| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » The Cloud-Climate Conundrum
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| David Naugler |
 Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v6_edit/v6n51edit.htm
The Cloud-Climate Conundrum
Volume 6, Number 51: 17 December 2003
-------------------------------------
In an illuminating essay on the role of clouds within the context of
global climate change and our ability to model this multi-faceted
phenomenon, Randall et al. (2003) state at the outset of their review
of the subject that "the representation of cloud processes in global
atmospheric models has been recognized for decades as the source of
much of the uncertainty surrounding predictions of climate
variability." However, they report that "despite the best efforts of
[the climate modeling] community … the problem remains largely
unsolved." What is more, they say that "at the current rate of
progress, cloud parameterization deficiencies will continue to plague
us for many more decades into the future."
So what's the problem? "Clouds are complicated," Randall et al.
declare, as they begin to describe what they call the "appalling
complexity" of the cloud parameterization situation by stating that
"our understanding of the interactions of the hot towers [of cumulus
convection] with the global circulation is still in a fairly primitive
state." And not knowing all that much about what goes up, it's not
surprising that we don't know all that much about what comes down. At
the present time, for example, Randall et al. report that "downdrafts
are either not parameterized or crudely parameterized in large-scale
models."
With respect to stratiform clouds, the situation is no better; current
parameterizations are described in their review as "very rough
caricatures of reality." As for interactions between convective and
stratiform clouds, forget about it … which is pretty much what
scientists themselves did during the 1970s and 80s, when Randall et
al. report that "cumulus parameterizations were extensively tested
against observations without even accounting for the effects of the
attendant stratiform clouds." Even now, in fact, they report that the
concept of detrainment "is somewhat murky," and that the conditions
that trigger detrainment "are imperfectly understood." Hence, it
should again come as no surprise that "at this time," as they put it,
"no existing GCM includes a satisfactory parameterization of the
effects of mesoscale cloud circulations."
Randall et al. also say that "the large-scale effects of microphysics,
turbulence, and radiation should be parameterized as closely coupled
processes acting in concert," but they report that only a few GCMs
have even attempted to do so. Why? Because, as they continue, "the
cloud parameterization problem is overwhelmingly complicated," and
"cloud parameterization developers," as they call them, are still
"struggling to identify the most important processes on the basis of
woefully incomplete observations." To drive the point home, they add
that "there is little question why the cloud parameterization problem
is taking a long time to solve: It is very, very hard." In fact, the
four scientists conclude that "a sober assessment suggests that with
current approaches the cloud parameterization problem will not be
'solved' in any of our lifetimes."
With such a bleak assessment of where the climate-modeling community
currently stands with respect to the single issue of cloud
parameterization, it might be well to pause and ask ourselves how
anyone could possibly feel confident about what even the best climate
models of the day are predicting about CO2-induced global warming,
where proper cloud responses are critical to reaching a correct
conclusion. The answer is so obvious it need not even be stated.
But wait! There appears to be a glimmer of light at the end of the
climate-modeling tunnel. It's a long way off … and it looks to be
incredibly expensive … but it's there. And it beckons ever so
enticingly.
The shining hope of the climate-modeling community of tomorrow
resides, apparently, in something called "cloud system-resolving
models" or CSRMs, which can be compared with single-column models or
SCMs that can be "surgically extracted from their host GCMs." These
advanced models, as Randall et al. describe them, "have resolutions
fine enough to represent individual cloud elements, and space-time
domains large enough to encompass many clouds over many cloud
lifetimes." Of course, these improvements mean that "the
computational cost of running a CSRM is hundreds or thousands of times
greater than that of running an SCM."
In a few more decades, according to Randall et al., "it will become
possible to use such global CSRMs to perform century-scale climate
simulations, relevant to such problems as anthropogenic climate
change." But a few more decades is a little long to wait to address
an issue that climate alarmists are prodding the world to confront
now. Hence, Randall et al. say that an approach that could be used
very soon (to possibly determine whether or not there even is a
problem) is to "run a CSRM as a 'superparameterization' inside a GCM,"
which configuration they call a "super-GCM."
Not wanting to be accused of impeding scientific progress, we say "go
for it," but only with the proviso that if we are going to spend so
much money on the project and devote so many scientific careers to it,
let's admit that it is truly needed to obtain a definitive answer to
the question of CO2-induced "anthropogenic climate change." And
admitting that, let's not do anything rash in the interim, like
totally reorganizing the way the world produces and uses energy in an
expensive and futile attempt to alter the course of future climate.
Either we know enough about how the world's climate system works, so
that we don't need the postulated super-GCMs, or we don't know enough
about it and we do need them. We happen to believe with Randall et
al. that our knowledge of many aspects of earth's climate system is
sadly deficient. So let's own up to that fact and openly admit that
we currently have no rational basis for implementing programs designed
to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions in an effort to save the world
from CO2-induced global warming. The cloud parameterization problem
by itself is so complex that no one can validly claim our appetite for
fossil-fuel energy has brought us to the verge of biospheric
destruction. In light of all the many good things CO2 does for plants
-- and, therefore, the human and animal life that depend upon them for
sustenance -- ill-founded actions designed to slow the rate of rise of
the air's CO2 content could well end up jeopardizing the future
well-being of the biosphere.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
Reference
Randall, D., Khairoutdinov, M. Arakawa, A. and Grabowski, W. 2003.
Breaking the cloud parameterization deadlock. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society 84: 1547-1564.
///
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Quote: Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:JTJDb.7861$8Y4.336732@read2.cgocable.net...
Quote:
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
Why is that? If they understood it, what's to study? LOL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Josh Halpern |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James wrote:
Quote: "Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:JTJDb.7861$8Y4.336732@read2.cgocable.net...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
Why is that? If they understood it, what's to study? LOL
guess that's why they are closing down wind tunnels.
josh halpern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Naugler |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message news:<ZqPDb.10089$G9.490@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
Quote: James wrote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:JTJDb.7861$8Y4.336732@read2.cgocable.net...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
Why is that? If they understood it, what's to study? LOL
guess that's why they are closing down wind tunnels.
josh halpern
Take the great red spot on Jupiter, 300 years old. Still a mystery.
Weather forcasting on earth, still a mystery. Predicting future
climate, still a mystery. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312170945.202594d0@posting.google.com...
Quote: Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<ZqPDb.10089$G9.490@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
<snip>
Quote: guess that's why they are closing down wind tunnels.
josh halpern
Take the great red spot on Jupiter, 300 years old. Still a mystery.
Weather forcasting on earth, still a mystery. Predicting future
climate, still a mystery.
I understand that you find all science a mystery. It is very apparent in
your posts. But that does not limit the scientists. They 'have a handle' on
these things. For example, you can get a weather report on your local news
or internet website, utilising both the expertise of the forecaster and
weather modelling based on a network of weather stations. And we have many
scientists predicting climate with fair skill. They use GCM models for this.
Of course they admit that they don't know *everything' but then they don't
have to. It has ceased to be a 'mystery' when you get a fair idea of the
processes involved. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Naugler |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote
Quote: Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
- Graduate, summa cum laude, Greenpeace School of Debate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Naugler |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote
Quote: This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study turbulent
convection.
I've been away from the teaching of fluid dynamics for many years.
Please update me, have the Navier-Stokes equations been solved for
turbulent convection? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Ball |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 17 Dec 2003 09:45:23 -0800, dnaugler@sfu.ca (David Naugler) wrote:
Quote: Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message news:<ZqPDb.10089$G9.490@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
James wrote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:JTJDb.7861$8Y4.336732@read2.cgocable.net...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
Why is that? If they understood it, what's to study? LOL
guess that's why they are closing down wind tunnels.
josh halpern
Take the great red spot on Jupiter, 300 years old. Still a mystery.
Weather forcasting on earth, still a mystery. Predicting future
climate, still a mystery.
Only to a fool like you. There are things we can't forecast
effectively, that doesn't mean we don't understand the underlying
processes. I ought to know. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Naugler wrote:
Quote:
I've been away from the teaching of fluid dynamics for many years.
Please update me, have the Navier-Stokes equations been solved for
turbulent convection?
Navier-Stokes equations for nontrivial systems, like the atmosphere,
have no analytical solution. However, pseudo-analytic solutions
based on a multi-dimensional Gaussian quadrature are just as effective,
given today's availability of computer technology. (See: "Gaussian
Quadrature Formulas," by A. H. Stroud and Don Secrest, 1966)
--
"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."
-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcoppock@adnc.com)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Ball" <wraith7@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:23r1uvknqhhe11ak5it6sqbhin3n5o4pmi@4ax.com...
