• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A simplistic evaluation of climate modelling

Threegoofs said:
Again...you won't find any serious scientific controversy on this outside of blogs and your feverish notepaper.
Click to expand...

I don't know.

I do my own research. I don't read blogs. However, we all know that is where you gain your knowledge...
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't know.

I do my own research. I don't read blogs. However, we all know that is where you gain your knowledge...
Click to expand...

I know. You 'do your own research'.

That's the funny part.


I know you're proud of the one journal you read- and that's like a doctor who subscribes to the New England Journal of medicine and thinks he's got a good grasp of the literature.
 
Threegoofs said:
I know. You 'do your own research'.

That's the funny part.


I know you're proud of the one journal you read- and that's like a doctor who subscribes to the New England Journal of medicine and thinks he's got a good grasp of the literature.
Click to expand...

Thing is, I understand what I read when I read a journal. Unlike you, I don't need someone else to tell me what it means.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Thing is, I understand what I read when I read a journal. Unlike you, I don't need someone else to tell me what it means.
Click to expand...

I basically make my living interpreting science.

And I know when virtually every respected scientific body in the world tells me my interpretation is wrong, that I probably should seriously reconsider my position.
 
Threegoofs said:
And I know when virtually every respected scientific body in the world tells me my interpretation is wrong, that I probably should seriously reconsider my position.
Click to expand...

If everyone did that all the time then there would be no advances in science.
 
Threegoofs said:
I notice you skipped the second part of the post.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a stupid remark, but if you insist.

Threegoofs said:
And I know when virtually every respected scientific body in the world tells me my interpretation is wrong, that I probably should seriously reconsider my position.
Click to expand...
They are not telling anyone that. It is a general blanket statement with no intellectual thought behind it.

If you care to prove me wrong, have one of them debate me.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I thought it was a stupid remark, but if you insist.


They are not telling anyone that. It is a general blanket statement with no intellectual thought behind it.

If you care to prove me wrong, have one of them debate me.
Click to expand...

LOL.

The point, of course, is that nobody's going to come debate you because you are just an uneducated amateur.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

The point, of course, is that nobody's going to come debate you because you are just an uneducated amateur.
Click to expand...

OK, if that's what makes you sleep better at night, you can believe that.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Once again, you confuse belief for fact.
Click to expand...

Think what you wish. In my view, you are so intellectually beneath me, I have no response that you will understand. Any accurate response will come of as an attack on you.

So...

What ever makes you sleep better at night. Believe as you wish.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. You are the ultimate jester.

I am so far ahead of you in IQ, it is laughable to see your responses.

Maybe if you would for once, actually debate the sciences, instead of linking blogs and entire web sites like the IPCC site, people would respect you.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, it is. You are the ultimate jester.

I am so far ahead of you in IQ, it is laughable to see your responses.

Maybe if you would for once, actually debate the sciences, instead of linking blogs and entire web sites like the IPCC site, people would respect you.
Click to expand...

Yes. Your IQ is so high. We are all quite impressed.

You'd think if you were that smart, you'd grasp the fact that your ideas are in direct opposition to all the science you supposedly read!
 
[h=2]Gerry Browning: In Memory of Professor Heinz Kreiss[/h] Feb 27, 2016 – 10:20 AM
Gerry Browning writes:
The Correct System of Equations for Climate and Weather Models
The system of equations numerically approximated by both weather and climate models is called the hydrostatic system. Using a scale analysis for mid-latitude large scale motions in the atmosphere (motions with a horizontal length scale of 1000 km and time scale of a day), Charney (1948) showed that hydrostatic balance, i.e., balance between the vertical pressure gradient and gravitational force, is satisfied to a high degree of accuracy by these motions. As the fine balance between these terms was difficult to calculate numerically and to remove fast vertically propagating sound waves to allow for numerical integration using a larger time step, he introduced the hydrostatic system that assumes exact balance between the vertical pressure gradient and the gravitational force. This system leads to a columnar (function of altitude) equation for the vertical velocity called Richardson’s equation.
A scale analysis of the equations of atmospheric motion assumes that the motion will retain those characteristics for the period of time indicated by the choice of the time scale (Browning and Kreiss, 1986). This means that the initial data must be smooth (have spatial derivatives on the order of 1000 km) that lead to time derivatives on the order of a day. To satisfy the latter constraint, the initial data must satisfy the elliptic constraints determined by ensuring a number of time derivatives are of the order of a day. If all of these conditions are satisfied, then the solution can be ensured to evolve smoothly, i.e., on the spatial and time scales used in the scale analysis. This latter mathematical theory for hyperbolic systems is called “The Bounded Derivative Theory” (BDT) and was introduced by Professor Kreiss (Kreiss, 1979, 1980).
Instead of assuming exact hydrostatic balance (leads to a number of mathematical problems discussed below), Browning and Kreiss (1986) introduced the idea of slowing down the vertically propagating waves instead of removing them completely, thus retaining the desirable mathematical property of hyperbolicity of the unmodified system. This modification was proved mathematically to accurately describe the large scale motions of interest and, subsequently, also to describe smaller scales of motion in the mid-latitudes (Browning and Kreiss, 2002). In this manuscript, the correct elliptic constraints to ensure smoothly evolving solutions are derived. In particular the elliptic equation for the vertical velocity is three dimensional, i.e., not columnar, and the horizontal divergence must be derived from the vertical velocity in order to ensure a smoothly evolving solution.
It is now possible to see why the hydrostatic system is not the correct reduced system (the system that correctly describes the smoothly evolving solution to a first degree of approximation). The columnar vertical velocity equation (Richardson’s equation) leads to columnar heating that is not spatially smooth. This is called rough forcing and leads to the physically unrealistic generation of large amounts of energy in the highest wave numbers of a model (Browning and Kreiss, 1994; Page, Fillion, and Zwack, 2007). This energy requires large amounts of nonphysical numerical dissipation in order to keep the model from becoming unstable, i.e., blowing up. We also mention that the boundary layer
interacts very differently with a three dimensional elliptic equation for the vertical velocity than with a columnar equation (Gravel, Browning, and Kreiss).
References:
Browning, G. L., and H.-O. Kreiss 1986: Scaling and computation of smooth atmospheric motions. Tellus, 38A, 295–313.
——, and ——, 1994: The impact of rough forcing on systems with multiple time scales. J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 369-383
——, and ——, 2002: Multiscale bounded derivative initialization for an arbitrary domain. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 1680-1696.
Charney, J. G., 1948: On the scale of atmospheric motions. Geofys.Publ., 17, 1–17.
Kreiss, H.-O., 1979: Problems with different time scales for ordinary differential equations. SIAM J. Num. Anal., 16, 980–998.
——, 1980: Problems with different time scales for partial differential equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math, 33, 399–440.
Gravel, Sylvie et al.: The relative contributions of data sources and forcing components to the large-scale forecast accuracy of an operational model. This web site
Page, Christian, Luc Fillion, and Peter Zwack, 2007: Diagnosing summertime mesoscale vertical motion: implications for atmospheric data assimilation. Monthly Weather Review, 135, 2076-2094.
 
Climate FAIL / Climate Models / Climate News / Global warming / Radiative Imbalance
[h=1]Climate Models are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 4[/h] Guest Post by Bob Tisdale Alternate Title: Climate Models Undermine the Hypothesis of Human-Induced Global Warming According to the hypothesis of human-induced global warming, manmade greenhouse gases create an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, which causes the Earth to retain heat. One of the hypothetical results of that retained heat is…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom