Suricat

quote:

If we accept the IPCC's figures the ratio between transport by latent heat and transport by thermals is 13 : 4 respectively. I don't see that this ratio would change much at all. I also don't see that the altitude for the 40w/m^2 window with IR is going to reduce any time soon either.

I assume this is a global average ratio for a certain climate configuration. But changes in the direction of the jetstream, as an example, can significantly alter wind patterns which affect the whole planet. So take the UK at present wet and cold the WV latent heat removal would be higher and the thermals lower in heat content that say when it's hot and dry. Now consider the knock-on over the planet I see no reason whey such a 13 : 4 relationship would stay the same. And if climate change is a reality then it would be an assumption that such a relationship were to continue.

quote:

I've thought some more on the theory that I proposed and I think that a 'clean' observation at an acceptable temporal interval is not evident in any record known to me, or easily extractable from the temporally challenged. Perhaps the inclusion of water in all its phases within the atmosphere would increase the abundance of usable data, but reduce the 'offset' definition. The offset ('C') could be defined in a 'quadratic', but involves greater computation and intuitive rejection of the -ive result.

I think you are right that such data doesn't exist and would be a massive exercise to obtain it.

Why a quadratic relationship?

Son of Mulder.

Quote.
I assume this is a global average ratio for a certain climate configuration.
EOQ.

Yes. For the current IPCC global configuration.

Quote.
But changes in the direction of the jetstream, as an example, can significantly alter wind patterns which affect the whole planet.
EOQ.

The connection is tenuous. "Changes in the direction of the 'jet stream'" are a local (or regional) 'weather' event and not a 'global climate' event (anyway it doesn't 'change direction', it only 'alters its normal course').

The 'jet streams' are there by virtue of fluid dynamics applied to a rotating planet with atmosphere. It is only 'planet topography' and 'rotational speed' that sets the course of a 'jet stream', and regional weather events that force its deviations.

I think you are putting the 'cart before the horse' here (effect before the cause).

Quote.
So take the UK at present wet and cold the WV latent heat removal would be higher and the thermals lower in heat content that say when it's hot and dry.
EOQ.

So, so, wrong. SoM, you are putting your 'ground dweller' existence to the front of your logical reasoning (even that seems 'clouded' [pardon the pun] )! Though it's cold and wet at ground level, it's a normal August for 2007 in the UK above the clouds. Ground temperatures are low for the time of year due to 'cloud shrouding' so water evaporation is low and due to low boundary air temperature and thus high RH saturation by lower SH level, the transport of WV from the boundary layer is decisively down. Though there are probably no 'out of season' changes above cloud.

Quote.
Now consider the knock-on over the planet I see no reason whey such a 13 : 4 relationship would stay the same. And if climate change is a reality then it would be an assumption that such a relationship were to continue.
EOQ.

If weather trends cause a change in climate then they cause a change in climate, but the 13 : 4 relationship is what it is at the moment for global climate. Until this changes, why consider it to be anything else.

The global 13 : 4 relationship shall continue until weather trends prove a change in the ratio. Aye, there's the rub!

I've covered enough for now if I don't want to turn into a 'pumpkin'.

Regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

The connection is tenuous. "Changes in the direction of the 'jet stream'" are a local (or regional) 'weather' event and not a 'global climate' event (anyway it doesn't 'change direction', it only 'alters its normal course').

The 'jet streams' are there by virtue of fluid dynamics applied to a rotating planet with atmosphere. It is only 'planet topography' and 'rotational speed' that sets the course of a 'jet stream', and regional weather events that force its deviations.

I think you are putting the 'cart before the horse' here (effect before the cause).

A rotating planet seems pretty global to me. When you include changing ocean currents and oscillations in different phases it's all global; only the measure of weather is local.

Hence local/regional climate changes all the time (always has done) and the sum of the locals is global.

quote:

So, so, wrong. SoM, you are putting your 'ground dweller' existence to the front of your logical reasoning (even that seems 'clouded' [pardon the pun] )! Though it's cold and wet at ground level, it's a normal August for 2007 in the UK above the clouds. Ground temperatures are low for the time of year due to 'cloud shrouding' so water evaporation is low and due to low boundary air temperature and thus high RH saturation by lower SH level, the transport of WV from the boundary layer is decisively down. Though there are probably no 'out of season' changes above cloud.

