Simulating El Ni�o: How Are the Models Doing? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference Latif, M., Sperber, K., Arblaster, J., Braconnot, P., Chen, D., Colman, A., Cubasch, U., Cooper, C., Delecluse, P., DeWitt, D., Fairhead, L., Flato, G., Hogan, T., Ji, M., Kimoto, M., Kitoh, A., Knutson, T., Le Treut, H., Li, T., Manabe, S., Marti, O., Mechoso, C., Meehl, G., Power, S., Roeckner, E., Sirven, J., Terray, L., Vintzileos, A., Voss, R., Wang, B., Washington, W., Yoshikawa, I., Yu, J. and Zebiak, S. 2001. ENSIP: the El Ni�o simulation intercomparison project. Climate Dynamics 18: 255-276.
What was done The authors compared 24 coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models with respect to their ability to correctly simulate the annual mean state, the seasonal cycle, and the interannual variability of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
What was learned In the words of the authors, "almost all models (even those employing flux corrections) still have problems in simulating the SST climatology." They also note that "only a few of the coupled models simulate the El Ni�o/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in terms of gross equatorial SST anomalies realistically." And they state that "no model has been found that simulates realistically all aspects of the interannual SST variability."
In other words, only a few of the climate simulators even come CLOSE to being able to realistically simulate a single, fairly short-term event, such as El Nino.
As for what "most scientists" believe... do I have to drag out my link again?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Global warming is the "evolution" of ecology. I fully expect to see creationists branching out into forcing "steady state" theories of climates on schools, even as the schools themselves sink into the ocean. First is right to say that scientists are far from agreement about why the planet is getting warmer and how far it is going to go, but denying the facts of the matter is extremely similar to claiming that Neanderthals were old people with bone malformations. The planet is getting hotter, and it is almost certainly getting hotter because of the massive amounts of CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere. To take a wait and see approach to climate change is like not throwing a life preserver to a drowning man because he might learn to tread water before he goes under.
And, as I am sure to be berated by the usual suspects, I should throw in that I don't think Kyoto was a good plan. I do know that it approached 110+ degrees here at 46.3135 N by 120.1537 W. This happens to be Unusual, or at least it would be, if we weren't breaking temperature records every year.
If things cool off in ten years and I'm still burning all the coal I please, then great. I'll be the first to set an oil well on fire and have a party. But the evidence that my (and your) fossil fuel addiction is making the world a more uncomfortable place to live is convincing enough to suggest we do something about emmissions while we're waiting.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:it is almost certainly getting hotter because of the massive amounts of CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere.
Actually, boss, this remains one of the biggest points of contention, even among top scientists.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
More data from James Hansen (NASA scientist and a leading proponent of Global Warming:
quote:The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized nations to reduce their CO2 emissions to 95% of 1990 levels by 2012 (Bolin 1998), is itself considered a difficult target to achieve. Yet the climate simulations lead to the conclusion that the Kyoto reductions will have little effect in the 21st century (Wigley 1998), and "thirty Kyotos" may be needed to reduce warming to an acceptable level (Malakoff 1998).
We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario that emphasizes reduction of non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. This scenario derives from our interpretation that observed global warming has been caused mainly by non-CO2 GHGs. Although this interpretation does not alter the desirability of slowing CO2 emissions, it does suggest that it is more practical to slow global warming than is sometimes assumed.
quote:Reduction of methane emissions and soot could yield a major near term success story in the battle against global warming, thus providing time to work on technologies to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, technologies are within reach to reduce other global air pollutants, like methane, in ways that are cheaper and faster than reducing CO2.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think it's funny that you have that quote from "A Few Good Men" in your sig, and that you posted all of that, and that Kevin Bacon was incorrect about what he was talking about in the movie, and that I think you're probably wrong about global warming.
Let me ask you something: Why is the idea of Global Warming considered "liberal" anyway? I know Rush is always harping about it being just another example of liberal bullshit, but though it sounds like he has a point when he's actually talking about it, I can never remember his points later.
I don't honestly care about Rush or his rhetoric here. I'm just asking, you know? I mean, it would make sense for conservatives to Support Global Warming as a hypothesis...lets you get a tighter hold on things.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
At the risk of turning this into a tedious display of partisanship, I'd like to try my hand at a few ideas.
1.) Money. Fossil fuels are big business, one of the biggest, in fact. Now at the risk of stereotyping I'm going to propose that "conservatism" as a political philosophy in the United States is business-oriented, either because conservatives are business owners or because they believe that what is good for business is good for the rest of us. And this is fine. No one wants to lose money. Dealing with the greenhouse effect will almost certainly cost a lot of money.
