worth chasing up.

http://openlibrary.o...culation_models

Bit of a long shot, perhaps, but you could try your local Lending Libray. If it's in their system in the UK, you can order it through them.

7&Y

[VillagePlank]

Yup - time for another battering on my credit card

[VillagePlank]

Important to note (or rather to emphasise) that this previous use of the leaky bucket, Cox et al 1999, does not use the leaky bucket the same way that we are using it. We, of course, are using the leaky bucket to model the total heat capacity of the entire planet, whereas Cox taks about its use within the Earth climate system.

Indeed - it might even be construed that it's even more general than that since we are using the arbitrary count of sunspots of which might have any number of hitherto unknown effects which, of course, might indeed be the reason for the latency.

An example of why this might be the case is the recent tree-proxy data that links to solar activity, but a year or so behind. Certainly a find, but it doesn't seem to exhibit the relationship that the LI does. That is to say, it seems almost discrete and boolean such that the latency is not variable.

(And a general theory of latency that does not rely on instant responses tuned to the speed of light; I mean who needs discrete packets when one can just hold a little bit back depending on how much you're already holding ..... Here comes the wave function ... )

Edited March 15, 2010 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

Those darn scientists - they never stop, do they?

A crucial groundbreaking paper is published in Nature, here, that describes research and the physical creation of a memristor. Essentially, as I understand it without actually reading the paper, this is inspired by Hodgin-Huxley model. As a consequence of this paper (PDF), an abstraction - the leaky integrator - can be used to model the action potential on a soma membrane.

Like the memristor, this provides a sort of capacitance, giving rise to a hysteresis type effect, and is the physical basis for biological neural processing, and neural memory.

More later when I get time to read the paper in Nature, but well done to those scientists.

Edited April 9, 2010 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

[jethro]

Any chance of an explanation of that graph for thicko here?