Disagree totally, above the clouds is relevant from the jetstream point of view but little else concerning our current weather. We've been colder because of more northerly winds caused by being on the northeast edge of a high pressure area and sandwiched between 2 lows in addition to the cloud and the evaporation of more rain than usual partly because of stronger winds.

Nothing sinister but I'd wager weather patterns have been different elsewhere compared to the average experience over recent years in August.

Similarly we had the long warm spring because of an "fixed" Azores high again dominated by the jetstream changing direction (course).

Globally other effects above the clouds feed into global changes that in turn influence local climate. Precisely why I don't believe the models won't predict reality just a possible reality.

quote:

If weather trends cause a change in climate then they cause a change in climate, but the 13 : 4 relationship is what it is at the moment for global climate. Until this changes, why consider it to be anything else.

The global 13 : 4 relationship shall continue until weather trends prove a change in the ratio. Aye, there's the rub!

I wonder what the models predict for this or is it input to the models as an assumption (back to my earlier point on this).

quote:

I wonder what the models predict for this or is it input to the models as an assumption (back to my earlier point on this).

This will be an output from a model.

I'm trying to think of a generic way of explaining what model things are likely to be inputs and what are likely to be outputs.

If a property has spatial variability, and if it is weather dependent, chances are it is an output from a model rather than an input to it. This classification doesn't cover everything.

This ratio you are talking about is weather dependent. There will be less transport by water vapour in dry air than in moist air.

Aerosol emissions, though, have spatial variability but are not (strongly) weather dependent. They are therefore inputs to a model (ie there is an input file that describes locations of factories, power stations, etc.). Where the aerosols blow once they are emitted is weather dependent and therefore modeled). Dust on the other hand is weather dependent (though the possible sources of dust are not - the land type will be an input to a model).

This rule breaks down when something is slowly varying and complex to model, particularly when an input based on climatology can be considered a good approximation. Though as time goes on, more of these items are included in models. For example, stratospheric ozone and plant distributions used to be a model input, but bigger computers mean that these are now being simulated in more models.

Not sure if this helps. Don't have time to discuss it much as I'm away for two weeks from tonight.

Steve_M.

You have probably missed this post, but relax, have fun and don't catch too many rays.

Son of Mulder.

There have become too many issues 'on the table' in our discourse. This leads to ambiguity and is confusing. It is impossible to post on global issues and receive a reply with content that is regional, or local, comment (let alone reduce the comment to a local 'weather event') and hold the dialogue 'together'. We need to make the 'subject' of our posts known, and any 'reply' to that 'subject' needs to be within the 'subject context'. It is quite possible that I have also altered the 'focus' of our dialogue. When you realise this, please don't hesitate to tell me.

Do you concur?

Regards, suricat.

PS. Your scepticism of climate models is the reason I'm still here with you. I align myself with your scepticism of these.

I have also appealed to the deities (mods) for a separate Science forum specifically on Climate change so that these things become more disambiguated etc.... but alas, maybe they don't exist...

CobblyWorlds.

Quote.
Right, I get what you mean Suricat,

I don't know if this link will work, but click here and you should see the code viewer interface for NASA's Model E GCM. The homepage is here. as you can see, it's programmed in Fortran.
EOQ.

I took some time to take a brief look at NASA's documentation for their 'Model E GCM'. Yes, they claim that the model is programmed in FORTRAN, but I haven't found any evidence of this yet. This programme is 'supposed' to be executed within an 'open' UNIX type O/S with 'other' O/S platforms in mind.

Within the UNIX platform 'C' is the main language for programming (C+ and C++ are probably also included [they usually are] ) and this requires a 'translator' for 'in programme' references which slows the application. Moreover, 'C' is a high level 'scripted' language that consumes a lot of CPU time (because of translation [and HD access time, depending on 'stack' and 'available memory'] ).

The model also includes other languages that would 'probably' be needed for a 'run' (dependant of the required scenario). So far I've seen the need for Python, Pearl and Java (the latter being a 'page based' language intended for 'html' use), which also all use their own individual 'translators'.

However, I've not yet found the 'basic' physical weighting factor for 'Earth centrifuge', but I can at least begin to understand the need for a 'super-computer' for the 'programme runtime'.

Got to go, or I'll not make the 'post'.

Best regards, suricat.