2.) Global outlook, or lack thereof. Here I can speak only from my personal experience, but it seems to me that another part of "conservativism" is a belief that problems can always be addressed locally, and that those problems which can't aren't really our problems. This is important because global warming is not going to lead to some worldwise apocalypse. It is simply going to make the planet exceedingly uncomfortable. Why should I really care if tens of millions of refugees are created by rising ocean levels? And this is a serious question, I do not mean to cast it in a negative light. I mean, quite frankly, what does it matter to me, here in Washington, if most of Florida goes under? I don't know anyone in Flordia. I don't sell anything which is bought by people in Florida. I don't buy anything from Florida. (These last two statements are, in fact, false, but which of us really know where everything we buy and sell comes from or goes to?)
I think there are other reasons as well, but they are more controversial. I do not think anyone, of any political persuasion, will take issue with conservatives being pro-business and pro...taking care of one's own first.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This article in New Scientist reports on the economic effect of measures to stop global warming. It suggests that economic growth would easily sustain any costs of cutting down emissions.
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd have to see more numbers before coming to a valid conclusion, but it looks as though this guy suggests that all the costs of his plan will be borne by economic growth.
In effect, he's assuming that consistent 2% world economic growth will take place for the next 100 years. I'm not entirely that confident in the world's economic outlook.
It also seems to assume that the economic growth will only be NEEDED to pay for the plan. I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment, either.
Worse, that "1-8 trillion" dollar estimate. I think we all know how estimates work... or at least, any of us who have been involved with car mechanics, construction, or government contracts know.
For a good understanding of government estimates, one only needs to look at the original budgets for things like Superfund, and even (sadly) the Space Station.
As for what Rush Limbaugh says... I could not care less. I've listened to him for a grand total of 11 times, and that was all the longer it took me to be convinced that I knew more about what he was talking about than he did.
I don't think Global Warming is a "Liberal" idea. I think Global Warming is probably happening.
I think that Greenhouse Warming, and what should be done about it, are another story altogether.
I think that people who call it a "Liberal" idea are people who think that "Liberals" (US version) tend to throw money at a problem without properly analyzing all the ramifications causes, and alternative solutions.
However, those of the opposite viewpoint can often rightfully be accused of foot-dragging.
There are too extremes to this argument.
1. Piffle, nothing's happening, who cares if Siberia warms by a half-degree?
2. YAAH! We're all gonna DIE! We must spend trillions of dollars RIGHT NOW to reduce our air particulates to the levels of the Jurassic Period!
(Incidentally, the Earth was MUCH warmer then.)
Probably, there's a balanced position that can be found.
IMNSHO, it's that of Dr. Hansen.
Throatpymwhatever: What do mean, you think I'm wrong? I merely quoted an acknowledged expert on the subject. Aren't you, in fact, saying "I think that the expert is wrong?" If so, can you back it up?
And incidentally, Kevin Bacon's character was not wrong, in what he said. The facts he referred to were not disputed. They DID give the guy a code red. It DID lead to his death.
The Major was simply, as WE both are, not in complete possession of all the facts. (Although I might argue that my argument possesses more facts.)
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think global warming is nice enough to contain itself to a single desert. And the whole world warming by half a degree = bad thing.
quote:YAAH! We're all gonna DIE! We must spend trillions of dollars RIGHT NOW to reduce our air particulates to the levels of the Jurassic Period!
(Incidentally, the Earth was MUCH warmer then.)
And incidentally, there was a lot less people then to be affected.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Has anybody laid out what a half-degree rise in average temperature would do? Can you link to it?
How much the the Earth's average yearly temperature vary, through the years? How long have we been measuring it?
I know there were a lot less people in Jurassic times. My point (unclear as it was) was that it can be warmer without destroying life in a runaway greenhouse effect. It also suggests that the Earth has at least some ability to regulate its own temperature (CO2 levels were also reportedly 4 times higher than they are today, too.)
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:“Best management practices” such as conservation tillage lead to increased quantities of organic carbon in soils. Their widespread practice would allow U.S. crop and grazing lands to store 12 to 14 percent of U.S. carbon emissions every year.
Apparently, Canada and Australia are looking into this, too.
And here's an interesting essay on the global mean temperature.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: I know there were a lot less people in Jurassic times. My point (unclear as it was) was that it can be warmer without destroying life in a runaway greenhouse effect
I doubt that the dinosaurs would have much cared if Kent suddenly found itself underwater. Unfortunatly for us and our big non movable cities, it's a bit more of a problem.
The exact figures were on a a bit long Tomorrow's World thing about sea levels rising, and a few other programs. There's a chart they always seem to pull out which states that "if the Earth's average temperature raised by a degree, these parts of the UK would be underwater". Or something. My eyes hurt.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