Quote: On 17 Dec 2003 09:45:23 -0800, dnaugler@sfu.ca (David Naugler) wrote:
Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<ZqPDb.10089$G9.490@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
James wrote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:JTJDb.7861$8Y4.336732@read2.cgocable.net...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study
turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
Why is that? If they understood it, what's to study? LOL
guess that's why they are closing down wind tunnels.
josh halpern
Take the great red spot on Jupiter, 300 years old. Still a mystery.
Weather forcasting on earth, still a mystery. Predicting future
climate, still a mystery.
Only to a fool like you. There are things we can't forecast
effectively, that doesn't mean we don't understand the underlying
processes. I ought to know.
Then what are the underlying processes to natural climate change? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Ball |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:39:50 -0500, "James" <jrapier@dcr.net> wrote:
Quote:
"David Ball" <wraith7@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:23r1uvknqhhe11ak5it6sqbhin3n5o4pmi@4ax.com...
On 17 Dec 2003 09:45:23 -0800, dnaugler@sfu.ca (David Naugler) wrote:
Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<ZqPDb.10089$G9.490@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
James wrote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:JTJDb.7861$8Y4.336732@read2.cgocable.net...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study
turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
Why is that? If they understood it, what's to study? LOL
guess that's why they are closing down wind tunnels.
josh halpern
Take the great red spot on Jupiter, 300 years old. Still a mystery.
Weather forcasting on earth, still a mystery. Predicting future
climate, still a mystery.
Only to a fool like you. There are things we can't forecast
effectively, that doesn't mean we don't understand the underlying
processes. I ought to know.
Then what are the underlying processes to natural climate change?
Haven't you been paying attention again, James? That topic has
been covered extensively here. Look it up in the archive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Ball" <wraith7@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:lql4uv4vpqjca511ahfhkgl34mpp21ql4b@4ax.com...
Quote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:39:50 -0500, "James" <jrapier@dcr.net> wrote:
"David Ball" <wraith7@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:23r1uvknqhhe11ak5it6sqbhin3n5o4pmi@4ax.com...
On 17 Dec 2003 09:45:23 -0800, dnaugler@sfu.ca (David Naugler) wrote:
Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<ZqPDb.10089$G9.490@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
James wrote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:JTJDb.7861$8Y4.336732@read2.cgocable.net...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312160730.daa4a2f@posting.google.com...
Science cannot understand turbulent convection. According to the
uncertainty principle, some things are by nature, uncertain.
This will come as quite some surprise to scientists who study
turbulent
convection.
Bahahahahah... What Idiocy.
Why is that? If they understood it, what's to study? LOL
guess that's why they are closing down wind tunnels.
josh halpern
Take the great red spot on Jupiter, 300 years old. Still a mystery.
Weather forcasting on earth, still a mystery. Predicting future
climate, still a mystery.
Only to a fool like you. There are things we can't forecast
effectively, that doesn't mean we don't understand the underlying
processes. I ought to know.
Then what are the underlying processes to natural climate change?
Haven't you been paying attention again, James? That topic has
been covered extensively here. Look it up in the archive.
"I don't know" would have sufficed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Ball |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:53:06 -0500, "James" <jrapier@dcr.net> wrote:
Quote:
Only to a fool like you. There are things we can't forecast
effectively, that doesn't mean we don't understand the underlying
processes. I ought to know.
Then what are the underlying processes to natural climate change?
Haven't you been paying attention again, James? That topic has
been covered extensively here. Look it up in the archive.
"I don't know" would have sufficed.
Why would I say that? That's your answer, James, not mine.
Look up the information in the archive. It has been commented on
extensively. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Ball" <wraith7@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3657uvgj5dao8bmpnmnafbi420omcl293o@4ax.com...
Quote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:53:06 -0500, "James" <jrapier@dcr.net> wrote:
Only to a fool like you. There are things we can't forecast
effectively, that doesn't mean we don't understand the underlying
processes. I ought to know.
Then what are the underlying processes to natural climate change?
Haven't you been paying attention again, James? That topic has
been covered extensively here. Look it up in the archive.
"I don't know" would have sufficed.
Why would I say that?
Because it's true.
That's your answer, James, not mine.
Quote: Look up the information in the archive. It has been commented on
extensively.
I doubt your answer would be there. Natural climate change remains pretty
much a mystery. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:48 am
|
|